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


Rules Questions

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,668 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

PatientWolf wrote:
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.

The rules aren't inferring it. You are.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


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.

I know a ton of scientists that would completely disagree with you. I suppose evolution is "just a theory not a fact" since it is supported entirely by inference.

If we disagree on whether or not inference is a valid means of deriving factual conclusions then there is not much left discuss because I just really don't want to have that debate.

Yes I freely admit that my conclusions are based upon inferences from the rules. From there take that, however, you want.


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.

I've pointed out about a dozen times that in RAW specifically, that weapons are composed of separate objects, and no-one has yet to point out to me, a RAW response that those objects are no-longer objects when combined.

RAW 100% supports this position.

However, despite all this, there's a better alternative availible of gluing a quarterstaff to a longspear to avoid any improvised penalties.


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


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.

I know a ton of scientists that would completely disagree with you. I suppose evolution is "just a theory not a fact" since it is supported entirely by inference.

If we disagree on whether or not inference is a valid means of deriving factual conclusions then there is not much left discuss because I just really don't want to have that debate.

Yes I freely admit that my conclusions are based upon inferences from the rules. From there take that, however, you want.

It is "just a theory". In the same way gravity is 'just a theory'

Of course in scientific jargon, theory means a well tested and verified model of reality, which is empirically testable, verifiable and falsifiable.

Is your opinion that the ruleset forbids any weapon parts from also being objects and that those separate parts even if they are objects must be treated as weapons themselves all of these things?


I know it's not going to settle anything but I just wanted to say that in my games, we have always allowed the "wrong end" of a weapon to be used as an improvised weapon. That way the barbarian has a way to not accidentally murder everyone that needs to be interrogated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

I know a ton of scientists that would completely disagree with you. I suppose evolution is "just a theory not a fact" since it is supported entirely by inference.

If we disagree on whether or not inference is a valid means of deriving factual conclusions then there is not much left discuss because I just really don't want to have that debate.

Yes I freely admit that my conclusions are based upon inferences from the rules. From there take that, however, you want.

It is "just a theory". In the same way gravity is 'just a theory'

Of course in scientific jargon, theory means a well tested and verified model of reality, which is empirically testable, verifiable and falsifiable.

Is your opinion that the ruleset forbids any weapon parts from also being objects and that those separate parts even if they are objects must be treated as weapons themselves all of these things?

Not that it much matters here, but in Science gravity is a law and evolution is a theroy. There are differences between the two relating to the degree of certainty and the amount of vetting involved.


PatientWolf wrote:

YES! The rules don't state that, they INFER it.

What the rules infer...

The rules cannot "infer" anything. They could potentially "imply" something from which you could then "infer" meaning. But, if we are going to have a discussion almost entirely centered on the definition of the words we are using, you should use the correct definitions...

Can you voluntarily be non-proficient with a weapon for which you have proficiency?

You can voluntarily lower your AC, your saves - up to and including voluntarily failing a save, and your spell resistance. I think (but cannot currently find a reference) that you can voluntarily forgo an immunity, but I am not certain.

So, I do not think it out of the realm of possibility that you could voluntarily use a weapon in a non-proficient manner.

Do the rules strictly prohibit using a weapon as an improvised weapon?

No. There is no argument for this, no matter how you want to spin it. You may believe that the intent was for it not to include weapons, and you may even be right about it. You may believe that giving permission to use non-weapons as improvised weapons is the same as prohibiting using weapons as improvised weapons. But, you are very simply wrong about that. Nothing in the rules prohibits using a weapon as an improvised weapon. Nothing in the rules prevents using a piece of a weapon as an improvised weapon... even if the weapon is whole and intact.

Does an improvised weapon have weapon properties?

No. Some certainly should. If you grab a flagstaff or a ladder, it should probably have the reach property, and maybe the trip, brace, or disarm properties. But, that is most assuredly subject to DM adjudication.

But, by the rules as written, an improvised weapon has a size category and deals damage according to the weapon on the weapon table it most closely resembles. It crits only on a natural 20 and deals x2 damage on a critical. It has a range of 10 feet if thrown. That is all.

