Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet?


Rules Questions

651 to 700 of 1,668 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

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

There is nothing in the rules that says a long spear is not an animal companion so do you propose I can treat it as an animal companion? There is nothing in the rules that says a long spear is not a sexy lady dwarf so do you propose that my dwarf characters could marry and procreate with their spears? There is nothing in the rules that say a that a long spear is not a broom of flying so I should be able to hop on my long spear for a quick round of quiditch? There are alllllllllll kinds of things the rules do not say a long spear is not.

As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object, otherwise you are not operating within RAW. And yes that means there are 3 things according to strict RAW that are to be considered objects. This is why RAI and house rules should not be viewed as cheating or be given a negative connotation; there are too many specific situations to address within RAW so the GM is given free reign to operate outside of RAW as he sees fit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
born_of_fire wrote:


Good Lord, seriously? So how do you, RAW, stop using your spear as a spear and start using it as an improvised weapon? Is it a free action, a move action, a standard action, a swift action? Can it be done at any time, including in the middle of your full attack retinue, or do you have to declare before you start your actions which you are using, the manufactured spear or the improvised haft? Can you threaten both 5' and 10' at the same time or do you have to declare which you threaten? Feel free to quote any written rules.

You can't because, as you fully admit yourself, there are no written rules to answer those questions. There is a description of how to use objects that are not weapons as improvised weapons and there is a description of how to use manufactured weapons as weapons.

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

There. That is RAW saying that the RAW are not, RAW, sufficient in-themselves to play Pathfinder. Thus, RAW, trying to play Pathfinder strictly RAW is contrary to RAW. Or, put another way, the RAW answer to "What kind of action is it to switch?" is: "Ask your GM and work it out at the table with the other players." I'm sorry if that is not the answer you wanted, but that is the only answer possible without drawing on any house rules (because the idea that you should stick only to what is explicitly written is demonstrably a house rule itself, not a default assumption).

Honestly, there's no point in continuing the discussion any further - if you come with the assumption that things absent from the rules are necessarily not allowed RAW, then the OP question is meaningless tripe - it's akin to saying "If I disallow X because X is not explicitly allowed, is X allowed?". Similarly, if you don't share the permissive rules assumption, then the question is "If I allow X because the rules don't forbid X, then is X allowed?", which is also on face ridiculous.

This is not FAQ worthy so much as an attempt on both sides to appeal to the imaginary authority of the FAQ team and Devs to promote "right" play. The thing is, the FAQ ruling will be more or less meaningless. They can tell you how they rule it at their tables, or how it is played in PFS, but those are their personal house rules, and have no more automatic validity at my table than my house rules have at yours.

Grand Lodge

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

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

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

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


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

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

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

Any of these are valid rulings.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
we're still waiting for you to quote the part of the rules that says the shaft of my spear is not an object... barring those rules, it is, in fact, an object and can be used as an improvised weapon.
On the contrary. In the face of written rules that describe it as a weapon, you have to find and quote a written rule which says you can treat it as if it wasn't what the rules say it is.
The rules do not describe spear hafts as weapons, though.

The rules do say that when you are wielding a longspear you are weilding a longspear, as evidenced in the weapon rules.

Unless you can cite rules stating that when you wield a longspear you are also wielding an object called a "spear haft" then you are in the realm of house rules.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

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

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

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

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

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


Good Lord, seriously? So how do you, RAW, stop using your spear as a spear and start using it as an improvised weapon? Is it a free action, a move action, a standard action, a swift action? Can it be done at any time, including in the middle of your full attack retinue, or do you have to declare before you start your actions which you are using, the manufactured spear or the improvised haft? Can you threaten both 5' and 10' at the same time or do you have to declare which you threaten? Feel free to quote any written rules.

You can't because, as you fully admit yourself, there are no written rules to answer those questions. There is a description of how to use objects that are not weapons as improvised weapons and there is a description of how to use manufactured weapons as weapons.

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

There. That is RAW saying that the RAW are not, RAW, sufficient in-themselves to play Pathfinder. Thus, RAW, trying to play Pathfinder strictly RAW is contrary to RAW. Or, put another way, the RAW answer to "What kind of action is it to switch?" is: "Ask your GM and work it out at the table with the other players." I'm sorry if that is not the answer you wanted, but that is the only answer possible...

