Because I am. Not alot mind you, I'm not making sour faces, but I cannot help but feel... just the slightest bit grumpy.
So, last night's playsession went really well. We went back into the thick of things in our Faerun campaign, after a long break, and we go questing, awesome.
As part of this quest, we're stopped on the road by 3 meatheads, one of whom is wanted dead or alive in Zazzespur. We asked them very politely if they would let us pass, and when they didn't we killed them. Standard adventuring fare.
During the fight I roll a natural 20, backed up by a 18 on the die for confirmation, and my level 3 cavalier completely obliterates the leading meathead... just annihilates him, with 82 points of dmg. Best roll I've done in the campaign, and I feel awesome.
My GM pauses for a momnt, then asks me if there are rules for the lance breaking. Moment tarnished. I look at my GM and say "no, it does not break. It is a weapon, and thus is subject to sunder rules as normal, but no, otherwise it does not break any easier than other weapons".
He then pauses again, then resumes GM'ing. He says that as I impale the guy, he latches onto my lance, pulling it down as he falls, forcing it out of my grasp. I say that I do not believe that that is in the rules. He says that it narratively makes sense. I state that I object to that houserule, and that I thought we agreed houserules be made at the start of the campaign, so as to not mess with characters while in the adventure, but otherwise say that I respect his right to rule as GM, and that I will just roll with it for the rest of the session.
I mean... it's not that bad. I got disarmed by a dead guy, the fight was not -that- hard, although I get the feeling that the meathead I killed was quite tough (possibly a mini-boss). But in future, harder encounters, that disarm could -really- hurt me, and my party. Also, he claims it narratively makes sense, but just 2 sessions ago his Hobgoblin soldiers were gleefully swinging greatswords in cramped quarters so.....yeah...
I feel targeted. I feel like he saw me dealing 82 dmg, and somewhere in his mind he thought "S*%!! I cannot have that". I know it's not fair to him, the guy's been GM'ing for many years, it's not like he doesn't know how to catch a curveball. But ... I'm grumpy.
Am I doing it wrong? Am I wrong for disagreeing with my GM here?
-Nearyn
You are not wrong. You have feelings.
Give it a day or so, and calmly have a discussion with your GM to tell him how you feel. Even if it doesn't change his mind, he is aware of your thoughts/feelings and you have an outlet(which will help you feel better).
Next time you are down because opponent stuck you demand that he should be disarmed by weight of your dying/dead body so the rest of the party can hack him to pieces while he is defenseless. It makes lots of narrative sense...
Well darn, I just found out that I am grumpy.
I really appreciate the way you handled that, especially since I think the GM was wrong (if he wanted to disarm you then he should have the "dead guy" make a disarm attempt, at the very least - that is why the rules are there and would make “narrative” sense ("with his dying breath he attempts to take your lance with him..."). Of course, that brings up the argument about whether he gets an action, etc. (This is under the assumption that the 82 points actually killed the bad guy.)
-Doomn
It does read that he was getting 'back' some of what your crit 'took'.
He had plans for that NPC. Maybe to die better than that, maybe to harass the party for multiple encounters. Maybe even as his personal avatar, Marty Stew. But plans, is my read. The NPC had never worn a red shirt.
I have a redshirt rule when I GM. I make my NPCs model a red shirt for me, before they go on stage. If it doesn't look good on them, I make myself explain why. When I can't make the red shirt work, I check the nametag, and realize its Mary Sue.
Let's be charitable. He intended you to capture this guy who's wanted Dead or Alive, and take him in for the reward. Well, still take him in. That way you're still letting whatever plot threads were planned for him, be used by the GM.
But the lance being auto-disarmed on a crit? Jolly Bad Form.
Chalk it up to: "This was supposed to be a relatively tough fight and I'm annoyed that my primary was obliterated in a single attack making the fight laughably easy and also he might have been someone you were supposed to capture and interrogate because he might have had information relative to the current or next adventure that you needed..."
In other words, you made your objection clear in a reasonable way. It's not a problem unless it is a repeated issue.
You have every right to be upset since it was agreed that random/sudden house rules would not apply. I would get him to tell me if I had to deal with this every time I critted and in what circumstances it would apply.
I would likely also switch classes as much as I might dislike it or quit the game. <---I am not suggesting that you do this.
