The Lance

[Ketjak]

These rules are messed up. This is why development should use one term per concept and define each term in the glossary.

Hyp - do you see a difference between size terminology (light, one-handed, two-handed) and use options (wielded in one hand, wielded in two hands)? I'm not arguing with you (I'm not smart enough nor do I see a reason to) when I ask that - just wondering how you see the difference, if any.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hyp - do you see a difference between size terminology (light, one-handed, two-handed) and use options (wielded in one hand, wielded in two hands)?

There's obviously a difference.

If they were one and the same, the sentence (referring to 1.5 Str bonus when a weapon is wielded in two hands) "However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands," would be nonsensical.

If size-terminology was the same as use-option, then the sentence above would read "However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a two-handed weapon with two hands."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - do you see a difference between size terminology (light, one-handed, two-handed) and use options (wielded in one hand, wielded in two hands)? I'm not arguing with you (I'm not smart enough nor do I see a reason to) when I ask that - just wondering how you see the difference, if any.

Absolutely, there's a difference.

A longsword is a one-handed weapon. It can be wielded in one hand, or wielded in two hands. When wielded in one hand, a one-handed weapon adds 1x Str bonus to damage. When wielded in two hands, a one-handed weapon adds 1.5x Str bonus to damage.

A greatsword is a two-handed weapon. It can only be wielded in two hands. A two-handed weapon adds 1.5x Str bonus to damage.

A lance is a two-handed weapon. It can be wielded in two hands, or can be wielded in one hand by a mounted character. A two-handed weapon adds 1.5x Str bonus to damage.

The two sets of terms are clearly distinct. 'Light weapon', 'one-handed weapon', 'two-handed weapon' describes properties of the weapon. 'Wielded in one hand', 'wielded in two hands', 'use one-handed', 'swing two-handed', 'wield in both hands' describe how a weapon is being used.

I can wield a light weapon one-handed or two-handed, though there's no advantage to using it two-handed.

I can use a one-handed weapon one-handed or two-handed.

I can use a two-handed weapon only two-handed, unless it's a lance and I'm mounted.

-Hyp.

 

[LeapingShark]

How about a Small Quarterstaff wielded by a Human Fighter. At it's core its a two-hand weapon, that can be used one-handed or two-handed by an innapropriately sized medium wielder. Thus this two-handed weapon can do 1.5 damage when chosing the one-handed option?

 

[Hypersmurf]

How about a Small Quarterstaff wielded by a Human Fighter. At it's core its a two-hand weapon, that can be used one-handed or two-handed by an innapropriately sized medium wielder. Thus this two-handed weapon can do 1.5 damage when chosing the one-handed option?

No, because you reduce it from two-handed to one-handed, since there's one step in difference between Medium and Small.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

So for the human fighter, it's a one-handed weapon. A one-handed weapon wielded in one hand adds 1x Str bonus to damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Uh... no, they can't. Quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. Two hands are required.

By the RAW, yes; IRL, not exactly true. You can get one heck of a reach one handed, and some techniques teach this. Anyway...



Now, near as I can tell, anything wielded with two hands gets the 1.5 damage bonus (regardless whether it is a 'one handed weapon used two handed' or a 'two handed weapon').

SO far, anything normally used two handed doesn't get the damage bonus. Case in point is large creature using a medium two handed weapon.

Now, this weapon is still technically a medium two handed weapon (evidence: the -2 the critter gets for using the weapon). He's using a two handed weapon one handed. He only gets normal damage.

Arguement of terms and definitions aside (oh, for the days of 3.0...), it seems that the intent is such:

If you used one hand, you get normal damage bonuses.
If you used two hands, you get the bonus damage.

DOes this seem correct?

 

[Amal Shukup]

Okay hyp, if I give you a quarter staff (they can be wielded one handed) and let you hit someone (say.. me) first one hnaded, then two handed ehich will hurt more?

Well, let me think...

Try this instead: How about If Hyp holds the lance two handed and whacks you with it, then climbs up on a horse, holds it one handed (couched in the approved fashion) and hits you with it with the active cooperation of the several hundred pound horse...

Which do YOU think would hurt more now? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Note that this is the special case cited in the RAW wherin the Lance - a 2-handed weapon can be wielded one handed. I'd opine that HAVING such a special case implies strongly that the wielder gets to use the 2-handed weapon - in this special case only - without penalty.

And rather than being an exercise in munchkinism and rules layering, that this special case reasonably accurately models the usefulness of a lance used in that fashion. If anything, the mounted (one handed) application should be even MORE damaging than it is currently (but there are Feats that help that).

A'Mal

 

[glass]

Note that when wielded one-handed (by a larger than medium character), a medium greatsword isn't a two-handed weapon, and so does not get many of the bonuses associated with a two-handed weapon (i.e. disarms, power-attacks etc.). However, it's HP still stay the same (because that is only reasonable, and WotC never implied otherwise).

It is a one-handed weapon for a large creature. It's hp stay the same because a 1H weapon for a large creature and a 2H weapon for a medium creature have the same hp.

Apart from the names 'one handed' and 'two handed', which could have been better, the weapon sizing rules in 3.5 are well thought out. Shame the FAQ wasn't.

A lance is a rules exception (as noted in it's description) that should have been clarified further (and it finally has been by WotC)

It didn't need clarifying: the lance is a 2H weapon with one noted exception. The fact that you don't like the rules, or even the fact that whoever wrote that FAQ entry doesn't like the rule doesn't change the rules.


glass.

 

[glass]

The FAQ is attempting to rectify a problem caused by poor terminology. The problem is the SRD (and printed books) has one term (“two-handed”) in use to describe two different traits of a weapon. One use of the term references how a weapon is used (actually “a weapon wielded with two hands”) and the other the size of the weapon relative to its user (actually “a big weapon that normally requires two hands to use”). This is one more problem that should be ironed out in the next edition or errata’d in this one.

Actually, 'two handed' is not used to mean 'wielded in two hands'. If they mean 'wielded in two hands', they say so.

I agree that the terminology they chose was less than stellar. If they had called them heavy, medium and light weapons, we would not keep having these discussions.

My read is PA is intended to work with weapons wielded with two hands based on the entire first sentence of the benefits section.

Your guesses about what the author meant it to say do not change what it does say. Feel free to houserule it in any way you see fit, but don't pretend it is not a houserule.


glass.

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, let me think...

Try this instead: How about If Hyp holds the lance two handed and whacks you with it, then climbs up on a horse, holds it one handed (couched in the approved fashion) and hits you with it with the active cooperation of the several hundred pound horse...

Which do YOU think would hurt more now? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Note that this is the special case cited in the RAW wherin the Lance - a 2-handed weapon can be wielded one handed. I'd opine that HAVING such a special case implies strongly that the wielder gets to use the 2-handed weapon - in this special case only - without penalty.

And rather than being an exercise in munchkinism and rules layering, that this special case reasonably accurately models the usefulness of a lance used in that fashion. If anything, the mounted (one handed) application should be even MORE damaging than it is currently (but there are Feats that help that).

A'Mal

It's not a case of using the weapon without penalty, it's whether using the weapon one handed will still allow the 1.5 str bonus for using a weapon classed as two handed.

With all the rules that pertain to using a lance (greater damage on a charge, as well as feats specifically designed to improve such attacks), is the extra damage needed? Especially when it goes against rational thought (as you mentioned, it is the mass of the creature involved, not the number of hands on the weapon).