There's no accurate way to model the cavalry lance in D&D. The weapon is, historically, absolutely useless on foot because it was specifically intended for use horseback. That's not how "weapons" in R5e work though, so they had to BS something. Given the limitations of the engine, what they arrived at isn't really any dumber than any other plausible solution.
I don't know, I'll give it a try using only concepts we've seen in DnD 5e.
Lance - 1d6 piercing damage, Reach, Heavy, Special
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you.
You can wield no more than one lance at a time.
When mounted, if you move at least 10' in a straight line towards the target before making an attack with the lance, add an additional 1d8 damage on a successful hit.
A lance requires two hands to wield when you aren’t mounted.
Lance - 1d6 piercing damage, Reach, Heavy, Two-Handed, Special
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you.
When mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand, but you may wield no more than one lance at a time.
When mounted, if you move at least 10' in a straight line towards the target before making an attack with the lance, add an additional 1d8 damage on a successful hit.
Type: Martial Melee Weapon Cost: 10 gp Weight: 6 lbs
Proficiency with a lance allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it.
You can only use a lance to attack a creature while you are mounted, and only after you have moved at least 20 feet in a straight line on the same turn.
I haven't dug into the 5e rules to remember if this is already a thing, but I feel like there should be a "Charging Attack" or "Move-Thru Attack" maneuver that increases the damage you do. It could handle lances, cavalry sabers, lunging with a sword, fly-by attacks, etc. I generally like the idea of tackling more things by Special Property, but something like "does more damage when striking on a running attack" feels like it ought to be a universal scenario.
That may be getting too granular, though.
I generally feel like the combat and weapon rules need to make better use of advantage and disadvantage mechanics. Imposing "Disadvantage" against a particular type of attack being a feature of armor or shields, for example.
Also, as someone who studies and teaches European Martial Arts, I have definite, and very strong, opinions about this subject.
For example, D&D grossly undervalues shields, and generally misunderstands the primary point of off-hand weapons. And don't get me started on how it handles bucklers unless you are prepared for a lengthy rant (my favorite weapon style is sword & buckler).
Honestly, a lance is just a long spear that can be "couched and set," so you may wield it one handed while mounted and still carry a shield.
My book isn't handy. Does 5e still have rules for setting weapons to receive a charge? Or did those go away? Because a lance is just the same thing but you're the one moving instead.
I haven't dug into the 5e rules to remember if this is already a thing, but I feel like there should be a "Charging Attack" or "Move-Thru Attack" maneuver that increases the damage you do. It could handle lances, cavalry sabers, lunging with a sword, fly-by attacks, etc. I generally like the idea of tackling more things by Special Property, but something like "does more damage when striking on a running attack" feels like it ought to be a universal scenario.
That may be getting too granular, though.
I generally feel like the combat and weapon rules need to make better use of advantage and disadvantage mechanics. Imposing "Disadvantage" against a particular type of attack being a feature of armor or shields, for example.
Honestly, a lance is just a long spear that can be "couched and set," so you may wield it one handed while mounted and still carry a shield.
My book isn't handy. Does 5e still have rules for setting weapons to receive a charge? Or did those go away? Because a lance is just the same thing but you're the one moving instead.
Nope, bracing/setting to receive a charge is no longer a thing either.
Honestly, a lance is just a long spear that can be "couched and set," so you may wield it one handed while mounted and still carry a shield.
My book isn't handy. Does 5e still have rules for setting weapons to receive a charge? Or did those go away? Because a lance is just the same thing but you're the one moving instead.
Nope, bracing/setting to receive a charge is no longer a thing either.
I want to say it was made into a feat in UA a while back, but got canned for whatever reason.
I haven't dug into the 5e rules to remember if this is already a thing, but I feel like there should be a "Charging Attack" or "Move-Thru Attack" maneuver that increases the damage you do. It could handle lances, cavalry sabers, lunging with a sword, fly-by attacks, etc. I generally like the idea of tackling more things by Special Property, but something like "does more damage when striking on a running attack" feels like it ought to be a universal scenario.
