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


Rules Questions

1,551 to 1,600 of 1,668 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

The Crusader wrote:
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!

Is that it? Is that your 'proof' that the rules are not permissive?

They are an example of the opposite. The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions. This is how every feat and special ability works in the game!

If the general rule is 'weapons do hit point damage', then that is what they do, unless you have a written rule which says that, in this instance, they don't! This may be because the rules for non-lethal damage let you, or even that the rules for a particular weapon lets you.

Like, y'know, the rules for a lasso, or a net...!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You asked for an example, that is about the 10th example.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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...

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

The rule that allows me to use non-weapon objects are the improvised weapon rules, and they do not restrict the object from being attached to another.

"Here attack with this shovel.. Oh wait, the spade is attached to a wooden handle, you can't use it... Flip it around, use the handle, oh wait, same problem... Here throw this rock instead, its a single object.. Oh wait, a rock is in the weapons table you cant.. Just punch him instead"


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

No, but they do have instructions, which are analogous to a set of rules. Let me just preempt your retort of "but nothing ever says you have to build only what the instructions list in order to be playing right" with "that is exactly my point!"

You seem to be treating playing Pathfinder as executing the one and only "official" interpretation of the rules, without any additions or adjustments. I am treating playing Pathfinder as using the rules to create the best combination of narrative freedom and rules structure for my table. I prefer my interpretation to yours, but crucially I am not trying to prove that my preference is a fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions.

You really wanted to say "by other rules" there, didn't you? Except you can't, because there's not one. These weapons don't have a "Rule" that overrides another rule. They simply ignore the completely absolute, unambiguous language of the Rule As it is Written.

So, yes. In a sense, this is my proof.

But, beyond that, if you want to know what the rule "actually says", as you claim, then you want the Rule As Intended.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions.

You really wanted to say "by other rules" there, didn't you? Except you can't, because there's not one. These weapons don't have a "Rule" that overrides another rule. They simply ignore the completely absolute, unambiguous language of the Rule As it is Written.

So, yes. In a sense, this is my proof.

But, beyond that, if you want to know what the rule "actually says", as you claim, then you want the Rule As Intended.

Lassos and Nets do have "Other rules" that state they deal no damage. In case you were unaware, tables in the book are rules. In the table for exotic ranged weapons under the damage column both lassos and nets have - listed for damage. How do we know by the rules how much damage a medium long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a small long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a lasso does? Oh the table tells us and it tells us it is -. The table is where it is written that lassos and nets are excepted.


PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:
A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.

It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.


PatientWolf wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions.

You really wanted to say "by other rules" there, didn't you? Except you can't, because there's not one. These weapons don't have a "Rule" that overrides another rule. They simply ignore the completely absolute, unambiguous language of the Rule As it is Written.

So, yes. In a sense, this is my proof.

But, beyond that, if you want to know what the rule "actually says", as you claim, then you want the Rule As Intended.

Lassos and Nets do have "Other rules" that state they deal no damage. In case you were unaware, tables in the book are rules. In the table for exotic ranged weapons under the damage column both lassos and nets have - listed for damage. How do we know by the rules how much damage a medium long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a small long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a lasso does? Oh the table tells us and it tells us it is -. The table is where it is written that lassos and nets are excepted.

The "Other Rules" in this case being what's not printed? You don't say...


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

But you have to use armor with armor spikes. What if you are an arcane caster who does not wear armor? What if you have a low strength and you do not want to wear armor?

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

If you allow a longspear to threaten both near spaces and far, then a sorcerer with a longspear can now do things he did not used to be able to do. 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?

Casters can wear armor.

Haramaki and Silken Ceremonial Armor both have zero ACP and zero Spell Failure. They can be used without penalty even if you do not have proficiency.

Armored Kilts can be added to both, with no penalty.

So can Armor Spikes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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.

