| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
Emphasis mine...
If you can wield a lance with ONE hand, you could wield ANOTHER lance in your OTHER hand, all while mounted... right?
Yeah, yeah, totally not practical for 2 copper due to action limits with charges, but still... can it be legally done?
I am going to guess no, based upon this:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.posted May 2013
So it still counts as 2 handed even while you are doing this.
Thus, you run into the 'armor spikes' problem- you only have two 'hands' worth of actions. Since this counts as 2 handing, it takes both hands. So not TWF.
I am pretty sure you can grab a shield though. So there are still bonuses over not using 1 hand. Sweet, sweet AC enhancement slots...
I am going to guess no, based upon this:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.posted May 2013
So it still counts as 2 handed even while you are doing this.
Thus, you run into the 'armor spikes' problem- you only have two 'hands' worth of actions. Since this counts as 2 handing, it takes both hands. So not TWF.
I am pretty sure you can grab a shield though. So there are still bonuses over not using 1 hand. Sweet, sweet AC enhancement slots...
The problem is that unlike armor spikes, I'm holding a weapon in each hand.
If I can hold a shield, I could technically bash with it if I'm wielding a lance while mounted. If so, then TWF-ing using 2 lances should be possible...
It's treated as a two-handed weapon for feats and such, but if you "can wield it with one hand while mounted", shouldn't it also count as a one-handed weapon?
Technically, you could do it, but you would be at significant penalties: –6 on your primary hand and –10 on your off hand (-4/-4 if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat).
Also remember that you can only make a single attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you need to ask the question of whether you can ride with a lance in each hand you need to ask serious questions about why you or the player that requested this is playing the same game as eveyone else!
If this came from one of my peers I would tell them to get a hold of themselves - I mean honestly! Is the game just about mechanics now???
I...think so. It's not good, but you can do it.
The problem is that unlike armor spikes, I'm holding a weapon in each hand.
If I can hold a shield, I could technically bash with it if I'm wielding a lance while mounted. If so, then TWF-ing using 2 lances should be possible...
It's treated as a two-handed weapon for feats and such, but if you "can wield it with one hand while mounted", shouldn't it also count as a one-handed weapon?
Yeah, but there are metaphorical hands. It is a 'can't have your cake and eat it too' situation.
Do people want to be able to get 2 handed damage with lances, and maybe still have room for a shield slot? Or do you want to be able to 1 hand it, but make that pretty much useless in anything other than this subpar TWF build?
I would prefer the one interpretation that is more useful in general.
Side note- hard to shield bash with that shield and TWF it with that lance... reach and all. Possible with the right feats, but that just adds more you need to get this build going (since you need TWF feats, riding feats, and probably basic combat feats).
|
Yes, you can DW lances while on a horse, but as stated earlier you'd take massive penalties if you don't have TWF. Now, if you wanted, you could pick up a couple of Effortless Laces and go all rogue-y on people (something like UC Rogue 3, Calv X with boon companion would be fine). it also would reduce your TWF penalties to -2s, which is way better than -4s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can wield two lances, but you can't TWF with them as they both still count as two-handed weapons, thus requiring your offhand's worth of effort to attack with.
Uhh, no. There is a reason so many mounted builds use a lance and shield. Because it does not require your offhand to use the lance.
What do you think "wield as a one handed weapon" means?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you need to ask the question of whether you can ride with a lance in each hand you need to ask serious questions about why you or the player that requested this is playing the same game as eveyone else!
If this came from one of my peers I would tell them to get a hold of themselves - I mean honestly! Is the game just about mechanics now???
You're talking in the rules section, a section governed entirely by mechanics, so yeah, it's all about mechanics.
Yeah, you're going to take pretty big penalties on it since you can't drop those down to light weapons. I looked up Effortless Lace, but sadly it won't help. I mean maybe with two Tiny lances (which is a hilarious visual image), but that's it. Also I think Lance charge damage only applies once as per how it's determined with pounce (only first attack gets tripled), so unless that's intended to say "only first attack with each weapon" instead, you're not getting any real benefit from this sadly.
Wearing a shield doesn't require your offhand's effort.
