Aureate's page

So, you're saying if I get myself a small cat animal companion, I basically have a once per day flying mount?

Sprint is once per hour. With kobold wings, could you direct the cat to jump, dismount mid air and glide from there?

EDIT: NVM, you don't get that much vertical height.

They wouldn't get the spells as they are listed, but the cure and wound spells from the words list I would imagine.

Yeah, that's how I would handle it. They would get the words.

I would rule yes. It's a bit late for me so I'm not researching/parsing too carefully, but it makes sense. I would definitely allow it, as I feel that using Words of Power actually weakens a caster, but gives more flavor and flexibility. (I've only played a Magus Wordcaster, so YMMV)

So my rules question:

The archmage path ability Perfect Preparation says a prepared arcane caster no longer needs his spell book to prepare spells.

Does this mean he now prepairs spells like a cleric? Knowing every wis/sor spell (in the case of wizards) and is just limited by his number of prepared spells per level?

No. You still need to learn the spells. You just don't need to refer to a spellbook when prepping them. It doesn't say anywhere that you get access to everything. The exact mechanics of this need to be handled by your GM.

I would require the Archmage to keep a list of spells known and treat it like a spellbook. The bonus being that he can never lose it. He will always have access, even when imprisoned.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

I agree that RAW the target line is problematic, but intent seems clear. You can cast it on a shield or breastplate, those are examples of appropriate smooth surfaces. Both items are generally larger than 1 square foot in surface area. From that you can infer that the target should have been written as "up to 1 square foot of a metal item".

It isn't useful for the "Mirror" chain of spells without preparation, and I'm okay with that, but I can see how it diminishes those spells if you don't have a quick way to make a mirror. Instead of something that created a permanent mirror they should have made a spell that creates a temporary mirror of a larger size. Like 1st level spell - 1 hr/level and up to 2 sq ft/level. Or something like that.

If it's a home game talk to your GM about making a custom spell like that.

I'm pretty sure that the spell is right, as written.

For power, I'd probably have called it a 0-level spell. But for value, a 1st is okay, I guess. A small metal mirror that you can buy as adventuring gear costs 10GP. Hiring a 1st lvl wizard to cast the spell would cost 10GP. (Caster lvl 1 x Spell level 1 x 10GP)

It would take several castings to make the shield good for use as a portal, however all the castings could be done in downtime, maybe with a single casting as a touch up when you want the portal.

FAQed.

FAQ wrote:

When I use a magic item like ring of invisibility or hat of disguise that can be activated to gain the effects of a spell, does the wording "as the spell" also include the spell’s duration?

Yes, such items' effects have a duration, as indicated by the spell’s duration and the item’s caster level. If the item has no daily use limit, however, you can simply use the item again to reset the duration.

<sarcasm>Yay!</sarcasm>

Thanks for answering the FAQ, even though I disagree with it.

Seriously, this is yet another FAQ that I'll be ignoring. I am not going to make a player reactivate a ring of invisibility every couple of minutes. Or a hat of disguise for that matter.

I'm glad I'm not doing organized play. I wish there was a system doing organized play that I actually agreed with a majority of rulings made.

The real argument here that people on both sides are having seems to be an order of operations issue.

A.) One side starts at all times assuming that a character is built from the ground up from moment to moment. i.e. Feats can't qualify for themselves, because you don't have it applied until you qualify via other means.

B.) The other side assumes that you take a character in its current state when checking for legality. So if you legally took a feat by meeting its prerequisites AND the feat happens to supply that prerequisite, if you lose the first reason that you were able to take the feat it's okay, because the feat won't go away until you no longer qualify. Which is impossible because it supplies what you need.

Both points of view have merit. I would guess that the devs would rule more toward side A, because it is the more conservative view. And it doesn't require memory when checking if a character is legal. (Did you ever qualify for this independently? When?)

In a home game I would without question allow B.

It really all just comes down to when/how you check the state.

There is so much wrong with this.

First off, it targets an object. Not a creature.

Next, as far as I know you can't cast a new spell while maintaining concentration on another. Since the duration of Mage Hand is Concentration, you can never have more than one.

Really, you don't even need to get into anything else to show that this doesn't work.

