I was being facetious.
Text has destroyed my attempts at humor.
Smirk. I stand rebuked. :)
My last thing to say about the topic. I agree about the haft. I taught martial arts, including weaponry, for about ten years. There are a ton of spear, oar, and staff techniques that use the less-than-optimal strike with the mid-part of the weapon. There are trips, grapples, and even a few wrist breaks.
The point is that in order for any of that to matter you need to get permission from the gamist that a haft strike with the weapon is so essential to the game that we extend the concept of improvised weapons. If the spear is now usable as both a weapon and an improvised weapon it changes changes the function.
Remember that wrist-break I told you about. When an opponent grabs your weapon you secure their knuckles so that they can't let go then use the shaft as a lever to apply pressure to their wrist. It is very easy to break someone's wrist this way. Is it real? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Do we add a rule? No. It is too far from the function of the game to be included.
Simulationists will argue from what is reasonable and work back towards the rules. A gamist perspective works from the rules. A spear is a weapon to the gamist. It is already classified. Allowing a weapon to instantly re-classify as an improvised weapon is not covered by the rules. There is no precedent. It adds a complexity.
The form of the argument must be:
As a simulationist I have clear historic and tactical evidence that a spear is very often used to deliver a half-haft blow. This is a short-range bludgeoning attack.
It seems entirely unreasonable that my character should be prohibited from declaring this action. This will make the game less enjoyable for me knowing that I cannot take a reasonable action.
How can we adjudicate this action without altering the built-in balance and mechanism of the game? If you allow "catch-off-guard" advantages to a melee...
If attacking with the shaft of a spear wouldn't surprise a seasoned fighter... then we already have our answer.
Think about that a moment...
For a seasoned fighter to 'know better' than to be caught off guard from a surprised haft strike... there would have to be haft strikes.
Intuitively, you already know this is true. We all do.
its either an improvised weapon or a spear it can't be both.Exactly!
A shaft isn't a weapon. It is an improvised weapon.
In the absence of any rules in the subject - which there aren't for whether things like spear shafts can be improvised weapons - judgement takes over. The rules have NOTHINGo say on the subject of whether a spear shaft can be used as an improvised weapon. It doesn't say yes, it doesn't say no.And here's the lie. The rules absolutely have rules to say how spears are used in combat.
When the rules say what something is, they are under no obligation to provide a complete list of things that it isn't!
It doesn't say a spear is not made out of cheese! The rules are 'silent on the matter'. So, we can make up our own rule about which cheese it's made from, and because RAW doesn't say it's not made of cheese, when we say that it is, that's RAW!
We're not talking about a spear. We're talking about a shaft. I'm not sure you are even following along in this conversation.
A shaft.
Please indicate why a shaft is not an object, per RAW.
Otherwise a shaft is an object, by standard definition. Since a shaft does not have a weapon entry, it is thus not a weapon. Since it is an object, and not a weapon, we apply Improvised Weapon rules for using it as a weapon.
That is how the rules work. If you feel that is incorrect, you have only 1 point of contention that is viable.
Show us that a shaft is not an object, by RAW. That is all you have to do to end this debate right here and now. Show us that it isn't an object by RAW, and you win the internets.
The combat system for this game is in the CRB. Where are the rules for attacking parts of the body? The combat rules definitely have attacks directed at the body as a whole thing, and deplete the hit points of that whole thing. Therefore, without a written rule to the contrary, any attempt by the DM to introduce a Hit Location mechanic, no matter how well thought out, worthy, sensible, whatever, is...not...RAW.
Similarly, where are the rules for attacking with different parts of a weapon? There's the Double weapon quality, but that doesn't apply to weapons which don't have that quality. There's Pole Master, but that a special ability, and you need two levels of the Polearm Master fighter archetype. There's Spinning Lance, but that's a special ability, and you need seven levels of (whatever it is), and only applies to lances.
This is not a 'gap in the RAW'. RAW completely covers how to use a spear, so any ruling that contradicts this, good, bad or indifferent, is...not...RAW.
And this is the only question for this thread.
