I have recently looked at the lance. This was brought on by a character idea that seemed to raise some real questions about the weapon.
- Why is the lance not heavy?
I have all but made the change in my campaign but I wanted to know what the community thought.
I am sure there is many perspectives on this but I cannot resolve in my mind the notion that a gnome, mounted on a dog, can dual wield 2 x 6 lb lances, whilst an half-orc with 20 strength can only wield one, two handed, if he is not mounted.
Separately, Centaurs (UA) have no reasonable explanation as to why they can carry an ally that would dual wield yet be unable, themselves, to use the weapon with less than two hands.
The heavy weapon property seems to resolve much of this.
I think it's for the reason stated. It allows a small mounted character, and if you want to play a mounted character in most D&D games they have to be small, it allows the use of the Lance. In addition the Lance has quite a few penalties. At 5' you have DisAdvantage and it is a 2 handed weapon if not mounted. Making it Heavy would really be gilding the lily with penalties. It *would* let you use Great Weapon Master, but that's about it.
On the other hand IF you wanted to duel wield Lances you have to buy Two Weapon Fighting Feat, because Lances are *not* "light" weapons. So you're worried about an edge case that requires a feat.
If a Gnome or Halfling wants to spend a Feat to Two Weapon Fighting two lances while mounted.... sure it's crazy, but it sure as hell is going to look cool doing it.
Keep in mind this is Dungeons and Dragons. While the came can be about realism... it's a world with wizard throwing fireballs and fighters holding off waves of enemies with swords. Realism isn't really the point.
My comparison was not about realism. If anything it was about reasonable expectation and balance. It's just not reasonable to expect lance rules to be understood and embraced (as they exist) and I don't think any d12 weapon should be dual weilded. That being said, I respect your opinion but think a small mounted character that chooses lance is just as much the edge case. I think there is a better way.
If it's about a reasonable expectation of balance. What is the balance being retained in keeping lances away from small creatures? Do you believe that there is a balance issue in Small characters having access to a 1d12 weapon with Reach? What makes them mechanically more powerful with one? They are currently the †only one of only two Reach Weapons small characters can hold. They are two handed if on foot and 1 handed if mounted, and has issues if the enemy gets close.
My comments on Duel Wielding Lances was entirely flippant... I honestly had *never* thought of it until just now. I started making those comments as an extreme case joke. Heavy won't stop the Lance from being Duel Wielded. It just stop it from being use by a Small Creature. So the Half-Orc could do it.
Heavy. Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively.
Duel Wielder says "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." There is no provision for Heavy. I assume because the designers never envisioned a one handed heavy weapon.
just to clarify there was meant to be two separate thoughts in my expression
Reasonable expectation i.e. "oh that makes sense" and
Balance i.e. this is in line with other aspects of the game.
good call on the Duel Wielder reference; I hadn't realized the provision was not there, however...
neither did WOTC in this sage advice compendium ref
Dual WielderCan my character wield two heavy weapons if she has the Dual Wielder feat? No. The Dual Wielder feat lets you wield two one-handed weapons. Every heavy weapon in the Player’s Handbook also has the two-handed property.
there are only 2 weapons in the PHB that are two handed and not heavy. Lance and greatclub… which could be another discussion
As for your small creature balance thoughts, you may have to engage someone else as to why they can use a lance but not a pike or a glaive etc. I am just trying to point out that the game specifically forbids some weapons that very closely compare to the lance, and I am not convinced there is a good reason why.
the problem, as I see it, is not so much the balance around small characters, its the; why is this the exception?
also, Whip is a reach weapon small creatures can hold (I know that wasn't the point, just sayin)
I never noticed that the Great Club is 2 handed and not heavy, good catch! The clarity on Dual Wielder makes sense because of the wording of Two-Handed, you need two hands to attack. So the only character that can dual wiled a two-handed weapon needs a minimum of 3 arms!
In my personal opinion I think the Dev didn't spend a lot of time in the weapons section. I think they worked hard to make sure all the "classic" weapons worked well, and then didn't really give much of a damn about the others. They also have always had a concern about classes preserving previous fluff, so the lance could have been not heavy because the Halfing Outrider class was popular in 3rd, but that's just conjecture.
I really am not satisfied with the official weapon tables. I have, in fact, created a martial weapon table with some 5 or 6 minor changes to suit my own perception of what makes sense. When I originally created it I struggled with the lance and considered eliminating it altogether. I considered making pike a one handed while mounted. Could even institute the special propery of 5' disadvantage. But i think that a d12 piercing deserves to be there along side the maul and great axe, just for player "feel" options.
I will continue to give it some thought, and thanks for your views they have been helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have recently looked at the lance. This was brought on by a character idea that seemed to raise some real questions about the weapon.
