| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reach weapons cannot attack adjacent targets: done.
Pathfinders is not a game of logic. Pathfinders is a game with magic and unicorns and talking ducks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why am I suddenly wishing for Sean K Reynolds to drop by this thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why am I suddenly wishing for Sean K Reynolds to drop by this thread?
+1
Next time I'm running a game (which is tomorrow), if a player asks if their PC can smack their opponent with the haft of their spear/polearm, I'll do the the following:
I'll see if I can picture it in my head. Check.
Does it look awesome? Check (well, awesome enough)
Can I use the rules to provide for this awesome action the player wishes to make? Check.
It's all good! The player gets to try to do something awesome, everyone has a great time!
Did I miss something??
I doubt the rules of this game were written to withstand forensic cross examination by amateur philosophers. Applying such ott attention to minutiae is an exercise in frustration.
And even if they were, I doubt it should be in the rules forum. The current discussion is beyond tangential.
We already have a rule which (I think) works great for this circumstance.
If you start knocking up additional rules to cover every little slightly different eventuality, you end up with some monstrous tome of slightly different rules coving effectively the same thing. A bit like british case law with dice.
That doesn't sound like fun to me.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people in this thread who think that a 10' pole is fine to hit the guy next to you with, but a pointy 10' pole makes it impossible.
The sheer absurdity of that thought should be enough to make anyone see that if that is actually what the rules say, then the rules are wrong.
Fortunately, there is enough ambiguity in what the rules say to be able to rule in favor of what actually makes sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people in this thread who think that a 10' pole is fine to hit the guy next to you with, but a pointy 10' pole makes it impossible.
The sheer absurdity of that thought should be enough to make anyone see that if that is actually what the rules say, then the rules are wrong.
Fortunately, there is enough ambiguity in what the rules say to be able to rule in favor of what actually makes sense.
If someone wanted to attack with a 10-foot pole, I'd rule that it's most similar to a club with reach, so you could attack someone 10-feet away, but not adjacent.
The game says that reach weapons can't attack adjacent. Why? Because they are hampered by their length. If they thought being hampered in this way was possible but at a penalty, they wouldn't have written the rule forbidding it!
There are several abilities that let you attack adjacent with a reach weapon, among which are Polearm Master, Spinning Lance, and Short Haft. I would feel cheated if I took the trouble to build my PC around being able to attack adjacent by getting one of these abilities, only for the DM to rule that anyone can do it anyway, with no investment at all.
I don't think too many DM's would rule that anyone could benefit from those abilities without investing in them. It looks like the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability let's you use the business end of a reach weapon against adjacent targets. Spinning Lance let's you use a lance kind of like a double weapon and apply any masterwork or magic properties to both ends.
I'm not familiar with Short Haft.
The issue is saying [X] is [Y] is not the same, logically, as saying [not X] is [ not Y].Yeah, I would agree with that, but the rules say that [Y] = [not X] don't they?
We have weapons... call them [X]
Improvise weapons [Y] are [not X] .."Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." This is that any object not a weapon [X] is defined as an improvised weapon.Thus improvised weapon is a boolean property excluding weapons.
[Not X] = [Y] If it is not a weapon it is an improvised weapon.
[Not Y] = [X] If it is a weapon it is not an improvised weapon.They become dependent properties (or whatever the term is).
Otherwise, as I stated earlier, improvised weapons would be a meaningless term. All objects are eligible for use as improvised weapons. [Y] becomes a non-dependent property that all objects (weapon and non-weapon) have.
Is there another way to read this?
You're actually making the same error MrTs pointed out earlier. You are reversing the contrapositive.
The statement [Not Y] = [X] actually says:
If something is not an improvised weapon, then it is a weapon.
That statement must not necessarily be true, just like his car example. Many things that are not an improvised weapons are also not weapons.
But, beyond that, the statement is flawed. The rules don't say, "If not X, then Y." They actually say, "Sometimes (not X) are Y." There is no way to derive from that statement that "X are not Y."
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people in this thread who think that a 10' pole is fine to hit the guy next to you with, but a pointy 10' pole makes it impossible.
The sheer absurdity of that thought should be enough to make anyone see that if that is actually what the rules say, then the rules are wrong.
Fortunately, there is enough ambiguity in what the rules say to be able to rule in favor of what actually makes sense.
If someone wanted to attack with a 10-foot pole, I'd rule that it's most similar to a club with reach, so you could attack someone 10-feet away, but not adjacent.
The game says that reach weapons can't attack adjacent. Why? Because they are hampered by their length. If they thought being hampered in this way was possible but at a penalty, they wouldn't have written the rule forbidding it!
If you honestly believe that the rules are permissive, as you say, then you should note that the RAW states that you compare the object to the weapon table only to determine size category and damage. It does not give you permission to add reach. How are you ruling that way?
If you honestly believe that the rules are permissive, as you say, then you should note that the RAW states that you compare the object to the weapon table only to determine size category and damage. It does not give you permission to add reach. How are you ruling that way?I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people in this thread who think that a 10' pole is fine to hit the guy next to you with, but a pointy 10' pole makes it impossible.
