I have this idea for a cavalier that uses a lance with a bear trap affixed to the end instead of a normal lance tip.
Below I have left the stat block (minus weapons). My question is this, GMs how would you handle this?
My inclination would be to make the character take exotic weapon proficiency to use the weapon with no penalty. The weapon does 2d6+3 dmg per a normal bear trap + the str modifier of the wielder. The only place I am fuzzy is how attacks would be handled. I believe that attacking a target with a bear trap would actually be 2 separate attacks. The first attack (against touch AC) would use the characters attack bonuses to see the trap successfully contacts the target. If the touch attack succeeds the trap is activate, the second attack would use the bear traps modifiers (+10) against flat footed (we already know the target was contacted by the trap).
This further becomes interesting because of the affect of bear traps. If I release the lance after a successful attack does the target take some sort of penalty until the trap can be removed (eg 1/2 move speed per a normal bear trap, or perhaps a penalty to attack or AC?). Additionally, what if I decide to keep hold of the lance? Can I now make a CM to drag or bullrush the trapped target?
In any case I know this can be a mechanical headache, I am curious to see how other GMs would handle it, or if you all would even allow it.
Cavalier stat block:
Cavalier trapper
Human cavalier (emissary) 1 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide 32, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 36)
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +1; Senses Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 17, touch 11, flat-footed 16 (+4 armor, +1 Dex, +2 shield)
hp 13 (1d10+3)
Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +0
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee lance +3 (1d8+3/×3) or
longsword +3 (1d8+2/19-20)
Space 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with lance)
Special Attacks challenge 1/day (+1 damage, free bull rush or trip when make full attack vs. target)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 12
Base Atk +1; CMB +3; CMD 14
Feats Catch Off-guard, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat
Skills Bluff +1 (+2 to conceal information about your sworn charge), Disable Device +0, Handle Animal +5, Intimidate +5, Ride +0, Sense Motive +4, Swim +1
Languages Common, Goblin
SQ mount (horse named Animal Companion), order of the seal[UC]
Other Gear hide armor, heavy wooden shield, lance, longsword, 128 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Animal Companion Link (Ex) Handle or push Animal Companion faster, +4 to checks vs. them.
Catch Off-Guard Proficient with improvised melee weapons. Unarmed foe is flat-footed against your improvised weapons.
Combat Expertise +/-1 Bonus to AC in exchange for an equal penalty to attack.
Mount (Ex) Gain the services of a special animal companion.
Mounted Combat (1/round) Once per round you can attempt to negate a hit to your mount in combat.
Seal's Challenge +1 (1/day) (Ex) +1 to damage target, -2 AC vs. others when used. Free bull rush/trip if full-att vs. challenged foe.
Animal Companion
Horse
N Large animal
Init +1; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +1
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 17, touch 10, flat-footed 16 (+3 armor, +1 Dex, +4 natural, -1 size)
hp 4 (2d8+4)
Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +1
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 50 ft.
Melee bite +3 (1d4+3), 2 hooves -2 (1d6+1)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +1; CMB +5; CMD 16 (20 vs. trip)
Feats Power Attack
Tricks Attack, Combat Riding, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel
Skills Acrobatics +0 (+8 to jump)
SQ combat riding
Other Gear hide shirt
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Animal Companion Link (Ex) Handle or push Animal Companion faster, +4 to checks vs. them.
Combat Riding [Trick] The animal has been trained to bear a rider into combat.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in dim light, distinguishing color and detail.
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Scent (Ex) Detect opponents within 15+ feet by sense of smell.
rapscallion stats:
Unnamed Hero CR 1/3
XP 135
Human warrior 1
CN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +1; Senses Perception -1
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 13 (+2 armor, +1 Dex, +1 shield)
hp 11 (1d10+5)
Fort +3, Ref +1, Will -1
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee morningstar +3 (1d8+1)
Ranged sling +2 (1d4+1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 13, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8
Base Atk +1; CMB +2; CMD 13
Feats Toughness, Weapon Focus (morningstar)
Skills Climb +4, Intimidate +3, Swim +4
Languages Common
Other Gear leather armor, light wooden shield, morningstar, sling, 29 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Potential scenario:
Cavalier is mounted on his trusty warhorse when he spots bandits orcs trying to abscond with some sheep from a local farm
The bandits are 40 feet away and adjacent to each other
The cavalier gets highest init roll and charges one bandit with his lance contraption, the horse attacks the other with power attack bite
Improvised Weapon penalties, damage as a 1h improvised weapon (even if the lance is a 2h weapon wielded with one hand while mounted, he's not using the lance the way it was designed) bear trap does not set off, or might set off randomly but most likely not on the intended target.
Improvised Weapon penalties, damage as a 1h improvised weapon (even if the lance is a 2h weapon wielded with one hand while mounted, he's not using the lance the way it was designed) bear trap does not set off, or might set off randomly but most likely not on the intended target.
