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


Rules Questions

1,601 to 1,650 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.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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!

So you now agree that the improvised weapon rule is non-permissive?

If not, please provide the RAW to back up your claim that a bow can be used in melee as an improvised weapon.


BigDT, do you know the difference between an arrow and a bow?


Sarrah wrote:
BigDT, do you know the difference between an arrow and a bow?

Yes, but perhaps you would like to expand on the reason you ask.


Your last post mentions someone attacking with an arrow. In your reply, attacking with an arrow becomes attacking with a bow. Was that a typo?


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
"Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows."


Oh, you must have missed where

Malachi wrote:
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.

Edit: I probably could have trimmed that quote better (or at all) but I'm using my phone and its a pain to do. But I was directly responding to the snip I re-quoted above.


Oh. Yeah, I missed that. I know 3.x could use bows in melee combat after blades were attached to the bow, but those rules weren't carried over to Pathfinders.


I don't think there is a written rule with that concept of "different kind of attack" (like melee/ranged), just an understanding that if you can't use a weapon as designed, you may still be able to use the material object as an improvised weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
seebs wrote:
I don't think there is a written rule with that concept of "different kind of attack" (like melee/ranged), just an understanding that if you can't use a weapon as designed, you may still be able to use the material object as an improvised weapon.

Yep, as you said, it's just just using a weapon as an abject.

The same could be said for a Crossbow - you could try and use it as a club - (I often see rifles in civil war movies being swung like clubs...) The RAW is totally Ok with PC's using weapons in different ways - the GM only needs to 'decide' what sort of damage the haft of an 'longspear' might do - I would say 1d6 (like a club). At a -4 to hit unless you have the Catch-Off Guard feat.


I agree with lastblacknight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. A magical force field will spring up, preventing you from damaging someone the 'wrong' way.


lastblacknight wrote:
seebs wrote:
I don't think there is a written rule with that concept of "different kind of attack" (like melee/ranged), just an understanding that if you can't use a weapon as designed, you may still be able to use the material object as an improvised weapon.

Yep, as you said, it's just just using a weapon as an abject.

The same could be said for a Crossbow - you could try and use it as a club - (I often see rifles in civil war movies being swung like clubs...) The RAW is totally Ok with PC's using weapons in different ways - the GM only needs to 'decide' what sort of damage the haft of an 'longspear' might do - I would say 1d6 (like a club). At a -4 to hit unless you have the Catch-Off Guard feat.

Right, which is why the thread is 1,600 posts long. I think everyone is okay with the crossbow (without melee stats) being used to bash someone in melee as an improvised weapon.

As soon as we slide to the spear, choking-up on the grip and cross-checking with it we have crossed the line. For the myriad of reasons -- good and bad -- above.

When wielding a crossbow I would have to switch my grip more as I am resting the stock on my stabilizing hand and have my "trigger" hand pushing down from on top of the stock waiting to squeeze the iron bar by making a fist. There has been no discussion of whether this would be a move, swift, or free action. Because people did it. Rutger Hauer did it in "LadyHawke."

Adjusting the spear grip is easier. There really is no debate that they are both sensible actions.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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.

Interesting. I'm having some difficulty finding the rule that says you CAN do that. I mean, I realize it doesn't say you can't do it. And I realize that common sense would say you can do it. And I realize it is both realistic and cinematic. And I realize that there is no balance issues that arise from allowing it.

But, according to Malachi Silverclaw, none of that is relevant... Now, I'm confused.

(I'm not really confused, but it sure seems like Malachi is...)


Doesn't a spear lack stats for using it to bash someone in melee?


RDM42 wrote:

Doesn't a spear lack stats for using it to bash someone in melee?

I don't know. One camp is going to argue that the stats provided encompass all melee uses; while the other argues that the rules cover the "best" use in melee -- and using it in a non-optimal way should use the improvised rules just like the crossbow example.

