Basically, what this comes down to, if you think that you can use a longspear in a manner that is not a weapon, then you should also be able to also improvise with it.
While the Longspears description of its components is nil, Here is proof that weapons are just a bunch of assembled objects:
A morningstar is a spiked metal ball, affixed to the top of a long handle.
Right there, we see that this weapon is a combination of two objects. Separate these two, you no longer have a morningstar weapon, but I could certainly improvise with the handle, and maybe even the ball.
However, for some reason, people seem to think that once you attach the two, you are prohibited from ever using the handle as a weapon again.
The argument is IMO ridiculous.
You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
This would seem to violate the very purpose of the Reach property of a longsepar.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.If you are holding a longspear, you can't use it against an adjacent foe. The rules are quite clear on this.
Arguing that while holding a longspear you can pretend it isn't a longspear is just silly.
You only threaten with a weapon you wield. Just like you cannot threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you cannot threaten with a longspear and an improvised weapon at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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*
Do you have a rules reference for switching from 'weapon' to 'improvised weapon' as a free action? Or is this a house rule at your table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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*Do you have a rules reference for switching from 'weapon' to 'improvised weapon' as a free action? Or is this a house rule at your table?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kp61?What-action-would-it-take-to-simply-hold- a#30
Like so many things in this game, it is a GM call I make based on the best input I can get.
You only threaten with a weapon you wield. Just like you cannot threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you cannot threaten with a longspear and an improvised weapon at the same time.
Actually, you CAN threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you just can't make an off-hand attack with the armor spikes while also making your main-hand attack with the longspear. There's a FAQ to this effect if I can find the link.
You only threaten with a weapon you wield. Just like you cannot threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you cannot threaten with a longspear and an improvised weapon at the same time.Actually, you CAN threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you just can't make an off-hand attack with the armor spikes while also making your main-hand attack with the longspear. There's a FAQ to this effect if I can find the link.
The FAQ rules that you can not make attacks with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
You only threaten squares into which you can attack.
Ergo: You don't threaten adjacent squares with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
I don't see armor spikes anywhere else in the FAQ. Is there another FAQ somewhere that changes the ruling?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Ahhhh...the old "It would take too long (or I can't be bothered) to provide proof of my argument but trust me I am an expert" argument. So now it is clear you understand neither linguistics nor logic.
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.
We should accept that because you are such an expert on linguistics with thousands of hours of study on the subject? But it would take to long for you to explain it or provide proof of your expertise. Riiiiiiiiiight. Hermeneutics is considered valid and put into practical use by archaeologists, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, athropologists, and many other fields of science.
i'm not saying there is no string of text that will not be understood more or less the same by most people...
Ohhhh...so some text can be understood by everyone the same but then other text can't and you are qualified to tell us which strings of texts are which.
Words do have meaning. Meaning which is independent from the reader. The task of the reader is to ascertain the meaning of the text that is already there, i.e. the meaning intended by the author. Following the proper principles of interpretation this can indeed be accomplished.
You only threaten with a weapon you wield. Just like you cannot threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you cannot threaten with a longspear and an improvised weapon at the same time.Actually, you CAN threaten with a longspear and armor spikes simultaneously, you just can't make an off-hand attack with the armor spikes while also making your main-hand attack with the longspear. There's a FAQ to this effect if I can find the link.The FAQ rules that you can not make attacks with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
You only threaten squares into which you can attack.
Ergo: You don't threaten adjacent squares with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
I don't see armor spikes anywhere else in the FAQ. Is there another FAQ
somewhere that changes the ruling?
Exactly, and the same thing applies to improvised weapons.
Weapons come in three sizes; light, one-handed, two-handed. Light and one-handed weapons require one hand to wield (unless noted otherwise like the barbazu beard), two-handed weapons require two hands to wield (unless noted otherwise, like post-FAQ/stealth errata bastard sword).
Most characters have two hands, unless noted otherwise.
