Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet?


Rules Questions

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,668 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MachOneGames wrote:


Cayzle gets us to the next important point. If we can read it a few ways, what is the impact of the ruling one way or another? Someone earlier brought up a few feats that seem to get "nerfed" if we allow everyone to attack with the haft.

If you and Cayzle feel that way, I have no problem with you and Cayzle (and whoever else buys that argument) playing it that way in your home games. Just don't tell me it's how I am supposed to play and we're fine. Remember, I'm not telling you that the ruling here has to be "Yes, it's totally fine", I'm here saying "There is no possible right answer to the question of 'legality', so do whatever seems best to you, personally."

We both agree that the rule is unclear, but the difference is that I don't see any value in constructing a ruling that arbitrarily privileges your balance concerns over my table's desire to have the rules be flexible enough to allow actions that nearly everyone agrees seem reasonable enough. In other words, I don't see why we need to establish an "official" rule at all, since it seems to me that the rules already let us do whatever is best for our games, so why bother? Why should we hold up one method as "official" when any method is supportable by the rules, and when we all acknowledge that different groups will have different needs/desires from the rules?

Malachi's answer to that question is "because we need to know what the rules actually are before we can reasonably deviate from them", which I think is a load of nonsense, and is just another way of saying "I think you should agree with my concerns because Paizo agrees with my concerns", which I've already considered and dismissed.


Yeah the old taxing any cool or sensible options. A very weird impulse in any rules system.


Grimmy wrote:
MachOneGames wrote:


Cayzle gets us to the next important point. If we can read it a few ways, what is the impact of the ruling one way or another? Someone earlier brought up a few feats that seem to get "nerfed" if we allow everyone to attack with the haft.

You mean the class features from the pole-arm master and dragoon? That was never a good argument, because those class features have added benefit beyond just using the haft with the improvised weapon penalty.

But Cayzle does bring up some important points that need to be considered.

It should be noted that Cayzle's claims do not match what most people arguing it is allowed claim. You cannot wield a longspear and an improvised weapon simultaneously, unless you have extra hands. Longspears are two-handed weapons. Most characters have two hands. If you wield the longspear, you cannot at the same time wield armor spikes, gauntlets, blade boots, or improvised weapons (you can however wield a barbazu beard as it's a stated exception).

Wielding a different weapon is probably either a "draw a weapon" action or a free action (as shifting grip is by Dev comments).

So, even when allowed to wield a longspear, you do not threaten both reach and adjacent at the same time.

Unless it's a small longspear, because a medium-sized character can use a small longspear as a one-handed weapon and it still has reach, wielding whatever she wishes in her off-hand (blade boot, longsword, armor spikes, whatever). She does take a -2 penalty on attacks with the longspear, though, and it has less damage.

So there literally is no argument when it comes to balance - this is in every way less powerful than existing options.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cayzle wrote:

Some people have said that the option of allowing a reach weapon to be used at close range as an improvised weapon is NOT unbalanced. May I ask why?

Seems to me that you have two cases.

Case 1 (Spear Haft cannot be Improvised): You cannot use a reach weapon under any circumstances to attack a foe next to you.

Case 2 (Spear Haft can be Improvised): You can use a reach weapon to attack a foe next to you.

Under Case 1 you cannot flank a foe next to you, nor can you take AoOs against the foe, nor can you Aid Another. Under Case 2, you CAN flank, threaten, take AoOs, and Aid Another against an adjacent foe.

Seems to me that if you allow the improvised weapon option with a reach weapon, then you can clearly do much more than you could otherwise. You can threaten, flank, take AoOs, and Aid Another where you could not before.

For some of these options, such as providing a flanking bonus to an ally, or (depending on how hard it is for you to hit a DC10) aiding another, the "disadvantages" of using an improvised weapon seem not to matter at all.

Whirlwind Attack with a reach weapon suddenly gives you attacks you could not take before.

If you take a stock core option and then add a number of new options to it, isn't that a power boost? If you take the core rule that reach weapons cannot be used against adjacent foes and then revoke it if you say the shaft is an improvised weapon, then clearly you can do more than you used to be able to do!

I think this is unbalanced. I'd like to hear how it is not.

Excellent points.

For the moment, I'm going to only consider case 2, with an important point: at minimum, "switching style" between normal use and improvised use would be a free action.

Firstly, barring certain feats, threatening only matters under two broad circumstances.

1) When making an attack against a foe.
2) When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity.

The second circumstance is, for the purpose of this discussion, almost a non-entity, since it happens outside your turn, and you cannot take actions outside your turn, so you cannot use the free action to switch style. You are either threatening with reach, or you are not, and you cannot change this. I would generally say that giving up reach outside your turn is the less optimal choice, but that would not necessarily be the case at all times.

Which then leaves the matter entirely laying on the question of whether allowing a free action to switch style on your own turn is unbalanced. When we consider the case of whirlwind attack, the answer is, actually, "probably". Certainly the potential target pool is increased substantially from 16 to 24, and that could (easily) unbalance matters. Whether the -4 penalty to hit, coupled with the loss of most bonuses to attack except BAB and Strength sufficiently counteracts that advantage, I don't think I could say without crunching some numbers.

Fortunately, the free action rules actually help the balance issue, here, thanks to the carte blanche the GM has to limit them. There are many ways that limit could be enforced. Only outside other actions. Only once per turn. Only at the start and/or end of the turn.

The simple fact of the matter is that even with the most permissive "switching style" option, the GM has the power to restrict the option in such a way that it does not inherently imbalance the game, whilst still allowing the flexibility of player choice on how to use their weapon. And that is part of a GM's job.

Yes, for PFS, it matters more. Which is not to say that it matters much at all.

Allowing the option can be managed in such a way that it expands player flexibility, but does not automatically expand PC power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So basically we have 2 groups.
Group A- rules for weapons are already established and u cant change them. Improvised weapons are rules for items that arent considered weapons but ur using it as a weapon.
group A does not believe improvised weapons would let u pierce with a long sword or bludgeon with the side head of a battle ax.
Group B-rules for weapons are not set in stone and can be changed due to the rules of improvised weapons. Also agree improvised weapons ALSO are rules for items that arent weapons to be used as weapons.

Me im in group a. I think with the weapons rules already established how said weapons works, i think imp weapons is for items that are not weapons being used as weapons.
in the rules of imp weapons, i believe they stated "sometimes" to show that not all items are or will be used as weapons. Its so that when someone wants to create a fighter who imp weapon wet paper bag that its there for the gm to say hey cant use it as a weapon. Just my opionion of course. I dont believe its talking about actual weapons and "sometimes" non weapins being used as weapons, but that items can sometimes be used as a weapon. That way wet paper bags or someone who specialize in throwing sand wont get damage off when they do so. Sometimes they could but not all the time.

