Lance question

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders, as I was perusing my Player's handbook, I came upon the picture on page 115

where there are pictures of
light lances
and
heavy lances


intrigued, I scanned the tables for a difference, repeatedly

there is only one lance entry.

why?
editing error?
am i going insane?
is there no difference whatsoever?
EXPLAIN!?!!?

thanks in advance.

[Elric VIII]

It appears to have a similar ratio, when compared with the Heavy Lance, as a Gnome/Halfling (PHB 13) compared to a Human. Halfling Outrider anyone?

[KillianHawkeye]

This is yet another issue of reused art from the 3.0 Player's Handbook. In the original PHB, a light lance was basically just a lance for small characters. They didn't need it in 3.5 since now every weapon comes with stats for small and medium versions.

[AslanCross]

^-- Yep. In older printings of the PHB it says "Heavy lance" and "light lance." In newer printings (The softcover version I own that came with the Player's Kit), it says "Lance [small]" and "lance [medium]".

[KillianHawkeye]

^-- Yep. In older printings of the PHB it says "Heavy lance" and "light lance." In newer printings (The softcover version I own that came with the Player's Kit), it says "Lance [small]" and "lance [medium]".

It's not a matter of printings, but editions. D&D 3E had light and heavy lances, D&D 3.5 has lances (and other weapons) for Small and Medium characters. The difference has to do with the way they changed weapon sizes when they changed editions.

[big teej]

oh,
that's comforting and helpful. :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

Edition confusion is also what leads to rumors of Evil Pelor.

The PHB shows a picture (with caption) of Jozan the Cleric of Pelor casting the spell symbol of pain, which is an Evil spell in 3.5. However, the picture and caption were copied verbatim from the 3E PHB in which casting the pain symbol was not Evil, so Jozan could have cast it without the conflicting alignment issues.

It's basically just poor editing.

[Mando Knight]

so Jozan could have cast it without the conflicting alignment issues.

Unless, of course, you do believe in the Burning Hate.

[big teej]

Unless, of course, you do believe in the Burning Hate.

the burning hate of the putrid hateful yellow orb?

yes, yes I do.

[AslanCross]

It's not a matter of printings, but editions. D&D 3E had light and heavy lances, D&D 3.5 has lances (and other weapons) for Small and Medium characters. The difference has to do with the way they changed weapon sizes when they changed editions.

Actually, I am absolutely sure it was printed differently in a PDF of the PHB I saw and the softcover version I own. Both 3.5.

EDIT: Confirmed it. In the PDF they're still marked Heavy Lance and Light Lance. In my softcover dead tree version it's Lance [Medium] and Lance [Small].

[holywhippet]

Another example would be break enchantment - from the SRD:

Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification.

If you look at the in depth text description:


This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.


It doesn't work on petrification since flesh to stone is a 6th level spell that can't be dispelled using dispel magic.

However, the brief spell description which was copied from 3.0 lets it work because it specifically lists petrification.

[big teej]

Another example would be break enchantment - from the SRD:

Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification.

If you look at the in depth text description:


It doesn't work on petrification since flesh to stone is a 6th level spell that can't be dispelled using dispel magic.

However, the brief spell description which was copied from 3.0 lets it work because it specifically lists petrification.

wut?:smallconfused:

[KillianHawkeye]

Actually, I am absolutely sure it was printed differently in a PDF of the PHB I saw and the softcover version I own. Both 3.5.

EDIT: Confirmed it. In the PDF they're still marked Heavy Lance and Light Lance. In my softcover dead tree version it's Lance [Medium] and Lance [Small].

Hmm... my digital copy agrees with my real life book version. There's no light/heavy, just "lance." You must have a messed up pdf. :smallconfused:

[FMArthur]

I have yet to see two identical copies of the Player's Handbook IRL. 100% serious here.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

And that's why core is better than dragon magazi