And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.
If that is true then why do they have the extra 3 words in a book which is well known to be short of space? Clearly 'crafted to be' is meant as a distinguishing qualifier.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule.
Two Questions for you:
1) Where do the rules make distinctions between combat rules and all the other rules in so far as how to read them?
2) If I find that rule and quote it will you admit that you have lost here?
|
You suspect "nearly everyone" agrees with your view? That's probably the best proof yet that you are off your rocker. You have no idea, at all, what the majority of people think, it's just easier for you (I guess?) to assume that your perceptions of the world are "right" if you can imagine that they are backed up by your pretend majority.
35 years of experience that shows D&D/PF rules as permissive, without exception.
Sad news - even if it were true that a majority shared your opinion, that would still not make your opinion any more "true" or valuable, and given how unclear the rules are, and how different people's approach to the game are, I think you will find that your personal view of the rules is much, much less universal than you would like to assume.
Whatever anyone's opinion, the combat rules are permissive.
Now, let's get to your other point here, that treating the rules as non permissive leads to absurdity. Oh, wait, that has already been answered, multiple times. Answer (again): Sure, people can ask for anything that's not expressly forbidden by the rules. Heck, they can even ask for things that ARE expressly forbidden by the rules. You know why that doesn't result in the absurd anarchy you are afraid of? Because the GM and the rest of the table get to talk about it, and decide as a group what would work best for the game....
Not in dispute. I'm not touching on this subject with my question. I'm asking what the rules actually say, not whether every house has to play by the rules, just what the rules are.
|
The hand doesn't exist. It is part of his body, and as part of his body cannot be used for actions separate from the entire body. So if you slap someone you are actually body-slamming them.Maybe you attack with the shaft of a Longspear using your metaphorical hand?
Oh?
Metaphorical hands exist within the unwritten rules.
35 years of experience that shows D&D/PF rules as permissive, without exception.
But somehow in the last 35 years of d&d/pf experience you have never seen a character go to sleep? That seems like a pretty atypical gaming experience. I reject your situational experience as invalid.
Whatever anyone's opinion, the combat rules are permissive.
You just invented that distinction today. It doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. You don't like that your permissive argument was shot to hell so you are trying to alter the parameters just like every other time you have been beat in this thread.
You keep trying to find ways to remove arguments counter to your own from the conversation. No common sense, no RAI, no logic. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE RAW IN YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RAW! NOW WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT COMBAT RAW!
You are a piece of work man. You want to just go ahead and jump the gun, let us know what specific pages we are allowed to talk about, what paragraphs?
Maybe you attack with the shaft of a Longspear using your metaphorical hand?
A shaft in the hand can literally break noses. No metaphorical hands needed; but I find the resistance to this by the rules very amusing.
I think I still have a shogun 2 screenshot of a polearm wielding onna bushi strangling a samurai with her haft to his throat. It took a while... the battle moved on while this struggle was on (bloody grapple rules), but she caught up. Total war likes to use its re-enactors and experts to bring what is possible into its games and the fighting animations (they threw a lot of expertise in her since empire). There was never anything in the code or from the rules on high that a spear or hafted weapon couldn't kill with the haft, so the restriction we are arguing up didn't come up.
On we argue about bashing with poles.
|
|
And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.If that is true then why do they have the extra 3 words in a book which is well known to be short of space? Clearly 'crafted to be' is meant as a distinguishing qualifier.
The sentence has to scan. It can't say, 'objects not weapons'; that would be ambiguous. I bet they didn't envision the word 'crafted' in this context would be twisted to mean 'used the craft skill', instead of 'has weapon stats'.
Seriously, this rule is to provide weapon stats to those objects that lack them. They are not for objects which already have weapon stats.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule.Two Questions for you:
1) Where do the rules make distinctions between combat rules and all the other rules in so far as how to read them?
Where the rules focus on the things that matter for playing the game with rules (as opposed to 'let's pretend' where you don't have any rules at all), then those are the parts which are permissive. The parts that they don't cover aren't being questioned.
Combat is most definitely covered!
2) If I find that rule and quote it will you admit that you have lost here?
Post it, and we'll see!
|
|
Maybe you attack with the shaft of a Longspear using your metaphorical hand?
