D&D 5E Can a bladesinger take Lance proficiency with Training in war and song?

[ECMO3]

I am playing a Goblin Wizard and I need to pick a "one-handed melee weapon" to be proficient in when she gains level 2. Technically a lance does not have the two-handed property even though you need to wield it in two hands when not mounted so I think I can take it?

I think having the reach and the 1d12 damage would be nice situationally, especially when combined with the goblin disengage. I know she can't use it in bladesong (unless mounted) and she can't use it well with the blade cantrips (because of disadvantage within 5 feet), but she will still have her staff for that.

 

[Mort]

IMO, A DM would be well within their right to rule the "special" property of the lance means it's a two handed weapon in all ways when not mounted and ineligible for the bladesinger weapon proficiency.

I'm pretty permissive and if a player wanted this, then ok. But I think it's a bit silly and wouldn't blame a DM for putting their foot down.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can take it as a proficiency, but attacking with it two handed ends your bladesong. And it's possible your DM might rule that you cannot use your bladesong whilst mounted.

Personally, if you wanted to fluff you bladesinger as some kind of knight, focused on mounted combat, I would allow the benefits of bladesong to be applied to your mount instead of yourself.

I would also allow centaur characters to use a lance one handed. But as always, consult your DM.

 

[Dausuul]

There's nothing in the rules suggesting that bladesong can't be used mounted, and it seems like a cool concept to me.

Likewise, I see no problem taking the lance for your free bladesinging proficiency. As you note, the lance is not marked two-handed, so it's legal by the rules, and the tradeoff -- you get the benefits of a lance while bladesinging mounted, but you're stuck with a staff when not mounted -- seems more than fair.

(In fact, if I had a player asking for this, my main concern would be if the player understood how seldom they will get to fight mounted. Although I guess if you're a goblin, you can ride a mastiff, which makes it a lot easier.)

 

[Mad_Jack]

(In fact, if I had a player asking for this, my main concern would be if the player understood how seldom they will get to fight mounted. Although I guess if you're a goblin, you can ride a mastiff, which makes it a lot easier.)

Yeah, that's the thing that sticks out to me - it's a cool idea thematically, and mechanically effective, but it's a heavy investment for a trick that's largely dependent on the arrangement of the battlefield to work well.*


* (Also, on a side note, if the character is leaning into the idea of being primarily a mounted combatant, riding a mastiff would make the primary benefit of the Mounted Combatant feat (advantage on attacks against creatures smaller than your mount) somewhat moot.)

 

[Dausuul]

(Also, on a side note, if the character is leaning into the idea of being primarily a mounted combatant, riding a mastiff would make the primary benefit of the Mounted Combatant feat (advantage on attacks against creatures smaller than your mount) somewhat moot.)

Not sure I would consider that the primary benefit of Mounted Combatant. To me, the main benefit is the ability to redirect attacks to yourself that would otherwise hit the mount. Mounts tend to be way more fragile than PCs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not sure I would consider that the primary benefit of Mounted Combatant. To me, the main benefit is the ability to redirect attacks to yourself that would otherwise hit the mount. Mounts tend to be way more fragile than PCs.

You can treat the PC's favourite mount as warrior sidekick (Tasha's).

 

[bedir than]

I had a DM let me be a Bladesinger using a battleaxe, but when I switched to two-hands after that attack all the benefits turned off.

I don't think that unbalanced the power level compared to the other players at the table

 

[billd91]

Not sure I would consider that the primary benefit of Mounted Combatant. To me, the main benefit is the ability to redirect attacks to yourself that would otherwise hit the mount. Mounts tend to be way more fragile than PCs.

The 2nd and 3rd bullet points of the feat enhance the mount's survivability compared to their heroic riders who end up with tons more hit points. But I think a good argument can be made that those two are primarily to make mounted combat and its benefits (increased speed and the 1st bullet point) viable in D&D rather than be viewed as benefits themselves.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah, that's the thing that sticks out to me - it's a cool idea thematically, and mechanically effective, but it's a heavy investment for a trick that's largely dependent on the arrangement of the battlefield to work well.*


* (Also, on a side note, if the character is leaning into the idea of being primarily a mounted combatant, riding a mastiff would make the primary benefit of the Mounted Combatant feat (advantage on attacks against creatures smaller than your mount) somewhat moot.)

You can also use it unmounted any time you are not in bladesong or before you go into bladesong.

So start a fight, attack with the lance using two hands, then go into bladesong and use a staff the next turn.