|
Saying that because polearm masters can do it as an immediate action, therefore anyone must be able to do it as a move action, is one of the most spurious bits of logic I've ever seenYou're really going to call someone else's logic spurious when you're proposing that because of a single line in the rules, you can't hit someone with a long stick when that that long stick happens to have a metal point on the end?
The weapon you have in hand is a longspear. Does it really surprise you that the game requires you to use the rules for a longspear?
The rules have to balance realism with playability. I've seen greatsword demonstrations that were gleaned from the pages of renaissance fighting manuals where the pommel is used to strike and the quillons were used to hook the ankles and trip. And yet the greatsword is not listed as a double weapon. Nor is a spear, nor a longspear.
Some weapons have reach, some don't. It's binary. But this doesn't reflect the reality of weapons of incremental differences in length. The game has to define each weapon in game terms, and this tells us what the weapon can and cannot do, regardless of our opinions and regardless of realism.
A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.
The bolded part is not accidental, it's a deliberate design decision for game balance. If you are wielding a reach weapon then you can attack a creature 10-feet away, but to balance that you cannot attack an adjacent creature. That's the price you pay.
The rules for improvised weapons also have game balance in mind. If you could apply these rules to objects which already are weapons, then twist the wording so that the weapon which is 'most similar' is in fact nothing like that weapon, then all those 'cans' and 'cannots' were a waste of ink.
The improvised weapon rules state that the -4 attack penalty is simply the penalty for non-proficiency. The rules for bastard swords say:-
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
Does this mean that you can use them one-handed without the exotic weapon proficiency, but take the -4 non-proficiency penalty? The Paizo Design Team stepped in repeatedly to say that, no, they cannot be used at all one-handed without EWP!
But if what you say is true, then you could use it as an improvised weapon, because the -4 penalty is the non-proficiency penalty. Since Paizo ruled that you absolutely cannot do this, this either means that you can't apply the improvised weapon rules to weapons (just like the rules say), or that that you can use any weapon as any other improvised weapon....unless you're using a bastard sword? This is not credible.
So we have bastard swords, the entirety of the combat rules including weapon size, category, reach, double, even improvised weapons and the existence of special abilities which allow you to do what you're claiming anybody can already do....and you're saying that your common sense trumps all this....in the rules forum...?
So you're happy to ignore the improvised weapon rules in favour of common sense...and then that common sense leads you to say that a huge 50-foot longspear doesn't have reach?
No, I'm following the improvised weapon rules. You are ignoring them.
An improvised weapon has:
a -4 nonproficiency penalty
a x2 critical modifier and threatens on a 20
size and damage based on the most reasonable match
That's it. Improvised weapons do not have the reach special ability, they do not have the trip special ability, they do not have the monk special ability, no special abilities, no nothing. That's completely regardless of the weapon in question.
You meanwhile seem to be claiming people can use a weapon as another weapon - wielding a greatsword as an improvised longsword for example. That is incorrect.
If you have a huge longspear and want to wield it as an improvised weapon, it has:
Size: Huge two-handed
Damage: 3d6
Critical: 20/x2
And you are always non-proficient with it.
Maybe, maybe it could be considered similar to a huge quarterstaff. It is in no way going to be similar to a medium-sized weapon.
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.Therefore, a weapon is not eligible to use the improvised weapon rules.
You do know that it is quite common, if not the standard, to have the first sentence of a rule segment be a short description of what the rule is usually meant to represent?
Or are you also claiming that by the rules, nothing may be more coveted by an adventurer than a weapon?
Without a doubt, weapons number among adventurers’ most coveted possessions.
Or that if you take extend spell, you gain the ability to cast spells?
You can make your spells last twice as long.
Or that due to the rules in Arcane Armor Training, you normally can't cast spells in armor?
You have learned how to cast spells while wearing armor.
As you see, there are numerous examples of the first sentence of a section of the rules being used as a rules-soft description of what the section will cover.
Even if that had been in the middle of the rules section it had been of dubious rules value, but being the first sentence the evidence value of that is basically nil.
But if what you say is true, then you could use it as an improvised weapon, because the -4 penalty is the non-proficiency penalty. Since Paizo ruled that you absolutely cannot do this, this either means that you can't apply the improvised weapon rules to weapons (just like the rules say), or that that you can use any weapon as any other improvised weapon....unless you're using a bastard sword? This is not credible.
False dichotomy. The answer could also be what the rules say - you cannot wield a bastard sword non-proficient one-handed as it is treated as a two-handed weapon (as by the FAQ/stealth errata), but you can smash someone while holding a bastard sword without being proficient. If you were to take a bastard sword and use it improvised, it would have a threat range of 20, a crit multiplier of x2, and assuming you use it somewhat like a sword, you would determine size and damage from the most reasonable on the weapon list - that is, a bastard sword, which is treated as a two-handed weapon with a d10 damage dice.
