Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[FireLance]

Heh. Who knew a 3.5e change in Power Attack feat could screw up the lance's superior advantage in mounted charge attack?

Honestly, I really want to restrict greatsword use on mounts (not fair, IMHO) or even change the greatsword's damage value (also not fair).

How so? For the "lance is a two-handed weapon even when used in one hand" camp, the lance gets the same Power Attack ratio as a greatsword, and a higher damage multiplier when used on a charge.

Even under my house rules, the lance outshines any one-handed weapon when used in one-hand and any two-handed weapon when used in two hands on a mounted charge.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Also (I asked this before but no one commented). Can't I use TWF and use 2 lances at once, while I am mounted? Just combine that with Lion's Charge (I see a Mounted Psychic Warrior build in the future)...

I've never had a player try this kind of (IMO--everyone plays how they like) silly twink, so I've never had to worry about how the rules deal with it. My entire perspective on the lance is a gut instinct decision which I believe is supported by the rules, and which I believe best serves as a believable lance mechanic in the D&D combat abstract.

If I had a player who wanted to dual-wield lances one-handed, I'd probably have to rethink my stance on the whole thing.

Meaning, sure, that loophole may exist. If I ever had a player try to take advantage of it, I'd House Rule it away.

And thinking on it further...isn't Lion's Charge a 2nd-level power? Getting one extra attack with each mounted charge...at the cost of an action to use the ability...doesn't actually sound particularly twinky, when I start to think about it...

 

[kjenks]

And thinking on it further...isn't Lion's Charge a 2nd-level power? Getting one extra attack with each mounted charge...at the cost of an action to use the ability...doesn't actually sound particularly twinky, when I start to think about it...

Psionic Lion’s Charge
Psychometabolism
Level: Psychic warrior 2
Display: Mental
Manifesting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: Instantaneous
Power Points: 3
You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.
You can manifest this power with an instant thought, quickly enough to gain the benefit of the power as you charge. Manifesting the power is a swift action, like manifesting a quickened power, and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round. You cannot manifest this power when it isn’t your turn.
Augment: For every additional power point you spend, each of your attacks after a charge in the current round gains a circumstance bonus on damage equal to the number of additional points spent.

(That took me less than a minute to look up in the on-line SRD. Would you please take the extra effort to read the rules before posting?)

It doesn't take much of an action -- just a swift action. And you don't get just one extra attack -- you get a full attack. With a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting, this could mean quite a few attacks.

For example, a psychic warrior 4/fighter 8 would have BAB +11, so he'd get three iterative attacks. Give this guy some mounted combat feats (Spirited Charge, Shock Trooper) and he could do over 200 HP of damage every round without breaking a sweat, as long as his power points hold out. If he hits with all three attacks, it's 300 HP or more.

Combine Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, Shock Trooper/Heedless Charge with full two-handed Power Attack and a mounted lance charge, plus the bonus damage from augmenting the Psionic Lion’s Charge, multiplied by three, with a full attack, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

(That took me less than a minute to look up in the on-line SRD. Would you please take the extra effort to read the rules before posting?)

Not particularly, no. It's not beholden on me to look up every obscure splatbook ability brought up in a conversation without explanation. It took you less than a minute to find it, great. It would have taken the person who first mentioned it even less to explain it. Indeed, if there's a precedent involved, I'd say it's the person who makes an assertion who is closest to being "required" to provide the cite. If that.

In the end, I suggest you browse these boards as you see fit, and leave me to the same.

For example, a psychic warrior 4/fighter 8 would have BAB +11, so he'd get three iterative attacks. Give this guy some mounted combat feats (Spirited Charge, Shock Trooper) and he could do over 200 HP of damage every round without breaking a sweat, as long as his power points hold out. If he hits with all three attacks, it's 300 HP or more.

Combine Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, Shock Trooper/Heedless Charge with full two-handed Power Attack and a mounted lance charge, plus the bonus damage from augmenting the Psionic Lion’s Charge, multiplied by three, with a full attack, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So you're combining three feats and a 2nd-level psionic power every round with a 12th-level character, and you think it's the lance rule that's the problem?

 

[Jdvn1]

(That took me less than a minute to look up in the on-line SRD. Would you please take the extra effort to read the rules before posting?)

I think that's unnecessarily rude, or maybe tactless.

 

[Jdvn1]

So you're combining three feats and a 2nd-level psionic power every round with a 12th-level character, and you think it's the lance rule that's the problem?

I think the problem arises before the feats and a 12th level character, but the build merely exacerbates it. A TWF build on horseback, getting 1.5 Str in each hand, isn't right.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think the problem arises before the feats and a 12th level character, but the build merely exacerbates it. A TWF build on horseback, getting 1.5 Str in each hand, isn't right.

You're right, of course. I mentioned a couple posts back that if I ever had a player try to TWF with lances, I'd have to House Rule it.

 

[RigaMortus]

You're right, of course. I mentioned a couple posts back that if I ever had a player try to TWF with lances, I'd have to House Rule it.

But you wouldn't have to House Rule it if you just agree that the FAQ is correct in this situation, and you do not get 1.5 Str damage from using the Lance one handed.

The FAQ should be used to clarify the rules (the intent of the rules). It contradicts the RAW of the PHB because the RAW of the PHB is poorly written (in this instance). The FAQ clarifies what they really meant IMHO.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But you wouldn't have to House Rule it if you just agree that the FAQ is correct in this situation, and you do not get 1.5 Str damage from using the Lance one handed.

The FAQ should be used to clarify the rules (the intent of the rules). It contradicts the RAW of the PHB because the RAW of the PHB is poorly written (in this instance). The FAQ clarifies what they really meant IMHO.

But I don't have to House Rule it now and, for reasons I've posted above, I don't agree that the FAQ is correct in this situation. lol

IMHO the FAQ has shown time and again that at least half the time, it has no idea what it's talking about. It clarifies nothing, and proves nothing about the intent or function of the rules. Really, there's a post somewhere in here right now about how the darned thing just contradicted itself again in its latest incarnation.

So my position is really quite simple. The RAW (IMO) say exactly what I want them to say. That's how I rule it. If and when a player is silly enough to try and dual-wield lances on horseback, I'll House Rule away that loophole.

 

[Jdvn1]

But I don't have to House Rule it now and, for reasons I've posted above, I don't agree that the FAQ is correct in this situation. lol

IMHO the FAQ has shown time and again that at least half the time, it has no idea what it's talking about. It clarifies nothing, and proves nothing about the intent or function of the rules. Really, there's a post somewhere in here right now about how the darned thing just contradicted itself again in its latest incarnation.

So my position is really quite simple. The RAW (IMO) say exactly what I want them to say. That's how I rule it. If and when a player is silly enough to try and dual-wield lances on horseback, I'll House Rule away that loophole.

I think it boils down to: We agree to disagree.

The way I see it: You're house ruling the FAQ is wrong until someone tries to TWF a lance.
The way you see it: The FAQ is wrong, but you'll house rule it's right when someone tries to TWF a lance.

Hm, I'm fine with that.