Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[Jdvn1]

I think was was intended can be summed up quite simply:
When you use a weapon with one hand, you use x1 Str.
When you use a weapon with two hands, you use x1.5 Str.

That's it. The lance just has a feature, available when mounted, to let you choose which one you want.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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..."

"Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon."

"If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat..."

"POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls."

It's very clear in the rules that the phrase "one-handed weapon" has nothing to do with how a weapon is used, since it's a one-handed weapon regardless of whether you're using it in one or two hands.

It's even a one-handed weapon if it's sitting on the floor minding its own business, since that designation also determines its hit points.

Perhaps it's not spelled out explicitly... but it's glaringly implicit.

And since "two-handed weapon" is a designation of the same type, it should be obvious that since "one-handed weapon" has nothing to do with how the weapon is actually being used, the same goes for "two-handed weapon".

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think was was intended can be summed up quite simply:
When you use a weapon with one hand, you use x1 Str.
When you use a weapon with two hands, you use x1.5 Str.

That's not what's stated, though.

What's stated:

When you use a melee weapon, you add Str bonus to damage, with the following exceptions.

• When you use a melee weapon in two hands, other than a light weapon (or rapier), add 1.5x Str bonus to damage.
• When you use a one-handed melee weapon in two hands (other than a rapier), add 1.5x Str bonus to damage. (This is covered by the first point, but is noted separately in the Equipment section.)
• When you use a two-handed melee weapon, add 1.5x Str bonus to damage.
• When you use a melee weapon in your off-hand, add .5x Str bonus to damage.

Point 3 covers the lance wielded in one hand.

Points 3 and 4 both apply to the lance wielded in the off-hand, and contradict each other. As a DM, I'd personally rule that point 4 takes precedence in this case, though I could equally see someone ruling the opposite, or ruling that with the multiplication rule, 1.5 and .5 combine to give 1x Str bonus to damage with an off-hand lance.

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

That's not what's stated, though.

That's fine. I mentioned intent. Which is backed up by the FAQ. Which makes more sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's fine. I mentioned intent. Which is backed up by the FAQ. Which makes more sense.

But it's not supported!

Especially when he starts giving Disarm bonuses to a longsword.

"The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty."

A longsword is a one-handed weapon. But he says it's a two-handed weapon, and gets the +4, because you're using it in two hands. (Despite, again, repeated references in the rules to 'a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands'.)

But then he goes on to say that a light weapon wielded in two hands doesn't get the +4 bonus. If a longsword is a two-handed weapon just because it's wielded in two hands, then surely, so is a dagger. It's also a light weapon, so the +4 and -4 would cancel each other out... but despite no support for a dagger being treated differently to a longsword, he makes up one unsupported rule for the longsword, and then adds an unsupported exception to apply to the dagger.

(As opposed to the Str bonus, since it explicitly states that a weapon wielded in two hands other than a light weapon gets 1.5x, so that's okay. ... or would be, had he not stated that a weapon wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon, which means that it should get the 1.5x bonus, since the two-handed weapon text carries no such restriction on light weapons. Not surprisingly, since when the rules were written, it was likely never suspected that someone would write an FAQ answer saying that one-handed weapons can turn into two-handed weapons!)

And, of course, by the logic in the FAQ, if the phrase 'two-handed' refers to how the weapon is being used, then surely the phrase 'one-handed' must also. So a greatsword - a two-handed weapon - must be wielded in two hands... unless you wield it in one hand, in which case it's a one-handed weapon, and thus is no longer required to be wielded in two hands.

Intent is murky. "Makes more sense" is subjective. The RAW, at least, can be objectively parsed.

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

But it's not supported!

Especially when he starts giving Disarm bonuses to a longsword.

"The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty."

A longsword is a one-handed weapon. But he says it's a two-handed weapon, and gets the +4, because you're using it in two hands. (Despite, again, repeated references in the rules to 'a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands'.)

Pertinent bits:

Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience.

and,

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.

Underlined for emphasis, obviously.

But then he goes on to say that a light weapon wielded in two hands doesn't get the +4 bonus. If a longsword is a two-handed weapon just because it's wielded in two hands, then surely, so is a dagger. It's also a light weapon, so the +4 and -4 would cancel each other out... but despite no support for a dagger being treated differently to a longsword, he makes up one unsupported rule for the longsword, and then adds an unsupported exception to apply to the dagger.

