Admantine Mug of Drinking Forever.
Stolen.
OOOOO
OMMMO
OMMMO
OXMMO
OOOHOH = Hero
O = Empty Space
M = Huge Monster (filling 3x3 spaces)
X = Where Hero Strikes Monster From ReachAnything preventing this from working? I'm striking a monster 10 feet away and I don't even have to bring in the oft-confusing 3D aspects, only the 2D gaming grid.
Looks good to me.
As far as the whole polearm fighter archetype goes, I was excited for it, and then I was disappointed in the whole choke-up/short haft replacement feature. Since no one in my group has found any interest in playing one, and reach weapons are generally not used either (for the dead zone reason), I have made two rulings: 1) any character wearing gauntlets or greaves is considered armed and threatens squares adjacent to him/her, and 2) you may choke up on a reach weapon with a -4 to attack and take a feat to negate this penalty (someone has already mentioned this).
So far, no one bothers to make those unarmed attacks like punching or kicking, but they're there, nor have they bothered with reach weapons. Then again we've only had 6 or 7 PCs even make it to the table...
+1weapons can't be used to make improvised weapon attacks at all.
From a balance point, I think allowing a normal weapon to be used as an improvised weapon and still retain all it's bonuses and special abilities violates the entire spirit of 'can't use reach weapons to attack adjacent' and negates the entire concept of archetypes that allow such.
-2
That argument didn't make sense when he said it and it doesn't make sense when you quote it without adding anything to it. It both mischaracterizes the argument put forward AND the Polearm Fighter archetype.
Except you are using fluff as rules. Made up fluff in fact. Where does it say a MW spear is MW because it is better balanced and thus using it differently negates the MW bonus?
Anything preventing this from working?
-yes. The CREATURE is adjacent. The rules for reach weapons require a non adjacent creature, not a non adjacent square. If the rules meant square, they could have said square.
Is the creature adjacent? Yes.
Can you attack? No. This is the rule.
Does it make sense that you can ignore the horses head and put a long spear into the horses rear? No. So changing the rule on the argument for realism is right out.
Do the rules INTEND to say square when they say creature? I doubt it.
If you use a reach weapon pick up a spiked gauntlet or spiked armor.
No, by adjacent they mean within 5 feet. A large adjacent creature is not within 5 feet.. he is from 5 feet to 10 feet away.
Sorry, but the rules are not what you are presenting them to be.
-James
Yes. They are. The creature is adjacent. You're changing the meaning of adjacent to something inconsistent with both the rules and the English language, and then claiming that (for some bizarre reason) I'm misrepresenting them. The meaning you're adamantly ascribing to it " ALL of it is within 5 feet" is not defined as such anywhere.
By your interpretation you cannot
-Cleave large creatures, since they are not adjacent to the primary target
-Step up doesn't work on large creatures, since they are not adjacent to you.
-You cannot coup de grace a large creature with a bow or crossbow
Also, a medium creature next to a large one is specifically called out as being adjacent to it
#1: The fighter is adjacent to the ogre, and nothing blocks him from reaching it. The ogre does not have cover against the fighter.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#figure-cover
Yes. They are. The creature is adjacent.
AND the creature has parts that are 10 or more feet away.
That can be attacked, while the parts that are within 5 feet cannot.
That's what the rules are saying here and what they are trying to model.
-James
The vast majority of attacks are made against creatures, not their squares.
The rules for reach weapons do not ascribe the quality of adjacent to squares. The quality of adjacent is ascribed , repeatedly, to creatures.
The ogre in the diagram is a creature.
The ogre in the diagram is adjacent to the fighter
The ogre is an adjacent creature.
Adjacent creatures cannot be attacked with reach weapons.
The ogre cannot be attacked with a reach weapon.
Speaking of adjacent, do two squares (assuming grid use) have to share a side in order for them to be adjacent? Or can two squares that share a corner be considered adjacent?
xAA = clearly adjacent A's
xAx
xxA = adjacent A's?
Speaking of adjacent, do two squares (assuming grid use) have to share a side in order for them to be adjacent? Or can two squares that share a corner be considered adjacent?
xAA = clearly adjacent A's
xAx
xxA = adjacent A's?