I would've thought it meant treat it as a one-handed weapon, but the FAQ quoted earlier shows that it is still a two-handed weapon, even if being wielded in one hand, and thus gains and suffers all the effects associated with that.
???
While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
I don't know how it gets any clearer than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I...I am at a loss for words. I feel like you're vehemently claiming that 2+2=5. You're so clearly wrong that I can't even make any other arguments.
|
if you need to ask the question of whether you can ride with a lance in each hand you need to ask serious questions about why you or the player that requested this is playing the same game as eveyone else!
If this came from one of my peers I would tell them to get a hold of themselves - I mean honestly! Is the game just about mechanics now???
Speaking as someone who's been known to be vocal enemy of the creeping technician mentality, I wouldn't consider this particular idea to be a part of that problem. It's f#+!ing silly, of course, but it does strike me as something that an ambitious, reckless, and, well cavalier Cavalier might actually try to pull.
|
|
You're wielding it in one hand, but it's still a two-handed weapon.
If what you are suggesting were true, you wouldn't get the +50% damage from Power Attack when attacking with it. But you do, as per the FAQ.
I think I get where you're coming from, let me try to break it down a little.
Lance is 2 handed weapon, no one argues this, this is CRB.
While mounted, a lance can be wielded in 1 hand. This does not change the classification of the lance (which is still a 2 handed weapon), it simply alters the requirements needed to wield it. This is why the power attack ruling works, since as ruled, a two handed weapon gets 150% power attack damage even while wielded in one hand.
Now, let's see what two-weapon fighting has to say:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Now it doesn't matter how many hands our off hand weapon takes, it simply matters if we HAVE an off hand weapon, which we do, since our second lance still only requires 1 hand to wield.
There is the question of if the statement "You can wield a lance 1 handed while mounted" means "you can wield A lance (singular) while mounted" or "you can wield a lance (plural) while mounted", which would mean we could use any amount of lances in one hand in the case of having 2 or more hands.
I'm all for the latter myself, but I suppose that's what it boils down to in the end.
You have spent so much time asking if you can, but did you ever stop to think if you should?!? Because using Spear Dancing with pounce Lances is waaaay sillier!
*makes monk sounds while charging by and swinging a lance at it's halfway point*
No one said I had to hold it correctly to get double damage!!!
if you need to ask the question of whether you can ride with a lance in each hand you need to ask serious questions about why you or the player that requested this is playing the same game as eveyone else!
If this came from one of my peers I would tell them to get a hold of themselves - I mean honestly! Is the game just about mechanics now???
Longsword and shield only! REALIZARMS!
|
|
N Jolly, if you look strictly at the CRB that would be a reasonable conclusion. However, the developers have posted and elaborated on the offhand rules, over the years, clarifying that it isn't enough to be wielding two weapons to use TWF.
This is what spawned some of the other FAQ entries, such as being unable to TWF with a 2H-sword and armor spikes. There are many lengthy posts about this, if you're interested in reading more about it.
Trust me, I'm well aware of the garbage rulings that have been made in regard to TWF, although none of them really touch on our double lance subject. The armor spike thing really just seems to be more of a "you need to have weapons in your hands/limbs to twf" more than anything, which this lance issue works with.
Unless there's some other issue here, I don't see why twf with lances while mounted wouldn't be allowed unless there's another 'hand' issue I'm missing.
The motivation for the FAQ ruling (which had no apparent basis in RAW) is that a character with the normal number of limbs is not supposed to be able to benefit from the advantages of two-handed weapons at the same time as benefiting from two-weapon-fighting extra attacks.
RAI is that this isn't possible, but proving this from existing rules isn't easy.
I...I am at a loss for words. I feel like you're vehemently claiming that 2+2=5. You're so clearly wrong that I can't even make any other arguments.
If those are your strength and power attack bonuses, then 2+2=6.
Because the x1.5 is in there. So it is (2x1.5)+(2x1.5)=6.
What we are arguing here isthat you are still getting 2 handed bonuses, depsite the fact that you have a hand free. Thus, you are giving 2 hands of 'effort'.
Seriously- why are we arguing for the interpretation that gives us worse results here?
You can be a 2 hander- the standard for melee damage, that can most likely grab a shield, allowing you great AC as well...
