Need help with Annoying Players and Rules

[TheDoubleD]

I have an annoying player who is making my life hell. He wants to dual wield while mounted.

My argument is, I dunno, freaking reality.

He says there's no rule against it in 3.5 D&D which we are playing.

I hate dropping the heavy "No I'm the DM" hammer.

Does anyone know of any rule excluding it?

-Frustrated

[ApologyFestival]

There is no rule against it. In fact, there is a rule supporting it. Characters can explicitly fight on horseback with no free hands, using their legs to guide the horse.


Guide with Knees (Ride DC 5)
You can react instantly to guide your mount with your knees so that you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount.

[Incorrect]

Maybe he has a backup build where he summons a horde of angels to do his bidding?

This really doesn't seem like such a stretch of imagination, his character is a fantastic hero after all.
There might be a problematic corner case if he wants to dual wield lances and pounce+charge, but thats from a mechanical standpoint.

My real advice would be to have a talk about what kind of game you each wants to have. It sounds like you perfer something historical correct, and he is not sharing that vision?

[Batcathat]

I'm not sure what the problem is. While dual wielding itself – at least as shown in most popular culture – is pretty unrealistic I don't think being on a horse make it any worse in that regard. As the above post points out, it's quite possible to control a horse with your knees both in the game and in reality.

[Zombimode]

My argument is, I dunno, freaking reality.

Can you describe in more detail why exactly this would be a problem to you?

"I'ts unrealistic!" is not a sufficient explanation since you are certainly ok with other unrealistic things when sining up to a D&D 3.5 game.


To be clear, I'm not advocating the notion of "well, there already are unrealistic things in the game and that means you need to be OK with everything".

But in the same time "it's unrealistic" can't be the reason to reject something by it self. There needs to be some other aspect and for situations like you describe it is very helpful to understand the defining reasons for that in order to communicate with your player.

[Edea]

Also, not that this is relevant as ApologyFestival has already directly answered your question, but if you're worried about dual-wielding on a mount being 'overpowered'...it ain't.

Mounts are best used for charging, and charger builds rely heavily on Power Attack, which vastly favors wielding a two-hander designed for charges (such as lances and most polearms). In fact, he's probably going to be flailing around uselessly in most situations and either not care, or want to go back to the more traditional approach, anyway.

[Zaq]

My argument is, I dunno, freaking reality.



I trust you also ban wizards and clerics, right?

If that seems absurd, maybe ask yourself why.

[Psyren]

Reality is unrealistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muyedobotongji)

[Segev]

This isn't to attack or tell you you're wrong, which I feel I must say because tone translates poorly through text.

But... why do you wish to say "no" on this? You mention realism as a motivation; is it just that? It breaks your suspension of disbelief? Or do you have other concerns? I will probably be trying to convince you to go ahead and let him do this, but before I do so, I want to be sure that I'm not giving you bad advice. Knowing why you want to tell him "no" to mounted two-weapon fighting will ensure that I am truly addressing your concerns. (Which might include arguments to give him as to why not to do it, depending what your concerns are.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The rules allow for a character to fight with two weapons from a mount. Not allowing it would be a house rule. What you think is or isn't realistic doesn't exactly matter when you're playing a fantasy game in which characters can throw bolts of lightning and turn into bears. Good DMs recognize that even if this was a gray area in the rules, it should be permitted due to the Rule of Cool. Especially considering this is not even close to toeing the line for game-breaking, in fact it's closer to the opposite end of the field than it is to that line.

There's a combination of game mechanics that can allow a character to roll a Perform: Weapon Drill check instead of making a saving throw, effectively avoiding a fireball by cutting it in half with his sword. It's 100% legit by RAW, regardless of how realistic it may or may not be.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Let me save you some serious headache; forget realism. I'm dead serious. Reality gets left in the dust before you hit level 10 with even the most non-magical classes without even looking at feats or items.

A -warrior,- the NPC class, can beat real world jump records while carrying a marine's combat loadout by mid level. A barbarian can snap quality steel manacles. A mid level fighter can wrestle a bear on equal footing while butt-naked.

This is D&D. Reality doesn't live here.

[Shpadoinkle]

My argument is, I dunno, freaking reality.

Yeah. You know, freaking reality. In Dungeons and Dragons. The game with LITERAL WIZARDS AND DRAGONS. That are super duper extra realistic. You see those just ALL THE TIME in actual reality. I can't walk down the street without tripping over WIZARDS AND DRAGONS.

