Mounted PowerAttack with a lance

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think I would allow a lance to be treated as wielded in two hands in all respects (except for the number of hands it takes to use) when mounted.[/quote[

I don't advocate that either.

If you're wielding it in one hand, it's treated as being wielded in one hand, not two hands.

I'm not referencing any rules that are dependent on a weapon being wielded in two hands, though. I'm referencing rules that are dependent on the lance being a two-handed weapon.

Just as a longsword, according to the PHB, is a one-handed weapon whether you use one hand or two hands, the lance is a two-handed weapon whether you use one hand or two hands. It's just that no other two-handed weapon is capable of being wielded in one hand.

The proposed formulation also implies that lances also get 1.5 times Strength bonus whether wielded in two hands or one hand. Again, this is somewhat counter-intuitive for me.

As long as it's your primary hand, yes.

If it's your off-hand, we have a contradiction. As a two-handed weapon, you apply 1.5x. But as a weapon wielded in your off-hand, you only apply .5x. The DM thus needs to determine which of these takes precedence.

As a DM, I'd rule that a lance wielded in the primary hand adds 1.5x Str bonus to damage, but a lance wielded in the off-hand only adds .5x.

-Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

And I'd just use the FAQ rules and not make up my own.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And I'd just use the FAQ rules and not make up my own.

Nobody's making up rules, guy. The fact that some of us may choose to play by the PH rules without following the FAQ's interpretations does not equate to House Rules.

 

[Deset Gled]

And I'd just use the FAQ rules and not make up my own.

Sorry kjenks, but the truth is that the FAQ is the document that is making up the unofficial rules. According to the PHB errata:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

When the FAQ and the PHB disagree, the PHB text takes presidence over the FAQ, since it is the primary source and the FAQ is not official errata.

 

[kjenks]

Sure, I see that the FAQ is making up new rules, but if most people follow the FAQ rules, at least we're not all making up our own new rules.

And other than books and errata, the FAQ is about as official as it gets. It seems to have much more research and thought behind it than Sage Advice columns or (shudder) Customer Service replies.

 

[Greylock]

...the FAQ is about as official as it gets. It seems to have much more research and thought behind it than Sage Advice columns...

Errrhh, who wants to tell kjenks?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Errrhh, who wants to tell kjenks?

Let's leave him his fantasy land. Where going by the Player's Handbook is making up new rules, and the FAQ...well, as I said. Just because we know there isn't a Santa Claus doesn't mean we have to spoil it for others, right?

 

[Deset Gled]

Sure, I see that the FAQ is making up new rules, but if most people follow the FAQ rules, at least we're not all making up our own new rules.

And other than books and errata, the FAQ is about as official as it gets. It seems to have much more research and thought behind it than Sage Advice columns or (shudder) Customer Service replies.

A few of my favorite FAQ rulings, not counting the two-handed weapon BS:

FAQ Ruling: The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds
only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.

The SRD states "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Seems pretty clear and un-suggestive to me.

FAQ Ruling: How many Hit Dice does my 1st-level pixie rogue have? What would his effective character level be? Unless noted otherwise, all 1-HD creatures (other than 1-HD humanoids) lose their racial HD when they gain class levels. Thus, your pixie would have 1 Hit Dice: one from his race, and one from his class level.

This one contradicts itself, due to lack of proofreading. It's worth noting that when this clause originally appeared, it was ruled a pixe rouge had a minimum of 2 HD (which is just plain wrong). A flurry of people having issues with it (a number of them from ENWorld) got it changed.

FAQ Ruling: The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity).

This one was contricted both before and after being published by the 3.0 FAQ and RotG articles. Goes to show that there is absolutely no consensus on the topic within WotC.

The bottom line? The FAQ is just as messed up as everything else WotC publishes as "aids" to D+D players. Lack of thought, colaboration, common sense, and understanding of the rules run rampant in it. The FAQ is not official errata. No way, no how. And only official errata trumps the PHB. The FAQ, the RotG articles, Sage Advice, Monte Cook's website, and anything else you can think of are also not official errata. Feel free to argue intent, playability, balance, or whatever else you want. But in the case of FAQ vs PHB, PHB wins.

 

[Ranger REG]

And only official errata trumps the PHB.

But what only trumps the DMG? FAQ or errata?

If errata, that means the prestige classes still incur multiclass XP penalty. The errata failed to mention that while the FAQ does.

 

[Felix]

And other than books and errata, the FAQ is about as official as it gets. It seems to have much more research and thought behind it than Sage Advice columns or (shudder) Customer Service replies.

I started giggling when I read this.

Hyp's got the right of it.
PA gives 2-for-1 for all two-handed weapons.
Lance: Two-handed weapon.

There is nothing else that contradicts that fundamental relationship twixt PA and a Lance. There are rules that apply PA to other weapons, and rules that change the way a lance is wielded, but nothing ever changes the simple fact that PA gives 2-for-1 to two-handed weapons, and that a Lance is a two-handed weapon.

Easy peasy.