Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Lances

[Hypersmurf]

The answer given in the FAQ is that you only get x1 strength damage when using a lance in one hand.

The answer given in the FAQ also says that longswords gain a +4 bonus to all Disarm checks when wielded in two hands, which simply isn't supported by the text in the PHB.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

The answer given in the FAQ is that you only get x1 strength damage when using a lance in one hand.

If the purpose of the FAQ is to clarify, then it should be grounded in the RAW. The FAQ has no RAW grounding on this issue; its only support is itself.

Were there another convincing interpretation of the RAW, and the FAQ decided between the two of them, then it works in its capacity to clarify. If you would like to provide an argument that uses the text of the PHB to rule that lances don't get 2-for-1 Power Attack (without resorting to the FAQ), then I will consider that argument's merits.

As it stands, the FAQ's argument is, "No, no, the PHB is wrong. It doesn't mean what it says, what it means is actually this..." This is not clarification, it is revision.

Of course, if you believe that the FAQ's purview is to revise rules, then its rulings have no need to be grounded in the RAW, but may change what they like when they like. At which point there is nothing to be gained from further discussion.

If you firmly believe this to be dead wrong (rather than subject to interpretation) then I guess we need not discuss it.

I believe that the FAQ has an obligation to be grounded in the RAW, and to clarify what is written.

I believe the power to change the rules resides with errata, and not with the FAQ.

I believe when the FAQ and the RAW are in clear disagreement, the FAQ's ruling is supersceded by the RAW.

If you disagree with any of those beliefs, then you're right: there's no point in continuing any discussion.

However, if you agree with those things, and if you believe that the text of the RAW is ambiguous in and of itself (which would mean that the FAQ clarifies between two possible rulings), then please present your RAW-grounded argument, and I will honestly consider it.

---

PS. My original reply was in order to show that an answer's clarity does not necessarily reflect its validity; instead clarity is considered a virtue because it allows the answer's validity to be checked more readily. Though I do believe the FAQ to be wrong here, I was not taking sides in that post, merely pointing out something that may trip people up: the idea that because something is clear it is correct. Not that you intended to espouse that idea, but it could easily be construed from your post.

 

[Legildur]

The answer given in the FAQ also says that longswords gain a +4 bonus to all Disarm checks when wielded in two hands, which simply isn't supported by the text in the PHB.

Which is a shame, because I think that makes a sensible rule. (of course, there are probably consequences of that I haven't considered in my currently inflamed-sinus state)

 

[mvincent]

if you believe that the text of the RAW is ambiguous in and of itself (which would mean that the FAQ clarifies between two possible rulings), then please present your RAW-grounded argument, and I will honestly consider it.

Fair enough:

Before I read the FAQ ruling, I had concluded by myself that a lance held in one hand would do only x1 strength damage... not because this was necessarily realistic (which isn't even possible for lancing damage in D&D for a number of other reasons), but because this followed all precedence and play balance I had seen in D&D.

My own group at the time (and many other groups that I played with) had also come to the same conclusion independently. Again, precedence, intuitiveness and apparent writer's intent (which is important in determining the rules) give grounds for this. I reckon that if any particular board had a poll on this (prior to the FAQ), a significant portion (possibly the majority) of the respondents would've had the same interpretation.

Also, the rules say:
"Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively."
and
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
giving justification to view a lance as a one-handed weapon while being wielded with one hand.

But, really, all I'm saying is that either interpretation was possible and reasonable.

 

[mvincent]

The answer given in the FAQ also says that longswords gain a +4 bonus to all Disarm checks when wielded in two hands, which simply isn't supported by the text in the PHB.

Correct. Yes, that should've instead gone in the errata (which unfortunately doesn't get touched much). While it appears to be a reasonable rule (that the writer's could have even intended), I agree that it is not supported by strict RAW.

Personally, I don't view it as changing the rules so much as making up a (fitting) new one. Supplements are certainly allowed to do this, but I agree they should indicate when doing so.

If someone asks a related question, I will try to ensure to give this information on the subject (and let them decide).

 

[RigaMortus2]

So is it your contention that using a two-handed weapon in one hand (specifically, using the Lance while mounted), it then becomes a one-handed weapon?

If so, does this mean a one-handed weapon used in two hands becomes a two-handed weapon? Or is it just a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands?

 

[Felix]

Re: mvincent

As I can't argue author's intent since the authors didn't write it down for me to examine, I'll constrain myself to the rules you cite.

Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.​

This is true. In absence of any other rules that specifically contradict this, you must use two hands to wield a two-handed weapon. The Lance entry does, so I don't see that this is very significant.

While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.​

This mentions how the weapon is wielded, not what the weapon is. A bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon; it may be treated as a martial weapon if used in two hands, but this does not change its characteristics as a one-handed weapon. A Lance is a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand as much as the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands. In neither case does what the weapon is change.

If the lance is going to benefit only from 1-for-1 power attack, you must produce a rule that allows, or forces, a weapon to change categories. "Wield a lance in one hand" must become, "A lance becomes a one-handed weapon". The FAQ does this by dismissing weapon categories; a ruling which has unexpected and illogical consequences.

It is the equality of "wield a lance in one hand" and "a lance becomes a one-handed weapon" which I think is unreasonable. The language is different, the meaning is different, the implications are different.

 

[mvincent]

So is it your contention that using a two-handed weapon in one hand (specifically, using the Lance while mounted), it then becomes a one-handed weapon?

I believe that the PHB makes an explicit exception for the lance, which can be interpreted as allowing it to be a one-hand weapon.

If so, does this mean a one-handed weapon used in two hands becomes a two-handed weapon? Or is it just a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands?

I believe either interpretation seems reasonable. However, no explicit allowance is made for any particular one-handed weapon (like was done for the lance), but rather allowances have been made for all one-handed weapons in regard to strength (but curiously not other things). Intuitively, I would still likely use the first interpretation even though it does not appear to be supported by strict RAW.

 

[mvincent]

It is the equality of "wield a lance in one hand" and "a lance becomes a one-handed weapon" which I think is unreasonable.

But yet (as mentioned) the majority of the players that I have encountered (including the Sage) came to this conclusion. If you discount them as all being unreasonable, you have limited your view on the subject.

This is why I enjoy polls so much on this board.

 

[Felix]

Polls' results are as reliable as statistics. They can be crafted to prove what the author intends to prove.

Take notes from Firebeetle if you'd like an example.

...came to this conclusion.

I don't know that they did. The ruling they came to is 1-for-1 PA for a mounted lance. Why they did so may be as varied as the number of ways alchemists purposed to turn lead into gold. But as alchemists believed they could change one element into another, lance-revisionists assume that "wield a lance in one hand" is the same as "a lance becomes a one-handed weapon". They may not be aware of the assumption, but it is a necessary assumption for a 1-for-1 conclusion.

And necessary for that assumption to work is the idea that words to not contain meaning, but rather that meaning is supplied by the reader. Which is a dangerous idea when brought to its logical conclusion.

If you discount them as all being unreasonable, you have limited your view on the subject.

Who was it that said, "If a million people say a silly thing, it is still a silly thing"?

And while I do discount your opinion and the opinion of the majority of players you have encountered (including the Sage), what it has done is force me to re-examine my analysis. I have done so and reached the same conclusion as I previously had. I don't see how doing so "limits my views on the subject".

What does "limits my views on the subject" mean, exactly? Because it sounds like something I ought to be ashamed of and derided for having comitted. It smells like a mid-90's politically incorrect "close-minded" clone, a phrase which deserves being thrown in the midden, and shoved back under when it tries to resurface.