| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you picked up a long pole and somebody adjacent to you decided to beat the heck out of you, you could clobber him with it. If it has a sharp point you have to stand there counting your teeth while he kicks them out of your head? Is this what we are saying?
Sorry, but why is this even a question? The question should be, "how much does it hurt when I hit you with this 10# piece of ash wood?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not meaningless. Improvised weapons suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty, lose their enhancement bonuses, lose masterwork quality, lose the benefit of all feats and class abilities that support the use of the weapon. That is certainly a trade-off that requires a cost-benefit analysis.The major problem with using a reach weapon as an improvised weapon is that you would always be able to do it -- there is no reach weapon that would be unusable as an improvised weapon. But we also have the specific rule that you cannot attack adjacent targets with reach weapons -- a rule that is rendered meaningless if you can adjust your grip on the weapon to change it into an improvised non-reach weapon.
The only sane way to eliminate this contradiction is to disallow the use of reach weapons as improvised weapons.
But in that case the correct language would be to say that attacking an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon incurs all of the penalties of using an improvised weapon -- not that you cannot do it. "Cannot" means "cannot" -- not "can do if you adjust your grip and accept a bunch of penalties".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improvised weapons don't have weapon properties like reach.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way we always played was, player declares what they would like to do, DM uses the rules as a reference to adjudicate the outcome.
In this case the player finds himself in close quarters, unable to effectively use his longspear, so he declares, "I wack the skeleton with the butt of the spear."
DM can either tell him with a straight face "You can't, it is impossible to do so." or he can make a ruling. If he goes with the latter, the improv weapons rules look like a good place to start. That's all there is to it.
Which game would you rather play in? Neither way is wrong but I like when the rules serve the game of imagination, not vice-versa.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anguish, I've been meaning to ask you if you believe that it is rules legal to hit someone on the head with the pommel of your sword using the improvised weapon rules?
You seem to be hung up on the "reach" issue. Is that not an issue for you with other weapons?
It's a judgement call but yeah, I'd probably allow it. I don't think the RAW - defined as what's printed - allow it, but it seems reasonable to me.
|
RDM42, how dare you not post his quotes that you claim don't exist. You should always quote the things other people haven't said!
How could you man!
I am the one claiming the quotes do not exist. He has repeatedly claimed that I made unsupported assertions or that I have used non-rules arguments as he did in your quote above. I cannot go back and copy and paste every single post I have made and explain them line by line to show that none of them contain those things. He, and now you, are arguing that I must prove I haven't done something instead of giving an example of where I have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you picked up a long pole and somebody adjacent to you decided to beat the heck out of you, you could clobber him with it. If it has a sharp point you have to stand there counting your teeth while he kicks them out of your head? Is this what we are saying?
Sorry, but why is this even a question? The question should be, "how much does it hurt when I hit you with this 10# piece of ash wood?"
No, actually. If someone next to me started beating me up, I'd drop the absurd 10ft pole and start fighting back with my fists, knees, feet and forehead as best I could.
Let's try and deal with the "realism" argument for a brief moment. I suspect some have a vision of longspear in the head which is more like "broomstick".
Longspear
Longspears
Longspear
Really? You're going to attack an adjacent target with those in any meaningful way? Really?
The rules say you can't, and not without reason. To argue that these things stop being impractically long just because you're "improvising" is missing the point. You're not going to get any rotational impact out of them, you're not going to get any impact from "bashing" with the area between your hands. These aren't even brass knuckles. They're... impractical to use as improvised weapons.
The answer to your question "how much does it hurt when I hit you with this 10# piece of ash wood?" is: "not at all."
can you point to where in RAW disallows it? Without adding a subsidiary rule which is not in to make it work?
Sigh. I know where you're going. I don't believe the viewpoint "if the rules don't say I can't, I can." I sort of believe "if the rules don't discuss the shape of how you can, you probably can, but if there are rules that are close, you follow what's written, else it's a house-rule." So the rules don't say you can't write REALLY SMALL and scribe all your wizard spells on fewer pages of your spellbook, using fewer materials and doing it cheaper. It's even reasonable. But since the rules do make it clear what's intended, I wouldn't all it.
