Lances and bonus damage from strength.

[Jhulae]

I vaguely recall there being a dissention on whether lances gained the 1.5 x or not. Now it's clearly called out. Just the normal Str modifier for one-handed weapons.

If you're allowed to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, such as when riding and using a lance, that weapon is considered one-handed for the purpose of the Strength bonus on damage rolls when you're using it in one hand.

 

[Legildur]

LOL! It's the FAQ all over.

 

[Jhulae]

LOL! It's the FAQ all over.

Except it's not. The RC is the 'Primary Rules source' that trumps any prevous rules source. It's now not 'up for debate', it's the way it is. Fortunately, most of what I've read so far from it takes out a lot of the ambiguity.

The FAQ was only intended to provide clarifciation (which people tended to either agree with or disagree with anyway), not be a rules source.

 

[Legildur]

Is RC core? If someone goes to start a game of 3.5E, walk into their FLGS and purchases the core rule books, then what rule do they play?

The RC in this case contradicts the PHB. Saying that this is the 'new rules' is great, but it is complete BS that people need to purchase errata. It creates unneccessary confusion between (for sake of a better description) the 'haves and the have nots'. It's like the stealth errata from the special edition PHB.

If this ruling is what the designers wanted, then they should have stuck with the weapon rules from 3.0.

I see where they are coming from, but they are 'undoing' their own rules set. It is very untidy.

PS I have never played a mounted-lance specialist in any edition of D&D, from Blackmoor, 1ED, Basic, 2ED, 3.0E, or 3.5E so I don't have a vested/emotional interest in this one.

 

[Legildur]

...Fortunately, most of what I've read so far from it takes out a lot of the ambiguity.

That sounds interesting and useful.

 

[Jhulae]

Is RC core? If someone goes to start a game of 3.5E, walk into their FLGS and purchases the core rule books, then what rule do they play?

The RC in this case contradicts the PHB. Saying that this is the 'new rules' is great, but it is complete BS that people need to purchase errata. It creates unneccessary confusion between (for sake of a better description) the 'haves and the have nots'. It's like the stealth errata from the special edition PHB.

If this ruling is what the designers wanted, then they should have stuck with the weapon rules from 3.0.

I see where they are coming from, but they are 'undoing' their own rules set. It is very untidy.

PS I have never played a mounted-lance specialist in any edition of D&D, from Blackmoor, 1ED, Basic, 2ED, 3.0E, or 3.5E so I don't have a vested/emotional interest in this one.

The same thing can be said for someone who pulls his 3.0 books out in a 3.5 game, honestly.

Or, the same thing can be said for Swift and Immediate actions. For someone who has the FRCS but not Magic of Faerun, where some of the 'core' FR spells were updated. Or the SC, which updates some of *those* spells. Nevermind the person who doesn't have internet access (yes, there are still some about) who doesn't have the Errata. He's in that 'have not' category of yours.

As far as I see it, they're not 'undoing' their own rules set as much as incorporating things that were added later (which, in your example, the guy with only the 'core rule books' is also missing out on), and making clarifications for things that weren't as clear as they could have been avaliable in one book.

Since its title is, well, Rules Compendium, I'd go so far as to say it probably is a core book now. And one thing is for sure, it's definitley much easier to read and find rules in the RC than in the PHB.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is RC core? If someone goes to start a game of 3.5E, walk into their FLGS and purchases the core rule books, then what rule do they play?

There is plenty in the core rule books that is no longer correct. The Rules Compendium contains language that states that it supercedes contradictory information in prior books.

Until this change, a lance, as a two-handed weapon, dealt 1.5x Str bonus to damage even when wielded in one hand; with the publication of the Rules Compendium, that rule has been altered.

Unless there is further clarifying language, of course, it still gains 2-for-1 Power Attack and +4 on Sunder and Disarm checks, since it is a two-handed weapon; according to the fragment of RC text posted, it is only considered a one-handed weapon for the purpose of Str bonus on damage rolls. It is still a two-handed weapon for all other purposes unless noted otherwise in Rules Compendium in unposted text.

-Hyp.

 

[Jhulae]

There is plenty in the core rule books that is no longer correct. The Rules Compendium contains language that states that it supercedes contradictory information in prior books.

Until this change, a lance, as a two-handed weapon, dealt 1.5x Str bonus to damage even when wielded in one hand; with the publication of the Rules Compendium, that rule has been altered.

Unless there is further clarifying language, of course, it still gains 2-for-1 Power Attack and +4 on Sunder and Disarm checks, since it is a two-handed weapon; according to the fragment of RC text posted, it is only considered a one-handed weapon for the purpose of Str bonus on damage rolls. It is still a two-handed weapon for all other purposes unless noted otherwise in Rules Compendium in unposted text.

-Hyp.

Nope. There's nothing more about weapons like lances other than what I posted. There are no feats in the RC either, and no mention of any changes to Power Attack (that I could find), so the 'attack with a two-handed weapon' line from Power Attack still seems to let you take 2-to-1 on the damage. I'll post anything else I find on this as I continue to read.

 

[Legildur]

The same thing can be said for someone who pulls his 3.0 books out in a 3.5 game, honestly.

Ahh, no. Not even close. Different editions. The .5 v .0 gives it away. But I take the point about what they are trying to achieve.

I wonder if it will be reflected in the SRD???

 

[Drowbane]

Too bad the Rules Compendium didn't come out before the 4e Announcement... my group (likely) will never so much as crack it open.

So heres to Lances still getting a x1.5 str mod!