Lances and bonus damage from strength.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow, that ruling's actually reasonable! It's how my group's always played it. Right now, I'm suffering the lower AC to go 2-handed power attack and get my 1.5x. Frankly, it's worth it. How in the blazes did people think it was fair to give lances 2-handed benefits in one hand before now (and apparantly still after the fact)?

 

[Drowbane]

It just seems reasonable to me that someone striking from houseback with a couched-lance will do even more damage than a raging orc with a big axe.

The horseman's charge is spectacularly easy to stop in D&D. Drop the mount, the knight is hosed. Fail to drop the mount... well its going to hurt.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The striking from horseback is represented as the x2 on a charge (And +1 higher ground to hit). And, at least vs. one attack per round to drop your mount, they have to beat your ride check. Good luck, there. I've beaten natural 20's on the attack roll in the past. And really, past the first few levels, you NEED something stronger than a regular horse if you want it to survive in combat. Plenty of ways to do this -- animal companion, paladin mount, even buying/trainng more exotic rides. In my case, another PC (centaur, also a Knight w/ lance) is my mount. Our charges end battles. ^_^

 

[Legildur]

How in the blazes did people think it was fair to give lances 2-handed benefits in one hand before now (and apparantly still after the fact)?

Well, historically, lances were devastating. That seems a reasonable basis for the benefits.

And no matter how powerful lances seem under any variation of the rules, I don't see them dominating the D&D landscape.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How in the blazes did people think it was fair to give lances 2-handed benefits in one hand before now (and apparantly still after the fact)?

I think the question should be more phrased "How did people think it was fair to give a two-handed weapon the benefits of being a two-handed weapon, even if that two-handed weapon had a special quality allowing it to be wielded in one hand without changing its designation under certain circumstances?"... at which point the question pretty much answers itself.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

See my sig.

 

[Hypersmurf]

See my sig.

Well, it depends on what one considers 'errata'.

"We've found a cut-and-paste mistake from 3E, so that the effects of enhancement bonus on hardness and hit points of magic weapons appears differently in two different places."

That's an error.

"Spell X states 'Spell Resistance: No', but it should be 'Spell Resistance: Yes'."

That's an error.

"We've decided that Polymorph and related effects don't work the way we hoped they would in play, and we've made the following changes:..."

That's not an error; what was published was what they meant to publish, but now they've made a change. Just like Feather Fall becoming an immediate action - that's not error correction, that's a change in the rules.

If the changes to Sunder and Lances and so forth are considered corrections of errors, then per the statement about free errata, they should appear in a downloadable document.

But if they were published as originally intended in the PHB, but they have decided some years later to revise the mechanics, those are not errata.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

See my sig.

Yeah, I see your point.

And Hypersmurf also has some good points.

All in all, it is very untidy of WotC.