A longspear is a two-handed weapon. You require both hands to wield it. When you wield a longspear, you cannot wield another weapon (except for example a barbazu beard that explicitly requires no hands).
When you use an improvised weapon, the improvised weapon rules tell you to define the size and damage potential of the weapon by comparing it to existing weapons. This is of course a case where the rules tell you to make a judgement call as they cannot possibly list all objects that might exist (unless you treat "object" as a game term, then there are about a half-dozen non-weapon objects in the game).
The shaft of a longspear is clearly a two-handed weapon, with the damage potential of probably about a club. So 1d6 bludgeoning two-handed weapon.
You cannot wield the improvised weapon at the same time as the longspear, unless you have four hands. Which is the same reason you can't wield armor spikes at the same time as a longspear, unless you have three hands.
The FAQ rules that you can not make attacks with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
You are misinterpreting that FAQ. The FAQ is addressing using Two Weapon Fighting to make an off-hand attack in the same round as you use both your hands to make a two-handed attack. When it is not your turn, you could do one or the other as an AoO, just not BOTH (even if you have Combat Reflexes).
|
The FAQ rules that you can not make attacks with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
You only threaten squares into which you can attack.
Ergo: You don't threaten adjacent squares with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.
I don't see armor spikes anywhere else in the FAQ. Is there another FAQ somewhere that changes the ruling?
You are making reference to whether or not one could Two-Weapon Fight with a Two Handed Weapon and armor spikes and equating that to mean you still can't threaten an adjacent square for Attacks of Opportunity.
The FAQ response is in reference to an attempt to TWF only, not whether you are capable of using both armor spikes and a longspear. If you have iterative attacks, it is perfectly legal for your character to make the first attack with the longspear and the other attack with the armor spikes.
The prohibition on TWF with a longspear and armor spikes is in no way a prohibition to use both weapons in the course of a full attack action or able to threaten with both weapons in order to make attacks of opportunity.
The FAQ rules that you can not make attacks with armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon.You are misinterpreting that FAQ. The FAQ is addressing using Two Weapon Fighting to make an off-hand attack in the same round as you use both your hands to make a two-handed attack. When it is not your turn, you could do one or the other as an AoO, just not BOTH (even if you have Combat Reflexes).
Ah, just so. I see where I was in error. Thanks for clearing that up.
So that is a case where you are wielding two different weapons simultaneously.
But do the rules support wielding a longspear and wielding the same weapon as an improvised weapon at the same time?
I think this is impossible because:
1) Weapons can not also be improvised weapons
2) You can't wield a 2-handed weapon and a different 2-handed (improvised) weapon at the same time.
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.Ahhhh...the old "It would take too long (or I can't be bothered) to provide proof of my argument but trust me I am an expert" argument. So now it is clear you understand neither linguistics nor logic.
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.We should accept that because you are such an expert on linguistics with thousands of hours of study on the subject? But it would take to long for you to explain it or provide proof of your expertise. Riiiiiiiiiight. Hermeneutics is considered valid and put into practical use by archaeologists, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, athropologists, and many other fields of science.
i'm not asking you to take my word for it. i'm only pointing out that i don't care to argue with you about it because i'm, admittedly, lazy. that you don't understand the limitations of hermeneutics is your problem, not mine.
i'm not saying there is no string of text that will not be understood more or less the same by most people...Ohhhh...so some text can be understood by everyone the same but then other text can't and you are qualified to tell us which strings of texts are which.
no... all text is understood somewhat differently by different people, but most things tend to be interpreted closely enough by most people to communicate. are you being dense intentionally?
Words do have meaning. Meaning which is independent from the reader. The task of the reader is to ascertain the meaning of the text that is already there, i.e. the meaning intended by the author. Following the proper principles of interpretation this can indeed be accomplished.
derrida and most literary critics that have come along since deconstruction would argue with you there. edit: most literary critics ever would actually argue that the author's intent is irrelevant (and unknowable since authors are often unsure of exactly what they meant at the time they wrote something and sometimes their intent changes after the writing).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any weapon used for which it was not designed is treated as an improvised weapon. It would be reasonable to treat the butt end of the spear much like a quarterstaff: 1d6 to damage, crit on a natural 20/x2, and a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attack.
