It still visually resembles a greatsword, but that shouldn't be what's important here.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.
Exactly the point.
It's not what the weapon looks like, it's what the weapon resembles the way it's being used.
A chair leg used to beat someone would resemble a club. The same chair leg, whose handle is filed down to a 4-inch point, would still resemble a club when you beat someone with it, but resemble a dagger when you shiv someone with it.
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.
So many strawmen.
Skeletons? Absolutely no reason a weapon as heavy as a greatsword couldn't be used to bludgeon. How is this even an argument?
Swallowed whole? A Greatsword-shaped hunk of metal would unarguably most closely resemble some kind of two-handed weapon (exactly which one could be argued). In any case two-handed weapons cannot be used in swallow whole.
Reach? It's debatable if an improvised weapon can even have the reach quality, but if it could, the improvised weapon should resemble a reach weapon in the factor common to all reach weapons, i.e. length. A Greatsword-shaped hunk of metal is not long enough to be used as a reach weapon.
Even if you take reach weapons out of it, how can the weapon that most resembles your greatsword not be a greatsword?
Simple test: Close your eyes. Have someone behind take the weapon I hand him, and hit you with it. It causes a painful thump against your skull but it doesn't cut you or pierce your skin.
What weapon was it?
Did you say "greatsword"? Because that's what it was. He didn't hit you with the blade, he hit you with the pommel; the weapon was the greatsword, but it wasn't used as a greatsword - it was improvised to deal damage in a different fashion.
The rules say, "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."
It does not say "look at the weapon and visually determine what weapon it most resembles". It says "look at the size of the weapon and how much\what type of damage it can do and determine a reasonable match".
A greatsword's pommel would most likely deal bludgeoning damage because it's blunt, not sharp. It remains a two-handed weapon, because that's how you have to wield it in any circumstance. Therefore, the weapon it most resembles is . . . not a greatsword, because the damage dealt by a greatsword is not bludgeoning, it's piercing\slashing. In size and damage potential (i.e., amount and type of damage dealt) it's most like a club wielded two-handed.
Ok. So, I have an idea.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Weapon Snatcher (Ex): A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check in place of a combat maneuver check when attempting to disarm an opponent.Based on the consensus here, I could steal any enemies weapon as my first attack, and then so long as I held it anyway other than the right way, I could immediately qualify as a sneak attack?
Well, as long as your disarm was made unarmed, and unless they TWF, had natural attacks, a gauntlet, a blade boot, spiked armor or improved unarmed strike, I'd say yes.
But you could do that regardless, just by wearing a gauntlet.
It's a cool idea though, and I fully encourage stealing those pesky orcs' axes and beating them over their head with it.
Also, you don't "improvise your greatsword as a longspear" or "improvise your longspear as a club", you use the greatsword as an improvised weapon or you use the club as an improvised weapon. If you try to stab people with your greatsword it could be determined that a spear or longspear is the closest match (though I think there might be better matches) and then the improvised weapon will be a two-handed weapon that deals 1d8 damage. You're not wielding an "improvised longspear", mechanically (though that might be the flavor); you're wielding an "improvised weapon that deals 1d8 piercing damage".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you use a weapon in an improvised fashion, it is the same as using any improvised weapon.
Unless you find all improvised weapon to be unbalancing, then there should be no concern.
There is no "game cheat" occurring here.
Think about it.
A crossbowman is adjacent to an enemy. He doesn't want to provoke, so he uses an bolt to stab the enemy, but he could also just club the enemy with his crossbow.
Both have the same result, both are legit, and neither creates imbalance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a cool idea though, and I fully encourage stealing those pesky orcs' axes and beating them over their head with it.Ok. So, I have an idea.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
...
Weapon Snatcher
Pure genius - love it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is completely reasonable response.I'm with the "you can use any weapon as an improvised weapon when you take the penalties and your GM assigns you a damage dice for the improvised use" crowd.
It's easy to say that a response that you happen to agree with is reasonable. It's fun, even, because it paints anyone who disagrees with you as unreasonable.
Let's go ahead and apply the reasonable ruling you favor, be it right or wrong. Using a longbow? No problem. You now can make attacks around you with it as an improvised weapon. It's clear that the developers intend that users of ranged weapons can't do that, but no worries.
