| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
#1. Is there a rule that specifically prohibits using a longspear as an improvised staff or great club?
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
No, that only says that "objects not crafted to be weapons" be used as improvised weapons. It doesn't say anything about objects that are weapons.
#2. "But, wait," you say, "there's no rule that says a dead character can't get up and start walking around either!" That's perfectly true. So, as the dev's have frequently told us is not only necessary, but absolutely essential to any reading of the rules, let's read them through with the lenses of common sense.
Is there anything sensibly preventing a character from doing this? No. Could someone physically wielding a longspear actually do this? Yes.
Seems to pass the common sense test, to me.
#3. Balance issue? Pass. Come on. Seriously?
I inadvertently started this debate when I asked a series of questions challenging several definitions of the term "wielding" that were being considered in another thread. From that point to this one, I still cannot fathom why anyone has an objection to this.
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
No, because when you use an axe as an axe then you're not improvising with it. Now, if your axe had only one sharpened edge and you hit someone with the other side of it, you are no longer using the axe as an axe; why? Because you can clearly see on the weapon chart that an axe deals slashing damage, not bludgeoning - yet hitting someone with a blunt object is going to deal bludgeoning damage, not slashing.
Two very straightforward questions, Democratus:
1. In reality - not in the game - can you take a pole and hit someone with it? Simple yes or no question.
2. Again in reality, if you take that pole and then you affix a metal point to the end, can you still hit someone with the pole part of it? Yes or no.
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
False Dichotomy.
A weapon in designed, balanced, and trained with to be used in a particular manner. For a long spear that means the pointy end goes into the bad guy 10ft away. If you find yourself in a situation where you are holding a 10ft pole at the end and need to hit someone next to you then you use the short end as an improvised weapon. If that 10ft pole has a pointy end on the other side that you usually stick into bad guys that doesn't change anything about the scenario.
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
False Dichotomy.
A weapon in designed, balanced, and trained with to be used in a particular manner. For a long spear that means the pointy end goes into the bad guy 10ft away. If you find yourself in a situation where you are holding a 10ft pole at the end and need to hit someone next to you then you use the short end as an improvised weapon. If that 10ft pole has a pointy end on the other side that you usually stick into bad guys that doesn't change anything about the scenario.
It's a false Dichotomy in the real world but not in Pathfinder.
A weapon is an object. A portion of a weapon is not an object. A Spear is an object in PF. "This bit of the spear right here" is not an object.
Objects "not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rule. This is not the case with a Spear object, as it has an entry in the Weapons section.
This will be awesome for concealing weapons. I'll take my +4 spear, cut the tip off (I'll deal with the Broken condition if I have to), and carry it right into the king's throne room, using it as a walking staff! Then when I smack the king with it and it pierces straight through his body, no one will ever suspect me since I was just carrying a blunt, non-pointed stick!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
False Dichotomy.
A weapon in designed, balanced, and trained with to be used in a particular manner. For a long spear that means the pointy end goes into the bad guy 10ft away. If you find yourself in a situation where you are holding a 10ft pole at the end and need to hit someone next to you then you use the short end as an improvised weapon. If that 10ft pole has a pointy end on the other side that you usually stick into bad guys that doesn't change anything about the scenario.
It's a false Dichotomy in the real world but not in Pathfinder.
A weapon is an object. A portion of a weapon is not an object. A Spear is an object in PF. "This bit of the spear right here" is not an object.
Objects "not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rule. This is not the case with a Spear object, as it has an entry in the Weapons section.
The rules simply are not that strict. They're not meant to be.
We do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication.
While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstance; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's some weird logic going on here.
If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon?
Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies.
Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
False Dichotomy.
A weapon in designed, balanced, and trained with to be used in a particular manner. For a long spear that means the pointy end goes into the bad guy 10ft away. If you find yourself in a situation where you are holding a 10ft pole at the end and need to hit someone next to you then you use the short end as an improvised weapon. If that 10ft pole has a pointy end on the other side that you usually stick into bad guys that doesn't change anything about the scenario.
It's a false Dichotomy in the real world but not in Pathfinder.
A weapon is an object. A portion of a weapon is not an object. A Spear is an object in PF. "This bit of the spear right here" is not an object.
Objects "not crafted to be weapons" use the improvised weapons rule. This is not the case with a Spear object, as it has an entry in the Weapons section.