Did you know that weapon hardness is typically determined from the least 'hard' material in its construction. Because it is assumed that if someone is attacking that weapon with the intend to damage it that they are going to aim for the part of that weapon that is the most vulnerable.
Just thought I'd mention that.
The RAW completely cover how to use objects as weapons too. Improvised Weapons. Thus a shaft has rules for combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, on rereading the OP, I think my answer is just going to be - by the rules, as written. NO. The blunt end of your longspear is still your longspear, and RAW, you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon as a weapon because it is already a weapon. As designed, rules mechanic-wise. Your longspear is a reach weapon that cannot be used to attack adjacent foes.
I'll be houseruling differently.
But I no longer see a need for FAQ. There is no grey area, by the rules. For me.
Still houseruling adjacent attacks with a penalty.
Discussions as to what constitutes an object are superfluous to a rules-based approach to this question, as much as describing the blunt end of the haft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The combat system for this game is in the CRB. Where are the rules for attacking parts of the body? The combat rules definitely have attacks directed at the body as a whole thing, and deplete the hit points of that whole thing. Therefore, without a written rule to the contrary, any attempt by the DM to introduce a Hit Location mechanic, no matter how well thought out, worthy, sensible, whatever, is...not...RAW.
Similarly, where are the rules for attacking with different parts of a weapon? There's the Double weapon quality, but that doesn't apply to weapons which don't have that quality. There's Pole Master, but that a special ability, and you need two levels of the Polearm Master fighter archetype. There's Spinning Lance, but that's a special ability, and you need seven levels of (whatever it is), and only applies to lances.
This is not a 'gap in the RAW'. RAW completely covers how to use a spear, so any ruling that contradicts this, good, bad or indifferent, is...not...RAW.
And this is the only question for this thread.
Did you know that weapon hardness is typically determined from the least 'hard' material in its construction. Because it is assumed that if someone is attacking that weapon with the intend to damage it that they are going to aim for the part of that weapon that is the most vulnerable.
Just thought I'd mention that.
The RAW completely cover how to use objects as weapons too. Improvised Weapons. Thus a shaft has rules for combat.
Sure. If the shaft is seen as distinct from the longspear, but I don't see a rule for it anywhere. I don't think by rule of game-mechanics law this will work, regardless of assertions that nowhere does it say you can't treat part of a specified weapon as an object in order to apply improvised weapon rules to it.
The game is a simulation, and that's how the rules work.
Still houseruling it though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot of this arguement comes down to where you fall on the gamist-simulationist-narrativist triangle. If you toward the gamist end of the spectrum, you feel allowing this alters the rules of the game, violating one of the balancing principles that affect whether reach weapons are balanced against non reach weapons. If you are toward the simulationist end of the spectrum, you feel this should be allowed, even though it is a dumb idea, because you could do this in real life, and the game shouldn't stop you from doing anything you could do in real life. And if you are on the narrativist side, whether you think this should be allowed comes down to whether you think allowing it makes for a better, more satisfying story. (This is the arguement, "what do you mean my heroic character can't slam the but of the spear into the face of the guy in front of him? I mean it's a dumb choice, but it's heroic!")
The important thing to remember is that the gamist, simuationist, and narrativist players may all be playing pathfinder, but at the end of the day, they really are playing three radically different games, for very different purposes, and getting different things out of it.
I'm staunchly pro-shaft in this debate. Yet I would self identify as a gamist. Though I have a bit of all three.
I like that the game has a robust rule set, and that it has contingency rule sets built into it to catch some of the more freeform actions. Most everything people encounter will be very straightforward on how to apply the rules of the game, but when there is something a bit more creative or unique happening, there is very often still a system in place to judge how it should work. Even by RAW.
For fighting with stuff that isn't listed as a weapon, we have the Improvised Weapon rules as our fallback, catch-all rule. And for this purpose it does remarkably well. Take listed penalties, guestimate damage, and run with it.
The simulationist-narrativist in me speaks to the gamist in me... arguably the stronger of the three... and seeks to read each rule as if it is a fully robust and dynamic set of rules to cover the entire range of possibilities as is feasibly possible. I call this the common sense approach, and it is advocated by the devs.
