PatientWolf's page

Name of PC: Devar
Race/Class/Level: Half-Orc/Rogue/Level 4
Adventure: Burnt Offerings
Catalyst: Malfeshnekor
Story:

Remy is one who believes the description/introductory language is part and parcel of how a feat or ability functions. The introductory language of Strike Back makes it clear that the purpose of the feat is to now be able to attack the weapons of someone who is attacking you from beyond your reach.

Remy is one who always ignores the rules he doesn't like to come up with some really absurd positions. There are a number of effects in the game that target a creature but the effect is applied to one of its items. This is nothing new and everyone really understands that fact and I imagine that in all of those other cases Remy understands that as well but is only ignoring now because it doesn't fit his position.

Example:

Gravity Bow

School transmutation; Level ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 minute/level (D)
Gravity bow significantly increases the weight and density of arrows or bolts fired from your bow or crossbow the instant before they strike their target and then return them to normal a few moments later. Any arrow fired from a bow or crossbow you are carrying when the spell is cast deals damage as if one size larger than it actually is. For instance, an arrow fired from a Medium longbow normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if fired from a gravity bow. Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses your bow to make an attack the arrows deal damage as normal for their size.

The spell targets YOU but the effect is applied to items you are using. Likewiese, the sunder combat maneuver targets the CREATURE but the effect is applied to the weapon it is carrying. If you can't legally target the creature you can't sunder his weapon. Nothing at all confusing about that.

I'm providing an answer, whether you care to see it or not. I'm contributing to the discussion. Don't try to dictate to me what I can or cannot discuss.

The only answer you are giving is completely irrelevant to this forum. This forum is for determining what the rules actually are not to discuss "what do you do in your game". What Malachi does in his game and what I do in my game at home and whether it works for my group is utterly irrelevant to what the rules of the game actually are. So saying "Does what you are doing now work? Well that is the answer". No it isn't no matter how many times you continue spout it and you know it.

The answer to the question is not Yes and No either. Both answers are not equally valid and true. Both interpretations are possible but only one can be true from an actual RAW standpoint.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

...well...now that that's all been explained...!

...does anyone have any clues as to the question: do improvised weapons threaten?

If, like me, you don't know but would like to know, please hit FAQ. : )

How have you been handling it up to this point? Oh? Cool. That working well for you? Yeah? Well, that is your answer.

No that isn't an answer and jerkish comments like that are designed to just stir up drama not meaningfully contribute to the discussion.

If Malachi wants to know how the experienced game designers on the Pathfinder Development Team actually meant for this to work who do you think you are to imply he shouldn't ask? We have already covered over and over again and everyone completely agrees that if something is working well for your game you are free to keep doing it and aren't a slave to the rules (organized play is a different story but not relevant here). Those who, for whatever reason or even no reason, want to know what the actual rules are and want developer input don't need you popping into every thread to spout this kind of inane and unhelpful comment.

Note the parts in bold. What I am saying is that these two concepts are NOT the same thing. I'm not saying that the devs don't have authority to clarify their intent, I'm saying that their intent is NOT necessarily the same thing as "what the rules mean", and that it is not a good idea to act like they are absolutely and objectively the same. That's what I was pointing out in my last post in the other thread - that you and Malachi are so closely wedded to this assumption that RAI = RAW that even though Malachi repeatedly explicitly clarified that he wanted only RAW, you and he both considered it "obvious" that he really meant RAI. Further, this is why you both, I think, keep acting like my statement that RAI doesn't matter to me is tantamount to throwing out the rules altogether, when I, at least, see a pretty clear distinction. Finally, it also explains why you think I'm being hypocritical, when I'm really not. My stance is not "You are wrong to equate RAI with RAW", it's "You are wrong to equate RAI with RAW UNIVERSALLY". I'm not saying you are wrong to value RAI personally, or that you are wrong to treat RAI as RAW in your own games. I'm saying that you are wrong to ignore that doing so is a choice, not an automatic given, and that making a different choice is exactly as valid as yours.

This does seem to be where our differences lie. We mean different things when we use the terms RAI and RAW. When I use the term "rules as written" I am referring to the explicit and implicit meaning of the words intended by the author. When I use the term "rules as intended" I am referring to the intended mechanical outcome desired by the author. Sometimes the developers make a decision on how something should work and word it appropriately but an unintended consequence they didn't foresee results. What they intended to write and what they intended to happen are two different things. What they intended to write is, to me, RAW. What they intended to happen as a result of what they wrote, to me, is RAI. So that is where our confusion is coming in.

