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


Rules Questions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,668 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

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

Or a cestus, or a spiked buckler, or you could pick up Improved Unarmed Strike. There's tons of other ways around it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sindalla wrote:

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.

Fighters who aren't polearm masters will get that -4 pretty quickly anyway. +2 weapon? yep, that's gone. Oh, you had weapon focus? -1, Weapon Training too? -1 again.

There is your -4 and it only gets bigger the higher level the character is. Those penalties hardly make the Pole Fighting class feature "almost completely useless."

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, becuase I would really be sticking it to the GM when I used my +5 Holy, Keen, Speed spear as an improvised weapon and roll my attack of BAB - 4 + Str and deal 1d6 + Str forefieting my +5 enhancment, my holy, my keen, and my speed attack...

[sarcasam]Yikes, that is over powered I guess.[/sarcasam]

That is absolutely no reason why this cannot be done. Nothing in the rules prevents it. Nor is it even a good option... it's just an option.

Tabletop RPG's are not run by computers parsing binary 1's and 0's. They are adjuticated by (hopefuly) inteligent people. The "rules" are a framework (the book truly should have been called the "Core Guideline Book"), nothing more.

TGMaxMaxer wrote 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.

Yes, because it is such a cheat to bash someone in the face with the haft of a spear... you know, the way it has been described/shown in every media outlet to show spear combat ever.

Again, tabletop RPG's are not ran by computers limited to programmed responses. There is nothing hard coded in the game that prevents this. The developers have said time and time again that the "rules" require common sense when reading. If you treat the books like a legal document the game breaks. They are not written to that standard, nor should they be.


I would personally call the switch a move action though; in essence you are drawing a new weapon, and you lose out on your full attack sequence.


BigDTBone wrote:
Sindalla wrote:

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.

Fighters who aren't polearm masters will get that -4 pretty quickly anyway. +2 weapon? yep, that's gone. Oh, you had weapon focus? -1, Weapon Training too? -1 again.

There is your -4 and it only gets bigger the higher level the character is. Those penalties hardly make the Pole Fighting class feature "almost...

I assume you meant get "rid of" that -4 pretty quickly.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you don't get magical bonuses or special properties of an improvised weapon. I also don't think weapon focus or training would apply either. Unless your weapon focus and weapon training was with improvised weapons.


I was talking about your additional -4 penalty on top to the non-proficiency. The player who opts for that option will be taking penalties (or losing bonuses) above the non-proficiency penalty whether you impose one or not.


BigDTBone wrote:
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...

You know... longspears are simple weapons, meaning almost anyone can use them without penalty. Armor spikes are martial weapons. Many of the PCs who might be in the market for a nice pointy longspear would be making that choice because they don't know how to use... say a ranseur.

Now, we could go ahead and start a thread about if the noble ranseur can be improvised to threaten adjacent targets but that's not what this one is about.

Yes, spiked gauntlets. Kind of going to impact on your somatic components though, isn't it? I mean, longspears are sort of the go-to weapon for squishy casters looking to encourage bad guys to stay back. They're not iconic for Joe Warrior, really.

It's kind of a nice idea that inept combatants with a very rudimentary weapon have limitations on how they can use such a thing, and that working around those limitations should have trade-offs. Joe Warrior probably has feats to burn, proficiency options to burn, archetype and prestige class features to burn and so on.

Maybe obeying the rule that forbids adjacent attacks with reach weapons isn't such a horrible idea after all. Maybe making people work for the work-arounds is a neat thing. Huh.


Yea, because of all the options the caster has that need to be balanced it is the two-handed weapon (what were you saying about somatic components?) that he takes a -4 to use on top of his terrible strength score and 1/2 BAB.

And, by the way, you can put armor spikes on an armored kilt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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...

You know... longspears are simple weapons, meaning almost anyone can use them without penalty. Armor spikes are martial weapons. Many of the PCs who might be in the market for a nice pointy longspear would be making that choice because they don't know how to use... say a ranseur.

