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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 1,668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

@Remy

Because, if you use the Improvised weapon rules to get around not being able to attack adjacent enemies (which is the penalty that balances out the benefits of using a reach weapon), then one feat invalidates several class features/special abilities/exotic weapon abilities.

And, the OP admitted that he saw the restriction as valid, and is trying to loophole around it.

Except, don't those class features actually provide a better attack than the improvised weapon version would?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.

Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.

You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate and effective tactic. The example of the tower shield is a very close match to the example of the longspear. It seems absurd because it is, and that should be a clue!

Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.

Your shield example was heavily flawed.

It was absurd because it was absurd. And it wasn't representative of fighting with the shaft of a longspear in any way. So no, it isn't "a very close match". It isn't any kind of match at all.

We aren't talking about making a shield bash. We aren’t talking about a shaft magically being some other weapon either.

Your shield example seemed to imply you wanted to make a shield bash with the shield in your shield. But there isn't a shield in the tower shield...

And there is a shaft on the spear.

Silver Crusade

RDM42 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.

Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.

You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate and effective tactic. The example of the tower shield is a very close match to the example of the longspear. It seems absurd because it is, and that should be a clue!

Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.

No. The middle of the shield has no distinct and separate identity that can be pointed out. The shaft of the spear does.

More apt would be the hilt of a sword, the pommel of a sword and the blade of a sword all of which are distinct and separate parts.

...but are not distinct and separate non-weapon objects, and thus cannot be used to make a melee attack as if it didn't have the stats of the whole sword.

Unless you have a written rule which says you can, such as a feat or the special ability of an archetype or the like.

Without a written rule allowing you to do so, you are giving yourself a special ability that you do not possess, justifying yourself with 'the rules don't say I can't therefore I can'.

The rules don't work that way. They tell you what you can do, rules-wise. They don't need to write down all the things you can't do. such a rulebook would be infinitely large.

Grand Lodge

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.

Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.

You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate and effective tactic. The example of the tower shield is a very close match to the example of the longspear. It seems absurd because it is, and that should be a clue!

Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.

No. The middle of the shield has no distinct and separate identity that can be pointed out. The shaft of the spear does.

More apt would be the hilt of a sword, the pommel of a sword and the blade of a sword all of which are distinct and separate parts.

...but are not distinct and separate non-weapon objects, and thus cannot be used to make a melee attack as if it didn't have the stats of the whole sword.

Unless you have a written rule which says you can, such as a feat or the special ability of an archetype or the like.

Without a written rule allowing you to do so, you are giving yourself a special ability that you do not possess, justifying yourself with 'the rules don't say I can't therefore I can'.

The rules don't work that way. They tell you what you can do, rules-wise. They don't need to write down all the things you can't do. such a rulebook would be infinitely large.

Except you keep referring to a non written rule as to what is defined as an object.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

PFS cannot use houserules.

Can a PC not poop in PFS?

You realize that the rule cannot cover every single thing ever.

This does not mean those things do not exist, and cannot be done.

This does not mean everything not covered in the rules is a houserule.

To expect every situation, ever, to be covered, is impossible.

Even the idea is fundamentally flawed.

The game has no rules for pooping, so narrate/rule it how you like. If the game did have those rules, you'd be expected to follow them in PFS.

The rules do have rules for weapon and non-weapon attacks. PFS expects you to follow them.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Ilja wrote:


Quote:


The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
Is "object" a game term? If yes, then prove it. If no, then shafts are objects.
Longspears have weapon stats, parts of longspears do not. Therefore, RAW, you can attack with a longspear, but not with parts of a longspear as if those parts were not a longspear.

Again, you are just making this up.

Why can you not attack with the shaft? The shaft is an object whether you like it or not.

This last post of yours is simply a non sequitur.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

On the contrary; all the game mechanics claims I'm making are simply the rules of how to use longspears, greatswords, arrows, et al. The game rules tell you how to use these.

