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


Rules Questions

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,668 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
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?

Isn't that what you basically expect of others?

Considering that you are making the claim it is a separate item, yes you do.

Plain english says, yes, it is ...
I have doubts about your English if you claim it is a separate item.

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.

But when you use the haft to hit somone in the forehead you aren't in fact using the parts together. You are using the haft. Using the spear would be using the haft to move the point to stab into a body. Not using the haft to bash someone while the point uselessly rides along.


By the strict raw requirements Malachi has imposed on this thread (ie, no RAI, logic, or common sense allowed) I would say that a boot definitely fits the requirements for an improvised weapon and can be used as such.

Sovereign Court

RDM42 wrote:

But when you use the haft to hit somone in the forehead you aren't in fact using the parts together. You are using the haft. Using the spear would be using the haft to move the point to stab into a body. Not using the haft to bash someone while the point uselessly rides along.

Yet it is still a long spear. As intended or not it is still a long spear.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
By the strict raw requirements Malachi has imposed on this thread (ie, no RAI, logic, or common sense allowed) I would say that a boot definitely fits the requirements for an improvised weapon and can be used as such.

So you agree with that sentiment? Really?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Fabricate does use the craft skill in circumstances.

Fabricate creates items and isn't creating items just another way to say it is crafted?

So in the end it is a weapon...not an object that is not normally used as a weapon but you will use it in an improvised fashion.


OilHorse wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
By the strict raw requirements Malachi has imposed on this thread (ie, no RAI, logic, or common sense allowed) I would say that a boot definitely fits the requirements for an improvised weapon and can be used as such.
So you agree with that sentiment? Really?

No, I think it is ridiculous. But I also find most conversations about the rules which remove RAI, logic, and common sense to be ridiculous.

Before Malachi removed those from the arguement I was more partial to the appeal to common sense. Ie. why does adding a pointy bit to the end of a stick preclude me from cross checking the guy next to me with it?

Malachi didn't have a retort for that point so he stated that he no longer cared about common sense. Similarly he eliminated RAI from the discussion when another irrefutable point came up against his position. In the last 2 pages someone else has now declared logic off the table.

At this point all that is left are the words on the page, so...

Is a boot an object crafted to be a weapon? No. Then valid choice for improvised weapon.


OilHorse wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Fabricate does use the craft skill in circumstances.

Fabricate creates items and isn't creating items just another way to say it is crafted?

So in the end it is a weapon...not an object that is not normally used as a weapon but you will use it in an improvised fashion.

You are using intent, common sense, and logic. In a way you are helping me to make my point. Those things belong in this conversation because without them you get asinine results. Like saying putting a pointy end on a long stick precludes me from cross checking the guy next to me with it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

You argue that it is absurd for people to think that you can hit an adjacent creature with a 10' pole but when you put a point on the end suddenly you can't.

However, you seem to have no problem with the fact that someone proficient with the long spear can hit someone adjacent with a 10' pole as an improvised weapon but can't hit someone 10' away with it no matter what because improvised weapons can't have reach. He spends some time whittling a point on the end and suddenly he can not only attack at reach but retain his ability to attack adjacent foes as well.

If you are looking for realism in the rules you are doomed to be disappointed because no matter how complicated the rules they can never truly emulate real life.


OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

But when you use the haft to hit somone in the forehead you aren't in fact using the parts together. You are using the haft. Using the spear would be using the haft to move the point to stab into a body. Not using the haft to bash someone while the point uselessly rides along.

Yet it is still a long spear. As intended or not it is still a long spear.

Yet where does the ruleset tell you to use this odd definition which is absolutely required to make the counter logical interpretation of the rules to work?

So your nose is a human body in and of itself. If someone bites off your nose they by necessity put your ENTIRE body in their mouth because the to are complete and inseparable.


PatientWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

You argue that it is absurd for people to think that you can hit an adjacent creature with a 10' pole but when you put a point on the end suddenly you can't.

However, you seem to have no problem with the fact that someone proficient with the long spear can hit someone adjacent with a 10' pole as an improvised weapon but can't hit someone 10' away with it no matter what because improvised weapons can't have reach. He spends some time whittling a point on the end and suddenly he can not only attack at reach but retain his ability to attack adjacent foes as well.

If you are looking for realism in the rules you are doomed to be disappointed because no matter how complicated the rules they can never truly emulate real life.

Yes, because it is the business end (ie. the pointy bit) that makes it a viable reach weapon. I would absolutely call bs on someone who wanted to use a 10ft pole as a baseball bat and hit someone at 10ft.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.

The spear was fabricated, not crafted, therefore it is not a spear!!! hmmm... that reminds me of something... OH YEAH! let's do... the time... warrrrrp agaaaaain!!