In short, no, I would not allow it.
First off thank you for your input.
Catch-off guard, or exotic weapon proficiency ought to handle the improvised weapon penalties though.
The concept of the build is around this "lance" contraption being a designed delivery device for a bear trap. As for it not going off on the intended target, I have provided a means for delivering the device directly to the intended target. The tripping mechanism at the center of the device jaws that is responsible to tripping the device would be the tip of the "lance", so with a successful attack with this weapon you would be pressing the triggering mechanism directly against the target with violent force.
Now I would concede, and even expect, that if the touch attack were successful, but the trap's flat footed attack failed, that would mean the trap was triggered but did not hit its mark.
I would further expect it to be possible for a foe to strike the trigger with an attack to set the trap off, though in this case I feel it would be reasonable for the trap to close on whatever was used to strike the trigger.
I'd require at least a full-round action with a DC 20 Strength check to reset it (including FUN in case the check fails by 5 or more).
I don't mind creative/excentric weapon designs but I would make sure to convey through various means that there is a reason existing weapons are so common. They are proven. There's a good chance I'd design a wear and tear system to reflect the fact that "complex" weapons with moving parts (in a somewhat medieval era setting) are hard to replace and probably not all that reliable compared to say a lance, which basically really is just a pointed stick.
Not saying that bear traps are uncommon, but they're not designed for what you're planning to do.
Thank you For your input Greg, I have no counterpoint for anything you presented. The weapon would be intended to be used once at the beginning of a combat. I would also expect the full round and strength check to be used to reset the trap.
Out of curiosity, How would you operate attacks with the weapon, and the various scenarios that could play out with it actually latching to a target?
Ok... it seems you really want to do it, in this case:
Open the weapon master handbook, and design a weapon with a built in device (in this case the bear trap) you can now safely add it to a weapon group, and even add the fact that it counts as a lance for mounted charges (not sure if it's a feature that costs points or not)
It will most likely end up exotic, but it's also possible you can get it's stats low enough that you have enough points with a martial or even simple weapon.
Once that's done, you can start wondering what happens when you hit someone with it, I would start by looking at the rules for nets (target is entangled and you can restrict his movement with a Str check). Or reposition (pull) him around.
Thank you For your input Greg, I have no counterpoint for anything you presented. The weapon would be intended to be used once at the beginning of a combat. I would also expect the full round and strength check to be used to reset the trap.
Out of curiosity, How would you operate attacks with the weapon, and the various scenarios that could play out with it actually latching to a target?
I think your two attack solution is solid in terms of delivery. Critical hits would be an issue I'd have to think about for a while... like both attacks have to threaten in order to get a confirmation roll (if critical hits are even possible with such a device).
Since such traps could trigger due to stress, I could also see how they could spring before they connect just by the erratic movement from being shaken around during a mounted charge or being swung around in a series of attacks while the opponent deflects the lance. Maybe the firearms misfire rules could be somewhat adapted or a combination of natural 1 and a regular miss could be used.
I wouldn't slow a target hit but probably play around with the good ol' -2 circumstantial penalty to attack rolls and/or AC. In my mind the slow effect comes from a severe injury to the leg, not unlike caltrops. I guess even applying a penalty would actually depend on where you hit the target. I'd say any additional effect from a bear-trap-on-a-stick would only really work on extremities. For example: if you just hit the back of your target the flesh would be ripped off (represented by hp loss). The trap's fangs would however probably not remain lodged in the wound but rather cut through the meat.
So, tough call really. In the end you should really just check with your GM and work something out with her/him. It doesn't really matter what I have to say on the topic of houseruling something for your group, especially since I'm not the one having to enforce said rules. The simpler the better should be the motto here.
Physics-wise, this is a very bad idea. The power in a lance charge comes primarily from concentrating as much of the force of a charging rider and their mount into as small of a delivery area as possible, thus maximizing your force applied per square inch and thus magnifying greatly the piercing ability of what is otherwise a fancy spear. This is why lances get x2 damage on the charge, because they are very effective force-concentrators in that situation.
What you are proposing would change this in several ways. First, the bear trap would massively increase the surface area across which force is being applied to the end of the charge, thereby reducing the force per inch to a fraction of its previous magnitude. Second, the sudden increase in area for force to spread into and the amount of pressure being applied to it on impact means that it will be very likely to simply snap off of the lance shaft or have the mechanism be damaged before it can actually trigger. Third, the triggering of the tap, which entails the jaws closing on a target, us unlikely to occur fast enough to catch the target of a lance charge in the milliseconds after impact, unless the charge was already enough to drive the body of the trap into the target, in which case it cant trigger effectively anyway. If the trap by some miracle actually did trigger properly on impact and catch the target, it would not really benefit from the force of the lance charge itself, as the trap would be applying force from its own springs in a different direction, and the forward-force of the lance impact would have no real effect on the force applied by closing trap jaws. It would then almost assuredly become damaged and break off of the shaft, as the rider and horse continue their momentum with a couched lance attached now to their target.
