2H weapon while mounted?


Rules Questions

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:

The game allows for lances to be wielded two-handed from horseback, dealing insane damage (especially on a charge), so why not allow a greatsword? I know the physics of it is a little wonky, but the character isn't going to be dealing any more damage than a lance-wielding character. Indeed, he'll do less (since a lance deals x2 damage on a charge, or x3 with spirited charge).

So, is it a "realism" issue or a mechanics issue? I can understand perhaps the first, but as stated above, the second doesn't really add up.

That's not correct. The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded 1-handed when mounted - gaining all the benefits of PA etc. but allowing use of a shield...
Read the rules again. Lances can be used one-handed from horseback, but that's not to say that they cannot be used two-handed; it's entirely optional (hence the word "can", as opposed to "must"). You can use a two-handed weapon from horseback by succeeding a Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.

You're correct.

It's massively wasteful to do so and you gain no benefit, but a lance could be weilded two-handed whilst mounted.

'Massively wasteful'? 'No benefit'?

I'd use a lance two-handed while mounted to get 1.5 x Str bonus, 3 for 1 with Power Attack, and have all that tripled from the back of a charging mount. Conservatively, with 22 Str and BAB +12, that's 21 extra damage over the one-handed version, not counting crits.

That counts as a benefit.

You get 3 for 1 from PA using a lance with one hand whilst mounted. You also get 1.5 STR bonus when using a lance with one hand whilst mounted.

So yeah, all you're doing is dropping your AC due to lack of shield.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Castarr4 wrote:
If he fails his ride check (control with knees), he can't properly wield the sword, since he needs a hand to control the mount. He can use it as an improvised one-handed weapon at that point, taking all of the relevant penalties.

A martial-type should find it pretty hard to fail a DC5 ride check, especially if he intends to fight while mounted!

You can't use a greatsword sized for you one-handed, even as an improvised weapon.

Don't forget those armour-check penalties.


Funky Badger wrote:
You get 3 for 1 from PA using a lance with one hand whilst mounted. You also get 1.5 STR bonus when using a lance with one hand whilst mounted.

To my knowledge, you are incorrect; please cite your source(s) / provide a link.


He's basing it off of the 'classification' of the weapon as a 2-handed weapon, and saying that even though you can specially wield the weapon in one hand, it's category isn't stated to change when you do this. Power Attack's wording also refers to two-handed weapons (as a category) and doesn't have anything taking into account anybody wielding those with one hand for some reason.

The Rules wrote:

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.

Combat:Damage
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Equipment:Weapon Types
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.

Power Attack (Combat)
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.

So he's basically not following the rules for damage in the damage section of the combat rules, but is relying on the wording from the equipment section classication of weapon types. Which makes you ask: why have two non-identical sets of rules for this in two sections? Clearly SOMETHING is poorly written.


Quandary wrote:

He's basing it off of the 'classification' of the weapon as a 2-handed weapon, and saying that even though you can specially wield the weapon in one hand, it's category isn't stated to change when you do this. Power Attack's wording also refers to two-handed weapons (as a category) and doesn't have anything taking into account anybody wielding those with one hand for some reason.

The Rules wrote:

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.

Combat:Damage
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Equipment:Weapon Types
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.

Power Attack (Combat)
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.

So he's basically not following the rules for damage in the damage section of the combat rules, but is relying on the wording from the equipment section classication of weapon types. Which makes you ask: why have two...

I think the poorly written part is in the description of the Lance, it should state whether or not to treat the damage it deals while mounted as being one or two-handed.


But... But.... My barbarian can punch MAGIC! MAGIC!
or he can use his massive 2 handed, oversized half-ton warhammer to smash an enchantment off an ant and have the ant miraculously survive somehow...

Anyway, check out the manga Kindom as a good idea how wielding 2 handed weapons looks thematicly. It is not real life but it is largely based off of it (except for a few details like an immortal protagonist or mountain folk who wield rocks on sticks 2 feet across with 1 hand...)

Or check out the ravages of time. They use it quite extensively in there.

In pathfinder just look at the Maul of the titans for something ridiculous. The thing is 8 feet long and weighs 160 lbs! That is bigger than an average grown man and just as heavy. Worse a 3 foot halfling with 8 strength can swing and wield the thing just as well as someone who didnt know how to wield a dagger... (non-proficiency)

Actually I should try that last one, just for the Lulz ^-^

Or, last example, a archer would use different stances/grips/methods/what have you depending if he was on foot or on horseback. An archer would not use the bow the same on both of them. Dosent invalidate one or the other.
Same way a fighter would use a 2-handed weapon differently on ground or on horseback (or riding someone else, cause you can do that too...) On ground, easy to see how, on horse, different grip, different posture, different stance, different things needed. It dosent invalidate one or the other.


2cp

There are plenty of other things to be worried about your players getting up to than this. If your player wants to get his totally rules-supported 2HW Greatsword horseback swing on (in every what, 1 out of 5 combats?), let him. At the end of the day, this is not going to be the thing to derail your campaign.


