|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You fail at logic that badly? He is obviously trying to aay that the two arguments are similarly ridiculous and unsupported - where they are very different types of arguments.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.
Why don't you use an actually comparable example instead of a weird and intentionally absurd one?
How is, 'The rules don't say you can't, therefore you can!' a different argument when applied to class abilities than when applied to the combat rules?
|
You fail at logic that badly? He is obviously trying to aay that the two arguments are similarly ridiculous and unsupported - where they are very different types of arguments.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.
Why don't you use an actually comparable example instead of a weird and intentionally absurd one?
He never made any claim of similarity between the arguments. He was just pointing out that ridiculous arguments are made on both sides period. It has become so clear what your problem is understanding the rules. I totally get it now.
|
|
And again, I'm not being a jerk, or a troll, or whatever, by pointing out, in the rules forum, that the implied project of many people in the rules forum may not be as automatically worthwhile or valuable as they assume. That's not being rude, that's presenting an alternate viewpoint that you are free to agree with or not, but one that I think has merit, regardless of how uncomfortable you are with having your assumptions challenged.
Whatever 'merit' this may have elsewhere, it has zero merit in the rules thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you follow your version of 'the rules don't explicitly say you can, therefore you can't, you would need a set of rules the suze if the library of congress to have a functional ruleset.
That is a straw man. We are not arguing that unless the rules explicitly say you can you can't. There are indeed many things the rules do not address. What we are arguing is that when the rules explicitly address how something is done that excludes everything else.
I have used the example before of Humans not having tails. The rules do not say Humans can't have tails. However, the rules do define explicitly what features a human does have and since that definition doesn't include a tail Humans can't have one. This concept is not just an assumption it has been verified by dev rulings.
So based upon that concept. The rules explicitly define an improvised weapon as being an object not designed to be a weapon. That excludes any object that IS designed to be a weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever 'merit' this may have elsewhere, it has zero merit in the rules thread.Why does it have no merit, beyond the fact that it subverts your expectations for what a "proper" rules discussion is? Again, the fact that you don't like how I'm constructing my argument doesn't make me wrong, nor does the fact that I'm operating outside of your assumed approach make me rude.
Actually, you know what, don't bother responding, because I'm frankly done with the part of the discussion where I prove that I have a right to voice my opinion, and that my opinion is germane to this discussion.
Because we are trying to have a rules discussion and you are trying to have a pseudo-philosophical debate on whether we should care what the rules are.
We aren't discussing the merits of determining the rules. If you want to have that discussion open a thread and let those who want to discuss it post there. Whether or not we should care about the rules isn't the topic of this threat. What the rules are about using a long spear as an improvised weapon is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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)
Again, Pathfinder does not have a definition for object, therefore, you must abide by dictionary definition. A weapon is an object, composed of objects. Your position is untenable.
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.
Separate the haft from the tip and your position falls apart. The haft of a spear is not intended to be a weapon.
3) Ergo your conclusion is not supported by your premises.
Wrong. It most certainly is supported by the 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.
In what universe does "I guess, technically you could" not mean yes you can?
When I say: "Technically, you could, but the concept makes me nervous."
That means, unequivocally, "Per the rules, it's allowed, but I'm not sure I like it."
---
I would like to say that nothing short of a dev response would convince you, but obviously not. Which is why I should have just heeded my own advice and let the thread die. Unfortunately, I love train-wrecks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi, can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons?
Oh! a cool question:
1. A bar stool
2. A beer mug (glass)
3. A beer mug (steel)
4. A beer mug (clay)
5. A beer mug (wood)
6. A beer mug (longspear shaped)
(I think one of the above answers is wrong.....)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the only point I was making is that it's been a good 300 posts since anyone contributed anything new to this discussion. You guys are all turning circles and rehashing the same points in a fairly predictable manner. Before anyone goes claiming my amusement? disdain? masochistic urge to see what's up in this thread? for their side, all you need to do is look at whose posts I have been liking throughout this argument to see who I agree with. (Hint: it's Malachi, Anguish, Patientwolf et. al)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New Plan. Tie a quarterstaff to your longspear... problem solved.. and no improvised penalty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, there's no point in my saying anything on-topic at the moment but something interesting occurred to me...
