Malachi, I am offering to meet your request for non-permissive rule with printed Core material, unambiguous in language, and undisputed under the weapons rules. I am simply waiting for your reply. After you have arbitrarily and repeatedly narrowed the scope of the argument as yours is repeatedly debunked, will you accept this time that you have been disproven?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speed
Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your size and your armor.
This rule doesn't permit me to stay still and still complete actions. This rule is not permissive.
It says I can move and do something, but it doesn't say I can stay still and do something. Yet, full round actions exist in the game. So the speed rule is a non-permissive rule that is in the game.
|
It's unusable AS A LONGSPEAR. Why can't I improvise it?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?
It is a longspear: a colossal one. You can't use the improvised weapon rules because it's a weapon.
Or, you can if your DM lets you, but then that's not RAW.
Also, where is your answer to my charge that all of the combat rules are non-permissive, or did you just decide that if you ignored my arguments, maybe they would go away? Same question about my argument that the "sometimes" in the text of the improvised weapons rule is a problem for your strictly permissive reading.
You haven't provided me with another example of a non-permissive combat rule. When you do, we can go from there. Your lack of providing such shows that your assertion is unfounded.
The 'sometimes' refers to those occasions when you want to use a non-weapon in combat. Certainly not 'sometimes it's not a weapon, sometimes it is'.
|
|
If I do, will you concede? State that unambiguously, for the record, please.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 ..."
You want me to judge the evidence before I see it?
You may very well make an unfounded claim, but I wouldn't make the mistake of conceding the point based on a bogus claim.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
This rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
This rule doesn't allow for slam attacks. Yet we know slam attacks exist and are included in stat blocks.
|
|
Oh! I just thought of something I do all the time that would, I guess, show that the combat rules are non-permissive (I.E. that you are allowed to do things that aren't explicitly stated).
When I'm playing a spontaneous arcane caster (either as a PC or an NPC), I've decided that one way to give them a more distinct feel from prepared casters is to narrate some of the "FX" of the spells. For example, I had an ophidian bloodline sorcerer who would cast "Scorching Ray", but I described the rays as being shaped like flaming snakes that flew from his hands and attempted to "bite" the target.
Nothing in the rules allows me to make that description, right? Yet I think you would be hard pressed to show me what rule I'm actually breaking. What if I describe my character as making circular, sweeping swings all around him with his sword. Did I just break the rules for whirlwind attack because I described my character doing something that feat gives a mechanical effect to, even though I didn't actually apply that mechanical effect?
As long as you follow the rules without breaking the rules, you can describe it how you like. The rules don't cover, for example, what words the verbal components of a spell are, just that this spell has verbal components and how that interacts with other rules.
|
|
Malachi, I am offering to meet your request for non-permissive rule with printed Core material, unambiguous in language, and undisputed under the weapons rules. I am simply waiting for your reply. After you have arbitrarily and repeatedly narrowed the scope of the argument as yours is repeatedly debunked, will you accept this time that you have been disproven?
"So, has the jury reached a verdict?"
You haven't shown me the evidence yet. I'll judge it when I see it. If I see it.
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
Here is a rule which specifically calls out things which cannot be done. Sound pretty non-permissive.
If I do, will you concede? State that unambiguously, for the record, please.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 ..."
You want me to judge the evidence before I see it?
You may very well make an unfounded claim, but I wouldn't make the mistake of conceding the point based on a bogus claim.
Not at all. I just want it on the record that your final sophistry argument is that the combat rules must be permissive, and once that is disproven you won't discard or narrow another portion of the debate simply to maintain your position. You won't have to concede if I can't make good on my claim.
|
|
Speed
Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your size and your armor.
This rule doesn't permit me to stay still and still complete actions. This rule is not permissive.
It says I can move and do something, but it doesn't say I can stay still and do something. Yet, full round actions exist in the game. So the speed rule is a non-permissive rule that is in the game.
Bogus. Your speed tells you how far you can move, not that you are compelled to move.
