heya, i have seen alot of talk going both ways on whether or not you can use the haft of a longspear, polearm, to attack adjacent foes as an improvised weapon. im just wondering if there is an official ruling on that, and if it can be would catch off guard nullify the -4 penalty? if so it seems like a much better way to go during low levels than the pole fighting ability from polearm master.
thanks in advance
it seems like a much better way to go during low levels than the pole fighting ability from polearm master.
Which is a good reason to not allow it.
I don't think it's all that terrible an idea to use in a pinch. An improvised quarterstaff/gimped two-handed club isn't exactly an optimal weapon. A player would have to be highly tolerant of his own failures to rely on it as a backdoor double weapon.
A better idea is to come up with a good long strategy for coping with the difference between reach and and closer combat.
EDIT: Ultimately, I see the rules as a tool for DMs and players to use to operationalize the bat-poop crazy things players try to do in a consistent and reasonably balanced manner. If a player tries to shift his longspear to bash an opponent who has gotten in too close for the stabby end, using the improvised weapon rules is probably your best bet.
I don't think it's all that terrible an idea to use in a pinch. An improvised quarterstaff/gimped two-handed club isn't exactly an optimal weapon. A player would have to be highly tolerant of his own failures to rely on it as a backdoor double weapon.
A better idea is to come up with a good long strategy for coping with the difference between reach and and closer combat.
EDIT: Ultimately, I see the rules as a tool for DMs and players to use to operationalize the bat-poop crazy things players try to do in a consistent and reasonably balanced manner. If a player tries to shift his longspear to bash an opponent who has gotten in too close for the stabby end, using the improvised weapon rules is probably your best bet.
If you read the improvised weapon rules, you'll note they specifically apply to using items not built/designed as weapons as weapons, however; by RAW, you cannot use a spear in a manner not intended, as the improvised weapon rules explicitly do not apply to any item which is already a weapon.
Relevant sentence, from Improvised Weapons; "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
If you read the improvised weapon rules, you'll note they specifically apply to using items not built/designed as weapons as weapons, however; by RAW, you cannot use a spear in a manner not intended, as the improvised weapon rules explicitly do not apply to any item which is already a weapon.Relevant sentence, from Improvised Weapons; "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
And since the haft of a longspear isn't intended to be used as a weapon itself, I'm fine with using it as an improvised other-than-longspear weapon.
Remember, these rules, as I see them, are intended to operationalize stuff players try to have their PCs do. This isn't about playing a directly competitive board game like chess, nor is it about working the rules over like a lawyer. Using a reach weapon haft as an improvised weapon is going to generally suck unless you're some fantastic weapons master - and by the time a PC gets to that point, he's probably already got a better tool to deal with the situation.
If you read the improvised weapon rules, you'll note they specifically apply to using items not built/designed as weapons as weapons, however; by RAW, you cannot use a spear in a manner not intended, as the improvised weapon rules explicitly do not apply to any item which is already a weapon.Relevant sentence, from Improvised Weapons; "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
And since the haft of a longspear isn't intended to be used as a weapon itself, I'm fine with using it as an improvised other-than-longspear weapon.
Remember, these rules, as I see them, are intended to operationalize stuff players try to have their PCs do. This isn't about playing a directly competitive board game like chess, nor is it about working the rules over like a lawyer. Using a reach weapon haft as an improvised weapon is going to generally suck unless you're some fantastic weapons master - and by the time a PC gets to that point, he's probably already got a better tool to deal with the situation.
Using it as an improvised weapon is going to suck far less than actually dealing with the drawbacks of using a reach weapon, or about as much as having a class feature (polearm master fighter) which explicitly tells you that you can do so at the expense of a valuable class feature; this is why its an issue.
Its a 'free' way of gaining a benefit which either marginalizes a drawback or is equivalent to a non-free class feature. It should not be free. At the very least, a feat to allow you to duplicate Pole Fighting should be required.
