The Lance

[Ketjak]

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.

Does MARE use aoo?

 

[Scion]

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.

is there a rule that states you cannot move freely within your 5' square without useing any movement? After all, you can face in any direction (and really, all directions at the same time) so maybe the rider and mount are moving in conjunction somehow

Of course, there are always silly consequences of various rules. But then, I still see no problem with a special rule for a single weapon with a good reason behind it, such as a lance on horseback only needing one hand but still getting the other benefit.

 

[Felix]

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

You are using a Maciejowsky illustration to argue a rules dispute?

...This is absolutely baffling...

A rules discussion... You show a picture.

The point this picture makes is to show your disassociation from the Rules As Written. It was better when you were arguing the FAQ... at least that has some good clarificatoins in it, even if it fumbles as often as not. I don't know what to say except that your picture, which is very nice by the way, does not change the fact that in 3.5 a spear and a lance are two different weapons that have two different sets of abilities; a spear cannot be used one-handed mounted while a lance can, despite mideval artistry.

Which goes back to improvising; said wizard doesn't fully 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.

It does not go back to improvising. You are not given an improvisation penalty... you are given a non-proficiency penalty. They just happen to be the same penalty, -4. The abilities of specific classes may change one penalty but not the other, so the distinction does matter.

You do not improvise with weapons, you are proficient or not with them.

You improvise with things that are not weapons.

The upshot being, you cannot improvise something into a lance. You cannot improvise a longspear into a lance. You can improvise the use of a long pointy stick that is not a spear, but you will still be wielding it two-handed while mounted.

 

[Storyteller01]

You are using a Maciejowsky illustration to argue a rules dispute?

...This is absolutely baffling...

A rules discussion... You show a picture.

it can't be worse than saying common sense has no place in a debate.

The point this picture makes is to show your disassociation from the Rules As Written. It was better when you were arguing the FAQ... at least that has some good clarificatoins in it, even if it fumbles as often as not. I don't know what to say except that your picture, which is very nice by the way, does not change the fact that in 3.5 a spear and a lance are two different weapons that have two different sets of abilities; a spear cannot be used one-handed mounted while a lance can, despite mideval artistry.

Or illustrations in medival recording on combat technique. They're rare, but they exst. I'll download a pic when I gain access to a scanner. Doesn't change that it can't be done in in 3.5 (per one interpretation of the improvised weapon rules), but it means I'll treat the RAW with as much reverance as others treat the FAQ. Same authors, and all. My milage, I suppose.

It does not go back to improvising. You are not given an improvisation penalty... you are given a non-proficiency penalty. They just happen to be the same penalty, -4. The abilities of specific classes may change one penalty but not the other, so the distinction does matter.

Improvising = doesn't have a proficiency feat in chair, rock, etc. Goes back to semantics.

Or do we starting stacking these penalties (-4 for improvised, -4 for nonproficiency)?

And before it gets mentioned that 'objects are not weapons, hence you can't be proficient in them' I'll refer to Okinawan weaponry, which were originally farming tools (the tonfa used to be a grinding handle, for example.). The monk is very proficient with these weapons (the nunchaku is a rice flail, and a dragon mag out there has stats for tonfa and sai [asian bail hook or planting implement, epending on which books you read]. These are also monk weapons).

And let's not forget about the sickle and scythe! If your proficient, they are weapons. If your not, they're farm tools that get a -4 penalty when used as weapons.

You do not improvise with weapons, you are proficient or not with them.

You improvise with things that are not weapons.

See above. It's the same thing with a different name.

The upshot being, you cannot improvise something into a lance. You cannot improvise a longspear into a lance. You can improvise the use of a long pointy stick that is not a spear, but you will still be wielding it two-handed while mounted.

Me thinks the circular logic wheel has spun too much. My original point was using a polearm one handed, in the same manner as a lance, would even out the original weapon comparison (glaive mounted vs lance). Then the s--- hit the fan when it was mentioned that two handed weapons can't be used one handed.

Pic has been shown that it is possible, and the wording of using improvised weapons does not preclude it. The biggest arguement against it is that weapons cannot be used as improvised weapons, which is not strictlty stated oin the RAW (just as a lanc gaining the Str bonus for one or two handed use is not stricty stated in it's description).