I have been told that real life and common sense arent always in RAW, and i believe this is one of those times. I think its just in the rules of the game that u cant pierce with a long sword even though in real life we can, but the rules state we cant.


Cayzle wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Cayzle wrote:
I think this is unbalanced. I'd like to hear how it is not.
Because Armor Spikes.

A>

But you have to use armor with armor spikes. What if you are an arcane caster who does not wear armor?

B>
What if you have a low strength and you do not want to wear armor?

C>
Also, since you use a longspear two-handed, you add 1.5x str mod on damage. You can't do that with armor spikes.

D>
If you allow a longspear to threaten both near spaces and far,

E>
then a sorcerer with a longspear can now do things he did not used to be able to do.

F>
You may not think this is unbalancing as a matter of opinion, (and please feel free to so argue) but at least agree that this is power creep?

A>

For casters you can still put armor spikes on an armored kilt. Also, casters? Really? Two handed weapon (were you saying something about somatic components?)

Of all the options in the game I'm super worried about balancing because it is overpowered it isn't a caster's second martial backup option.

B>
The guy with a low strength score could still wear an armored kilt but in any case is staying well below the assumed power curve by using a non-finessable melee weapon with a low strength score.

C>
You do lose .5x STR mod over the improvised alternative. Except with armor spikes you do actually get to threaten at 5 and 10 ft (in conjunction with the spear.) Also, with armor spikes you don't have a -4 non-proficiency penalty. The guy doing this with the longspear loses all feats (like weapon specialization) and class abilities (like weapon training) and enhancement bonuses to attacks and damage. So on top of -4 to hit the combatant will lose even more to hit bonus from those sources, and (depending on exactly what weapon/level/str score) will likely come close to washing .5STR benefit against the loss of those features.

D>
No one is suggesting that a character could threaten 5 and 10ft simultaneously. Changing grip on a weapon is a free action per DEV comments. This means at the end of the turn you would have to choose where you threaten.

E>
As for the sorcerer, I'm not worried about his second martial backup option. That 1/2 BAB, terrible strength score, and non-proficiency penalty really do a good job of hold that option back. Plus, no ASF on an armored kilt.

F>
No, I don't considered it unbalanced (because there are better ways to achieve the same end, I have just demonstrated one of them) and I don't find it to be power creep because I don't view it as a change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:

So basically we have 2 groups.

Group A- rules for weapons are already established and u cant change them. Improvised weapons are rules for items that arent considered weapons but ur using it as a weapon.
group A does not believe improvised weapons would let u pierce with a long sword or bludgeon with the side head of a battle ax.
Group B-rules for weapons are not set in stone and can be changed due to the rules of improvised weapons. Also agree improvised weapons ALSO are rules for items that arent weapons to be used as weapons.

Me im in group a. I think with the weapons rules already established how said weapons works, i think imp weapons is for items that are not weapons being used as weapons.
in the rules of imp weapons, i believe they stated "sometimes" to show that not all items are or will be used as weapons. Its so that when someone wants to create a fighter who imp weapon wet paper bag that its there for the gm to say hey cant use it as a weapon. Just my opionion of course. I dont believe its talking about actual weapons and "sometimes" non weapins being used as weapons, but that items can sometimes be used as a weapon. That way wet paper bags or someone who specialize in throwing sand wont get damage off when they do so. Sometimes they could but not all the time.

I have been told that real life and common sense arent always in RAW, and i believe this is one of those times. I think its just in the rules of the game that u cant pierce with a long sword even though in real life we can, but the rules state we cant.

So ... I'll ask again ... Where do they state this? I have yet to see someone give me an actual answer apart from inferring saying 'it should', saying "I believe they meant" and bringing up everything but an actual written rule that says that.

As far as the wet paper bag or sand, part of the standard process it to compare it to the most similar weapon and give it that damage. That most similar weapon would do no damage. Congratulations. You hit him for zero points of damage and just wasted your turn.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Oenar, the Winter wrote:

It should be noted that Cayzle's claims do not match what most people arguing it is allowed claim. You cannot wield a longspear and an improvised weapon simultaneously, unless you have extra hands. Longspears are two-handed weapons. Most characters have two hands. If you wield the longspear, you cannot at the same time wield armor spikes, gauntlets, blade boots, or improvised weapons (you can however wield a barbazu beard as it's a stated exception).

Absolutely untrue, and completly unsupported by RAW.

You can absolutely, wield a Longspear, a Boot Blade, Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strikes, and either a Barbazu Beard or Dwarven Boulder Helmet, all at the same time.

You can even attack with any of them, in any combination, if you BAB is high enough.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:

It should be noted that Cayzle's claims do not match what most people arguing it is allowed claim. You cannot wield a longspear and an improvised weapon simultaneously, unless you have extra hands. Longspears are two-handed weapons. Most characters have two hands. If you wield the longspear, you cannot at the same time wield armor spikes, gauntlets, blade boots, or improvised weapons (you can however wield a barbazu beard as it's a stated exception).

Absolutely untrue, and completly unsupported by RAW.

You can absolutely, wield a Longspear, a Boot Blade, Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strikes, and either a Barbazu Beard or Dwarven Boulder Helmet, all at the same time.

You can even attack with any of them, in any combination, if you BAB is high enough.

And natural weapons if you have them.


Grimmy wrote:
Cayzle wrote:

Some people have said that the option of allowing a reach weapon to be used at close range as an improvised weapon is NOT unbalanced. May I ask why?

Seems to me that you have two cases.

Case 1 (Spear Haft cannot be Improvised): You cannot use a reach weapon under any circumstances to attack a foe next to you.

Case 2 (Spear Haft can be Improvised): You can use a reach weapon to attack a foe next to you.

Under Case 1 you cannot flank a foe next to you, nor can you take AoOs against the foe, nor can you Aid Another. Under Case 2, you CAN flank, threaten, take AoOs, and Aid Another against an adjacent foe.

Seems to me that if you allow the improvised weapon option with a reach weapon, then you can clearly do much more than you could otherwise. You can threaten, flank, take AoOs, and Aid Another where you could not before.

For some of these options, such as providing a flanking bonus to an ally, or (depending on how hard it is for you to hit a DC10) aiding another, the "disadvantages" of using an improvised weapon seem not to matter at all.

Whirlwind Attack with a reach weapon suddenly gives you attacks you could not take before.

If you take a stock core option and then add a number of new options to it, isn't that a power boost? If you take the core rule that reach weapons cannot be used against adjacent foes and then revoke it if you say the shaft is an improvised weapon, then clearly you can do more than you used to be able to do!

I think this is unbalanced. I'd like to hear how it is not.

See this is why I always say they shouldn't lock threads like this. Yeah they go in circles for awhile but eventually, boom! Someone says something I hadn't thought of that's valuable.