Edit: Trying to explain that made my head hurt and I'm still not sure I explained myself very well. Maybe I'm not qualified to interpret my own posts after all! LOL

I'm out to go play some Pathfinder Munckin. I'm sure you will all be here tomorrow to argue more rules. Enjoy your evening!

@PW,

That is true if my words are unclear or leave a gap AND my words were meant to give you a guideline on how to accomplish some task.

If there is some gap or my words are unclear about matters of my personal opinion or in an arguement I am putting forward then my intent is important after the fact.

In short, I'm not trying to give you rules or guidelines that you will later be expected to complete without my presence.

Yes, and the developers clearly intend to be giving us guidelines on how we are to accomplish a task without having to be present at your table to tell you how to do it. We are, thankfully, free to stick our tongues out and do it differently anyway but I, and I am sure others, prefer to know what the experienced game designers intended before going our own way. They may have reasons for doing things the way they did that I didn't think of.

I don't know where the idea of "wielding" and "holding" being different is coming from.

If you are holding an improvised weapon (ala any object), and you want to threaten with it, you can. You don't have to declare that you're holding or wielding it just the same as if you're holding or wielding an actual weapon.

There's still a -4 to attack, and it's probably not going to do great damage, but it's enough to flank.

By that standard you always threaten adjacent squares if you are holding anything at all. Holding a scarf...you threaten because you could use it as a whip. Sitting at your desk writing you threaten all adjacent squares because you are holding a quill. I don't believe that is the intent and that is why I, and others, think that wielding is different than holding.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'It cannot be determined' is a demonstrably false answer. As soon as the PDT answer it, it has been proved to be false. Since there is nothing stopping them ruling one way or the other, the answer most certainly can be determined.

The point is that given the available information a conclusive answer cannot be determined. MrT is saying that the developers opinion on how it should be is no more valuable than anyone else's and certainly less valuable than your table's opinion.

I happen to agree. Once the words are printed then developer or authorial intent don't matter nearly as much. It could be interesting to know, but it doesn't change the RAW.

That is where I disagree. My last post on the other thread was an example of the absurdity of that position. You, and MrT, certainly feel that you are authoritative on the meanings of your own posts.

If I were to misrepresent your argument you would certainly accuse me of a straw man fallacy. However, if your intent ceases to matter as soon as the words are written I could not commit a straw man fallacy as my opinion on what you meant to write is as valid as your own opinion. That is clearly absurd.

We couldn't have a meaningful discussion if you lose control over the interpretation of your words as soon as you hit the Submit Post button. I could put words in your mouth all day long and you would have no standing to object. Clearly, however, you do have the authority to clarify what you meant to say in your own posts. Likewise, the developers are best qualified to tell us what they meant by what they wrote in the rules.

I will agree that their interpretations are no more binding than the basic rules of the game. In a non-organized play game you are free to disregard whatever rules you as a group of players desire whether it be one written in the core book, a FAQ entry or errata. My group could decide they want longswords to do 1d12 damage and have 20' reach. However, if I want to know exactly what the rules mean by the word wield the developers alone are authoritative in telling me what they meant when they wrote it.

Wield? that's a hot mess you'll never get an answer to...

I agree. I'm not sure they could fix that if they wanted to.

Greater Trip wrote:

You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

This would seem to clearly give us the context of what they mean by "trip". Both sentences even include reference to what you get to do when you knock down/trip your target.

Does anyone really think the writer would put "on foes that you knock down" if he really meant "against foes that you make a successful trip attempt on"?

That does seem to make it pretty clear what the author considers a successful trip and he equates success with application of the result not just a successful roll.

This is the smoking gun for my argument. Go back and re-read Malachi's original post. Read it carefully. In fact, continue reading his clarifications about what he wants - note how he never actually says he wants RAI, he wants ONLY RAW (in fact, several times he explicitly rejects questions about what was intended or what "common sense" says). The assertion here that it was "clear" that Malachi was actually after RAI is exactly what I am talking about - the systemic assumption that RAW can only mean what the designers intended to mean. That confusion cuts to the core of the central question of this thread, so I don't see how it can possibly be off topic to call it out and critique it. I will concede, however, that it is at least oddly consistent for you to chastise me for failing to follow the unwritten yet nonetheless somehow obvious intent of the thread, since that's basically what your rules interpretation comes down to as well.

Oh, and to be clear: My OPINION is that people are greatly overvaluing RAI in their home games. My ARGUMENT is that RAI doesn't equal RAW. My suspicion is that confusion over the latter point is the cause of the former.

No that is not your opinion. If Malachi is not sufficiently authoritative to clarify what he was seeking in his post and the developers are not adequately authoritative to clarify what they wrote in the rules then you are not sufficiently authoritative to tell us what opinion you have been putting forth in your posts.

