|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigDTBone wrote: 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.
He doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. The sooner people stop responding, the sooner the thread goes away.
BigDTBone wrote: 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. If that spear-shaped object which is not a weapon is an improvised weapon, then it is not a weapon! Therefore, you can only attack with it as an improvised weapon.
The rules themselves, by describing combat, magic and class abilities as they do, mean that those rules are permissive.
If they weren't, then you could use a dagger as a reach weapon because the rules don't say you can't, have a barbarian cast spells because the rules don't say you can't, have wizards Rage at will because the rules don't say you can't, and use a weapon as if it wasn't because the rules don't say you can't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: BigDTBone wrote: 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. If that spear-shaped object which is not a weapon is an improvised weapon, then it is not a weapon! Therefore, you can only attack with it as an improvised weapon.
The rules themselves, by describing combat, magic and class abilities as they do, mean that those rules are permissive.
If they weren't, then you could use a dagger as a reach weapon because the rules don't say you can't, have a barbarian cast spells because the rules don't say you can't, have wizards Rage at will because the rules don't say you can't, and use a weapon as if it wasn't because the rules don't say you can't. It is a weapon, it just wasn't crafted to be a weapon.
And Dr Grecko is right, I'm done here.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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...
Are you honestly saying that chess is in any way a good analogy for an rpg?
Chess has a very simple set of rules, where it flat out states exactly the moves each piece is allowed to make without ambiguity.
Pathfinder? Is not chess. The rules set is orders of magnitude more complex, with more complex interactions, and grey areas not covered. Which hand you lift up a piece with in chess is literally irrelevant to game action, as in: it has no effect. Falling asleep, and sleep itself does have an in game effect. Moreover, you are making our argument not yours. The rules of pathfinder do not cover the case of using a weapon in an abnormal manner save in a few edge cases. There is no general rule. Moreover, the rules of pathfinder COULD NOT PROPERLY FUNCTION if they were permissive.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: Is Pathfinder 'permissive'? Is chess permissive?
Is Chess explicitly designed to be used for narrative role play? Do the rules for Chess explicitly tell the players that situations outside of the RAW may arise, and provide for a Game Master to adjudicate exactly those situations? Do the rules for Chess further give explicit permission to adjust the rules as desired, based on the needs/wants of your home game? No to all of the above, clearly.
Is your analogy thus deeply flawed and merely another example of you assuming that your gamist view of Pathfinder should be the privileged one? Yes, yes it is.
Again - Pathfinder is not Chess. I don't believe it's trying to be Chess, and I certainly don't WANT it to be Chess. If the combat rules work best for you and your table as a sort of abstracted tabletop strategy wargame, where reasonable actions are forbidden because they fall outside of the assumed design space, and where considerations like strict balance and system mastery are as important (if not more important) than the narrative role play elements, all of that is absolutely fine with me. Just don't A) pretend that the way you are playing is the "best" way to play, or the only "true" way to play, and B) don't ask rules questions based on your assumptions and then proceed to get snippy when those assumptions get questioned.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's funny. 18 pages and it's clear what the vocal majority want the rules to say. James even agrees with them - sort of - though it's not obvious to me he though of the ramifications of his inclusion of "reach" on the list of properties lost when improvising.
And yet, the rules still say what they say.
18 pages of talking about things that aren't the rules didn't change cannot into can. 18 pages of justifying an interpretation you want which is different from what the rules say. 18 pages of stuff like arguing a weapon isn't a weapon, it's a bunch of atoms. 18 pages of picking on Malachi because he wouldn't let his pet topic go. 18 pages of arguing black is white.
In this game, specific rules override general rules, and since the reach property tells you you're not allowed to make adjacent attacks, that's much more specific than the general improvised weapons rules. The ones that are for non-weapons in the first place.
It's a stretch, and it's always been a stretch. Logical or not, flavorful or not, the rules have spoken and the answer remains sealed with the single word cannot.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My problem with this thread at this point-
Some of the rules were intentionally left a certain way to allow for table variance. I'd need to dig a bit, but multiple devs have stated this in the past. Sometimes they leave something out there because the narrative power of the group is what they hope will be the deciding factor. In some groups it would break their investment in the story to be told their character can't do something when every scrap of logic and experience says that they totally can. Another group might lose that investment when they see a player doing something that they think violates the spirit of the rules.
So, you know, I FAQ'd this thread way back when it started because it seemed a no-brainer to me. Of course you can check someone with the haft of your spear. Duh. But now I find myself not wanting a FAQ, not because I think the FAQ will contradict my stance, but because a FAQ on this subject is obviously going to take away from someone's game, whether it's the people who feel like allowing it breaks the spirit of the rules, or the people who feel the same way about disallowing it. No one has presented an argument that proves anything either way, and both sides have had their "Ah-hah, but when I read what you just read it clearly means this so I'm right!". That's gone on for 18 pages and it's served to remind me why I was drifting away from the rules forum quite a bit until I started writing for Dreamscarred and needed to spend time here as part of my job and keeping on top of trends. You know what the biggest trend I'm noticing here is? We're all turning each other into a~##+&#s. Seriously. You know how I know that? 2 years ago when Malachi first started posting he was the one arguing for an approach that espoused common sense over RAW. And at that time, common sense won, the RAW was updated to match it, and rightly so. Now here we are and the RAW-nazi is on the other side of the web. Everyone needs to stop trying to turn this into their game. Crap like this is why important things like the Ice Tomb hex, which really legitimately was missing rules text, don't get answered. The devs have to waste too much time dredgin through dreck like this and then deciding if it's worth answering, and then making sure everyone agrees on the answer they put forth, despite the fact that it's going to piss off half the fan base who take the time to give them feedback no matter what decision they make.
The only place this really matters is PFS, where the needs of organized play gain priority over general story-building and group dynamics. I think that's where this thread belongs. There doesn't need to be a hard rule for this, because the people who want to do it already have plenty of rules support for allowing and executing it, and the people who don't want to allow it can just point out that there isn't a hard rule or use their own particular interpretation.
Basically, screw this thread. This stopped being about the rules or the game a long time ago and turned into a bunch of people trying to prove that they've got the biggest... rules support.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote: It's funny. 18 pages and it's clear what the vocal majority want the rules to say. James even agrees with them - sort of - though it's not obvious to me he though of the ramifications of his inclusion of "reach" on the list of properties lost when improvising.
And yet, the rules still say what they say.
18 pages of talking about things that aren't the rules didn't change cannot into can. 18 pages of justifying an interpretation you want which is different from what the rules say. 18 pages of stuff like arguing a weapon isn't a weapon, it's a bunch of atoms. 18 pages of picking on Malachi because he wouldn't let his pet topic go. 18 pages of arguing black is white.
In this game, specific rules override general rules, and since the reach property tells you you're not allowed to make adjacent attacks, that's much more specific than the general improvised weapons rules. The ones that are for non-weapons in the first place.
It's a stretch, and it's always been a stretch. Logical or not, flavorful or not, the rules have spoken and the answer remains sealed with the single word cannot.
Except the absolute no is just as much of an interpretation as the "use the improvised weapon rules".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote: It's funny. 18 pages and it's clear what the vocal majority want the rules to say. James even agrees with them - sort of - though it's not obvious to me he though of the ramifications of his inclusion of "reach" on the list of properties lost when improvising.
And yet, the rules still say what they say.
18 pages of talking about things that aren't the rules didn't change cannot into can. 18 pages of justifying an interpretation you want which is different from what the rules say. 18 pages of stuff like arguing a weapon isn't a weapon, it's a bunch of atoms. 18 pages of picking on Malachi because he wouldn't let his pet topic go. 18 pages of arguing black is white.
