7
\$\begingroup\$

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 Hexblade warlock's Hex Warrior feature description (Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p. 55) 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?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 17 '18 at 13:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan i appreciate all the help that i got and i understand the confusion i brought, thanks for helping me. \$\endgroup\$ – darnok Sep 17 '18 at 14:00
17
\$\begingroup\$

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 when not 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.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 17 '18 at 14:39
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – Quadratic Wizard Sep 17 '18 at 14:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 17 '18 at 15:34
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ It's probably best to think of it like this - if they wanted certain restrictions to apply to the lance, instead of leaving off the two-handed property and requiring two hands under certain circumstances (and note that it says requires the use of two hands and NOT "gains the two-handed property"), they would have given it the two-handed property and mentioned in the notes that it could be used one handed when mounted (again, not removing the two-handed property, but merely allowing it to be used one-handed in that circumstance). I feel that the choice makes this RAI by the designers. \$\endgroup\$ – cpcodes Sep 17 '18 at 16:41
2
\$\begingroup\$

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

\begin{array}{l l l c l} \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Cost} & \textbf{Damage} & \textbf{Weight} & \textbf{Properties} \\ \text{Lance} & 10\text{ gp} & 1\mathrm{d}12\text{ piercing} & 6\text{ lb.} & \text{Reach, special, two-handed} \\ \end{array}

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.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

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.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.