| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
... But for your interpretation of the rules you have to rely strongly on things not in the rules as well. So ...
Translation- My imaginary restrictions may only be refuted with printed text! If you are going to mess with my reality it must be with something written down. It's tottally reasonable (and in no way egocentric) to expect that my dilusions are accounted for in the rules. Otherwise my dilusions are RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".
I explained in my previous post why that reasoning is idiotic. This is a rules forum to determine the official rules of the game. Who sets the official rules for the game? Oh, that would be the developers! The FAQ, errata, etc... are all Dev rulings. In fact the very text of the rule books themselves are Dev rulings on how things work. The reason I come here is so that I can find out exactly how the devs designed the game to function and, sometimes, their reasoning so that I can make an informed decision in my own game whether or not I want to deviate from that.
You say if I want to discuss PFS go to the PFS boards. However, there is also a House Rules board and I could say if you want to discuss house rules go there.
|
|
Translation- My imaginary restrictions may only be refuted with printed text! If you are going to mess with my reality it must be with something written down. It's tottally reasonable (and in no way egocentric) to expect that my dilusions are accounted for in the rules. Otherwise my dilusions are RAW.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.
... But for your interpretation of the rules you have to rely strongly on things not in the rules as well. So ...
Translation: "If we accuse you of something you are guilty! How dare you demand we show proof you did what we claimed you did! It is totally reasonable for us to be able attribute any position to you we want regardless of what your actual arguments are"
|
*loads of stuff which boil down to, 'You don't have to follow the rules if you don't want to!'*
I agree. There are many rules that I choose not to follow, some rules I make up (like 'falling asleep'!), and there are probably some I don't know about.
When I choose not to follow a rule, I don't think that my game is worse than those who do follow that rule; quite the opposite! I'm changing it because I think the change I'm making makes for a better game!
For example, reach weapons also threaten the diagonals in my game. The 'light spells versus darkness spells' problem in my games goes away because I rule that where their areas intersect then the lower level spell has no affect; if they are the same level then neither has an effect. These are my houserules, and this is true whether I call them that or not.
There are others, and I fully expect each game in the world to have their own houserules. We each have every right to have such rules.
Even PFS has, written, houserules. 'No item creation feats' is one.
So I'm not saying that houserules are bad. I'm saying that houserules....are houserules! Therefore, by definition, not RAW.
When I make a houserule, I like to know what the RAW is, so I know whether making a different rule is a good idea or not. If I'm not sure what a particular rule is, or if it is asserted that the rule that I think works one way actually works another way, then I can go to the rules thread and ask, 'What does the RAW say?'
There, different opinions and evidence is laid out for all to see, and in the ensuing debate we see the situation more clearly. All this debate is very valuable.
What is not valuable is the repeated chorus of, 'You don't have to follow the rules if you don't want to!', in the rules thread!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you are the one who made the claim of guilt. I say that I can use the improvised weapons rules with a longspear. You say no way. I say demonstrate to me why that is not permissible. You haven't.
And the reasons you give for not doing it are made up. Completely truthfully, do you expect that the things you completely make up will have counter points in the rules text?
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.
Re-read the thread if you wish to see the "nth" many times I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt my position is accurate.
Dont bother, I'll sum up, make it easy on ya.
1) Weapons are composed of objects. (e.g. Boarding pike = Pole + Point)
1) Objects can be improvised with. (e.g. Using a Pole as an Improvised Weapon)
2) Ergo, with complete RAW support, you can improvise with weapons.
Also, JJ said you could.
Aka... Case closed. 1+1 does in fact equal 2 here.
Sure, it's not the cut and dry RAW you would like, but the RAW is there if you're looking for it.
Again, whats the big deal. It's a terrible option nobody would use in their game if they were concerned about anything optimal. Armor Spikes or Gauntlets are the superior option here.
|
|
Actually, you are the one who made the claim of guilt. I say that I can use the improvised weapons rules with a longspear. You say no way. I say demonstrate to me why that is not permissible. You haven't.
And the reasons you give for not doing it are made up. Completely truthfully, do you expect that the things you completely make up will have counter points in the rules text?
RDM said I was making a lot of arguments based on things not in the rules. That is an accusation. I demanded that he back that up by showing proof that I had done that and you made your snarky translation comment.