That may be getting too granular, though.
I generally feel like the combat and weapon rules need to make better use of advantage and disadvantage mechanics. Imposing "Disadvantage" against a particular type of attack being a feature of armor or shields, for example.
Yeah I was thinking about this while looking over the lance and how to fix it. The first lances were just spears, and the rider used the horse's momentum to throw them harder as they passed by infantry. It wasn't until the stirrup was invented that you could couch it and slam into someone without just unhorsing yourself in the process.
(And I agree, all of the weapon rules are pretty silly from a historical standpoint. I have big problems with two weapon fighting like you do. I just have to accept that it's fantasy, and needs some kind of game balance, and let people have their fun.)
There are a few rules for charging, like the mentioned Charger feat, which I basically used part of for my lance fix. And orcs get something similar. I think bracing for a charge is kind of meant to be vaguely covered by feats like Polearm master and Sentinel. But these are all still feats, so not universal.
It would make sense if there were some general rules that applied to everyone. Both for using your momentum when mounted, and for bracing against a charge. Even if they are just built into some weapons and the mounted combat rules. I'm not sure how difficult it would be, or how fiddly. It's worth thinking about.
Also, thanks for the alternate lance write up, IamSposta. That's even more straight to the point.
Yes, weapons are often more complex in earlier editions/other systems. A lot of polearms and whips used to have 'Trip' features, for example, in 3rd edition I think? And there's the infamous 'weapon vs armor' charts from 1st and OD&D. I don't clearly remember what 2nd was like, and I can't be bothered to pull those books out of storage right now. In any case, there's precedent in D&D for weapons to have 'special features', and as long as you don't go ridiculous with it that shouldn't be a particular drag on combat sessions. I remember Gygax got really... weird... about polearms, trying to give stats for all the various halberds, glaives, guisarmes, glaive-guisarmes, glave-guisarme-voulges, spam, spam-spam, spam-spam-eggs-and-spam...
The 'golf bag' thing always amused me, because there was one guy in my HEMA group decades ago who actually did use a golf bag to carry all the different weapons he liked to work with to weekly practice. [I'm retired from that now, got too old. Don't bounce the way I used to, and arthritis plays havoc with sports of all types.]
Yeah, and historically lances used in actual battle were just spears. Regular spears in Norman-type cavalry and earlier, long spears after that. The only time you could use the long spears one-handed was during the charge because you didn't have to move them around much. They were pointed forward and the only thing you had to worry about was possibly lifting it over the head of the horse so it was on the other side, still pointed forward. You were *not* doing any fancy maneuvers with the thing or trying to attack anyone flanking you. You usually only got one charge out of a lance, unless you completely missed everyone, because it would be *in* someone and you'd need to let go or it broke off and was effectively just a light club at that point.
What a lot of people think of as 'lances' with the tapered body, hand protection, balancing weights on the butt, etc., were specialized sporting equipment versions. Later period tilting/jousting was no longer war training, but really a sporting event. That's when 'jousting armor' became a thing as well, with extra-heavy armor that had to be put on the jouster once he was already up on the horse and that whole myth of knights needing a derrick to lift them up onto their steed. There was a time in Germany when they added clockwork springs to armor so it would 'explode' off the jousters on contact to make a more spectacular entertainment for the audience. I'm not sure there's much point in trying to model that kind of lance in D&D. :)
Yeah, 2e had a chart too, but since Initiative had changed and weapon speed was no longer a thing it mostly only mattered what damage types weapons were and how that related to what type of armor the enemy was wearing. The weapon chart still included speeds for people who wanted to use those “optional” rules, but I don’t remember anyone using them anymore. There were still a bajillion diferent Polearms though.
We tried using the speed modifiers to initiative for a few games, but quickly grew tired of it. It's cool, in concept. But when you're base initiative is determined by a completely random roll of 1-20, it doesn't mean much.