The improvised weapons rules that are printed spell out what qualifies to be used under those rules... "some objects not crafted as weapons". I read that as indicating a subset of those objects which are non-weapons. To extend that to "also, some objects not crafted as weapons but used in an unintentional fashion" is - to me - a reasonable house-rule, but a house-rule nonetheless.
And yes, I know what James said. It's not printed, it's not errata'd, it's not FAQ'd, it's not - in the PFS sense - official. In no way discounting James' authority or wisdom, but I take his comment as a casual interpretation... his house-rule, if you will. I happen to agree with all of it, except the bit about removing the reach property, which I don't happen to consider FULLY reasonable. I feel that property should be left to the DM to decide.
Heck, I don't even agree that if you improvise a +1 flaming longsword to hit someone with the pommel you should lose the +1 or the flaming. Sure, it's clear the hilt isn't burning you, but it's not a stretch to have it flare up and burn someone if you improvise that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so, tell me again how you are not arguing from a place of "This is my personal opinion about how the rules are intended to work, but I'm going to pretend that it's an absolute objective statement about what the rules actually say". I don't care how persuasive you think your subjective vision of the rules and their intent is - none of that is actual RAW. I don't share your beliefs about the rules nor your interpretation of the intent of the improvised weapons rule, so why am I wrong to say that your interpretation is not the only correct one RAW?
Beyond that, why is it impossible that the RAW simply don't provide a concrete answer here? Why is it impossible to admit that the RAW don't clearly take a stance here, and just shrug and say "whatever you do is fine?" This is the core dishonesty I'm talking about - you can't say you don't care about establishing a norm, and then turn right around and say "but it's clear that this is how the rules are supposed to be played, and if you don't play it that way, you are violating RAW/violating the clear RAI/making a house rule/diminishing the elegance of the rules/unbalancing the game/wrongbadfun." If you really don't care about the ability of "official" clarifications to shape other people's game, then simply concede that the rules are unclear, and that any way people play it is fine. You don't have to concede that your interpretation is "wrong", just that it's...
In a word, conviction. I believe I exist. I even extend you the same courtesy. While you may elect to put that into the same category of validity as belief in the Easter Bunny, that's your business. I'm not going to get into metaphysics with you.
Use of my unwillingness to adopt linguistic hubris to the point of saying "I know" in this context as some sort of evidence that I'm spouting mere opinion is a reach. Pun intended.
We don't buy these RULEBOOKS to ignore them. We buy them to use them. To obey them, excepting where our personal preferences disagree, then we ignore the rules we don't like and houserule. Our houserules don't invalidate the accuracy or validity of what is actually printed. I've never been in any way evasive or dishonest that I see the rules as they are printed as what they are... the printed rules we're supposed to follow. It's you that's trying to assign dishonesty to my motivations.
If you don't follow the rules, that's not WRONG. It's just not what the rules say. Simple.
I am the one claiming the quotes do not exist. He has repeatedly claimed that I made unsupported assertions or that I have used non-rules arguments as he did in your quote above. I cannot go back and copy and paste every single post I have made and explain them line by line to show that none of them contain those things. He, and now you, are arguing that I must prove I haven't done something instead of giving an example of where I have.RDM42, how dare you not post his quotes that you claim don't exist. You should always quote the things other people haven't said!
How could you man!
I'm telling you directly, I am calling you out. You say that the rules define "object" as a game term. I say you are full of it. You say that you have quoted the rule where "object" is defined. I say BS. You have been trying to avoid your own shadow this whole thread and it has caught up to you.
Right now, link to your own post where you provided the game definition of object from the rules. YOU CAN'T! You lied about doing it! I've been here for every page of this. You can't pull a fast one and try to sneak it by. You have never given that piece of information which you claim to have done "several" times "every few pages."