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

hmmm... a cramped dungeon or cave would probably, as martial artist that has an ounce of common sense, invite you to bring close range weapons... the longspear is made to be used at range, come on! when someone slaps it aside and gets in your face, you shove a spiked gauntlet in his face. End of story! If you're really using real-life analogies don't assume you're doing the fighting in some kind of gymnasium or dojo with nothing hindering the oh-so majesty of your 8 foot pole twirling beautifully bronie style!


PatientWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.................... :)

Completely do-able. Heck, I've successfully used a Longspear in a Grapple, and I'm by no means a high level martial character.

Take a look at the link I posted earlier. It should give you some pretty good ideas of how close range polearm combat works.

You argue that it is absurd for people to think that you can hit an adjacent creature with a 10' pole but when you put a point on the end suddenly you can't.

However, you seem to have no problem with the fact that someone proficient with the long spear can hit someone adjacent with a 10' pole as an improvised weapon but can't hit someone 10' away with it no matter what because improvised weapons can't have reach. He spends some time whittling a point on the end and suddenly he can not only attack at reach but retain his ability to attack adjacent foes as well.

If you are looking for realism in the rules you are doomed to be disappointed because no matter how complicated the rules they can never truly emulate real life.

I'm not looking for the rules to emulate real life. I'm looking for them to have internal consistency that aligns with common sense.

I think ten foot poles, when used as improvised weapons should be allowed to be treated as having the Reach property (if that is how the creature with the stick wants to use it). Doing it that way isn't covered in the rules, but I think many GMs would agree that it makes sense. Likewise, Canes should be allowed to be treated as though they have the Trip property, and Grappling Hooks should be allowed to be used to Disarm.

These aren't big leaps of logic. They just make sense.

If the rules don't model this in a way that makes sense, then the rules are wrong. It's that simple.

It's for situations like this that we have GM adjudication and Rule Zero.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Agreed. Whatever your GM says is good to go for HIS game.

Everything else: can't use reach weapon in squares adjacent to you. Simple enough I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Agreed. Whatever your GM says is good to go for HIS game.

Everything else: can't use reach weapon in squares adjacent to you. Simple enough I think.

No.

There is no "everything else". Just stop. Stop trying to push your logic onto everyone under the guise of establishing a simple RAW ruling. There is exactly zero textual support for any conclusion here other that your first line - Whatever the GM says it what it is. There is no default normal, there is no "official" way to play it, there is no RAW, and there is no house rules. The rules say as much about improvising with manufactured weapons as they do about characters falling asleep normally, or what the name of the town blacksmith is.

Here's the Truth (note capital T)

1) Language does not work the way you want it to. The statement "Sometimes objects not intended to be weapons..." yadda yadda DOES NOT logically mean that objects intended to be weapons are exempt from those rules. It just doesn't. The actual formal logic has been demonstrated more than once. At best, the interpretation you espouse is only one of any number of possible alternatives.

2) Language still does not work the way you want it to. Nothing in the rules says that I have to retain all the "normal" properties of the object when it is used as an improvised weapon. Again, the fact that some people are "convinced" that the rules say that (or at least that they should) means nothing. All the conviction and respect for the majesty of the text of the rules will not make that rule appear in the text. Indeed, such a rule would be a terrible idea, as we see in:

3) The interpretation you are advocating either breaks the game entirely, or relies on subjective interpretations (which means it's not really objective RAW, and I've been right all along). Here's why: If objects that are used as improvised weapons must retain all the original properties and rules of the item first, then, since one of those properties is necessarily "not for use as a weapon", as soon as I try to use it, the rules break. Even more pointed was my (totally unanswered) example of a 6 foot mithril poll. If I wanted to use that as an improvised weapon, the closest match seems to be a quarterstaff or club, but if I have to also follow the material rules for mithril (which specifically state that items like quarterstaves and clubs CAN'T be made from mithril), then I am left in a situation where a solid length of a metal which is harder than steel can nonetheless not be swung as a weapon.

4) Even your responses simply prove my point. Now, the answer to the previous charge will go one of two ways, both of which make me right. Way one, there will be an attempt to demonstrate that there is some distinction between one situation and the improvised spear. This distinction will, however, be a subjective one, and will simply prove that no matter how the you try to slice it, the interpretation always boils down to a personal preference about where to draw the line between what is a reasonable "original object" rule to keep, and which can be safely ignored. Alternately, the answer may be to simply concede that such absurdities are a necessary element of an abstracted rules set, but again, that simply proves that the you're arguing from a subjective standpoint of placing the perceived integrity of the rules above the narrative/storytelling elements. You may even say something like "Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with an improvised mithril quarterstaff, but...", which just brings us back to you attempting to correct the obvious objective flaws in your interpretation with an appeal to subjective reasoning.

