The Lance

[Laman Stahros]

There is something inherantly wrong with charging with a lance to do non-lethal damage
Not against the RAW or anything, but that's just wrong.

Actually, during the jousting tourneys, the knights would use blunt tipped lances. I can't think of a much better way to describe it in game terms than charging with a lance to do non-lethal damage.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Not to be overly arguementative, but why not? Your long spear is statistically identical to to a lance, an glaive isn't too different either. The listing doesn't specifically say that a weapon can't be used as another improvised weapon, or that an improvised lance cannot be used one handed. There's nothing in the RAW that says it cannot be done.

True, but the longspear is balanced differently, and would not apply into the "lance socket" or the shield cut that were used to help support the lance. <see post #96>

 

[Bront]

Actually, during the jousting tourneys, the knights would use blunt tipped lances. I can't think of a much better way to describe it in game terms than charging with a lance to do non-lethal damage.

That's with a lance designed to do non-lethal (so no -4 I would think). I'm thinking more the using a real lance at a -4 to do non-lethal. Again, perfectly legal, but odd. But yes, you are correct there are times it was done.

 

[Storyteller01]

There are rules for improvised weapons. They do not include gaining special properties of other weapons. Damage. Size category. Threat range and critical multiplier. Range increment. Not special properties.

Not so. Any weapon, with a -4 penalty, can be used to do non-lethal damage (my original point; sorry 'bout the mix-up). You don't have to call it a sap to gain this ability. It isn't under 'improvised', but it follows the same rules mechanically. I wouldn't focus on this so much if paladins (or their churches) didn't pay thousands of gold to make a magic weapon do subdual damage (sooo many magic weapons designed to bring in opponents alive).

And agian, there's nothing in the rules against using one weapon as another improvised weapon (again with the subdual; your using a weapon for a purpose it wasn't designed [ruled] for.).

And a long spear is a two handed reach weapon with a 1d8 damage. I believe it has the same crit range. looks awful similar to me, by the RAW ...

But I digress...

Considering that there are cultures that use spears in the same manner as lances (maybe not as specialized, but there is evidence...), we may want to look at this as a mounted charge snafu, and not just a situation only pertaining to the lance.

 

[Storyteller01]

True, but the longspear is balanced differently, and would not apply into the "lance socket" or the shield cut that were used to help support the lance. <see post #96>

I'm guessing that's where the -4 would come into play. Does tend to make sense.

 

[FireLance]

It was a mid-level example to make it accessible to readers. Here's an extreme example:

Fighter10/Cavalier10, Str 26, doing full Power Attack on Unstoppable Charge, with +5 weapon and +5 misc bonuses (such as specialization, Prayer, or Inspire Courage):
Lance 1x: (1d8 +8 Str +20 PA +5 weapon +5 misc)*5 = 5d8+190
Glaive: (1d10 +12 Str +40 PA +5 weapon +5 misc)*4 = 4d10+248
Lance 1.5x: (1d8 +12 Str +40 PA +5 weapon +5 misc)*5 = 5d8+310

Now we're talking 120 pts. (Power attack+.5 Str bonus)*(charge multiplier) = 120.

The problem is that Spirited/Deadly/Unstoppable Charge each make the lance less marginally advantageous than other weapons (at the end, 25% advantage as opposed to the 100% advantage the lance starts out with). With no Spirited Charge, the lance will always be best even at 1x, because it gets 2xStr and 2xPA on a charge where a glaive gets 1.5xStr and 2xPA. (Assuming Str is at least +2 bonus, in order to balance out the base damage difference)

Well, the obvious (at least to me) reason why a lance might lose out to a glaive or any other two-handed weapon in a mounted charge is that you're using it one-handed. Note that by the rules, you can use it one-handed while mounted, but it doesn't say that you have to do so.

A lance used one-handed in a mounted charge is superior to any other one-handed weapon, even it if "only" gets x1 Strength bonus and x1 Power Attack.
A lance used two-handed in a mounted charge is superior to any other two-handed weapon, since it also gets x1.5 Strength bonus and x2 Power Attack.