What does that entail? All it takes is to read the rules in such a way as that they rarely cause unrealistic errors. Cannot attack with a shaft? Sounds like an error. Hrm... is there another way of looking at that that isn't clearly wrong? Yep! There sure is. That not-clearly-wrong way of reading it is probably the better option... I'll go ahead and use that one.
|
I admit, I am abit of a drifter . Sometimes I'm more gamist, some times I'm more simulationist. Sometimes I'm more narativist. I'll Admit that I feel that if you are playing pathfinder, if you are not pretty heavily Gamist, there are way better systems out there. (and if you are not fairly heavily gamist, and are playing pfs, you are either desperate to game, or a masochist.)
so I sort of expect everyone in this conversation to have a fair bit and f gamist in them. Which is why we are now arguing over whether a spear is an object. A simulationist would have just said, "clearly, by the rules, an improvised weapon is an item so unsuited to combat that it is always treated as if the wielder was non proficient. And if the item is large and unwieldy, there is a -2 penalty. (inappropriately sized weapon rules). And if it is too large, it can't be used.
no one but a pure gamist would ever say "you can't attack with a spear butt because the game system doesn't say it is an object.". And no one who was not at least a fair bit if a gamist would ever bother even engaging with an argument like that. Anyone else would go on with life.
You want to affect the Wood?
It would have to be…
The…shaft. ;)
|
What part of the Longspear do I target with the Warp Wood spell?
So, you believe that if you warp the shaft, that the spear won't be warped? I can attack with the spear without penalty, because the spear is not warped, only the spear shaft?
You're playing PFS, and your PC is using a Lifedrinker, a +1 greataxe which, each time it deals damage to a foe, also bestows one negative level on the wielder.
So you damage a foe with it, and say to the DM, 'I don't take a negative level, because I'm not wielding the Lifedrinker, I'm only holding the shaft!'
How does he rule?
There is a trapped longspear in the room: anyone who touches it takes 3d6 electricity damage. You say, 'Oh, no, DM! I didn't touch the spear, I only touched the spear shaft! Does he rule that you take the damage?
Your party's Polearm Master asks you to pass him his longspear; he's going to use it to gut the dragon. But he says, 'Whatever you do, when you pass me the spear, do not pass me the shaft; leave the shaft where it is!' How do you do it?
I'm not saying that a longspear doesn't have a shaft, nor saying that any object isn't made out of parts. I'm saying that when you touch the shaft you touch the spear. When you move the shaft you move the spear. When you attack with the shaft, you attack with the spear. And when you are forbidden to attack with the spear, you are forbidden from attacking with any part of it.
|
|
Three archetypes are in a room: a narrativist, a simulationist, and a gamist.
If I want to know what the rules actually are, I wouldn't ask the narrativist. He doesn't care! In his game, he make it up as he goes along! Whatever fits the story best and/or sounds cooler.
If I want to know what the rules actually are, I wouldn't ask the simulationist. He'd just tell me that the rule in the book is crap and he's developed a much better one which perfectly simulates how it'd be in reality, and although you need to understand M-Space and have a working knowledge of natural logarithms, the half hour it takes to resolve the action is totally worth it man!
If I want to know what the rules actually are, I ask the gamist.
In the rules thread.
And state, repeatedly, that I'm looking for what the rules actually are, not how people imagine it nor what they would do at their table.
|
|
Mal ... You know that this is a disingenuous argument. You are using examples that are irrelevant for the purpose of the current argument. Completely and utterly irrelevant. The magical trap on the spear is, in fact, cast on all of the parts of the spear. It was, in fact, cast upon the spear as a whole. However, you could also create a spear that only shocked you if you grabbed it by the haft and not the tip. Or a sword that would shock you if you grabbed its hilt but would allow you to pick it up by the blade.
You seem to be stuck on trying to argue something rather silly.
Can you, or can you not, hit someone in the head with the haft of a spear instead of the point. Yes, or no? End of story?
Can you hit someone over the head with the haft of the spear without hitting him with the spear?
