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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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'.

Yep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're not the first one to come up with this idea...

3.0 had a 'light lance' and a 'heavy lance,' and, because of how it handled different size weapons, a size M character could technically use the former as an off-hand weapon. So it was not an idea long in coming, even though TWFing had been nerfed in 3.0, relative to the Cuisinart of Doom in 2e.

3.5 really hated on the idea of one-handed reach weapons, and no subsequent edition has gone back to relatively simple support for the classic mounted knight nor the less familiar Macedonian Phalanx.
I'd rather have decent rules for the lance (& shield), and have to put up with the occasional dual-lance looney.

 

[Oofta]

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'.

If I had a medusa shooting snake arrows, I would consider that part of the monster's CR rating. I would follow the rules for making custom monsters. It would actually be kind of a cool visual, I may have to use it someday.

In one sense I feel your pain. There are a lot of DMs that will, for example, make any character wearing "heavy" armor sink like a rock while the guy wearing breastplate and carrying so much equipment that they literally cannot carry one pound more without having to crawl is just fine. But a knight wielding dual lances would just look goofy, and not in a good way. It's exploiting a technical loophole to gain an advantage that was pretty obviously never intended.

But there's a difference between adding rules that don't exist and allowing something that would be ridiculously over the top even in a cartoon. If you and your table want a silly anything goes campaign, have fun. Just don't expect many people to agree.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I am confused about any sort of claim that martials are getting screwed in 5e. Fighters in particular are the beasts of combat from what I have seen, even without dual-wielding lances.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

If I had a medusa shooting snake arrows, I would consider that part of the monster's CR rating. I would follow the rules for making custom monsters. It would actually be kind of a cool visual, I may have to use it someday.

It's exploiting a technical loophole to gain an advantage that was pretty obviously never intended.

That's precisely the problem. People shooting snake arrows out of a bow is, from a physics perspective, more ridiculous than dual-wielding lances. But the former, in your own words, is deemed as a 'cool' and is thus unworthy of an on-the-spot nerf but the latter is okay if a DM on-the-spot vetoes it. Why? Certainly no reason from a 'realism' perspective. But apparently it's just okay to subject martials to hazy double standards that don't apply to monsters and non-martials.

I don't remember reading a class feature of 'oh, by the way fighter, if your character does something that's unrealistic for YOU but not for an NPC or the party, expect the DM to unilaterally declare your action doesn't work', but thanks for letting me know that a lot of DMs somehow see this clause.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

I am confused about any sort of claim that martials are getting screwed in 5e.

I see it happen all the time. I see DMs declaring that rogues can't sneak attack oozes, I see DMs declaring you can't shoot arrows through a Storm Sphere, I see DMs declaring that swimming in heavy armor is an auto-fail even with a strength of 20, I see DMs declaring the fighter can't dual wield lances even if it's RAW legal, etc. Doing lots and lots of damage is cold comfort when the Sword of Damacles of 'the DM can just declare your character doesn't work under the fig leaf of realism but you better not bring up that the character doesn't bring up the fig leaf for other concepts'.

 

[Oofta]

That's precisely the problem. People shooting snake arrows out of a bow is, from a physics perspective, more ridiculous than dual-wielding lances. But the former, in your own words, is deemed as a 'cool' and is thus unworthy of an on-the-spot nerf but the latter is okay if a DM on-the-spot vetoes it. Why? Certainly no reason from a 'realism' perspective. But apparently it's just okay to subject martials to hazy double standards that don't apply to monsters and non-martials.

I don't remember reading a class feature of 'oh, by the way fighter, if your character does something that's unrealistic for YOU but not for an NPC or the party, expect the DM to unilaterally declare your action doesn't work', but thanks for letting me know that a lot of DMs somehow see this clause.

From a physics perspective, shooting snakes of course would never work. Which is why the snake had to be magically transformed into an arrow.

As far as the DM making rulings that you may disagree with you're going to get a big "meh" from me. I guarantee I've made rulings as a DM about the implementation of certain spells or spell effects that my players disagreed with. It's not limited to martial characters. If a DM makes too many arbitrary rules or makes too many rulings I disagree with then maybe it's time for me to find a new DM.

But DMs that would allow an idiotic dual lance wielder because you can kind-of-sort-of read the rules that way are going to be few and far between. That in no way means that most DMs have "hazy double standards", it just means that DMs are going to have to make rulings that make sense to them from time to time.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Which is why the snake had to be magically transformed into an arrow.

Which is another martial hosejob. I don't know why you thought this would negate my point.

But DMs that would allow an idiotic dual lance wielder because you can kind-of-sort-of read the rules that way are going to be few and far between. That in no way means that most DMs have "hazy double standards", it just means that DMs are going to have to make rulings that make sense to them from time to time.

It's not limited to martial characters.

The "hazy double standard" part comes from martials, all other things being equal, being more likely to copping a sudden 'realism' nerf than monsters or caster PCs.

I'm serious. 9 times out of 10, if you hear a DM going 'that may be RAW, but that is idiotic and unrealistic and I won't let it happen' then A) this nerf involves a martial and B) a caster or monster doing a similar thing wouldn't get a nerf.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Ah, the ole goofy Dual-Wield Lance build. It's been floated around since 3rd edition and debunked in that edition and Pathfinder. A lance is, and always has been, a Large or Two-Handed weapon. It doesn't become smaller because you mount a horse. It can be utilized with one hand when mounted, but the quality of being Large or Two-Handed doesn't change. This has been the ruling that has always prevented the goofiness of dual-wielding lances. The current counter-argument is that designers forgot to say so and therefore anything goes.

But...

Sage Advice addressed this and concluded that it's not Rules as Intended.

Or, from an old post in a game long ago: You're missing the point of why I proposed this ludicrous build in the first place. It was meant to be on par with the broken "Am Barbarian" build....This build has no practical use that I am willing to recognize, it is merely a proof of concept.

 

[Oofta]

Which is why the snake had to be magically transformed into an arrow.

Which is another martial hosejob. I don't know why you thought this would negate my point.

How is an NPC casting a spell a "martial hosejob"?

That's like saying dragons are a "martial hosejob" because they can fly and breath fire. Talk about broken!