You cannot wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, so you're stuck with a -4 (1d10/20x2) weapon you have to use in two hands.
|
|
No, I'm following the improvised weapon rules. You are ignoring them.
An improvised weapon has:
a -4 nonproficiency penalty
a x2 critical modifier and threatens on a 20
size and damage based on the most reasonable matchThat's it. Improvised weapons do not have the reach special ability, they do not have the trip special ability, they do not have the monk special ability, no special abilities, no nothing. That's completely regardless of the weapon in question.
This is fundamentally wrong. The rules for improvised weapons say nothing about ignoring all the rules for that weapon apart from those three. On the contrary, you must follow all the rules for that weapon, except for the -4 penalty/the crit stats/the thrown range increment.
Nothing in those rules tells you to ignore any other rule whatsoever.
Your improvised weapon has all the qualities that 'most reasonably' similar weapon has, including size, category, reach, trip, damage type, all of it, except that you take the -4 attack penalty/crit stats of (20/x2)/thrown range increment of 10-feet.
Nothing in the rules tell you to ignore the other rules because they are explicit inhat is included.
They do not say "an improvised weapon works as the weapon it most resembles", it says "for damage and size" (paraphrased).
If you wield a chain as an improvised weapon and it is determined to be most similar to a heavy flail, it is a two-handed weapon doing damage as a heavy flail. The rules dont tell you to ignore the trip and disarm features for heavy flail, because they dont tell you to look for them in the first place. You are not wielding a heavy flail, you are wielding an "improvised weapon". The same is true regardless of what object you use.
The weapons dont say "ignore these abilities" just like magic missile doesnt say "this spell does not create an elephant". The rules state what is, and if they dont state what is then it usually isnt.
|
|
The general rules apply, except when they are replaced by the specific.
If the non-weapon object you use to poke a foe is ruled to be most similar to a longspear on the grounds that it's a 10-foot long pointed stick, how can that not have reach?
There is nothing to suggest that the normal rules are ignored. On the contrary, the improvised weapon rules allow objects which don't have weapon stats (and therefore can't interact with the combat rules) to use the stats of the most similar weapon so that it can interact with the combat rules.
Since the main objection to disallowing weapons to be treated as improvised seems to be 'common sense', the idea that a 10-foot long pointy stick doesn't have reach throws common sense out of the window.
If the objections have neither rules nor common sense on their side, what have they got left?
The general rules apply, except when they are replaced by the specific.
Yes. The general rule is that weapons do not have special abilities. A longspear has reach because the longspear entry says it does. An improvised weapon does not have reach because the improvised weapon rules do not say they have.
If the non-weapon object you use to poke a foe is ruled to be most similar to a longspear on the grounds that it's a 10-foot long pointed stick, how can that not have reach?
Because the rules say they don't. Now, if you claim by common sense it should have reach, that is another thing, but I am not willing to discuss common sense with you since you seem to be dismissing it half the time and using it as an argument yourself half the time. You accused me of going by common sense rather than rules, I go by the rules here.
There is nothing to suggest that the normal rules are ignored. On the contrary, the improvised weapon rules allow objects which don't have weapon stats (and therefore can't interact with the combat rules) to use the stats of the most similar weapon so that it can interact with the combat rules.
They use the damage and size stat of another weapon. Or, well, not even that necessarily - you compare the object to other weapons to find out what a reasonable damage and size is.
The rules in no way state anything else is gained.
Since the main objection to disallowing weapons to be treated as improvised seems to be 'common sense', the idea that a 10-foot long pointy stick doesn't have reach throws common sense out of the window.
Ah, now you're accusing the opposition of reducing it to common sense again.
So what we have is:
Someone says: It's common sense that you can bash someone with the butt end and the rules support it.
You say: But it's not RAW!!!! RAW it has REACH!!!!
I say: No, it doesn't by RAW.
You say: WELL IT SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE THAT'S COMMON SENSE!!!
This is getting silly. Stop flipflopping your arguments. Either you argue what you think is common sense, take in what others think is common sense, and either accept that or post reasonable rebuttals based in your view of common sense. Or you argue how you read the rules, take in how others read the rules, and either accept that or post reasonable rebuttals based in the rules.
You can't accuse us of ignoring the rules in favor of common sense at one moment and the next accuse us of ignoring common sense in favor of the rules.
If the objections have neither rules nor common sense on their side, what have they got left?
So far you have shown exactly zero rules support for your claim, and I disagree with your claims on common sense. I very much think it's common sense to be able to hit someone with the butt of a polearm. But that's not a discussion I'm willing to have with you since you are arguing dishonestly.