967 posts and nobody got needlessly insulting. No moderators were required to step in and delete swaths of posts. No jerk reminders. Nothing but civilized disagreement.
So hey, folks... good going... though I do think about half of you are awesome-heads. <Grin>
Malachi, can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons?Oh! a cool question:
1. A bar stool
2. A beer mug (glass)
3. A beer mug (steel)
4. A beer mug (clay)
5. A beer mug (wood)
6. A beer mug (longspear shaped)(I think one of the above answers is wrong.....)
By the rules:
1. A wet spaghetti noodle.
2. A feather.
3. A carpet sample.
4. A teddy bear.
5. A lampshade.
6. A dead, half-decayed mouse.
But, don't you dare use the haft of a spear! By the rules!
DM: The bad guy moves past you.
Me: Attack of opportunity.
DM: Ummm... you're not armed.
Me: Yeah, I spit my gum into my hand. I'm using it as an improvised weapon. It's cool. It's an object not crafted to be a weapon.
3. A carpet sample.
I've been hit with a carpet sample.
A friend threw a 1'x1' square chunk of carpet at me while we were laying new carpet in my spare bedroom. He whipped it at me like big carpet-flavored shuriken.
It drew blood. I'm not joking. He hit me along the side of the neck and it scraped me hard enough that it spotted blood.
Don't mess around with carpet samples, man.
Malachi, can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons?I can do better than that: Venn diagrams!
That is not better as it does not answer the question I asked.
Can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons by the rules?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules:
1. A wet spaghetti noodle.
2. A feather.
3. A carpet sample.
4. A teddy bear.
5. A lampshade.
6. A dead, half-decayed mouse.But, don't you dare use the haft of a spear! By the rules!
Correct, you would use the actual rules for a spear. There are no rules for wet spaghetti noodles, feathers, carpet samples, teddy bears, lampshades, and dead, half decayed mice in the list of weapons. So you have to improvise with them. When you are holding a spear there are rules for that so you use those. Why is it so hard to understand that you use the specific rules that apply to whatever you wielding?
That is not better as it does not answer the question I asked.
Can you name six objects that CAN be used as improvised weapons by the rules?
See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).
See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).
Where's the rule that states these are objects? By the rules as written, these are not objects, if we go by the "object is a game term" logic that is completely necessary to exclude spear shafts from the "object" list.
So, can you name six items that are actually by the game defined as objects not crafted to be weapons, and that could remotely be used as weapons in regards to size?
|
|
Where's the rule that states these are objects?
See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).
See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:
Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstance
Words in the game have their natural English meaning unless specified otherwise. Hence, all of the above are objects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.Where's the rule that states these are objects?
See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).
See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:
Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstanceWords in the game have their natural English meaning unless specified otherwise. Hence, all of the above are objects.
Except when attached to a spear head it is treated as a Spear which is indeed an object, one that is DESIGNED TO BE A WEAPON.
Except when attached to a spear head it is treated as a Spear which is indeed an object, one that is DESIGNED TO BE A WEAPON.Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.Where's the rule that states these are objects?
See above as well as Purple Dragon Knight's list. Add chairs, table legs, bar stools, quills, chopsticks, tree branches, rocks, horseshoes, saddlebags, doorknobs, fireplace pokers, shovels, rakes, hoes, and garden gnomes (the non-sentient kind of course).
See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:
Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstanceWords in the game have their natural English meaning unless specified otherwise. Hence, all of the above are objects.
By the natural english meaning of the word "object", a spear shaft is an object, whether it's attached to something or not. Just like the wheels on a car are objects, and the hard drive in my computer is an object, and the bread of my sandwhich is an object.
If a spell has "destroy target object made of metal", it can destroy the shovelhead of a shovel. That there is a line somewhere in the equipment section that states what a shovel is, does not change that the shovelhead is still an object and is still made of metal.
|
|
Except that when an attack is being made with the shaft the spearhead isn't at all involved in the process. Just like in real life if you hit someone with the pommel of the sword, the natural construction is "he hit him with the pommel of the sword" not "he hit him with the sword" which has a whole different "natural and understood meaning".