A shaft in the hand can literally break noses. No metaphorical hands needed; but I find the resistance to this by the rules very amusing.
I think I still have a shogun 2 screenshot of a polearm wielding onna bushi strangling a samurai with her haft to his throat. It took a while... the battle moved on while this struggle was on (bloody grapple rules), but she caught up. Total war likes to use its re-enactors and experts to bring what is possible into its games and the fighting animations (they threw a lot of expertise in her since empire). There was never anything in the code or from the rules on high that a spear or hafted weapon couldn't kill with the haft, so the restriction we are arguing up didn't come up.
On we argue about bashing with poles.
You have no idea what that is a reference to.
|
|
35 years of experience that shows D&D/PF rules as permissive, without exception.But somehow in the last 35 years of d&d/pf experience you have never seen a character go to sleep? That seems like a pretty atypical gaming experience. I reject your situational experience as invalid.
Whatever anyone's opinion, the combat rules are permissive.
You just invented that distinction today. It doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. You don't like that your permissive argument was shot to hell so you are trying to alter the parameters just like every other time you have been beat in this thread.
You keep trying to find ways to remove arguments counter to your own from the conversation. No common sense, no RAI, no logic. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE RAW IN YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RAW! NOW WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT COMBAT RAW!
You are a piece of work man. You want to just go ahead and jump the gun, let us know what specific pages we are allowed to talk about, what paragraphs?
The parts of the game that the rules cover are permissive. Combat is definitely one of those parts.
All this thrashing about, yet you still haven't posted a non-permissive combat rule.
It's almost like you're only saying that this one single combat rule is not permissive among a sea of permissive rules, just for this argument...
35 years of experience that shows D&D/PF rules as permissive, without exception.But somehow in the last 35 years of d&d/pf experience you have never seen a character go to sleep? That seems like a pretty atypical gaming experience. I reject your situational experience as invalid.
Whatever anyone's opinion, the combat rules are permissive.
You just invented that distinction today. It doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. You don't like that your permissive argument was shot to hell so you are trying to alter the parameters just like every other time you have been beat in this thread.
You keep trying to find ways to remove arguments counter to your own from the conversation. No common sense, no RAI, no logic. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE RAW IN YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RAW! NOW WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT COMBAT RAW!
You are a piece of work man. You want to just go ahead and jump the gun, let us know what specific pages we are allowed to talk about, what paragraphs?
I've played in rules light permissive combat systems, and I've seen a lot of house rules to make pathfinder combat more permissive (using a longsword to pierce for instance). I've got to say it is not very permissive by default. So many options are feat taxed, builds are crucial to enable options and while each D&D variant gradually opens itself up to combat options and offers more, they begin from a very restricted space.
Some others to think about on permissiveness. You can lower your to hit to improve your ac and damage, but you cannot lower your damage to improve your to hit, or lower your ac to bolster your to hit without engaging in a charge.
|
|
Maybe you attack with the shaft of a Longspear using your metaphorical hand?
A shaft in the hand can literally break noses. No metaphorical hands needed; but I find the resistance to this by the rules very amusing.
I think I still have a shogun 2 screenshot of a polearm wielding onna bushi strangling a samurai with her haft to his throat. It took a while... the battle moved on while this struggle was on (bloody grapple rules), but she caught up. Total war likes to use its re-enactors and experts to bring what is possible into its games and the fighting animations (they threw a lot of expertise in her since empire). There was never anything in the code or from the rules on high that a spear or hafted weapon couldn't kill with the haft, so the restriction we are arguing up didn't come up.
On we argue about bashing with poles.
You have no idea what that is a reference to.
I do, and while I appreciate the black humour, the reason why we both railed against that terrible thing is because it absolutely could not have been reached through the rules!
And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.If that is true then why do they have the extra 3 words in a book which is well known to be short of space? Clearly 'crafted to be' is meant as a distinguishing qualifier.The sentence has to scan. It can't say, 'objects not weapons'; that would be ambiguous. I bet they didn't envision the word 'crafted' in this context would be twisted to mean 'used the craft skill', instead of 'has weapon stats'.