Something stands out to me here that I don't understand. Let me see if I can put this the right way, because I don't want you to think I'm accusing you of anything. You don't have to answer if you don't want but I'm just trying to understand. It doesn't make sense to me that you start by saying you want to know what the rules say, but right away you go on to state as fact what the rules say. My question is, and please don't take this the wrong way, if you already know the answer what is the point of asking the question? Something doesn't add up there, do you see what I mean?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Grecko wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:
A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.
It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.

The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.


PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:
A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.
It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.
The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

No need to go back, I see the flaw right here.

This is quite simply because doing damage to a hand also deals damage to a person. Just because something is part of a whole, doesn't mean that it is entirely separate from that whole. If I punch someone it is because I used my fist to do so.. But your interpretation would make that indistinguishable, as I instead hit them with my entire body.

If someone try's to sunder the haft of the spear, they are also sundering the spear itself. As the haft is indeed part of a spear, just as my fist is indeed part of my body.

I can attack with the part (fist) of the whole (body), but you claim I cant attack with the part (haft) of the whole (spear).

I see no rules interpretation that supports this view.


PatientWolf wrote:
The description of humanoids says they are creatures with one head, two arms, two legs.

So, you're saying they're assembled from multi-chromatic lions???!?

PatientWolf wrote:
Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

Several people have looked and failed to find them. Would you mind linking them?

Shadow Lodge

Dr Grecko wrote:

No need to go back, I see the flaw right here.

This is quite simply because doing damage to a hand also deals damage to a person. Just because something is part of a whole, doesn't mean that it is entirely separate from that whole. If I punch someone it is because I used my fist to do so.. But your interpretation would make that indistinguishable, as I instead hit them with my entire body.

If someone try's to sunder the haft of the spear, they are also sundering the spear itself. As the haft is indeed part of a spear, just as my fist is indeed part of my body.

I can attack with the part (fist) of the whole (body), but you claim I cant attack with the part (haft) of the whole (spear).

I see no rules interpretation that supports this view

When you make an unarmed strike that is exactly how it works. It never differentiates what part of the body you are striking with. Hand or head or foot it is all the same to the rules. I could say my unarmed strike takes the form of a weaponized wet willy but for rules purposes it is all just the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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?

Actually so nice for u to bring that up. The rules do in fact say that with a gunslinger can use the butt of the gun as a melee weapon. Have to be 3rd level gunslinger deed.

mmmm very interesting u think that the game DOES allow weapons to be used as something other than they are aquired for BUT its in the actual rules and their are aquirements for doing so.
Nowhere does improvised weapons does it say u can use a weapon differently than what the weapon descriptor say BUT the rules DO say certain classes or certain feats that if u meet the requirements for lets u use a weapon a different way BUT it still says how u use it differently.


PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:
A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.
It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.
The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

You have not given ANY examples. This is the 4th time I've asked you to link them. You refuse to do so.

Shadow Lodge

The Crusader wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
The description of humanoids says they are creatures with one head, two arms, two legs.

So, you're saying they're assembled from multi-chromatic lions???!?

PatientWolf wrote:
Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.
Several people have looked and failed to find them. Would you mind linking them?

I am at work right now (and really should be posting anyway...shhh don't tell my boss) so I can't go back through all 32 pages of posts but I will try when I get home to find my specific posts.

Some of the examples I listed were:
The rules for breaking weapons doesnt differentiate between different parts of a weapon. If a weapon is broken the whole thing is considered broken and if destroyed the whole thing is considered destroyed.

The rules for targeting weapons with spells such as warp wood or heat metal treat them as single objects and only take into account the materials used in the construction of the weapon as a whole not the individual parts.

The rules for damage don't list different damage types for each part of the weapon they treat the weapon as a single object that does the stated damage type.

When you roll a 1 on your saving throw and have to determine which objects are effected the rules treat weapons as a whole single object for determining whether it is affected. In other words you don't check to see if each part is effected independently.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:


You have not given ANY examples. This is the 4th time I've asked you to link them. You refuse to do so.

I honestly did not see your requests for links. As as I said in the post just above I can't do that from work but will try to dig them all out when I get home and do so.

I reiterated the examples above but will still try to find the posts to provide links as requested.


