Realistic Lances

[DegenPaladin]

So me and my gaming group recently started a campaign in the time of Arthurian Legend. We are using D&D 3.5, but the magic is toned down and the realism is turned up a bit.

We were trying to come up with a rule for breaking or losing your lance on the charge, heres what we came up with and Im looking for some feedback.

When you charge with a lance and strike your target you need to roll a Strength check equal to the damage you dealt or lose your lance. Also when wielding a Non-Magical Lance if a natural 1 is rolled then the lance breaks.

Thats the gist so what does everyone think?

*Also the there are some Legends specific classes including the Knight. One of the Knights class features is a Mounted Combat bonus, such a character would add this bonus to the strength check. The mounted combat bonus maxes out at +6 at 20th level.

[Sir Homeslice]

Man, your players had better get used to carrying around like, fifty lances. Or never use lances at all.

[JaronK]

Fumble rules suck. They really really do. Just say no.

JaronK

[Setra]

I have a question.

If you critical with the lance, do you apply the strength check to the damage before or after the critical multiplier? Because you'll be losing a lot more lances on with the latter...

Either way you'll be needing a lot of lances though.

"Okay so I am power attacking while using Spirited Charge for 1d8+x damage, I hit"
"Okay, roll for damage"
"I rolled a 1"
"Now roll for the lance"
"I roll a 19"
"Your lance breaks"

[DegenPaladin]

Im actually one of the players not the DM. Oddly enough the one that is playing the Knight and Im helping him hammer out the rules. We kinda like the realism of getting one or two charges with the lance then having to draw the sword.

As far as a mechanic what do you guys think. The rule is pretty much gonna make it in we just not sure of the final implementation.

[Setra]

vv Oh, my bad :smallredface: In that case it looks good to me if you want it that way.

[DegenPaladin]

I apologize for the confusion my wording was a bit off I guess. The lance only breaks if a natural one is rolled on the strength check.

"I charge with my lance for 1d8+x, I hit"
"Roll damage 1+x"
"Roll Strength check, 1 lance breaks (only if a Non-Magical lance)"
or
"Roll Strength check, check fails lance is dropped"
or finally
"Roll strength check, check succeeds Lance is not dropped and can be used again"

[rezplz]

With spirited charge and even a minor use of power attack, you're pretty much always going to drop your lance under those rules. I don't know much about realism, but dropping your lance 90%-100% of the time that you charge doesn't seem very realistic to me. Strength checks just aren't going to scale at the same rate that damage does, especially for a mounted charger with a lance.

[DegenPaladin]

The reasoning behind the roll after a hit, is that we found it very goofy to break your lance when you missed :smallsmile:

[DegenPaladin]

So maybe add to the Strength check any enhancement bonus the weapon has, plus the bonus from a military saddle, and maybe if you guys feel it would be appropriate a +1 for every 10 points of a ride check.

The feedback is appreciated :smallsmile:

[BobVosh]

How do locking gauntlets affect this?

I would say something more like CMB from pathfinder makes sense. DC=damage dealt
Your bonus: str + ride (includes your dex in this) + BAB. Locking gauntlet is +10.

That way when you deal 3D8+15 or so you have a chance to keep the dang thing. And when you are dealing around 50 damage you might be able to. Maybe.

[DegenPaladin]

Ok, I see where your going. Locking Gauntlets is definately something to bring up and Im sure hell go for that. I dont think I personally like adding BAB and Im not 100% on adding your full Ride Mod.

Locking Gauntlets definately a good call we had overlooked.

[rezplz]

Yes, adding bonuses to the strength check is required, at the least. To see exactly how many bonuses this would be?

We'll take a sample 5th level fighter, Lance McKnight. He's got Power attack, mounted combat, ride-by attack, and spirited charge. And whatever other feats he wants. Like... weapon focus. Whatever, doesn't really matter here. He's got 18 STR.

Lance goes in for a charge, deciding to do a power attack for -3 to hit. Since he's naturally weilding this lance two-handed, that's +6 to damage. His STR is going to give him +6 more damage, for a total of 1d8+12 base damage. With spirited charge, though, and a lance, that damage is going to triple, giving us a total of 3d8+36 damage for Lance's charge. That's minimum 39, average 49-50.

If you want to go the strength check route, you're going to need to somehow slap enough bonuses so that a result of 50 is something that's doable, at 5th level, for a guy with 18 strength, only giving him a +4 to a d20 roll.

Good luck :)!

[Sir Homeslice]

To continue from my last post and to provide another side of an opinion:

This houserule is mostly pointless and adds nothing to the game at all.

[Setra]

To continue from my last post and to provide another side of an opinion:

This houserule is mostly pointless and adds nothing to the game at all.
Just because it would add nothing for you does not matter, it matters for the one playing.

And he "kinda likes" it.

[Sir Homeslice]

Just because it would add nothing for you does not matter, it matters for the one playing.

And he "kinda likes" it.

Don't get snippy with me. I'm just saying that if the DC were set too high, then lances would be superfluous. Too low and it won't matter at all. Even if they do get it right, there's a chance (possibly large) that the rule won't contribute to "realism" at all, and thus will have been a large waste of time.

[Theodoric]

The whole lance-breaking thing is mostly jousting-related, which after a while was completely unlike actual combat (as are more myths about knights and their equipment). In jousting, breaking your lance was at times even a good thing, while in combat, knights and such really tried to do as much they can for their lance not to snap.

[Grumman]

I'm inclined to think your "realistic" rule may have been influenced by jousting lances, which were designed to break so you wouldn't impale the other knight.

(Or what Theodoric said three minutes ago)

This is a bad, unrealistic rule.

[BobVosh]

Yes, adding bonuses to the strength check is required, at the least. To see exactly how many bonuses this would be?

We'll take a sample 5th level fighter, Lance McKnight. He's got Power attack, mounted combat, ride-by attack, and spirited charge. And whatever other feats he wants. Like... weapon focus. Whatever, doesn't really matter here. He's got 18 STR.