That's before getting into balance issues. New GM can be forgiven for getting confused. Players taking advantage of that? Not so much.

For what it's worth I'd like this FAQ reversed. I am really sick of FAQ's changing rules. (yes it is a rule change) They could have made it errata, if necessary. It may be a narrow application, but for a seeming majority it is non-intuitive. There are a few vocal supporters of the change, but it really overcomplicates things.

FAQ's should make things more confusing. Ever.

There is nothing wrong with knitting at the table. I've seen knitter's doing their thing in Grad school (a hat per class), while listening to the lecture and participating meaningfully. Clearly the knitting bothers you more than them not liking your ruling, but you didn't say that they were disrupting the game.

As far as your ruling, perhaps you should explain the exact circumstances better. If the player had a reasonable expectation that they could do something with their character and you just said "no", without a reason it could be frustrating. My guess is that the way you handled the encounter was part of the problem. Not whether you were "right" by the rules, but by presentation. Invalidating a character or character concept without an explanation is frustrating to a player. If you won't work with them to tell a story, why should they work with you? Maybe you took away the only choice they felt they had in the situation.

It's also possible that the player is a passive aggressive noodle head. But you didn't give enough information and what is there is surely biased.

Shouldn't this thread be in Advice and not rules?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question Dimensional Lock answers your question in the spell.

A dimensional lock does not interfere with the movement of creatures already in ethereal or astral form when the spell is cast, nor does it block extradimensional perception or attack forms. Also, the spell does not prevent summoned creatures from disappearing at the end of a summoning spell.

The description also says Spell Resistance:yes, so it applies. If you succeed at an SR check you could travel into or out of the area as the spell doesn't apply to you.

Is there some information that you have that conflicts with the spell description?

I would say that assuming they stack at all, that you would get a +1 for each for a total of +2. I'm a little dubious of the archtypes being compatible, but I don't have a reference for them. What book are they from?

They aren't quite the same. The standard magus fighter training lets you qualify for feats and apply them with any weapon as normal. The kensai magus fighter training requires that you are using your favored weapon to have the benefit of the feat.

Granted, you are generally going to be using your favored weapon, but that's the difference.

I would say there is nothing to correct.

I generally don't comment on one side or the other of controversial debates, but I can see where Malachi is coming from on this. I would allow his interpretation in one of my games without question.

The actual rules arguments have been stated, and now people are just talking past each other. So, I don't really have anything to add except to throw my hat in to say that it isn't as one-sided as some of you seem to think.

I may not be as eloquent, or as experienced with arguing as some of the more frequent posters, but I don't appreciate it when someone is using perfectly reasonable logic and then called names for it. It has no place here.

I do appreciate the attempts of the Paizo folks like Liz that remove those posts. I just wish it weren't necessary.

Mojorat wrote:

Because of when the reduction in damage is applied.

spell a causes all creatures in its radius by 5 pfs.

So bob is 1d8+8 dmg normally. In the spells effect he is 1d8+8-5 or 1d8+3. His damage is reduced.

If a spell caused all creatures in an area to receive 5 less damage it shiftz things to the defender.

Bib says he does 12 damage his damage calculation is done.

Dr is not parr of bobs damage calculation.

It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties (numerical reductions) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5. When the attack is over, the person takes 5? No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.

The logic you are using is flawed. Penalties are reductions, not all reductions are penalties.

This isn't hard. This is easy, but time consuming. Before this, if I remember correctly, you couldn't recharge your staves at all.

With Valeros (Guardian) and the power checked to be able to recharge armor instead of discarding it would would work with Invincible Breastplate from AP5. (It has the ability to discard to reduce damage to 0) But all other armors that I've seen are buried to reduce damage to 0, so the power wouldn't apply.

I think he's misunderstanding the ability to recharge at the end of the turn. That doesn't apply if you've already discarded, buried or banished the card.

That and the damage isn't cumulative and applied at the end of combat. Deal with each part of damage as it happens.

alright, my bad, posted it here just not thinking or knowing really about the different areas to post, I agree about the ally power to an extent, I know the bonus is too powerful, realized we were cake walking through stuff pretty well, still got beat by that dragon even with the ability >.> was thinking of reducing it to a d4 and either taking the recharge away or making it recharge additionally for +1 []+2 , opinions of that? the evade will most likely stay because merisiel a pathfiner character has that ability to the exact word, I figured...

