| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. FYI hands exist.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?
It's a joke about "the hands that aren't hands" or "hands of effort" that the developers say exist as non-written RAW and govern what you can and cannot two-weapon fight with.
That's actually all true, the joke is that it's true.
What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
|
What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?
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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
It is a spear, so it has spear stats. It wasn't crafted so I can choose to use it as an improvised weapon.
|
|
It depends. If you make a stabbing motion, yes, but if you bonk someone in the head with the haft, magically nothing happens.Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
Does not compute. Simplifying. Restating the question: is it a weapon or not a weapon.
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.
I'm apparently to the point that I'm being too serious. A longspear that loses its long-ly-ness becomes a spear (without reach). No one has any issue with a non-reach weapon attacking adjacent squares.
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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
It has already been established that the game rules don't work that way. The only way the rules say you can sleep is by failing a save vs a sleep effect.
Elves cannot fail saves vs sleep.
Elves don't die from con drain after being exhausted after being fatigued.
The rules are not written to be permissive.
|
|
It is a spear, so it has spear stats. It wasn't crafted so I can choose to use it as an improvised weapon.Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
Analyzing. "It is a spear" = assertion that it is a weapon. "It wasn't crafted = I can choose that it is not a weapon" = Error found. Irrelevant. Weapon does not equal improvised weapon.
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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
It is well established that the rules descend into unplayable absurdity if read solely as a list of "Can's" and "Cannot's". Presenting sophistry as logic doesn't make it logical.
Analyzing. "It is a spear" = assertion that it is a weapon. "It wasn't crafted = I can choose that it is not a weapon" = Error found. Irrelevant. Weapon does not equal improvised weapon.It is a spear, so it has spear stats. It wasn't crafted so I can choose to use it as an improvised weapon.Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
That is an issue with your compiler not the source code.
Improvised weapons doesn't say "not weapons" can be used, it does say "objects not crafted to be weapons."
I have provided a RAW circumstance where an object both "is a spear" AND "not crafted to be a weapon"
Your restriction of "non-weapons" is not supported by the rules text.
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.
Attacking a Square is what you are looking for.
The first location I found says:
"All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction."
I am positive there is a more descriptive paragraph somewhere for this action. It might be near the invisibility section.
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.Attacking a Square is what you are looking for.
The first location I found says:
"All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction."I am positive there is a more descriptive paragraph somewhere for this action. It might be near the invisibility section.
No, I just want to swing at someone and miss. I have no interest in hitting a target.
I don't have to make an attack roll to swing and miss, in fact the rules for rolling an attack specifically say that it is a measure of accuracy when attempting to hit a target. I am trying to miss.
Is anyone here prepared to say that you cannot miss on purpose in pathfinder?
You know, it just occurred to me that, strictly RAW, we don't actually know that the spears we find as loot or buy from a shop are "crafted". We are actually making a non-rules-assumption about all of those spears too. I guess strictly RAW, we should actually conclude that ONLY spears which we KNOW were crafted to be weapons are excluded from the improvised weapon rules. Just don't ask too many questions when you buy your spear, and you're good to go:).What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
Not to mention the fact that there are a whole host of "weapons" that were never originally designed to be weapons. The scythe and sickle are farm instruments. Shields, staves, gauntlets, nunchaka, whips, nets, chains, helms, tridents, hooks, and yes, even spears were all originally designed with other intent.
Just how big is a Diminutive Longspear?
A pencil? Can I attack with a pencil?
Hmmm... Good Question.
After doing a lot of math, the diminutive longspear is only slightly smaller than a pencil in circumference and slightly longer in length.
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.Attacking a Square is what you are looking for.
The first location I found says:
"All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction."I am positive there is a more descriptive paragraph somewhere for this action. It might be near the invisibility section.
No, I just want to swing at someone and miss. I have no interest in hitting a target.
I don't have to make an attack roll to swing and miss, in fact the rules for rolling an attack specifically say that it is a measure of accuracy when attempting to hit a target. I am trying to miss.
Is anyone here prepared to say that you cannot miss on purpose in pathfinder?
Okay -- exactly what are you trying to accomplish? You can certainly point a weapon in somebody's general direction and wave it around without having to make an attack roll. What is the mechanical difference between doing that and deliberately missing an actual attack? If there is a real mechanical difference, there is a very good chance that you are trying to do something rather cheesy.
It says nowhere that a weapon is one whole object and nothing else. Still waiting.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.
And where do the rules define that you can only treat a weapon as one, whole indivisible object?
This is like saying apples taste better than oranges, now you go find the evidence to disprove my point.