So, while a flagstaff might most closely resemble a longspear, by rule it does not gain the reach property. It is a 2-handed weapon that deals 1d8/x2 damage, because that is was the rules say it is. Similarly, if you use a longspear as an improvised bludgeoning weapon, it is a 2-handed weapon that deals 1d8/x2 damage, because the rules say so. That is all.

Can I use a longspear as an improvised bludgeoning weapon to attack a creature adjacent to me?

Yes.

I'm weary of this circular argument. So, I'm done with this thread. [/The Crusader]


I can't believe this thread is still going.

There will hopefully eventually be an errata to shut this thread, and any future thread up, permanently.

Until such an errata comes up, let the DM do his job. The DM will tell you whether or not he thinks you can, and you will accept his answer, or give an extremely good case for your belief. If everyone around the table says no, drop it. Or leave.


Please FAQ this thread so it can get an errata.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

Can you voluntarily be non-proficient with a weapon for which you have proficiency?

Do the rules strictly prohibit using a weapon as an improvised weapon?

Does an improvised weapon have weapon properties?

Is it a longspear?

Yes.

Is a longspear a reach weapon?
Yes.

Is there a rule that prohibits reach weapons from being used to attack adjacent targets?
Yes.

Can I use a longspear as an improvised bludgeoning weapon to attack a creature adjacent to me?
No. Longspears are longspears which are longspears that aren't not-longspears that have a longspearishness about their longspearitude such that they exhibit a degree of longspear unsurpassed by any other item and embody all that is longspear, and therefore have the reach property and can't attack adjacent targets.

This game has a specific rule that covers this case. Looking for edge-condition escape-clauses isn't productive.

Now. If you can make the longspear ACTUALLY not a longspear, say by cutting a few feet off, then you have a case. But as long as the longspear remains a longspear, the rules that apply to that weapon... apply to that weapon.

I reiterate... druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor, but the argument that a suit of full plate is to be considered an organization of protons and electrons is a} technically correct yet b} completely missing the point that the druidic prohibition was deliberately put in place and your trying to bypass it is breaking a rule.

It's a question of degree, clearly. But by using an absurd extreme example it sheds brilliant white light on the simple fact that saying "yes you can" to an act that starts with "no you can't" in the rules is by definition not following the rules.


If Druids could wear armor in an improvised way that made it not act like metal you would have a solid argument there. Although, that argument would support the position you are trying to argue against.

A player can, however, wield a weapon in an improvised fashion and make it not act like that weapon. At such point it follows the rules for improvised weapons.

Did we already mention that Jacobs is on record saying you can do this?

Sovereign Court

Doomed Hero wrote:
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.

Carpets can inflict severe burns to the knees as well, I am told

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Exactly. Now if they break the spear in half, they can improvise with the two sticks as much as they want... otherwise they will use the spear AS A SPEAR!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

If Druids could wear armor in an improvised way that made it not act like metal you would have a solid argument there. Although, that argument would support the position you are trying to argue against.

A player can, however, wield a weapon in an improvised fashion and make it not act like that weapon. At such point it follows the rules for improvised weapons.

Did we already mention that Jacobs is on record saying you can do this?

Every quote I have seen suggests that he is conflicted over the issue. Also, he references reach in a way that suggests it is strictly a benefit, when the one thing everyone agrees on in this thread is that sometimes one would prefer that a reach weapon temporarily lose that property.

The very fact that being able to convert a longspear into an improvised non-reach weapon without breaking it in two is seen as generally desirable should be raising red flags about RAI in regard to doing that.


His (Jacobs) concerns seem to be regarding balance, which is not in question here. Ultimately he states that the action is permissible in a strictly RAW environment.

Also, just because something is desirable doesn't make it against rules intent. There are desirable ways to do things all over the place in the game (using a one-handed weapon in two hands for example). This particular instance has a bunch of draw backs to making the decision to do so (loss of bonuses from enhancement, feats, class features, non-proficiency penalty).

Also, you too seem to be concerned about balance here (not even touching on why martials can't have nice things debate), but it has been demonstrated MANY times in this thread that the improvised spear attacking an adjacent target is mechanically sub-par to other options which accomplish the same desired result and are not in question with regard to rules legality (gauntlet and armor spikes, I'm looking at you).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I can treat the shaft of my spear as a separate object to 'the spear'?

