| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could NOT be a jerk and let your player do something fun and suboptimal.
Seriously?!?
It isn't a matter of sub-optimal, it's a matter of nearly physically impossible. The only way you could do this is if at least one of the lances was magically without weight. Plus, I also already posted that I WOULD allow a player to do this, and even that if they were doing it in a dramatic fight, their penalties would be less.
Bringing in real world physics always ends in madness. Always. If you want to go that far into it, countless trained swordsmen have proven that nearly any form of duel wielding is completely ineffective, and even the possible styles (rapier and dagger) are only circumstantial.
... and this is spoken like someone who hasn't a clue as to what real world physics are like, or how the game already brings in real world physics. Or for god's sake, that 'duel (sic) wielding' is not only effective, but that some of the best swordsmen in history have taught it as ideal. Or do you not use armor weight and skill check penalties, or skill checks at all, or weight, or one- or two-handed weapon rules, or ... I mean, come on. The game's basic rules exist in order to try to establish the basics of physics, as shown by the real world. The problems always, always come in when exceptions are trying to be made. Exceptions like this one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could NOT be a jerk and let your player do something fun and suboptimal.Seriously?!?
It isn't a matter of sub-optimal, it's a matter of nearly physically impossible. The only way you could do this is if at least one of the lances was magically without weight. Plus, I also already posted that I WOULD allow a player to do this, and even that if they were doing it in a dramatic fight, their penalties would be less.
Bringing in real world physics always ends in madness. Always. If you want to go that far into it, countless trained swordsmen have proven that nearly any form of duel wielding is completely ineffective, and even the possible styles (rapier and dagger) are only circumstantial.... and this is spoken like someone who hasn't a clue as to what real world physics are like, or how the game already brings in real world physics. Or for god's sake, that 'duel (sic) wielding' is not only effective, but that some of the best swordsmen in history have taught it as ideal. Or do you not use armor weight and skill check penalties, or skill checks at all, or weight, or one- or two-handed weapon rules, or ... I mean, come on. The game's basic rules exist in order to try to establish the basics of physics, as shown by the real world. The problems always, always come in when exceptions are trying to be made. Exceptions like this one.
I can make a character that, at level 1, can surpass the current world long-jump records while carrying 50 pounds of gear non-magically.
I don't care what anyone thinks about real-world physics. This is a game, let it be one.
Shield use your other hand but not your "off-hand", speaking in terms of the unwritten hands of effort.You can wield two lances, but you can't TWF with them as they both still count as two-handed weapons, thus requiring your offhand's worth of effort to attack with.Uhh, no. There is a reason so many mounted builds use a lance and shield. Because it does not require your offhand to use the lance.
What do you think "wield as a one handed weapon" means?
So can you shield bash while mounted and using a lance?
Wield your lance in one hand, shield in the other. Use Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash to attack twice. This seems like a very common combination, but the unwritten hands of effort thing would seem to disallow it.
Wielding with one hand seems to mean what it says to me, that it only takes a single 'hand' worth of effort. I'm on the fence about 'wield a lance' limiting it to a singular lance, in English that construction could be either 'wield one lance' or 'wield any lance' depending on context, and their isn't enough contextual clue here outside of the unwritten cultural one we all have of an armored knight charging with a shield to be certain how it should be read.
In any event, I certainly think you can two-weapon fight with a lance and another one-handed or light weapon. With the exception of allowing the two lance reading or exotic weapons it will be fairly difficult to pull off in practice though, as other one handed weapons don't have reach.
You still need an animal companion mount, otherwise you can never move more than 5 feet and full attack, even with mounted skirmisher, due to the FAQ on mounted chargesAlso, all this discussion of TWF lances...why not just play a sohei monk?
Sohei can flurry with spears if they take tht for their weapon training.
Yeah...but you can get an animal companion with feats. Less feats than other classes use to get TWF, certainly.
|
|
I kinda wish the FAQ said you treat the lance as a one-handed weapon when wielded in one hand (normal str and lower power attack). People had a hard enough time getting their heads around virtual hands already.
In the end, though, it's clear you're not supposed to be able to get the increased damage granted to two-handed weapons and also be able to two-weapon fight.
If you believe you've come up with such a scenario (such as in this thread), it means you've run amok of the metaphorical hands rules somewhere and the thing you're trying to do is not legal. It may not make sense, but that's the reality of the rules as clarified by the developers.