Why is this 560-post thread even in existence? That is the real FAQ question.
Any weapon used for which it was not designed is treated as an improvised weapon. It would be reasonable to treat the butt end of the spear much like a quarterstaff: 1d6 to damage, crit on a natural 20/x2, and a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attack.
Why is this 560-post thread even in existence? That is the real FAQ question.
It's quite reasonable. In fact, that is how we rule it at my table.
But it is a house rule and the debate is to determine what the RAW supports.
The prohibition on TWF with a longspear and armor spikes is in no way a prohibition to use both weapons in the course of a full attack action or able to threaten with both weapons in order to make attacks of opportunity.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
unavailable to make any attacks = not threatening adjacent squares, and thus no AoO.
Note: Sorry to use the FAQ system for comedic purposes, but I just wanted to lighten the mood of an otherwise dour thread.
because apparently the rules for improvised weapons say "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." apparently some people see this as allowing crossbows to be used as clubs, but not the pommel of a sword for some reason they can't readily explain because they don't like the idea of someone attacking an adjacent enemy with a reach weapon.
i'm more inclined to respect democratus's position as he wouldn't allow any weapon (excepting, of course, the arrow for which there is a specific exception written out), but i still see his insistence that applying the improvised weapon rules to other weapons being used unconventionally is a houserule as silly.
|
|
Ah, just so. I see where I was in error. Thanks for clearing that up.
So that is a case where you are wielding two different weapons simultaneously.
But do the rules support wielding a longspear and wielding the same weapon as an improvised weapon at the same time?
I think this is impossible because:
1) Weapons can not also be improvised weapons
2) You can't wield a 2-handed weapon and a different 2-handed (improvised) weapon at the same time.
I think it's certainly reasonable. You're not "wielding two separate weapons", you're wielding one weapon, but using it in a manner for which it was not designed. This is precisely the reason why we have rules for improvised weapons (that and if you decided you wanted to pick up the dead goblin and use it to beat the not-dead goblin).
|
|
The prohibition on TWF with a longspear and armor spikes is in no way a prohibition to use both weapons in the course of a full attack action or able to threaten with both weapons in order to make attacks of opportunity.Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.unavailable to make any attacks = not threatening adjacent squares, and thus no AoO.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, and the part about how that only applies to two-weapon fighting went right over your head.
|
|
Any weapon used for which it was not designed is treated as an improvised weapon. It would be reasonable to treat the butt end of the spear much like a quarterstaff: 1d6 to damage, crit on a natural 20/x2, and a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attack.
Why is this 560-post thread even in existence? That is the real FAQ question.
It's quite reasonable. In fact, that is how we rule it at my table.
But it is a house rule and the debate is to determine what the RAW supports.
Common sense and deductive reasoning. The application of the rules depend on it. All the RAW! is provided in the Improvised Weapons section.
I think it's certainly reasonable. You're not "wielding two separate weapons", you're wielding one weapon, but using it in a manner for which it was not designed. This is precisely the reason why we have rules for improvised weapons (that and if you decided you wanted to pick up the dead goblin and use it to beat the not-dead goblin).Ah, just so. I see where I was in error. Thanks for clearing that up.
So that is a case where you are wielding two different weapons simultaneously.
But do the rules support wielding a longspear and wielding the same weapon as an improvised weapon at the same time?
I think this is impossible because:
1) Weapons can not also be improvised weapons
2) You can't wield a 2-handed weapon and a different 2-handed (improvised) weapon at the same time.
The problem then is that the spear has Reach, which prohibits threatening adjacent squares. If you can argue that you are also wielding an "improvised haft" with a 5' reach - then you are threatening all squares within 10'.
This violates the rules stated with the Spear (Reach) and makes all Reach weapons suddenly become "10': also adjacent with a -4".
