| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If used as an improvised weapon, correct. However, it could also be used as a spear because it is a spear.
The crafter did not craft it to be a weapon. It is nonetheless a weapon, it is a spear. So it may be used as a spear.
Because it was not crafted to be a weapon then it may also be used as an improvised weapon.
It qualifies for both uses.
There doesn't need to be a specific rule to spell that out, just as there doesn't need to be a specific rule to say that a character can have one level of dragon disciple and can also take weapon specialization feat.
As long as the character qualifies for those choices they may take them.
This item qualifies for both a spear and an improvised weapon and can be used as either.
So, let's assume a hill giant is using a medium sized Earth Breaker as a meat tenderizer. Can it qualify as an improvised weapon and a normal Earth Breaker?
Flavor Text
The crude metal of this massive hammer’s head ends in multiple blunt spikes that channel the momentum of a powerful swing.
Yes, but it can be only used in one mode at any given moment.
This is getting pretty far afield of the original debate, but I would allow this method to essentially substitute size penalties for improvised weapon penalties. A large creature could wield a medium earth breaker in its normal weapon mode, taking a -2 size penalty, or as an improvised large club, taking a -4 nonproficiency penalty. This is a bad idea, unless the creature is not proficient with the base weapon. In that case, using it normally would impose both the size and nonproficiency penalties for a net of -6, but improvising it would only impose the latter at -4.
And if the large creature tries to wield this medium two-handed weapon as an improvised one-handed weapon in two hands to get 1.5x Strength to damage...
Because what this topic really needs is to tack on effort-to-wield questions.
but no, really... where was that quote from JJ for 16 pages?
I'd be thrilled to see this question laid to rest, however it's only fair to point out that JJ was answering a question about the monk of the empty hand, which includes the following feature:
Monks of the empty hand are proficient with the shuriken only. A monk of the empty hand treats normal weapons as improvised weapons with the following equivalencies (substituting all of their statistics for the listed weapon): a light weapon functions as a light hammer, a one-handed weapon functions as a club, and a Two-handed weapon functions as a quarterstaff.
This replaces the normal monk weapon proficiencies.
In other words, the archetype explicitly allows/restricts the monk to using normal weapons as improvised ones. Those who believe there exists a rule prohibiting the improvisation of a normal weapon could view this feature as a special exception, and JJ's response as speaking only in that context.
Also, hasn't JJ repeatedly said that his rulings are just how he would do it in his game, not how the RAW work?Yes. Often.
Also, has asked to not be quoted as a rules source.
I agree that JJ doesn't like being drawn into rules discussions, but this quote is discussing how this works, not if it works. Even if we disregard all the specific information it is clear that the intension is to be able to do it. That = RAI in my book and is the most definitive piece of evidence submitted on this thread yet.
Without a direct rule or statement from a design team member this conversation is irrelevant. If a member of Paizo senior staff indicates the game works in a particular way we should take their word for it.
I just read the OP's OP one more time and something clicked.
Spears aren't meant to be used on adjacent enemies, right?
Since that isn't their purpose, could you not just use the improvised weapon rules to swing at the enemy regardless of whether or not you use the blunt end?
At that point, since it is an improvised weapon, it loses it's reach feature and must be used on an adjacent foe.
At this point you also no longer have to let go and re-grip, all you've got to do is just swing it in a way you're not trained to do. Hence the -4.
Hmm. Nice work Sindalla. I like that - it makes sense to me, and I could actually see something like:
striking with the haft (bludgeoning) at -2 (because it's more a push)the point (piercing) at -4 (because cramped)… and maybe
the butt just as normal except 1d6 bludgeoning rather than 1d8 piercing.
Glad I stuck around this long. My home-brewed longspear just got way more versatile, and its price hasn't changed. But all the other weapons just got jealous. [To armory] "Alright, I'm coming with the homebrew spray…."
| 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.
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.
No no. You as an individual have chosen to treat a weapon as an indivisible whole. But there is no such rule that says this is true. And in fact there are examples all over the place where the game treats individual parts of weapons and other items as objects in their own right. That is also how reality treats objects.
So... since A) Many rules recognize parts of objects as objects and B) Reality recognizes parts of objects as objects.
