The Lance

[glass]

At this point, we're arguing semantics.

Well, of course we are: we a discussing the rules text. I can't understand why people try to use 'semantics' as some sort of dismissal, when it is kinda the point of the forum!

Honestly, I feel the rule is ambiguous enough, that it probably just requires a GM ruling. This is getting bitter, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere at this point.

At least I feel justified in being confused about the issue.

(emphasis mine).

I think that is the root of the problem: feelings.

IMO, the reason why this, and sneak attacks per round, and the other regulars keep coming up is not because they are not clear, but because people read them as they are written, and don't feel like they can be right.


glass.

 

[Bront]

Well, of course we are: we a discussing the rules text. I can't understand why people try to use 'semantics' as some sort of dismissal, when it is kinda the point of the forum!

Before you dismiss me as simply using the word semantics to dismiss this, read my post here.

Note, the PHB (but not the SRD) has a section on two-handed weapons that says "Two hands are required to weild a two-handed weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the characters strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon." Which only contridicts what the SRD (and PHB) says about wielding a weapon two handed or one handed in the case of the lance. So, we are discussing which section of the RAW overrided another section of the RAW, mostly because in this particular case, they are not as clear as they could have been. The FAQ discusses it, but the FAQ is worded poorly as well.

The point I was attempting to make is that we have now come up with almost 3 pages of people arguing about which words mean more, and it seems to have stoped being constructive, and started to get nasty.

I think that is the root of the problem: feelings.

IMO, the reason why this, and sneak attacks per round, and the other regulars keep coming up is not because they are not clear, but because people read them as they are written, and don't feel like they can be right.

I've seen two people who I would consider very good at interpreting rules disagree with spell writeups in the PHB. How we feel is very important in how we interpret the rules. The fact that I feel this is an ambiguous issue is for the exact reasons I liked to and discussed up here, as well as the fact that several different people have argued on both sides of this, and most of the arguements have been reasonable, from a RAW perspective, as well as a common sense perspective (Which I know often has little to do with the RAW).

Most people have to make very tough decisions based on how they feel. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this, because this is what makes us human.

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm glad the FAQ is now ruling against the lance dealing x1.5 when used one-handed, because that always bugged the crap out of me.

I think it's a simple observation that, when you use a one-handed weapon with two hands, the weapon deals x1.5 STR. It stands to reason that if you took this in reverse, and were able to use a two-handed weapon in one hand, you'd only deal x1 STR. The reason they don't explicitly mention this in PA and other places being contended in this thread is that normally you can't do that. With the lance, you can.

It takes an Exotic feat for me to be able to use a bastard sword one-handed, just as another note. But I don't get the x1.5 when I do that. Granted, it's listed as a one-handed weapon on the Exotic chart, but they may as well have included it on the Martial table as a two-handed weapon (and probably would have had the Sunder table not been reliant on that distinction).

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Storyteller01]

The point I was attempting to make is that we have now come up with almost 3 pages of people arguing about which words mean more, and it seems to have stoped being constructive, and started to get nasty.

Sorry about that...

 

[Storyteller01]

Try a few examples with lance compared to a 2-handed weapon with Spirited Charge. Here's one:
Glaive, 18 Str, PA for 3, Spirited Charge: 2d10+24 (mean 35)
Lance (1x), 18 Str, PA for 3, Spirited Charge: 3d8+21 (mean 34.5)
Lance (1.5x): 3d8+30 (mean 43.5)

Might be rehashing old wounds, but that's not my intent...

Considering this argument, and assuming that a two handed weapon used one-handed gets base Str bonuses (work with me here folks ), Wouldn't the Glaive's damage be adjusted as well since, unless the rider is making ride checks and/or not carrying a shield, the glaive is also being used one handed?

This brings up another thought: if you are using a polearm other than the lance one handed (to avoid Ride checks or to carry the shield), aren't you taking a -4 to hit, regardless of the ruling? Wouldn't that be the balance for using the lance over other polearms?

Example:
Glaive two handed = Ride check (guide w/ knees) every round
Glaive one handed = -4 to hit, no check needed
Glaive w/ shield = Ride check every round AND -4 to hit

Lance two handed = Ride check (guide with knees) every round
Lance one handed = Normal odds to hit, no check needed
Lance w/ shield = Ride check every round, Normal odds to hit

Near as I can tell, you don't need to roll a check to control a war mount in battle, but you DO need to roll to guide your mount w/o hands.


Not familiar with 3.5 rulings. If the Glaive were also treated as a one handed weapon in this case, how would it compare to the lance under the same circumstances?


Seems like this situation may extend to all mounted charge attacks ...

 

[Laman Stahros]

Just a point to remember about lance usage. The armor that knights wore during the main period that lances were used (not spears) had a "socket" under the right arm to help support the lance during the charge and the shock of hitting.

I don't what the "socket" looked like (I read about it in a number of history texts, not school books), but it seems like that would be why the lance (which requires two hands to wield normally) can be used one handed on horseback during a charge. YMMV.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't what the "socket" looked like (I read about it in a number of history texts, not school books), but it seems like that would be why the lance (which requires two hands to wield normally) can be used one handed on horseback during a charge. YMMV.

It looks like a cupping rest, for lack of better description. The left shoulder armour was also different to the right to afford better proetection as mobility of the left shoulder was not so important given the shield. The shield itself has a 'bite' taken out of the upper left corner to allow the lance to rest in the groove and better facilitate the right arm strike over left side.

In short, the armour, saddle & shield were all very specialized to allow the lance to be wielded one hand on horseback.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wouldn't the Glaive's damage be adjusted as well since, unless the rider is making ride checks and/or not carrying a shield, the glaive is also being used one handed?

The glaive can't be used one-handed. It isn't allowed. Not with a -4; not with a feat; not at all. (Pre-Epic, anyway.)

The only two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand by a creature of the appropriate size is the lance.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It takes an Exotic feat for me to be able to use a bastard sword one-handed, just as another note. But I don't get the x1.5 when I do that. Granted, it's listed as a one-handed weapon on the Exotic chart, but they may as well have included it on the Martial table as a two-handed weapon.

But there are big differences between a one-handed weapon that needs a feat to wield in one hand, and a two-handed weapon that a feat allows to be used in one hand.

Hit points, disarm bonuses, Str bonuses, etc, etc.

Your "may as well" changes a lot of things, so it's certainly not a six-of-one, who-really-cares semantic difference; it has mechanical effects.

-Hyp.

 

[Bront]

Sorry about that...

No problem, I was just hoping to reighn it in. Ultimately, it's a rules discussion about a game. No need to take anything personaly

And I wasn't ranting at anyone in particular, more in general, so don't think I was singling you out or anything.