Seriously, this rule is to provide weapon stats to those objects that lack them. They are not for objects which already have weapon stats.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule.Two Questions for you:
1) Where do the rules make distinctions between combat rules and all the other rules in so far as how to read them?
Where the rules focus on the things that matter for playing the game with rules (as opposed to 'let's pretend' where you don't have any rules at all), then those are the parts which are permissive. The parts that they don't cover aren't being questioned.
Combat is most definitely covered!
2) If I find that rule and quote it will you admit that you have lost here?Post it, and we'll see!
There is no rule which says you are permitted to voluntarily miss an opponent's AC.
Your ideas on how to achieve it looked good enough to me.
When something is as simple as bashing someone with a stick, I'm not going to make it very hard to come about. Seems improvised and unorthodox, there are feats and rules for that or using a non-longspear shaft as an improvised weapon. Not using the item as it was intended so enchantments would not work. Done and dusted as far as I am concerned.
|
|
35 years of experience that shows D&D/PF rules as permissive, without exception.But somehow in the last 35 years of d&d/pf experience you have never seen a character go to sleep? That seems like a pretty atypical gaming experience. I reject your situational experience as invalid.
Whatever anyone's opinion, the combat rules are permissive.
You just invented that distinction today. It doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. You don't like that your permissive argument was shot to hell so you are trying to alter the parameters just like every other time you have been beat in this thread.
You keep trying to find ways to remove arguments counter to your own from the conversation. No common sense, no RAI, no logic. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE RAW IN YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RAW! NOW WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT COMBAT RAW!
You are a piece of work man. You want to just go ahead and jump the gun, let us know what specific pages we are allowed to talk about, what paragraphs?
I've played in rules light permissive combat systems, and I've seen a lot of house rules to make pathfinder combat more permissive (using a longsword to pierce for instance). I've got to say it is not very permissive by default. So many options are feat taxed, builds are crucial to enable options and while each D&D variant gradually opens itself up to combat options and offers more, they begin from a very restricted space.
Some others to think about on permissiveness. You can lower your to hit to improve your ac and damage, but you cannot lower your damage to improve your to hit, or lower your ac to bolster your to hit without engaging in a charge.
You can...if you have a written ability that says you can!
There is a barbarian rage power which lets you lower your AC to improve your attack roll, limited by 1 per 4BAB, IIRC.
Which mirrors the question in this thread. There are ways to attack with a longspear that don't obey the combat rules, if you have a special ability which allows it!
I wasn't meaning a barbarian rage power, I was meaning as a basic combat option. Something Bob the level 1 bandit warrior could choose to do. One allowing you to give and take as you feel the fight demands. The type of thing you might find in more permissive systems for instance.
|
|
There is no rule which says you are permitted to voluntarily miss an opponent's AC.And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.If that is true then why do they have the extra 3 words in a book which is well known to be short of space? Clearly 'crafted to be' is meant as a distinguishing qualifier.The sentence has to scan. It can't say, 'objects not weapons'; that would be ambiguous. I bet they didn't envision the word 'crafted' in this context would be twisted to mean 'used the craft skill', instead of 'has weapon stats'.
Seriously, this rule is to provide weapon stats to those objects that lack them. They are not for objects which already have weapon stats.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule.Two Questions for you:
1) Where do the rules make distinctions between combat rules and all the other rules in so far as how to read them?
Where the rules focus on the things that matter for playing the game with rules (as opposed to 'let's pretend' where you don't have any rules at all), then those are the parts which are permissive. The parts that they don't cover aren't being questioned.
Combat is most definitely covered!
2) If I find that rule and quote it will you admit that you have lost here?Post it, and we'll see!
Er... I'm not sure you understand what 'quote a rule' means. 'There is no rule...' is, by definition, not quoting 'a rule'.
A friend put together a lot of these and enabled them for all combatants. No rage power or combat expertise feat required. Getting rid of a lot of taxing was far more permissive, and as the dm (for beta games using these rules) you didn't have to burn feats to give options to your combatants, they could adjust as required.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two thoughts expressed here:
1) If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.
2) If the rules don't say you can't, then you can.
Which of the two, holds true?
Do they both, always, hold true?
Does one hold priority over the other?
How do you determine when, and how, one holds priority over the other?
