PDA

View Full Version : New DM



BrotherMick
2007-08-22, 09:12 AM
So i just started DMing a few weeks ago and everything seemed to be going just fine. I have a new player that is a 5th lvl pally. He got on his mount and charged the enemy with a lance in one hand and a Tower shield in the other. The thought of a tower shield bein used form horseback with a lance seems a little out there to me. But i couldn't quote a rule off the top of my head to counter it. Can anyone tell me where it is or am I being crazy?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-22, 09:25 AM
So i just started DMing a few weeks ago and everything seemed to be going just fine. I have a new player that is a 5th lvl pally. He got on his mount and charged the enemy with a lance in one hand and a Tower shield in the other. The thought of a tower shield bein used form horseback with a lance seems a little out there to me. But i couldn't quote a rule off the top of my head to counter it. Can anyone tell me where it is or am I being crazy?

As far as I know it is within the rules and although silly looking not physically impossible. You can always make the ride DC much higher for using it though.

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 09:28 AM
Can anyone tell me where it is or am I being crazy?

You're crazy, but not for that reason. If you're a new DM you really should start the PCs out at level 1.

As far as your particular situation, welcome to the world of common sense transmuted into house rules. If you think using a tower shield on horseback shouldn't be possible, make it so, and explain it to your players.

banjo1985
2007-08-22, 09:29 AM
I agree, it's something that the rules don't make impossible, but an armour check penalty counts on the Ride skill I believe, giving the character -4 from the tower shield and extra from whatever armour he's wearing. It doesn't prevent him from doing it, but it makes him quite a bit less effective!

bugsysservant
2007-08-22, 09:30 AM
In all fairness, he has had several weeks to level him up. If hes in a dedicated group, thats possible.

Ogh_the_Second
2007-08-22, 09:40 AM
I agree, it's something that the rules don't make impossible, but an armour check penalty counts on the Ride skill I believe, giving the character -4 from the tower shield and extra from whatever armour he's wearing. It doesn't prevent him from doing it, but it makes him quite a bit less effective!

In principle, there's no armour check penalty on Ride checks. Possibly to keep the idea of a mounted knight feasible.

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 09:42 AM
In all fairness, he has had several weeks to level him up. If hes in a dedicated group, thats possible.

Possibly, but when he said:



So i just started DMing a few weeks ago and everything seemed to be going just fine. I have a new player that is a 5th lvl pally.


I'd doubt it. Sounds more like he started a group at higher than first level, then possibly a new player joined and decided to be a pally, and the DM started him out at level 5.

banjo1985
2007-08-22, 09:43 AM
In principle, there's no armour check penalty on Ride checks. Possibly to keep the idea of a mounted knight feasible.

Ah my mistake, I haven't played DnD for a while. However in this situation it is feasible to apply and armour check penalty if you don't think he should be able to do it, but thats really something that's up to you as the rules give you no back-up.

Telonius
2007-08-22, 10:09 AM
How much weight is this guy carrying? Tower shields are heavy (45 lbs), and he might be encumbered. He is a Paladin, though, so chances are his STR is high. But even if he's okay to carry all the stuff, his horse might not be. A Heavy Warhorse's Light Load is up to 300; medium to 600; heavy to 900. The horse has to be able to carry both the guy and his gear.

nagora
2007-08-22, 10:56 AM
So i just started DMing a few weeks ago and everything seemed to be going just fine. I have a new player that is a 5th lvl pally. He got on his mount and charged the enemy with a lance in one hand and a Tower shield in the other. The thought of a tower shield bein used form horseback with a lance seems a little out there to me. But i couldn't quote a rule off the top of my head to counter it. Can anyone tell me where it is or am I being crazy?

The rule is: the DM thinks that's out there therefore you can't do it unless you show an example of a tower shield being used with a lance on horseback (don't hold your breath).

There are billions of things which are not ruled out in the game ("I flap my arms and fly to the moon"); part of your job is to decide which ones you allow and which ones you don't.

BUT! If you do rule it out, don't ever allow an NPC to do it without some explanation or you'll have trouble.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 11:02 AM
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal either way. He suffers a -2 penalty to hit with his lance and only gains +2 AC over a heavy steel shield.

nagora
2007-08-22, 11:12 AM
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal either way. He suffers a -2 penalty to hit with his lance and only gains +2 AC over a heavy steel shield.

