Stupid question: Thunderlance spell

[drebb]

Seeing as the Thunderlance (SC 220) can be held in one hand, and for all intents and purposes seems to function effectively as a melee weapon, would you say you could cast another one in your off-hand?

It doesn't seem *ridiculous*. I'd say dangerously cheesy at worst.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't have my books at the moment, but if thunderlance actually creates a lance, I'd say no; they can be wielded one-handed while mounted but are still two-handed weapons, so no dual-wielding lances.

If it's just a generic force weapon, all bets are off.

[Flickerdart]

The thunderlance creates a "spearlike beam" and the description refers to it as a "staff or spear", and you can wield it in either one or two hands, per the spell. So yes, you could dual-wield them, though I don't see why you'd want to, as TWF wastes feats, and two-handed you don't have the BAB to PA anyways. It's not as devastating as you'd think.

[RagnaroksChosen]

yes you could have two lances.
remember though its rounds per level... even when you get the spell it will only last for 7 or so rounds.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

the description refers to it as a "staff or spear", and you can wield it in either one or two hands, per the spell.

Staff or spear, huh? I suppose thunderstaff was perceived as innuendo....

In that case, yes you can dual-wield...but you probably shouldn't. Leave it to the fighters like Flickerdart said, (not literally giving them the weapon, of course), though I suppose a wand or staff of thunderlance for the martial types to UMD might not be a bad idea.

[John Campbell]

I don't think the thunderlance counts as a light weapon - the description doesn't say explicitly, but I infer from "you can wield a thunderlance in one or two hands" that it's a one-handed weapon - so you'd most likely be taking some hefty penalties for wielding one in your off hand (-6/-10 to hit if you've got none of the relevant feats). Might still be worth it for the extra 3d6 damage against things with poor AC, particularly if you've got the TWF feat, but it's not exactly brokenly good. I don't see any rules-, balance-, or common-sense-based reason not to allow it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Forget TWF, use it two-handed to get x1.5 your Int or Cha bonus to damage, and be sure to get Combat Reflexes, possibly via casting Heroics, since it has a 20 ft. reach. Go Incantatrix and Persist it, or DMM: Persist it with Greater Anyspell, and be sure to buff it with GMW. Best two handed weapon in the game.

[Person_Man]

There are a bunch of different spells that create powerful magic weapons, available to anyone with the right feat, class, or UMD by mid levels. Holy Sword and Flame Blade come to mind. Given how expensive magic weapons are, it would be a good tactic to rely on spells to make them. Of course, most of them have a 1 round per level duration, so you better hope that you're not surprised.

[Darrin]

There are a bunch of different spells that create powerful magic weapons, available to anyone with the right feat, class, or UMD by mid levels. Holy Sword and Flame Blade come to mind. Given how expensive magic weapons are, it would be a good tactic to rely on spells to make them. Of course, most of them have a 1 round per level duration, so you better hope that you're not surprised.

Flame Blade is tricky to get ahold of... druid-only spell and it doesn't appear on any domain lists. Scimitar of Sand is much easier (Sandstorm, Dru 2/Sor 2/Wiz 2): 1d6 + 1/CL untyped damage, plus a save vs. dehydration (similar to fatigue).

Something else I was working on a few weeks ago... Lyric Thaumaturge's Sonic Might + Persistent Spell + Energy Substitution + Born of Three Thunders + Flame Dagger. Melee touch attacks all day long, damage = 1d4 + 1/CL + 1d6/spell level, half sonic/half electrical damage, save vs. stun + save vs. knocked prone.