PatientWolf wrote:


The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. 1. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. 2. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. 3. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

My boldings and numbering, answers in order:

1. That is because you cannot target individual body parts, not because they are not individual body parts.
2. That is because the spell is "enlarge person", not "enlarge hand". If you had an "enlarge hand" spell it could still affect the hand of a creature, not only a severed hand (unless specified by the spell). Just like how you can target the bells of a bell net with a heat metal spell, despite the bell net being an object by itself (if one is to use object in the common sense of the word). The bell net being an object doesn't mean the bells stop being distinct objects that are part of the net.
3. This is an interesting way to look at it but not something stated in the RAW.

A question: Would you say that heat metal can only target equipment that are completely made of metal (such as a heavy mace or grappling hook that is not fastened to a rope) but not those that have metal components but are not in whole "metal equipment" (such as a grappling hook with rope or a full plate)? Or, is the metal parts of a full plate a valid target for the heat metal spell?

Shadow Lodge

Oenar, the Winter wrote:


A question: Would you say that heat metal can only target equipment that are completely made of metal (such as a heavy mace or grappling hook that is not fastened to a rope) but not those that have metal components but are not in whole "metal equipment" (such as a grappling hook with rope or a full plate)? Or, is the metal parts of a full plate a valid target for the heat metal spell?

A rope and grappling hook are different objects you even purchase them separately so that is a false analogy. Just like a spell that targets Orcs can target a Half-Orc because he counts as both. Items like full plate that are constructed of significant amounts of different materials count as both of those materials. It is one single object, Full Plate, that is made of leather and is made of metal (and whatever else full plate is made of).


PatientWolf wrote:
When you make an unarmed strike that is exactly how it works. It never differentiates what part of the body you are striking with. Hand or head or foot it is all the same to the rules. I could say my unarmed strike takes the form of a weaponized wet willy but for rules purposes it is all just the same thing.

Interesting, I guess I'll have to just go around giving unarmed hugs from now on as the rules don't tell me what to use.

And since we're being as nitpicky about this as you seem to want to take this.. By rule then I guess we can't use any weapons at all, as they specify that they are "handed" items yet your description of a humanoid is oddly lacking hands.

Time to roll up a new character named "Stumpy" that dishes out some mean unarmed hugs.

-

Just because the Unarmed Strike rules don't distinguish which appendages you can use to make the strike, doesn't negate the fact that you did, in fact use an appendage to do so.

I mean, come on, be serious here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
A rope and grappling hook are different objects you even purchase them separately so that is a false analogy. Just like a spell that targets Orcs can target a Half-Orc because he counts as both. Items like full plate that are constructed of significant amounts of different materials count as both of those materials. It is one single object, Full Plate, that is made of leather and is made of metal (and whatever else full plate is made of).

Interesting thought. Does a grappling hook cease to be a weapon once a rope is attached to it?

Silver Crusade

@Griimmy: I've posted it earlier in the thread in a reply to Chemlak, IIRC. I don't blame you for not seeing it, in a thread of over 1,500 posts. : )

Briefly, the subject came up in another thread, someone claimed that you can attack with your reach weapon at 5-feet by using it as an improvised weapon. I pointed out that this wasn't possible in the written rules of Pathfinder.

Soon, two mutually exclusive views were asserting that they were right and the others were wrong. But, objectively, it's one or the other: you either can use weapons as improvised weapons by the rules, or you can't.

As convinced as I was (and still am), this is a genuine disagreement, and it may have been that I was mistaken.

But how to find out? Simple! Go to the rules thread and ask the PDT. : )

I didn't give my opinion for the first page and a half of this thread, because I didn't want to 'beg the question'. After that, I felt free to show my evidence, and have done ever since.

Just because I'm convinced of the answer, when two sides disagree on the rules, it's not wrong to ask the game's authority for the actual answer.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

@Griimmy: I've posted it earlier in the thread in a reply to Chemlak, IIRC. I don't blame you for not seeing it, in a thread of over 1,500 posts. : )

Briefly, the subject came up in another thread, someone claimed that you can attack with your reach weapon at 5-feet by using it as an improvised weapon. I pointed out that this wasn't possible in the written rules of Pathfinder.

