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!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?
I think this is needlessly unfair representation of people's understanding. I do realise in the real world objects/items/things are composed of other objects/items/things. I'm just attempting to determine whether the in-game rules governing weapons allow you to break them into parts. Your position seems to be that the rules are not apparent/clear or are that they do not exist, and others have gone down the permissive/restrictive line to determine whether things need to be spelled out. Which is fine. Still wondering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no game definition of "object" so we use the English one. When using English words it is amazing how closely they relate to their actual English usage.
doesn't it have to do a minimum of 1 on a successful hit that isn't reduced by DR?
anyway, the strictly permissive argument still leads to the only "objects" that can possibly be wielded as improvised weapons being limited to rope, chain, and manacle according to RAW.
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.
That's fine if you want to treat it that way, but it doesn't have to be treated that way.
Someone could just as easily hit someone with the front end of a ten foot pole as they could the middle or the back.
To say that only one part of an improvised weapon is the weapon part is just as ridiculous as saying only the pointy end of a sword can be used to hurt someone.
Common sense clearly says otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This looks like a job for the internet. I checked to see if there is any evidence of a martial artist using a longspear and striking intentionally with the haft, using it as a weapon.
I found a demonstration of the Shea Da Wei Ba (Dragon's tail) Chinese longspear form.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOqIpc7F9g
In it you can see that the martial artist demonstrates thoroughly using the spear as intended, focused on striking directly with the intention of spearing an opponent with the piercing end of the long spear. The form predominantly aims to cover all directions swiftly and accurately with the tip of the spear. Each thrust with the spear tip matches what I see reflected in the stats of the longspear (piercing damage).
At the same time, the form demonstration also includes moments where clearly the intent was to hit with the butt or haft of the longspear. Longspear damage is only listed as piercing. While I'm sure hitting a person with the butt or haft of the spear will hurt tremendously, it will not leave the puncture wound that the tip of the spear will. That seems to indicate that whatever is happening when the martial artist strikes with the haft or butt of the spear, it cannot be traditional longspear damage. It's clearly bludgeoning. And the haft and butt strikes use the momentum of the long reach strike multiple times to quickly reverse the length for adjacent bludgeons.
So it can happen. My temptation is to say that since the haft strike from a longspear isn't doing the same type of piercing damage and since longspears aren't double weapons, that striking with the haft is an improvised use of an object, under the jurisdiction of catch off guard.
|
"Because such object are not designed for this use" is again justification for the crunch that follows.
And you still contend that I can't use my wheel-lock pistol as a club because of this interpretation of those two sentences ?
I guess that there are a lot of pages to read, and that you may not have read them all or forgotten that this was already covered.
The use for which your wheel-lock pistol was designed, as far as the rules are concerned, is to make attacks as a projectile weapon. As such, when you use it to make projectile attacks, you must use the weapon stats provided in the tables for that weapon, including any special rules.
What if you try to club someone with it? When you look at the tables, there are no game stats for its use as a melee weapon.
No worries! There are rules for that. The improvised weapons rule, which exists to obtain weapon stats for objects which don't have weapon stats for the type of attack you are making.
Now lets look at the longspear. I want to use it to attack in melee. Does it have game stats for its use as a melee weapon? Yes. Use them. There are no rules which contradict this, therefore the rules that are written trump unwritten rules which contradict the written rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your world, what precisely happens when someone grips a long spear with two hands some distance apart and hits someone hard in the head with the shaft? Nothing? A hand reaches down from the heavens and prevents it from happening? The forehead magically becomes made of Adamantine and the shaft just bounces off?
According to the rules, a longspear may not be used to attack an adjacent opponent. Saying 'I want to. Here's how I visualise it' is not a rule. This doesn't trump the written rule forbidding it.
This is in no way a strange occurrence in the rules. Being forbidden to use something in a certain way as a weapon is all over the place!
I want to use my greatsword one-handed. No.
I want to use that huge greatsword. No.
I want to do bludgeoning damage with the flat of my longsword. No.
I want to punch someone with the hilt of my rapier. No.
These aren't situations where 'It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can.' If the rules say 'This is how this weapon works', then it only works in the way it says it does, unless you have a written special ability that changes that for you.
Want to one-hand a greatsword? Use a huge one? The Titan Mauler is the archetype for you!
If you have Jotungrip or whatever, that is what allows you to use that greatsword in one hand! Because IT...IS...WRITTEN! No amount of 'But I saw it on the Internet!' changes RAW. Only RAW changes RAW.
