Mixing
Can a Hex Warrior choose a lance for his weapon?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The lance description says:
a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Note that the lance lacks the two handed property but still need 2 hands to wield.
The Hex Warrior description says:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
Can I use the Hex Warrior feature with a lance?
dnd-5e weapons warlock
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The lance description says:
a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Note that the lance lacks the two handed property but still need 2 hands to wield.
The Hex Warrior description says:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
Can I use the Hex Warrior feature with a lance?
dnd-5e weapons warlock
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
1
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The lance description says:
a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Note that the lance lacks the two handed property but still need 2 hands to wield.
The Hex Warrior description says:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
Can I use the Hex Warrior feature with a lance?
dnd-5e weapons warlock
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
The lance description says:
a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Note that the lance lacks the two handed property but still need 2 hands to wield.
The Hex Warrior description says:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
Can I use the Hex Warrior feature with a lance?
dnd-5e weapons warlock
dnd-5e weapons warlock
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
edited 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
205k23508893
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
asked 2 hours ago
darnok
37411
37411
1
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago
1
1
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Yes
In D&D 5e, a rule means what it says and no more (unless the DM rules otherwise, which they are always entitled to do). Per the Hex Warrior description in the question:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
A lance lacks the two-handed property, and qualifies for this requirement, even though you must wield it in two hands while mounted.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled similarly in the related situation of the monk wielding a quarterstaff in two hands, despite weapons with the two-handed property being prohibited from the category of monk weapons:
Yep! The prohibition is against a weapon with the two-handed property, not against using a weapon with two hands.
Crawford is clear here in his intent: wielding a weapon with the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not functionally equivalent in the rules.
The DM, of course, is always free to rule otherwise, particularly in situations like this where it may make sense to do so.
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
We don’t know, and really this is a call for your DM.
As you say, the rules, as written, don’t include the two-handed property on the lance (even when not mounted, if you want to be really technical). They easily could have included it; it’s not at all clear why they didn’t. Something like
beginarrayl l l c l
textbfName & textbfCost & textbfDamage & textbfWeight & textbfProperties \
textLance & 10text gp & 1mathrmd12text piercing & 6text lb. & textReach, special, two-handed \
endarray
Special Weapons
Lance: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance loses the two-handed property while mounted.
would be very clear and explicit about what the weapon is; we would still not be 100% certain unless Hex Warrior addressed it directly, but it would give much stronger evidence.
The fact that they didn’t do that is... not really a whole lot of help either way. Player’s Handbook was written first, after all, so they may not have realized the need to be so specific. But given how things are, we just don’t know whether or not they intended Hex Warrior to work with lances.
Personally, were I your DM, I would say you could choose a lance, but the lance wouldn’t receive any of its benefits from Hex Warrior if you weren’t mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
RAW, it seems so
As you have pointed out, the Hex Warrior class feature of a Hexblade Warlock requires the weapon to lack the two-handed property.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 55:
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
The lance does not have the two-handed property, which according to RAW, would make this a valid choice.
However, the lance does have the "Special" property, which says (PHB, pg. 148):
Lance. You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Although this weapon appears to function as a two-handed weapon, since it lacks that property, we cannot know what the designers were thinking when they made this choice, so as it stands, it is a one-handed weapon that must be used with two hands unless you're mounted.
Although I will say that, although it may count as a valid weapon RAW, it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it when not mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Yes
In D&D 5e, a rule means what it says and no more (unless the DM rules otherwise, which they are always entitled to do). Per the Hex Warrior description in the question:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
A lance lacks the two-handed property, and qualifies for this requirement, even though you must wield it in two hands while mounted.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled similarly in the related situation of the monk wielding a quarterstaff in two hands, despite weapons with the two-handed property being prohibited from the category of monk weapons:
Yep! The prohibition is against a weapon with the two-handed property, not against using a weapon with two hands.
Crawford is clear here in his intent: wielding a weapon with the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not functionally equivalent in the rules.
The DM, of course, is always free to rule otherwise, particularly in situations like this where it may make sense to do so.
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Yes
In D&D 5e, a rule means what it says and no more (unless the DM rules otherwise, which they are always entitled to do). Per the Hex Warrior description in the question:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
A lance lacks the two-handed property, and qualifies for this requirement, even though you must wield it in two hands while mounted.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled similarly in the related situation of the monk wielding a quarterstaff in two hands, despite weapons with the two-handed property being prohibited from the category of monk weapons:
Yep! The prohibition is against a weapon with the two-handed property, not against using a weapon with two hands.
Crawford is clear here in his intent: wielding a weapon with the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not functionally equivalent in the rules.
The DM, of course, is always free to rule otherwise, particularly in situations like this where it may make sense to do so.