A brawler/monk using Flurry gets 2-handed power attack damage despite their abilities working like two-weapon fighting, and the only reason they don't get two-handed strength damage is because they have a specific clause in their abilities specifically stating that this is not the case.
Lances have no such clause.
Pathfinder rules are a simulation. Of movement, of combat, of skill interactions etc. Quite often they have simplified or even entirely handwaved physics because reality is no fun in that particular area. However the real world is used as a base for most rules. (...) The suggestion that is trotted out time and time again - that the rules don't need to make sense 'cause of magic duh' removes a whole layer of thought and reason from the game - usually to try and justify some bonkers twisting of one sentence out of thousands.
(...) Just to be clear, I don't 'worry' about physics. I just assume that where magic doesn't contradict it, physics prevails. If the fly spell ends I assume people fall downwards and not upwards, because that is what happens in the real world.
Quite my point; thank you.
I kinda wish the FAQ said you treat the lance as a one-handed weapon when wielded in one hand (normal str and lower power attack). People had a hard enough time getting their heads around virtual hands already.
In the end, though, it's clear you're not supposed to be able to get the increased damage granted to two-handed weapons and also be able to two-weapon fight.
If you believe you've come up with such a scenario (such as in this thread), it means you've run amok of the metaphorical hands rules somewhere and the thing you're trying to do is not legal. It may not make sense, but that's the reality of the rules as clarified by the developers.
A brawler/monk using Flurry gets 2-handed power attack damage despite their abilities working like two-weapon fighting, and the only reason they don't get two-handed strength damage is because they have a specific clause in their abilities specifically stating that this is not the case.
Lances have no such clause.
You may use _A_ lance...
One.
It's used in one hand, gains the benefits as if two handed... but only one may be used.
|
Cheesoptics on side,
Lance is 2h weapon. It can be wielded as 1h weapon from the back of a mount and technically you could TWF with it if GM ignores it's original purpose.
While TWF-ing with it, you receive 1x Str Mod on primary hand and 0.5x Str Mod on off-hand considering that you don't have Double Slice. TWF penalties apply as normal. You cannot TWF while charging on the mount unless you own some special ability to allow you so. Even at the very best, you will still have -4/-4 penalty on attack rolls while trying to TWF with those lances. A charging lanced lv 4 fighter with 18 Str would have +10 (2d8+12/x3). Same lv 4 fighter (with TWF) would have +4 (1d8+4/x)/+4 (1d8+2/x3) and cannot charge while TWF-ing.
Again, this is available only if GM ignores a fact that lance is 2h weapon. The lance can be used as 1h weapon while charging on a mount because you are using it's strength and speed, but this very small technicality in text is probably enough for some people to try to game the system.
Adam
Cheesoptics on side,
Lance is 2h weapon. It can be wielded as 1h weapon from the back of a mount and technically you could TWF with it if GM ignores it's original purpose.
While TWF-ing with it, you receive 1x Str Mod on primary hand and 0.5x Str Mod on off-hand considering that you don't have Double Slice. TWF penalties apply as normal. You cannot TWF while charging on the mount unless you own some special ability to allow you so. Even at the very best, you will still have -4/-4 penalty on attack rolls while trying to TWF with those lances. A charging lanced lv 4 fighter with 18 Str would have +10 (2d8+12/x3). Same lv 4 fighter (with TWF) would have +4 (1d8+4/x)/+4 (1d8+2/x3) and cannot charge while TWF-ing.
Again, this is available only if GM ignores a fact that lance is 2h weapon. The lance can be used as 1h weapon while charging on a mount because you are using it's strength and speed, but this very small technicality in text is probably enough for some people to try to game the system.
Adam
GM would ALSO be ignoring text specifying a singular lance can be used in one hand.
Houserule territory.
GM would ALSO be ignoring text specifying a singular lance can be used in one hand.Houserule territory.
Except the text doesn't say that, or not exactly. If I say you can put a ring on your finger, it doesn't mean that only one finger can wear a ring or even that only one ring can be worn on a single finger. Indeed, it strongly implies that if I can put a ring on a finger, then I can also put another ring on another finger. Or, in this case, if I can wield a lance in one hand, I can wield another lance in my other hand. Each hand is wielding a lance.
English can be murky with the indefinite articles, as I said above. 'A lance' can mean 'One Singular Lance' or 'Any Lane'.
GM would ALSO be ignoring text specifying a singular lance can be used in one hand.Houserule territory.
