| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth pointing out that the Dragoon ability itself implies a reason why this should work, RAW.
The Dragoon ability specifically spells out that the normal enhancements on the lance are transferred to the butt end...
I.e. that the butt end is not considered an inherent part of the weapon, because if it was it would already have those features.
The butt end is thus basically just treated as an "object", eligible for Improvised Weapon.
Likewise, double weapons are a similar example, if one step removed:
the other end of the weapon object is another weapon, it is not all one weapon.
|
@Drakkiel: PFS is a "RAW only" format, so that is why I mention it. They also move all rules questions here, so this is the right place. Also, not every thing I say is all a response to you alone. It's not all about you.
@Quandry: Thank you for putting some sense back to the thread. That is a very reasonable approach.
@Remy
Grow the hell up man...trying to take issue with what I said is pointless...I was not arguing against anything you said...you seemed to be getting your pantries in a twist about some people basing their answers on RAW...I was tryibg to explain why since its all seems so ludicris to youIf I somehow offended you by apparently saying you have no right within the rules to sit down in a chair I am sorry...taking something to the extreme does nothing but causes more stupidity
For the record...if you want to sit in a chair and asked me how...I would answer you no different than anyone else by saying its not in the rules...however if you wish to make it an action I would say its a free action and the "sitting" condition would probably net you half the penalties that being prone would
Try being a smartass somewhere else...it doesn't work on the Internet that well
I'm not offended... and trust me, being a smartass works everywhere, even the net. It actually works really well on the net.
Here is my point... and there is one if you've been paying attention...
RAW interpretations are exactly that, interpretations. If your reading of a rule takes you into the land of absurdity, you've made a wrong turn and should try again. Ruling that someone, by RAW, cannot use the shaft of a spear to attack with, is well into the land of absurdity. It is a bad reading of the rules. You've made an error.
Ie. If you are saying this, you are wrong.
Moreover, the attitude that is omnipresent on this board is that only clearly defined RAW actions are valid, and that all other actions are simply not possible. To this attitude, I must simply call it out as ludicrous... and follow it up with similarly ludicrous 'sitting in chair' questions. Because they are equally as silly. And no one should waste their time talking to someone who genuinely believes and advocates that you cannot have your character sit in a chair. (Which is merely the logical extension of what people are proposing, ironically)
Tldr; If people spout off nonsense, I’m going to ask them nonsense questions. Why? Because that is clearly their native tongue. And when in Rome…
@Drakkiel: PFS is a "RAW only" format, so that is why I mention it. They also move all rules questions here, so this is the right place. Also, not every thing I say is all a response to you alone. It's not all about you.
@Quandry: Thank you for putting some sense back to the thread. That is a very reasonable approach.
Ah well there weren't to many others posting..I assumed it was directed at me...apologies for that then
While PFS is more restrictive it is not the nightmare people make it out to be...I don't play myself but the local PFS GM is my friend...his sessions are nowhere near as crazy as some I have read about on here
How about "Spiked Gauntlet + Bull Rush" ?
Loose your grip, punsh your enemies with spiked Gauntlet in his face (Bull Rush) and then grab your spear again and attack from 5 ft. away
I dont know many that do...although I can atest to seeing them on here...like the guy who's GM wouldn't let him use spellstrike
How about "Spiked Gauntlet + Bull Rush" ?
Loose your grip, punsh your enemies with spiked Gauntlet in his face (Bull Rush) and then grab your spear again and attack from 5 ft. away
I would give you the rules for that and ways to make it work but I'm learning that maybe I shouldn't give rules answers based on rules lol
I would give you the rules for that and ways to make it work but I'm learning that maybe I shouldn't give rules answers based on rules lol
Isn't it covered by the normal rules?
Loosing your grip from a weapon is a free action.You can perform a bullrush with every weapon, so also with a spiked gauntlet.
I would give you the rules for that and ways to make it work but I'm learning that maybe I shouldn't give rules answers based on rules lolIsn't it covered by the normal rules?
Loosing your grip from a weapon is a free action.
You can perform a bullrush with every weapon, so also with a spiked gauntlet.