I reject your assumption that your interpretation of your own opinion matters. Rather I believe your opinion is that you want everyone to play the game your way. You don't like everyone seeking answers from anyone that contradicts you. You are here in this thread to troll. You are here to bloviate a bunch of pseudo-philosophical drivel filled with buzz phrases such as "argumenation theory" in an effort to make yourself sound authoritative so that people will play the game your way. Nothing you can possibly say will change my mind on that because I do not consider you to be in anyway qualified to tell me what you intend by your own posts.

If you are going to keep using your feeling that we need to respect the MAJESTY!! and AUTHORITY!!! of the intent of the rules designers as evidence that your subjective reading of the rules is "correct", then yes, I'm going to continue to "deflect" the conversation by directly challenging your claim that such authority even exists. That's like... basic argumentation theory. I get to challenge ALL your arguments and assumptions, not just the ones you want to talk about.

No you do not get to challenge ALL assumptions. The basic assumption of this forum is that it is to discuss the RULES. Hence the name Rules Questions. It is a place to request answers from other players and from the developers both in the forum and via the FAQ system.

You have argued that developer statements don't matter and you don't feel any need to accept them. The rules themselves are nothing more than developer statements on how things work. Therefore, you don't feel the need to accept those either, a fact which you have actually stated. However, if no one feels the need to accept the rules then it becomes impossible to come to a definitive answer on any rules question. So for those like you this forum is useless because you aren't looking for an answer to a question because no answer is possible.

You have stated that you feel the need for dev input and definitive answers to rules questions is ruining the game and you want to convince people to get away from that. That my friend is questioning other people's play style. You don't like that we are here trying to determine exactly what the rules say and what the developers intend. If that is the case go to the homebrew/house rule forum. Talk to the devs about creating a forum gaming philosophy.

Malachi's original post makes it clear he was seeking a developer answer to this question and repeatedly asked people to press the FAQ button to help him get that answer. When a questioner is seeking an answer from the developers then developer input does indeed matter. You might not care about that input but the rest of us do and your arguments that developer input means nothing are off topic.

PatientWolf wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:

A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.

It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.

The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions.

You really wanted to say "by other rules" there, didn't you? Except you can't, because there's not one. These weapons don't have a "Rule" that overrides another rule. They simply ignore the completely absolute, unambiguous language of the Rule As it is Written.

So, yes. In a sense, this is my proof.

But, beyond that, if you want to know what the rule "actually says", as you claim, then you want the Rule As Intended.

Lassos and Nets do have "Other rules" that state they deal no damage. In case you were unaware, tables in the book are rules. In the table for exotic ranged weapons under the damage column both lassos and nets have - listed for damage. How do we know by the rules how much damage a medium long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a small long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a lasso does? Oh the table tells us and it tells us it is -. The table is where it is written that lassos and nets are excepted.

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.

Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

Example:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category. It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it with weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

The improvised weapons rules work exactlyt he same way.

So ... I'll ask again ... Where do they state this? I have yet to see someone give me an actual answer apart from inferring saying 'it should', saying "I believe they meant" and bringing up everything but an actual written rule that says that.

As far as the wet paper bag or sand, part of the standard process it to compare it to the most similar weapon and give it that damage. That most similar weapon would do no damage. Congratulations....

It has been repeatedly explained to you that when the rules say "you do X with Y" that this implies that you cannot do Y without X. Your response has been that that is our interpretation but were then presented with a direct statement from Stephen Radney-MacFarland, a developer, saying yes that is how it works. The rules give a description of humans, that description doesn't include a tail, that implies that humans don't have tails. The rules don't have to explicitly say that humans don't have tails. The rules say that "objects not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rules. That implies that objects crafted to weapons cannot use the improvised weapons rules.

Demanding an explicit statement is a false dichotomy fallacy because there is another possibility. That being that the rules implicitly forbid the the use of the improvised weapons rules with actual weapons. Your position is irrational and you know it but you keep repeating it over and over again.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

is anyone else seeing the stupidity of trying to hit something at close range with the butt of a pole that is EIGHT FEET IN LENGTH?

if you are not, imagine you are in a 5-foot wide corridor, and that you have friends behind you...

no? anything? something???

yeahhhhhhhhhhh.... that's right.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

You argue that it is absurd for people to think that you can hit an adjacent creature with a 10' pole but when you put a point on the end suddenly you can't.

However, you seem to have no problem with the fact that someone proficient with the long spear can hit someone adjacent with a 10' pole as an improvised weapon but can't hit someone 10' away with it no matter what because improvised weapons can't have reach. He spends some time whittling a point on the end and suddenly he can not only attack at reach but retain his ability to attack adjacent foes as well.