If there are rules which allow you to use weapons in any other way, such as feats/special abilities, or exceptions in the text itself, use them.

If there is no written way to use a weapon differently, then RAW you can't.

The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.

This thread is about what the rules actually say. Not about 'they don't say I can't so I can'. The rules don't work that way, and you know it.

That has been solved for you. Use the shaft to attack.

The shaft of a spear is indeed an object. It isn't a weapon. Improvised Weapon rules apply.

Unless of course you have some RAW based counter argument that precluded shafts as objects... this argument is pretty well over.

The rules tell you how to use a longspear. To use it in another way you need a rule allowing it.

The rules do not need a rule banning spear shafts as weapons. You need a rule allowing it.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The game has no rules for pooping, so narrate/rule it how you like. If the game did have those rules, you'd be expected to follow them in PFS.

The rules do have rules for weapon and non-weapon attacks. PFS expects you to follow them.

To use the Improvised Weapon rules, all we must do is;

Attack with an object that is not a predefined weapon.

A shaft is not a predefined weapon.

Thus, we use the improvised weapon rules when we attack with a shaft.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The rules tell you how to use a longspear. To use it in another way you need a rule allowing it.

The rules do not need a rule banning spear shafts as weapons. You need a rule allowing it.

WE HAVE THAT RULE!

Improvised Weapons!

Silver Crusade

Ilja wrote:


Quote:
Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.

so even if they're "absurd", they are what they are. Stop using faulty logic then.

And again, is "object" a game term?

This is a red herring. My argument doesn't rest on the definition of 'object' but on the game mechanics for using weapons. These are defined.

Silver Crusade

RDM42 wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

@Remy

Because, if you use the Improvised weapon rules to get around not being able to attack adjacent enemies (which is the penalty that balances out the benefits of using a reach weapon), then one feat invalidates several class features/special abilities/exotic weapon abilities.

And, the OP admitted that he saw the restriction as valid, and is trying to loophole around it.

Except, don't those class features actually provide a better attack than the improvised weapon version would?

They provide rules which allow you to do something that the rules do not otherwise allow.


@RDM42

Depends on the weapon/ability.

Polearm Fighter treats it as a club, and slowly (at level 18) negates the penalty, and takes a swift to shift.

Dragoon doesn't get it until 7th, but then gets all the magical bonuses and everything with both ends.

Dorn Dergar takes a swift to switch, and is an exotic weapon (I think).

Several others are double weapons, many of them exotic.

Catch off Guard, Throw Anything negate the penalty for melee and ranged improvised weapons respectively, and have added bonuses as well.

Grand Lodge

Let's go with Reductio ad absurdum for a moment then.

Now, I hold a Boot, in each hand.

One, is an ordinary Boot, and the other, is a Boot Blade.

I can attack with the ordinary Boot, as an improvised weapon, but I cannot attack with the other Boot, because it is specifically designed to be a weapon.

This, is exactly what your stance does.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You keep using examples that are purposefully ridiculous, and trying to askew them towards being some sort of rules finagling to gain an advantage.

Hilariously enough, if you follow the improvised weapon rules, you will see that even your examples are terribly disadvantageous to those using them.

You also keep trying to support your position by trying to show a mechanical advantage gained, when there is none.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate and effective tactic. The example of the tower shield is a very close match to the example of the longspear. It seems absurd because it is, and that should be a clue!

Whether an advantage is gained or not is not really the issue. The issue remains what the rules actually are, not what some may wish them to be.

Your shield example was heavily flawed.

It was absurd because it was absurd. And it wasn't representative of fighting with the shaft of a longspear in any way. So no, it isn't "a very close match". It isn't any kind of match at all.

We aren't talking about making a shield bash. We aren’t talking about a shaft magically being some other weapon either.

Your shield example seemed to imply you wanted to make a shield bash with the shield in your shield. But there isn't a shield in the tower shield...