Far from being disingenuous, this is the dodge that is being used! That using one part of a solid object is not using that object. This is not true, yet is the basis of the entire justification. Oh, no! I'm not hitting him with the spear, only part of the spear!
It is the purest sophistry.
|
The entirety of your statement from without to the end of the sentence is irrelevant to the question. Can you hit someone with the haft of a spear. Yes or no?
I often do not agree with Malachi but on this topic he is correct and his arguments are relevant. He is pointing out that in general the rules treat a weapons as single objects not a collection of objects.
|
|
No. The improvised weapon rules are RAW. The haft of the spear is not intended for use as a weapon. Therefore using it as such is using an improvised weapon.Easy. By RAW no you cannot. Anything allowing you to do so is a house rule. A perfectly reasonable house rule but still a house rule.
Can you, or can you not, hit someone in the head with the haft of a spear instead of the point. Yes, or no? End of story?
Improvised weapon rules only apply to objects not intended as weapons. A spear is intended to be a weapon, all of it. Thus the improvised weapons rules do not apply to a spear.
This is why you are trying to simply declare Malachi's argument irrelevant because it completely destroys your reasoning here.
|
|
No. The improvised weapon rules are RAW. The haft of the spear is not intended for use as a weapon. Therefore using it as such is using an improvised weapon.Easy. By RAW no you cannot. Anything allowing you to do so is a house rule. A perfectly reasonable house rule but still a house rule.
Can you, or can you not, hit someone in the head with the haft of a spear instead of the point. Yes, or no? End of story?
Improvised weapon rules only apply to objects not intended as weapons. A spear is intended to be a weapon, all of it. Thus the improvised weapons rules do not apply to a spear.
This is why you are trying to simply declare Malachi's argument irrelevant because it completely destroys your reasoning here.
Except, if you are going by raw there is no definition of object, so ...
If you use all of it, as in using the haft to move the point to make an attack, then you are using it as an intended weapon. If you use just the haft to bash someone over the head with, you aren't.
Words in the rules have their common English meaning unless defined otherwise. Otherwise there could be no RAW without a complete dictionary of every word in the book. So that is what we use as the definition of object.
If you use the haft to beat someone over the head you are still using an object intended to be a weapon. You are just not using it in the optimal manner. That does not change the intent of the object and since the intent is for it to be a weapon it cannot use the improvised weapon rules.
|
|
No. The improvised weapon rules are RAW. The haft of the spear is not intended for use as a weapon. Therefore using it as such is using an improvised weapon.Easy. By RAW no you cannot. Anything allowing you to do so is a house rule. A perfectly reasonable house rule but still a house rule.
Can you, or can you not, hit someone in the head with the haft of a spear instead of the point. Yes, or no? End of story?
Improvised weapon rules only apply to objects not intended as weapons. A spear is intended to be a weapon, all of it. Thus the improvised weapons rules do not apply to a spear.
This is why you are trying to simply declare Malachi's argument irrelevant because it completely destroys your reasoning here.
Except, if you are going by raw there is no definition of object, so ...
If you use all of it, as in using the haft to move the point to make an attack, then you are using it as an intended weapon. If you use just the haft to bash someone over the head with, you aren't.
Words in the rules have their common English meaning unless defined otherwise. Otherwise there could be no RAW without a complete dictionary of every word in the book. So that is what we use as the definition of object.
If you use the haft to beat someone over the head you are still using an object intended to be a weapon. You are just not using it in the optimal manner. That does not change the intent of the object and since the intent is for it to be a weapon it cannot use the improvised weapon rules.
No. By the common English definition the shaft is an object as well as the whole spear.
Exactly and so we look to the context to determine how it is being used. When we do that we see that rules continually treat weapons as a single object except in specifically defined situations, e.g. double weapons. So a spear is an object intended as a weapon and its shaft and head are not treated as seperat objects. Therefore, neither the spear nor any of its constituent parts, can be used with the improvised weapon rules.
|
|
That does not change the intent of the object and since the intent is for it to be a weapon it cannot use the improvised weapon rules.Where do the rules say you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon? I agree that the rules for improvised weapons explicitly say that they apply to objects not designed for use as weapons, and do NOT explicitly say that they can apply to objects designed for use as a weapon. The point I'm making is that saying non-weapon objects as improvised weapons are allowed is not logically and objectively the same as saying weapons and improvised weapons is not allowed.