This "quote my non-existent post to prove me wrong" BS of yours is over. It has caught up with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you picked up a long pole and somebody adjacent to you decided to beat the heck out of you, you could clobber him with it. If it has a sharp point you have to stand there counting your teeth while he kicks them out of your head? Is this what we are saying?
Sorry, but why is this even a question? The question should be, "how much does it hurt when I hit you with this 10# piece of ash wood?"
No, actually. If someone next to me started beating me up, I'd drop the absurd 10ft pole and start fighting back with my fists, knees, feet and forehead as best I could.
Let's try and deal with the "realism" argument for a brief moment. I suspect some have a vision of longspear in the head which is more like "broomstick".
Longspear
Longspears
LongspearReally? You're going to attack an adjacent target with those in any meaningful way? Really?
The rules say you can't, and not without reason. To argue that these things stop being impractically long just because you're "improvising" is missing the point. You're not going to get any rotational impact out of them, you're not going to get any impact from "bashing" with the area between your hands. These aren't even brass knuckles. They're... impractical to use as improvised weapons.
The answer to your question "how much does it hurt when I hit you with this 10# piece of ash wood?" is: "not at all."
Have you been in a fight? How much damage can I do with ten pounds of wood? I can kill someone. Now I am a large strong man but hardly on par with a warrior trained to use a spear all day long. If you have two hands on it the guy is going to get creamed. If I use my 'gauntlets' instead, I am still adding that ten pounds of wood and steel to my punch. I've been shot (my vest stopped it thank God), stabbed, attacked with baseball bats, hammers, axes, a flashlight, and one time a cast iron skillet. If I had room to maneuver the dang pole I'd still want it.
So yeah, real life. I think I know what I am talking about.
Have you been in a fight? How much damage can I do with ten pounds of wood? I can kill someone. Now I am a large strong man but hardly on par with a warrior trained to use a spear all day long. If you have two hands on it the guy is going to get creamed. If I use my 'gauntlets' instead, I am still adding that ten pounds of wood and steel to my punch. I've been shot (my vest stopped it thank...
Real life has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. How much damage does your fireball do when you are fighting a dragon? How many zombies have you destroyed by channeling the power of your god? Have you ever met an elf or an orc? No one should care how hard you can hit things or what weapons you can use to hit things in real life.
One of the weapons used in Wing Chun is a long pole, sometimes called a dragon pole. I practice Wing Chun. I have also been in many fights but these things are all completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not a long spear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack an adjacent square when playing the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
This is the problem with an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread: it does not matter what makes sense in real life, it does not matter how possible it is to use a long spear to attack an close opponent in real life, and no one should care about these things because PFRPG is not real life. It comes with a set of rules that define its reality instead, many, many of which have no real life analogue.
Have you been in a fight? How much damage can I do with ten pounds of wood? I can kill someone. Now I am a large strong man but hardly on par with a warrior trained to use a spear all day long. If you have two hands on it the guy is going to get creamed. If I use my 'gauntlets' instead, I am still adding that ten pounds of wood and steel to my punch. I've been shot (my vest stopped it thank...Real life has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. How much damage does your fireball do when you are fighting a dragon? How many zombies have you destroyed by channeling the power of your god? Have you ever met an elf or an orc? No one should care how hard you can hit things or what weapons you can use to hit things in real life.
One of the weapons used in Wing Chun is a long pole, sometimes called a dragon pole. I practice Wing Chun. I have also been in many fights but these things are all completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not a long spear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack an adjacent square when playing the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
This is the problem with an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread: it does not matter what makes sense in real life, it does not matter how possible it is to use a long spear to attack an close opponent in real life, and no one should care about these things because PFRPG is not real life. It comes with a set of rules that define its reality instead, many, many of which have no real life analogue.
He was directly responding to someone who said in real life it wouldn't be effective. If you want to gripe at someone for talking about real life do it to the person who originates that line of conversation.
Oh wait, that person agrees with your side in this discussion. I am now calling you dishonest.