Soon, two mutually exclusive views were asserting that they were right and the others were wrong. But, objectively, it's one or the other: you either can use weapons as improvised weapons by the rules, or you can't.

As convinced as I was (and still am), this is a genuine disagreement, and it may have been that I was mistaken.

But how to find out? Simple! Go to the rules thread and ask the PDT. : )

I didn't give my opinion for the first page and a half of this thread, because I didn't want to 'beg the question'. After that, I felt free to show my evidence, and have done ever since.

Just because I'm convinced of the answer, when two sides disagree on the rules, it's not wrong to ask the game's authority for the actual answer.

One thing I would note, is that the question is specific to longspears and reach.. If the answer comes back that no, you cannot improvise a longspear to attack the 5' space around you, then we may still not have our answer as to whether weapons can be improvised at all.

Hopefully, if they do answer, they will look beyond just the title question and delve into what the debate is really about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
A rope and grappling hook are different objects you even purchase them separately so that is a false analogy. Just like a spell that targets Orcs can target a Half-Orc because he counts as both. Items like full plate that are constructed of significant amounts of different materials count as both of those materials. It is one single object, Full Plate, that is made of leather and is made of metal (and whatever else full plate is made of).
Interesting thought. Does a grappling hook cease to be a weapon once a rope is attached to it?

No, it becomes an abomination, neither entirely a weapon, nor entirely object.

It is like it was written in the fell Necronomicon:

"That is not weapon which can improvise, and with these strange rulings, even logic may die"....


I haven't seen everything in the thread, but could someone explain where the terms "permissive" and "non-permissive" came from? The reason I ask is that it really sounds like they're being used the opposite of the way I have previously seen the words used in general, and I was not aware of (nor did casual searching turn up) a standard formalization of these concepts.

But in general, I would have assumed (absent information to the contrary) that a "permissive rule set" was one where things not explicitly defined are permitted.


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


Just because I'm convinced of the answer, when two sides disagree on the rules, it's not wrong to ask the game's authority for the actual answer.

Except the question is not "What are the "right" rules?", it's merely "What did the writers intend?", and what the writers intended is more or less only useful as a guideline of what they were thinking, not a hard and fast rule, so...

I guess I still don't understand why it matters what the intent was. Can you explain to me why I should listen to them? Can you explain to me why it's important to you that YOU know the answer? What value do you gain in seeking to restrict an option that total strangers view as legitimate, even if you don't like it?


I thought it was pretty much generally accepted that you could use a bow as an improvised club.

I also feel I should point out: As a simple historical fact claim, yes, you can use a longspear to club someone adjacent to you. This is a standard tactic. People trained on it.


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

I haven't seen everything in the thread, but could someone explain where the terms "permissive" and "non-permissive" came from? The reason I ask is that it really sounds like they're being used the opposite of the way I have previously seen the words used in general, and I was not aware of (nor did casual searching turn up) a standard formalization of these concepts.

But in general, I would have assumed (absent information to the contrary) that a "permissive rule set" was one where things not explicitly defined are permitted.

In the context of this thread, "Permissive" means the assumption that you require explicit "permission" to do something, and absent a rule that explicitly allows it, an action is by default not possible.


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.

Don't forget the cestus!

*Kindly grandmother waves*


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
seebs wrote:

I haven't seen everything in the thread, but could someone explain where the terms "permissive" and "non-permissive" came from? The reason I ask is that it really sounds like they're being used the opposite of the way I have previously seen the words used in general, and I was not aware of (nor did casual searching turn up) a standard formalization of these concepts.

But in general, I would have assumed (absent information to the contrary) that a "permissive rule set" was one where things not explicitly defined are permitted.

In the context of this thread, "Permissive" means the assumption that you require explicit "permission" to do something, and absent a rule that explicitly allows it, an action is by default not possible.