The sheer absurdity of that thought should be enough to make anyone see that if that is actually what the rules say, then the rules are wrong.
Fortunately, there is enough ambiguity in what the rules say to be able to rule in favor of what actually makes sense.
If someone wanted to attack with a 10-foot pole, I'd rule that it's most similar to a club with reach, so you could attack someone 10-feet away, but not adjacent.
The game says that reach weapons can't attack adjacent. Why? Because they are hampered by their length. If they thought being hampered in this way was possible but at a penalty, they wouldn't have written the rule forbidding it!
Because inferring things in the rules that aren't written is fine when it supports his position, but not when it doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Sometimes (not X) are Y."I was reading the sometimes differently. In this reading I would replace sometimes with "In some combat situations..."
Not, "when evaluating the properties of items some of those items not crafted to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons." I don't think it was intended to comment on object classification.
When I read it I see weapons and improvised weapons set up as mutually exclusive categories. We can debate the existence of a third class of objects -- objects that are neither improvised or normal weapons. The rules make everything that is not a weapon eligible to be an improvised weapon.
So, I am of the opinion that every object that you wield in combat is either an improvised weapon or a normal weapon: two mutually exclusive categories.
You are drawing that from somewhere other than the rules, then. Forget the "Sometimes" then.
X = Objects
Z = Weapons
Y = Can be improvised
"(X that are not Z) can be Y" is not the same as "(X that are also Z) cannot be Y".
The first statement being true does not make the second one true. You are drawing a false conclusion from the first statement. Substitute "Quadrilateral" for X, "Square" for Z, and "Rectangle" for Y, and you get a statement that says, "Quadrilaterals that are not squares can be rectangles." That is a true statement. But, the conclusion you would draw in that example is not true. "Quadrilaterals that are squares cannot be rectangles," is false.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True statement time:
A spear shaft is not a spear.
A spear is a weapon.
A spear shaft is not a weapon.
A spear shaft is an object.
A spear shaft is an object and not a weapon.
Attacking with an object is allowed by RAW.
Weapon rules cover attacking with a weapon.
Improvised Weapon rules cover attacking with an object that is not a weapon.
Since a spear shaft is an object, and is not a weapon, if you attack with it you use Improvised Weapon rules.
Sorry, this is not a true statement. A spear shaft is not an object. It does not exist in the game aside perhaps from flavor text. You cannot draw a spear shaft or sunder a spear shaft or cast mending on a spear shaft or store a spear shaft. You cannot polymorph an object into a spear shaft. If you did somehow make a spear shaft, it would be an object with no use, unless you added a point, at which time it would become a spear and cease to be a spear shaft.
A spear with its shaft are one object. They cannot be considered separately. That's because they have one common hit point total. If the spear is sundered, it gains the broken condition. If you cast mending, it affects the spear. If you want to draw your spear, you do not need a separate action to draw your haft.
If you want to create a weapon that is a double weapon that can be used with reach with one end and not with reach with another, that's fine. Just don't call it a longspear.
Next time I'm running a game (which is tomorrow), if a player asks if their PC can smack their opponent with the haft of their spear/polearm, I'll do the the following:
I'll see if I can picture it in my head. Check.
Does it look awesome? Check (well, awesome enough)
Can I use the rules to provide for this awesome action the player wishes to make? Check.It's all good! The player gets to try to do something awesome, everyone has a great time!
I totally agree with this! The DM at the table has the freedom to do all kinds of Rule Zero stuff to make the game great. No prob.
Just don't tell me the rules as written allow it. Instead, say that you houseruled it because you wanted to have a cool game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?
Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
|
|
So I have to disprove an unproven assertion?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
Isn't that what you basically expect of others?
Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.
|
|
There are several abilities that let you attack adjacent with a reach weapon, among which are Polearm Master, Spinning Lance, and Short Haft. I would feel cheated if I took the trouble to build my PC around being able to attack adjacent by getting one of these abilities, only for the DM to rule that anyone can do it anyway, with no investment at all.I don't think too many DM's would rule that anyone could benefit from those abilities without investing in them. It looks like the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability let's you use the business end of a reach weapon against adjacent targets. Spinning Lance let's you use a lance kind of like a double weapon and apply any masterwork or magic properties to both ends.
I'm not familiar with Short Haft.
It's a 3.5 feat, from PHB2, p.82:-
You have trained in polearm fighting alongside your comrades in arms, sometimes reaching past them while they shield you, and sometimes shielding them while they attack from behind you.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with a reach weapon, Weapon Focus with a reach weapon, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can choose to lose the benefit of wielding any reach weapon other other than a spiked chain or a whip. In return, you can use that weapon to threaten and attack spaces adjacent to you. With another swift action, you can give up this feat's benefit in order to regain the use of your weapon's superior reach.
Special: A fighter can select Short Haft as one of his fighter bonus feats.