Not reasonable enough because longbows are fragile? Fine. Hit someone in the face with your crossbow. It's realistic I grant wholeheartedly. But it's not balanced because the designers of the game made equipment about trade-offs. You can do X with Y, but you can't do Z. It's rock, paper, scissors.
Why should you provoke an AoO firing a crossbow at someone? It doesn't take any more talent to point & shoot than it does to swing a sword four or five times in 6 seconds. Distracted? I don't think so. You're very much conscious of where your nearby target is and are very much inclined to put your crossbow between him and you.
But wait, there's more. You can point your crossbow at an adjacent foe and tell him a joke (speaking is a free action) without provoking an AoO. It's only when your finger twitches on the trigger that the rules say you provoke.
We're not done. You take a -4 penalty to shoot the guy right in front of you because he threatens you. That's right. The rules say you don't threaten him because you're using a ranged weapon, but the rules say that if either of you threatens, then you're both "engaged in melee", and the -4 penalty applies. So point-blank shooting him in the face nets you a stab in the gut and you suck at aiming. But if he drops his dagger, you're suddenly very good at aiming.
The rules abstract combat. That's their job... to make a rich and varied combat system. Sometimes there are compromises to let things be consistent and not full of edge-conditions. It's the purview of the DM to decide where to allow players wiggle-room on the rules. I know I do. Just... sometimes it's reasonable to play by the rules because they weren't accidental. There is a reason why they are what they are. Yeah, it's not the end of the world to let a crossbow-user improvise and go melee. It's not the end of the world to let every PC be proficient with every weapon either. It's just further and further from the intended balancing act that is meant to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's go ahead and apply the reasonable ruling you favor, be it right or wrong. Using a longbow? No problem. You now can make attacks around you with it as an improvised weapon. It's clear that the developers intend that users of ranged weapons can't do that, but no worries.
Actually, the developers stated that you could use weapons while wearing a cestus doesn't imply that at all. Without certain feats, an archer is best served by dropping one hand from his bow at the end of his turn so that he then threatens with the cestus on that hand, and can thereby take AoOs versus adjacent foes. Boot blades, gauntlets, barbazu beards - there are numerous options that blatantly allow ranged combatants to make melee attacks.
Even if you had the Snap Shot chain and could make AoOs using your bow, you couldn't threaten in the same manner at once, because in order to effectively attack with the bow as an improvised melee weapon you would have to wield it in a fashion that would not make it a useful ranged weapon.
In regards to the crossbow, the same thing applies: You fire your last bolt, and as a free action you drop the supporting hand away so that you can defend and attack with your equipped cestus or gauntlet.
So the idea that this somehow unbalances the game because it maneuvers around an absolute restriction just doesn't pan out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules say you compare the object to the weapon it most resembles, "to determine the size category and appropriate damage."
A longsword will always be a one-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage, even if you decide to take a -4 penalty to attack so you can club someone in the face with the pommel.
A dagger will always be a light weapon that does 1d4 damage, even if you decide to take a -4 penalty to attack to bash someone in the face with the hilt.
A longspear will always be a two-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage, even if you decide to take a -4 penalty to attack to bash someone in the face with the pole.
The rules dictate this. You cannot improvise a dagger into a longspear, nor a longsword into a dagger. Because, when compared to the closest approximation on the weapon table (in this case, themselves), it says that what their size category is (light, one-handed, or two-handed; small, medium, large, etc...), and how much damage they can do (1d4 or 1d8 in these cases).
It would definitely require a DM's adjudication for an improvised weapon to have a "weapon quality", like reach. But, I would say that this is definitely in the spirit of the rules as they are intended. (If you break off an eight-foot long tree branch, and whittle the end to a point, I would say you have an improvised longspear that you could use as a reach weapon with a -4 penalty to attack.)
If you can take a penalty to attack to use a blade to deal non-lethal damage, how could you not be able to take a penalty to use the butt end of a reach weapon to attack adjacent?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the shaft a "weapon"? No? Then it can be used as an improvised weapon.