If you pick up a weapon with which you are not proficient, like a spiked chain, and try to wield it, you take a -4 penalty to attack. This is because you don't know how to effectively use the weapon.
If you pick up a non-weapon object, like a length of chain, and use it as an improvised weapon, you take a -4 penalty to attack. It doesn't matter whether you could use the weapon it most resembles or not.
If you try to use a weapon, like a spiked chain, to do non-lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty to attack. This is because you are trying to use the weapon in a way that it is not intended to be used.
The rules make a concession for using weapons you are not familiar with. They make a concession for using an object not designed to be a weapon. They make a concession for using a weapon in way it was not intended to be used. And there is no strict prohibition against using an object that is a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Is it really that hard to extrapolate from the rules, that using a longspear as an ineffective, improvised non-reach club is allowed?
Extrapolation is fine. I've made similar rulings at my table.
Just recognize that such extrapolations are house rules and now RAW.
Extrapolation is fine. I've made similar rulings at my table.
Just recognize that such extrapolations are house rules and now RAW.
Everything not explicitly prescribed for in the game is a house rule. The game is meant to be played with house rules. House rules are RAW. RAW are house rules. Using common sense is designer intended. Using house rules is designer intended.
If you parse the rules and come up with, "the character can take a 10ft pole and hit someone bluntly with the side, but the character CANNOT pickup a spear and hit someone bluntly with the side" then YOU ARE READING THE RULES WRONG.
If you parse the rules and come up with, "the character can take a 10ft pole and hit someone bluntly with the side, but the character CANNOT pickup a spear and hit someone bluntly with the side" then YOU ARE READING THE RULES WRONG.
Exactly this, which I have restated several times on this page (while being ignored).
If that IS truly what is being argued - that putting a pointy tip on an 8-foot long pole forever bars you from hitting someone with the pole (or, more nonsensically, that doing so would cause the same amount and type of damage as stabbing them with the pointy end) - then it's a complete violation of common sense and therefore simply is not RAW.
That's not to say that the game is free of rules that result in a lack of realism and seem to defy common sense, but those rules tend to be very specific and can be chalked up to "unrealistic for balance purposes", but an interpretation of a rule that, upon examination, serves no real balance purposes and that is grossly unrealistic, should always be a warning sign that the interpretation may not be accurate RAW.
Everything not explicitly prescribed for in the game is a house rule. The game is meant to be played with house rules.Extrapolation is fine. I've made similar rulings at my table.
Just recognize that such extrapolations are house rules and now RAW.
Exactly so. There's the rules in the book, and any additions or changes to these are house rules.
Using common sense is designer intended.
Quite the contrary. There are times when the designers themselves have come on to the boards and clarified that some rules which make no common sense are exactly as they intended them to be.
If you parse the rules and come up with, "the character can take a 10ft pole and hit someone bluntly with the side, but the character CANNOT pickup a spear and hit someone bluntly with the side" then YOU ARE READING THE RULES WRONG.
Reading the rules just fine. And then house ruling the things that I don't like or that don't make sense to me.
Quite the contrary. There are times when the designers themselves have come on to the boards and clarified that some rules which make no common sense are exactly as they intended them to be.
Actually, it's not contrary at all.
The GENERAL rule is that the designers have said we should read and interpret all rules with common sense engaged. Jason, Sean, and Stephen have all said that at various times, in various forms.
The SPECIFIC rule is that in some cases, for purposes of balance, the rules must take an approach that is nonsensical when compared to reality.
The limited, specific instances where balance overrides common sense does not mean we should interpret via pedantry rather than common sense.
In the case of Reach weapons, there may be a need to disallow using them in a fashion that lets you attack adjacent creatures. It may be a necessary kludge for balance purposes.
But to state that the reason for it is because IN GENERAL the improvised weapon rules cannot be applied to weapons used in an improvised fashion serves no balance purpose and leads to ridiculous, purposeless outcomes. Therefore, such an interpretation should be viewed as suspect and most likely not RAW\RAI.
Quite the contrary. There are times when the designers themselves have come on to the boards and clarified that some rules which make no common sense are exactly as they intended them to be.Actually, it's not contrary at all.
The GENERAL rule is that the designers have said we should read and interpret all rules with common sense engaged. Jason, Sean, and Stephen have all said that at various times, in various forms.