I am suggesting that you unless you are staying because you two are friends that you start looking for another group. As a GM it is annoying when certain bad guys die so quickly but it happens.
I agree with the others. It was bad form on the GM's part. Unfortunately, even the most experienced GM's fall into this trap from time to time. Its especially likely to happen when a lot of time and preparation has gone into the encounter/npc/whatever and it all of a sudden turns into a snooze fest.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, its potentially okay to have the corpse disarm the cavalier . . . but it should in no way have been automatic. There should have been a CMB check against your CMD. I would even say that the check would have a notable penalty since the dead npc can't exactly control how he falls. Though, I suppose you could rule that while he dies quickly, its not instant. Still though, there needed to at least be a check for it to work.
I also concur with the sentiment of the others who say give it a couple days then have a polite conversation with the GM about it. Let him know that it felt as though the rules were arbitrarily applied/changed/ignored/etc. and give him a chance to explain. Perhaps there was some custom ability on the NPC (unlikely, but possible). In any event, you'll make him aware that it bugged you, and you can point out the potential for this type of rule to really get out of hand. If he's an experienced GM, he should understand that he goofed and hopefully the problem will be resolved.
Most importantly, as someone who is usually a GM myself, kudos to the OP for being very calm and mature as it played out. I've had to deal with players who got far more upset for far less a time or three myself, and its refreshing to see somebody take a healthy approach.
Yea, like the others it seems to me that the gm had a moment of unhappyness due to you killing his badguy too quickly. You handled it fairly well, and I would talk to him about it away from the table. Express your concerns and find out if this is going to be a common theme. Becuase if you are going to lose your primary weapon every time you crit, it might be better to adjust your character (possibly switching away from cavalier that is best with lances).
It does read that he was getting 'back' some of what your crit 'took'.
He had plans for that NPC. Maybe to die better than that, maybe to harass the party for multiple encounters. Maybe even as his personal avatar, Marty Stew. But plans, is my read. The NPC had never worn a red shirt.
I have a redshirt rule when I GM. I make my NPCs model a red shirt for me, before they go on stage. If it doesn't look good on them, I make myself explain why. When I can't make the red shirt work, I check the nametag, and realize its Mary Sue.
Let's be charitable. He intended you to capture this guy who's wanted Dead or Alive, and take him in for the reward. Well, still take him in. That way you're still letting whatever plot threads were planned for him, be used by the GM.
But the lance being auto-disarmed on a crit? Jolly Bad Form.
You don't mean to say that every NPC should be disposable all the time? Like you yourself said, the GM in question may have had plans for Meathead #1 and they were "complicated" by his sudden case of Lance. Not saying the GM didn't handle the situation x100 worse than the OP (good job on that BTW) though.
While reading about your lance critical, I imagine critical hits from the xbox fallout series when the character has the bloody mess perk.
It could be much, much worse.
As was pointed out, the common question in regard to combat moves is CMB versus CMD. . . which would have been easy for the GM: simply have the CMB roll automatically succeed.
There's really not much you can do if your GM really wants you to get disarmed. Consider a backup duplicate weapon as an easy alternative to this problem. Also: locked gauntlet might be a good idea.
I have a redshirt rule when I GM. I make my NPCs model a red shirt for me, before they go on stage. If it doesn't look good on them, I make myself explain why. When I can't make the red shirt work, I check the nametag, and realize its Mary Sue.You don't mean to say that every NPC should be disposable all the time? Like you yourself said, the GM in question may have had plans for Meathead #1 and they were "complicated" by his sudden case of Lance. Not saying the GM didn't handle the situation x100 worse than the OP (good job on that BTW) though.
I mean to say that when they aren't disposable, I have to check they aren't Mary Sue. I have to check that my 'no, this one cannot die' feeling is from a solid 'good for the game' motivation, and not because I'm somehow personally emotionally invested in the NPC's welfare.
I mean to say that I try to run that cavalier's lance through my NPCs, before the cavalier gets a chance, because Crit Happens. So if my version of that wanted bandit was intended to lead the party someplace, his personal possessions, his flunkies, or the tearful-but-adorable kid sister who was hiding in the woods, something, would be able to serve the plot purpose of pointing to whatever opportunity the bandit represented.
And I try not to have badass bandits just so I can be badass.
It could be much, much worse.