Two points on that in fairness. 1) this thread has been remarkably civil given its length and the fervor of each side. Sure there have been some heated exchanges and few accusations thrown about but for the most part people are bahaving themselves. There has not been (unless one slipped by me) any moderator activity in this thread, so there is really no reason at all to lock it.

2) As for circular discussions, this is about the 4th or 5th time balance has come up, the folks on the "no-way" side that have been here the whole thread seem to be happy that balance is indeed not an issue. That's why none of them jumped up chanting when this was brought up by a new poster for the nth time.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


So ... I'll ask again ... Where do they state this? I have yet to see someone give me an actual answer apart from inferring saying 'it should', saying "I believe they meant" and bringing up everything but an actual written rule that says that.

As far as the wet paper bag or sand, part of the standard process it to compare it to the most similar weapon and give it that damage. That most similar weapon would do no damage. Congratulations....

It has been repeatedly explained to you that when the rules say "you do X with Y" that this implies that you cannot do Y without X. Your response has been that that is our interpretation but were then presented with a direct statement from Stephen Radney-MacFarland, a developer, saying yes that is how it works. The rules give a description of humans, that description doesn't include a tail, that implies that humans don't have tails. The rules don't have to explicitly say that humans don't have tails. The rules say that "objects not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rules. That implies that objects crafted to weapons cannot use the improvised weapons rules.

Demanding an explicit statement is a false dichotomy fallacy because there is another possibility. That being that the rules implicitly forbid the the use of the improvised weapons rules with actual weapons. Your position is irrational and you know it but you keep repeating it over and over again.


There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Malachi: Let me clean this up for you. I'd hate for you to be misrepresenting anyone's argument by accident.

• the written rule that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent foes is trumped by rules that aren't written that say they can only applies to weapons that have the reach property. Improvised weapons only have the properties listed by the rules. Namely: a size category and base damage comparable to its closest analogue on the weapon table, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown.
• the rules that say they apply to non-weapons objects not originally designed to be weapons mean that they apply to weapons do not contain any language prohibiting the use of a weapon as an improvised weapon.
• the rule saying that the DM must find the most similar weapon to a longspear results in something other than a longspear will result in the improvised weapon being a medium 2-handed weapon that deals 1d8 base damage, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown, by the RAW.
• the rules about double weapons being useable as if they were two weapons extend to each weapon that isn't a double weapon are irrelevant to this discussion.
• that the rules that tell you what you can do mean that you can do anything they don't say you can't are not all encompassing. The publishers do not wish to put out a multi-volume tome of rules governing thousands or millions of pieces of minutiae. You have to exercise some common sense.

Your welcome.

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No the don't have to explicitly say. In fact, it said "when it doesn't say default to common English usage"

Common english usable would recognize the distinction between hitting someone with a rifle and the stock of a rifle. Between hitting someone with the spear and the shaft of a spear. Between hitting someone with a sword, and with the pommel of a sword.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

And if someone 'hit you with a gun' it would make no difference to you if they clubbed you in the head with the grip, or pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


So ... I'll ask again ... Where do they state this? I have yet to see someone give me an actual answer apart from inferring saying 'it should', saying "I believe they meant" and bringing up everything but an actual written rule that says that.

As far as the wet paper bag or sand, part of the standard process it to compare it to the most similar weapon and give it that damage. That most similar weapon would do no damage. Congratulations....

It has been repeatedly explained to you that when the rules say "you do X with Y" that this implies that you cannot do Y without X. Your response has been that that is our interpretation but were then presented with a direct statement from Stephen Radney-MacFarland, a developer, saying yes that is how it works. The rules give a description of humans, that description doesn't include a tail, that implies that humans don't have tails. The rules don't have to explicitly say that humans don't have tails. The rules say that "objects not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rules. That implies that objects crafted to weapons cannot use the improvised weapons rules.

Demanding an explicit statement is a false dichotomy fallacy because there is another possibility. That being that the rules implicitly forbid the the use of the improvised weapons rules with actual weapons. Your position is irrational and you know it but you keep repeating it over and over again.

PatientWolf:

You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked. It is difficult for me to imagine that you don't realize that every point you are repeating here has already been explicitly addressed, so the fact that you choose to ignore those responses and simply restate your arguments seems to indicate that you don't intend to add anything to the discussion beyond establishing that you refuse to consider opposing viewpoints. Please take it as given that nobody is trying to make you play in a different way, we just want you to stop presenting your opinions as facts. Thus, I will stipulate that it is okay for you to believe we are wrong and irrational if you will stipulate that there is no reason for us to care about your opinions, and thus no reason for you to keep posting them. Deal?

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

And if someone 'hit you with a gun' it would make no difference to you if they clubbed you in the head with the grip, or pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger?

The result is different but it doesn't change the fact that in both cases the assailant attacked me with a gun. If I am giving a police report I would say he either shot me with a gun or he hit me with a gun. The action performed is different but the object it is performed with is the same a gun.

That is how we speak normally. That is how the rules speak normally.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I never thought for a moment that an improvised weapon would benefit from weapon properties, so it's not that.

I'm asking if I can get round the reach weapon rules by citing the improvised weapon rules, even though those rules specify non-weapon objects and some might say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a longspear.

I don't believe you threaten with an improvised weapon unless you have one of the few archetypes that allow it.

You also would not be able to threaten both at reach and at 5' as you'd have to decide which way you were holding your weapon.

No, you can't just baldly ignore the rules on reach weapons by using the improvised weapon rules. No need to FAQ this. If this was an intent in the rules they would have said so explicitly.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


So ... I'll ask again ... Where do they state this? I have yet to see someone give me an actual answer apart from inferring saying 'it should', saying "I believe they meant" and bringing up everything but an actual written rule that says that.

As far as the wet paper bag or sand, part of the standard process it to compare it to the most similar weapon and give it that damage. That most similar weapon would do no damage. Congratulations....

It has been repeatedly explained to you that when the rules say "you do X with Y" that this implies that you cannot do Y without X. Your response has been that that is our interpretation but were then presented with a direct statement from Stephen Radney-MacFarland, a developer, saying yes that is how it works. The rules give a description of humans, that description doesn't include a tail, that implies that humans don't have tails. The rules don't have to explicitly say that humans don't have tails. The rules say that "objects not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rules. That implies that objects crafted to weapons cannot use the improvised weapons rules.

Demanding an explicit statement is a false dichotomy fallacy because there is another possibility. That being that the rules implicitly forbid the the use of the improvised weapons rules with actual weapons. Your position is irrational and you know it but you keep repeating it over and over again.

First you said that you had repeatedly posted the rules quote (which wasn't true) and now you say that you have repeatedly explained something you haven't. You literally are just saying "NO! And I already told you why."