In this game, specific rules override general rules, and since the reach property tells you you're not allowed to make adjacent attacks, that's much more specific than the general improvised weapons rules. The ones that are for non-weapons in the first place.
It's a stretch, and it's always been a stretch. Logical or not, flavorful or not, the rules have spoken and the answer remains sealed with the single word cannot.
Except no.
I can understand if I come across (in this thread) as a pure 'gamist', but there's a reason for that.
As a player/DM, I'm certainly not a strict gamist. I don't think that RAW is necessarily 'better' than houserules.
But this thread is all about what the RAW actually is. If I then want to deviate from it, I can. And so can you. But in order to go way from RAW, I want to know what RAW actually is. Hence the pure gamist perspective in this thread, because any other perspective would get in the way of finding out about what the rules actually are.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Then if you are trying to find pure rules into this, why do you keep brining up arguments that rely on inserting things not in the rules into it?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: I can understand if I come across (in this thread) as a pure 'gamist', but there's a reason for that.
As a player/DM, I'm certainly not a strict gamist. I don't think that RAW is necessarily 'better' than houserules.
But this thread is all about what the RAW actually is. If I then want to deviate from it, I can. And so can you. But in order to go way from RAW, I want to know what RAW actually is. Hence the pure gamist perspective in this thread, because any other perspective would get in the way of finding out about what the rules actually are.
This doesn't follow, however. If we are all free to do whatever, and any decision that we make on this issue in our home games is equally valid, then truly the question of what RAW here actually is doesn't matter. What's the point of comparing our equally valid rulings against a RAW that you just conceded doesn't really need to be binding? If it really is okay for us to play it differently, then the question of which method is more in-line with the designed intent of the rule vs the actual text of the rule vs the gamist view vs the narrative view etc. is simply unimportant, except as a mechanism for someone to point to it and say "See, I TOLD you you were playing it wrong!"
Further, again, you persist in assuming there IS a strict RAW answer beyond "maybe - ask your GM". You readily accept that there are other questions (such as "how does one fall asleep normally") that RAW doesn't answer, so I'm not clear why it's a stretch to accept that this is just another of those times. Is it because it's combat related? Treating the combat rules specifically as permissive STILL isn't more RAW than the alternative, it's just the lens you've chosen.
RDM42 wrote: Except the absolute no is just as much of an interpretation as the "use the improvised weapon rules". I'll agree.
It's the interpretation where cannot means are-not-permitted-to. It's the interpretation where cannot doesn't mean go-ahead-and-do-it.
"No" is the interpretation where you can do this thing you are asking to do. Only... not.
Paizo is generally very careful to make clear exceptions to rules. You'd certainly see a "this is an exception to the rule that does not allow you to make a 5ft step in the same round you have moved" or "this is an exception to the rule that limits you to a single swift action per round". While much of Core is inherited from WotC, they too were generally good at making exceptions to rules visible. The rule is that reach weapons can't attack adjacent. That's the rule. The rule is that. Rule is that the. There remains nothing tangible, nothing concrete, nothing solid that is an exception to that rule. Much respect to James, but there's still a large pile of ifs between the cannot and the can.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote: RDM42 wrote: Except the absolute no is just as much of an interpretation as the "use the improvised weapon rules". I'll agree.
It's the interpretation where cannot means are-not-permitted-to. It's the interpretation where cannot doesn't mean go-ahead-and-do-it.
"No" is the interpretation where you can do this thing you are asking to do. Only... not.
Paizo is generally very careful to make clear exceptions to rules. You'd certainly see a "this is an exception to the rule that does not allow you to make a 5ft step in the same round you have moved" or "this is an exception to the rule that limits you to a single swift action per round". While much of Core is inherited from WotC, they too were generally good at making exceptions to rules visible. The rule is that reach weapons can't attack adjacent. That's the rule. The rule is that. Rule is that the. There remains nothing tangible, nothing concrete, nothing solid that is an exception to that rule. Much respect to James, but there's still a large pile of ifs between the cannot and the can. And if the word "cannot" appeared in the relevant text for improvised weapons, that would be one thing. It doesn't, however, which is why I suspect you added the last bit, which is just another way of saying you think the rules should be treated as permissive. That's a fine way for you to look at the rules. Totally valid and worthwhile. For you. At your table, feel free to rule this way. Do it gleefully. You are free to do so because A) the rules don't say one way or the other explicitly and B) even if they did, the rules also tell you that RAW do not need to be considered a strictly binding contract, so you are free to adjust them as needs be for your game.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: And if the word "cannot" appeared in the relevant text for improvised weapons, that would be one thing. It doesn't, however, which is why I suspect you added the last bit, which is just another way of saying you think the rules should be treated as permissive. That's a fine way for you to look at the rules. Totally valid and worthwhile. For you. At your table, feel free to rule this way. Do it gleefully. You are free to do so because A) the rules don't say one way or the other explicitly and B) even if they did, the rules also tell you that RAW do not need to be considered a strictly binding contract, so you are free to adjust them as needs be for your game. No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.
I added the last paragraph to temper my delivery so as to not appear to be a jerk. My contention remains solely that the specific rules that apply to the longspear explain to you how they work, which is to say... not against adjacent targets.
The rules say you cannot. A few people are inserting a bunch of iffy conjectures and arriving at can, from that starting principle.
Let's put it another way. There's a PFS table.
Player: "I want to hit the guy beside me with my longspear."
DM: "Um, longspears are reach weapons and the rule says they can't do that. Sorry."
Player: "Um, wait... I'm going to... improvise my spear and use it that way!"
DM: "Um, points for being clever, but the rules for improvised weapons say that some items NOT designed as weapons can be used with these rules. Sorry."
Player: "Grrr. I really want to do this. James Jacobs says you can improvise with actual weapons and not only that, but they lose the reach property too! I ATTACK the guy beside me with my longsp-sorry, with the shaft of my longspear! Haha!"
DM: "Sigh. I'm still sorry. That's not what the rules say, and while I'd love to reward your... tenacity... at this table I have to run what the rules say, and those rules start off explicitly making it clear you aren't allowed to do that with that weapon."
You see? It starts off with a very simple rule that is specific. Then it turns into someone trying to game the system. Then it turns into someone trying to justify gaming the system.
What I rule at my table isn't being discussed. What the rules say is. Now. Maybe Paizo will elect to reword things in a FAQ such that this becomes permitted. Maybe they won't. But until this gets such a rule change, the rule is still a clear no.
Anguish wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: And if the word "cannot" appeared in the relevant text for improvised weapons, that would be one thing. It doesn't, however, which is why I suspect you added the last bit, which is just another way of saying you think the rules should be treated as permissive. That's a fine way for you to look at the rules. Totally valid and worthwhile. For you. At your table, feel free to rule this way. Do it gleefully. You are free to do so because A) the rules don't say one way or the other explicitly and B) even if they did, the rules also tell you that RAW do not need to be considered a strictly binding contract, so you are free to adjust them as needs be for your game. No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.
I added the last paragraph to temper my delivery so as to not appear to be a jerk. My contention remains solely that the specific rules that apply to the longspear explain to you how they work, which is to say... not against adjacent targets.
The rules say you cannot. A few people are inserting a bunch of iffy conjectures and arriving at can, from that starting principle.
Let's put it another way. There's a PFS table.
Player: "I want to hit the guy beside me with my longspear."
DM: "Um, longspears are reach weapons and the rule says they can't do that. Sorry."
