Small lance

[DarkPhoenixx]

I have dwarven fighter (Phalanx Soldier) and he will be using tower shield and lance. I know that probably worst choice of spear/pole i could of made but he have INT of 7 so whatever. I also wanted him to look somehow similar to this
Anyway, question is - he will have "i can wield lance with one hand" only on level 3. Can untill that he wield small lance as one handed weapon with -2 penalty? Small lance have same reach as far as i know.

[Avianfoo]

Rules-wise a small lance can be held in 1 hand by a medium creature on the ground (i.e not mounted) with a -2 penalty. Though the double damage on a mounted charge will obviously never apply (unless, strangely enough, the dwarf is mounted).

I would suggest using a regular one handed weapon until level 3 when the character grows into the lance.

[Nefreet]

When a mounted, medium-sized character is wielding a medium-sized lance you apply +50% damage from having a high Strength and/or Power Attack, since a medium-sized lance is regularly a two-handed weapon.

If you decide to have your medium-sized character wield a small-sized lance, whether mounted or not, just be sure you only apply your regular Strength mod and regular Power Attack damage, since a small-sized lance is a one-handed weapon for you.

[ArmouredMonk13]

Give him a rust monster mount and wield a lance. Then deck him out in stoneplate with stone shield and stone lance. Everyone's biggest nightmare.

Rules say you can wield it in one hand if it is a small 2h weapon.

[Gwen Smith]

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

Give him a rust monster mount and wield a lance. Then deck him out in stoneplate with stone shield and stone lance. Everyone's biggest nightmare.

This is brilliant! I want one!

[Illeist]

Nefreet wrote:

When a mounted, medium-sized character is wielding a medium-sized lance you apply +50% damage from having a high Strength and/or Power Attack, since a medium-sized lance is regularly a two-handed weapon.

If you decide to have your medium-sized character wield a small-sized lance, whether mounted or not, just be sure you only apply your regular Strength mod and regular Power Attack damage, since a small-sized lance is a one-handed weapon for you.

It doesn't matter how many hands the weapon usually takes. The strength bonus you apply is based on the number of hands you have on the weapon when you attack.

[ArmouredMonk13]

Gwen Smith wrote:

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

Give him a rust monster mount and wield a lance. Then deck him out in stoneplate with stone shield and stone lance. Everyone's biggest nightmare.

This is brilliant! I want one!

I do to. I can't imagine why my GM said no to this concept :(

[Nefreet]

Illeist wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

When a mounted, medium-sized character is wielding a medium-sized lance you apply +50% damage from having a high Strength and/or Power Attack, since a medium-sized lance is regularly a two-handed weapon.

If you decide to have your medium-sized character wield a small-sized lance, whether mounted or not, just be sure you only apply your regular Strength mod and regular Power Attack damage, since a small-sized lance is a one-handed weapon for you.

It doesn't matter how many hands the weapon usually takes. The strength bonus you apply is based on the number of hands you have on the weapon when you attack.

The lance is an exception to the general rule.

[Pizza Lord]

Darkphoenixx wrote:

Small lance have same reach as far as I know.

Not sure this is true. I used to think it was as well. Tried to come up with a dual-wielding tiny longspears build.

Quote:

Reach Weapons: ... A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

While the example of appropriate size is in a sentence about a Large creature I don't believe that this is meant to exclude small or medium creatures.

I don't see any reason they would grant smaller creatures an exception. If that were the case then tiny or smaller creatures with reach weapons would be able to threaten at least to 5 feet (but not their own square), which I actually think would make sense.

Also, I think it's really stupid that they took out the note about small and medium creatures with reach weapons threatening out to two diagonal squares as an exception to two diagonals being 15 feet. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever why they would do that. It just breaks game physics and leaves a wonky unexplainable hole in the game mechanics if an enemy comes in from a diagonal.

[Talonhawke]

Not sure of RAW or RAI but a small reach weapon would have to grant a medium creature reach. If it lets something smaller gain 5ft extra then how could it not work for the bigger guy.

[Pizza Lord]

The same way a 6-long greatsword is the same reach as a 6-inch dagger or even a headbutt?

The same way a medium character with 10 foot reach doesn't get an AoO when an enemy moves diagonally from 15 feet away to 5 feet away (not with a 5-foot step)?

I believe it comes down to how a weapon is made to be wielded and despite close similarities, the differences are noticeable. A quarterstaff and a bo staff may seem perfectly identical but a bo-staff fighter and a quarterstaff fighter would look vastly different using them even though each one is interchangeable.

Similarly, a human wielding an ogre's large longspear is probably holding it ackwardly and getting attack penalties but also unable to properly utilize it to full advantage.

I don't make the rules, but it does remove the silly thought of someone dual-wielding a tiny longspear and another weapon so they can have have reach and still threaten their normal range.

I'm just pointing it out that there is wording about a reach weapon being appropriately sized. There's room for disagreement, I'm just pointing it out.

[Avianfoo]

Talonhawke wrote:

Not sure of RAW or RAI but a small reach weapon would have to grant a medium creature reach. If it lets something smaller gain 5ft extra then how could it not work for the bigger guy.

Don't bring logic to a rules discussion :p

But I too believe that a reach weapon sized for a small creature would provide reach for a medium creature wielding it. But this is not the first time rules have made my head explode using the power of the illogical.

[Talonhawke]

Dont think to hard about whips and the exact rules text of them. Or the fact that reach weapons dont matter if you have a 0 natural reach. or the fact that since spells dont size a single burning hands spell is like a WMD to anything smurf sized or smaller.

[Avianfoo]

As a GM, I will ensure much NPC mockery towards any medium PC wielding a small lance. Size of tools and all that. Even if they are then slaughtered with said small lance, mockery will ensue.

[Nefreet]

Talonhawke wrote:

Dont think to hard about whips and the exact rules text of them. Or the fact that reach weapons dont matter if you have a 0 natural reach.

Actually, tiny-sized creatures wielding a reach weapon have 5ft reach.

This isn't published anywhere as a rule, afaik, but it is listed as such in the Bestiary stat blocks of such creatures.

So, large-sized creatures may reach 20ft.
Medium/Small may reach 10ft.
And tiny-sized creatures may reach 5ft.

It may not be a perfect system, but it's manageable and understandable.