If you are looking for realism in the rules you are doomed to be disappointed because no matter how complicated the rules they can never truly emulate real life.

PatientWolf wrote:

Ilja wrote:

PatientWolf wrote:

See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).

Where's the rule that states these are objects?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:

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 complicate circumstance

Words in the game have their natural English meaning unless specified otherwise. Hence, all of the above are objects.

Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.

Except when attached to a spear head it is treated as a Spear which is indeed an object, one that is DESIGNED TO BE A WEAPON.

By the rules:

1. A wet spaghetti noodle.
2. A feather.
3. A carpet sample.
4. A teddy bear.
5. A lampshade.
6. A dead, half-decayed mouse.

But, don't you dare use the haft of a spear! By the rules!

Correct, you would use the actual rules for a spear. There are no rules for wet spaghetti noodles, feathers, carpet samples, teddy bears, lampshades, and dead, half decayed mice in the list of weapons. So you have to improvise with them. When you are holding a spear there are rules for that so you use those. Why is it so hard to understand that you use the specific rules that apply to whatever you wielding?

That is not better as it does not answer the question I asked.

Can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons by the rules?

See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Whatever 'merit' this may have elsewhere, it has zero merit in the rules thread.

Why does it have no merit, beyond the fact that it subverts your expectations for what a "proper" rules discussion is? Again, the fact that you don't like how I'm constructing my argument doesn't make me wrong, nor does the fact that I'm operating outside of your assumed approach make me rude.

Actually, you know what, don't bother responding, because I'm frankly done with the part of the discussion where I prove that I have a right to voice my opinion, and that my opinion is germane to this discussion.

Because we are trying to have a rules discussion and you are trying to have a pseudo-philosophical debate on whether we should care what the rules are.

We aren't discussing the merits of determining the rules. If you want to have that discussion open a thread and let those who want to discuss it post there. Whether or not we should care about the rules isn't the topic of this threat. What the rules are about using a long spear as an improvised weapon is.

And if you follow your version of 'the rules don't explicitly say you can, therefore you can't, you would need a set of rules the suze if the library of congress to have a functional ruleset.

That is a straw man. We are not arguing that unless the rules explicitly say you can you can't. There are indeed many things the rules do not address. What we are arguing is that when the rules explicitly address how something is done that excludes everything else.

I have used the example before of Humans not having tails. The rules do not say Humans can't have tails. However, the rules do define explicitly what features a human does have and since that definition doesn't include a tail Humans can't have one. This concept is not just an assumption it has been verified by dev rulings.

So based upon that concept. The rules explicitly define an improvised weapon as being an object not designed to be a weapon. That excludes any object that IS designed to be a weapon.

Why don't you use an actually comparable example instead of a weird and intentionally absurd one?

Do you even bother reading the posts before you respond? born_of_fire was actually mocking the wizard raging argument not making it himself. If you can't even get that context it is no wonder you are having trouble with PF rules.

Since it's so obvious to you that dev rulings are important, please go ahead and explain why my argument is "idiotic". I'm willing to bet that what you are saying here is code for "I can't articulate why your position is wrong, but I feel so strongly that it is that I will reject it out of hand, rather than stop to evaluate the possibility that there really is no need for them".

I explained in my previous post why that reasoning is idiotic. This is a rules forum to determine the official rules of the game. Who sets the official rules for the game? Oh, that would be the developers! The FAQ, errata, etc... are all Dev rulings. In fact the very text of the rule books themselves are Dev rulings on how things work. The reason I come here is so that I can find out exactly how the devs designed the game to function and, sometimes, their reasoning so that I can make an informed decision in my own game whether or not I want to deviate from that.

You say if I want to discuss PFS go to the PFS boards. However, there is also a House Rules board and I could say if you want to discuss house rules go there.

Yes, and then actually no. I'm not attacking with a longspear. I'm attacking with an improvised weapon. Sometimes that improvised weapon is a longspear. Sometimes it's not. Point to a rule that I am breaking with that interpretation. Spoiler - you CAN'T. All you can do is fall back on "But I always assumed you couldn't do that, nothing suggests you can do that, and I feel for <reasons> you shouldn't do that". All well and good. None of those are rules. You have already failed the test I set out. Nothing you said here PROVES RAW that they are the same.

Since the rules define what a long spear is yes we can show you are breaking a rule by claiming your long spear can cease to be a long spear whenever you will it. You don't get to say when the object stops being what the rules define it as being.

