Lion's Charge - too powerful?
- Thread starter SteelDraco
- Start date
The Iron Mark
First Post
Ah yes, I forgot about that. My bad. 
Lord Pendragon
First Post
If I'm reading this right, this spell would allow Joe Fighter to move 60' and full attack at the end of it, with the first attack being treated as a charge.
Haste would allow Joe Fighter to move 30' and full attack.
It would appear that this spell beats out Haste hands-down. There is the caveat that the charge must be in a straight line, but I don't think that balances the extra distance, lower level, and 6x longer duration.
Haste would allow Joe Fighter to move 30' and full attack.
It would appear that this spell beats out Haste hands-down. There is the caveat that the charge must be in a straight line, but I don't think that balances the extra distance, lower level, and 6x longer duration.
hammymchamham
First Post
Marshall said:
No more partial charges? They nerfed my Zombies, those (bad men)!
Darklone
Registered User
Lord Pendragon said:
You're not right. Haste allows this more than once. Oops, my mistake.
Well. I would consider this spell ok if it only applied to the FIRST charge you make, but it does not.
Isn't there an Epic Feat Dire Charge that allows exactly this? Wow, a 1st level spell that allows to emulate Epic Feats
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Absolute nonsense. Unless you allow this to be combined with the non-3.5e version of haste, this spell is competitive with Rapid Strikes not Mass Haste, Eyebite, Cone of Cold, Teleport, and Chain Lightning.
Starting from the top: duration-- min/level means that it will usually last for one fight. At higher levels, if it's extended, and the PCs are assaulting a dungeon where they don't need to search for traps, it might last through several but that's not typical of the D&D adventures I participate in. That's not "long duration" as many have insisted. "Long duration" is Endure Elements--and, at higher levels, bull's strength, cat's grace, GMW, etc. It's not even mid-duration like Stoneskin or fly. It's short duration.
Now, as to its effect: This analysis assumes that it simply allows characters who are charging to make all their iterative and off-hand attacks rather than being limited to a single attack (which is how I'd rule it--if you want to pick the most broken interpretation possible, of course it's broken; you made it that way).
Further, let's assume that a typical combat lasts 5-6 rounds (longer than most but 3.5e is supposedly changing haste, etc. and I'm trying to construct a reasonable scenario for how it will usually play out) and is either against a mob of creatures, or a few large creatures. (Note that I'm deliberately leaving out combats against a single large creature).
Let's further assume that the fighter begins combat with the spell already cast on him. And that the fighter wins initiative (and is able to charge in round 1).
Let's generously assume that the fighter may get two or three charges in over the course of a combat. Often this won't happen because he charges a big creature with lots of hp and it doesn't go down until the end of combat. Other times, it won't happen because he charges the orc leader and then all the orc flunkies attack him. Then he COULD charge someone else but would take a lot of AoOs for doing so. . . . But, he will get multiple charges fairly often.
Assuming that the mechanics for TWF remain more or less as they are now, it is not usually dramatically superior to fighting with a two handed weapon--even with full attacks assumed all around. (Not for rogues, of course, but rogues often have to circle around and tumble into flank rather than charge to make TWF effective so it won't help them).
Given all of that, until level 6 (iterative attacks) it will just let dual wielders keep up with the damage output of their Two handed comrades. It will be useless to a maxed out half-orc fighter/barbarian with a greatsword. The 3.0e version of haste would give the fighter/barbarian 5 or six extra attacks and a +4 AC bonus. The same is true of the rumored 3.5e version of haste.
From level 6 to 11 (or so--fighters often take a few levels or rogue, cleric, or some reduced BAB class), it will effectively give characters a second attack at -5 two or three times per combat. In contrast, the 3.0 version of haste gives such characters a +4 AC bonus and (assuming that the charges are replaced with partial charge+full attack) five or six extra attacks at full BAB and two or three attacks at -5. The rumored 3.5e version of haste would give them the AC bonus and 5 or six extra attacks at full BAB.