Lance goes in for a charge, deciding to do a power attack for -3 to hit. Since he's naturally weilding this lance two-handed, that's +6 to damage. His STR is going to give him +6 more damage, for a total of 1d8+12 base damage. With spirited charge, though, and a lance, that damage is going to triple, giving us a total of 3d8+36 damage for Lance's charge. That's minimum 39, average 49-50.

If you want to go the strength check route, you're going to need to somehow slap enough bonuses so that a result of 50 is something that's doable, at 5th level, for a guy with 18 strength, only giving him a +4 to a d20 roll.

Good luck :)!
I would say something more like CMB from pathfinder makes sense. DC=damage dealt
Your bonus: str + ride (includes your dex in this) + BAB. Locking gauntlet is +10.

Using my suggested rules for it, assuming DC 48(average damageish): 5 Bab, 4 str, 8 ride, 1 dex(assuming full plate here), 2 military saddle, 10 locking gauntlet: +30. Still not enough. You can technically make it on an 18-20.(15-20 if you take skill focus: ride) However this is just barely. Humorously weapon spec makes it impossible to succeed :D

A big problem with this is that your str check gets harder the more str you have. Each point is +1 to succeed. Each point is +1.5 to damage.

*edit* If you want a reasonable chance you could always use free disarm checks from your opponent when you hit. Not really elegant, but it is at least possible. However then you will have some weird specced people bumping their disarm.

[Setra]

Don't get snippy with me. I'm just saying that if the DC were set too high, then lances would be superfluous. Too low and it won't matter at all. Even if they do get it right, there's a chance (possibly large) that the rule won't contribute to "realism" at all, and thus will have been a large waste of time.
I apologize for the.. getting snippy.

It was uncalled for.

[DegenPaladin]

Yes, adding bonuses to the strength check is required, at the least. To see exactly how many bonuses this would be?

We'll take a sample 5th level fighter, Lance McKnight. He's got Power attack, mounted combat, ride-by attack, and spirited charge. And whatever other feats he wants. Like... weapon focus. Whatever, doesn't really matter here. He's got 18 STR.

Lance goes in for a charge, deciding to do a power attack for -3 to hit. Since he's naturally weilding this lance two-handed, that's +6 to damage. His STR is going to give him +6 more damage, for a total of 1d8+12 base damage. With spirited charge, though, and a lance, that damage is going to triple, giving us a total of 3d8+36 damage for Lance's charge. That's minimum 39, average 49-50.

If you want to go the strength check route, you're going to need to somehow slap enough bonuses so that a result of 50 is something that's doable, at 5th level, for a guy with 18 strength, only giving him a +4 to a d20 roll.

Good luck :)!


Thanks for you input Sir Homeslice, however the rule as I said is making it into the game in some iteration. I do respect your opinion and at this point Im seeing how this is gonna scale out of control pretty quick.

Thank you everyone who is contributing to helping me get a better grasp on this. SO to continue with Rezplz's post.

Strength Check 1d20 + 4 + 2 (from saddle) + 10 from gauntlet + 9 (from Ride total, guessing here)

So thats 25 plus a d20 a bit short of a 50 :smallwink:. I guess Ill have to make a case for adding the BAB to even have a shot at the check.

The thing is thats pushing for super mounted combat to have that all by 5th level, and is it gonna scale much from there? Due to the setting were expecting to be doing a lot more adventuring in the wilderness were a mount is usable, as opposed to a more traditional crawl. So we both like the feel and it brings lances back into the fold a bit. I guess thats a way to say it, I hope I just got my point across. :smallredface:

[BobVosh]

The thing is thats pushing for super mounted combat to have that all by 5th level, and is it gonna scale much from there? Due to the setting were expecting to be doing a lot more adventuring in the wilderness were a mount is usable, as opposed to a more traditional crawl. So we both like the feel and it brings lances back into the fold a bit. I guess thats a way to say it, I hope I just got my point across. :smallredface:

Actually, it isn't really meant for super mounted combat. Power attack is usable on foot. So we have 3 feats invested in mounted combat. MC, Rideby, and spirited charge. A level 1 fighter can have all three. So you will have 3 extra feats to spend on...whatever.

Also damage scales very quickly in comparison to other things. Remember every 1 point of power attack is +2 dc for the save. Each point of str is +.5 (you gain 1 str to help, you gain +1.5 dc for each point)

Also I got a 30, mainly because I added BAB for my example.

[DegenPaladin]

Well thanks much guys, if you come up with anything else please do post. Ill mull this all over with the DM and see if we come up with anything, and post back with the decision.

[Swordguy]

OK, you want realistic lances? I'm assuming you mean weapons in the vein of jousting lances (lance is kind of a catch-all term for a whole lot of various pole weapons). Couple things required:

1) Add the mount's strength modifier to the damage dealt, not the wielder's. Your own strength has nothing to do with how hard you hit - it's all about using your mount's strength and momentum. Your own strength is used to hit, of course (and lances should not be finesse-able uder any circumstances - holding a lance on target is entirely based on upper-body strength).

2) Lances break. They break a LOT - even discounting the often-balsa-tipped lances we use in professional jousting, or this historical hollowed-out lances used in period jousting. The shaft is usually a light and strong hardwood such as ash or oak, and a reasonable analogue is made to a baseball bat in terms of durability. I'll not go into the math, but think about the amount of force exerted on a lance at impact - a 1-ton horse (plus 250-ish pounds of rider and armor) is moving at 30 mph (approx 13.5 meters per second) is a tremendous amount of potential energy, and it's all focused on a lance tip that it about 1/400th of a square inch. Now, lances can survive that under two conditions. The first is that the lance has to be hitting something that it can penetrate into - skin and bone have absolutely ZERO chance of not being penetrated, and armor is about as useful as cardstock against a sharp lance hitting at a perpendicular angle. However, if you hit something the lancehead can't penetrate, the lance is going to shatter like glass. The second condition is that the lance MUST not hit at an angle - if it's off by more than a few degrees, all that force concentrated down the length of the shaft is instead concentrated along the width of the shaft...and you get a broken lance.