Now, we could go ahead and start a thread about if the noble ranseur can be improvised to threaten adjacent targets but that's not what this one is about.

Yes, spiked gauntlets. Kind of going to impact on your somatic components though, isn't it? I mean, longspears are sort of the go-to weapon for squishy casters looking to encourage bad guys to stay back. They're not iconic for Joe Warrior, really.

It's kind of a nice idea that inept combatants with a very rudimentary weapon have limitations on how they can use such a thing, and that working around those limitations should have trade-offs. Joe Warrior probably has feats to burn, proficiency options to burn, archetype and prestige class features to burn and so on.

Maybe obeying the rule that forbids adjacent attacks with reach weapons isn't such a horrible idea after all. Maybe making people work for the work-arounds is a neat thing. Huh.

Wow, you know it's a serious RAW discussion when subjective (and in my view limited, naive, and absurd) balance issues get raised. Seriously, the don't do anything except to prove my point that you are only interested in establishing what you think we SHOULD do in the Pathfinder Tabletop Strategy Wargame that you want use the CRB for, instead of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that we are talking about. Easy mistake to make, because the rules are in the same book, but we're talking about totally different games. Please stop trying to apply the rules you've made up for your game to mine.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
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.

Remy backs me up! : )

I've cited double weapons as support frequently on this thread. The reason you can attack with different parts of a double weapon is because those are the rules for double weapons! Therefore, if it's a double weapon then you can!

And if it isn't a double weapon then you can't use if as if it were.


The double weapon property allows you to continue to use feats and abilities, and allows you to make off-hand attacks with the same weapon.

None of that is in question. Remy's point is that using different parts of the weapon in the game has precedent, he did not try to say that they are double weapons.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
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.

Remy backs me up! : )

I've cited double weapons as support frequently on this thread. The reason you can attack with different parts of a double weapon is because those are the rules for double weapons! Therefore, if it's a double weapon then you can!

And if it isn't a double weapon then you can't use if as if it were.

And there are rules for using a weapon as not intended. They are called the improvised weapon rules.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Wow, you know it's a serious RAW discussion when subjective (and in my view limited, naive, and absurd) balance issues get raised. Seriously, the don't do anything except to prove my point that you are only interested in establishing what you think we SHOULD do in the Pathfinder Tabletop Strategy Wargame that you want use the CRB for, instead of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that we are talking about. Easy mistake to make, because the rules are in the same book, but we're talking about totally different games. Please stop trying to apply the rules you've made up for your game to mine.

Remember the compliment I paid the thread a page or two back? Mmmm.

I didn't make up a single thing and you know it. Every single attempt to ignore the singlemost applicable word - cannot - are made-up end-run attempts to ignore the actual printed word. Insinuating that I am playing some game that is WrongBadFun isn't even vaguely courteous.

What you should be doing is having fun. Nobody disputes that. But when the question arises, "what do the rules say", you don't get to pick and choose. You just don't.

There is no printed rule that permits what this thread asks. If you want the rules altered or James' opinion made official, petition for it. But don't go around pretending I'm Doing It Wrong.

Silver Crusade

RDM42 wrote:
And there are rules for using a weapon as not intended. They are called the improvised weapon rules.

The improvised weapon rules are not for weapons at all!

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

The double weapon property allows you to continue to use feats and abilities, and allows you to make off-hand attacks with the same weapon.

None of that is in question. Remy's point is that using different parts of the weapon in the game has precedent, he did not try to say that they are double weapons.

Yes, it has a precedent, which involves a written exception to the normal rules.

It's not that weapons can't be used in ways not set out in the combat chapter, it's that you can only use them in other ways if you have a written exception which allows you.

That exception may be the double quality, the Polearm Master special ability, the Short Haft feat from 3.5, or something else. But without such a written ability, you can't act as if you have an ability that you don't have.

It's as simple as that.


But not the Improvised Weapon rules?


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


There is no printed rule that permits what this thread asks.

