DC 5 to steer a mount in the middle of combat in the middle of a charge with nothing but your legs? That seems really low. I'd like to see someone try that in real life and see how easy it is. Besides, aren't all ride checks in combat a minimum of DC 20?
Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.
DC 5
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
DC 20
the DC 20 only applies if your mount is not trained with combat. How many lance weilding people are not going to have a combat trained horse?
The DC 5 may be by the rules, but 5 still seems ridiculously low... someone with a Dex of 8 and no ride skill would still have a really good chance of succeeding on the check (over 70%). Imagine doing that in real life and tell me it'd be that easy. I recognize that's the rules as written, but the rules as written seem off to me. That sounds like something only a trained rider with decent Dex could pull of.
My bad about the DC 20 only being non war mounts.
The DC 5 may be by the rules, but 5 still seems ridiculously low... someone with a Dex of 8 and no ride skill would still have a really good chance of succeeding on the check (over 70%). Imagine doing that in real life and tell me it'd be that easy. I recognize that's the rules as written, but the rules as written seem off to me. That sounds like something only a trained rider with decent Dex could pull of.
My bad about the DC 20 only being non war mounts.
Actually, a well trained horse is very very easy to control. I used to ride when I was a teenager (before my allergies got too bad). The well trained ones you could, with a touch of your hand or a nudge of your knee or foot, send left, right, back, into a gallop, canter, walk, or stop.
So I'm assuming one trained for war would be even more well trained than the ones I rode at the horse ranch, which is really just for tourist visits.
The DC 5 may be by the rules, but 5 still seems ridiculously low... someone with a Dex of 8 and no ride skill would still have a really good chance of succeeding on the check (over 70%). Imagine doing that in real life and tell me it'd be that easy. I recognize that's the rules as written, but the rules as written seem off to me. That sounds like something only a trained rider with decent Dex could pull of.
My bad about the DC 20 only being non war mounts.
Actually, a well trained horse is very very easy to control. I used to ride when I was a teenager (before my allergies got too bad). The well trained ones you could, with a touch of your hand or a nudge of your knee or foot, send left, right, back, into a gallop, canter, walk, or stop.
So I'm assuming one trained for war would be even more well trained than the ones I rode at the horse ranch, which is really just for tourist visits.
If the horse is well trained it is indeed rather easy. I once tried to fire a composite bow from horseback at a tree stump a couple times. I was moving at a steady trot. Aiming the bow was pretty much impossible, directing the horse was not. I have seen young children learn to direct a horse with just their knees.
On the other hand, an untrained horse can sometimes look like a rodeo, especially if it gets spooked which is where I think the DC 20 comes in.
It seems to me the rules allow it, but as has been stated, he would lose his shield bonus. Visually I see it resting against the shoulder with the second hand crossing the body and reinforcing the grip over top. Hense the shield must be put away as to not impede view. One thing I caution against though I support allowing it is to not cater to those who are screaming to allow it just because they think the fighter is under powered in "needs" the advantage. This is a terrible reason to allow something in your game.
It seems to me the rules allow it, but as has been stated, he would lose his shield bonus. Visually I see it resting against the shoulder with the second hand crossing the body and reinforcing the grip over top. Hense the shield must be put away as to not impede view. One thing I caution against though I support allowing it is to not cater to those who are screaming to allow it just because they think the fighter is under powered in "needs" the advantage. This is a terrible reason to allow something in your game.
Game balance is not a good reason to allow something?
And wait we were talking about a guy with a shield here? I thought he was just using a lance in 2 hands? Can you even do that with anything besides a buckler?
You have trouble visualising it, imo, because you are trying to imagine him gripping the lance in two actual hands.
To me though, fighting with it "two handed" means his other hand is doing something other than.. well.. anything else but helping him use the lance.
Such as: gripping the saddle. keeping control of the horse.
Keeping a tight grip on the saddle horn with one hand can help keep him stable enough to hit his target, helping to translate damage from mount-motion-to-lance.
It justifies the increase in damage, for giving up the bonus of a shield. (or second weapon.. though a jousting two weapon wielder does sound odd)
-S
Ever played the Fire Emblem games? That's what I think of when I think of someone attacking with a Lance. It's a long shaft with a small pointed blade at the end, almost like a spear.