Where we disagree then is that you are making the assumption that if the rules don't give you explicit permission to do something, you can't do it. That's a house rule, not a RAW convention, because RAW explicitly tell players that things will come up that you need to ask the GM about (i.e. things not covered in the rules). If you want to ignore that part of the rules, that's totally okay (albeit slightly ironic, since you are functionally ignoring the part of the rules that allows you to ignore part of the rules). It's not a bad house rule, nor is it an uncommon one, but it IS still a house rule.
The way we know that is by looking at the way the rest of the rules are handled and dev rulings. Take, for example, the tail terror argument. Tail Terror states "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail". One of the argumetns was that you didn't need a tail because a tail wasn't listed in the prerequisites for the feat and the rules didn't say you couldn't make a tail slap attack with something other than a tail. One of the devs commented and ruled that since the text specifically says that you can perform a tail slap with a tail that this precludes using any other object for a tail slap.
If you look through the FAQ you will see the devs consistently using this same criteria for rules interpretation. So this is not just my opnion. The rules are not silent concerning improvised weapons or when the rules for such apply. They apply when you are using an object that is not intended as a weapno.
|
|
And the haft of a spear is an object that is not intended as a weapon.
Once again you simply ignore arguments to the contrary without answering them and simply assert your position as fact. You have been provided with example after example (rules for breaking objects, targeting spells, natural 1s on saving throws, etc...) where the rules consistently treat weapons as a single object. Since they are treated as single objects that are intended for use as a weapon the improvised weapon rules don't apply.
But just for the sake of argument lets allow the haft to be considered as a seprate object. What is the haft of a spear intended for? It is intended to be used with a spear head to stab people, i.e. as a weapon. It may not have been intended to be used as a blungeoning weapon but it was still intended to be used as a weapon in some manner and thus improvised weapon rules still do not apply.
|
|
And you have to go far out of rules to arrive there. Yes, he rules are going to treat objects such as weapons as their intended use, because listing a separate breakage rule, for example, for every part would be ridiculously cumbersome, but it says nothing about wether you are allowed to hit someone in the head with the shaft. You are following a chain of logic to an illogical conclusion.
First you say I am going outside the rules but then admit that the rules treat weapons as single objects but do so for expediency. The reason for the rules treating weapons as a single object is not relevant. The fact is they do so and the improvised weapon rules do not carve out an exception for objects that are part of a weapon but are only listed as a whole for simplicity.
Premise 1: The rules treat all of the composite parts of a weapon, e.g. as spear, as a single object intended to be used as a weapon.
Premise 2: The improvised weapon rules explicitly apply only to objects not intended as weapons.
Conclusion: A spear, and all of its composite parts, cannot be used as an improvised weapon by RAW.
The logic is perfectly clear.
|
|
Oh, the logical chain is clear. It just leads to a wrong conclusion. You can be both logical and incorrect at the same time.
Just stating the conlcusion is wrong doesn't make it so. Proving either of the premesis false does. However, you can't do that so you are simply left with bald faced assertions.
Words in the rules have their common English meaning unless defined otherwise. Otherwise there could be no RAW without a complete dictionary of every word in the book. So that is what we use as the definition of object.
If you use the haft to beat someone over the head you are still using an object intended to be a weapon. You are just not using it in the optimal manner. That does not change the intent of the object and since the intent is for it to be a weapon it cannot use the improvised weapon rules.
So, I pick up the shaft from a not-yet-finished longspear before the pointy bit is attached.
I attack with it.
By RAW, what happens?
This shaft is still intended to be a weapon, according to your above logic. And yet it isn't actually a spear either. Does RAW reach down and prevent it from being used altogether?