+2 here and +2 there and one day you wonder why your campaign has disintegrated with characters wandering about giving gods orders. Best to overdo the restrictions and relax them as you get better at DMing than try to repair the damage after the fact.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 11:20 AM
Yeah and +2 AC seems fairly well balanced with -2 Attack. Overall that is a larger negative than it is positive. Damage is greater than protection from damage in DnD. A lesser chance to hit an opponent is less damage. When I suggest that something isn't a big deal, it is generally because it will give a larger negative than positive or they are approximately equal. Fortunately the rules say that the player can do this. Just look up the rules for a tower shield.

DraPrime
2007-08-22, 11:21 AM
I think you should just say that it isn't possible. A tower shield is the size of a door. A lance is a 10 foot long pole. What are the odds that someone can carry a friggin door on their weak arm and a heavy wooden pole in the other while riding a horse.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 11:25 AM
I think you should just say that it isn't possible. A tower shield is the size of a door. A lance is a 10 foot long pole. What are the odds that someone can carry a friggin door on their weak arm and a heavy wooden pole in the other while riding a horse.

Why not? Irregardless of the horse the tower shield is meant to be held in one hand. It is not the size of a door:

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

The character is already at a penalty for dungeon delving if he wishes to continue as a mounted combatant. An increase of AC is not that important when it is at the cost of damage.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-22, 11:42 AM
You're crazy, but not for that reason. If you're a new DM you really should start the PCs out at level 1.

Huh? Wherever did you get that idea? Heck no. Level 1 PCs are way too fragile, and killing one by accident in the first encounter could put both players and DMs off from continuing. Starting at level 3-5 is perfectly fine.

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 12:49 PM
Huh? Wherever did you get that idea? Heck no. Level 1 PCs are way too fragile, and killing one by accident in the first encounter could put both players and DMs off from continuing. Starting at level 3-5 is perfectly fine.

Uh, I guess logic? Like how you start reading a book from chapter 1 instead of skipping ahead and starting to read from chapter 3.

Level 1 PCs are not nearly as fragile as some people seem to think. Remember, they can go to -9 before they ultimately die at -10. The only thing I'd suggest avoiding is high-max damage type enemies where a lucky critical can deal enough damage to drop a PC to -10 or lower on 1 hit.

nagora
2007-08-22, 01:05 PM
Uh, I guess logic? Like how you start reading a book from chapter 1 instead of skipping ahead and starting to read from chapter 3.

Level 1 PCs are not nearly as fragile as some people seem to think. Remember, they can go to -9 before they ultimately die at -10. The only thing I'd suggest avoiding is high-max damage type enemies where a lucky critical can deal enough damage to drop a PC to -10 or lower on 1 hit.

(cross)Bows are your friend at 1st level!

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 01:13 PM
Uh, I guess logic? Like how you start reading a book from chapter 1 instead of skipping ahead and starting to read from chapter 3.

Gotta disagree there. A couple of PC levels can easily be subsumed into backstory along with all the unleveled years of childhood and training. A PC's life doesn't begin at first level, nor need his career as a protagonist.

Chris_Chandler
2007-08-22, 01:17 PM
What he's doing is legal, according to the rules, because you can use a lance 1-handed. It's a definite defensive move, though, because of the penalty to hit. Yes, attacking on the charge cancels out that penalty, but at that level, a -2 is a big hit to an attack. Has this been game-breaking in practice, or is it something that is hard to picture?

Yes, it is like going into battle with a door strapped to his arm and a 10-foot poker on the other, but there have been sillier RL developments in martial strategy. Things that look silly or preposterous don't necessarily mean they are impossible. He can get away with it, specifically, because of his horse. He'd drop the setup the moment he put his feet on the ground. He'd have to lose the lance or the shield, but I'd imagine he'd lose both.

nagora
2007-08-22, 01:18 PM
Gotta disagree there. A couple of PC levels can easily be subsumed into backstory along with all the unleveled years of childhood and training. A PC's life doesn't begin at first level, nor need his career as a protagonist.

I do think it's more fun if you start at 1st level. Not, obviously, if the DM then throws frost giants at you or something. A kidnapped child held hostage by some kobolds or similar can be a great time for characters who are not yet able to just wade into combat.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-22, 01:22 PM
Things that look silly or preposterous don't necessarily mean they are impossible.

"What on earth is he doing?"
"Sir, he appears to be pouring dirt into the end of that long metal tube...and now he's pointing it at us."
*BANG*
"What on earth was that?"
"Sir, there appears to be a piece of lead lodged in my chest."

nagora
2007-08-22, 01:27 PM
What he's doing is legal, according to the rules, because you can use a lance 1-handed. It's a definite defensive move, though, because of the penalty to hit. Yes, attacking on the charge cancels out that penalty, but at that level, a -2 is a big hit to an attack. Has this been game-breaking in practice, or is it something that is hard to picture?