Have you been in a fight? How much damage can I do with ten pounds of wood? I can kill someone. Now I am a large strong man but hardly on par with a warrior trained to use a spear all day long. If you have two hands on it the guy is going to get creamed. If I use my 'gauntlets' instead, I am still adding that ten pounds of wood and steel to my punch. I've been shot (my vest stopped it thank...Real life has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. How much damage does your fireball do when you are fighting a dragon? How many zombies have you destroyed by channeling the power of your god? Have you ever met an elf or an orc? No one should care how hard you can hit things or what weapons you can use to hit things in real life.
One of the weapons used in Wing Chun is a long pole, sometimes called a dragon pole. I practice Wing Chun. I have also been in many fights but these things are all completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not a long spear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack an adjacent square when playing the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
This is the problem with an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread: it does not matter what makes sense in real life, it does not matter how possible it is to use a long spear to attack an close opponent in real life, and no one should care about these things because PFRPG is not real life. It comes with a set of rules that define its reality instead, many, many of which have no real life analogue.
He was directly responding to someone who said in real life it wouldn't be effective. If you want to gripe at someone for talking about real life do it to the person who originates that line of conversation.
Oh wait, that person agrees with your side in this discussion. I am now calling you dishonest.
Yes, I was only griping at Karl when I talked about an an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread. I did not specify any individuals on either side, I am criticizing an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread. Sorry but I'm not writing 700 posts to counter every single example of someone improperly citing real life as some defense for their line of thinking. Karl's example struck me as particularly egregious, boastful and lacking in humility in a way that irked me, so I used it as an example to criticize the ridiculousness and inappropriateness of (wait for it) an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread.
Oh no, some stranger on the internet who knows nothing about me has such terrible reading comprehension that it leads him to believe I am dishonest. Whatever shall I do? >.>
Dang avatar mixup. Sorry.
Also BigDTBone, if you look, you will see I made the same argument, without the specifics of my personal martial arts experience, something like 700 posts ago. The post where I talk about it being perfectly possible to pick up a soccer ball and throw it into the net with your hands but how that possibility is not relevant. So yea, please try to be nicer in the future. Not everyone is as marvellously thick-skinned and good-natured as I am.
Also BigDTBone, if you look, you will see I made the same argument, without the specifics of my personal martial arts experience, something like 700 posts ago. The post where I talk about it being perfectly possible to pick up a soccer ball and throw it into the net with your hands but how that possibility is not relevant. So yea, please try to be nicer in the future. Not everyone is as marvellously thick-skinned and good-natured as I am.Fine ... But since thenrules if pathfinder nowhere disallow this particular example, why is that relevant? Soccor specifically says what you can do with your hands and spells out panalties for violating it.
Because the rules state that a reach weapon can never be used to attack an adjacent square. This is where we agree to disagree because I know what your response is--it's not a spear, it's a spear haft that is an improvised weapon. I was not reopening that for discussion, we will simply never agree.
Rather, I was pointing out that my disagreement with using real life as an analogue for what you should or should not be able to do with a spear is not new or dishonest. I said quite some time ago that PFRPG has a set of its own rules that we agree to obey, no matter how much they restrict things that are possible in real life and allow things that are not possible in real life.
I didn't bring 'martial arts' experience into it. I just responded to someone who said 'in real life' you'd do no damage. The reason I didn't was twofold. First, martial arts have rules for practice, even MMA and those rules grow all the time (funny how that happens) and combat has no rules.
Second, rules had nothing to do with it. It was a comment about real life.
Rules-wise? In the future I would put spikes on my gauntlet/armor and clobber the guy with a punch or backhand. Look at pictures of real gauntlets, many if not most have spikes or some kind of 'decoration' that acted as brass knuckles for just such emergencies. As long as that is allowed of course. Wouldn't want to break the spirit or letter of the rules.
Let's try and deal with the "realism" argument for a brief moment. I suspect some have a vision of longspear in the head which is more like "broomstick".Longspear
Longspears
LongspearReally? You're going to attack an adjacent target with those in any meaningful way? Really?