You must prove your position that the game does something otherwise. Show us this rule that says an object must be treated as an indivisible whole. (Hint: There isn’t one)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are numerous instances where parts of items are referenced individually from an item. Just because something is part of a greater whole doesn't prevent it from being a thing in its own right. An American doesn't stop being a human because they're an American. A wheel doesn't stop being a wheel because it's part of a cart. Objects don't stop existing when they become part of other objects, like pommels becoming part of swords, or hafts becoming part of axes or spears, and nothing in the rules says that they do.Did I not state that generally a weapon is treated as a single whole object unless otherwise specified. In those instances it is otherwise specified! However, this does not change how weapons are generally treated. Do the rules for improvised weapons specify otherwise? No. In fact if you consider all parts of any object to be seperate objects that entire line in the improvised weapons rules becomes meaningless because ANYTHING at all can now be used as an improvised weapon.
You're getting there, so close to understanding it!
The line doesn't become meaningless, it becomes informative and instructive. Which was very likely the intent. The improvised weapon rules are in the game as a catch all, a flexible rule that gives the GM the rules framework to make a quick and fair call during the game when unusual things occur. Like the fighter picks up a barstool and beats a dude down. Or a guy wants to pommel smash another guy in the nugget.
The game is designed to account for all of these situations with rules to cover them. You are trying to argue for the game to have holes in it. It doesn't. Not here anyway.
Improvised Weapon rules have been included in this game for a very specific and exact job. To make sure there is a rule that covers all the 'other' stuff that isn't spelled out in the weapons tables.
It does that job well. I'm not sure why you don't want it to do that job, but it absolutely does.
|
Also, hasn't JJ repeatedly said that his rulings are just how he would do it in his game, not how the RAW work?Yes. Often.
Also, has asked to not be quoted as a rules source.
I agree that JJ doesn't like being drawn into rules discussions, but this quote is discussing how this works, not if it works. Even if we disregard all the specific information it is clear that the intension is to be able to do it. That = RAI in my book and is the most definitive piece of evidence submitted on this thread yet.
Without a direct rule or statement from a design team member this conversation is irrelevant. If a member of Paizo senior staff indicates the game works in a particular way we should take their word for it.
JJ is talking about a specific archetype which has a special ability to use weapons as improvised weapons.
'Special' meaning 'not general'. If you have a special ability that lets you use weapons as improvised weapons, then you can. If you don't have such an ability, then you cannot.
No-one is denying that objects have different parts. The deception you are attempting is that when using a part of an object, you are not using the object.
If you touch a spear shaft, you are also touching the spear.
If you move the shaft, you are also moving the spear.
If you attack with the shaft, you are also attacking with the spear.
Also, hasn't JJ repeatedly said that his rulings are just how he would do it in his game, not how the RAW work?Yes. Often.
Also, has asked to not be quoted as a rules source.
I agree that JJ doesn't like being drawn into rules discussions, but this quote is discussing how this works, not if it works. Even if we disregard all the specific information it is clear that the intension is to be able to do it. That = RAI in my book and is the most definitive piece of evidence submitted on this thread yet.
Without a direct rule or statement from a design team member this conversation is irrelevant. If a member of Paizo senior staff indicates the game works in a particular way we should take their word for it.
JJ is talking about a specific archetype which has a special ability to use weapons as improvised weapons.
'Special' meaning 'not general'. If you have a special ability that lets you use weapons as improvised weapons, then you can. If you don't have such an ability, then you cannot.
No-one is denying that objects have different parts. The deception you are attempting is that when using a part of an object, you are not using the object.
If you touch a spear shaft, you are also touching the spear.
If you move the shaft, you are also moving the spear.
If you attack with the shaft, you are also attacking with the spear.
Yes. But why is that relevant to RAW?
If I touch a double weapon I'm touching the whole thing. If I move one side I'm moving the other. If I attack with only one side I'm still attacking with the entire weapon.
The game is fully capable of using these concepts. We should intuitively understand these things.
If I tied a chair leg to a slack rope, and tied the other end to a 200ft tall boulder... and then attacked with the chair leg... would I be fighting with a chair leg sized object... or a colossal object?
We all know the answer to this question.
Parts of objects can be and are divisible. They can be identified as parts. Parts are objects. Unless there is RAW that states that we must treat all objects as indivisible wholes... then clearly we should not.