Er... I'm not sure you understand what 'quote a rule' means. 'There is no rule...' is, by definition, not quoting 'a rule'.There is no rule which says you are permitted to voluntarily miss an opponent's AC.And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.If that is true then why do they have the extra 3 words in a book which is well known to be short of space? Clearly 'crafted to be' is meant as a distinguishing qualifier.The sentence has to scan. It can't say, 'objects not weapons'; that would be ambiguous. I bet they didn't envision the word 'crafted' in this context would be twisted to mean 'used the craft skill', instead of 'has weapon stats'.
Seriously, this rule is to provide weapon stats to those objects that lack them. They are not for objects which already have weapon stats.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule.Two Questions for you:
1) Where do the rules make distinctions between combat rules and all the other rules in so far as how to read them?
Where the rules focus on the things that matter for playing the game with rules (as opposed to 'let's pretend' where you don't have any rules at all), then those are the parts which are permissive. The parts that they don't cover aren't being questioned.
Combat is most definitely covered!
2) If I find that rule and quote it will you admit that you have lost here?Post it, and we'll see!
Then you don't understand what "non-permissive" means. You want someone to quote a rule which says you cannot do something that you actually can do? You are a complete fake, disengenuous, phony, if that is what you mean. If it isn't what you mean then you need to explain EXACTLY what you are looking for.
My statement about AC proves that the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
|
|
I wasn't meaning a barbarian rage power, I was meaning as a basic combat option. Something Bob the level 1 bandit warrior could choose to do. One allowing you to give and take as you feel the fight demands. The type of thing you might find in more permissive systems for instance.
If you mean other RPGs, well, if you can do this, it's because they let you.
There have been many suggestions on these threads about wanting, as basic combat options available to everyone, the ability to do the equivalent of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc. If the devs write this in PF 2.0, then it will be RAW, but in the PF we have, it isn't. Not 'bad', just not 'RAW'.
Allowing weapons to use the improvised weapon rule may or may not be bad on a case by case basis, but it isn't RAW.
Two thoughts expressed here:
1) If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.
2) If the rules don't say you can't, then you can.
Which of the two, holds true?
Do they both, always, hold true?
Does one hold priority over the other?
How do you determine when, and how, one holds priority over the other?
3) If you impress the DM, you can.
4) If it makes sense but is not strictly raw, rules lawyers will say you can't.
I wasn't meaning a barbarian rage power, I was meaning as a basic combat option. Something Bob the level 1 bandit warrior could choose to do. One allowing you to give and take as you feel the fight demands. The type of thing you might find in more permissive systems for instance.If you mean other RPGs, well, if you can do this, it's because they let you.
There have been many suggestions on these threads about wanting, as basic combat options available to everyone, the ability to do the equivalent of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc. If the devs write this in PF 2.0, then it will be RAW, but in the PF we have, it isn't. Not 'bad', just not 'RAW'.
Allowing weapons to use the improvised weapon rule may or may not be bad on a case by case basis, but it isn't RAW.
Okay if in-game I remove the spear from the longspear and now it is just a "long" length of wood, can it be used as an improved weapon? It isn't a quarterstaff that is for sure as it was not created as one.
Detachable p***s.
Quote a non-permissive combat rule. Don't bother quoting the improvised weapon rule, as that doesn't help show you're not singling out this one rule as an exception to the permissive combat rules.Let's start with this. "All of them" is my answer. All of the combat rules are non-permissive. Why not? It allows much more freedom and flexibility, and at my table those qualities are more important than attempting to maintain a predictable set of rules to facilitate balanced strategic combat scenarios. Your mileage may vary, but the fact that you have a different opinion here doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it just means we disagree on what we want out of the game.
Let's try a different tack here, maybe this will make it clear. The improvised weapons rule says "sometimes" I can use objects not intended to be weapons. Well, RAW, when the heck is "sometimes"? If the rules are strictly permissive, then "sometimes" becomes a massive problem, because the strict RAW doesn't give me any guidelines on when "sometimes" is. By the strictest Malachi "combat is only permissive" rules, then I can't use a rock to bash someone with, because rocks are already listed with rules elsewhere as thrown weapons or as ammunition. I also can't use a mithril pole as a weapon, because the closest weapon would be a quarterstaff, but mithril specifically states it can't be used to make a quarterstaff, and (and this is my favorite) I can't use anything that doesn't specifically say that it CAN be used as an improvised weapon,...