5) There is no value, need, or benefit to the project of establishing your subjective opinion as an official RAW "fact", especially not if you all truly agree that it's totally fine to play it any way you want. If deviation from the norm is not bad or undesirable, then there is no value in establishing the norm in the first place. The fact that no-one can articulate a viable reason why we need a ruling here that doesn't boil down to "knowing the right way to play is important" gives lie to the oft repeated assertion that you are not trying to regulate other people's fun. You know what you are doing, and you know it's a bad practice, or else why would you keep pretending that you don't care how other people play? Either bite the bullet and admit that you really aren't okay with people playing differently than you, or bite the bullet and admit that there is no value in a ruling that we are all free to continue to ignore anyway.

6) The rules design team is not a special, omnipotent authority, and regardless of what they say the RAI on this issue was, the fact is that dev RAI is frequently out of step with the needs/wants of individual tables, and thus should be considered, at best, as a piece of advice on how to handle things, but never has the force of rules. Thus, even if they say that "No, we didn't intend to allow manufactured weapons to be improvised, nor do we think you should allow it", because they didn't actually WRITE that, it's not a violation of any RAW to play it the other way.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Geez some people really want their cake and eat it too. Why try so hard to fight with a longspear in adjacent squares? I really don't get it... a simple pair of spiked gauntlets means your armed at close range. Or armor spikes. Or Improved Unarmed Attack feat. Or if you REALLY want to do that, then they even give you an official option to do it:

Polearm Master
The polearm master is schooled in the ancient wisdom that enemies are best faced at the end of long striking pole, lashing like a serpent before clumsy swords and axes can even be brought to bear.

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. This ability replaces bravery.

There you go: 2 level fighter dip. But do note that a fighter specialised in this STILL suck at this at level 2!!!!!!

Trying to circumvent the rules by liberal interpretations of how improvised weapons work is cheesy at best. If you don't think the rule is spelled out and that you could have a never ending debate with your DM trying to "convince" him that your way is legal, then, in my humble opinion and after 14 years of d20 system gaming, I really think you should consider taking the official feats or archetype that lets you do what you want to do or think of another character concept. Life is short: don't get bogged down trying to fight useless battles. Accept the rules as they are and have fun with a fully legal 100% build with a clear conscience. If your DM makes a houserule, that's fine too, have fun with it then.


So instead of using a perfectly functional rules set to allow anyone to attempt a perfectly reasonable action, your answer is to say "sure, you can do it if you use a terrible ability from a terrible archetype"

Eyeroll.


The folks saying this is legal are not trying to convince off-forum folks of our position. The only person who that could fall on in Malachi because he started the thread. I get the impression that he DM's. Not that that precludes him from trying to convince some one off-line (maybe he and a player got in a tiff over it or he is trying to convince himself).

I'm really more interested in this discussion because I feel that the rules should be read in a way that supports theatrical diversity and answers to common sense. I have an added interest in this case because it has evolved slowly as each channel of arguement has been removed. Common sense, logic, and RAI are now all supposedly off the table for discussing this point which has left us with "using a fabricated spear as improvised weapon is RAW" and "You can threaten with a kick, even if you don't have IUS, so long as you are wearing a boot."

The discussion, for me anyway, is really more about driving home how completely idiotic it is to read the rules that way (and it has been personally enjoyable to demonstrate ways to accomplish the action in question at each step along the way)

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:

The folks saying this is legal are not trying to convince off-forum folks of our position. The only person who that could fall on in Malachi because he started the thread. I get the impression that he DM's. Not that that precludes him from trying to convince some one off-line (maybe he and a player got in a tiff over it or he is trying to convince himself).

I'm really more interested in this discussion because I feel that the rules should be read in a way that supports theatrical diversity and answers to common sense. I have an added interest in this case because it has evolved slowly as each channel of arguement has been removed. Common sense, logic, and RAI are now all supposedly off the table for discussing this point which has left us with "using a fabricated spear as improvised weapon is RAW" and "You can threaten with a kick, even if you don't have IUS, so long as you are wearing a boot."

The discussion, for me anyway, is really more about driving home how completely idiotic it is to read the rules that way (and it has been personally enjoyable to demonstrate ways to accomplish the action in question at each step along the way)

I just don't think that as written, the rules support the ability to use the haft of a spear as an improvised weapon to allow you to threaten and attack adjacent squares.

It is a manufactured weapon, which the rules exclude from improvised weapons.

Sovereign Court

RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

But when you use the haft to hit somone in the forehead you aren't in fact using the parts together. You are using the haft. Using the spear would be using the haft to move the point to stab into a body. Not using the haft to bash someone while the point uselessly rides along.

Yet it is still a long spear. As intended or not it is still a long spear.

Yet where does the ruleset tell you to use this odd definition which is absolutely required to make the counter logical interpretation of the rules to work?

So your nose is a human body in and of itself. If someone bites off your nose they by necessity put your ENTIRE body in their mouth because the to are complete and inseparable.

Answer my question and I answer yours.


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

But when you use the haft to hit somone in the forehead you aren't in fact using the parts together. You are using the haft. Using the spear would be using the haft to move the point to stab into a body. Not using the haft to bash someone while the point uselessly rides along.

