| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
And in places where the rules go against your common sense you are free to make house rules that fix this. This, too, has been stated by the designers.
The point is to know what the rules actually are. And that is only what is written.
Once you know the rules - you can make a more informed decision about ignoring/altering/housing them to your heart's desire.
There is a 3rd Party feat from Advanced Feats: The Cavalier's Creed called Near and Far which let's you use a reach weapon to attack nearby foes. No levels of dragoon fighter needed.
A friend of mine played an AoO-based battle-cleric with this and Halt the Charge to great effect. Especially when he cast troll arms and suddenly threatened every square within 15ft.
I think by RAW, there is no such thing as the 'back end of a spear'. A spear is an indivisible item. It can gain the 'broken' condition but it has no component parts and cannot be dismantled.Sounds like someone is playing a video game and not a tabletop rpg.
You asked what the RAW was for the blunt end of a spear, not how I'd play it in my game. (I once allowed a ninja to sneak up behind a guard and cut his bowstring, even though the sunder rules don't cover bowstrings or the concept of 'behind'.)
If there are no rules for sitting down then the RAW for sitting down is either 'you can't sit down' or 'you can sit down but it has no effect; since you are not prone, you are effectively standing'.
The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
And in places where the rules go against your common sense you are free to make house rules that fix this. This, too, has been stated by the designers.
The point is to know what the rules actually are. And that is only what is written.
Once you know the rules - you can make a more informed decision about ignoring/altering/housing them to your heart's desire.
No, Stephen was specifically talking about using common sense to interpret the rules. If your interpretation doesn't make sense, you have interpreted the rule incorrectly.
No, Stephen was specifically talking about using common sense to interpret the rules. If your interpretation doesn't make sense, you have interpreted the rule incorrectly.The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
And in places where the rules go against your common sense you are free to make house rules that fix this. This, too, has been stated by the designers.
The point is to know what the rules actually are. And that is only what is written.
Once you know the rules - you can make a more informed decision about ignoring/altering/housing them to your heart's desire.
That is simply sophistry on the part of one of the contributors. "If anything seems wrong, it's the reader's fault."
Been used many times by many writers. Just as wrong today as any other time.
Since you have now decided that the only support for your position is to ignore what the designers have to say about the rules... I think this conversation is over.
The designers have not spoken on this issue. Not sure why you think they have.
You also seem to be confusing "rules I don't like" with "rules that don't make sense".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
No. You have made several claims that need you need to back up. Since apparantly extrapolations aren't okay, I feel we need to have some clear RAW statements about:
1. How an object is defined.2. Whether a longspear is an object.
3. If a longspear is an object, whether a spearshaft is an object.
Since you're all so harsh on RAW over common sense, here's what we know about objects RAW:
The following entities are identified as objects:
"Light blade"; "One-handed blade"; "Two-handed blade"; "Light metal-hafted weapon"; "One-handed metal-hafted weapon"; "Light hafted weapon"; "One-handed hafted weapon"; "Two-handed hafted weapon"; Projectile weapon; Armor; Buckler; Light wooden shield; Heavy wooden shield; Light steel shield; Heavy steel shield; Tower shield; Rope (1 in. diameter); "Simple wooden door"; "Small chest"; "Good wooden door"; "Treasure chest"; "Strong wooden door"; Masonry wall (1 ft. thick); Hewn stone (3ft. thick); Chain; Manacles; Masterwork manacles; Iron door; "Huge boulder"; Huge wooden wagon.
The objects in quotation marks are items that AFAIK are not otherwise included in the game; there are no prices or statistics for a "light blade" for example.
We know a few more things about objects, but mostly about how they interact with other things, like how spells can target objects, but not much more in what constitutes an object.
Now, either you treat object as a game term, and then longspears are not objects, or you treat object as not a game term, defering to the standard meaning of the word; "a material thing that can be seen and touched", and then a spearshaft is an object.
So, unless you can find a game term definition of "object" that is written rather than extrapolated, and it explicitly includes longspears without including spearshafts, you are on very, very shaky ground proofwise.
Of the RAW objects not designed as weapons, only the following seem even close to being usable as weapons when compared to the table to find the closest match:
Rope (1 in. diameter) (1 dmg bashing?), chain (1d4 dmg bashing?) manacles (1d3 dmg bashing?).
