Lance on a mount

[AcridPuppet7744]

I have looked and looked for a ruling on this. I know that lances have a 10 ft reach and disadvantage when attacking a creature within 5 ft. My question is regarding the reach while on a mount.

I'm currently playing an Oath of the Ancients Paladin who rides his Moon Druid brother, and I stuck with a longsword because I can't find any ruling for the lance. Any help would be much appreciated.

Please and thank you.

[KOLE]

The only difference with the lance when using a mount is allow you to use it one handed. The other restriction still stands.

[Daghoulish]

I know that lances have a 10 ft reach and disadvantage when attacking a creature within 5 ft.

I've never heard about this rule, would you kindly point me to it? All reach does it give you 10ft attack range, not disadvantage to my knowledge.

[Hypersmith]

I've never heard about this rule, would you kindly point me to it? All reach does it give you 10ft attack range, not disadvantage to my knowledge.

It's a property specific to lances - they're considered a special weapon, like nets.
It's specified they can be used one handed while mounted, and that that give disadvantage within 5 ft.

[opaopajr]

They are reach, 10 ft. They are special: a) Disadv within 5 ft. b) require 2-hand when NOT mounted.

Go ahead and ride your Moon Druid buddy with two lances and Dual Wielder feat. You know you want to... :smalltongue: :smallcool:

[Speely]

They are reach, 10 ft. They are special: a) Disadv within 5 ft. b) require 2-hand when NOT mounted.

Go ahead and ride your Moon Druid buddy with two lances and Dual Wielder feat. You know you want to... :smalltongue: :smallcool:

This sounds like a euphemism for something really hot.

[Tanarii]

Most mounts need to be Large for you to ride them. I've always ruled you can consider yourself to be in any space on the mount. That means you can always attack with Reach, even if the enemy is adjacent to the mount. Makes it a non-issue.

Of course, I can't actually find that rule anywhere now that I went to quote it ... :smallmad:

[PeteNutButter]

Most mounts need to be Large for you to ride them. I've always ruled you can consider yourself to be in any space on the mount. That means you can always attack with Reach, even if the enemy is adjacent to the mount. Makes it a non-issue.

Of course, I can't actually find that rule anywhere now that I went to quote it ... :smallmad:

I believe JC said that in a youtube video. Though I'd advice avoiding his other rulings on mounted combat, because they are wacky and contrived.

[Tanarii]

I believe JC said that in a youtube video. Though I'd advice avoiding his other rulings on mounted combat, because they are wacky and contrived.
I don't watch videos so that's unlikely. Far more likely is it's a 3e or 4e rule I subconsciously ported over, and never realized isn't (or at least doesn't appear at this point to be) a 5e rule.

[Mellack]

Most mounts need to be Large for you to ride them. I've always ruled you can consider yourself to be in any space on the mount. That means you can always attack with Reach, even if the enemy is adjacent to the mount. Makes it a non-issue.

Of course, I can't actually find that rule anywhere now that I went to quote it ... :smallmad:

Mounts need to be one size larger than the rider. So for a medium rider, they would have to be at least size large. But for a small rider, a medium mount would do. That situation would only give a single square for the mount.

[opaopajr]

This sounds like a euphemism for something really hot.

Oo-er! :smalleek::smallredface: (Heh. :smallamused:)