Yet it is still a long spear. As intended or not it is still a long spear.

Yet where does the ruleset tell you to use this odd definition which is absolutely required to make the counter logical interpretation of the rules to work?

So your nose is a human body in and of itself. If someone bites off your nose they by necessity put your ENTIRE body in their mouth because the to are complete and inseparable.

Answer my question and I answer yours.

First, you didn't ask a question you made a statement.

Second - its a statement I fundamentally disagree with. You believe you cannot treat any portion of an object separately from the whole. I don't agree with that. And so far you have used only odd edge cases to try to argue against it. A boot on a foot doesn't count as a weapon unless it somehow fundamentally changes something about the kick. It might count as a weapon if say you clad its tip in iron or put a blade on it. But as an ordinary garden variety boot it changes nothing significant about the action of your foot kicking. So, really it is an irrelevant example. Whacking someone in the forehead with the blunt edge of a long wooden pole is significantly different from just punching them - so is treated differently.

Third; you still haven't answered the question after being asked multiple times by multiple people. The answers always go to 'it SHOULD say' or 'I believe' or some variation thereof.

You are arguing that something is strictly forbidden by the rules. Were arguing that the rules are vague on the point and don't really say. I'm sorry but "strictly forbidden" has a much higher standard of proof out of the two.

Silver Crusade

"BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.

Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.

Sovereign Court

RDM42 wrote:
First, you didn't ask a question you made a statement.

First: I asked a question a few posts back, which you have avoided to answer until your second paragraph.

Second: The tactic of thinking that, because you have cross-checked a guy actually matters in reference to how the boot has changed the style of attack, is irrelevant. The spear is a manufactured weapon, this includes the shaft. The rule for using improvised weapons says that it does not include manufactured weapons.

That is the end. How much more clear is it supposed to be?

Using the flat of a longsword blade does not turn it into an improvised weapon, wonder why? For the same reason as using the shaft won't for a spear. It is the same weapon used in a non traditional way. Take a penalty and deal nonlethal.

I find that people tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This "cake and eat it too" nonsense is complete horse hockey.

The words of fools, who have not only not seen how terrible this idea is, mechanically, but ignored all the much better options posted over, and over, throughout this thread.

You have no idea what nonsense you spew, if you even dare to throw "balance" as some sort of issue here.

Such "balance" issues, have been disproved, in completion, throughout this thread.

If you are willing to open your eyes, pull your hands off your ears, and stop yelling "nah nah nah nah" like some 9 year old child throwing a fit, you would know better.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
"BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.

not by your logic. The craft skill states it crafts objects. Fabricate does not. If you apply any method of reading the rules even vaguely similar to what leads to "spear shaft are not objects", then "objects created without Craft are not crafted" is equally (if not more) supported by rules.

Silver Crusade

RDM42 wrote:
Yet where does the ruleset tell you to use this odd definition which is absolutely required to make the counter logical interpretation of the rules to work?

The rules define what a longspear is, in terms of how it interacts with the combat rules, on the weapons table in the equipment chapter. The only weapons on this list that can act if they were two different objects have the Double quality. If a weapon doesn't have the Double quality, it is used as a single object.

Quote:
So your nose is a human body in and of itself. If someone bites off your nose they by necessity put your ENTIRE body in their mouth because the to are complete and inseparable.

If someone bites your nose off, they get away with it because they say they didn't cause harm to you, only your nose! Your nose isn't 'you', so they get away with it.

Rubbish.

The rules don't care which part of a spear you use to attack; as far as the rules go, you're using 'the spear'.

As far as the 'I'm only using the shaft' argument goes, while using the shaft you are using the spear. The proof is easy: attack with the shaft without touching the spear.

Whether or not a steering wheel is a separate object to the car, if you steal the steering wheel by driving the car away, you have stolen the car.

You could break the steering wheel off and run away with that. You could also break the spear; if you do, then by all means use the improvised weapon rule to attack with any whole piece that remains, because at that point it's not a spear any more. But while the spear is an intact solid object, any attack with any part of it uses 'the spear', because it's impossible not to use 'the spear' when using any part of it. Since the use of 'the spear' to attack adjacent opponents is forbidden, this prevents you from using any part of it to attack adjacent foes.

If this were not the case, I'd choose 'the point' as a separate object and attack with that! If that was how the rules worked then they wouldn't have bothered writing that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent foes.

Silver Crusade

Oenar, the Winter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
"BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.
not by your logic. The craft skill states it crafts objects. Fabricate does not. If you apply any method of reading the rules even vaguely similar to what leads to "spear shaft are not objects", then "objects created without Craft are not crafted" is equally (if not more) supported by rules.

Your counter to the accusation of 'sophistry'...is more sophistry?


Oilhorse: incorrect that the rules say they do not include manufactured weapons. The rules does not say that crafted (note:crafted, not manufactured) weapons are included.