Brilliant!

Warp Wood wrote:
A warped melee weapon causes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Ahh....but the only part of my spear which is made of wood...is the shaft! That's a different object! So, if I make an attack with the shaft I take the -4 penalty because the shaft has been warped, but 'the spear' is something different, and if the shaft was warped then 'the spear' wasn't! So I can attack with 'the spear' at no penalty at all, because it wasn't warped, only the shaft was warped!

Oh, no! my spear shaft has been sundered! Never mind, I attack with 'the spear', because that wasn't sundered, only the shaft was, and that is a completely different object!


So, the best answer that this thread can come up with, as an alternative to "just use the improvised weapon rules" is actually "glue something to the spear and use that to bash with"

Seriously?

I don't even...


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

So, I can treat the shaft of my spear as a separate object to 'the spear'?

Brilliant!

Warp Wood wrote:
A warped melee weapon causes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Ahh....but the only part of my spear which is made of wood...is the shaft! That's a different object! So, if I make an attack with the shaft I take the -4 penalty because the shaft has been warped, but 'the spear' is something different, and if the shaft was warped then 'the spear' wasn't! So I can attack with 'the spear' at no penalty at all, because it wasn't warped, only the shaft was warped!

Oh, no! my spear shaft has been sundered! Never mind, I attack with 'the spear', because that wasn't sundered, only the shaft was, and that is a completely different object!

You seem to have a hard time grasping that objects can be objects that are made up of objects.


Doomed Hero wrote:

So, the best answer that this thread can come up with, as an alternative to "just use the improvised weapon rules" is actually "glue something to the spear and use that to bash with"

Seriously?

I don't even...

If you can show me where in the RAW it says this wouldn't work, I'd be willing to entertain other ideas.. But its the simplest solution to the argument. And more effective, I might add


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

So, I can treat the shaft of my spear as a separate object to 'the spear'?

Brilliant!

Warp Wood wrote:
A warped melee weapon causes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Ahh....but the only part of my spear which is made of wood...is the shaft! That's a different object! So, if I make an attack with the shaft I take the -4 penalty because the shaft has been warped, but 'the spear' is something different, and if the shaft was warped then 'the spear' wasn't! So I can attack with 'the spear' at no penalty at all, because it wasn't warped, only the shaft was warped!

Oh, no! my spear shaft has been sundered! Never mind, I attack with 'the spear', because that wasn't sundered, only the shaft was, and that is a completely different object!

You seem to have a hard time grasping that objects can be objects that are made up of objects.

No he is just being intentionally belligerent because it is easier than being wrong. At least PW is having a conversation, Malachi hasn't contributed anything at all in this entire thread despite being the OP. He had his mind made up before he started this thread and every post he has made subsequently has been a mad dash to keep the (correct) answer he doesn't like from taking his thread and running away with it.

Silver Crusade

Dr Grecko wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

So, I can treat the shaft of my spear as a separate object to 'the spear'?

Brilliant!

Warp Wood wrote:
A warped melee weapon causes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Ahh....but the only part of my spear which is made of wood...is the shaft! That's a different object! So, if I make an attack with the shaft I take the -4 penalty because the shaft has been warped, but 'the spear' is something different, and if the shaft was warped then 'the spear' wasn't! So I can attack with 'the spear' at no penalty at all, because it wasn't warped, only the shaft was warped!

Oh, no! my spear shaft has been sundered! Never mind, I attack with 'the spear', because that wasn't sundered, only the shaft was, and that is a completely different object!

You seem to have a hard time grasping that objects can be objects that are made up of objects.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the concept that you can do something to/with the shaft while doing nothing with 'the spear'.

You can't touch the shaft without touching 'the spear'.

You can't move the shaft without moving 'the spear'.

You can't attack with the shaft without attacking with the spear.

When you attack with any part of 'the spear', whether you call it a 'different' object or not, you are attacking with 'the spear'. The game has rules for that, among which is the inability to attack an adjacent target.