From levels 11 to 16 or so, this spell will give two or three extra attacks at -5 and -10 respectively. 3.0 haste would give an AC bonus, 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB and two or three attacks ar -5 and -10 respectively. The rumored 3.5e haste will give an AC bonus five or six extra attacks at full BAB.
It's not until 16-20th level that this even allows the greatsword wielder to get (potentially and at huge penalties) more attacks than the rumored 3.5e haste in optimal conditions. This spell: two or three attacks at -5, -10, and -15 respectively. 3.0e haste. All of that. And an AC bonus. And 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB. 3.5e haste: AC bonus and 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB.
Rapid Strikes: 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB--at every level. (Note that, even at level 20, Lion's Charge will only occasionally yield more attacks than this and most of them will be at -10 or -15).
At 11th level, vis a vis a 6th level spell like Mass Haste? Lion's charge nets at most 9 attacks, all at penalties of -5 or -10. (And therefore less useful). Mass Haste? (assuming a 4 character party and a 3.5e mass Haste that looks like a chained version of the pre-release Haste we've seen) 15-18 extra attacks all at full BAB and an AC bonus. Hopefully no-one is going to seriously make the comparison again.
So, how does the spell compare with Haste?
- 3.0e haste. Inferior at almost all levels and situations.
- Rumored 3.5e haste. Strictly inferior for all characters until level 6. From level 6 on (particularly level 8 and Imp TWF), it will be more effective than haste in terms of offense for highly mobile battles. It contributes nothing to defense or static battles (for instance, where a character is mobbed by orcs or ogres).
How will it effect the game?
-As long as 3.5e keeps the "on the back of a charging mount" vs. charging yourself distinction WRT lances, Rhino Hide, and Spirited Charge, it probably won't break anything except Rhino Hide armor. (And that won't be any more broken than it is already if only the first attack is interpreted as receiving the benefits of charging).
-TWF characters with this spell will be far more able to compete with Two handed fighters in terms of damage/round. At certain points (level 4 (WP specialization), level 8 (Imp TWF), level 12 (Grtr TWF)) and with certain weapons (double-axe, double sword), they will slightly outdamage fighters with two handed swords.
-It could reduce the tactical element of the game if it is regularly used--especially on big monsters with devastating full attacks (like earth elementals) or monsters with Rend. At the moment, taking the AoO in order to avoid a full attack is often a smart decision. Spring Attack, tumble, and mobility will be much less useful.
The last element is the only one that worries me. I think the spell is balanced just fine at second level for wizards. First level for druids only worries me because it'll go on animal companions such as Dire bears. OTOH, by the time they can get animal companions that would really make good use of it, they can get things like Tigers that have the ability anyway.
Starting from the top: duration-- min/level means that it will usually last for one fight. At higher levels, if it's extended, and the PCs are assaulting a dungeon where they don't need to search for traps, it might last through several but that's not typical of the D&D adventures I participate in. That's not "long duration" as many have insisted. "Long duration" is Endure Elements--and, at higher levels, bull's strength, cat's grace, GMW, etc. It's not even mid-duration like Stoneskin or fly. It's short duration.
Now, as to its effect: This analysis assumes that it simply allows characters who are charging to make all their iterative and off-hand attacks rather than being limited to a single attack (which is how I'd rule it--if you want to pick the most broken interpretation possible, of course it's broken; you made it that way).
Further, let's assume that a typical combat lasts 5-6 rounds (longer than most but 3.5e is supposedly changing haste, etc. and I'm trying to construct a reasonable scenario for how it will usually play out) and is either against a mob of creatures, or a few large creatures. (Note that I'm deliberately leaving out combats against a single large creature).
Let's further assume that the fighter begins combat with the spell already cast on him. And that the fighter wins initiative (and is able to charge in round 1).
Let's generously assume that the fighter may get two or three charges in over the course of a combat. Often this won't happen because he charges a big creature with lots of hp and it doesn't go down until the end of combat. Other times, it won't happen because he charges the orc leader and then all the orc flunkies attack him. Then he COULD charge someone else but would take a lot of AoOs for doing so. . . . But, he will get multiple charges fairly often.