The SPECIFIC rule is that in some cases, for purposes of balance, the rules must take an approach that is nonsensical when compared to reality.
The limited, specific instances where balance overrides common sense does not mean we should interpret via pedantry rather than common sense.
In the case of Reach weapons, there may be a need to disallow using them in a fashion that lets you attack adjacent creatures. It may be a necessary kludge for balance purposes.
But to state that the reason for it is because IN GENERAL the improvised weapon rules cannot be applied to weapons used in an improvised fashion serves no balance purpose and leads to ridiculous, purposeless outcomes. Therefore, such an interpretation should be viewed as suspect and most likely not RAW\RAI.
Neither ridiculous nor purposeless. Understanding the RAW is the first step in deciding where to apply your own house rules. When rules crop up that you don't like, apply house rules as you like.
RAW is often counter-intuitive as can be read both in the rules and in statements by the designers. An example close to the current topic is the inability of a reach weapon to attack diagonally two squares away.
You can do what you like with the case of using a portion of a weapon as an improvised weapon, and that's your prerogative. But it isn't RAW.
At the penalty of losing all weapon enhancement bonuses, material bonuses, feat bonuses, and taking a -4 penalty for an improvised weapon.
ALSO, as has been point out up the thread, you could do the SAME THING with a gauntlet without the penalties. This is not a question of balance. This is a question of people feeling funny in their DM parts.
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
Nu uh! It is a shaft.
I'm just talkin bout shaft.
And why do you claim that this is different from doing it with a crossbow, by the rules?
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
Are there game stats for making a melee attack with that weapon?
If no, go to the improvised weapon rules.
If yes, then use them!
Are there game stats for making a melee attack with that weapon on an adjacent target?
If no, go to the improvised rules.
If yes, then use them!
BBT: according to the rules, can a reach weapon attack an adjacent creature, yes or no?No.
When you attack with the shaft of a Longspear, you are not attacking with a reach weapon.
Yes you are!
What are you attacking him with?
That object in your hand.
What is the name of that object?
It's a longspear.
Nu uh! It is a shaft.
I'm just talkin bout shaft.
I can dig it.
Anyone with martial arts training, or who has played hockey or lacrosse knows how devastating a simple cross-check can be.
Every polearm ever invented has entire combat disciplines dedicated to how to fight with a long pole when an enemy gets close. It isn't even that difficult. Most variants can be broken down to "bash, trip, groundstab"
Using a weapon in odd ways doesn't really invalidate the weapon itself. It's still a weapon.
Most axes have hammers or spikes on the back end. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most spears have weighted counterbalances on the back end designed for bashing. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most swords have spiked or blunted pommels designed to bash in close combat. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most crossbows and guns were designed so that the stocks could be used as bludgeoning weapons should an enemy get too close. This is not represented in the rules at all.
In fact, using any of these normal features of real weapons would be classified under the "improvised weapon" rules (which some people think shouldn't actually cover non-standard uses of weapons).
So my question is this:
If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?
Once you answer that one, maybe you can tackle the mechanics behind a fighter going for a Mordschlag...
Let us just say, I flip the Longspear around, and have the blunt end sticking out.
I attack with it.
Now, what happens, rules-wise?
This could be the fluff for dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon? (normally a -4 penalty)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us just say, I flip the Longspear around, and have the blunt end sticking out.
I attack with it.
Now, what happens, rules-wise?
Clearly you simply waste your action because your character is forbidden from doing this.
Yep, I'm going to go with that. Ya know, because that makes sense to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone with martial arts training, or who has played hockey or lacrosse knows how devastating a simple cross-check can be.
Every polearm ever invented has entire combat disciplines dedicated to how to fight with a long pole when an enemy gets close. It isn't even that difficult. Most variants can be broken down to "bash, trip, groundstab"
Using a weapon in odd ways doesn't really invalidate the weapon itself. It's still a weapon.
Most axes have hammers or spikes on the back end. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most spears have weighted counterbalances on the back end designed for bashing. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most swords have spiked or blunted pommels designed to bash in close combat. This is not represented in the rules at all.
Most crossbows and guns were designed so that the stocks could be used as bludgeoning weapons should an enemy get too close. This is not represented in the rules at all.In fact, using any of these normal features of real weapons would be classified under the "improvised weapon" rules (which some people think shouldn't actually cover non-standard uses of weapons).