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.Attacking a Square is what you are looking for.
The first location I found says:
"All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction."I am positive there is a more descriptive paragraph somewhere for this action. It might be near the invisibility section.
No, I just want to swing at someone and miss. I have no interest in hitting a target.
I don't have to make an attack roll to swing and miss, in fact the rules for rolling an attack specifically say that it is a measure of accuracy when attempting to hit a target. I am trying to miss.
Is anyone here prepared to say that you cannot miss on purpose in pathfinder?
Okay -- exactly what are you trying to accomplish? You can certainly point a weapon in somebody's general direction and wave it around without having to make an attack roll. What is the mechanical difference between doing that and deliberately missing an actual attack? If there is a real mechanical difference, there is a very good chance that you are trying to do something rather cheesy.
No mechanical benefit at all. It is just something I do, in combat, that isn't in the combat rules.
I want to swing at him and miss. Not bluff, not feint, not intimidate. I just want to swing and miss.Attacking a Square is what you are looking for.
The first location I found says:
"All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction."I am positive there is a more descriptive paragraph somewhere for this action. It might be near the invisibility section.
No, I just want to swing at someone and miss. I have no interest in hitting a target.
I don't have to make an attack roll to swing and miss, in fact the rules for rolling an attack specifically say that it is a measure of accuracy when attempting to hit a target. I am trying to miss.
Is anyone here prepared to say that you cannot miss on purpose in pathfinder?
Okay -- exactly what are you trying to accomplish? You can certainly point a weapon in somebody's general direction and wave it around without having to make an attack roll. What is the mechanical difference between doing that and deliberately missing an actual attack? If there is a real mechanical difference, there is a very good chance that you are trying to do something rather cheesy.
What they're trying to demonstrate is that the combat rules are not merely a list of "Cans" and "Cannots". While they are correct, it is nearly impossible to show an example of a "Cannot" from a rule that says you "Can". It is almost an attempt to prove a negative, which is impossible.
The best example I have found is at the start of the weapon section: "All weapons deal hitpoint damage." It is a very clear "Can", in fact "Must", that is not 100% true. Refer to Nets and the Lasso. They are listed as weapons with no damage.
It is well established that the rules descend into unplayable absurdity if read solely as a list of "Can's" and "Cannot's". Presenting sophistry as logic doesn't make it logical.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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
Not worth my time. You keep believing what you want.
Not worth my time. You keep believing what you want.It is well established that the rules descend into unplayable absurdity if read solely as a list of "Can's" and "Cannot's". Presenting sophistry as logic doesn't make it logical.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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
Your games must get really boring, what with everyone in the entire game world dying of sleep deprivation in a few weeks after the adventure starts.
Or is this the part where we talk about the "dead" condition doesn't restrict my choice of actions?
Not worth my time. You keep believing what you want.It is well established that the rules descend into unplayable absurdity if read solely as a list of "Can's" and "Cannot's". Presenting sophistry as logic doesn't make it logical.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?
You logic is a fallacy (incorrect).
(1) ~x->y cannot turn into (2) x->~y.There is difference in logic between 'the rules don't say you can' and 'the rules specifically say you can't.'
If the rules specifically say you can't do something --> then you can't do something.
~x -> ~y
If you can do something --> then the rules say you can do something.
y -> x
Lol! When something is not worth my time, I don't usually spend some of my worthwhile time crafting a post to let people know it's not worth my time. I suspect what you really mean by that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Actually, in this case a strong argument can be made that you can not use elbows and knees unless you have the Unarmed Strike ability of the monk, since the monk ability explicitly states the monk can use elbows and knees; that is a strong argument that it's not part of the standard options.
Though of course I agree with you in the larger scale, I think it's a bad example.
I think, however, that showing a rule that is unambiguously non-permissive is impossible, since such a rule is kind of an oxymoron.
Most written rules can be read as either permissive or non-permissive. For a rule to be unambiguously permissive it needs to state that it is, but that doesn't really work for non-permissive rules as stating it is non-permissive can be used as an argument that it is actually permissive.
Sleep:
"Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued."
What is this 8 hours of rest you speak of?!?
Rest
You can use downtime to rest and recover. It is assumed that you spend 8 hours resting at night, which allows you to recover 1 hp per level per day and 1 point of ability damage for each affected ability score. If you spend a full day of downtime resting in bed, you recover another 1 hp per level per day and another 1 point of ability damage for each affected ability score.
FYI they use the term rest instead of sleep because some creatures meditate instead of sleep and some creatures do not have to sleep or meditate.
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?