Yes, there are a number of things with weapons and armour that could and should be revised. THACO was, overall, more problem than good but there were pieces that could be re-examined like hitting (or doing damage) through different armors. Another thing it had was different starting points for different classes so that martials hit best and casters hit worst with weapons. I don’t really expect it to come back but it did help separate in folks heads who should be frontline and who not. We could use a listing for a broadsword/arming sword, ie a pure 1 handed single/double edged blade 2.5 - 3 ft long that is both slashing and piercing. The buckler should have its own stats obviously. And then there are the armors. We have covered studded leather vs brigandine several times in other threads but I have always had problems with regular leather (cuir Bolli (sp?)). Something stiff and solid like that is really more akin to a cheap plate than to something a sneaking thief or ranger would normally wear. AC 11 should probably be a supple thicker leather more akin to a biker’s leathers that allows the body to move but also stops or reduces small weapons like daggers and provides some protection from blunt trauma as well. Then cuir bolli at AC 12 and getting rid of studded leather and bringing in brigandine as a medium armor while moving half plate to heavy where it probably belongs.
Interesting, I haven't thought about that in a long time. THAC0 was received by most of the people around me at the time as a godsend. It removed all those tables, hurray! But it sure was awkwardly designed, and the backwards math was difficult for some players to get the hang of quickly. Modern versions of AC and hit modifiers make so much more sense.
But you're right, we lost variable advancement rates for different classes somewhere in the process. Overall it's simpler, and lets players make the characters they want easier. But maybe there is something in those old rules we could pull out still. If martials started with +2 to hit with any weapon, for example, it would set them apart from other classes right from the start.
It would have to be carefully designed, so a level 1 multiclass dip wouldn't negate everything. Something like adding half your proficiency again on hit rolls would scale better. +1 extra to hit at level 1, +2 at level 9, and +3 at level 17. The same could even be applied to damage.
Interesting, I haven't thought about that in a long time. THAC0 was received by most of the people around me at the time as a godsend. It removed all those tables, hurray! But it sure was awkwardly designed, and the backwards math was difficult for some players to get the hang of quickly. Modern versions of AC and hit modifiers make so much more sense.
But you're right, we lost variable advancement rates for different classes somewhere in the process. Overall it's simpler, and lets players make the characters they want easier. But maybe there is something in those old rules we could pull out still. If martials started with +2 to hit with any weapon, for example, it would set them apart from other classes right from the start.
It would have to be carefully designed, so a level 1 multiclass dip wouldn't negate everything. Something like adding half your proficiency again on hit rolls would scale better. +1 extra to hit at level 1, +2 at level 9, and +3 at level 17. The same could even be applied to damage.
But if you scale it from proficiency bonus, doesn’t that encourage multiclass shenanigans? People take a 1-level dip in a martial class, and now they get that benefit the whole way up. So a wizard with a 1 level in fighter would be as good as a pure fighter of the same character level, no? Or am I misunderstanding? Instead, you could tie it to class level, like the old base attack bonus in 3e. But that would mean each class had its own progression, and that’s something they seem to want to move away from.
Make them Strength weapons with the finesse weapon feature. Have you tried pulling the bow string on different type of bows? I have.
Weapon damage
Proficiency bonus added to weapon damage for Warrior group. (Forgot original poster but agree to a degree)
Bows used to work like that, kind of. It was dex bonus to hit and str bonus to damage. But you needed the right kind of bow to take advantage of the str damage boost. Personally, I didn’t find it too hard to grasp, but I doubt they’ll go back to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know, I'll give it a try using only concepts we've seen in DnD 5e.
Lance - 1d6 piercing damage, Reach, Heavy, Special
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you.
You can wield no more than one lance at a time.
When mounted, if you move at least 10' in a straight line towards the target before making an attack with the lance, add an additional 1d8 damage on a successful hit.
A lance requires two hands to wield when you aren’t mounted.
Or to put it more simply -
Lance - 1d6 piercing damage, Reach, Heavy, Two-Handed, Special
Special - You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you.
When mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand, but you may wield no more than one lance at a time.
When mounted, if you move at least 10' in a straight line towards the target before making an attack with the lance, add an additional 1d8 damage on a successful hit.
