Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 darkclutches Mar 04, 2015 0:10:48	Participating in the discussion in another thread about warhorses and mounted combat got me thinking about attacking with a lance. I realize D&D is, by necessity, a game full of abstract concepts and ideas, but I think the mechanics surrounding the lance could be fleshed out a bit more, even if only for houseruling. I've only just begun considering this and haven't fully formed my own opinions, so I'll not present too many of my thoughts-in-progress here. Instead, I'll simply put forward the basics for commentary.   1) Offensively, the lance is meant to be used from the back of a charging mount. Would it be appropriate to insist the mount engage in the dash action at least 20 feet away from the target? This would prevent the use of disengage later in its turn.   2) When used from a charging mount, I see the lance wielder getting only one attack per pass, regardless of how many attacks per round he's entitled to. If he wishes more attacks, he must wheel the steed about (no additional movement cost) and charge in once more, again from at least 20 feet away.   3) If #2 above is implemented, there may be an increased danger to both mount and rider due to positioning at the end of the mount's turn, causing the player to find this weapon less appealing. How can this be handled/compensated for? (Examples: advantage on 1 attack if the wielder foregoes all other attacks that round, bonus to damage rolls equal to character level if subsequent attacks are forfeited, etc.)   4) The lance isn't meant to be used while not mounted. I can see it doing its full damage potential (1d12) against a charging foe, perhaps braced, perhaps not, but should the damage range be reduced if the wielder simply tries poking a creature with it?   5) Related to both #1 and #4; should the damage range be reduced if used from the back of a stationary mount or one not engaged in the dash action?
#2 lawrencehoy Mar 04, 2015 9:43:25	darkclutches wrote:
#3 Coredump00 Mar 04, 2015 10:55:51	There are all sorts of things I could think of doing, but they don't really match the 5E 'less is more' mentality.   To use the Lance as a lance, I would give it a mutliplier base on charge distance.  Lets you must charge 10', for each additional 10', you do another die of damage, up to X dice.   Hmmm... maybe up to 6 dice, but anything over 3 allows the target to use their reaction for a  saving throw for 1/2 damage (To simulate getting out of the way of a charging horse) This only applies if the target has a reaction left, and can get out of the way.
#4 Macv12 Mar 04, 2015 17:51:22	The lance is the way it is because that's useful. Pretty much all of these changes make it suck.   If you have to move away and charge again after every attack, you will be mulched by OAs in every combat. (Also, remember that a horse can move 120ft on a Dash, so the 20ft requirement only serves to prevent the lancer from lancing in narrow spaces. Also also, you can't Dash and Attack in the same turn.) If you instead make lancers immune to OA after attacking to prevent this, they become so extremely mobile that they will totally dominate combat. Combine this with the inherent advantage of using a shield with a one-handed d12 weapon, and the Mounted Combatant feat making your mount untouchable to most enemies, and you have a powerful character on your hands. Anyone here ever played Bladestorm? This is what made lancers in that game laughably effective.   I think you'd be better off adding whatever limitations to make the lance suck in general non-jousting combat, then adding a feat or fighting style to make it stop sucking. You already need feats to make that style viable; without Mounted Combatant, you won't stay mounted for long, and you probably want Mobile to get yourself out of the fire rather than expose your horse to a bunch of goblins. Additional penalties added for realism's sake will mostly serve the purpose of making the lance even less viable.   EDIT: hold on, I contradicted myself a bit. What I meant to say was this: you could make the lance ignore OA from the target only, but this would not help in many cases, and steps on the toes of the Mobile feat. If you make the lancer immune to all OA, they go from sucking at charging (which is why they have to be viable in melee) to being dominant. Mounted Combatant and Mobile make the lancer highly viable, but they damn well better, that's two feats. Making the lance terrible at close range, allowing saves to avoid damage from it, allowing only one attack, etc. will make it still only mediocre, even after two feats of investment. To say nothing of cases where you can't bring your horse with you, and all that investment was for nothing.   I did like Core's idea of a scaling damage bonus depending on charge distance, but I worry that with Charger, you could add that bonus to an attack 12 times or whatever.   Actually, I don't worry. That sounds epic.
#5 jonathonhawke Mar 04, 2015 19:43:24	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #5) Macv12	jonathonhawke wrote:
#7 jonathonhawke Mar 04, 2015 21:50:33	I think historically, the usual method was to start by charging with the lance. Then, if you weren't surrounded by enemies, turn around and charge again. If you were surrounded by enemies, you'd drop the lance and pull out a sword or mace and use that.
(Reply to #6) darkclutches	Macv12 wrote:
#9 jaelis Mar 05, 2015 15:44:53	This all seems overly complicated to me. If were going to change anything, I might just say that you have disadvantage with lance attacks if you aren't mounted.
#10 lawrencehoy Mar 05, 2015 22:23:36	jaelis wrote:
#11 RCanine Mar 06, 2015 19:20:18	Lances, in the abstract way D&D defines weapons, are simply a type of long spear. Jousting lances, the type our imaginations are most used to seeing, are extremely specialized versions of them, but not the only possible ones.   Point of fact, the original Dragonlance Adventures book included stats for the eponymous weapons, which could be used in two hands while on foot or one while mounted.   Personally, I think the rules for the lance are better than the rules for the pike; fighting with a pike up close is just silly.
#12 strider13x Mar 07, 2015 6:55:37	On #2-   An Attack does not have to be a single swipe of a sword, in fact when you insist on that logic you limit your narrative! So using a lance and extra attack one could describe how the target was struck (1) then thrown back (2), or how they leapt away from point (1) then avoided being trampled next (2). In my first narrative example I would assume most HP were lost or the target was reduced to 0. My second narrative would be a target that had over half of its HP left after the successful Attacks. HP loss doesn't have to mean physical harm, again dont limit your stories!   Another example, our fighter killed a dragon in a single blow! (he actually used action surge and had a total of 6 attack rolls but we narrated the rolls as the hammer coming down on the beasts skull slamming into the ground!) Epic!