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Yes
In D&D 5e, a rule means what it says and no more (unless the DM rules otherwise, which they are always entitled to do). Per the Hex Warrior description in the question:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
A lance lacks the two-handed property, and qualifies for this requirement, even though you must wield it in two hands while mounted.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled similarly in the related situation of the monk wielding a quarterstaff in two hands, despite weapons with the two-handed property being prohibited from the category of monk weapons:
Yep! The prohibition is against a weapon with the two-handed property, not against using a weapon with two hands.
Crawford is clear here in his intent: wielding a weapon with the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not functionally equivalent in the rules.
The DM, of course, is always free to rule otherwise, particularly in situations like this where it may make sense to do so.
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
Yes
In D&D 5e, a rule means what it says and no more (unless the DM rules otherwise, which they are always entitled to do). Per the Hex Warrior description in the question:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
A lance lacks the two-handed property, and qualifies for this requirement, even though you must wield it in two hands while mounted.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled similarly in the related situation of the monk wielding a quarterstaff in two hands, despite weapons with the two-handed property being prohibited from the category of monk weapons:
Yep! The prohibition is against a weapon with the two-handed property, not against using a weapon with two hands.
Crawford is clear here in his intent: wielding a weapon with the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not functionally equivalent in the rules.
The DM, of course, is always free to rule otherwise, particularly in situations like this where it may make sense to do so.
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
19.4k367106
19.4k367106
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
Eeeeeh... a quarterstaff is not required to use two hands, while a lance (in some situations) is. That quote doesn’t directly apply. It’s not bad input into the discussion; it’s worth considering here, but I don’t think it’s enough to go with the big Yes personally.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
I'm saying Yes because rules mean what they say and no more, as is generally accepted in D&D 5th edition. The quarterstaff quote is only an additional example where Crawford has ruled that the two-handed property and wielding a weapon in two hands are not equivalent for rules purposes. Post edited to make the big Yes even bigger.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
This goes beyond this principle “as is generally accepted,†in my opinion, and so I have downvoted. It’s not at all clear to me that WotC has claimed that the strict, technical rules as written are always 100% their intent, which is what you seem to imply here.
– KRyan
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
We don’t know, and really this is a call for your DM.
As you say, the rules, as written, don’t include the two-handed property on the lance (even when not mounted, if you want to be really technical). They easily could have included it; it’s not at all clear why they didn’t. Something like
beginarrayl l l c l
textbfName & textbfCost & textbfDamage & textbfWeight & textbfProperties \
textLance & 10text gp & 1mathrmd12text piercing & 6text lb. & textReach, special, two-handed \
endarray
Special Weapons
Lance: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance loses the two-handed property while mounted.
would be very clear and explicit about what the weapon is; we would still not be 100% certain unless Hex Warrior addressed it directly, but it would give much stronger evidence.
The fact that they didn’t do that is... not really a whole lot of help either way. Player’s Handbook was written first, after all, so they may not have realized the need to be so specific. But given how things are, we just don’t know whether or not they intended Hex Warrior to work with lances.
Personally, were I your DM, I would say you could choose a lance, but the lance wouldn’t receive any of its benefits from Hex Warrior if you weren’t mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
We don’t know, and really this is a call for your DM.
As you say, the rules, as written, don’t include the two-handed property on the lance (even when not mounted, if you want to be really technical). They easily could have included it; it’s not at all clear why they didn’t. Something like
beginarrayl l l c l
textbfName & textbfCost & textbfDamage & textbfWeight & textbfProperties \
textLance & 10text gp & 1mathrmd12text piercing & 6text lb. & textReach, special, two-handed \
endarray
Special Weapons
Lance: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance loses the two-handed property while mounted.
would be very clear and explicit about what the weapon is; we would still not be 100% certain unless Hex Warrior addressed it directly, but it would give much stronger evidence.
The fact that they didn’t do that is... not really a whole lot of help either way. Player’s Handbook was written first, after all, so they may not have realized the need to be so specific. But given how things are, we just don’t know whether or not they intended Hex Warrior to work with lances.
Personally, were I your DM, I would say you could choose a lance, but the lance wouldn’t receive any of its benefits from Hex Warrior if you weren’t mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
We don’t know, and really this is a call for your DM.
As you say, the rules, as written, don’t include the two-handed property on the lance (even when not mounted, if you want to be really technical). They easily could have included it; it’s not at all clear why they didn’t. Something like
beginarrayl l l c l
textbfName & textbfCost & textbfDamage & textbfWeight & textbfProperties \
textLance & 10text gp & 1mathrmd12text piercing & 6text lb. & textReach, special, two-handed \
endarray
Special Weapons
Lance: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance loses the two-handed property while mounted.
would be very clear and explicit about what the weapon is; we would still not be 100% certain unless Hex Warrior addressed it directly, but it would give much stronger evidence.
The fact that they didn’t do that is... not really a whole lot of help either way. Player’s Handbook was written first, after all, so they may not have realized the need to be so specific. But given how things are, we just don’t know whether or not they intended Hex Warrior to work with lances.