In the rules, there are weapons which act as if they were really two weapons: double weapons. If a rules define a weapon as 'double', then it is. If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. Unless you think that 'The rules don't say it isn't so it is' applies here, so every weapon is a double weapon, a reach weapon, a monk weapon.....

The game also has special abilities. Polearm Master lets you attack adjacent targets with a reach weapon under certain conditions. Spinning Lance lets you use a lance as if it were a double weapon. If the rules say you have such a special ability, then you can do what it says you can. If the rules don't say you have a particular special ability, then you don't.

Unless you think that the way the rules work is 'If the rules don't say you don't, then you do!', in which case every single character has the special abilities of Rage, Bardic Knowledge, Channel Energy, Animal Companion, Armour Training, Flurry of Blows, Smite Evil, Favoured Enemy, Sneak Attack, Arcane Bond AND spellcasting all at the same time.

Silver Crusade

Up to 101 FAQ hits now.

If there are 100 people who want a question answering, and 1000 who don't, then those who don't shouldn't feel the need to deny those who do.

If I want to learn about, say, astronomy, and you don't, that's okay. But it's not okay to prevent me from learning about it just because you don't see the value of it.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Up to 101 FAQ hits now.

If there are 100 people who want a question answering, and 1000 who don't, then those who don't shouldn't feel the need to deny those who do.

If I want to learn about, say, astronomy, and you don't, that's okay. But it's not okay to prevent me from learning about it just because you don't see the value of it.

Wow, self-victimize much? No one is attempting to deny you an answer. I just think you aren't being honest about your motives.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

That's not the problem.

The problem is the concept that you can do something to/with the shaft while doing nothing with 'the spear'.

1)You can't touch the shaft without touching 'the spear'.

2)You can't move the shaft without moving 'the spear'.

3)You can't attack with the shaft without attacking with the spear.

Point 1, I agree

Point 2, I agree
Point 3, I diagree.

How does one make an attack with a spear? One thrusts with the shaft piercing with the point.

Any other use of the spear is no longer using that spear in it's intended fashion. You are now improvising.

If I don't attack with the point AND haft, I did not attack with the spear.

If I attack with the haft, the most accurate description is I attacked with the haft of the spear.

I see you have a hard time conceptualizing that this can be done. It is there in the RAW, but you refuse to see it.

We can go back and forth on this til your question is answered definitively, but until then, the RAW, Common Sense, and only Dev response, dictates that this is a valid, yet terribly sub-par, option.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Up to 101 FAQ hits now.

If there are 100 people who want a question answering, and 1000 who don't, then those who don't shouldn't feel the need to deny those who do.

If I want to learn about, say, astronomy, and you don't, that's okay. But it's not okay to prevent me from learning about it just because you don't see the value of it.

I know I originally said I wish I hadn't clicked it, I've changed my opinion since then.

Let there be another dev response so we can end this thread quickly.

I, and a good majority of those in this thread who claim it is not RAW to do so, still contend that it should be an option.

The hammer striking down against it will not change how my games are played one bit. And of course, there is still the loophole I presented, for those who wish to get around it anyway.

Silver Crusade

Dr Grecko wrote:
I, and a good majority of those in this thread who claim it is not RAW to do so, still contend that it should be an option.

I have no problem with the DM making a ruling on the fly, or having houserules, per se. Whether I object to any individual ruling is a different matter.

Silver Crusade

Dr Grecko wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

That's not the problem.

The problem is the concept that you can do something to/with the shaft while doing nothing with 'the spear'.

1)You can't touch the shaft without touching 'the spear'.

2)You can't move the shaft without moving 'the spear'.

3)You can't attack with the shaft without attacking with the spear.

Point 1, I agree

Point 2, I agree
Point 3, I diagree.

How does one make an attack with a spear? One thrusts with the shaft piercing with the point.

Any other use of the spear is no longer using that spear in it's intended fashion. You are now improvising.

If I don't attack with the point AND haft, I did not attack with the spear.

If I attack with the haft, the most accurate description is I attacked with the haft of the spear.

I see you have a hard time conceptualizing that this can be done. It is there in the RAW, but you refuse to see it.

We can go back and forth on this til your question is answered definitively, but until then, the RAW, Common Sense, and only Dev response, dictates that this is a valid, yet terribly sub-par, option.