Except the text doesn't say that, or not exactly. If I say you can put a ring on your finger, it doesn't mean that only one finger can wear a ring or even that only one ring can be worn on a single finger. Indeed, it strongly implies that if I can put a ring on a finger, then I can also put another ring on another finger. Or, in this case, if I can wield a lance in one hand, I can wield another lance in my other hand. Each hand is wielding a lance.
English can be murky with the indefinite articles, as I said above. 'A lance' can mean 'One Singular Lance' or 'Any Lane'.
Using magic item rules as an example to try to argue weapon rules makes no sense.
The text regarding lances is clear. Reading text from other sources merely muddles the issue.
The rules allow the use of one lance in one hand, it does NOT say (or imply) multiple lances. Asserting that one can use two lances requires proof, and none has been offered, the closest thing is the argument that in English, sometimes you can twist things to suit your desires.
|
|
I kinda wish the FAQ said you treat the lance as a one-handed weapon when wielded in one hand (normal str and lower power attack). People had a hard enough time getting their heads around virtual hands already.
In the end, though, it's clear you're not supposed to be able to get the increased damage granted to two-handed weapons and also be able to two-weapon fight.
If you believe you've come up with such a scenario (such as in this thread), it means you've run amok of the metaphorical hands rules somewhere and the thing you're trying to do is not legal. It may not make sense, but that's the reality of the rules as clarified by the developers.
A brawler/monk using Flurry gets 2-handed power attack damage despite their abilities working like two-weapon fighting, and the only reason they don't get two-handed strength damage is because they have a specific clause in their abilities specifically stating that this is not the case.
Lances have no such clause.
You may use _A_ lance...
One.
It's used in one hand, gains the benefits as if two handed... but only one may be used.
You know, I COULD get into a long, convoluted response about the English language, but I think I'm just going to let this post fight for me.
To everyone saying you can use two lances...
Why not just tie a bunch of daggers together at the end of a stick, you could probably mount six in a double-trident style configuration.
Then, you hold that stick (lets call it a six-fold lance) as a lance...
6D4 damage! Double on a charge while mounted!!!
AND! Since it's a lance, you can (apparently) use two of them!!!
Enlarge yourself and all of a sudden you are doing 12D6 (per weapon) on a charge attack!
I can't find any rules preventing it, so it must be ok.
No.
The rules tell you what you can do, and they don't say you can use two lances.
I can understand the argument from both sides.
It is funny to think about the "No TWF" sides interpretation because that means you are allowed to wield a lance in each hand, but you can't TWF with them.
I think one source of the collective conclusion is the confusing terminology of light, one-handed and two-handed weapons.
Suppose instead they were called light, medium and heavy weapons. A heavy weapon can normally only be used in two hands - but an exception is made for a lance under certain circumstances. A medium weapon can normally be used in one hand - but some need two hands if you don't have Exotic proficiency. A medium or heavy weapon used in two hands does +50% damage.
Actually, even parsing everything through this filter, it's still ambiguous by RAW.
"Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
Emphasis mine...
If you can wield a lance with ONE hand, you could wield ANOTHER lance in your OTHER hand, all while mounted... right?
No that is not inherently followed by logic. Just because you can now wield a lance in one hand, (presumably your dominant one), doesn't mean you have the equivalent ability for your second hand.
The rules say you can wield a lance in one hand when mounted. The rules don't say that a lance BECOMES a one-handed weapon when you do so. That's an important distinction.
|
|
Okay, okay, I could be snarky forever. I mean, this thread is basically ASKING for it at this point. I'm going to resist this urge.
Yes, lances are categorized as two-handed weapons. However, they have a special rule that allows them to be wielded with one hand. At this point, we have an issue, which is the main issue in this debate:
I can wield a weapon in each hand. I have two such hands. Therefore, if only one of my hands is being used, then the other is available for use. This makes sense. If I wield a longsword in one hand, then I can wield a longsword in my other hand (Even if the rules don't explicitly state that I can, ALEX).
At this point, the answer seems clear. I wield a weapon in one hand (Lance, while mounted), so since only one hand is full, I can wield another weapon in my other hand, so long as that weapon can be wielded in one hand. Can I wield a lance in one hand while mounted? If the answer is yes, then I can wield it in my other hand.
The ONLY issue is the idea of "handedness", that you have two hands worth of space that exist outside of your actual hands which, thanks to feats like Multi-weapon fighting, and various examples of creatures with multiple limbs, we know not to be entirely true. The extraneous idea of Handedness, specifically in regards to an amount or allotment of metaphysical "hands", ONLY exists in a scant few circumstances, and almost entirely in situationally specific FAQs.
|
You're wielding it in one hand, but it's still a two-handed weapon.