Don't attribute an argument to me that I have not made and then tell me it is unreasonable for me to demand that you show where I have made that argument.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
to the OP: IMO if you're using a weapon you are not using an improvised weapon; therefore you must abide by the weapon restrictions.
Situation 1: if you fire an arrow at someone, you are firing an arrow not an improvised ranged weapon
Situation 2: if a longspear is a long relatively weak stick designed to stab people 10 ft away, it is not effectively damaging at close range (Spartan-style feats excluded of course)
Therefore, if using a weapon, you must use it as intended. There are rules governing weapon familiarity and such things such as one-handed vs. two-handed, etc.
Honestly, if you're looking at close range options, take feats that allow reach weapon use within 5 feet or carry armor spikes, boot blades, spiked shield, etc. Or just punch people if they get too close! :)
|
|
Actually, you are the one who made the claim of guilt. I say that I can use the improvised weapons rules with a longspear. You say no way. I say demonstrate to me why that is not permissible. You haven't.
And the reasons you give for not doing it are made up. Completely truthfully, do you expect that the things you completely make up will have counter points in the rules text?
The rules for combat, and how weapons are used in combat, are not 'made up' by us in this debate; they are in the CRB.
The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRB.
On this side of the debate, we cite the rules in the CRB. Against that, all we have is:-
* we know that the improvised weapons rule says it's for non-weapons, but it doesn't say it isn't for weapons...so it is!
So, it's quoted rules, versus pretending those rules don't exist just so you can say that because the rules are silent you can make up what you want.
The rules seem silent to you because you ignore the ones that you don't like.
Since this thread is about what the rules actually are, then arguments which ignore the rules carry no weight at all.
|
|
to the OP: IMO if you're using a weapon you are not using an improvised weapon; therefore you must abide by the weapon restrictions.
Situation 1: if you fire an arrow at someone, you are firing an arrow not an improvised ranged weapon
Situation 2: if a longspear is a long relatively weak stick designed to stab people 10 ft away, it is not effectively damaging at close range (Spartan-style feats excluded of course)
Therefore, if using a weapon, you must use it as intended. There are rules governing weapon familiarity and such things such as one-handed vs. two-handed, etc.
Honestly, if you're looking at close range options, take feats that allow reach weapon use within 5 feet or carry armor spikes, boot blades, spiked shield, etc. Or just punch people if they get too close! :)
Thank you. : )
|
|
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.
Re-read the thread if you wish to see the "nth" many times I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt my position is accurate.
Dont bother, I'll sum up, make it easy on ya.
1) Weapons are composed of objects. (e.g. Boarding pike = Pole + Point)
1) Objects can be improvised with. (e.g. Using a Pole as an Improvised Weapon)
2) Ergo, with complete RAW support, you can improvise with weapons.
Also, JJ said you could.Aka... Case closed. 1+1 does in fact equal 2 here.
Sure, it's not the cut and dry RAW you would like, but the RAW is there if you're looking for it.
Again, whats the big deal. It's a terrible option nobody would use in their game if they were concerned about anything optimal. Armor Spikes or Gauntlets are the superior option here.
1) I repeatedly refuted that claim by showing that except in special situations the rules treat weapons as single objects (I have given evidence for this multiple times in previous posts so you can review that evidence there)
2) I have pointed you that only objects not intended as weapons can be improvised with and that even the spears haft is intended as a weapon.
3) Ergo your conclusion is not supported by your premises.
Furthermore, JJ did not say "Yes, you can". He said "I guess, technically" which does not equal "Yes, you can". His statement was very inconclusive in that he followed "I guess, technically" with statements that it shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
to the OP: IMO if you're using a weapon you are not using an improvised weapon; therefore you must abide by the weapon restrictions.
Situation 1: if you fire an arrow at someone, you are firing an arrow not an improvised ranged weapon
Situation 2: if a longspear is a long relatively weak stick designed to stab people 10 ft away, it is not effectively damaging at close range (Spartan-style feats excluded of course)
Therefore, if using a weapon, you must use it as intended. There are rules governing weapon familiarity and such things such as one-handed vs. two-handed, etc.
Honestly, if you're looking at close range options, take feats that allow reach weapon use within 5 feet or carry armor spikes, boot blades, spiked shield, etc. Or just punch people if they get too close! :)
Exactly correct.
|
|
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.