How about this:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I haven't dug into the 5e rules to remember if this is already a thing, but I feel like there should be a "Charging Attack" or "Move-Thru Attack" maneuver that increases the damage you do. It could handle lances, cavalry sabers, lunging with a sword, fly-by attacks, etc. I generally like the idea of tackling more things by Special Property, but something like "does more damage when striking on a running attack" feels like it ought to be a universal scenario.
That may be getting too granular, though.
I generally feel like the combat and weapon rules need to make better use of advantage and disadvantage mechanics. Imposing "Disadvantage" against a particular type of attack being a feature of armor or shields, for example.
Also, as someone who studies and teaches European Martial Arts, I have definite, and very strong, opinions about this subject.
For example, D&D grossly undervalues shields, and generally misunderstands the primary point of off-hand weapons. And don't get me started on how it handles bucklers unless you are prepared for a lengthy rant (my favorite weapon style is sword & buckler).
Honestly, a lance is just a long spear that can be "couched and set," so you may wield it one handed while mounted and still carry a shield.
My book isn't handy. Does 5e still have rules for setting weapons to receive a charge? Or did those go away? Because a lance is just the same thing but you're the one moving instead.
Nope, not that I’m aware of. These are all the optional rules too: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#ActionOptions).
Nope, bracing/setting to receive a charge is no longer a thing either.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I want to say it was made into a feat in UA a while back, but got canned for whatever reason.
There is the charger feat. It’s just not too great.
Yeah I was thinking about this while looking over the lance and how to fix it. The first lances were just spears, and the rider used the horse's momentum to throw them harder as they passed by infantry. It wasn't until the stirrup was invented that you could couch it and slam into someone without just unhorsing yourself in the process.
(And I agree, all of the weapon rules are pretty silly from a historical standpoint. I have big problems with two weapon fighting like you do. I just have to accept that it's fantasy, and needs some kind of game balance, and let people have their fun.)
There are a few rules for charging, like the mentioned Charger feat, which I basically used part of for my lance fix. And orcs get something similar. I think bracing for a charge is kind of meant to be vaguely covered by feats like Polearm master and Sentinel. But these are all still feats, so not universal.
It would make sense if there were some general rules that applied to everyone. Both for using your momentum when mounted, and for bracing against a charge. Even if they are just built into some weapons and the mounted combat rules. I'm not sure how difficult it would be, or how fiddly. It's worth thinking about.
Also, thanks for the alternate lance write up, IamSposta. That's even more straight to the point.
Yes, weapons are often more complex in earlier editions/other systems. A lot of polearms and whips used to have 'Trip' features, for example, in 3rd edition I think? And there's the infamous 'weapon vs armor' charts from 1st and OD&D. I don't clearly remember what 2nd was like, and I can't be bothered to pull those books out of storage right now. In any case, there's precedent in D&D for weapons to have 'special features', and as long as you don't go ridiculous with it that shouldn't be a particular drag on combat sessions. I remember Gygax got really... weird... about polearms, trying to give stats for all the various halberds, glaives, guisarmes, glaive-guisarmes, glave-guisarme-voulges, spam, spam-spam, spam-spam-eggs-and-spam...
The 'golf bag' thing always amused me, because there was one guy in my HEMA group decades ago who actually did use a golf bag to carry all the different weapons he liked to work with to weekly practice. [I'm retired from that now, got too old. Don't bounce the way I used to, and arthritis plays havoc with sports of all types.]
Yeah, and historically lances used in actual battle were just spears. Regular spears in Norman-type cavalry and earlier, long spears after that. The only time you could use the long spears one-handed was during the charge because you didn't have to move them around much. They were pointed forward and the only thing you had to worry about was possibly lifting it over the head of the horse so it was on the other side, still pointed forward. You were *not* doing any fancy maneuvers with the thing or trying to attack anyone flanking you. You usually only got one charge out of a lance, unless you completely missed everyone, because it would be *in* someone and you'd need to let go or it broke off and was effectively just a light club at that point.
