How about just skip the whole conundrum all together.. get a 30' Balancing pole, tape a sharp object to the end of it, and proceed to improvise a spear-like weapon (that isn't actually a spear) out to 30'?
How about just skip the whole conundrum all together.. get a 30' Balancing pole, tape a sharp object to the end of it, and proceed to improvise a spear-like weapon (that isn't actually a spear) out to 30'?
Suddenly we know how to model swiss pikemen in Pathfinder...
How about just skip the whole conundrum all together.. get a 30' Balancing pole, tape a sharp object to the end of it, and proceed to improvise a spear-like weapon (that isn't actually a spear) out to 30'?Suddenly we know how to model swiss pikemen in Pathfinder...
I want one of those helmets!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do the improvised weapon rules cover sleep? What does this have to do with using a longspear's haft as a weapon?So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Because, there are rules for putting someone to sleep via spell or poison, but no exception made for "improvising" sleep on your own.
Nothing in the improvised weapon rules prohibits using a weapon as an improvised weapon. Period.
You claim that saying, "you can use a non-weapon as an improvised weapon" is the same as saying, " you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon." This is entirely untrue.
It's the same as saying, "you can put a person to sleep with the sleep spell or drow poison," is the same as saying, "a person cannot go to sleep on his own." There is exactly the same rules support for one as for the other.
So, if you cannot cross-check with a spear haft without a houserule, then you cannot go to sleep on your own without one either.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's amusing as hell to me that some people in this thread genuinely think that a 10 foot pole can be used as an improvised weapon, but the moment you strap a knife to the end of it, only the knife part can be used as a weapon.
Do the improvised weapon rules cover sleep? What does this have to do with using a longspear's haft as a weapon?So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Because, there are rules for putting someone to sleep via spell or poison, but no exception made for "improvising" sleep on your own.
Nothing in the improvised weapon rules prohibits using a weapon as an improvised weapon. Period.
You claim that saying, "you can use a non-weapon as an improvised weapon" is the same as saying, " you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon." This is entirely untrue.
The rules don't say that my dwarf can't sprout paralyzing tentacles out of his eyes at will. They don't say that my elf can't use his ears to fly.
Game rules are permissive.
Things that are allowed are listed. All other things are disallowed. House rules are there to cover places where this doesn't make sense for your world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, No sleep unless you fail a save against a sleep effect. BTW, elves shouldn't be casters...
In other news, putting a pointy end on a stick means it isn't a stick anymore. Also the hand of god steps in and prevents you from hitting someone with it. God says you may only poke.
There are a lot of pages here. I read through the first few pages, and then it turned into back and forth, and I'm not sure I understand the implications being argued. Specifically:
Does the argument include which of the following:
A. The ability to use a weapon hilt as improvised increases the threat range of many weapons automatically.
B. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range only with the Catch Off-Guard feat.
C. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range based on how the weapon is currently wielded (requires a free action on my turn to do so).And does it include:
A. With a feat (Catch Off-Guard), all opponents are now considered flat-footed versus the hilt of my weapon.
B. If the weapon hilt threatens regardless of grip, anyone who moves into my threatened space is also considered flat-footed versus my AoO (with COG)....which of the above apply to what is currently being argued, and am I missing parts of it?
Actually none of those is part of the main discussion. 1A likely follows as a natural extension but would still require house ruling. What is being discussed is if it is allowed AT ALL, ie under any set of circumstances , to use the butt of a spear to hit an adjacent opponent.
Things which would be totally in the realm of house rules would be:
Can I do both types of attack in the same round?
Is there a required change of grip? / What kind of action would that be?
And all the questions you asked would fall there as well.
Cool. Count me in as someone who is potentially interested, but a lot would depend on the implementation.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require someone to need to shift their grip as a free action in order to threaten, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's amusing as hell to me that some people in this thread genuinely think that a 10 foot pole can be used as an improvised weapon, but the moment you strap a knife to the end of it, only the knife part can be used as a weapon.
One assumption I see everyone making is that no improvised weapon has reach. The most consistent and logical way to handle the 10 foot pole case would be to treat it as an improvised weapon with reach.