I agree 100%. If Malachi had not revisited this thread and offered insight on his thought process a number of times, I'd accuse him of purely trolling. It does seem that he is interested in discussion though so I won't say that :)

As I just posted, it's truly a shame that "RAI" and "house rule" have such negative connotations around here because strict RAW is extremely limited and, as you point out, contradictory within itself.


Democratus wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
we're still waiting for you to quote the part of the rules that says the shaft of my spear is not an object... barring those rules, it is, in fact, an object and can be used as an improvised weapon.
On the contrary. In the face of written rules that describe it as a weapon, you have to find and quote a written rule which says you can treat it as if it wasn't what the rules say it is.
The rules do not describe spear hafts as weapons, though.

The rules do say that when you are wielding a longspear you are weilding a longspear, as evidenced in the weapon rules.

Unless you can cite rules stating that when you wield a longspear you are also wielding an object called a "spear haft" then you are in the realm of house rules.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that you are not "wielding" (specific game term) both a spear and a spear haft at the same time. That doesn't mean that you cannot wield a spear haft as an improvised weapon at all.

If your hang up is the both at once thing then don't worry about it, no one is suggesting that.


I hadn't gotten that House Rules was a negative thing. House rules are what make many aspects of the game better.

They are just something that isn't the same from one table to the next. So when discussing in a forum where we are all at different tables, house rules aren't a reliable "single source" for rules discussion.

Maybe others seeing House Rules as an insult is part of the problem. They don't want to feel like they are using some lesser version of the game?


FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".


Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".

Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.


@bof - I don't think Malachi is trolling but I do think the entire thread has been disingenuous. He started off asking a question as though he wanted to hear what the community had to say and then pretended to be unopinionated on the topic, then when the majority of posts began to sound against his preferred outcome he suddenly became vehemently opposed.


Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.

So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.


BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?

I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.


Democratus wrote:

I hadn't gotten that House Rules was a negative thing. House rules are what make many aspects of the game better.

They are just something that isn't the same from one table to the next. So when discussing in a forum where we are all at different tables, house rules aren't a reliable "single source" for rules discussion.

Maybe others seeing House Rules as an insult is part of the problem. They don't want to feel like they are using some lesser version of the game?

It's not that houserules are bad, it's the suggestion that players shouldn't expect to be able to do this. It's the idea that this is an exception and not the default. I am a firm believer that this is (and should be) the default interpretation here and that disallowing it is the exception.


BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:

I hadn't gotten that House Rules was a negative thing. House rules are what make many aspects of the game better.

They are just something that isn't the same from one table to the next. So when discussing in a forum where we are all at different tables, house rules aren't a reliable "single source" for rules discussion.

Maybe others seeing House Rules as an insult is part of the problem. They don't want to feel like they are using some lesser version of the game?

It's not that houserules are bad, it's the suggestion that players shouldn't expect to be able to do this. It's the idea that this is an exception and not the default. I am a firm believer that this is (and should be) the default interpretation here and that disallowing it is the exception.

The whole point of house rules is that your table will be different from someone else's.

You are free to attack things with a "spear haft" all you want at your table. I haven't seen many saying that you can't house rule this if you like. It's certainly not what I've been saying.


Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects. A collection of them to be precise.

It just proves my point that you can improvise a spear as a quarterstaff.


Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?
I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.

GREAT! Please provide me with the RAW line in the sand between "the items on the object hardness chart" and "all non-weapon objects" that makes it clear what can be used as an improvised weapon then.

Your position (as stated by you) is that improvised weapons are not limited to the chart items but do not include all non-weapon objects. Please, oh please show me the line.


Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.


BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?
I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.

GREAT! Please provide me with the RAW line in the sand between "the items on the object hardness chart" and "all non-weapon objects" that makes it clear what can be used as an improvised weapon then.

Your position (as stated by you) is that improvised weapons are not limited to the chart items but do not include all non-weapon objects. Please, oh please show me the line.

Welcome to house rules territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:

I hadn't gotten that House Rules was a negative thing. House rules are what make many aspects of the game better.