Or you can do this silly TWF thing. The one that might look good on paper, cause it might get nice numbers (somehow), but you know you will never do it (unless you are in a late elvel game where you never have to play it during the 'growing pains')- this requires you to grab both mount feats and TWF feats, all on weapons you can't finesse or get with something like slashing grace. And even with that, you need to find specific magical items in order to get it working, or face horrible penalties.
So this is simple and effective, against complicated and questionable. Why are we pursuing lance TWF? IS this battle worth fighting? What do you gain if you 'win' and get the developers to say 'yes, whatever'? Is it worth the cost?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
all on weapons you can't finesse or get with something like slashing grace.
Oh yee of little faith...
Ahem.
For the first few levels
My stupid build for you
Horse Master out of Cavalier
.
For the second few levels
My stupid build for you
2 Unchained Rogue
And Horse Master out of Cavalier
.
For the third few levels
My stupid build for you
Least 3 Lance Weapon Master
2 Unchained Rogue
And Horse Master out of Cavalier
.
For the forth few levels
My stupid build for you
Finesse Advanced Weapon Training
Least 3 Lance Weapon Master
2 Unchained Rogue
And Horse Master out of Cavalier
.
For the fifth few levels
My stupid build for you
Baaaaaaaack into the Rogue ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Finesse Advanced Weapon Training
Least 3 Lance Weapon Master
2 Unchained Rogue
And
Hoooooooooooorse
Maaasssaaster
Oooooooout of
Caaaaaaaavaliiiiiiiier
.
.
.
.
.
This is dumb. I need sleep.
all on weapons you can't finesse or get with something like slashing grace.Oh yee of little faith...
Ahem.
** spoiler omitted **
I am trying to parse this (I have to take this song literally, cause you picked something with numbers.:
Is this Cavalier1/Rogue2/Fighter3? So level 6 before it turns on? Maybe 7 with rogue 3?
And is there something keeping the mount leveled here? Or is 1 in this song cavalier 4 since you reference horse master. So level 10?
Unless I massively misinterpreted this song, it does nothing to disprove my general point- you can't do this without a long period of growing pains or starting at high level. This just removes the item thing through multiclassed trick builds.
It's Cavalier 4, Fighter 4 (or 3 and get an effective Fighter level out of Brawler or something), Unchained Rogue 3 (But you need a bit of Rogue to qualify for Advanced Weapon Training Finesse in the first place.) You get the level of Rogue early and use knives or something to not be useless. Better yet, just start in a high level game.
It's stupid yes, but doable. If you wanted to be practical just take Spear Dancing Style.
Yes, I'll have massive penalties... but there's nothing stopping me from doing it.
You basically replace one of your hands by some sort of harness in order to hold the lance in place (if I get how jousting saddles work). Your off-hand is technically free. You can hold a shield... but you could also bash with it.
If I can "wield a lance with one hand while mounted", I feel like it becomes a one-handed weapon while mounted when it comes to using it, but due to the saddle's harness, and the mount's prowess, it keeps the benefits of a two-handed weapon.
Yes, I am going along the line of "wielding a two-handed weapon with only one hand while mounted". That's why I'm asking if it's possible.
|
|
It's Cavalier 4, Fighter 4 (or 3 and get an effective Fighter level out of Brawler or something), Unchained Rogue 3 (But you need a bit of Rogue to qualify for Advanced Weapon Training Finesse in the first place.) You get the level of Rogue early and use knives or something to not be useless. Better yet, just start in a high level game.
It's stupid yes, but doable. If you wanted to be practical just take Spear Dancing Style.
So, you're level 11 with a lvl 4 mount?
How many times will you get to use the dual lance charge before the mount is dead?
{Edit: As a GM, I'd disallow it because of the "Rule of Stupid," which is the mathematical inverse of the "Rule of Cool." Just like I'll allow something that is debatable if it's "cool," I'll disallow something debatable if I feel that it's patently ludicrous. Don't bother arguing with this little insert, it's not up for debate. I won't respond.}
To be fair, at Cav 4 you qualify for the Horse Lord feat, so your mount is equal to your character level, making it a sturdy enough horse.