Player: "Um, wait... I'm going to... improvise my spear and use it that way!"
DM: "Um, points for being clever, but the rules for improvised weapons say that some items NOT designed as weapons can be used with these rules. Sorry."
Player: "Grrr. I really want to do this. James Jacobs says you can improvise with actual weapons and not only that, but they lose the reach property too! I ATTACK the guy beside me with my longsp-sorry, with the shaft of my longspear! Haha!"
DM: "Sigh. I'm still sorry. That's not what the rules say, and while I'd love to reward your... tenacity... at this table I have to... Except you can only reach that point by being pedantic beyond reason about what an object that wasn't intended for use as a weapon - such as the haft of a spear - is and isn't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote:
Player: "I want to hit the guy beside me with my longspear."
DM: "Um, longspears are reach weapons and the rule says they can't do that. Sorry."
Player: "Um, wait... I'm going to... improvise my spear and use it that way!"
DM: "Um, points for being clever, but the rules for improvised weapons say that some items NOT designed as weapons can be used with these rules. Sorry."
Player: "Grrr. I really want to do this. James Jacobs says you can improvise with actual weapons and not only that, but they lose the reach property too! I ATTACK the guy beside me with my longsp-sorry, with the shaft of my longspear! Haha!"
DM: "Sigh. I'm still sorry. That's not what the rules say, and while I'd love to reward your... tenacity... at this table I have to... ...and the Player drops his Longspear, pulls out his 10ft pole, and hits the guy adjacent to him.
Same effect. Same Stats. Same damage.
Of course, only one makes the player a big doody-head cheaty-face, right?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote:
No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.
Dude, you might as well give it up. They cannot see the gaping holes in their logic. They claim that you are being overly pedantic about what an object is. However, the only answer they have ever given to the fact that in most situations weapons are treated as single objects is to show cherry picked situations where they are not. They refuse to consider that the entry for long spear doesn't break it into parts and identify which part has reach or that spells such as magic weapon don't identify the part you have to cast it on or that the rules for hardness and hit points don't separate weapons into parts. They dismiss all of that and any other evidence that contradicts their position.
They argue that it is not realistic that you could not shorten your grip on your spear when you can drop the spear and pick up a 10' pole and hit someone adjacent. They don't ever stop to think, however, that it is also unrealistic that I can't use that 10' pole to hit someone 10' away but you can't because because improvised weapons can't use reach, which was even mentioned in the very post from James Jacobs they are using to try and prove their position. They are willing to accept that unrealism to be able to circumvent the rules regarding reach weapons.
There is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will change their minds because they already have a predetermined position and will say and believe anything to keep it and dismiss any evidence to the contrary.
PatientWolf wrote: Anguish wrote:
No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.
Dude, you might as well give it up. They cannot see the gaping holes in their logic. They claim that you are being overly pedantic about what an object is. However, the only answer they have ever given to the fact that in most situations weapons are treated as single objects is to show cherry picked situations where they are not. They refuse to consider that the entry for long spear doesn't break it into parts and identify which part has reach or that spells such as magic weapon don't identify the part you have to cast it on or that the rules for hardness and hit points don't separate weapons into parts. They dismiss all of that and any other evidence that contradicts their position.
They argue that it is not realistic that you could not shorten your grip on your spear when you can drop the spear and pick up a 10' pole and hit someone adjacent. They don't ever stop to think, however, that it is also unrealistic that I can't use that 10' pole to hit someone 10' away but you can't because because improvised weapons can't use reach, which was even mentioned in the very post from James Jacobs they are using to try and prove their position. They are willing to accept that unrealism to be able to circumvent the rules regarding reach weapons.
There is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will change their minds because they already have a predetermined position and will say and believe anything to keep it and dismiss any evidence to the contrary.
Hey pot, have you met kettle yet? You are describing your own position perfectly as well.
RDM42 wrote:
Hey pot, have you met kettle yet? You are describing your own position perfectly as well.
Yep. This is what I am talking about. This is the type of reasoning I was referring to. Still no answer to the arguments. No explanation or evidence for the assertion that I could be describing my own position despite that I provided several examples how it fits yours.
In answer to the cogent arguments you bring up...oh wait...there weren't any.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating the point of my previous post.
PatientWolf wrote: RDM42 wrote:
Hey pot, have you met kettle yet? You are describing your own position perfectly as well.
Yep. This is what I am talking about. This is the type of reasoning I was referring to. Still no answer to the arguments. No explanation or evidence for the assertion that I could be describing my own position despite that I provided several examples how it fits yours.
In answer to the cogent arguments you bring up...oh wait...there weren't any.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating the point of my previous post.
They have been brought up repeatedly. That you have chosen to ignore them does not in fact negate their existence.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: And if the word "cannot" appeared in the relevant text for improvised weapons, that would be one thing. It doesn't, however, which is why I suspect you added the last bit, which is just another way of saying you think the rules should be treated as permissive. That's a fine way for you to look at the rules. Totally valid and worthwhile. For you. At your table, feel free to rule this way. Do it gleefully. You are free to do so because A) the rules don't say one way or the other explicitly and B) even if they did, the rules also tell you that RAW do not need to be considered a strictly binding contract, so you are free to adjust them as needs be for your game. No. Cannot appears in the rules for reach weapons, of which one longspear specifically is. Specifically.
I added the last paragraph to temper my delivery so as to not appear to be a jerk. My contention remains solely that the specific rules that apply to the longspear explain to you how they work, which is to say... not against adjacent targets.
The rules say you cannot. A few people are inserting a bunch of iffy conjectures and arriving at can, from that starting principle.
Let's put it another way. There's a PFS table.
Player: "I want to hit the guy beside me with my longspear."
DM: "Um, longspears are reach weapons and the rule says they can't do that. Sorry."
Player: "Um, wait... I'm going to... improvise my spear and use it that way!"
DM: "Um, points for being clever, but the rules for improvised weapons say that some items NOT designed as weapons can be used with these rules. Sorry."
Player: "Grrr. I really want to do this. James Jacobs says you can improvise with actual weapons and not only that, but they lose the reach property too! I ATTACK the guy beside me with my longsp-sorry, with the shaft of my longspear! Haha!"
DM: "Sigh. I'm still sorry. That's not what the rules say, and while I'd love to reward your... tenacity... at this table I have to... Yeah, but the longspear rules aren't relevant at all, because I'm not attacking with a longspear, I'm attacking with an improvised weapon that happens to have a day job as a longspear. Now, you will sputter and say the rules don't let you "change" an item in that way, and I will point out that the rules don't forbid it either, and you'll again say that improvised weapons are ONLY objects not intended to be weapons and I'll point out the rule doesn't EXCLUDE manufactured weapons, it simply doesn't explicitly include them, and you'll continue to respond from your assumed position that the rules are (or should be) permissive, and I'll point out that's an assumption not supported by rules text, and we'll come back to this central point - the rules DO NOT answer the question being asked either way unless you add some additional interpretation to the rules. Bonus points if along the way you also apply the slippery slope fallacy and take us down that little side argument.
You are not making any novel arguments here, is my point. There is no objective way to make the rules say "Yes" or "No". There are lots of subjective interpretations based on personal preference that can be used to support either side, but that's not what the question is about. Even if the RDT says "We never intended for players to use manufactured weapons in an improvised way", guess what? That STILL doesn't change the fact that the RAW don't say that - you are free to appeal to the hypothetical authority of the rules designers to attempt to convince people you are "right", but that still rests on an assumption about the RDT having authority in the first place.