They are just something that isn't the same from one table to the next. So when discussing in a forum where we are all at different tables, house rules aren't a reliable "single source" for rules discussion.

Maybe others seeing House Rules as an insult is part of the problem. They don't want to feel like they are using some lesser version of the game?

It's not that houserules are bad, it's the suggestion that players shouldn't expect to be able to do this. It's the idea that this is an exception and not the default. I am a firm believer that this is (and should be) the default interpretation here and that disallowing it is the exception.

The whole point of house rules is that your table will be different from someone else's.

You are free to attack things with a "spear haft" all you want at your table. I haven't seen many saying that you can't house rule this if you like. It's certainly not what I've been saying.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this isn't a house rule/ table variance situation. If someone wants to say fireball doesn't have a 10d6 limit that is fine, but they can't say that the 10d6 limit is a houserule.


Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?
I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.

GREAT! Please provide me with the RAW line in the sand between "the items on the object hardness chart" and "all non-weapon objects" that makes it clear what can be used as an improvised weapon then.

Your position (as stated by you) is that improvised weapons are not limited to the chart items but do not include all non-weapon objects. Please, oh please show me the line.

Welcome to house rules territory.

So you admit that your arbitrary limitation of non-weapon objects is a houserule? I'm using the RAW which says non-weapon objects can be improvised weapons.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Operating under strict RAW is pedantry at its finest. Unfortunately the question was posed as one if strict RAW so anyone answering has their hands tied if they are to respond within the defined conditions of the discussion.

Ugh. Some day I will remember to change my avatar before I post, not after.


BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?
I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.

GREAT! Please provide me with the RAW line in the sand between "the items on the object hardness chart" and "all non-weapon objects" that makes it clear what can be used as an improvised weapon then.

Your position (as stated by you) is that improvised weapons are not limited to the chart items but do not include all non-weapon objects. Please, oh please show me the line.

Welcome to house rules territory.
So you admit that your arbitrary limitation of non-weapon objects is a houserule? I'm using the RAW which says non-weapon objects can be improvised weapons.

You have not proven that, by RAW, a "spear haft" is an object.


Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.

Actually, Yes. I've already pointed to the weapon description proving that weapons are a collection of objects.. I'll post again for your convenience:

Light Mace wrote:
A light mace is made up of an ornate metal head attached to a simple wooden or metal shaft.


you haven't proven that it isn't. you've only insisted that there are unwritten definitions of words used in the rules that differ from their everyday meanings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
FLite wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object

I feel like the existance of this sentance, written with any seriousness, makes me lose all respect for your arguments. By the way, I defy you to find any place where the rules define what an object is. And I challenge you to find a single place where the rules specify that something is an object. As in a place where the rules say something like: Lead pipe. This is a cylindrical length of lead designed to carry water. It counts as an object.

Good point.. and as such.. Nothing can be used as an improvised weapon, as there are no such thing as "objects".
Incorrect. Check the table for Object Hardness and Hit Points to see several explicit objects.
So you suggest that by RAW that the only things which can be used as improvised weapons are those objects listed on the hardness table?
I suggested no such thing. I merely corrected your statement that the rules describe no objects whatsoever.

GREAT! Please provide me with the RAW line in the sand between "the items on the object hardness chart" and "all non-weapon objects" that makes it clear what can be used as an improvised weapon then.

Your position (as stated by you) is that improvised weapons are not limited to the chart items but do not include all non-weapon objects. Please, oh please show me the line.

Welcome to house rules territory.
So you admit that your arbitrary limitation of non-weapon objects is a houserule? I'm using the RAW which says non-weapon objects can be improvised weapons.
You have not proven that, by RAW, a "spear haft" is an object.

It has been proved many times. You just don't like it. There is no game definition for "object" and in that case the English definition is used. (Btw, this isn't my rule, but the intention of the designers. They have said as much many, many times.) Clearly by the English definition a spear haft is an object.

If you don't like the English definition of object then feel free to houserule another one, but it is your house rule and this is the rules forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:


That is incorrect. He asked how by raw you stop using your spear as a spear and start using it as an improvised weapon. By RAW you simply cannot.

How to stop using a spear: Stop attacking with it, or let go with a hand, or drop it to the floor.

How to wield an improvised weapon: Grab it in the appropriate amount of hands and start swinging.

