| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi all.
I need some feedback on this. I have a player wanting to use a greatsword while mounted. We cannot find a rule that specifically prohibits this, but I am unaware of any example in military history of this actually working, and am inclined to not allow it, or restrict it severely.
Now, I am fully aware that as the GM, I can just make a ruling on this. But, I prefer to have some backing to my rulings.
So, does anyone think that wielding a 2H weapon from horseback makes sense (ignoring Lance - special case)?
Thanks all.
Last I looked at mounted combat, one could fight from horseback. Using a two-handed weapon. I am unaware of anything to the contrary.
Hi all.
I need some feedback on this. I have a player wanting to use a greatsword while mounted. We cannot find a rule that specifically prohibits this, but I am unaware of any example in military history of this actually working, and am inclined to not allow it, or restrict it severely.
Now, I am fully aware that as the GM, I can just make a ruling on this. But, I prefer to have some backing to my rulings.
So, does anyone think that wielding a 2H weapon from horseback makes sense (ignoring Lance - special case)?
Thanks all.
Holding a blade out to the side to cut down enemies seems like a pretty legit way to down the baddies.
If anything, I would just make sure the player makes a sufficient Ride check to not fall off the mount, probably by making the Ride DC equal his damage or something along those lines.
It would use the 'guiding with feet' rule under ride checks i think.
<Holding a blade out to the side to cut down enemies seems like a pretty legit way to down the baddies>
Yeah... holding out to the side seems workable.
But, this is way different than making an actual swing with the weapon. I am thinking that fighting in this fashion would remove the normal 2H STR bonus to Power Attack, and even remove the 1.5x bonus to STR that you would normally get with a 2-hander... you just can't get a real swing while mounted. At least, that's how I view it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I'm unaware of any example of real world armies using magic or double swords. This is a fantasy game, y'know?
I am unaware of any rule prohibiting it. But I agree, it doesn't make sense that a humanoid could swing a Greatsword with any appreciable force or accuracy from a horse. Wielding a Greatsword properly requires more than just swinging your arms, it requires nearly your whole body to use. I think the same thing applies to things like great axes or glaives.
The rules may not outright ban two-handed weapons from horseback. But the GM is well within his rights to say that something doesn't make sense, and as such it isn't allowed.
Guide with knees allows you to fight with both hands during combat while mounted. It is a DC 5 Ride check, but if you fail the check you cannot use both hands. In the case of a two-handed weapon this would mean that if they fail the Ride check to guide the mount with their knees they would have to make the attack with one hand which would incur penalties.
Lakesidefantasy... I am aware of the current rules.
I was more asking about what made sense.
I can't think of a single example in all of military history of mounted soldiers wielding a 2H weapon (lance excepted - and its not really a 2H weapon).
I think Jay the Madman has the right of it... it takes a lot of leg, hip, and core muscle power to properly wield a 2H weapon. Doing so from horseback just doesn't seem viable to me.
1) aint no rule against it.
2) Its thematic if its not realistic
3) You can definitely two hand lances and the like with a few different grips.
In that case, you got the answer you were looking for.
|
To be fair, I'm unaware of any example of real world armies using magic or double swords. This is a fantasy game, y'know?
Also whips.
Also I don't think that dervish dancing was ever used in real combat.
Also Boar Style seems pretty impractical - I've never seen a historical martial art that focused on creating bleeding wounds using your teeth and nails.
If you start banning combat styles that don't seem realistically viable, you're going to have a long list by the time you're done.
There were a number of two-handed weapons that were designed to be used from horseback, but they were mostly polearms.
Like others, from a RAW perspective, I see nothing that rules it out. Given the fantasy genre, I would be hesitant to rule in favor of "common sense" on such an issue unless the players were aware I was running a gritty or realistic campaign.