If what you are suggesting were true, you wouldn't get the +50% damage from Power Attack when attacking with it. But you do, as per the FAQ.
I think I get where you're coming from, let me try to break it down a little.
Lance is 2 handed weapon, no one argues this, this is CRB.
While mounted, a lance can be wielded in 1 hand. This does not change the classification of the lance (which is still a 2 handed weapon), it simply alters the requirements needed to wield it. This is why the power attack ruling works, since as ruled, a two handed weapon gets 150% power attack damage even while wielded in one hand.
Now, let's see what two-weapon fighting has to say:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.Now it doesn't matter how many hands our off hand weapon takes, it simply matters if we HAVE an off hand weapon, which we do, since our second lance still only requires 1 hand to wield.
There is the question of if the statement "You can wield a lance 1 handed while mounted" means "you can wield A lance (singular) while mounted" or "you can wield a lance (plural) while mounted", which would mean we could use any amount of lances in one hand in the case of having 2 or more hands.
I'm all for the latter myself, but I suppose that's what it boils down to in the end.
i have to agree with this comparison. TWF with a lance and a shield is the same as two lances since they are both wielded as single handed weapons while mounted. if it's a good idea or not is irrelevant, only that the mechanisms in place support it.
I believe it's supported based on the rules for TWF as well as mounted lances.
|
|
"Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
Emphasis mine...
If you can wield a lance with ONE hand, you could wield ANOTHER lance in your OTHER hand, all while mounted... right?
No that is not inherently followed by logic. Just because you can now wield a lance in one hand, (presumably your dominant one), doesn't mean you have the equivalent ability for your second hand.
The rules say you can wield a lance in one hand when mounted. The rules don't say that a lance BECOMES a one-handed weapon when you do so. That's an important distinction.
the issue is that the rule never states you can only do this with one hand, and since most creatures have 2 or more hands, there is no rule preventing you from applying this condition twice. using the lance in one hand does not mention having to use your other hand for non-weapon purposes (see the heavy shield description where it specifically says this).
so yes I agree logically you would be hard pressed to do two lances. rule wise there is nothing preventing you from putting a lance in one hand while mounted, and then putting another lance in one hand while mounted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, okay, I could be snarky forever. I mean, this thread is basically ASKING for it at this point. I'm going to resist this urge.
Yes, lances are categorized as two-handed weapons. However, they have a special rule that allows them to be wielded with one hand...
Two notes.
#1: If you 'could be snarky forever', usually it means that that's your primary defense - because sense (and physics as well, in this case) ain't on your side.
#2: The game's rules are an attempt to simulate the real world. Lances have a special rule that allows them to be wielded with one hand when on horseback; this rule is pretty clearly meant to put into the game rules the real-world usage of the lance, which is (when charging on horseback point-first, or when held upright on horseback using the butt end) using it with one hand.
Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0: When you start needing to dissect a particular phrase or word or use rhetorical tricks in regards to a rule's phrasing to argue for your version of the rule, especially at the expense of the real-world physics that the rule you're arguing about is meant to simulate, you've lost the point of the rule you're arguing. Most rules, especially those about physical actions, are meant to simulate the physics of the real world; losing sight of that is automatic failure.
Davor, you and CampinCarl are so enamored of your version and insistent that this is 'a rules discussion, not a discussion about physics' indicates to me that you've lost sight of the point of this question, which is 'what can actually be done?', not 'how can I spin and interpret the rule's phrasing and choice of words so that I can do it the way I want?' This IS a physics discussion. The game's simulation tends to break down at extremes; this is why, Davor, you can build a first-level character that can carry 50 lbs of gear AND break the world long-jump record, because the simulation can be only so good. Nevertheless, the player and the GM should be approaching the game with 'how can I do a cool thing that is within range of reality?'
That it's a game allows you to bend the simulation, and magic not only allows you to stretch it, it has its own rules - but those rules are, and should be, not only internally consistent but also not require you to use your roaming minutes on your cell phone in order to reach real-world physics. Yes, sixty-ton fire-breathing winged lizards can fly; that's part of fantasy.