You’ve said that rules are permissive, no? We don't have permission to treat objects as indivisible wholes. Thus we don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs answers exactly this question.
He goes back and forth and then states that it is technically permissible by the rules as written. He also warns DM's to consider a house rule against it.
Hopefully this is good enough for Malachi. A senior staff member at Paizo confirms it is technically RAW.
|
|
Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous, since reach weapons are balanced by the fact that while they let you attack at reach and thus attack foes that generally can't fight back (assuming best case scenario where you're fighting a creature without reach) the fact that if someone gets up close your weapon is more or less useless. Further... something like a club or a staff works because you're swinging a stick with momentum being the strongest at the end; that's the part that does the damage. Hitting someone with the side of a stick isn't as impactful.
Frankly, the GM should have say over what can and can't be used as an improvised weapon. A table leg or a chair or a frozen fish? Probably. A handful of noodles or a flimsy reed flute or a pillow? Nope. And I think that saying a pole arm's haft doesn't work well as a weapon works as well. I would probably allow you to use it as an improvised weapon to trip someone, but probably NOT to do damage to them. It's a GM call in the end, but for something like Pathfinder Society Org Play... I'd say no. It's needless complication that abuses the intent of the rules.
Since I'm going go select lines to quote, I wanted to quote the whole thing first so readers can understand the context and not feel that my quotes are being taken out of that context.
reach weapons are balanced by the fact that while they let you attack at reach and thus attack foes that generally can't fight back (assuming best case scenario where you're fighting a creature without reach) the fact that if someone gets up close your weapon is more or less useless.
So, while he hasn't got his 'rules guy' head on, his experience of the game (and it's precursor's) tells him that it's 'wrong', because the rules don't let you attack adjacent with reach weapons for a reason.
Further... something like a club or a staff works because you're swinging a stick with momentum being the strongest at the end; that's the part that does the damage. Hitting someone with the side of a stick isn't as impactful.
Think of the impact you can get with a baseball bat. Imagine the swing/parry/block of frenetic combat with it. Now imagine that another 10-feet of wood is sticking out the back. Not so easy. In fact, as far as the rules are concerned, so difficult as to be impossible, without the special training granted by a feat or special ability.
It's a GM call in the end, but for something like Pathfinder Society Org Play... I'd say no. It's needless complication that abuses the intent of the rules.
PFS requires sticking to the RAW, home games don't.
If I'd been aware of this post from JJ before, I'd've quoted it myself in support of my position.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so I'm not putting words in your mouth, here is your quote from the first page.
Just to be clear, I'm only interested in whether this is allowed in the rules, not whether we think it should be.
So the relevant part of James' post in regards to this thread is:
technically, I guess you could
I think that pretty well defines the end of this thread. If you want to change to whether or not we think it should be at this point then it's all good. But a number of the posters and arguments you dismissed earlier will and should come back into the open as part of that discussion.
Indeed, it should probably be in a new thread.
|
I just love that James Jacob's quote basically boils down to "technically you can per RAW but the haft of polearm is not really a good weapon and I would allow someone to trip someone with it but not do damage". So a long pole isn't a good weapon for doing damage. Guess we should houserule staffs and long staffs to be unusable....
That statement, meant only to nerf a RAW rule, is really pretty stupid.
PFS requires sticking to the RAW, home games don't.
Uh... what? No, you've got that almost entirely backwards - PFS is not even CLOSE to core RAW, because PFS operates under an entirely different set of assumptions and conditions than your typical home game. PFS is essentially a specific set of house rules that in some cases diverges radically from the core rules. Example - I have a 15th level Master Summoner with some item creation feats. Totally legal RAW, totally illegal PFS. So, yeah, no, your premise there is flawed.
Again, it doesn't really seem like you are seeking the actual RAW on this, because the clear RAW answer is "It's up to the GM". Instead, it seems like for whatever reason you are bent on the idea that there MUST be an "official" answer to the question. The fact is, the RAW don't cover every possible situation, nor do they attempt to. This means that the natural state of the game is that different GMs will rule things differently, and that's fine.
I dunno, it just seems like your entire purpose here is confused - you don't seem to want RAW, you seem to want a FAQ or "official" clarification to enshrine your gamist view of the rules. Why is it important that there be an answer beyond "the RAW don't say"?