There is also no printed rule that denies it. The "cannot" you refer to will NEVER APPLY because I'm not attacking with that weapon, in the way those rules are referencing. Your only defense against this, again and again, has been to repeat some variation on the line above. That is NOT a RAW argument. That is an argument that the RAW should be read as permissive, which, again, doesn't have to be the case.

Second, I didn't say you were having wrongbadfun. I said you were playing a different game than I am, and seeking to regulate MY game by establishing YOUR opinion on the game as the "official" rules, which I am then free to house rule if I feel I must.

I will repeat this again - you can officially and correctly play the game EITHER WAY. What I object to is NOT how you are playing it, but that you insist that we can/should/must elevate one of any number of equally valid options as "official" for what appears to be no benefit whatsoever. If it truly doesn't matter how anyone rules this in a home game, then why even waste Paizo's time demanding and "official" ruling. Why not just accept that any ruling is fine and official, and leave it be?

The problem, of course, is that if you were honest with yourself and us for even a moment, you would acknowledge that the real motivation behind this thread is not idle curiosity, it's not a neutral quest to "know the rules", it's an attempt to use the perceived authority of the "official" rules forum to elevate as "Normal" a mode of play that is no more worthwhile than any other, merely because the playstyle aligns with your preferences. I'm sorry if calling you out on that is "discourteous", but I think the act of claiming to not want to regulate anyone else's game while clearly seeking to regulate their game is, at best, dishonest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Yes, it has a precedent, which involves a written exception to the normal rules.

It's not that weapons can't be used in ways not set out in the combat chapter, it's that you can only use them in other ways if you have a written exception which allows you.

That exception may be the double quality, the Polearm Master special ability, the Short Haft feat from 3.5, or something else. But without such a written ability, you can't act as if you have an ability that you don't have.

It's as simple as that.

Where is the written rule that lets my character fall asleep? Eat? Breathe?

If it's really as simple as "without such a written ability, you can't act as if you have an ability that you don't have", then do all your characters just instantly die? No, of course not. You've already, multiple times, conceded that the rules are not strictly permissive. As soon as that happened, YOU LOST. That was game over. RAW there is no "brightline" as to what is an acceptable action outside the rules, and what is going to far. That line is going to be different for different games and different groups, which is why the rules tell the GM and players to work out those questions on their own, at the table, RAW.

Let me save you the effort of responding, btw. Your response will simply be a reason (or reasons) why you think, in your own mind, that your interpretation is reasonable. And again, I will agree with that. I always agree that your interpretation is reasonable and correct and official. I just think it's not the ONLY reasonable and correct and official answer, and I can't understand why I'm having to go to such lengths to defend that position. There is no concrete, universally objective RAW answer beyond "Maybe", and no matter how much you are convinced that the people who view the game differently than you are ridiculous or cheating, or whatever, that is just your opinion. If you truly think you can "prove" your opinion is an objective fact, well then Ayn Rand called, she wants her "being catastrophically wrong" back.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The double weapon property allows you to continue to use feats and abilities, and allows you to make off-hand attacks with the same weapon.

None of that is in question. Remy's point is that using different parts of the weapon in the game has precedent, he did not try to say that they are double weapons.

Yes, it has a precedent, which involves a written exception to the normal rules.

It's not that weapons can't be used in ways not set out in the combat chapter, it's that you can only use them in other ways if you have a written exception which allows you.

That exception may be the double quality, the Polearm Master special ability, the Short Haft feat from 3.5, or something else. But without such a written ability, you can't act as if you have an ability that you don't have.

It's as simple as that.

Awesome, I'm glad we agree. The written exception I am using is "Improvised Weapons"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
There is also no printed rule that denies it. The "cannot" you refer to will NEVER APPLY because I'm not attacking with that weapon, in the way those rules are referencing. Your only defense against this, again and again, has been to repeat some variation on the line above. That is NOT a RAW argument. That is an argument that the RAW should be read as permissive, which, again, doesn't have to be the case.