As was pointed out, the common question in regard to combat moves is CMB versus CMD. . . which would have been easy for the GM: simply have the CMB roll automatically succeed.
There's really not much you can do if your GM really wants you to get disarmed. Consider a backup duplicate weapon as an easy alternative to this problem. Also: locked gauntlet might be a good idea.
A backup weapon and locked gauntlet is certainly a good idea, but keep in mind that if this does become a problem, as opposed to a one-time bad day for the GM (which happens to all of us), then the locked gauntlet might actually make things worse. It might encouraged the GM to instead start having the weapons break.
Hopefully though the GM will realize his error here and in the future either go with a CMB attempt, or just realize that no matter how good the preparation, no plan ever survives first contact with the PCs. ;P
Edit to add: @Thornborn: That is an excellent piece of advice. If there is some piece of information that it is absolutely critical the PCs get, then I try to make sure that there are at least 3 ways in which they can receive it. No matter how obvious I, as the GM, might think something is, it doesn't mean that it will be as obvious to the players. In fact, I've been on both ends of that. Recently, as a player, my GM had to pretty much beat it over my head before I realized what she was driving at. She had already given us about 4 or 5 attempts to discern the information she was trying to impart but we had failed to latch on so to speak. Ultimately, it came down to a miscommunication between the players and the GM. We thought we had examined something more closely than we had really communicated to her. Made for a great laugh though. :)
|
We rotate GM and one guy in our group loves to try and screw players like this. He was always coming up with not in the rules ways to take away players things or block their abilities. There was even a time as a player he looks over to the GM and says, "I'm pretty sure after that, Pan's PC drops his weapon into the mud soaked floor which will be difficult if impossible to find." Thankfully, the other GM at the time said no in fact that did not happen. After getting overruled and a heavy amount of stink eye from the group he finally came around and stopped.
Maybe this was a one time thing? If not, the best way to deal with it in my opinion is peer pressure. The more folks at the table letting him know this kind of thing is not acceptable the sooner it will stop.
It might encouraged the GM to instead start having the weapons break.
This is a very common behavior I've observed in GMs. At one point in a game I had to keep 4-6 similar weapons on me to deal with ridiculous situations where my weapons are either destroyed or slip out of my hands.
But at least in PF there's an entire system for breaking weapons. . . however if the disarm behavior is a precedent, it will probably be ignored too.
|
While the GM's call may have reflected a likely result in real-world physics, the fantasy game world does not incorporate such, so yeah, right to be a bit grumpy if you're expecting results per the rules. If you're more a free-narrative player where, for sake of advancing a good story, the rules sometimes go out the window when it makes sense, then less so.
You can find some articles on combat physics behind lance combat wherein if the lancer hit too hard, the lance penetrated the target and you've lost your weapon. A skilled lancer would learn to control the amount of force delivered to the target, much like a skilled jouster would aim the hit to push the person out of the saddle rather than risk pushback from a direct hit. On a direct hit, there's going to be force going right back at the lancer, up the lance and into the couched area (armpit). This is where many lances break and horsemen can be thrown off their mount even if the lance holds.
Ah, yes, 'don't hurt my babies' syndrome.
There's few worse GMing sins, IMHO, than taking away a player's moment of triumph like that. Your job is to facilitate enjoyment, not take a whiz in the players' Cheerios. There are few things I hate more than 'you succeed so hard you fail' ... it runs contrary, IMHO, to what everybody is at the game for.
So, yes, I'd say you have every right to be beyond grumpy.
I think the GM could have had two possible motives. One is that he was just being pissy, as others have said. Another possibility is that, after his most dangerous opponent in the encounter was one shotted, he was trying to make what would be a now boring fight more memorable.
In all charity, the image of a Cavalier charging the leader of the group and driving his lance clear through him and getting stuck in the ground or hitting so hard it shatters is pretty cool.
Either way though, it does sound like he could have handled it better.
With all respect towards the GM. I know him too since I´ve had him as a GM to for several years. He was one of the first people to teach Nearyn and I how to even play PnP RP. The man is a nice enough person but he does have a tendency to really protect his NPC´s and the likes. It´s something he had done before and he seems to get somewhat defensive when people point it out. Now with that said he´s a nice man, and a fairly good GM, he just has this little quirk.