I think it has become pretty clear that his desire is for RAW to be "no" so he can point to it and be right. Short of that he is willing to accept ambiguity.
He asked for a strictly RAW answer. A senior member of Paizo staff has been quoted saying it is technically legal. It really is time for him to accept it.
I just love that James Jacob's quote basically boils down to "technically you can per RAW but the haft of polearm is not really a good weapon and I would allow someone to trip someone with it but not do damage". So a long pole isn't a good weapon for doing damage. Guess we should houserule staffs and long staffs to be unusable....
That statement, meant only to nerf a RAW rule, is really pretty stupid.
Meh, it's his homegame he is talking about at that point. I would happily accept whatever nerfs to my character to be a regular at his table :)
So my bardiche using barbarian can smack adjacent foes with the haft as an improvised weapon, as per JJ's post quoted above...
Or he could just carry on using the spiked gauntlet he has on his left hand..
Now imagine that another 10-feet of wood is sticking out the back. Not so easy.
How long is a longspear? How much of the weapon is being used as the 'baseball bat'? Does a longspear length - baseball bat length = 10 feet long?
So you are gong to 'interpret' him as saying the opposite of what he actually said?Are you going to 'interpret' this as an official FAQ answer from a rules guy who's definite about the answer?
Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous...
You're squabbling. You asked, it has been answered. You will not do better than that on this forum. You didn't want discussion you wanted an answer.
|
|
You're squabbling. You asked, it has been answered. You will not do better than that on this forum. You didn't want discussion you wanted an answer.So you are gong to 'interpret' him as saying the opposite of what he actually said?Are you going to 'interpret' this as an official FAQ answer from a rules guy who's definite about the answer?
Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous...
I didn't want 'an' answer, I wanted 'the' answer.
I didn't want an 'I guess'. I wanted a FAQ.
Last time I looked, 88 people clicked 'FAQ'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're squabbling. You asked, it has been answered. You will not do better than that on this forum. You didn't want discussion you wanted an answer.So you are gong to 'interpret' him as saying the opposite of what he actually said?Are you going to 'interpret' this as an official FAQ answer from a rules guy who's definite about the answer?
Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous...I didn't want 'an' answer, I wanted 'the' answer.
I didn't want an 'I guess'. I wanted a FAQ.
Last time I looked, 88 people clicked 'FAQ'.
Exactly because by that ruling you can use any weapon regardless of required proficiency just by taking catch of guard and declaring you are using it as an improvised weapon. You might not be able to use the special qualities but you can use the weapon no problem.
Plus you can make virtually any weapon do any physical damage type. Fighting something with DR X/Bludgeoning and only have a rapier. No worries I can swing it sideways as an improvise weapon without penalty. Fighting something with DR X/Slashing with same rapier. No problem, I've filed the outside of the hand guard to an edge and am attacking with it as an improvised weapon. With catch off guard you can carry a single weapon now and do whichever of the three physical damage types you need for the fight with no penalties. Every character must now have that feat.
I think that if we got an actual FAQ the answer would be very different than a wishy washy technically, possibly, maybe you can I guess but I don't think the GM should allow it anyway.
You're squabbling. You asked, it has been answered. You will not do better than that on this forum. You didn't want discussion you wanted an answer.So you are gong to 'interpret' him as saying the opposite of what he actually said?Are you going to 'interpret' this as an official FAQ answer from a rules guy who's definite about the answer?
Hmmm... technically, I guess you could... STILL... the whole concept makes me a little nervous...I didn't want 'an' answer, I wanted 'the' answer.
I didn't want an 'I guess'. I wanted a FAQ.
Last time I looked, 88 people clicked 'FAQ'.
Then you should be happy to stop posting here and walk away. No one short of the PDT will give you a more acceptable answer than the one already presented. When the PDT determines that it is time to answer your question then they will. Until that point this is as good as it is going to get.
It's been proven in reality that you can.
It's been proven per RAW, you can.
It's been commented on by Devs, you can.
What more do you want?
If I could unclick the FAQ I would, I didn't realize it had already been answered.
|
|
If you are just genuinely curious about how the rules handle this, the answer has been given - they DON'T
Although there are many things the rules don't cover, and it's the DM's legitimate job to make a ruling on the fly, the question of whether a reach weapon may attack an adjacent foe IS in the rules! So are the rules on how to use weapons, how to use double weapons, special abilities that let you do things otherwise forbidden by the rules, and what kind of objects to which the improvised weapons rules apply.