You never ever actually defended a claim. You understand that making a claim and defending it are seperate and distinct things (like the parts of a weapon)?

I specifically gave you two different opportunities to link your posts where you make this defense, and you didn't do it. The only reasonable conclusion can be that you never made such an arguement and you are posturing now.


PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

And if someone 'hit you with a gun' it would make no difference to you if they clubbed you in the head with the grip, or pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger?
The result is different but it doesn't change the fact that in both cases the assailant attacked me with a gun. If I am giving a police report I would say he either shot me with a gun or he hit me with a gun. The action performed is different but the object it is performed with is the...

So to be perfectly clear you are saying there is no distinction in the object of the sentences "he attacked me with the gun". And "he attacked me with the grip of the gun"?


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I never thought for a moment that an improvised weapon would benefit from weapon properties, so it's not that.

I'm asking if I can get round the reach weapon rules by citing the improvised weapon rules, even though those rules specify non-weapon objects and some might say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a longspear.

I don't believe you threaten with an improvised weapon unless you have one of the few archetypes that allow it.

You also would not be able to threaten both at reach and at 5' as you'd have to decide which way you were holding your weapon.

No, you can't just baldly ignore the rules on reach weapons by using the improvised weapon rules. No need to FAQ this. If this was an intent in the rules they would have said so explicitly.

While this post is remarkably late to the game it does a fantastic job of illustrating Malachi's deception and disengenuousness when he started this thread.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.

Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

Example:

PRD wrote:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category. It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it with weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

The improvised weapons rules work exactlyt he same way.


PatientWolf wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.
Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

Actually Malachi is the one who dismissed developer input. Both with a quote from SRM from the same thread you are speaking of, and one from James Jacobs which says this is a RAW permitted action.

PatientWolf wrote:


Example:

PRD wrote:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category? It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

The improvised weapons rules work exactlyt he same way.

Then why aren't they worded the same way?

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.
Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.
Actually Malachi is the one who dismissed developer input. Both with a quote from SRM from the same thread you are speaking of, and one from James Jacobs which says this is a RAW permitted action.

I don't now what Malachi has done. I'm not Malachi. MrTsFloatinghead has explicitly stated in this very thread that neither developer statement nor developer intent matter.

BigDTBone wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


Example:

PRD wrote:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category? It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

The improvised weapons rules work exactlyt he same way.

Then why aren't they worded the same way?

Not every rule is worded the exact same way. The improvised weapon rule isn't a feat and isn't formatted as a feat. It is a single paragraph in the equipment section

(Don't get me started about the formatting of the Corebook. My group spent 30 mins last week looking for the table that gives the special material equivelance of magic items. Why in the heck is that stuck in the glossary for Iomedae's sake?!?).

Shadow Lodge

Saint Caleth wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So to be perfectly clear you are saying there is no distinction in the object of the sentences "he attacked me with the gun". And "he attacked me with the grip of the gun"?
There is a distinction, which is that pistol whipping someone is a specific case of "attacking with a gun", as is shooting someone. Both are equally adequately described by the word "attack".

Was getting to that but what he said =D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

A weapon is the sum of it's parts. That doesn't mean that once assembled, the individual parts no longer exist. You are carrying both the gun and it's parts. You are carrying a spear and it's parts.

If you don't use the gun as designed by firing it, you can improvise with it as a bludgeoning weapon. If you don't use the spear as intended you improvise with a bash.

Why is this so hard to understand?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PatientWolf wrote:


Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

A) You've given no reason I should accept the authority of a dev post that says, in effect, I need to read the minds of the development team in order to know what the rules are. I think that even if you were right about what that post said (and I don't for a second accept that you are - I contend still that you are misreading that), the argument being made there is ridiculous to me because I see no valid reason to give a rules developer more authority to tell me what's good for my game than I give to myself. I know better than the devs how my game should be played, in other words, so if they want to start telling me I have to play by the made up rules they invented, I'm just flat going to disagree.

B) You ARE misreading that post. That post says that the rules are intended to be read with a modicum of common sense. That's fine. The problem is that you mistakenly take "common sense" to mean "What PatientWolf and random rules developers think". I, instead, take it to mean that I should apply my own personal common sense to the rules, and that I am empowered to disagree with other interpretations as I see fit, for the needs of my games. I read that post as saying "The text of the Tail Terror feat, RAW, doesn't cause a human to grow a tail" (Which I agree with), "Humans do not have tails" (Which is a factually inaccurate statement when applied to the real world, and which I see no textual rules support for, so I interpret as "in my opinion, humans in Pathfinder should not ever have tails", which I disagree with), and then the notion that I should read the rules with an eye towards common sense, which, again, I agree with. In short, that post is about a dev telling us what the intent of the rules were, and how he would rule it for his home game, but it has absolutely no force whatsoever in determining what makes sense or is right for my table. I'm not playing wrong, or violating RAW, I'm simply disagreeing with someone's subjective opinion of the game. You are free to shackle your fun to someone else's idea of "common sense", but don't expect me to be similarly limited.

Again, we've been over this, and your only response is to roll your eyes and proclaim that it's ridiculous to think I can disregard the Authority (cap A!) of the devs. My challenge to you remains: Demonstrate why there is any value in giving ANYONE besides your personal gaming group authority over how you play the game, and then demonstrate why that authority should necessarily rest in the hands of rules designers who (I'm sure) will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right, and aren't really interested in policing their customers' fun anyway. I'm sure they would much rather spend time writing the next book for sale than coming in here and making sure the big bad narrative-ists (or whatever) aren't somehow ruining your personal game by playing differently in an entirely unrelated game.


This thread is now over 1500 posts. If you honestly believe it is as cut-and-dry as you seem to claim, do you not believe a developer would have popped his/her head up to say so?

The uncomfortable truth is that the language, and the intent, is ambiguous.


MrTsFloatingHead wrote:
"My challenge to you remains: Demonstrate why there is any value in giving ANYONE besides your personal gaming group authority over how you play the game, and then demonstrate why that authority should necessarily rest in the hands of rules designers who (I'm sure) will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right, and aren't really interested in policing their customers' fun anyway. "

I'm completely in your corner on this point Mr. T.

The thing is, I imagine the rules thread being like sitting down at a table with some strangers. We have different viewpoints. So, we check over the rules and realize that we don't even agree on what they say. We can't really agree on the facts. We devolve into semiotics and get annoyed with one-another.

So, do we get up and walk away from the table? I wouldn't. Would anyone in the post walk away from the table if the ruling was one-way or the other at the table?

We would find a compromise. We'd learn a thing or two about how we each make the game fun.