Note that if the character had the weapon made of, say, mithral, or made lighter\more wieldy through some other means, then I would allow it.
|
There is no prohibition for using two-handed weapons mounted. But, the rules for mounted combat are not particularly complete. In a PFS environment, the player is good to go. I'd have no problems with reasonable house rules when they aren't just pet peeve based. If you're looking for input on house rules, probably best in that forum.
|
Also, remember, the bows are technically two handed weapons, and there have been many historical forces of horse archers (such as the Mongols).
But, since this is a fantasy game, and there are rules to cover it, I would not give it a second thought.
As has been said... DC5 Ride check and you are good.
I'm curious what the penalty would be for attacking one handed with a greatsword if you failed to make the Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.
The section on 'Weapon Size' and "Inappropriately Sized Weapons' in the Equipment chapter is quite confusing.
You would definitely only add your strength bonus rather than 1 1/2, but would the attack penalty be -2 for using a greatsword as an inappropriately sized one-handed weapon, plus -4 for non-proficiency using a greatsword as a one-handed weapon?
In that case I think a -6 is a fair penalty for trying to pull such a stunt.
I am unaware of any rule prohibiting it. But I agree, it doesn't make sense that a humanoid could swing a Greatsword with any appreciable force or accuracy from a horse. Wielding a Greatsword properly requires more than just swinging your arms, it requires nearly your whole body to use. I think the same thing applies to things like great axes or glaives.
The rules may not outright ban two-handed weapons from horseback. But the GM is well within his rights to say that something doesn't make sense, and as such it isn't allowed.
Well, here's the thing about mounted combat. You don't need to swing with as much force. Your steed is carrying you along pretty fast. The "hold out the sword and hit guys" is actually not far from the truth. Cavalry sabers, for instance, are freaking heavy for such a weapon. They work, however, since you don't really need to swing the sword with any real force. You just need to keep it steady.
I think great swords would work, personally.
|
|
I'm curious what the penalty would be for attacking one handed with a greatsword if you failed to make the Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.
The section on 'Weapon Size' and "Inappropriately Sized Weapons' in the Equipment chapter is quite confusing.
The penalty by RAW is that you can't do it. If you fail the Ride check (only DC 5, but with armor penalty), you can either guide the mount or attack, but not both.
The game allows for lances to be wielded two-handed from horseback, dealing insane damage (especially on a charge), so why not allow a greatsword? I know the physics of it is a little wonky, but the character isn't going to be dealing any more damage than a lance-wielding character. Indeed, he'll do less (since a lance deals x2 damage on a charge, or x3 with spirited charge).
So, is it a "realism" issue or a mechanics issue? I can understand perhaps the first, but as stated above, the second doesn't really add up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, my misinformation aside, I still don't think "no historical use" has a place in this game. We're all graverobbing murder-hobos here. We aren't typical. We don't need historical precedent. Hell, we don't even need an in-universe precedent. Adventurers are weird, man.
I'm curious what the penalty would be for attacking one handed with a greatsword if you failed to make the Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.
The section on 'Weapon Size' and "Inappropriately Sized Weapons' in the Equipment chapter is quite confusing.
You would definitely only add your strength bonus rather than 1 1/2, but would the attack penalty be -2 for using a greatsword as an inappropriately sized one-handed weapon, plus -4 for non-proficiency using a greatsword as a one-handed weapon?
In that case I think a -6 is a fair penalty for trying to pull such a stunt.
Actually, if i am not mistaken, you asked us in the op that you wanted to be backed by trules. Your last statement seems to contradict that.
WHY should it be realistic? Are you going to ban all spellcasting classes as well? Because a wizard casting a magic missile isn't very realistic either, and neither is magical healing or wildshaping. If you don't ban that but ban using a greatsword while mounted it's just arbitrary picking on certain players.
The rules allow it. Simple as that.
Albatoonoe, I am sorry to say that you are terribly misinformed. A Cavalry Saber is relatively light for what it is used for... and that is to make chopping slashes, from both mounted and standing positions. Lances / spears are used in the way you describe...to impale an opponent on the initial charge. Once you have lost your spear, the Saber is drawn and used to slash.