Using a reach weapon haft as an improvised weapon is going to generally suck unless you're some fantastic weapons master - and by the time a PC gets to that point, he's probably already got a better tool to deal with the situation.
At second level, a Polearm Master gains Pole Fighting (Ex) which allows him to use an immediate action to shorten the grip on his polearm and use it against adjacent targets at a -4 penalty.
So an untrained user doing the same thing (only worse) should, at the very least, have some kind of action penalty (in addition to losing polearm-specific bonuses like Weapon Focus).
Or, he could spend 50 gold on armor spikes and not worry about any of it.
This ability is an immediate action, meaning that it can be used in an attack of opportunity surprise. Very nice.
Except, as proposed, using the haft as an improvised weapon doesn't take any action at all. The polearm master is stuck with a short haft (and -4 penalty) until his next round when he can spend another immediate action to change it back. (Those immediate actions are burning up his Swift actions, too)
Is there a rule stating improvised weapon damage?
Improvised Weapons: "To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit."
The haft of a polearm would probably be about the same as a club or quarterstaff, so medium size 1d6 20/x2.
The difference being that Pole Fighting can be used to interrupt a spell caster at 5 ft and 10 ft range whereas Catch Off Guard is stuck at (or should be) threatening a 5 ft range or 10 ft range.
If you're reading the rules such that the haft of the weapon is an improvised weapon that threatens 5', then as long as the user is wielding the polearm, they threaten both 5' (with the haft) and 10' (with the polearm).
Otherwise, you have to house rule some kind of action in order to change from "wielding the polearm properly" to "wielding the polearm all crazy so I can bonk guys with the middle."
Thus, I feel the reasonable ruling is that the haft cannot be used as an improvised weapon, and a character that wishes to threaten at 5' needs a feat like Imp Unarmed Strike, or armor spikes or a natural attack or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see absolutely no problem with using the haft of a reach weapon as an improvised weapon so long as they're treated as two different weapons, and not a double weapon.
When your wielding the spear, you're not wielding the haft and vice versa. Readying a Weapon is a move action (swift with Quick Draw). Pole Fighting reduces this to an immediate action.
Really, though, Armour Spikes or a Spiked Gauntlet are the way to go with reach weapons. You always threaten, with no action expenditure, and they're martial weapons.
|
The difference being that Pole Fighting can be used to interrupt a spell caster at 5 ft and 10 ft range whereas Catch Off Guard is stuck at (or should be) threatening a 5 ft range or 10 ft range.If you're reading the rules such that the haft of the weapon is an improvised weapon that threatens 5', then as long as the user is wielding the polearm, they threaten both 5' (with the haft) and 10' (with the polearm).
Otherwise, you have to house rule some kind of action in order to change from "wielding the polearm properly" to "wielding the polearm all crazy so I can bonk guys with the middle."
Thus, I feel the reasonable ruling is that the haft cannot be used as an improvised weapon, and a character that wishes to threaten at 5' needs a feat like Imp Unarmed Strike, or armor spikes or a natural attack or whatever.
how about getting TWF feats to effectively use the weapon as double weapon? your offhand won't be light, so at best you're looking at -4 to all your attacks
I'm going to concur with the "Useable, yes, as a separate weapon" crowd here.
There's absolutely no logical reason why you can't smack someone with the wooden haft of a long weapon, much like you would a Quarter Staff.
The -4 penalty to an improvised weapon would apply, The "haft" of long weapons are "not crafted to be weapons" (using the definition from the improvised rules) and thus you are considered "non-proficient" with it.
Q: "But if it's a quarter staff, why wouldn't I be proficient with it if I can use Simple Weapons"
A: Because there's a large, metal, unbalancing blade on the end of the thing that makes this almost very much not quite unlike a quarterstaff.
As the rules for Catch Off Guard state: "Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons." The haft of a longer weapon being used as a club/staff would defiantly fall into the category of "unorthodox" and improvised.