Quandary wrote:

He's basing it off of the 'classification' of the weapon as a 2-handed weapon, and saying that even though you can specially wield the weapon in one hand, it's category isn't stated to change when you do this. Power Attack's wording also refers to two-handed weapons (as a category) and doesn't have anything taking into account anybody wielding those with one hand for some reason.

The Rules wrote:

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.

Combat:Damage
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Equipment:Weapon Types
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.

Power Attack (Combat)
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.

So he's basically not following the rules for damage in the damage section of the combat rules, but is relying on the wording from the equipment section classication of weapon types. Which makes you ask: why have two...

The two definitions are not mutually exclusive.

(Addendum: the lance is an exception, the exceptional rules are in the weapon description. Seems pretty straightforward, really. [/Jobs]


Detect Magic wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
You get 3 for 1 from PA using a lance with one hand whilst mounted. You also get 1.5 STR bonus when using a lance with one hand whilst mounted.
To my knowledge, you are incorrect; please cite your source(s) / provide a link.

By reading the CRB. Thanks to Quandry for typing out the relevant sections.


I have to disagree with you on how the rules interact with the lance (when used from mountback). It seems pretty clear to me that the rules concern themselves with how a weapon is wielded. A two-handed weapon that is wielded one-handed should deal damage as per a one-handed weapon. Nonetheless, I will mark this as a FAQ candidate.


Its black and white in the rulebook.

*shrugs*

Grand Lodge

Part of a GM's responsibility is interpreting the rules (or even changing them) in a way that makes sense and is logical. If you think using a greatsword from a horse doesn't make sense (and I would agree with you), then you should at the very least impose some penalties (negative to hit, damage, etc.).

One of the big advantages of a tabletop RPG over, say a video game, is the ability of the GM to interpret the rules to keep the game from getting "cartoonish" or flying in the face of reason.


Repairman_Jack wrote:

Lakesidefantasy... I am aware of the current rules.

I was more asking about what made sense.

I can't think of a single example in all of military history of mounted soldiers wielding a 2H weapon (lance excepted - and its not really a 2H weapon).

I think Jay the Madman has the right of it... it takes a lot of leg, hip, and core muscle power to properly wield a 2H weapon. Doing so from horseback just doesn't seem viable to me.

So you asked for a rule, got an answer you don't like and might ignore the rule. If you are that much against something dont use the rules as an excuse. Just be honest and tell the player you dont like it.


A lance, although normally a two-handed weapon, can be wielded as a one-handed weapon from mountback.

Here's what the rules, in black-and-white, have to say on the matter of one-handed weapons (and the damage that they deal):

The Core Rulebook wrote:
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.

Notice the bits about damage concern themselves with how the weapon is wielded (not its type). It doesn't matter if a longsword is one-handed, if it is wielded with two hands then it is going to deal extra damage. Logic follows that the same would be true of a two-handed weapon that is wielded in one hand.

The reason that it isn't explicitly stated as such is because two-handed weapons typically cannot be wielded in one hand. A lance is an exception to this rule.


Detect Magic wrote:

Logic follows that the same would be true of a two-handed weapon that is wielded in one hand.

If only they'd explicitly stated how much damage you do with a 2-handed weapon, with regards to power attacks and Strength bonus...

...oh, hang on.

:-)


If you're going to bring the greatsword in line with its historical version, you'll need to change much more than the mounted combat rules.


Except it's not wielded as a two-handed weapon. It's wielded as a one-handed weapon.


Detect Magic wrote:
Except it's not wielded as a two-handed weapon. It's wielded as a one-handed weapon.

Read the description:

"While mounted you can weild a lance with one hand"

It's still a two-handed weapon.

The only two-handed weapon you can wield in one hand is the Dorn-Derger, which requires a feat and specifically says its weilded as a one-handed weapon.

This is all perfectly clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair dual wielding was horrific for anything but dualing as well.

The rapier is in here despite the fact that in actual combat it likely wouldn't stand up against a greatsword.

Many of the most common and powerful historical weapons in here are actually numerically subpar.

It's safe to say we threw anything "historically accurate" out the window before we even stop to consider magic.

and if you really wanna go there. Falling damage caps at 20d6. This means after level 6 or so for most d10+ HD you could drop them from the upper stratosphere and reasonably expect them to survive even if they were in bad shape (average damage 70 - 10-5*6=30/6=5 .) you'd need a 20 con at level 6 with a d10 hd to be dropped from orbit and reasonably expect not only to survive but to not go unconscious.

Yeah, realism isn't a thing here, frankly I'd let him do it because why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Con 20 is not really achievable by a human PC without magical support is it? And even real live humans survived "drops from orbit" (aka falling from above 1500ft because after that height you reached terminal velocity aka you don't get any faster): http://www.cracked.com/article_19996_5-insane-falls-you-wont-believe-people -survived.html

If you add in the massive damage optional rule you'd even need 120hp to have a 10% chance of survival or 160hp to be fairly "safe" (90% survival).

[Edit] Forgot "point buy"...with that, Con 20 IS achievable by a human PC.


The last two posters are both right, despite contradicting each other. :)

In any case, unless either the player or the GM thinks it is completely uncool, allow the greatsword from horseback. There is no game balance reason to disallow it, and realism is a poor choice for rules rationale in this game.

