The Lance

[Storyteller01]

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.


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

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

I rather like this pic. Tends to make my point nicely:

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac41rB.jpg


Please note that the weapon being used doesn't look like the lance portrayed in the PHB. It looks like the longspear...

 

[Storyteller01]

Why? People do that all the time too

Hence the high mortality rate: Friendly fire!!

 

[Storyteller01]

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. .

No such thing as an objective rule,or else we wouldn't be discussing interpretation.

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. .

This would be where subjectivity and common sense come into play. Using a pole arm as a lance isn't that much of a stretch (they are the same size and average damage). Using a longbow as a crossbow is a bit different (as is using a shortsword as a great sword, or a glaive as a spiked chain), and goes against the intent of the orignal arguement.

Although, is is rumored that the three-sectional staff came into being because a monk was forced to use a broken quarterstaff.

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).

Goes back to applied common sense.

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.

Read combat journals and training manuals. Weapons use IS application of method and technique. It's why similar weapons were easier to learn individually: the same principles could be applied to each weapon.

PS: note the statement says 'similar'. That would apply to weapons using the same general physics, which the glaive/spiked chain comparisons do not.

The crossbow/longbow comparison is similar, except for the crossbow providing a 'third hand' to hold the string while you aim. So if you can create a means for another appendage to hold the string (say a mouth or foot) go for it. Your game.

The greatsword/shortsword is a bit of a stretch, but you've misinterpreted my original statement. In my glaive/lance example, the glaive used the reduced damage rate of the lance. If you feel the need to use a greatsword for 1d6, at a -4 to hit, go for it.

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

Again, this goes to semantics and interpretation. The listed rule does not specifically state this.

But dealing in terms like 'must' and 'by the rules' (as ambiguous as they are) leaves little room for player creativity. YMMV

 

[Hypersmurf]

Read combat journals and training manuals. Weapons use IS application of method and technique. It's why similar weapons were easier to learn individually: the same principles could be applied to each weapon.

Except that doesn't apply in D&D, without variant rules.

The wizard is not proficient with the hand axe, the battleaxe, the greataxe, the halberd, the ranseur, or the glaive; he takes a -4 penalty to his attacks with all of them.

If he spends a feat to become proficient with the battleaxe, he still takes a -4 with all of the others. And to learn to use one of them, it still requires a feat; the difficulty of learning them has not decreased because he knows how to use one sort of axe.

A lot like using a longspear in one hand while mounted doesn't apply in D&D. It's not a lance; therefore it can't be done (pre-epic).

The picture you're referencing is obviously from before 2002 - he's probably using the Sword and Fist version of Monkey Grip. Tell the artist he needs to update for 3.5 - the new feat can be found in Complete Warrior.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Except that doesn't apply in D&D, without variant rules.

The wizard is not proficient with the hand axe, the battleaxe, the greataxe, the halberd, the ranseur, or the glaive; he takes a -4 penalty to his attacks with all of them..

Which goes back to improvising; said wizard doesn't full comprehend said priniciples (that's why it took dedicated fighters to master them), so he gets the -4 to hit, he's figuring it out as he goes.

A lot like using a longspear in one hand while mounted doesn't apply in D&D. It's not a lance; therefore it can't be done (pre-epic).

The picture you're referencing is obviously from before 2002 - he's probably using the Sword and Fist version of Monkey Grip. Tell the artist he needs to update for 3.5 - the new feat can be found in Complete Warrior.

-Hyp.

I will, when I pass the mortal coil.

This pic came from the Maciejowsky bible, depicting actual medival combat, much like the samurai with the yari.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This pic came from the Maciejowsky bible, depicting actual medival combat, much like the samurai with the yari.

Right. If you're playing Maciejowsky Adventures, Revised Edition, you can use a longspear in one hand while mounted.

If you're playing 3.5 D&D, you can't.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Right. If you're playing Maciejowsky Adventures, Revised Edition, you can use a longspear in one hand while mounted.

If you're playing 3.5 D&D, you can't.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Actually, if we're using heavy lance (or lance for medium-sized creatures in 3.5e) in a charge attack, it automatically does 2d8 on a successful hit. It could do 3d8 if it crit.

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 earliest weapon designer intended for a lance to swing during a charge attack (though you could "clothesline" someone and probably take off their head). But to forego a shield and put two hands would stabilize and put your weight behind the point of the lance instead of just one hand, would increase power upon impact.

After all, before the lance, horsemen have used spears two-handed. The lance was simply the next logical and final step in mounted polearms weapon development.

 

[werk]

This really makes sense when you think about it, the one handed when mounted, two handed when not.

The lance is a pointy stick. When you are on the ground, you have to shove it forward to injure someone. This puts it in the realm of a long spear. When you are mounted, you just hold the stick out in front of you and the horse provides the forward thrust for you. I would write off the polearm vs lance argument in that they are balanced much differently, appropriate to their wield style.

I really don't see a problem, especially with the lance's special description.

 

[Hypersmurf]

When you are mounted, you just hold the stick out in front of you and the horse provides the forward thrust for you.

Of course, if the horse doesn't move, you can use the Whirlwind Attack feat to stab every opponent ten feet away from it with your lance. With one hand

-Hyp.