I broke my brain...Duel Weilding a Lances on a horse!?!? lol

[Riley37]

He taught a lot of people about how dangerous 2WF could be...but I taught him a lesson about pure applied physics.

So what would you have done, if he had charged you, on a horse, dual-wielding lances?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what would you have done, if he had charged you, on a horse, dual-wielding lances?

Stood directly in front of the horse, shield up, moving as needed to stay directly in front.

MOST horsemen would simply try to run me down, probably (which is why I’m reserving an action for a last-second dodge!). But THIS yahoo? I’m betting he’s going to try to hit me with both lances. As he crosses them in front of the horse, I’m reasonably confident the horse would balk...which might cause the lance tips to dip enough for him to accidentally invent double pole pole vaulting.

 

[Riley37]

I’m reasonably confident the horse would balk...which might cause the lance tips to dip enough for him to accidentally invent double pole pole vaulting.

I don't know the exact details of the Pole Vault bonus to a Jump check, but I think that multiple poles don't give a stackable bonus. I guess he could roll for each lance to see how far down the shaft it breaks, and use the better of the two?

If you had a pole arm, rather than a shield, I speculate that you could parry both lances with a well-timed sweep of the pole arm shaft, which might cause the lances to foul each other, and there's a variety of ways that could end badly for the dual-wielder, some of them involving the horse's objections to the process. If there's anything sharp or pointy on the business end of the pole arm, that might become relevant in the following step.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Two sword (or rapier) fighting was definitely a valid dueling technique in Europe and Japan. Usually attributed to the highest masters.

I've never heard it used as a battlefield technique however.

Edit: Which isn't to say that it hasn't happened. There's a lot of stuff I don't know about, so take it with a grain of salt.

I believe that its always been a civilian style simply because any combatant deliberately going into a large fight is going to want either a shield, or something that gives a significant reach/power advantage, if not both.

Fighting with two weapons is for when you're not allowed to carry a shield around, not going to be facing any ranged weapons, and fighting people similarly unarmoured and carrying civilian weapons rather than polearms.

It shortens your reach in a battle-line, cannot protect you from arrows or heavy weapons, and is generally ineffective against armour.

 

[AriochQ]

I have an Adventurer's League Goblin Beast Master/Cavalier who rides a War Cow and wields twin lances. He also gets advantage on any attacks on creatures Medium or smaller while mounted. It is slightly broken, but competent DM's will balance it by limiting where you can fit a Large mount. I find Gloom Stalker/Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter still the most egregious build in 5e.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

This discussion is a pretty depressing reminder of why martials tend to be underpowered and/or most likely to get punitive nerfs in play. Even their fans want them 'nerfed' in the guise of realism. While still fighting giants and dragons, of course.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This discussion is a pretty depressing reminder of why martials tend to be underpowered and/or most likely to get punitive nerfs in play. Even their fans want them 'nerfed' in the guise of realism. While still fighting giants and dragons, of course.

It all depends on how ridiculous and gonzo you want your game to be. as long as it has internal consistency to its logic I think its fine. Just because there are dragons doens't mean everything is fair play.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

It all depends on how ridiculous and gonzo you want your game to be. as long as it has internal consistency to its logic I think its fine. Just because there are dragons doens't mean everything is fair play.

Hmmph. Willing Suspension of Disbelief always seems to be at its strongest when it comes to fighters. If my DM's definition of fair play was medusa riders shooting poisonous snake arrows from their hair atop of hellhound mounts but not a fighter dual-wielding lances on horseback, I'd (rightly) suspect a anti-martial screwjob.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Hmmph. Willing Suspension of Disbelief always seems to be at its strongest when it comes to fighters. If my DM's definition of fair play was medusa riders shooting poisonous snake arrows from their hair atop of hellhound mounts but not a fighter dual-wielding lances on horseback, I'd (rightly) suspect a anti-martial screwjob.

OK.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

OK.

A non-zero number of DMs in this very thread wouldn't allow the fighter dual-wielding lances on horseback, but I'm pretty sure close to zero DMs would disallow medusas shooting snake arrows Thulsa Dooms style under the same logic.

It's a clear anti-martial hosejob and all you can do about is say 'OK'.