If a shaft is intended to be a weapon... by whatever method it is you are using to determine that... then what happens?
|
|
Save that you rely on bald face assertions to get to your conclusion as well. And less parsimonious ones as well.Just stating the conlcusion is wrong doesn't make it so. Proving either of the premesis false does. However, you can't do that so you are simply left with bald faced assertions.
Oh, the logical chain is clear. It just leads to a wrong conclusion. You can be both logical and incorrect at the same time.
I provided evidence for each of my premesis above. Therefore, they aren't simply assertions. If you think they are wrong provide evidence of the contrary.
Ok, I construct a ceremonial long spear made of gold. It was not crafted to be a weapon although it is exactly similar to every other long spear.
So I have a spear that wasn't crafted to be a weapon. Can I use it as an improvised weapon? Even though when crafting it I never intended to use it as a weapon, it is identical to other spears, does it get regular weapon stats for a spear (less the adjustment for being made of gold.)
And you have to go far out of rules to arrive there. Yes, he rules are going to treat objects such as weapons as their intended use, because listing a separate breakage rule, for example, for every part would be ridiculously cumbersome, but it says nothing about wether you are allowed to hit someone in the head with the shaft. You are following a chain of logic to an illogical conclusion.First you say I am going outside the rules but then admit that the rules treat weapons as single objects but do so for expediency. The reason for the rules treating weapons as a single object is not relevant. The fact is they do so and the improvised weapon rules do not carve out an exception for objects that are part of a weapon but are only listed as a whole for simplicity.
Premise 1: The rules treat all of the composite parts of a weapon, e.g. as spear, as a single object intended to be used as a weapon.
Premise 2: The improvised weapon rules explicitly apply only to objects not intended as weapons.
Conclusion: A spear, and all of its composite parts, cannot be used as an improvised weapon by RAW.
The logic is perfectly clear.
Your premises do not lead to your conclusion. You missed a premise.
Missing Premise 3. Any object that is a constituent part of another object is forbidden from being identified individually. Because magic.
|
|
So, I pick up the shaft from a not-yet-finished longspear before the pointy bit is attached.
I attack with it.
By RAW, what happens?
This shaft is still intended to be a weapon, according to your above logic. And yet it isn't actually a spear either. Does RAW reach down and prevent it from being used altogether?
If a shaft is intended to be a weapon... by whatever method it is you are using to determine that... then what happens?
There is no RAW for using an unfinished weapon but that is what you are doing. Just as if you picked up a sword that hadn't been finished being forged. Would that still do slashing damage? For your unfinished spear, i.e. haft, can you still use your spear proficiency with it? What if you whack off the end so it has a sharp point? RAW doesn't cover those corner cases.
RAW does treat the entire weapon as a single object and one that is intended as a weapon.
So, I pick up the shaft from a not-yet-finished longspear before the pointy bit is attached.
I attack with it.
By RAW, what happens?
This shaft is still intended to be a weapon, according to your above logic. And yet it isn't actually a spear either. Does RAW reach down and prevent it from being used altogether?
If a shaft is intended to be a weapon... by whatever method it is you are using to determine that... then what happens?
There is no RAW for using an unfinished weapon but that is what you are doing. Just as if you picked up a sword that hadn't been finished being forged. Would that still do slashing damage? For your unfinished spear, i.e. haft, can you still use your spear proficiency with it? What if you whack off the end so it has a sharp point? RAW doesn't cover those corner cases.
RAW does treat the entire weapon as a single object and one that is intended as a weapon.
Dude. Improvised Weapon rules absolutely cover this. Hahahahaha
|
|
Your premises do not lead to your conclusion. You missed a premise.
Missing Premise 3. Any object that is a constituent part of another object is forbidden from being identified individually. Because magic.
Actually that is contained in premise one that all constituent parts are considered by the rules just to be one whole object not individual objects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little late to this thread... okay, a lot late to this thread, but here's the way I see it.
It's expressed twice that reach weapons cannot be used to attack an adjacent target.
I'm on the side that the entire entity is the weapon, a long spear consists of the haft and the spearhead, no more, no less.