That doesn't mean your 18 STR Sir Lance-a-lot straight human is going to be able to screw with the way a bulked-out knight should be able to use a weapon. I think the two of you are losing sight of that base idea.
dude you need to grow more arms and grab more lances, and get some insect looking armor for you and your horse, and give all your lances flaming.
but really I see no reason you can't, you can hold the lance in one hand while mounted, right? clearly you are strong enough to do it in one hand why not the other, your horse is doing most of the work anyways. if I pick up a 50 lbs. weight can I not lift another 50 lbs. weight? can I suddenly not ride a horse?
See the physics and math in this post.
1) I have already admitted I can understand both sides. Do not try to imply that I am rejecting your interpretation as RAW, I have said it is ambiguous enough that it can go either way.
2) Using your own "rules" as proof is faulty at best.
3) Many things in Pathfinder are subject to real world physics. Many things are not. You cannot possibly always know which is appropriate. There are plenty of purely mundane things in the game of Pathfinder that breaks real-world physics, including things as basic as fighter feats.
You have a vision of what a real world mounted knight should look like and your confirmation bias is making you interpret the rules in such a way that it meets that vision. Try to step back and look at it objectively.
To be clear, I'm not saying your conclusion is faulty. Your methods of getting there are.
|
|
And your rule is totally fine; As a houserule; At your table; Or your own limitations on how you play.
It's not what the rules say, though.
If a rule says I can wield a weapon in one hand, then I can wield two of that specific weapon assuming I have the hands available to do so. When two-weapon fighting, one of those is my main hand, and one is my off-hand.
These are the rules, this is how they work.
You also completely ignored the points I made in my previous post. At least TRY to prove me wrong instead of using rules from a different game (a.k.a., life).
If a rule says I can wield a weapon in one hand, then I can wield two of that specific weapon assuming I have the hands available to do so. When two-weapon fighting, one of those is my main hand, and one is my off-hand.These are the rules, this is how they work.
No... that's your interpretation of the rules. The lance is a two handed weapon. There is no condition that changes that.
There is a special exemption that allows it to be wielded with one hand. There is no extension to that statement that says a second lance can be wielded as an off hand weapon.
The fact of the matter is... that Rules aren't complete. That there ARE areas that have been left unsaid. Left for GM's to fill out as they see fit. If the GM says that the only option for a mounted lance wielder to put on his off hand is a shield, you would be hard put to actually give a rules reason that he would be wrong in saying so.
|
|
If a rule says I can wield a weapon in one hand, then I can wield two of that specific weapon assuming I have the hands available to do so. When two-weapon fighting, one of those is my main hand, and one is my off-hand.These are the rules, this is how they work.
No... that's your interpretation of the rules. The lance is a two handed weapon. There is no condition that changes that.
There is a special exemption that allows it to be wielded with one hand. There is no extension to that statement that says a second lance can be wielded as an off hand weapon.
The fact of the matter is... that Rules aren't complete. That there ARE areas that have been left unsaid. Left for GM's to fill out as they see fit. If the GM says that the only option for a mounted lance wielder to put on his off hand is a shield, you would be hard put to actually give a rules reason that he would be wrong in saying so.
There's also no rule that says you even have an off-hand to place a weapon, so I technically can't wield ANYTHING as an off-hand weapon. I can, however, wield a weapon in each hand, and use two-weapon fighting with the appropriate modifiers, designating which weapon is the off-hand weapon when I use that particular fighting style.
Ah, rhetoric.
Carl:
#1, yes you did. As did I; I tend to side with physics (which, despite Davor's belief, is the basis of D&D 3.X and therefore Pathfinder as well), which is why I would allow it, albeit with severe penalties.
#2, I'm not arguing using 'my rules' - I'm arguing via application of the observable laws of physics in RL, upon which the simulation (the Pathfinder game) is made. The arguments to be made in favor of violating those need to be strong.
#3, As a character increases in level, experience, and skill - by which this means gains in XP, levels, and feats - the boundaries of physics can be and are pushed, yes, I agree, by such mundane things as fighter feats. This, however, is part of the fantasy genre; as the warrior becomes great, his ability to do incredible, even (dare we say) fantastical things becomes greater. Effectively controlling a huge weapon, accurately throwing a weapon not made for it, etc. - all good examples.
A mounted individual could hold two lances upright and strike with the butts of each; this is both possible and a clear example of dual-wielding, and I would absolutely permit this as a viable example of the rule's interpretation of 'since you can wield a lance in one hand if you're on horseback, you can wield a lance in each hand.' I would allow - but again as I said, with penalties due to the skill level required and issues with the physics, as laid out in my first post - someone attempting to dual-wield two lances and charge, point-forward with both. I even noted that the more awesome the fight (epic boss battle, mythic point in the game) the penalties would be less.