I don't see how this is supported by the rules.
yeah, that's specifically referring to not being able to make an off-hand attack because your "effort" off-hand is unavailable. i'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to attacks of opportunity. it should say something to that effect later in the same thread, i think.
|
|
The problem then is that the spear has Reach, which prohibits threatening adjacent squares. If you can argue that you are also wielding an "improvised haft" with a 5' reach - then you are threatening all squares within 10'.
This violates the rules stated with the Spear (Reach) and makes all Reach weapons suddenly become "10': also adjacent with a -4".
I don't see how this is supported by the rules.
They also said that weapons that don't have the trip ability are able to be used for trip attempts (including all bonuses, modifiers, etc), which all but negated the need for the trip weapon ability.
The real question we have here isn't whether the longspear could be used as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent opponents (that, itself, really isn't a problem), its whether or not such a character can threaten both adjacent and distant squares at the same time, or does the character have to declare which "mode" he's going to threaten. This question also affects those longspear/armor spike characters, too.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, and the part about how that only applies to two-weapon fighting went right over your head.
The prohibition on TWF with a longspear and armor spikes is in no way a prohibition to use both weapons in the course of a full attack action or able to threaten with both weapons in order to make attacks of opportunity.Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.unavailable to make any attacks = not threatening adjacent squares, and thus no AoO.
Indeed it did.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)...
2 handed weapon requires primary and off-hand attack to use, same way fighting with two weapons does. You can attack with the spikes as a light weapon, but doing so requires a free hand.
EDIT: The bottom line is that you need at least one hand to use (threaten an AoO) a weapon. If you are currently using both your hands to use a longspear, how are you threatening adjacent squares?
They also said that weapons that don't have the trip ability are able to be used for trip attempts (including all bonuses, modifiers, etc), which all but negated the need for the trip weapon ability.The problem then is that the spear has Reach, which prohibits threatening adjacent squares. If you can argue that you are also wielding an "improvised haft" with a 5' reach - then you are threatening all squares within 10'.
This violates the rules stated with the Spear (Reach) and makes all Reach weapons suddenly become "10': also adjacent with a -4".
I don't see how this is supported by the rules.
Are you implying that weapons that don't have the Reach ability can have reach because weapons that don't have the Trip trait can trip?
The real question we have here isn't whether the longspear could be used as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent opponents (that, itself, really isn't a problem), its whether or not such a character can threaten both adjacent and distant squares at the same time, or does the character have to declare which "mode" he's going to threaten. This question also affects those longspear/armor spike characters, too.
Indeed. Though we disagree on the first part (longspear used as improvised weapon) we do agree that - if one was to rule in favor of improvised weapons status how would you rule what squares are threatened?
|
|
that't actually not true, the Trip property allows you to drop the weapon if you fail your cmb check, if there is NO trip property you cannot drop the weapon if you fail your cmb check there is no other benefit from using a weapon with trip property that't why any weapon can be used to trip
It provokes like normal even with trip weapons unless you have improved trip.
Prior to that FAQ, only trip weapons could be used to make trip attempts (applying enhancements, etc). Now, the only thing that the trip ability does is allow you to drop the weapon if you fail in the attempt.
|
|
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)...
2 handed weapon requires primary and off-hand attack to use, same way fighting with two weapons does. You can attack with the spikes as a light weapon, but doing so requires a free hand.
You do realize that if you have iterative attacks (high BAB), you can make one attack with the longspear, and another attack with armor spikes, right?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, and the part about how that only applies to two-weapon fighting went right over your head.
The prohibition on TWF with a longspear and armor spikes is in no way a prohibition to use both weapons in the course of a full attack action or able to threaten with both weapons in order to make attacks of opportunity.Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.unavailable to make any attacks = not threatening adjacent squares, and thus no AoO.
Indeed it did.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)...
2 handed weapon requires primary and off-hand attack to use, same way fighting with two weapons does. You can attack with the spikes as a light weapon, but doing so requires a free hand.
yes... during your full-attack action, you cannot use armor spikes to get an extra attack with an off-hand weapon and an extra attack from armor spikes in the same iteration. attacks of opportunity are unaffected.
i'm fairly certain sean mentions this in one of the threads about the greatsword/armor spikes thing, but i can't seem to find it now.