If we use the game term definition of object, with the attitude "if it isn't included it isn't valid", why would they even have the rules for improvised weapons?
|
Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.
We do expect a modicum of common senseYour slavish adherence to a ridiculous point is not the intention of the game and not the intention of the designers. THIS MAKES YOU WRONG. The rules do not supersede the game itself, the rules do not supersede the designers.
If you say you can take a long pole in pathfinder and swing it like a club and hit something bluntly with the side, but once you attach a pointy bit at the end of the pole you can no longer hit something bluntly with the side then YOU ARE READING THE RULES WRONG. Remember this?
We do expect a modicum of common senseHe goes on to say
While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicated circumstances; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.Stop being that guy.
This is the rules thread. My OP was about what the rules are.
This is not about common sense. If we want to alter the rules because we think that the rules are lacking in some way, then first we have to understand what the rules actually are. This is the purpose of this thread.
|
|
There is a 3rd Party feat from Advanced Feats: The Cavalier's Creed called Near and Far which let's you use a reach weapon to attack nearby foes. No levels of dragoon fighter needed.
A friend of mine played an AoO-based battle-cleric with this and Halt the Charge to great effect. Especially when he cast troll arms and suddenly threatened every square within 15ft.
Exactly. The feat allows you to do this. Without the feat (or similar special ability) you can't.
If you could, you wouldnt need feats or special abilities to do it.
|
|
"rules legal" includes rule zero of GM fiat.
No it doesn't.
If it did, every single thread in the rules threads would have it's first post be a rules question, it's second post being 'Rule zero, man!', and the third being from a Paizo employee locking the thread as pointless.
The rules thread exists to explore what the rules actually are. Saying 'rule zero', meaning you can ignore the rules, doesn't help establish what the rules actually are.
Every post in the rules threads which says 'you're ignoring common sense man' is a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, either you treat object as a game term, and then longspears are not objects, or you treat object as not a game term, defering to the standard meaning of the word; "a material thing that can be seen and touched", and then a spearshaft is an object.
Any object can be described in many ways. A short sword (for example) is an object, not a non-weapon object (because it is a weapon), a light weapon, a piercing weapon. And these are game terms.
The rules define how you use a short sword in combat. Therefore, RAW, you can.
The rules don't define any way to use different parts of a short sword in combat that differs from how you'd use the whole thing. So, RAW, you can't.
BTW, parts of a single object are not objects themselves. This is true in language. It is also true in RAW due to the fact that RAW doesn't give them game mechanics (except Double weapons, and since they are defined you may use different defined parts to make an attack, and any weapon which doesn't have the double quality may not be used as anything other than a single, whole object).
A weapon defined as a reach weapon may not be used to attack adjacent foes, without a written exception to that rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know an unwritten rule doesn't allow it?
If they can disallow something, why couldn't they allow something?
Remember, unwritten rules are RAW now.;)
Heh. Don't get me started!
Maybe you can attack with a phantom partial object...which uses up two of your attacks....one of which is an off-hand attack that you never took...!
: )
Now, either you treat object as a game term, and then longspears are not objects, or you treat object as not a game term, defering to the standard meaning of the word; "a material thing that can be seen and touched", and then a spearshaft is an object.Any object can be described in many ways. A short sword (for example) is an object, not a non-weapon object (because it is a weapon), a light weapon, a piercing weapon. And these are game terms.
The rules define how you use a short sword in combat. Therefore, RAW, you can.
The rules don't define any way to use different parts of a short sword in combat that differs from how you'd use the whole thing. So, RAW, you can't.
BTW, parts of a single object are not objects themselves. This is true in language. It is also true in RAW due to the fact that RAW doesn't give them game mechanics (except Double weapons, and since they are defined you may use different defined parts to make an attack, and any weapon which doesn't have the double quality may not be used as anything other than a single, whole object).
A weapon defined as a reach weapon may not be used to attack adjacent foes, without a written exception to that rule.
Parts of objects are in fact objects. Objects, especially on the scale we are talking, are simply a construct of many other smaller objects.