For using such... demeaning wording, you seem to have a very bad grasp of the rules involved.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
Fixed that bolding for ya. Anyone who claims "spear hafts are not explicitly called objects by the rules so they are not objects" have to accept the much more rules-based "craft is a game mechanic, and crafted objects are those made by that mechanic".
Fabricate is not craft, because it doesn't explicitly say it is craft (except in cases requireing high craftsmansship)
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.
Honestly, I feel this is just yet another example of "first sentence of a rule section is generally a short description/summary of what the section will talk about".
Not that it makes it less relevant in a RAWY RAW discussion, but I still feel if one really wants to get at how the rules are intended to be read, "first sentence is a summary with low rule value" is kind of a central piece.
Sleep:
"Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued."
What is this 8 hours of rest you speak of?!?
Rest
You can use downtime to rest and recover. It is assumed that you spend 8 hours resting at night, which allows you to recover 1 hp per level per day and 1 point of ability damage for each affected ability score. If you spend a full day of downtime resting in bed, you recover another 1 hp per level per day and another 1 point of ability damage for each affected ability score.
FYI they use the term rest instead of sleep because some creatures meditate instead of sleep and some creatures do not have to sleep or meditate.
Downtime rules are not part of the Core game. Also, are you suggesting that before Ultimate Campaign was released that characters died of sleep deprivation?
|
|
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?For using such... demeaning wording, you seem to have a very bad grasp of the rules involved.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.Fixed that bolding for ya. Anyone who claims "spear hafts are not explicitly called objects by the rules so they are not objects" have to accept the much more rules-based "craft is a game mechanic, and crafted objects are those made by that mechanic".
Fabricate is not craft, because it doesn't explicitly say it is craft (except in cases requireing high craftsmansship)
I don't see what is demeaning by my comment, as I know full well that you DO KNOW that the longspear is a weapon, and that you are merely choosing to ignore this. Let me redo the bolding properly, as we are talking about a sentence, not a word taken in isolation:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
it doesn't say
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat in way that objects not crafted to be weapons do.
| 4 people 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.
Honestly, I feel this is just yet another example of "first sentence of a rule section is generally a short description/summary of what the section will talk about".
Not that it makes it less relevant in a RAWY RAW discussion, but I still feel if one really wants to get at how the rules are intended to be read, "first sentence is a summary with low rule value" is kind of a central piece.
I most assuredly agree with you. But, it is in the rules. Its language is unambiguous. Its intent is unambiguous. It is non-permissive. It is factually inaccurate, meaning there are circumstances in which you can, completely within the rules, ignore it.
So, now we've proven that the rules don't prohibit the use of weapons as improvised weapons, both in simple English and in sentential logic.
We've proven that the rules are not, and cannot be, strictly permissive.
We've proven that wielding a longspear in the way described is both cinematically and realistically possible.
We've proven that it holds up to common sense.
We've proven that there is no balance issue.
And we have developer quotes that support us.
I'm waiting to read the next objection. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is. I'm quite sure it has already been exceeded. But, some will stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly to avoid it if they have to....
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'.
Could you load it into a gargantuan ballista? Could you push it off a cliff or ledge and onto those below? If you can lift it, and have razor sharp chair-leg, why can't you throw it? Longspears can't be thrown? B*##*$$s, you can set up a char that can throw pretty much anything they can lift.
There are plenty of ways to use a big stick than just as a weapon. This reminds me of a story about a dm wanting to make his dungeon nastier, so all the pit spikes were replaced by halberds. Mmmmm d10. There a manufactured weapon was being used as a trap, held up for unsuspecting adventurers. Of course it could also still be thrown and used as a stationary object to cut something, or dropped on the players from above and used as an improvised weapon.
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'.
One of my favourite shogun 2 quotes for the ninja skill-tree.
Everything is a weapon, a weapon everything.
If you are trying to say a cylindrical wooden chair leg is a weapon, but a longer length of cylindrical wood is not a weapon, you are getting into ridiculous territory. Why one but not the other? Especially when hafts can be used to good effect irl and in a range of martial arts.
There are feats to use these non weapon objects just fine. The haft of the longspear is not the piercing weapon, it is just a length of wood you hold to allow reach. Of course you can bash someone with it. You won't get the longspear damage or its type, but its at least as good as a chairleg and there are feats to rock that sufficiently well.
However, the haft is not a weapon. If it is used as a weapon in its own right then it is being used as a weapon not intended for that purpose, or in colloquial terms, 'improvised'Analyzing. "It is a spear" = assertion that it is a weapon. "It wasn't crafted = I can choose that it is not a weapon" = Error found. Irrelevant. Weapon does not equal improvised weapon.It is a spear, so it has spear stats. It wasn't crafted so I can choose to use it as an improvised weapon.Can your spear be used as a weapon or is it just an ornamental piece of junk?What is the end result?It replaces the crafting process.Fabricated items are not crafted.They are. In fact, the purpose of the spell is to fast track the crafting process.