Quote:
A flask was never intended to be a weapon. A long spear is intended to be used as a weapon.

I understood it as "what action would it be to change between them", seeing as how this argument has been done like a bazillion times.

A spear shaft is not intended to be used as a weapon (hence it lacks weapon stats). It is an object (visible, tangible, relatively stable in form). Thus you can make improvised weapon attacks with it.

Quote:
You can never, ever, under any circumstances use a spear as an improvised weapon by RAW.

While I might tend to agree (under the provision that an adventuring wizard could never, ever, under any circumstances covet their spellbook more than their dagger, and that a Dex 1 ooze with improved initiative could never, ever under any circumstances have bad reflexes), even that isn't necessarily true by RAW, seeing as how it only applies to objects _crafted_ as weapons. If the spear was not crafted (say, the result of a fabricate spell) it would work by RAW regardless.

born_of_fire wrote:


There is nothing in the rules that says a long spear is not an animal companion

Actually there is. Animal companion is an established game term with a clear definition, that excludes a longspear.

Unlike "object", which thus should be read in the common english meaning; "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form".

Quote:
As Malachi points out, the onus is on you to provide a written rule describing the spear haft as an object, otherwise you are not operating within RAW.

Actually, no. Words do not need to be defined in the rulebook unless deviating from the common meaning. Thus, in the sentence "sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat" we do not need a definition of "sometimes", nor of "objects", nor of "not", etc etc. Weapons are a clearly defined game term, and it could potentially be argued that that also applies to the word "crafted", in that it would have to be the result of a craft check; that's more open to interpretation though.

We do not need a rule that explains when "sometimes" occur, because the lack of a definition mean we refer to the common meaning of the word. Animal companion has a definition. Weapon has a definition. As far as you've shown, object does not have a definition; thus it uses the standard english meaning, "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form". Just like the word "sometimes" or "not" would do.

Democratus wrote:


You have not proven that, by RAW, a "spear haft" is an object.

And you have not proven that the word "not", by RAW, is a negation.

You know how we explain words not defined in the ruleset, such as "not" and "object"? The dictionary. Which says "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form".


Dr Grecko wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.

Actually, Yes. I've already pointed to the weapon description proving that weapons are a collection of objects.. I'll post again for your convenience:

Light Mace wrote:
A light mace is made up of an ornate metal head attached to a simple wooden or metal shaft.

Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.

No sub-objects mentioned there. Thus, by your example, it is one single indivisible object.


Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.

Actually, Yes. I've already pointed to the weapon description proving that weapons are a collection of objects.. I'll post again for your convenience:

Light Mace wrote:
A light mace is made up of an ornate metal head attached to a simple wooden or metal shaft.

Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.

No sub-objects mentioned there. Thus, by your example, it is one single indivisible object.

Not so. You asserted that weapon CANNOT be a collection of objects. You have been proved wrong. The relation between the light mace and a longspear is irrelevant.


Democratus wrote:

Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.

No sub-objects mentioned there. Thus, by your example, it is one single indivisible object.

Figured you'd post that as a distraction from the main point... Fine, just use a boarding pike instead. Same basic weapon, different description.

"A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip."


BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.

Actually, Yes. I've already pointed to the weapon description proving that weapons are a collection of objects.. I'll post again for your convenience:

Light Mace wrote:
A light mace is made up of an ornate metal head attached to a simple wooden or metal shaft.

Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.

No sub-objects mentioned there. Thus, by your example, it is one single indivisible object.

Not so. You asserted that weapon CANNOT be a collection of objects. You have been proved wrong. The relation between the light mace and a longspear is irrelevant.

Incorrect. I pointed out the inconsistency of the argument. If a description of a weapon is a list of the "sub-objects" it contains, as is claimed, then the spear has no "sub-objects".

If the description of a weapon is not a list of it's "sub-objects" then the entire point fails.

Either way it is wrong.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
You have not proven that, by RAW, a "spear haft" is an object.

I can't believe this is still going, but let's try another example:

Vehicles, and sometimes their methods of propulsion, are objects, and like any other object, when they take damage in excess of half their hit points, they gain the broken condition.

