Mounted PowerAttack with a lance

[Legildur]

See, your flaw Hyp is you're failing to give a *reason* why the lance gets it automatically.

I believe that Hypersmurf was quoting some pretty simple rules for his *reason*:

A. A lance is a "two-handed melee weapon" [Table 7-5: Weapons, PHB p117]

B. "If you attack with a two-handed weapon, <snip>, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls", [Power Attack feat, PHB p98].

No where does it state that using the lance in one hand (when mounted only) make it suddenly into a one-handed weapon by the rules. Looks like pretty clear *reason* to me by the RAW. Whether it should be is another matter that perhaps could more appropriately discussed in the House Rules or General Discussion forum.

And I got to witness a 10th level mounted paladin employing Spirited Charge, Smite Evil and Divine Might simultaneously the other week on a CR 9 opponent. There was no need for a Ride-by-Attack........ And he didn't even use Power Attack as he wanted to make sure he hit! I think that there are more dramatic issues around mounted combat than the 2-for-1 Power Attack bonus. Then again, cavalry was long the big gun of many armies and just maybe the rules reflect that.

 

[FireLance]

Remember, guys - don't shoot the messenger. The wording of the rules does imply that lances get 2-for-1 on Power Attack, even when used in one hand while mounted. This is because Power Attack makes reference to the weapon (whether two-handed, one-handed, or light), and not the way it is wielded, with the exception of one-handed weapons wielded in two hands.

Of course, when I'm running a game, I add a house rule that a lance wielded in one hand while mounted is also treated as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of the Power Attack feat. I take care to point this out to players who want to play mounted combatants with lances and Power Attack.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I am pretty sure they always use the one-handed lance method because charging while employing the lance/spear with two hands is downright foolish. Coming into violent physical contact while having your torso twisted sufficiently to use two hands to your advantage is going to throw you out of the saddle.

Ergo my crack about "realism" above.

The historically most common method of using spear-like weapons from horseback is an overhand thrust with one hand. Easy to shift your attack to either side. You do not risk knocking yourself out of the saddle. If your weapon is balance right or you shift your grip slightly you can opt to throw the spear, and you can take advantage of momentum from a charging horse (and then halt). This was good enough for the Mongols to smash all the great armies of Eurasia.

Yes, one could use a lance/spear two-handed for normal thrusting attacks. It is not a common technique. And it is not for hard in-your-face charging attacks.

 

[Tatsukun]

It seems to me that, (I can't believe I'm saying this) Hyp is wrong on this. It's just a lot easier and it makes more sense to me to have the PA ratio based only on how the weapon is being used at the moment.

Power Attack is about sacrificing accuracy for power. If you have something in one hand, you can really put your all into the attack and get a 1 for 1 ratio. If you have something in both hands, you can get more power into the swing.

Balance-wise, you are giving up your right to have something in your other hand for the extra damage.

So, a long sword being used in two hands seems like it should be 2 for 1 ratio. Conversely, a lance being used in one hand should be 1 for 1. If you want to do the extra damage, you have to give up your "right to have something in your other hand" to the gods of game balance.

-Tatsu

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A better balance argument is that you are getting 2 for 1 while charging. Why should you get 4 for 1?

Hey, if my DM insists that I use a lance in two hands to get my smack damage I am willing to do so without complaint, just as long as he does not come up with some laughably bogus "realism" argument.

For the record, I agree with Hyp's technical reading of the RAW here.

 

[Shin Okada]

Mounted combat rule is not well made nor worded and IMHO need "DM's adjudication" a lot.

By RAW, a character mounted on a horse cannot use lance when charging onto a creature who only has 5ft. space. Because, in 3.5e rule, the horse charges, not the rider. And the horse must stop in an adjacent space to the target, because it has 5-foot reach. From that space, the lance wielder cannot attack the target ..sigh

 

[FireLance]

It seems to me that, (I can't believe I'm saying this) Hyp is wrong on this. It's just a lot easier and it makes more sense to me to have the PA ratio based only on how the weapon is being used at the moment.

Remember, what is easier and makes more sense is not necessarily the same as what the rules say. I agree that lances should only get 1-for-1 on Power Attack when used one-handed while mounted. However, I also agree with Hyp that the rules as written imply that lances get 2-for-1 on Power Attack regardless of whether they are used one-handed or two-handed.

The rules as written have nothing to do with designer intent or game balance or logic or what is suitable for your campaign. The fact that the designers intended something different, or game balance goes out the window, or an illogical situation results, or you dislike the implications of the rule for your campaign all do nothing to change the fact that the rules say what the rules say.

Of course, if all the above are true, it's a pretty good indication that the rule ought to be changed, and house-ruled until it is changed. But until it is changed, the rules as written are the rules as written.

 

[Deset Gled]

It seems to me that, (I can't believe I'm saying this) Hyp is wrong on this. It's just a lot easier and it makes more sense to me to have the PA ratio based only on how the weapon is being used at the moment.

See, that'ts the problem. PA should, logically, be based on how the weapon is used. But a weapon being "one-handed" or "two-handed" is not a property of how the weapon is being used. The words "one-" or "two-handed" are adjectives that describe a weapon's size, not the way a weapon is held (which, agian, isn't logical, but is the way the SRD is written). The wording of PA bases the feat on a weapon being "two-handed", and thus PA is based on the properties of the weapon, not necesssarily how it is held (though it can be, there's another clause for that).

The fact that a the lance being called a "two-handed weapon that can be wielded in one hand" is really just sloppiness in the description (or a purposefull change, I can't read the minds of authors). If it were stated that someone could "wield a lance as a one-handed weapon" instead of "weild a lance [two-handed weapon] in one hand", Hyp's arguement wouldn't hold water. It's a silly nuance of the wording that goes against logic, but it's also how the rules read when taken litterally.

 

[Ranger REG]

I cannot argue against the letter of the rule, which Hyp interpret correctly.

But to be brutally honest, that means the rule itself is incorrect. IMNSHO, either the wording in PA feat (when it says "a two-handed weapon") or the misclassification of the lance (listed under "two-handed melee weapon") is in error.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it were stated that someone could "wield a lance as a one-handed weapon" instead of "weild a lance [two-handed weapon] in one hand", Hyp's arguement wouldn't hold water.

Well, if it stated that a lance while mounted was treated as a one-handed weapon, Hyp's argument wouldn't be for 2-for-1 PA in the first place

-Hyp.