It may seem like nitpicking, but when the OP has specifically said that only RAW counts and that common sense, RAI and logic is irrellevant, distorting the words is a really really bad idea.

If the only thing that counts is RAW RAWy RAAAAW then those proposing it not working have to abide by that too, raher than making common sense arguments and refer to the calling out on their BS "sophistry".

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "cake and eat it too" nonsense is complete horse hockey.

The words of fools, who have not only not seen how terrible this idea is, mechanically, but ignored all the much better options posted over, and over, throughout this thread.

You have no idea what nonsense you spew, if you even dare to throw "balance" as some sort of issue here.

Such "balance" issues, have been disproved, in completion, throughout this thread.

If you are willing to open your eyes, pull your hands off your ears, and stop yelling "nah nah nah nah" like some 9 year old child throwing a fit, you would know better.

lol...speaking of acting like an petulant child...you are acting like one that is stomping his feat because people disagree with him calling them fools and ignorant.

This isn't about balance, not from me. In fact, look at my posts and you will not see me mention balance once.

I don't care about how inferior it is either, if it floats your boat, giddy up and use it. Never gave a damn about that either.

But simply put the rules for improvised weapons does not allow it.


OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
First, you didn't ask a question you made a statement.

First: I asked a question a few posts back, which you have avoided to answer until your second paragraph.

Second: The tactic of thinking that, because you have cross-checked a guy actually matters in reference to how the boot has changed the style of attack, is irrelevant. The spear is a manufactured weapon, this includes the shaft. The rule for using improvised weapons says that it does not include manufactured weapons.

That is the end. How much more clear is it supposed to be?

Using the flat of a longsword blade does not turn it into an improvised weapon, wonder why? For the same reason as using the shaft won't for a spear. It is the same weapon used in a non traditional way. Take a penalty and deal nonlethal.

I find that people tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Flat of the blade is covered here.

Frankly, it could cover using the long spear up close as well through another route.

"Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."

Call it a non lethal attack at close range.

And your argument still relies on a precept I fundamentally reject; you insist that the rules say a weapon can only be treated as indivisible and that no part of it can be used in any way differently. STILL waiting for something other than your opinion that says that.

Silver Crusade

I'm curious; for me (and I suspect nearly everyone) the parts of the rules that the game focusses on (combat, spellcasting, class abilities) are permissive.

The only way to see the improvised weapon rules as applying to weapons (when it says it's for non-weapon objects) is to claim that the combat rules are not permissive.

Since that leads to absurdity (it doesn't say it's not a Vorpal Holy Avenger, it doesn't say I can't threaten at 20-feet, it doesn't say it doesn't paralyse my target on contact, it doesn't say I can't so I can), please tell us what other combat rule is not permissive.

It seems like you've chosen this single rule to be non-permissive just to ignore the rule. Providing other non-permissive combat rules would help show your sincerity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
"BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.
not by your logic. The craft skill states it crafts objects. Fabricate does not. If you apply any method of reading the rules even vaguely similar to what leads to "spear shaft are not objects", then "objects created without Craft are not crafted" is equally (if not more) supported by rules.
Your counter to the accusation of 'sophistry'...is more sophistry?

You ask for RAW, i give you RAW. If youre going to exclude RAW too from your list of valid arguments, there is literally.nothing left. And since my argument relies on the same kind of reading as your "spear shafts are not objects", any sophistry from me has to be equally matched by you.

So, we prove it should work through common sense -you say NO COMMON SENSE! JUST RAW!
We prove it through RAI, you say NO RAI! JUST RAW!
We prove it through logic, you say NO LOGIC! JUST RAW!
We prove it by RAW,, you say STOP THIS SOPHISTRY!

At this point, youre only looking silly.

Sovereign Court

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

Oilhorse: incorrect that the rules say they do not include manufactured weapons. The rules does not say that crafted (note:crafted, not manufactured) weapons are included.

It may seem like nitpicking, but when the OP has specifically said that only RAW counts and that common sense, RAI and logic is irrellevant, distorting the words is a really really bad idea.

If the only thing that counts is RAW RAWy RAAAAW then those proposing it not working have to abide by that too, raher than making common sense arguments and refer to the calling out on their BS "sophistry".

Improvised Weapons wrote:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use,......

This is what you are talking about? And to include that the OP is the final arbiter?

I am not him, he is not me, but if the best you stand on the the idea that manufactured and crafted are different, then I would have to say we are at an impasse.

As written the rules for improvised weapons does not work because the spear is, crafted/manufactured/built/created/constructed (if that makes an actual difference) as a weapon. It is not the spearhead weapon part and the shaft non-weapon part.

Silver Crusade

RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
First, you didn't ask a question you made a statement.

First: I asked a question a few posts back, which you have avoided to answer until your second paragraph.