Even if we get agreement (which we won't) on the attack, then we get plunged into a debate on how it would threaten.


Note how some weapons can do slashing and piercing damage... there the rules indicate that weapon statistics already encompass all uses.

We've already seen the longsword brought up (slashing not piercing damage). Does that mean that in the Pathfinder world nobody gets stabbed with swords? In reality that would make plate armor incredibly effective. In order to pierce plate you would have to half-hand against the weak spots. Slash all day long -- it won't do a thing.

You see the gamists like paragraph one and hate paragraph two. The simulationists like paragraph two and hate paragraph one. In general.


MachOneGames wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

Doesn't a spear lack stats for using it to bash someone in melee?

I don't know. One camp is going to argue that the stats provided encompass all melee uses; while the other argues that the rules cover the "best" use in melee -- and using it in a non-optimal way should use the improvised rules just like the crossbow example.

Even if we get agreement (which we won't) on the attack, then we get plunged into a debate on how it would threaten.

Too bad we can't agree. That is a discussion worth having.


I'll have that discussion with you.

My first "gut" instinct is that you are either threatening 5' improvised, or threatening with reach at the end of your turn. Someone else brought that up a few pages ago and it seems reasonable to me.

Yes, at this point we are just making up rules. In the way I play I do that all the time. Besides, this is the "Rules" forum; not the "Rules-as-Written" forum right?


MachOneGames wrote:

I'll have that discussion with you.

My first "gut" instinct is that you are either threatening 5' improvised, or threatening with reach at the end of your turn. Someone else brought that up a few pages ago and it seems reasonable to me.

Yes, at this point we are just making up rules. In the way I play I do that all the time. Besides, this is the "Rules" forum; not the "Rules-as-Written" forum right?

I mentioned that you only have two hands to wield weapons with, and that all weapons with a weapon size require a set number of hands, and an appropriately sized longspear is a two-handed weapon, thus you cannot wield an improvised weapon at the same time as you wield it as a longspear. Blackbloodtroll claimed this was incorrect, and a bunch of people favorited his post, so I posted this with my reasonings and quotes from the FAQ and developer in support of that rule. After that it got quiet; I don't know if BBT has newer information that supercedes this and just hasn't seen my rebuttal, or if the FAQ and Mark Morelands comments are the most relevant rule.

Note though, that regardless of how this is ruled, threatening both reach and adjacent simultaneously is incredibly easy regardless. Just wield a small longspear in one hand and you have a hand free for using a spiked armor or boot blade or dagger or whatever light or one-handed weapon you want to use. You get a -2 on the spear attacks, but no penalty on the other attacks, so it also is generally more beneficial than -4 on the adjacent attacks for improvising the longspear; there is no balance issue here.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You absolutely do not need a free hand to use, or threaten, with Armor Spikes, or any other weapon that require no hands to use.

This is the same "free hand to kick" crap that comes up when some pull some sort unwritten restriction BS.


Ilja wrote:


I mentioned that you only have two hands to wield weapons with, and that all weapons with a weapon size require a set number of hands, and an appropriately sized longspear is a two-handed weapon, thus you cannot wield an improvised weapon at the same time as you wield it as a longspear. Blackbloodtroll claimed this was incorrect, and a bunch of people favorited his post, so I posted this with my reasonings and quotes from the FAQ and developer in support of that rule. After that it got quiet; I don't know if BBT has newer information that supercedes this and just hasn't seen my rebuttal, or if the FAQ and Mark Morelands comments are the most relevant rule.

Note though, that regardless of how this is ruled, threatening both reach and adjacent simultaneously is incredibly easy regardless. Just wield a small longspear in one hand and you have a hand free for using a spiked armor or boot blade or dagger or whatever light or one-handed weapon you want to use. You get a -2 on the spear attacks, but no penalty on the other attacks, so it also is generally more beneficial than -4 on the adjacent attacks for improvising the longspear; there is no balance issue here.