Do the improvised weapon rules cover sleep? What does this have to do with using a longspear's haft as a weapon?So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Because, there are rules for putting someone to sleep via spell or poison, but no exception made for "improvising" sleep on your own.
Nothing in the improvised weapon rules prohibits using a weapon as an improvised weapon. Period.
You claim that saying, "you can use a non-weapon as an improvised weapon" is the same as saying, " you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon." This is entirely untrue.
The rules don't say that my dwarf can't sprout paralyzing tentacles out of his eyes at will. They don't say that my elf can't use his ears to fly.
Game rules are permissive.
Things that are allowed are listed. All other things are disallowed. House rules are there to cover places where this doesn't make sense for your world.
So you can't go to sleep on your own? There isn't a rule listed for it. Gotta fail a save.
You also can't eat for yourself; no rule listed for it.
There are no rules for sex in the book. Yet the campaign world is somehow peopled.
There are no rules for defecation. But the Otyugh manages to find offal in which to make its lair.
You can have sex as a part of your campaign, but you will have to work out the system for that in a way that is appropriate for the players at your table.
A myriad things are assumed to happen in the game world that are not covered by the rules - including minutiae such as sex, and the mechanics of falling asleep naturally. Not being in the book...these would be house rules if you wish to get into the details.
I think improvised weapon penalties and and non-proficient weapon penalties shouldn't stack. I also think that any weapon that allows a player to attack two different reach increments with their iterative attack bonuses in the same round, without penalty, should require the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Whateverthehellthatlookslike) Feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's amusing as hell to me that some people in this thread genuinely think that a 10 foot pole can be used as an improvised weapon, but the moment you strap a knife to the end of it, only the knife part can be used as a weapon.One assumption I see everyone making is that no improvised weapon has reach. The most consistent and logical way to handle the 10 foot pole case would be to treat it as an improvised weapon with reach.
Can you used that improved 10' pole to attack someone adjacent to you? Reimprovise your improvised weapon?
And down the Rabbit Hole we go!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sleep is not minutiae in the game. Sleep is very very important to a number of game mechanics. You become fatigued and then exhausted without sleep. You heal hit points when you sleep. You need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots.
You assertion is that the rules are permissive only. The rules only permissive way to sleep in the game is to fail a save vs a sleep effect.
Also, since elves and half-elves cannot fail those saves they must always be concidered exhausted and unable to recover spell slots. These are the rules under your reading which forces you to find permission in the rules to do important things in the game.
It seems apropos to point out at this point that the idea of "permissiveness" and "minutiae" are in no way RAW, and therefore houserules.
It also seems fair to point out that the rules working in such a restrictive way is not inline with the design intentions of the game, because the world setting which the rules were created to be played in have elven casters, and people who sleep.
The idea that the rules are strictly permissive is completely rediculous. Using part of a weapon in a way not in keeping with the weapon as a whole is permitted and it is not a houserule. It is clearly outlined in the improvised weapon rules, which are actually written, non-imaginary RAW.
Sleep is not minutiae in the game. Sleep is very very important to a number of game mechanics. You become fatigued and then exhausted without sleep. You heal hit points when you sleep. You need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots.
I never said sleep was minutiae. Please read what I wrote. I said "the mechanics of falling asleep naturally." There are no mechanics for this because it is inconsequential as a detail.
Player: "I go to sleep"
DM: "Okay. You're asleep"
That's all handled in house. It's not RAW so it is house rules. It's also completely reasonable. There's nothing that says house rules are only there for bizarre circumstances.
It's no different from
Player: "I go to the bathroom and then wash up."
DM: "Okay. You're refreshed and ready for the day."
You assertion is that the rules are permissive only. The rules only permissive way to sleep in the game is to fail a save vs a sleep effect.
It's true. The only way, by RAW, to do many bodily functions is to wing it. That's not a failing of the game. It's a basic assumption that players are self-possessed enough to handle this on their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The suggestion that sleeping naturally is a houserule is suggesting that it is not part of the published game. I reject that suggestion.