I think I actually made a dual lance wielding NPC before, something to give them a little added flair, it was a fun encounter even if the party thought it was a bit silly. But then again, I do like making my enemies feel impossibly large when I can with interesting (if improbable) builds to them.
To the "two handed as one handed but uses two hand" naysayers, would you also argue that one can't dual wield bastard swords with the exotic feat?
Also, all this discussion of TWF lances...why not just play a sohei monk?
Sohei can flurry with spears if they take tht for their weapon training.
Why bother trying to ferrangle the rules to do this, when you can get the same general effect with less penalties.
Heck- sohei's relatively wonky mounted feats technically allow you to take mounted skirmisher (pounce for mounted characters) through any of your bonus feats. So they are great for getting a TWF likes style out of lances.
I continue to see no benefit in this discussion other than to dredge through 'metaphorical hands' again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you need to ask the question of whether you can ride with a lance in each hand you need to ask serious questions about why you or the player that requested this is playing the same game as eveyone else!
If this came from one of my peers I would tell them to get a hold of themselves - I mean honestly! Is the game just about mechanics now???
sometimes is about having fun, you should try that
I simply disagree with your second paragraph. I see no difference between "Wielded one handed" and "Wielded in one hand". If you can use your off hand to do everything else, I see no reason why you couldn't use it to hold another weapon and attack. Neither the rules nor logic support that.
How are you planning on wielding both of these lances? One one either side of your horse's head? Are you still attempting to hit the same target? If you do, will your horse's neck then be caught between both lances which are now stuck into a thrashing creature? Or are you actually going to attempt to wield both lances on the same side, turning your body precariously? How do you keep from being dismounted if you strike?
If you can actually visualize what you are attempting to do, then maybe it can work with the mechanics; if not, then probably not.
How are you planning on wielding both of these lances? One one either side of your horse's head? Are you still attempting to hit the same target? If you do, will your horse's neck then be caught between both lances which are now stuck into a thrashing creature? Or are you actually going to attempt to wield both lances on the same side, turning your body precariously? How do you keep from being dismounted if you strike?
If you can actually visualize what you are attempting to do, then maybe it can work with the mechanics; if not, then probably not.
Because he couldn't lift it over the horses head like actual lancers did in non-sport combat anyway? (The would often aim for the head instead of trying to unseat the opponent.)
I simply disagree with your second paragraph. I see no difference between "Wielded one handed" and "Wielded in one hand". If you can use your off hand to do everything else, I see no reason why you couldn't use it to hold another weapon and attack. Neither the rules nor logic support that.
Well, "wielded in one hand" has the advantage of still giving you x1.5 str and power attack, as stated in the faq.
So that is the difference- it is still treated as 2 handed for various effects. Which is meant to be a nice little advantage for mounted characters. Shields and all, without dropping your DPR.
Can you? Maybe. Should you...? I can't even figure out what this would look like, aside from ridiculous.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... clearly people need education into why a lance on foot is a two-handed weapon, and why one can wield it on horseback using only one hand - and, really, only while charging.
A lance in D&D and PF is a spear designed to be used while mounted and charging. Being 9-14' in length, it is not designed to be thrown or used to repeatedly thrust at a target; the members of the family that do that are javelin for the former, and spear for the latter. A lance can be used on foot as a two-handed weapon, essentially as a long spear or short pike (which are normally 14+' in length). Controlling 13' worth of steel-tipped wood is tough, and the
way it's used and controlled is done in such a way as to make it a class 3 lever, instead of a class 1 lever (which will require a hell of a lot more effort).
The way a lance is used essentially reflects the human forearm. The elbow is essentially the fulcrum in both cases (because you trap the lance butt between your body and upper arm), and the force is applied between the fulcrum and the weight point (which for your arm is your hand, but for the lance is the tip - your hand applying the force). This is the case when you use a lance cross-body, the way it's properly done; using it to attack a target on the 'lance-hand' side can very readily change the setup; any movement in the elbow or upper arm and you wind up with a class 1 lever, your hand not only the fulcrum but also trying to apply the balancing force.