As far as the ease of steering a mount with your legs, it just seems like it should be harder than DC 5, at least in combat. Combat changes the whole situation, or at least it should. The other option is to make it so you can only make combat ride checks if you're trained.
Since this thread is on the subject of lances maybe i could get an answer to a lance question i have.
So a lance's base damage is 1D8+Str.
If charging on a mount the damage increases to 2x(1D8+Str) or 2D8+Str.
If rider has spirited charge the damage is 3x(1D8+Str) or 3D8+Str.
I always multiplied the strength bonus as well.
|
Mr. Fishy agrees with Seekerofshadowlight. If you really want to nerf the lance and throw some "simulationism" on his lance carrying butt point out that str would only apply to attacks using his actually str instead of a moving mount. The lance causes double damage while mounted for a reason.
And Mr. Chelaxian Fiendish Dwarven Librarian also agrees with Seekerofshadowlight (and Mr. Fishy)!
I actually pondered this very issue yesterday, as I was writing an NPC Cavalier into the next playtest session in my campaign; after a while I came to the conclusion that although the rules don't explicitly state that it couldn't be done, double damage with lance on horseback (and associated cavalier abilities plus feats) are a good reason not to allow it. Not to mention that the cavalier NPC in question also has a magical (+2) heavy steel shield, so it would not be a wise tactical choice at all (at least in this case).
Ever played the Fire Emblem games? That's what I think of when I think of someone attacking with a Lance. It's a long shaft with a small pointed blade at the end, almost like a spear.
As far as the ease of steering a mount with your legs, it just seems like it should be harder than DC 5, at least in combat. Combat changes the whole situation, or at least it should. The other option is to make it so you can only make combat ride checks if you're trained.
If you can train a horse to not jump when you fire a rifle next to its head, or to not jump when a cannonball explodes near by, (and you can), then there is no reason you cant train a horse to act calmly in a fantasy battle. And a calm horse is easy to negotiate through obsticles be they moving or not (particularly since the horse itself helps in this regard).
You don't hold lances to your side, you hold them across the front of you, over the mount's neck. If you are holding the lance with your right hand, it crosses in front of your body and the point is out in front of the mount's head, in front of your left shoulder. I don't understand what is so hard to imagine reaching out with your left hand and grasping it along the length.
|
And Mr. Chelaxian Fiendish Dwarven Librarian also agrees with Seekerofshadowlight (and Mr. Fishy)!
Hey, me too! I agree too!
I love it when the real world and game mechanics clash. I actually laughed out loud a little when I imagined some would-be god of war roaring across the battlefield with a lance in each hand making two strikes against the same opponent, then I thought of a noble muscle-bound knight deciding that the only way to get more bang for his buck was to hold his lance with both hands. Then I ended up trying to figure out the logistics of how they'd have to be leaning in order to avoid doing serious physical harm to themselves. That's when I laughed again.
Now, nobody jump down my throat, I'm not really a proponent of "realism in D&D" at all, I often argue on the side of surrealism, saying something along the lines of "You don't like that the barbarian can leap fifty feat across a chasm and cleave an orc in two, but you have no problem with a frail old man flying and shooting lightning out of his fingers at the same orc? Get a grip and enjoy the game..." to prove my point. Which is that realism isn't necessarily a good thing in a fantasy setting.
That said: Common sense is. Nobody is trying to 'nerf' the melee classes by enforcing a little critical thinking.
It took me all of five seconds to figure that if a rider wanted to do something as outstandingly brave and stupid as the above-described, that as a DM I would simply require him to make a 10+Damage Ride Check at the end of his turn, failure resulting in either a tripped mount, or a dismounted rider, depending on the situation, and maybe require a reflex check after to avoid any resulting damage. I even went so far as to ask myself if that ruling would upset me if I were the player, and as it turns out, it wouldn't.
It took me all of five seconds to figure that if a rider wanted to do something as outstandingly brave and stupid as the above-described, that as a DM I would simply require him to make a 10+Damage Ride Check at the end of his turn, failure resulting in either a tripped mount, or a dismounted rider, depending on the situation, and maybe require a reflex check after to avoid any resulting damage. I even went so far as to ask myself if that ruling would upset me if I were the player, and as it turns out, it wouldn't.
Would the ruling also apply to wielders of longspears and ranseurs?