You are meant to sleep in the game. You are meant to be able to use things as improvised weapons. Disallowing a spear haft as an improvised weapon is your houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "I use the back end of my spear to get the governors attention"
DM: "I'm sorry, you can only use the pointy end, and you've just now stabbed the governor"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should really run this question by my players.
One of them will (I'm absolutely certain) simply say "use some common sense" (insert Deadpool meme here).
The entire discussion fails the reasonableness test: would a non-gamer who was not treating the rules as some sort of legal document believe that their character should not be allowed to use the shaft of a long spear as an improvised weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "I use the back end of my spear to get the governors attention"
DM: "I'm sorry, you can only use the pointy end, and you've just now stabbed the governor"
Was there an attack roll? Did you deal damage?
Yeah, not the same thing, is it?
If you want to use a longspear as a paperweight, well, the rules are absolutely silent on how that might work. So a DM gets to judge if what the player is asking for makes sense. Since the player is asking to hold down a sheet of parchment with a spear, most DMs would allow it. If it were on a table in the hold of a ship at sea during a heaving storm, most DMs wouldn't allow it since the spear would likely just roll off.
But that's not what's being discussed, is it? Right. The topic is about using a weapon as a weapon, not as a non-weapon. And there are all these neat rules about how weapons work as weapons. There are rules that - for balance and richness' sake - spell out neat things like damage types (slashing, bludgeoning) and properties (trip, reach).
The designers chose to write these rules so they could make things interesting. It's mostly a reasonable simulation of reality, but it's far from perfect. Hence the simulationist vs gameist divide, which is absolutely what this thread is about.
Q:Why can't you use a longsword's butt to deal bludgeoning?
A:Because the designers of the game want you to experience situations where some weapons don't work, and made DR/bludgeoning to simulate that.
When you start taking a rule that's realistically designed to answer the question "what happens when my player asks about picking up a fallen tree limb and bashing at the zombie?", and applying it as some sort of work-around to get out of the whole point behind having damage types in the first place, you reduce the designed richness of the system.
Yes, it's more realistic. Sure. Good. Great. But it's losing a layer of design.
Don't believe me? The zombie has DR 500/bludgeoning. Your longsword will never do anything to it. Oh, but you use the butt and suddenly you're inflicting almost normal damage on the zombie (sure, the die size is reduced, but all your Strength modifiers and whatnot still come into play).
By taking a -4, you just... ignore the monster's defenses. Lame.
There's richness in having three damage types. There's richness in having reach versus non-reach weapons, where there's a give & take that you need to think about at the table. There's a fun game in there, if you don't go looking for loopholes and deliberately ignoring the rules that were written. The writers don't want you making adjacent attacks with reach weapons. That's why it says cannot. They want you to have to plan your character a little more carefully than that. They want you to have to think a little more tactically than "durp, I'll just take a -4 and everything's okay!"
Again I point out my example of just declaring your fist an object and treating it as an improvised weapon as a way to get around the specific rule that says if you don't have Unarmed Strike, you provoke AoO punching folks. That's no darned fun. The need for that feat is a rule that tries to introduce an interesting game concept; some people are better at things than others. Deciding you don't like the unarmed strike rules and just blah blah "improvised weapon" shuts down a whole layer of richness.
Once more, I get it. I still get it. I've got it all along. Blah blah realism.
But if you don't have the imagination to wrap your head around the idea that some rules are rough approximations that allow INTERESTING CHOICES, why are you playing this game? It's full of imperfect rules.
At my table, go ahead, tap the governor to get his attention. It's a non-combat action so no rules or rules required. Go nuts. At my table, go ahead and smash the zombie in the face with the butt of your crossbow. I'm going to make you treat it as if you're non-proficient and I might even give the zombie an AoO because you're so clumsy, and I'll make it clear you don't actually threaten for purposes of flanking an AoOs, but I'd allow it. But a longspear... probably not. This isn't a Jackie Chan movie where you're going to whack someone with a ladder, sorry. Reach weapons are reach weapons, end of story. See? I'm willing to bend and extend the rules. But I don't extinguish existing ones.
Grumble, grumble.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was there an attack roll? Did you deal damage?
Under these ridiculous assertions, you would be required to, yes. Because apparently, using a weapon for any other purpose than as a weapon is invalid.