Outside of charge you'd have less chance of it up and breaking on you, but it would still be very difficult to trigger effectively, and at that point you could probably just use a mancatcher instead to accomplish the same effect.
So, yeah, you can put a beartrap on a pole, but its not gonna really work like a lance would, be that effective in combat, nor benefit from any lance-like wielding, and may in fact be made less effective by a high-impact charge.
Mechanically, this would need to be some kind of custom weapon, but I think a "lance-trap" may be out of the question as it simply could not effectively be used for its given purpose even if it did exist.
I'd have to say no to that one.
... even if I was inclined to allow it, if I didn't the next game someone would probably show up with a trident to do it three times as crazy. Ò¿Ó
Flagged for wrong forum. This belongs in House Rules, not rules.
As for how to make this viable via house rules...
I don't know. It's a very awkward concept to me and I can't begin to imagine any reasonable way of adjudicating this.
1) the trap being affixed to the ground, or
2) the fact that the target's leg is seized by the trap.
Therefore, if you poke someone in the chest with the trap, I don't see any reason for there to be any reduced movement (other than the fact that it hurts, but that would apply to any wound).
First, I am not applying a charge bonus to damage on the trap, only the touch attack. Bear traps do 2d6+3 base.
Second, there is precedent for attacks specifically targeting appendages. Hamstring (feat), Hamstring strike (rogue talent), trip, and one can argue disarm to an extent, all would target the extremities of the target. Sunder Is used to damage a specific object as well.
I mean I love Beartrap on a stick as a weapon idea, 2d6+3 is quite hefty (especially if available from level 1) but if you are using the weapon as an actual weapon then there is no way I'd let you make it as a touch attack. You would need to hit their full AC.
Since the trap would stick to the enemy, I would probably not allow you to retract the weapon once you struck with it until the target was dead. I might let them retrieve it if they managed a DC26 strength check, the same as if the person was pulling themselves from the trap.
I'd not allow it to deal double damage on a charge, and I'm not entirely sure if I would allow it to deal damage based on your strength.
One possible interpretation of this weapon is that the bear trap is attached to a blunt polearm via a chain and a caribeaner clip. In which case I would allow the player to detatch the polearm from the beartrap. Then they could take a full round to reattach and arm a new beartrap to the spear.
So, is it basically a more damaging Mancatcher? I mean, a beartrap on a pole, if it sticks, would be stuck there, so then it's just a grapple (or disarm) regarding the the guy trapped and the guy with the pole, right? That's basically the mancatcher, except it would do more damage initially.
So you could do it as an exotic weapon, but one thing worth considering would be to use it more disposably. A 10ft pole with a bear trap on the end designed to "break off" when it grabs an enemy. That way you would be stuck in a grapple of some sort, being the guy trying to hold onto the pole.
Since beartraps are designed to be chained to the ground, you could add a longer chain and a large weight, to the improvised weapon. That way when it grabbed something, you could anchor them. If you set it up with a longer chain than the lenth of the weapon, you could design it where your mount could be carrying the weight, so the weight woudln't impair you, but it would impair the creature when they tried to move away from you (since the weight would "disembark" your mount and then weigh the creature down).
As for comparable weapons, there is a Caltrop-headed spear in Giant Hunters Handbook, which has a caltrop mounted to a spear, which can be broken off into a creature's foot. It's an interesting weapon and the rules fit with your idea of targeted strikes.
Second, there is precedent for attacks specifically targeting appendages. Hamstring (feat), Hamstring strike (rogue talent), trip, and one can argue disarm to an extent, all would target the extremities of the target. Sunder Is used to damage a specific object as well.
But you're not using the bear trap as described and expecting it to have the same effects.
That's a case of having your cake and eating it too....
I have this idea for a cavalier that uses a lance with a bear trap affixed to the end instead of a normal lance tip.
Below I have left the stat block (minus weapons). My question is this, GMs how would you handle this?
My inclination would be to make the character take exotic weapon proficiency to use the weapon with no penalty. The weapon does 2d6+3 dmg per a normal bear trap + the str modifier of the wielder. The only place I am fuzzy is how attacks would be handled. I believe that attacking a target with a bear trap would actually be 2 separate attacks. The first attack (against touch AC) would use the characters attack bonuses to see the trap successfully contacts the target. If the touch attack succeeds the trap is activate, the second attack would use the bear traps modifiers (+10) against flat footed (we already know the target was contacted by the trap).