I'd gathered that, but that's pretty much the opposite of what the word usually means, so I'm wondering whether it's a term of art from some formalization about rule systems that I am unfamiliar with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Also, using LEGO as an analogy to explain permissive/non-permissive rules sets doesn't make sense. LEGO doesn't have rules.

You're wasting your time, really. For me it all broke down when cannot became can in some folks' minds. Doesn't matter how many analogies or real-world allusions are made... everything and everything that suggests this thing is allowed - by the rules - is contrary to those rules.

Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...

No means no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Also, using LEGO as an analogy to explain permissive/non-permissive rules sets doesn't make sense. LEGO doesn't have rules.

You're wasting your time, really. For me it all broke down when cannot became can in some folks' minds. Doesn't matter how many analogies or real-world allusions are made... everything and everything that suggests this thing is allowed - by the rules - is contrary to those rules.

Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...

No means no.

"Cannot" became irrelevant when "reach" goes away by using the weapon in an improvised fashion.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
"Cannot" became irrelevant when "reach" goes away by using the weapon in an improvised fashion.

You'd almost think the developers accidentally wasted their time. They should've just said "go ahead, do whatever you want". But they didn't. Instead they took the time to tell you what you can do with those weapons.

I suspect when Monte and Skip were working on the 3.0 PHB, they never suspected that the creative director at the company publishing their magazines might some day a decade in the future post a casual reply to a question that invalidated their work. But I could be wrong. They might've planned for exactly that, allowing for a glorious future where some folks could gleefully disregard what they'd written. Dunno.


Anguish wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
"Cannot" became irrelevant when "reach" goes away by using the weapon in an improvised fashion.

You'd almost think the developers accidentally wasted their time. They should've just said "go ahead, do whatever you want". But they didn't. Instead they took the time to tell you what you can do with those weapons.

I suspect when Monte and Skip were working on the 3.0 PHB, they never suspected that the creative director at the company publishing their magazines might some day a decade in the future post a casual reply to a question that invalidated their work. But I could be wrong. They might've planned for exactly that, allowing for a glorious future where some folks could gleefully disregard what they'd written. Dunno.

Even if it was their intent in the first place I doubt they woul much care.


Anguish wrote:

Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...

Why the heck would that be a bad thing? Martial Characters already have extremely limited options, especially at higher levels. The -4 is a significant penalty to perform a perfectly reasonable action that already comes at the penalty of not being able to use any weapon-related feats or enchantments.

You can already take a -4 to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, or vice versa. You can already take a -4 to deal damage with a pencil. That's pretty darn close to "whatever you want at a -4." Why is this the limit of possibility?

What in the world would allowing this action in your game do to it that would be so terrible?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...

Why the heck would that be a bad thing? Martial Characters already have extremely limited options, especially at higher levels. The -4 is a significant penalty to perform a perfectly reasonable action that already comes at the penalty of not being able to use any weapon-related feats or enchantments.

You can already take a -4 to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, or vice versa. You can already take a -4 to deal damage with a pencil. That's pretty darn close to "whatever you want at a -4." Why is this the limit of possibility?

What in the world would allowing this action in your game do to it that would be so terrible?

I'm not saying it's terrible. It's just not what the rules say.

I'm on the record as saying I prefer the rules to say what they do, but that this is a reasonable area to house-rule on.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anguish wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
"Cannot" became irrelevant when "reach" goes away by using the weapon in an improvised fashion.

You'd almost think the developers accidentally wasted their time. They should've just said "go ahead, do whatever you want". But they didn't. Instead they took the time to tell you what you can do with those weapons.

I suspect when Monte and Skip were working on the 3.0 PHB, they never suspected that the creative director at the company publishing their magazines might some day a decade in the future post a casual reply to a question that invalidated their work. But I could be wrong. They might've planned for exactly that, allowing for a glorious future where some folks could gleefully disregard what they'd written. Dunno.

I have to say, this post made me gleeful. I had never until this moment realized that I could destroy the entire game by having the audacity to imagine differently than you think I should. I will now make it my mission to pollute the game by "playing wrong" and invalidating the developers life's work.

