Pathfinder 1E Lance on horseback one handed.

[Starfox]

One-handed strength because it's wielded one-handed. I figure if you can get two-handed strength bonuses wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands, I see no problem or inconsistency getting just the one-handed bonus wielding a lance with one hand.

It is not a one-handed weapon. It is a two-handed weapon that a special rule lets you use in 1h. At least that's what I found trying to read up on it. Not sure how I want it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/lance

 

[delericho]

It is not a one-handed weapon. It is a two-handed weapon that a special rule lets you use in 1h.

Huh.

By the letter of the rules, this is correct, which means that you should indeed get the two-handed Power Attack bonus. However, you do not get double your Strength bonus:

(Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)

From http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores (and emphasis mine - note that it says two-handed attacks, not attacks with a two-handed weapon).

(IMO, they should probably change the text of the 'lance' entry to say "when used by a mounted warrior, a lance can be treated as a one-handed weapon", or something to that effect.)

 

[billd91]

It is not a one-handed weapon. It is a two-handed weapon that a special rule lets you use in 1h. At least that's what I found trying to read up on it. Not sure how I want it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/lance

It is a two-handed weapon, true. You use that definition to determine how hard it is to break and how it would normally be wielded... if it weren't for that exception for using it one-handed when mounted. But do you get 1.5x your Strength bonus because you're using a two-handed weapon or because you are wielding it in two hands? If you're not super anally retentive about the letter of the text, the reason you get the higher strength bonus is because of the latter, not the former. This is one area 3.5 kind of screwed the pooch with the shift from "large" weapons to "two-handed" weapons. It opened up the door wider to rule interpretations that abuse the narrative in favor of the RAW.

And that is the wrong direction for RPGs to go.

 

[Starfox]

By the letter of the rules, this is correct, which means that you should indeed get the two-handed Power Attack bonus. However, you do not get double your Strength bonus:

From http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores (and emphasis mine - note that it says two-handed attacks, not attacks with a two-handed weapon).

(IMO, they should probably change the text of the 'lance' entry to say "when used by a mounted warrior, a lance can be treated as a one-handed weapon", or something to that effect.)

This is an interesting change in Pathfinder vs 3.5, and pretty much decides the issue.

It is a two-handed weapon, true. You use that definition to determine how hard it is to break...

This provides a bit of background on what effect having it be a 2H weapon does still have. Together, its pretty conclusive you do not get extra strength bonus using it on horseback, and is seems over very weird that one definition of 2-handed should apply to the Strength damage part and another to Power Attack.

The lance is still a pretty powerful weapon, so this should be functional. You just need some secondary attack (like spiked armor) that you can use against adjacent foes.