None of the RAW arguments prevents you from changing stuff at your table. But it's not RAW, and this thread and the whole rules forum is dedicated to finding out what the RAW actually is, so that you know what you're doing if you want to change it.
Such changes should come with caution, in the knowledge of the consequence your changes would bring. This is why knowing what the RAW is is vital to even those who want to change it.
For example, if you allow anyone, without any feat or special ability written to allow it, to simply declare that his sword can be used to do bludgeoning damage, then the DR5/bludgeoning defence of skeletons becomes much less useful.
If you declare that, contrary to the written rules, in your house longspears may be used at both 10-feet and, as an improvised blunt weapon, at 5-feet, then not only have you allowed damage types to be bypassed but you have also taken away one of the design limitations of combat in the game. Suddenly, that wizard who risked that AoO to get inside your reach to cast a spell safely just provoked, because you changed the rules to make reach weapons useable at 5-feet.
You can actually use a reach weapon at 5-feet! Just take two levels in the Polearm Master fighter archetype, and Pole Fighting will allow you to shorten your grip and attack adjacent targets! Just like those guys on the Internet!
So, RAW, if you have Pole Fighting (or another, written special ability which allows you to attack adjacent foes with a reach weapon) you can! Without such an ability, RAW, you obey the reach restrictions, forbidding you to attack adjacent foes.
'But I've seen it on the Internet', doesn't trump RAW in discussions about what RAW says!
'But I can do it in real life!' No.
'But I can imagine doing it!' No.
|
|
So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Actually, yes. When you say that you're going to sleep (without any spell or anything), then this is not RAW.
This doesn't mean you can't. There are no rules saying that you're not allowed to go to sleep. If there were, then saying that you're breaking those rules to go to sleep anyway (because I saw a guy do it on the Internet), would not be RAW, no matter how reasonable.
RAW doesn't cover everything, and is quite happy for you to just narrate such things.
However, RAW cares very, very much about how weapons are used in combat! If it says that reach weapons cannot be used to attack an adjacent foe, it is dishonest to say that the rules don't cover this so I'll make up my own rule.
If the rules say that a certain weapon has these combat stats, it is dishonest to use a rule which says it's for non-weapons (which lack such stats) in order to obtain weapon stats contrary to those stats already given.
If you use a spear to attack someone, it's dishonest to say that you're not attacking with a spear, only part of a spear. This is the Sheepshagger Defence. 'Your Honour, I didn't shag a sheep! I only shagged one specific part of a sheep! A sheep's anus is not "a sheep", therefore I'm not guilty of shagging "a sheep"!
The Crown Versus The Boston Sheep Botherer, day 1:-
You are charged with the murder of the shepherd John Smith, how do you plead?
Not guilty, M'lud!
You were seen stabbing Mr. Smith by ten witnesses!
No! They only saw me stab one part of Mr. Smith! A person's heart is not a person! I'd plead guilty to stabbing his heart if I were accused of that! But I'm not guilty of stabbing the whole person just because I stabbed his chest sixteen times after he pulled me of his sheep for no reason at all, man!
|
|
Interesting theory you have there. Would make an interesting house rule.Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
Nice try.
Where is there does it say that the shaft of a spear would not count?
The shaft of a spear is not designed for that use.
The Sheepshagger Defence again.
|
|
Nothing in the improvised weapon rules prohibits using a weapon as an improvised weapon. Period.
Nothing in the class description of a wizard prohibits them from raging like a barbarian. Period.
Therefore...they can?
The rule says it's for objects not designed as weapons. It doesn't say that it is. The rules do say how to use weapons. Therefore, the written rules trump any unwritten rule to the contrary.
|
|
And where does it say that the shaft of a spear cannot be used as an improvised weapon without you implying things that aren't written to come to that conclusion?
You need to find a written rule to allow you to change the way weapons are used. Without one, you must follow the RAW for that weapon, or abandon RAW to allow weapons to be used as if they weren't to then allow you to use them as if they were.
It's the Sheepshagger Defence again.
|
|
Because apparently, using a weapon for any other purpose than as a weapon is invalid.
It's the other way round. Using a weapon for non-weapon stuff is not covered, therefore not RAW.
This doesn't mean that you can't! It just means that it's not RAW to use a weapon as a paperweight. This is not a problem because the rules don't care about paperweights. They care very much about combat!
In RAW, weapons are for making attacks, according to the combat rules. Using a weapon to do this is covered by those rules.
When you use a spear to attack, you are using it for that purpose. It is dishonest to pretend that you're not, just so you can access a rule which allows you to use non-weapons as if they were.
|
|
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.
