Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 2065122" data-attributes="member: 15999">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.</blockquote>

Verification