Using 2-Handed Melee Weapons While Mounted(?)

[Camarath]

Otherwise, you'll have ridiculous situations in D&D like halflings running around wielding normal-size greatswords, like Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.

Well if the Halflings take the Monkey Grip feat in CW they could do just that.

 

[Nightfall]

That or he could just stand his ground and not be on a horse/pony.

 

[pawsplay]

There is nothing in the world preventing you from using a two-hander on horseback, either in game terms or in reality. Using a great weapon is mostly done with the shoulders, and the range of movement is nothing like what you see from Conan villains. Using a two-handed spear on horseback is pretty obvious.

 

[Felix]

Abuse of the rules?

A more powerful build is one that specializes in the lance; you get to use one hand if you want, do double damamge on a charge, and get fantastac reach with it. Combine that with Combat Reflexes and you have a mounted combat machine.

Comparatively, a two-handed weapon on a mount is relatively tame... you don't have the reach to use your Combat Relfexes, don't deal double damage on a charge, and don't have the option to use it one-handed.

"Ah," you might say, "but the two handed weapon can be used off of a mount as well as on! There lies the disadvantage with the Lance!"

What on earth is preventing you from using a lance while on the ground? The *only* difference between a lance and a longspear is in their special abilities: a spear can be set against a charge to deal double damage, and a lance deals double damage when charging from a mount. That, and the ability to use a lance one-handed while mounted, is *it*. For my money, the lance is the best reach weapon in the game because it can be used to such devastation on a mount, and isn't shabby off of one.

So... how is a mounted character "taking advantage" of the "hole in the rules" by wielding a two-handed weapon? Especially considering that this is a sub-optimal build?

 

[Azlan]

There is nothing in the world preventing you from using a two-hander on horseback, either in game terms or in reality. Using a great weapon is mostly done with the shoulders, and the range of movement is nothing like what you see from Conan villains.

Mostly done with the shoulders, huh?

Try this: Sit backward on a chair, straddling the seat between your legs, with the back of the chair six inches or so from your chest. Now put your fists together as if you were gripping a greatsword. Now lean out and swing to your left or your right, downward, as if you were up on horseback and you were swinging down on an opponent on the ground. And remember as you lean out and swing that you're holding on to a powerful, moving beast with only your legs.

Do that, and tell me you don't notice any restriction in attack-movement... !

 

[Azlan]

For my money, the lance is the best reach weapon in the game because it can be used to such devastation on a mount, and isn't shabby off of one.

So... how is a mounted character "taking advantage" of the "hole in the rules" by wielding a two-handed weapon? Especially considering that this is a sub-optimal build?

In reality, the lance was the primary weapon of mounted cavalry. However, in reality you quickly lose the advantage of your lance, once you've completed a mounted charge and waded into battle. Thus the reason mounted cavalry carried a battleaxe, mace, or longsword (or bastardsword) as a secondary weapon.

 

[pawsplay]

Mostly done with the shoulders, huh?

Yes. If you don't see what I mean, pick up a combat sport and study the greatsword for a while.

 

[Azlan]

Yes. If you don't see what I mean, pick up a combat sport and study the greatsword for a while.

Yes, but you're talking about using a greatsword while on foot, while I'm talking about using one from a mount.

 

[pawsplay]

I suppose, if you like, you could also consider the problems of using a longsword with your right hand against an opponent to your left. There are problems with using a greatsword on horseback, but as already indicated above by several other posters, it was certainly accomplished. I know it's possible to use a two hander from a sitting position, I can't imagine a horse is that much harder.

 

[Felix]

In reality, the lance was the primary weapon of mounted cavalry. However, in reality you quickly lose the advantage of your lance, once you've completed a mounted charge and waded into battle. Thus the reason mounted cavalry carried a battleaxe, mace, or longsword (or bastardsword) as a secondary weapon.

Ah. Reality. Sure. I completely agree with you about that. After a charge the lance becomes less useful. So they switch to a sword or mace. Particularly if the lance is still skewering the enemy footman.

Perhaps I misunderstand your problem. Is yours a mechanics complaint, or a flavor complaint? I can see it as a valid flavor complaint since very few horsemen wielded the two-handed axe that hauscarls on foot used. Ok.

But as a DnD mechanic I don't see the problem. It's a sub-optimal build. You compare it to mounted archery, but there is a huge difference: Mounted combat still requires the character to close to melee range. Mounted Archery combines attacking from distance with high maneuverability. Thus the need to balance it. The rules balance it further by not allowing Longbows to be used while mounted; thus the archers must close the distance even more.

The penalty mounted melee with a 2-handed weapon has upon it is that you must go toe-to-toe with an enemy. Even if you have Ride by Attack, readied attacks on you will be (should be) used so you don't get away unscathed. And similar to two handed weapon combat on foot, you have less AC than someone with a longsword-and-shield. There's your penalty for you.

It's a flavor a player might enjoy. It doesn't disrupt anything except your view of verisimillitude. So what? If the player likes it, and it's a very individual flavor, let him get away with it.