Well, the rules don't support you. The rules for an attack with a spear are just that. There is no rule for attacking with a spear point, only for attacking with a spear.

The rules don't differentiate between attacking with different parts of weapons, unless they say they do (double weapons, some special abilities/feats). Therefore, according to the rules, there is no attack with the point or the shaft or the butt, only with 'the spear'.

So the longspear stats are the game rules for that attack, including Reach preventing attacks versus adjacent targets.


James Jacobs disagrees with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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.

I know a ton of scientists that would completely disagree with you. I suppose evolution is "just a theory not a fact" since it is supported entirely by inference.

If we disagree on whether or not inference is a valid means of deriving factual conclusions then there is not much left discuss because I just really don't want to have that debate.

Yes I freely admit that my conclusions are based upon inferences from the rules. From there take that, however, you want.

It is "just a theory". In the same way gravity is 'just a theory'

Of course in scientific jargon, theory means a well tested and verified model of reality, which is empirically testable, verifiable and falsifiable.

Is your opinion that the ruleset forbids any weapon parts from also being objects and that those separate parts even if they are objects must be treated as weapons themselves all of these things?

Not that it much matters here, but in Science gravity is a law and evolution is a theroy. There are differences between the two relating to the degree of certainty and the amount of vetting involved.

i've given up on arguing with PatientWolf et al. but i wanted to point out that both are theories. gravity is also a law.

scientific laws are equations predicting outcomes and specifics.

theories are what explain bodies of evidence.

evolution is both a fact (that life has been evolving is the obvious from the evidence). there is also a theory of evolution by natural selection (the theory to explain what drives evolution).


Doomed Hero wrote:

So, the best answer that this thread can come up with, as an alternative to "just use the improvised weapon rules" is actually "glue something to the spear and use that to bash with"

Seriously?

I don't even...

Oh, no, you miss my point. It absolutely would work within the rules. It's silly as hell, but completely allowed.

Of course, using the Improvised Weapon rules with the spear itself also works fine and prevents glue shenanigans from being necessary.

Unfortunately, some people would rather be obtuse about what is written than permissive about how to solve a problem.

My post was an attempt to point out the absurdity of the whole situation.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

So, the best answer that this thread can come up with, as an alternative to "just use the improvised weapon rules" is actually "glue something to the spear and use that to bash with"

Seriously?

I don't even...

Oh, no, you miss my point. It absolutely would work within the rules. It's silly as hell, but completely allowed.

Of course, using the Improvised Weapon rules with the spear itself also works fine and prevents glue shenanigans from being necessary.

Unfortunately, some people would rather be obtuse about what is written than permissive about how to solve a problem.

My post was an attempt to point out the absurdity of the whole situation.

Yep, same reason that from now on all my characters will buy their spears from Pier 1 Imports because all their spears were crafted to be decorations. I just choose to use them as weapons; sometimes improvised and sometimes not.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

So, the best answer that this thread can come up with, as an alternative to "just use the improvised weapon rules" is actually "glue something to the spear and use that to bash with"

Seriously?

I don't even...

Oh, no, you miss my point. It absolutely would work within the rules. It's silly as hell, but completely allowed.

Of course, using the Improvised Weapon rules with the spear itself also works fine and prevents glue shenanigans from being necessary.

Unfortunately, some people would rather be obtuse about what is written than permissive about how to solve a problem.

My post was an attempt to point out the absurdity of the whole situation.

My apologies, I misunderstood your post.

Yes, I agree, it's incredibly silly, yet, perfectly legal per RAW, with less questions than the spear alone seems to have.

I used that loophole to point out the silliness of this whole debate.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
I, and a good majority of those in this thread who claim it is not RAW to do so, still contend that it should be an option.
I have no problem with the DM making a ruling on the fly, or having houserules, per se. Whether I object to any individual ruling is a different matter.

I also have no problem with GM's making houserules. I do not agree that a houserule is necessary in this case, as it has rules support.

The point of my post was to agree, yes, lets get another dev response on the matter.


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

Well, the rules don't support you. The rules for an attack with a spear are just that. There is no rule for attacking with a spear point, only for attacking with a spear.

