|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Power Attack
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 modifier 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 effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Lance
Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Im curious as to if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).
|
|
Im curious as to if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).
Where does it say that? If you are using the weapon in one hand, it's not a two-handed weapon. A Fighter wielding a Size Small Greatsword in one hand gets -1 / +2, because it's not a two-handed weapon at the time he is wielding it.
I guess I can see how, under extremely strict reading of the rules, whilst ignoring all logic, one might make the argument that they get one extra point of damage.
At which point every GM in the world says "no, sorry, that's silly".
Personally, if I'm using a Lance, I'm after the "Double damage" portion; one more point isn't going to matter.
|
|
Im curious as to if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).Where does it say that? If you are using the weapon in one hand, it's not a two-handed weapon. A Fighter wielding a Size Small Greatsword in one hand gets -1 / +2, because it's not a two-handed weapon at the time he is wielding it.
I guess I can see how, under extremely strict reading of the rules, whilst ignoring all logic, one might make the argument that they get one extra point of damage.
At which point every GM in the world says "no, sorry, that's silly".
Personally, if I'm using a Lance, I'm after the "Double damage" portion; one more point isn't going to matter.
Its still a two-handed weapon.
If they wanted to restrict it like that it would say, "While mounted you can wield a lance, AS IF IT WERE A ONE-HANDED WEAPON."
You can't apply logic to this game...because wholes will start appearing everywhere.
I've actually learned through this board that most people use the "show me where it says I can't" line. While I do not actually believe it should work this way (because I too often apply logic to gaming)...In the spirit of this board I invite you to "show me where it says I can't." :D
|
|
Here is something to think about. Imagine you are chopping wood. Now think about holding that axe in one hand and chopping, then holding it with two hands and chopping. One clearly has more force. That is the logic behind power attack 1 and 2 handed. This is just an attempt to squeeze extra damage out of it by exploiting poor wording. No DM in their right mind would accept that.
The "Show me where it says I can't" mentality is just annoying. The rule book would be several volumes if they had to point out every possible misreading of the rules. The fact that you state yourself that you know the RAI just puts it up a notch on the annoyance.
Diminutive greatswords will be all the rage. You just pinch them between two fingers and stab away with power attack +18 damage each on power attack
I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.
|
|
I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.
It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.
I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.
That's not what it says. It says you can wield it with one hand.
It's still a two-handed weapon, and I still treat it like one. I agree it's a unique case; essentially the power of the horse is what's providing the two-handed benefits.|
|
The "Show me where it says I can't" mentality is just annoying. The rule book would be several volumes if they had to point out every possible misreading of the rules. The fact that you state yourself that you know the RAI just puts it up a notch on the annoyance.
Diminutive greatswords will be all the rage. You just pinch them between two fingers and stab away with power attack +18 damage each on power attack
+1.
Actually, the rulebook would be infinite in length. It's been proven mathematically.
See Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
Basically, for any given set of rules governing a system of numbers, there exists at least one combination of those numbers that is valid within the system of numbers, but not covered by the existing rules.
It is mathematically impossible to have complete rule-set. Hence Rule 0, the use of logic, and so on.
The "Show me where it says I can't" mentality is just annoying. The rule book would be several volumes if they had to point out every possible misreading of the rules. The fact that you state yourself that you know the RAI just puts it up a notch on the annoyance.
Diminutive greatswords will be all the rage. You just pinch them between two fingers and stab away with power attack +18 damage each on power attack
+1.
Actually, the rulebook would be infinite in length. It's been proven mathematically.
See Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
Basically, for any given set of rules governing a system of numbers, there exists at least one combination of those numbers that is valid within the system of numbers, but not covered by the existing rules.
It is mathematically impossible to have complete rule-set. Hence Rule 0, the use of logic, and so on.
Godel's theorem only applies to a system sufficient to describe the properties of the natural numbers. PF RAW is not such a system. It's theoretically possible for PF RAW to be complete and self-consistent.
|
I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.That's not what it says. It says you can wield it with one hand.
It's still a two-handed weapon, and I still treat it like one. I agree it's a unique case; essentially the power of the horse is what's providing the two-handed benefits.
So you would allow a charge attack from a lance that the wielder is using one handed but gain the power attack bonus for using two hands and the rider can use a shield and gain the AC bonus?
Sounds a little strong.
I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.That's not what it says. It says you can wield it with one hand.
It's still a two-handed weapon, and I still treat it like one. I agree it's a unique case; essentially the power of the horse is what's providing the two-handed benefits.So you would allow a charge attack from a lance that the wielder is using one handed but gain the power attack bonus for using two hands and the rider can use a shield and gain the AC bonus?