*eye roll*

Here's a thought - maybe, just maybe, they actually would look at a thread like this and think "Huh, I really wish some of these players would stop taking this so seriously, and realize that the rules were intended to be a starting point for fun, not as a set of textual weapons to be used as a way to police which nerds are having wrongbadfun."

Again, I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game. If you are uncomfortable with something, then by all means don't allow it. Just don't pretend anyone should give a hoot about anyone else's preferences for how to have fun.

Oh, and again, allowing things that aren't expressly permitted in the rules STILL doesn't mean "There are no rules at all", nor does choosing not to apply rules if I feel the situation doesn't warrant them. So, you know, kindly stop making that slippery slope argument.

Silver Crusade

Oenar, The Winter wrote:
1. That is because you cannot target individual body parts, not because they are not individual body parts.

How can you post this with a straight face? The same applies to weapons and parts of weapons. In both cases the rules treat bodies and weapons as one thing. The same invisible rule which you say let's you use different parts of weapons should also allow you to attack different parts of bodies, with the same rules support: none.


Anguish wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...

Why the heck would that be a bad thing? Martial Characters already have extremely limited options, especially at higher levels. The -4 is a significant penalty to perform a perfectly reasonable action that already comes at the penalty of not being able to use any weapon-related feats or enchantments.

You can already take a -4 to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, or vice versa. You can already take a -4 to deal damage with a pencil. That's pretty darn close to "whatever you want at a -4." Why is this the limit of possibility?

What in the world would allowing this action in your game do to it that would be so terrible?

I'm not saying it's terrible. It's just not what the rules say.

I'm on the record as saying I prefer the rules to say what they do, but that this is a reasonable area to house-rule on.

And what the rules do is ... Not say.


Hmm. Wasn't there some discussion once about sundering attacks against a wooden-hafted weapon with an adamantine blade?

I've never seen anyone suggest any objections to using a bow as an "improvised melee weapon", and there's even an explicit statement about doing that with arrows. And in previous threads about improvised weapons, there seems to have been general agreement that of course you would use the improvised weapon rules when using a weapon "incorrectly" for some reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Oenar, The Winter wrote:
1. That is because you cannot target individual body parts, not because they are not individual body parts.
How can you post this with a straight face? The same applies to weapons and parts of weapons. In both cases the rules treat bodies and weapons as one thing. The same invisible rule which you say let's you use different parts of weapons should also allow you to attack different parts of bodies, with the same rules support: none.

Actually, the body analogy us quite apropos. The body exists as both a whole unit and descrete parts. If a player takes damage their body takes damage, yet they hold things in their hands, wear boot on their feet, rings on their fingers, amulets around their necks and many other slot locations. The amount of "effort" a body can exert in an attack sequence is limited by "metaphysical" hands. All of these things make up part of the body.

The haft of the spear is just that, the haft of a spear. It is part of the spear but also its own object. When the greater object takes damage it take HP damage as a whole because that is how the game abstracts damage. But just as you wouldn't say someone is wielding a sword with their body just because they have it in their hands, we can say I attack with the haft of the spear because it is its own object.

If fact, this abstraction to parts of a whole is INTEGRAL to the combat rules, because with how many hands you wield a weapon makes a difference. You CANNOT just wield a sword with your body because it is important to the game to know how many hands you are using. Yet, when you take damage it is still your body that takes it in aggregate.


That's actually a really good point about the Bow. It's a Ranged weapon, which specifically cannot be used in melee.

According to the reading of "can't bash with a Reach weapon" a character could also never "bash with a bow"

Likewise with a Crossbow, which have heavy stocks that make fantastic clubs.

It seems to me that if a Bow or Crossbow would be allowable as an improvised weapon, then so would a Reach weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

That's actually a really good point about the Bow. It's a Ranged weapon, which specifically cannot be used in melee.

According to the reading of "can't bash with a Reach weapon" a character could also never "bash with a bow"

Likewise with a Crossbow, which have heavy stocks that make fantastic clubs.