So, are you suggesting that you should threaten both simultaneously? I am inferring this from your case you are making about game balance.


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

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.

That's where you've arrived? "Yeah, the rules say that but don't take it so seriously"? The question was "what do the rules say?" That's what's being discussed, and deflection into questions of how seriously any of us are taking things is... deflection. I must be wrong if I'm taking it too seriously, right?

I'm every bit as amused as you are, actually. I'm most definitely enjoying a 30+ page thread that asks "what is the page number for page 183" where some people are saying it's not-183. Very amusing. Doesn't stop me from pointing out the page number is kind of printed on the page. Repeatedly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
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.

You forgot to finish your post with "anything relevant except that reach weapons aren't valid to attack adjacent targets." The rules do say that, inconvenient to your viewpoint as it is.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Personally, I believe RAW neither explicitly allows, or denies, attacking with the shaft of a Longspear.

I think it should remain in the hands of the DM, and no FAQ should ever come of this.

I will, however, never accept that an unwritten rule, that contradicts RAW, be accepted as if it were RAW.

It makes all RAW meaningless.

No one needs a damn free hand to kick.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You absolutely do not need a free hand to use, or threaten, with Armor Spikes, or any other weapon that require no hands to use.

This is the same "free hand to kick" crap that comes up when some pull some sort unwritten restriction BS.

So how do you regard the FAQ that states the opposite? Also, armor spikes are light weapons, which means they require a hand unless noted otherwise.


MachOneGames wrote:


So, are you suggesting that you should threaten both simultaneously? I am inferring this from your case you are making about game balance.

Nope, quite the reverse. I think that by the rules you cannot threaten with two two-handed weapons at the same time. I think that generally it shouldn't be allowed either, but I don't think it'd be incredibly broken if a GM allowed it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Ilja wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You absolutely do not need a free hand to use, or threaten, with Armor Spikes, or any other weapon that require no hands to use.

This is the same "free hand to kick" crap that comes up when some pull some sort unwritten restriction BS.

So how do you regard the FAQ that states the opposite? Also, armor spikes are light weapons, which means they require a hand unless noted otherwise.

The FAQ specifically talking about two-weapon fighting?

The one that references unwritten rules?

The one that was contradicted several times by Developers later.

Those Mike Moreland comments from 3 years ago, that have been contradicted several times by numerous other Devs, that are specifically speaking of PFS?

What one of those gives you the insane idea that anyone needs a free hand to kick?


Let it go bbt. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

That said, to Ilja's point, you don't need a free hand to wield a weapon, only to use one. You can hold a longspear and attack with a boot blade and armor spikes. You can even attack with the longspear and armor spikes as iteratives, but not with TWF. That thread was... less civil than this one... but it was pretty solidly hashed out.

I would agree with MachOne. You have to make a decision about which weapon you are wielding, and stick with it. Is there any reason it would work like a shield? In the sense that if you use a shield as a weapon, you lose the bonus to your AC for the entire round? So, if you choose to bash with a spear haft, it doesn't "become" a reach weapon again until the start of your next turn?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you can safely use unwritten rules to allow, or disallow, anything, then so can I.

Anything.

Rogues can't wield two-handed weapons. All Humans are blind.

I say the unwritten rules make them RAW.

Prove me wrong.


Damn, I took perception again, but not "see".


When has Morelands post been contradicted by the devs? And where do you find that he is specifically talking about PFS? Is that some unwritten rule of the post being in the PFS forum? Thought you didn't like that kind of rules...

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If you can safely use unwritten rules to allow, or disallow, anything, then so can I.

Anything.

Rogues can't wield two-handed weapons. All Humans are blind.

I say the unwritten rules make them RAW.

Prove me wrong.

Once an unwritten rule has been clarified in a written message by devs or in the FAQ, it is no longer unwritten, since it has been written.