BigDTBone wrote:
Grimmy wrote:


See this is why I always say they shouldn't lock threads like this. Yeah they go in circles for awhile but eventually, boom! Someone says something I hadn't thought of that's valuable.

Two points on that in fairness. 1) this thread has been remarkably civil given its length and the fervor of each side. Sure there have been some heated exchanges and few accusations thrown about but for the most part people are bahaving themselves. There...

I just remember so many threads that got really long like this and had some of the same characteristics and I know some folks always seemed to be troubled and distressed by it, but I could never see the harm. I'm not so sure the difference with this one is necessarily it's own civility. Maybe people are flagging less, or maybe mods just decided to let it play out.

Anyway, I usually try to read a thread thoroughly before posting but I did skim a bit on this one so I could be wrong but I thought Cayzle raised a point I haven't seen yet. I know there was balance talk earlier but wasn't it mostly concerned with the issue of invalidating class features like those of the Polearm Master and Dragoon? I never thought that argument had any merit, but the question of an expanded area for threatening, providing flanking etc. is one that I feel I need to consider the implications of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MachOneGames wrote:

"My challenge to you remains: Demonstrate why there is any value in giving ANYONE besides your personal gaming group authority over how you play the game, and then demonstrate why that authority should necessarily rest in the hands of rules designers who (I'm sure) will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right, and aren't really interested in policing their customers' fun anyway. "

I'm completely in your corner on this point Mr. T.

The thing is, I imagine the rules thread being like sitting down at a table with some strangers. We have different viewpoints. So, we check over the rules and realize that we don't even agree on what they say. We can't really agree on the facts. We devolve into semiotics and get annoyed with one-another.

So, do we get up and walk away from the table? I wouldn't. Would anyone in the post walk away from the table if the ruling was one-way or the other at the table?

We would find a compromise. We'd learn a thing or two about how we each make the game fun.

And if we were actually about to play a game at the same table together, I would agree with you that we would need to go farther than simply agreeing to disagree. But we aren't, so I see no value us hammering out a negotiated compromise that we are all agreeing will hold no power once we've stepped away from the thread. We've exchanged opinions, and for whatever that's worth, I guess there's some value there. I just think it's dishonest to pretend that it's important that we all sit around at this table and agree that one way is "right", or at least an acceptable compromise, if we all know that as soon as we get back to playing with our friends, we're going to do disregard the "agreement" and do whatever makes the most sense for our games. The fact is, we are playing the same game, but we are not all playing it together, and we are not all playing it the same way, nor for the same reasons. In that context, why can't the compromise answer simply be "agree to disagree"?

In honor of the fact that it's Tuesday, and I'm currently eating tacos, let's put this in the context of Legos.

I conceptualize this thread like this:

One school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions and building, as precisely as possible, the exact thing the designers intended. This is the school of thought that says "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it". A sub-school of this line of thought goes so far as to assert that in the case where the instruction manual is unclear (Say, a misprint or whatever), that we can (and indeed MUST) discover the intent of the designers in order to play Legos correctly.

The other school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions as a starting point, but relishes being free to add or modify the plan as desired. This school believes that where the instructions are unclear, you are allowed to do whichever assembly you like more. My specific advocacy goes further - I think if the makers of Lego were to come in and say "Sure, there's a misprint, but we always intended it to be in spot X", that still doesn't mean I'm playing with Legos "wrong" by putting the block in spot Y.

The conflict here is that someone from the first school posted a question that was, in effect "The instructions aren't clear about where this block goes, so according to the instructions where does the block go?", To which the answer is clearly "I dunno, you just admitted the instructions are unclear!". The problem is that what the OP and his supporters actually MEANT was "The instructions aren't clear, but I believe that this block was intended to go in position X, so please either find proof from the instructions that contradicts this, or else admit that any other assembly is not properly playing with Legos."

My project is to defend the original (and in my view) correct answer to the actual question, as well as to prevent the first school from attempting to deploy the FAQ "Kraggle" weapon to lock all of us into their version for no good reason.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
The fact is, we are playing the same game, but we are not all playing it together, and we are not all playing it the same way, nor for the same reasons. In that context, why can't the compromise answer simply be "agree...

I don't think we should reach a conclusion, just approach it like we are trying to. The goal of the exercise being to have a better understanding of the players at our own tables. If we shut it down too soon we miss some of the differences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MachOneGames wrote:

"My challenge to you remains: Demonstrate why there is any value in giving ANYONE besides your personal gaming group authority over how you play the game, and then demonstrate why that authority should necessarily rest in the hands of rules designers who (I'm sure) will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right, and aren't really interested in policing their customers' fun anyway. "

I'm completely in your corner on this point Mr. T.

The thing is, I imagine the rules thread being like sitting down at a table with some strangers. We have different viewpoints. So, we check over the rules and realize that we don't even agree on what they say. We can't really agree on the facts. We devolve into semiotics and get annoyed with one-another.

So, do we get up and walk away from the table? I wouldn't. Would anyone in the post walk away from the table if the ruling was one-way or the other at the table?

We would find a compromise. We'd learn a thing or two about how we each make the game fun.

MrTs is correct. Strictly speaking, no ruling is going to affect how you or I, or anyone else for that matter, play the game at our table. Truth be told, if the devs declared this to be perfectly legal, hardly anyone would ever use it, because it's a bad option. If they said this to be completely illegal (barring a houserule) nobody would likely miss it, because it's a bad option.

The vehemence with which this is being argued has shifted into a referendum on "How to Read the Rules." Some see them as ironclad, to be modified on an individual basis - meaning you define what can be done within the rules (houseruling as appropriate), then craft actions that fit that framework. Some see them as an internal structure - meaning you declare an action, then find the rules that will most closely accommodate that action (houseruling as appropriate).

I hope I have avoided applying a "right-ness" to one view over another, because I was deliberately trying to avoid that. Each view leads to a different reading of the rules, sometimes abstract or even absurd, sometimes too narrow to be usable, sometimes too broad to be usable.


The Crusader wrote:


I hope I have avoided applying a "right-ness" to one view over another, because I was deliberately trying to avoid...

Well put.

Silver Crusade

The Crusader wrote:

@Malachi: Let me clean this up for you. I'd hate for you to be misrepresenting anyone's argument by accident.

• the written rule that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent foes is trumped by rules that aren't written that say they can only applies to weapons that have the reach property. Improvised weapons only have the properties listed by the rules. Namely: a size category and base damage comparable to its closest analogue on the weapon table, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown.
• the rules that say they apply to non-weapons objects not originally designed to be weapons mean that they apply to weapons do not contain any language prohibiting the use of a weapon as an improvised weapon.
• the rule saying that the DM must find the most similar weapon to a longspear results in something other than a longspear will result in the improvised weapon being a medium 2-handed weapon that deals 1d8 base damage, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown, by the RAW.
• the rules about double weapons being useable as if they were two weapons extend to each weapon that isn't a double weapon are irrelevant to this discussion.
• that the rules that tell you what you can do mean that you can do anything they don't say you can't are not all encompassing. The publishers do not wish to put out a multi-volume tome of rules governing thousands or millions of pieces of minutiae. You have to exercise some common sense.