First, the improvised weapon rule tells you to set the crit stats to 20/x2, the thrown range to 10-feet, and apply the -4 non-proficiency penalty. Other than those written changes, the rest of the stats are those of whatever weapon the DM deems most similar, including size and damage.And second (and more crucially), the improvised weapon rule applies to objects 'not crafted to be weapons'. So they don't apply to...weapons.
Thoroughly argued with good and new evidence. High marks.
|
|
Then you don't understand what "non-permissive" means. You want someone to quote a rule which says you cannot do something that you actually can do? You are a complete fake, disengenuous, phony, if that is what you mean. If it isn't what you mean then you need to explain EXACTLY what you are looking for.
My statement about AC proves that the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Okay. What I mean is this:-
* if the rules don't say I can, then I can't = permissive
* if the rules don't say I can't, then I can = non-permissive.
Quote a written combat rule which says that this is how this works, which means that it works a different way.
Quote a written combat rule which says that this rule applies to 'X', but means that the rule also applies to 'not X'.
Basically, show a written rule which supports your assertion that 'if it doesn't say I can't, then I can' applies to any combat rule in the game apart from the one you are singling out.
|
|
Nope. He already answered that as 'it becomes a broken weapon and you must use only those rules". Which would presumably apply even if you sawed it in half which would lead to the interesting situation of a five foot weapon with ten foot reach.I wasn't meaning a barbarian rage power, I was meaning as a basic combat option. Something Bob the level 1 bandit warrior could choose to do. One allowing you to give and take as you feel the fight demands. The type of thing you might find in more permissive systems for instance.If you mean other RPGs, well, if you can do this, it's because they let you.
There have been many suggestions on these threads about wanting, as basic combat options available to everyone, the ability to do the equivalent of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc. If the devs write this in PF 2.0, then it will be RAW, but in the PF we have, it isn't. Not 'bad', just not 'RAW'.
Allowing weapons to use the improvised weapon rule may or may not be bad on a case by case basis, but it isn't RAW.
Okay if in-game I remove the spear from the longspear and now it is just a "long" length of wood, can it be used as an improved weapon? It isn't a quarterstaff that is for sure as it was not created as one.
Detachable p***s.
If you saw it in half, then you don't have a longspear, just bits of what used to be one.
If you say to the DM that you want to attack with the blunt bit, the DM then judges what weapon that 5-foot length of wood most resembles. Why would he choose a reach weapon as that weapon?
|
|
Then you don't understand what "non-permissive" means. You want someone to quote a rule which says you cannot do something that you actually can do? You are a complete fake, disengenuous, phony, if that is what you mean. If it isn't what you mean then you need to explain EXACTLY what you are looking for.
My statement about AC proves that the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Okay. What I mean is this:-
* if the rules don't say I can, then I can't = permissive
* if the rules don't say I can't, then I can = non-permissive.Quote a written combat rule which says that this is how this works, which means that it works a different way.
Quote a written combat rule which says that this rule applies to 'X', but means that the rule also applies to 'not X'.
Basically, show a written rule which supports your assertion that 'if it doesn't say I can't, then I can' applies to any combat rule in the game apart from the one you are singling out.
But if it applies to even one it shows that its not strictly permissive. Is this going to be like the bit with the Romans in the Monty Python?
“Apart from sanitation, the aqueducts and roads ..."
If it's so easy, get on with it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want a written rule that says "Even though we didn't say you can do this thing, you actually can do this thing."
You are full of it. You are specifically requesting something you know wouldn't exist because the people at Paizo aren't complete idiots and know how to write a freaking sentence.
That fact that I can voluntarily miss a target AC is proof the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
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.wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
Fabricate says "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship."
I'm thinking those who are crying for longspear at close range will want a magical longspear, i.e. created as a masterwork item, which requires a Craft check from the caster who casts Fabricate.
what they might want is irrelevant in this case. By RAWY RAAAAW, a fabricated longspear (that was not fabricated as masterwork) can definately, no doubts, even by malachis standards and interpretation, be used as an improvised weapon in its whole.