If you have any rules argument left at all, post them, but drop the false accusations.
|
|
I want a strictly RAW answer. Objections are based on 'common sense' which fail at being common sense, like 10-foot long longspear-like objects don't have reach, or a mis-application of RAW, dismissing the wording limiting it to non-weapon objects as 'fluff' (against both RAW and common sense), and choosing to see the rules which say how the normal weapon rules are changed (-4, 20/x2, 10-foot range) to say that these are the only rules which apply.
Also taking the rule about reach weapons which deliberately and unambiguously states that they may not be used to attack an adjacent foe, and using that same object to...attack an adjacent foe.
Or, to put it in simpler terms, 'cheating'.
Or, to put it in simpler terms, 'cheating'.
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
Nothing in that sentence says that an item that was crafted to be a weapon cannot be used in an improvised manner. It only states that objects not crafted to be weapons can be.
Saying that anyone who has a different reading of the rules is a cheater is deliberately inflammatory and childish. For shame.
|
|
Or, to put it in simpler terms, 'cheating'.Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.Nothing in that sentence says that an item that was crafted to be a weapon cannot be used in an improvised manner. It only states that objects not crafted to be weapons can be.
It says what the rule is for. Saying that it doesn't say it's not for the opposite, therefore it must mean that it is for the opposite, is very poor logic.
Saying that anyone who has a different reading of the rules is a cheater is deliberately inflammatory and childish. For shame.
The 'cheating' part is not about seeing a rule differently, but about deliberately mis-applying one rule (improvised weapons) to get a game advantage by getting round another rule restriction (reach weapons/adjacent foe).
The 'cheating' part is not about seeing a rule differently, but about deliberately mis-applying one rule (improvised weapons) to get a game advantage by getting round another rule restriction (reach weapons/adjacent foe).
Reach weapons have Reach because the weapon says it has Reach. A 1" long toothpick would, by RAW, have reach if its entry on the weapons table has reach next to it.
The fact is that if you have a 20-foot long pole, not manufactured as a weapon, and you use it as an improvised weapon, it does not have Reach. Why? Because the length of the weapon is irrelevant. Why do I say that? Because a medium-sized Titan Mauler does not gain Reach with a Huge longsword even though the Longsword is technically 20-feet long at that point.
The very concept of how Reach functions is already a kludge for the purposes of game mechanics, and has very little to do with real-world physics.
And as I said in the other thread, take Reach out of the picture entirely: The interpretation you are promoting bars someone from bashing a person in the skull with the pommel of their sword. Why? A sword was not designed with that as a primary method of attack; the weapon damage and design is focused around hitting someone with the bladed edge, and so striking someone with the pommel is effectively using it as an improvised sap or club.
If you want to promote the idea that specifically the rules bar, or should bar, you from using a Reach weapon as an improvised weapon to make adjacent attacks, then okay - I think there's already ways around that (like wearing a cestus), and so from a house rule perspective barring it is mechanically pointless, but that's fine.
But pedantically promoting as intended an interpretation of the rules that bars something so utterly possible as punching someone in the face with the handguard of your saber is, IMO, somewhat insulting to the designers. It goes against the fact that they wrote the rules assuming that as semi-intelligent individuals, we would simply know certain things are true and possible - like, for instance, that humans need to breathe or that you can punch someone with the hard metal handguard of a saber.
From the PRD:
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort.
From Malachi's reading of the rules, I can now use any spell as a counterspell, deal damage regardless of whether a creature is insubstantial or has damage reduction, and guarantee success on any skill check by making the same skill check.
Or maybe the first line of text for each section is just a broad generalization of the section, and it takes a more thorough reading of the rules to extrapolate their meaning. Nothing in the rules says you cannot wield a metal tipped pointy stick as an improvised club... no matter what you call it. It does provide rules for how to wield an improvised club.
like 10-foot long longspear-like objects don't have reach
,
If you claim they do by RAW, do you have any kind of evidence in favor of that? So far you've posted none.or a mis-application of RAW
Wonderfully vague.
dismissing the wording limiting it to non-weapon objects as 'fluff' (against both RAW and common sense)
If this is against "RAW", do you also claim that by RAW a wizard can't covet her spellbook more than her dagger? That anyone that takes the Extend Spell feat can cast spells? Would you say that spells cannot have effect more than once ever, like the introduction to the magic chapter states?
I am wondering seriously, do you consider every word written in the rulebook to be a hard rule, and if not, how do you make the distinction?Because the "first sentence is a short summary not to be taken too literally" rule of thumb is pretty widespread and well-accepted.
and choosing to see the rules which say how the normal weapon rules are changed (-4, 20/x2, 10-foot range) to say that these are the only rules which apply.