[Troacctid]

There is actually a rule against it, sort of.

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack.
So you can only TWF while mounted if your mount is practically standing still. Does that help?

[Aotrs Commander]

Reality is unrealistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muyedobotongji)

Fascinating.

You learn summat new every day.

[Vizzerdrix]

There's a combination of game mechanics that can allow a character to roll a Perform: Weapon Drill check instead of making a saving throw, effectively avoiding a fireball by cutting it in half with his sword. It's 100% legit by RAW, regardless of how realistic it may or may not be.

Could I get the source on this please? Sounds rather interesting.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Could I get the source on this please? Sounds rather interesting.

Perform: Weapon Drill is a skill described in Complete Warrior p121-122, but any Perform check can be used.

Undersong is a 1st level Bard spell in Spell Compendium p227, it allows you to make a Perform check instead of a Concentration check.

The maneuvers Moment of Perfect Mind, Action Before Thought, and Mind Over Body in ToB allow you to make a Concentration check instead of a saving throw.

So you initiate the maneuver to replace your saving throw with a Concentration check, you have Undersong in effect so you can make a Perform check instead of that Concentration check, and the Perform check you choose is Weapon Drill.

[Zanos]

Reality is unrealistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muyedobotongji)
I swear, people would argue that there's no way you could possibly fire a bow from a horse if mounted archery wasn't a core feat or the mongols didn't exist.

[Segev]

There is actually a rule against it, sort of.

So you can only TWF while mounted if your mount is practically standing still. Does that help?

This isn't really anything special: this is also true if you're on foot. You need specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features to enable you to attack more than once and take a move action in the same round.

[Zanos]

This isn't really anything special: this is also true if you're on foot. You need specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features to enable you to attack more than once and take a move action in the same round.
It is a special rule, since you aren't actually moving you still have a full-round action. So you can cast a full-round action spell, or take a move and standard, or make a full round worth of ranged attacks. You can just only make a single melee attack.

[Segev]

It is a special rule, since you aren't actually moving you still have a full-round action. So you can cast a full-round action spell, or take a move and standard, or make a full round worth of ranged attacks. You can just only make a single melee attack.

Oh, sure. I more meant it's not a special circumstance that makes mounted TWF any weaker than on-foot TWF.

[Troacctid]

This isn't really anything special: this is also true if you're on foot. You need specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features to enable you to attack more than once and take a move action in the same round.
What specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features would allow you to do the same while mounted? Are there even any?

[Gruftzwerg]

What specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features would allow you to do the same while mounted? Are there even any?

While mounted, your mounts movement causes the same restriction for attacking with melee weapons as normal movement would do (max 5ft if you want to full attack).
Pounce works while mounted too. It's exceptional when it comes to charging and full attack and thus trumps the general movement restrictions for full attack and even the more specific mounted combat restrictions.

Further, ranged attacks while riding don't have these restrictions. Which means TWF with crossbows is a legal option while on your mount and gets full attack without the need for pounce or any other ability.

[Segev]

What specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features would allow you to do the same while mounted? Are there even any?

IIRC, you can have a mount act on your initiative and use its movement as your own, opening up any of the normal means of doing so, such as spring attack and the later feats that let you make multiple attacks while moving.

But I was specifically thinking of things like Wolf Fang Strike, the maneuver that requires two weapons and lets you attack with both as a standard action, and thus would work just fine with the horse moving and then you getting your standard action.

[Gruftzwerg]

IIRC, you can have a mount act on your initiative and use its movement as your own, opening up any of the normal means of doing so, such as spring attack and the later feats that let you make multiple attacks while moving.

Spring Attack sadly doesn't work with Full Attack action:

When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move ...

[King of Nowhere]

I'm not sure what the problem is. While dual wielding itself – at least as shown in most popular culture – is pretty unrealistic

actually, it was used. in fact, as a general rule, it is better to have a weapon in your offhand, than to have nothing.

the reasons dual wielding was not used often in real life is that it requires space to move, which does not work well with fighting in compact formations. also, light weapons aren't good against armor, which again doesn't work well in warfare. as for single fighting, people went around with a sword for self defence, but carrying a second weapon would have been impractical. still, the sword and dagger was an actual fighting technique.

[Crake]

Spring Attack sadly doesn't work with Full Attack action:

I mean, he did add "and the later feats that allow you to make multiple attacks while moving" after spring attack.