Re-read the thread if you wish to see the "nth" many times I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt my position is accurate.
Dont bother, I'll sum up, make it easy on ya.
1) Weapons are composed of objects. (e.g. Boarding pike = Pole + Point)
According to the rules, weapons are weapons, and the rules for their use are among the most strictly defines rules in the game. At no point do the rules permit the user to ignore the rules for using the weapon he is using, or pretend that it isn't a weapon at all while attacking with it!
1) Objects can be improvised with. (e.g. Using a Pole as an Improvised Weapon)
Well, non-weapon objects can be improvised with.
2) Ergo, with complete RAW support, you can improvise with weapons.
If both premises are flawed, it comes as no surprise that the conclusion reached is also flawed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRB
Actually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
|
|
The problem is with you assuming the rules say that using the haft of the spear is an intended weapon use instead of an improvised use ... Which we are STILL waiting for you to show any rules for. Where is the rule that says you can't use a weapon in other than the manner in which it is intended?Actually, you are the one who made the claim of guilt. I say that I can use the improvised weapons rules with a longspear. You say no way. I say demonstrate to me why that is not permissible. You haven't.
And the reasons you give for not doing it are made up. Completely truthfully, do you expect that the things you completely make up will have counter points in the rules text?
The rules for combat, and how weapons are used in combat, are not 'made up' by us in this debate; they are in the CRB.
The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRB.
On this side of the debate, we cite the rules in the CRB. Against that, all we have is:-
* we know that the improvised weapons rule says it's for non-weapons, but it doesn't say it isn't for weapons...so it is!
So, it's quoted rules, versus pretending those rules don't exist just so you can say that because the rules are silent you can make up what you want.
The rules seem silent to you because you ignore the ones that you don't like.
Since this thread is about what the rules actually are, then arguments which ignore the rules carry no weight at all.
Thank you! At last!
The rule you're looking for is the rule which says you can use a weapon in other than the manner in which it is intended. Such a rule does not exist! If it did, this debate would've ended on page one!
Without such a rule, all you have left are the rules which do exist, and those rules tell you how to adjudicate attacks with a longspear.
|
|
The problem is that point two is not supported by rules. It's an assumption YOU make.
Nope, it is explicitly stated in the improvised weapon rules. Those rules state explicitly what kind of objects they work with. Since they state explicitly what type of objects they work with that excludes all other forms of weapons.
Just like Enlarge Person says "This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature". This means it can't be used on an Outsider because humanoid creature is specified.
So when the improvised weapon rule says "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it" So these rules state they are explicitly for use with objects not designed for use in combat.
That's right. I don't.The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRBActually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
Because it is convenient for you to ignore RAW in a conversation which you have insisted be only about RAW. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.
|
|
Because it is convenient for you to ignore RAW in a conversation which you have insisted be only about RAW. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.That's right. I don't.The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRBActually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
Because the rules themselves don't acknowledge a difference.
Malachi, can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons?
|
|
A spear haft was not crafted to cause damage. The spear point attached to the end of the spear haft used in a stabbing motion was.
The problem is that point two is not supported by rules. It's an assumption YOU make.Nope, it is explicitly stated in the improvised weapon rules. Those rules state explicitly what kind of objects they work with. Since they state explicitly what type of objects they work with that excludes all other forms of weapons.
Just like Enlarge Person says "This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature". This means it can't be used on an Outsider because humanoid creature is specified.
So when the improvised weapon rule says "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it" So these rules state they are explicitly for use with objects not designed for use in combat.
Ah, the Sheepshagger Defence.
Whatever you call a longspear, it remains what it is: a longspear.
If you use any part of it to attack, you have used the longspear to attack, in the rules and conceptually.
|
|
They don't say there isn't one either; they just don't say.Because the rules themselves don't acknowledge a difference.Because it is convenient for you to ignore RAW in a conversation which you have insisted be only about RAW. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.That's right. I don't.The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRBActually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
And therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, there is no difference.
|
|
No, actually, you didn't explain it there, or even really here. You did repeat your personal opinion that the devs should be considered the authority, but you still haven't provided an affirmative reason why that is so, beyond your assumption that "they wrote the rules" formulates a cogent normative claim. It doesn't. Consider, for example, that the rules are demonstrably incomplete, unclear, or unbalanced. Isn't that pretty solid evidence that the devs don't automatically have a superior claim to total rules knowledge, and that they are not infallible with regards to balance?