Vehicles, and their methods of propulsion, are objects. See the Steam Ginat lower down in that link for an example of a vehicle whose method of propulsion isn't muscle. A steam giant isn't a steam giant without it's engine, and yet the rules show definitively that both the steam giant and the parts it is made of are both objects.

We've also got:

Items without metal parts cannot be made from cold iron. OMG!! Items are made up of parts!!! How can this be?!?!?!

a treetop monk may expend 1 point from his ki pool as a free action to treat a wooden object as if it were not broken for 1 minute (this includes a weapon with a wooden haft such as an axe or spear). At 8th level, as a free action, a treetop monk can expend 1 point from his ki pool to use the Lunge feat with any wooden or wood-hafted melee weapon. Check that out, weapon hafts exist! that's pretty cool.

But we're geting pretty far afield here, let's go a little closer to home. See this line from the battleaxe: The wooden haft may be protected and strengthened with metal bands called langets. You know what I see there? I see a line in the rules specifically identifying the haft of a weapon as an object in its own right separate from the battleaxe as a whole.

I already pointed out that the Gunslinger has entries which specifically identify the stock of a firearm as a specific piece...

From the special materials section: From rocks lashed to wooden hafts to create early maces and axes.... We've now identified that these weapons are made up of rocks and wooden hafts. A rock is an object. A wooden haft is an object.

The ancestral clasp:
Whenever a half-elf fits an ancestral clasp to the pommel, grip, or haft of a longbow, longsword, rapier, or shortbow. If the haft, pommel, or grip didn't exist as objects in their own right, this would do nothing. Similarly, this does nothing if attached to the string of a longbow or the blade of a longsword, because those are not the objects it works with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Can we just agree that we all know what an Object is? It doesn't need to be defined by RAW. All weapons are objects. So are most other things. This isn't spelled out in the rules because it doesn't need to be.

To argue that anything not clearly described as an object, or that because objects aren't clearly described that nothing is an object, is pure pedantic nonsense.

A spear is an object. It is also a weapon. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. That is my point. A weapon is an object, I was arguing ad absurdum to get my point across that weapons are indeed objects.

Yes.

Quote:
A collection of them to be precise.

No.

Actually, Yes. I've already pointed to the weapon description proving that weapons are a collection of objects.. I'll post again for your convenience:

Light Mace wrote:
A light mace is made up of an ornate metal head attached to a simple wooden or metal shaft.

Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.

No sub-objects mentioned there. Thus, by your example, it is one single indivisible object.

Not so. You asserted that weapon CANNOT be a collection of objects. You have been proved wrong. The relation between the light mace and a longspear is irrelevant.

Incorrect. I pointed out the inconsistency of the argument. If a description of a weapon is a list of the "sub-objects" it contains, as is claimed, then the spear has no "sub-objects".

If the description of a weapon is not a list of it's "sub-objects" then the entire point fails.

Either way it is wrong.

False Dichotomy. The exception proves your assertion wrong. The exception was not used as an argument that all weapon descriptions provide that information.


Ssalarn wrote:
Democratus wrote:
You have not proven that, by RAW, a "spear haft" is an object.

I can't believe this is still going, but let's try another example:

Vehicles, and sometimes their methods of propulsion, are objects, and like any other object, when they take damage in excess of half their hit points, they gain the broken condition.

And here we see a specific exception overriding the general. The fact that it needs to be spelled out that vehicles specifically have objects as methods of propulsion show that this specification is needed.

Quote:
Items without metal parts cannot be made from cold iron. OMG!! Items are made up of parts!!! How can this be?!?!?!

Unless you have a RAW assertion otherwise, parts are not objects.

Quote:
a treetop monk may expend 1 point from his ki pool as a free action to treat a wooden object as if it were not broken for 1 minute (this includes a weapon with a wooden haft such as an axe or spear). At 8th level, as a free action, a treetop monk can expend 1 point from his ki pool to use the Lunge feat with any wooden or wood-hafted melee weapon. Check that out, weapon hafts exist! that's pretty cool.

Wooden-hafted and metal-hafted are descriptors for objects (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points). A wooden-haft is no more a sub-part of an axe that is an object than two-hands is a sub-part of a two-handed sword. In fact, it goes out of its way to say a weapon with a wooden haft. The weapon is the object - as stated in RAW.