Actually, a good example of the differences for stabbing and slashing are well illustrated in the difference between Roman infantry and cavalry swards. The gladius, sidearm of the infantry, had a sharp point used for stabbing, while the spatha cavalry sword often had rounded points but longer blades to facilitate slashing / cutting, but also to reach opponents who were dismounted.
You should also consider that holding a weapon straight out to impale someone is much easier to dodge then a slashing weapon held high and back that is only snapped forward to strike when the point of contact is reached, that is why charging with a lance or spear is only effective when done as part of a massed charge against massed or ranked defenders. In a broken field, it again becomes better top grip the spear in an overhand grasp and stab downward with it.
All of these facts can be easily researched.
Just Saying
Actually, he isn't misinformed. Over the centuries there have been lots of swords classified as "sabres". Some light, some heavy. The sabres used by light cavalry in the Napoleonic era are quite different to sabres used in other countries/eras.
The Roman gladius could just as easily be used to slash, even if the thrust was the main stroke.
As for lances, try a bit more research yourself. Or see some live lance demonstrations.
Because...dragons....that is all
Aslo, don't forget that elf characters don't exist in real life, so your players can't play one. And no half-elves or dwarves or halflings or (half-)orcs or gnomes either... and I'm not even going to begin about the enemies they can no longer fight.
That will be one interesting game...
Don't impose reality checks on a game where you can turn into a dragon. One can use a 2 handed weapon on horseback with a DC 5 ride check. Him getting his full damage bonus from power attack and 2 handed weapons will be the least of your worries. Wait until you have fireballs flying around and invisibility. Besides, unless he is a class that gets a pet that he can ride, then the mount will end up dying once you attack it.
Wikipedia suggests that one on the primary uses of the nodachi was from horseback.
As far as the argument that the rules do not prevent their use...well, there will always be meat-grinding ROLL players who will try to gain every possible advantage that the rules do not prevent ("wow...think of the damage bonus for a mounted charge with a 2-handed weapon" they think gleefully), however, it is up to the GM to make sure that the game world reflects the realistic parameters dictated by the laws of physics and physical probability.
I have to comment on this. Really probably should just let it go, but...
Actually, it is up to the GM to make sure that the game world reflects whatever parameters he deems realistic for the game world.
As many others have pointed out, if you begin removing everything that is unrealistic from the game world, where do you stop? No more magic, so there goes about half your classes. No more hit points and healing overnight; instead, you're probably dead if your enemy gets in a good blow. Get rid of, oh, all but the humans, since there weren't any elves wandering around in Jolly Olde England. Oh, and Golarion didn't exist, so now you're playing on Earth. More mundane stuff? Well, the majority of the fighting was done with a single melee weapon, so let's toss out (or penalize to the point of uselessness) two-weapon fighting. Oh, and don't expect to get armed and armored up with any speed without a few vassals, so you'll want to hit 7th level right away and grab Leadership (assuming that you were of noble birth to begin with; otherwise, taking up the sword without your lord's permission is probably a death sentence anyway).
Eventually you're no longer playing Pathfinder, you're playing a tabletop pre-modern combat simulation. If I wanted something like that, I'd play it; I don't, so I don't.
The rules of Golarion are not the rules of the "real world". There are some concepts that function the same, like gravity, but even those have methods, within the rules (the use of which do not indicate "roll players" or munchkins, but just people playing their classes and using their abilities), of being overcome; people fly around, teleport, and generally ignore the laws of physics as their classes allow.
And that's not "roll playing"; it's just playing your character and utilizing his class's abilities. There's no "roll playing" involved until such a time as your sole or primary goal is to do the most damage possible with utter disregard for any actual characterization. A wizard who still has personality and sticks to some semblance of their character concept is not a "munchkin" just because they're optimizing their character's ability to do damage.
In a world where people can sling fireballs from their hands or call down lightning strikes, to argue that wielding a two-handed sword from horseback is somehow "twinking out" just because it's historically inaccurate, and labeling it "munchkin" or "roll playing", is disingenuous.