Your assertion that language supports your case is patently false too. "Turn the handle and open the door." The handle is a part of the door... and what is worse, the door is a part of the building. The building is a part of the city. Literally it is interconnected by wiring, pipes, roads etc.
And every object on Earth is a part of the Earth. But that doesn't stop us from identifying them individually, or from identifying parts of an object as objects in their own right.
The hilt of a sword. The shaft of a spear. These are objects. And while they are part of a weapon, are not weapons themselves.
Since a spear's shaft is not a weapon in its own right, it is a perfectly valid object to use with the improvised weapon rules.
Unless of course you have a RAW method for determining what an ‘object’ is? Otherwise we should continue to use the normal usage of the word… and I assure you, a shaft is an object.
Now, either you treat object as a game term, and then longspears are not objects, or you treat object as not a game term, defering to the standard meaning of the word; "a material thing that can be seen and touched", and then a spearshaft is an object.Any object can be described in many ways. A short sword (for example) is an object, not a non-weapon object (because it is a weapon), a light weapon, a piercing weapon. And these are game terms.
If object is a game term, where is definition and how does it include a short sword?
Again, less unfounded claims and more evidence please.
BTW, parts of a single object are not objects themselves. This is true in language.
No, it isn't. A cog is an object, even if it's in a machine.
|
|
If object is a game term, where is definition and how does it include a short sword?
It's the other way round in RAW. A shortsword is defined in the equipment chapter in the section on weapons, and it's game mechanics are listed on the weapons tables. Therefore, it is a weapon per RAW. It is a single thing in game mechanics, having weapon stats for it's use as a single, whole object, and no stats for the use of different parts of it as separate weapons. Therefore, RAW, different parts of it cannot be used as a weapon in any way other than as a single, whole object.
The shaft of an unbroken longspear is not a separate object from the whole weapon. It has no RAW way of being used as a weapon apart from being used as a whole longspear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If object is a game term, where is definition and how does it include a short sword?It's the other way round in RAW. A shortsword is defined in the equipment chapter in the section on weapons, and it's game mechanics are listed on the weapons tables. Therefore, it is a weapon per RAW. It is a single thing in game mechanics, having weapon stats for it's use as a single, whole object, and no stats for the use of different parts of it as separate weapons. Therefore, RAW, different parts of it cannot be used as a weapon in any way other than as a single, whole object.
The shaft of an unbroken longspear is not a separate object from the whole weapon. It has no RAW way of being used as a weapon apart from being used as a whole longspear.
The bits about 'Therefore different parts cannot be objects themselves' stuff is all of your own creation.
Nothing says that is true in the rules. It is a nifty homebrew rule I guess.
And... the shaft of an unbroken longspear does have a RAW way of being used as a weapon. The improvised weapon rules.
If object is a game term, where is definition and how does it include a short sword?It's the other way round in RAW. A shortsword is defined in the equipment chapter in the section on weapons, and it's game mechanics are listed on the weapons tables. Therefore, it is a weapon per RAW. It is a single thing in game mechanics, having weapon stats for it's use as a single, whole object, and no stats for the use of different parts of it as separate weapons.
That's fair for a shortsword specifically I guess. A shortsword is defined as a weapon, and weapons are stated to be objects (in the weapon size section). What non-weapon objects exist, apart from those mentioned in the list of object hardness & HP and in the Disintegrate spell?
For object to be a game term, it needs to be defined. What is the definition of an object in the RAW, and where do I find it?
So far, again, there's a lot of extrapolations and guesswork from you but very little evidence.
Therefore, RAW, different parts of it cannot be used as a weapon in any way other than as a single, whole object.
That's a huge extrapolation and not supported by the things you've stated.
The shaft of an unbroken longspear is not a separate object from the whole weapon.
This is something you guess.
Again, without a definition of "object", either we use it in it's common definition (which includes shaft) or as a game term (which means there aren't any objects that the improvised weapon rules apply to apart from rope, shackles and chains, as those are the only stated objects that are non-weapons and have a size that would permit them to be used as weapons)
Is an arrow a weapon?