The assertion that 'it's not covered, so the DM has to make it up' is false.
And you have the answer. Until the PDT (if they do) posts here there is nothing better available than JJ saying yes. If his concerns are convincing to you then houserule it and move on.
|
|
There are currently 41,150 threads in 'Rules Questions'. If the answer was 'RAW lets the DM make any decision he likes' then that would be the second post in each one of those 41,150 threads, and there would never be a third post.
And yet you're criticising me for asking a question about what the rules actually are...in the rules thread.
If this offends you, why are you posting in the rules thread?
You might not be able to use the special qualities but you can use the weapon no problem.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/fighter.h tml#_dragoon-%28archetype%29
Spinning Lance (Ex): At 7th level, a dragoon may alternate attacks with the piercing head of his lance with reach, or with the butt end (treat as a club) against adjacent targets. Unlike a double weapon, the masterwork quality and magical special abilities apply to both ends of the lance, except for those weapon special abilities that apply only to edged weapons. This ability replaces armor training 2.
Normal is that you do not get any of the special qualities for the not-spear part of the weapon.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what offends me?
You don't seem interested in intelligent discourse and debate. You posted a question to which you had already made up your mind about the answer.
You therefore did not ask an actual question to which you were desiring an answer. You asked a question so that you could tell us all what the answer is. That could have been done in general discussion or advice, or even house rules, but not rules questions.
So, I will ask again: why do you want to know?
Is it so that we can all tell you that you are correct?
Is it so that the rule can be altered one way or the other?
Is it so that you can be convinced of how it should really work?
Right now, I'm completely convinced it's not the second one (because while this thread has garnered an impressive number of FAQ hits, you yourself know the RAW answer and seem to believe that there is no question about it). And given your intransigence regarding alternative perspectives, the third seems unlikely. Which leaves the first.
That makes the "question" disingenuous. You seem to have no interest in the answer unless the answer proves you right.
And that behaviour offends me.
(I fully expect this post to get moderated. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just to put across my belief and perspective on the question being asked. If I'm coming across as a jerk, I apologise in advance.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what offends me?
You don't seem interested in intelligent discourse and debate. You posted a question to which you had already made up your mind about the answer.
You therefore did not ask an actual question to which you were desiring an answer. You asked a question so that you could tell us all what the answer is. That could have been done in general discussion or advice, or even house rules, but not rules questions.
So, I will ask again: why do you want to know?
Is it so that we can all tell you that you are correct?
Is it so that the rule can be altered one way or the other?
Is it so that you can be convinced of how it should really work?Right now, I'm completely convinced it's not the second one (because while this thread has garnered an impressive number of FAQ hits, you yourself know the RAW answer and seem to believe that there is no question about it). And given your intransigence regarding alternative perspectives, the third seems unlikely. Which leaves the first.
That makes the "question" disingenuous. You seem to have no interest in the answer unless the answer proves you right.
And that behaviour offends me.
(I fully expect this post to get moderated. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just to put across my belief and perspective on the question being asked. If I'm coming across as a jerk, I apologise in advance.)
A jerk? Well, a bit, but no more than me or anyone else in the midst of a debate.
As for my motivation, yes, I believe I know the answer. However, in another thread, this came up. When I said the rules forbid it, others disputed that.
What to do? Each side continuing to say, 'I'm right, you're wrong' wouldn't resolve it. We are equally convinced.
So, ask the people in charge of the rules what the answer actually is.
There is an obvious, sincere divide in belief about how the rules treat this, and getting THE definite answer benefits us all.
So I started this thread, asking the question in a form that most easily allows a clear answer, and sat back because I already knew what I thought and wanted to hear what others thought, without my influence. Once enough opinions were expressed that the OP's opinion wouldn't have an unfair amount of influence, I started to contribute to the discussion with the reasons why I believe what I do, and present evidence in support.