Show me where it says any rule is changed at all. This is what the actual rules say:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. 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. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that an improvised weapon is some changed copy of another weapon. An improvised weapon is an improvised weapon. The only reference at all to other weapons is for determining the size and damage of it.
If you have actual rules to support your interpretation, post them. Don't just claim that's the way it is without showing any evidence.
|
|
Sometimes the first line is fluff, sometimes it isn't. You can't automatically assume it's fluff just because it's the first line.
The rules for using a longspear in combat already exist. Therefore, when you use it in combat, use those rules. This is both RAW and common sense.
It is neither RAW nor common sense to use rules for letting objects that don't have weapon stats apply to objects that do have weapon stats, and it's neither common sense nor RAW to say that the most reasonable match for a longspear is anything but a longspear.
There are people who genuinely thought differently. The rules thread is for this very situation. On the rules thread we should limit ourselves to the rules, because to do otherwise is leading people astray.
It's okay to say, 'In my game I'd let people do this.' it's not okay to say that the rules allow it when they don't.
Nobody is saying that the most reasonable match for the longspear is not the longspear. You have posted that strawman repeatedly, and I have shown you, in the improvised weapon rules, that you only make the comparison to determine the weapon's size and the damage dice.
Nothing in the rules says you cannot use a weapon in an improvised way. It only says you CAN use non-weapons in an improvised way. You cannot play this game with only the rules that explicitly allow you to take actions. You have to assume you can do reasonable things that are not spelled out. Otherwise, it would be a nightmare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is neither RAW nor common sense to use rules for letting objects that don't have weapon stats apply to objects that do have weapon stats
Which is why in reality when someone comes at me to pistol-whip me with a revolver, it's perfectly sensible for me to assume that they're going to do the exact same amount of damage to me as if they had shot me. Yup, totally common sense. Nope - I shouldn't assume that it'd be sort of like getting hit with a sap instead; that wouldn't be sensible at all, a gun is always going to penetrate my skin and blow my insides out my back, even when it's just the butt of the gun hitting me.
it's neither common sense nor RAW to say that the most reasonable match for a longspear is anything but a longspear.
Yup - there's definitely no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming that a polearm - a pole (staff) with a sharp bit on the end - might do damage that's more similar to that of a staff (pole) if you hit someone with the pole part of it. We should expect that when we whack someone with the pole part of a polearm that it'll stab into their flesh even though the part we hit them with is completely blunt. Or apparently it's more sensible to assume that they can't hit us with the pole part of it at all.
</sarcasm>
Just some friendly advice: Stick to trying to argue from a perspective of RAW, because attempting to claim that there's no rationale for using weapons in a fashion other than how they were designed - like, say, pistol-whipping someone with a gun, or hitting someone with a pole - undermines any credibility you could give to your argument, simply because we can prove to ourselves in reality without any doubt that such weapons could be used in such a way. Which, in extension, would indicate that some people would find it sensible for the rules to offer up a way to reflect that. I'm done saying that they do work that way, but to argue that it's nonsensical to claim that someone wouldn't expect them to be usable in such a fashion - that just makes you look foolish.
|
|
I've said more than once that projectile weapons that don't have melee stats can get those stats using the improvised weapon rules.
Nothing in the rules says you cannot use a weapon in an improvised way. It only says you CAN use non-weapons in an improvised way.
The game does have rules for using weapons. It has no rules for ignoring those game stats, and especially not as a way of ignoring the rules that are definately there.
Well, take a moment, and imagine the Defending weapon doesn't exist.
Try looking through threads about arcane bond and wielding as well. Here's an SKR post:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#23
The discussions raged quite a bit. There is a lot of information out there.
Thanks for sharing. Was about to myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are now saying that a projectile weapon is exempt from your one and only rule of an improvised weapon being a "non-weapon", what then is your argument?
It has to be a non-weapon unless Malachi decides that the weapon is variant enough from its likely improvised use that it meets some unwritten qualification? Or is it just possible, that if a crossbow can be used as an improvised maul, any other weapon can be used in an improvised manner?
The game does have rules for weapons. Inclusive in those rules are the rules for improvised weapons. If weapons are objects capable of being used as an improvised weapon (such as a crossbow, according to you), then it stands to reason that you could bash an adjacent enemy with the haft of a longspear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are now saying that a projectile weapon is exempt from your one and only rule of an improvised weapon being a "non-weapon", what then is your argument?
It's not my fault you don't read my posts properly.
To enable weapon combat, weapons have game stats to enable them to interact with the combat rules.
If an object doesn't have game mechanics for the attack you're attempting (melee or ranged), then that's what the improvised weapons rules do: provide those necessary game stats by finding the most reasonable match to a weapon which does have game stats for that attack.