Again - I am not saying you are "wrong" to play it the way you want. I'm saying you are wrong to assert that:
1) Your way is objectively correct
2) Any variation is some form of house rule
3) An objective answer to the question is even possible
and 4) An objective answer is even desirable.
The question "Is this allowed RAW?" has been answered, concretely. The concrete answer is "We cannot say, so it's up to you to work it out in your game". Pushing for an FAQ at this point is not, in fact, seeking to answer the question of what does RAW say. Instead, it's now essentially about asking "What was the intent of the rules?", which is a different question, and one that I think has almost no value.
As for your PFS example, sure, in PFS play, there are different assumptions being made, which is why PFS has it's own specific set of house rules, which is why PFS is a particularly bad example to use when you are trying to assess RAW.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Yeah, but the longspear rules aren't relevant at all, because I'm not attacking with a longspear... I'm going to stop you right there.
Read it. You wrote it.
"I'm not attacking with a longspear."
You were asked if you can attack adjacent targets with a longspear. You are answering that question by not attacking with a longspear.
Oh. Wait. You are attacking with a longspear, aren't you. You're just not calling it that. Clever. Only thing is you know and I know what it is. It's a longspear. Right? I mean... it's got to be a longspear or else you wouldn't be here in this thread about longspears. Talking about not-longspears here would be kind of off-topic, I'd think.
Too bad longspear rules are relevant to longspears.
When it comes to RAW discussions, that's what you can draw on for your arguments; rules as they are written. You don't get to argue that a druid can wear full plate because it's not metal... it's a collection of electrons and protons, just like lettuce.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Except you can only reach that point by being pedantic beyond reason about what an object that wasn't intended for use as a weapon - such as the haft of a spear - is and isn't. I'm being pedantic? Yes strangely I'm not the one pointing out that - in a game without any such terms - a longspear is not a longspear, it's a collection of subcomponents.
I reiterate for the nth time, where n is a silly number... this isn't about what I believe or what I would allow my players to do at my table. This remains about what the rules say, and those rules are abundantly clear that - as written - a longspear cannot be used to attack adjacent squares.
I think the worst part about this discussion, is how adamant some are fighting to try to futilely prove that the RAW says you cannot perform this sub-optimal maneuver, when it's clear you can, and vague at worst.
RAW says yes.
DEV says yes.
This should be /thread. But, I'm sure we'll get another nth+1 reply.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Yeah, but the longspear rules aren't relevant at all, because I'm not attacking with a longspear... I'm going to stop you right there.
Read it. You wrote it.
"I'm not attacking with a longspear."
Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true?
Anguish wrote:
You were asked if you can attack adjacent targets with a longspear. You are answering that question by not attacking with a longspear.
Wrong. The question I'm addressing is not "Can I attack an adjacent target with a longspear?" It's "Can I use a longspear as an improvised weapon, and if so, how?" You are interpreting it one way, because you feel like that paraphrase will make your argument stronger. In other words, you are engaging in the exact same semantic sleight-of-hand I am. You know why we both get to do that? I'll give you a hint - it involves the mutability of language, and your inability to objectively prove your interpretation is "right".
Anguish wrote:
Oh. Wait. You are attacking with a longspear, aren't you. You're just not calling it that. Clever. Only thing is you know and I know what it is. It's a longspear. Right? I mean... it's got to be a longspear or else you wouldn't be here in this thread about longspears. Talking about not-longspears here would be kind of off-topic, I'd think.
Too bad longspear rules are relevant to longspears.
I'll make this easy - I interpret "Attacking with a longspear" and "attacking with an improvised weapon that is also coincidentally a longspear" as two totally different actions, with totally different rules sets. Until you can prove otherwise, then no, the longspear rules don't matter.
Anguish wrote:
When it comes to RAW discussions, that's what you can draw on for your arguments; rules as they are written. You don't get to argue that a druid can wear full plate because it's not metal... it's a collection of electrons and protons, just like lettuce.
Right, you can only rely on RAW. That means exactly what is written there. That means you don't get to add rules that exclude things on the basis of your assumptions, no matter how reasonable those assumptions are. I have stipulated all along that the assumptions you are making are reasonable, I'm just saying they are still assumptions, and that they aren't necessarily true, and that I think we are better off without them.
Now, I'm sure you will fire back with some pointed witticism about how ridiculous the distinction between "Attacking with a longspear" and "Attacking with an improvised weapon that is also sometimes a longspear" is. My challenge to you is to actually interrogate that sense of incredulity. As an intellectual exercise, prove, using only RAW text, that I am mistaken, and that the two actions are one and the same. I believe that no such rule exists, and that instead your argument boils down to the fact that such an interpretation, while technically possible, goes against what you feel is the spirit or intent of the rules, and thus that it SHOULD be disallowed.
In the interest of saving a little bit of time, I will help you out with this: I will freely stipulate that there is not one single shred of rules that allows me to make that distinction. None. That is irrelevant. As long as it's true that there is nothing in the rules that stipulates that the rules are permissive in nature, it's not up to me to prove that you CAN do something, it's up to you to prove that you cannot. My belief is that any formulation of your argument will fail the RAW test by requiring an assumption about the nature of the rules, the intent of the rules, the specific meaning of the rules text, or all of the above.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true?
Anguish, this is what I warned you about. This is their argument: "The rules specifically for this weapon say I can't do something but I really want to do it so I think I am allowed to ditch the rules specifically for this weapon and use entirely different rules not intended for this weapon and do it anyway. Since the rules don't say I can't ignore the rules I don't like and use different rules it is clear that I can."
PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true?
Anguish, this is what I warned you about. This is their argument: "The rules specifically for this weapon say I can't do something but I really want to do it so I think I am allowed to ditch the rules specifically for this weapon and use entirely different rules not intended for this weapon and do it anyway. Since the rules don't say I can't ignore the rules I don't like and use different rules it is clear that I can." Meh.
You say that you cannot use a reach weapon to attack adjacent targets. I say improvised weapons cannot have the reach property.
You say objects designed to be weapons cannot be improvised weapons. I say that is nowhere in the rules as they are written.
This is your argument: "Objects not designed to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons, therefore objects designed to be weapons cannot. I really don't want you to be able to do it, so I'm adding imaginary language that doesn't exist in the rules to say that if it is not specifically allowed, it must be disallowed. You didn't want to go to sleep on your own, did you?"
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true?
Anguish, this is what I warned you about. This is their argument: "The rules specifically for this weapon say I can't do something but I really want to do it so I think I am allowed to ditch the rules specifically for this weapon and use entirely different rules not intended for this weapon and do it anyway. Since the rules don't say I can't ignore the rules I don't like and use different rules it is clear that I can." Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell. Now, aside from your snide tone, did you have a RAW counter argument, or was this just you conceding that you can't, in fact, prove your position without resorting to your assumption that the rules must be read in a limiting, permissive way?
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell. Now, aside from your snide tone, did you have a RAW counter argument, or was this just you conceding that you can't, in fact, prove your position without resorting to your assumption that the rules must be read in a limiting, permissive way?
I wasn't making an argument at all or conceding anything. I was encouraging Anguish to stop participating in a discussion with people who's argument boils down to "I can ignore whatever rules I want".
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell. Now, aside from your snide tone, did you have a RAW counter argument, or was this just you conceding that you can't, in fact, prove your position without resorting to your assumption that the rules must be read in a limiting, permissive way?
I wasn't making an argument at all or conceding anything. I was encouraging Anguish to stop participating in a discussion with people who's argument boils down to "I can ignore whatever rules I want". Ahh, the old "I'm not giving up, I'm taking my ball and going home" defense. Classic.