It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
|
|
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.
In the same way that the rules don't imply whether wizards can or can't Rage like a barbarian?
|
|
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.
And here's the lie. The rules absolutely have rules to say how spears are used in combat.
When the rules say what something is, they are under no obligation to provide a complete list of things that it isn't!
It doesn't say a spear is not made out of cheese! The rules are 'silent on the matter'. So, we can make up our own rule about which cheese it's made from, and because RAW doesn't say it's not made of cheese, when we say that it is, that's RAW!
|
|
The long spear does not have weapon stats for attacking someone next to you with the shaft.
It does have stats for use as a melee weapon. What it does have trumps anything that contradicts this, unless this contradiction is written.
It does explicitly have stats of 'you can't!!!' for attacking someone next to you with the point.
That's not the case. In no way is the prohibition limited to 'the point'; it's a prohibition on the entire weapon.
Since the rules do treat it as an entire weapon, and don't treat it as a collection of non-weapons, the RAW trumps any contradictory non-RAW.
|
|
To the gamists please understand that a simulationist is not trying to break the game by working "outside" the rules. We are not always trying to get an advantage. We have to translate our actions into the rules. The rules are not our native language. When there is a real disconnect between the action and the rules please consider a well moderated house rule.
To my fellow simulationists please understand that a rules discussion begins and ends with the rules. An historic analysis or tactical analysis or scientific analysis only serves to underline why it is important to you. It does not add merit to the rules argument.
Wise words.
If the OP (me!) had wanted some advice on how to make some on-the-fly judgement on using spear shafts as improvised weapons, then I'd have posted on the advice forum. Some of the ideas on here would be pretty solid, others awful.
But I very deliberately asked for pure RAW. This doesn't mean that RAW is the only factor in games, but it is the only thing I wanted.
The Sheepshagger Defence again.Interesting theory you have there. Would make an interesting house rule.Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
Nice try.
Where is there does it say that the shaft of a spear would not count?
The shaft of a spear is not designed for that use.
It was a terrible defense the first time and it didn't get any better! You get arrested for stealing, not stealing sheep! If the only law in your area against stealing is for sheep you may have a decent defense otherwise your going to jail if the rancher doesn't shoot you first. For stealing his stuff in general, not his sheep.
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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.
There is no game definition of "object" so we use the English one. When using English words it is amazing how closely they relate to their actual English usage.But there is a definite game definition of 'longspear'.
So? Not using that to attack.
The long spear does not have weapon stats for attacking someone next to you with the shaft.It does have stats for use as a melee weapon. What it does have trumps anything that contradicts this, unless this contradiction is written.
It does explicitly have stats of 'you can't!!!' for attacking someone next to you with the point.That's not the case. In no way is the prohibition limited to 'the point'; it's a prohibition on the entire weapon.
Since the rules do treat it as an entire weapon, and don't treat it as a collection of non-weapons, the RAW trumps any contradictory non-RAW.
The distinction between ranged/improvised melee and melee/improvised melee is squarely your own house rule. You have absolutely nothing to support it at your criteria level.
Also, the game DOES NOT treat it as an entire weapon. Proof: Damage type listed is piercing only.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
If you think that, if the rules don't say that you can't, that means you can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work as a whole, not just this one rule.
|
|
So? Not using that to attack.There is no game definition of "object" so we use the English one. When using English words it is amazing how closely they relate to their actual English usage.But there is a definite game definition of 'longspear'.
Really? Then I take your longspear away from you and put it beyond your reach. Now attack with 'a part' of it.
This is the Sheepshagger Defence.
So? Not using that to attack.There is no game definition of "object" so we use the English one. When using English words it is amazing how closely they relate to their actual English usage.But there is a definite game definition of 'longspear'.Really? Then I take your longspear away from you and put it beyond your reach. Now attack with 'a part' of it.
This is the Sheepshagger Defence.
It's is still terrible the third time.
If you think that, if the rules don't say that you can't, that means you can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work as a whole, not just this one rule.No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
I only need the rule that says I can. That is the improvised weapon rule. No need to start ad hominem attacks around here. If you want to continue on that path I will bow out now.
|
|
The distinction between ranged/improvised melee and melee/improvised melee is squarely your own house rule. You have absolutely nothing to support it at your criteria level.The long spear does not have weapon stats for attacking someone next to you with the shaft.It does have stats for use as a melee weapon. What it does have trumps anything that contradicts this, unless this contradiction is written.