But if a weapon already has melee stats, you can't pretend it doesn't. A crossbow/bow/pistol doesn't have stats to attack in melee, so use the improvised weapon rules. A longspear does have melee attack stats, so any melee attack with it requires you to use those.
This is a consistent, sensible position which matches RAW perfectly.
Assuming weapons can be used as improvised weapons at all, where is everyone getting the idea that they would suddenly lose their magical enhancement bonus when used as an improvised weapon?
I don't recall any rules text supporting that.
Difficult to see how, by RAW, a weapon could be used as an improvised weapon. The first sentence under IMPROVISED WEAPONS states:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
Since weapons are, by definition, crafted to be weapons they wouldn't qualify as improvised.
Sometimes the first line is fluff, sometimes it isn't. You can't automatically assume it's fluff just because it's the first line.
So instead of assuming, I should just take your word for what you assume it is? Should I stop assuming that a magic effect can happen more than once?
The rules for using a longspear in combat already exist. Therefore, when you use it in combat, use those rules. This is both RAW
Again, no proof shown except I should take your word for what you assume to be fluff and what you assume to be RAW.
It is neither RAW to use rules for letting objects that don't have weapon stats apply to objects that do have weapon stats,
Then show some evidence.
and it's neither common sense nor RAW to say that the most reasonable match for a longspear is anything but a longspear.
I'm fine with saying the closest match would be a long spear. An improvised weapon which most closely resembles a longspear is a 1d8 piercing weapon with no reach.
The rules thread is for this very situation. On the rules thread we should limit ourselves to the rules, because to do otherwise is leading people astray.
So why are you constantly bringing up "common sense" when I've specifically said we should ignore it in favor of the rules? And why do you ignore the actual rules?
I've said more than once that projectile weapons that don't have melee stats can get those stats using the improvised weapon rules.
And yet the rules in no way mention any difference between how these play out.
Assuming weapons can be used as improvised weapons at all, where is everyone getting the idea that they would suddenly lose their magical enhancement bonus when used as an improvised weapon?
I don't recall any rules text supporting that.
Because you are no longer wielding them as the weapons they are, you are wielding them as an improvised weapon.
If you wield a masterwork carpet as an improvised net, it won't get a +1 attack modifier for being masterwork.
When you're wielding an improvised weapon, the weapon is "improvised weapon", not whatever object it was before.
Like, if you cut out a dragons tooth and use it as an improvised weapon, the most similar weapon might be a dagger, and so you would have an improvised weapon that is "light weapon, 1d4 piercing or slashing, 20/x2". It would not be a bite attack.
Difficult to see how, by RAW, a weapon could be used as an improvised weapon. The first sentence under IMPROVISED WEAPONS states:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
Since weapons are, by definition, crafted to be weapons they wouldn't qualify as improvised.
Again, by that reading of the RAW, a spell effect cannot ever happen more than once. The first sentence under MAGIC states:
A spell is a one-time magical effect.
Since permanency is, by definition, not a one-time effect, it isn't a spell.
It is well accepted that the first sentence of a rules section often is a short description or summary of what the rules generally are about. In this case, the sections are about as vague, so it's fully comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Difficult to see how, by RAW, a weapon could be used as an improvised weapon. The first sentence under IMPROVISED WEAPONS states:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
Since weapons are, by definition, crafted to be weapons they wouldn't qualify as improvised.
Again, by that reading of the RAW, a spell effect cannot ever happen more than once. The first sentence under MAGIC states:
A spell is a one-time magical effect.
Since permanency is, by definition, not a one-time effect, it isn't a spell.
Fallacious logic.
Permanency is a one-time effect that has a duration of forever. One-time doesn't mean it has an end.
Sophistry doesn't change what is written in the rules.
Fallacious logic.
Permanency is a one-time effect that has a duration of forever. One-time doesn't mean it has an end.
Sophistry doesn't change what is written in the rules.
Well if that example doesn't suit you, here are a few other examples of consequences of treating the first sentence of rules section as hard RAW:
Extend Spell states you have spells.OrcsOrcs cannot have good-quality equipment.
All characters have six ability scores. Even those that don't.
Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.
An adventuring wizard cannot covet their spellbook more than their dagger
Lawful characters cannot lie.
Natural disaster always leave death in their wake.
Anyone who has ranks in knowledge can answer complex questions. Even if they have a -10 to their modifier.
There is a common rule of thumb that the designers use the first sentence to make a quick summary of the rules to come. This is useful because it makes the rules feel like more than just a set of numbers, while allowing the players to easily grasp what should be taken literally and what shouldn't. Unless the first sentence uses very technical language it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course, we could treat exactly every word in the core rulebook as RAW, but then we'd get an unplayable game pretty quickly.
Fallacious logic.
Permanency is a one-time effect that has a duration of forever. One-time doesn't mean it has an end.