For the record, the only "rules" I'm "ignoring" are the ones in your head.
Can everyone take a step back? Both sides makes sense. I would rule in favour of an improvised attack if I were running a game; but, would have to concede that the more specific rule is that reach weapons can't attack at 5 feet.
Now, the improvised camp could take umbrage with my suggestions that the reach weapon rule is more specific than the improvised weapon rule. I believe that the rules are more specific in the more central mechanism and less specific around the edges -- like Marlowe's description of the tale in "Heart of Darkness."
I would rule in favour of improvised 5-ft attacks because of my opinions, beliefs, and predispositions. It seems so pragmatic and sensible that it fits with the rest of the rules.
However, I think the RAW is on the other side of the ruling because of my opinions, beliefs, and predispositions.
There are hundreds of specific weapons that are categorized in Pathfinder with detailed stats. For every other object there are the improvised weapon rules -- to attend to the millions of things that are there. Does this make the weapons rule more important than the improvised weapon rule? Sort of... and the fact that more things are built around the weapon rules. More spokes touch the more specific rules. We have a more specific rule. That is an opinion.
If you deconstruct the platform on which I am standing you can invalidate my argument. You can pull it apart. In doing so it is easy to attack specific points or challenge assumptions that I require.
What bugs me is that there are some very clever people who are offended that other people have different ideas of the right answer. They assume that the contrary position to theirs must be broken in some way. They don't think that maybe if they were standing where the other person was, they might have the same opinion.
Don't take your own opinions so seriously. Don't cling to them so hard. They aren't part of you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Me love this forum thread.
Stop overlooking obvious. Original poster cannot kick. (If could, why use spear butt?) So has no legs. So cannot use spear butt effectively.
Dr Grecko wrote: I think the worst part about this discussion, is how adamant some are fighting to try to futilely prove that the RAW says you cannot perform this sub-optimal maneuver, when it's clear you can, and vague at worst.
RAW says yes.
DEV says yes.
This should be /thread. But, I'm sure we'll get another nth+1 reply.
Well, as long as you continue to try to convince me black is white and cannot is can, sure. n++
I keep explaining things and pointing out what the rule say. You keep... not addressing any points I make. Fun times.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell. Now, aside from your snide tone, did you have a RAW counter argument, or was this just you conceding that you can't, in fact, prove your position without resorting to your assumption that the rules must be read in a limiting, permissive way?
I wasn't making an argument at all or conceding anything. I was encouraging Anguish to stop participating in a discussion with people who's argument boils down to "I can ignore whatever rules I want". Ahh, the old "I'm not giving up, I'm taking my ball and going home" defense. Classic.
For the record, the only "rules" I'm "ignoring" are the ones in your head. I did not say that giving up was a defense or an argument. I said it was useless to argue with those who simply say that you can ignore the rules.
As for the only rules being ignored being in my head. I specifically stated your argument as ignoring the rules for long spears because you didn't like them and using rules for something entirely different and you said, and I quote, "Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell." So a little late to change your tune now.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Right. I stand by that. I'm not attacking with a longspear. If I wanted to use the longspear as a longspear, I would use the longspear rules. Are you attacking? Is the item you are attacking with a longspear? Yes and yes.
It isn't important what you want to use a longspear as. It's a longspear. If you want to use a longspear as something that isn't a longspear, the rules are - in theory - okay with that... as long as you don't violate existing rules. Want to use a longspear to try to trigger a trap from 10ft away? The rules don't say you can't do that, so go ahead. Want to use a longspear as part of a travois to drag a body back to town? The rules don't say you can't do that, so go ahead. Want to use a longspear as X so you can Y? As long as X isn't "not a longspear" and Y isn't "attack an adjacent target", I think you're probably almost universally in the green.
It's just that pesky little line you're crossing. The one that says you can't bloody do that particular X and Y combination.
Quote: I don't want to use the longspear rules, though. I want to use the rules for using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. Of course you don't. The longspear rules don't fit real life. Got it. But it's a longspear. Please see... rules regarding longspears.
Quote: Shoot, there ARE no such rules! I guess I'll have to make a ruling, because RAW is silent on the issue. Right. There you go. There's a rule that says you can't attack adjacent targets with a reach weapon, but you want to use rules that literally don't exist in order to OVERRIDE the rule that says you're not allowed to do it.
You know what? This is a fun game. Let's play it.
My wizard doesn't need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots anymore. He closes his eyes and says "18 pages" under his breath and... poof. He gets his spells back. Why? Because I'm using the monster advancement rules to apply a CR+0 template that lets him do that. There's no rule saying I can't, and I WANT TO, and the rules about wizards and recovering spells after rest don't apply to my wizard because he's an ADVANCED WIZARD, so I just... do. Quad Erat Demonstrandem.
Yippee. Making things up is fun.
Quote: They don't say I can, and they don't say I can't. Do you accept that this is true? The Easter Bunny lets you ignore printed rules in a discussion about printed rules, yes.
Quote: Wrong. The question I'm addressing is not "Can I attack an adjacent target with a longspear?" It's "Can I use a longspear as an improvised weapon, and if so, how?" You are interpreting it one way, because you feel like that paraphrase will make your argument stronger. In other words, you are engaging in the exact same semantic sleight-of-hand I am. You know why we both get to do that? I'll give you a hint - it involves the mutability of language, and your inability to objectively prove your interpretation is "right". Here's your answer: you can - in theory - use a longspear as an improvised weapon in any way that does not violate existing rules. How's that? That's accepting James Jacob's opinion on the matter while simultaneously reconciling that the rules that actually appear in the book elect to use an immutable word, "cannot" to describe the conditions under which reach weapons can be used to attack adjacent targets.
Any interpretation of the language such that cannot becomes a permissive term is... not one I can support.
Quote: I'll make this easy - I interpret "Attacking with a longspear" and "attacking with an improvised weapon that is also coincidentally a longspear" as two totally different actions, with totally different rules sets. Until you can prove otherwise, then no, the longspear rules don't matter. Sure, they are two totally different actions. Both of which are entitled to be used, assuming you don't say... do something the rules don't let you do.
You know what's awesome about this precedent your group is trying desperately set? It breaks a bunch of rules, not just the reach rule. I've mentioned it in passing, but there's this nice rule about not threatening with ranged weapons. It's a design choice the developers of 3e made to allow a rock-paper-scissors style give & take game. Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages. Well, if we just improvise our crossbow into a club or our bow into a staff, we can just ignore that pesky rule. Sure, it's (more) realistic. Granted, wholeheartedly and unreservedly. But you just blew an interesting trade-off out the window. You turned a -infinity penalty into a -4. Kind of a huge difference there. Realism that diminishes the game.
No, I say. Leave the rules what they are... interesting. Rich. Complex. Leave it up to the DM to decide when and where to suspend rules to suit a cinematic moment. Leave it to the DM to listen to the player's - engaged and interested - pitch as to why their character should perhaps be allowed to violate the rules. Listen to the other players help make a compelling argument instead of watching YouTube cat videos because it's not their turn. Let it be that the lowest common denominator isn't "you can do whatever you want" because that leaves us tossing the Core out the door.
Get it? Do you see why I'm passionate about this? I don't play diceless systems. I don't play all-in-your-head systems. I don't play systems where the answer to "where is the orc" is "on the other side of the room... why?" which engenders the question "well, can I get to him in a move?" I play a system with a battlemat and minis and RULES so I can play with the rules and revel in interesting and brilliant combats. I play a game system where sometimes crushing defeat is brought on because my PC's move speed left him 5ft short of victory. Or the bad guy's.