For masterwork, just cast masterwork transformation.
Honestly, if youre gonna write "wrong" 5 times in a row, youd better have a stronger argument than "well some players might choose to it differently".
|
|
So you want a written rule that says "Even though we didn't say you can do this thing, you actually can do this thing."
You are full of it. You are specifically requesting something you know wouldn't exist because the people at Paizo aren't complete idiots and know how to write a freaking sentence.
That fact that I can voluntarily miss a target AC is proof the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Bull! If you choose not to try to attack, then you're not using the combat rules.
You may, in fact, be attempting a Bluff check...
You say I'm asking you to do the impossible, yet you claim that the improvised weapon rule is non-permissive, so you can hardly believe it is impossible.
Quote another combat rule which you believe is as non-permissive as the improvised weapon rule.
I think you can't, simply because the rules are permissive.
|
|
So its your judgment, not written in the rules, of at what point a long spear ceases to be a long spear, not what is written in the rules? Interesting.Nope. He already answered that as 'it becomes a broken weapon and you must use only those rules". Which would presumably apply even if you sawed it in half which would lead to the interesting situation of a five foot weapon with ten foot reach.I wasn't meaning a barbarian rage power, I was meaning as a basic combat option. Something Bob the level 1 bandit warrior could choose to do. One allowing you to give and take as you feel the fight demands. The type of thing you might find in more permissive systems for instance.If you mean other RPGs, well, if you can do this, it's because they let you.
There have been many suggestions on these threads about wanting, as basic combat options available to everyone, the ability to do the equivalent of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc. If the devs write this in PF 2.0, then it will be RAW, but in the PF we have, it isn't. Not 'bad', just not 'RAW'.
Allowing weapons to use the improvised weapon rule may or may not be bad on a case by case basis, but it isn't RAW.
Okay if in-game I remove the spear from the longspear and now it is just a "long" length of wood, can it be used as an improved weapon? It isn't a quarterstaff that is for sure as it was not created as one.
Detachable p***s.
If you saw it in half, then you don't have a longspear, just bits of what used to be one.
If you say to the DM that you want to attack with the blunt bit, the DM then judges what weapon that 5-foot length of wood most resembles. Why would he choose a reach weapon as that weapon?
The rules are clear on what constitutes 'broken' and 'destroyed'. No need for houserules there.
|
|
All that is necessary to disprove it as an absolute rule is one exception.If it's so easy, get on with it!Then you don't understand what "non-permissive" means. You want someone to quote a rule which says you cannot do something that you actually can do? You are a complete fake, disengenuous, phony, if that is what you mean. If it isn't what you mean then you need to explain EXACTLY what you are looking for.
My statement about AC proves that the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Okay. What I mean is this:-
* if the rules don't say I can, then I can't = permissive
* if the rules don't say I can't, then I can = non-permissive.Quote a written combat rule which says that this is how this works, which means that it works a different way.
Quote a written combat rule which says that this rule applies to 'X', but means that the rule also applies to 'not X'.
Basically, show a written rule which supports your assertion that 'if it doesn't say I can't, then I can' applies to any combat rule in the game apart from the one you are singling out.
But if it applies to even one it shows that its not strictly permissive. Is this going to be like the bit with the Romans in the Monty Python?
“Apart from sanitation, the aqueducts and roads ..."
Yeah, so hurry up and quote one.
So you want a written rule that says "Even though we didn't say you can do this thing, you actually can do this thing."
You are full of it. You are specifically requesting something you know wouldn't exist because the people at Paizo aren't complete idiots and know how to write a freaking sentence.
That fact that I can voluntarily miss a target AC is proof the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Bull! If you choose not to try to attack, then you're not using the combat rules.
You may, in fact, be attempting a Bluff check...
You say I'm asking you to do the impossible, yet you claim that the improvised weapon rule is non-permissive, so you can hardly believe it is impossible.
Quote another combat rule which you believe is as non-permissive as the improvised weapon rule.
I think you can't, simply because the rules are permissive.
You're full of it dude. You don't even know what you are asking for looks like. Why should I find another example that proves you wrong, I already found one.
What you are literally asking for: "show me a written rule that's not in the rules."
