Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[Schmoe]

I figured that this was a topic that was discussed before, though I couldn't find it. It turns out I was right

Anyway, I tend to agree that the RAW say nothing to prevent a lance from getting 1-1/2 Strength bonus when used mounted. As a DM with an eye toward possible house rules, I also think that I like it better getting 1-1/2 Strength, because that is a decent representation of the tremendous force of a moving mount behind the lance. So in this case I like the RAW, even if it was from an unintentional ambiguity (which we will never know).

Thanks!

 

[Fieari]

Thanks Smurf. I probably should have known I'd get into trouble not actually looking up all the details this time round, but I thought I could do it entirely by memory this time. Shows how full lof little holes my memory is. At least I got the general outline of the argument right...

As to being bitter about the FAQ saying something I don't like.... http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=122568 for starters. The FAQ isn't canon, and can't be canon. So when there are contradictions, you have to look for a higher authority, in this case, the RAW.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Bah, it's been iterated in the FAQ how the designers think the lance handedness should work (contradicting the RAW as a purposeful excercise) and will likely be how the rules for lances will be presented in future D&D editions. I'd start getting used to em now. Then again, how many of us already have several pages devoted to adapting core rules to our own games by now? Lance rules would be what, just one or two sentences anyhow?

Small fry rule lol.

So stock answer for the Lance: "RAW says use lance with x1.5 Str when mounted, FAQ says no. DMs take you pick!"

 

[DanMcS]

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

This is not how the lance works, though. It isn't treated as a one-handed weapon, therefore it remains a two-handed weapon... just one that can be wielded in one hand.

The FAQ clarifies the rules, and they make more sense with the clarification. When using a weapon in one hand, you get 1x your strength bonus. When using it in your off hand, you get 1/2 your strength bonus. When using it in two hands, you get 1 1/2 your strength bonus. That's the spirit of the rules, which may not be completely clear in the text, but it's there if you read carefully. The FAQ makes it clear, and is an official ruling, so why won't you accept it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The FAQ clarifies the rules, and they make more sense with the clarification.

But you can't contradict something and call it a clarification.

If the rules say "Bananas are purple", you can't say "To clarify, by 'purple', we mean 'yellow'".

The FAQ says a longsword wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon. That's not a clarification, that's either a/ wrong, or b/ a change to the rules. And the FAQ shouldn't be used to change the rules; it certainly shouldn't be used to change the rules without stating "This is a change to the rules".

If an erratum is issued stating that a lance used in one hand while mounted is a one-handed weapon, that's one thing. But for the FAQ to state "This is how the rules work", when the rules say something different, is something I do indeed take issue with.

-Hyp.

 

[Darkness]

But for the FAQ to state "This is how the rules work", when the rules say something different, is something I do indeed take issue with.

How often does the FAQ do that, I wonder? Certainly not just this once, I think.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How often does the FAQ do that, I wonder? Certainly not just this once, I think.

Yup. And you'll probably find a thread complaining about each one of them

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

As many posters, including Hyp, have noted, the RAW imply that a lance wielded in one hand still gets 1.5 times Strength bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack.

It is certainly possible to implement a house rule that says that a lance wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon. This is what the FAQ recommends, and in fact, this is my ruling when I run games. However, this is still a house rule because the FAQ does not overwrite the RAW. Only official errata do. Logic and game balance have nothing to do with it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My interpretation of the RAW would be in line with the FAQ. I do think that sometimes the RAW use imprecise terminology and it is the job of the DM to ajudicate this. I do think that the original intent of the rules was "a lance can be used as a one-handed weapon from horseback," even though the phrasing falls just short of these magic words.

If Hypersmurf's interpretation of the rules is correct, the writers should have spelled out "The phrase '2-handed weapon' has nothing to do with how a weapon is used, and a lance used in one hand from horseback gains 1.5x Str bonus to damage as well as a 2-for-1 damage bonus on Power Attack."

Why? Because the first part of that interpretation is so counterintuitive, and so abusive of the English language, that it should be stated explicitly. Given how often this can come up in a game (especially with paladins), it's important to clarify this point. As it is, I credit the writers with enough grasp of writing that I think they mean "2-handed weapon" to mean "weapon used in two hands" and not "large weapons which might or might not actually be used in two hands." I just think they neglected to use the proper legally sound phrasing on the lance paragraph.

Firelance - logic has everything to do with the RAW. As with any written document, you apply logic and context in interpreting phrases that appear ambiguous. We all do it, all the time. It's part of reading.

 

[Greylock]

The Lance is a special weapon. It is used pretty much exclusively from the back of a mount and should be treated a little differently. I think they stumbled over how to define the weapon, and tried to semanticise their way within the rules without creating new ones.

And I think the x1.5 one-handed is what was intended.