By RAW as I understand Malachi's interpretation, the answer is "no" in singular and "yes" in plural. They are also objects, but only in plural. A single arrow is neither an object or a weapon, as it's not a weapon, rope, chain, manacle or door.
|
|
You can throw a greatsword, because the rules say you can:-
It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
This strongly resembles the improvised weapons rules. Weapons are not 'non-weapon objects', so how can they use those rules? Because, as I've said repeatedly, those rules are to get game mechanics to attack with things that don't have those mechanics. Greatswords don't have mechanics to make ranged attacks, so this provides those mechanics. So you can throw greatswords as improvised weapons because the rules say you can.
What you can't do is take a weapon which already has game mechanics as a thrown weapon, and then throw it as if it were not a thrown weapon just so you can ignore the game stats for that weapon. You can't, for example, say you're throwing a shuriken the wrong way round, therefore using the blunt end, therefore it's an improvised weapon which most resembles a thrown club and can therefore ignore the rules about shuriken breaking after being thrown.
This is the equivalent of deliberately using a longspear wrong so that you can ignore the prohibition on using that weapon to attack an adjacent opponent.
Is an arrow a weapon?
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).
Using the same rules as before, arrows don't have game mechanics to be used in melee, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply. This is why you can use those rules to get game mechanics to attempt a melee attack with a crossbow.
But you can't deliberately put the arrow the wrong way round in the bow so that you can claim it's an improvised blunt weapon. RAW doesn't let you do that because arrows already have game mechanics for their use as ammunition. The improvised weapon rules do not apply to weapons that are being used to make the type of attacks for which they are designed (melee/thrown/projectile/ammunition).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a weapon an object?
Yes. This is stated under the weapon size section.
ob·ject [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] Show IPA
noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.The shaft of a spear, for example is obviously a fit under number one. Is it visible? Check. Is it tangible? Check. Is it relatively stable in form? Well. The shaft remains a long pole that maintains a specific thickness and length so I would have to say it is.
Agreed. Malachi's claim is that object is a specific game term though, which would mean that the game definition supercedes the common language definition. However, ze still has not provided any kind of link to that definition, just claiming that it exists and just happens to fit hir argument perfectly without referencing where to find it.
|
|
ob·ject [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] Show IPA
noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.The shaft of a spear, for example is obviously a fit under number one. Is it visible? Check. Is it tangible? Check. Is it relatively stable in form? Well. The shaft remains a long pole that maintains a specific thickness and length so I would have to say it is.
The different parts of an object are not 'an object'. Parts of a spear shaft, for example the first 3-feet, the central 18-inches, etc. fail definition 1. because such arbitrary definitions are not a stable form. They are parts of a single object which has a definate form.
It's like defining some random central bit of a tower shield as the equivalent of an improvised light shield therefore I can bash with it even though the rules don't allow bashes with tower shields. 'Oh, but I'm only bashing with the object that's the middle of my tower shield, so the rules for tower shields don't apply!'
Really? What's the rest of the tower shield doing in the meantime? What's the rest of the longspear doing while you attack with it in a way that the rules don't allow?
The different parts of an object are not 'an object'. Parts of a spear shaft, for example the first 3-feet, the central 18-inches, etc. fail definition 1. because such arbitrary definitions are not a stable form. They are parts of a single object which has a definate form.
Again, lots of claims, no evidence.
So, where's that game definition of object that you claim exist?
Also, note that the rest of your post is a "common sense" argument, not a rules argument. Please stop with those, you're only embarassing yourself bringing that kind of stuff up after claiming common sense is irrelevant like a bazillion times.
|
|
Your current view at least supports using a crossbow as an improvised club.
Definately! This was always my view.
Because the crossbow doesn't have game mechanics for use as a melee weapon, only as a projectile weapon. If it was some variant crossbow with an integral spike which had it's own melee stats, the rules would require you to use the stats given when you make a melee attack with it.
What you can't do is claim that you're using you're crossbow wrong and say that you're using it as an improvised bow, just to use the game mechanics for a bow instead of the stats provided for a crossbow.
|
You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.
Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.
You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.
|
|
The different parts of an object are not 'an object'. Parts of a spear shaft, for example the first 3-feet, the central 18-inches, etc. fail definition 1. because such arbitrary definitions are not a stable form. They are parts of a single object which has a definate form.Again, lots of claims, no evidence.