Do you know why there are no rules for improvised manufactured weapon attacks? Because there is no such thing. I can find a rule that tells me what an improvised weapon is and I can find a rule that tells me what a manufactured weapon is. When I look at a long spear guess which category the rules tell me it is in? Oh it says it is a manufactured weapon. You are claiming you can make up a category other than the ones defined by the rules and them move objects already defined into that category.

You know very well the rules do not explicitly list everything that does NOT exist in the game. For example, the rules don't say that there are no Humans with tails. The rules do, however, define Humans and that definition does not include tails thus the rules exclude a Human having a tail. I can produce a Dev ruling by Stephen Radney-MacFarland stating that. Not a house rule but a designers ruling on how the game works.

Your stick argument is a false analogy because the rules don't define what a stick is but they do define a long spear. Furthermore, no one is arguing "I just assumed you couldn't do that" or "I feel you shouldn't do that" so that is just a straw man.

We have quoted the rules for a long spear. We have quoted rules for improvised weapons. You have merely said you get ignore those rules when it suits you. That is your claim. That the rules don't tell you you have to follow the rules and therefore you don't.

Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true?

Anguish, this is what I warned you about. This is their argument: "The rules specifically for this weapon say I can't do something but I really want to do it so I think I am allowed to ditch the rules specifically for this weapon and use entirely different rules not intended for this weapon and do it anyway. Since the rules don't say I can't ignore the rules I don't like and use different rules it is clear that I can."

No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.

Dude, you might as well give it up. They cannot see the gaping holes in their logic. They claim that you are being overly pedantic about what an object is. However, the only answer they have ever given to the fact that in most situations weapons are treated as single objects is to show cherry picked situations where they are not. They refuse to consider that the entry for long spear doesn't break it into parts and identify which part has reach or that spells such as magic weapon don't identify the part you have to cast it on or that the rules for hardness and hit points don't separate weapons into parts. They dismiss all of that and any other evidence that contradicts their position.

They argue that it is not realistic that you could not shorten your grip on your spear when you can drop the spear and pick up a 10' pole and hit someone adjacent. They don't ever stop to think, however, that it is also unrealistic that I can't use that 10' pole to hit someone 10' away but you can't because because improvised weapons can't use reach, which was even mentioned in the very post from James Jacobs they are using to try and prove their position. They are willing to accept that unrealism to be able to circumvent the rules regarding reach weapons.

There is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will change their minds because they already have a predetermined position and will say and believe anything to keep it and dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

BigDTBone wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

So you are gong to 'interpret' him as saying the opposite of what he actually said?

Are you going to 'interpret' this as an official FAQ answer from a rules guy who's definite about the answer?

JJ wrote:

Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous...

You're squabbling. You asked, it has been answered. You will not do better than that on this forum. You didn't want discussion you wanted an answer.

I didn't want 'an' answer, I wanted 'the' answer.

I didn't want an 'I guess'. I wanted a FAQ.

Last time I looked, 88 people clicked 'FAQ'.

Exactly because by that ruling you can use any weapon regardless of required proficiency just by taking catch of guard and declaring you are using it as an improvised weapon. You might not be able to use the special qualities but you can use the weapon no problem.

Plus you can make virtually any weapon do any physical damage type. Fighting something with DR X/Bludgeoning and only have a rapier. No worries I can swing it sideways as an improvise weapon without penalty. Fighting something with DR X/Slashing with same rapier. No problem, I've filed the outside of the hand guard to an edge and am attacking with it as an improvised weapon. With catch off guard you can carry a single weapon now and do whichever of the three physical damage types you need for the fight with no penalties. Every character must now have that feat.

I think that if we got an actual FAQ the answer would be very different than a wishy washy technically, possibly, maybe you can I guess but I don't think the GM should allow it anyway.

I feel like we are drifting into discussions of object oriented code... If a weapon is a composite object, it can be treated both as a single object, or as a collection of objects.

Clearly weapons are not single objects, as, for example is made amply clear by things like double weapons (which have two separate and separately modified heads) hafted weapons (which have a different hardness depending on whether the attack targets the weapon as a whole or they head of the weapon only (such as sticking the tip into a pool of acid.) and so on.

It's almost like being back in the spiked gauntlet thread. (are they weapons? are they armor? god forbid they be both at the same time! The rules wouldn't like that.)

You are wrong. That is like saying it is amply clear that reach weapons can target adjacent foes because whip. The exception does not change the rule. As a general rule weapons in the game are treated as single objects. I provided examples. Notice that in the examples I give even double weapons are treated as single objects. They are only considered multiple objects for a very narrow purpose.

born_of_fire wrote:

Good Lord, seriously? So how do you, RAW, stop using your spear as a spear and start using it as an improvised weapon?