Sounds a little strong.
Yes, this is essentially what this style allows for -- the use of a lance as a two-handed weapon even while wearing a shield. I have not found that my mounted paladin outshines my other damage-dealers even so.
|
Here is something to think about. Imagine you are chopping wood. Now think about holding that axe in one hand and chopping, then holding it with two hands and chopping. One clearly has more force. That is the logic behind power attack 1 and 2 handed. This is just an attempt to squeeze extra damage out of it by exploiting poor wording. No DM in their right mind would accept that.
The "Show me where it says I can't" mentality is just annoying. The rule book would be several volumes if they had to point out every possible misreading of the rules. The fact that you state yourself that you know the RAI just puts it up a notch on the annoyance.
Diminutive greatswords will be all the rage. You just pinch them between two fingers and stab away with power attack +18 damage each on power attack
What stops this is this section from the PRD/Rules
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
For example, a small sized greatsword would have the following stats for a medium sized user:
Type: One-handed weapon.
Damage: 1d8 +str mod
to-hit: -2 if proficient in greatswords, -4 if not.
Crit: 19-20 x2
For all feats and abilities where weapon size comes into play, it would be treated as a one-handed weapon, not a two-handed weapon.
There is also nothing in RAW that stops a monk from doing a power attacking flurry of blows with a quarterstaff to get the two-handed damage with PA and lots of hits. Now, you can house rule that you cannot, but it would be just that.
So, if my character wields a longsword (a 1-handed weapon) in two hands while using Power Attack, I'd have to settle with -1/+2 (at least until BAB +4)?I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.That's not what it says. It says you can wield it with one hand.
It's still a two-handed weapon, and I still treat it like one. I agree it's a unique case; essentially the power of the horse is what's providing the two-handed benefits.
No. Please re-read the text of Power Attack.
Yes, this is essentially what this style allows for -- the use of a lance as a two-handed weapon even while wearing a shield. I have not found that my mounted paladin outshines my other damage-dealers even so.
You are wielding a two-handed weapon and a shield, and comparing yourself to (presumably) other characters wielding a two handed weapon. I would expect you to be comparable to them in the damage dealing department. However, you probably also have notably better AC.
When you get to high enough level to have nearly unlimited wealth, you can have a +5 heavy shield with heavy fortification, giving +7 AC and much less exposure to critical hits and sneak attack than another character.
At moderate levels, you can still have a higher AC, since you get the +2 shield bonus for almost nothing (on the scale of magic item costs) and an extra item where you can add magical bonuses. So when Gary Greatsword has a +2 natural armor, +2 deflection and +2 armor (20k gp), you can have
+2 natural armor, +1 deflection, +2 shield and +2 armor (18k gp), giving you a net +1 in magical bonuses for 10% less gold.
It's difficult to say if 2H lance and shield is overpowered, because most mounted lance builds lose a lot of power when then cannot charge. I'm fairly certain a mounted, charging paladin smiting an evil dragon can do more damage than almost any other build. The same build fighting a true neutral barbarian in a twisty, 5-foot corridor is unlikely to be nearly as impressive.
No. Please re-read the text of Power Attack.So, if my character wields a longsword (a 1-handed weapon) in two hands while using Power Attack, I'd have to settle with -1/+2 (at least until BAB +4)?I allow it. My logic is that the situation of being on a horse with a lance allows you to get the benefits of wielding the lance two-handed while still having a hand free. That includes Str x 1.5 and -1/+3 power attack benefits.It does not say "Gain all the benefits of two handed". It says "you may wield it one handed", thus gaining all the effects of one handed wielding.That's not what it says. It says you can wield it with one hand.
It's still a two-handed weapon, and I still treat it like one. I agree it's a unique case; essentially the power of the horse is what's providing the two-handed benefits.
How is wielding a longsword in two hands any different from wielding a lance in one? (In terms of whether or not it changes how it counts for power attack.)
How is wielding a longsword in two hands any different from wielding a lance in one? (In terms of whether or not it changes how it counts for power attack.)
The rules say:
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 modifier on damage rolls.
... the question is whether a rider wielding a lance one-handed is actually wielding it as a one-handed weapon the way, say, a human wields a small greatsword.
I say no.|
|
How is wielding a longsword in two hands any different from wielding a lance in one? (In terms of whether or not it changes how it counts for power attack.)
A lance does not state that it counts as a one handed weapon when mounted, only that you only need one hand to use it then. It is still a two-handed weapon and thus follows this rule:
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.
