| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, i had a discussion with a good friend of mine, and i would like to hear your inputs on it. Ill also state what RAW says, and why RAW might be very far from RAI on this particular subject. what do you think?
Imagine this. A fighter charging on foot with a lance, it gives normal damgage and recieves 150% pa bonus, couse its a 2 h wp. If he charges with a lance while mounted, the exact same rules should occour, exept that he would get dubble damage, since he is charging with a lance. Now comes the question, if he chooses to use the special rule (for a lance)and use the lance one handed while mounted, what would happen to his PA bonus?
It is strictly speaking still a 2h weapon, in the item list, and RAW under PA would then be read as giving it 150% bonus. But if you continue this line of thought, then a fighter wielding two weapons, can just use small greatswords (he can take the 3.5 feat to avoid the -4 to hit), and then also recieve 150% PA. I really have a hard time imagining this was the intent with the PA feat, and i dont think the feat should be read as word for word, or rather the assumption made in the PA discription under 2h weapons, would be that you wield them in 2 hands, thats why you recieve the 150% damage. Thus you wouldnt recieve the damage increase, if you wield a "two handed" weapon, with 1 hand.
what do you guys think.
|
Hey guys, i had a discussion with a good friend of mine, and i would like to hear your inputs on it. Ill also state what RAW says, and why RAW might be very far from RAI on this particular subject. what do you think?
Imagine this. A fighter charging on foot with a lance, it gives normal damgage and recieves 150% pa bonus, couse its a 2 h wp. If he charges with a lance while mounted, the exact same rules should occour, exept that he would get dubble damage, since he is charging with a lance. Now comes the question, if he chooses to use the special rule (for a lance)and use the lance one handed while mounted, what would happen to his PA bonus?
It is strictly speaking still a 2h weapon, in the item list, and RAW under PA would then be read as giving it 150% bonus. But if you continue this line of thought, then a fighter wielding two weapons, can just use small greatswords (he can take the 3.5 feat to avoid the -4 to hit), and then also recieve 150% PA. I really have a hard time imagining this was the intent with the PA feat, and i dont think the feat should be read as word for word, or rather the assumption made in the PA discription under 2h weapons, would be that you wield them in 2 hands, thats why you recieve the 150% damage. Thus you wouldnt recieve the damage increase, if you wield a "two handed" weapon, with 1 hand.
what do you guys think.
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by
sacrif icing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all
melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain
a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to
damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making
an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed
weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon
that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modif ier on damage
rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are
making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary
natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches
+4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases
by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must
choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and
its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage
does not apply to touch attacks or ef fects that do not deal
hit point damage.
RAW suggests that the weapon must be used in two hands to receive the 150% bonus. Neither the lance on horseback nor the two small greatswords would work for this.
However, the armor of horse or rider who used a lance was designed with a cradle to improve stability for effective use of said weapon. That WOULD qualify the weapon for the bonus in my opinion. Without the cradle, the lance was too heavy to wield with any accuracy or force.
|
|
using a weapon two handed and using a weapon in the two handed category are two very different things. That would get shot down by me. I am also from the camp that believes that a lance, used from horseback will NOT do extra damage because someone is holding it 1 handed or two handed. If anything, it would be harder to ride using it two handed and only net you a minus to hit.
This falls under "No explicitly forbidden, but most assuredly should not be so."
Hey guys, i had a discussion with a good friend of mine, and i would like to hear your inputs on it. Ill also state what RAW says, and why RAW might be very far from RAI on this particular subject. what do you think?
Imagine this. A fighter charging on foot with a lance, it gives normal damgage and recieves 150% pa bonus, couse its a 2 h wp. If he charges with a lance while mounted, the exact same rules should occour, exept that he would get dubble damage, since he is charging with a lance. Now comes the question, if he chooses to use the special rule (for a lance)and use the lance one handed while mounted, what would happen to his PA bonus?