Personally, were I your DM, I would say you could choose a lance, but the lance wouldn’t receive any of its benefits from Hex Warrior if you weren’t mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
We don’t know, and really this is a call for your DM.
As you say, the rules, as written, don’t include the two-handed property on the lance (even when not mounted, if you want to be really technical). They easily could have included it; it’s not at all clear why they didn’t. Something like
beginarrayl l l c l
textbfName & textbfCost & textbfDamage & textbfWeight & textbfProperties \
textLance & 10text gp & 1mathrmd12text piercing & 6text lb. & textReach, special, two-handed \
endarray
Special Weapons
Lance: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance loses the two-handed property while mounted.
would be very clear and explicit about what the weapon is; we would still not be 100% certain unless Hex Warrior addressed it directly, but it would give much stronger evidence.
The fact that they didn’t do that is... not really a whole lot of help either way. Player’s Handbook was written first, after all, so they may not have realized the need to be so specific. But given how things are, we just don’t know whether or not they intended Hex Warrior to work with lances.
Personally, were I your DM, I would say you could choose a lance, but the lance wouldn’t receive any of its benefits from Hex Warrior if you weren’t mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
answered 2 hours ago
KRyan
205k23508893
205k23508893
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
RAW, it seems so
As you have pointed out, the Hex Warrior class feature of a Hexblade Warlock requires the weapon to lack the two-handed property.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 55:
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
The lance does not have the two-handed property, which according to RAW, would make this a valid choice.
However, the lance does have the "Special" property, which says (PHB, pg. 148):
Lance. You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Although this weapon appears to function as a two-handed weapon, since it lacks that property, we cannot know what the designers were thinking when they made this choice, so as it stands, it is a one-handed weapon that must be used with two hands unless you're mounted.
Although I will say that, although it may count as a valid weapon RAW, it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it when not mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
RAW, it seems so
As you have pointed out, the Hex Warrior class feature of a Hexblade Warlock requires the weapon to lack the two-handed property.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 55:
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
The lance does not have the two-handed property, which according to RAW, would make this a valid choice.
However, the lance does have the "Special" property, which says (PHB, pg. 148):
Lance. You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Although this weapon appears to function as a two-handed weapon, since it lacks that property, we cannot know what the designers were thinking when they made this choice, so as it stands, it is a one-handed weapon that must be used with two hands unless you're mounted.
Although I will say that, although it may count as a valid weapon RAW, it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it when not mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
RAW, it seems so
As you have pointed out, the Hex Warrior class feature of a Hexblade Warlock requires the weapon to lack the two-handed property.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 55:
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
The lance does not have the two-handed property, which according to RAW, would make this a valid choice.
However, the lance does have the "Special" property, which says (PHB, pg. 148):
Lance. You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Although this weapon appears to function as a two-handed weapon, since it lacks that property, we cannot know what the designers were thinking when they made this choice, so as it stands, it is a one-handed weapon that must be used with two hands unless you're mounted.
Although I will say that, although it may count as a valid weapon RAW, it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it when not mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
RAW, it seems so
As you have pointed out, the Hex Warrior class feature of a Hexblade Warlock requires the weapon to lack the two-handed property.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 55:
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property.
The lance does not have the two-handed property, which according to RAW, would make this a valid choice.
However, the lance does have the "Special" property, which says (PHB, pg. 148):
Lance. You have disadvantage when you use a lance to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.
Although this weapon appears to function as a two-handed weapon, since it lacks that property, we cannot know what the designers were thinking when they made this choice, so as it stands, it is a one-handed weapon that must be used with two hands unless you're mounted.
Although I will say that, although it may count as a valid weapon RAW, it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it when not mounted.
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
answered 2 hours ago
NathanS
15.4k368166
15.4k368166
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
I"m not sure you can use rules as intended to force the issue that they really meant to include it, but haven't discussed it or changed it. If you're going to cite Intent, you need something to back that up other than your personal opinion.
– NautArch
2 hours ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
Hex Warrior simply says "can use CHA"...why do you see an additional need for DMs to further limit to that to ONLY use CHA?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
I'm still unclear as to why you feel that as a DM you'd rule they couldn't use STR.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
"it would be reasonable for a DM to rule that you can only use your Hex Warrior class feature (i.e. can attack using CHA) when mounted, otherwise you would have to use STR to make your attack rolls with it."
– NautArch
1 hour ago
1
1
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
I agree with this answer based on the "rules mean what they say and no more" principle. Crawford ruled similarly regarding monks wielding a quarterstaff in two hands.
– Quadratic Wizard
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131863%2fcan-a-hex-warrior-choose-a-lance-for-his-weapon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Sorry to throw yet more edits at you, but I hope these were more in keeping with your intent and goals. I did remove mention of the other question; once you have both questions up linking between them could be good, but linking to the “mess†probably doesn’t help. Sorry again you’ve been put through this “mess,†I can assure you everyone involved was trying to be helpful.
– KRyan
2 hours ago
@KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me.
– darnok
2 hours ago