The double damage with a straight run up, aka Momentum, is still a great feature and I'm all for it's use for melee weapons meant to make big hits. For my own extensions on the lance (well, more like pilfer from many a source), I built into it with contrast to a newer version known as the Demilance as well, a 1d8 version which kept some of the traits of the simpler lance with the traits of Momentum, Mount (add a die while mounted) and Reach. The proper full-sized Lance gets a bit more technical, with the traits of Bulky (Disadvantage within 10ft), Heavy, Momentum, Mount, and Wide-Reach (+10ft instead of the standard +5ft). I had forgot about the one-handed/two-handed detail though, but even with it one-handed on the ground, the demilance and lance seem like devastating weapons meant for the mount, and thanks to some of the other finds like from that Expanded Weapons, there's some good mounted sidearms and other options as well.
The annoying thing about Lances in history is that, for the most part, it is a semantic distinction without a mechanical difference. For the vast bulk of history, infantry and cavalry used the same weapons. Even as late as the 14th century, there was little, if anything, to set a knight's lance apart from a Viking's spear. Only around the mid-14th century did an especially heavy form of Lance begin to develop to better exploit the power of a charging warhorse as well as defeat heavier plate armor. Even still, the "Light Lance" (read: Spear) remained commonplace as it was more versatile for skirmishing. Since a major requirement of the lance was its ability to beat other pole weapons, it would potentially make sense for the Lance to offer better reach than them. Granted, the Spear currently lacks the Reach property; but if you were to add that trait, it might be worth expanding reach for the Lance (and Pike) to 15-feet instead of 10. Another thing to consider is the "Lance Rest," an attachment to late medieval breastplates that helped an armored lancer stabilize his weapon. In the case of D&D, this could be an accessory used by characters wearing heavy armor. It would allow Spear and Quarterstaff to roll versatile die, even when using the weapon one-handed. Also, it would allow a character to add their mount's strength modifier to any attack roll made after moving x feet. Lastly, I've made my arguments about treating feats like Crusher and Piercer as universal rules. The ability to deal 3d12 damage on critical hits is quite potent (as you mentioned in the Greataxe video), though perhaps too powerful alongside reach and one-handedness...
There's a big issue with your double damage idea. It would only work if you ready an action and attack on your mount's turn, meaning that you don't get extra attack. You'd have one really big hit when a level 5 Paladin would want to attack twice. Extra attack being confined to solely your turn discourages players from interacting with mechanics like mounted combat or prepared actions and it's one of the very few flaws I find with the system.
Yeah, the rules for mounted combat are pretty lacking as is. Given that mounts normally go at the same initiative as their riders however, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to accept that the mounted character can use their bonus action to essentially hijack the mount's turn as part of a riding manoeuvre (such as for a charge), wherein it is still the player's turn when they make their attacks but the mount does the moving for them.
Depends on what language you use, the soft c is a more modern Western European thing. It's more correct to use the harder kappa K if you're referring to the historical group. In Modern Macedonian it's pronounced with a hard K and would have been pronounced with a hard K in ancient greek. As he is referring to the Macedonians of Philip and Alexander, his pronunciation is more correct.
Light lance- D8/D10 finesse, double damage on charge (D8 not D10 when mounted) thrown one hand 20/ 60’ on horseback. Heavy Lance 2D6/ 2D8 strength only, reach, disadvantage on melee, not throwable, double damage on a charge.
I love this video series, as I've been wanting to do something like this to all the weapons and armor to make them all seem like viable options compared to just what is meta. I was wondering if you have plans to make a video about the net?
Thank you! I do plan on making a video on the net, though it will be the last video in the series, as I'm going through all the weapons in order on the Weapons Table
Probably taking a bit of inspiration from GURPS for this one, but you could also make the argument that a lance on the charge does the piercing equivalent of fall damage based on the distance the mount travelled in a straight line leading up to the attack, as well as basing the damage modifier off of the strength value of either the character or the mount (whichever is higher) when they do so, reflecting the fact that the rider in that circumstance is only guiding the lance onto its target while the mount does the rest of the work. Naturally, we can suggest that centaurs and centaur-like creatures count as their own mounts for this purpose. Of course, a lot of this hinges on mounted combat being adjusted into a more viable option in D&D. I've mentioned elsewhere here in the comments that, given that mounts normally go at the same initiative as their riders, you could have it such that mounted characters can use their bonus action to essentially hijack the mount's turn as part of a riding manoeuvre, wherein it is still the player's turn when they make their attacks but the mount does the moving for them.
Funny (in my mind) and niche lance user build that's actually pretty strong is duel wielder feat on a halfling or other small sized beast master ranger or battle smith artificer and using two lances while using your medium sized pet as a mount.
In greek and Macedonian, it's pronounced with a harder kappa k. It is more correct the way he says it, although still not completely correct, as the c pronunciation is a western European thing.