I was joking...however I don't think bull rushes typically use the weapon unless stated like when you shield bash...but hey that's a rules thing...may not be the best place to discuss it
Dropping the weapon and drawing another one means a Move Action and provoking if you don't have Quickdraw.
It means a move action, but it does not provoke. See Table "Actions in Combat".
|
Just some ideas to throw out here.
The fighter archetype Pole Master allows you to shorten the grip of a reach weapon pole arm and spear. From the PRD "Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery."
Now in the days of 3.5 one of the designers wrote an online article on the Wizards site about using the shaft of a polearm for adjacent (5 ft reach) attacks that did d6 damage.
I
Edit: Now seeing your above response, I see you just want a clear ruling on whether you could use it to attack adjacent as a improvised weapon. I will FAQ for you.
Yes, because I'm sure you would much rather the powers that be at Paizo convene a meeting to address this important question instead of, you know, publishing cool stuff.
What is it with the the obsession with FAQing everything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is it with the the obsession with FAQing everything?
Perhaps start another thread and get people to FAQ and Paizo will answer...
:)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
@BBT
Btw the whole chicken thing would be hilarious...reminds me of Beverly hills ninjas when he dual wields fish
I had a whole party fighting two guys with Shatter Weapon and they couldn't hit it with spells. So they started breaking off the arms of the wooden statues in the room and beating the CC's up with improvised clubs (which kept breaking on impact after dealing damage to the CC.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10
feet away, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.
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.
Sorry, I don't see a need for a FAQ, or a developer ruling. RAW, the answer is very much "no". A longspear is a weapon that has the reach property. The reach property specifically states that the longspear cannot be used against adjacent foes.
Asking if a longspear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent creatures is asking specifically to override what the rules have to say about weapons with reach, and therefore very much needs the burden of proof to be unassailable. Investigating the improvised weapon rules reveals that those rules specifically refer to non-weapons, which the longspear is not.
RAW you cannot strike adjacent targets with areach weapon.
RAW you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Additional nugget of RAW: you cannot throw a weapon that does not have a Range entry in its statistics.
The question was asked repeated specifically to exclude opinion and intent. As such the answer remains "no".
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10
feet away, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.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.
Sorry, I don't see a need for a FAQ, or a developer ruling. RAW, the answer is very much "no". A longspear is a weapon that has the reach property. The reach property specifically states that the longspear cannot be used against adjacent foes.
Asking if a longspear can be used as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent creatures is asking specifically to override what the rules have to say about weapons with reach, and therefore very much needs the burden of proof to be unassailable. Investigating the improvised weapon rules reveals that those rules specifically refer to non-weapons, which the longspear is not.
RAW you cannot strike adjacent targets with areach weapon.
RAW you cannot use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Additional nugget of RAW: you cannot throw a weapon that does not have a Range entry in its statistics.The question was asked repeated specifically to exclude opinion and intent. As such the answer remains "no".
Improvised weapons cannot have any properties, including reach. You cannot strike adjacent targets with a longspear, but you can strike adjacent targets with an improvised weapon, any improvised weapon
The question is not, an never has been, can you strike adjacent opponents with a long spear, the question is: Could an 8ft stick with a oddly shaped bit on one end be used as a makeshift bludgeon? ex a longspear or a lampstand
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improvised weapons cannot have any properties, including reach. You cannot strike adjacent targets with a longspear, but you can strike adjacent targets with an improvised weapon, any improvised weapon
The question is not, an never has been, can you strike adjacent opponents with a long spear, the question is: Could an 8ft stick with a oddly shaped bit on one end be used as a makeshift bludgeon? ex a longspear or a lampstand
Correct.
For the purposes of keeping the thread bumped, I'll mention that my stance is that reading RAW without common sense engaged is no longer discussing RAW; comments by designers have indicated they agree with that basic concept. And common sense indicates that, although it may be unwieldy and ineffective, you can use an 8-foot stick as an improvised weapon, even if that 8-foot stick happens to have a pointy bit on the end that qualifies it as a longspear.
|
Most RPGs, Pathfinder one of them, have a clause somewhere in the introduction telling people to change the rules if they don't make sense. Arguably, making house rules when needed is RAW :P
Anyway, it seems going by "dumb RAW", you can't use a longspear that way. Stupid, but then inanimate objects like a textbook aren't all that smart.