3) FAR more common than breaking a lance is a lance becoming lodged in the target. If this happens, the rider has the choice of dropping the lance, or being suddenly and violently de-horsed. Most choose the former (but if you don't notice the lance is stuck in time, the latter is all too common).

So, what does all this mean, rules-wise?

Lance (2-handed Piercing Martial Weapon)
Cost: 10gp
Damage if used while on foot or on a stationary mount: 1d4 (small), 1d6 (Med)
Damage if used while on a moving mount: 2d6 (small), 2d8 (Med)
Critical: x3
Weight: 10lb

Special Qualities:
-May be used 1-handed while mounted.
-Weapon does double damage if used from the back of a charging mount.
-If mount is moving, add the mount's strength modifier instead of the wielder's to damage. If the mount is charging and uses its full movement allowance during the charge (including during the use of a Ride-by Attack), add double the mount's strength modifier to damage.
-If greater than 1 die rolled for damage shows the maximum value of the die, the lance instantly shatters and is no longer usable in any way. The number of dice needed to roll maximum value increases by 2 for every +1 enhancement bonus of the lance (so a +5 lance would need 11 dice to roll maximum value to shatter). The number of dice required increases by 1 if the lance is masterwork (does not stack with enhancement bonuses).
-If the value of damage rolled is greater than 50% of the dice's damage potential (ie, rolling a 9 or greater on 2d8), the lance becomes stuck in the target. The rider must use an immediate action to make a Strength check (DC 15, or DC 20 if the mount is using its entire movement allowance that round) to retrieve the lance. If the check fails, or the rider has no immediate action available, the rider has the option to drop the lance (no action required, must be able to move) or is automatically unhorsed and falls (Riding rolls to avoid damage, etc, upon being unhorsed are made at a -5 circumstance penalty). This effect does not stack with lance breakage (if both occur, only resolve the lance breakage).

........

Is it balanced? Probably not. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a more realistic representation of what a lance does, and how dangerous it is. Life doesn't conform to game design theory.

Also, ideally, we'd have some sort of modifier to see if the lance shatters if it hits "wrong", or strikes an especially hard surface...but that level of grittiness isn't really easily representable in the D&D ruleset.

[sonofzeal]

Another option would be to take the damage dealt as your target, make your roll, and if you "fail" then apply the difference as damage to the lance. Hardness and item hitpoints apply as normal, meaning your lance won't necessarily break on the first strike but will probably end up worse for wear over time, and a metal one might be a good investment.

[BobVosh]

I won't lie, I was waiting for you to post here SGuy. And you didn't disappoint, I like the rules you posted a lot. I just didn't think how to properly stick em into the opponent.

[DegenPaladin]

Swordguy that was awesome and thank you :smallbiggrin:

[Mike_G]

How do locking gauntlets affect this?



By ensuring that you get unhorsed every time your lance sticks in somebody.

You really want to be able to let go of the lance if it lodges in anyone/anything.

Because if the lance stops, and the horse doesn't, you can only choose one of those things to stay attached to.

[bosssmiley]

Fumble rules suck. They really really do. Just say no.

Is that a mathematical position (PCs roll more dice over the course of their existence than monsters, fumbles affect 1 character participants (players) disproportionately more than they do infinite character participants (DMs), etc.), or an ideological one?


Also, ideally, we'd have some sort of modifier to see if the lance shatters if it hits "wrong", or strikes an especially hard surface...but that level of grittiness isn't really easily representable in the D&D ruleset.

Which is why, as far back as Chainmail and OD&D, Gary considered lances enough of a special case that he wrote an entire separate combat subsystem for lances. Ditto the Pendragon RPG.

[dragonfan6490]

This doesn't really address your lance problem, but you may want to see about getting a hold of two Arthurian Sourcebooks, Legends of Excalibur: Arthurian Adventures and Relics and Rituals: Excalibur. They address many things that would come up in an Arthurian Campaign and how to go about with the flavor.

[deuxhero]

"Realistic" in relation to RPGs that isn't in reference to practicality makes me squirm.

[Tyndmyr]

When you charge with a lance and strike your target you need to roll a Strength check equal to the damage you dealt or lose your lance. Also when wielding a Non-Magical Lance if a natural 1 is rolled then the lance breaks.

So, you lose the lance every hit, check. 5% of the time lances break.

In other words, bring a magical lance for the first hit, and a stack of mundane spares. Masterwork is a waste of money.

See, here's the thing with a str check = damage. Every +1 Str modifier gives you +1 to both. Lots of other things boost damage. Beyond very low levels, you will always fail this check.

I mean, consider a +1 lance that you have, I dunno, a skill focus in. It does 1d8+2+str damage. Now, when using it from a mount, it does double damage.

See? Already an insane check.

[awa]

historical you typically used the lance once then switched to a more close combat friendly weapon. The problem is less weapon breakage and more it's impossible to do a ride by attack with a lance once you hit your stuck in hand to hand where the lance a very heavy and awkward weapon is completely useless. And a locked gauntlet would be a very bad idea.

[Otodetu]

The whole lance-breaking thing is mostly jousting-related, which after a while was completely unlike actual combat (as are more myths about knights and their equipment). In jousting, breaking your lance was at times even a good thing, while in combat, knights and such really tried to do as much they can for their lance not to snap.

This.

Don't to it, it's a trap.

[Moofaa]

Additionally it might be worthwhile to consider what happens to a person thats been struck but not killed by a lance. Having a 12ft+ long weapon rammed through your body will almost certainly kill any normal person, but this is DnD. Presumably it would require a move action at the least to remove the lance or suffer penalties until it is removed. This would make the lance an even more fearsome weapon beyond the damage potential, and possibly make up for the high rate of losing them.

I am by no means an expert, but I think I read somewhere that it was common for lancers to charge with their lances, then switch to other weapons or simply ride away to get a new lance from the back lines.

[Boci]

The Mallorian solved this problem by having a lance made out of springy wood so it never broke. This will probably make anyone with decent knowledge of physics cry, but hey, this is DnD, what's new?