Y'know what? Improvise a Huge warhammer. -4 to the attack and you just... ignore the rule about weapons sizes because you're not using it that way.

Nah, you wouldn't do that because that's not a rule you want to ignore, despite it's being printed.

There's a rule. You found a loophole. I disagree that the loophole is valid.

Quote:
Second, I didn't say you were having wrongbadfun. I said you were playing a different game than I am, and seeking to regulate MY game by establishing YOUR opinion on the game as the "official" rules, which I am then free to house rule if I feel I must.

Just to let you know... I haven't marked this as a FAQ. I chose that deliberately because I don't see the rules as written being anything less than clear. So honestly I don't see my position as based on opinion.

Quote:
I will repeat this again - you can officially and correctly play the game EITHER WAY. What I object to is NOT how you are playing it, but that you insist that we can/should/must elevate one of any number of equally valid options as "official" for what appears to be no benefit whatsoever. If it truly doesn't matter how anyone rules this in a home game, then why even waste Paizo's time demanding and "official" ruling. Why not just accept that any ruling is fine and official, and leave it be?

This is me, pointing at my last paragraph. I suppose I didn't actually say that anywhere. I too view this as a waste of Paizo's time. The PDT has better things to do than this. I prefer the rules to say what they say (the thing with "cannot"), but I remain willing to accept that a DM can and should bend the RAW from time to time, even on this specific, precise topic. I remain willing to point out that I myself would accept an argument from a player to permit such an action. I've spoken about how I would house-rule this. But none of that changes my view of what the rules say. For me it's not about what should be, but what is. Simply because that was the way this thread was framed.

Quote:
The problem, of course, is that if you were honest with yourself and us for even a moment, you would acknowledge that the real motivation behind this thread is not idle curiosity, it's not a neutral quest to "know the rules", it's an attempt to use the perceived authority of the "official" rules forum to elevate as "Normal" a mode of play that is no more worthwhile than any other, merely because the playstyle aligns with your preferences. I'm sorry if calling you out on that is "discourteous", but I think the act of claiming to not want to regulate anyone else's game while clearly seeking to regulate their game is, at best, dishonest.

Interesting. And yet I haven't FAQ'd this thread. See, I don't care what's normal. I don't care what anyone else is doing at their table. I don't even much care what the RAW is with regards to my table.

What I do care about is that what the rules say are an elegant design. They're a foundation that offers a better baseline to work from than if they said something else. I'm saying that the rule denying adjacent attacks provides a more rich complexity that a DM can work with than a rule that say "you can just do whatever... -4 and call it a day."

At my table, would I allow a crossbow to be used to beat someone up with? Yeah, sure. You don't threaten with it for purposes of flanking or AoO, but I'll let you hit someone in the head, and they might even get an AoO on you like using an unarmed strike, but you can do it. Oh. Strapped a knife on your crossbow? Hmmm, that's interesting. Sounds like an improvised bayonet. Clever. Now your ranged weapon is part melee weapon. Yeah, okay, how about we treat it as an improvised weapon until and unless you get a weaponsmith to go over this contraption of yours and make it reliable? Use a 10 foot pole to actually hurt someone? Mmmm. Dunno. I'll have to think about that one in particular. The pole's not terribly thick... dunno.

See, those questions, those thoughts, those improvisations, those exceptions, all arise from the cannot of various weapon rules. The rules - as they were written - offer that, for me, and for you, to pick up or put down at will. The moment the rules actually say "you can use a weapon in an improvised fashion", as James phrased it, is the moment decision-making is taken away and the answer to any weapon-related question becomes "-4". Sort of... bland.

So yeah, I prefer the rules to (continue to) SAY what they DO say. Does not reflect what I allow or disallow at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You see -4 as bland because you favor a mechanical diversity and you read the rules that way. I see -4 as an elegant way to promote theatrical diversity and I read the rules that way.

I also believe my way of reading the rules is inline with the design philosophy of the game. In the event that you could read the rules in two different ways I (if I was indifferent to the result) would follow the way that most closely aligns with design intentions.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

You could also just buy them from some wizard who made them with fabricate.


