Lord Pendragon
First Post
Check out the link in one of Hyp's earlier threads to get the rebuttal to this, and a lot more.Bauglir said:Sorry, couldn't resist
The Strength of Lances
- Thread starter Lord Pendragon
- Start date
Lord Pendragon
First Post
HA.Bauglir said:Yeah I read the whole thing - saw that particular bit quoted again and again, marvelled at Hyp's patience in the face of it, couldn't resist posting it one more time just for posterity
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Bauglir said:Yeah I read the whole thing - saw that particular bit quoted again and again, marvelled at Hyp's patience in the face of it, couldn't resist posting it one more time just for posterity
Fortunately, I figured that out before grinding my teeth too much
-Hyp.
Fieari
Explorer
Just as flavor, and having nothing to do with the RAW or house rules at all, I thought I'd pass on a little anecdote thingy.
The Maryland State Sport is Jousting. I'm not certain if there are any public displays of said state sport outside of the rennfair, but I do go to the rennfair regularly to watch. What's interesting about it though, is that they joust in several different styles.
In previous years they would generally do it in (insert country name here that I've forgotten, probably French) style, which does not make use of the shield, but rather impacts the lance on the breastplate directly. In RECENT years however, they switched to (some other name, which I've also forgotten) style, which DOES make use of the shield.
In BOTH cases, the lance is always wielded in one hand only.
Now, I made a few inquiries, and apparently, despite words used to ham it up to the crouds (the unshielded method "allows the full brunt of the lance to fall upon the jouster!") using a shield is CONSIDERABLY more difficult and dangerous. Do you know why? Because if you use the shield incorrectly, it's possible to deflect the other guy's lance into your face, the force of which could break your neck. It's actually considerably easier and safer without the shield, but additionally, less interesting and requiring less skill on both sides. And the shield, used correctly, DOES provide considerable benefit to the rider.
Now, the person I was asking about this might have been full of a lot of crok, but his explanation did make sense to me. Take that as you will.
The Maryland State Sport is Jousting. I'm not certain if there are any public displays of said state sport outside of the rennfair, but I do go to the rennfair regularly to watch. What's interesting about it though, is that they joust in several different styles.
In previous years they would generally do it in (insert country name here that I've forgotten, probably French) style, which does not make use of the shield, but rather impacts the lance on the breastplate directly. In RECENT years however, they switched to (some other name, which I've also forgotten) style, which DOES make use of the shield.
In BOTH cases, the lance is always wielded in one hand only.
Now, I made a few inquiries, and apparently, despite words used to ham it up to the crouds (the unshielded method "allows the full brunt of the lance to fall upon the jouster!") using a shield is CONSIDERABLY more difficult and dangerous. Do you know why? Because if you use the shield incorrectly, it's possible to deflect the other guy's lance into your face, the force of which could break your neck. It's actually considerably easier and safer without the shield, but additionally, less interesting and requiring less skill on both sides. And the shield, used correctly, DOES provide considerable benefit to the rider.
Now, the person I was asking about this might have been full of a lot of crok, but his explanation did make sense to me. Take that as you will.
A few comments:
From the SRD:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. "
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance "
"SPIRITED CHARGE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance)."
First set of nitpicks:
1) There are far to many griffon mounts out there, someone ban them or make an "Improved mount" feat for paladins, everyone on this bord seems to have one.
2) The RAW dont prevent a Griffon from charging, usings its pounce to gain full attacks, and then the mounted PC using a lance in a charge attack. The mount takes its action on your initiative, adn then you may make a single attack and count as charging.
3) Strictly speaking you only gain the damage multipliers when on horseback, not on griffon or wardog back.
(The lesson here is that if you insist on finding one or two words to make youself over powered someone can find one or two to cut you back to size)
Second Set of nitpicks:
From the SRD (Combat1)
"DAMAGE
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands."
Call me crazy, but the rules as written seem to say quite clearly that:
If you wield it in one hand add Str
If you wield it in two hands add Str*1.5.
The fact of wether a weapon is listed asmedium or two handed is neither here nor there, these are merely terms to define how many hands are needed to wield the weapon effectively. What matters is wether you are swinging with one arm or two. This is bourne out by the fact that you can wield medium weapons two handed and gain 1.5*Str.