[Swordguy]

Lances are one-pass weapons. It's that simple. Any rule that enforces that is a "correct" ruling if enhanced realism is the goal. D&D is fundamentally incorrect in its treatment of lances.

Even "magical" lances, while they should (rightly, I feel) be more or less immune to breakage, are subject to being stuck in the target. They aren't lightsabres; they don't automatically cut their way free of the target once they've been driven in there. The inherent tradeoff is that the lance hits really, really hard...once. Then you've got a sword, mace, or axe in a ring on your saddle for the rest of the fight.

I can understand why gamers (who historically get upset at anything that limits what they can do) would be upset at that; they don't want to have to carry a crapton of lances that are essentially disposable, or at best are going to be very long and pointy 1-shot "potions". That's why I posted the rules that I did; there's not a guarantee that the lance will only be a 1-shot weapon...but it still maintains the tradeoff that the lance can hit exceptionally hard in the proper circumstances, and the harder the hit, the more likely you are to lose the use of the lance for the remainder of the fight.

[Mongoose87]

Perhaps limit magical lances to being useful only way you have moved, say, 30ft or more?

[awa]

You almost never read about magic cavalry lances in ancient legends it's normally swords and stuff that are not one shot weapons.

In a game based on Arthurian legends the lance should be the one shot start to the battle and then if dueling you both ride over to your squire and grab the next lance or if not dueling you drop the lance and start pounding on each other with your swords(maces, flails, axes, war hammers)

The lance breaking is not really an issue more important is if you stab some one at a gallop how are you supposed to get the other guy off the lance its long heavy and unwieldy when their is not a man impaled on one end since by the nature of the weapon you have to hold it near the end its going to be basically impossible to hold on to the thing once it becomes an extra 150+ pounds heavier.

[JaronK]

Is that a mathematical position (PCs roll more dice over the course of their existence than monsters, fumbles affect 1 character participants (players) disproportionately more than they do infinite character participants (DMs), etc.), or an ideological one?

Mathematical. Fumble rules ruin fun for players. They come up WAY too often at high levels. I've never seen an RPG game with fumble rules that didn't feel extremely annoying after a short time.

If I were playing under any of the rules suggested here, the first thing I would do is pull out a Glaive and ignore Lances forever.

JaronK

[Xenogears]

Even "magical" lances, while they should (rightly, I feel) be more or less immune to breakage, are subject to being stuck in the target. They aren't lightsabres; they don't automatically cut their way free of the target once they've been driven in there. The inherent tradeoff is that the lance hits really, really hard...once. Then you've got a sword, mace, or axe in a ring on your saddle for the rest of the fight.

Yeah I'd just go get a magical lance that dissapears and reappears in my hand when I call it's name. Kinda like Mjollnir. Then charge, drop lance with it stuck in enemy, summon lance, repeat. Course wether that fits a more realistic game is up for debate...

[Epinephrine]

1) Add the mount's strength modifier to the damage dealt, not the wielder's. Your own strength has nothing to do with how hard you hit - it's all about using your mount's strength and momentum. Your own strength is used to hit, of course (and lances should not be finesse-able uder any circumstances - holding a lance on target is entirely based on upper-body strength).

I agree, but D&D rules suck for this. GURPS has always used mount strength for lance damage, and mounts actually have strengths that reflect their ability to pull/carry things. Mounts in D&D are horribly under-strengthed, with modifications made to the carrying capacity rules to represent their much greater strength. A typical 18 strength horse has a carrying capacity 3 times that of an 18 strength person, which would put it at an ability to exert force equivalent to about 26 strength on a medium humanoid.

I'd be tempted to add a modifier (like with Jump checks) based on the speed of the mount, but I suppose that that is represented by the doubled damage when charging.

[Knaight]

Or, if realism is the goal, then something similar to d20 moderns method of damage could be implemented. Obviously tweaks would be needed to prevent power attack and similar from forcing checks if they normally wouldn't, but that, along with mount strength(adjusted) and a bonus for charging would make the lance nasty.

Alternately you could use Battle for Wesnoth styled rules. If you charge, damage goes way up, but counter charges are going to hurt, and counter charging could be allowed, at a penalty to AC(No dex bonus maybe.)

[Swordguy]

Yeah I'd just go get a magical lance that dissapears and reappears in my hand when I call it's name. Kinda like Mjollnir. Then charge, drop lance with it stuck in enemy, summon lance, repeat. Course wether that fits a more realistic game is up for debate...

See, that's completely fine, because it's a magical effect that is explicitly designed to negate one of the major weaknesses of a lance. Granted, if you were using the rules I posted, it should probably be costed at about a +3 equivalent, because it negates the primary limiting factor. With the lance rules in the SRD, it's useless, because there's no rule for weapon sticking or breakage in the SRD. The more realistic the ruleset, the greater the value of that enchantment.

That said, it's a cool and completely logical application of magic. It reminds me of the spear from the Goblins webcomic (or Mjolnir, true).



If I were playing under any of the rules suggested here, the first thing I would do is pull out a Glaive and ignore Lances forever.

Now class, what did I say about gamers not liking rules that limit what they get to do? Even a limiter that completely represents how the weapon is supposed to work. :smallamused:

[DisgruntledFrog]

How about just a strength check against a flat DC 20 when you charge with a lance?

Pass the check and you hang on to your lance.
Fail by 5 or less, you must drop your lance or be knocked from your mount.
Fail by more than 5, you're knocked from your mount and you drop your lance.
If you roll a 1 on your strength check your lance shatters if it is non-magical, other rules apply as normal.

Naturally, you would need to play test those numbers to get a balance you like before using them. You might want to try increasing the fail threshold to 10 so you have more chance of staying on your horse, or up the shatter range to a 1,2 or 3 so you see it a bit more often. Depends how you like to play.

I'd hesitate to add any rules to do with your lance being stuck in your target simply because pretty much all non-bludgeoning weapons should have a chance of getting stuck. If you added weapons getting stuck across the board then a greater chance for lances getting stuck sounds appropriate.