There is nothing wrong with the evade, when taken alone. But in the context of the rest of the character it's just too good. It would still be good if you had to discard a card (think smoke bomb for flavor) to evade the encounter.

As far as Perception being Wisdom based, that has its basis in the RPG. As far as I know there are no characters with an Intelligence base for their Perception.

Personally I still think that the Ally power is plenty good with 1d4 on your own check with no recharge for additional bonuses. I'd probably say that discarding would be a better choice over recharging in general.

Flavorwise I don't think that having a strong Ally power meshes with the character's stats. Charisma is a d6 which is the second lowest die possible and is the stat used for getting people to do things for you. Using allies over and over again, followed by the recharge, so that you can keep asking for their help later just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Those are just my opinions. Without playtesting some ideas I'm not sure how it would play out.

I would drop all the Dex skills and increase the size of the die. Probably reduce wisdom in its place.

A d8+1 gives the same average roll as a d10 (5.5 avg). Most of the time you can make Dex or related skill check. It would amount to the same thing and would use fewer skills.

Overall this feels like cherry picking all the good parts from multiple characters without taking on any of the weaknesses. As good as a sorcerer for reusing spells with the larger selection of a wizard AND the ability to wear armor AND a decent melee combatant too. Constitution as a weak stat almost never hurts you because there are so few checks that involve it.

For a character to be balanced it must have both strengths and weaknesses. I'm just not seeing the weaknesses here.

I like the idea, but it is just too good in my opinion.

In my opinion this is way overpowered.

There are too many good skills and the powers are also really too powerful. You have 6 skills listed with a total of +9. That's just too much. (Also, Perception should be a Wisdom based check.) Consider dropping melee altogether. Drop or weaken perception. Drop one of the Dexterity based skills. That would take it to 4 or 5 skills.

The evade is far too powerful. Explore with no consequences if you come across something bad? Power that with burying a card from your hand or at least discarding a card. Or weaken it to only work on weaker encounters. Basically anything to make it less good.

The reveal an ally power is also way too good. Lini can only add to her checks when revealing a subset of allies, animals. And then she gets 1d4. And that ability makes her one of the most powerful characters in the game (in my opinion). This assassin version is even better for power AND it can be boosted even further on a recharge AND it can be used on another characters check. I would suggest limiting it to humans, lowering the die to a d4 get rid of the recharge for an additional boost, but allow discarding to give another character (possibly at any location) a d4 to their check.

Even with these suggestions to weaken the character, I still think it would be rather powerful. I love the concept and think you're on the right track.

Also, FYI I flagged this thread to be moved over to Homebrew.

Can a character take 10 on an Acrobatics check to make a jump, provided he is not in immediate danger or distracted?

I'm aware taking a 20 would be impossible, as this would mean taking a 1 as well (and failing the jump) but nowhere in the take 10 entry is it suggested that taking 10 means taking 1-9 first.

The DC of the jump is determined by distance and doubles if you don't do a run-up. If you are not in immediate danger you can take 10 on your acrobatics check. It takes no more time than if you were making a normal check and you are not restricted to doing it when you have a running start.

As to taking 20, if you were in a situation that you could keep trying, with no consequences for failure, you could still take 20. An example might be jumping to reach a hanging chandelier. It might be out of reach Taking 10, but as long as you can keep trying there is no reason you couldn't take 20.

Also, rolling a 1 on a skill check is not necessarily an automatic failure. If a character's skill is high enough a 1 can succeed.

I was reading the rules for magic item creation, and I have an observation about the RoL. The cost for an item that gives +5 to a skill is supposed to be 1250 gp to make, 2500 gp to buy. (square the bonus, times 100).

The cost of a ring of climbing adheres to this, but a RoL is a restricted ring of acrobatics. A ring that gives a +5 to ALL acrobatic maneuvers should cost 1250/2500, but the RoL only applies to acrobatic leaping, yet costs the same.
Have any GMs reduced the cost, or broadened the power of a RoL to cover all acrobatics?

