Lance silliness


Rules Questions

351 to 363 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

First, I thought it was established that vital strike was usable in a charge.

Second, is there any official response anywhere about whether a lance used 1 handed on a mount deals 1 or 1.5 x strength damage? I'm on the fence since I can see a case for either.

Blah, I know it was said that much mounted combat info would be cleared up in the APG, but I wish we could get some earlier feedback on the rules that already exist.


TLO3 wrote:

First, I thought it was established that vital strike was usable in a charge.

Second, is there any official response anywhere about whether a lance used 1 handed on a mount deals 1 or 1.5 x strength damage? I'm on the fence since I can see a case for either.

Blah, I know it was said that much mounted combat info would be cleared up in the APG, but I wish we could get some earlier feedback on the rules that already exist.

I was under the impression it could be used with a charge also, but not with cleave since cleave could potentially end up being more than one attack.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Right, concerro. That's what I was agreeing with. A rider can only make a single attack action, not a full attack. But there's nothing stopping the rider from also making an independent move action, like drinking a potion.

Baring a specific trait (which if I recall correctly requires the potion to be already out) quaffing a potion is a standard action.

But to the argument at hand, I think many people want to house rule the lance to a one-handed weapon, which it is not RAW.

-James


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Foot has nothing to do with it.

1. On horseback a lance must be held to the side(see one handed use)
2. to hold it two handed and to the side you will need to lean over(try it in your chair now with a broom]
3. Now you need to be at full gallop, and be able to take the recoil of the hit

This is a case of loophole hunting to the point of being silly. Your looking at the lance wrong. It is not a two-handed weapon that may be used one handed while mounted.It is a one-handed mounted weapon that you need two-hands to use while on foot.

The ride skill there there for stuff like this, if you want to try something silly or off the wall while mounted make use of it. This is silly, and dangerous so yeah a ride check is called for

On a note: realism in weapon went out the window at a 5 pound longsword.

+1. Totatlly agree with this.


The way I look at it is the lance is a two handed weapon. You apply the 1.5 damage. Simple as that.

You can use it with one hand but the only reason you can is because you are mounted. The mount allows that. I don't think that changes the lance to a one handed weapon though. It's more like the mount is taking the place of the other hand due the nature of being mounted and in a charge.


voska66 wrote:

The way I look at it is the lance is a two handed weapon. You apply the 1.5 damage. Simple as that.

You can use it with one hand but the only reason you can is because you are mounted. The mount allows that. I don't think that changes the lance to a one handed weapon though. It's more like the mount is taking the place of the other hand due the nature of being mounted and in a charge.

That's debatable, however. The cavalier order of the sword gains the ability to add his mount's strength bonus to the damage. If the intent was to let the lance keep it's 1.5 strength multiplier because of the mount, then it seems strange that they're letting it contribute twice.

It feels to me like the intent is that weapons used with two hands get 1.5 and used in one get 1x, not that the designator of one-handed or two-handed weapon decides the multiplier. There's nothing in RAW to support this, though. I just wish it would get cleared up one way or another.


TLO3 wrote:


It feels to me like the intent is that weapons used with two hands get 1.5 and used in one get 1x, not that the designator of one-handed or two-handed weapon decides the multiplier. There's nothing in RAW to support this, though. I just wish it would get cleared up one way or another.

I don't think that it's unclear.

And I don't think that it was the intent. If it were the intent then all weapons wielded in two hands would get 1.5x str, but they don't.

The lance is a two handed weapon, even though it's normal use has it being used in one hand. Why?

If the intent were to give it 1x str to damage unless it was being used, say on the ground, with two hands then it makes more sense to label it as a one handed weapon. You would then have a special rule that a lance being used while not mounted would be treated in all ways as a long spear (including weapon designation as twohanded).