The ruling about lances is simple, if maybe not presented so. Lances require two hands to wield, they are therefore two handed; they may also be mounted on a horse, in this special case only one hand is required to wield it. You are only wielding it with one hand, thus you add Str, not Str*1.5
Majere
From the SRD:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. "
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance "
"SPIRITED CHARGE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance)."
First set of nitpicks:
1) There are far to many griffon mounts out there, someone ban them or make an "Improved mount" feat for paladins, everyone on this bord seems to have one.
2) The RAW dont prevent a Griffon from charging, usings its pounce to gain full attacks, and then the mounted PC using a lance in a charge attack. The mount takes its action on your initiative, adn then you may make a single attack and count as charging.
3) Strictly speaking you only gain the damage multipliers when on horseback, not on griffon or wardog back.
(The lesson here is that if you insist on finding one or two words to make youself over powered someone can find one or two to cut you back to size)
Second Set of nitpicks:
From the SRD (Combat1)
"DAMAGE
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands."
Call me crazy, but the rules as written seem to say quite clearly that:
If you wield it in one hand add Str
If you wield it in two hands add Str*1.5.
The fact of wether a weapon is listed asmedium or two handed is neither here nor there, these are merely terms to define how many hands are needed to wield the weapon effectively. What matters is wether you are swinging with one arm or two. This is bourne out by the fact that you can wield medium weapons two handed and gain 1.5*Str.
The ruling about lances is simple, if maybe not presented so. Lances require two hands to wield, they are therefore two handed; they may also be mounted on a horse, in this special case only one hand is required to wield it. You are only wielding it with one hand, thus you add Str, not Str*1.5
Majere
Last edited:
Fieari
Explorer
AAAAAARRRRGHHHHH!!
Sorry. I know I wasn't the one replying in that other thread, but I did read the entire thing...
That argument has already been made. It's flawed, becuase that section isn't the ONLY place that specifies where you can get a 1.5x str bonus. You can get it by holding a weapon (other than light) in two hands, OR you can get it by using a two-handed weapon. A two-handed weapon is a weapon CATEGORY that happens to have the rule that it must be wielded in two hands. However, the lance has a rule EXCEPTION which specifies that the lance is a two handed weapon that can be used in one hand while mounted.
Sorry. I know I wasn't the one replying in that other thread, but I did read the entire thing...
That argument has already been made. It's flawed, becuase that section isn't the ONLY place that specifies where you can get a 1.5x str bonus. You can get it by holding a weapon (other than light) in two hands, OR you can get it by using a two-handed weapon. A two-handed weapon is a weapon CATEGORY that happens to have the rule that it must be wielded in two hands. However, the lance has a rule EXCEPTION which specifies that the lance is a two handed weapon that can be used in one hand while mounted.
Lord Pendragon
First Post
I'll leave the second set of nitpicks alone because, at least for me, it's already been quite settled in the thread Hyp linked to. But as to the first:
Therefore the progression of events would go: Mount charges, lance comes into range (10' away), lance attack and stop. Mount doesn't get any attacks.
In order to get an attack when your mount is Pouncing, you have to wield a non-reach weapon.
Why should they be banned because they're an excellent and flavorful choice?Majere said:
It was my understanding that this wouldn't work, because by the rules of charging you have to stop the instant you can attack. Only a lance is a reach weapon, and since in 3.5 you occupy your mount's space exactly, the lance attack comes at 10', while the mount's attacks come at 5'.
Therefore the progression of events would go: Mount charges, lance comes into range (10' away), lance attack and stop. Mount doesn't get any attacks.
In order to get an attack when your mount is Pouncing, you have to wield a non-reach weapon.
If you want to rule it this way, fair enough. I don't know of any DMs that would make that assertion. RAW seems pretty clearly to allow other mounts to be used in conjunction with all the mounted feats. Spirited Charging goblin worgriders = ouch.
At 3rd-level, I can see how Spirited Charge is overpowered. At 8th-level, it isn't. At 20th-level it may be slightly underpowered.
Ok lets be honest here.
1) Griffons are NOT taken because they are cool and stylish, they are taken because they can fly and get pounce. They are twinky.
They are better than a warhorse in everyway, flight, damage reduction, better attacks, better saves, ponce rake.
No, griffons are twink.
2) Griffons are 10*10. You are 5*5. Your lace has a 10' reach, let me draw you a diagram for a moment:
00X00 G= Squares Griffon takes up
0XGG0 X= Squares you threaten
X0CGX C= YOU !
