Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[DanMcS]

They should have simply called weapons too large to be wielded in one hand heavy weapons, then specified power attack, strength bonus to damage, et al, in terms of hands-used. Then the powergamers wouldn't get so much milage out of their confusion with the rules.

"I can power attack for x2 with my lance while I spirited charge, even though I only have it in one hand. It's a two-handed weapon, see."

Such munchkinism needs to be stamped out at the root.

 

[Jdvn1]

They should have simply called weapons too large to be wielded in one hand heavy weapons, then specified power attack, strength bonus to damage, et al, in terms of hands-used. Then the powergamers wouldn't get so much milage out of their confusion with the rules.

"I can power attack for x2 with my lance while I spirited charge, even though I only have it in one hand. It's a two-handed weapon, see."

Such munchkinism needs to be stamped out at the root.

You mean like 3e?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Eh, the 1.5x brigade led by Hypersmurf has done the literalist route to death. Over and over. No offense, I generally agree with Hyp on most issues, but there's never going to be any consensus on this point.

But does it matter? Do the RAW really matter? No DM should use the rules as written - DM's should use the rules in the way that they feel makes the game better. If allowing Druids to use Animal Growth on themselves in Large wildshapes would hurt the game, don't allow it, regardless of whether or not your interpretation of the rules says they should stack. This board is for general discussion of the rules, and that doesn't have to mean just Supreme Court-level parsing of language. Part of the discussion can be "Which interpretation of the rules allows for a better game, and why?" No DM should ever feel intimidated by a rules lawyer arguing a literalist interpretation - and I know most people on this board wouldn't actually do that to their DMs.

So, talking ABOUT the rules rather than just trying to argue what they actually say, let me look at it this way:
Does allowing 1.5x damage make the mounted lance charge unreasonably powerful? Well, it does if you allow people to double-wield lances on a charge using the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual Strike feats. And yes, somebody will try that.
But otherwise? The 1.5x intepretation makes the lance work when the charging greatsword attack would seem superior (Spirited Charge with Power Attack or a hefty Str bonus). And, given the nature of medieval-ish mounted combat, there's nothing wrong with favoring the lance here.

Which way makes the game better? 1.5x or 1x? I am starting to think that, while I disagree with the logic presented on why it is allowed, 1.5x should be allowed.

 

[Schmoe]

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.

Well... see my comments below.

The Two-handed designation tells you how much effort it requires to wield it. If you are weilding it with one hand on horseback, then it's not being wielding with two hands (obviou, 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)?

When I asked my question, I was actually leaning toward giving a lance the benefit of 1-1/2x Strength bonus, even if the RAW indicate it is only 1x. The reason being that the horse acts as force multiplier. Your thrust with a lance will have a lot more effect with 700 lbs of momentum behind it (even if not charging, I assume the mount moves during combat). The lance, being explicitly designed to maximise the benefit of being used from horseback, is also the only weapon to which this would apply. So "common sense" is still a subjective issue.

 

[DanMcS]

You mean like 3e?

Not at all. In 3e, they specified them by size (small, medium, large, etc), which wasn't terribly clear either. For all the rules quirks involved in 3.x damage determination, a weapon needs three designations;
a) what size wielder it is indended for. Use small, medium, large, etc for this since it will track with the wielder.
b) how it is sized for the intended wielder. Light, normal, and heavy work for this.
c) how it is being used. Off-handed, primary-handed or two-handed here.

Then you don't get terminology collisions.

(A) determines the damage die (a medium longsword does 1d8, a large 2d6).
(B) and (C) together determine the strength bonus to damage and power attack utility.
A light weapon gets 1x str if used in the primary hand or two-handed, and 1/2 if off-handed.
A normal weapon gets 1/2, 1, or 1 1/2 for off-handed, primary, and two-handed usage, respectively.
A heavy weapon gets 1 1/2 str if used two-handed, 1x if used primary (only the lance can do this), and isn't a legal off-handed weapon.

Power attack would say: light weapons and off-handed uses get no bonus to damage, ever. Normal and heavy weapons used primary-handed get 1:1 attack to damage, and used two-handed get 2:1.

Actually, ideally, power attack would say "each point you reduce your attack roll adds 1 to your strength bonus for purposes of determining damage", and then you wouldn't have as much complexity for damage determination.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(A) determines the damage die (a medium longsword does 1d8, a large 2d6).
(B) and (C) together determine the strength bonus to damage and power attack utility.
A light weapon gets 1x str if used in the primary hand or two-handed, and 1/2 if off-handed.
A normal weapon gets 1/2, 1, or 1 1/2 for off-handed, primary, and two-handed usage, respectively.
A heavy weapon gets 1 1/2 str if used two-handed, 1x if used primary (only the lance can do this), and isn't a legal off-handed weapon.

Power attack would say: light weapons and off-handed uses get no bonus to damage, ever. Normal and heavy weapons used primary-handed get 1:1 attack to damage, and used two-handed get 2:1.

But if we were sticking to what the PHB says, and just replacing the terms, a heavy weapon would get 1.5x Str bonus. It would require two hands to use, except for the lance used while mounted. A normal weapon would get 1x Str bonus, or 1.5x when wielded in two hands.

Power Attack would give 2-for-1 with a normal weapon wielded in two hands, or with a heavy weapon.

A +4 bonus to Disarm checks would apply to a character wielding a heavy weapon.

No terminology collisions, and you're not changing the mechanics of the PHB rules.

-Hyp.

 

[isoChron]

Hmm, the D&D Glossary defines one-handed/two-handed the way a weapon is designed, not used:

two-handed weapon
A weapon designed for use in two hands, such as a greatsword. A two-handed weapon is considered to be an object of the same size as its designated wielder (for example, a Medium greatsword is a Medium object).
Source: PHB

one-handed weapon
A weapon designed for use in one hand, such as a longsword, often either along with a shield or a light weapon in the other hand. A one-handed weapon is considered to be an object one size category smaller than its designated wielder (for example, a Medium longsword is a Small object).
Source: PHB

light weapon
A weapon suitable for use in the wielder's off hand, such as a dagger. A light weapon is considered to be an object two size categories smaller than its designated wielder (for example, a Medium dagger is a Tiny object).
Source: PHB

...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm, the D&D Glossary defines one-handed/two-handed the way a weapon is designed, not used:

Right. Which is why I maintain that the FAQ in this case contradicts, not clarifies.

When you wield a longsword with two hands, it changes from being an object of size Small to an object of size Medium? I don't think so.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

do you honestly think that's the way it's supposed to work?

I certainly do. The lance is a two-handed weapon and ordinarily follows all those rules. Wielded on foot you need two hands on it to use it, just like a greatsword. But while mounted, the design of the lance and the agility of the horse/rider combo allow the same force to be brought to bear (as is used while on foot) while only braced with one hand.

From a common sense point of view, I honestly don't see how it doesn't make sense to you. Though of course the Rules Lawyering is fair enough, even if I side the other way.

 

[Jdvn1]

I certainly do. The lance is a two-handed weapon and ordinarily follows all those rules. Wielded on foot you need two hands on it to use it, just like a greatsword. But while mounted, the design of the lance and the agility of the horse/rider combo allow the same force to be brought to bear (as is used while on foot) while only braced with one hand.

See, that doesn't make sense to me because the description of the lance ends in:

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

It gives you the option. It doesn't say, "While mounted, a lance is wielded in one hand." Why would anyone, then, wield it in two?