That a) this is a RPG and b) that I don't have a PFRPG rule to use to argue against your viewpoint doesn't obviate the fact that the physics of the task in question aren't still right there in front of everyone. Your accusation of 'confirmation bias' is invalid; I did the math, right there in front of you, and it's still right there. If you want to use a 14' ash pole with a steel tip to attack a target on the weapon side, you run a very real chance of suddenly needing to exert 400+ lbs of force by way of the palm of your hand, using pretty much only the muscles in your forearm. This applies to using only one lance against a target on the weapon-arm side as well; historical weapons were used as they were in order to maximize effectiveness.
Were lances used to attack weapon-side targets? Sure. Done in that fashion, they were used less as the famous couched lances and more as overhand-thrust long spears, which uses that inevitable move downward as a benefit, not as a penalty; see the Bayeaux Tapestry for a recorded image of the Norman lancers attacking the Saxon shield-wall in just such a manner. So if I have a bias, it's a much wider historical bias for 'what has actually been done', not restricted to a single time period.
Davor:
I'm not making up a rule; I'm making an argument. The debate at hand is this:
The phrase 'a lance in one hand' logically leads to 'a lance in each hand'.
There is no rule being made up, on either side; a ruling can be made, but there is no rule.
My argument is that the above statement is false. Everyone else has provided plenty of logical constructs, hinging on the use of the word 'a', and the game's definition of 'one hand', 'two-handed', 'one-handed', and the like; my submission utilizes the actual physics of the act being attempted, to wit charging with a lance under each arm. (Or maybe not; if it's a lance in each hand to be wielded overhand, that's another question entirely, and eminently doable.)
Your argument - all your points, which you say I'm ignoring - hinges on the semantics of the phrase, on the implication that the special ruling turns the lance from a two-handed weapon into a one-handed weapon, which by default can thus be used one in each hand. It's a nice argument, but due to the nature of your emphatic restrictions - which includes 'you must only use PFRPG rules in your argument, and not include the physical laws that the language of those rules attempts to simulate' - you might be winning the semantic side of the argument, but you're certainly lousing up the 'how things work' side.
Ignore reality as much as you like, argue your point in favor due to semantics as long as you like, but the facts of the physics are sitting right there out in the open for everyone to see. You are as a blind man arguing that the elephant is a pillar, rope, tree branch, hand fan, wall, and/or solid pipe; you are in your limited way correct, but you are not right, because in this case you are not allowing yourself to approach the game in a full, comprehensive manner which, while it might place severe penalties on one weird little act, will infuse and inform the rest of your game with potential and amazement.
What use is 'I jump 50 feet' if 50' is only a number, and you have no concept of the fact that your character just leapt over two sidewalks and four lanes of traffic? What use being able to jump off the top of a fourteen-story building without taking a scratch without understanding (YouTube) how high a 14 story building is, and thus how cool your character is? Your argument is really one of seeing the trees without noticing the forest.
2) I was addressing your own self-made rule that you quoted.
3) So you changed your mind. Good. I'm glad.
What, Wyrm's Rule #0? That's not proof; that's polemics. That's a Gibbs back-of-the-head-slap-to-DiNozzo, trying to get you guys to wake up and realize WTF you're doing. It's the short version of my last statement to Davor.
I haven't changed my mind; I've stated my position, and I acknowledge that higher level characters become extraordinary, but what's being talked about is an interpretation of a basic rule. Would I allow a 15th level cavalier with weapon specialization and focus (possibly advanced versions of each) in Lance to take a special feat that allows him to dual-wield lances? Yeah, probably. But I wouldn't allow that same feat - or lack of a feat - for a 1st level character; this rule debate is the sort of thing to affect the 1st level guy, not be a crowning achievement for the 15th level one.
Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0: When you start needing to dissect a particular phrase or word or use rhetorical tricks in regards to a rule's phrasing to argue for your version of the rule, especially at the expense of the real-world physics that the rule you're arguing about is meant to simulate, you've lost the point of the rule you're arguing. Most rules, especially those about physical actions, are meant to simulate the physics of the real world; losing sight of that is automatic failure.
This is what I was pointing to. I was not implying you were presenting it as RAW, I was simply using the label you attached to it.
Perhaps just clarifying your position made me better understand it. Either way it appears we're on the same side (that it's not clear in the rules), no point in further arguing.