I'm not gonna go down a rabbithole similar to malachi's with you. If one wants to play the game somewhat like it was intended to be played, FAQ and developer comment have an incredibly heavy weight as rules argument.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@Ilja:You were already there for the whole Armor Spikes +etc. thing.

You know how it works. You know the arguments. That's all two-weapon fighting, and not wielding. Unrelated.

No Dev has ever repeated anything like the one 3yr old post by Mike Moreland, in that PFS discussion board. If anything, it's Armor Spikes specific. He, alone, has decided this one weapon requires a hand to use.

Also, as far as wielding, SKR has this to say.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

@Ilja:You were already there for the whole Armor Spikes +etc. thing.

You know how it works. You know the arguments. That's all two-weapon fighting, and not wielding. Unrelated.

No Dev has ever repeated anything like the one 3yr old post by Mike Moreland, in that PFS discussion board. If anything, it's Armor Spikes specific. He, alone, has decided this one weapon requires a hand to use.

Also, as far as wielding, SKR has this to say.

Yes, I was around back then, and though you probably don't remember it I agreed with you up until the rules were clarified. The ruling made wasn't one I'd do, and the rules where ambiguous before the clarifications, but after seeing them (and the mark moreland comment) I think it's unreasonable to continue to treat it opposite to the intended readings.

There's a big difference between "contradicted several times by numerous other Devs" and "has not been repeated since it's posting".

And SKR's comment doesn't work as an argument since it'd be a circular argument; "you can attack with it because you wield it and you wield it because you can attack with it".

Also note that according to Moreland, this was said after discussing it with Jason Buhlman. His post basically just states that light weapons require hands (as also stated by the "light weapon" description in the core rulebook: "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand."). The same is true for one-handed and two-handed weapons too (two-handed requiring two hands). The closest thing to an unwritten rule in this case would be that player characters normally have two hands. Which doesn't seem that horrible when it comes to unwritten rule.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not all Light weapons require hands.

Those weapons, that specify this, need no hands to attack, wield, or threaten with.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not all Light weapons require hands.

Those weapons, that specify this, need no hands to attack, wield, or threaten with.

Of course, specific overrides general. The exceptions I know of are barbazu beard and boulder helmet, though there might be more. Spiked armor and blade boot are not exceptions though.


This is very much off-topic, in this thread. For what it's worth, I vehemently disagreed with that FAQ when it came out. But, you're obviously re-opening, some old, very painful wounds.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Ilja wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not all Light weapons require hands.

Those weapons, that specify this, need no hands to attack, wield, or threaten with.

Of course, specific overrides general. The exceptions I know of are barbazu beard and boulder helmet, though there might be more. Spiked armor and blade boot are not exceptions though.

Why are the Boot Blades not?

What hand do I wield a Boot Blade in?


MachOneGames wrote:

I'll have that discussion with you.

My first "gut" instinct is that you are either threatening 5' improvised, or threatening with reach at the end of your turn. Someone else brought that up a few pages ago and it seems reasonable to me.

Yes, at this point we are just making up rules. In the way I play I do that all the time. Besides, this is the "Rules" forum; not the "Rules-as-Written" forum right?

Well in all fairness, "everybody" is just making up rules about how to wield a weapon at the end of a turn. It is only in a developer statement that we get "switching grip" as a free action. So for example, in situations where you need to end your turn with a free hand (crane wing perhaps?) you can attack two-handed with a temple sword and then take one hand off to change you threat profile.

That's no where in the rules but it accepted from developer input. This is just a different iteration of the same extrapolation.


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

That's where you've arrived? "Yeah, the rules say that but don't take it so seriously"? The question was "what do the rules say?" That's what's being discussed, and deflection into questions of how seriously any of us are taking things is... deflection. I must be wrong if I'm taking it too seriously, right?

I'm every bit as amused as you are, actually. I'm most definitely enjoying a 30+ page thread that asks "what is the page number for page 183" where some people are saying it's not-183. Very amusing. Doesn't stop me from pointing out the page number is kind of printed on the page. Repeatedly.