That would depend on how you wield it. Some stuff works, some would not. It also depends on the size of the spear, as that varied wildly as did fighting style that used them
"A Lance is a two-handed weapon that may be wielded in one hand while mounted" - how that translates to me is that a lance always gets the 1.5 x STR bonus, whether you're using it in two-hands on foot (as a long spear) or one-hand while mounted. Thus, there is no reason to attempt using it two-handed while mounted, because you already get the bonus.
But yes, I'd make him roll the DC 5 ride check, just because he is guiding the horse with his knees while riding. If he uses one hand to hold the lance, and has a medium shield in his other hand, I would rule that he could still grip the reins, and not require a ride check. Your mileage may vary on the latter.
It is worth noting that at Crecy, the French knights wound up dismounted and, according to a scribe who was there, "cut their lances down to be used as spears" before advancing on the English army. See, a spear is used in roughly the same way that a rifle with a bayonet is. That will work with a 6-8 foot spear, but not a 12 foot lance. Longspears or pikes were used either as infantry lances (a la Phalanx and pike-charge) or set against enemy charges; in neither case were they used against adjacent enemies.
I have to agree, No way in hell anyone riding that loophole. I think my main issue is really imagery, I see lance and think heavy lance, which could not be used two handed there is just not any room. But really the lance in core is a light lance, which is more or less a longspear
I keep thinking of a full lance, known as a heavy lance, But really the lance as written now , the more I think of it is no such animal. It's more or less a 2e light lance, not a heavy knights lance
The problem with that, for me, is that I think everyone is imagining a tourney lance that has counter weighted and only has a small grip. But that is not how I think the rules were written. Those lances were NEVER intended for ground or two hand use. If you have a lance that can be used on the ground, that same lance has enough room for a two hand grip.
Since the changes to Power Attack in PF, are't we talking about a maximum of 6 pts of addtionaly damage from Power Attack (at 20th lvl), and a bonus of half the normal Str bonus damage? That doesn't seem like enough to really worry about. Let the poor guy lose the shield and use both hands. How often will it come into play, anyway?
|
|
"A Lance is a two-handed weapon that may be wielded in one hand while mounted" - how that translates to me is that a lance always gets the 1.5 x STR bonus, whether you're using it in two-hands on foot (as a long spear) or one-hand while mounted. Thus, there is no reason to attempt using it two-handed while mounted, because you already get the bonus.
Hmmm... plus double/triple damage if you charge? Well, it's not broken or anything, but I wonder if that is a bit hard to believe. It's true that the rules could be interpreted that way, but I think the RAI was *not* to let you apply 1.5 X Str bonus, but rather use that particular wording to clarify the issue that although you can wield it one-handed on horseback, it requires two hands to wield it when you dismount.
I hope Jason or James will clarify this issue.
Splash book cheese!
Ranger, TWF, Over-sized Two Weapon Fighting, Improved TWF, Greater TWF. Cast Lion's Charge (or whatever the spell from Spell Compendium is.) then charge away! With a lance in each hand riding their animal companion, and heck, let's toss in Strong-arm Gauntlets from Magic Item Compendium so he's using large lances too.
Oh no I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. Half the time after you do that you're going to die from whatever you charged slamming a great club through your teeth with a full round attack.
Interesting back an forth in this thread.
I also believe you should just allow a "two handed" lance to be used two-handed at the cost of using a shield.
Just to toss something else into the mix though... a lance was generally a one shot item after a charge "in real life" because it either broke under the impact or completely impaled through its target and jerked out of the wielders grip.
"A Lance is a two-handed weapon that may be wielded in one hand while mounted" - how that translates to me is that a lance always gets the 1.5 x STR bonus, whether you're using it in two-hands on foot (as a long spear) or one-hand while mounted. Thus, there is no reason to attempt using it two-handed while mounted, because you already get the bonus.
Hmmm... plus double/triple damage if you charge? Well, it's not broken or anything, but I wonder if that is a bit hard to believe. It's true that the rules could be interpreted that way, but I think the RAI was *not* to let you apply 1.5 X Str bonus, but rather use that particular wording to clarify the issue that although you can wield it one-handed on horseback, it requires two hands to wield it when you dismount.
I hope Jason or James will clarify this issue.
Except that that wording is nonexistent in Pathfinder. Again.
The wording is simple, and it's this:
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
Not "only" (as was inserted by an earlier poster). No emphasis of "two-handed", which implies that the weapon is always typed as such, even when used one-handed.