Anguish wrote:


Y'know what? Improvise a Huge warhammer. -4 to the attack and you just... ignore the rule about weapons sizes because you're not using it that way.

When you use an improvised weapon you compare it to the table to find size and damage potential. The size of a huge warhammer is a huge one-handed weapon, thus you need to be large to use it (as a two-handed weapon at a -2 penalty)


Oenar, the Winter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
You could also just buy them from some wizard who made them with fabricate.

True that, not crafted at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the question here seems to hinge on the definition of an "improvised weapon." This Core Rule is actually very clear on that.

Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

A spear is crafted to be used as a weapon. Therefore it cannot be an improvised weapon, per the Core Pathfinder Rules.

The only exception I know is the Monk of the Empty Hand, but even here the point is not at issue. All weapons except shuriken are treated as improvised weapons for this monk, and you can never use an improvised weapon as a reach weapon.

So the definition of an improvised weapon is an object NOT crafted to be a weapon. Since a longspear is clearly crafted to be a weapon, it cannot be an improvised weapon.

Think of a venn diagram. In one circle are weapons. in another circle, not overlapping, with no intersection, is everything else. Only objects in the second circle can be improvised weapons.


I crafted my long spear to be a wall decoration. I bought my long spear from a wizard who made it with a fabricate spell and it wasn't crafted at all. So those are ok?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for what I am about to say, but those examples seem silly.

If your "spear" is a decoration, then it was not crafted for use as a weapon, thus it is not a weapon, thus it has no reach, thus it is always treated as an improvised weapon if you pick it up with intent to harm.

And to argue that a "fabricated" item is not a "crafted" item is absurd.

If these are the thin reeds on which your position stands, then I respectfully submit that you are not actually debating in good faith.

The rules are clear: No spear, and no item listed in the weapon tables, can ever be an improvised weapon.


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


Y'know what? Improvise a Huge warhammer. -4 to the attack and you just... ignore the rule about weapons sizes because you're not using it that way.

When you use an improvised weapon you compare it to the table to find size and damage potential. The size of a huge warhammer is a huge one-handed weapon, thus you need to be large to use it (as a two-handed weapon at a -2 penalty)

Thank you for demonstrating the point. You're picking and choosing when you feel like obeying the rules. When it's a longspear you're perfectly willing to discard the rule that says you can't attack nearby targets, despite that the improvised longspear is a longspear.

Now, I get it... you're talking about whacking someone with the side of the spear instead of jabbing them with the point. Got it. So... basically zero damage because the thing is so unwieldy and what little mass it has is spread out over 10 feet. Not quite the broomstick people are imagining.

So yeah, if you want to recognize that a Huge warhammer isn't practical to improvise, the same logic should apply to a stupid-long stick called "longspear".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cayzle wrote:

I apologize for what I am about to say, but those examples seem silly.

If your "spear" is a decoration, then it was not crafted for use as a weapon, thus it is not a weapon, thus it has no reach, thus it is always treated as an improvised weapon if you pick it up with intent to harm.

And to argue that a "fabricated" item is not a "crafted" item is absurd.

If these are the thin reeds on which your position stands, then I respectfully submit that you are not actually debating in good faith.

The rules are clear: No spear, and no item listed in the weapon tables, can ever be an improvised weapon.

The arguments are actually meant to demonstrate how absurd it is to argue RAW absent of authorial intent and common sense. If you have read the first few pages if this thread you will see that many on the other side of this discussion have insisted on ignoring those elements because they disrupt their view.

The fact that my examples are technically permissible in accordance with strict adherence to RAW is also inconvenient for them which is why they have not been addressed, because they know acknowledging that intent and common sense do belong in the conversation undoes their position.

They are trapped on both sides by their premise.


Anguish wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
Anguish wrote:


Y'know what? Improvise a Huge warhammer. -4 to the attack and you just... ignore the rule about weapons sizes because you're not using it that way.