I roleplay the heck out of the system and I do my damnedest as a DM to engage my players with vibrant and interesting NPCs so they are immersed in a story. I play both sides of the game. By choice. By design.
Don't screw with the rules, diminishing them. You lessen the majesty.
Quote: it's not up to me to prove that you CAN do something, it's up to you to prove that you cannot I'm spent. Eloquence exhausted. Friend, I did that. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, was purchased at a duck store, floats like a duck, identifies witches like a duck... when there's a rule that says "ducks can't be eaten", it's disingenuous to come asking to eat some breast-of-mallard.
I really don't get why the rules take precedence over what everyone knows to be true in real life.
Realistically, can you hit someone with the haft of a spear? Yes. Clearly. It's not the optimal choice, but it is definitely doable.
Knowing that, the question then becomes "how can we use the existing system to model this slightly odd but perfectly realistic action?"
Trying to answer that question is where the ambiguity comes from. The thing is, only one side of the argument makes any actual sense.
As was mentioned earlier, there is no reason someone should be able to bash with a 10' pole, but not with a longspear.
To claim that sharpening the end of a pole makes the rest cease to exist as a potential weapon is completely absurd.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote: Don't screw with the rules, diminishing them. You lessen the majesty. The rules are many things; effective, inventive, even inspired in some places, but majestic is not one of them.
Also, the very existence of this version of the game (indeed, the very reality that the game has 'versions') suggests that screwing with the rules doesn't diminish them.
I've already quoted Stephen in this thread so I won't do it again, but in paraphrase he says that the the rules are meant to be read with common sense.
Other designers have been on record stating that the rules are mean to facilitate telling a story, not the other way around. Common sense is not beholden to the rules, the design intent is just the opposite.
The player declares an action, "I cross-check the guy next to me with my spear." The rules are there to facilitate that action. You look at the spear entry and see "reach" and damage type "P" and you conclude that this section of the rules doesn't facilitate the declared action. So you look at improvised weapons, if gives you the facility to say, "Ok, take a -4 to your attack roll for using the weapon in an improvised fashion and it will deal bludgeoning damage."
Reading the rules in any other way is purposefully reading them against the intent of the designers. It's not a bad thing, but it is an exception. I feel that it is an exception that should be noted so that new comers to the game don't get the idea that this game has straight jacket requirements. New comers should be encouraged to use and explore the rules as they are meant: as a means to facilitate story not a way to subvert it.
Anguish wrote: My wizard doesn't need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots anymore. Actually, he does. There is a rule that dictates that. Here's the rub, though. He can't go to sleep. He simply cannot. He's fatigued, soon to be exhausted, and pretty soon he's going to start taking Con damage. But, very simply, he cannot go to sleep.
You know why? Because there is no rule that gives him permission to simply go to sleep. There isn't. He cannot go to sleep unless you houserule it.
What's that you say? Nope, let me stop you right there. You cannot do it, because no rule says you can.
Unless... you know... you can do things that aren't expressly permitted because it makes sense to be able to do them. But, that would mean you can cross check someone with a spear haft.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell. Now, aside from your snide tone, did you have a RAW counter argument, or was this just you conceding that you can't, in fact, prove your position without resorting to your assumption that the rules must be read in a limiting, permissive way?
I wasn't making an argument at all or conceding anything. I was encouraging Anguish to stop participating in a discussion with people who's argument boils down to "I can ignore whatever rules I want". Ahh, the old "I'm not giving up, I'm taking my ball and going home" defense. Classic.
For the record, the only "rules" I'm "ignoring" are the ones in your head. I did not say that giving up was a defense or an argument. I said it was useless to argue with those who simply say that you can ignore the rules.
As for the only rules being ignored being in my head. I specifically stated your argument as ignoring the rules for long spears because you didn't like them and using rules for something entirely different and you said, and I quote, "Yes, that is my argument in a nutshell." So a little late to change your tune now. And the rule that says I have to use the long spear rules while using an improvised weapon attack exist only in your head. I mean, if you want me conceded that I'm also ignoring the infield fly rule in baseball, fine. I hereby conceed that in a literal sense I am ignoring many real rules because they are irrelevant. You and anguish have still failed to prove I must use the rule you keep pointing to ergo, the only rule I'm breaking that you feel is relevant is one that appears nowhere in the text.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote:
Are you attacking? Is the item you are attacking with a longspear? Yes and yes.
Yes, and then actually no. I'm not attacking with a longspear. I'm attacking with an improvised weapon. Sometimes that improvised weapon is a longspear. Sometimes it's not. Point to a rule that I am breaking with that interpretation. Spoiler - you CAN'T. All you can do is fall back on "But I always assumed you couldn't do that, nothing suggests you can do that, and I feel for <reasons> you shouldn't do that". All well and good. None of those are rules. You have already failed the test I set out. Nothing you said here PROVES RAW that they are the same.
Anguish wrote:
It isn't important what you want to use a longspear as. It's a longspear. If you want to use a longspear as something that isn't a longspear, the rules are - in theory - okay with that... as long as you don't violate existing rules. Want to use a longspear to try to trigger a trap from 10ft away? The rules don't say you can't do that, so go ahead. Want to use a longspear as part of a travois to drag a body back to town? The rules don't say you can't do that, so go ahead. Want to use a longspear as X so you can Y? As long as X isn't "not a longspear" and Y isn't "attack an adjacent target", I think you're probably almost universally in the green.
It's just that pesky little line you're crossing. The one that says you can't bloody do that particular X and Y combination.
Okay, so, if I pick up a heavy stick, can I use it as a weapon? You will say "of course, improvised club, duh!". Problem is, since you just added a new rule (that you made up) that I have to continue to apply any relevant rules governing the item in question when I use it in a non-standard way, I actually can't. See, sure, the improvised weapon rule lets me do it, but wait! There are no rules for "heavy stick", though, and you don't want me making things up outside the rules. So, it's not a weapon, but I want to use it as an improvised weapon, but I can't use it as a weapon, but that means I can improvise it, but I still have to follow the rules that it's not a weapon error divide by zero. Alternately, I could just use the improvised weapon rules, which don't allow the item to have reach, and thus lose the ability to make improvised reach attacks, but "gain" the ability to attack adjacent targets. Your rule, in other words, fails my test (because the idea that specific item rules still apply when used in an improvised fashion is something you made up) AND are actively bad for the game, because in a literal sense you just arguably broke the ability to use anything as an improvised weapon. My interpretation, on the other had, seems to resolve the paradox nicely - I'm not breaking the rules for the longspear because I'm using the rules for the situation at hand - improvised weapons - which don't include reach, so it's not a reach weapon when used that way. Heck, I'll even throw in they idea that I interpret "specific trumps general" in this case to mean "specific improvised weapon rules trump general reach rules".
Edit for better example of problems- 8 foot rod of Mithril. According to the specific rules for Mithril, I cannot use it for a weapon like a quarterstaff. Thus, if I attempt to use that heavy length of roughly forged metal as an improvised club or staff, the world breaks, unless I can ignore the Mithril material rules when using an improvised weapon. And if I can ignore those rules...
Anguish wrote:
Right. There you go. There's a rule that says you can't attack adjacent targets with a reach weapon, but you want to use rules that literally don't exist in order to OVERRIDE the rule that says you're not allowed to do it.
You know what? This is a fun game. Let's play it.
My wizard doesn't need 8 hours of sleep to recover spell slots anymore. He closes his eyes and says "18 pages" under his breath and... poof. He gets his spells back. Why? Because I'm using the monster advancement rules to apply a CR+0 template that lets him do that....