Quote:
But we're geting pretty far afield here, let's go a little closer to home. See this line from the battleaxe: The wooden haft may be protected and strengthened with metal bands called langets. You know what I see there? I see a line in the rules specifically identifying the haft of a weapon as an object in its own right separate from the battleaxe as a whole.

It never says that the haft is an object. It does allow you to change the hardness/hp characteristics of a battleaxe (an objcet) from the descriptor wooden-hafted to metal-hafted.

None of this states directly or indirectly that anything but the weapons themselves are objects.


Why do you think a object ceases to be that object just because it combines to form a greater object? If I start my car do my keys cease being keys and are now considered a car?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Grecko wrote:
Why do you think a object ceases to be that object just because it combines to form a greater object? If I start my car do my keys cease being keys and are now considered a car?

Because it is easier to be obstinate than to be wrong.

He can't show you a game definition of object.

He refuses to accept the English definition of object.

He won't elaborate on his own definition of object, though he did admit it was a house rule.

He won't provide RAW support for how to determine a game definition of object separate of the English one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Have I mentioned "cannot" recently?

Silver Crusade

The game doesn't require a definition of 'object' in this case. It has a definition of weapon.

Any object that is a weapon, is a weapon.

Any object that is not a weapon, is a non-weapon object.

The dishonesty/sophistry here is not that weapons are made up of parts, but that you can attack with one of these parts without attacking with the weapon!

There is a spear in a room, and a man tied to a chair. You are given instructions to kill him without touching the spear. If you pick it up and bludgeon him with it, do you for a moment think that 'I didn't touch the spear, only part of the spear' is true?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The dishonesty/sophistry here is not that weapons are made up of parts, but that you can attack with one of these parts without attacking with the weapon!

There is a spear in a room, and a man tied to a chair. You are given instructions to kill him without touching the spear. If you pick it up and bludgeon him with it, do you for a moment think that 'I didn't touch the spear, only part of the spear' is true?

What in the world does this have to do with anything in this discussion. Your straw man is both silly and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being discussed.

The haft of a spear is part of the weapon, but it is not the part of the weapon the rules are emulating when they provide combat stats.

A person can can hit someone with the haft of a spear. It is clearly possible, it just isn't modeled well under the rules.

So the question is, how do we model that action in the rules.

The improvised weapon rules are the closest thing we have to work with to emulate attacking someone with the haft of a spear.

Why in the world are you so dead set against using those rules for that purpose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the breath of fresh air Malachi.

I think I missed some posts, but the absurdity seems to be continuing (i.e. many "side/s" of the "discussion" still seem to operate under the view that the other "side/s" are pedantic or wrong).

I'm definitely of the view that discussion about participle parts of weapons, and breakdowns into objects are not useful here. A longspear is a longspear in game terms. Nowhere have I seen it stated that you can redetermine a longspear into any other object, or reclassify its parts (i.e. in this case "haft") and use that part/object as an improvised weapon. The rules don't say you can. The rules don't say you can't. But then, it has been shown upthread that the rules don't say "(single class) wizards cannot rage".

Just to state, again, I will house rule that you can use a longspear to strike adjacent foes, and may even tone down the penalty to -2, rather than the harsh -4 of improvised weapons rules. Also, though I did not specify earlier, it won't deliver piercing damage. But this is a house rule, and controverts the official rules, where weapons are weapons, and not something else.

Fine thread.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The dishonesty/sophistry here is not that weapons are made up of parts, but that you can attack with one of these parts without attacking with the weapon!

There is a spear in a room, and a man tied to a chair. You are given instructions to kill him without touching the spear. If you pick it up and bludgeon him with it, do you for a moment think that 'I didn't touch the spear, only part of the spear' is true?

What in the world does this have to do with anything in this discussion. Your straw man is both silly and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being discussed.

The haft of a spear is part of the weapon, but it is not the part of the weapon the rules are emulating when they provide combat stats.

A person can can hit someone with the haft of a spear. It is clearly possible, it just isn't modeled well under the rules.

So the question is, how do we model that action in the rules.

The improvised weapon rules are the closest thing we have to work with to emulate attacking someone with the haft of a spear.