[Xenogears]

See, that's completely fine, because it's a magical effect that is explicitly designed to negate one of the major weaknesses of a lance. Granted, if you were using the rules I posted, it should probably be costed at about a +3 equivalent, because it negates the primary limiting factor. With the lance rules in the SRD, it's useless, because there's no rule for weapon sticking or breakage in the SRD. The more realistic the ruleset, the greater the value of that enchantment.

That said, it's a cool and completely logical application of magic. It reminds me of the spear from the Goblins webcomic (or Mjolnir, true).


Huh. Why didn't I think of the one from Goblins...

Yeah I can completely see it being a high cost enhancement. Heck even if it was a +5 enhancement I'd probably take it though. It also happens to be quite flavourful. Your rules do look good and well thought out although I'd only add them if I was doing a mostly mounted campaign like this one seems to be.

[Boci]

Now class, what did I say about gamers not liking rules that limit what they get to do? Even a limiter that completely represents how the weapon is supposed to work. :smallamused:

Slippery slope. Spears are supose to be superior to swords, like, a lot. Sword and board should be stricktly better than two handed by default. And thats just the beginning. Rules for blades dulling down and needing to be resharpened, rewriting the disarming system (you're disarming my dagger with a two handed sword, I don't think so) ect.

[Demented]

Now class, what did I say about gamers not liking rules that limit what they get to do? Even a limiter that completely represents how the weapon is supposed to work. :smallamused:
Since we're on the topic, what would be the advantage of a lance over a spear? They seem fairly similar to me, apart that all the lances I've seen in popular culture look like they trade the danger of splinters with the danger of a broken arm.

Also, your comments about the rider being "suddenly and violently de-horsed" conjured some amusing mental images of Don Quixote. :smallamused:

[Xenogears]

Slippery slope. Spears are supose to be superior to swords, like, a lot. Sword and board should be stricktly better than two handed by default. And thats just the beginning. Rules for blades dulling down and needing to be resharpened, rewriting the disarming system (you're disarming my dagger with a two handed sword, I don't think so) ect.

I dunno about that. Aside from the fact that slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy (I don't care since I think some of the "rules of logic" in the logic class I took sucked but just saying...) then some of that is represented. Spears ARE better from horseback and if the opponent is farther away. Once you are within range the sword should kill the spear wielder though. Sword and Board is better defensively but two handed sword wielding can crush through armor pretty good too. Both are represented in the rules (Shields should be better than they are but...). All in all (not that I am an expert in weaponry) they seem to have tried to build a semblance of realisticness into the rules. They failed at parts but still.

[Boci]

I dunno about that. Aside from the fact that slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy

Really? How so?


Spears ARE better from horseback

In RAW?


Once you are within range the sword should kill the spear wielder though.

Nope, only if the sword wielder is a lot more expirienced than the spear wielder.


Sword and Board is better defensively but two handed sword wielding can crush through armor pretty good too.

Realistically, sword and board shoulb be better overall.


they seem to have tried to build a semblance of realisticness into the rules. They failed at parts but still.

Yeah, they failed or for simplicities sake chose to omit some real life facts. If you just correct one, like the lance breaking, and not others, such as short blades dulling, then PCs using the nerged weapons will feel cheated, so really its all or none.

[Xenogears]

Really? How so?
In RAW?
Nope, only if the sword wielder is a lot more expirienced than the spear wielder.
Realistically, sword and board shoulb be better overall.
Yeah, they failed or for simplicities sake chose to omit some real life facts. If you just correct one, like the lance breaking, and not others, such as short blades dulling, then PCs using the nerged weapons will feel cheated, so really its all or none.

1) Well it is listed under the list of logical fallacies in my logic book from that class. Basically it's because there is no way of knowing that just because A happens then B C and D will also happen. Now as I said I don't always agree with what that book says. It might not be assured but it can be pretty likely.

2) Tired and confused that with Lance for some reason...

3) Hmmm you might be right as I said I'm not an expert.

4) Well it certainly isn't as good at doing damage against an armoured opponent.

Edit: For claritys sake "1" answers the slippery slope thing, "2" answers spears on horseback, "3" answers non horseback, and "4" answers sword and board.

[Boci]

4) Well it certainly isn't as good at doing damage against an armoured opponent.

True, until you factor in that in real life without a shield you probably won't live long enough to damage your opponent.

[Flickerdart]

A Returning Lance would get around the whole dropping thing, no? Or at least it should.

[Xenogears]

True, until you factor in that in real life without a shield you probably won't live long enough to damage your opponent.

Hmmm screaming barbarians charging you and smashing your armor in before you get a chance to react might work but I do see what you mean.

As I said though. That is why shields should DO more in DnD (Say give you a non-magical miss chance with a str check to avoid dropping your shield when it causes your opponent to miss?) The two handed sword should still deal more damage per hit than the sword and boarder. Called shots just don't work get.

[awa]

Midevil lances were designed to be used from horse back spears were not. A lance has a special guard to protect the hand and they are often heavier becuase the horse is doing a lot of the lifting.

[Dienekes]

True, until you factor in that in real life without a shield you probably won't live long enough to damage your opponent.

Partially why twohanded weapons became popular in areas where armor was useful enough that a shield was seen as superfluous. Also as a weapon specifically designed to break up tight spear/sword/shield formations.

[The_JJ]

Nope, only if the sword wielder is a lot more expirienced than the spear wielder.



Realistically, sword and board shoulb be better overall.


No, sword/ax/mace up in close has the advantage. A spear-wielder pressed tight simply has to much extra stick to fight as well. 'Course, any pole arm user in a one on one melee is an idiot and an pole arm user that let as swordsman get in close is an idiot (or facing sword-'n-board/plate.)

And, realistically, swords and shields (and even more so, massed pole arms) dominated the battlefield until the advent of plate armor, which made both shields useless and the need for two fisted damage more urgent.

[Boci]

No, sword/ax/mace up in close has the advantage. A spear-wielder pressed tight simply has to much extra stick to fight as well. 'Course, any pole arm user in a one on one melee is an idiot and an pole arm user that let as swordsman get in close is an idiot (or facing sword-'n-board/plate.)