Assuming that the mechanics for TWF remain more or less as they are now, it is not usually dramatically superior to fighting with a two handed weapon--even with full attacks assumed all around. (Not for rogues, of course, but rogues often have to circle around and tumble into flank rather than charge to make TWF effective so it won't help them).
Given all of that, until level 6 (iterative attacks) it will just let dual wielders keep up with the damage output of their Two handed comrades. It will be useless to a maxed out half-orc fighter/barbarian with a greatsword. The 3.0e version of haste would give the fighter/barbarian 5 or six extra attacks and a +4 AC bonus. The same is true of the rumored 3.5e version of haste.
From level 6 to 11 (or so--fighters often take a few levels or rogue, cleric, or some reduced BAB class), it will effectively give characters a second attack at -5 two or three times per combat. In contrast, the 3.0 version of haste gives such characters a +4 AC bonus and (assuming that the charges are replaced with partial charge+full attack) five or six extra attacks at full BAB and two or three attacks at -5. The rumored 3.5e version of haste would give them the AC bonus and 5 or six extra attacks at full BAB.
From levels 11 to 16 or so, this spell will give two or three extra attacks at -5 and -10 respectively. 3.0 haste would give an AC bonus, 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB and two or three attacks ar -5 and -10 respectively. The rumored 3.5e haste will give an AC bonus five or six extra attacks at full BAB.
It's not until 16-20th level that this even allows the greatsword wielder to get (potentially and at huge penalties) more attacks than the rumored 3.5e haste in optimal conditions. This spell: two or three attacks at -5, -10, and -15 respectively. 3.0e haste. All of that. And an AC bonus. And 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB. 3.5e haste: AC bonus and 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB.
Rapid Strikes: 5 or 6 attacks at full BAB--at every level. (Note that, even at level 20, Lion's Charge will only occasionally yield more attacks than this and most of them will be at -10 or -15).
At 11th level, vis a vis a 6th level spell like Mass Haste? Lion's charge nets at most 9 attacks, all at penalties of -5 or -10. (And therefore less useful). Mass Haste? (assuming a 4 character party and a 3.5e mass Haste that looks like a chained version of the pre-release Haste we've seen) 15-18 extra attacks all at full BAB and an AC bonus. Hopefully no-one is going to seriously make the comparison again.
So, how does the spell compare with Haste?
- 3.0e haste. Inferior at almost all levels and situations.
- Rumored 3.5e haste. Strictly inferior for all characters until level 6. From level 6 on (particularly level 8 and Imp TWF), it will be more effective than haste in terms of offense for highly mobile battles. It contributes nothing to defense or static battles (for instance, where a character is mobbed by orcs or ogres).
How will it effect the game?
-As long as 3.5e keeps the "on the back of a charging mount" vs. charging yourself distinction WRT lances, Rhino Hide, and Spirited Charge, it probably won't break anything except Rhino Hide armor. (And that won't be any more broken than it is already if only the first attack is interpreted as receiving the benefits of charging).
-TWF characters with this spell will be far more able to compete with Two handed fighters in terms of damage/round. At certain points (level 4 (WP specialization), level 8 (Imp TWF), level 12 (Grtr TWF)) and with certain weapons (double-axe, double sword), they will slightly outdamage fighters with two handed swords.
-It could reduce the tactical element of the game if it is regularly used--especially on big monsters with devastating full attacks (like earth elementals) or monsters with Rend. At the moment, taking the AoO in order to avoid a full attack is often a smart decision. Spring Attack, tumble, and mobility will be much less useful.
The last element is the only one that worries me. I think the spell is balanced just fine at second level for wizards. First level for druids only worries me because it'll go on animal companions such as Dire bears. OTOH, by the time they can get animal companions that would really make good use of it, they can get things like Tigers that have the ability anyway.
Endur said:
Last edited:
Similar Threads