So my question is this:
If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?
Once you answer that one, maybe you can tackle the mechanics behind a fighter going for a Mordschlag...
Well, since this thread is not about real life longspear fighting, we have to go with what the rules say.
When you use a longspear in melee, you use the stats for that weapon, including all special qualities such as Reach.
The rules allow you to strike for non-lethal damage at a -4 penalty, and although this may be conceptualised as attacking with 'the flat of the blade', or the shaft, or....to be honest, it doesn't matter how you visualise it, it still does piercing damage when doing non-lethal damage, and it still has reach.
Also, as a melee weapon without a ranged increment, the rules allow you to throw it (as a full-round action) at -4 to attack and with a range increment of 10-feet.
That is what the rules have to say about using a longspear, and what the rules say is the subject of this thread.
Well, since this thread is not about real life longspear fighting, we have to go with what the rules say.
When you use a longspear in melee, you use the stats for that weapon, including all special qualities such as Reach.
The rules allow you to strike for non-lethal damage at a -4 penalty, and although this may be conceptualised as attacking with 'the flat of the blade', or the shaft, or....to be honest, it doesn't matter how you visualise it, it still does piercing damage when doing non-lethal damage, and it still has reach.
Also, as a melee weapon without a ranged increment, the rules allow you to throw it (as a full-round action) at -4 to attack and with a range increment of 10-feet.
That is what the rules have to say about using a longspear, and what the rules say is the subject of this thread.
He wasn't talking about a 'real life' anything... there are no such thing as "low-level spearman" in real life. Of course it was a game reference...
The question was
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"
What is your RAW answer to that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think by RAW, there is no such thing as the 'back end of a spear'. A spear is an indivisible item. It can gain the 'broken' condition but it has not component parts and cannot be dismantled.
I think by RAW, there is no such thing as the 'back end of a spear'. A spear is an indivisible item. It can gain the 'broken' condition but it has not component parts and cannot be dismantled.
Sounds like someone is playing a video game and not a tabletop rpg.
|
|
I think by RAW, there is no such thing as the 'back end of a spear'. A spear is an indivisible item. It can gain the 'broken' condition but it has not component parts and cannot be dismantled.
Ninja'd!
According to the rules, you can use it normally, or for non-lethal, or to throw.
So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"
Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.
I think by RAW, either we have to assume only listed objects exist (in which case societ is preety nonfunctional) or we have to assume most objects that should reasonably exist, exists.
The rules are silent on whether parts of an object is an object itself, or whether weapons (as a whole) are considered one sole object. We can extrapolate either way on both these issues, but one way leads to incredibly weird stuff and the other does not.
So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.
Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false.
|
|
Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false.So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.
In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?
|
|
I think by RAW, either we have to assume only listed objects exist (in which case societ is preety nonfunctional) or we have to assume most objects that should reasonably exist, exists.
Not at all. Objects exist, no problem. We can break down the game rules for objects into two types: weapons, and non-weapon objects.
Objects designed as weapons have game stats for the ways in which the objects are designed to attack (melee/thrown/projectile/ammunition).
Therefore, if you want to attack with a weapon, use the rules for that weapon.
If an object is not designed as a weapon, in order to attack with it you need the improvised weapons rule to get the game mechanics you need.
A weapon already has the game mechanics you need. There is no general rule allowing you to ignore them, except as indicated in the text (non-lethal/throwing a melee weapon/stabbing with arrows). If the text doesn't say you can, then you can't. This is how the rules work. We can't assume that if the rules don't specifically forbid it then it is allowed. Otherwise, barbarians could cast spells and wizards could Rage.
The rules are silent on whether parts of an object is an object itself, or whether weapons (as a whole) are considered one sole object. We can extrapolate either way on both these issues, but one way leads to incredibly weird stuff and the other does not.
Where the rules state 'this is how you use weapons', you can't ignore them and say, 'I'm going to use mine in another way, one that the rules fail to say that I can't!'
If the rules tell you how to use a weapon as one object, but don't tell you how to use parts of a weapon as completely different objects, then that's because the rules don't allow it.
We know this, not only because that's how the rules work in general, but also because there are weapons which allow you to use different parts as if they had their own stats: Double weapons.