You do realize that if you have iterative attacks (high BAB), you can make one attack with the longspear, and another attack with armor spikes, right?
Yes, it involves taking a hand off the spear to use the spikes, then grabbing the spear again (free actions). But at the end of your turn, you either have both hands on the spear, and threaten with it, or you have a hand free to use the spikes, and thus don't threaten with the spear any more.
There is a way for a PC to use a reach weapon AND threaten adjacent squares.. Anyone know what it is?
Jurkal, both of those archetypes would still provide a benefit over anyone else doing this... the difference is in the degree of benefit which is largely irrelevant.
edit: in other words, that argument is essentially, "this would make two fighter archetypes less better than everyone else at a minor part of what that archetype does which invalidates the entire archetype."
|
|
Yes, it involves taking a hand off the spear to use the spikes, then grabbing the spear again (free actions). But at the end of your turn, you either have both hands on the spear, and threaten with it, or you have a hand free to use the spikes, and thus don't threaten with the spear any more.
You're assuming that you have to have a free hand to use armor spikes. One does not need a free hand to use armor spikes because one does not need any hands to use armor spikes. The FAQ (and it's reference to an off-hand) only applies while TWF. If you're not TWF, there is no "off-hand".
That being said, I understand your position with reference to spiked gauntlets.
This is stupid.
This is straight up telling me it is impossible for me to pick up a musket, and beat it over someone's head, but totally doable with a dead chicken.
You simply cannot tell me this is not stupid.
the issue isn't weather you can use weapons as improvised weapons but rather if you can use it as a reach weapon and an improvised weapon at the same time and you can't otherwise there would be no reason for a fighter archtype to exist that allows you to do so.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fig hter-archetypes/dragoon
besides if you could improvise a reach weapon as a "club" than what SANE human being playing this GAME would not use a REACH weapon if they want to go the melee route especially if they had full BAB
Ummm... what SANE person would? You lose all enchantments, feats, and bonuses, and take a -4 penalty to attack. It's a terrible option unless your circumstances are strange and dire. The best example I've seen was if you were captured, stripped of equipment, and have only managed to acquire a longspear as a weapon. Even then, you would have to be flanked or have your back against a wall to make this the best option.
The real question we have here isn't whether the longspear could be used as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent opponents (that, itself, really isn't a problem), its whether or not such a character can threaten both adjacent and distant squares at the same time.
I would argue no. The Spear and the Improvised Spear are two separate weapons. When you draw a weapon, part of that movement is to get that weapon into proper fighting position. I would argue it takes another draw action to move a Spear to a new Improvised Spear weapon, as the weapon you drew is no longer being used in the manner in which you drew it.
No to using both at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm... what SANE person would?
This is RAW. Sanity has nothing to do with it.
(Queue "This is Sparta" Youtube link.)
EDIT: When I wrote that, I was joking. Then I realized that many people would both take that statement seriously, and agree. Then I cried.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, what this comes down to, if you think that you can use a longspear in a manner that is not a weapon, then you should also be able to also improvise with it.
While the Longspears description of its components is nil, Here is proof that weapons are just a bunch of assembled objects:
A morningstar is a spiked metal ball, affixed to the top of a long handle.Right there, we see that this weapon is a combination of two objects. Separate these two, you no longer have a morningstar weapon, but I could certainly improvise with the handle, and maybe even the ball.
However, for some reason, people seem to think that once you attach the two, you are prohibited from ever using the handle as a weapon again.
The argument is IMO ridiculous.
Let's explore an even easier example. You've got a lasso which is literally described as "a length of rope with a simple open knot on one end". There's a feat called Equipment Trick that allows you to do all kinds of crazy stuff with a rope. The same logic that says you can't bash someone with a spear as an improvised weapon would also dictate that you can't use any of the Equipment Trick abilities with a lasso, because the moment you tied a knot in the end of it, it stopped being a rope. Is that really the argument we're making here? It baffles me that anyone could support that kind of logic and actually believe it.