The Corner also qualifies as adjacent. The same picture above describes the rogue as adjacent around the corner.
The Corner also qualifies as adjacent. The same picture above describes the rogue as adjacent around the corner.And certainly if anyone wanted to throw a weapon at this ogre... say the rogue, sorcerer or cleric they could elect to aim for the part of the ogre in the square closest to the cleric.. right?
We can agree upon that much, right?
-James
No. They cannot. They have to aim for the ogre, not his square, and then follow the rules.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to [b]any corner [b] of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
Now you could try to "interpret" that as the corner of any square on the grid that the ogre occupies, but what the diagram clearly shows is that the cleric is aiming at the corners the ogre occupies in different squares on the grid.
No. They cannot. They have to aim for the ogre, not his square, and then follow the rules.
You mean rules like:
The ones that make my point, not yours?
Shooting or Throwing into a MeleeIf you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target (BNW- not at a square) engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target)(BNW -Even here you're still aiming at the ogre, not his square)
is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
What here do you think is helping your case? You target the ogre. If part of him is visible you can attack him. If part of him is 10 feet away you don't have the -4 penalty. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish bouncing rules from different sources in order to try to contradict the more pertinent rules specific to the question at hand.
Or how about these rules:
Total ConcealmentIf you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
-So you want to try closing your eyes and attacking the square the ogre is in in the hopes that it negates the cover rules for the creature?
These rules.
Umm it seems that one CAN target a square, and you can aim at part of a big target in a given square.
So now, can we agree on this much?
-James
No. You haven't remotely demonstrated your point.You can aim at the horses front end if its sticking out of the fog cloud, but if his rear end is behind the hallway you're still stuck with the cover penalty even though you would not have the cover penalty for a medium creature standing in the same spot as the horses front. The horse has cover even if one of his squares does not. The concealment rules have one set for rules for targeting creatures, the cover rules another, and the reach weapons another. These rules are not contradictory.
The adjacent creature is adjacent.
The ones that make my point, not yours?
Go back and read them fully.
And yeah if I can close my eyes and target a square that means -I can target a square-. Thus you would be ... wrong.
-James
They were read. Fully. Try answering the problems posed with your argument rather than resorting to ad hom attacks on reading comprehension.
Cover:the whole target matters
Concealment: the square matters
Reach weapon: the whole target matters.
Your argument breaks down because you're trying to extrapolate the concealment rules into how everything else should work, when everything else has its own explicitly stated rule.
Finally, with regards to arrows, unless you can point to RAW that says you can stab someone with an arrow and activate it's special abilities, I'm afraid that's strictly house rule. If you can point to RAW for it, I'll reconsider my stance.
The rules only require you attack with a weapon. By your interpretation if I throw a dagger I get no enhancement bonus. I think you would need to provide a rule stating you must use a weapon as it was primarily intended or the abilities don't work/turn off/etc
I am going to need a quote for that, mostly the part about the mw qualities, enhancement bonuses, and flaming. How does the weapon turn itself off?Your not likely to find a quote for it, but you aren't using the weapon. You are using the stick that the longspear is part of. So any balancing (the MW property) wouldn't factor in since you are NOT using the longspear as a weapon, but rather using it as an improvised weapon.
No MW properties would be in use.
+1
I don't think that a master work painting, or disguise kit smashed over someone else's head would get a +1 on the attack!
-James
Those things were never designed as weapon so that is not a valid counter. If for some reason the picture had a pointy end that was enchanted as weapon I would think it would stay activated.
Finally, with regards to arrows, unless you can point to RAW that says you can stab someone with an arrow and activate it's special abilities, I'm afraid that's strictly house rule. If you can point to RAW for it, I'll reconsider my stance.The rules only require you attack with a weapon. By your interpretation if I throw a dagger I get no enhancement bonus. I think you would need to provide a rule stating you must use a weapon as it was primarily intended or the abilities don't work/turn off/etc
Dagger's have ranged increments, and they are specifically listed as both thrown weapons and melee weapons. If you throw a dagger, you are using it as intended.