It seems to me that if a Bow or Crossbow would be allowable as an improvised weapon, then so would a Reach weapon.

you know whats funny? U can bash with the butt of a gun BUUUT the rules says u have to be a 3rd lvl gunslinger and because its a deed u use grit on at lvl 3.

There rules states many ways to use a weapon many way different ways BUT the rules says for u to use it differently u have to met the prereqs to do it AND to only yo do what it lists.
Whats the point of having slashing, Piercing, or bludgeoning DR if basically most sharp weapons can bypass it? Why even have the rules state that a dagger can slash or pierce but a longsword can only slash?
Remember not all the rules are there to follow real life or common sense, they are there so that the game u are playing works and fits in with their rules. Dont like the rules? Then houserule then, nothing stopping that. BuT when we are discussing the rules of the games, we go by the rules and not by houserules because seriously we all know RAW doesnt follow real life rules OR common sense at times. Reason is is because its a game and so they have rules to how each weapon or thing or magic does so that ayers knkws exactly what works and what doesnt. The player picking a dagger knows he can slash with it or he can pierce with it and the gm knows how his weapon will respond against an object or npc.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

That's actually a really good point about the Bow. It's a Ranged weapon, which specifically cannot be used in melee.

According to the reading of "can't bash with a Reach weapon" a character could also never "bash with a bow"

Likewise with a Crossbow, which have heavy stocks that make fantastic clubs.

It seems to me that if a Bow or Crossbow would be allowable as an improvised weapon, then so would a Reach weapon.

you know whats funny? U can bash with the butt of a gun BUUUT the rules says u have to be a 3rd lvl gunslinger and because its a deed u use grit on at lvl 3.

There rules states many ways to use a weapon many way different ways BUT the rules says for u to use it differently u have to met the prereqs to do it AND to only yo do what it lists.
Whats the point of having slashing, Piercing, or bludgeoning DR if basically most sharp weapons can bypass it? Why even have the rules state that a dagger can slash or pierce but a longsword can only slash?
Remember not all the rules are there to follow real life or common sense, they are there so that the game u are playing works and fits in with their rules. Dont like the rules? Then houserule then, nothing stopping that. BuT when we are discussing the rules of the games, we go by the rules and not by houserules because seriously we all know RAW doesnt follow real life rules OR common sense at times. Reason is is because its a game and so they have rules to how each weapon or thing or magic does so that ayers knkws exactly what works and what doesnt. The player picking a dagger knows he can slash with it or he can pierce with it and the gm knows how his weapon will respond against an object or npc.

Because you want the benefit of feats, enhancement bonuses, proficiency, class abilities, the weapons full base damage, and the weapons threat range?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Oenar, The Winter wrote:
1. That is because you cannot target individual body parts, not because they are not individual body parts.
The same applies to weapons and parts of weapons. In both cases the rules treat bodies and weapons as one thing.

That isn't written in the rules. While some effects clearly could only target a whole weapon (keen weapon, for example), the rules do not state that you cannot attempt to attack an object that is part of another object. For example, you might very well be able attack a lock on a door, even though it's a part of the door.

Thing is, you can only attack creatures and objects. A hand is neither. If there were rules for attacking body parts, that'd be a different thing. But, in the common english meaning of the word, the lock on a door is a part of an object, but also an object in and of itself. My hand is a part of my body (part of a creature), but it is not a body in and of itself.
EDIT: Correction; you can only attack creatures, objects and squares.

Quote:
The same invisible rule which you say let's you use different parts of weapons should also allow you to attack different parts of bodies, with the same rules support: none.

You still haven't shown me a written rule that says objects that are parts of other objects stop being objects. Because you know, that'd get really weird results.


You can also sometimes target grid intersections, as with a splash weapon.


BigDTBone wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

That's actually a really good point about the Bow. It's a Ranged weapon, which specifically cannot be used in melee.

According to the reading of "can't bash with a Reach weapon" a character could also never "bash with a bow"

Likewise with a Crossbow, which have heavy stocks that make fantastic clubs.