Second: The tactic of thinking that, because you have cross-checked a guy actually matters in reference to how the boot has changed the style of attack, is irrelevant. The spear is a manufactured weapon, this includes the shaft. The rule for using improvised weapons says that it does not include manufactured weapons.

That is the end. How much more clear is it supposed to be?

Using the flat of a longsword blade does not turn it into an improvised weapon, wonder why? For the same reason as using the shaft won't for a spear. It is the same weapon used in a non traditional way. Take a penalty and deal nonlethal.

I find that people tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Flat of the blade is covered here.

Frankly, it could cover using the long spear up close as well through another route.

"Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."

Call it a non lethal attack at close range.

And your argument still relies on a precept I fundamentally reject; you insist that the rules say a weapon can only be treated as indivisible and that no part of it can be used in any way differently. STILL waiting for something other than your opinion that says that.

The rules do what they say they do. You've quoted the rules for using lethal weapons to do non-lethal damage. Because those rules are written, you can do exactly what they say. It's important to note that if this rule did not exist, and you made it up yourself to use in your house, then it wouldn't be RAW by definition.

Note that even when conceptually using the flat of the blade:-

* you still do slashing damage (or whatever the weapon usually does), not bludgeoning, even if it seems sensible that you would
* you still use the game stats for your weapon, not the improvised weapon rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
OilHorse wrote:

lol...speaking of acting like an petulant child...you are acting like one that is stomping his feat because people disagree with him calling them fools and ignorant.

This isn't about balance, not from me. In fact, look at my posts and you will not see me mention balance once.

I don't care about how inferior it is either, if it floats your boat, giddy up and use it. Never gave a damn about that either.

But simply put the rules for improvised weapons does not allow it.

My post was not a direct response to you personally.

Also, there is no "petulant child" behavior, and my response was not to one disagreeing with me, but to those using a false premise of "balance", and the infuriating insinuations being made that anyone here is trying to somehow "cheat" the rules.

Should you still feel the need to call me names, and "laugh", then you could at least understand my stance, before mocking it.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
First, you didn't ask a question you made a statement.

First: I asked a question a few posts back, which you have avoided to answer until your second paragraph.

Second: The tactic of thinking that, because you have cross-checked a guy actually matters in reference to how the boot has changed the style of attack, is irrelevant. The spear is a manufactured weapon, this includes the shaft. The rule for using improvised weapons says that it does not include manufactured weapons.

That is the end. How much more clear is it supposed to be?

Using the flat of a longsword blade does not turn it into an improvised weapon, wonder why? For the same reason as using the shaft won't for a spear. It is the same weapon used in a non traditional way. Take a penalty and deal nonlethal.

I find that people tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Flat of the blade is covered here.

Frankly, it could cover using the long spear up close as well through another route.

"Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."

Call it a non lethal attack at close range.

And your argument still relies on a precept I fundamentally reject; you insist that the rules say a weapon can only be treated as indivisible and that no part of it can be used in any way differently. STILL waiting for something other than your opinion that says that.

The rules do what they say they do. You've quoted the rules for using lethal weapons to do non-lethal damage. Because those rules are written, you can do exactly what they say. It's important to note that if this rule did not exist, and you made...

And the rules don't say that a weapon is only one object and that all parts of it can only be used in one way.


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

Geez some people really want their cake and eat it too. Why try so hard to fight with a longspear in adjacent squares? I really don't get it... a simple pair of spiked gauntlets means your armed at close range. Or armor spikes. Or Improved Unarmed Attack feat. Or if you REALLY want to do that, then they even give you an official option to do it:

Polearm Master
The polearm master is schooled in the ancient wisdom that enemies are best faced at the end of long striking pole, lashing like a serpent before clumsy swords and axes can even be brought to bear.

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. This ability replaces bravery.

There you go: 2 level fighter dip. But do note that a fighter specialised in this STILL suck at this at level 2!!!!!!

Trying to circumvent the rules by liberal interpretations of how improvised weapons work is cheesy at best. If you don't think the rule is spelled out and that you could have a never ending debate with your DM trying to "convince" him that your way is legal, then, in my humble opinion and after 14 years of d20 system gaming, I really think you should consider taking the official feats or archetype that lets you do what you want to do or think of another character concept. Life is short: don't get bogged down trying to fight useless battles. Accept the rules as they are and have fun with a fully legal 100% build with a clear conscience. If your DM makes a houserule, that's fine too, have fun with it then.

First, I'm not saying you should argue with your GM to "force" him/her to agree that it's legal. I'm saying that the RAW are unclear, so whatever the GM decides is equally valid. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to cheese the system. I'm merely resisting the idea that you or anyone else can "know" what the RAW are, since the rules do not say one way or another. Thus, it is improper for you to assert your personal interpretation as the "right" or "normal" thing to do. Basically, you keep thinking people are breaking the rules, but really all they are doing is playing differently than you assumed they should. That's not a rule.