What a lot of people think of as 'lances' with the tapered body, hand protection, balancing weights on the butt, etc., were specialized sporting equipment versions. Later period tilting/jousting was no longer war training, but really a sporting event. That's when 'jousting armor' became a thing as well, with extra-heavy armor that had to be put on the jouster once he was already up on the horse and that whole myth of knights needing a derrick to lift them up onto their steed. There was a time in Germany when they added clockwork springs to armor so it would 'explode' off the jousters on contact to make a more spectacular entertainment for the audience. I'm not sure there's much point in trying to model that kind of lance in D&D. :)
Yeah, 2e had a chart too, but since Initiative had changed and weapon speed was no longer a thing it mostly only mattered what damage types weapons were and how that related to what type of armor the enemy was wearing. The weapon chart still included speeds for people who wanted to use those “optional” rules, but I don’t remember anyone using them anymore. There were still a bajillion diferent Polearms though.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We tried using the speed modifiers to initiative for a few games, but quickly grew tired of it. It's cool, in concept. But when you're base initiative is determined by a completely random roll of 1-20, it doesn't mean much.
You had my support at buckler....
Yes, there are a number of things with weapons and armour that could and should be revised. THACO was, overall, more problem than good but there were pieces that could be re-examined like hitting (or doing damage) through different armors. Another thing it had was different starting points for different classes so that martials hit best and casters hit worst with weapons. I don’t really expect it to come back but it did help separate in folks heads who should be frontline and who not. We could use a listing for a broadsword/arming sword, ie a pure 1 handed single/double edged blade 2.5 - 3 ft long that is both slashing and piercing. The buckler should have its own stats obviously. And then there are the armors. We have covered studded leather vs brigandine several times in other threads but I have always had problems with regular leather (cuir Bolli (sp?)). Something stiff and solid like that is really more akin to a cheap plate than to something a sneaking thief or ranger would normally wear. AC 11 should probably be a supple thicker leather more akin to a biker’s leathers that allows the body to move but also stops or reduces small weapons like daggers and provides some protection from blunt trauma as well. Then cuir bolli at AC 12 and getting rid of studded leather and bringing in brigandine as a medium armor while moving half plate to heavy where it probably belongs.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Interesting, I haven't thought about that in a long time. THAC0 was received by most of the people around me at the time as a godsend. It removed all those tables, hurray! But it sure was awkwardly designed, and the backwards math was difficult for some players to get the hang of quickly. Modern versions of AC and hit modifiers make so much more sense.
But you're right, we lost variable advancement rates for different classes somewhere in the process. Overall it's simpler, and lets players make the characters they want easier. But maybe there is something in those old rules we could pull out still. If martials started with +2 to hit with any weapon, for example, it would set them apart from other classes right from the start.
It would have to be carefully designed, so a level 1 multiclass dip wouldn't negate everything. Something like adding half your proficiency again on hit rolls would scale better. +1 extra to hit at level 1, +2 at level 9, and +3 at level 17. The same could even be applied to damage.
Question to answer.
Does a melee weapon with a Ranged feature count as a ranged weapon or a ranged weapon attack when thrown or used at range?
My thought:
BOWS
Make them Strength weapons with the finesse weapon feature. Have you tried pulling the bow string on different type of bows? I have.
Weapon damage
Proficiency bonus added to weapon damage for Warrior group. (Forgot original poster but agree to a degree)
But if you scale it from proficiency bonus, doesn’t that encourage multiclass shenanigans? People take a 1-level dip in a martial class, and now they get that benefit the whole way up. So a wizard with a 1 level in fighter would be as good as a pure fighter of the same character level, no? Or am I misunderstanding?
Instead, you could tie it to class level, like the old base attack bonus in 3e. But that would mean each class had its own progression, and that’s something they seem to want to move away from.
Bows used to work like that, kind of. It was dex bonus to hit and str bonus to damage. But you needed the right kind of bow to take advantage of the str damage boost.
Personally, I didn’t find it too hard to grasp, but I doubt they’ll go back to it.