Attacking with the shaft is using a shaft as an improvised weapon. There is no "Shaft" weapon listed on the table. So, find the weapon the most closely resembles a shaft, and then use that damage/type etc and apply the standard -4 to hit because of using an improvised weapon.
Using a weapon in a way that it is not designed to be used means simply; Using a part of the weapon as an improvised weapon.
Using a crossbow to bash skulls is perfectly valid. You are using the butt and stock as an improvised weapon.
I FAQd it. And so should YOU!
Just wear a cestus bam problem solved
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wear a cestus bam problem solved
How will wearing a cestus tell us what the RAW is on this question?
|
|
In my opinion; Yes, Id let it ride.
How many times have we, being movie type people we are now a days, seen a number of folks fight with weapons in movies and use them how they were not intended? In the thick of battle, sometimes you do what comes to mind immediately. While it may be the *best* idea in the world, it can save your neck, all going your way of course.
I almost harken this question to using weapons as they are not intended; See dealing non-lethal damage with lethal weapons. The penalty is there because you are not using the weapon as intended.
Now, would I count the weapon as improvised? No. So no feats or such would alleviate the penalty. Would I allow AoO with the butt of the spear? No. I literally see this as a last ditch effort to make an attack that may save your life, or your compatriots lives, should that be the situation.
TL;DR I would allow the attack, but with a -4 penalty with no possible reduction.
|
Not sure where all the pantries are twisting to, maybe Oz, but I'm just wondering about the RAW. Is there no real way to usefully hit someone with a crossbow-as-a-club without having to resort to improvised weapons rules?Why would you expect something different? Whacking someone with a crossbow as opposed to shooting someone with it is essentially improvising an undesigned use for it. The crossbow is certainly not balanced, nor designed for using it as a club. The rules aren't saying you can use a crossbow like a mace, just that you're not going to be as adept as actually USING a mace.
Using a projectile weapon which has no melee stats (like a crossbow) requires you to use the improvised weapon rule in order to get game stats for that attack.
A longspear already has game stats. There's no rule allowing you to ignore those stats in favour of other stats, just because you're trying to ignore the designed limitation of that weapon. You're using a weapon with reach, and you're pretending you're not so that you can attack an adjacent foe, because you know that the rules don't allow this.
|
|
In my opinion; Yes, Id let it ride.
How many times have we, being movie type people we are now a days, seen a number of folks fight with weapons in movies and use them how they were not intended? In the thick of battle, sometimes you do what comes to mind immediately. While it may be the *best* idea in the world, it can save your neck, all going your way of course.
I almost harken this question to using weapons as they are not intended; See dealing non-lethal damage with lethal weapons. The penalty is there because you are not using the weapon as intended.
Now, would I count the weapon as improvised? No. So no feats or such would alleviate the penalty. Would I allow AoO with the butt of the spear? No. I literally see this as a last ditch effort to make an attack that may save your life, or your compatriots lives, should that be the situation.
TL;DR I would allow the attack, but with a -4 penalty with no possible reduction.
All this is a perfectly reasonable way for a DM to make a decision on the fly in his own game; it is part of his job after all. : )
But I'm asking if it's legal within the rules as written.
Please hit FAQ. : )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have hit FAQ, but if it is legal, I think there is room for abuse as everyone with a reach build would take the 'Rough and Ready' Equipment Trait and one rank in Profession (Blacksmith) or Profession (Longspear Maker), to allow them to have a weapon that they could use at 5 and 10 foot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have hit FAQ, but if it is legal, I think there is room for abuse as everyone with a reach build would take the 'Rough and Ready' Equipment Trait and one rank in Profession (Blacksmith) or Profession (Longspear Maker), to allow them to have a weapon that they could use at 5 and 10 foot.
The product of your trade is not a tool of your trade.
A longspear already has game stats. There's no rule allowing you to ignore those stats in favour of other stats, just because you're trying to ignore the designed limitation of that weapon.
If we look at the weapons table, we can see that longspear is a piercing weapon. This is because normally it would be used to thrust and puncture. So the stats that are given are for the longspear when used to attempt to pierce someone.
However, if you strike someone with the haft, rather than driving it toward them point first, then it would not make sense for it to do piercing damage. Whacking someone with a broom generally does not pierce flesh. It'll cause a bruise, and if you do it hard enough it can break skin, but it's not going to cause a stab.