He has a weird tendency to make some of his NPC´s (in his own home made campaigns) awfully strong compared to what their level should be, like the crazy strong bartender or town militia, Nearyn knows what I´m talking about. He´s a man who doesn´t like to loose control, neither as a GM nor a player on anyone´s campaigns and I guess that´s why he does it, truth be told.
I have the greatest respect for the man but sometimes when he does this I get awfully annoyed over it.
My guess is that the GM was completely unaware that your character could deal 82 points of damage at level 3. That would shock me as well, but then again, I only play core, so no cavaliers.
Assuming that is the case, I would talk with him and make sure he is okay with you being a cavalier + whatever weapons/feats/abilities you have that lets you deal such levels of damage.
If he's not, its better to switch classes, and try to create a character that isn't pushing out insane amounts of damage.
Most GMs that feel like they know the rules pretty will feel like these unexpected abilities that they are unaware of are unfair. It won't fit what they consider normal for a character of a similar level.
Assuming that the GM agrees to allow your cavalier to remain in the game, expect to find many situations where your cavalier's abilities will be limited. Rough terrain, flying opponents, readied actions to move out of the way of a charge, etc.
First of all: Thank you all very much for your quick and helpful replies.
I'll definitely ask him one of the following days, whether or not he intends to make this "narrative combat"-thing a recurring theme, and let him know I don't care for it.
I did not get the sense that the bandit was supposed to be anything out of the ordinary, but in hindsight, that may very well have been the case. But I guess I'll never know unless I ask.
@Tormsskull:
I delivered 72*(sorry, I did a bad thing and didn't check my post <:[ ) points of damage through a mounted charge critical hit with a lance.
The lance hit dealt 1d8+6 dmg and came out to 12 dmg. Damage dealt with a lance during a mounted charge gets doubled, so 24 dmg. That got tripled, since the hit was a crit.
I was quite astounded too, as I've never critted with this character before.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tormsskull:
I delivered 72*(sorry, I did a bad thing and didn't check my post <:[ ) points of damage through a mounted charge critical hit with a lance.
The lance hit dealt 1d8+6 dmg and came out to 12 dmg. Damage dealt with a lance during a mounted charge gets doubled, so 24 dmg. That got tripled, since the hit was a crit.
I think that's still wrong:
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.
So I believe a double triple should work out to 4x damage. Or, 4d8+24.
Edit: Also, what's the +6 from? Magic lance, incredibly high strength, or what? I've known players in the past that incorrectly gave lances 1.5 strength modifier. So a +4 strength they'd turn into a +6 strength. The problem is, when riding a mount, you wield a lance 1 handed, thus only 1x strength damage, not 1.5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how multipling in d20 works.
You do not multiply by two and then by three. Instead you multiply the basic damage by x4 (you get x3 and add +1 to the multiplier for x2, if you had x3 and x3 or x3, x2 and x2 you would multiply by x5 instead).
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.
EDIT: Ninja, duh.
Also, you roll multiple times, you don't just multiply the result of a single roll. You would roll 4d8+24, not 1d8+6 and multiply the result by 4.
Edit: Also, what's the +6 from? Magic lance, incredibly high strength, or what? I've known players in the past that incorrectly gave lances 1.5 strength modifier. So an 18 strength they'd turn into a 22 strength. The problem is, when riding a mount, you wield a lance 1 handed, thus only 1x strength damage, not 1.5
There is no rule preventing rider from using lance in two hands and adding 1.5 of Strength.
There is no rule preventing rider from using lance in two hands and adding 1.5 of Strength.
I suppose by RAW you can, assuming you're not also using a shield. I definitely wouldn't allow it.
|
There is no rule preventing rider from using lance in two hands and adding 1.5 of Strength.I suppose by RAW you can, assuming you're not also using a shield. I definitely wouldn't allow it.
interestingly, by RAW, and supported by FAQ, the lance would get 3:1 form Power Attack even while used in 1 hand while mounted.
Yep. Mounted combat can be nasty. That's why you kill the horse first.
The more you know :D
@Tormsskull: Thanks for that, that bit of knowledge will be helpful in the future. The Str was from wielding the lance in two hands while mounted (I didn't have time to equip my shield to the other hand).