 

[Hypersmurf]

... when it was mentioned that two handed weapons can't be used one handed.

Pic has been shown that it is possible...

No, no. The rules state that two-handed weapons require two hands to use. The lance is the only exception.

I could draw a picture of someone wielding a greatsword in one hand, but that wouldn't change the rule that you can't.

The picture has nothing to do with the D&D rules definition of two-handed weapons. Your picture has not shown that a character in D&D 3.5 can wield a longspear in one hand. It's shown that there's a picture of a guy wielding a longspear ni one hand. The two have nothing to do with each other.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, I'm out of here folks. I do love the debate, but as Bront said, it's circling around interpretation. Until 4.0 comes out (and if they address the issue), we'll play as we wish.

Enjoy your day, and good gaming.


EDIT: Reserving the right to speak up on other matters.

 

[FireLance]

You know, I've kind of lost the point of this thread, so I thought I'd just post my thoughts on the issue again.

I acknowledge that by the Rules As Written, a lance is a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand while mounted, and still get 1.5 x Strength bonus and 2 x Power Attack.

What I do not agree with is the assertion that a lance "needs" to get 1.5 x Strength bonus and 2 x Power Attack in order to quantify, in game terms, its effectiveness in mounted combat. The lance already has one great advantage: it deals double damage in a mounted charge.

Even if it "only" gets 1 x Strength bonus and 1 x Power Attack, like any other one-handed weapon, it still deals more damage than any other one-handed weapon in a mounted charge.
The damage for a lance used one handed in a mounted charge would be 2d8+2x(damage bonus). With Spirited Charge, it would increase to 3d8+3x(damage bonus).
Even bastard swords or dwarven waraxes, which deal the "best" base damage of all other one-handed weapons, only deal 1d10+damage bonus on a mounted charge, or 2d10+2x(damage bonus) with Spirited Charge.

The advantage of using a lance one-handed, or any other one-handed weapon, is that you can also use a shield. If you decide to forgo the use of a shield, you can use a two-handed weapon, or you can use a lance two-handed.
The damage for a lance used two-handed in a mounted charge would be 2d8+2x(1.5xStr + 2xPA + other damage bonuses), or 3d8+3x(1.5xStr + 2xPA + other damage bonuses) with Spirited Charge.
Even a greatsword, which deals the "best" base damage for two-handed weapons in the core rules, only deals 2d6+(1.5xStr + 2xPA + other damage bonuses) in a mounted charge, or 4d6+2x(1.5xStr + 2xPA + other damage bonuses) with Spirited Charge.

Admittedly, the average base damage of a greatsword used in a Spirited Charge is half a point higher than the average base damage of a lance, but even if the wielder has a single point of damage bonus, the advantage shifts back to the lance.

As to whether it is possible to use a lance with two hands when mounted, the Rules As Written say, "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand." (emphasis mine). Not "you must wield" or even "you wield", which implies that the wielder has a choice whether or not he wishes to use it in two hands (as he would have to if he was on foot).

In addition, the Rules As Written also do not say that you take a penalty to attack rolls if you use a lance in two hands while mounted. This is as much a house rule as my house rule that a lance used in one hand while mounted only gets 1 x Strength bonus and 1 x Power Attack.

 

[werk]

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.

SO if you have a lance and armor spikes you'd be pretty nasty, and could use a nice shield too.

 

[mvincent]

you cannot improvise something into a lance. You cannot improvise a longspear into a lance. You can improvise the use of a long pointy stick that is not a spear,

<off topic>
I think what ya'll are talking about is "spear couching". Historically, it's using a spear like a lance (and it's actually how the lance was invented).

Treating a spear as an improvised lance is the perfect way to simulate this, and it doesn't actually appear to be against RAW. It's up to each DM whether he wants to allow this of course, but I see nothing wrong with it, and several things right with it.
</off topic>

 

[Storyteller01]

SO if you have a lance and armor spikes you'd be pretty nasty, and could use a nice shield too.

Don't think you can, if using a shield. IIRC, the armor spikes only threaten the area within 5 ft as an off-hand attack, per this thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=136056

Doesn't mean you can shield bash the #$%& out of someone within 5 feet, using the same mechanics (provided you have the right feats, of course).

Or you could always say your kicking the closer enemy with your spiked boot.