Note that a one handed weapon has rules to specify what happens when you use them two handed. This is an example where the specific overrides the general. In this same way, there is nothing that states that the damage changes any or the weapon type changes (example, if it said "acts as a one handed weapon") when using a lance one handed, leaving the general rule of it being a two handed weapon in place.
Whether it is decided by RAW or RAI or simply my house rule I am opting to allow a mounted lancer the benefit of two handed streght bonus, *1.5, and two handed power attack bonus, (-1, +3). Even with spirited charge it is not going to compare to a raging barbarian or two handed fighter getting in a full attack.
Doug
The whole point of using the horse is the extra power that can be placed behind the Lance.
Or rather, with riding came the need or desire for weapons that took advantage of that power.
If I lift a 10 ft pole in one hand, holding it in one end, thats pretty hard. If I grab it in both hands I can swing it much easier and with more power.
However, if I sit down and tuck it under one arm and the side of my armored body, it will fit snugly and can be held level for a great amount of time.
Taking that into account it is perfectly reasonable to allow the 1,5 STR and +3 from PA.
Using a Greatsword is a completely different fish. It has to be swung and to swing you need two hands to do it properly. Even if you were strong enough to swing it in one hand, using both gives stability and much more speed in recovering the weapon to swing again.
For Lances, used from a Mount, sure, go nuts! - Half the encounters are probably indoors any way.
|
|
How is wielding a longsword in two hands any different from wielding a lance in one? (In terms of whether or not it changes how it counts for power attack.)The rules say:
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 modifier on damage rolls.... the question is whether a rider wielding a lance one-handed is actually wielding it as a one-handed weapon the way, say, a human wields a small greatsword.
I say no.
RAW backs you also, wielding a small sized greatsword falls under this:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
So, a small sized greatsword becomes (in all ways) a one handed weapon that medium sized characters are not proficient in (thus a -2 to-hit). While a lance does not change to a one handed weapon, just able to use it one handed. Using a lance on a mount does not change the effort needed to use it (the lance is still 10 lbs, etc), just how you use it (braced with the horse, instead of like a big spear).
|
|
Doing a post search, you will find a carbon copy of this discussion. It all ends the same way....when people get tired of typing.
The bold part below is the logic flaw with one statement about how a weapon is wielded and a second statement with a weapon category. It would have been far better to just say a weapon wielded two handed and primary attacks that add 1.5 str.
Power Attack
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 modifier 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 effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
–1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).
How you use it (1 handed or 2 handed) determines PA bonus (-1/+2 vs -1/+3)
I'd also process double damage like a critical does.
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 modifier 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.
So adding my madness to the mix, if we can wield a lance in one hand when riding, then why don't we dual wield lances while riding?
So at a good -4/-4 (with two weapon fighting) my main hand still counts as two handed, but so does my off hand. So the first is 1.5x str mod, but is the offhand half that at .75 str mod, or we doing linear like most multiplier effects in Pathfinder at 1 str mod.
Come on guys... don't be silly. A two handed weapon means it's in two hands. To ChaostoCold, it's hard to get much closer to like a one handed weapon than to 'as a one handed weapon.' Like and as mean the same thing.
Same thing as a bastard sword. If I have exotic training in it and use it one handed... it's a one handed weapon.
|
|
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 modifier 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.So adding my madness to the mix, if we can wield a lance in one hand when riding, then why don't we dual wield lances while riding?
So at a good -4/-4 (with two weapon fighting) my main hand still counts as two handed, but so does my off hand. So the first is 1.5x str mod, but is the offhand half that at .75 str mod, or we doing linear like most multiplier effects in Pathfinder at 1 str mod.
Come on guys... don't be silly. A two handed weapon means it's in two hands. To ChaostoCold, it's hard to get much closer to like a one handed weapon than to 'as a one handed weapon.' Like and as mean the same thing.
Same thing as a bastard sword. If I have exotic training in it and use it one handed... it's a one handed weapon.
It does get closer to 'like a one handed weapon'
"While mounted you can wield a lance, AS IF IT WERE A ONE-HANDED WEAPON."
As it stands now you are wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. This is a clear exception to the rule because no other weapon has text like the lance does.
A Bastard sword is irrelevant since it ACTUALLY is a one handed weapon. If you dont have exotic weapon prof. you are wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands..... Its not a two handed weapon.
It does get closer to 'like a one handed weapon'"While mounted you can wield a lance, AS IF IT WERE A ONE-HANDED WEAPON."
As it stands now you are wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. This is a clear exception to the rule because no other weapon has text like the lance does.