Your welcome.

Thank you for demonstrating the sophistry again.

I'm in awe of the ease in which you turn black into white, day into night, and the written rules into the exact opposite of what is written.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
In honor of the fact that it's Tuesday, and I'm currently eating tacos, let's put this in the context of Legos.

I am continuously entertained by your posts...


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


In honor of the fact that it's Tuesday, and I'm currently eating tacos, let's put this in the context of Legos.

I conceptualize this thread like this:

One school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions and building, as precisely as possible, the exact thing the designers intended. This is the school of thought that says "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it". A sub-school of this line of thought goes so far as to assert that in the case where the instruction manual is unclear (Say, a misprint or whatever), that we can (and indeed MUST) discover the intent of the designers in order to play Legos correctly.

The other school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions as a starting point, but relishes being free to add or modify the plan as desired. This school believes that where the instructions are unclear, you are allowed to do whichever assembly you like more. My specific advocacy goes further - I think if the makers of Lego were to come in and say "Sure, there's a misprint, but we always intended it to be in spot X", that still doesn't mean I'm playing with Legos "wrong" by putting the block in spot Y.

This is exactly it, great analogy.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Oenar, the Winter wrote:

It should be noted that Cayzle's claims do not match what most people arguing it is allowed claim. You cannot wield a longspear and an improvised weapon simultaneously, unless you have extra hands. Longspears are two-handed weapons. Most characters have two hands. If you wield the longspear, you cannot at the same time wield armor spikes, gauntlets, blade boots, or improvised weapons (you can however wield a barbazu beard as it's a stated exception).

Absolutely untrue, and completly unsupported by RAW.

You can absolutely, wield a Longspear, a Boot Blade, Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strikes, and either a Barbazu Beard or Dwarven Boulder Helmet, all at the same time.

You can even attack with any of them, in any combination, if you BAB is high enough.

Huh? I thought the conclusion from various dev posts in regards to the TWF discussions was that at any point, you can only wield two hand's worth of weapon.

Are you sure? this seems to indicate it does not only apply to TWF. In addition, Moreland's reasoning here fits well with the FAQ answer and also reinforces the idea that you can only wield two hand's worth of weapons.

Now, if there have been later comments I don't know about I'm happy to say I'm wrong, but from what I've seen that's not the case.

In total:

PDT, Official FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Mark Moreland, developer wrote:
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

Together, it seems pretty clear cut, if one wants a reasonable reading of rules and intent (rather than going for the malachi "RAW with no common sense or logic or intent - but don't dare use the literal meaning" reading).

Barbazu beards and boulder helmets are exceptions, as their descriptions state they do not require hands to be wielded.

BigDTBone wrote:


And natural weapons if you have them.

Natural weapons are different, in that they do not have weapon sizes nor do they specifically state required hands. Except for having valid limbs for attacking, you have to have the necessary amount of hands (which are not equal to real-life hands but rather are a game mechanic). Characters generally have two hands. Light weapons and one-handed weapons require one hand, two-handed weapons require two hands. Ranged weapons vary a lot. Natural weapons do not require any hands, and neither does barbazu beards or boulder helmets.

Since improvised weapons have weapon sizes, they do require hands.


I am pretty sure that accusing people of acting in bad faith does not improve things.

My immediate intuitive response to the question was "of course you can use a weapon as an improvised weapon instead if you want to." In particular, I would say that when you are talking about "what kind of weapon it's most similar to", you presumably mean "the kind of weapon the part I want to use is most similar to".

I'd treat a longspear as being pretty similar to a long pole or stick, and consider it an awkward/ineffective nigh-approximation to a quarterstaff. I'd also say that if you're using it as an improvised weapon, you're not going to get the benefits of any enchants from it; the enchants are on the blade, the haft is not effectively-enchanted, even though the whole spear is magical. So, if you have a +1 flaming longspear, I'd let you use it as an improvised club for 1d4 damage, no fire, no enhancement bonus, no bypassing DR.

The Pathfinder rules contain some rules that clearly indicate that they are intended to be exhuastive lists of options, which very clearly indicates that most of the other rules are better understood as known-incomplete lists of possibilities, with other options to be handled by GMs trying to combine the concepts they have access to.

Here's a theoretical question for people: Take a longspear designed so that the blade can be reasonably easily attached and removed. Remove the blade. What can you do with the resulting object? It's a long stick. Can you hit someone next to you with that long stick? I bet you can. Now, think about the motions you make when hitting someone with that stick. Keep performing those motions. Now pause, re-attach the blade, and make those motions again. What happens? I bet you hit people next to you.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

@Malachi: Let me clean this up for you. I'd hate for you to be misrepresenting anyone's argument by accident.

• the written rule that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent foes is trumped by rules that aren't written that say they can only applies to weapons that have the reach property. Improvised weapons only have the properties listed by the rules. Namely: a size category and base damage comparable to its closest analogue on the weapon table, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown.
• the rules that say they apply to non-weapons objects not originally designed to be weapons mean that they apply to weapons do not contain any language prohibiting the use of a weapon as an improvised weapon.
• the rule saying that the DM must find the most similar weapon to a longspear results in something other than a longspear will result in the improvised weapon being a medium 2-handed weapon that deals 1d8 base damage, crits on a natural 20 with x2 damage, and a range of 10 feet if thrown, by the RAW.
• the rules about double weapons being useable as if they were two weapons extend to each weapon that isn't a double weapon are irrelevant to this discussion.
• that the rules that tell you what you can do mean that you can do anything they don't say you can't are not all encompassing. The publishers do not wish to put out a multi-volume tome of rules governing thousands or millions of pieces of minutiae. You have to exercise some common sense.

Your welcome.

Thank you for demonstrating the sophistry again.

I'm in awe of the ease in which you turn black into white, day into night, and the written rules into the exact opposite of what is written.

Kindly point out the sophistry. To make things simpler, I'm relisting the points I made, so all you have to do is bold the section that is untrue.

Reach weapon rules only apply to reach weapons.

The improvised weapon rules do not "give you permission" to add any weapon properties other than base damage, crit range (20), additional crit damage (x2), and range if thrown (10 feet).

The rules say, "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." The rules do not say, "Only objects not crafted to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons."

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. 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." The rules do not say, "If an item is on the list, it is unusable." Nor do they say, "An improvised weapon will gain all the weapon properties of its most reasonable match."