And there is a shaft on the spear.

Actually, according to the rules, the spear is defined and given game mechanics, but parts of the spear are not.

If the rules say that you can use different parts of a weapon as if they were not identical to the weapon as a whole, then you can. Double weapons, certain special abilities, etc.

If you lack such a rule then you lack the ability to act as if you had. You can't use a special ability you don't have, and you can't use a weapon without the Double quality as if it had that quality. Without a written special ability that let's you.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Ilja wrote:


Quote:


The burden of proof remains on you despite your attempts to shift it. If you want to use a weapon to attack, follow the rules. If you have an exception, show me that exception. If you can't, then you can't.
Is "object" a game term? If yes, then prove it. If no, then shafts are objects.
Longspears have weapon stats, parts of longspears do not. Therefore, RAW, you can attack with a longspear, but not with parts of a longspear as if those parts were not a longspear.

Again, you are just making this up.

Why can you not attack with the shaft? The shaft is an object whether you like it or not.

This last post of yours is simply a non sequitur.

I can easily post the game mechanics for using a longspear in combat.

Can you post the rules for using part of a weapon in combat as if it weren't that whole weapon?

Grand Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

There are a few that still are arguing balance.

You, also, continue to use examples that imply a balance issue.

You are just not quite so explicit.


Sarrah wrote:

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.

Lance = Yes

Longspear = ?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#_catch-off-guard

Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.

If you change your size to tiny, then your reach goes from 10 feet to 5 feet. Small characters casting reduce person, medium creatures casting either mythic reduce person or Beast Shape 4.

You can make a double weapon that is not in the book where one side is a longspear and the other side is another weapon, like a club.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The game has no rules for pooping, so narrate/rule it how you like. If the game did have those rules, you'd be expected to follow them in PFS.

The rules do have rules for weapon and non-weapon attacks. PFS expects you to follow them.

To use the Improvised Weapon rules, all we must do is;

Attack with an object that is not a predefined weapon.

A shaft is not a predefined weapon.

Thus, we use the improvised weapon rules when we attack with a shaft.

The object you're using is a spear. The rules don't differentiate different rules for different parts as if they were separate objects.

Post the rule that allows you to use parts of the longspear as if they were different objects to the whole weapon.

A longspear cannot use the rules for non-weapons, because the game defines a longspear as a weapon.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The rules tell you how to use a longspear. To use it in another way you need a rule allowing it.

The rules do not need a rule banning spear shafts as weapons. You need a rule allowing it.

WE HAVE THAT RULE!

Improvised Weapons!

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...

Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do not apply to a longspear being used to attack in melee, because that weapon and every part of it was designed to attack in melee.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, I hold a Boot, in each hand.

One, is an ordinary Boot, and the other, is a Boot Blade.

I can attack with the ordinary Boot, as an improvised weapon, but I cannot attack with the other Boot, because it is specifically designed to be a weapon.

Then attack with it as a weapon.


EXACTLY! The shaft of the longspear is not crafted to be a weapon.

Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do apply to a longspear being used to attack in melee as an improvised weapon.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

There are a few that still are arguing balance.

You, also, continue to use examples that imply a balance issue.

You are just not quite so explicit.

The examples I give may illustrate that mis-using these rules can lead to balance issues, but the purpose of this thread remains on what the rules actually are, balance or not, common sense or not.

Silver Crusade

Sarrah wrote:
Sarrah wrote:

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.

Lance = Yes

Longspear = ?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#_catch-off-guard

Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.

If you change your size to tiny, then your reach goes from 10 feet to 5 feet. Small characters casting reduce person, medium creatures casting either mythic reduce person or Beast Shape 4.

You can make a double weapon that is not in the book where one side is a longspear and the other side is another weapon, like a club.

Yes...if the rules say you can.

Grand Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, I hold a Boot, in each hand.