As for me, if a GM respectfully announced that he was going to start treating my greatsword as a real greatsword with improvised house rules, I'd do a little happy dance, even despite the nerfing. Likewise if the lance started behaving as a real lance. But Pathfinder doesn't (and shouldn't) really model that stuff.

Silver Crusade

Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

Liberty's Edge

Akerlof wrote:

As far as physics goes, remember that military saddles basically had the rider standing up in the stirrups, allowing them to use their whole body, not just the waist up.

The black raven wrote:

OP, you should be happy that he does not want to be dual wielding 2 lances at the same time, which is doable RAW, AFAIK, and might even be used by some crazy Mounted Pounce build.

And now I have thoughts of making some such build for PFS :-P

Actually, Pounce doesn't work by fiat, per Sean K Reynolds. What this ruling does to the rest of mounted combat... You really don't want to go there.

SKR wrote:


GBT gives you pounce.
Pounce allows YOU to make a full attack when YOU make a charge.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
The mounted combat rules specifically say that you only get ONE attack if your mount charges.
GBT does NOT say "when the barbarian is mounted and the MOUNT makes a charge, SHE may make a full attack."

Therefore, GBT-rage-mount-pounce does not work.

Yes, SKR is right.

Now I can only hope that centaur becomes available for PFS and that they allow the Natural Jouster feat.

Then I can, in complete RAW, dual wield lances AND pounce. Ain't life grand ? :-))


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

So, just to be sure, you're agreeing with Detect Magic?


Yes, the mounted combat rules need help. Ride-by Attack, also functionally broken.

Luckily my GM is very kind, and we spelled out our own intent of the rules with respect to mounts and charging. I gave up my claim to Mount's Pounce + Ride-By Attack. :(

Silver Crusade

Brotato wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

So, just to be sure, you're agreeing with Detect Magic?

I've lost track of who said what, but you only get 1.5 x Str bonus (and 3 for 1 on Pwer Attack) if you actually wield a weapon in two hands (and are prevented from getting that if the weapon is light for you).

I did a bit of research; in 3.0 the lance was a one-handed weapon (taking the game mechanic changes into account). The devs only thought about it's mounted use; then they realised that people were using it one-handed on foot, so in 3.5 they made it 2h and allowed it's use 1h while mounted.

So, in 3.0 rules, the lance was a one-handed weapon which added normal Str bonus to damage. I don't believe for one second that in 3.5 the devs suddenly believed you get 1.5 x Str when using it one-handed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

my 2 cents about the lance debate:
The rules on 3-to-1 power attack mentions two-handed weapons (a category) without mentioning the amount of hands this two-handed weapon should be wielded with. It also mentions one handed weapons (different catagory), but only if these one handed weapons (category) are wielded with two hands. This qualifier (must be wielded with two hands)is not added when talking of two handed weapons, so any two handed weapon gives 3-vs-1 on power attack

A lance is a two handed weapon, even when wielded with one hand, so it gives 3-vs-1 power attack. That's RAW.

However, this isn't the subject of the topic.

One more time: realism should not be a big consideration.
It does not really disrupt the game in ways unmanagable in terms of damage (we have lance for that...), he does not suddenly outclass the other party members. It takes investment (ride skill point) to really make it work, so there is some balance, and unless he has a special class-feature pet his mount is easily killed.
You also don't have the rules to back you up, the mounted combat rules allow it.
I think you don't have a legitimate reason for disallowing it. If you decide to anyway, I would call it picking on people.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I'm curious what the penalty would be for attacking one handed with a greatsword if you failed to make the Ride check to guide your mount with your knees.

The section on 'Weapon Size' and "Inappropriately Sized Weapons' in the Equipment chapter is quite confusing.

You would definitely only add your strength bonus rather than 1 1/2, but would the attack penalty be -2 for using a greatsword as an inappropriately sized one-handed weapon, plus -4 for non-proficiency using a greatsword as a one-handed weapon?

In that case I think a -6 is a fair penalty for trying to pull such a stunt.

Actually, if i am not mistaken, you asked us in the op that you wanted to be backed by rules. Your last statement seems to contradict that.

Thread win.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

Why would there be a ruling? Jotungrip and Lances are both exceptions to how things normally work, and both clearly explained.

Hopefully they have better things to worry about than this.

Silver Crusade

Funky Badger wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

Why would there be a ruling? Jotungrip and Lances are both exceptions to how things normally work, and both clearly explained.

Hopefully they have better things to worry about than this.

If it were 'clearly' explained then we'd all agree!

When explaining how weapons work, they didn't feel the need to clarify that if a two-handed weapon is wielded one-handed then the Str bonus to damage is not multiplied by 1.5. Why would they, since it takes two hands? If the had bothered, they'd have said it's only x1.

The Exchange

I believe there was a D&D prohibition against this but I'm not sure which edition. This may be tickling some memories..
Also, lances were used before stirrups, the Sarmatians. Alexander's cavalry used something so long it was called a 'barge pole'.

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 2H weapon while mounted? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.