EDIT: oops, left one out! The double weapon rules are not relevant to the discussion.

For the rules to be usable in actual gameplay, you have to exercise some common sense.


I think you're quite right that "some common sense" is required, and that's the problem -- common sense is a personal intuition, and not everyone has the same intuitions. But "common sense" is what happens when you don't really have a logical argument for a position, which means you can't argue it, it's just that Everyone Else Is Obviously Wrong.


Honestly, personally, if I were to make an argument based on what I feel is the most common sense approach, that also leads to a more sensible game without the ruling creating balance issues, it would be this:

"It is very, very common that the first line in a rules chapter is a short description of what the rules are about. The weapons chapter starts off with this sentence: "Without a doubt, weapons number among adventurers’ most coveted possessions.". This first sentence is not supposed to be read as a hard, cold rules, but a short description to set the tone and to serve as a more flavorful introduction.

It is my firm belief that the first sentence of the improvised weapon rules were written for the same purpose; to convey a tone, as a short descriptor of how the rules will most commonly be used. I do not think that it was meant in a strict rules fashion, and neither do I think it's beneficial for the gameplay to read it that way. Taking it as a literal hard rule opens up a lot of weird consequences, as shown in this thread (not being able to use a rock as an improvised weapon, for example).

This, in combination with the comments by James Jacobs, leads me to feel completely sure that the best thing is to allow it, to allow improvised attacks with just about any object that can reasonably be used as a weapon. I think this is the intent of the rules, and the conclusion one comes to when reading the rules "with a modicum of common sense" as some dev called it."

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems that we agree that the rules of chess are permissive, i.e. if it doesn't say you can, then you can't. The rules even spell out the consequences of touching/releasing of the pieces.

But there are no rules that tell you which hand to use to move the pieces. Is it left or right? The rules don't say.

There are people on this thread that would point to this lack of a rule and claim that if the rules of chess are strictly permissive, then because there are no rules that tell you how to move the pieces, then you are forbidden to move the pieces! But, since we know you can, therefore the rules of chess turn out to be non-permissive after all!

I hope that this sounds like total BS to you; it is. Yet it is the exact chain of logic used by them to claim that the rules for Pathfinder are also non-permissive.

They say that there are no rules for falling asleep naturally, therefore if the rules are permissive then it's impossible to fall asleep naturally, or that if you can that this proves that the rules are not permissive.

B&!#$!%s.

The rules of chess don't care about which hand you use to move the pieces, or what colour underwear is mandated while playing, or infinitely many other things. This doesn't make the rules of chess non-permissive. The rules cover what they cover, and are permissive in and of themselves. The rules they actually cover are permissive. What the rules don't cover doesn't change that fact.

The rules of Pathfinder don't care about going to sleep naturally, or the colour of your eyes, or provide game mechanics for picking your own nose unopposed. This doesn't make the rules of Pathfinder non-permissive. The rules cover what they cover, and are permissive in respect of the rules that are written. Whatever rules are not written doesn't make the rules that are written somehow non-permissive.

You can play 'Let's Pretend' without any rules at all. You don't need the CRB to do that. You don't need to play by any rules if you don't want to. You can even abide by the vast majority of the PF rules, while changing some of them. The rules you change will no longer be RAW, but that's okay, the Rules Police don't make house calls.

But those things do not make the rules that are written non-permissive.

I don't myself (I suspect few do), but I could easily run and play PF treating the rules that are written as strictly permissive, and not deviate from them; it wouldn't be difficult. For situations not covered, make stuff up. This doesn't alter the permissiveness of the rules that are written.

But for those that claim that the rules that are written are to be understood as non-permissive, then your game doesn't much resemble Pathfinder.

"I fly up the cliff, DM! My character sheet doesn't show a fly speed, but it doesn't say that I don't have a fly speed, so I can!"

"I melee attack him from 20-feet away with my knife. Show me the rule which says that daggers don't have 20-foot reach! It's a Vorpal Holy Avenger BTW. Show me where it says it isn't!"

"I use my at-will SLA of wish to...what do you mean I can't! Show me where it says that my character doesn't have an at-will SLA of wish!"

I don't believe that people play with the understanding that the written rules should be understood as non-permissive. I'm certain that the written rules are not intended to be non-permissive.

I believe that those claiming that 'The improvised weapons rule doesn't say that it doesn't apply to weapons! So it does!', are choosing to interpret this single rule as non-permissive, just so that they can claim the rules allow them to do the opposite of what is written. Singling out this rule shows the deception. Any attempt to claim that the rules that are actually written are non-permissive is, frankly, unbelievable.


seebs wrote:
I think you're quite right that "some common sense" is required, and that's the problem -- common sense is a personal intuition, and not everyone has the same intuitions. But "common sense" is what happens when you don't really have a logical argument for a position, which means you can't argue it, it's just that Everyone Else Is Obviously Wrong.

There is some truth to that. But, having joined the discussion late, you may not have read all of it. About 1000 posts ago, the OP declared that RAI, common sense, realism and cinematic realism, and developer input not directly from the PDT were unusable as arguments. He later tried to narrow the scope all the way down to only using the Combat Rules (even though the rule under debate is in the Equipment chapter).

Despite that, there is still a strong RAW argument in favor of being allowed to use a longspear as an improvised weapon against adjacent targets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

In honor of the fact that it's Tuesday, and I'm currently eating tacos, let's put this in the context of Legos.

I conceptualize this thread like this:

One school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions and building, as precisely as possible, the exact thing the designers intended. This is the school of thought that says "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it". A sub-school of this line of thought goes so far as to assert that in the case where the instruction manual is unclear (Say, a misprint or whatever), that we can (and indeed MUST) discover the intent of the designers in order to play Legos correctly.

The other school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions as a starting point, but relishes being free to add or modify the plan as desired. This school believes that where the instructions are unclear, you are allowed to do whichever assembly you like more. My specific advocacy goes further - I think if the makers of Lego were to come in and say "Sure, there's a misprint, but we always intended it to be in spot X", that still doesn't mean I'm playing with Legos "wrong" by putting the block in spot Y.

Tone disclosure: the following is 100% intended to be in good-humour, deliberately accompanied with a solid WOOSH as your post otherwise goes over my head.

Dude, I can't take you seriously when you can't even get it right that the plural of LEGO is LEGO. Or more precisely LEGO® bricks. So seriously, if you got THAT wrong, what else in your post is wrong? Credibility is everything, man.

Silver Crusade

The Crusader wrote:
seebs wrote:
I think you're quite right that "some common sense" is required, and that's the problem -- common sense is a personal intuition, and not everyone has the same intuitions. But "common sense" is what happens when you don't really have a logical argument for a position, which means you can't argue it, it's just that Everyone Else Is Obviously Wrong.