Thats what I said, or ment.


And, realistically, swords and shields (and even more so, massed pole arms) dominated the battlefield until the advent of plate armor, which made both shields useless and the need for two fisted damage more urgent.

Yeah, so is anyone going to come up with a system to represent that or just accept that DnD isn't a perfect replica of real life and stop nerfing weapons in the name of realism.

[The_JJ]

Give everyone a 'defensive skill' that scales like BAB, that varies depending on weapons/shields and how they're being used. Possibly including opposed checks for attack/defense.

[Boci]

Give everyone a 'defensive skill' that scales like BAB, that varies depending on weapons/shields and how they're being used. Possibly including opposed checks for attack/defense.

And you think the effort to come up with the system and the extra book keeping it would led to would be worth it?

[Xenogears]

Give everyone a 'defensive skill' that scales like BAB, that varies depending on weapons/shields and how they're being used. Possibly including opposed checks for attack/defense.

Good Luck trying to balance all that...

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Now class, what did I say about gamers not liking rules that limit what they get to do? Even a limiter that completely represents how the weapon is supposed to work. :smallamused:Except that that would result in no one using lances, while IRL they were somewhat common. So the rules still obviously aren't realistic, meaning you need to fix the Glaive, then you need to fix the whatever that people start using to replace the glaive, and now might be a good time to make the armor react appropriately to our new fixes, and now melee is even weaker compared to magic, and oh my god how many pages is that houserules doc!?! It would be simpler to learn Gurps!

Basically, this is the path to madness. Just houserule that magic lances rip free of the enemy on a charge, mundane ones get stuck, and be happy with it.

[Worira]

Arthurian times? Realism? If your lance sticks in your opponent, you use it to lift them from their horse and throw them to the ground.

[Swordguy]

Yeah, so is anyone going to come up with a system to represent that or just accept that DnD isn't a perfect replica of real life and stop nerfing weapons in the name of realism.

Except that's what the OP explicitly asked for - rules to modify (up-power or nerf, as appropriate) lances in the name of realism. Which means that, respectfully, you have no place in this thread if all you're going to do is complain about it. Your opinion has been made clear in a reasonably concise and polite fashion - do you have anything further to add besides "your rules are badwrongfun"?


Except that that would result in no one using lances, while IRL they were somewhat common...

Wrong.

It means that it's not often worth it for adventurers to use lances, since they require a great deal of logistical support (in the form of wagons of spare lances) to function. If an adventurer is willing to come up with a way around that (which, given the stupidly overpowered nature of magic in 3.x), or gets a magical lance that is FAR less likely to break, or even makes his peace with the lance being a first-strike weapon (like it was supposed to be anyway!), then it makes sense for him to use one.

They still make quite a bit of sense for NPCs to use (quick - who wants to have their PCs get hit by a massed charge from a bunch of level-appropriate NPCs using these lance rules? Nobody not named "I don't care about stuff because I have magic that wins the game", that's who.), and can even make sense for PCs to use as long as the PC in question understands the limitations of the weapon. You trade a moderate amount of sustained damage for a CRAPTON of damage on turn 1. That's a valid choice.

What you're really saying is that you wouldn't use them. Which is fine, because the only person I'm designing these for is myself. Well, and the OP.

Lances get weird rules because they don't work like other weapons. These weird rules have both pluses and minuses, because to accurately represent the weapon requires them. End of story.

[Boci]

Except that's what the OP explicitly asked for - rules to modify (up-power or nerf, as appropriate) lances in the name of realism.

Yes and if someone came to these forumes asking for help nerfing the monk class I would tell them there was no need even though thats not what they asked for. And no, the OP did not ask for a way to power up the lance.


Which means that, respectfully, you have no place in this thread if all you're going to do is complain about it.

Good thing that is not what I have done.


Your opinion has been made clear in a reasonably concise and polite fashion - do you have anything further to add besides "your rules are badwrongfun"?

Play a different game to DnD if you want realism because shock and horror in a high fantasy game with dragons and mage's, there are a lot of inconsistonsies with weapons?


(quick - who wants to have their PCs get hit by a massed charge from a bunch of level-appropriate NPCs using these lance rules? Nobody not named "I don't care about stuff because I have magic that wins the game", that's who.)

For the record are you actually claiming that the DM can abuse the CR system to make legal but overpowered encounters for his PCs? Surely not.



What you're really saying is that you wouldn't use them. Which is fine, because the only person I'm designing these for is myself. Well, and the OP.

Dunno about the others but I'm curious as to whether you've also corrected the other unrealistic aspects of the game reguarding weapons. Because doing so just for the lance seems odd.

[Swordguy]

Yes and if someone came to these forumes asking for help nerfing the monk class I would tell them there was no need even though thats not what they asked for. And no, the OP did not ask for a way to power up the lance.

he asked for rules to make them more accurate to real-life. If that demands the are upgunned. So be it. If it demands they be nerfed, so be it. In this case, it demanded both.




Good thing that is not what I have done.

Then what is your positive contribution to this thread?



Play a different game to DnD if you want realism because shock and horror in a high fantasy game with dragons and mage's, there are a lot of inconsistonsies with weapons?

Not what was asked for. The OP asked a specific question within the context of the d20 system. How are you helping to answer the question? Since I can't discuss it specifically, I will instead courteously link to the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

Since I feel I've answered the OP's question as best I'm able, I'll depart the thread unless there's actually going to be productive discussion regarding the rules posted, or if the OP has any further questions.


For the record are you actually claiming that the DM can abuse the CR system to make legal but overpowered encounters for his PCs? Surely not.

The DM can do whatever he desires, irrespective of the rules or any published pseudo-balancing system, if he feels it will make a better play experience for the group. If the DM feels it makes a better game, he is well within his rights to burn the rulebooks, ban them from the table, and progress the game via pure fiat. If the DM and players are enjoying themselves doing it, who are you to say they're doing it wrong?

Unless you're deliberately disparaging someone else's play preference.