When you use an improvised weapon you compare it to the table to find size and damage potential. The size of a huge warhammer is a huge one-handed weapon, thus you need to be large to use it (as a two-handed weapon at a -2 penalty)

Thank you for demonstrating the point. You're picking and choosing when you feel like obeying the rules. When it's a longspear you're perfectly willing to discard the rule that says you can't attack nearby targets, despite that the improvised longspear is a longspear.

Now, I get it... you're talking about whacking someone with the side of the spear instead of jabbing them with the point. Got it. So... basically zero damage because the thing is so unwieldy and what little mass it has is spread out over 10 feet. Not quite the broomstick people are imagining.

So yeah, if you want to recognize that a Huge warhammer isn't practical to improvise, the same logic should apply to a stupid-long stick called "longspear".

Anguish, I've been meaning to ask you if you believe that it is rules legal to hit someone on the head with the pommel of your sword using the improvised weapon rules?

You seem to be hung up on the "reach" issue. Is that not an issue for you with other weapons?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
And there are rules for using a weapon as not intended. They are called the improvised weapon rules.

The improvised weapon rules are not for weapons at all!

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...

Which is, again, an interesting interpretation.

The spear shaft is, in fact, an object.

This is, by plain English which applies - a fact.

That spear shaft was not designed for use as a close quarters bludgeoning weapon.

Therefore it is an object not designed for use as a weapon.

You can only get your denial by inserting things into the equation which are not, in fact, written in the rules.


RDM42 wrote:

The spear shaft is, in fact, an object.

This is, by plain English which applies - a fact.

That spear shaft was not designed for use as a close quarters bludgeoning weapon.

Therefore it is an object not designed for use as a weapon.

You can only get your denial by inserting things into the equation which are not, in fact, written in the rules.

"A spear shaft is, in fact, an object." -- I disagree. A spear shaft is a PART of an object. Specifically, it is a part of an object crafted to be a weapon. It cannot be an improvised weapon.

The pommel or hilt of a weapon is also a part of an object, not an object. And it too cannot be improvised.

The whole "attach something to the spear and then use that" argument is also absurd, sorry. If you attach something to a spear, but you can still use it as a spear, then it remains a spear, and cannot be improvised. If you attach something to a spear that is so disruptive to its functioning that it can no longer function as a spear, then is becomes an object you have crafted to no longer be a weapon; in which case you can treat it as an improvised weapon, but it loses all reach qualities and other properties that made it a spear. It ceases to be a spear, in fact.

No weapon can be used as an improvised weapon. That's just the what the rules say. Sure, you can make a house rule, but if you are in this forum, then clearly an object is either a weapon or it is not. If it is not a weapon, you can treat it as improvised. That's all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.


Cayzle wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

The spear shaft is, in fact, an object.

This is, by plain English which applies - a fact.

That spear shaft was not designed for use as a close quarters bludgeoning weapon.

Therefore it is an object not designed for use as a weapon.

You can only get your denial by inserting things into the equation which are not, in fact, written in the rules.

"A spear shaft is, in fact, an object." -- I disagree. A spear shaft is a PART of an object. Specifically, it is a part of an object crafted to be a weapon. It cannot be an improvised weapon.

The pommel or hilt of a weapon is also a part of an object, not an object. And it too cannot be improvised.

The whole "attach something to the spear and then use that" argument is also absurd, sorry. If you attach something to a spear, but you can still use it as a spear, then it remains a spear, and cannot be improvised. If you attach something to a spear that is so disruptive to its functioning that it can no longer function as a spear, then is becomes an object you have crafted to no longer be a weapon; in which case you can treat it as an improvised weapon, but it loses all reach qualities and other properties that made it a spear. It ceases to be a spear, in fact.

No weapon can be used as an improvised weapon. That's just the what the rules say. Sure, you can make a house rule, but if you are in this forum, then clearly an object is either a weapon or it is not. If it is not a weapon, you can treat it as improvised. That's all.