If the rules say it's a Double weapon, then you can attack with different (defined) parts of that weapon.
If the rules don't say it's a Double weapon, it isn't! And you can't use different parts of it.
In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false.So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.
Nothing forbids attacking with the wrong side of a weapon. Thus "you can't" is the wrong answer. Not only do the rules not forbid it, common sense allows for it. Easily so, in fact, it is an affront to common sense or any semblance of realism to say "you can't".
If "you can't" is the right answer, the game if broken. Since the game is not broken, "you can't" isn't the right answer.
Blunt sticks do bludgeoning damage. Blunt sticks swinging only a couple feet from you don't have reach. Thus "attack normally, visualizing it any way you want; but it still has reach" is also the wrong answer.
The 'best right answer' we have available to us is found in 'Improvised Weapons'. By comparing the object we are using as a weapon to the existing weapons table, we can find a close approximation, apply the related penalties for improvised weapons, and quickly and simply resolve the attack.
Since the shaft of a spear itself is not designed to be used as a weapon, it is thus an improvised weapon. When attacking with the shaft, you are not attacking with the weapon as a spear. But the shaft resembles other entries on the weapon table, such as a club, or one side of a quarterstaff. That is easy enough to resolve.
A resolution is required for the action "Attack with the shaft of my longspear at an adjacent opponent". The answer cannot be "you can't". And the answer cannot be "attack normally, visualizing it any way you want; but it still has reach".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A weapon already has the game mechanics you need. There is no general rule allowing you to ignore them, except as indicated in the text (non-lethal/throwing a melee weapon/stabbing with arrows). If the text doesn't say you can, then you can't. This is how the rules work. We can't assume that if the rules don't specifically forbid it then it is allowed. Otherwise, barbarians could cast spells and wizards could Rage.
So...
I have this character that really wants to sit down in a chair. But... my DM keeps telling me that he can't.
It is so frustrating. He's all like... "There are no such things as chairs in Pathfinder and there is no defined rules for sitting either".
Then, I was going to have my character take a bath and change clothes, but he was like "Nope, fraid not. You can have clothes, but there aren't any rules for taking them off and putting them on. You just can't do it. Oh and baths don't exist since there isn't any listed in the equipment chapter".
So I was like... "Fine!" my character throws his hands up and storms off in frustration... but he was like "Nope, sorry again, there is no action for throwing your hands up, or being frustrated... you can't do it. Thems the rules bro".
Oh wait, no... that never happened. My DM isn't an unthinking video game server.
Common sense. Holy mother of god...common sense. A character can perform any reasonable action whether it is listed in the text of the book or not.
We must use common sense to interpret the rules in any sensible manner. The game is unplayable in the manner you have just described.
Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/fighter.h tml
Spinning Lance (Ex): At 7th level, a dragoon may alternate attacks with the piercing head of his lance with reach, or with the butt end (treat as a club) against adjacent targets. Unlike a double weapon, the masterwork quality and magical special abilities apply to both ends of the lance, except for those weapon special abilities that apply only to edged weapons. This ability replaces armor training 2.
The above quotation suggests that a longspear can be used like a double weapon - using the shaft as a club for the purposes of mechanics.
Remy balster: word.
Ps, wizards can rage. Its a second level spelll AFAIK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false.So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.Nothing forbids attacking with the wrong side of a weapon. Thus "you can't" is the wrong answer. Not only do the rules not forbid it, common sense allows for it. Easily so, in fact, it is an affront to common sense or any semblance of realism to say "you can't".
If "you can't" is the right answer, the game if broken. Since the game is not broken, "you can't" isn't the right answer.
Rules are permissive. They list things that you can do. Wizards can cast spells. Barbarians can rage.
The rules don't say that my Dwarf can't grow tentacles from his eye sockets that fire lasers.
That doesn't mean that the game is broken unless I can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also don't say you can go to the bathroom, yet amazingly you still can.In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false.So, to answer the question:-
"If weapons can't be used in any way other than their basic, primary function, and are specifically exempted from the improvised weapon rules, how else could a normal, low level spearman strike with the back end of a spear?"Answer: either 'you can't', or 'attack normally, visualising it any way you want; but it still has reach'.Nothing forbids attacking with the wrong side of a weapon. Thus "you can't" is the wrong answer. Not only do the rules not forbid it, common sense allows for it. Easily so, in fact, it is an affront to common sense or any semblance of realism to say "you can't".