Privately I'd interpret it as an improvized quarterstaff, not an improvized club.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improvised weapons cannot have any properties, including reach. You cannot strike adjacent targets with a longspear, but you can strike adjacent targets with an improvised weapon, any improvised weapon
The question is not, an never has been, can you strike adjacent opponents with a long spear, the question is: Could an 8ft stick with a oddly shaped bit on one end be used as a makeshift bludgeon? ex a longspear or a lampstand
A longspear no. A lampstand yes.
Why? Because - as I quoted - the rules are very clear on what can and what cannot be treated as an improvised weapon. Weapons - which longspears are - cannot be treated as such. Lampstands - which are not - can. If your "8ft stick with an oddly shaped bit on one end" is commonly referred to as "longspear", then it appears on the table of items considered Weapons.
This question was emphatically established as requiring answers are about rules-legality. Common sense was specifically requested to not play into any answers given. At a PFS table, longspear-as-improvised cannot be permitted. As a house-rule at a normal game, it's up to the DM. Personally I'd just grimace at the player who suggested it and sort of say "unask the question". It's cheesy at best.
If the devs intended this to be in any way permitted, the rule on the reach property would read "you can attack adjacent targets at a -4 penalty" instead of "you cannot attack adjacent targets". What they wrote tells me what they consider balanced, and that disinclines me to apply common sense to the situation. It's uncomfortable and it makes me grit my teeth, but hey... maybe uh... maybe that extra couple feet just makes that longspear impractical to treat like a quarterstaff. I mean... you wouldn't ask to use a 30ft pole as an improvised weapon, right? So somewhere between quarterstaff and 30ft things just become unwieldy, right? Say... right before however long a longspear is. Yeah, that's it.
So there you have my reinforcement regarding RAW, which I still do not see anything but clear, as well as explanation why I answered only the question asked, along with insight as to how I feel on the topic in general, despite that being specifically outside the scope of what the OP demanded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense was specifically requested to not play into any answers given.
Actually, that's not what Malachi said. I quote: "Just to be clear, I'm only interested in whether this is allowed in the rules, not whether we think it should be." Common sense indicates that this is allowed by the rules, because arguing otherwise is wholly unrealistic.
Sean K. has a personal blog post wherein he discusses whether Invisibility is a mind-affecting spell; one of the reasons he dismisses the concept is, in fact, common sense.
He also says here, rather clearly, that the idea of reading the rules without common sense is, in fact, nonsense. He even goes on to say this:
So, yes, it's perfectly valid for the game rules to assume that the GM understands how the real world works and can make rulings based on that knowledge. Otherwise you're asking for a game book that has to spell out every single thing so that the most thick-witted person in the world never has to think at all when running or playing--at which point you're in a world where we need instructions for toothpicks, warnings on chainsaws that say "do not attempt to stop the chain with your hands," and instructions on peanut packages that say "open package and eat contents."
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't assume that the reader is a person of at least average intelligence with at least an average awareness of how the world works?
To argue that because the rules for improvised weapons state that they apply to non-weapon objects, and that because of that you can't ever, under any circumstances, use a weapon in an improvised, non-standard manner to do damage, is seemingly putting yourself into the group that needs "instructions for toothpicks". Common sense indicates that you can bash someone in the face with the pole of a polearm (I actually just demonstrated it [gently] on a roommate just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating :P) - maybe not effectively, and definitely not for damage equivalent to using it as a polearm, but it is possible.
|
To the question of bashing a foe over the head with a musket: if a musket had game stats for it's use as a melee weapon, I would not allow it to be used in melee as an improvised melee weapon. Since it doesn't have melee stats, then it's not an object designed for melee combat, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply.
A longspear is designed for melee combat, I'm trying to use it in melee combat, therefore, do the improvised weapons rules apply?
As to 'sitting down isn't covered by RAW'. Heh. But using a reach weapon to attack an adjacent opponent isn't something that the rules fail to cover, leaving DMs to their own devices! The rules for using a reach weapon to attack an adjacent opponent are specifically covered, and the answer is a very clear 'No!'