A non-permissive rule would be that if you have a fly speed, you can fly, and saying that "It doesn't say that if I don't have a fly speed that I can't! Therefore, I can fly, just because I want to."
|
If the devs finally step in and say that the improvised weapon rule does not apply to weapons, this will in no way prevent you from ruling how you like at your table. The situation won't be changed for you. But it should let us know the intentions of the designers of the game, like reach weapons are not intended to be able to attack adjacent foes, no matter how you visualise using them, unless you have a special ability/feat which allows you.
Malachi, try to make a guess at the likelihood of the devs coming here to say that "improvised weapon rule does not apply to weapons" or that entire subset of their rules is no longer applicable in certain circumstances (i.e. reach weapons can be used in adjacent squares without proper feats)
My betting money is that they are listening and taking notes for additional feats in a future book. Why would they come here and lay it all out for free? Certainly there is enough "market share" here demonstrating they would LOVE a character build that does away with the reach weapon restriction if they have improvised weapon feats...
;)
:P
Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.
|
|
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.
Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
|
|
This rule doesn't allow for slam attacks. Yet we know slam attacks exist and are included in stat blocks.Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
This is not an exhaustive list of natural attacks. We know this because there are written rules describing them.
There are no written rules describing 'non-weapons' as 'weapons' or vice versa.
|
|
Here is a rule which specifically calls out things which cannot be done. Sound pretty non-permissive.Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
It's the opposite. If the rules say you can, then you can. If the rules say you can't, then you can't.
If they rules don't say you can, then you can't. In the parts of the game covered by the rules.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
Oh, no no no. Where does it say you are permitted to use an elbow for an unarmed strike?!? It's not permitted anywhere.
It appears by your OWN REPLY that your AGREE this is an example of a non-permissive rule.
|
|
Not at all. I just want it on the record that your finalIf I do, will you concede? State that unambiguously, for the record, please.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 ..."
You want me to judge the evidence before I see it?
You may very well make an unfounded claim, but I wouldn't make the mistake of conceding the point based on a bogus claim.
sophistryargument is that the combat rules must be permissive, and once that is disproven you won't...
Stop wondering, and put it to the test.
This rule doesn't allow for slam attacks. Yet we know slam attacks exist and are included in stat blocks.Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
This is not an exhaustive list of natural attacks. We know this because there are written rules describing them.
There are no written rules describing 'non-weapons' as 'weapons' or vice versa.
You asked for examples of non-permissive rules. Now you want to further restrict the conversation?
@The Crusader, you have your answer. He intends to cheat, he is not acting in good faith.
|
|
That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
It's saying that the DM can set a limit. Therefore, that's RAW. The rules have chosen not to define it.
If the rules chose to define it, then following it would be RAW, and not following it would be a houserule unless you have a written exception.
|
|
But only if you can provide something which states that the parts of a weapon are not allowed to be treated separately. Still waiting for that.Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
The rules tell you how to use weapons in terms of game mechanics. They don't have to list all the infinite ways they can't be used.
|
|
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
Oh, no no no. Where does it say you are permitted to use an elbow for an unarmed strike?!? It's not permitted anywhere.
It appears by your OWN REPLY that your AGREE this is an example of a non-permissive rule.
No. You follow the rules for Unarmed Strikes, and you can describe it in any way that doesn't break the written rule.
That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
It's saying that the DM can set a limit. Therefore, that's RAW. The rules have chosen not to define it.
If the rules chose to define it, then following it would be RAW, and not following it would be a houserule unless you have a written exception.
It doesn't say that. Are you saying that in areas of non-permissive ambiguity that the RULES AS WRITTEN call for the GM to make an adjudication?
Because that rule certainly doesn't say all that, so you must be getting it from somewhere else.
No. You follow the rules for Unarmed Strikes, and you can describe it in any way that doesn't break the written rule.Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
Oh, no no no. Where does it say you are permitted to use an elbow for an unarmed strike?!? It's not permitted anywhere.
It appears by your OWN REPLY that your AGREE this is an example of a non-permissive rule.
The written rule says punches, kicks, and head-butts. You say elbows are ok, so does everyone else. This is explicitly the non-permissive rule you were looking for. Along with a bunch of others. BTW, I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the combat section in the CRB.
|
|
You haven't provided me with another example of a non-permissive combat rule. When you do, we can go from there. Your lack of providing such shows that your assertion is unfounded.