One, is an ordinary Boot, and the other, is a Boot Blade.

I can attack with the ordinary Boot, as an improvised weapon, but I cannot attack with the other Boot, because it is specifically designed to be a weapon.

Then attack with it as a weapon.

You cannot do so, as the Boot is not on the foot.

Holding the Boot in your hand, and attacking with it, is using it in an improvised fashion.

Grand Lodge

This may give some more insight:

Gamemastery Guide Page.231 wrote:

Often the appearance of a rule works just as well as a rule.

For a GM faced with a situation for which there seems to be
no obvious reference in the game’s rules, yet who also lacks
the time or interest needed to create a new subsystem,
good storytelling, even-handed arbitration, and a bit
of deception can typically solve the problem and keep a
game moving along. When need for a new rules element
unexpectedly comes up mid-game, that’s rarely the time to
stop and begin designing new rules. While you can easily
make a few cosmetic changes to existing rules and stat
blocks if you know of elements that might serve as good
stand-ins, sometimes players come up with plans no rules
system could account for. Say a PC wishes to run, leap off
a cliff, and attack a dragon soaring past, digging in his
axe to maintain a hold on the soaring beast. While rules
exist for elements of the action, sticking and hanging
onto a weapon embedded in another creature is not part of
the game system. Yet rather than denying a character the
opportunity to attempt a heroic feat, you could easily rely
on the results of the rules you do know to arbitrate those
you don’t. For example, if the same character rolls high
on his Acrobatics skill check and significantly exceeds his
target’s AC with his attack, you could declare that her plan
works and she’s now being dragged along by the dragon.
Alternatively, if the PC botches either roll, she might be
in for a long fall. Either way, interpreting existing rules in
an unconventional way, or even just calling for an ability
check to suggest either a good or poor result, can save you
from paging through volumes of rules trying to find a
nonexistent perfect fit. And with some shuff ling of notes
and hidden dice roles, no player should be the wiser to
such an improvised ruling.


All I gotta say is 'who in their right mind would two-hand a normal (d4 small/d6 medium) club?'

...and they'd need to take a feat to not get the -4 to attack
...and they would not get the masterwork or magical qualities of their longspear


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

But... you're not arguing from RAW. That is what many people are trying to show you.

You're making a lot of things up as you go here mate.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The rules tell you how to use a longspear. To use it in another way you need a rule allowing it.

The rules do not need a rule banning spear shafts as weapons. You need a rule allowing it.

WE HAVE THAT RULE!

Improvised Weapons!

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do not apply to a longspear being used to attack in melee, because that weapon and every part of it was designed to attack in melee.

So then... your stance is that:

If I am crafting a longspear, but haven't finished yet...and have only thus far managed to complete the shaft portion of the weapon... That it is impossible for me to use this shaft at all, in any way as a weapon to fight with... ever. The rules would forbid me from wielding it offensively?

Because it isn’t yet a longspear, so it doesn’t have longspear weapon mechanics. But… according to you I cannot use just this shaft by itself either because “Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do not apply”…

So the rules absolutely forbid me from hitting a dude with this big stick?

That seems to be what you are saying.

And if you are indeed saying that, you have come to 'the wrong conclusion'.

Silver Crusade

Sarrah wrote:

EXACTLY! The shaft of the longspear is not crafted to be a weapon.

Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do apply to a longspear being used to attack in melee as an improvised weapon.

When you attack with a weapon, only the striking surface/edge/point is actually making contact with the foe. Parts of the weapon do not make such contact and are not the parts that cause damage nor are the parts that cause the damage to be bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.

However, as far as the rules are concerned, you are attacking with the entire weapon, not just selected parts of it. When you are using a longspear, the point may be the part that hits but the shaft is being used as designed, whether or not that part is in contact with the target.

When you produce a rule which differs from this (Double, special abilities) you may do what that rule says you can do.

If you have no rule which says you can, then you can't. That's how the rules work.