What your point of logic begs for: "show me something legal in combat that isn't in the rules."
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.
|
|
Really think about it.
Weapon sizes go down like this: two-handed > one-handed > light > unwieldable.
So, now you attack with a Diminutive Longspear, which for medium creature, is all the way down to "unwieldable".
You would use the improvised weapon rules, right?
Ah, but the item in question is already a weapon, so, can't be "improvised", but you can't actually wield it, yet, you are still attacking with it.
What now?
|
|
So you want a written rule that says "Even though we didn't say you can do this thing, you actually can do this thing."
You are full of it. You are specifically requesting something you know wouldn't exist because the people at Paizo aren't complete idiots and know how to write a freaking sentence.
That fact that I can voluntarily miss a target AC is proof the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Bull! If you choose not to try to attack, then you're not using the combat rules.
You may, in fact, be attempting a Bluff check...
You say I'm asking you to do the impossible, yet you claim that the improvised weapon rule is non-permissive, so you can hardly believe it is impossible.
Quote another combat rule which you believe is as non-permissive as the improvised weapon rule.
I think you can't, simply because the rules are permissive.
You're full of it dude. You don't even know what you are asking for looks like. Why should I find another example that proves you wrong, I already found one.
What you are literally asking for: "show me a written rule that's not in the rules."
What your point of logic begs for: "show me something legal in combat that isn't in the rules."
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.
That's not a rule.
You already believe that there is one written non-permissive combat rule: the improvised weapon rule.
I dispute that. I'm asking you to provide another non-permissive combat rule to support your assertion that the combat rules are not permissive, because if you can't it demonstrates that you are treating this particular rule differently just because you want to.
Well, that's not any help in finding out what the rules actually are, just that you're not playing by that rule.
Really think about it.
Weapon sizes go down like this: two-handed > one-handed > light > unwieldable.
So, now you attack with a Diminutive Longspear, which for medium creature, is all the way down to "unwieldable".
You would use the improvised weapon rules, right?
Ah, but the item in question is already a weapon, so, can't be "improvised", but you can't actually wield it, yet, you are still attacking with it.
What now?
That's another great example of how the rules are not exclusively permissive.
|
|
Really think about it.
Weapon sizes go down like this: two-handed > one-handed > light > unwieldable.
So, now you attack with a Diminutive Longspear, which for medium creature, is all the way down to "unwieldable".
You would use the improvised weapon rules, right?
Ah, but the item in question is already a weapon, so, can't be "improvised", but you can't actually wield it, yet, you are still attacking with it.
What now?
It's unwieldable. It's just as unwieldable for a medium creature as a colossal greatsword.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's unwieldable. It's just as unwieldable for a medium creature as a colossal greatsword.Really think about it.
Weapon sizes go down like this: two-handed > one-handed > light > unwieldable.
So, now you attack with a Diminutive Longspear, which for medium creature, is all the way down to "unwieldable".
You would use the improvised weapon rules, right?
Ah, but the item in question is already a weapon, so, can't be "improvised", but you can't actually wield it, yet, you are still attacking with it.
What now?
If you can lift the Greatsword, you can throw it.
Yeah, so hurry up and quote one.All that is necessary to disprove it as an absolute rule is one exception.If it's so easy, get on with it!Then you don't understand what "non-permissive" means. You want someone to quote a rule which says you cannot do something that you actually can do? You are a complete fake, disengenuous, phony, if that is what you mean. If it isn't what you mean then you need to explain EXACTLY what you are looking for.
My statement about AC proves that the combat rules are not exclusively permissive.
Okay. What I mean is this:-
* if the rules don't say I can, then I can't = permissive
* if the rules don't say I can't, then I can = non-permissive.Quote a written combat rule which says that this is how this works, which means that it works a different way.
Quote a written combat rule which says that this rule applies to 'X', but means that the rule also applies to 'not X'.
Basically, show a written rule which supports your assertion that 'if it doesn't say I can't, then I can' applies to any combat rule in the game apart from the one you are singling out.
But if it applies to even one it shows that its not strictly permissive. Is this going to be like the bit with the Romans in the Monty Python?
“Apart from sanitation, the aqueducts and roads ..."
If I do, will you concede? State that unambiguously, for the record, please.