Once you cease using a weapon in its intended fashion, IMO it ceases to be a weapon, and is now an object. Via improvised weapon rules, you can then use that object as a weapon. If I hold it the opposite way, I have a blunt spear.. if I hold it like a staff double weapon, then its a double weapon with a spearhead on one end and a blunt stick on the other...
As long as you can reasonably wield the weapon in the manner you wish to improvise with, then by all means, improvise with it. It seems to be deliberately going out of ones way to prevent something that quite frankly isn't strictly prohibited by the rules. Apply some common sense when interpreting rules people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What, like using a battleaxe to chop wood?
Or a sickle to harvest crops?
[EDIT - Hmm, this was in response to Sarrah's post about video footage of martial artists using spears to hit close foes. Which is now gone.]
Sure, but people need to remember that "officially" there are just some things you can't do in game, and that PF doesn't map to reality. And there are game mechanic reasons why there are inconsistencies vis a vis reality, game rules and common sense. So while it is eminently demonstrable you can use a spear's haft/shaft to attack people next to you, the game was designed so that you can't.
I'll be homebrew ruling my own stuff on adjacent attacks with reach weapons.
Which bit RDM42? I'm confused...
The forum rules say no posting of third party video stuff. I don't want to have my account banned for accidentally not following rules that no one reads :p
I am going to post an alternative way of legally attacking both the 5 foot square and 10 foot square with a reach weapon, such as a longspear :p
Start off with a level 6 small character with the Lunge Feat, like a halfling or gnome or small child. Equip said small child with a longspear. Cast reduce person on the small child to make it tiny. The tiny child has an effective reach of 0. The longspear grants an effective reach of 5 feet.
Without using Lunge, the tiny child can hit a target 5 feet away, and while using Lunge, the tiny child can hit a target 10 feet away!
YAY WE DID IT! :)
Sarrah, people post links to stuff all the time on the forum. Regardless, I didn't see a link on your post. :)
|
"Hence the simulationist vs gameist divide, which is absolutely what this thread is about."
You are completely on point with that comment. Five hundred posts around that very divide. The starting premise of the simulationist is the reasonable action of bashing with the haft of a weapon -- an object with history and function. The starting point of the gamer is the clearly defined function of the "weapon" within the rules. The two sides are not going to come together without accepting the truth of the other side.
Arguing that there is a rule function that "can" handle want your simulationist wants to do doesn't carry any truck with the gamer that sees the addition of a rule as not elegant. The simpler interpretation is more correct rules-wise, regardless of which is more realistic.
"They want you to have to plan your character a little more carefully than that." What you are referring to here is optimization. Ever since 3rd Edition, Dungeons and Dragons and subsequently Pathfinder has been more focused on the building/planning of a character -- an exclusively gamist activity -- rather than the act of playing/immersing that was the domain of the simulationist.
Modules are pre-structured series of CR-balanced encounters to test how well the characters have been built. Adhering to the artificial balance that is baked into the rules by the game designers is more important to the gamer than trying to create a shared imaginative space.The narrativists are long gone. They are still playing 2nd Edition, or other systems, where you can't talk your way past a guard with a dice roll, or search a room with one.
We used to have a three-way balance at the table. The gamer would accept that cross-checking an opponent with your spear is something that should be included in order to make room at the table for the simulationist. They would be your best ally in finding the perfect rule to use -- ensuring that game balance was reasonably preserved. Now there is a war between the perspectives....
There are no narrativists in Pathfinder?
Are you a hipster gamer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say you can't use the spear's haft as an improvised weapon. I still. After all this time, haven't found a single post that shows where it says that. The closest someone goes is by throwing in an outside interpretation and redefining the common sense meanings of several terms that aren't actually defined in game.
I guess the problem I have is that the rules don't infer that you can break the spear down into separate parts/objects to treat them as separate objects. A longspear is one item that is a weapon, not one item which is a weapon (shaft and head) and another item which is not a weapon (shaft only).