Dunno about the others but I'm curious as to whether you've also corrected the other unrealistic aspects of the game reguarding weapons. Because doing so just for the lance seems odd.

As a matter of fact, yes, I have. I've adopted the Codex Martialis for my d20 games. Review here: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14172.phtml. My players very much enjoy it, and since I run "Western Europe + magic" games exclusively, I appreciate the resource and system. It meets my criteria.


Regardless, sans more from the OP, I'm out.

[The_JJ]

He's doing it because that's what the OP asked for. Which is kinda the point of the thread. QED or whatever. If you really must press, then the OP want's it done because he doesn't want high fantasy, he wants Arthurian fantasy, which involves quite a bit of jousting, lances breaking, heynonnynonny and blood all over the place. He also doesn't want to invent an all new system for Arthurian legends, so he came to the almighty internet to see if someone (guy) could find/create a quick patch to the DnD high fantasy system to fit with his game.

And... I'm going to be ninja'd.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

He's doing it because that's what the OP asked for. Which is kinda the point of the thread. QED or whatever. If you really must press, then the OP want's it done because he doesn't want high fantasy, he wants Arthurian fantasy, which involves quite a bit of jousting, lances breaking, heynonnynonny and blood all over the place. He also doesn't want to invent an all new system for Arthurian legends, so he came to the almighty internet to see if someone (guy) could find/create a quick patch to the DnD high fantasy system to fit with his game.

And... I'm going to be ninja'd.D&D 3.5 makes for very poor Arthurian fantasy, though. Masses of mooks are useless, magic items are far too common, and almost the entire world is without magic. The lance rules are barely the tip of the iceberg.

[Boci]

Then what is your positive contribution to this thread?

I tried to add an explanation to allow lances to function as they currently do and not break. Others have offered more.



Not what was asked for. The OP asked a specific question within the context of the d20 system. How are you helping to answer the question? Since I can't discuss it specifically, I will instead courteously link to the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), and note the bits about disparaging play preferences and trolling may have relevance to this issue.

I pointing out there are other games that do what he appears to be seeking better. Its a suggestion that he is free to ignore.



The DM can do whatever he desires, irrespective of the rules or any published pseudo-balancing system, if he feels it will make a better play experience for the group. If the DM feels it makes a better game, he is well within his rights to burn the rulebooks, ban them from the table, and progress the game via pure fiat. If the DM and players are enjoying themselves doing it, who are you to say they're doing it wrong?

My point exactly, so your point that about the NPC lancers is meaningless.



As a matter of fact, yes, I have. I've adopted the Codex Martialis for my d20 games. Review here: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14172.phtml. My players very much enjoy it, and since I run "Western Europe + magic" games exclusively, I appreciate the resource and system. It meets my criteria.

Cool, thanks. I'll try and check that out some time. Not now though since its half 8 in the morning and I didn't sleep all night.

[The_JJ]

D&D 3.5 makes for very poor Arthurian fantasy, though. Masses of mooks are useless, magic items are far too common, and almost the entire world is without magic. The lance rules are barely the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, but if your party plays along (e.g. doesn't take Wizard or Sorc) and you just hand out loot and enemies that fit the style, you should be fine. Ish. Enough to have a fun game. Something like a better lance rules would be integral to the game.

[Fhaolan]

Since we're on the topic, what would be the advantage of a lance over a spear? They seem fairly similar to me, apart that all the lances I've seen in popular culture look like they trade the danger of splinters with the danger of a broken arm.

Lance is a fairly generic term that usually applied to any spear used from horseback, but originally was specifically a type of Roman auxiliaries' throwing spear. Cavalry lances started out just being spears, and throwing them from horseback was originally one of the standard maneuvers. They got a lot longer and heavier in and around the 15th century, but were really still just big spears, almost interchangable with some styles of pike. They then lightened up again in the 18th century when light cavalry came back into fashion, and this form was still being used as cavalry weapons until at least the French Revolution and in the American Old West. Currently if you talk to any horseman who does drill team work, they still use the term 'lance' to refer to what is pretty much a light spear.

What a lot of people think of when they hear the term 'lance' however, is the Jousting lance, also known as the Tilting lance. This was specialized for sport jousting and had all sorts of bulges, handguards, and other geegaws that made it very difficult to drop, as well as having tips with small spikes for purchase rather than penetration. Some later versions even had hollow shafts filled with dried pasta for more spectacular breakages. Since in real combat being able to drop the lance once it is fully stuck in the target is *important*, these features didn't really catch on much with actual war lances.

[Boci]

D&D 3.5 makes for very poor Arthurian fantasy, though.

True, but with all the options there are ways around them.


Masses of mooks are useless

Horde template?


magic items are far too common

Reflavoured vow of poverty for everyone? Exspand on the rule 33% less wealth for a bonus feat every 3 levels?


and almost the entire world is without magic.

Eek, healing is going to be a problem. E6? A no magic DnD game to level twenty is going to be really hard to pull off.

[DegenPaladin]

Well first let me say thank you to everyone who posted, especially Swordguy. I personally really liked your work up of a lance system. We as in the group I play with are all onboard with lances breaking. Also we are aware that D&D is by definition not realistic, and thats fine.

We actually have a source book for Arthurian Legends, its call ed Legends of Excalibur. This book by itself does alot to set the stage but one thing we felt was missing was a better lance system.

As for magic, it is a low magic setting. Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics arent playable classes. They are replaced by the Priest and the Hedge Mage, the spell lists are severely restricted. The archtype of Blaster mage doesnt exist.

Again I would like to thank everyone who participated in the discussion, I found it very helpful.

[DegenPaladin]

Oh and Boci where is the horde template, I would like to show that to the DM. The chances that someone in the party will take Leadership are pretty good.

[KurtKatze]

well, in real life if u charge someone with a lance that guy is dead. In addition on a heavy warhorse you have a good chance not being killed. No human resists an overrun attempt from a warhorse.

So u charge, kill, retreat, take a new lance, repeat. In DnD at some point you won't kill with one mounted charge and you won't overrun every enemy you encounter.

So why not leaving the lance as it is?