When charging, however, a lance is not set to point forward, but is brought down in the last few moments of the charge, needing to be held to point for only a few seconds. Past that point, you have to either drop the thing or else really haul on it to get it back upright, otherwise you're gonna plant it into the ground, because controlling twenty pounds of ash means that the wielder (whose single hand is the fulcrum) has to exert somewhere over 70-80 pounds of force to balance the weight of the wood that's out there. The weapon is put into play across the body for exactly this reason - so that a shift in the upper body can directly exert more of the body's strength and weight (including bracing against the horse with thighs and stirrups) to control the weapon.
-----------------------------------
Pathfinder's lance is 20 lb. Going with the density of white ash (43.4 lbs/cubic foot), we'll need a 1.5" diameter lance that is 13' long, with some steel added in: 1.5 lb worth of steel at the tip. While 2' of the wood is going to be behind your hand, the other 12' isn't, and the hefty part of the weight is on the wrong side. 11' of ash is just about 15 lbs; we'll take a third of that as the weight we have to deal with at the far end of our lever, because though you have to deal with ALL the weight, not all of it is going to count - a third of the wood weight, but all of the steel (because it actually IS right at the tip), gives us just about 8 lbs to deal with, albeit at the wrong end of an 13' lever.
Because we have a class 3 lever, we get to apply our force in front of the fulcrum - about 14" being the length of my forearm-plus-hand, but we'll make it pretty for rounding, so we'll use 15". We'll say 6" are behind the arm (to allow for forearm length variants), so our lance's total length is 12.5', or 150". Our labor force (weight supported) HAS to equal 8 lbs; our labor distance is 150", effort distance is 15". Using the equasion:
Fe = Fl * dl / de
where Fe (Effort force) is found by multiplying Fl (labor force) by the length at which the labor is done (dl, or labor distance), then divided by the distance the effort is applied (de, or effort distance), you have:
Fe = 8 * 150 / 15 = 8 * 10 = 80 lbs.
That force is what has to be exerted by the hand alone, not unlike curling weights; 40 or so lbs is average for males, 60 lbs not unlikely, and 80 lbs pretty darn good; the world record clocks in around 440 lbs for a barbell curl (using both arms), but that's a one-shot movement that doesn't hold it out there.
Now, that there's the class 3 lever, attacking across the body; we can throw some leverage and weight in on it using our upper body, adjusting the upper arm, all that good stuff. Let's swing that sucker back over and use it to attack a target on the weapon side. Same situation, but you can't shift much weight, and you have no real leverage to work with - it's straight 'curling' capability, which you have to hold to line up your attack.
... and now the guy moves, or you get jiggled, and your upper arm moves (gasp!) away from your body. Suddenly your hand - or rather, your forefinger - is the fulcrum!! To keep things clean, we'll call it 3" across the hand to where you have to apply weight, specifically at the back of the palm. The same equasion applies:
Fe = Fl * dl / de
However, while Fl is still 150" and dl is still 8 lbs, de is now only 3".
Fe = 8 * 150 / 3 = 8 * 50 = 400 lbs.
400 lbs of force, applied by the heel of the palm of your hand. Using, pretty much, only the strength of your forearm.
... good luck.
As a side note, pikes are usually used to receive charges, and are grounded (fulcrum point) at the back foot, the other 10+' in front of the balance point being supported by two hands - and basically the user's entire body strength - in the exact same arrangement, the fulcrum being the grounded butt (kept in place by their foot). Call it 12 lbs for Fl, 3' (36") for de, 15' (180") for dl, and you have:
Fe = 12 * 180 / 36 = 12 * 5 = 60 lbs.
This is why pikemen can hedgehog their formation and hold it for minutes at a time; they aren't acting as fulcrum, and they're using their entire leg and body strength instead of just one arm to hold up the 60 lbs weight.
-----------------------------------
It should thus be obvious to anyone who plays that lances are not designed to be used outside of a charge - because of that length, that sort of very specific strength needed for the balance, the technique required for what essentially becomes a single-attack weapon.