The rules don't differentiate between attacking with different parts of weapons, unless they say they do (double weapons, some special abilities/feats). Therefore, according to the rules, there is no attack with the point or the shaft or the butt, only with 'the spear'.

So the longspear stats are the game rules for that attack, including Reach preventing attacks versus adjacent targets.

The rules do, in fact, support me.

There are rules for attacking with a spear point, or a spear haft (or even a ceremonial spear as has been pointed out). It's called the Improvised weapon rules.. a spear point would be similar to a dagger. It's an improvised dagger.

These are the undeniable facts that you have failed to refute throughout this debate.

Apparently we'll just have to wait for a DEV respons.... Again... Because the first one apparently wasn't enough for you.

I'm not going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince me.


LOL Still going on?

I see this as a place in the rules you can read it both ways. One lets you do what you can in real life and one doesn't. In these cases, I always go with the one that's closest to RL.

Secondly, to the 'it's JUST a longs spear" argument, I think I look at it like the double weapon rules. It's a place in the rules that are clear that a weapon (object) can be both a greater whole and also it's component items.

I have NO intention of debate, since the other side seems unable of unwilling/unable to see anything other than their side as reasonable/possible. Have fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So I had a character in one of my games once. She was a rogue. She wielded a greatsword and had the feat Catch Off-Guard.

She would fight people with her greatsword, doing the usual rogue flanking and sneak attack stuff. And then sometimes, she wouldn't be able to get flanking. And while her foe was sticking their tongue out at her, you know what she'd do? She'd pommel bash them with the greatsword for sneak attack damage.

You know what? It was awesome, and totally iconic, and I don't want to roleplay in a world where that's not possible.


Anguish wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Except you can only reach that point by being pedantic beyond reason about what an object that wasn't intended for use as a weapon - such as the haft of a spear - is and isn't.

I'm being pedantic? Yes strangely I'm not the one pointing out that - in a game without any such terms - a longspear is not a longspear, it's a collection of subcomponents.

I reiterate for the nth time, where n is a silly number... this isn't about what I believe or what I would allow my players to do at my table. This remains about what the rules say, and those rules are abundantly clear that - as written - a longspear cannot be used to attack adjacent squares.

But a longspear shaft can.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
When you attack with any part of 'the spear', whether you call it a 'different' object or not, you are attacking with 'the spear'.

Hrm, I think double weapons disagree with you.

You can clearly attack with only a part of a weapon.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose a large enough worn codpiece is a suitable improvised weapon.

Even easily used without one's hands.

Now, that spear shaft of the Longspear you are holding...

What a ridiculous notion!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Well, the rules don't support you. The rules for an attack with a spear are just that. There is no rule for attacking with a spear point, only for attacking with a spear.

The rules don't differentiate between attacking with different parts of weapons, unless they say they do (double weapons, some special abilities/feats). Therefore, according to the rules, there is no attack with the point or the shaft or the butt, only with 'the spear'.

So the longspear stats are the game rules for that attack, including Reach preventing attacks versus adjacent targets.

Are you still making this same unfounded claim?

Huh.

I would have figured by his point in the thread your argument would be at least somewhat different than it was in the beginning... but no, just the same unfounded claim.

But you never address the fault in your claim. The Improvised Weapon Rules.

You simply ignore them as if they are not actual rules.

Is a shaft an object? Yes. Is a shaft a weapon? No. Use Improvised Weapon rules for attacking with it.

There is rule support for this interpretation. You disagree with this interpretation? That's cool. But there is still rule support for it whether you like it or not.

Double Weapons give us all the precedent we need to know that the game doesn't treat the entire weapon as a whole object with indivisible parts. That is fact. Is a spear shaft a spear? No, it is only part of a spear.

Can you attack with a double axe and not move the other side? No. Can you attack with one side of a double axe and not attack with the other? Yes. You may attack with only one side of a double axe if you want to.

Odd how that can be the case, using only a part of a weapon to attack with. How is it that the rules clearly show us that parts of an object are indeed objects in their own right.

So, a shaft of a spear is an object. That is a true statement. Fact.