Once in "Melee and Ranged Weapons"
Reach Weapons: 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
EDIT: I realized as I was making the final touch ups to this post that it is stated more than twice that you cannot use Reach weapons to attack adjacent targets as it is stated multiple times in the above section.
Again in "Special Weapon Features"
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAW, no, you cannot. End of story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As a GM, I would allow it just because it's a flavorful use of the weapon, and if you're willing to dump feats into using the haft more often for a mostly useless weapon, go right ahead. It will never be as good as class features like the Dragoon can make it no matter what feats you pick up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pointed out the ancestral clasp earlier in this thread (along with about a dozen other examples), which shows that the game does distinguish between parts of a weapon.
"Whenever a half-elf fits an ancestral clasp to the pommel, grip, or haft of a longbow, longsword, rapier, or shortbow..."
The pommel, grip, and haft are all separate and distinct despite being art of the attendant weapons. RAW, the ancestral clasp does nothing if I attach it to the blade of a longsword. Therefore, RAW, the pommel and blade both exist as objects in their own right, as well as together comprising the object that is a longsword. You can also find several hundred references provinding similar verification just by searching the word haft in the PRD, including the entry for the battleaxe which states "The wooden haft may be protected and strengthened with metal bands called langets". Not "the axe may be strengthed", but "the haft". The haft is explicitly referenced as a tangible thing in its own right, and tangible things are objects.
|
|
Ok, I construct a ceremonial long spear made of gold. It was not crafted to be a weapon although it is exactly similar to every other long spear.
So I have a spear that wasn't crafted to be a weapon. Can I use it as an improvised weapon? Even though when crafting it I never intended to use it as a weapon, it is identical to other spears, does it get regular weapon stats for a spear (less the adjustment for being made of gold.)
You are crafting a perfectly functional long spear. You are intending to exactly copy an object that is intended to be used as a weapon. You even specify that you are attempting to craft it so that is exactly like a normal spear. You are deliberately not wanting to make a spear that is obviously non-functional thus though you don't plan on using it as a weapon you want it to be able to be used as one.
|
|
I pointed out the ancestral clasp earlier in this thread (along with about a dozen other examples), which shows that the game does distinguish between parts of a weapon.
"Whenever a half-elf fits an ancestral clasp to the pommel, grip, or haft of a longbow, longsword, rapier, or shortbow..."The pommel, grip, and haft are all separate and distinct despite being art of the attendant weapons. RAW, the ancestral clasp does nothing if I attach it to the blade of a longsword. Therefore, RAW, the pommel and blade both exist as objects in their own right, as well as together comprising the object that is a longsword. You can also find several hundred references provinding similar verification just by searching the word haft in the PRD.
I have pointed out before that this and the double weapons argument are like arguing that reach weapons can attack adjacent creatures because whip!
You have pointed out a specific case where for a narrow purpose a portion of a weapon is treated as a seperate object. However, the exception doesn't change the rule. In general, i.e. unless specified otherwise, a weapon is treaded as a whole single object.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I construct a ceremonial long spear made of gold. It was not crafted to be a weapon although it is exactly similar to every other long spear.
So I have a spear that wasn't crafted to be a weapon. Can I use it as an improvised weapon? Even though when crafting it I never intended to use it as a weapon, it is identical to other spears, does it get regular weapon stats for a spear (less the adjustment for being made of gold.)
You would get this:
Typically only used for ceremonial weapons and armor, metal equipment made from gold is fragile, heavy, and expensive. Often golden armor is gold-plated rather than constructed entirely from gold.
The rules shown are for the rare item constructed entirely of gold rather than being gold-plated. Gold-plated items triple the base cost of weapons and armor and have the same properties as the item the gold is plating. Items constructed purely of gold cost 10 times the normal cost for items of their type. Gold items weigh 50% more than typical weapons or armor of their type.
Weapons Gold is often too soft to hold a decent edge, but light weapons that do piercing or slashing damage can be constructed of gold or some nearly gold alloy. They take a –2 penalty on damage rolls (minimum 1 damage). Gold weapons have a hardness of half their base weapons' and also have the fragile quality.