Why in the world are you so dead set against using those rules for that purpose?

I'm not sure Malachi is DH. At least that isn't what I'm getting from this. I'm pretty sure the point of the longspear's reach quality is one that was made so by the designers to balance out against a weapon that could do both adjacent AND reach. I thought the OP was originally about merely circumventing the rules, so Malachi appeared to be interested in ideas, and improvised weapons seems to not be what he is looking for.

But it kinda works for me though.

Doomed Hero:
Was there ever any traction on that harpoon question?


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I'm not sure Malachi is DH. At least that isn't what I'm getting from this. I'm pretty sure the point of the longspear's reach quality is one that was made so by the designers to balance out against a weapon that could do both adjacent AND reach. I thought the OP was originally about merely circumventing the rules, so Malachi appeared to be interested in ideas, and improvised weapons seems to not be what he is looking for.

But it kinda works for me though.

If that's the case, then its coming across as stonewalling. If he's looking for ideas, but shooting down the ones that are presented and not offering up any of his own, that's not a great way to get anywhere in a discussion.

I agree, the improvised weapon rules work fine for emulating non standard uses of weapons. In fact, they're pretty much the only thing we have to go on.

As for the other thing:

No. Not at all. Harpoons are basically useless until the Devs to revisit it.

Silver Crusade

Doomed Hero wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The dishonesty/sophistry here is not that weapons are made up of parts, but that you can attack with one of these parts without attacking with the weapon!

There is a spear in a room, and a man tied to a chair. You are given instructions to kill him without touching the spear. If you pick it up and bludgeon him with it, do you for a moment think that 'I didn't touch the spear, only part of the spear' is true?

What in the world does this have to do with anything in this discussion. Your straw man is both silly and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being discussed.

The haft of a spear is part of the weapon, but it is not the part of the weapon the rules are emulating when they provide combat stats.

A person can can hit someone with the haft of a spear. It is clearly possible, it just isn't modeled well under the rules.

So the question is, how do we model that action in the rules.

The improvised weapon rules are the closest thing we have to work with to emulate attacking someone with the haft of a spear.

Why in the world are you so dead set against using those rules for that purpose?

Your train of thought here shows a standard way to make a rule, by emulating a similar rule to cover what you see as a gap.

This emulates the improvised weapon rule itself, which addresses the ability to attack with an object which lacks the game stats to resolve an attack.

While that is in the rules, your train of thought result is not.

I'm not interested in good ideas. I'm looking to know what the rules actually are.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The dishonesty/sophistry here is not that weapons are made up of parts, but that you can attack with one of these parts without attacking with the weapon!

There is a spear in a room, and a man tied to a chair. You are given instructions to kill him without touching the spear. If you pick it up and bludgeon him with it, do you for a moment think that 'I didn't touch the spear, only part of the spear' is true?

What in the world does this have to do with anything in this discussion. Your straw man is both silly and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being discussed.

The haft of a spear is part of the weapon, but it is not the part of the weapon the rules are emulating when they provide combat stats.

A person can can hit someone with the haft of a spear. It is clearly possible, it just isn't modeled well under the rules.

So the question is, how do we model that action in the rules.

The improvised weapon rules are the closest thing we have to work with to emulate attacking someone with the haft of a spear.

Why in the world are you so dead set against using those rules for that purpose?

Your train of thought here shows a standard way to make a rule, by emulating a similar rule to cover what you see as a gap.

This emulates the improvised weapon rule itself, which addresses the ability to attack with an object which lacks the game stats to resolve an attack.

While that is in the rules, your train of thought result is not.

I'm not interested in good ideas. I'm looking to know what the rules actually are.

This is why you are being called out as dishonest. You aren't looking to know anything. You are looking to validate a view you already hold.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If a spell has "Target: one touched object", or similar, can you target a Longspear?

By the way, in "The Demon Within" adventure, Sir Jormal, Holy Sentinel, wields a Longsword "as a club".

So, at least, at one time, it was fine.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If a spell has "Target: one touched object", or similar, can you target a longspear?

More to the point, can you touch the shaft of a longspear without touching the longspear?


yes to both. both are discreet objects. one happens to be more complex.

651 to 700 of 1,668 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet? All Messageboards