So that leaves only three primary options of which I can think:
1. Pathfinder assumes that it is impossible to hit someone with the haft of the spear. That would be true even if we assume you're swinging at something that is 10 feet away (taking the whole "loophole around Reach" concept out of the equation) - it's a spear, it's made to thrust and stab, that's it. Any attempts to swing any longspear in such a fashion as to strike someone with the haft and deal damage would automatically fail.
2. Like it was deemed sensible to use the improvised weapon rules to determine what damage a crossbow would do when wielded as a club - i.e., in a situation where a weapon is being wielded in a manner in which it was not intended, and where functionally it could not do the same type of damage as described in its default statistics - it would also be sensible to use those rules to determine the damage the longspear deals when you strike with its haft rather than its point.
3. One could adopt the rules for dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, which results in the same effective penalty but allows full damage from the weapon as per the weapon's normal stats (in the form of non-lethal).
|
|
A longspear already has game stats. There's no rule allowing you to ignore those stats in favour of other stats, just because you're trying to ignore the designed limitation of that weapon.If we look at the weapons table, we can see that longspear is a piercing weapon. This is because normally it would be used to thrust and puncture. So the stats that are given are for the longspear when used to attempt to pierce someone.
However, if you strike someone with the haft, rather than driving it toward them point first, then it would not make sense for it to do piercing damage. Whacking someone with a broom generally does not pierce flesh. It'll cause a bruise, and if you do it hard enough it can break skin, but it's not going to cause a stab.
So that leaves only three primary options of which I can think:
1. Pathfinder assumes that it is impossible to hit someone with the haft of the spear. That would be true even if we assume you're swinging at something that is 10 feet away (taking the whole "loophole around Reach" concept out of the equation) - it's a spear, it's made to thrust and stab, that's it. Any attempts to swing any longspear in such a fashion as to strike someone with the haft and deal damage would automatically fail.
2. Like it was deemed sensible to use the improvised weapon rules to determine what damage a crossbow would do when wielded as a club - i.e., in a situation where a weapon is being wielded in a manner in which it was not intended, and where functionally it could not do the same type of damage as described in its default statistics - it would also be sensible to use those rules to determine the damage the longspear deals when you strike with its haft rather than its point.
3. One could adopt the rules for dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, which results in the same effective penalty but allows full damage from the weapon as per the weapon's normal stats (in the form of non-lethal).
I get your perspective, I really do! All those options 1 through 3 seem perfectly sensible.
But, in terms of actual Pathfinder rules, it's only option 1.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
If you even try to push for "balance reasons", then you have no idea what is going on.
You have no idea what balance looks like.
It mindbogglingly ridiculous to suggest their is something vaguely resembling a balance issue here.
This is closing one's eyes, covering their ears, and yelling "NA NA NA" in the face of common sense.
No one, has provided anything, even closely resembling a logical reasoning as to how this alters balance, at all.
Go forth, charge blindly, and try to prove me wrong.
I dare you.
|
|
What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
If you even try to push for "balance reasons", then you have no idea what is going on.
You have no idea what balance looks like.
It mindbogglingly ridiculous to suggest their is something vaguely resembling a balance issue here.
This is closing one's eyes, covering their ears, and yelling "NA NA NA" in the face of common sense.
No one, has provided anything, even closely resembling a logical reasoning as to how this alters balance, at all.
Go forth, charge blindly, and try to prove me wrong.
I dare you.
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?
No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
You are attacking with an improvised weapon.
It is not even a Longspear for feats, or abilities.
That attack, is no different than an attack with a chairleg, and would only provide the same bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.
I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.
The polearm master fighter would like a word with you about the shifting grips thing. For them it's an immediate action, which if you take it on your turn becomes your swift action.
What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
If you even try to push for "balance reasons", then you have no idea what is going on.
You have no idea what balance looks like.
It mindbogglingly ridiculous to suggest their is something vaguely resembling a balance issue here.
This is closing one's eyes, covering their ears, and yelling "NA NA NA" in the face of common sense.
No one, has provided anything, even closely resembling a logical reasoning as to how this alters balance, at all.