You get a spear. A spear that was not crafted. It was poofed.
I've got one more. If I carry around a long piece of wood, that looks like a longspear haft, but never was a longspear in part or whole, it didn't get the crafting stamp of longspear; and it isn't a club, can I use it as an improvised weapon?
Of course I can. Now why can't the haft of a longspear be used as an improvised weapon? Makes no sense.
|
I've got one more. If I carry around a long piece of wood, that looks like a longspear haft, but never was a longspear in part or whole, it didn't get the crafting stamp of longspear; and it isn't a club, can I use it as an improvised weapon?
Depends. If you DM says the most similar weapon is a large quarterstaff, then you can't because that takes it beyond two-handed for you.
Now why can't the haft of a longspear be used as an improvised weapon? Makes no sense.
Them's the rules.
There is a third category of potential rules types (beyond permissive or non-permissive), 'not covered'.
But the case of using longspears in combat is completely covered, and includes the rule that they can't attack adjacent foes.
The assertion that using a weapon as an improvised weapon means that this is not covered is false. That rule applies to what it says it applies to. The logic of a rule that reads 'Things that are not weapons can do this', somehow means 'Things that are weapons can do this' is false.
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'.
Could you load it into a gargantuan ballista? Could you push it off a cliff or ledge and onto those below? If you can lift it, and have razor sharp chair-leg, why can't you throw it? Longspears can't be thrown? B!%~~&%s, you can set up a char that can throw pretty much anything they can lift.
There are plenty of ways to use a big stick than just as a weapon. This reminds me of a story about a dm wanting to make his dungeon nastier, so all the pit...
What about the parts of the ballista? The javelin ammo? The heavy pin used to wind the skeins? The cotter pin that holds the base? What about a staff that has a bayonet-like attachment to turn it into a spear If I use it like a spear does it become a spear? If I take the blade off is it an improvised weapon despite being in every way identical to a quarterstaff? The baskethilt of a sword used to punch? Pistol whipping? What if there's a cutlass pistol does it do no damage as a cutlass or a pistol because it was made to do both but now improvised?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a bow in my hand...
I have no arrows...
I'm in the desert, stranded, naked, and I'm probably going to die of thirst in a day or two.
When that darn possessed snake decides to come my way to kill me, do you really think I'm going to use unarmed strikes against it? Or do you think I'd use my bow as an improvised weapon?
~My two cp
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a bow in my hand...
I have no arrows...
I'm in the desert, stranded, naked, and I'm probably going to die of thirst in a day or two.
When that darn possessed snake decides to come my way to kill me, do you really think I'm going to use unarmed strikes against it? Or do you think I'd use my bow as an improvised weapon?
~My two cp
Are you playing Cleopatra?
I've got one more. If I carry around a long piece of wood, that looks like a longspear haft, but never was a longspear in part or whole, it didn't get the crafting stamp of longspear; and it isn't a club, can I use it as an improvised weapon?Depends. If you DM says the most similar weapon is a large quarterstaff, then you can't because that takes it beyond two-handed for you.
Now why can't the haft of a longspear be used as an improvised weapon? Makes no sense.Them's the rules.
There is a third category of potential rules types (beyond permissive or non-permissive), 'not covered'.
But the case of using longspears in combat is completely covered, and includes the rule that they can't attack adjacent foes.
The assertion that using a weapon as an improvised weapon means that this is not covered is false. That rule applies to what it says it applies to. The logic of a rule that reads 'Things that are not weapons can do this', somehow means 'Things that are weapons can do this' is false.
Don't dance around, this isn't shadowdancer class.
Is the stick an improvised weapon or not? Admit that it is.
It is not a quarterstaff, it was not made as a quarterstaff and does not have the q-staff properties. It is just a long cylinder of ash wood. Don't try to bring up dm rulings now when it is clearly a piece of wood that can be an improvised weapon.
Therefore if a longspear user pulled out a length of wooden pole to fight a close up combatant, they could use it as an improvised weapon, but some here insist the pole of the longspear cannot be used as an improvised weapon even if the two poles are near identical.
We have indeed found an amusing claim on the rules.
So carry a spare pole that was never made into a weapon of any sort, and you are good to go. Prob take quick draw and all the related improv weapon feats. You might even throw it at someone and kill them. I call it the razor sharp long stick.