[edit]
I should add a caveat: The above does not indicate that I agree with tossing out all realism. A GM should, as best he can, retain the realism of the setting in which his stories are set. And his rules should be as consistent as he can make them. It is (in my opinion) far more easy to "roll play" as a GM than as a player, simply because you are the one primarily in control.
|
Xaratherus pretty much has the right of it.
Remember that it's just a game and not a real life simulator. Something to have fun with.. If they want to use a great sword on horse back then that isn't going to endanger the game in any reasonable way.
It's a DC 5 Ride check to guide with your knees so your capable of wielding a two-handed weapon effectively.
Fantasy battling on horseback can get a bit silly, but the whole point is supposed to be to have fun with your friends.
That's not correct. The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded 1-handed when mounted - gaining all the benefits of PA etc. but allowing use of a shield...The game allows for lances to be wielded two-handed from horseback, dealing insane damage (especially on a charge), so why not allow a greatsword? I know the physics of it is a little wonky, but the character isn't going to be dealing any more damage than a lance-wielding character. Indeed, he'll do less (since a lance deals x2 damage on a charge, or x3 with spirited charge).
So, is it a "realism" issue or a mechanics issue? I can understand perhaps the first, but as stated above, the second doesn't really add up.
Read the rules again. Lances can be used one-handed from horseback, but that's not to say that they cannot be used two-handed; it's entirely optional (hence the word "can", as opposed to "must"). You can use a two-handed weapon from horseback by succeeding a Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.
Read the rules again. Lances can be used one-handed from horseback, but that's not to say that they cannot be used two-handed; it's entirely optional (hence the word "can", as opposed to "must"). You can use a two-handed weapon from horseback by succeeding a Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.That's not correct. The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded 1-handed when mounted - gaining all the benefits of PA etc. but allowing use of a shield...The game allows for lances to be wielded two-handed from horseback, dealing insane damage (especially on a charge), so why not allow a greatsword? I know the physics of it is a little wonky, but the character isn't going to be dealing any more damage than a lance-wielding character. Indeed, he'll do less (since a lance deals x2 damage on a charge, or x3 with spirited charge).
So, is it a "realism" issue or a mechanics issue? I can understand perhaps the first, but as stated above, the second doesn't really add up.
To back up Detect Magic, there's also historical context for a 2 handed grip on a lance before the vamplate was developed.
|
If you're thinking about removing the rider's Str bonus to damage, you better replace it with the mount's Str bonus. That's the point, after all.
(Heh. 'Point'. See what I did, there?)
And, yes, you would use a greatsword differently while mounted to the way you would on foot. As for the sabre, they had a saying, 'The point beats the edge'. This led to the gradual shift in design of the cavalry sabre from emphasising the cut to emphasising the thrust, culminating in the 1908 pattern sword. It was balanced mainly for thrusting, but still had a useable edge. When mounted and charging, the rider would get the point as far out as he could, almost like he wished it were a lance. This is not the way he'd use it on foot. Similarly, a rider using a greatsword would allow the momentum of the horse to do the heavy work while he just guided the blade to its target; not the way he'd use it on foot.
Trying to penalise him for using a greatsword while mounted, in a fantasy game, would be picking on him. Making up rules just to nerf him would be seriously uncool. As DM, you are responsible for making the game enjoyable, not to invent ways to mess with one players fun based upon your own misconceptions and lack of knowledge.
There are lots of improbably but cinematic things in the game. A high level archer can fire something like a dozen shots with a longbow from horseback (in real life the size and shape of the bow would have had to be vastly different to be of use from a horse). A normal human being also could not stop a charging horse cold by resisting a bull rush attempt (a 1 in 20 chance at the very least since bull rush is an attack). In pathfinder he can.
Forget about the magic, and the fantasy things and why you shouldnt try to hold martial characters to reality when wizards are gods flying invisibly through time. Just look at mundane things in the game. It isnt limited by reality. A 15th level barbarian can take a strole through lava and have a solid chance of living. Then after the cleric has miraculously healed his minor burns, he can fall off a 200ft cliff onto his head and the be on his merry way. This is a fantasy roleplaying game, not military history.