I would like to point out that being generous to your position that the first picture is of a man only 5 ft tall. If so, the weapon he is holding is 10 ft long. The problem is that is 2 ft longer than a longspear as defined in the game (8 ft, according to the PRD). If the man is closer to an average 6 ft the weapon would be 12 ft long.
It's hard to get an accurate measurement for the weapon in the second picture due to perspective, but at a minimum it is at least as bad, and probably much worse.
And finally, the image of the man on a horse. You don't even see the entire weapon, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that it was also oversized.
I have no idea if those are called longspears in real life, nor do I care. If you are going to so pictures of "real life" longspears to bolster an argument against using them, at least use pictures that are the right size please.
To your actual argument of not being able to attack someone right next to you with those weapons (which are not, in my opinion, the longspears being discussed in this thread), I would argue that the awkwardness is accounted for in the improvised weapons rules with the -4 to hit and if you manage to hit someone it's going to hurt just fine.
I'm on the fence about the rules allowing someone to use a manufactured weapon in an improvise manner. The rules don't explicitly allow or forbid it, and as there is no balance issue I would allow it. Unless there is a compelling reason why it shouldn't be allowed?
Let's try and deal with the "realism" argument for a brief moment. I suspect some have a vision of longspear in the head which is more like "broomstick".Longspear
Longspears
LongspearReally? You're going to attack an adjacent target with those in any meaningful way? Really?
I would like to point out that being generous to your position that the first picture is of a man only 5 ft tall. If so, the weapon he is holding is 10 ft long. The problem is that is 2 ft longer than a longspear as defined in the game (8 ft, according to the PRD). If the man is closer to an average 6 ft the weapon would be 12 ft long.
It's hard to get an accurate measurement for the weapon in the second picture due to perspective, but at a minimum it is at least as bad, and probably much worse.
And finally, the image of the man on a horse. You don't even see the entire weapon, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that it was also oversized.
I have no idea if those are called longspears in real life, nor do I care. If you are going to so pictures of "real life" longspears to bolster an argument against using them, at least use pictures that are the right size please.
To your actual argument of not being able to attack someone right next to you with those weapons (which are not, in my opinion, the longspears being discussed in this thread), I would argue that the awkwardness is accounted for in the improvised weapons rules with the -4 to hit and if you manage to hit someone it's going to hurt just fine.
I'm on the fence about the rules allowing someone to use a manufactured weapon in an improvise manner. The rules don't explicitly allow or forbid it, and as there is no balance issue I would allow it. Unless there is a compelling reason why it shouldn't be allowed?
Here ya go!
The spear I primarily used while LARP'ing was this length, and I've gotta say, I could use it pretty effectively at any distance, I could even throw it. (Probably about 10ft, which... isn't that the distance of an improvised thrown weapon)
EDIT: I could obviously throw it more than 10ft, but it got harder to aim at longer distances. (which, isn't that also represented in the rules?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks have called for two answers:
"You cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book."
No problem. In fact, I have already posted it, and we have all looked at it already. But here goes:
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.
Look right there! the definition, right there, of an improvised weapon is an object not crafted to be a weapon. Weapons, on the other hand, are crafted to be weapons. Think of it as a geometric proof:
An improvised weapon is one not crafted to be a weapon.
A weapon is crafted to be a weapon.
Therefore a weapon cannot be an improvised weapon.
=====
While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.
No problem.
First off, the rules say that everything is either a creature or an object (constructs and intelligent magic items kind of bridge the gap, but I hope you will concede that this grey area is not relevant to the discussion.)
Second, I hope we can all agree that the terms "item" and "object" are used interchangeably in the rules. For example, this sentence about breaking things:
Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
Item = Object.
Next, consider the rules for the broken condition:
Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value.
Also consider the rules for Smashing an Object. All these rules set out the properties of objects:
Objects are those things that can gain the broken condition. Of items that can be broken, one class is weapons. All weapons are objects; not all objects are weapons. All objects have one hit point total, used to determine when an object gains the broken condition (there is an exception for very large objects, like buildings, that does not apply here).