When people start talking about the shield, however, a charging cavalier's shield is not being used for a shield bash, but as a defense, with his hand working to control the reins (and thus the horse) as well as the shield (which his forearm/upper arm is doing - ). If he's going to try a shield bash, then he's going to lose the reins - or else give a very, very bad command to his horse - AND he'd better have that lance at the upright, otherwise it's gonna get planted into the ground while he's extending his balance in a very bad way. In regards to arguments of 'oh, but I'll just lay it across the horse's back or neck', the response is 'yeah, right' for the simple realization that the horse is running, and keeping the lance steady despite that is what the lancer's entire upper body is engaged in accomplishing. Putting the lance actually in contact with the surging, bouncing neck of the horse is engraving an invitation for disaster to call.
"But I could still use two lances, and no shield!! The rules say so!!"
... technically, yes, kind of, but congratulations, you're wading into a lovely land we call GM Discretion. You can lift and hold them both, and presumably target the same individual with them. You are going to be hit with dual wielding penalties, and because of the above - because instead of using your entire body to contend with six or twelve pounds of wood and steel at the wrong end of eight feet beyond the fulcrum point, you're using one arm, and potentially just your forearm or even wrist - I'd be throwing 'using a two-handed weapon in one hand' penalties at you as well for your off-hand. Just to try it, I'd call for a DC 30 Ride check to steer your steed, and a DC 40 Ride check to judge how well you stay in the saddle - you won't fall if you fail, you'll simply take a further penalty to your attack roll depending on how badly you miss that check. Probably -1 per 2 points. -1 per 3 points if I'm feeling generous, and -1/5 points if you're involved in a truly epic fight.
Welcome to GM Discretion Land. Enjoy your stay.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... clearly people need education into why a lance on foot is a two-handed weapon, and why one can wield it on horseback using only one hand - and, really, only while charging.
A lance in D&D and PF is a spear designed to be used while mounted and charging. Being 9-14' in length, it is not designed to be thrown or used to repeatedly thrust at a target; the members of the family that do that are javelin for the former, and spear for the latter. A lance can be used on foot as a two-handed weapon, essentially as a long spear or short pike (which are normally 14+' in length). Controlling 13' worth of steel-tipped wood is tough, and the
way it's used and controlled is done in such a way as to make it a class 3 lever, instead of a class 1 lever (which will require a hell of a lot more effort).The way a lance is used essentially reflects the human forearm. The elbow is essentially the fulcrum in both cases (because you trap the lance butt between your body and upper arm), and the force is applied between the fulcrum and the weight point (which for your arm is your hand, but for the lance is the tip - your hand applying the force). This is the case when you use a lance cross-body, the way it's properly done; using it to attack a target on the 'lance-hand' side can very readily change the setup; any movement in the elbow or upper arm and you wind up with a class 1 lever, your hand not only the fulcrum but also trying to apply the balancing force.
When charging, however, a lance is not set to point forward, but is brought down in the last few moments of the charge, needing to be held to point for only a few seconds. Past that point, you have to either drop the thing or else really haul on it to get it back upright, otherwise you're gonna plant it into the ground, because controlling twenty pounds of ash means that the wielder (whose single hand is the fulcrum) has to exert somewhere over 70-80 pounds of force to balance the weight of the wood that's out there. The weapon is put into play...
Or you could NOT be a jerk and let your player do something fun and suboptimal.
+1 Davor.
Bringing in real world physics always ends in madness. Always. If you want to go that far into it, countless trained swordsmen have proven that nearly any form of duel wielding is completely ineffective, and even the possible styles (rapier and dagger) are only circumstantial.
You can wield _A_ lance in one hand.
Lances are not one handed weapons.
The rules permit a single lance to be used in one hand while mounted.
If the text said something like "lances can be used in one hand" then it would be different...
But it doesn't say that.
A single lance is allowed. Not two.
Shield use your other hand but not your "off-hand", speaking in terms of the unwritten hands of effort.You can wield two lances, but you can't TWF with them as they both still count as two-handed weapons, thus requiring your offhand's worth of effort to attack with.Uhh, no. There is a reason so many mounted builds use a lance and shield. Because it does not require your offhand to use the lance.
What do you think "wield as a one handed weapon" means?
So can you shield bash while mounted and using a lance?
Wield your lance in one hand, shield in the other. Use Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash to attack twice. This seems like a very common combination, but the unwritten hands of effort thing would seem to disallow it.