You are ignoring the "except when otherwise defined" part. A spear in the game is a specifically defined object and all of its assembled parts are just considered a "spear". Therefore, a spell, feat, item or anything else that wishes to effect just a part of the spear must explicitly call out an exception to that definition. The improvised weapon rules do NOT call out an exception to that definition so they treat the spear as a whole object thus there is no haft and head as far as those rules are concerned there is just a spear which, guess what, uses the rule for spears not improvised weapons.
|
|
By the natural english meaning of the word "object", a spear shaft is an object, whether it's attached to something or not. Just like the wheels on a car are objects, and the hard drive in my computer is an object, and the bread of my sandwhich is an object.
See my post directly above. A spear is specifically defined in the game so we use that definition.
|
|
So you will print this rule that says no part of the spear can be treated as independent for any purposes? I'm waiting. I'll be waiting a long time too.Your 'therefore' iis your interpretation which actually exists nowhere in the ruleset.Your 'therefore' iis your interpretation which actually exists nowhere in the ruleset.
I have multiple times posted evidence that weapons are treated as entire objects. You personally have ignored it and refused to address it multiple times as well. So by acting as if you have not been presented with such evidence, though you know it is a few pages back, you are being deliberately dishonest.
See my post directly above. A spear is specifically defined in the game so we use that definition.
By the natural english meaning of the word "object", a spear shaft is an object, whether it's attached to something or not. Just like the wheels on a car are objects, and the hard drive in my computer is an object, and the bread of my sandwhich is an object.
That a spear is defined as an object does not mean that a spear shaft is, nor that a spear shaft ceases to use it's common english meaning. That would require specific wording similar to "parts of a weapon cease to be individual objects".
Again, a spell that targets metal objects can be used on a shovel, despite shovel being a defined object. Likewise, a bear trap may be treated as being made of metal, despite not mentioning it specifically, because even if "bear trap" is a defined game mechanic, in everything not specifically mentioned it is still treated in the common sense of the word.
See my post directly above. A spear is specifically defined in the game so we use that definition.
By the natural english meaning of the word "object", a spear shaft is an object, whether it's attached to something or not. Just like the wheels on a car are objects, and the hard drive in my computer is an object, and the bread of my sandwhich is an object.
Doesn't that mean that neither Warp Wood nor Heat Metal would have any effect on a spear, because the spells don't list specific effects on the haft and the head?
Doesn't that mean that neither Warp Wood nor Heat Metal would have any effect on a spear, because the spells don't list specific effects on the haft and the head?See my post directly above. A spear is specifically defined in the game so we use that definition.
By the natural english meaning of the word "object", a spear shaft is an object, whether it's attached to something or not. Just like the wheels on a car are objects, and the hard drive in my computer is an object, and the bread of my sandwhich is an object.
That is another good example, yes, instead of my hypothetical example of a metal-affecting spell.
If one treats the weapon definitions as the final and only say on what the weapon is and is composed of, warp wood would not work on any weapon that does not specifically state it is made of wood.
|
|
That a spear is defined as an object does not mean that a spear shaft is. That would require specific wording similar to "parts of a weapon cease to be individual objects".
Again, a spell that targets metal objects can be used on a shovel, despite shovel being a defined object. Likewise, a bear trap may be treated as being made of metal, despite not mentioning it specifically, because even if "bear trap" is a defined game mechanic, in everything not specifically mentioned it is still treated in the common sense of the word.
The rules treat weapons as entire whole objects unless they specify otherwise. The rules for the long spear don't list separate damage for the head and the haft. When you look up the hardness/hp weapons are treated as whole objects. If a weapon is destroyed all parts of it are considered destroyed. If your +1 spear is destroyed you can't salvage the +1 spear head and just stick it on another haft. When you roll a natural 1 on a saving throw and your weapon is damaged you don't get to treat the pieces of the weapon as an individual object. When you cast the spell magic weapon on a spear it effects the entire weapon. When you cast warp would on spear the entire weapon gets -4 to hit. I could go on and on. Unless specifically called out otherwise the rules treat weapons as one single object.