I have no objection to the other side doing the same thing. I've yet to come across any evidence against my original belief or any argument that holds much merit. The best of the bunch are:-
* the DM can do what he wants (true, but not helpful in the rules thread)
* each weapon is made up of an infinite amount of parts (not given rules in the book versus weapons which are)
* each part of a weapon is an object which is not a weapon, and they may be used to attack without using the weapon (I consider this an absurd deception)
* a 'not the rules guy' but respected dev who says that he guesses it's technically okay (without actually knowing or he'd have said so) then writing paragraphs about why it would be wrong
In the text medium it's easy to have doubts about the sincerity or motivations of posters who disagree with you. From my perspective, I consider the idea that you can touch the shaft without touching the spear, or move the shaft without moving the spear, or attack with the shaft without attacking with the spear, to be not only absurd but as a deliberate falsehood. However, it may very well be sincerely believed by some of those who espouse it, a kind of self deception.
But ad hominem attacks, as natural a response as they sometimes are, do not help the argument. Only addressing the arguments as if they were sincere helps resolve the issue.
I've tried very hard in this thread to stay calm and not take too much offence, with varying degrees of success. : )
I sincerely want this officially resolved, and whichever way it goes we will all benefit.
|
|
You might not be able to use the special qualities but you can use the weapon no problem.http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/fighter.h tml#_dragoon-%28archetype%29
Spinning Lance (Ex): At 7th level, a dragoon may alternate attacks with the piercing head of his lance with reach, or with the butt end (treat as a club) against adjacent targets. Unlike a double weapon, the masterwork quality and magical special abilities apply to both ends of the lance, except for those weapon special abilities that apply only to edged weapons. This ability replaces armor training 2.
Normal is that you do not get any of the special qualities for the not-spear part of the weapon.
No. Normal is that double weapons have each end enchanted separately, and enchantments on one end don't help attack with the other end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what offends me?
You don't seem interested in intelligent discourse and debate. You posted a question to which you had already made up your mind about the answer.
You therefore did not ask an actual question to which you were desiring an answer. You asked a question so that you could tell us all what the answer is. That could have been done in general discussion or advice, or even house rules, but not rules questions.
So, I will ask again: why do you want to know?
Is it so that we can all tell you that you are correct?
Is it so that the rule can be altered one way or the other?
Is it so that you can be convinced of how it should really work?Right now, I'm completely convinced it's not the second one (because while this thread has garnered an impressive number of FAQ hits, you yourself know the RAW answer and seem to believe that there is no question about it). And given your intransigence regarding alternative perspectives, the third seems unlikely. Which leaves the first.
That makes the "question" disingenuous. You seem to have no interest in the answer unless the answer proves you right.
And that behaviour offends me.
(I fully expect this post to get moderated. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just to put across my belief and perspective on the question being asked. If I'm coming across as a jerk, I apologise in advance.)
A jerk? Well, a bit, but no more than me or anyone else in the midst of a debate.
As for my motivation, yes, I believe I know the answer. However, in another thread, this came up. When I said the rules forbid it, others disputed that.
What to do? Each side continuing to say, 'I'm right, you're wrong' wouldn't resolve it. We are equally convinced.
So, ask the people in charge of the rules what the answer actually is.
There is an obvious, sincere divide in belief about how the rules treat this, and getting THE definite answer benefits us all.
So I started this thread, asking the question...
Thank you for the calm and reasoned response.
Sold.
Hitting FAQ, now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are currently 41,150 threads in 'Rules Questions'. If the answer was 'RAW lets the DM make any decision he likes' then that would be the second post in each one of those 41,150 threads, and there would never be a third post.
And yet you're criticising me for asking a question about what the rules actually are...in the rules thread.
If this offends you, why are you posting in the rules thread?
I am not offended and I am not criticizing you for asking the question. I am criticizing you for continuing to press the issue once you have been shown the answer.
If you won't accept JJ's answer then you sure as hell aren't going to accept anyone else's answer. That makes the entire thread disengenuous. You want confirmation not discussion.
"You want confirmation not discussion."
Be careful with statements about other people's opinions. This leads to tyranny. Malachi is still bothered by the rule and continues to post. BigDTBone is still bothered by Malachi not agreeing and continues to post. MachOneGames is still bothered by the level of discourse and continues to post.
We are all bothered about something.
I don't know if you have read the entire thread or not, but if you have maybe you have forgotten. Quick recap of Malachi's behavior:
Malachi openly lies in the first post.