Actually, he isn't misinformed. Over the centuries there have been lots of swords classified as "sabres". Some light, some heavy. The sabres used by light cavalry in the Napoleonic era are quite different to sabres used in other countries/eras.
The Roman gladius could just as easily be used to slash, even if the thrust was the main stroke.
As for lances, try a bit more research yourself. Or see some live lance demonstrations.
Oh, thanks for backing me up. I have this cavalry saber that was really hefty and that's what I was basing that on. It's a lot heavier than I think a normal saber should be.
|
|
Read the rules again. Lances can be used one-handed from horseback, but that's not to say that they cannot be used two-handed; it's entirely optional (hence the word "can", as opposed to "must"). You can use a two-handed weapon from horseback by succeeding a Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.That's not correct. The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded 1-handed when mounted - gaining all the benefits of PA etc. but allowing use of a shield...The game allows for lances to be wielded two-handed from horseback, dealing insane damage (especially on a charge), so why not allow a greatsword? I know the physics of it is a little wonky, but the character isn't going to be dealing any more damage than a lance-wielding character. Indeed, he'll do less (since a lance deals x2 damage on a charge, or x3 with spirited charge).
So, is it a "realism" issue or a mechanics issue? I can understand perhaps the first, but as stated above, the second doesn't really add up.
You're correct.
It's massively wasteful to do so and you gain no benefit, but a lance could be weilded two-handed whilst mounted.
'Massively wasteful'? 'No benefit'?
I'd use a lance two-handed while mounted to get 1.5 x Str bonus, 3 for 1 with Power Attack, and have all that tripled from the back of a charging mount. Conservatively, with 22 Str and BAB +12, that's 21 extra damage over the one-handed version, not counting crits.
That counts as a benefit.
If he fails his ride check (control with knees), he can't properly wield the sword, since he needs a hand to control the mount. He can use it as an improvised one-handed weapon at that point, taking all of the relevant penalties.
|
|
If he fails his ride check (control with knees), he can't properly wield the sword, since he needs a hand to control the mount. He can use it as an improvised one-handed weapon at that point, taking all of the relevant penalties.
A martial-type should find it pretty hard to fail a DC5 ride check, especially if he intends to fight while mounted!
You can't use a greatsword sized for you one-handed, even as an improvised weapon.
Historically, horse archers were devastatingly effective combatants. (Think the Scythians, the Mongols, the Turks). Archery certainly requires two hands.
I would be a little more dubious about using a two-handed melee weapon from horseback, but there's nothing in the rules against it. You would just need to use the "steer with knees" rule. If I were GMing, I'd probably increase the DC by 5 for melee combat with a two-handed weaon from horseback.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have no issues with using a greatsword to full effect while mounted by steering with your knees.
Pathfinder, like it's ancestor, Dungeons and Dragons, is a game where your group typically consists of a medieval knight wearing rennaiscance era armor, wielding a roman era falcata in both hands, worshipping greek gods and traveling with a modern shadow tainted japanese schoolgirl who wears black pajamas and carries a tokugawa era daisho consisting of a pair of twin wakazashi, an old man in a dress and pointy hat who solves mathematical equations as a means to demasculate physics, a native american shaman who, wears the hides of beasts from the sahara desert, transforms into prehistoric dinosaurs, and smokes Paote, a traveling small framed and sickly noble puppeteer who refuses to drink her milk, yet can inspire anyone into working harder with her performances by doing puppetry with plush dolls she sews by hand, and a guy dressed like a friar with a silver crucifix around his neck and a staff in hand curing wounds by chanting prayers, and your group is clearly on a quest to kill brain eating space alients, sentient jello, giant flying fire breathing reptiles, lovecraftian horrors with too many tentacles, slender man, hindu shapeshifting demons with backwards hands, and satanists who sell their souls for power, just because you want their stuff, so you can kill stronger foes and get even richer,
don't forget winning the game.
seriously, there's specific rule exactly covering 2-handed actions. use it.