No, that's not what I said, nor what I did. YOU explicitly raised the question of what the rules developers would feel, so I answered that.

If you are going to keep using your feeling that we need to respect the MAJESTY!! and AUTHORITY!!! of the intent of the rules designers as evidence that your subjective reading of the rules is "correct", then yes, I'm going to continue to "deflect" the conversation by directly challenging your claim that such authority even exists. That's like... basic argumentation theory. I get to challenge ALL your arguments and assumptions, not just the ones you want to talk about.

Additionally, your assertion that this is a cut and dried rules issue is on face nonsensical, since this thread exists in the first place. That it seems cut and dried TO YOU merely means you are unable to view the issue from multiple angles and realize that it simply isn't necessary for you or anyone else to tell ME which of those multiple options I should pick.

I am not trying to tell you how to play. I'm not judging your playstyle. I'm not even trying to get you to choose a different interpretation of the rules. All I am saying is that while your interpretation is valid, it is manifestly not the only one. I don't need or want you to "instruct" me on how to play "properly", because I can "prove" I'm already playing Pathfinder right BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY CORRECTLY.

The reason you and Malachi et al are failing to make headway in this discussion is because you have chosen to defend a position that requires you to prove that no other reading of the rules is valid, which is a nearly impossible task. The reason I find this thread amusing is that even if you did somehow surmount the Sisyphean task of proving that your exact reading of the rules is objectively "correct", it WOULDN'T MATTER, because RAW I'm free to ignore that anyway, and still be playing Pathfinder "correctly".


There are some great ideas here for using crossbows and bows as improvised weapons.

However, the RAW tell us how to use arrows and bolts in melee. They do not tell us how to use crossbows and bows in melee. If you want to do that, you have to start making up rules -- rules analogous to those for arrows and bolts, but rules you make up yourself.

There is no general case rule for using weapons as "improvised weapons." There are only special case rules for arrows and bolts. What if I want to use a bullet as a melee weapon? Or bolas? There are no general case rules for that. I would have to make something up.

If you want to argue that there exists a general case rule for using weapons in improvised ways, then why are there special case rules for arrows and bolts? It would be stupid to waste time and space detailing those special cases, since the existing general case rules would clearly apply. Oh, wait, they are not all that clear. In fact, there are no general case rules for using weapons in improvised ways.

Similarly, if you want to have a choice of using your longspear as a reach weapon against foes 10 ft away, or using the shaft as a improvised-like melee weapon of some sort against adjacent foes, then you once again have to make up rules about how to switch between modes of use. Is it a free action? An immediate action? A swift action? A move action? Whatever you decide, you are not basing your decision on the rules as written. You are making stuff up.

When you are making rules up, you should be posting in the Homebrew Forum, not the Rules Forum. Sorry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me add that the RAW simply do not cover the wide range of actions a player can envision and try. I'm all in favor of a player trying to cudgel the orc next to him with a spear butt. Or trying to poke out an enemy's eye with a blowgun dart. Those are totally wonderful in-game actions to try!

The resolution to player creativity is NOT to say, "sorry, you cannot do that because it is outside the rules." Rather, the better answer is for the DM to wing it and come up with something on the fly. That's a perfectly great solution, really it is.

My point is that you cannot point to the game and say, "Here's where the rules say I can spear-butt that orc." Rather, you can point to the DM and say, "Hey, why don't we use the improvised weapon rules to adjudicate this idea I had."