You're right, no support for light weapons. Probably because light weapons never get the advantages for being held with two hands. You have tried holding a dagger in two hands? That's why none of the rules support it.

(As opposed to the Str bonus, since it explicitly states that a weapon wielded in two hands other than a light weapon gets 1.5x, so that's okay. ... or would be, had he not stated that a weapon wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon, which means that it should get the 1.5x bonus, since the two-handed weapon text carries no such restriction on light weapons. Not surprisingly, since when the rules were written, it was likely never suspected that someone would write an FAQ answer saying that one-handed weapons can turn into two-handed weapons!)

Which is moot because the rules seem to deny the possibility of a light weapon being held in two hands.

And, of course, by the logic in the FAQ, if the phrase 'two-handed' refers to how the weapon is being used, then surely the phrase 'one-handed' must also. So a greatsword - a two-handed weapon - must be wielded in two hands... unless you wield it in one hand, in which case it's a one-handed weapon, and thus is no longer required to be wielded in two hands.

Well, it's based on the size of the weapon. You're trying to play a semantic game, now.

Intent is murky.

I disagree. Seems pretty clear to me.

Edit: I'm referring to like-sized creatures in most of my arguments, by the way. Esp. when referring to the light weapon.

 

[Caliban]

That's fine. I mentioned intent. Which is backed up by the FAQ. Which makes more sense.

Certain people will deny common sense has anything to do with playing the game, no matter how little sense the rules make when applied to odd situations.

RAW are not the end-all-be-all of rules interpretations, and sometimes we have to make an intelligent decision for ourselves as to how the rules do or do not apply to a situation. This seems to give some people problems though.

I disagree with Hype on this one. I know it's a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand, but I don't see anything "murky" about applying common sense to this situation.

The Two-handed designation tells you how much effort it requires to wield it. If you are wielding it with one hand on horseback, then it's not being wielding with two hands (obvious, I know). If you aren't wielding it with two-hands, then you aren't applying the effort required to wield it with two-hands, and don't get the two-handed benefit.

So, I don't think it works even by RAW. But even if you think the RAW indicates that it does, do you honestly think that's the way it's supposed to work? What explanation do you have for it working that way (aside from the rules not saying that it doesn't work that way)?

 

[Greylock]

I'm with you Hyp, and shall always be, but I start to wonder... Not about the pure and sensible view of use of the lance that you and I share. That is set in stone. What I am curious about, is how everyone else pictures it.

You and I see, I think, a rider and horse, melded into one fighting machine, poised to make a single blow, at the expense of subtlety, self-protection, and finesse, do-or-die, alone at the head of battle, winner take all, failure means possibly certain and honorable death.

What the 1xers see.... A man, on a horse, holding a large and heavy lance out-stretched in one hand waaaayyyy off to the right of his paltry, prancing forward, which he steers with a daintily held rein, cupped lightly in his left hand, which struggles to maintain a almost ineffective grip on a shield. *pokepoke* *pokepoke*...

Or something like that...

 

[Jdvn1]

Certain people will deny common sense has anything to do with playing the game, no matter how little sense the rules make when applied to odd situations.

RAW are not the end-all-be-all of rules interpretations, and sometimes we have to make an intelligent decision for ourselves as to how the rules do or do not apply to a situation. This seems to give some people problems though.

Good point. And I think it's a problem here because the rules aren't 'wrong' per se, according to the FAQ, but the terminology gets mixed up.

So since it's not wrong, it doesn't warrant an errata. But no one wants to accept the FAQ. Go figure.

 

[Jdvn1]

What the 1xers see.... A man, on a horse, holding a large and heavy lance out-stretched in one hand waaaayyyy off to the right of his paltry, prancing forward, which he steers with a daintily held rein, cupped lightly in his left hand, which struggles to maintain a almost ineffective grip on a shield. *pokepoke* *pokepoke*...

Or something like that...

Sure, something like that.

Actually, I see the guy with the lance in one hand positioning the lance as he comes by to make his blow. Like is often seen in your typical movie lance duel thingies. One hand for a shield, one for a lance. Then I see the guy with the lance in two hands _ramming_ the lance into his opponent as he rides by. No shield protection, but man did he get a good shot in.