The 'sometimes' refers to those occasions when you want to use a non-weapon in combat. Certainly not 'sometimes it's not a weapon, sometimes it is'.
I certainly did. All of them are non-permissive. Pick any rule in the book. Look at it. Quote it if you like. It's non permissive. It's not a strict limit describing the only possible actions I can take, it's just a rule that governs one specific action or set of actions. You seem to think that this interpretation is ridiculous, because you incorrectly believe its the same as absolute abandonment of the rules, and tantamount to "The rules don't say I can't declare myself god-king of Golarion, so now I am, and I win Pathfinder campaign over ggkthxbye." I'm calling your bluff. I'm willing to defend that it's perfectly acceptable and RAW to treat the entire set of core rules as non-permissive. Try me.
Now, for "sometimes". Okay, so now "sometimes" means "whenever I want to use a non-weapon as a weapon, this is the rule to apply". Okay. That time is right now. I want to use a non-weapon (a wet noodle) as a weapon. If sometimes just refers to when I want to use it, and is not a qualifier allowing GMs to disallow certain objects, then, by your new silly interpretation, RAW you have to let me make an improvised wet noodle attack by finding the closest reasonable weapon from the list and going from there. If you say that you feel there is no reasonable weapon, guess what? I win again! You've just found ANOTHER place where this rule requires subjective GM interpretation. Of course, you could just bite the bullet and decide what weapon a wet noodle is most similar to... wait, though, even then, you are making a subjective interpretation. Huh. I guess no matter what, I always win.
Also, in any case, please explain why I...
Saying that you don't have to follow rules is wasting my time. This isn't about being free to ignore rules, this is about what those rules actually are.
The DM is perfectly free to rule that a wet noodle is not an equivalent to any effective weapon.
The rule allows DM interpretation in some aspects, and he can because it is written that way. But one thing that he doesn't get to choose is if a weapon is not a weapon. They are mutually exclusive; an object is either a weapon or it isn't as far as the rules go, and the improvised weapon rule is for non-weapons, because it says it is.
|
|
That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
It's saying that the DM can set a limit. Therefore, that's RAW. The rules have chosen not to define it.
If the rules chose to define it, then following it would be RAW, and not following it would be a houserule unless you have a written exception.
And where do the rules define that you can only treat a weapon as one, whole indivisible object?
The weapons table says how to treat them in game.
|
|
That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
It's saying that the DM can set a limit. Therefore, that's RAW. The rules have chosen not to define it.
If the rules chose to define it, then following it would be RAW, and not following it would be a houserule unless you have a written exception.
It doesn't say that. Are you saying that in areas of non-permissive ambiguity that the RULES AS WRITTEN call for the GM to make an adjudication?
Because that rule certainly doesn't say all that, so you must be getting it from somewhere else.
If the rules say the DM can choose, then he can and that's RAW. It remains permissive because the rules are stating that he can (is allowed to) choose.
If the rules say the DM can choose, then he can and that's RAW. It remains permissive because the rules are stating that he can (is allowed to) choose.That's a cluster**** of permissive/non-permissive right there.Free Actions
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
It's saying that the DM can set a limit. Therefore, that's RAW. The rules have chosen not to define it.
If the rules chose to define it, then following it would be RAW, and not following it would be a houserule unless you have a written exception.
It doesn't say that. Are you saying that in areas of non-permissive ambiguity that the RULES AS WRITTEN call for the GM to make an adjudication?
Because that rule certainly doesn't say all that, so you must be getting it from somewhere else.
That rule doesn't say that at all. Where does it say "DM?" Where does it say "choose?"
|
|
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".
LOL! that's rich! you do know that the longspear is a weapon right? however, do you know what the meaning of 'improvised weapon' is?
Let's see the PRD on this:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
[...]
Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows.
[...]
Bolts: A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit ×2). Bolts come in a case or quiver that holds 10 bolts (or 5, for a repeating crossbow).
[...]