So, where's that game definition of object that you claim exist?
Also, note that the rest of your post is a "common sense" argument, not a rules argument. Please stop with those, you're only embarassing yourself bringing that kind of stuff up after claiming common sense is irrelevant like a bazillion times.
On the contrary; all the game mechanics claims I'm making are simply the rules of how to use longspears, greatswords, arrows, et al. The game rules tell you how to use these.
If there are rules which allow you to use weapons in any other way, such as feats/special abilities, or exceptions in the text itself, use them.
If there is no written way to use a weapon differently, then RAW you can't.
The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
This thread is about what the rules actually say. Not about 'they don't say I can't so I can'. The rules don't work that way, and you know it.
You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.
I don't even know why mr. RAW!!!! guy would want to do that, since "ridiculous" has no bearing on the rules-as-written-word-for-word that ze proposes.
It's completely dishonest to continuously use weird examples of what would happen as an implied argument, and then when people say "hey, it's not that ridiculous" say "COMMON SENSE DOESN'T MATTER FOR THE RAAAW!!!!!".
If you wanna argue RAW and dismiss common sense, stick to the RAW and don't drag _any_ examples of what "could happen" into it.
But ze seems very unwilling to post that link to the game definition of object, which makes me suspect it doesn't exist.
The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
Is "object" a game term? If yes, then prove it. If no, then shafts are objects.
Your current view at least supports using a crossbow as an improvised club.Definately! This was always my view.
Because the crossbow doesn't have game mechanics for use as a melee weapon, only as a projectile weapon. If it was some variant crossbow with an integral spike which had it's own melee stats, the rules would require you to use the stats given when you make a melee attack with it.
What you can't do is claim that you're using you're crossbow wrong and say that you're using it as an improvised bow, just to use the game mechanics for a bow instead of the stats provided for a crossbow.
Reach weapons have no mechanics for fighting adjacent opponents. Why not use the Improvised Weapon rules for this?
|
|
You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.
Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.
You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.
Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate and effective tactic. The example of the tower shield is a very close match to the example of the longspear. It seems absurd because it is, and that should be a clue!
Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.
|
|
Your current view at least supports using a crossbow as an improvised club.Definately! This was always my view.
Because the crossbow doesn't have game mechanics for use as a melee weapon, only as a projectile weapon. If it was some variant crossbow with an integral spike which had it's own melee stats, the rules would require you to use the stats given when you make a melee attack with it.
What you can't do is claim that you're using you're crossbow wrong and say that you're using it as an improvised bow, just to use the game mechanics for a bow instead of the stats provided for a crossbow.
Reach weapons have no mechanics for fighting adjacent opponents. Why not use the Improvised Weapon rules for this?
Incorrect. Reach weapons most definately have those rules, and the rule is:-
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.
so even if they're "absurd", they are what they are. Stop using faulty logic then.
And again, is "object" a game term?
On the contrary; all the game mechanics claims I'm making are simply the rules of how to use longspears, greatswords, arrows, et al. The game rules tell you how to use these.
If there are rules which allow you to use weapons in any other way, such as feats/special abilities, or exceptions in the text itself, use them.
If there is no written way to use a weapon differently, then RAW you can't.
The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
This thread is about what the rules actually say. Not about 'they don't say I can't so I can'. The rules don't work that way, and you know it.
That has been solved for you. Use the shaft to attack.
The shaft of a spear is indeed an object. It isn't a weapon. Improvised Weapon rules apply.
Unless of course you have some RAW based counter argument that precluded shafts as objects... this argument is pretty well over.
|
|
PFS cannot use houserules.
Can a PC not poop in PFS?
You realize that the rule cannot cover every single thing ever.
This does not mean those things do not exist, and cannot be done.
This does not mean everything not covered in the rules is a houserule.
To expect every situation, ever, to be covered, is impossible.
Even the idea is fundamentally flawed.
|
|
Is "object" a game term? If yes, then prove it. If no, then shafts are objects.
The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
Longspears have weapon stats, parts of longspears do not. Therefore, RAW, you can attack with a longspear, but not with parts of a longspear as if those parts were not a longspear.