It is strictly speaking still a 2h weapon, in the item list, and RAW under PA would then be read as giving it 150% bonus. But if you continue this line of thought, then a fighter wielding two weapons, can just use small greatswords (he can take the 3.5 feat to avoid the -4 to hit), and then also recieve 150% PA. I really have a hard time imagining this was the intent with the PA feat, and i dont think the feat should be read as word for word, or rather the assumption made in the PA discription under 2h weapons, would be that you wield them in 2 hands, thats why you recieve the 150% damage. Thus you wouldnt recieve the damage increase, if you wield a "two handed" weapon, with 1 hand.
what do you guys think.
|
|
I agree that using a Lance two-handed on horseback is not feasable. I still believe that the 150% additive to damage from power attack should apply for lancers on horseback due to the necessary design of armor (on horse or it's rider) simulating the stability that would come with the use of two hands.
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage.
Granted the two-handed damage is not QUITE what is happening here, but the precautions necessary to use the Lance in a charge simulate the use of more than just one hand and additional stability, the same way setting a spear vs a charge does.
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage.
You assume that the person's arm is strong enough to deliver the full effect of that force (its probably not). Also, the extra force from the mount is accounted for by the fact that the lance does double damage.
If I were to rule on this, he is using the weapon 1 handed, and so he does not get 1.5 his STR. In the same way that one could use a 1 handed weapon with 2 hands to gain 1.5 with power attack, it works the other way around in my head.
Ok, but if i want to i can wield the lance in two hands and would get 150% from str and 1:3 ratio from power attack IMO and double damage due to using the lance while doing a mounted charge...
RAW suggests that the weapon must be used in two hands to receive the 150% bonus. Neither the lance on horseback nor the two small greatswords would work for this.
-There's no raw reason that a lance cannot be wielded in two hands from horseback.
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Can, not must wield, it with one hand.
Physically, it seems like it would be easier to wield in two hands for accuracy.
And yes, everything you add to it that's not dice gets doubled with a lance (trippled with a lance and spirited charge)
Charging on horseback is one of the few ways melee can out damage casters and archers.
|
|
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage.You assume that the person's arm is strong enough to deliver the full effect of that force (its probably not). Also, the extra force from the mount is accounted for by the fact that the lance does double damage.
If I were to rule on this, he is using the weapon 1 handed, and so he does not get 1.5 his STR. In the same way that one could use a 1 handed weapon with 2 hands to gain 1.5 with power attack, it works the other way around in my head.
No I do NOT assume anyone's arm is strong enough, that is why the cradle exists in the armor design. The Lancer's Arm merely GUIDES the blow, the force is taken up by the body through the cradle, which is why the cradle was made to begin with. The stability that the cradle provides would allow for the 1.5 Strength bonus, just like the surface a spear is set against to receive a charge takes the majority of the force rather than the individual holding the spear.
The Double damage is depicted by the force generated by movement, but there is still the stability given to the weapon by the cradle design, which works as another hand to both steady the lance and reinforce the blow by being set to absorb the impact. The arm of the lancer is just a guide for where the lance hits.
Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's arm, if it didn't rip the arm off altogether. Even if the Character managed to connect with the lance, the body alone would not be able to steady the weapon for a decisive strike, let alone hold steady enough to do any significant damage.
As for using the Lance two-handed, the weapon is in something of a position for two-handed use, but that use doesn't explain why a spear doesn't receive double damage for being used the same way, not to mention that reaching across the body in the way one would need to on horseback to use it two-handed would be far more uncomfortable than effective. It is possible, but not terribly efficient.
|
|
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage.You assume that the person's arm is strong enough to deliver the full effect of that force (its probably not). Also, the extra force from the mount is accounted for by the fact that the lance does double damage.
If I were to rule on this, he is using the weapon 1 handed, and so he does not get 1.5 his STR. In the same way that one could use a 1 handed weapon with 2 hands to gain 1.5 with power attack, it works the other way around in my head.
For those who want to stop at "look at page ____ in this rulebook", don't worry about this post. This is more of a WHY certain things work than a "Cause it's on this page" statement.
No I do NOT assume anyone's arm is strong enough, that is why the cradle exists in the armor design. The Lancer's Arm merely GUIDES the blow, the force is taken up by the body through the cradle, which is why the cradle was made to begin with (incidentally why one-handed use is possible). The stability that the cradle provides would allow for the 1.5 Strength bonus, just like the surface a spear is set against to receive a charge takes the majority of the force rather than the individual holding the spear.
The Double damage is depicted by the force generated by movement, but there is still the stability given to the weapon by the cradle design, which works as another hand to both steady the lance and reinforce the blow by being set to absorb the impact. The arm of the lancer is just a guide for where the lance hits.
Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's arm, if it didn't rip the arm off altogether. Even if the Character managed to connect with the lance, the body alone would not be able to steady the weapon for a decisive strike, let alone hold steady enough to do any significant damage.
As...
im actually glad that you guys kinda agrees with me, that RAW suggests the lance wont get a 1:3 PA bonus and 1.5 str, couse i really think the small greatswords would be dumb as hell.
That being said, i think i will team up with dreddwulf as for how the rules should work. It wont help the rider more by wielding it in 2 hands, he would maybe barely be as effective as he is with one hand (real life argument i know), and should therefore get the high PA bonus, becouse his whole body is behind the blow. But then again, there is no backup with that in the rules at all, so i will have to houserule it in.
|
|
RAW suggests that the weapon must be used in two hands to receive the 150% bonus. Neither the lance on horseback nor the two small greatswords would work for this.
-There's no raw reason that a lance cannot be wielded in two hands from horseback.
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Can, not must wield, it with one hand.
Physically, it seems like it would be easier to wield in two hands for accuracy.
And yes, everything you add to it that's not dice gets doubled with a lance (trippled with a lance and spirited charge)
Charging on horseback is one of the few ways melee can out damage casters and archers.
Off topic, martial classes can do plenty of damage, even on a single attack
On topic, I've house ruled that if you don't have a shield or anything else in your other hand I will allow the lance to be two-handed while mounted, in the same way other weapons would be used two handed mounted, even if the nature of that weapon makes it less "realistic"
But I agree it does need to be FAQed.
|
Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's...
I think you're a bit caught up in how you think one uses a lance. You don't have to be charging (and the majority of the shock is taken by leaning back in the saddle and bracing against the stirrups). The lance existed long before the stirrup did, after all.
|
|
I think you're a bit caught up in how you think one uses a lance. You don't have to be charging (and the majority of the shock is taken by leaning back in the saddle and bracing against the stirrups). The lance existed long before the stirrup did, after all.Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's...
That IS how one uses a lance, at least it would be the proper explanation as to why a longspear doesn't get the same damage on a charge as the lance does. The method you describe could be used with either weaon.
The cradle was created to stabilize the lance and make the charge work. Without it, you're just using a spear from horseback. Not to mention that simply leaning back in the saddle and bracing against stirrups spreads some shock, but not enough for the force necessary for a charge. You still have a great deal of force tramsmitted to the arm itself due to the rearward jerk of the lance's impact. Unless secondary bracing is used, it becomes just the same as using a spear for a charge. In fact, the Lance was simply classified as a longspear before the stirrup, and was used as such.
Armor was also specifically modified for heavy cavalry to accomodate the use of a lance. The side expected to take the impact was strengthened and other pieces were added SPECIFICALLY for the Lance. Even the saddle was modified with a high back to allow the rider to lean back in it.
RAW has little to say on the matter, so how the lance would be used (along with game balance) is the only sound way to make your decisions as a GM. If you just look at what page it's on, the reading itself does not answer the question properly.
|
|
That IS how one uses a lance, at least it would be the proper explanation as to why a longspear doesn't get the same damage on a charge as the lance does. The method you describe could be used with either weaon.
I can't comment on that, I can only comment (as a reenactor) on how one uses a lance.
Armor was also specifically modified for heavy cavalry to accomodate the use of a lance. The side expected to take the impact was strengthened and other pieces were added SPECIFICALLY for the Lance. Even the saddle was modified with a high back to allow the rider to lean back in it.
You seem to be writing about jousting armour... it has no military application (it's full of safety features that would cripple you in real combat). The lance was used in combat for hundreds of years after the decline of the full-plate-armoured knight. By your standards, 'Lancers' were not using lances. This seems silly.
RAW has little to say on the matter, so how the lance would be used (along with game balance) is the only sound way to make your decisions as a GM. If you just look at what page it's on, the reading itself does not answer the question properly.
RAW has plenty to say on the matter.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
You can use a lance in one hand from horseback. You do not have to use a lance in one hand from horse back, just like you can wield a longsword with one hand but you can choose to wield it with two hands for the strength bonus. You can't reasonably expect the rules to list the ability to do that with every single weapon repeatedly on the table. It is a general rule and by raw exists for all non light one handed weapons unless specified otherwise. If you were unable to wield a lance two handed it would have called attention to that fact, like they did with the rapier.