And I quoted SKR above about how when you use a weapon in a way it is not intended (such as tripping with a long spear), you don't get the enhancement benefits.
Again, run it however you want in your own game.
The rules only require you attack with a weapon. By your interpretation if I throw a dagger I get no enhancement bonus. I think you would need to provide a rule stating you must use a weapon as it was primarily intended or the abilities don't work/turn off/etc
Daggers have a range increment, so they are in fact designed to be thrown as much as they are used in melee. Try the argument with a sword or something.
The rules only require you attack with a weapon. By your interpretation if I throw a dagger I get no enhancement bonus. I think you would need to provide a rule stating you must use a weapon as it was primarily intended or the abilities don't work/turn off/etcDaggers have a range increment, so they are in fact designed to be thrown as much as they are used in melee. Try the argument with a sword or something.
I believe a thrown sword would be an improvised thrown weapon, yes? And you have no way of controlling whether the point or pommel hits. Either way, ranged and melee bonuses aren't interchangeable, any more than you can interchange armor enhancement bonuses on your shield with attack/damage enhancements when you shield bash.
Let me put it another way, if you got your special abilities on items when you use them in ways they are not designed, then you could make arrows with range only enhancements, like seeking, and then use them in melee. Alternately, you could put keen and other melee only enhancements (such as vorpal) on short swords and then throw them as improvised ranged weapons and get those melee only enhancements on ranged weapons.
I believe a thrown sword would be an improvised thrown weapon, yes? And you have no way of controlling whether the point or pommel hits. Either way, ranged and melee bonuses aren't interchangeable, any more than you can interchange armor enhancement bonuses on your shield with attack/damage enhancements when you shield bash.
-That last is definitely wrong. A dagger or a spear +5 is a +5 weapon whether you stab someone with it or throw it at someone. I've never seen a weapon with a separate bonus for melee or thrown... those bonuses don't exist. The bonus is an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, not melee attack and melee damage. It is in fact, one of the few advantages to using a spear or a dagger.
I beleive the reason that there's no enhancement bonus when you trip with a non trip weapon is because you CAN"T use that weapon to trip: you instead sweep your foot out and trip them.
The rules only require you attack with a weapon. By your interpretation if I throw a dagger I get no enhancement bonus. I think you would need to provide a rule stating you must use a weapon as it was primarily intended or the abilities don't work/turn off/etcDaggers have a range increment, so they are in fact designed to be thrown as much as they are used in melee. Try the argument with a sword or something.
Actually I see what he was trying to say now. Since reach and tripping are both property types and the tripping property is required to get the weapon's normal benefits then in order to use a get a reach weapon's benefits it must be used as such.
The issue is that saying a reach weapon must be used as a reach weapon is like saying a tripping weapon must be used as a tripping weapon.
Of course I think the counter to that would be that the trip weapon functions as a regular weapon, and a trip weapon.
I personally don't even think reach weapons were ever intended to be used as nonreach weapons. Even if they were I am still stabbing you with the pointy end, and to take the -4 as an improvised weapon and +lose all bonuses is harsh. It just does not makes sense to me from a flavor or mechanical point, and losing taking a -4 alone does not make it unbalance. If you are going to let them use the weapon as a nonreach you may as well give them the bonuses.
The issue is that saying a reach weapon must be used as a reach weapon is like saying a tripping weapon must be used as a tripping weapon.
But tripping weapons are not designed ONLY as tripping weapons. They are designed for either trip or damaging. There isn't a pathfinder weapon (that i know of) designed for both reach and melee. Rest in peace, spiked chain fighter.
I personally don't even think reach weapons were ever intended to be used as nonreach weapons. Even if they were I am still stabbing you with the pointy end, and to take the -4 as an improvised weapon and +lose all bonuses is harsh. It just does not makes sense to me from a flavor or mechanical point, and losing taking a -4 alone does not make it unbalance. If you are going to let them use the weapon as a nonreach you may as well give them the bonuses.