When you cast warp would on spear the entire weapon gets -4 to hit. I could go on and on. Unless specifically called out otherwise the rules treat weapons as one single object.
The weapon description does not state that longspears are made of wood. If you are not to use the common english meaning of the word just because there is a game term using the same word, warp wood does not work at all on longspears.
|
|
The weapon description does not state that longspears are made of wood. If you are not to use the common english meaning of the word just because there is a game term using the same word, warp wood does not work at all on longspears.When you cast warp would on spear the entire weapon gets -4 to hit. I could go on and on. Unless specifically called out otherwise the rules treat weapons as one single object.
Actually that is correct. Sometimes long spears, like all weapons, can be made of different materials. So the GM must tell you what materials any given weapon contains but it is still just a single weapon.
|
|
And where is this rule of how it treats weapons you state listed in the RAW? It may be YOUR rule, but you have yet to show that its THE rule.
The things I stated above are not MY rules. That is all contained in the Core Rulebook so those are THE rules and they treat weapons as single objects unless otherwise specified.
Also don't forget that even if I did concede that you could use a spear haft as a separate object it is still an object DESIGNED AS A WEAPON. The manner in which it is used isn't called out in the improvised weapon rules but what it was designed for is.
Also, one thing that may have been lost in this entire discussion is that if at my table I would allow my players to use improvised weapon rules for pommel strikes and such. However, that is a house rule and not RAW. I'm not arguing that RAW is the best way to handle this because I agree it doesn't make much sense. That doesn't, though, change what RAW is.
|
|
Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?Actually that is correct. Sometimes long spears, like all weapons, can be made of different materials. So the GM must tell you what materials any given weapon contains but it is still just a single weapon.The weapon description does not state that longspears are made of wood. If you are not to use the common english meaning of the word just because there is a game term using the same word, warp wood does not work at all on longspears.When you cast warp would on spear the entire weapon gets -4 to hit. I could go on and on. Unless specifically called out otherwise the rules treat weapons as one single object.
You are right. An inference is a "conclusion based on evidence and reasoning". Glad you agree that I have supported my argument with evidence and reasoning.
|
|
The statements you make are contained therein. The spin given to them to make them state that a weapon must only and always be treated as whole and indivisible unless otherwise specifically called out, however, is not. The rules DON'T say that. They also don't say that the separate parts of a weapon count as a weapon object in the rules. That is also an inference.
YES! The rules don't state that, they INFER it. Which is a perfectly reasonable means of determining the meaning of a text.
|
|
You are right. An inference is a "conclusion based on evidence and reasoning". Glad you agree that I have supported my argument with evidence and reasoning.Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?Actually that is correct. Sometimes long spears, like all weapons, can be made of different materials. So the GM must tell you what materials any given weapon contains but it is still just a single weapon.The weapon description does not state that longspears are made of wood. If you are not to use the common english meaning of the word just because there is a game term using the same word, warp wood does not work at all on longspears.When you cast warp would on spear the entire weapon gets -4 to hit. I could go on and on. Unless specifically called out otherwise the rules treat weapons as one single object.
An inference, however, is not the same as a fact.
Inference is to reason from non-explicit statements to reach a factual conclusion. The conclusion is fact.
Edit: The conclusion is fact if the inferences are correct. Which you have admitted that mine above are.
|
|
YES! The rules don't state that, they INFER it. Which is a perfectly reasonable means of determining the meaning of a text.
The statements you make are contained therein. The spin given to them to make them state that a weapon must only and always be treated as whole and indivisible unless otherwise specifically called out, however, is not. The rules DON'T say that. They also don't say that the separate parts of a weapon count as a weapon object in the rules. That is also an inference.... But it ISN'T "RAW". Its the other RAI - not rules as intended but 'rules as interpreted'.
You have to add two rules not in evidence to make it work that way - and also have to violate clear meanings in the English language.
What the rules infer is just as much RAW as what the rules explicitly state. You are wrong there.