The rules do not let you consider a "part of an object" because a spear haft does not have its own hit point total. Damage does not apply to a part of the whole.
|
*The usual stuff about anyone asking a rules question is intellectually dishonest because no-one has to follow rules if they don't want to*
When a court is deliberating on the minutiae of a particular law, it's no help at all for an anarchist to burst in and proclaim that people don't have to follow laws if they don't want to.
True or not, the court doesn't care. It just wants the question answered in it's own terms.
This thread is about what the rules say, not about our freedom to ignore rules.
Your participation in this thread is dishonest. You have no intention of honestly trying to answer the question set in the OP, just on preaching your idea that the very idea of a rules question is somehow dishonest.
Really? You're going to attack an adjacent target with those in any meaningful way? Really?
The rules say you can't, and not without reason. To argue that these things stop being impractically long just because you're "improvising" is missing the point. You're not going to get any rotational impact out of them, you're not going to get any impact from "bashing" with the area between your hands. These aren't even brass knuckles. They're... impractical to use as improvised weapons.
First off, those first two are pikes (which aren't modeled in the Pathfinder system. They would have a 15-20 foot reach if they existed in the game), and the last one is a lance. None of them are longspears.
Second, speaking as someone who has actually done what you are claiming is impractical or impossible, I'm telling you that you are wrong.
A little instructional material for you. Most of these techniques are done with Lucern Hammers. Pay close attention to how close they are during the demonstrations.
|
|
Some folks have called for two answers:
"You cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book."
No problem. In fact, I have already posted it, and we have all looked at it already. But here goes:
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.
Look right there! the definition, right there, of an improvised weapon is an object not crafted to be a weapon. Weapons, on the other hand, are crafted to be weapons. Think of it as a geometric proof:
An improvised weapon is one not crafted to be a weapon.
A weapon is crafted to be a weapon.
Therefore a weapon cannot be an improvised weapon.
=====
While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.
No problem.
First off, the rules say that everything is either a creature or an object (constructs and intelligent magic items kind of bridge the gap, but I hope you will concede that this grey area is not relevant to the discussion.)
Second, I hope we can all agree that the terms "item" and "object" are used interchangeably in the rules. For example, this sentence about breaking things:
Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
Item = Object.
Next, consider the rules for the broken condition:
Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
If the item is a weapon, any...
Absolutely brilliant!
Where have you been for the last 1000+ posts? : )
|
|
When I started this thread, I was seeking to clarify what the rules say.
So it should come as no surprise that what the rules actually say trumps what they don't say.
What they say:-
• how weapons are used in the rules
• which weapons have qualities like 'reach' or 'double'
• reach weapons cannot be used to attack adjacent opponents
• objects not crafted to be weapons may be used as improvised weapons
What the rules do not say:-
• you can use weapons as if they weren't weapons
• you can use any weapon as if it were more than one object even if it doesn't have the 'double' quality
• you can ignore the restrictions on 'reach' by using a weapon badly
• you can use weapons as improvised weapons
All the evidence for one side is written. There is no written evidence for the other side.
No contest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the game breaking issue here is not whether using a "spear haft" (a meaningless term for the game, but whatever) is a suboptimal option or not.
The issue is that if you CAN use a longspear as a non-reach improvised weapon, then you can threaten adjacent squares. If you can threaten adjacent squares, then your options for flanking and taking AoOs and using Aid Another all get wider.
Reach weapons are designed and intended to NOT threaten adjacent squares. Their use for AoOs and Aid Another and Flanking is intentionally limited.
If you decide as a house rule that reach weapons can be used as improvised weapons too, and that switching back and forth between "modes" is trivial, then you have just removed major limitations on reach weapons.
But in fact, RAW, and RAI, the designers do NOT want you to use reach weapons to threaten adjacent squares. They tell us that specifically! "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square."
If, all of a sudden, you CAN attack an adjacent square with a reach weapon, you are violating the letter and intent of the reach weapon rules. That right there is enough, really, to make a convincing argument against the idea, IMNSHO.