If you wanted weapons to be really realistic in DnD you should start with bows. Just think about how superior the huns and mongols were and how european knights, mounted or not, didn't stand a chance against mounted archery tactics...

[Xenogears]

well, in real life if u charge someone with a lance that guy is dead. In addition on a heavy warhorse you have a good chance not being killed. No human resists an overrun attempt from a warhorse.

So u charge, kill, retreat, take a new lance, repeat. In DnD at some point you won't kill with one mounted charge and you won't overrun every enemy you encounter.

So why not leaving the lance as it is?

If you wanted weapons to be really realistic in DnD you should start with bows. Just think about how superior the huns and mongols were and how european knights, mounted or not, didn't stand a chance against mounted archery tactics...

1) If you'r an ubercharger type build that point may never come except for magical means (Miss chances, teleport, etc.)
2) I think realistic lances were wanted for stylistic reasons so there is no need to make everything realistic.

[Fawsto]

Instead of a strenght check against damage, roll it against a specific DC. Not one that scales trough damage.

It will be very annoying to limit your own damage so you will keep dealing damage... Counter productive at best.

[DegenPaladin]

Yeah again were not dumb, we understand that it is D&D at that it is not realistic. Im aware that there are many goofy things in D&D, we wanted lances to be different and I personally really like Swordguys suggestion.

[Boci]

Oh and Boci where is the horde template, I would like to show that to the DM. The chances that someone in the party will take Leadership are pretty good.

DMG II. If you do not have access to it I think it is short enough that I can tell you the details in a PM.

[Jayabalard]

Don't get snippy with me. I'm just saying that if the DC were set too high, then lances would be superfluous. Too low and it won't matter at all. Even if they do get it right, there's a chance (possibly large) that the rule won't contribute to "realism" at all, and thus will have been a large waste of time.They won't be superfluous... you just will only be able to make 1-2 charges with one before having to switch to the sword, which is pretty much exactly what he wants. And by "he" I mean "the player who is going to be playing the knight who's actually going to be charging with the lance"


True, until you factor in that in real life without a shield you probably won't live long enough to damage your opponent.so, you're saying that it should be better defensively than a 2 hander, but not be as good at cleaving through people. That looks like it's represented in the rules.


Eek, healing is going to be a problem. E6? A no magic DnD game to level twenty is going to be really hard to pull off.If the majority of your opponents are also PC-like races and monsters that don't have magic then the only issue is healing... priests (which are allowed in that game) can handle the healing just fine. So that sounds pretty appropriate for that sort of game to me.

[hamlet]

Forgive me if it's been brought up, I haven't gone through the entire thread.

Anyway, 2nd edition had some decent rules on jousting and lance breakage that would be relatively easy to adapt.

Essentially, any lance inflicting more than 12 points of damage may break. Roll a d6 and a 1 or 2 indicates it has broken sufficiently to be useless as a lance.

Of course, 3.x damage is significantly higher (by orders of magnitude) so you'll probably have to scale that number up to something like 24, or maybe even higher. Perhaps varying numbers based on whether it's a standard war lance or a jousting lance (which are designed to shatter spectacularly to please the crowds and ostensibly to avoid shish-ka-bobbing your opponent).

As for dropping, I would rule only that a lance is dropped if the d20 roll for the attack is a natural 1 or 2 (i.e., when the attack was so poorly executed that something has been fouled up, a fumble). I would avoid the whole strength check issue since presumably, someone trained in the use of a lance (a knight) would know how to couch the lance and brace it to avoid dropping it under normal usage. After all, you're not planning on forcing checks for losing your grip on standard melee weapons are you?

This provides you with the chance both of breaking a lance in a charge and of simply fumbling your grip (even though such a fumble might actually strike an opponent at high enough levels) and dropping your weapon. Of course, one could enforce a simple Dex check against, say, DC20 to recover your grip and not drop your weapon, essentially giving another chance to retain honor.

To sum up: Any strike with a standard war lance inflicting more than 24 points of damage in a single blow may break. Roll a d6, if 1-2, then lance is no longer a functional lance and must be discarded. Any natural attack roll of a "1" indicates that the lance has been fumbled and the attack roll misses entirely. Roll Dex Check DC 20 to recover weapon, else drop to ground. Any natural attack roll of a "2" indicates possible fumble, though attack may still hit if bonuses are sufficient. Roll Dex Check DC 20 to keep grip, else drop lance to ground.

[Boci]

so, you're saying that it should be better defensively than a 2 hander, but not be as good at cleaving through people. That looks like it's represented in the rules.

No, sword and board should be overall superior unless the oponent has full plate, if the weapons of DnD are to mimic real life.



If the majority of your opponents are also PC-like races and monsters that don't have magic then the only issue is healing... priests (which are allowed in that game) can handle the healing just fine. So that sounds pretty appropriate for that sort of game to me.

Can't comment on that because I do not know the game, but a CR:20 monster will have changed a lot compared to the standard DnD.

[Project_Mayhem]

No, sword and board should be overall superior unless the oponent has full plate, if the weapons of DnD are to mimic real life.

I'm sure that's not true - I've seen some funky stuff done with a miao dao and the like that looks competitive.

Unless you don't mean 1 on 1? The whole sword and shield thing worked well for the Romans in mass combat

[hamlet]

I'm sure that's not true - I've seen some funky stuff done with a miao dao and the like that looks competitive.

Unless you don't mean 1 on 1? The whole sword and shield thing worked well for the Romans in mass combat

Well, it worked so well for the Romans because they knew a thing or two about tactics. They didn't just arm their men with shields and swords and throw them in the general direction of the enemy, they taught them how to stand in lines, interlock their shields to form a strong barrier against advancing foes, and use their swords in ways that didn't compromise the defensive value of a shield.

But then again, D&D has never gotten shields right.

[DegenPaladin]

Thanks boci I have that book I just didnt realize it was in there, so hard to keep every template and prc in your head. As far as weapons and their general effectiveness or realism, the lances were all we were really lookin to change. If we really got into it a shield would only be say half effective at best against a flail or any other kind of hinged weapon.