Using 2-Handed Melee Weapons While Mounted(?)

[Azlan]

In the many history books that I've perused, I've never seen a picture or read an anecdote of a combatant using a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted. I've never even seen this sort of thing done in the movies, historical or fantastical.

I realize that in D&D (as in real life), you can hold onto and guide your mount with your legs, thus enabling you to fight with both your hands. However, you are still fixed in place below the waist, which limits your combat maneuvers; and then there is the mount's neck and head being in the way; thus the use of a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted should be severely if not entirely limited.

There are a good number of rules for mounted combat in 3.0/3.5 D&D, yet the issue of using a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted is not addressed. (At least, I can't find any rules regarding this.) You can use a missile weapon 2-handed, albeit with severe penalties (and even with the Mounted Archery feat, those penalties are only reduced to half). But the dynamics for using a 2-handed missile weapon are very much different from those for using a 2-handed melee weapon, while mounted.

While mounted, you can use a 1-handed melee weapon and a shield, or a 1-handed melee weapon and a torch (or a banner or a pistol or whatever), but can you also use a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted? (Or, for that matter, can you use two melee weapons, one in each hand, against the same opponent, while mounted?)

Perhaps a 2-handed melee weapon (or two melee weapons) can be used while mounted against an opponent who is likewise mounted, albeit even that usage would suffer attack penalties.

Whatever. A combatant wielding a greatsword or a greataxe, 2-handed, while mounted -- especially against an opponent on the ground -- seems absurd to me, even if it's D&D.

 

[Camarath]

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits one from or penalizes one for weilding a two-handed melee weapon while mounted. If you would like to create rules that would do so you might want to post in the House Rules Forum.

Also here are some pictures from the Maciejowski Bible (circa 1250 ad) depicting the use of two-handed weapon while mounted.
Spear
Sword
Mace

 

[Endur]

The rulebook assumes that nobody is going to be silly enough to try using a two-handed axe while riding a horse, so they neglected to officially write a rule prohibiting such.

If someone in one of my games wanted to wield a two-handed axe while mounted, I would laugh at them.

If they persisted, I would make the following rulings:

1) They'd have to make all of the usual mounted checks for fighting while not holding the reins of the horse. DC 5 ride check, relatively easy to make if you have the ride skill.

2) They get the -4 non-proficency penalty for wielding a two handed weapon while mounted. Two handed weapons aren't designed for mounted combat and warriors aren't trained to use them from mounts, so there is a weapon non-profiency penalty involved.

3) I probably wouldn't grant the wielder the two handed strength bonus or power attack bonus, as the angle of the second arm is all wrong.

 

[Nightfall]

While I'm not sure I'd heavily penalize a warrior of using a two handed weapon, I would think ride checks might be in order.

 

[Azlan]

Also here are some pictures from the Maciejowski Bible (circa 1250 ad) depicting the use of two-handed weapon while mounted.

Thanks for those pictures! They were enlightening.

Like I said in my original post, I think it's possible for you to wield a 2-handed weapon while mounted, but only against an opponent who is likewise mounted. And the pictures you supplied appear to support this. But even then, I think you should suffer a penalty (i.e. an attack penalty, or a ride check, or both).

 

[Azlan]

The rulebook assumes that nobody is going to be silly enough to try using a two-handed axe while riding a horse, so they neglected to officially write a rule prohibiting such.

Heh. I never assume anything is too silly for a player character to try. If the rules don't cover it, you can be sure that someone, in some campaign, is going to try exploiting it.

 

[CCamfield]

"With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action."

I would take the existence of this rule, plus the rule on mounted ranged weapons, to mean that it's intended to be possible for someone to ride and use a two-handed weapon at the same time. It's a game, not a simulation - and someone riding a warhorse wielding a two-handed sword is "cool".

 

[Azlan]

It's a game, not a simulation - and someone riding a warhorse wielding a two-handed sword is "cool".

Yes, well, someone riding a horse and firing a bow is cool, too, but D&D 3.0/3.5 has penalties and limitations for that, doesn't it? So why not the same for combatants wielding a 2-handed weapon while mounted?

Just because D&D is not a "simulation", doesn't mean its rules can't simulate realistic medieval/Renaissance combat, to some degree or other. Otherwise, you'll have ridiculous situations in D&D like halflings running around wielding normal-size greatswords, like Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.

 

[Darklone]

We had a similar thread some months ago... I cannot provide better links than those above, but I do recall that twohanded weapons used to be pretty common for mounted soldiers. Probably due to the fact that much less shields have been used in melee combat than modern people are used from knight movies... I´m no rider by myself, but a twohanded greatsword makes fighting against polearms so much easier.

 

[Tellerve]

I don't think using a two handed weapon would be that hard on the back of a horse if you were already trained in the use of the weapon and riding. And I surely don't think it is an "exploit" do such. As for the reason for ranged weapons getting a penalty, you are shooting something far away while moving, hence the penalty, not because it is a two handed weapon, IMO.

Tellerve