Go forth, charge blindly, and try to prove me wrong.
I dare you.
@bbt - I'm not sure why you are showing such vociferous opposition to this discussion. Personally I think using the longspear (or any weapon) as an improvised weapon at -4 to hit is fine, but I am really interested in the dev opinion, and also interested in a ruling for PFS - granted I'm not a PFS player, nor will I necessarily abide by an "official" "ruling" - but upwards of two-score folks seem to think this worthy of attention, and I'm just plain interested.
Now either all those folks have been hoodwinked by a smoke and mirrors exercise in populist opinion-swaying OR they think there is something here. Just let folks that want to know continue to strive to have the issue resolved.
I've followed so many of your requests for clarification, some were absurdly esoteric and based on minutiae, others were broad, and on a topic I really was interested in (natural attack builds for a Lizardfolk springs to mind). I just don't see why you are so opposed to this. It seems simply resolved to you, not so much to others.
What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
Perhaps they do not have a gauntlet. What then?
I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.The polearm master fighter would like a word with you about the shifting grips thing. For them it's an immediate action, which if you take it on your turn becomes your swift action.
The ability is different though and doesn't rule out what I said in any way.
Also I rather derive rulings from general rules rather than an archetype that has been used and designed by a more limited number of people. Changing grips seems more appropriate as a free action, like going from a one-handed to a two-handed grip or vice versa. Archetypes have a history of awkward design by RAW.
Perhaps they do not have a gauntlet. What then?What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
Then they've saved a couple of gold pieces, in exchange for which they get -4 to hit. That doesn't seem like an overpowered option.
Balance issues only start to come in if someone says, "I can't use my greatsword while grappled... I'll improvise it as a one-handed weapon. I still get the +3 enhancement bonus, right?"
|
|
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps they do not have a gauntlet. What then?What "loophole"?
What abuse?
Why on earth would anyone hit someone with the shaft of a Longspear, or a Crossbow, when they could just as easily remove a hand from their weapon, and hit someone with a gauntlet?
Then they've saved a couple of gold pieces, in exchange for which they get -4 to hit. That doesn't seem like an overpowered option.
Balance issues only start to come in if someone says, "I can't use my greatsword while grappled... I'll improvise it as a one-handed weapon. I still get the +3 enhancement bonus, right?"
Just so this is extremely clear. I'm not interested in overpowered, under-powered or balance. I'm interested in the thought behind the rules, and what the developers intended/have to say.
Plenty of official rulings are unbalanced, overpowered or underpowered - that is the nature of life in the rule-world, as it is in the real world.
Not picking on you Matthew, just noticing that there seems to be a divide by posters in this thread that misses the point, as I see it, that Malachi was making - not trying to break the system with overpowered RAI, or underpowered attempts to hit himself in the head, but trying to get around the "reach-only" conundrum when there is a serviceable item held already, whether improvised or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
And why do you claim that this is different from doing it with a crossbow, by the rules?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Polearm Masters can shift his grip to use a longspear as a non-reach weapon. For him, it is still a longspear. So, if he has Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, +3 enchantment, Improved Critical, etc... those all still apply.
Random Fighter is just swinging a long piece of wood to smack the guy next to him, because his back is against a wall, and the guy is too close for him to jab him with the pointy end of his long stick. He is really good at sticking people with the pointy end, just like Polearm Master, but he hasn't learned how to use it in close. So, for him, it's just improvised bashing wood.
Using a weapon as an improvised weapon is not prohibited anywhere in the rules.
"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat" - IS NOT THE SAME AS - "Only objects not crafted as weapons can be used as improvised weapons."
"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" - IS NOT THE SAME AS - "Improvise Weapons cannot have weapon stats."
So, where are you getting your objections from?
We have a homebrew feat which has worked well:
Shorthaft:
Reach weapons may be used against adjacent foes, but all damage is halved.
If I remember correctly there actually IS a feat to cover the situation, only I can't for the life of me remember it's name. Short Haft, or something like that?
It was a 3.5 feat, I believe. It wasn't ported over to Pathfinder.
|
|
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you have a lot drawbacks.
Weapon Focus no longer applies.
Weapon Training no longer applies.