So, I'm asking if I can deliberately circumvent that certain 'No!' by asking if I can use a rule designed to adjudicate how non-weapons are used to use a weapon to break the rules governing the use of that weapon. Furthermore, I'm asking if, while using the improvised weapons rule, I can take the clause, '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', and not rule that the most reasonable match for a longspear....is a longspear!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that's not what Malachi said. I quote: "Just to be clear, I'm only interested in whether this is allowed in the rules, not whether we think it should be." Common sense indicates that this is allowed by the rules, because arguing otherwise is wholly unrealistic.
I'm (likely) not going to keep replying, likely, though I will continue to read. So this isn't a "drop my last word and stomp off with my marbles" type of reply, it's just that I'm down to repeating myself, with nothing more to add. Just explaining that I'm not upset or frustrated... just running out of ways to try to restate the kernel of what I'm saying. I just don't want this to turn into some obnoxious X vs Y back & forth thing. <Grin>
Xaratherus, it isn't allowed by the rules. I've demonstrated that. You're not disagreeing with that, at least not directly. Malachi asked for what the rules say, I posted that. The rules say you can't attack adjacent targets with reach weapons. Can't as in... not-can.
Everything else you're saying here is precisely the question of "should". I've explained my feelings about that and by all means I absolutely, positively, for-sure for-sure accept that it's the kind of area that a DM may feel the desire to hand-wave what the rules actually say. For instance, I'd almost always allow someone to throw a melee weapon as an improvised weapon despite that the rules specifically don't allow that either.
I 100% agree that common sense should be applied to making rulings and I do exactly that when DMing. So I'm on board with basically everything you're saying. Except your second sentence. While common sense may have convinced you that this is allowed by the rules, the English language says it is absolutely not, and that is what Malachi asked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
No you can't. They made an archetype to specifically allow it at the -4 penalty to start off. If they intended for you to be able to do it anyway they would not have made a special ability that allows you to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the question of bashing a foe over the head with a musket: if a musket had game stats for it's use as a melee weapon, I would not allow it to be used in melee as an improvised melee weapon. Since it doesn't have melee stats, then it's not an object designed for melee combat, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply.
A longspear is designed for melee combat, I'm trying to use it in melee combat, therefore, do the improvised weapons rules apply?
<snip>
So, I'm asking if I can deliberately circumvent that certain 'No!' by asking if I can use a rule designed to adjudicate how non-weapons are used to use a weapon to break the rules governing the use of that weapon. Furthermore, I'm asking if, while using the improvised weapons rule, I can take the clause, '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', and not rule that the most reasonable match for a longspear....is a longspear!
Well, there's the rub. I'd allow someone to use a longspear as an improvised weapon to do bludgeoning damage like a 'long club' but it would still be a reach weapon simply because it's a really long pole and that's just not going to be particularly useful as an in-close weapon, even an improvised one.
Xaratherus, it isn't allowed by the rules. I've demonstrated that. You're not disagreeing with that, at least not directly. Malachi asked for what the rules say, I posted that. The rules say you can't attack adjacent targets with reach weapons. Can't as in... not-can.
Note that some of this stems back to the original thread on this topic, so if some of this seems out-of-context, that may be why.
Let's take Reach weapons out of the discussion entirely: The interpretation of the particular rule that you - or Malachi - are using to disqualify this simply does not make sense when applied to other weapons.
If the designers came out and said, "No, you can't use a longspear to make an improvised bash attack because it's unbalancing to the game - it's a reach weapon for a reason," then I might not agree but at that point I can accept that, because I can see it as a reality-breaking kludge for balance purposes.
But to argue that you can never, under any circumstances whatsoever, use a weapon as an improvised weapon? The rules aren't intended to allow you to punch someone in the face with the guard of your saber? They aren't intended to allow you to sneak up behind a guard and pop him on the crown with the butt of your dagger? The consistent martial arts trope of having a staff split in two by someone with a sword, and then wielding the two ends like makeshift tonbo is barred by the rules?
That is why I disagree. I can't believe that's what the designers intended when they wrote that line. It's utterly inelegant and almost so unrealistic as to be ridiculous.