Rapier: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
So by raw it is allowed. There would have to be some sort of compelling real life or game balance reason to override the raw. As for reality it seems like something anyone trained in its use should be able to do, and i've seen people do it at ren fairs for spearing rings. That it wasn't standard combat practice is a bit moot in a game where even the mundane characters can wrestle a rhinoceros to the ground.
As far as game balance, given all the restrictions on charging, investing multiple feats into mounted combat, and either a class ability or minor miracle that keeps your mount alive its FAR less unbalancing than some things a caster or even an archer might do, so let the melee be the one to rack up the body count for once.
|
|
No, I am not just writing about jousting armor, though the changes in cavalry armor most famous were made for that purpose. The modifications on a saddle (for example) is what defines a "Military Saddle" versus a riding saddle. Some equipment was used for jousting, but other advents had military applications and were used as such.
Even jousting was itself a sport based on combat applications. Things were added for safety of course, but that is not what I spoke of when I said Lances were long spears before the Cradle (which was actually invented along with other 'safety features' well before jousting was popular and merely became famous with the popularity of the joust). There remains the fact that even the jousting lists were at times used as testing ground for inventions used to improve lance combat.
The argument you speak of is not mine, anyway. Historians have been arguing for years as to whether this or that development was useful in combat, the Great Stirrup Controversy was one such argument.
|
|
The argument you speak of is not mine, anyway. Historians have been arguing for years as to whether this or that development was useful in combat, the Great Stirrup Controversy was one such argument.
Yes, there's a decent article on the subject here. The author argues that a decent horseman should be able to perform a lance charge without stirrups (more so using a Roman 'horned' saddle).
I'm not familiar with this 'cradle' you keep citing as I've never seen it used in any of the periods I've been involved in reenacting (Roman, Wars of the Rose - where the armoured knight typically fought on foot - or Napoleonic) despite all of them featuring lance-armed cavalry. Can you post an example?
|
|
RAW has little to say on the matter, so how the lance would be used (along with game balance) is the only sound way to make your decisions as a GM. If you just look at what page it's on, the reading itself does not answer the question properly.RAW has plenty to say on the matter.:ON HOW, not WHY. Like I said, if you just want to quote passages in your bible, that's fine. I am discussing WHY certain things may or may not work.:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.: Not the subject at hand, though connected to it. Discussing mounted combat here.:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.Again, MOUNTED COMBAT.
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.:Ever TRY this? Not a good feeling without the proper gear to stabilize the lance, which is what I was discussing. The reason behind the rulings is what I am exploring here, not just what they are:
You can use a lance in one hand from horseback. You do not have to use a lance in one hand from horse back, just like you can wield a longsword with one hand but you can choose to wield it with two hands for the strength bonus. You can't reasonably expect the rules to list the ability to do that with every single weapon repeatedly on the table. It is a general rule and by raw exists for all non light one handed weapons unless specified otherwise. If you were unable to wield a lance two handed it would have called attention to that fact, like they did with the rapier.: The longsword is not a viable example here, because it is not a ten-foot two-handed weapon being used in one hand. Granted, some may believe that discussing the reasoning is in some ways a small matter, but THIS small remains unresolved which is why we are having this conversation.:
Rapier: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
So by raw it is allowed. There would have to be some sort of compelling real life or game balance reason to override the raw. As for...
:I do agree that by RAW there really is little issue with allowing two-handed use and the modifiers therein, I'm just expounding as to WHY I believe it should happen and HOW I would apply it in my game. The book text works reasonably as a guideline, but as a GM you must have more than that for the player questions that are NOT covered by text, or the text that simply doesn't make sense.:
IN the end, the agreement is to allow the use of the two-handed modifier (150%) for Power Attack with a lance on horseback. Why and how that might work is an individual game concern.
|
|
The argument you speak of is not mine, anyway. Historians have been arguing for years as to whether this or that development was useful in combat, the Great Stirrup Controversy was one such argument.Yes, there's a decent article on the subject here. The author argues that a decent horseman should be able to perform a lance charge without stirrups (more so using a Roman 'horned' saddle).
