Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For a Medium creature without the feat, he wields the Large longsword as a two-handed weapon... and can't wield it in one hand.

I don't think that's what he's asking.

I think he's asking if, in the hands of a Medium creature without the feat, the weapon suddenly gains hit points (as a two-handed weapon).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think that's what he's asking.

I think he's asking if, in the hands of a Medium creature without the feat, the weapon suddenly gains hit points (as a two-handed weapon).

Ah. So instead of being a Large one-handed blade (10 hp), it's a Medium two-handed blade (10 hp)?

... oh, wait. I don't see a problem

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ah. So instead of being a Large one-handed blade (10 hp), it's a Medium two-handed blade (10 hp)?

... oh, wait. I don't see a problem

Are there any other differences, though?

 

[glass]

There are rules for wielding two weapons, and the distinction is made on whether or not the off-hand weapon is light.

Not "Whether the off-hand weapon is light or one-handed", but "Whether the off-hand weapon is light, or not light".

A lance is not light.

Pity. I did say I'd have to check the precise wordings.


glass.

 

[Storyteller01]

For all weapons or just the lance? The fact that you automatically double the lance's damage on a successful charge attack is pretty much the benefit you get from the momentum you gain from your mount's speed.

Just the lance, given that it required a special method of carry and equipment to use. Might be tempted to give extra distance to a spear thrown during a charge

 

[Storyteller01]

I disagree. All the strength adding to the greater stability you mention comes from a stronger body, more rigid stance, and thicker thighs holding onto that horse. It doesn't have anything to do with having another hand on the lance.

But remember, that strength didn't do much until the advent of the stirrup. That's where all the force is focused. WIthout this equipment, jousters fell off the horse more often then not (if there were jousts at all).

The strength isn't in the rigidity of the stance (tended to get you knocked off), but in the ability to absorb impact.

As mentioned earlier, the doubling of the lances damage on a charge goes a long way. Why add a two handed damage bonus if those mechanics are not coming into play? As you mentioned, having two hands on the weapon doesn't add to the weapons power output...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As mentioned earlier, the doubling of the lances damage on a charge goes a long way. Why add a two handed damage bonus if those mechanics are not coming into play? As you mentioned, having two hands on the weapon doesn't add to the weapons power output...

Because it's a two-handed weapon. As I said before, I can see and understand the counter-arguments, but they simply don't match my feeling of the weapon. A lance held by a charging mounted knight, which is a two-handed weapon, should do two-handed weapon damage, IMO. And that includes 1.5 strength. If it makes any difference, my campaigns always have stirrups.

 

[Legildur]

Just a thought (which may have already been aired, but I'm not rereading all the posts after so many days of tracking this thread)........

If you aren't meant to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage with the lance whilst mounted, then why isn't the lance categorised as a 'one-handed weapon' with the special property that it must be wielded with two hands whilst unmounted?

Surely if that was the designers' intent, then that would remove any doubt?

PS I apply 1.5x

 

[Starglim]

Just a thought (which may have already been aired, but I'm not rereading all the posts after so many days of tracking this thread)........

If you aren't meant to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage with the lance whilst mounted, then why isn't the lance categorised as a 'one-handed weapon' with the special property that it must be wielded with two hands whilst unmounted?

Surely if that was the designers' intent, then that would remove any doubt?

PS I apply 1.5x

That was how the lance was statted in 3.0: a light lance was a Small weapon and a heavy lance was a Medium weapon. The designers have deliberately reversed it in 3.5 by making a lance a two-handed weapon. I think their intent is clear that the lance is now not to be treated like one-handed weapons but as a special case.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

What if a knight, charging on horseback, uses a longspear? Clearly, they get 1.5x Str bonus and 2x power attack. But they don't get double damage, and they can't use the longspear one-handed. Even at 1x Str and 1x Power Attack, the lance will normally do more damage. Only at a -5 Power Attack on a Spirited Charge does the longspear do more damage than the 1x lance. On the other hand, Deadly Charge and Unstoppable Charge really throw off this calculation and make the longspear much better (if we use 1x Str for the lance).

What, then, makes the lance different from a longspear? Something fundamental to its construction or something related to how it is used? If you use a lance overhead in two hands, how is that any different than a longspear? What would be the reasoning of the game designers in stipulating that you get double damage for using a lance instead of a longspear in this case?

I'm not sure that 2-handed use of a lance when mounted even is possible - at least, not while still treating it as a lance. Which could be an argument for allowing 1.5x Str if you want to preserve the lance as the cavalier's favored weapon. Or, as a compromise, create a feat (given for free to the cavalier at level 2) that allows 1.5x Str on a lance used in 1 hand.