I'm assuming that you are talking about the Ring of Jumping. (I couldn't find a reference to a Ring of Leaping)

The discrepancy is because of the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Jumping used to be its own skill. So the item does the same thing as it did in 3.5, for the same price as it was in 3.5. But, since jumping is now part of Acrobatics, I'd be inclined to just give someone a Ring of Acrobatics for that price. Yes, it would be more powerful than the previous item, but I'd be okay with that.

I would treat it as no longer part of that location deck, and would leave it at that location even if it were closed.

Think about it like this: If you are at an open location and it is otherwise empty, but a Reduction Field is in play, what happens when you explore? Nothing, because there are no cards to encounter. In other words, the location deck is empty and you may attempt to close the location.

There are reasons to go back to closed locations, sometimes there are cards placed under a closed location. Based on that, I would leave the field in play until a character deals with it.

There isn't anything super official for playing with multiple groups, yet. But this thread has a way to do it.

What's up with the Pathfinder Design team? No posts, no FAQ's answered, no new FAQs.

I imagine that they're just busy. It doesn't help that when they make rulings on anything controversial they get ridiculed for doing the exact thing people are asking for. So they would have to spend even more time discussing an issue before deciding on a ruling.

I don't know for sure about the design team, but Chris Lambert has been doing a great job trying to keep things civil on the forums.

Does the Orange prism ioun stone (+1 caster level) allow you to take some feats/PRC's sooner than normal?

Example
Divine Interference** spoiler omitted **

Could you take that at 9th?

To my knowledge items give you the ability to take feats if the item bestows a 24 hour or longer permanent stat. (EX 12 Str with a belt of str can take power attack but only use it when he meets the feat prerequisites) Does the Orange prism function the same way.

No. Because it is not an ability score. (The temp to permanent bonus is specific to ability scores, AFAIK)

Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

However, I might houserule it to allow it. The item does increase your caster level. And it is bloody expensive. The prism costs 30,000 GP. Expected Wealth by Level at 9th level is 42,000. If a player wanted to use the majority (72%) of his resources to gain early access to gain access to something one level early, I'd allow it. I'd caution the player against it, because there are much better things he could be doing with his money. But I'd still probably allow it if he really wanted to.

When a character without the arcane skill acquires something like Force Missile, how does it work when they use it?

For your combat check, discard this card to roll your Arcane die + stuff--- What is your arcane die if you don't have the arcane skill? Does it default to intelligence, because that's the alternate check to acquire?

This came up tonight and I am spacing out about what it should be. We went with intelligence, but weren't quite sure.

Thanks for the confirmation. Appreciate it.

We were playing a scenario with the Farmhouse location. It says that any allies that are discarded are buried instead. Does that include discards used to power abilites like Seoni's? I'm assuming yes, and that is how we played it, but it did come up in conversation after the game.

The output that your link links to is for 3d4, so it looks like it doesn't save the output links long.

Without using AnyDice, it's easy to get the following
5d6 = 5-30 with an average of 17.5
3d10+1 = 4-31 with an average of 17.5

All that being said, Aureate is correct, higher numbers are more likely, probability wise, with 3d10+1, because it's easier to roll 3 10-sided dice and get above average [(5/10)^3 = 12.5% above/below average], as opposed to rolling 5 6-sided dice [(3/6)^5 = 3.125% above/below average].

Using AnyDice, you can see the full calculation results (you can use the link in Aureate's post to get there, but will have to manually enter the dice to roll up top).

The results in question can be seen on the AnyDice using the At Least and/or At Most Graphs.

Huh. The link works for me. But the outputs are easy enough to enter manually.

(I did the math, it was slightly better to roll 5d6 vs. 3d10+1: same average, higher minimum).

The math here is interesting. I ran it through anydice.com and found that it depends on your target number. If you need anything higher than an 18 you are slightly better off with the 3d10+1. For anything less than 18 you are better off rolling the 5d6. Not a huge difference either way, but it is very interesting.

Link to the anydice output.

EDIT: Granted, you will rarely need the higher number, but if you do it's good to know.