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

From PRD:

BOWSTAFF
School transmutation; Level inquisitor 1, paladin 1, ranger 1
Casting Time 1 swift action
Components V
Range personal
Target one weapon (bow)
Duration 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)
The bow that is touched takes on the rigidity and toughness of forged steel, allowing it to be used as a melee weapon. The spell allows a shortbow to be used as a club or a longbow to be used as a quarterstaff, although the bow retains its normal hit points and hardness. The bow's enhancement bonus, if any, applies on melee attack and damage rolls. Additional weapon special weapon qualities also apply to melee attacks if such qualities can be added to a melee weapon.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

From PRD:

Stabbing Shot (Combat)
You can clear the way to continue using your bow.
Prerequisites: Rapid Shot, elf.
Benefit: When adjacent to an opponent and making a full-attack action with a longbow or shortbow (including composite bows), you may choose to make a melee attack against that opponent with a drawn arrow rather than firing it. If the attack hits—whether or not it does damage—your target is pushed back 5 feet away from you. You can then fire arrows from your bow normally, at the original target, or at another target within range. This melee attack replaces the extra attack from Rapid Shot, and all of your attack rolls for the round (the melee attack and the ranged attacks) take a –2 penalty. If your initial attack leaves you with no enemies threatening you, you can make the subsequent ranged attack or attacks without provoking attacks of opportunity


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Ilja wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not all Light weapons require hands.

Those weapons, that specify this, need no hands to attack, wield, or threaten with.

Of course, specific overrides general. The exceptions I know of are barbazu beard and boulder helmet, though there might be more. Spiked armor and blade boot are not exceptions though.

Why are the Boot Blades not?

What hand do I wield a Boot Blade in?

Your boot hand.

Duh!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

From PRD:

Bayonet: Bayonets are close combat weapons designed to fit into the grooves or muzzles of crossbows and firearms. They allow you to make melee attacks with these weapons but render them temporarily useless as ranged weapons. Attaching or removing a bayonet is a move action.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Now that I have had a long time to think about this, I really don't want a FAQ on this.

Not specifically allowed, or disallowed, and left up to the DM.

This one, I believe, belongs there.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
... even if you did somehow surmount the Sisyphean task...

For the win, MrTs....

@Cayzle: I don't quite get your continued objection. In your last post, you say you would allow (as DM) someone to use a longspear as an improvised weapon. Very obviously the only rules that would cover that action would be the improvised weapon rules. You would probably apply them to the letter exactly how we have interpreted them through this entire thread. How is that not RAW???


Nice one purple, maybe it is time for the bludgeon stock!

Or, you know, the lengths of hard wood that exist on a range of weapons.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
If you are going to keep using your feeling that we need to respect the MAJESTY!! and AUTHORITY!!! of the intent of the rules designers as evidence that your subjective reading of the rules is "correct", then yes, I'm going to continue to "deflect" the conversation by directly challenging your claim that such authority even exists. That's like... basic argumentation theory. I get to challenge ALL your arguments and assumptions, not just the ones you want to talk about.

No you do not get to challenge ALL assumptions. The basic assumption of this forum is that it is to discuss the RULES. Hence the name Rules Questions. It is a place to request answers from other players and from the developers both in the forum and via the FAQ system.

You have argued that developer statements don't matter and you don't feel any need to accept them. The rules themselves are nothing more than developer statements on how things work. Therefore, you don't feel the need to accept those either, a fact which you have actually stated. However, if no one feels the need to accept the rules then it becomes impossible to come to a definitive answer on any rules question. So for those like you this forum is useless because you aren't looking for an answer to a question because no answer is possible.

You have stated that you feel the need for dev input and definitive answers to rules questions is ruining the game and you want to convince people to get away from that. That my friend is questioning other people's play style. You don't like that we are here trying to determine exactly what the rules say and what the developers intend. If that is the case go to the homebrew/house rule forum. Talk to the devs about creating a forum gaming philosophy.

Malachi's original post makes it clear he was seeking a developer answer to this question and repeatedly asked people to press the FAQ button to help him get that answer. When a questioner is seeking an answer from the developers then developer input does indeed matter. You might not care about that input but the rest of us do and your arguments that developer input means nothing are off topic.

1,601 to 1,650 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