It does explicitly have stats of 'you can't!!!' for attacking someone next to you with the point.That's not the case. In no way is the prohibition limited to 'the point'; it's a prohibition on the entire weapon.
Since the rules do treat it as an entire weapon, and don't treat it as a collection of non-weapons, the RAW trumps any contradictory non-RAW.
Nothing, apart from the written rule:-
Because such objects were not designed for this use...
Also, the game DOES NOT treat it as an entire weapon. Proof: Damage type listed is piercing only.
Damage type does not determine how many weapons a weapon may be treated as.
If that were the case, a morning star would be a double weapon, with one end doing piercing and the other bludgeoning.
In order to treat a weapon as if it were two different weapons (without having a special ability that lets you, such as Spinning Lance) you need the weapon to have the Double quality. That is the written rule which lets you, and you need a written rule to counter the general rule that weapons are used as the rules say they are.
I only need the rule that says I can. That is the improvised weapon rule. No need to start ad hominem attacks around here. If you want to continue on that path I will bow out now.If you think that, if the rules don't say that you can't, that means you can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work as a whole, not just this one rule.No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
I'm not sure how you can determine the merit of a defense you clearly did not read or, if you did, did not understand since you seem to think it has something to do with stealing sheep.
|
|
I only need the rule that says I can. That is the improvised weapon rule.If you think that, if the rules don't say that you can't, that means you can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work as a whole, not just this one rule.No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
If that rule said it applied to weapons, then you'd be right, and this thread wouldn't have even been started.
That rule applies to 'objects not crafted to be weapons'. So you don't have a rule which says you can.
As for 'ad hominem attacks', if you state that the rules allow you to do anything that's not forbidden in writing, then you're flat wrong. This is a rebuttal of your argument, not a personal attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how you can determine the merit of a defense you clearly did not read or, if you did, did not understand since you seem to think it has something to do with stealing sheep.I only need the rule that says I can. That is the improvised weapon rule. No need to start ad hominem attacks around here. If you want to continue on that path I will bow out now.If you think that, if the rules don't say that you can't, that means you can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work as a whole, not just this one rule.No you don't. This is your metahouserule, it has no place in the rules forum.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.It doesn't say that you can.
In the face of specific, written rules that tell you how a weapon is used, you need a specific, written exception to use a weapon in a different way, or to use a weapon is if it weren't what it is.
Post such a rule and you'd have won!
I suppose it reflects well on him that he doesn't know what it means. : /
and you still think that somehow a crossbow wasn't crafted to be a weapon if you use it in melee... why don't you apply your logic consistently?
your logic also limits "non-weapon" objects usable as improvised weapons to rope, chain, and manacle per RAW... still not addressing that apparently.
also, regarding simulationists/gamists... i perfectly understand the gamist philosophy, it's just based on false premises. one is that the developers of a system understand it perfectly and make all word choices to specifically reflect their careful consideration of every possible eventuality. another is that RAW have a meaning that is independent of any reader. words don't have a meaning independent of a person interpreting them and words don't mean the exact same things to all interpreters; this is a fact of linguistics.
the fact is that different interpretations of RAW support both conclusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it reflects well on him that he doesn't know what it means. : /
ROFL. That is a very valid point.
right, and you assume the purpose of the rules is to tell you exactly what you're allowed to do (and nothing more) based on the above false premises... nothing you said changes that.
sure, in order for the rules to be as strictly permissive as has been argued, no external knowledge can be used to interpret them. that's, first of all, impossible since our communication relies on language which is external to the system.
since we're relying on language, we have to accept that words (written or otherwise) have no objective meaning without interpretation and that not all people interpret all words the same. if words have no objective meaning without interpretation and we dont' all interpret them the same, then they necessarily mean something different (though not necessarily drastically different) to different people.
if all the devs are, in fact, different people, they themselves have different understandings of what the rules as written mean and could not have made all word choices with full understanding of their implications.
thus, the idea that the devs have a definitive understanding of the rules as written is false as well as the idea that the rules as written have a definitive meaning.
as i said, both of our interpretations are supported by RAW, but the strictly permissive reading is unreasonable in light of the limitations of any human developers.
|
words don't have a meaning independent of a person interpreting them and words don't mean the exact same things to all interpreters; this is a fact of linguistics.
Making a statement like that via means of a written form of communication is ridiculous. You assume that everyone will indeed understand the message you intended to convey in your post yet the post is claiming that no one could possibly understand your originally intended meaning but will all arrive at their own personal interpretation.