A longspear is a spear. It's also a length of wood or some other material with a pointed head on the end. It no more stops being a length of wood when it becomes a spear than a lasso stops being a length of rope.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'd in the hope that this thread will finally fade away.
(Though I am amused at the term "sheepshagger arguement" and hope that the term grows in fame.)
-TimD
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I've got another one for you. The Gunslinger's Pistol-Whip ability states "***the gunslinger can make a surprise melee attack with the butt or handle of her firearm as a standard action***"
But there's no rules for items having butts or handles! Clearly once a gun becomes a gun it stops being a stock and a metal barrel, right? So obviously this ability just doesn't work.
Or how about the Buccaneer? He can "fight with the hilts and flats of his weapons". But swords stop having hilts and blades when they become swords, so clearly this ability just doesn't work either.
Unless, of course, the designers thought it was so obvious that manufactured weapons are made up of various components that they didn't need to remind people that those components didn't stop existing when they were to put together to form a weapon.
Indeed. Though we disagree on the first part (longspear used as improvised weapon) we do agree that - if one was to rule in favor of improvised weapons status how would you rule what squares are threatened?
That's easy, you use the rules already in place. It's a free action to hold a weapon, and a free action to change from holding a weapon to wielding it. So you could spend a free action to "hold" your spear, wielding it as an improvised club or staff and threatening at 5', and another free action to change your grip so you're back to wielding your spear, threatening at 10'. Whichever weapon you're wielding when you end your turn (improvised club or actual spear) is the one you threaten with.
|
Oh, I've got another one for you. The Gunslinger's Pistol-Whip ability states "***the gunslinger can make a surprise melee attack with the butt or handle of her firearm as a standard action***"
But there's no rules for items having butts or handles! Clearly once a gun becomes a gun it stops being a stock and a metal barrel, right? So obviously this ability just doesn't work.
Or how about the Buccaneer? He can "fight with the hilts and flats of his weapons". But swords stop having hilts and blades when they become swords, so clearly this ability just doesn't work either.
Unless, of course, the designers thought it was so obvious that manufactured weapons are made up of various components that they didn't need to remind people that those components didn't stop existing when they were to put together to form a weapon.
You're making my case for me!
If you have a special ability that let's you attack with a pistol butt as if it were a melee weapon, then you have a written rule that let's you do so.
If you don't have that special ability, then you don't have a written rule that let's you. So, RAW, you can't!
Indeed. Though we disagree on the first part (longspear used as improvised weapon) we do agree that - if one was to rule in favor of improvised weapons status how would you rule what squares are threatened?That's easy, you use the rules already in place. It's a free action to hold a weapon, and a free action to change from holding a weapon to wielding it. So you could spend a free action to "hold" your spear, wielding it as an improvised club or staff and threatening at 5', and another free action to change your grip so you're back to wielding your spear, threatening at 10'. Whichever weapon you're wielding when you end your turn (improvised club or actual spear) is the one you threaten with.
There are no such rules. You are required to be holding the weapon in the required number of hands in order to execute an attack with it. If you are, then you are! You don't need the 'draw a weapon' action to hold a weapon that you're already holding!
its either an improvised weapon or a spear it can't be both.
Agreed. And I haven't seen anyone demonstrate anything in the rules that changes this.
Lots of sophistry. Lots of house rules, and I'm all for house rules.
But nothing in RAW.
its either an improvised weapon or a spear it can't be both.Exactly!
Why not?
What if you were to hold the spear backwards and swing it around like a quarterstaff?
What rules, other than the improvised weapon rules, would cover that action?
Are you saying it's impossible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, it's clearly either at any given time and the rules fail to address what kind of action it takes to switch between the two and i haven't seen anyone demonstrate anything in the rules that changes this.
lots of pedantry. lots of house rules regarding what an object is. which is fine; i'm all for house rules.
but nothing in RAW.