Sophistry doesn't change what is written in the rules.
Well if that example doesn't suit you, here are a few other examples of consequences of treating the first sentence of rules section as hard RAW:
Extend Spell states you have spells.
No it doesn't. It says you can make your spells last twice as long. It never states that you have such spells.
OrcsOrcs cannot have good-quality equipment.
No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.
All characters have six ability scores. Even those that don't.
And this is completely true. Some may have a CON of "-". But they still have a Con score.
Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.
And this is completely true. It doesn't say that they take turns in a different order or even that they don't take turns simultaneously.
Communication happens thus the first sentence is completely true.
An adventuring wizard cannot covet their spellbook more than their dagger
The word 'wizard' appears 4 times on that page. And at none of those places does it say this.
Lawful characters cannot lie.
It says no such thing. It only says that they tell the truth. And it doesn't say they always tell the truth.
Natural disaster always leave death in their wake.
The word 'always' never appears in the first sentence. Though two of the disasters listed (volcano and tsunami) kill a great deal of plant and animal life. The final one (undead uprising) involves dead by definition.
Anyone who has ranks in knowledge can answer complex questions. Even if they have a -10 to their modifier.
And indeed this is true. You can answer complex questions; but you will not often have the correct answer.
None of your examples shows that there is anything contradicting RAW in the introductory sentence.
Orcs cannot have good-quality equipment.No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Sort of like, a non-weapon object being used as an improvised weapon doesn't preclude a weapon being used as an improvised different weapon?
The first line only states that sometimes objects not originally intended to be weapons get used as weapons. It doesn't say that orcs also can't have nice things... OOOPS! I mean, that weapons can't also be used in improvised, unconventional ways! Sorry, it's so easy to confuse non-mutually exclusive counter-arguments!
Orcs cannot have good-quality equipment.No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.Sort of like, a non-weapon object being used as an improvised weapon doesn't preclude a weapon being used as an improvised different weapon?
The first line only states that sometimes objects not originally intended to be weapons get used as weapons. It doesn't say that orcs also can't have nice things... OOOPS! I mean, that weapons can't also be used in improvised, unconventional ways! Sorry, it's so easy to confuse non-mutually exclusive counter-arguments!
That would be the case if there was only one sentence in the entire rule. However the second sentence further specifies that it is these objects "not crafted to be weapons" that are improvised.
Because such objects are not designed for this use...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orcs cannot have good-quality equipment.No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.Sort of like, a non-weapon object being used as an improvised weapon doesn't preclude a weapon being used as an improvised different weapon?
The first line only states that sometimes objects not originally intended to be weapons get used as weapons. It doesn't say that orcs also can't have nice things... OOOPS! I mean, that weapons can't also be used in improvised, unconventional ways! Sorry, it's so easy to confuse non-mutually exclusive counter-arguments!
That would be the case if there was only one sentence in the entire rule. However the second sentence further specifies that it is these objects "not crafted to be weapons" that are improvised.
Because such objects are not designed for this use...
Which only references the objects identified in the first sentence. It still makes absolutely no statement, whatsoever, to prohibit using a weapon in an improvised manner. "Objects not crafted to be weapons... are not designed for this use..." Shocker!
Still doesn't say people who tell the truth don't also lie... OOOPS AGAIN! Those pesky non-mutually exclusives!
OrcsOrcs cannot have good-quality equipment.No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Fair enough. They cannot have new equipment. If you give an orc a shirt it becomes "old and torn", because that's the RAW, right?
And this is completely true. Some may have a CON of "-". But they still have a Con score.
Incorrect. The actual rules for ability scores state clearly that constructs and undead do not have con scores. In addition, intelligent items don't even have a notation of "con -", and they are stated to be NPC's, so what are their last three ability scores? Bertha, Greg, and Egon?
Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.And this is completely true. It doesn't say that they take turns in a different order or even that they don't take turns simultaneously.
That doesn't even remotely resemble any definition of taking turns I've seen. Like do something one person after another. Are you saying you're doing something one person after another simultaneously? Are you really going to argue that that's the way the "rule" should be read?
I'm not sure if you're being facetous or not.
The word 'wizard' appears 4 times on that page. And at none of those places does it say this.
Note adventuring. An adventurer that is a wizard, by the first sentence cannot covet their spellbook more than a weapon.
It says no such thing. It only says that they tell the truth. And it doesn't say they always tell the truth....
So, can't the same argument be used to say that the first sentence of the improvised rules do not say you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon; it only says that they can use non-weapons as weapons. And not that they always improvise non-weapons rather than weapons...
The word 'always' never appears in the first sentence. Though two of the disasters listed (volcano and tsunami) kill a great deal of plant and animal life. The final one (undead uprising) involves dead by definition.
