Mounted PowerAttack with a lance

[Liquidsabre]

Not necessarily. Most abilities in 3.5 that allow that don't say "you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand"; they say "you can wield it as if it were a one-handed weapon". And a one-handed weapon only gets 2-for-1 if you wield it in two hands.

For example, an Ogre wielding a Medium greatsword in one hand doesn't get 2-for-1 PA; to him, the Medium greatsword is a one-handed weapon.

The mounted lance, on the other hand, is a two-handed weapon that happens to be wielded in one hand. It's completely different to the Ogre example.

-Hyp.

Wow, that's a real stretch there if I've ever seen one. While mounted, you can wield a lance in one-hand. A character then wields the lance as a one-handed weapon. To wield as a 2-H weapon they must use 2 hands.

With a special feat a 2-handed weapon is wielded in one-hand, so this 2-H weapon happens to be wielded in one hand. Sorry Hyp, that argument just doesn't fly, too much of an exception just for the lance, which already deals double damage on a charge. That would give a power attacker a x4 power attack bonus, any DM would be nuts to apply this kind of house rule to the lance for core play.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow, that's a real stretch there if I've ever seen one. While mounted, you can wield a lance in one-hand. A character then wields the lance as a one-handed weapon.

That's not stated anywhere.

A longsword (a one-handed weapon) is not wielded 'as a two-handed weapon' just because you choose to use two hands to wield it - which is why we have reference in the PHB to "a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands". If a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon, that phrase is unnecessary. (Which is one of the reasons I disagree with the FAQ, which asserts that the longsword does become a two-handed weapon.)

To wield as a 2-H weapon they must use 2 hands.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

... unless it's a lance, and you're mounted, since it's an exception.

With a special feat a 2-handed weapon is wielded in one-hand...

For example? I'm not familiar with that feat.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Glad to see you're still up to fighting the good fight, Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

That's not stated anywhere.

Well, it is stated in the FAQ, which you choose to disregard.

That's okay. There are several bad rulings in the FAQ. I don't think this is one of them, but you do.

You know, when you are the DM, that's why they call you the judge. You get to decide which rules apply and which to ignore.

 

[mikebr99]

I'm with Hyp as well... and I'd also consider using the Horse's STR instead of the rider in this case, as the horse is providing all the momentum behind the strike... YMMV.


Mike

 

[Greylock]

I thoroughly agree with Hypersmurf. The Lance is a "special case" weapon, and considering the fact that basically the stars must align just right for it to deal maximum damage, I don't think it's all that over the top. So it does high damage, the char expecting to take advantage of that must be highly specialised, and won't get to use it very often. Unlike a spellcaster who gets high damage spells more often, and whenever they feel like it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Realism.

Obviously you should wield your lance with two hands if you want that extra damage.

 

[Corlon]

Yeah, I see the reason that people are saying you can do it, but it all just seems like semmantics to me.

Hold a lance in two hands would provide more power to the hit with the lance, and therefore would deal more damage. I think the x2 on a mounted charge is the only bonus the lance gets for being specialized (x3 with spirited charge). From a rules point of view as well, 6 damage per -1 on the attack is just a wee bit powerful.

 

[IndyPendant]

This post isn't going to be riddled with quotes. Someone else can provide the support if they want. Hyp, sorry but without a direct quote saying 1h lances get 2xpower attack, you're wrong.

Here's why.

The idea behind Power Attack is to use a combination of someone's skill (BAB) and Str (+Atk) to allow them to do greater damage. A 2h weapon gets 2x atk penalty in damage because with both arms swinging, they can apply greater force to the attack. (For game mechanics, it's also a bit of a bonus for those that don't use shields--but I digress.)

Lances get the same bonus that any other weapon does. Lances *can* be used 1h on a mount, or 2h in either situation (mounted or dismounted). It's just that movies and books always (always Always *ALWAYS*) use the 1h method.

Now. Of *course*, when charging on a mount and using a lance, someone's going to do more damage. But this is reflected by the x2 damage-on-a-mounted-charge that you get automatically. If the rider were wielding the lance 2h at that time, he would get x2 from Power Attack (which would then double, for a x4). If he's using it 1h, he would only get x1 (which is still doubled, to x2.)

See, your flaw Hyp is you're failing to give a *reason* why the lance gets it automatically. If someone wielded a longsword 1h on a mount, they don't get x2 for PA. Why the lance? There is *nothing* inherent in the lance's usage that allows it to use a wielder's strength better than any other 1h weapon. In fact, you could make valid arguments that it uses that strength worse!

Saying the horse is a lot stronger is irrelevant for the purposes of PA. That greater strength is covered by the x2-on-a-charge part of the damage.

If someone could help me with the quotes and the math, that'd be great, thanks. : )

Have fun!

 

[rvalle]

Setting aside the fact that it does not say in the rules that you can't PA with a lance... how do you picture that happening? With a weapon I can visualize that... you are taking huge honking swings trying to do more damage but giving up some accuracy. But with a lance? Thrusting up with your legs as hard as you can just before hitting maybe?

rv