[Conradine]

Not only it's entirely possible to use both hands while on horseback, it was the normality for warriors.
They didn't use two weapons usually, but a weapon and a shield, and the legs to control the horse.

[Rynjin]

It's always pretty funny when somebody with no knowledge of a subject tries to claim a basic element of it is unrealistic.

Not to make fun of you too much, OP, everyone does this on occasion, but I think in the future if you're dead set on knocking things for "realism" (which you shouldn't be anyway, but whatever) you might want to do a quick Google search first. In this case you'd come up with the fact that controlling a horse hands free is not only possible, but NORMAL. It's not a particularly specialized horseback skill.

Even outside of IRL examples it's too interesting that you've never read a book or something where this comes up. If I had a nickel for every time a fantasy novel I've read had some variant of the phrase "A true horseman doesn't need to use reins" I'd have enough money for a candy bar at least.

[Batcathat]

the reasons dual wielding was not used often in real life is that it requires space to move, which does not work well with fighting in compact formations. also, light weapons aren't good against armor, which again doesn't work well in warfare. as for single fighting, people went around with a sword for self defence, but carrying a second weapon would have been impractical. still, the sword and dagger was an actual fighting technique.

Sure, which is why I said "as shown in most popular culture". Having a dagger in your off-hand to parry attacks is one thing, attacking with a sword (or an axe or whatever) in each hand is quite another. I suspect that fighting with a sword in each hand is similar to fighting with a gun in each hand in that there are specific situations where it might be useful but they don't come up all that often.

[Segev]

Sure, which is why I said "as shown in most popular culture". Having a dagger in your off-hand to parry attacks is one thing, attacking with a sword (or an axe or whatever) in each hand is quite another. I suspect that fighting with a sword in each hand is similar to fighting with a gun in each hand in that there are specific situations where it might be useful but they don't come up all that often.

However, popular culture is often what people want to emulate in fantasy. It's cool, and fun, and feels cool and fun to play.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Segev
However, popular culture is often what people want to emulate in fantasy.

For a relevant reference from fantasy, the lead centaur in the first Narnia movie rode into battle while dual-wielding longswords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zISNGRhT3qA).

Slightly different from a rules perspective, of course, but it fits the flavor.

[Batcathat]

However, popular culture is often what people want to emulate in fantasy. It's cool, and fun, and feels cool and fun to play.

Absolutely. My original point was that since pop culture dual wielding is already pretty unrealistic, I don't see why the OP would feel that dual wielding on horseback would be too unrealistic.

[Troacctid]

IIRC, you can have a mount act on your initiative and use its movement as your own, opening up any of the normal means of doing so, such as spring attack and the later feats that let you make multiple attacks while moving.

But I was specifically thinking of things like Wolf Fang Strike, the maneuver that requires two weapons and lets you attack with both as a standard action, and thus would work just fine with the horse moving and then you getting your standard action.
You are mistaken. It isn't a function of what actions you have available or what actions your mount has available. (In fact, you almost always have a full-round action available, since you don't need to use your action to move.) You can't make more than one melee attack if your mount moves more that five feet, period.


While mounted, your mounts movement causes the same restriction for attacking with melee weapons as normal movement would do (max 5ft if you want to full attack).
Pounce works while mounted too. It's exceptional when it comes to charging and full attack and thus trumps the general movement restrictions for full attack and even the more specific mounted combat restrictions.
You can't pounce while mounted because your mount is moving more than 5 feet, so you can only make a single melee attack.

[denthor]

Arrows shot from an elevated rock formation at his horse.

Best counter I can think of.

[johnbragg]

For a relevant reference from fantasy, the lead centaur in the first Narnia movie rode into battle while dual-wielding longswords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zISNGRhT3qA).

Slightly different from a rules perspective, of course, but it fits the flavor.

Well, from a grrrrrrrealism perspective, he didn't have to deal with how to swing his swords at enemies in front of him without hitting his mount in the head.

(Honestly, I'm still not sure how exactly dual-wielding while mounted works. Can you effectively attack the same target, or are you attacking different targets on your left and your right?)

[H_H_F_F]

What specialized feats, maneuvers, or other features would allow you to do the same while mounted? Are there even any?

IIRC, the Wild Plains Outrider's 3rd level class feature, Wild Plains Offensive, allows you to perform a full attack if your mount takes a move action.

[danzibr]

I suddenly want to make a dual-wielding horseback samurai.