I might be missing something, but these "rules quotes"...you know, I'm not finding them.
There's a good post further up that has been ignored, re the lance being wielded across the neck of the mount; right hand, across neck, central attack. If you want to visualise two-handed wielding, visualise that.
As to "milking" damage...I still don't see why this sticks in so many craws. Yes, mounted meleers do high damage: it's what they're all about. Meanwhile, the Wizard in the backline is taking multiple foes out of the fight with effects that make put direct damage in the shade.
And here's the thing: while you're nerfing the mounted lancer (spearer, spiked-chainer, bow-user), what are you doing to the Wizard, who is already playing a different game in power terms?
It's not that the fighter-type deserves a power-up, because this isn't a power-up, it's rules as written. What the fighter doesn't need is a power-*down*...which is what you're imposing, if you start imposing simulationist restrictions on fantasy weapon use.
Want to handle the lance realistically? Okay, go for it. In some game systems there are penalties for using lances dismounted. That makes sense - the weapon is far too long, realistically, to be anything less than cumbersome. So that'll be -2 attack dismounted.
As pointed out above, the lance (or spear) was generally a one-shot charging weapon, too; so on a 1 or 20, on a charge, there should realistically be a chance of some damage to the weapon. A Sunder roll against the lance might be the way to handle that.
Then there's porterage. We're imagining a war lance, not a tourney lance, but it's still 12' long or so. How do you carry that, if your mount goes down? Realistically, that should impose an encumbrance penalty: maybe double its weight, to 20lbs, if the mountless cavalier is trying to haul it around himself, banging into corridors etc. Or a flat -2 to physical skills? I mean, how do you climb or hide with a 12' lance over your shoulder?
Meanwhile, the Wizard just gets on with his own thing. If he's feeling nice, maybe he summons the cavalier a mount from his vantage point, hovering invisible in the treetops.
These are the issues. The problem, meanwhile, is negligable. Two-handed lance wielding is a small stretch of the imagination, compared to invisible flight - or even mounted spiked chain wielding. If you want to visualise it, visualise it as a crossways strike. If you're concerned by the damage, remember that damage is a subpar method of dealing with PF foes, and that every nerf you make to the fighter really needs to be balanced by one to the spellcasters.
Edit (except it's too late):
The above examples of lance realism aren't strawmen: they're all perfectly admissable, if you want to play a realistic houseruled game.
They're the (lance) tip of the iceberg, though, because once you start making such rulings, where does that leave the mounted spiked chain wielder, the full plated climber, the grappled bastard sword-wielder, the underwater archer, the double dwarven-axe fighter...etcetera etcetera etcetera?
Where, too, do such realistic rulings leave the full spellcaster? High and dry, that's where. Probably in mid-air, above his fields of webs and black tentacles.
It seems to me the rules allow it, but as has been stated, he would lose his shield bonus. Visually I see it resting against the shoulder with the second hand crossing the body and reinforcing the grip over top. Hense the shield must be put away as to not impede view. One thing I caution against though I support allowing it is to not cater to those who are screaming to allow it just because they think the fighter is under powered in "needs" the advantage. This is a terrible reason to allow something in your game.Game balance is not a good reason to allow something?
And wait we were talking about a guy with a shield here? I thought he was just using a lance in 2 hands? Can you even do that with anything besides a buckler?
No, that is not what I said. I said making a knee jerk reaction against what the rules read based on wanting to " even the score " for a percieved difference in class power which is debatable to exist is a poor reason. I also stated that the rules seem to allow it an he should as well.
Edit:
"It's not that the fighter-type deserves a power-up, because this isn't a power-up, it's rules as written. What the fighter doesn't need is a power-*down*...which is what you're imposing, if you start imposing simulationist restrictions on fantasy weapon use."
This is very in spirit with what I was saying, only from the oposite perspective.
So if you are using a lance from a mount shouldn't you add the weilder's strength to that of the horse? That is the point of a lance. You are able to do far more damage with a lance from horse-back because you are adding the power of the horse behind it.
I would be far more impressed by a knight on a horse than a pony.
So if you are using a lance from a mount shouldn't you add the weilder's strength to that of the horse? That is the point of a lance. You are able to do far more damage with a lance from horse-back because you are adding the power of the horse behind it.
I would be far more impressed by a knight on a horse than a pony.
Clever idea but the rules dont really allow for it. I think really the x3 to damage is what accounts for it and is deemed simpler for math's sake.