Have you been in a fight? How much damage can I do with ten pounds of wood? I can kill someone. Now I am a large strong man but hardly on par with a warrior trained to use a spear all day long. If you have two hands on it the guy is going to get creamed. If I use my 'gauntlets' instead, I am still adding that ten pounds of wood and steel to my punch. I've been shot (my vest stopped it thank...Real life has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. How much damage does your fireball do when you are fighting a dragon? How many zombies have you destroyed by channeling the power of your god? Have you ever met an elf or an orc? No one should care how hard you can hit things or what weapons you can use to hit things in real life.
One of the weapons used in Wing Chun is a long pole, sometimes called a dragon pole. I practice Wing Chun. I have also been in many fights but these things are all completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not a long spear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack an adjacent square when playing the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
This is the problem with an entire line of reasoning continuously put forth in this thread: it does not matter what makes sense in real life, it does not matter how possible it is to use a long spear to attack an close opponent in real life, and no one should care about these things because PFRPG is not real life. It comes with a set of rules that define its reality instead, many, many of which have no real life analogue.
I've met a few orcs in my day. And a pint too many of the hard stuff and you could even wake up next to a harpy. Or even a hag! And as folk who brave the lands of the interwebs, we should all be familiar with trolls.
/shudder
I have certainly triumped over zombies, the husks of humans who live without truly living... such a shame. They're everywhere! While I've never channeled divine power, I have absolutely seen firsthand what a fireball can do...and, good god is that a LOT of damage!
I've never fought a dragon, but that's because I was smart enough not to chase it. I've know a few people who did though, and it never ended well.
Is NOT how formal logic works.
The correct formulation is as follows:
If not intended to be a weapon, then can be improvised.
The contrapositive of that statement is actually:
If cannot be improvised, then intended to be a weapon.
In other words, from the initial statement, you cannot ever prove that objects intended to be a weapon cannot be improvised, you can merely demonstrate that if you are an object that cannot be improvised, you must therefore be intended to be a weapon. You, and basically everyone on your side of the argument, have reversed that clause improperly to read "If weapon, cannot be improvised".
If you still don't get why that's not the same thing, consider this example:
If my car is running, then it has gas.
Makes perfect sense, right(note here that I do NOT have a hybrid, electric, or any other alternate fuel vehicle)? Now lets reverse it the way you are doing with the improvised weapons rule:
If my car is not running, then it doesn't have gas.
Hmm... at first glance that might look okay, but actually think about it for a second - is your car running right now? If the answer is no, is that because it's out of gas, or is it merely because you aren't using it? Certainly it's POSSIBLE that the car is out of gas, but it doesn't HAVE to be true in the same sense that "If my car is running, then it has gas" is true.
In the same way, it's possible (maybe even likely) that the intent of the improvised weapon rule was to specifically and explicitly exclude manufactured weapons. Grammatically and logically, however, the rule doesn't say that, and thus, objectively, there is no written rule that prevents using a manufactured weapon in an improvised way.
Since the arguments against using a spear as an improvise weapon all flow from the same flawed understanding of logic, they seem to all be fruit of the poisoned tree.
I like you Mr Ts. You use logic, and... it is so very nice to read what you write.
The OPs question was answered on page 10 of this thread.
Just to recap what we shouldn't be using to make an arguement (because the "no-way" guys don't like it): common sense, rules as intended, and now logic.
RAW says objects "not crafted to be a weapon," so I buy my spears from the wizard that makes them with fabricate. I'm not trying to use part of the spear, I'm using my whole actual spear in an improvised way and I am allowed to by strict RAW because my spear wasn't crafted at all and therefore could not have been "crafted to be a weapon."
The OPs question was answered on page 10 of this thread.
The OP's question was answered in the second post.
|
|
You're right, it was never a contest, you lost in the first post and have never looked back. I realize that you THINK you have written evidence for your position, but that just isn't true (see below, when for the nth time I demonstrate why). Your argument continues to be based on the assumptions that have been debunked, and your behavior continues to (along with others) be that of people who are interested not in clarifying anything, but in attempting to regulate how other people play the game. Not only is your argument deeply, fatally flawed, but it begins from a deeply questionable premise (that of there being a need or desire for any kind of uniform ruling on this issue). It's okay, though, because Pathfinder allows you to view the rules however you like. Just stop pretending anyone else must or should agree with you.