Malachi tells other to stick to RAW answers only (avoiding RAI and common sense)
Malachi uses RAI and common sense when it suits his cause.
Malachi makes ad hominem attacks on other posters.
Malachi bemoans the use of ad hominem attacks against him.
Malachi is shown the answer to his question, in quotation from one of the game creators (who's title doesn't preclude the fact that the dude designs and writes rules to the game).
Malachi decides this isn't good enough and continues to harp on about... whatever is convenient at the moment.
This is fitting of every possible definition of a Troll. He is Trolling and that is what I object to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Malachi is a troll.
I don't quite get why he's fighting against this so hard, when JJ's answer seems like the perfect one.
To paraphrase: "Technically - I guess - but, it makes me nervous and you probably shouldn't..."
That just about sums it up. The rules do not disallow it, but it kind of goes against the intent of the reach weapon rule, and it's really a poor option any way you slice it.
Saying "not a rules guy" is just another way of saying, "I will refute any statement, on any basis, if it does not agree with my position." It's pretty poor sportsmanship in a debate.
To misquote Bureaucrat 1.0, "We are technically correct. The best kind of correct." And "technically correct" is RAW. Every other kind of correct is RAI. Would you like to have that discussion, now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, it may very well be sincerely believed by some of those who espouse it, a kind of self deception.
But ad hominem attacks, as natural a response as they sometimes are, do not help the argument.
Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone could type these two statements back-to-back and not see the glaring hypocrisy of them...
I'm quoting them in the hopes that Malachi picks up on it the second time around...
|
|
There are currently 41,150 threads in 'Rules Questions'. If the answer was 'RAW lets the DM make any decision he likes' then that would be the second post in each one of those 41,150 threads, and there would never be a third post.
And yet you're criticising me for asking a question about what the rules actually are...in the rules thread.
If this offends you, why are you posting in the rules thread?
I am not offended and I am not criticizing you for asking the question. I am criticizing you for continuing to press the issue once you have been shown the answer.
If you won't accept JJ's answer then you sure as hell aren't going to accept anyone else's answer. That makes the entire thread disengenuous. You want confirmation not discussion.
JJ gave a guess, not an answer.
The rules buck stops at Jason Bulmahn and the Design Team. If Jason were to post 'This is how this rule works', then that is the answer, whether I like or not.
However, if he were to post something like, 'Er...possibly...you could do it that way, but I wouldn't myself', then this really wouldn't fit the description of 'The Right Answer', even from the man himself.
I hope that we get a clear answer as to what the rules in the CRB say on the subject of this thread, but even if we get an answer it may not be in that form. They may create a new rule to address this circumstance which was not in the CRB, a kind of stealth errata. This wouldn't let either side say 'See! I was right!', but would still be beneficial for us to know.
|
|
I sincerely want this officially resolved, and whichever way it goes we will all benefit.This is the part that I'm engaging, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is NO BENEFIT to "officially resolving" rules disputes like this, especially in a case where the rules are silent. The rules don't specifically and explicitly allow improvised weapon use, but neither do the specifically and explicitly disallow it. Thus, the rules are silent on the question, so any answer must inevitably be rooted in your sense of how the rules "should" work - which is fine and all, but you are operating from a very different set of expectations for the game than I am, so your "should" will be very different from mine. Right now, the rules don't make one of us "right" or "wrong" - we each can play the game "correctly" by doing what makes the most sense at our tables, with our players. What possible utility is there for an "official ruling", then, unless it is to be used to attempt to "prove" to one set of players that what they are doing is not "correct" - or at the very least to show that what they are doing is not RAW, and thus is house rules. Right now the rules let you rule however is best on this question - why is changing that in either direction "better" for the game?
We fundamentally disagree on two things here.
First, you regard the rules as silent on this matter. I regard them as saying something definate, and that the answer is no.
Second, you see no value in knowing he answer. I do, and so do ninety people who hit FAQ and probably many others who play the game.
I don't mind you not wanting the answer, but I do mind you not wanting anyone else to know the answer.
It's not strange or wrong to want to know what the rules of the game you're playing actually are.
|
|
Malachi openly lies in the first post.
The first post was a question, not a statement, therefore cannot be a lie. I chose the form of words for that question which would be easiest to answer.