- Why is the lance not heavy?
I have all but made the change in my campaign but I wanted to know what the community thought.
I am sure there is many perspectives on this but I cannot resolve in my mind the notion that a gnome, mounted on a dog, can dual wield 2 x 6 lb lances, whilst an half-orc with 20 strength can only wield one, two handed, if he is not mounted.
Separately, Centaurs (UA) have no reasonable explanation as to why they can carry an ally that would dual wield yet be unable, themselves, to use the weapon with less than two hands.
The heavy weapon property seems to resolve much of this.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I think it's for the reason stated.
It allows a small mounted character, and if you want to play a mounted character in most D&D games they have to be small, it allows the use of the Lance.
In addition the Lance has quite a few penalties. At 5' you have DisAdvantage and it is a 2 handed weapon if not mounted.
Making it Heavy would really be gilding the lily with penalties. It *would* let you use Great Weapon Master, but that's about it.
On the other hand IF you wanted to duel wield Lances you have to buy Two Weapon Fighting Feat, because Lances are *not* "light" weapons. So you're worried about an edge case that requires a feat.
If a Gnome or Halfling wants to spend a Feat to Two Weapon Fighting two lances while mounted.... sure it's crazy, but it sure as hell is going to look cool doing it.
Keep in mind this is Dungeons and Dragons.
While the came can be about realism... it's a world with wizard throwing fireballs and fighters holding off waves of enemies with swords. Realism isn't really the point.
My comparison was not about realism. If anything it was about reasonable expectation and balance. It's just not reasonable to expect lance rules to be understood and embraced (as they exist) and I don't think any d12 weapon should be dual weilded. That being said, I respect your opinion but think a small mounted character that chooses lance is just as much the edge case. I think there is a better way.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
If it's about a reasonable expectation of balance. What is the balance being retained in keeping lances away from small creatures?
Do you believe that there is a balance issue in Small characters having access to a 1d12 weapon with Reach? What makes them mechanically more powerful with one?
They are currently the †
onlyone of only two Reach Weapons small characters can hold. They are two handed if on foot and 1 handed if mounted, and has issues if the enemy gets close.My comments on Duel Wielding Lances was entirely flippant... I honestly had *never* thought of it until just now. I started making those comments as an extreme case joke.
Heavy won't stop the Lance from being Duel Wielded. It just stop it from being use by a Small Creature. So the Half-Orc could do it.
Duel Wielder says "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light."
There is no provision for Heavy. I assume because the designers never envisioned a one handed heavy weapon.
† = Edited as per Gigaflop below.
just to clarify there was meant to be two separate thoughts in my expression
Reasonable expectation i.e. "oh that makes sense" and
Balance i.e. this is in line with other aspects of the game.
good call on the Duel Wielder reference; I hadn't realized the provision was not there, however...
neither did WOTC in this sage advice compendium ref
Dual Wielder Can my character wield two heavy weapons if she has the Dual Wielder feat? No. The Dual Wielder feat lets you wield two one-handed weapons. Every heavy weapon in the Player’s Handbook also has the two-handed property.
there are only 2 weapons in the PHB that are two handed and not heavy. Lance and greatclub… which could be another discussion
As for your small creature balance thoughts, you may have to engage someone else as to why they can use a lance but not a pike or a glaive etc. I am just trying to point out that the game specifically forbids some weapons that very closely compare to the lance, and I am not convinced there is a good reason why.
the problem, as I see it, is not so much the balance around small characters, its the; why is this the exception?
also, Whip is a reach weapon small creatures can hold (I know that wasn't the point, just sayin)
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I never noticed that the Great Club is 2 handed and not heavy, good catch!
The clarity on Dual Wielder makes sense because of the wording of Two-Handed, you need two hands to attack. So the only character that can dual wiled a two-handed weapon needs a minimum of 3 arms!
In my personal opinion I think the Dev didn't spend a lot of time in the weapons section. I think they worked hard to make sure all the "classic" weapons worked well, and then didn't really give much of a damn about the others.
They also have always had a concern about classes preserving previous fluff, so the lance could have been not heavy because the Halfing Outrider class was popular in 3rd, but that's just conjecture.
Indeed.
I really am not satisfied with the official weapon tables. I have, in fact, created a martial weapon table with some 5 or 6 minor changes to suit my own perception of what makes sense. When I originally created it I struggled with the lance and considered eliminating it altogether. I considered making pike a one handed while mounted. Could even institute the special propery of 5' disadvantage. But i think that a d12 piercing deserves to be there along side the maul and great axe, just for player "feel" options.
I will continue to give it some thought, and thanks for your views they have been helpful.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.