This is not the case. It seems to me that lances, along with rapiers are 'strange' in their weapon category. Rapiers in the sense that when used in two hands they do not get 1.5x STR (despite the normal rules for 1handed weapons), and lances in the sense that they normally (i.e. when mounted) only require one hand to wield (even though they get 1.5x STR for being 2handed weapons).

You will note that rapiers, despite not dealing 1.5x STR when wielded in two hands, do gain by increased power attack (for example).

They are just exceptions to the normal way of things being done.

Now you may not like the idea of lances doing more damage while not being used in two hands, but honestly if any weapon in D&D should deal a lot of damage it should be the lance.

-James


First- no, I didn't read the whole thread, so I have no idea if this has come up. Flame me if it did :)

Doesn't the lances unique damage come from teh stability of it being couched under the users arm, more effectively transferring the force of all that horse mass into the point? I would prolly go
1. Use as a "lance", get 2x damage
2. Use as a "Long spear" 2 handed, get 1.5 Str, but not double damage.

No?


TLO3 wrote:
voska66 wrote:

The way I look at it is the lance is a two handed weapon. You apply the 1.5 damage. Simple as that.

You can use it with one hand but the only reason you can is because you are mounted. The mount allows that. I don't think that changes the lance to a one handed weapon though. It's more like the mount is taking the place of the other hand due the nature of being mounted and in a charge.

That's debatable, however. The cavalier order of the sword gains the ability to add his mount's strength bonus to the damage. If the intent was to let the lance keep it's 1.5 strength multiplier because of the mount, then it seems strange that they're letting it contribute twice.

Depends on how much you know about the use of a lance. The mount's speed provides the rider with momentum, but it's up to the rider to have the strength and skill to apply that momentum (which is the problem with house rules that just dump the rider's strength and use the mount's instead.) They do not behave as a single entity. Early in this thread, someone even pointed to an article that explains the physics behind this. The cavalier is assumed to have more specialized training than the average lance wielder though, and as a result perhaps knows techniques in controlling his horse, positioning his body, and positioning his lance that allow them to truly behave as a single entity and allow him to pull benefit from the strength of his mount as well as his own physical conditioning.

Quote:
It feels to me like the intent is that weapons used with two hands get 1.5 and used in one get 1x, not that the designator of one-handed or two-handed weapon decides the multiplier. There's nothing in RAW to support this, though. I just wish it would get cleared up one way or another.

RAW actually seems to go against this interpretation, by going out of it's way to point out a change in designators in other situations.

And again, I point out that the lance is not actually being wielded in just one hand... a fact that people in favor of the 1x interpretation seem to keep glossing over. The lance is being braced with the entire upper body (this type of lance being uniquely designed for just that), freeing the off hand to hold a shield or the reigns. The horse is doing all the footwork, which allows the rider to dedicate use of his legs to provide the actual strength of the blow.


That's how I'd use it only.

It's definitely not clear though.


The original lance was a spear wielded from horseback. I can see it wielded both ways without being cheesy. Just because you can couch the lance and charge with it doesn't mean you can't use it two-handed to stab. It's an extra option and is reasonable conceptually and by RAW.


Spacelard wrote:
Mortagon wrote:
One of my player's is planning on playing a cavalier and he asked if he could use the lance with two hands while mounted to get a lot of extra damage out of his power attack feat and strength bonus. Mechanically I can't find any reason why he can't do this, but I have a hard time visualizing it and I think this is more of a power-gamish issue. Maybe there should be a clarification that you have to use the lance one handed to gain the extra damage benefit? This would also go for the spirited charge feat.

Using a lance during a charge has less to do with the strength of the weilder but more to the speed of the charge. All a lancer is doing is holding the lance and pointing it in the right direction. If it was practical don't you think everyone would be doing it. As they are not my guess is that it can't be done.

IMO weilding a lance with both hands would be a no-no during a charge, just visualise it. What you have is someone trying to get 1.5 damage.

Actualy a knight does use his strength as just as he is about to conect he pushes forward so he will slam into the enemy with more force.

351 to 363 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Lance silliness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.