It seems to me that if a Bow or Crossbow would be allowable as an improvised weapon, then so would a Reach weapon.

you know whats funny? U can bash with the butt of a gun BUUUT the rules says u have to be a 3rd lvl gunslinger and because its a deed u use grit on at lvl 3.

There rules states many ways to use a weapon many way different ways BUT the rules says for u to use it differently u have to met the prereqs to do it AND to only yo do what it lists.
Whats the point of having slashing, Piercing, or bludgeoning DR if basically most sharp weapons can bypass it? Why even have the rules state that a dagger can slash or pierce but a longsword can only slash?
Remember not all the rules are there to follow real life or common sense, they are there so that the game u are playing works and fits in with their rules. Dont like the rules? Then houserule then, nothing stopping that. BuT when we are discussing the rules of the games, we go by the rules and not by houserules because seriously we all know RAW doesnt follow real life rules OR common sense at times. Reason is is because its a game and so they have rules to how each weapon or thing or magic does so that ayers knkws exactly what works and what doesnt. The player picking a dagger knows he can slash with it or he can pierce with it and the gm knows how his weapon will respond against an object or npc.

Because you want the benefit of feats, enhancement bonuses, proficiency, class abilities, the weapons full base damage, and the weapons threat range?

Why would u lose those if u use improvise weapons to pierce with a longsword? Ur still using the actual blade thats enchanted. The only thing thats different is u are pushing the sword into the object or npc in a piercing motion instead of pushing it across the body in a slashing motion? Someone whos well versed at a sword, piercing the target in a lunge motion should be very easy.......yet the rules state a longsword is a slashing weapon only.

Why? Because in pathfinder people who use longswords do slashing motions with it only. They dont use the hilt for bludgeoning nor do they allow thrusting to do piercing damage.
what they do allow is gunslingers of 3rd level to use butts of guns with deeds, a fighter archetype to use a polearm or spear in a different way to attack ajacent targets, they even have weapons that are labeled "double-weapons" that get this can use different parts of the weapons...gasp! There are many ways in the rules to use a weapon a different way, but improvise weapon doesnt allow that. They "sometimes" allow an object to be used as a weapon, meaning sometimes u can amd sometimes u cant depending on the item or object. They do not allow "sometimes" an object or an item to be used as a weapon OR sometimes u can use a weapin differently than what is stated. Nowhere in the improvise weapons does it say u can use a weapon differently than what is stated in the rules, it DOES say u can sometimes use objects as weapons.
do i think its silly at times (especially not being able to pierce with a longsword)? Yes but we all know RAW and the rukes dont always go by real life nor do they always go by common sense.

Silver Crusade

seebs wrote:

I thought it was pretty much generally accepted that you could use a bow as an improvised club.

I also feel I should point out: As a simple historical fact claim, yes, you can use a longspear to club someone adjacent to you. This is a standard tactic. People trained on it.

Actually, although we write 'only non-weapons can use the improvised weapons rule' (or the opposite), that's not the whole, complex truth. But it saves a lot of typing. : )

The longer version is that, if a weapon has combat stats for the type of attack you are using it for (in terms of melee/thrown/projectile/ammunition), then you must use those stats. If you are using a weapon which lacks combat stats for the way you are using it (like using a bow to bash someone in melee), then you use the improvised weapon rule to get those stats.

That's what the improvised weapon rule is for! To get stats for an attack with something that doesn't have them, not to ignore the combat stats it already has!

Examples of this are in the rules already: arrows (which have stats as ammunition but not for melee) are used as an improvised dagger when used in melee. Melee weapons which lack a range increment may be thrown as improvised thrown weapons, but the range increment is set to 10-feet, the crit stats become 20/x2 for that attack, and you get a -4 non-proficiency penalty. I.e. the improvised weapon rule.

Note that a thrown greatsword is still a greatsword, not an improvised club when thrown. It still does 2d6 slashing damage. This is because the closest match to a greatsword...is a greatsword!

1,551 to 1,600 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