I don't believe for a moment that the writers of the game since 3.0 intend reach weapons to be able to attack adjacent just by pretending it's not a real weapon.
If they intended actual weapons to be able to use the improvised weapons rules, they wouldn't have written, 'objects not crafted to be weapons...'
|
|
Do the boots cause you to kick in a different than normal manner?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
It does not matter...they are an improvised weapon becasue they are an object that is not a weapon....as per how you expect this to rule.
|
|
Plain english says, yes, it is ...So I have to disprove an unproven assertion?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
Isn't that what you basically expect of others?
Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.
I have doubts about your English if you claim it is a separate item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree with this! The DM at the table has the freedom to do all kinds of Rule Zero stuff to make the game great. No prob.Just don't tell me the rules as written allow it. Instead, say that you houseruled it because you wanted to have a cool game.
So, basically, you are totally cool with it and have no problem with it, but it's totally not allowed and is merely an unofficial house rule.
Hmm... that sounds like an attempt to claim to be one thing (totally fine with it), while at the same time doing the exact opposite (making a judgement against it).
If you truly agree with me that it is totally fine and acceptable, then what possible utility does adding "don't tell me the rules as written allow it" have? Why even bother including that bit? Why not just say "I have no problem with it" and leave it at that?
If you are a DM using Rule Zero to mod your game, then you are gold.
If you are a player trying to convince your DM that the rules allow you to use a spear haft as an improvised weapon, then I'm here to say you are wrong.
I have doubts about your English if you claim it is a separate item.Plain english says, yes, it is ...So I have to disprove an unproven assertion?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
Isn't that what you basically expect of others?
Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.
RAW doesnt require the item to be seperate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
is anyone else seeing the stupidity of trying to hit something at close range with the butt of a pole that is EIGHT FEET IN LENGTH?
if you are not, imagine you are in a 5-foot wide corridor, and that you have friends behind you...
no? anything? something???
yeahhhhhhhhhhh.... that's right.................... :)
is anyone else seeing the stupidity of trying to hit something at close range with the butt of a pole that is EIGHT FEET IN LENGTH?
if you are not, imagine you are in a 5-foot wide corridor, and that you have friends behind you...
no? anything? something???
yeahhhhhhhhhhh.... that's right.................... :)
Cross check.
There are several abilities that let you attack adjacent with a reach weapon, among which are Polearm Master, Spinning Lance, and Short Haft. I would feel cheated if I took the trouble to build my PC around being able to attack adjacent by getting one of these abilities, only for the DM to rule that anyone can do it anyway, with no investment at all.I don't think too many DM's would rule that anyone could benefit from those abilities without investing in them. It looks like the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability let's you use the business end of a reach weapon against adjacent targets. Spinning Lance let's you use a lance kind of like a double weapon and apply any masterwork or magic properties to both ends.
I'm not familiar with Short Haft.
It's a 3.5 feat, from PHB2, p.82:-
You have trained in polearm fighting alongside your comrades in arms, sometimes reaching past them while they shield you, and sometimes shielding them while they attack from behind you.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with a reach weapon, Weapon Focus with a reach weapon, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can choose to lose the benefit of wielding any reach weapon other other than a spiked chain or a whip. In return, you can use that weapon to threaten and attack spaces adjacent to you. With another swift action, you can give up this feat's benefit in order to regain the use of your weapon's superior reach.
Special: A fighter can select Short Haft as one of his fighter bonus feats.I don't believe for a moment that the writers of the game since 3.0 intend reach weapons to be able to attack adjacent just by pretending it's not a real weapon.
If they intended actual weapons to be able to use the improvised weapons rules, they wouldn't have written, 'objects not crafted to be weapons...'
You have stated several times that you don't care about intent. A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
|
|
RAW doesnt require the item to be seperate.I have doubts about your English if you claim it is a separate item.Plain english says, yes, it is ...So I have to disprove an unproven assertion?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
Isn't that what you basically expect of others?
Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.
Yes it does. You are using a spear, whether or not you are using the spear the intended way it is still a spear.
That may well be a good way to look at it, but it is not supported by the rules.
|
|
I have doubts about your English if you claim it is a separate item.Plain english says, yes, it is ...So I have to disprove an unproven assertion?A spear shaft is a part of a weapon. It is not a separate object that falls under the improvised weapon rules.Interesting house rule, unless perhaps you can point to where it says that?Actually the reverse is required. You need to bring the proof.
A spear is all parts combined, shaft and shaft head.
Or do you hold that I can claim that my boots are improvised weapons and as such I do not draw AoO when kicking with them on and attacking w/o IUA
Isn't that what you basically expect of others?
Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.
So a wheel has no separate identity, and is in fact a car?
When used together the parts make a car...they are not seperarate.
The shaft and spear head are one item called long spear.
So do you make the claim about me using a boot as an object and getting to use it as a weapon is legal in the game?
You provide questions and require answers but give no answers to questions posed that refute and show how illegitimate your claim is. Convenient.