- I haven't researched what happens when you throw a +5 sword, so i don't know. I wonder what happens if you throw one and you have the throw anything feat.... inquiring alchemists want to know
I beleive the reason that there's no enhancement bonus when you trip with a non trip weapon is because you CAN"T use that weapon to trip: you instead sweep your foot out and trip them.
You should go read the FAQ. SKR specifically said you can trip with non trip weapons, but you gain no benefits from them. Note, that means you can trip with a reach weapon, you just don't gain any enhancements/abilities from it.
What that means is, if I have a long spear, and you provoke an AoO while in it's threaten range, I can make the AoO a trip attack (assuming the AoO provocation is not standing up). Since I don't have reach with my leg out to 10 feet, your above quote would appear to not be in line with the FAQ.
My memory served me well.
A: (James Jacobs 2/17/10) When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt. Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you. [Source]
A: (James Jacobs 3/5/10) If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142-143, you can't use it to trip foes. (more stuff)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq
So tripping with the long-spear is an impossibility according to the faq.
Those things were never designed as weapon so that is not a valid counter. If for some reason the picture had a pointy end that was enchanted as weapon I would think it would stay activated.Sorry I thought that someone described a MW adamantine mug at some point in this... I thought implying that it would be automatically a MW adamantine weapon.
Now you also have, for example, magical shields with enhancement bonuses that don't get them when used for shield bashing and needing a separate enchantment for that. This is because they are weapons in their own right however.
So you have a weapon that's enchanted for attacking as that weapon. That's great. Now you are expressly not attacking with that weapon when using it as an improvised weapon, right?
Otherwise you wouldn't see the non-proficiency penalty and the different critical & base damage, right?
So why would you get an enhancement bonus from something that you're not using? Wouldn't the same claim you have to these bonuses also apply to feats, proficiency, criticals and base damage?
But let's go with your own words: 'those things were never designed as weapon' isn't that the definition of an improvised weapon?
-James
The bonus on the shield as a weapon, and as a armor are two completely different things. Of course they won't cross over. There are both enhancement bonuses to armor and ones for weapons. Being the same bonus type does not mean it is allowed to function for two purposes.
Is a circumstance bonus to swim going to apply to the climb skill? No.Then the enhancement bonus to armor won't apply to weapons(except for a certain feat).
As to you last sentence, it depends on the improvised weapon. For a picture it was never designed as weapon. If you used an arrow as a dagger it is designed as a weapon, just not the way you want to use it.
Sometimes a thing is an improvised weapon, and sometimes it is used as one,(actual weapon used differently).
Those two bolded areas go together.
My memory served me well.
A: (James Jacobs 2/17/10) When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt. Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you. [Source]
A: (James Jacobs 3/5/10) If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142-143, you can't use it to trip foes. (more stuff)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq
So tripping with the long-spear is an impossibility according to the faq.
That FAQ is incorrect. The Pathfinder FAQ says differently.
edit:
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?
No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.—Sean K Reynolds, 03/15/11
Out of date stuff from PFSRD instead of Paizo FAQ
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.—Sean K Reynolds, 03/15/11
I beleive the reason that there's no enhancement bonus when you trip with a non trip weapon is because you CAN"T use that weapon to trip: you instead sweep your foot out and trip them.You should go read the FAQ. SKR specifically said you can trip with non trip weapons, but you gain no benefits from them. Note, that means you can trip with a reach weapon, you just don't gain any enhancements/abilities from it.
What that means is, if I have a long spear, and you provoke an AoO while in it's threaten range, I can make the AoO a trip attack (assuming the AoO provocation is not standing up). Since I don't have reach with my leg out to 10 feet, your above quote would appear to not be in line with the FAQ.
I never thought of that. When I read his FAQ entry, I figured he was just talking flavor, but the way he worded, I could attempt a trip from 10 feet away with a longspear, couldn't I?
I never thought of that. When I read his FAQ entry, I figured he was just talking flavor, but the way he worded, I could attempt a trip from 10 feet away with a longspear, couldn't I?
Yep,
Not the way I would have ruled it, but that's how SKR ruled it. Given it's a rules forum, I'll base any discussions off that.
I never thought of that. When I read his FAQ entry, I figured he was just talking flavor, but the way he worded, I could attempt a trip from 10 feet away with a longspear, couldn't I?
