Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Lances

[Storyteller01]

Spirited Charge = pushing more mount to greater speeds during the attack.

Power Attack = pushing just a little harder, sacrificing accuracy as you get bounced around.

 

[mvincent]

...so you could get the 2-for-1 power attack even while using a shield.

From the 3.5 FAQ:
"Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a
two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no
matter how I wield the lance, right?
Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons
as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of
convenience. These size categories are always relative to the
wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on
weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see
next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception."

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the 3.5 FAQ:
"Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a
two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no
matter how I wield the lance, right?
Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons
as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of
convenience. These size categories are always relative to the
wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on
weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see
next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception."

This is perhaps the FAQ entry I dislike the most in the entire document.

("Strictly as a matter of convenience"? A longsword changes its designation when someone switches hands? Ick.)

It brought me great joy a few months back when I queried CustServ on this one, and they indicated that they were in the process of trying to get that FAQ entry removed or changed.

That joy is fading as time passes and it still hasn't happened.

But the answer has always read to me as though Skip Williams had somehow missed the changes to the weapon size rules from 3E to 3.5, or disliked them and wanted to ignore them; how the answer "a longsword used in two hands is a two-handed weapon" could exist alongside references in the Core Rules to "a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" (presumably, by the same logic the FAQ is using, I can wield a greatsword (listed as a two-handed weapon 'strictly as a matter of convenience') in one hand, which would make it a one-handed weapon?) eludes me.

I'd be interested to see Andy Collins' take on the same question - is a human using a Medium longsword in two hands wielding a two-handed weapon? Or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands? I get the impression that he was more involved with the PHB side of the revision, and the weapon sizes in particular, than Skip was.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

And that FAQ entry has been shown in many threads to be in direct conflict with the rules.

And is only one of the examples as to why the FAQ is treated with such derision by some people.

A lance is a two-handed weapon - it qualifies for the special benefit of the Power Attack feat. No ifs or buts. It is clearly articulated in the rules (quoted above by others). And the FAQ is just plain wrong in this instance.

Can someone do a search and link to similar threads? They seem to pop up regularly.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is perhaps the FAQ entry I dislike the most in the entire document.

("Strictly as a matter of convenience"? A longsword changes its designation when someone switches hands? Ick.)

It brought me great joy a few months back when I queried CustServ on this one, and they indicated that they were in the process of trying to get that FAQ entry removed or changed.

That joy is fading as time passes and it still hasn't happened.

But the answer has always read to me as though Skip Williams had somehow missed the changes to the weapon size rules from 3E to 3.5, or disliked them and wanted to ignore them; how the answer "a longsword used in two hands is a two-handed weapon" could exist alongside references in the Core Rules to "a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" (presumably, by the same logic the FAQ is using, I can wield a greatsword (listed as a two-handed weapon 'strictly as a matter of convenience') in one hand, which would make it a one-handed weapon?) eludes me.

I'd be interested to see Andy Collins' take on the same question - is a human using a Medium longsword in two hands wielding a two-handed weapon? Or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands? I get the impression that he was more involved with the PHB side of the revision, and the weapon sizes in particular, than Skip was.

-Hyp.

Hey Hyp, isn't there also a strange side effect of the weapons HP and Hardness increasing if you use this FAQ ruling?

 

[Harm]

I guess the reason you don't see mounted builds very often in D&D is the prevalence of situations where combat does not occur in open fields. A heavy cavalry officer and his mount won't fit in most caverns, dungeons, or buildings and still be effective.

That and the prevalence of fireballs and dragons that turn the mount into charcoal on round 1.

 

[mvincent]

Hey Hyp, isn't there also a strange side effect of the weapons HP and Hardness increasing if you use this FAQ ruling?

This has often been quoted as an evidence of the 'incorrectness' of the FAQ. However, it is a strawman. The HP rules for weapons are simply guidelines that use weapon (and wielder) sizes as a guide. There are deviations from it, and many weapons don't even fit into it (spiked chain). If you used something as an improvised weapon, it's HP would not change depending on what you used it as (indeed, it wouldn't change at all from what it originally was). The FAQ answer was never intended to apply to hit points, and I'm fairly certain most people know this.

That said, I agree that the FAQ reply on this would have been better if it had been more succinct, but the specific answer to the actual question appears clear regardless, and it appears to meet up with all other Str damage precedence (and writer's intent) that I've seen.

 

[Gort]

That and the prevalence of fireballs and dragons that turn the mount into charcoal on round 1.

Well, that's why you have to be one of the classes that can acquire a battleworthy mount (paladin or druid, really) if you want to be a serious mounted combatant.

That or use leadership to get a mountable cohort.

 

[Felix]

but the specific answer to the actual question appears clear regardless

You can give a clear answer to a question and still be dead wrong.

"Does 1 + 1 = 2?"
"No, 1 + 1 = 4,209,438,362,098,590.57433."

Simply because an answer is clear does not indicate its correctness either way. It just makes it easier to check its claim against the evidence.

 

[mvincent]

You can give a clear answer to a question and still be dead wrong.

The answer given in the FAQ is that you only get x1 strength damage when using a lance in one hand. If you firmly believe this to be dead wrong (rather than subject to interpretation) then I guess we need not discuss it.