Crowbar: A crowbar grants a +2 circumstance bonus on Strength checks made to force open a door or chest. If used in combat, treat a crowbar as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a club of its size.
[...]
Hammer: If a hammer is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a spiked gauntlet of its size.
[...]
Pick, Miner's: If a miner's pick is used in combat, treat it as a two-handed improvised weapon that deals piercing damage equal to that of a heavy pick of its size.
[...]
Shovel: If a shovel is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a club of its size.
[...]
Torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius and increasing the light level by one step for an additional 20 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A torch does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage.
So in summary, non-weapon objects can be used as improvised weapon, and in two cases, ammunition. Each particular example lists the damage and number of hands required to wield.
The longspear does not have such an improvised weapon clause.
If a DM would announce our table at the beginning of PFS event that "in my game, if you have a longspear that has been forged via the fabricated spell, then made MW via masterwork transformation, you can use it in adjacent squares as an improvised weapon" I think half our table would walk out. LOL. Most of my fellow gamers appreciate ingenuity via legal appreciation of the rules (i.e. tactics such as bracing reach weapons then switching to close range weapons or grapples; or attacking with reach weapons from the rear) rather than guys coming to the table with printouts of board discussion on rather obscure nonsensical corner cases entirely crafted to allow their characters to be a one-man show.
|
|
The written rule says punches, kicks, and head-butts. You say elbows are ok, so does everyone else. This is explicitly the non-permissive rule you were looking for. Along with a bunch of others. BTW, I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the combat section in the CRB.No. You follow the rules for Unarmed Strikes, and you can describe it in any way that doesn't break the written rule.Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponThis rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.Punches, kicks and head-butts are examples of unarmed attacks. Elbows are also unarmed attacks.
Bottles, chair-legs and mirrors are examples of non-weapon objects. Weapons are, by definition, not 'non-weapon objects'.
Oh, no no no. Where does it say you are permitted to use an elbow for an unarmed strike?!? It's not permitted anywhere.
It appears by your OWN REPLY that your AGREE this is an example of a non-permissive rule.
The rule is for unarmed strikes. If you think that means that "It doesn't say it's not for weapons, therefore I can use my greatsword with my unarmed strike rules", that would be non-permissive.
Keep trying. I have to go to work now. Use this time to find a non-permissive combat rule which could stand up to the barest scrutiny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume by your response that you intend to carry on the argument no matter what. I supposed I should not be surprised at this point.
Nevertheless, for your edification:
"All weapons deal hitpoint damage"
It is the opening line of the weapon rules section. It is unambiguous in language and intent. It is non-permissive. It is absolute. It is factually incorrect.
I cannot link it from my phone, but if you will trouble yourself to search "lasso"...
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".
LOL! that's rich! you do know that the longspear is a weapon right? however, do you know what the meaning of 'improvised weapon' is?
Let's see the PRD on this:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
[...]
Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows.
[...]
Bolts: A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit ×2). Bolts come in a case or quiver that holds 10 bolts (or 5, for a repeating crossbow).
[...]
Crowbar: A crowbar grants a +2 circumstance bonus on Strength checks made to force open a door or chest. If used in combat, treat a crowbar as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of...
Fabricated items are not crafted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a recap: Malachi has narrowed this discussion to remove logic, common sense and RAI. This is not a hyperbolic statement on my part. He has literally said those things do not belong in this conversation.
Since then, we have now found that RAW itself is too broad to be used in a discussion about rules. We have now been restricted to combat rules.
Combat rules however are also too much for him to handle. We must now only use combat RAW, with no common sense, logic, or RAI involoved AND we have to read the rules as a permissive document, even though that means that every elf and half elf will die of con drain within weeks of being born and everyone who doesn't have a buddy that casts spells also meets their fate within a few weeks of being born.
Yet, even after imposing all these rediculous restrictions, that in no way represent the way the game works or is played, he still cannot overcome the statement that fabricated spears are not crafted and by RAW can be used as an improvised weapon.
Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
It replaces the crafting process.
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?
If a hand is part of a body, then a slap is part of a body slam: not an entire body slam in its own right.