Mythbusters did an episode (169, let there be light) regarding using mirrors to redirect sunlight to light a dark room ala The Mummy and showed that it really doesn't work like portrayed in the movies.

But that's real life. In game I don't know of any rules or guidelines to use. I probably wouldn't allow it to hurt the vampires as their entry specifies direct sunlight. Reflected off from mirrors isn't direct. (Moonlight is just reflected sunlight and that doesn't harm them either.)

Vampires recoil from mirrors according to their PRD entry and have to make DC 25 Will Saves each round to overcome their revulsion. It's as bad a strongly presented holy symbol to them. It might be hard to rationalize them even having mirrors in their lair at all.

I'm glad it isn't just us that were being oblivious.

We were playing it harder than it needed to be, but that's okay. We still had fun.

I can see reading this effect in this manner and it does make it less overpowered. It is still extremely powerful effect.

I have a question though how would you duplicate "Scorching Ray" using the Word spell rules?

Note Scorching Ray is the only spell that I have found that provides multiple rays and thus I was basing the effect of the boosted selected target word on its applications but I can see the difference in the wording of the two effects.

You wouldn't duplicate Scorching Ray (or any other specific spell) with Word Spells. You can come close on some, but they are generally a weaker option that offers more versatility.

If the Henchman of Villain is a Monster, then yes.

Rulebook v3 p17 wrote:

Type: Most banes are either monsters or barriers. Most villains and henchmen have the “monster” type and count as monsters; a few henchmen have the “barrier” type and count as barriers.

Henchman and Villains, like Loot, have 2 types.

Thanks. We didn't notice that additional type box.

And the rulebook reference page is helpful as well.

If I use Augury and select Monster as the type that I'm looking for are Henchman/Villains included or do I have to search by their specific type? i.e. Augury for a Villain specifically.

We have played it that you need to search for the specific type, but that seems counter-intuitive.

KapaaIan wrote:

That makes sense with the distinction between a "roll" and "per die rolled." That actually makes things easier because part of me really didn't want to take PBS. Without the potential extra 60 damage, it's not quite worth always standing that close. Corrosive bolt would still have its purpose (As Jesterle just detailed) for the ultimate crowd damage spell.

Note there is nothing in the rules that says you can not target all the bolts at one creature.

Personally I think the Boost to the Selective rule is broken but it is awesome.

That is incorrect.

Boost: Instead of one target, the wordspell affects up to one target per caster level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart. The range increases to medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level). If used with an effect word that deals energy damage, the wordcaster must make multiple ray attacks for each target (they cannot be made as melee touch attacks). This boosted target word increases the level of all the effect words in the spell by 3 levels.

It adds a ray per additional target, not a number of rays that can be fired at a single target.

Without limiting language it takes effect immediately, per this FAQ

Good catch. I concur.

Is the plank collapsing through magic? Does it fold on hinges?

It folds on hinges.

Link to prd entry

I would price similar to tools as well.

Normal price: 4sp
Masterwork: 50GP (dropping the 4sp for rounding)
Darkwood version: 150GP (masterwork + 10GP/pound for darkwood.)

Edit: to go from common to masterwork, I looked at backpacks as an example. Common were 2GP, masterwork are 50GP.

I would say that you can target an outsider with Create Soul Gem. They aren't soulless. In fact they are all soul. Personally, I probably wouldn't allow it on a dead outsider, but would target them while they are dying.

I'm curious as to what would happen to their body if they are a soul that is captured in a gem.

Nothing to add, but I'm curious why all these really old threads are getting necroed. I've read several in the past couple of days that hadn't had any activity in months or years.

It's an odd spell that appears in a 3.5 module, and as far as I can tell nowhere else. So the fact that the spell doesn't actually work as written against golems doesn't surprise me. I don't have the module, but perhaps it included a rare golem without Immunity to Magic?

One thing to be aware of is that mount is significantly different than summon monster. A mount doesn't automatically attack your enemies for example. The spell says it serves 'willingly and well' but serves is modified by the previous sentence be 'serves as a mount.' It is reasonable to rule that a mount that isn't being ridden will either just wait or perhaps move away if threatened.