A volcano in a plane with no life causes no death. But again, if the rules aren't assumed to be all-encompassing, why do you assume that the statement in the beginning of the improvised weapons rule are?
And indeed this is true. You can answer complex questions; but you will not often have the correct answer.
Now you are just being silly. With that way of interpreting it, how do you get the first sentence of the improvised weapon rules to prevent objects that can be used as weapons from being used as improvised weapons?
I mean, are you seriously arguing that it's more reasonable to read the first sentence as hard RAW, and thus have intelligent items with three undefined ability scores and orcs that immediately turn anything given them ragged, than reading them as a quick summary or description of the rules that follow?
Fair enough. They cannot have new equipment. If you give an orc a shirt it becomes "old and torn", because that's the RAW, right?
OrcsOrcs cannot have good-quality equipment.No it doesn't. Having ragged equipment does not preclude also having good equipment. They aren't mutually exclusive.
You are free to deviate from RAW at your table. If your orcs are covered in brand new, high-quality equipment then you have house ruled it. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And this is completely true. Some may have a CON of "-". But they still have a Con score.Incorrect. The actual rules for ability scores state clearly that constructs and undead do not have con scores. In addition, intelligent items don't even have a notation of "con -", and they are stated to be NPC's, so what are their last three ability scores? Bertha, Greg, and Egon?
And here you see an example of the specific overriding the general. Something that is quite common in Pathfinder. Just because there is an exception to something doesn't make it not a rule.
That doesn't even remotely resemble any definition of taking turns I've seen. Like do something one person after another. Are you saying you're doing something one person after another simultaneously? Are you really going to argue that that's the way the "rule" should be read?Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.And this is completely true. It doesn't say that they take turns in a different order or even that they don't take turns simultaneously.
Indeed. People can do something together when taking a turn. Many team sports depend on this very concept.
Note adventuring. An adventurer that is a wizard, by the first sentence cannot covet their spellbook more than a weapon.
The word 'wizard' appears 4 times on that page. And at none of those places does it say this.
It doesn't say all adventurers. It just says adventurers.
It also says weapons are "among" the most prized possessions. This leaves plenty of room to prize other things more.
Nothing in it precludes a weapon-less wizard or a wizard who holds his spellbook above all other possessions, even his weapons.
It says no such thing. It only says that they tell the truth. And it doesn't say they always tell the truth....So, can't the same argument be used to say that the first sentence of the improvised rules do not say you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon; it...
This would indeed be the case, were there nothing else in the rule set. But as I've pointed out above there are more sentences that narrow down Improvised weapons to those not specifically crafted as weapons.
You are free to deviate from RAW at your table. If your orcs are covered in brand new, high-quality equipment then you have house ruled it. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And if the party captures an orc and throws an artifact at it, the artifact breaks.
And here you see an example of the specific overriding the general. Something that is quite common in Pathfinder. Just because there is an exception to something doesn't make it not a rule.
So, how do you determine what is specific and what is general in this case? Neither state it is an exception to the other. Is this part of RAW or is it something you just "made up"?
I mean, I'm not against the concept, but it's exactly in the same "assumption not spelled out in the rules" spot as "first sentence is a summary". You seem to be all about taking every word literally, so would you explain where you find the "specific overrides general" rule?
Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.Indeed. People can do something together when taking a turn. Many team sports depend on this very concept.
Is a team sport with only one team and one player taking turns? Where do you find any support for this? Or are you making up definitions now in order to make it possible to make overly-literal interpretations of stuff?
It doesn't say all adventurers. It just says adventurers.
Just like the improvised weapon rules doesn't say "all improvised weapons are objects not designed as weapons".
You are continuously shifting between using extremely liberal and extremely literal interpretations of whats written in order to try to support a ridiculous argument. That's dishonest and a waste of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the party captures an orc and throws an artifact at it, the artifact breaks.
You are free to deviate from RAW at your table. If your orcs are covered in brand new, high-quality equipment then you have house ruled it. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't see that in the rules.
And here you see an example of the specific overriding the general. Something that is quite common in Pathfinder. Just because there is an exception to something doesn't make it not a rule.So, how do you determine what is specific and what is general in this case? Neither state it is an exception to the other. Is this part of RAW or is it something you just "made up"?
For example. General: You can't make more than one Attack of Opportunity in a turn. Specific: If you have Combat Reflexes, you can make additional attacks.
General: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round.
Specific: At 13th level, a kensai may always act and may draw his weapon as a swift action during a surprise round.
The general rules aren't somehow not rules because they are overridden in some cases.
I mean, I'm not against the concept, but it's exactly in the same "assumption not spelled out in the rules" spot as "first sentence is a summary". You seem to be all about taking every word literally, so would you explain where you find the "specific overrides general" rule?