Masterwork or Enchantment bonuses no longer apply.
Special Materials no longer apply.
As an improvised weapon, you take a -4, and it is a 1d6 ×2 B weapon(or other damage determined by the DM).
When you choose to wield the improvised weapon(Longspear shaft), you are no longer wielding, and no longer threatening, with the Longspear.
So, how does this beat the Gauntlet again?
Ok. So, I have an idea.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Weapon Snatcher (Ex): A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check in place of a combat maneuver check when attempting to disarm an opponent.Based on the consensus here, I could steal any enemies weapon as my first attack, and then so long as I held it anyway other than the right way, I could immediately qualify as a sneak attack?
Seems like a perfectly fine and fun character concept.
|
|
And why do you claim that this is different from doing it with a crossbow, by the rules?
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
Are there game stats for making a melee attack with that weapon?
If no, go to the improvised weapon rules.
If yes, then use them!
At what point is a longspear no longer a longspear?
If it's of a type where the point screws into a socket on the haft (and yes, these do exist), and you remove the point, is it still a longspear? Would you still have that deal longspear damage? Let's say that it doesn't have a removable point, so instead you saw off the point. Is it still a longspear?
As a Dm I would rule they would need to adjust their gripping and could use a reach weapon as an improvised nonreach weapon if they did not use it that round as a reach weapon. Also that if they decided to use it as a non-reach improvised weapon they could not use it as a reach weapon until next round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Dm I would rule they would need to adjust their gripping and could use a reach weapon as an improvised nonreach weapon if they did not use it that round as a reach weapon. Also that if they decided to use it as a non-reach improvised weapon they could not use it as a reach weapon until next round.
I would be totally fine with the player switching back and forth during their iteratives but whatever grip they end their turn on is what will be available for threatening.
Mostly because this choice is demonstrably worse than just using the gauntlets you get with you armor for free to attack adjacent enemies. Why punish your player twice for making a thematic role-play oriented attack. They are clearly not trying to powergame the system, why not encourage inventive cinematic attack sequences?
DM: It makes me feel funny in my pants. NERF IT TWICE!!!
|
|
As a Dm I would rule they would need to adjust their gripping and could use a reach weapon as an improvised nonreach weapon if they did not use it that round as a reach weapon. Also that if they decided to use it as a non-reach improvised weapon they could not use it as a reach weapon until next round.
This is something you made up.
I'm not saying that in a bad way; DMs make calls on the fly like this as part of their job.
But this isn't what I'm asking. I'm not asking for good ideas for this situation, I'm asking if it's rules legal for a player to use a reach weapon to attack an adjacent creature at all. Can you choose not to use the game rules for the longspear you're holding and use the improvised weapon rules and claim that this longspear most resembles a non-reach weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point is a longspear no longer a longspear?
If it's of a type where the point screws into a socket on the haft (and yes, these do exist), and you remove the point, is it still a longspear? Would you still have that deal longspear damage? Let's say that it doesn't have a removable point, so instead you saw off the point. Is it still a longspear?
I'll even provide the most likely options:
1. Despite the fact that a blunt pole cannot realistically deal piercing damage, it's still a longspear and so that's what it does.
2. Since it no longer has a point and can't deal piercing damage, our modified longspear now functions more akin to a very long staff. Thus while it is being used to deal damage, it is not being used to deal damage in the manner in which it was designed as a weapon, and so we use the improvised weapon rules.
1 makes no sense. 2 makes sense.
So now let's move back a step: Let's not take the point off the spear, but let's still strike someone with the haft.
Our most likely options again:
1. Even though the rules for weapons appear to be roughly modeled after how weapons function in the real world, the improvised weapon rules don't cover weapons used in an improvised fashion, and so your character is physically incapable of hitting someone with the haft of the weapon.
2. You hit with the haft of the weapon and it deals piercing longspear damage.
3. Since functionally what we're doing here is identical to option 2 from our first example, common sense dictates that we use the same rules - and this does not violate RAW\RAI because we are using an object not designed to be a weapon (the haft, rather than the point; the haft is a part of it, but as shown from the first example, it is not the portion primarily responsible for dealing damage as a weapon) - to determine damage.