Oh, Hurray! You did decide to trot this out after all. Here's the answer:
Part one - False equivalency. Following the rules for improvised weapons because there are no rules for improvised MANUFACTURED weapon attacks is not, actually, the same thing at all as rewriting the core class features.
Part two - Yes, you are certainly allowed to ask your GM and the other players to allow you to do that. If your table agrees that it sounds fun, and is cool, then why is allowing you to do that bad? Why should we all cower in fear of some random table somewhere maybe doing something we don't like, and thus seek to make the rules immune to wrongbadfun?
Part three - Yes, sometimes groups will NOT be able to decide amicably what should and should not be allowed. This is NOT a problem that Paizo should solve by issuing a ruling from up on high so that one side can say "See, told you!" and then force the other side to capitulate. This is, rather, an interpersonal problem that should be solved by communication between players. If it truly is intractable, and the group cannot move past it, the group is probably not a viable long term group anyway.
Part four - Yes, some will suggest that allowing players freedom to suggest changes or adjustments to the rules will engender conflict. I disagree. My experience has been the issues that cause the most conflict are those where the RAW are unclear, as both sides seek to fight over the which interpretation is "legitimate" RAW. In the cases where RAW were clear one way or another, my players generally don't care so much about changing them as we see fit. Ultimately, if you realize that you're comfortable changing RAW to suit your game anyway (which almost everyone is), then it literally doesn't matter what the RAW "actually" are when the rules are unclear. In fact, it allows you to simply say "Well, the rules are unclear as written, so I suggest..." and move on. It's only when you insist on finding the "right" interpretation (even when no such interpretation actually exists), that games break down, in my experience.
So yeah, no, you've done an admirable job of proving that you really like your interpretation, and you've done a bang-up job of proving that your interpretation is valid. You still haven't proven that it's the only valid way to read the RAW, just that it's the way you prefer.
As for the rest of your post, it's decidedly off-topic. If you want to go make a thread about why you think RAW are important, I'm happy to engage you there, but I think we're done here.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Yes, and then actually no. I'm not attacking with a longspear. I'm attacking with an improvised weapon. Sometimes that improvised weapon is a longspear. Sometimes it's not. Point to a rule that I am breaking with that interpretation. Spoiler - you CAN'T. All you can do is fall back on "But I always assumed you couldn't do that, nothing suggests you can do that, and I feel for <reasons> you shouldn't do that". All well and good. None of those are rules. You have already failed the test I set out. Nothing you said here PROVES RAW that they are the same.
Since the rules define what a long spear is yes we can show you are breaking a rule by claiming your long spear can cease to be a long spear whenever you will it. You don't get to say when the object stops being what the rules define it as being.
Do you know why there are no rules for improvised manufactured weapon attacks? Because there is no such thing. I can find a rule that tells me what an improvised weapon is and I can find a rule that tells me what a manufactured weapon is. When I look at a long spear guess which category the rules tell me it is in? Oh it says it is a manufactured weapon. You are claiming you can make up a category other than the ones defined by the rules and them move objects already defined into that category.
You know very well the rules do not explicitly list everything that does NOT exist in the game. For example, the rules don't say that there are no Humans with tails. The rules do, however, define Humans and that definition does not include tails thus the rules exclude a Human having a tail. I can produce a Dev ruling by Stephen Radney-MacFarland stating that. Not a house rule but a designers ruling on how the game works.
Your stick argument is a false analogy because the rules don't define what a stick is but they do define a long spear. Furthermore, no one is arguing "I just assumed you couldn't do that" or "I feel you shouldn't do that" so that is just a straw man.
We have quoted the rules for a long spear. We have quoted rules for improvised weapons. You have merely said you get ignore those rules when it suits you. That is your claim. That the rules don't tell you you have to follow the rules and therefore you don't.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote: Since the rules define what a long spear is yes we can show you are breaking a rule by claiming your long spear can cease to be a long spear whenever you will it. You don't get to say when the object stops being what the rules define it as being.
I'm not saying the object literally transforms, I'm saying there is no reason to suspect that the rules for using a long spear as a long spear still apply when I'm using a long spear as <not a long spear>. You still can't point to a line anywhere in the rules that says that such an interpretation is incorrect, you just keep repeating that you believe it to be so. Good for you. Rule that way in your home game - that's RAW for you. I will do otherwise, and that's RAW too.
Your primary problem here is that you are arguing in favor of a position that is demonstrably false - you are asserting that the rules can (and MUST) mean one and only one thing. I'm pointing out that isn't true. I'm not saying you have to agree with my interpretation, I'm saying you don't get to say my interpretation is objectively wrong. The best you can do is shrug, say you disagree, and play it differently in YOUR GAME. That's it.
PatientWolf wrote:
Do you know why there are no rules for improvised manufactured weapon attacks? Because there is no such thing. I can find a rule that tells me what an improvised weapon is and I can find a rule that tells me what a manufactured weapon is. When I look at a long spear guess which category the rules tell me it is in? Oh it says it is a manufactured weapon. You are claiming you can make up a category other than the ones defined by the rules and them move objects already defined into that category.
This is all assumptions. You keep falling back on "the rules don't say you can" as the core of your argument. Until you can move past that, all you are doing is explaining why you like your interpretation for your game. Thing is, I'm not challenging that, at all. I'm not saying you are wrong to play it that way. I'm saying you are wrong for trying to convince me that I'm either playing it wrong, or not playing it RAW, because the RAW don't mean only one thing.
PatientWolf wrote:
You know very well the rules do not explicitly list everything that does NOT exist in the game. For example, the rules don't say that there are no Humans with tails. The rules do, however, define Humans and that definition does not include tails thus the rules exclude a Human having a tail. I can produce a Dev ruling by Stephen Radney-MacFarland stating that. Not a house rule but a designers ruling on how the game works.
We've been over this already - that ruling was factually incorrect in at least two different ways, was unnecessary, and ultimately irrelevant. At best its value is letting you know what the design intent of the rules were, but I don't care about that at all. I care about what makes sense for the game I'm playing at my table, because that's the better way to play the game, and because that's what the RAW expressly tell me to do.
In other words, you assume that dev rulings matter, (or that they should matter) and I don't automatically agree with that. If the rules are unclear, and allow multiple interpretations, that's fine - maybe there is no one correct RAW interpretation in the first place, so we're all free to do whatever, regardless of what the devs intended.
PatientWolf wrote:
Your stick argument is a false analogy because the rules don't define what a stick is but they do define a long spear. Furthermore, no one is arguing "I just assumed you couldn't do that" or "I feel you shouldn't do that" so that is just a straw man.
Not a straw man at all - literally your entire argument is predicated on your dual assumptions that the rules are permissive in nature, and that only one reading of the text of the rules is possible. Once those assumptions go away, the foundation crumbles. All you have been doing, in every post, is reiterating an argument that was dead on arrival. RAW does not have a single, absolute meaning, nor is it a strictly limited and permissive rules set. You cannot possibly prove otherwise, so your argument falls to "I don't like it, so I don't want to play that way". To quote the Professor: "Good news!" You don't have to, because RAW doesn't mean JUST my way, or JUST your way. It means both. Take your pick and enjoy.
PatientWolf wrote:
We have quoted the rules for a long spear. We have quoted rules for improvised weapons. You have merely said you get ignore those rules when it suits you. That is your claim. That the rules don't tell you you have to follow the rules and therefore you don't.