Actually after reading over it, are you sure it would only deal x1 str to dmg? The rule for dealing x1.5 str applies to two handed weapons, and that is what a lance is. You're able to use it in one hand while mounted, but that does not necessarily change its category to a one-handed weapon, rather a two handed weapon you can wield in one hand under certain circumstances. I guess that's a matter for the rules board though, I hadn't actually thought of that until now.
@Zhayne: Quite correct, I apologize for not providing enough information. At my GM's table, the players may decide for themselves whether they want to roll several times, or just multiply the result outright. They must, however, decide which they wanna use before the dice are rolled. I usually just multiply because it saves time, and lets my fellow players get their turn faster if I crit. This time, the dice came up in my favour.
@Drejk: Using the lance with two hands while mounted was exactly what I was doing, as I did not know if I had the action to spare to equip my shield. We started combat with the wizard pretty close to melee-distance, and Tarquinn (my character) is Order of the Dragon, so I was in there as fast as possible.
I'll make sure to remember that you add up multipliers that way. I had no clue.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This GM could have handled himself with a little more finesse. It really doesn't help that this decision obviously came on the heels of your lucky performance.
But, at the same time, I do think that lances in PF gloss over some of the real-life limitations of lances, and some of those are actually cool and atmospheric things that I *miss*... and I play a lancer (summoner) as a PC.
When you read Ivanhoe, or some Arthurian legends, where lancing is front-and-center the coolest thing in the world, lances shatter constantly. Shields too. It's really meant to reflect the sheer might of an attack, narratively. So, in that sense, I think the GM was trying to do something cool (balance the fight and flatter your character in a very traditional way), he just failed at the showmanship required to pull this off.
So, you're right to be grumpy, but you'll be a great player if you can try to find coolness in everything the GM throws your way.
@Zhayne: Quite correct, I apologize for not providing enough information. At my GM's table, the players may decide for themselves whether they want to roll several times, or just multiply the result outright. They must, however, decide which they wanna use before the dice are rolled. I usually just multiply because it saves time, and lets my fellow players get their turn faster if I crit. This time, the dice came up in my favour.
That's a rule you all might want to do a retake on if you'd rather not have to deal with this sort of situation all the time.
Doing 4d8+24 damage, maxed out, would be 56 damage. Doing it the way you did it adds a significant amount of phantom damage to that tally, and you didn't even get max on the original damage roll, which would add even more. Chances are, at your level, 56 damage would have been enough, though average damage for 4d8+24 would amount to 42, which may not have completely killed the brigand.
Not trying to tell people how to play, but this house rule just strikes me as being somewhat broken. Eliminating it could help to alleviate problems like this in the future.
|
@Zhayne: Quite correct, I apologize for not providing enough information. At my GM's table, the players may decide for themselves whether they want to roll several times, or just multiply the result outright. They must, however, decide which they wanna use before the dice are rolled. I usually just multiply because it saves time, and lets my fellow players get their turn faster if I crit. This time, the dice came up in my favour.That's a rule you all might want to do a retake on if you'd rather not have to deal with this sort of situation all the time.
Doing 4d8+24 damage, maxed out, would be 56 damage. Doing it the way you did it adds a significant amount of phantom damage to that tally, and you didn't even get max on the original damage roll, which would add even more. Chances are, at your level, 56 damage would have been enough, though average damage for 4d8+24 would amount to 42, which may not have completely killed the brigand.
Not trying to tell people how to play, but this house rule just strikes me as being somewhat broken. Eliminating it could help to alleviate problems like this in the future.
It's just as likely that the "1" comes up and the total damage dealt is 28. (1d8+6)*4.
Rolling lots of dice tend towards the average (discrete bell curves/normal distributions and all). Rolling one and multiplying flattens the curve(discrete uniform distribution).
Both have the same average. The multiplied method has greater variance.
I wonder if there is a thread somewhere with A GM saying "Was I right to disarm the cavalier after he one-hitted my uber npc..."
@Zhayne: Quite correct, I apologize for not providing enough information. At my GM's table, the players may decide for themselves whether they want to roll several times, or just multiply the result outright. They must, however, decide which they wanna use before the dice are rolled. I usually just multiply because it saves time, and lets my fellow players get their turn faster if I crit. This time, the dice came up in my favour.That's a rule you all might want to do a retake on if you'd rather not have to deal with this sort of situation all the time.