I'm not familiar with this 'cradle' you keep citing as I've never seen it used in any of the periods I've been involved in reenacting (Roman, Wars of the Rose - where the armoured knight typically fought on foot - or Napoleonic) despite all of them featuring lance-armed cavalry. Can you post an example?
The name is derived from Lancea. The lancea was the Roman auxiliaries' short javelin. It is mentioned as a throwing weapon in Roman times. The 'Cavalry Spear' is as close as you get to a lance (So far as I've read).
Having trouble finding a picture of the piece, but it was a simple hook grafted to the armor or saddle where the lance was set so that the rider could properly balance the lance forward with one arm. Made it easier to run charging lines, so I've noticed thus far.
SOrry to get overly historical, I was just trying to mention a way to add the two-handed damage to power attack that made sense to me. Seem to have gotten a little too much into minutia.
|
|
The name is derived from Lancea. The lancea was the Roman auxiliaries' short javelin. It is mentioned as a throwing weapon in Roman times. The 'Cavalry Spear' is as close as you get to a lance (So far as I've read).
It's blurry, I'll grant you, but the article I linked to quotes Virgil describing cavalry charging with a couched lance and makes reference to the "barge-pole" used by the Sarmatians. At the point that you're using a ten-foot spear for charge attacks from horseback... what's the difference between that and a lance?
(Arguably that the lance is marginally lighter and considered disposable, but how much does that really matter?)
Having trouble finding a picture of the piece, but it was a simple hook grafted to the armor or saddle where the lance was set so that the rider could properly balance the lance forward with one arm. Made it easier to run charging lines, so I've noticed thus far.
Sounds useful, but not the game-changing innovation you suggest. It's only doing the job your armpit would otherwise. I can't see examples of it in any of these reenactment pictures (though I'll pre-emptively accept any point about dubious accuracy). Also it sounds like you're describing something from the 'white harness' period of plate armour - absolutely the heyday of the armoured knight, but not the only period that saw lance-armed cavalry.
Sorry to get overly historical, I was just trying to mention a way to add the two-handed damage to power attack that made sense to me. Seem to have gotten a little too much into minutia.
Don't apologise, old chap - I've relished getting my teeth stuck into the topic (I've been obsessed with cavalry since the age of 4).
|
|
The name is derived from Lancea. The lancea was the Roman auxiliaries' short javelin. It is mentioned as a throwing weapon in Roman times. The 'Cavalry Spear' is as close as you get to a lance (So far as I've read).It's blurry, I'll grant you, but the article I linked to quotes Virgil describing cavalry charging with a couched lance and makes reference to the "barge-pole" used by the Sarmatians. At the point that you're using a ten-foot spear for charge attacks from horseback... what's the difference between that and a lance?
(Arguably that the lance is marginally lighter and considered disposable, but how much does that really matter?)
Having trouble finding a picture of the piece, but it was a simple hook grafted to the armor or saddle where the lance was set so that the rider could properly balance the lance forward with one arm. Made it easier to run charging lines, so I've noticed thus far.Sounds useful, but not the game-changing innovation you suggest. It's only doing the job your armpit would otherwise. I can't see examples of it in any of these reenactment pictures (though I'll pre-emptively accept any point about dubious accuracy). Also it sounds like you're describing something from the 'white harness' period of plate armour - absolutely the heyday of the armoured knight, but not the only period that saw lance-armed cavalry.
Sorry to get overly historical, I was just trying to mention a way to add the two-handed damage to power attack that made sense to me. Seem to have gotten a little too much into minutia.Don't apologise, old chap - I've relished getting my teeth stuck into the topic (I've been obsessed with cavalry since the age of 4).
Perhaps you are correct, but I wasn't looking at it as that major an innovation, just working as a 'secondary hand' for the purposes of the two-handed bonus for power attack. I find it a bit difficult an idea for the two-handed use of a lance for line-based cavalry formations to work without some aid. The position one would need to be in seems unbalanced without some form of help.
As for cavalry itself, I'm glad you have such an interest in it. I would be interested to hear more about your reenactments. Send a wave at dreddwulf1@yahoo.com. Interestingly enough, I am currently serving in a cavalry regiment with the U.S. Army. That's where some of my knowledge comes from.