If you want to attack someone with the shaft of a spear, an object... what do the rules say to do? Well, we can find all of the relevant rules in the Improvised Weapon section. Cool! ...attack with shaft, guestimate some damage dice. Bam, attack made.

The rules is crazy like that, they like... tell us how to do stuff n whatnot. Like, you know, how to hit a dude with a big stick.

Grand Lodge

Hilarious that this is an acceptable improvised weapon, but the shaft of a Longspear is not.


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

Up to 101 FAQ hits now.

If there are 100 people who want a question answering, and 1000 who don't, then those who don't shouldn't feel the need to deny those who do.

If I want to learn about, say, astronomy, and you don't, that's okay. But it's not okay to prevent me from learning about it just because you don't see the value of it.

Well, actually, that depends on what question the 100 people want answered, and why they want it. If the question they want answered is "What did the devs intend?", and they want it because they are curious about that intent, even though it has no real bearing on how the game "should" be played, that's fine.

If, instead, it's because "they" (you, really) want to pretend that any dev response on this issue represents the "right" or "normal" way to play, then the "question", presented as it is, is fundamentally dishonest, and should be rejected. Whatever the devs say was the INTENT of the rule, it won't change the actual text at all, and it won't make the other side "wrong", "unofficial" or "house-rules" at all. Both approaches will still be equally valid, RAW.

Again, you don't actually want your question answered, because the clear, unimpeachable answer to "What does the RAW actually say?" is NOTHING. Instead, you keep acting like that's not a legitimate answer merely because you don't like it, and so have started pushing to establish your prefered reading of the rules as an "official" answer, because you incorrectly feel like there must (or at least should) be one. I don't care how many people share your attitude about how the rules should work - the attitude is still wrongheaded and unproductive. The fact that you feel like it is common or normal to treat the rules the way you are doesn't mean its "right", just what you are comfortable with.

Even in the best case for you, a Dev response won't tell you what the RAW "actually are", it will tell you what the RAI actually were when the Devs were writing the rules. Please stop insisting that those concepts are the same, and stop acting like it's unreasonable to point out that wanting to know what the RDT thinks you should do is utterly irrelevant compared to what YOU think you should do, based on your personal experience with your personal game.


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


Well, the rules don't support you. The rules for an attack with a spear are just that. There is no rule for attacking with a spear point, only for attacking with a spear.

Where is the rule that says "The rule for attacking with a spear applies to situations where you are using the spear in a non-standard way"? There isn't one. Why do I have follow those rules then, when they don't actually apply to or describe the situation at hand? I don't. Your only answer to this is to keep repeating that the rules don't allow me to make that distinction, but that's only relevant if you assume that the rules are permissive. I don't have to follow the long spear rules for exactly the same reason I don't have to follow the greatsword rules - you can't prove that making an improvised attack with a spear haft is the same thing as attacking with a spear. You assume that they are the same because you assume that the rules must give you permission to take specific actions, like making an improvised attack. If you don't make that assumption, then all of a sudden I don't need "permission" from the rules to do something, I just do it, and the rules then exist to help me adjudicate how that plays out.

This doesn't make the rules useless, nor does it lead to anarchy or whatever trite slippery slope example you want to try next, for a whole host of reasons I'm not going to repeat again. It does not matter that you don't like that interpretation. It doesn't matter that you think your interpretation is more common or normal. It just means that we look at the rules differently, and we are both "right" RAW to do so. The difference between us is that when I say "I don't care how you play at home", I mean it - I don't care, and my interpretation of the rules doesn't require me to manufacture an "official" ruling out of whole cloth where none exists, simply to slake my irrational need to be able to judge who is playing "right". You are playing right, RAW. So is anyone else. There is no need to go further, and no value in asking what the Devs intended beyond satisfying idle curiosity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The major problem with using a reach weapon as an improvised weapon is that you would always be able to do it -- there is no reach weapon that would be unusable as an improvised weapon. But we also have the specific rule that you cannot attack adjacent targets with reach weapons -- a rule that is rendered meaningless if you can adjust your grip on the weapon to change it into an improvised non-reach weapon.