Again, I refer to my last post as to 'why would someone do this?!?!'

But, yes, that is Rules As they are Written.

Grand Lodge

What happens when I throw a crossbow at someone?


lol

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This may give some more insight:

Gamemastery Guide Page.231 wrote:

Often the appearance of a rule works just as well as a rule.

For a GM faced with a situation for which there seems to be
no obvious reference in the game’s rules, yet who also lacks
the time or interest needed to create a new subsystem,
good storytelling, even-handed arbitration, and a bit
of deception can typically solve the problem and keep a
game moving along. When need for a new rules element
unexpectedly comes up mid-game, that’s rarely the time to
stop and begin designing new rules. While you can easily
make a few cosmetic changes to existing rules and stat
blocks if you know of elements that might serve as good
stand-ins, sometimes players come up with plans no rules
system could account for. Say a PC wishes to run, leap off
a cliff, and attack a dragon soaring past, digging in his
axe to maintain a hold on the soaring beast. While rules
exist for elements of the action, sticking and hanging
onto a weapon embedded in another creature is not part of
the game system. Yet rather than denying a character the
opportunity to attempt a heroic feat, you could easily rely
on the results of the rules you do know to arbitrate those
you don’t. For example, if the same character rolls high
on his Acrobatics skill check and significantly exceeds his
target’s AC with his attack, you could declare that her plan
works and she’s now being dragged along by the dragon.
Alternatively, if the PC botches either roll, she might be
in for a long fall. Either way, interpreting existing rules in
an unconventional way, or even just calling for an ability
check to suggest either a good or poor result, can save you
from paging through volumes of rules trying to find a
nonexistent perfect fit. And with some shuff ling of notes
and hidden dice roles, no player should be the wiser to
such an improvised ruling.

I agree with every bit of this.

But what you can't do is take whatever your ruling was on 'digging in his axe to maintain a hold on the soaring beast' and take it to the rules threads and quote it as RAW.

RAW, a reach weapon can't be used to attack an adjacent opponent. RAW, there are rules to use different parts of a weapon as if they were different weapons (Double, Spinning Lance, etc.), but if you don't have a written ability to do so, then you can't in RAW.

Suggestions on how to rule in circumstances not covered by RAW are all well and good, but are by definition not RAW. The actual rules are the purpose of this thread, not on-the-fly rulings by a DM, as worthy as those may be.

It's not as if the subject of using a reach weapon to attack an adjacent opponent is not covered by RAW therefore your DM has to make up a reasonable ruling. This case is covered by RAW, and you cannot attack an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon.

Silver Crusade

Sarrah wrote:

All I gotta say is 'who in their right mind would two-hand a normal (d4 small/d6 medium) club?'

...and they'd need to take a feat to not get the -4 to attack
...and they would not get the masterwork or magical qualities of their longspear

Under 'light weapons' you can indeed use a light weapon in two hands. You just don't gain anything by doing so.

Grand Lodge

How do the rules handle throwing a Pistol at someone?

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

But... you're not arguing from RAW. That is what many people are trying to show you.

You're making a lot of things up as you go here mate.

There are people who, in effect, are claiming that if their idea is not specifically prohibited then it must be allowed: saying that because the rules don't say you can't attack with parts of a weapon as if those parts were separate non-weapon objects, therefore you can.

But that is not how RAW works. RAW tells you how attacks with weapons work in the game. If it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

The 'made up' part is the part where people claim that you can attack with parts of a weapon. Where is that written?


Offtopic:

Improvised Weapons: 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.

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The rules tell you how to use a longspear. To use it in another way you need a rule allowing it.

The rules do not need a rule banning spear shafts as weapons. You need a rule allowing it.

WE HAVE THAT RULE!

Improvised Weapons!

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do not apply to a longspear being used to attack in melee, because that weapon and every part of it was designed to attack in melee.