How do you stop drinking from your flask and start using it as an improvised weapon? Would a lack of a specific rule for that mean you can't use bottles as improvised weapons? (Or the same for exactly every other improvised weapon).

Though that's irrelevant, seeing as how there are several different methods that could be interpreted as the correct one, as I stated in the post you seem to have missed.
1 - As a free action, as by dev comments on shifting grip.
2 - As a move action, as by the "draw a weapon" rule, if you feel the dev comments aren't RAW enough.
3 - As a move action, as by the "manipulate an object" rule, if you feel the "draw a weapon" rule doesn't apply.

Any of these are valid rulings.

That is incorrect. He asked how by raw you stop using your spear as a spear and start using it as an improvised weapon. By RAW you simply cannot. A flask was never intended to be a weapon. A long spear is intended to be used as a weapon. Maybe not in the manner you wish to use it but it was made for use as a weapon and just because you are using it in a non-optimal way doesn't make it cease being an object intended to be used as a weapon. You can never, ever, under any circumstances use a spear as an improvised weapon by RAW.

we're still waiting for you to quote the part of the rules that says the shaft of my spear is not an object... barring those rules, it is, in fact, an object and can be used as an improvised weapon.

The rules clearly treat weapons as single objects rather than a collection of objects.

If you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw vs a fireball and your long spear takes damage it does so as a whole. You don't roll individual saves for the haft and the head.

The hardness and HP rules list the statistics for a weapon they do so for the entirety of the object not individual parts and if it is reduced to 0hp and destroyed you can't pick up a part of it to use as an improvised weapon.

The rules treat a long spear as a single object that is made to be used as a weapon. Since it is made to be used as a weapon in some fashion it can't be used to make improvised weapon attacks. Even were it able to make improvised weapon attacks the long spear (with all of its parts) has the reach quality and the rules specifically state you can't use a reach weapon to attack or threaten adjacent squares.

sorry, i can't express thousands of hours of linguistic study in a single forum post (or more likely don't want to), but the statement isn't ridiculous at all. all i claimed was that it was foolish to expect that everyone is going to interpret this text exactly the same.

Ahhhh...the old "It would take too long (or I can't be bothered) to provide proof of my argument but trust me I am an expert" argument. So now it is clear you understand neither linguistics nor logic.

that there is a field of science dedicated to attempting to derive objective meaning from text doesn't mean that their task is actually possible. people try to do lots of things that they think are possible without ever succeeding.

We should accept that because you are such an expert on linguistics with thousands of hours of study on the subject? But it would take to long for you to explain it or provide proof of your expertise. Riiiiiiiiiight. Hermeneutics is considered valid and put into practical use by archaeologists, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, athropologists, and many other fields of science.

i'm not saying there is no string of text that will not be understood more or less the same by most people...

Ohhhh...so some text can be understood by everyone the same but then other text can't and you are qualified to tell us which strings of texts are which.

Words do have meaning. Meaning which is independent from the reader. The task of the reader is to ascertain the meaning of the text that is already there, i.e. the meaning intended by the author. Following the proper principles of interpretation this can indeed be accomplished.

PatientWolf wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Lets not forget you can also chuck a shuriken or dagger (or improvised anything for that matter...) at the target to qualify. I don't see anything in Fighting Defensively prohibiting ranged attacks from triggering it.

There's not anything that prevents ranged attackers from fighting defensively. However, that means the archer I mentioned above can't wait to disrupt the enemy caster with a well times shot to the face AND fight defensively so as not to get pummeled by said caster's friends while standing there waiting.

Which makes sense doesn't it? You can't focus intently waiting for one person to do something and be focused on fighting defensively at the same time.

I had not looked at it from that point of view. Dang it...no! I said you can't make me like it! Quit trying to use confuse me with really good reasons!

PatientWolf wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. I really think that is a horrible ruling but at least I know.

Alas, it's not a ruling, it's how it's always worked.

I might have to live by it but you can't make me like it! :P

I think the gods of Heaven would have a huge stash of Lantern Archons they don't like to be used for this purpose. When the summoners force them to commit evil deeds, they fall like a paladin and get sent to Hell.

Its a good way for Heaven to get rid of all the grumpy, surly, morose souls that just don't really fit into a happy, bubbly place like Heaven.

Saenrae "Skippy you are going to answer the summons of Linus the Pure he needs help stopping those Orcs from razing that village. Go with my blessing upon you. Bubbles you are going to go help Sir Baldric the Humble to end the Undead Scourge. Go with grace. Stan you are going to Blackheart the Bard Pirate, Scourge of the Seven Seas. Go and burn in hell!!!!"