For the last time, I'm merely saying you are free to ignore rules that don't apply to the situation at hand. Attacking with an improvised weapon is not the same thing as attacking with a long spear, even if the improvised weapon is also a long spear.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: We've been over this already - that ruling was factually incorrect in at least two different ways, was unnecessary, and ultimately irrelevant. At best its value is letting you know what the design intent of the rules were, but I don't care about that at all. I care about what makes sense for the game I'm playing at my table, because that's the better way to play the game, and because that's what the RAW expressly tell me to do.
In other words, you assume that dev rulings matter, (or that they should matter) and I don't automatically agree with that. If the rules are unclear, and allow multiple interpretations, that's fine - maybe there is no one correct RAW interpretation in the first place, so we're all free to do whatever, regardless of what the devs intended.
Oh, I did not realize you were the one that had argued that Dev rulings don't matter or I would not have been bothering with you at all. That is the single most idiotic position ever posted on these boards (Please note I am not calling you an idiot I am describing the argument not the person).
BTW, no one is arguing you can't play however you want at your table as you seem to be implying. That is called a house rule. Some of us, however, believe that house rules affect game balance and in order to preserve that balance we like to stick as closely to the actually written rules as possible in our games. Some of us also play PFS where there is definitely not the freedom to just change the rules. So if you are only arguing on whether non-organized play home game can make their own rules. We all agree they can. That is not what this thread is discussing. It is discussing what the actual rules are and the Devs set the rules.
The balance arguement is crap. It has already been demonstrated several times that the same effect can be achieved, and be mechanically better without using the long spear to hit the guy next to you.
PatientWolf wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: We've been over this already - that ruling was factually incorrect in at least two different ways, was unnecessary, and ultimately irrelevant. At best its value is letting you know what the design intent of the rules were, but I don't care about that at all. I care about what makes sense for the game I'm playing at my table, because that's the better way to play the game, and because that's what the RAW expressly tell me to do.
In other words, you assume that dev rulings matter, (or that they should matter) and I don't automatically agree with that. If the rules are unclear, and allow multiple interpretations, that's fine - maybe there is no one correct RAW interpretation in the first place, so we're all free to do whatever, regardless of what the devs intended.
Oh, I did not realize you were the one that had argued that Dev rulings don't matter or I would not have been bothering with you at all. That is the single most idiotic position ever posted on these boards (Please note I am not calling you an idiot I am describing the argument not the person).
BTW, no one is arguing you can't play however you want at your table as you seem to be implying. That is called a house rule. Some of us, however, believe that house rules affect game balance and in order to preserve that balance we like to stick as closely to the actually written rules as possible in our games. Some of us also play PFS where there is definitely not the freedom to just change the rules. So if you are only arguing on whether non-organized play home game can make their own rules. We all agree they can. That is not what this thread is discussing. It is discussing what the actual rules are and the Devs set the rules.
... But for your interpretation of the rules you have to rely strongly on things not in the rules as well. So ...
BigDTBone wrote: The balance arguement is crap. It has already been demonstrated several times that the same effect can be achieved, and be mechanically better without using the long spear to hit the guy next to you. I wasn't making that as an argument for the long spear reach issue if you had bothered reading what I posted. That was in response to MrT's claim that Dev rulings don't matter, ever. I was pointing out that for those of us who for whatever reason like to stick as closely as possible to the actual rules, or at least their intent, Dev rulings do matter and that to argue that they don't in a rules forum is just ridiculous.
RDM42 wrote:
... But for your interpretation of the rules you have to rely strongly on things not in the rules as well. So ...
See you keep doing things like this. You assert that I rely on things not in the rules but you never bother quoting anything showing that is the case. Please if you are going to accuse me of something provide proof.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote:
Oh, I did not realize you were the one that had argued that Dev rulings don't matter or I would not have been bothering with you at all. That is the single most idiotic position ever posted on these boards (Please note I am not calling you an idiot I am describing the argument not the person).
Since it's so obvious to you that dev rulings are important, please go ahead and explain why my argument is "idiotic". I'm willing to bet that what you are saying here is code for "I can't articulate why your position is wrong, but I feel so strongly that it is that I will reject it out of hand, rather than stop to evaluate the possibility that there really is no need for them".
Or, put another way, I feel like the best argument you will have in favor of dev rulings is "they settle arguments like this one", but that still presupposes the existence of one "right" way to play, a position which I roundly (and correctly) reject.
PatientWolf wrote:
BTW, no one is arguing you can't play however you want at your table as you seem to be implying. That is called a house rule. Some of us, however, believe that house rules affect game balance and in order to preserve that balance we like to stick as closely to the actually written rules as possible in our games. Some of us also play PFS where there is definitely not the freedom to just change the rules. So if you are only arguing on whether non-organized play home game can make their own rules. We all agree they can. That is not what this thread is discussing. It is discussing what the actual rules are and the Devs set the rules.
First, if you are concerned about PFS, I've said repeatedly you should go discuss what PFS rulings are in the PFS boards. PFS !=RAW, so stop trying to conflate the two.
Second, an apt translation of what you are saying is "Nobody is saying you can't play however you want, we are merely saying if you play that way, you are breaking the game." If you actually meant "you can play however you want", then you would actually agree with me that RAW doesn't have to answer every question, and that GMs should feel free to rule however they see fit on this issue, because the RAW isn't clear.
You obviously DON'T agree with that, because for all your protestations that you aren't trying to be the fun police, you come right back here and insist that only one reading of the rules can be permitted to stand, that proper, "balanced" play requires a conservative, permissive reading of the rules, and react with incredulity when someone points out that if it's true that we are free to do whatever we want, then dev rulings aren't really necessary to determine "right" play.
Here's the thing: I truly am not saying you are playing it wrong. I truly have no beef with your interpretation, if that's how you want to play. My ONLY beef is the intellectual dishonesty of you asserting that you aren't trying to regulate other people's games, while at the same time asserting that your way is objectively "right" based on what are provably simply your assumed preferences for how the game is best played. I don't give a fig about balance, but that doesn't mean I'm playing "wrong", or against the RAW. We are both still playing Pathfinder. We are both still playing RAW. We just disagree about how we approach the game, and that's fine.
Put bluntly, what I want here is not for you to admit that your interpretation of the RAW is "wrong", and mine is "right", all I want is for you to realize that either is fine, even if you don't like it, because you will never play at my table, and I will never play at yours. There is no need to establish a "norm" against which all variations can be judged. The fact that you keep pushing for a norm doesn't mean that it has value, it just means that you are uncomfortable with accepting the notion that people can play Pathfinder in different ways, and still be playing "correctly". That is what I am critiquing.
If you feel strongly for the need for a particular norm, that's fine - establish it for your own table, in your own home. Nobody has yet produced a convincing argument why we should all accede to your desire to establish a putative norm for the game as a whole, especially given your avowed position that we are free to disregard that norm in our home games anyway. If not following the norm is okay, then why does it matter what the norm is in the first place? My considered position is that on balance, the propensity for such norms to squelch creative play and foster conflict by holding up one style of play as "normal" vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefits they might bring. Can you truly say you have considered that position before, or have you merely relied on an instinctive (read "assumed") sense of the importance of Rules, without really examining why you feel that way?
PatientWolf wrote: RDM42 wrote:
... But for your interpretation of the rules you have to rely strongly on things not in the rules as well. So ...
See you keep doing things like this. You assert that I rely on things not in the rules but you never bother quoting anything showing that is the case. Please if you are going to accuse me of something provide proof. I don't put it in the new posts because all you have to do is read the thread. Pretending the rest of it doesn't exist doesn't eliminate it.
|
Design Manager