Malachi tells other to stick to RAW answers only (avoiding RAI and common sense)
Yes. That was, and still is, my intent.
Malachi uses RAI and common sense when it suits his cause.
Only trying to show why I think that the 'common sense' presented by some others doesn't make sense!
Malachi makes ad hominem attacks on other posters.
I try to avoid it, but I'm only human. I feel I am more sinned against than sinning in this regard. Whatever my human failings, I recognise that such attacks won't resolve the issue though.
Malachi bemoans the use of ad hominem attacks against him.
See above.
Malachi is shown the answer to his question, in quotation from one of the game creators (who's title doesn't preclude the fact that the dude designs and writes rules to the game).
JJ's guess is not 'the answer'.
Malachi decides this isn't good enough and continues to harp on about... whatever is convenient at the moment.
I'd answer this, if it wasn't such meaningless drivel. I 'continue' to try to debate rationally, and you continue to contribute as best you can....!
This is fitting of every possible definition of a Troll. He is Trolling and that is what I object to.
Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who, through willful action, attempts to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages.
I'm sincerely trying to know the the actual rules of the game I'm playing. I'm not interested in controversy, the frustrations of this thread do not amuse me, and I continue to try to contribute positively in the face of being accused of being a liar and a troll.
I'm not seeing anything positive or constructive in your posts...
|
|
Is Pathfinder 'permissive'? Is chess permissive?
It's been mentioned that the 'proof' that PF is not permissive is that there are no rules for falling asleep naturally, and therefore if the rules are permissive it'd be forbidden to fall asleep without failing a save versus sleep. On the other hand, chess is permissive because you can only do what it says in the rules; if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.
But both games have parts which are permissive (the parts which matter most when resolving the conflicts which are the focus of the game), and parts that are not (the parts that are not the focus of the game, and/or are not opposed).
PF has some rules about sleep. The rules tell you the consequence of not getting enough, mainly for spellcasters for whom it may be crucial for the crunch of spell preparation. It has rules for failing saves, because this is integral to the way magical combat works in the game. But it has no rules for falling asleep naturally, because the game doesn't care about that. You can narrate it. Nobody's trying to stop you, it's not difficult unless the DM wants it to be and then he can start asking for rolls, whether those rolls are RAW or not.
Similarly, if a player touches one of his own chess pieces (which can make a legal move), then he must move that piece. If he lets go of that piece on a legal square, he must leave it there; he may not change his mind and his turn is over.
But does he move his piece with his left hand or his right? Could he use his mouth? The rules of chess don't care about that, just like the rules of PF don't care about falling asleep.
Does this mean that chess is not permissive after all? Can we now say that if the rules of chess don't specifically say we can't, then that means we can? This is the logic that goes from 'There are no rules for sleep' to 'Therefore the rules for PF are not permissive'.
The rules for chess tell me how a knight may move. But they don't tell me that I can't move my knight like it was a queen, therefore I can! Right?
The rules for PF tell me how to use a spear. But they don't tell me that I can use it as if it wasn't a spear, therefore I can! Right?
When my pawn reaches the eighth rank I can promote it to a knight. The rules tell me I can now move like a knight. But it makes sense that it still knows how pawns attack, so I can use my promoted pawn/knight to take pieces like a pawn, right? It doesn't say it can't, so it can!
When I craft a spear, I attach a spear head to a wooden pole. It's now a spear and the rules tell me how spears may be used. But it makes sense that it's still a wooden pole, which isn't a weapon, so I can use a spear as if it wasn't a spear, right? It doesn't say I can't, so I can!
The rules for both chess and PF are permissive in the parts on which they focus. Just because chess doesn't care what hand you use to move your pieces doesn't mean that the rules for chess are not permissive. Just because PF doesn't care about how you fall asleep naturally doesn't mean that the combat rules are not permissive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bogus arguement. Where do the rules say to give higher precedence to the combat rules? Chess has no rule about which hand may touch a piece while pathfinder DOES have rules about how to sleep. You say "nobody cares" about how to fall asleep naturally, I say there is no such thing as natural sleep in pathfinder.
Also, the rules say that anything "not crafted to be a weapon" may be used as an improvised weapon. So I use my ceremonial spear, which is exactly the same as every other spear, and make both regular spear attacks and improvised attacks. That is undeniably RAW.