Strength Damage Bonus for Lance?

[Caliban]

And therein lies my reason for accepting the RAW without further consideration. And I would think that it would also guide others to making their own ruling.

If you accept that lances are the pinnacle of mounted combat, then accept that they gain all the benefits of a two-handed weapon (as per the RAW) while wielded in one hand if mounted during a charge.

If you do not accept, then house rule away using Rule 0.

Otherwise, why is there so much argument on a rules forum when the RAW are relatively clear (as Hypersmurf pointed out)?

Because they aren't "relatively clear" on this particular question. An awful lot is being read into a single sentence footnote in the weapon description.

The lance is the best weapon for a mounted charge. It is a reach weapon that does double damage on a charge, triple damage if you have Spirited charge. There is no other weapon in the PHB that does that.

Whether or not it gets x1.5 Str damage when used one handed doesn't change that.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So I've been rethinking my position on the lance, trying to get to the bottom of why my gut instinct regarding the lance is so counter to Caliban's. The rules aren't an issue for me at this point. I believe I know what they are, and I can understand and respect the opposing interpretation.

So at this point I'm basically discussing the "idea of the lance." Feel free to ignore it as such, for those who still believe there is room to discuss the rules or balance of the issue.

For me, it comes down to a simple fact. I've seen jousting, and I can't rationalize how holding the lance in two-hands would give the blow any greater force or power. All the force is generated by the mount's power and the knight bracing himself in the saddle. Unlike the way a longspear might be wielded in a mounted charge, a lance is built to be couched against the body at the elbow. Putting another hand on the shaft isn't going to do anything.

So in game terms--since in my mind there's no difference in the amount of strength that can be brought to bear between a one-handed lance charge and a two-handed lance charge--there's only one designation: how much strength bonus should a lance get when used in a mounted charge? I opt to go with the two-handed weapon precedent, because it seems as appropriate to the lance in a mounted charge as it does to a longsword wielded in two hands.

 

[Storyteller01]

Still prefer to use the animal's str bonus.

 

[Ranger REG]

So why not use the strength of the mount to determine damage, at least for a charge? It IS the animals inertia that produces damage. The human 'strength' factor is channeling the shock in such a way as to stay on the horse...

My two cents...

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.

 

[FireLance]

For me, it comes down to a simple fact. I've seen jousting, and I can't rationalize how holding the lance in two-hands would give the blow any greater force or power. All the force is generated by the mount's power and the knight bracing himself in the saddle. Unlike the way a longspear might be wielded in a mounted charge, a lance is built to be couched against the body at the elbow. Putting another hand on the shaft isn't going to do anything.

So in game terms--since in my mind there's no difference in the amount of strength that can be brought to bear between a one-handed lance charge and a two-handed lance charge--there's only one designation: how much strength bonus should a lance get when used in a mounted charge? I opt to go with the two-handed weapon precedent, because it seems as appropriate to the lance in a mounted charge as it does to a longsword wielded in two hands.

I think a better way to model that interpretation of lance combat is Storyteller01's suggestion of using the mount's Strength bonus instead of the rider's strength bonus. If all the rider is doing is holding onto the lance, then he should deal the same amount of damage, whether his Strength is 10 or 24.

If the rider's Strength has an impact on the damage at all, e.g. he must either thrust in some way, or greater strength => greater stability in holding the lance => a more telling blow, I don't see any problem with the concept that using two hands would be better than using one.

 

[RigaMortus]

As you quoted, all "two handed weapons" get 1.5x bonus on a powerattack.

A lance is a two handed weapon.

Now, as a side effect, all two handed weapons must be held in two hands.

EXCEPT for the lance, if you are on horseback. This is a noted exception for the lance and lance alone. It's a two-handed weapon that can be weilded in one hand. VERY clearly written.

Question... If I have Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), does that mean I can now wield a Bastard Sword in 1 hand, and still apply 1.5 Str bonus?

 

[Jdvn1]

Hm, good point.

Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

According to the one-handed-lance-giving-1.5-Str people, since the Bastard Sword is being used "in one hand" and not "as a one-handed weapon," the Bastard Sword is still a two-handed weapon and gives Str-and-a-half.

 

[RigaMortus]

Hm, good point.

According to the one-handed-lance-giving-1.5-Str people, since the Bastard Sword is being used "in one hand" and not "as a one-handed weapon," the Bastard Sword is still a two-handed weapon and gives Str-and-a-half.

So does that mean I can make my dual wielding Bastard Sword user, where both Bastard Swords (Primary and Off-hand) each get 1.5 Str bonus?

Actually, if this is the case... Why couldn't I dual wield 2 lances at once (while mounted of course)?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If the rider's Strength has an impact on the damage at all, e.g. he must either thrust in some way, or greater strength => greater stability in holding the lance => a more telling blow, I don't see any problem with the concept that using two hands would be better than using one.

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.

In a more detailed game, where I wanted to cut down on the Abstraction that is D&D combat, I'd consider using the mount's strength instead of the rider's. But I'm fairly happy with the Abstraction and believe the RAW supports how I want it to work, so I don't.

 

[FireLance]

Question... If I have Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), does that mean I can now wield a Bastard Sword in 1 hand, and still apply 1.5 Str bonus?

Actually, no. The weapons table lists the bastard sword and the dwarven waraxe as one-handed weapons. Of course, like all other one-handed weapons, they can be used in two hands to gain 1.5xStr bonus and 2-for-1 Power Attack. Without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, you may use them two-handed as martial weapons, but they remain one-handed weapons.