If there's a compromise here, I'd be more likely to accept that you can't do it with a Reach weapon specifically because of the qualities of a Reach weapon. But arguing that it's barred because of the "non-weapon objects" line regarding improvised weapons, when that has consequences to other things that are too obviously possible - I find that too jarring to common sense.
To the question of bashing a foe over the head with a musket: if a musket had game stats for it's use as a melee weapon, I would not allow it to be used in melee as an improvised melee weapon. Since it doesn't have melee stats, then it's not an object designed for melee combat, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply.
A musket is still "crafted to be a weapon", and thus fails your literal test that only "objects not crafted to be weapons" can be improvised weapons. Differentiating melee and ranged weapons is certainly a reasonable, an sensible, interpretation, but it's not the literal RAW.
If we're not using a senseless, literal interpretation of RAW, one could argue that a sword (or a spear) is not designed to be held by the pointy end, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply.
|
|
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?No you can't. They made an archetype to specifically allow it at the -4 penalty to start off. If they intended for you to be able to do it anyway they would not have made a special ability that allows you to do it.
Wise words, my friend. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?No you can't. They made an archetype to specifically allow it at the -4 penalty to start off. If they intended for you to be able to do it anyway they would not have made a special ability that allows you to do it.
That ability allows you to do it with the polearm, not an improvised weapon, so it's better.
That ability's penalty goes away, so it's better.
That ability is an immediate action, so it's better.
That ability is not the same thing; it's better.
|
|
arguing that it's barred because of the "non-weapon objects" line regarding improvised weapons
That line is only part of the argument.
Imagine that this line was not there, the rest still would be. If weapons were allowed to use the rules for improvised weapons sans that line, you'd still have to find the weapon which most resembles your longspear. How can that not be a longspear?
Even if you take reach weapons out of it, how can the weapon that most resembles your greatsword not be a greatsword?
In a nutshell, the improvised weapon rules allow objects which don't have weapon stats to interact with the combat rules. To follow the combat rules, not ignore any combat rules you feel like, including the game mechanics of the weapon you're using.
Those rules aren't about ignoring all the combat rules apart from the specific ones described, they are about following the usual rules except for the specific ones described: the -4 non-proficiency, the crit stats become 20/x2, and any thrown range increment becomes 10-feet. All the other combat rules remain intact, while allowing a non-weapon object to interact with them.
[
Even if you take reach weapons out of it, how can the weapon that most resembles your greatsword not be a greatsword?
If you're holding by the wrong end, it doesn't resemble a greatsword very much.
It's like throwing a crossbow. It's not "a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons" so you can't use those rules. It certainly most resembles a crossbow, so thrown crossbow: 1d8 damage with an increment of 80'. Or you can use a less literal interpretation that makes sense.
Take the spearhead off of the spear, and you have an improvised staff and an improvised dagger.
Break the spear in half, and you have an imrpovised club and an improvised shortspear.
Keep the weapon whole and you can't improvise a thing. I doubt that's what the rules say.
@Malachi: The rules say you compare it to the weapon list to determine size category and damage. So, as an improvised weapon, it is a 2-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage.
This isn't a balance issue. Only the wording about "objects not crafted to be weapons" is creating dispute. Is it the natural preface to a section on improvised weapons? Or is it the rule? And does a weapon improperly used qualify as a weapon?
Again i must point out that the "not designed as weapons" is mentioned in the first sentence of the section, and that the first sentence of a rules section often is a short summary of what the section is going to be about. Compare to the weapon section first sentence about weapons being among the most coveted possessions of an adventurer. If one wouldnt argue that means wizard cant covet their spellbook more than their dagger, oneshould be careful with arguing the "not designed asweapon" as hard RAW.
Thay said, i could never see anyone use this from a power perspective, except.maaaybe a really low level druid if the gm has ruled that gauntlets count as armor.
|
|
If you're holding by the wrong end, it doesn't resemble a greatsword very much.
Yes it does! Humans stand on two legs. If a human is standing on his head, does he not resemble a human any more? It 'resembles' a greatsword being held by an idiot. It still is, and resembles, a greatsword.
