Got into another discussion/debate with my fellow DM/player once again. He posits that a character with a high Strength rating does NOT enjoy the 'to hit' or 'damage' bonuses whilst charging with a lance on a horse. His position is that the horse's momentum is what is at play here, and the reason for the double damage, and that the character is merely holding the lance and not using brute force in the attack. Thusly, the character does not benefit from a high Strength score.
I am included to agree, though semi-reluctantly. I guess a high Strength score only helps prevent the loss of the lance by dropping it upon impact (if it survives, of course).
First, a PC wielding a lance enjoys the bonuses of a high Strength score, whether wielding it on foot or on horseback. No rule says otherwise.
Second, a PC with a higher Strength score is able to grip it in a manner that prevents it from 'giving' when it strikes, in a similar manner to any other melee weapon that may want to 'give' when wielded in melee when hitting an opponent.
I would tend to agree that unless the rules state otherwise then high Strength bonuses should be honored, even during a charging attack. The rationale that my colleague gave, though, was a bit compelling to support his argument.
How, then, would a person with a high Strength actually be able to employ such brute force when, indeed, it is the momentum of the horse that is really at play?
I began perusing all my books on this issue but have not found anything written that supports, or refutes, this claim.
Okay, so it seems obvious that a strong baseball player can hit the ball farther than a weak one. For the same reason, a strong fighter can hit harder when wielding a melee weapon.
When couching a lance, it takes great strength not only to hold it at the correct angle, but to prevent the impact from ripping it from one's grip. A strong lancer can grip the lance more tightly, thus allowing more of the force of the hit to be transferred to the target. A weaker lancer will not be able to avoid 'giving' with the impact, thus lessening the amount of force transferred to the target. (Movies that show people targeted with a shotgun blast being blown off their feet and through a window while the shooter stands there unmoved really annoy me as they are so obviously inaccurate. The reason the lancer isn't knocked off the horse is because he is leaning forward with his feet braced in the stirrups and/or he is sitting in a military saddle, which has a high back for that exact purpose.)
You're a science teacher, right? Imagine someone who lacks the strength to hold a shotgun tightly into their shoulder versus an experienced (and stronger) shooter who holds the gun tightly. Though we may not be able to see much difference in damage done to a target with the naked eye, I bet a forensics team could show that the pellets from the tightly-couched shotgun penetrated deeper into the target than those from the loosely-couched shotgun.
The same holds true for the lance. The stronger wielder is going to deal more damage than the weaker wielder. The damage done because of the speed of the mount is represented by doubling or tripling the damage when used while mounted (according to the rules), which is done regardless of the strength of the wielder. The lance wielder's Strength bonus (or penalty) is added to that total.
Really good discussion! I agree with Sir Xaris. Allow the Strength bonus for being able to stand fast and maintain the force of the impact, rather than giving way under it as somebody less strong is likely to.
War lances are likely to "survive" repeated usage (magical lances are very valuable as they avoid damage altogether in most cases). They are not made to break like tournament lances purposely are. However, using mass/momentum/strength to turn the enemy into a kabob could result in the lance being trapped in the body of the defender. Maybe make allowance for weapon loss when a kill shot is delivered (a similarly-sized defender is impaled, and the lance is trapped in the heavy body), or give a small chance the lance could be lost when attacking something very large...
"You bury your lance deep into the dragon's flank, which jerks away in pain, ripping the lance from your grasp." [strength check at penalty for size difference to maintain hold of it, if you wish].
This is not to penalize a very skilled lance user, but to add at least of modicum of realism to the situation - who does not want to see a knight draw forth their main weapon, and charge back into the fray? _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Imagine someone who lacks the strength to hold a shotgun tightly into their shoulder versus an experienced (and stronger) shooter who holds the gun tightly. Though we may not be able to see much difference in damage done to a target with the naked eye, I bet a forensics team could show that the pellets from the tightly-couched shotgun penetrated deeper into the target than those from the loosely-couched shotgun.