A Bastard sword is irrelevant since it ACTUALLY is a one handed weapon. If you dont have exotic weapon prof. you are wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands..... Its not a two handed weapon.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
I thought it was an excellent example, since it's basically the inverse of the lance. It's a one handed weapon that can only be used as a two handed weapon under a circumstance, as opposed to a two handed weapon that can be used as a one handed weapon under a circumstance.
To phrase it the same way you did: The bastard sword is a one handed weapon that is can be used two handed, if you have martial weapon training. Much like the lance is a two handed weapon that can be wielded one handed, but only while mounted.
If you use a one handed weapon in two hands, it's for all intents and purposes a two handed weapon. Wielding a longsword in two hands? 1.5 str. Power attack with it? -1 attack +3 damage.
Likewise, if you manage to use a two-handed weapon in one hand, it should have all the features of a one handed weapon.
If you were going to get to use a lance in one hand and retain all the bonuses of a two handed weapon... I think it would have been phrased that way. As it stands, you can either use it two-handed, or use it 'as a one handed weapon,' in which case it follows one-handed weapon rules, and not two-handed rules anymore:
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.
No cheese. If its in one hand its a one handed weapon. If its in two hands its a two handed weapon.
I agree with Shar Tahl compeatly. if your wielding a weapon with 1 hand treat it like a 1 handed weapon.
please keep in mind this whole debate is over 1pt of damage. come on peoplefor real...? how often is a encounter won over 1pt of damage? yall are aruging over bull @#$%.
It's only one point of damage if you have no strength mod and a BAB less than 4. At 20th level, with a +10 strength mod, you're talking the difference between 22 damage and 33 damage on each of four attacks (88-132 damage total). 44 damage is certainly enough to win or lose an encounter, even at 20th level.
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 modifier 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.So adding my madness to the mix, if we can wield a lance in one hand when riding, then why don't we dual wield lances while riding?
So at a good -4/-4 (with two weapon fighting) my main hand still counts as two handed, but so does my off hand. So the first is 1.5x str mod, but is the offhand half that at .75 str mod, or we doing linear like most multiplier effects in Pathfinder at 1 str mod.
For those saying it counts as a two-handed weapon for power attack, I'd like to see the answer to this. Because I don't think anyone can argue with the ability to dual-wield lances while mounted. Regardless of whether the lance counts as one-hand or two, it's only using one hand, so the other one is free to wield another one. And there's no rules anywhere to specifically address wielding a weapon as an off-hand and a two-hand simultaneously.
|
No cheese. If its in one hand its a one handed weapon. If its in two hands its a two handed weapon.
There's no cheese at all here. The Lance is a special weapon. It has text that clearly states that when mounted you wield it in one hand. It does not say you treat it as a one handed weapon!
While mounted the lance is still a two handed weapon and qualifies for the -1/+3 damage from power attack. This is a clear case where a specific rule overrides a general rule.
So I'm +1'ing AvalonXQ and Happler
For those saying it counts as a two-handed weapon for power attack, I'd like to see the answer to this. Because I don't think anyone can argue with the ability to dual-wield lances while mounted. Regardless of whether the lance counts as one-hand or two, it's only using one hand, so the other one is free to wield another one. And there's no rules anywhere to specifically address wielding a weapon as an off-hand and a two-hand simultaneously.
It may look silly as hell but it's legal. Go on with your bad self! Actually the rules for Multiattack would probably be the best bet here. It'd still be an off hand attack, so the Str damage would be 3/4, but the power attack would still be -1/+3. The math is funny, but so's the situation!
--We will, we will Vrock YOU!
There's no cheese at all here. The Lance is a special weapon. It has text that clearly states that when mounted you wield it in one hand. It does not say you treat it as a one handed weapon!
While mounted the lance is still a two handed weapon and qualifies for the -1/+3 damage from power attack. This is a clear case where a specific rule overrides a general rule.
Yes, there's cheese, no, its not remotely clear that thats how it works. The game writers were slightly sloppy with the terminology "two handed weapon" and "weapon wielded in two hands" . They're supposed to be synonymous, and didn't rewrite the rules to counter the one specific circumstance where they're not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a specific rule is overriding a general one. The specific rule is a weapon that big needs two hands to use. This particular one can be used one handed. That's it. It doesn't overwrite the way weapons wielded in one hand work.
The lance is good enough in letting you use a 1 handed weapon with reach AND deals obscene damage on a charge. Getting to wield a shield, a reach weapon, do double damage on a charge AND get 1.5 times your strength modifier because of a technicality is absolute Limburger.