Look, I'm in favor of using the longspear as an improvised weapon to hit adjacent targets, and moreover, I'd probably make it -2 rather than -4. But the rules are against it as part of balancing reach weapons. That I think, is what the designers intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They neither infer that you can or can't.It doesn't say you can't use the spear's haft as an improvised weapon. I still. After all this time, haven't found a single post that shows where it says that. The closest someone goes is by throwing in an outside interpretation and redefining the common sense meanings of several terms that aren't actually defined in game.I guess the problem I have is that the rules don't infer that you can break the spear down into separate parts/objects to treat them as separate objects. A longspear is one item that is a weapon, not one item which is a weapon (shaft and head) and another item which is not a weapon (shaft only).
Look, I'm in favor of using the longspear as an improvised weapon to hit adjacent targets, and moreover, I'd probably make it -2 rather than -4. But the rules are against it as part of balancing reach weapons. That I think, is what the designers intended.
Also, absent a game definition of object we use the English one. The English definition of object absolutely includes "spear haft" as one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok - so is a flail three objects - handle, chain and ball? Or one per chain, or many more (handle, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, [etc - per chain] and ball(s))?
And which bits might you treat as improvised (regardless of adjacency/reach considerations/desires) if any?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If. For some bizzare reason, you held the heavy ball in your hand it is an improvised bashing weapon. If you club someone with the handle its a very clumsy improvised club. Neither one of which would be as effective, in general, as the whole weapon. The chain would indeed be hard to wield separately from the flail.
There seems like an almost intentional effort to avoid common sense and plain language in favor of pedantry here.
Don't forget I'm on board for using the items as an improvised weapon in my game.
I'm interested in "official" approaches to these questions.My "pedantry" was merely trying to see how far your conceptual position extends, and a flail seemed the perfect weapon to use to explore that. Sorry if it is disagreeable, but common sense is one thing, and the rules are another.
Ok - so is a flail three objects - handle, chain and ball? Or one per chain, or many more (handle, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, chainlink, [etc - per chain] and ball(s))?
And which bits might you treat as improvised (regardless of adjacency/reach considerations/desires) if any?
Yes, many many objects might make up another object. Is this really so outrageous a statement? It seems like at least half a dozen people have never concidered in their life that things are made of parts and they are all objects!
It may be reasonable for a DM to rule an object (ie chain link) is unsuitable for wielding as an improvised weapon, as well a DM might rule that a spear haft would be unsuitable to use as an improvised weapon. Both of those calls would clearly fall in the range of houserules/table variation.
If. For some bizzare reason, you held the heavy ball in your hand it is an improvised bashing weapon. If you club someone with the handle its a very clumsy improvised club. Neither one of which would be as effective, in general, as the whole weapon. The chain would indeed be hard to wield separately from the flail.
There seems like an almost intentional effort to avoid common sense and plain language in favor of pedantry here.
Don't forget I'm on board for using the items as an improvised weapon in my game.
I'm interested in "official" approaches to these questions.My "pedantry" was merely trying to see how far your conceptual position extends, and a flail seemed the perfect weapon to use to explore that. Sorry if it is disagreeable, but common sense is one thing, and the rules are another.
So you try to "solve" it by blasting past common sense straight into a ridiculous straw man argument which no one is even coming close to arguing?
In the absence of any rules in the subject - which there aren't for whether things like spear shafts can be improvised weapons - judgement takes over. The rules have NOTHINGo say on the subject of whether a spear shaft can be used as an improvised weapon. It doesn't say yes, it doesn't say no.
RDM, I'm not trying to solve this. And I'm not arguing. I think you are operating under a mistaken assumption that I am in opposition to you. I'm open, and wondering. That is all.
I am going to post an alternative way of legally attacking both the 5 foot square and 10 foot square with a reach weapon, such as a longspear :p
Start off with a level 6 small character with the Lunge Feat, like a halfling or gnome or small child. Equip said small child with a longspear. Cast reduce person on the small child to make it tiny. The tiny child has an effective reach of 0. The longspear grants an effective reach of 5 feet.
Without using Lunge, the tiny child can hit a target 5 feet away, and while using Lunge, the tiny child can hit a target 10 feet away!
YAY WE DID IT! :)
RDM, we solved it :)