Keep in mind as well that Enlarge Person specifically states that a projectile or thrown weapon instantly returns to its normal size. So it doesn't wait until it returns to him to become a large weapon. So he suffers the size penalty of it being improperly sized when he throws it but when it hits it only does damage as a large weapon.

So say I wanted to create a character who did damage by throwing rocks. I don't mean a stone or hill giant, just a regular old human who threw baseball sized rocks.

Are you automatically assumed to be proficient in rocks, and if not, is there any way to gain proficiency?

I welcome debate on the topic, but would also appreciate people clicking the FAQ button.-

Take the Throw Anything feat at first level and you now do not suffer any penalties for ranged improvised weapons.

yes, I think so. As I've been saying, it's a normal grapple.

It could have it's applications though, for example, you instantly pull an enemy from all the way across the map to be right next to your fighter buddy, who full attacks and creams him.

If we apply your interpretation of "Resolve these attempts as normal" to telekinetic Bullrush then you would have to do it as part of a charge in place of the melee attack but you can't cast Telekinesis as part of a charge so it would be impossible which would make the spell text self contradictory. So your interpretation must be incorrect.

Also if we accept your reasoning and the caster gains the grappled condition as well that would mean the caster would have to make a concentration check each round due to maintaining the spell while having the grappled condition. Then they would also have to make the check to maintain the grapple.

So the clear intent is that the caster does not gain the grappled condition and the target is grappled in their current position.

PatientWolf wrote:

Pffft...there is only an 11% chance of failure if viewed once. What could pooosssibly go wrong?!?

I have had no less than two groups wind up in the middle of an ocean because of failed teleports. Not fun for the fighters!!

Hey are you my GM because that has happened to our group. Twice!

Let's say, I'm a Druid.

I want to be all cool on the start of my round. I want to take out two wands, toss them up into the air, Wildshape(Air Elemental in Humanoid Form) and drop into Snake Style, then catch those two wands.

Is this possible in the first round?

If not, what and how many actions would doing the equivalent cost me(dropping instead of catching for instance)?

Drawing a wand is a move action, Wildshape is standard, and assuming Snake Style is a swift. You are describing it fancy but that is all you are doing except for the extra wand which you technically can't do but I would give it to you were I the GM just for the rule of cool.

Actually, you can start with a Halo, and Scion of Humanity, without the aid of feats.

I addressed that. A Halo is a spell like ability effect it is not a physical feature.

I swore to myself I would not get drawn back into this discussion and I've spent all morning arguing here again.

Any reasonable person can see that Scion of Humanity makes you look just like a human. A dev has already stated that humans don't have tails. Any reasonable person is going to understand that an Aasimar with Scion of Humanity by extension doesn't have a tail by default.

I'm done. I'm tired of arguing with those who refuse to accept plain English, common sense and sound logic. I am not even going to open this thread again because if I do I can't help but comment. If I post on this thread again someone please track me down using whatever means necessary, come to my home and beat me about the head and shoulders with the Corebook until I pass out.

Talonhawke wrote:

Actually you're getting circumstance penalties. Your DM may not force them but common sense dictates that your not managing it. That the problem we see some people assume that if there isn't a specific listed penalty for something that there can't be one.

You could, reasonably, as a DM, apply a circumstance penalty to said Aasimar, on Disguise then.

I am saying, that even if you decide to never take the Racial heritage feat at all, you could, as an Aasimar, have a tail, even with the Scion of Humanity trait.

It would do nothing for you, mechanically, but you could still have it.

Just as a Tiefling can have horns, even though they do not have a gore attack.

Scion of Humanity specifically states that the Aasimar appears no different than a human. We have a dev statement that Humans do not have tails. By extension Aasimar's with Scion of Humanity don't have tails. So regardless of your reasoning about three eyes or other deformities you are arguing with a developer's ruling on the matter.

Aasimar's without Scion of Humanity can't take Racial Heritage(Kobold) and thus can't take Tail Terror. Aasimars with Scion of Humanity and Racial Heritage(Kobold) can take Tail Terror but once again, by developer ruling, have no tail to use it with.

Since the RAW gives players pretty large leeway in character appearance, the whole "human's can't have tails" thing seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive, I am leaning toward an RAI that you have to have something similar to a kobold tail for tail terror to work.

TLDR: Not just any tail will work.

If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment. In other words it is foolish to take the feat expecting it allows you to grow a tail. Neither feat says you grow a tail.