Doing 4d8+24 damage, maxed out, would be 56 damage. Doing it the way you did it adds a significant amount of phantom damage to that tally, and you didn't even get max on the original damage roll, which would add even more. Chances are, at your level, 56 damage would have been enough, though average damage for 4d8+24 would amount to 42, which may not have completely killed the brigand.
Not trying to tell people how to play, but this house rule just strikes me as being somewhat broken. Eliminating it could help to alleviate problems like this in the future.
It's just as likely that the "1" comes up and the total damage dealt is 28. (1d8+6)*4.
Rolling lots of dice tend towards the average (discrete bell curves/normal distributions and all). Rolling one and multiplying flattens the curve(discrete uniform distribution).
Both have the same average. The multiplied method has greater variance.
And, IMFAO, that sort of exceptional swinginess is not a good thing.
You have a right to be grumpy... But a lance break mechanic is something I would consider as a house rule... I mean, if what we see depicted in jousting scenes/movies is close to what happened, mundane lances were snapping ALL the time...
Jousting was a sport and the way you scored points was to make your lance shatter, it indicated a solid hit. They were meant to break. Seeing one of those impressive explosions of wood splinters as the two knights met was the medieval equivalent of watching a touchdown or a slam dunk.
The military issue lances weren't designed to break, just to impale directly through your opponent and were usually made with or reinforced by metal rather than just wood.
No, you have known players in the past that CORRECTLY gave lances 1.5 strength modifier.
Actually, I was referencing a player from before this FAQ was even released. But even with this FAQ, I won't give lances wielded 1 handed 2 handed damage bonus. That doesn't make logical sense to me. It also opens a question of does every "2-handed" weapon get 1.5 str when wielded in 1 hand? I like to keep things simple. You wield a weapon in 1 hand, you get 1x str. You use both hands to wield a weapon, you get 1.5.
Is this the "correct" way? Not sure, but it's how I've ran it.
I don't believe so. But that's the beauty of houserules. If everyone in your party wants to be a lance-wielding mounted charger, its probably time to break out a houserule.
Whether the GM's disarmament of your character is fair or not, you could think of it as doing you the favor of not making you remember to drop it yourself on your next turn. After all, once you're up close, you generally want to shift to your close combat weapons. Otherwise, to use the lance at its most effective, you have to ride a ways out of combat again and wheel around for the turn before you can charge in again. And while that may be mechanically advantageous, in an action film sequence, you would look stupid doing it.
Actually, I was referencing a player from before this FAQ was even released. But even with this FAQ, I won't give lances wielded 1 handed 2 handed damage bonus. That doesn't make logical sense to me. It also opens a question of does every "2-handed" weapon get 1.5 str when wielded in 1 hand? I like to keep things simple. You wield a weapon in 1 hand, you get 1x str. You use both hands to wield a weapon, you get 1.5.
This is neither more nor less simple than '1h weapons are always x1, two-handed weapons are always x1.5, regardless of handedness'.
mounted Charge : 3x Damage from Lance (Base + 1d8)
Critical : 3x Damage from Lance (Base + 2d8)
Mounted Charge Critical : 4x Damage from Lance (Base + 1d8 + 2d8)
All multiplied damage dices are added. This also multiply the enchantment bonus damage on the weapon, untyped bonus such as from power attack, as well as strength bonus.
As for two-handed weapons, you can not wield them in one hand unless otherwise noted such as the lance. When used in one hand, it consider as one handed weapon. Therefore, it shall apply strength bonus as you do for other one handed weapon as you will not have more strength in your arm to use it like you do with two hands. Due to this fact, Two handed Fighter may not apply double his strength modifier to his attack when using the lance in one hand. Likewise for Titan Mauler's Jotungrip ability.
Also, rider may use two handed weapon on a horseback. Which means you may use lance with two hands while mounted. However, you will require to have a mount that is combat trained as well as a ride check with DC of 5.
|
Whether the GM's disarmament of your character is fair or not, you could think of it as doing you the favor of not making you remember to drop it yourself on your next turn. After all, once you're up close, you generally want to shift to your close combat weapons. Otherwise, to use the lance at its most effective, you have to ride a ways out of combat again and wheel around for the turn before you can charge in again. And while that may be mechanically advantageous, in an action film sequence, you would look stupid doing it.
That's what Ride-By Attack is for.