Yes, it is like going into battle with a door strapped to his arm and a 10-foot poker on the other, but there have been sillier RL developments in martial strategy. Things that look silly or preposterous don't necessarily mean they are impossible. He can get away with it, specifically, because of his horse. He'd drop the setup the moment he put his feet on the ground. He'd have to lose the lance or the shield, but I'd imagine he'd lose both.

Well, if a player absolutely insisted to me I would be very tough on flanking - anyone attacking from the front, back or the opposite side from the shield is simply going to ignore it. A tower shield on a horse will be basically immobile, whereas a normal shield can be redirected.

The Normal Kite shield was a big shield, intended to be used with light lances, but they only protected one side and still were not as heavy or as clumsy as a true tower shield.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:33 PM
I highly recommend House Ruling the hell out of Tower Shields. I hate them. Make them Two Handed if you can and rename them Great Shields.

Sepp
2007-08-22, 01:36 PM
Paladins are not automatically proficient (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) with Tower Shields, so if he burned a feat on it, I would let him use it. This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#towerShieldProficiency) feat is required, and without it he is taking a -10 to attack rolls, since the armor check penalty applies. Note that the penalty also applies to Ride checks.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 01:38 PM
I highly recommend House Ruling the hell out of Tower Shields. I hate them. Make them Two Handed if you can and rename them Great Shields.

Wait...then why would anyone use a tower shield? Its already rarely used due to the attack penalty?

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:44 PM
Wait...then why would anyone use a tower shield? Its already rarely used due to the attack penalty?

Now you see my plan. Seriously, though, it would be used as a Pavise was used, to provide cover during an advance against Ranged Weapons.

BrotherMick
2007-08-22, 09:29 PM
Ok to clarify a few things the group started out at a lower lvl (3) and the new plyer just returned to town from a sumer job. The group has four 6th lvl players and one other 5th lvl layer( hasn't been around for a few weeks). The new player came in at 5th. After reviewing his sheet he didn't take the feat to use the shield. So its now gone in general.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 09:51 PM
Now you see my plan. Seriously, though, it would be used as a Pavise was used, to provide cover during an advance against Ranged Weapons.

I thought that might be what you were getting at. Unfortunately real tactics don't work very well in DnD. This one may work, but assumes that adventurers aren't available to destroy each side's respective army.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-22, 10:28 PM
Crucially, unless the paladin picked up a level of fighter (which he hasn't since he has a mount), or burned a feat, he's unproficient with tower shields.

In the case of the paladin using the tower shield, he's trading +2 to hit for +2 AC. It's sort of like using combat expertise, isn't it?

I'd be more worried about him discovering power attack + spirited charge and 2handing the lance. Without rolling any dice, power attacking for only 2 (which he makes up on the +2 for a charge), and assuming a str of 15, he'll reliably hit for 21 damage.

If he later picks up shock trooper and a flying mount, he can easily be dealing around 100 points of damage, and moving out of range so his abysmal AC won't matter.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 02:33 PM
I thought that might be what you were getting at. Unfortunately real tactics don't work very well in DnD. This one may work, but assumes that adventurers aren't available to destroy each side's respective army.

I dunno about that. A lot of 'real world' tactics work well in D&D, just not once you start introducing Wizards and other Player Character Classes to the battlefield.
It's quite easy to build effective Pike Phalanxes and things, it's just that they're only useful against similar mundane troop types.

SadisticFishing
2007-08-24, 02:53 PM
The only thing I'd suggest avoiding is high-max damage type enemies where a lucky critical can deal enough damage to drop a PC to -10 or lower on 1 hit.

The Orc Warrior in the MM can do this. Easily.

SadisticFishing
2007-08-24, 02:57 PM
If he later picks up shock trooper and a flying mount, he can easily be dealing around 100 points of damage, and moving out of range so his abysmal AC won't matter.

Which is a good thing, because otherwise he'll never be able to compare to high level spellcasters.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 10:33 AM
The Orc Warrior in the MM can do this. Easily.

Yeah, I hate the MM Orcs and the ridiculous amount of Damage a Basic Orc can do is one of the reasons.

"Don't worry guys, I'm playing a Barbarian, they have a 1D12 Hit Die..."