Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[Ridley's Cohort]

The lance while charging on a trained war mount is a special weapon which does not fit very well within the standard rules. Comparing to daggers and greatswords is futile and foolish. Nor do the rules for spears help much as a reference.

If you believe that the God of Game Balance demands both hands to maximize lance damage, I am not going to argue with you even if I may disagree.

If you believe that "common sense" demands both hands to maximize lance damage, I cannot help but laugh.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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?

Maybe the writers intended that nobody ever would use a lance in two hands - I'm not even sure how feasible it would be, or if such use would let you brace the lance significantly more strongly than the one-handed usage. Again, this should have been spelled out explicitly.

But giving the 1.5x Str bonus for 1-handed use as a way of encouraging the standard image of medieval heavy cavalry... I could actually get behind it for that reason. I like the knight with lance and shield. I just never want to see a PC try to double-wield lances from horseback.

 

[Jdvn1]

Maybe the writers intended that nobody ever would use a lance in two hands - I'm not even sure how feasible it would be, or if such use would let you brace the lance significantly more strongly than the one-handed usage. Again, this should have been spelled out explicitly.

I think that's what they tried to do in the FAQ. But it seems I'm alone in that belief.

But giving the 1.5x Str bonus for 1-handed use as a way of encouraging the standard image of medieval heavy cavalry... I could actually get behind it for that reason. I like the knight with lance and shield. I just never want to see a PC try to double-wield lances from horseback.

See, I can understand if you want to rule that way for color reasons. I'd imagine that a PC would use a lance two-handed on a horse in a similar way to how he'd use it on the ground. He just gets more momentum from the horse.

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

I am with the 1x Str people on this one.

The benefit or using a lance on a mount is not to get an extra .5 damage. It is the fact that you do DOUBLE damage when charging on a mount. That's a pretty good benefit, and no other weapon has that. You want to add an additional .5 damage on top of that? Seems like too much.

JMHO

 

[Hypersmurf]

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?

"Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only."

Notice - it gives you the option. While it says light weapons are used in one hand, they have rules that describe the effect of using two, so it's possible, and someone can do so if they choose... it just gives no advantage.

How is that different?

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

Notice - it gives you the option. While it says light weapons are used in one hand, they have rules that describe the effect of using two, so it's possible, and someone can do so if they choose... it just gives no advantage.

Doesn't seem to sit right.

How is that different?

Because they're completely different weapons? A lance is listed in its description that it's different from other two-handed weapons in that you can use it one-handed in special situations.

For light weapons, the text specifies that a light weapon grants no benefits. That's a weapon advantage that is taken away from light weapons. I've never seen anyone two-hand a dagger because it's worthless. The lance has an added option -- versatility. It's the same argument used for many rules: If the rules don't say you can't do something, that means you can do it. If the rules add an option, then it's special.

Can a Paladin use poison according to RAW? They don't say you can't, so you can. You can use Weapon Finesse with a Rapier because it's a listed exception.

I think it's a careful distinction.

 

[shilsen]

If you believe that "common sense" demands both hands to maximize lance damage, I cannot help but laugh.

When it comes to game-related stuff, you can make that sentence "If you believe that "common sense" demands ..., I cannot help but laugh" and it'll be true for me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've never seen anyone two-hand a dagger because it's worthless.

Right. Probably why you wouldn't see someone two-hand a lance while mounted - it gives no benefit over one.

The lance has an added option -- versatility.

That's right. On the ground, you can only use it in two hands. Mounted, you can use it in one hand or two hands, for the same result. Just like you can use a dagger in one hand or two hands, for the same result.

Can a Paladin use poison according to RAW? They don't say you can't, so you can.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..."

They do say you can't.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

Because they're completely different weapons? A lance is listed in its description that it's different from other two-handed weapons in that you can use it one-handed in special situations.

Your are using incorrect wording in that sentence, and in doing so you have just demonstrated the problem with the wording in the SRD that causes this whole mess.

A lance states that it can be used "in one hand" not "as a one-handed weapon". And that is what makes all the difference. If the lance could, in fact, be used as a one-handed weapon (like when a larger creature uses a smaller sized weapon), it would be perfectly clear that only a 1x str bonus applies. But that is not what is written. The text says that the lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded "in one hand", which means it is still a two-handed weapon.

The difference in wording may seem trivial, but it really does make a difference when you're talking about game terminology.

 

[ThirdWizard]

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..."

They do say you can't.

A paladin can use poisons. It's just that after that he is no longer a paladin. Or is it some kind of uber ready action that the diety is performing so that the paladin revocation happens before the poison is used? But, then you'd have to say the diety is always in combat with their paladin and... *head explodes*