I beleive the reason that there's no enhancement bonus when you trip with a non trip weapon is because you CAN"T use that weapon to trip: you instead sweep your foot out and trip them.You should go read the FAQ. SKR specifically said you can trip with non trip weapons, but you gain no benefits from them. Note, that means you can trip with a reach weapon, you just don't gain any enhancements/abilities from it.
What that means is, if I have a long spear, and you provoke an AoO while in it's threaten range, I can make the AoO a trip attack (assuming the AoO provocation is not standing up). Since I don't have reach with my leg out to 10 feet, your above quote would appear to not be in line with the FAQ.
Yes you could, but you don't get any of the normal bonus from the weapon to help you such as weapon focus, enhancement bonuses and so on.
Stuff that didn't say he could use a longspear to trip
He didn't contradict the other faq much. You're just trying to add another what if that it doesn't sound like he considered.
Stuff that didn't say he could use a longspear to tripHe didn't contradict the other faq much. You're just trying to add another what if that it doesn't sound like he considered.
A) You may use a weapon to make a trip attack.
B) The weapon does not require the trip special quality.C) You may trip with a reach weapon (See Guisarme)
I fail to see how you fail to follow this, but it's very plain. A guisarme is a weapon which is both reach and trip. The FAQ says you can trip with any weapon, but you don't gain any benefits from the weapon if it's a non-trip weapon (enhancements, ability to drop weapon to avoid AoO, etc).
Why would you be able to trip with a Guisarme (Reach, Trip), a Sword (Non-Reach, Non-Trip), but not a Long Spear (Reach, Non-Trip)?
I follow your argument just fine, I just think you're reading WAY more than he meant to say into what he said and that [b]the other FAQ had another, clearer answer.[b]
The other FAQ is not an official FAQ. The other FAQ is a compilation of other posts. James himself (in his ask any questions thread) says that his answers are only how he would rule in his own games, not official RAW, those are in the PAIZO FAQ.
With all due respect, you can disagree with the FAQ, and my interpretation of it, but it's a bit much to be rude about it. I'll be flagging that post and no longer responding to any other posts from you in this thread.
I do not believe it was his intention to give longspears the ability to trip. That would be an odd contradiction with his earlier statements.
I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I will for this. Please note that it was SKR that made the final ruling, not James Jacobs. James Jacobs has stated that RAW interpretations are strictly Jason Buhlman and Sean K Reynolds domain, not his. The only thing that is official is what's in the FAQ.
This was not a case of James clarifying something he wrote earlier, this is a case of the Rules team making a different decision than the creative director. Since the date on the FAQ ruling is months and months after James's previous posts, this is obviously a change of direction by Paizo.
I removed some posts. Be civil.
I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I will for this. Please note that it was SKR that made the final ruling, not James Jacobs. James Jacobs has stated that RAW interpretations are strictly Jason Buhlman and Sean K Reynolds domain, not his. The only thing that is official is what's in the FAQ.
This was not a case of James clarifying something he wrote earlier, this is a case of the Rules team making a different decision than the creative director.
-There is no huge difference for the case under consideration. They said for a longsword you're effectively doing it unarmed. so there was no difference between unarmed and using the longsword. That leads me to the conclusion that they did not consider the ramifications of what they said. I don't think that proper interpretation can be reached by rules lawyering statements that are not made with the intention of being rules.
-There is no huge difference for the case under consideration. They said for a longsword you're effectively doing it unarmed. so there was no difference between unarmed and using the longsword. That leads me to the conclusion that they did not consider the ramifications of what they said. I don't think that proper interpretation can be reached by rules lawyering statements that are not made with the intention of being rules.
So your reasoning then, is that the FAQ is not rules, and need not be followed. But that posts in the forum, by James, are rules, and should be followed? Just to make sure we are clear.
EDIT : Never mind, it's not worth it. Let's just drop it. You pointed to an FAQ for your argument, but when I point out a corrected FAQ, you insist it's not relevant. This is a pointless exercise. Do it however you want in your own games.