If its clear, please provide the definition of object which supports your two conclusions?

Where do the rules say anywhere, that separate parts of the weapon can't be used, that you can't make an improvised attack with a sword hilt or a spear shaft? I keep seeing it repeated that the rules say you can't do that but I've never once seen someone arrive there without imposing a rule that isn't written anywhere and saying it "obviously" applies.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.

Both things have been done over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and those of you intent on using a spear as an improvised weapon simply ignore the answers. You wait until a few pages of posts have gone by and then make that same tired claim again.


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

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.

Both things have been done over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and those of you intent on using a spear as an improvised weapon simply ignore the answers. You wait until a few pages of posts have gone by and then make that same tired claim again.

No, they actually haven't. You make statement a and statement c, but completely ignore connective tissue b that is needed to make it a factual statement. You use an unwritten rule to declare something "rules as written". Don't you see the irony in that?

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.

Both things have been done over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and those of you intent on using a spear as an improvised weapon simply ignore the answers. You wait until a few pages of posts have gone by and then make that same tired claim again.
No, they actually haven't. You make statement a and statement c, but completely ignore connective tissue b that is needed to make it a factual statement. You use an unwritten rule to declare something "rules as written". Don't you see the irony in that?

Yep answered that about a million times too and you are still making the same claim.


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

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.

Both things have been done over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and those of you intent on using a spear as an improvised weapon simply ignore the answers. You wait until a few pages of posts have gone by and then make that same tired claim again.
No, they actually haven't. You make statement a and statement c, but completely ignore connective tissue b that is needed to make it a factual statement. You use an unwritten rule to declare something "rules as written". Don't you see the irony in that?
Yep answered that about a million times too and you are still making the same claim.

No. You haven't answered it. All of your answers still rely on the same things that aren't actually written anywhere in the rules. You are answering by repeating the same thing which isn't there and more or less claiming it is.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:


No. You haven't answered it. All of your answers still rely on the same things that aren't actually written anywhere in the rules. You are answering by repeating the same thing which isn't there and more or less claiming it is.

And you sir know that is completely untrue. I have repeatedly asked that if you are going to claim that I have done something to post quotes as evidence. To this date you have not a single time done so because your claims are false. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to stop you from lying about my position and what I have posted. Have a nice evening.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


No. You haven't answered it. All of your answers still rely on the same things that aren't actually written anywhere in the rules. You are answering by repeating the same thing which isn't there and more or less claiming it is.
And you sir know that is completely untrue. I have repeatedly asked that if you are going to claim that I have done something to post quotes as evidence. To this date you have not a single time done so because your claims are false. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to stop you from lying about my position and what I have posted. Have a nice evening.

You keep saying that there is a rule that the parts of an object cannot be treated as objects themselves. That is written absolutely nowhere whatsoever in the rules. You also by extension then say that those separate parts are "intended for use as a weapon" even if they aren't. Such as the pommel of the sword. But the entirety of that logical construct relies on saying that a weapon is completely indivisible and no distinction can be made between its obvious main component parts, and that if any part of an object is designed to cause damage than all parts are. Trying to say someone else is "lying" isn't an answer. If you want to claim that other people are ignoring you "constantly" answering their objections then you probably shouldn't be doing the same thing you are claiming yourself.


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


No. You haven't answered it. All of your answers still rely on the same things that aren't actually written anywhere in the rules. You are answering by repeating the same thing which isn't there and more or less claiming it is.
And you sir know that is completely untrue. I have repeatedly asked that if you are going to claim that I have done something to post quotes as evidence. To this date you have not a single time done so because your claims are false. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to stop you from lying about my position and what I have posted. Have a nice evening.

Ok, of you have repeatedly posted the rule quote that defines "object" as a game term or posted the rule that says "weapons cannot be used as improvised weapons" just link to that post. I haven't seen it. Just link the post where you quoted those rules. I really want to see the post where you did that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding. I've always thought of tabletop rpg's in the d&d family as something closer to playing cops & robbers or cowboys & indians than playing chess or a computer game or something like that with a strict code. The "rules" always had some omissions and internal inconsistencies but it worked out ok because it was a game being shared by living, thinking human beings.