I swear, people would argue that there's no way you could possibly fire a bow from a horse if mounted archery wasn't a core feat or the mongols didn't exist.
This made me lulz.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can't pounce while mounted because your mount is moving more than 5 feet, so you can only make a single melee attack.

The general rule is that you are reduced to a single melee attack if your mount moves more than 5ft. What in the rule stops me from using Pounce?


When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

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.
If your mount charges, you are considered charging too. And if you can charge on your mount, nothing can stop you from making use of Pounce at the end of the charge.

I don't get where you see the problem?

[Troacctid]

The general rule is that you are reduced to a single melee attack if your mount moves more than 5ft. What in the rule stops me from using Pounce?
You can make a full attack. That full attack can include no more than one melee attack. This is exactly the same as any full attack you make while mounted.


If your mount charges, you are considered charging too. And if you can charge on your mount, nothing can stop you from making use of Pounce at the end of the charge.
That's actually not correct. You're not charging, you're attacking from the back of a charging mount. It doesn't count as a charge action for you. You could be doing any number of other actions—initiating a martial strike, casting a melee touch spell, etc. You get a +2 bonus to hit if you make a melee attack alongside the mount's, and you take a -2 penalty to AC even if you don't. That's it.

[Quertus]

So, the rules, reality, fun, and popular culture all side the same way here: yes, you can wield 2 weapons while mounted.

The only advice I can think to give the OP is "learn to be less easily annoyed"? And maybe "learn not to blame others for wanting to make something cool / wanting to have fun"?

Because I'm really not saying how wanting something that the rules, reality, fun, and popular culture all say "yes" to would make one an "Annoying Player".

[Psyren]

I'm not sure OP ever came back actually. Come to think of it, starting this thread seems to be the only thing they've done on this forum.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I'm not sure OP ever came back actually. Come to think of it, starting this thread seems to be the only thing they've done on this forum.

Given the tone of certain responses in this thread, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't returned.


Originally Posted by Quertus
Because I'm really not [seeing?] how wanting something that the rules, reality, fun, and popular culture all say "yes" to would make one an "Annoying Player".

Context and interpersonal tone make a world of difference. Even a simple request can be grating if it's presented as a demand or a right, and without being in the room we can't really know the dynamics involved.

.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can make a full attack. That full attack can include no more than one melee attack. This is exactly the same as any full attack you make while mounted.


That's actually not correct. You're not charging, you're attacking from the back of a charging mount. It doesn't count as a charge action for you. You could be doing any number of other actions—initiating a martial strike, casting a melee touch spell, etc. You get a +2 bonus to hit if you make a melee attack alongside the mount's, and you take a -2 penalty to AC even if you don't. That's it.
"Charging while mounted" is more specific than the general "mounted combat rules". I don't get why you insist that is has to be the other way?

According to Rules of the Game:
All About Mounts (part 1) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a)

Moving While Mounted

When you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you. (See Rules of the Game, All About Movement for notes on what constitutes movement.) Even though you're not propelling yourself, you still spend time moving. So, for example, if you and your mount move, neither you nor your mount can take a 5-foot step during the same turn.

You can make Ride checks to affect your mount's movement, as noted in the Ride skill description and summarized below:


All About Mounts (part 4) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a):

Charge: Performing a mounted charge works just like performing a charge on foot. You use your mount's speed rating. Remember that no creature can charge through an obstacle, another creature, or terrain that hampers movement. Due to its larger size, your mount might be unable to charge in a location where you could if on foot (see page 148 in the Player's Handbook).


The limitation of mounted combat for a single attack after taking a move action (more than a 5ft step) is nothing else as when you run on your own feet. And thus Pounce bypasses it the same way.

[Buufreak]

I'm not sure OP ever came back actually. Come to think of it, starting this thread seems to be the only thing they've done on this forum.

Was popping in to say exactly that. From the looks of it, he never even came back to see the first response. Just blew off some steam and dipped.

[Kraynic]

As far as realism goes. My main worry would be if the horse still had both ears intact after making dual wielding attacks. They might suddenly be a bit shorter... :smalleek:

[Quertus]

Context and interpersonal tone make a world of difference. Even a simple request can be grating if it's presented as a demand or a right, and without being in the room we can't really know the dynamics involved.

Both your comment and your correction of my… autocorrect typo are correct.

Hmmm… if it's not causal - if it's not "the player is annoying because they want this", then… I would encourage the GM to *also* not have a casual relationship in their logic. That is, for the GM to not decide to go against the rules, reality, fun, and popular culture, just because the player was annoying.