^This^

If you want a bunch of horses to do combat, use Summon Monster. If you use Summon Monster IV with Superior Summons you get 1d4+2 Horses with the Celestial or Infernal template applied. Yes, it's a higher level spell, but they will follow attack commands.

But all that said, if you are GMing and doing this for some cinematic reason, then go for what makes the most sense for your story.

Superior Summons.

Communal Mount.

How does the feat interact with the spell? Do you get one more at the max duration? Raise the limit from six to seven horses? A free extra summoned horse?

Mount, Communal says that you summon up to 6 mounts and divide the duration among them in two hour increments.

Superior Summons adds one to the number of creatures summoned any time you summon more than one with a summon spell.

So, if you summon more than one with Communal Mount, in this case I'm guessing you would be going for the max of six, you would get an additional mount. In this case 7.

The duration is divided as you choose amongst the 7 mounts in 2 hour incremements. Nothing in Superior summons is giving you a bonus to the duration. This means that if you want 7 mounts for the minimum 2 hours you would need to be a 7th level caster.

At least, that's my reading of it.

That works. But then you would have to be a third level aasimar for the two feats.

Bloatmage Initiate, Spell Focus (any school).

It was mentioned earlier that in PFS you get Spell Focus in place of Scribe Scroll at first level. So if you take Bloatmage Initiate as a first level aasimar wizard, then you can can start taking bloatmage at second level.

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Requires two feats and 3rd level arcane spells. It can be done with a PFS aasimar Wizard as wizards get spell focus instead of scribe scroll in PFS.

How do you get said 3rd level spells at first level?

An Aasimar gets Daylight 1/day as a SLA. That counts as access to 3rd level arcane spells for this purpose. It's silly, but true.

Therefore, default to the DM's decision, but do not call it RAW. And that decision goes under the "homebrew" label, which is fine.

I don't agree with this. Firstly, as far as I know, there is not a definition of homebrew and what should or should not be labeled. If you try and look up a definition you will find that the term is about making alcohol at home. Since that common definition doesn't make sense here, I will instead assume that it's being used as synonymous with House Rules.

If I am playing and the rules are unclear, and the GM is not changing a rule, then the GM is not using a house rule to say that the rules are to be interpreted in a specific way. At least not anymore than any other rules interpretations that they are within their purview to make.

But in my opinion a house rule is a rule that is created to deviate from the written rules. Your opinion on that may be different as well. (If everytime a GM makes a decision it could be considered a House Rule from then on, I suppose.)

Trying to label the stance that one side of this debate is following the rules and the other is using "homebrew" is problematic, because it turns into "right-play" vs "wrong-play". Which is unnecessary because the rules are unclear and it really should fall under GM purview until such a time as the rules are clarified.

All told, I think that this thread has played itself out. Either your GM will or won't allow it. At my table it would be allowed, but I don't read the rules like a legal document. I read them as rules to facilitate story telling, so when common sense says an action should be possible I will use the best fit in the rules to allow the action.

Reading the rules more like a legal document gets a reading where it doesn't expressly permit you to use a weapon in an improvised manner, therefore you can't. That style doesn't work for me or my group, but it doesn't mean that a group is wrong to play it that way. That is a stylistic difference and I believe that both groups can do that using RAW. (Note that neither side is breaking any rule as written to do this, so they don't need to create a house rule, they are just interpreting the rules in the manner that best fits their situation.)

I'm out of this for now, if the thread is still around at 2,000 or so posts I might pop back in and see what's going on and if any new ground has been broken.

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?

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?

As is apparent from this thread is that the answer is either yes or no, depending on your GM. Personally, this is the sort of thing I allow. Diamond in form A to Diamond in form B. Seems simple enough. And I like simple.

If the only reason you don't want it to be allowed is that you don't want a Wizard to cast Wish, then don't allow them to learn Wish. If you are worried about it breaking the economy, ask your players to not break it.

You are there to have fun. You can theory-craft ways that this breaks an economy all day. The bottom line is that if your players are having more fun breaking an economy than playing your adventure, you have bigger problems.

For those that give a hard line No, I am one of many GMs that disagree with you. Please stop speaking in absolutes. The wording of the spell gives leeway for interpretation.