It's like throwing a crossbow. It's not "a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons" so you can't use those rules. It certainly most resembles a crossbow, so thrown crossbow: 1d8 damage with an increment of 80'. Or you can use a less literal interpretation that makes sense.
I'm a great believer in common sense. It's common sense that if you are using a greatsword in game, you should use the game rules for a greatsword. That seems common sense to me.
When using common sense to understand the rules on improvised weapons, it's common sense that projectile weapons are designed for ranged attacks. But not melee attacks. Common sense means that if you try to hit someone over the head with one, and when you look at the game mechanics for melee attacks with a crossbow, you find none. Therefore, use the rules which are there to let you use objects which don't have melee game mechanics to interact with the melee combat rules, i.e. The improvised weapon rules.
Similarly when throwing a weapon without a ranged increment, but the rules already cover this:-
It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll.
In order to use an object in combat which doesn't have weapon stats, compare it to the 'most reasonable' match, then use the game mechanics for that weapon, with the following alterations: attack with the non-proficiency of -4, set the crit stats to 20/x2, if the weapon has a thrown range increment, set that to 10-feet.
This makes perfect sense.
It also makes perfect sense that if you do have the combat stats, then this doesn't apply; you have the game mechanics already.
It especially make sense that you can't get around the deliberate game-designed limitations of various weapons by pretending that it's not a weapon so that you can then pretend that it's a different weapon without those restrictions.
Skeletons have DR bludgeoning? I'll improvise my greatsword as a club.
Greatswords can't be used while swallowed whole? I'm improvise it as a dagger.
The foe is 10-feet away? I'll improvise my greatsword as a longspear.
The foe is adjacent? I'll improvise my longspear as a club.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're holding by the wrong end, it doesn't resemble a greatsword very much.Yes it does! Humans stand on two legs. If a human is standing on his head, does he not resemble a human any more? It 'resembles' a greatsword being held by an idiot. It still is, and resembles, a greatsword.
It still visually resembles a greatsword, but that shouldn't be what's important here. If you're clubbing someone with the hilt of a greatsword it would not inflict 2d6 slashing damage. If you had your eyes closed and were trying to identify the weapon from it being smashed into your face, would you be able to identify it as a greatsword? From that perspective it would more closely resemble a club.
|
|
It still visually resembles a greatsword, but that shouldn't be what's important here. If you're clubbing someone with the hilt of a greatsword it would not inflict 2d6 slashing damage. If you had your eyes closed and were trying to identify the weapon from it being smashed into your face, would you be able to identify it as a greatsword? From that perspective it would more closely resemble a club.If you're holding by the wrong end, it doesn't resemble a greatsword very much.Yes it does! Humans stand on two legs. If a human is standing on his head, does he not resemble a human any more? It 'resembles' a greatsword being held by an idiot. It still is, and resembles, a greatsword.
It would certainly be possible for Paizo to write a rule allowing any weapon to be used in any way you visualise that makes sense. You could easily argue that a greatsword could do piercing damage with it's point or bludgeoning damage with the flat of the blade.
But they haven't. Indeed, even when the rules describe a sword as using the flat of the blade (for non-lethal damage) the damage is still classed as slashing.
So, no, Paizo haven't written a rule like that. They've written rules for how weapons are used, and none for using them 'wrong'.
Why can't you attack adjacent foes with a reach weapon, anyway? Well, the weapon is too long and unwieldy. Right, so is the object your trying to use as an improvised weapon!
That's just common sense. : )
So first you whine about me applying common sense instead of the RAW, then when i show part of your RAW argument is incorrect (improvised havig reach) and the other has very little merit (first sentencedescription), you ignore the RAW supporting it and start claiming "common sense" doesnt? Sorry malachi, that doesnt hold.
By RAW, weapons can be used as much as improvised weapons as a wizard can care more about her spellbook than her dagger.
By RAW a longspear can be used improvised and would be a two-handed weapon dealing 1d8 piercing damage (if used in a way so it most resembles a spear) or 1d6 bludgeoning damage (if used so it most resembles a club), with a crit of 20/x2 and no special abilities. And you take a -4 penalty for using it.
That the RAW falls squarely within common sense is just a bonus.