So if you are using a lance from a mount shouldn't you add the weilder's strength to that of the horse? That is the point of a lance. You are able to do far more damage with a lance from horse-back because you are adding the power of the horse behind it.
I would be far more impressed by a knight on a horse than a pony.
As an old Runequest player...The rider didn't use his STR or SIZ to modify damage with a lance but you used the mounts STR and SIZ.
A house rule ignoring the riders STR but using a lance *one-handed* in a charge doing 1.5x mount STR is reasonable.
So if you are using a lance from a mount shouldn't you add the weilder's strength to that of the horse? That is the point of a lance. You are able to do far more damage with a lance from horse-back because you are adding the power of the horse behind it.
I would be far more impressed by a knight on a horse than a pony.
Not really, the horse is almost always stronger than the man. The limiting factor is the human's arm strength, how much can he hold onto the shaft to transfer the horses's mass and speed down the lance. That's why you use the rider's strength. It's not him actually adding to the damage, he's just a limiting factor on it.
Put another way, the maximum damage you can do is equal to the maximum your weakest component can handle. In a standard horse/lance/rider scenario, the weakest component is, by far, the knight's arm. Second comes the lance itself. The horse is far stronger than either in the equation. That's why two-handed for lances can make sense if the person is reaching across their lap to hold the lance up. They're adding more to their part of the equation (holding the lance on target). Even if the hand only gives them another second or two on target before the lance shatters or vibrates off from the hit, that's adding a significant amount to the damage due to the multiplier of mass x acceleration x time of contact.
I think a 2 handed lance can be wielded two handed. That means you can swing it like a maul or a club from horseback. If there is room for the horse there is room for the lance. If you are on foot, it is a long weapon but how long is 'long'. That is beyond the scope of the simulation. We don't quantize other elements. Why start here?
I think a tilting lance wielded on a horse is positioned across the body of the wielder such that the dominant hand is on the opposite side of the horse to the target. This position allows the whole body to absorb some of the shock from the blow and the rider to get the benefit of his legs and torso to aim the lance, stay on the horse, and not loose his arm. The shield arm is braced to absorb the blow of the competing lance. Very little movement is actually required on the wielders part beyond aiming his weapons. This is the special situation that allows the two handed weapon to be wielded with one hand.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Jousting_renfair.jpg
The idea as I understand is always to ride to one side of the target. Two lances set to charge in the traditional position would have to be set on either side of the horse with the horses head in the middle. Hitting with both of these lances would involve simply ramming the foe - not what horses are trained to do.
The rule says that from horseback "You may use a lance with one hand." It does not say "You may use a lance in each hand." This is a two handed weapon with an exception. Being on a horse is a tactical situation it is not like being in Narnia or being enchanted.
Many riders have used various polearms from horseback and on foot. Wielded as a polearm a lance is little different from a Glaive or Guisarme in combat method. It must be used two handed.
Sigurd
The entry for the lance should probably read that "A tilting lance, braced to charge, allows a rider, so equipped, to gain the benefit of a shield held between himself and the target."
There is absolutely no way I would ever let a player wield two lances on a charge. In my opinion that reeks of cheese and isn't even remotely realistic.
Besides, unless you have Dire Charge (an epic feat), you aren't getting but one attack on a charge, regardless of TWF. Two Weapon Fighting wasn't meant to work that way... at least not in my games.
There is absolutely no way I would ever let a player wield two lances on a charge. In my opinion that reeks of cheese and isn't even remotely realistic.
Besides, unless you have Dire Charge (an epic feat), you aren't getting but one attack on a charge, regardless of TWF. Two Weapon Fighting wasn't meant to work that way... at least not in my games.
I would allow a two-lance attack...
...as long as the rider was executing an overrun as part of the attack. A failure of the overrun would basically be the horse slamming into the target about 2 tenths of a second after the twin lances, and all three being in a world of hurt.
It smacks of 'Desperate last charge' to me, and so I'd allow it. And if the rider/horse managed the overrun, well, they've hit with two lances on the same target at the same time, overrun, trampled, and then continued on while laughing and have a great story to tell at the tavern later (assuming whatever they hit doesn't get back up and kill them).
So if you are using a lance from a mount shouldn't you add the weilder's strength to that of the horse? That is the point of a lance. You are able to do far more damage with a lance from horse-back because you are adding the power of the horse behind it.
