Mounted PowerAttack with a lance

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

Why? The spiked chain threatens at 10'. The rapier can be finessed even though it's a one-handed weapon. Why is the lance's exception so unacceptable?

 

[kjenks]

Why? The spiked chain threatens at 10'. The rapier can be finessed even though it's a one-handed weapon. Why is the lance's exception so unacceptable?

It's the wording of that exception which caused enough problems that WotC added a lengthy FAQ entry about the subject.

SRD:

Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. It has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.
While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

But adding in the FAQ clarifications/rule changes, here's how I think of it:

Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. It has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.
While mounted, you can wield a lance as a one-handed weapon.

This implies all of the usual benefits and penalties of wielding a one-handed weapon such as the ability to do something else with your other hand, 1x Str bonus on damage, one-for-one Power Attack and losing out on the +4 Disarm bonus, but the lance retains the hit points of a two-handed weapon.

 

[IndyPendant]

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.

Oh...bah.

My apologies, Hyp. I misunderstood.

You were arguing from a RAW point of view (what the HELL does that acronym stand for anyways?), whereas I was arguing from a oh-come-on-you-have-GOT-to-be-kidding point of view. : )

You weren't stating that that was the way it should be. Just that that's the way an exclusively by-the-books rules interpretation would have to go.

Edit: Typos.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Oh...bah.

My apologies, Hyp. I misunderstood.

You were arguing from a RAW point of view (what the HELL does that acronym stand for anyways?), whereas I was arguing from a oh-come-on-you-have-GOT-to-be-kidding point of view. : )

You weren't stating that that was the way it should be. Just that that's the way an exclusively by-the-books rules interpretation would have to go.

Edit: Typos.

RAW = Rules As Written

I think that the RAW - as ably argued by Hyp - matches what OUGHT to be happening as well.

The key difference is the HORSE. The reason you can hold a Lance in one hand (plus elbow + body etc.) and expect to do beacoup damage is because you've got this 1200 pound combat trained animal helping you out.

That's why it's a 'special case': While mounted - and ONLY while mounted - you can wield a lance with one hand.

I would have vastly prefered that they followed this up with "in all other respects the weapon is still considerd to be wielded in two hands" OR (even) "There is no penalty for this, but in all respects the weapon is treated as being wielded in ONE hand". Alas.

If one has Power Attack, one should get the full benefit of having the feat (and the horse and the lance). It's not like they get to use this combination all the time or anything.


A'Mal

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I agree Amal. The RAW (sans FAQ) is exactly how it should work.

 

[Ranger REG]

Why? The spiked chain threatens at 10'. The rapier can be finessed even though it's a one-handed weapon. Why is the lance's exception so unacceptable?

If you attack by using one end of a spiked chain with both hand, then you should gain 2-for-1 PA benefit.

If you attack with a rapier two-handed, then you should gain 2-for-1 PA benefit (damage only).

But if you make a mounted lance charge with one hand on it (either your other hand is directing the mount or holding a shield), then you shouldn't get 2-for-1 PA benefit, but you still gain double damage on a successful mounted charge attack.

I reiterate. I cannot argue against the letter of the rules. But that does not mean I agree with it. I would houserule it for now.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But if you make a mounted lance charge with one hand on it (either your other hand is directing the mount or holding a shield), then you shouldn't get 2-for-1 PA benefit, but you still gain double damage on a successful mounted charge attack.

IMHO, this is not a satisfactory answer because as you scale up in level and throw on mounted combat feats your run-of-the-mill two-handed weapon is better on the charge than a lance. PA with Spirited Charge will scale 4-for-1 for a greatsword, but only 3-for-1 for a lance.

The lance is a very suboptimal weapon except when used in a charge. But if you houserule in this way, it is not necessarily the best choice for even this very limited role. That rubs me the wrong way.

 

[FireLance]

I think that the RAW - as ably argued by Hyp - matches what OUGHT to be happening as well.

The key difference is the HORSE. The reason you can hold a Lance in one hand (plus elbow + body etc.) and expect to do beacoup damage is because you've got this 1200 pound combat trained animal helping you out.

That's why it's a 'special case': While mounted - and ONLY while mounted - you can wield a lance with one hand.

I would have vastly prefered that they followed this up with "in all other respects the weapon is still considerd to be wielded in two hands" OR (even) "There is no penalty for this, but in all respects the weapon is treated as being wielded in ONE hand". Alas.

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. The assistance provided by the horse is already factored into the double damage you get when charging. If the horse is moving normally or staying still, I don't see how it can help you hit harder.

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.

 

[FireLance]

IMHO, this is not a satisfactory answer because as you scale up in level and throw on mounted combat feats your run-of-the-mill two-handed weapon is better on the charge than a lance. PA with Spirited Charge will scale 4-for-1 for a greatsword, but only 3-for-1 for a lance.

The lance is a very suboptimal weapon except when used in a charge. But if you houserule in this way, it is not necessarily the best choice for even this very limited role. That rubs me the wrong way.

If you want better scaling, use the lance in two hands instead of one (you do have that option, you know). This puts the lance back in the lead with 1 for 6 Power Attack on a Spirited Charge.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you want better scaling, use the lance in two hands instead of one (you do have that option, you know). This puts the lance back in the lead with 1 for 6 Power Attack on a Spirited Charge.

If I specialized in that tactic enough to sink three feats into it, surely I would do whatever it takes to pump out hyper-optimal damage. As I said before, if the DM really wants me to I would not complain.

But it is a painfully stupid looking image. Is it really necessary to do something so laughably kooky to please the gods of balance?