The Strength of Lances

[Bauglir]

Further, if you want to rule all two handded weapons are two handed regardless of how they are wielded then you just made bastard swords the best weapons in the game along with dwarven waraxes. According to the FAQ these are "two handed weapons that can be wielded in one hand", like the lance.

According to the FAQ any weapon wielded in 2 hands is a 2-handed weapon (even a dagger). According to the RAW the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are 1-handed exotic weapons that can be wielded in 2 hands (note: the weapon class does not change to 2-handed) as a martial weapon.

Definitions
"Two handed: These weapons require two hands to wield unless specifically noted otherwise. When wielded with only one hand treat them as medium weapons."

So, a human mounted knight could wield a Colossal lance in one hand, since it's treated as a medium weapon?

Perhaps "..as one-handed weapons" would be better.

Although personally I think it would be a cleaner solution to spell it out in the specific exception:

"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
"While mounted, you can wield a lance as a one-handed weapon."

That's if you wanted to change it. I don't really see a serious issue with it as it is.

 

[Fieari]

According to the FAQ any weapon wielded in 2 hands is a 2-handed weapon (even a dagger). According to the RAW the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are 1-handed exotic weapons that can be wielded in 2 hands (note: the weapon class does not change to 2-handed) as a martial weapon.

The FAQ is wrong. It has to be wrong, since it directly contradicts the RAW.

"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
"While mounted, you can wield a lance as a one-handed weapon."

That's if you wanted to change it. I don't really see a serious issue with it as it is.

No arguments here.

 

[Majere]

The important part Pendragon wanted to spell out is that you are actually considered "everywhere" on the mount (share all squares with it).

Mustrum Ridcully

Hmm is that actually stated anywhere in the rules, because I cant find any reference.
Infact I dont believe there is any ruling to support either case. But My gut reaction would be that you treat a player on a mount like a player on a cart or a table. You still occcupy your own 5*5 square.

A spike chain wielding 10*10 mounted PC would have a hell of a time if you are right

Majere

 

[youspoonybard]

From the SRD Combat Section:

"MOUNTED COMBAT
Horses in Combat: Warhorses and warponies can serve readily as combat steeds. Light horses, ponies, and heavy horses, however, are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a horse. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full round action and you can’t do anything else until your next turn.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat."

 

[Majere]

From the SRD Combat Section:
A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat."

That doesnt mean you take up the same space as the mount
It means you share a square with it.
If you are grappled by a creature you shar its square as it moves into your space.
If the creature is 15*15 you dont suddenly become 15*15. You are still 5*5, you are just sharing a square with it.

I dont know what exactly the comment does mean. But as written is doesnt lend weight to either argument. It doesnt say that you count as having the same size, or even your mounts spaces (note the plural). Just that you share a space (similarly to grappling).

Majere

 

[youspoonybard]

From the Monsters part of the SRD:

"Space/Reach
This line describes how much space the creature takes up on the battle grid and thereby needs to fight effectively, as well as how close it has to be to threaten an opponent. The number before the slash is the creature’s space, or how many feet one side of the creature occupies. The number after the slash is the creature’s natural reach. If the creature has exceptional reach due to a weapon, tentacle, or the like, the extended reach and its source are noted in parentheses at the end of the line."

If you share the mount's space, you're 10'x10' now.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Ok lets be honest here.
1) Griffons are NOT taken because they are cool and stylish, they are taken because they can fly and get pounce. They are twinky.

I think you're jumping to conclusions here, though I will admit that--in my particular case--you are half-right. My thought process went something along these lines.
1. Hrm. I need to pick a paladin's special mount. Horses are boring.
2. If I pick an alternate mount, I can get a mount that can fly, let's see what mounts are available. Pegasus? That's still a horse, I'll pass. Hippogriff? Darn it, it's still a horse! Griffon. Ooh. That's cool. I'll ride a griffon.
3. *reads 3.5 griffon stats* Whoa! They can Pounce on every charge!

Which only cemented my decision, sure, but a griffon is a cool creature, and a very fun thought to have as a paladin's mount. Dragons are too powerful, horses are too boring. Griffons rock.

As far as the issue with Pounce + Lance, others have already clarified what I was getting at. As per the RAW, it's not doable. You have a 10'x10' space while riding a Large mount. The Lance has a 10' reach, but the mount only has a 5' reach, meaning when you come into range for your lance attack, your mount is still 5' out of reach.

 

[Majere]

Hmm
I didnt mean to insult you Pen, I have alot of time for how you play paladins. What I ment was that in many cases griffons are taken as a twinky mount. Maybe not all, but in many. Which is why griffon mounts seem to turn up more often than actual horses.

Im not 100% convinced about the mount thing. My gut feeling is that it will be abuseable. But the rules seem to be with you. Ill fall back on the spirited charge wording only indicating that when the mount charges you can attack at any time, which may still allow pounce and a lance.
Failing that, drop your lance and wield a great sword. Sprited charge will let you deal double damage and your mount gets is pounce attack routine.

I think Ill go muse on the mount thing.

Majere

 

[FireLance]

For what it's worth, I do agree that a griffon mount is probably too good an option for an 8th or 9th level paladin. According to the MM entry, a griffon is a 7 HD creature with a LA of +3; effectively the equivalent of a 10th level character in itself even before the extra benefits of higher HD, Strength and natural armor from being a paladin's special mount. In my campaign, I would probably houserule that a griffon mount is only available to a paladin of 11th or higher level, and the mount's special abilities would be 2 "steps" worse than that of a regular warhorse mount (since the special mount progression doesn't scale nicely with level).

 

[Legildur]

I've had a quick hunt around, but can't seem to find an easy answer.

Under 3.5E, it appears that an appropriately sized lance for a small creature has reach of 10ft?

I seem to recall that under 3.0 that the same circumstance would only provide 5ft reach? Do I have it wrong?