Even as you claim my argument was entirely based on personal opinion you make an entire post that is nothing but your personal opinion. You didn't answer my arguments you just dismissed them. If you don't feel the need to consult a rules forum and think there are better ways at determining the rules or what is right or wrong for your game then don't come here. Don't come and preach that you don't like the boards and think it is a bad thing to be constantly seeking official answers. If you don't like it then don't do it but don't try to tell others that it isn't ok for them to do so.
So if you don't want to follow the rules or accept what the devs say then fine but leave the rest of us in peace to debate the topic and determine the official rules.
They don't say there isn't one either; they just don't say.Because the rules themselves don't acknowledge a difference.Because it is convenient for you to ignore RAW in a conversation which you have insisted be only about RAW. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.That's right. I don't.The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRBActually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
Aaaaaaand we're full circle back to the "the rules don't specify that I can't so obviously I can" argument. Quick someone mention that a wizard can now rage because the rules don't say they can't! That is a novel argument that we haven't heard before >.>
Do any of you feel like you're spinning your wheels here? Maybe like you are repeating yourselves over and over again? The lines have been drawn in the sand. It's pretty clear where everyone stands. I threw the towel in 10 pages ago because it's also pretty clear that no one is changing anyone's mind. Now if only I could stop revisiting this thread, I might get some work done.
And therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, there is no difference.They don't say there isn't one either; they just don't say.Because the rules themselves don't acknowledge a difference.Because it is convenient for you to ignore RAW in a conversation which you have insisted be only about RAW. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.That's right. I don't.The rules for using objects that are not weapons are not made up, they are in the CRBActually, The CRB has rules for objects not crafted to be weapons. However, that is a distinction you also refuse to acknowledge.
This is exactly my point. They are not different, but they are distinct. The rules don't need them to be different in order to separate them with a distinction.
|
|
But it is a good name for you assuming as a rule something which is not in the rules.Claiming things as house rules does not make them so. That is faulty reasoning and intellectually dishonest.
If you want to use that as your house rule, that's cool.
I will tell you once again that you need to stop accusing me of things without proof. You have yet to show that I have assumed something that is not in the rules. So please, stop making the accusation until you can back it up with evidence.
|
|
Malachi, can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons?
I can do better than that: Venn diagrams!
(although the limits of the text medium apply...)
There is one large circle. This is the set of 'all objects'.
Completely within it as a smaller circle, the set of 'all objects crafted to be weapons'.
Therefore, everything in the large circle that is not in the small circle is the set 'all objects not crafted to be weapons'.
The game rules define how the objects in the small circle interact with the combat rules. The game focusses on these.
The only way for objects in the 'non-weapon' set to interact with the combat rules is by use of the improvised weapons rule.
The game defines 'weapons' by giving them combat stats. If it has combat stats for the way it is being used (melee/thrown/projectile/ammunition) then it's a weapon according to the rules.
The improvised weapon rule applies to anything in the large circle that is not in the small circle. Not surprising, since those in the small circle already have the combat stats that the improvised weapon rule supplies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you use an actually comparable example instead of a weird and intentionally absurd one?
Do you even bother reading the posts before you respond? born_of_fire was actually mocking the wizard raging argument not making it himself. If you can't even get that context it is no wonder you are having trouble with PF rules.
|
|
I'm speaking up against what I see as an unproductive practice...Unproductive practice???
How many hours have you spent typing posts which boil down to 'You guys are wrong for wanting to know what the rules are, because you can ignore any that you don't like'?
Not many, and given that I consider teaching people to question their baseline assumptions to be a productive practice, I refute your implied assertion that I'm wasting my time, or your time. If reading my posts has caused you, for even a moment, to reflect on the possibility that your viewpoint is not the only "right" one, nor necessarily the "best" one, then my time has been well spent.
Actually, regardless, the time I've spent considering my position, questioning my own assumptions, and refining my stance was already worthwhile, to me, so in any case, it was time well spent, even if you didn't profit from it at all.
Thanks for your concern that I was wasting my time, though.
I don't mind you wasting your time, I mind you wasting mine!
When I ask, 'What does the RAW say on this?', the answer 'You can ignore the rules if you want!' is a waste of my time. I already know that, and I want my question answered anyway.