So your reasoning then, is that the FAQ is not rules, and need not be followed. But that posts in the forum, by James, are rules, and should be followed? Just to make sure we are clear.
-There is no huge difference for the case under consideration. They said for a longsword you're effectively doing it unarmed. so there was no difference between unarmed and using the longsword. That leads me to the conclusion that they did not consider the ramifications of what they said. I don't think that proper interpretation can be reached by rules lawyering statements that are not made with the intention of being rules.
My differing opinion on the correct procedure for exegesis is to use the FAQ for the specific topic the FAQ asks and answers, and not to try to extrapolate it it out unless i absolutely have to. Even a good extrapolation on a specific question into broader areas is, to me, less tenable than a more concrete answer to a more specific question.
The caveat that there was no functional difference between tripping unarmed and tripping with a longsword implies, to me, that there is supposed to be no difference between tripping unarmed and tripping with a weapon that is not designed to trip. Since a longspear should function as if you are unarmed for tripping, and you can't trip unarmed from 10 feet away, then you can't trip.
There are numerous questions and faq's about game balance in favor of keeping trip weapons special, and making their lower damage output worthwhile to the players. I would not want to make a decision contrary to that based on a statement specific for longswords.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The main topic: You can target specific squares or "sectiions" for cover/concealment, it seems reasonable to attack certain squares or "parts" when it comes to large (or larger) creatures. Caveat: Certain Squares might have soft cover.
The problems arise when you imagine a battle "cube" vs a battle "grid". A creature that is adjacent on a grid would not be adjacent on a cube... I wish Paizo would come out with a stance on how the grid translates to 3D (ie attacking up, creature height), this would help with huge creature and flying questions.
The trip subtopic:
@bignorsewolf
There is a difference between tripping unarmed/longsword and tripping with a longspear. A longspear has reach, but you would not apply weapon enhancement bonuses (as you would with a Guisarme).
The FAQ on Trip is clear. You don't need to wield a weapon with Trip to make a Trip attempt.
We know there are currently weapons with reach and trip, these let you trip at 10 feet. If the weapon does not need to be a Trip property weapon to trip, we can only conclude that it is by virtue of the fact the weapon is a reach weapon that you can make a trip attempt at 10 feet.
Thus, any reach weapon or whip can Trip.
Improvised Weapons side topic:
Just because RAW specifically calls out "non-weapon items" does not automatically exclude other conditions. Rather, it only specifically includes non-weapons, which is the entire point of the rule.
Unfortunately for you, while it does not automatically exclude "weapons" it doesn't include "weapons" either. If weapons could be used as improvised weapons this would likely be included in the information given on Improvised Weapons in the core rule book.
Specifically, how to rule how these weapons deal damage, what kind, if they lose enhancement bonuses, etc. IE all the problems that are arising in this thread.
If we look to Arrows/Bolts we can see the designer's intent is that some, but not all weapons can be used with a secondary or "improvised" function. However, by not having any language on how other weapons are treated when "improvised" leads me to believe that these are not viable targets for Improvisation.
This is doubly so as we see the rules for Reach weapons, which can't attack an adjacent foe, RAW. There is no caveat for improvised weapon usage detailed here. If they can be used as Improvised Weapons, then the rules regarding reach weapons are largely inconsequential.
IMO - throwing a weapon that has a Range (ie Dagger) is an intended use of the weapon.
The main topic: You can target specific squares or "sectiions" for cover/concealment,
Cover and concealment are two different rules. Show me where it says you can aim at a creatures corner and only consider one square. In the book the description implies, and the diagram makes perfectly clear, that you have to deal with the square of the creature, not the square of the grid.
You threaten squares. You attack creatures.
The trip subtopic:
@bignorsewolf
There is a difference between tripping unarmed/longsword and tripping with a longspear. A longspear has reach, but you would not apply weapon enhancement bonuses (as you would with a Guisarme).
The FAQ on Trip is clear. You don't need to wield a weapon with Trip to make a Trip attempt.
80 other posts I've seen by the developers have said the opposite: A trip weapon is supposed to actually be worth the reduced damage these weapons do.
Where is this new round of FAQ? It wasn't with the main book faq.