I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

Except the text directly addresses the issue of using two-weapons after taking the discovery. The whole point is that it doesn't change anything. You use TWF and the TWF feat just as normal. So your combat abilities do not change. If you used two-weapons and the TWF feat before taking the discovery nothing changes. You get exactly the same number of attacks with exactly the same bonuses/penalties as before taking the discovery. You don't suddenly loose the reduced penalties when fighting with two-weapons just because you grew another arm.

Quote:

Elemental Fury (Ex): At 3rd level, whenever the elemental kin takes an amount of energy damage equal to or greater than her barbarian level while raging, she adds 1 to the total number of rounds that she can rage that day. At 6th level, and every three levels thereafter, the number of extra rounds per energy attack increases by +1, to a maximum of +6 rounds per energy attack at at 18th level. This ability replaces trap sense.

This one ?

I would rule that you cannot have more than your maximum rounds of rage (28 for you) per day. There is no rule support for breaking the limit of your maximum rounds of rage per day (as there is for hitpoints -> temporay hitpoints).

I disagree. That ability specifically says it adds 1 to the total rage rounds that she can rage that day. It doesn't say it adds a rage round to your current pool but that it is added to your Total Per Day. So each time your number/day goes up by that much for that day.

Well it has been interesting debating with you all but my boss just gave me the rest of the day off and I have a game tonight to prepare for. Hope everyone gets some actual playing time in this weekend and aren't stuck at work or something icky like that. Enjoy!

PatientWolf wrote:

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

PatientWolf wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

PatientWolf wrote:

Wrong, it does not say you don't have a tail slot before taking the feat. It only says you can augment the tail slap with them and are proficient. They can, however, be used non-proficiently without the Tail Terror feat.

Thsi statement explains where you're having trouble seeing our side of the arguement. Yout cant use your tail as a secondary natural attack unless you have the Tail Terror Feat.

Unless you're saying a Catfolk can have two claw attacks without the trait, and just be used as if "non-proficient". Which you cant.

whoo, beat you by 10 seconds :D

Entirely different because Catfolk don't have a weapon attachment for their claws. If they get an item that allows claw attacks they most certainly can.

Even if they had blade-tipped claw attatchments, it would then grant them one armed attack with that claw.. unless they had two-weapon fighting as well.

The feat/trait is what grants them natural attacks.

A Kobold without Tail Terror cannot use his tail to attack, because it isn't strong enough without the feat.

Yep a catfolk with blade tipped claw attachments would get one armed attack. A kobold with a tail attachment gets one armed attack. Basically Tail Terror allows him to two weapon fight with his tail. A kobold fighter who takes weapon proficiency with Tail Attachments, Weapon Focus Tail Attachments, Weapon Spec Tail attachments, can make all his primary attacks with his tail attachments without ever taking Tail Terror. All Tail Terror allows is a secondary attack and automatic proficiency.

Neither Claw Blades or Tail Attachments have independant proficiencies, you are only proficient and only able to use them if you meet the trait or feat requirement, prior to that you can not even use them with a -4 penalty.

Already conceded that point. When I am wrong I do admit it. You are absolutely right about not using Tail Attachments without the Tail Terror feat.

Back to the main topic now?

VargrBoartusk wrote:

Common sense and fantasy are if not mutually exclusive at least bad guests to invite to the same dinner party. Instead of logic and common sense maybe you should shoot for internal consistency and erring on the side of clarity with phrases such as 'If you have a tail you may make a tail attack' rather then 'with your tail.'

I don't know what to tell you. But we do use this construction all the time and noncontroversially. We also give you the ability to take feats that you can't use all the time either situationally or because you lack an ability or some other key component. You can take Combat Casting (it has no prerequisites) even if you don't have any spells or spell-like abilities. Logic assumes you will not if it is no use to you. Just because you have Deadly Aim, we don't assume you always have the ability to make ranged attacks.

The only difference between "if you have a tail attack" and "with your tail" is the number of words. "With your tail" assumes you have a tail, because it is a kobold feat, and kobolds typically have tails. There are circumstances where kobolds don't have tails, or creatures who do not have tails might take this feat (specifically if they have an effect that allows them to "count as that race for any effects related to race.") But it gives neither creature a tail. Nothing in the RAW of this feat says you gain a tail. Noting in the RAW of the Racial Heritage feat says you gain a tail.

On a side note about this subject. I've entered this discussion to answer a question, and I have done so. I'm not going to enter into side conversations about design philosophy (I think I've contributed enough to that conversation about this issue). I have a books to design and develop, but thought since the issue has raged for nearly 1,000 posts, it deserved some feedback from the rules team.

Have a great day everyone, and good gaming!

Stephen, thank you for taking some time to post some answers for us here. Also a big thanks to you and all the devs for the work you do in bringing us a great game!