Second, just because you believe it's "cheese" to allow someone with a polearm to make a low damage, low percentile attack doesn't mean everyone shares that opinion. I'm of the opinion that generally speaking, balance is a meaningless concept anyway, especially when it is conflated with the utterly fatuous concept of damage per round. Pathfinder, to me, is an RPG/storytelling system, not a competitive strategy wargame, so the idea of "cheating" the rules doesn't really make sense to me. If you play the game differently, that's fine, but the fact that we are playing differently is maybe a reason why we shouldn't pick one and only one interpretation over all others, no?

Third, this oft mentioned archetype is NOT the same thing at all. Letting someone improvise a spear shaft strike does not, in any way, diminish the ability of the polearm master archetype - the archetype ability is allowing him to still strike with the head of the spear, which allows him to retain his feats like weapon focus (spear), as well as retain any/all magic properties of the spear. Someone without the archetype doesn't get either of those benefits. Sure, if I wanted to really be an expert with a spear, I would likely take this archetype, but that doesn't mean that I need this ability to justify being able to do something any first level commoner could do without any training whatsoever. As an aside, I feel like this is similar to the issue with things like the Rogue "rumormonger" talent, where Paizo gins up a set of class rules for doing something that everyone should be able to do, and suddenly people believe that nobody but a rogue can spread gossip. If you don't view the rules as a strictly permissive set, those problems go away.

Sovereign Court

RDM42 wrote:
And your argument still relies on a precept I fundamentally reject; you insist that the rules say a weapon can only be treated as indivisible and that no part of it can be used in any way differently. STILL waiting for something other than your opinion that says that.

lol...and I await for something other than your opinion that they are considered separate.

I have the rules for Improvised weapons talking about crafted weapons (better make the distinction), of which the spear is one.

I have the text for the longspear not distinguishing that there is a divide between the spearhead and the shaft.

RDM42 wrote:
Call it a non lethal attack at close range.

Do that. Done. Just don't call it an improvised weapon...and deal nonlethal damage.


OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
And your argument still relies on a precept I fundamentally reject; you insist that the rules say a weapon can only be treated as indivisible and that no part of it can be used in any way differently. STILL waiting for something other than your opinion that says that.

lol...and I await for something other than your opinion that they are considered separate.

I have the rules for Improvised weapons talking about crafted weapons (better make the distinction), of which the spear is one.

I have the text for the longspear not distinguishing that there is a divide between the spearhead and the shaft.

RDM42 wrote:
Call it a non lethal attack at close range.
Do that. Done. Just don't call it an improvised weapon...and deal nonlethal damage.

And since I'm arguing that it doesn't say, and your argument requires that it DOES say and says no ...


The Crusader wrote:
MachOneGames wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


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."

We've talked about logic for a while now. For all of you who have not taking college level philosophy classes, here are the basics of logic.

If X, then Y. (x->y)
Therefore, If not Y, then not X. (~y->~x)

If not x, then y (~x->y)
Therefore, If not y, then x (~y->x)

If x, then y, then x and y (x->y->x*y)
Therefore, If x and y, then x (x*y->x)
Therefore, If x and y, then y (x*y->y)

If x, then x or y (x->xVy)
If y, then x or y (y->xVy)
Therefore, If x, then z (x->z) and If y, then z (y->z); then If x or y, then z (xVy->z)
((x->z)->(y->z)->xVy->z)

Beyond this, proof theory gets a little complicated.

In terms of this thread, the core book states that Reach Weapons CANNOT attack adjacent targets. That means reach weapons used as improvised weapons CANNOT attack adjacent targets. That means reach weapons that have leather wrapped around the shaft CANNOT attack adjacent targets. If you paint the shaft in pretty colors and stick a banner on it, the reach weapon still CANNOT attack adjacent targets. If improvising a reach weapon is allowed, then it is still a reach weapon and still CANNOT attack adjacent targets.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarrah wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
MachOneGames wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


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."

We've talked about logic for a while now. For all of you who have not taking college level philosophy classes, here are the basics of logic.

If X, then Y. (x->y)
Therefore, If not Y, then not X. (~y->~x)

If not x, then y (~x->y)
Therefore, If not y, then x (~y->x)

If x, then y, then x and y (x->y->x*y)
Therefore, If x and y, then x (x*y->x)
Therefore, If x and y, then y (x*y->y)

If x, then x or y (x->xVy)
If y, then x or...

Except that an improvised weapon doesn't have weapon qualities, and therefore does not possess reach.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:
OilHorse wrote:

lol...speaking of acting like an petulant child...you are acting like one that is stomping his feat because people disagree with him calling them fools and ignorant.

This isn't about balance, not from me. In fact, look at my posts and you will not see me mention balance once.

I don't care about how inferior it is either, if it floats your boat, giddy up and use it. Never gave a damn about that either.

But simply put the rules for improvised weapons does not allow it.