My motive is to clarify the rules. Yours is to testify that the rules don't matter.
You imagine that my motive is to tell you how to play in your house. When I started this thread, I'd never heard of you. After reading your posts, I've discovered that you don't care what the PDT say. Therefore, at no point did I imagine that the PDT's answer will affect how you play the game.
Just because you assert that you 'debunked' the written rules doesn't make it so. I've got written rules, you haven't. The only way you can pretend to 'debunk' them is to say that the written rules don't count, in a discussion about what the written rules say.
You say the rules are not permissive because they have no rules for falling asleep naturally(!). I say the rules are permissive in the parts which they choose to define, such
as spellcasting, class abilities and...wait for it....combat!
The dishonesty here is saying that the rules are not permissive in this instance, just so you can ignore this rule. I don't believe for a moment that people actually pay money for the CRB just to play 'let's pretend' without using the PF rules. I don't believe that 'if it doesn't say we can't then we can' is how people play Pathfinder. If they did, then:-
• I know my character sheet says it's a masterwork sword, but it doesn't say it's not a Vorpal Holy Avenger! So it is!
• nowhere on my character sheet does it say I can't wish as a spell-like ability. So I can!
I don't believe people play Pathfinder that way. I think you're picking this particular thing and choosing, against all sense, to play this single combat rule as 'not permissive', just to justify your case. Either that, or you're not playing Pathfinder at all. Either way, it's dishonest.
The dishonesty here is saying that the rules are not permissive in this instance, just so you can ignore this rule. I don't believe for a moment that people actually pay money for the CRB just to play 'let's pretend' without using the PF rules. I don't believe that 'if it doesn't say we can't then we can' is how people play Pathfinder.
It is almost like you cannot read... you still don’t understand the opposing view.
We are using the PF rules.
Improvised Weapons are PF rules. It is most certainly in the rule book dude.
We're not just making stuff and playing pretend out on the front yard. It is direct RAW that you can use objects as improvised weapons.
:
A spear shaft is not a spear.
A spear is a weapon.
A spear shaft is not a weapon.
A spear shaft is an object.
A spear shaft is an object and not a weapon.
Attacking with an object is allowed by RAW.
Weapon rules cover attacking with a weapon.
Improvised Weapon rules cover attacking with an object that is not a weapon.
Since a spear shaft is an object, and is not a weapon, if you attack with it you use Improvised Weapon rules.
Fabricate and craft are the same thing. To suggest otherwise is pure sophism.
The whole argument boils down to...
can you re-classify a weapon into an improvised weapon?
And then there are two camps screaming that they both have the answer. When the truth is that it depends on your premise.
The pursuit of pure RAW which has been insisted upon by those in the "no-way" camp leads to that level of scrutiny. If you would like to bring RAI, common sense and logic back into the conversation you should check with your buddies first, because each of those has been rejected when they also demonstrate this should be allowed.
Malachi has said several times that he only cares about RAW. By RAW (absent common sense, RAI, and logic) you most certainly CAN use a fabricated weapon as an improvised weapon. If you don't like the restrictions your side has placed on this discussion then revoke them. By trying to pick and choose when you want to use them then you are the one being dishonest.
|
|
The OPs question was answered on page 10 of this thread.
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!
Yep. If you have the Lunge feat, great!
I've always said that if you have some special ability/feat that let's you, you can.
And if you don't have a written ability that PTA you, then you can't.
Malachi Silverclaw, I'm surprised this thread is going on to page 23. It is clear that improvised weapons do not include weapons already existing, let alone reach weapons (which are clearly stated in the Core Rule book as to not being able to attack adjacent targets) and are not the way to answer your original question. The circular fallacy of the last 500 posts is astounding. I was trying to remind some people that there is a way, but it isn't through improvised weapons.