I see no problem with this. If you are not a polearm master, then you do not gain the rest of the benefits of the polearm master class...you cannot argue that Pole Fighting is the epitome ability of the polearm master class...so you can improvise the level 2 ability of a polearm master...I don't see that as game breaking. If you are a polearm master, you gain Pole Fighting anyway, and shouldn't even be looking at catch off-guard.
Keep in mind Catch Off-Guard is a Feat, a rather expensive thing to have to waste on any character for a situational effect...especially when the expenditure of 50g for Armor Spikes solves the problem for you.
If a player wants to replicate Pole Fighting by using the haft of his longspear as a staff, go for it...you reduce damage on the weapon, you take the built in penalty (unless you spend a feat to drop it) and (as mentioned above) you only threaten the area of the weapon you're using: 10' as a longspear, 5' as an improvised weapon.
Further it takes you a move action to switch (or with ANOTHER feat a swift action) to change between the two of them.
With all the penalties applying to the Improvised Weapon/Catch Off-Guard combo I can't see how this even stacks up to Pole Fighting (though it does come close). If, at the cost of 2 feats, you want to re-produce Pole Fighting for less damage? By all means, go ahead and do so.
Looks balanced to me.
Also, while the head of your glaive is +2 Holy Keen Flaming Burst Troll Bane, the haft isn't and can never be enchanted as a weapon. It's also not even a glaive anymore, so all your glaive feats and weapon training don't work.
Pole Fighting let's you wield your awesome magic glaive as an awesome magic glaive without reach, instead of a hunk of wood.
When your wielding the spear, you're not wielding the haft and vice versa. Readying a Weapon is a move action (swift with Quick Draw). Pole Fighting reduces this to an immediate action.
Agreed on the first parts. It is definitely not ´no action´ to switch between normal usage and Improvised Weapon usage, because they are not ´the same weapon´ per se, you still have to switch grips/´draw the weapon´ and thus will not threaten with BOTH at the same time.
Re: being the same as Pole Fighting... NO.
Pole Fighting uses: the real damage dice, the real crit range/multiplier, works with Weapon Focus/Spec/Training for the given Weapon Type, and all magical enhancements apply.
Using an Improvised Weapon is by definition NOT THE SAME WEAPON, so none of the weapon specific bonuses would apply.
EDIT: What Quantum Steve said :-)
Honeslty, I´m not sure if it IS possible to enchant the haft (Improvised Weapon), but if you did, it would still be a totally separate enchantment at extra cost.
This is a common problem i have had both as a player and a DM for players with the same problem. A spear (in real life) is made to strike with ALL parts. Not just the pointy end but the haft, the butt end, and the haft.
A spear (in real life) is made to strike with ALL parts. Not just the pointy end but the haft, the butt end, and the haft.
Exactly right. When someone ends up inside your point you're supposed to smack them upside the head with the butt of the spear. As for damage, I'd say 1-4. It's not balanced, weighted or wielded as easily as a quarter staff (and is hence an improvised weapon). The threat range should be 5' and it should take a move action to switch up (sans feat). More than reasonable really. Almost "realistic" :) Far more so than reducing the effectiveness of your armor by putting point / edge traps, that is spikes, all over it. In actual combat that would be asking to have your bell rung. But I guess the spikes "look cool"... and it is a game.
|
My GMs (yes, both of them, despite the vastly different ideologies involved) let me use it as a club, for when I don't want to hit people too hard, typically eating the -4 hit for doing subdual damage, as it's very hard to do subdual damage with the things on the ends of most weapons. I can't use it as a dual weapon, because it isn't made for that, but I can still use it for subdual.
It's a move action to draw a weapon, unless BAB is +1 and moving.
That doesn't mean it's a move action to switch a weapon in your hand.
(3 seconds?)
I agree with all the other points.
Thanks for all the replies gentleman, i knew it wouldn't be used as a double weapon (would it even be possible? the main pointy bit would be used 10' away while the club part would be 5'), just curious on the legality of it. i take it no official word has ever been given on the matter?
anyway i appreciate all the replies, thank you very much for the discussion about it.