The rules aren't even rules exactly, they're systems for helping to make rulings. They can't cover everything.


A dragon has kidnapped a princess. BSF goes off to save the princess with his magical +3 dragonbane longspear! The dragon, flying overhead, charges the BSF and swallows him whole. Oh no screams the princess as she hears crunching sounds. Inside the dragon's stomach, the BSF and his trusty longspear have survived the ordeal. BSF decides to attack with the shaft of his longspear (treating it as a non-magical/non-masterwork club with a -4 to hit). After several swings (and unable to pass the dragons DR), the BSF is no more.

How dare the fighter use his uberspear as a normal club! screams the squire standing by idly. The BSF became overpowered when he dropped his damage down to a d6+strength. We cannot have this! We must complain to the wizards in the mages tower to cast magic over the realms to prevent anyone else from abusing this clearly superior form of attack!


"Oh no screams the princess as she hears crunching sounds."

I'm totally saving that line for my off-brand D&D novel. :)


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.

No one is trying to get around a game balance mechanic. attacking with a reach weapon against an adjacent target as an improvised weapon is a bad idea. Simply using a spiked gauntlet is superior in every conceivable way.

We are arguing what is RAW. Attacking with objects is RAW, specifically Improvised Weapon rules.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
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.

Remy backs me up! : )

I've cited double weapons as support frequently on this thread. The reason you can attack with different parts of a double weapon is because those are the rules for double weapons! Therefore, if it's a double weapon then you can!

And if it isn't a double weapon then you can't use if as if it were.

Cool, then we are in agreement that defined objects are composites of component objects, and that the component objects can be used in isolation.

Sweet! I attack with my longspear shaft! /battlecry


BigDTBone wrote:
Cayzle wrote:

I apologize for what I am about to say, but those examples seem silly.

If your "spear" is a decoration, then it was not crafted for use as a weapon, thus it is not a weapon, thus it has no reach, thus it is always treated as an improvised weapon if you pick it up with intent to harm.

And to argue that a "fabricated" item is not a "crafted" item is absurd.

If these are the thin reeds on which your position stands, then I respectfully submit that you are not actually debating in good faith.

The rules are clear: No spear, and no item listed in the weapon tables, can ever be an improvised weapon.

The arguments are actually meant to demonstrate how absurd it is to argue RAW absent of authorial intent and common sense. If you have read the first few pages if this thread you will see that many on the other side of this discussion have insisted on ignoring those elements because they disrupt their view.

The fact that my examples are technically permissible in accordance with strict adherence to RAW is also inconvenient for them which is why they have not been addressed, because they know acknowledging that intent and common sense do belong in the conversation undoes their position.

They are trapped on both sides by their premise.

That is so beautifully put.


PatientWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

@Cayzle

You've said twice now that "the rules say" you cannot use a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon. I would like you to show me that in the rule book. While you are at it I would like you to show me the game definition of "object" from the rule book.

When you realize that both of those are impossible to accomplish you may realize that it isn't as "clear" as you seem to think.

Both things have been done over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and those of you intent on using a spear as an improvised weapon simply ignore the answers. You wait until a few pages of posts have gone by and then make that same tired claim again.

Link us to some of these answers then huh? Lol.


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


No. You haven't answered it. All of your answers still rely on the same things that aren't actually written anywhere in the rules. You are answering by repeating the same thing which isn't there and more or less claiming it is.
And you sir know that is completely untrue. I have repeatedly asked that if you are going to claim that I have done something to post quotes as evidence. To this date you have not a single time done so because your claims are false. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to stop you from lying about my position and what I have posted. Have a nice evening.

YEAH!

RDM42, how dare you not post his quotes that you claim don't exist. You should always quote the things other people haven't said!

How could you man!

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,668 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 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