Players must take turns describing what their characters do. All the time.Indeed. People can do something together when taking a turn. Many team sports depend on this very concept.Is a team sport with only one team and one player taking turns? Where do you find any support for this? Or are you making up definitions now in order to make it possible to make overly-literal interpretations of stuff?
It doesn't say all adventurers. It just says adventurers.Just like the improvised weapon rules doesn't say "all improvised weapons are objects not designed as weapons".
But it does say that the improvised weapon rules apply to objects not designed as weapons. This is the general rule.
If you can find a rule that creates a specific exception, then you can use that rule.
General: Objects not designed to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons.
Specific: Objects designed to be weapons... are not mentioned.
General: Objects not designed to be weapons are not intended to be used as weapons, so a character will take a -4 penalty while using one.
Specific: Objects designed to be weapons... are still not mentioned!
General: What the heck, Specific? Why aren't you saying that I am prohibited from using a weapon as an improvised different weapon?
Specific: Wait... what?
General: Seriously, dude! It's completely unbalanced. It's only for players who want to get every advantage possible. It's cheating!
Specific: Ummm... what???
General: Specific, man, honestly... you've got to get on the ball, here. Why on earth would we allow someone to take a penalty to their attack, just to use their weapon in a really sub-optimal way?
Specific: I mean... what?!?!?
General: Dude, I can't do this on my own. I only give a broad outline of things. Like, "You can use anything as a melee or thrown weapon."
Specific: Ok. But, if you can use anything as a weapon, doesn't it pretty much go without saying that you could use one weapon as a different weapon?
General: That's my point! If all people have to go on is my general outline of things, then their common sense will allow them to do just that! Unless... you know...
Specific: Unless what?
General: Unless you, Specific, specifically tell them they can't do it!
Specific: How would I do that?
General: What do you mean? Just do it! I can't do it. You have to do it!
Specific: So, if I don't do it... then what? That means it's not prohibited?
General: Not to be too specific about it... But, yeah.
Specific: ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
General: Objects not designed to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons.
Specific: Objects designed to be weapons... are not mentioned.
Indeed. And until put in the RAW there is no specific to override the general.
The general rules aren't somehow not rules because they are overridden in some cases.
Where do you find the rule that specific overrides general?
The general rules aren't somehow not rules because they are overridden in some cases.Where do you find the rule that specific overrides general?
It's in the general rules. [/rimshot]
But, seriously folks... I don't even see the general rule that a weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon. In fact, how else do you get a sharp blade to do non-lethal damage?
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
... almost like you were using the weapon in a way it wasn't intended to be used! Wait... if you can use a lethal weapon to do non-lethal by taking a -4 penalty, is it completely out of the realm of possibility that you could use a piercing weapon to do bludgeoning damage by taking a -4 penalty? Wait some more... if you can do that, would it be completely unreasonable to use a spear to club a person next to you, even though a spear is a reach weapon? Wait a third time... wait... wait for it... no, I'm done.
The general rules aren't somehow not rules because they are overridden in some cases.Where do you find the rule that specific overrides general?
It's in the general rules. [/rimshot]
But, seriously folks... I don't even see the general rule that a weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon. In fact, how else do you get a sharp blade to do non-lethal damage?
... almost like you were using the weapon in a way it wasn't intended to be used! Wait... if you can use a lethal weapon to do non-lethal by taking a -4 penalty, is it completely out of the realm of possibility that you could use a piercing weapon to do bludgeoning damage by taking a -4 penalty?Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Not unreasonable at all. Not RAW. But it would be a simple house rule.
Wait some more... if you can do that, would it be completely unreasonable to use a spear to club a person next to you, even though a spear is a reach weapon? Wait a third time... wait... wait for it... no, I'm done.
Yep, you're free to house rule it and it would be totally reasonable.
Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general?
This is about as useful as asking where the rules state that you must use the actual meaning of the words written on the page.
And none of it changes the rules for improvised weapons:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
Which state that objects "not crafted to be weapons" are to use the rules for Improvised weapons.
It even states why they are improvised weapons: "because such objects are not designed for this use."
Objects which are weapons are listed in the weapons chart.
Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general?This is about as useful as asking where the rules state that you must use the actual meaning of the words written on the page.
So basically it's just something that you made up?
Also, where do you find the weapon stats for "spearhandle"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically it's just something that you made up?Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general?This is about as useful as asking where the rules state that you must use the actual meaning of the words written on the page.
This is about as intellectually dishonest as an argument can be.
You're right. I'm just getting tired since your whole argument has been intellectually dishonest from the beginning. But I shouldn't sink to your level.
The general rule is that weapons are among an adventurer's most coveted possessions. Do you have any specific rule that overrides that, or does no adventurer covet anything more than a weapon? Does that require some specific feat or something?