This could not be more wrong. There is an entire scientific field, called hermeneutics, dedicated to appropriately interpreting the written word. Words do have meaning completely apart from the interpreter and there are established rules of interpretation to follow in order to obtain the correct meaning from the text.
sorry, i can't express thousands of hours of linguistic study in a single forum post (or more likely don't want to), but the statement isn't ridiculous at all. all i claimed was that it was foolish to expect that everyone is going to interpret this text exactly the same.
that there is a field of science dedicated to attempting to derive objective meaning from text doesn't mean that their task is actually possible. people try to do lots of things that they think are possible without ever succeeding.
i'm not saying there is no string of text that will not be understood more or less the same by most people...
I see you just want a clear ruling on whether you could use it to attack adjacent as a improvised weapon. I will FAQ for you.Precisely, and thank you. : )
As much as I would like to hit the FAQ button, (and I still might) I can't help but feel that this is one of those things that is so obvious that no FAQ response is required.
Of Course you can use a long spear as an improvised weapon. For the same reason that you could pick up any 8ft. long stick and use it as an improvised weapon. The key is that you get ZERO benefits of it being a "weapon" listed on the table in the equipment section. In essence, it stops being a longspear and becomes an object, or improvised weapon once you declare you are using it as one.
I think it would do damage as an improvised quarterstaff that could only be used two handed (and not as a double weapon), perhaps even a large sized one since it is almost twice as long as a quarterstaff. But these kinds of things are up to the GM, and I don't think Paizo needs to go through the weapons table and list the different ways each weapon could be used as an improvised weapon.
NOTE:Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2).
purpose of the rules is to tell you exactly what you're allowed to do (and nothing more)I see the rules like programming code. I invoke a rule the same way I invoke a sub-routine or module. The flow of the game is determined by the rules.
As a simulationist-narrativist I imagine the scenario and formulate a response. I have to fit my response into the available rule paradigms.
I ran into a scenario years ago where I was playing an archer. There were 20' tall giants marching towards a 20' tall wall. They were 100' from the wall. I was 100' on the other side of the wall. I tried to invoke the rule for making a ranged attack with my bow. The gamist at the table informed me that I did not have line of effect. I could not invoke a ranged attack as I did not have a valid target. I could imagine "Arching" my shot over the wall. I could easily draw many arcs that could hit the target. "Can I at least roll a d20 and see if I get a twenty?" Nope, said the gamist. 100% cover. I agreed. I marked two arrows off my character sheet. Just because the rule doesn't fit perfectly to the tactical situation doesn't mean that we should be able to annul it.
You have to fit your action into one of the rule paradigms. Not the other way around. Am I missing something?
could you see the target? line of effect only applies to spells because you can arch your arrows... if you couldn't see the target, then you couldn't target the giant, but that shouldn't stop you from launching arrows over the wall until you get bored of probably not hitting anything with the very high miss chance and high likelihood that they aren't were you're shooting.
the real reason you couldn't make an attack against the giant though, was the total concealment bit. theoretically that also stops you from making an attack against a square you think the giant's in because you can't target the square without seeing it.
ALSO, the reason i play pathfinder rather than WoW is because WoW is a computer program and is only capable of doing what the rules programmed say it can. we aren't so limited and the rules of this game aren't intended to limit us in such a fashion.
If you declare that, contrary to the written rules, in your house longspears may be used at both 10-feet and, as an improvised blunt weapon, at 5-feet, then not only have you allowed damage types to be bypassed but you have also taken away one of the design limitations of combat in the game. Suddenly, that wizard who risked that AoO to get inside your reach to cast a spell safely just provoked, because you changed the rules to make reach weapons useable at 5-feet.
This is wrong. You don't get to use an object as a "weapon" AND an "improvised weapon" at the same time. It requires at least a free action to change from one to another*, and except for speaking, you only get to take actions on your own turn. Think of having spiked gauntlets, and a longspear. You are either using the lonpear in both hands, and thus threatening from 5'-10' OR you are holding the longspear in one hand and threatening with a spiked gauntlet, you can't threaten with both simultaneously.
Furthermore, using an improvised weapon is in every way worse then using a weapon. It takes a few feats just to have it not be at -4, it has a weak damage and crit range, and it doesn't benefit from any feats such as weapon focus, or abilities like weapon training. It isn't magical, masterwork, or even made of a special material.
*In the case of bulky objects, such as a longspear, I think it would be ok to invoke the section from double weapons, "You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." I think a GM is free to say that if you want to use it as an improvised weapon, you must decide to do so for the full round.