The Lance

[Numion]

In 3.0 it was possible, although mechanically unsound (not to mention munchkin as all ^&%$). -2 with monkey grip. Meant that with the full compliment of TWF feats you'd fight at a -6 to all attacks.

To be honest, if the player is willing to go though all that for the image of dual wielding greatswords, go for it! That's what the game is about.

3.0E monkey grip says you can use only one weapon at a time, or something to similar effect. The point is though that the feat isn't very good, for example compared to power attack. Power attack gives you on average 2 points more damage for a -2 .. about as good as monkey grip, but more flexible, since you can choose to not take the -2 to hit.

 

[Storyteller01]

3.0E monkey grip says you can use only one weapon at a time, or something to similar effect. The point is though that the feat isn't very good, for example compared to power attack. Power attack gives you on average 2 points more damage for a -2 .. about as good as monkey grip, but more flexible, since you can choose to not take the -2 to hit.

Exact wording was that you could use a weapon one size catagory larger than you in one hand. Nothing states that you could only use one weapon.

And agreed, there are better ways to handle it. The player was after the image more than the efficiency.


But...

Original question was about the lance's one handed use gaining the 2 hnd str bonus. Some say yea, others (myslef and the FAQ included) say nay. We have our own ways of dealing with it...

 

[Coredump]

Not quite the same comparison

But, it *is* an example of trying to get a different 'equivalent' based on use.
According to the rules, you cannot use a glaive one handed. You want to be able to 'improvise' it as one handed.
According to the rules, you cannot use a longbow one handed. I just want to be able to 'improvise' it as one handed.
Ruleswise, they are the same. If you make a subjective change, it is just subjective, and not backed by the rules.

Members of this site can give evidence of cultures who's lances were closer to longspears. The lance and the longspear have much more in common.

Sure, and in some cultures, you cut a long stick, put a point on it, and call it a lance. But that is not what DnD considers a lance. Barely what it considers a spear.
And I would assert that a bow, and crossbow have a lot in common. As does a shortsword and Greatsword, or *every* polearm, etc.

In 3.0 it was possible, although mechanically unsound (not to mention munchkin as all ^&%$). -2 with monkey grip. Meant that with the full compliment of TWF feats you'd fight at a -6 to all attacks.

Yes, in 3.0 with a feat.... but from your method of determining 'equivalent weapons' for improvisation, you also consider method of use. So according to your 'system', in every edition, without a feat, you can use a greatsword one handed.
In fact, if I say I want to use it off hand, as a light weapon, I should be able to improvise it as a shortsword. A 2D6 light weapon isn't bad. (albeit with a -4 to hit)

The problem is that you are using *method* or *technique* to help determine an equivalent weapon for improvisation, and that doesn't work very well.

What about a glaive, it has reach. But someone is within 5' of me. So I just 'improvise' that it is a reach weapon that can also hit inside 5'. Just like the spiked chain does. So I take a -4 for improvise, and do my normal attack and normal damage.(this can only be done because you allow for 'technique' as a factor for finding an equivalent.)

Equivalents must only deal with the weapon. Not the How.

To be honest, if the player is willing to go though all that for the image of dual wielding greatswords, go for it! That's what the game is about.

But that is not what the *rules* are all about. I allow a lot of things that the rules don't allow, so I don't have a problem with it, but then it is a house rule, or a DM change.

 

[Felix]

The lance and the longspear have much more in common.

Sure; they're long sticks with pointy ends that hurt people. This does not mean they can be used in the same manner by the RAW.

Back to the "improvised lance" business...

If you wield a weapon, you use it as that weapon... you cannot improvise it to become another weapon. Yes, you can have it deal non-lethal damage, but it is still a *whatever* that's dealing non-lethal damage. You can not have a spear become an "improvised lance". No such thing. The spear is still a spear, however you feel about it.

If you wield something that is not a weapon (chair, beer bottle, mouse pad) then you use the rules for improvised weapons. It does damage depending on how big it is, and you get a -4 for it. This is all agreed upon. You turn some object into an "improvised weapon". You do not turn that object into a sap, lance, or tulwar.

You will never gain the ability to wield any two-handed weapon (or large object)except a lance one-handed while mounted. That is what makes the lance so neat, and an effective mounted combat weapon.

Some say yea, others (myslef and the FAQ included) say nay.

I say yea, and include the Core Rulebooks with me on this.

At this point, it's FAQ v RAW. Take your pick.

 

[Endur]

There were various ancient weapons that were wielded two handed from horseback. While they definitely deserve the +4 bonus for disarming, its questionable whether they deserve the strength bonus for wielding with two hands.

Japanese did it.

Click for the full-size image of the "warrior on horseback battling with a yari", for example.

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

I believe that people have used bows from horseback for quite some time...usually two-handed...

 

[Diirk]

Its hard to imagine someone using a bow one handed very effectively...

 

[DungeonMaster]

I think that was the point...

I'm glad to see this one hasn't ballooned to the 18+ page monster thread it was on the WotC website. More level heads here I presume and less 3.5 zealots...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Its hard to imagine someone using a bow one handed very effectively...

It's only a -2 penalty for a light crossbow. Oh, wait, you don't mean crossbow...

 

[Bront]

Agreed.

My concern is wielding the weapon around the horse without killing yourself or the animal.

Why? People do that all the time too