The only sane way to eliminate this contradiction is to disallow the use of reach weapons as improvised weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

The major problem with using a reach weapon as an improvised weapon is that you would always be able to do it -- there is no reach weapon that would be unusable as an improvised weapon. But we also have the specific rule that you cannot attack adjacent targets with reach weapons -- a rule that is rendered meaningless if you can adjust your grip on the weapon to change it into an improvised non-reach weapon.

The only sane way to eliminate this contradiction is to disallow the use of reach weapons as improvised weapons.

It is not meaningless. Improvised weapons suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty, lose their enhancement bonuses, lose masterwork quality, lose the benefit of all feats and class abilities that support the use of the weapon. That is certainly a trade-off that requires a cost-benefit analysis.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

The major problem with using a reach weapon as an improvised weapon is that you would always be able to do it -- there is no reach weapon that would be unusable as an improvised weapon. But we also have the specific rule that you cannot attack adjacent targets with reach weapons -- a rule that is rendered meaningless if you can adjust your grip on the weapon to change it into an improvised non-reach weapon.

The only sane way to eliminate this contradiction is to disallow the use of reach weapons as improvised weapons.

This here is the gist of it.

This thread seems like 1000 posts of people trying to justify getting around a limitation inherent in a game mechanic for balance reasons.

What else is new.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that you chose to use a Longspear, knowing in advance that it has the reach property, and that weapons with the reach property can't attack adjacent targets, should be all that has to be said when you try to pull this B*$#@$(*t.

If you don't like the limitation, don't use the weapon.

Try a whip, it has reach, but can also be used to attack adjacent targets.

Problem solved, without rules contortions to get around the actual rules.


Fomsie wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The major problem with using a reach weapon as an improvised weapon is that you would always be able to do it -- there is no reach weapon that would be unusable as an improvised weapon. But we also have the specific rule that you cannot attack adjacent targets with reach weapons -- a rule that is rendered meaningless if you can adjust your grip on the weapon to change it into an improvised non-reach weapon.

The only sane way to eliminate this contradiction is to disallow the use of reach weapons as improvised weapons.

This here is the gist of it.

This thread seems like 1000 posts of people trying to justify getting around a limitation inherent in a game mechanic for balance reasons.

What else is new.

If that is what you are seeing here then you CLEARLY have not read much of this thread. AT LEAST 10 different times from 10 different posters (about every 80-100 posts or so) it gets pointed out that this is about the LEAST effective way to do what is being suggested. Armor Spikes is a FAR more beneficial way to accomplish this and there are absolutely NO concerns about balance. Gauntlets are not as good as Armor Spikes but still WAY better that the improvised weapon spear.

Anyone who thinks this is about subverting a balancing mechanism just plain hasn't been paying attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I was aware, the OP just wanted this cleared up in an FAQ. Yes, he's set in what he thinks it is, but he wants it cleared up for everyone else, not just people in this thread, but anyone else who has this question in the future.

We can debate all day, back and forth about what's legal and what's not.

As far as I'm concerned, by RAW, you can't attack adjacent creatures with a reach weapon because reach weapons say they can't be used to attack adjacent targets. It doesn't specify another situation, like using the haft or whatever.

I would allow it, because it doesn't seem grossly overpowered, but as others have pointed out, there are special abilities gained by classes like the polearm master that would be rendered almost completely useless.

As such, whatever house rule I made up to allow players to do this, I would make sure that it'll never be as good as a major class feature.

For example:

The polearm master gets this.

Pole Fighting (Ex)

At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to keep the house rule from being too powerful, my ruling would be that you must spend a move action to adjust the 8-10ft weapon around, or, you can use an immediate action to switch it, but it imposes an additional -4 penalty on top of the improvised weapon penalty.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

The fact that you chose to use a Longspear, knowing in advance that it has the reach property, and that weapons with the reach property can't attack adjacent targets, should be all that has to be said when you try to pull this B*$#@$(*t.

If you don't like the limitation, don't use the weapon.

Try a whip, it has reach, but can also be used to attack adjacent targets.

Problem solved, without rules contortions to get around the actual rules.

Actually, someone could just use armor spikes... hmmm... that would be a better option... oh I guess that means this isn't about that... hmm...

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,668 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 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