There is some truth to that. But, having joined the discussion late, you may not have read all of it. About 1000 posts ago, the OP declared that RAI, common sense, realism and cinematic realism, and developer input not directly from the PDT were unusable as arguments. He later tried to narrow the scope all the way down to only using the Combat Rules (even though the rule under debate is in the Equipment chapter).

Despite that, there is still a strong RAW argument in favor of being allowed to use a longspear as an improvised weapon against adjacent targets.

The OP (me) wants to know what the rules actually say, not what they don't say.

The rules say that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent foes.

The rules say that non-weapon objects may use the improvised weapon rule.

No rule says that (without a special ability which allows you) a reach weapon may attack adjacent, even if you think it's "common sense" that you can.

No rule says that the improvised weapon rule applies to weapons, even if you think it's common sense that they should.

The rules are in no way required to list all of the things you cannot do! In fact, they only say you cannot do something is if the rules would otherwise say you can, like attack someone with a spear.

Those are the written rules, common sense or not. There are no written rules which trump them, and if they do (like a special ability or suchlike) then you can because the rules say you can.

The objections to this are based on things not written. "If the rules don't say you can't, then you can!" Understanding the rules based on that claim would lead to absurdity.

"The improvised weapon rule doesn't say it doesn't apply to weapons!"

"The rules for weapons don't say that you can't use them, in combat, as if they weren't weapons! They don't say that you can't use parts of a weapon without using the weapon, so you can!"

So, all the objections to the written rules are not written and not rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

It seems that we agree that the rules of chess are permissive, i.e. if it doesn't say you can, then you can't. The rules even spell out the consequences of touching/releasing of the pieces.

But there are no rules that tell you which hand to use to move the pieces. Is it left or right? The rules don't say.

There are people on this thread that would point to this lack of a rule and claim that if the rules of chess are strictly permissive, then because there are no rules that tell you how to move the pieces, then you are forbidden to move the pieces! But, since we know you can, therefore the rules of chess turn out to be non-permissive after all!

I hope that this sounds like total BS to you; it is. Yet it is the exact chain of logic used by them to claim that the rules for Pathfinder are also non-permissive.

They say that there are no rules for falling asleep naturally, therefore if the rules are permissive then it's impossible to fall asleep naturally, or that if you can that this proves that the rules are not permissive.

B%~*+@&s.

The rules of chess don't care about which hand you use to move the pieces, or what colour underwear is mandated while playing, or infinitely many other things. This doesn't make the rules of chess non-permissive. The rules cover what they cover, and are permissive in and of themselves. The rules they actually cover are permissive. What the rules don't cover doesn't change that fact.

The rules of Pathfinder don't care about going to sleep naturally, or the colour of your eyes, or provide game mechanics for picking your own nose unopposed. This doesn't make the rules of Pathfinder non-permissive. The rules cover what they cover, and are permissive in respect of the rules that are written. Whatever rules are not written doesn't make the rules that are written somehow non-permissive.

You can play 'Let's Pretend' without any rules at all. You don't need the CRB to do that. You don't need to play by any rules if you don't want to. You can even abide by...

As promised, I have officially given up on explaining to you the difference between "things Malachi really really believes with all of his heart and maybe even part of his liver" and "things that can be proven". I will not, however, tolerate your continued conflation of "the rules are not clear, so just do whatever you and your gm deem reasonable" with absolute anarchy. Frankly, your continued reliance on a fallacious slippery slope argument does nothing but undermine your credibility. Go play the game however you like, and stop pretending that anyone wants or needs you to continue to play fun police. Pathfinder with a non-permissive rule set is not anarchy, it is simply a different way to play Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD: Weapons wrote:
All weapons deal hit point damage.
PRD: Weapons wrote:

Lasso 1 sp — — — — 5 lbs. — See text

Net 20 gp — — — 10 ft. 6 lbs. — See text
PRD: Weapons wrote:

Lasso

Price 1 sp

Type exotic

This thrown weapon is a length of rope with a simple open knot on one end that allows you entangle a foe like you would using a net. The DC to cast a spell while entangled with a lasso is 10 + the spell level being cast. An entangled creature can slip free with a successful DC 15 Escape Artist check as a full-round action. The lasso has 2 hit points and AC 10, and requires a DC 23 Strength check to break it. On a successful hit, the lasso tightens; to use it again you must spend a standard action sliding the knot to enlarge the loop.

net

Price 20 gp

Type exotic

A net is used to entangle enemies. When you throw a net, you make a ranged touch attack against your target. A net's maximum range is 10 feet. If you hit, the target is entangled. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity, can move at only half speed, and cannot charge or run. If you control the trailing rope by succeeding at an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must succeed at a concentration check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level or be unable to cast the spell.

An entangled creature can escape with a successful DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a successful DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action). A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you.

A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.

I've read this up and down. There is nowhere in the rules that says these weapons are exceptions to the rule. There is no specific that trumps the general. The language of the first rule is absolute. It is not subject to any false interpretation. "All weapons deal hit point damage."

Except, here are two that don't, and they don't say why. Nothing in their description gives you permission to not deal damage with them. You have to make attack actions to use them, so they must deal damage when you do. Except they don't.

And they don't even tell you which hand to roll the dice with when you do attack! It's almost like they don't understand the rules of chess!

Silver Crusade

Anguish wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

In honor of the fact that it's Tuesday, and I'm currently eating tacos, let's put this in the context of Legos.

I conceptualize this thread like this:

One school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions and building, as precisely as possible, the exact thing the designers intended. This is the school of thought that says "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it". A sub-school of this line of thought goes so far as to assert that in the case where the instruction manual is unclear (Say, a misprint or whatever), that we can (and indeed MUST) discover the intent of the designers in order to play Legos correctly.

The other school of thought is that "Playing with Legos" means looking at the instructions as a starting point, but relishes being free to add or modify the plan as desired. This school believes that where the instructions are unclear, you are allowed to do whichever assembly you like more. My specific advocacy goes further - I think if the makers of Lego were to come in and say "Sure, there's a misprint, but we always intended it to be in spot X", that still doesn't mean I'm playing with Legos "wrong" by putting the block in spot Y.

Tone disclosure: the following is 100% intended to be in good-humour, deliberately accompanied with a solid WOOSH as your post otherwise goes over my head.

Dude, I can't take you seriously when you can't even get it right that the plural of LEGO is LEGO. Or more precisely LEGO® bricks. So seriously, if you got THAT wrong, what else in your post is wrong? Credibility is everything, man.

For some reason, Americans call LEGO, "LEGOS". I don't understand it either. : /

Also, using LEGO as an analogy to explain permissive/non-permissive rules sets doesn't make sense. LEGO doesn't have rules.

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,668 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10-feet AND 5-feet? All Messageboards