This further becomes interesting because of the affect of bear traps. If I release the lance after a successful attack does the target take some sort of penalty until the trap can be removed (eg 1/2 move speed per a normal bear trap, or perhaps a penalty to attack or AC?). Additionally, what if I decide to keep hold of the lance? Can I now make a CM to drag or bullrush the trapped target?
In any case I know this can be a mechanical headache, I am curious to see how other GMs would handle it, or if you all would even allow it.
** spoiler omitted **...
Just use a mancatcher or tiger fork they do what you want for the most part
I wonder why no one has mentioned the difficulty of holding up a 20 to 50 pound bear trap out at the end of a 10 foot pole.
Because the inevitable retort would be "How dare you insert physics/reality/versimilitude into my player concept!" I've been told many times that when I do that I'm being "hostile". So I don't bother any more.
I feel your pain Drahliana.
I suppose this idea is no more unlikely than Final Fantasy inspired combat, or a single Common language spoken throughout the multiverse for the convenience of all those 7 Int characters.
So, is it basically a more damaging Mancatcher? I mean, a beartrap on a pole, if it sticks, would be stuck there, so then it's just a grapple (or disarm) regarding the the guy trapped and the guy with the pole, right? That's basically the mancatcher, except it would do more damage initially.
So you could do it as an exotic weapon, but one thing worth considering would be to use it more disposably. A 10ft pole with a bear trap on the end designed to "break off" when it grabs an enemy. That way you would be stuck in a grapple of some sort, being the guy trying to hold onto the pole.
Since beartraps are designed to be chained to the ground, you could add a longer chain and a large weight, to the improvised weapon. That way when it grabbed something, you could anchor them. If you set it up with a longer chain than the lenth of the weapon, you could design it where your mount could be carrying the weight, so the weight woudln't impair you, but it would impair the creature when they tried to move away from you (since the weight would "disembark" your mount and then weigh the creature down).
As for comparable weapons, there is a Caltrop-headed spear in Giant Hunters Handbook, which has a caltrop mounted to a spear, which can be broken off into a creature's foot. It's an interesting weapon and the rules fit with your idea of targeted strikes.
Essentially, it is mancatcher that does more dmg, but realistically can be used once per fight.
The problem with a mancatcher, and there is not much reason for this to exist, Is that it is size specific for both the target and the wielder. Tiger Forks don't do any of the things that I am trying to accomplish with this idea. I am about 80% interested in the control that this weapon could provide
Drahliana, I am more than content to hear any physics or reality based arguments. 100 ft*lbs of torque is not a difficult obstacle to overcome in my opinion. Especially with how the but of a lance is traditionally cradled under the wielder's armpit.
I wonder why no one has mentioned the difficulty of holding up a 20 to 50 pound bear trap out at the end of a 10 foot pole.
Remember, solid gold weapons are an option in this game.... Gold Medium Dwarven Longhammer is 30lbs. A Titan fighter's Gold Large Dwarven Warhammer is 60lbs.
Essentially, it is mancatcher that does more dmg, but realistically can be used once per fight.
The problem with a mancatcher, and there is not much reason for this to exist, Is that it is size specific for both the target and the wielder. Tiger Forks don't do any of the things that I am trying to accomplish with this idea. I am about 80% interested in the control that this weapon could provide
I think the mancatcher is what you should have to use. As it really seems unintended to have the bear trap function in this manner. GM's call, I suppose. Though I would strongly caution the GM from allowing players to use traps as weapons, since they are not intended to function as melee weapons.
If the GM does allow it, they should probably look into the Trapper Ranger, which has the option to "Launch traps" via ranged attacks. That's probably the closest you'll find to the idea of using traps as melee weapons.
Regarding how to make the mancatcher awesome, it is a very cool weapon, hindered only by being an exotic weapon. Mancatcher is one of those weapons with 2 size profiles, the size of the Mancatcher, and the size of target you intend to catch. An undersized mancatcher will retain reach and can still be designed for larger creatures, but can be weilded one handed and allows players to preform two-handed grapples with a single hand. Normally a grapple one-handed poses a -4 penalty to the grapple, with the undersized penalty being only -2, so by having the undersized mancatcher you effectively get +2 one handed grapples and gain reach. Not worth the exotic proficency, probably, but still useful.
The real downside to the mancatcher, and other weapons like it, is that the paizo rules for the break DC and such still havn't been FAQed to increase with special materials or with magical enhancement. So getting out of the mancatcher is too easy at higher levels. Not really an issue with the mancatcher specifically, more one of an oversight regarding magical enhancement and special materials.
As a GM, I'd allow it on the "rule of cool" exemption.
It would be an exotic weapon (requiring exotic weapon proficiency) as the lance would no-doubt need to be modified for this.
The really interesting idea about this is what happens after the enemy gets grabbed by the bear-trap. They normally are tied to a spike in the ground, preventing the enemy from running, but if you were to tie it to your horse, you could drag the enemy across the ground (for extra damage!).