Anyway, from experience, someone will soon be around to argue the ridiculousness of using a lance two-handed in a mounted charge. For some reason, mounted charges with other two-handed weapons such as longspears, glaives and greatswords are not as strange.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not so. Any weapon, with a -4 penalty, can be used to do non-lethal damage (my original point; sorry 'bout the mix-up). You don't have to call it a sap to gain this ability. It isn't under 'improvised', but it follows the same rules mechanically.

Absolutely. You're not treating your longspear as a sap; you're using a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage, under the rules for using a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

Hitting someone with a chair normally deals lethal damage, as an improvised weapon at a -4 penalty. If you want to deal non-lethal damage with the chair, you take another -4 (total penalty, -8) to use a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

And agian, there's nothing in the rules against using one weapon as another improvised weapon.

Certainly. But you don't gain special properties of those weapons. And I maintain that since the rules for improvised weapons state that you find the clsoest match, the closest match will always be... the original weapon. You can't match any closer than that!

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

That's with a lance designed to do non-lethal (so no -4 I would think). I'm thinking more the using a real lance at a -4 to do non-lethal. Again, perfectly legal, but odd. But yes, you are correct there are times it was done.

Probably the easiest way would be to swing it slightly to one side, then sweep it across to swat the opponent with the side of the lance. IIRC this was a recognised jousting tactic when the main object of the contest was to unhorse your opponent. You could also perhaps use a light lance (without the big hand-guard) reversed.

 

[Storyteller01]

Absolutely. You're not treating your longspear as a sap; you're using a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage, under the rules for using a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

Hitting someone with a chair normally deals lethal damage, as an improvised weapon at a -4 penalty. If you want to deal non-lethal damage with the chair, you take another -4 (total penalty, -8) to use a weapon that normally does lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

Can't argue with that

Certainly. But you don't gain special properties of those weapons. And I maintain that since the rules for improvised weapons state that you find the clsoest match, the closest match will always be... the original weapon. You can't match any closer than that!

-Hyp.

Which would be the case if the original weapon met the requirements you need. If it doesn't, then your using it in a perscribed manner (in this case, as a lance) is improvising, hence the -4 penalty. While the improvisationruling states what is given, it doesn't state what ISN'T allowed (all hail GM fiat). So far, there's nothing in the ruling that goes against it.

Besides, given that a lance is essentially a modified long spear (thicker shaft, weight towards the rear, different head) is it do hard to believe that a longspear (or any polearm, for that matter) can be used as a lance?

And before we quote the RAW; yes, the ruling doesn't say you can, but it doesn't say you can't either. Just as the RAW doesn't say you can't get the 1.5 str bonus for the lance, even though your only using one hand. It gets viewed either way, even with the current FAQ ruling.

Again, it goes back to semantics.



Now, back to the matter at hand ...

Anyway, from experience, someone will soon be around to argue the ridiculousness of using a lance two-handed in a mounted charge. For some reason, mounted charges with other two-handed weapons such as longspears, glaives and greatswords are not as strange.

Actually, I'm iffy about using any weapon two handed while mounted. Seems rather cumbersome. Does anyone have pics or documentation that shows otherwise?

 

[Endur]

3e messed up mounted combat

The big problem is that 3e messed up mounted combat. While having Lances always do 1.5x strength damage and 2x power attack damage is a nice solution to the 3e mounted combat problem, it is not what the D&D game designers intended.

3e messed up mounted combat several places, but the lance is the biggest place they messed it up.

The Heavy Lance should do the same damage as the Great Sword. i.e. 2d6. Instead, we're stuck with a wimpy lance that does 1d8. In AD&D both the Heavy Lance and the Two Handed Sword each did 3d6 to a large enemy.

Also, using a weapon in two hands should not increase damage so much that one handed lances become inefficient and you have power gamers trying to swing lances in two hands to get increased strength and power attack damage.

I don't think the designers had any intention of giving the lance special strength damage and power attack rules (and the FAQ is 100% correct on this point).

For play balance reasons, the special strength damage and power attack does not bother me, so I could be happy with a GM ruling either way.