Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet?


Rules Questions

951 to 1,000 of 1,668 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.
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.

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?

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.
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.

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.

Silver Crusade

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
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.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.
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.
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?

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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.

Well, for starters, I'm going to go ahead and correct you there. My actual answer to your question was "The RAW don't say - therefore it is impossible to answer your question without recourse to some form of personal interpretation, so go work it out at your table".

The rest of my posts have been about me trying to get you to move past your assumption that the RAW must give either a definite yes or a definite no to your question, of which the notion that "you can ignore the rules" is merely a single reason why you don't actually NEED a "definite" answer beyond the one I gave. Tell you what, if you go start a new thread, where you ask the actual question you want answered (which is, at this point "What do the devs think about using a manufactured weapon in an improvised way, because the RAW are unclear?", I will stay out of that thread, because that question is intellectually honest, doesn't seek to create an unnecessary norm so that some people can judge what is wrongbadfun, and is, as far as it goes, productive in the sense that it is moderately interesting to know what the design intent was, even if the design intent has no real authority for determining how I play my game.

Frankly, from my perspective, it doesn't sound like I'm wasting your time, so much as it sounds like you have been wasting your own time by not asking the question you really wanted answered, and then getting bent out of shape when you didn't get the answers you wanted.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

Above and beyond the fact that I disdain that dev ruling, you are reading it and interpreting it wrong. The ruling was about what the design INTENT of the rule was, not what the RAW actually say. Further, I think you are really stretching to imply that the ruling was intended to set a rules-wide precedent that the rules are permissive in nature. It's basically the same fallacy that causes PFS to be brought up periodically in this discussion- you are interpreting a dev saying "This is how I intended it, and how I would rule it in this specific situation" as being the same as "The RAW are actually this". RAI clarifications are not actual RAW. My radical and ridiculous position is simply to go a step further and say RAI of the devs isn't even that important anyway, and that ascribing a great importance to it might actively be harmful to the game.

Again, if the question you really want to ask is "What did the devs INTEND for the rules to be, because they are unclear, and I really want to know?" I would have no real beef with that. That is not the same, however, as seeking to establish a subjective interpretation of the RAW as the "Norm" against which we can judge how people play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote:

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.

And my argument that RAI from the devs isn't that important to begin with is a germane and necessary support for my argument that "The RAW doesn't actually answer your question, work it out on your own" is a sufficient answer to the rules question of the thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
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.

PatientWolf wrote:
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.

PatientWolf wrote:
3) Ergo your conclusion is not supported by your premises.

Wrong. It most certainly is supported by the premises.

PatientWolf wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:


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.

This is why my argument that RAI aren't that important matters - the response to JJ's statement of "Technically yes, but you shouldn't" was to seize on the "but you shouldn't" as establishing RAI, which in turn were assumed suddenly to be RAW. I wonder what the response would have been if JJ had said "Technically no, but I see no reason you shouldn't". I suspect very different.

That's the intellectual dishonesty I've been criticizing. The question was never really about RAW, it was about attempting to assert one particular interpretation of how the game should be played as "official" under the guise of seeking a neutral, objective baseline where none existed, or was even necessary. My point is that we would likely be better off if people were more willing to just say "Huh, the rules are unclear, I guess I will do what makes the most sense to me.", instead of assuming that the devs automatically have some special insight into what works best for their own table (or that there must be some "right" way to play in the first place), and then seeking to establish that subjective interpretation as the norm for all games, regardless of its applicability to them.


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:
New Plan. Tie a quarterstaff to your longspear... problem solved.. and no improvised penalty.

Actually, you should use Sovereign Glue to attach them, because RAW someone could always target the rope holding them together with a sunder (since it would be an object in its own right). :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if you Sovereign Glue a spear tip to a Quarterstaff! No, that would be too short to be a long spear...

I know, Sovereign Glue a Short Spear to a Quarterstaff! Now it is a Reach/Close Bludgeoning/Piercing Double Weapon... pretty sure you would have to use the Improvised Weapon Rules to wield it though. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

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>


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
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.


The Crusader wrote:


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 Silverclaw wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
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?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

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?

Ilja wrote:

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).


PatientWolf wrote:


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?

Shadow Lodge

Ilja wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


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?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:
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.


PatientWolf wrote:
Ilja wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


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?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:
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.

Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Ilja wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


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?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:
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.
Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.

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.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Ilja wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


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?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:
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.
Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.
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 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".


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Ilja wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


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?

See this quote by Stephen Radney-MacFarland regarding the Pathfinder rules:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland designer wrote:
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.
Absolutely true. However, by the same method SO IS A SPEAR SHAFT.
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.

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.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


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.

Shadow Lodge

Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

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.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


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.


PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.

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.


PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.

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?


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

You have evidence that they are treated ONLY as entire objects?

You keep making assumptions that jump from point a to point c without passing through b on the way.


Hitdice wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.
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?

That is another good example, yes, instead of my hypothetical example of a metal-affecting spell.

linked

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.

Shadow Lodge

Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.


PatientWolf wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:


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.

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.

Shadow Lodge

Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.
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.

Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


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.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.
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.
Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.
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.
Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?
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.

An inference, however, is not the same as a fact.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


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.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.
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.
Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?
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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

... 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.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

... 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.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:

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.
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.
Again, where is that rule that you keep stating as fact but only supporting as an inference?
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.

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.

So close. No. Just because the things going into an inference are facts doesn't mean the conclusion reached from the facts is itself a fact. That is logic 101.

The inference that all objects must be treated as indivisible wholes, and the inference that all parts of a weapon must always be treated as weapons themselves - are not themselves facts, but inferences - until you show something that actually states those two other than you.

951 to 1,000 of 1,668 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet? All Messageboards