0X0X0
00X00
You will note there are 4 squares which both you and the griffon threaten. Therefore it is perfectly simple for the griffon to achieve a pounce AND you to achieve a charge.
If you use a 10*5 mount there are 4 such squares.
00X00
0XGX0
X0C0X
0X0X0
00X00
Further to the above argument.
To have spirited charge you must have ride by attack. Ride by attack RAW only concerns the riders attacks not the mounts.
There is a good argument you can ride, attack, and then you mount charge as ong as all the movement is in a straight line.
The comment about horseback was ment to be more of a point about the SRD.
The SRD, even the book, have a horrible habbit of taking words that are misused everyday and turning them into "game turns" such as two handed. This causes confusion when people writing another section of the book dont realise that a word they use everyday has a specific defined meaning.
Infact two-handed as a game term is a bastard term anyway, becuase its almost a size but not a size. A two handed sword to a human is a one handed sword to a giant. But its listed as a two handed weapon, its there in the rules .. Two-handed weapons: Greatsword.
So.. what is it, is it a two handed weapon just because it is listed as a two-handed weapon. Or is it one handed because a giant is wielding it ?
Giants dual wielding medium gereat swords would make alot of player shaped messess, maybe I should do it
Further, if you want to rule all two handded weapons are two handed regardless of how they are wielded then you just made bastard swords the best weapons in the game along with dwarven waraxes. According to the FAQ these are "two handed weapons that can be wielded in one hand", like the lance.
I think we need an outbreak of common sense. If you want I propose a house rule.
Definitions
"Two handed: These weapons require two hands to wield unless specifically noted otherwise. When wielded with only one hand treat them as medium weapons."
Saves alot of hassle doesnt it ?
Majere
1) Griffons are NOT taken because they are cool and stylish, they are taken because they can fly and get pounce. They are twinky.
They are better than a warhorse in everyway, flight, damage reduction, better attacks, better saves, ponce rake.
No, griffons are twink.
2) Griffons are 10*10. You are 5*5. Your lace has a 10' reach, let me draw you a diagram for a moment:
00X00 G= Squares Griffon takes up
0XGG0 X= Squares you threaten
X0CGX C= YOU !
0X0X0
00X00
You will note there are 4 squares which both you and the griffon threaten. Therefore it is perfectly simple for the griffon to achieve a pounce AND you to achieve a charge.
If you use a 10*5 mount there are 4 such squares.
00X00
0XGX0
X0C0X
0X0X0
00X00
Further to the above argument.
To have spirited charge you must have ride by attack. Ride by attack RAW only concerns the riders attacks not the mounts.
There is a good argument you can ride, attack, and then you mount charge as ong as all the movement is in a straight line.
The comment about horseback was ment to be more of a point about the SRD.
The SRD, even the book, have a horrible habbit of taking words that are misused everyday and turning them into "game turns" such as two handed. This causes confusion when people writing another section of the book dont realise that a word they use everyday has a specific defined meaning.
Infact two-handed as a game term is a bastard term anyway, becuase its almost a size but not a size. A two handed sword to a human is a one handed sword to a giant. But its listed as a two handed weapon, its there in the rules .. Two-handed weapons: Greatsword.
So.. what is it, is it a two handed weapon just because it is listed as a two-handed weapon. Or is it one handed because a giant is wielding it ?
Giants dual wielding medium gereat swords would make alot of player shaped messess, maybe I should do it
Further, if you want to rule all two handded weapons are two handed regardless of how they are wielded then you just made bastard swords the best weapons in the game along with dwarven waraxes. According to the FAQ these are "two handed weapons that can be wielded in one hand", like the lance.
I think we need an outbreak of common sense. If you want I propose a house rule.
Definitions
"Two handed: These weapons require two hands to wield unless specifically noted otherwise. When wielded with only one hand treat them as medium weapons."
Saves alot of hassle doesnt it ?
Majere
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Majere said:
The important part Pendragon wanted to spell out is that you are actually considered "everywhere" on the mount (share all squares with it). Therefore, your diagram doesn´t reflect the situation described by the rules. So, when you are at 10 feet to a target, so is your mount. If your mount has a reach of 10 ft, fine. If it doesn´t it isn´t in reach of the attack, and since you usuall have to stop after the charge, the mount can´t attack.
You might still be right that Ridy By Attack might allow the mount to continue moving/charge to attack "5 feet later". But I am not sure if that is actually allowed.
Mustrum Ridcully