My post was not a direct response to you personally.

Also, there is no "petulant child" behavior, and my response was not to one disagreeing with me, but to those using a false premise of "balance", and the infuriating insinuations being made that anyone here is trying to somehow "cheat" the rules.

Should you still feel the need to call me names, and "laugh", then you could at least understand my stance, before mocking it.

It comes off as such though considering that I used the cake/eat phrase.

I laugh because people get so worked up over the shtuff...I do at times too but when I get that way it is generally because I have spent too much time at the debate. So I walk away from the thread....so the laugh was not meant to be derisive but light hearted at what seems to be your intensity over this.

So you didn't seem to get my stance before, what seemed to be, mocking me.

I have no issue with anyone here, no matter their stance. I see what is wanted out of the debate, I just don't see that the ruleset allows it in the manner that is being debated.


Assuming that a reach weapon can be an improvised weapon, then the improvised quality would still be bound by the reach weapons limitation: which is that it CANNOT attack adjacent targets.

Sovereign Court

RDM42 wrote:

And since I'm arguing that it doesn't say, and your argument requires that it DOES say and says no ...

I have provided 2 sections of rules to support my stance, you have only said your opinion.


An 'improvised weapon' in Pathfinders is an adjective, not a noun.


Oenar, the Winter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
"BigDTBone wrote:
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.
not by your logic. The craft skill states it crafts objects. Fabricate does not. If you apply any method of reading the rules even vaguely similar to what leads to "spear shaft are not objects", then "objects created without Craft are not crafted" is equally (if not more) supported by rules.
Your counter to the accusation of 'sophistry'...is more sophistry?

You ask for RAW, i give you RAW. If youre going to exclude RAW too from your list of valid arguments, there is literally.nothing left. And since my argument relies on the same kind of reading as your "spear shafts are not objects", any sophistry from me has to be equally matched by you.

So, we prove it should work through common sense -you say NO COMMON SENSE! JUST RAW!
We prove it through RAI, you say NO RAI! JUST RAW!
We prove it through logic, you say NO LOGIC! JUST RAW!
We prove it by RAW,, you say STOP THIS SOPHISTRY!

At this point, youre only looking silly.

Pretty much this.

1. It has been demonstrated through simple English and through Sentential Logic that the rules DO NOT prohibit using objects designed to be weapons as improvised weapons. This has been objectively proven. Period.

2. It has been demonstrated time and again that the rules ARE NOT solely permissive. Counter arguments of "well then I can grow tentacles out of my eyes because it doesn't say I can't!" are the purist sophistry, primarily because-

3. Reading the rules REQUIRES a modicum of common sense. You can not remove it from a discussion of rules, because nobody is going to print a 36 volume encyclopedia (37 with the index), defining every term used in its complicated minutia dictating what action is required to chew your food and how quickly the lacquer on your lute deteriorates.

4. Once a rule consideration has passed the English>Logic>Common Sense test, it should certainly be subject to a Balance test. In this case, that is laughable.

Oenar has the right of it, Malachi. Your only defense at this point is to throw out any line of argument that disproves your personal viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, that is ALL OF THEM!


OilHorse wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

And since I'm arguing that it doesn't say, and your argument requires that it DOES say and says no ...

I have provided 2 sections of rules to support my stance, you have only said your opinion.

Except those sections of rules don't actually say that the parts of a weapon cannot be used in different ways. You infer it to, but it doesn't say it. You are going from a to c without crossing through b.


RDM42 wrote:
Except that an improvised weapon doesn't have weapon qualities, and therefore does not possess reach.

RDM -- where does improvised weapons description say that no weapon qualities apply to improvised weapons?


Claxon wrote:

I think the answer Deliverance has given is the most favorable opinion you would get.

Being able to use it as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent targets would (if possible) guarantee that you wouldn't benefit from masterwork on magical enhancements to the weapon and that you would take penalties from using as an improvised weapon or else why would they go the effort of saying that you can't attack adjacent targets with a reach weapon.

It would render it pointless if the weapon worked just as well improvised as it does normally. And this is even presuming that it's able to be used to attack adjacent targets.

Edit: Now seeing your above response, I see you just want a clear ruling on whether you could use it to attack adjacent as a improvised weapon. I will FAQ for you.

No I am in favour of it. Catch off guard allows near anything as an improvised weapon. A chair can be an improvised weapon, a hunk of wood or stone can be an improvised weapon, why not a haft? It doesn't have to be a club, it is improvising with a shaft of wood that isn't a club. As you say, no magic bonus.

A very neat idea, I would applaud your ingenuity and chuckle at the build, I like that you are not trying to turn a magic longspear into a magic improvised weapon, you just want to bash around with the wood up close-as is done in all forms of martial arts that use spears. There are plenty of techniques for this.

Also good to see the dragoon put up. They look quite nice and perfect for this.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,668 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 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