I would be far more impressed by a knight on a horse than a pony.
Not really, the horse is almost always stronger than the man. The limiting factor is the human's arm strength, how much can he hold onto the shaft to transfer the horses's mass and speed down the lance. That's why you use the rider's strength. It's not him actually adding to the damage, he's just a limiting factor on it.
Put another way, the maximum damage you can do is equal to the maximum your weakest component can handle. In a standard horse/lance/rider scenario, the weakest component is, by far, the knight's arm. Second comes the lance itself. The horse is far stronger than either in the equation. That's why two-handed for lances can make sense if the person is reaching across their lap to hold the lance up. They're adding more to their part of the equation (holding the lance on target). Even if the hand only gives them another second or two on target before the lance shatters or vibrates off from the hit, that's adding a significant amount to the damage due to the multiplier of mass x acceleration x time of contact.
When a lancer is in combat he lifts himself out of the saddle with the stirrups and leans into the attack. He is not using 2-hands he is using all the strength of his back and legs.
The mount gets him in range and he shoves all that momentum down the lance point. This will do far more damage than a fighter charging on foot with a spear.
|
|
In a game involving magic, people walking for 16 hours in full armor (often climbing and crawling along the way), monsters, and dungeons that are raided for creepy evilness of their apparently Ill-gotten gains... What you're finding least realistic is two-handed and double lancing?
Dnd creators once pointed out all weapons were set for simplicity; most never existed. Their specific example was the inefficiency of the long sword, which is a staple weapon. Gygax just didn't think these things out.
If someone has trained to hold a long spear without mounting it, and potentially effectively swing it without charging, that's far more impressive than bracing a lance with two hands, or even impactingtwo lances into someone and steering a mount around them.
Actually, there's a feat in the Dragonlance Campaign setting that allows exactly that.
Do you happen to know the name of this feat? I've not seen it in my books.
Yeah, it's called Tremendous Charge, DLCS pg. 85. You can use the mount's STR score instead of your own for charging damage. There's a chance for the lance to break every time though.
You know, there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of those, or all of those together.Splash book cheese!
Ranger, TWF, Over-sized Two Weapon Fighting, Improved TWF, Greater TWF. Cast Lion's Charge (or whatever the spell from Spell Compendium is.) then charge away! With a lance in each hand riding their animal companion, and heck, let's toss in Strong-arm Gauntlets from Magic Item Compendium so he's using large lances too.
Minor correction: there's nothing wrong with them except for the fact that you're still forced to wield stupid 80-foot-long giant cartoon Anime weapons to deal decent damage, because skill apparently doesn't count for much in D&D land. But that's for a different thread...
|
|
I got this funny image of some guy trying to dual wield lances and running his mount into things head first.
I was under the assumption that you lanced something while passing it on one side, sort of like a mid evil version of a drive buy (now theres a funny image: a knight lancing someone then making an E with a gauntled hand and saying "Eastside!")
I would allow a two lance attack against two targets on either side of the rider maybe, but otherwise it seems like it would lead to a very comical situation.
East-siiiide,
malkav
Um... Kirth... you do realize the strong arm bracers add almost nothing to this particular character right? The bulk of his damage is coming from various other things multiplied by the multipliers and getting a full attack. Those strongarm bracers account for at most maybe 15% of his damage before multiplication.
Yeah, I know. I hate Anime weapons so much that I'm unable to think rationally when they come up.
Just because the rules allow it doesn't mean it's not silly.
I got this funny image of some guy trying to dual wield lances and running his mount into things head first.
"You're charging this guy with TWO lances?"
"Yeah, one handed weapon while mounted, I've got two weapon fighting."
"Ok, I need a Ride check DC 15 and a Strength check DC 15."
"A 16 and a 12. Why the strength check?"
"It's no problem keeping one lance aligned properly, but two takes more effort, needing the check. Since you failed, one of the lance hits the ground tip first, give me a ride check DC 20."
"Crud, 18!"
"As you charge your target, one of the lances dips too low and digs into a tree stump. As your mount continues, you effectively pole vault and land on your target. Roll 3d6 damage."
"13"
"You each take 13 points of damage. The ogre makes it's strength check with ease, remaining standing. Nice try at knocking it over. You are now looking an ogre in the knees as you sit up, while your warhorse continues on. Oh, and you are still holding one lance."