If "you can't" is the right answer, the game if broken. Since the game is not broken, "you can't" isn't the right answer.
Rules are permissive. They list things that you can do. Wizards can cast spells. Barbarians can rage.
The rules don't say that my Dwarf can't grow tentacles from his eye sockets that fire lasers.
That doesn't mean that the game is broken unless I can.
That would be a house rule, just like the tentacle thing. One, of course, is far more reasonable than the other. But they are still both house rules.
It's up to a DM to decide what additions, flourishes, and changes will be made at the table to enable verisimilitude for all the players. This has been the way of things since the beginning.
But when talking about the rules, you need to go by what is written in the book. Not what isn't written there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A weapon already has the game mechanics you need. There is no general rule allowing you to ignore them, except as indicated in the text (non-lethal/throwing a melee weapon/stabbing with arrows). If the text doesn't say you can, then you can't. This is how the rules work. We can't assume that if the rules don't specifically forbid it then it is allowed. Otherwise, barbarians could cast spells and wizards could Rage.So...
I have this character that really wants to sit down in a chair. But... my DM keeps telling me that he can't.
It is so frustrating. He's all like... "There are no such things as chairs in Pathfinder and there is no defined rules for sitting either".
Then, I was going to have my character take a bath and change clothes, but he was like "Nope, fraid not. You can have clothes, but there aren't any rules for taking them off and putting them on. You just can't do it. Oh and baths don't exist since there isn't any listed in the equipment chapter".
So I was like... "Fine!" my character throws his hands up and storms off in frustration... but he was like "Nope, sorry again, there is no action for throwing your hands up, or being frustrated... you can't do it. Thems the rules bro".
Oh wait, no... that never happened. My DM isn't an unthinking video game server.
Common sense. Holy mother of god...common sense. A character can perform any reasonable action whether it is listed in the text of the book or not.
We must use common sense to interpret the rules in any sensible manner. The game is unplayable in the manner you have just described.
In the absence of any rules for sitting down, the DM may make up any he feels are appropriate, or (more likely) just narrate it as it is not interesting or difficult or opposed.
If there were no rules for using weapons, then the DM would have to invent his own. This is not the case! The weapon/combat rules are the most extensive in the game, and are comprehensive. They tell you how to use weapons, and that's how you use them. There are no rules that allow you to ignore them.
There are rules for using non-weapon objects to attack, but none for using weapons as improvised weapons. In this comprehensive rule system, this means that the rules written are the only way the rules allow.
There are rules for attacking with different parts of the same weapon, namely: Double weapons. If a weapon has the Double quality you may attack with different (defined) parts of it. If it is not a Double weapon, then you cannot.
|
|
A resolution is required for the action "Attack with the shaft of my longspear at an adjacent opponent". The answer cannot be "you can't". And the answer cannot be "attack normally, visualizing it any way you want; but it still has reach".
The answer cannot be 'you can't', eh?
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
I beg to differ. ('No rules quotes', eh?)
The actual weapon you are using has that very 'you can't' written into the rules.
The rules define using a longspear. They do not define it as a Double weapon, therefore you can't attack with different parts of it and stay within the rules.
|
|
Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.
The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
|
|
The above quotation suggests that a longspear can be used like a double weapon - using the shaft as a club for the purposes of mechanics.
I'm not sure if you realise that your quote supports me or not. : )
There are some special abilities granted by feats, archetypes and/or prestige classes that do allow you to use reach weapons differently. That's the point! If you have the special ability this let's you do something that those without the special ability cannot. They wouldn't be special if anyone could do it without a special ability!
Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them.The burden of proof is on you.
No rules system should need to define what the rules aren't!
The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.
We do expect a modicum of common sense
Your slavish adherence to a ridiculous point is not the intention of the game and not the intention of the designers. THIS MAKES YOU WRONG. The rules do not supersede the game itself, the rules do not supersede the designers.
If you say you can take a long pole in pathfinder and swing it like a club and hit something bluntly with the side, but once you attach a pointy bit at the end of the pole you can no longer hit something bluntly with the side then YOU ARE READING THE RULES WRONG. Remember this?
We do expect a modicum of common senseHe goes on to say
While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicated circumstances; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.
Stop being that guy.