No! I insist we argue!! ... no, wait. :P :)
Anyhow. I personally think it's perfectly clear in the rules - or rather, that reading the rules with a basic understanding of how the weapon in question is typically used would indicate that asking for clarification on whether or not you can use two at the same time would normally be a 'what are you smoking?!?' situation. The question hinges on a linguistic quibble, and I personally think most GMs are going to reach out and smack the player who makes it with the local metropolitan phone book.
In cases like this, I believe that the purported 'lack of clarity' hinges upon someone trying to do something they know they shouldn't, but are trying to find a semantic excuse that will let them, and so make a mountain out of a molehill in order to claim that the rule is not clear.
It's clear, but as a game writer myself, I'm fairly certain that the guys at ... well, that whomever wrote the rule wasn't imagining that he actually needed to specify 'one and only one lance' ...
I still think it's perfectly valid to duel wield lances while mounted. I have no agenda for wanting this to be true; quite to the contrary I hate playing mounted characters. It's my honest interpretation of the rules.
It's still a terrible build, but I digress. I think it's simply time to agree to disagree.
I daresay I can agree with you on that. :D
It's much appreciated, I highly respect somebody who knows when an argument isn't going anywhere.
I wish more rules discussions were like this.
"Well I still disagree with you, but I can understand how you could reach that conclusion. I suppose it's time to step away from the argument."
We'll see if Davor agrees. I doubt it, though. :/
|
|
Ah, rhetoric.
Carl:
#1, yes you did. As did I; I tend to side with physics (which, despite Davor's belief, is the basis of D&D 3.X and therefore Pathfinder as well), which is why I would allow it, albeit with severe penalties.
#2, I'm not arguing using 'my rules' - I'm arguing via application of the observable laws of physics in RL, upon which the simulation (the Pathfinder game) is made. The arguments to be made in favor of violating those need to be strong.
#3, As a character increases in level, experience, and skill - by which this means gains in XP, levels, and feats - the boundaries of physics can be and are pushed, yes, I agree, by such mundane things as fighter feats. This, however, is part of the fantasy genre; as the warrior becomes great, his ability to do incredible, even (dare we say) fantastical things becomes greater. Effectively controlling a huge weapon, accurately throwing a weapon not made for it, etc. - all good examples.
A mounted individual could hold two lances upright and strike with the butts of each; this is both possible and a clear example of dual-wielding, and I would absolutely permit this as a viable example of the rule's interpretation of 'since you can wield a lance in one hand if you're on horseback, you can wield a lance in each hand.' I would allow - but again as I said, with penalties due to the skill level required and issues with the physics, as laid out in my first post - someone attempting to dual-wield two lances and charge, point-forward with both. I even noted that the more awesome the fight (epic boss battle, mythic point in the game) the penalties would be less.
That a) this is a RPG and b) that I don't have a PFRPG rule to use to argue against your viewpoint doesn't obviate the fact that the physics of the task in question aren't still right there in front of everyone. Your accusation of 'confirmation bias' is invalid; I did the math, right there in front of you, and it's still right there. If you want to use a 14' ash pole...
Oh, come on now. Veiling insults behind flowery language is beneath you.
I understand the physics. I've lifted long, heavy things before. I get the concept.
But that's not what the game says. You can butter it up all you like, talk about how your way is the one, true way to play the game, but the rules exist to allow players to play a fantasy character in a fantasy world, and those rules say I can dual-wield lances, with severe penalties, at 1st level, assuming I am mounted and have sufficient Strength to actually have said lances on my person (carrying capacity).
I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but that's the way it is.
Sidenote*: Oh, definitely not. I'm having too much fun. :P
How would a character draw the second lance?
I think you'd need some sort of telepathy with your mount to make two lances work? Even a war trained mount probably needs a ride check without it, maybe with some situational mods.
I'd love to tell a player, "Your horse refuses to charge with you wielding two lances, he thinks it is silly and undignified."
Just to chime in with my two copper, outside of PFS why does it even matter if it isn't allowed by the RAW? Even if it were allowed by GM Fiat it's not very good at it's best (since two-weapon fighting while mounted precludes charging, the main strength of a lance) so why would people so ardently deny others the ability to build their super-special-awesome snowflake character?
Oh, come on now. Veiling insults behind flowery language is beneath you.
It is? Funny, veiling insults is the time-tested purpose of flowery language. Diplomacy is all but defined as how to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as for them to look forward to the trip. I haven't insulted you (and won't do so at least until the post after this one), but if you took umbrage, you can have your second call on mine. I recommend Weehawken, NJ - tradition, and all.
I understand the physics. I've lifted long, heavy things before. I get the concept.But that's not what the game says. You can butter it up all you like, talk about how your way is the one, true way to play the game, but the rules exist to allow players to play a fantasy character in a fantasy world, and those rules say I can dual-wield lances, with severe penalties, at 1st level, assuming I am mounted and have sufficient Strength to actually have said lances on my person (carrying capacity).
I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but that's the way it is.
Actually, what you're claiming is quite clearly not 'what the game says', or 'the way it is', which is why you're making your semantics-based argument in the first place. I haven't buttered it up, I haven't claimed that my way is the One True Way; anyone who's read the conversation between CampinCarl and I knows this. (Though you are welcome to continue to claim that I am doing so, for as it fringes on an ad hominem attack, and is clearly and demonstrably fallacious, it only weakens your argument.) As I stated previously, your argument hinges on nitpicking the phrasing of the item's specific rule, using alternative meanings and weights of the words in an attempt to establish a semantic correctness for your interpretation.
If you want your players to dual-wield lances, you go right ahead; that's your house ruling, and I'm not gonna break down your door leading the Pathfinder Canon Cops to make you toe some line you insist I'm making up. Your 18 STR cavalier's first lance will double 1d8 + 6 for the charge, then do it again with the other lance - so that's, what, 4d8 + 24? Or is the x1.5 STR damage not doubled? (I can never remember.)
But as much as you're insisting I not force my interpretation on everyone else (which I clearly am not doing), please don't try to fool everyone into thinking that your interpretation is the correct one by using 'that's what it says, that's the way it is'. It's clumsy, and in this case blatantly and obviously wrong.
Smash from the air lets you cut canonballs in half.
Is due to people like this why fighters cant have nice things.
I'm not familiar with 'Smash From The Air'. Is it a feat? Class ability? Help me out here. It might be a case of what I said to CampinCarl:
I acknowledge that higher level characters become extraordinary ... Would I allow a 15th level cavalier with weapon specialization and focus (possibly advanced versions of each) in Lance to take a special feat that allows him to dual-wield lances? Yeah, probably. But I wouldn't allow that same feat - or lack of a feat - for a 1st level character; this rule debate is the sort of thing to affect the 1st level guy, not be a crowning achievement for the 15th level one.
'Smash From The Air' might be one such feat - something for Fafhrd or Conan or someone similarly high-level to be able to do. As well, what sort of feat is it - extraordinary, supernatural? Feats are defined like that for a reason - an extraordinary feat is one that redefines the boundaries of what's physically possible, while a supernatural feat simply ignores that benchmark entirely. One should always be aware of that point ...
@Smash From The Air - it's from Weapon Master's Handbook
@Physics - A 2'8" halfling sitting on a 4'10" pony can stab a rat on the ground 5' away with a dagger. A 27 lbs halfling can swing a 10 lbs* (Dwarven) Longhammer at a foe 10' away without trouble.
*Had lances actually weighted 20 lbs the halfling could swing that at someone 10' away too.
The unwieldiness and poor physics of a given combat style seems rather irrelevant in Pathfinder :P
(@Reins - Guiding with your knees is a DC 5 Ride check, as noted by the Ride skill.)
@Two-lancing - There is nothing in the rules that prevents or disallows this.
(@"A lance can be wielded..." <- there is nothing in the language that prevents that from being applied for each lance and hand. If it were, stuff like Slashing Grace and Dervish Dance wouldn't need their 'oh you can't have anything in the other hand' clause.)
There is a somewhat related FAQ on 'imaginary hands' that will probably screw with it.
-My 2 copper
And it's because of this 'exactly what the book says' mindset - the mindset which causes the interpretation of 'the book says you can dual-wield lances' - that you get your first post's interpretations, Lessah. A character in a space, or with 5' reach, isn't meant to be used to imply that a character's arms are 5' long; it's meant to imply that they can attack the area directly around them, and because it's easier to say 'what's directly around me' if you're given a number, for conceptualization and mapping purposes an increment of 5' is used.
Forest for the trees.
Exactly.
It means that a character can do the things the rules say then can do, even if it appears silly at first (and maybe every) glance.
Just like fighting with two small flagpoles as long as those sticks are called lances and not longspears and (s)he is on a mount.
(Oooh and for the silly physics I'd like to add the 27lbs halfling again, this time running around with the 45lbs stoneplate [/w locked gauntlets & spikes]!)