So then... your stance is that:

If I am crafting a longspear, but haven't finished yet...and have only thus far managed to complete the shaft portion of the weapon... That it is impossible for me to use this shaft at all, in any way as a weapon to fight with... ever. The rules would forbid me from wielding it offensively?

Because it isn’t yet a longspear, so it doesn’t have longspear weapon mechanics. But… according to you I cannot use just this shaft by itself either because “Every part of a longspear is designed to be part of a longspear, and a longspear is a weapon. Therefore the improvised weapon rules do not apply”…

So the rules absolutely forbid me from hitting a dude with this big stick?

That seems to be what you are saying.

And if you are indeed saying that, you have come to 'the wrong conclusion'.

No-one, least of all me, is saying that raw material which will eventually be crafted into a longspear...is a longspear.

Before it is made, it isn't a weapon. The improvised weapon rules would be perfect for that.

Indeed, even a completely snapped longspear shaft is no longer a longspear. Use the improvised weapons rules.

But while it's a whole, completed, unbroken longspear you use the rules for using a whole longspear.

Grand Lodge

The mechanical evidence of how terrible this idea is has been provided.

Silver Crusade

Sarrah wrote:

Again, I refer to my last post as to 'why would someone do this?!?!'

But, yes, that is Rules As they are Written.

A club which is a light weapon for you may be used in two hands (for no benefit), but it is still a weapon, not an improvised weapon.

Grand Lodge

Well, actually, a club is an One-handed weapon.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
What happens when I throw a crossbow at someone?

I've mentioned this many times in this thread.

Neither a crossbow nor a pistol is designed to be thrown, so if you do then you use the improvised weapon rules. They are both projectile weapons, not thrown weapons. The rules fully describe each type.

What you can't do is use either as a projectile weapon and pretend it's not a projectile weapon and say that it's an improvised projectile weapon of a different type.

Unless a written rule says you can.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
The mechanical evidence of how terrible this idea is has been provided.

I'm not asking if this is a terrible idea or a good idea. I'm asking if the written rules allow it.

Grand Lodge

You only put the restriction at ranged and melee.

If a melee weapon cannot be used in an improvised fashion as a melee weapon, then a ranged weapon cannot be used in an improvised fashion as a ranged weapon.

To add a separation of thrown and projectile, is a houserule, in your current stance.

So, a crossbow is not designed to be thrown, just as a longspear is not designed to be used against adjacent opponents.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Stop trying to use some damn false example to create the illusion of a balance issue!

It has been disproved, time, and time again.

Nobody even suggested anything as stupid as trying to "improvise" a Dagger as a Pistol, or any of these other insane, illogical examples.

I'm not arguing from balance. I'm arguing from RAW. This thread is about exactly what the rules are. Once you know this, you can invent variants if you want, knowing exactly what you're changing.

But... you're not arguing from RAW. That is what many people are trying to show you.

You're making a lot of things up as you go here mate.

There are people who, in effect, are claiming that if their idea is not specifically prohibited then it must be allowed: saying that because the rules don't say you can't attack with parts of a weapon as if those parts were separate non-weapon objects, therefore you can.

But that is not how RAW works. RAW tells you how attacks with weapons work in the game. If it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

The 'made up' part is the part where people claim that you can attack with parts of a weapon. Where is that written?

But it does say you can. Again, I direct your attention to Improvised Weapons.

Improvised rules say you can attack with 'objects not crafted to be a weapon'. The shaft of a longspear is not intended to be a weapon. Thus... Improvised Weapon rules apply to attacking with the shaft of a longspear.

Nothing about that is 'made up'. Thems the rules. RAW rules.

I keep telling you... the rules say that you can do this. You can attack with pretty much anything. The Improvised Rules section tells us this.

Now... what you must do to prove your argument is show some RAW that states that part of a weapon cannot itself be an object. Because according to, ya know, physics and reality... a part of an object is an object.

So... since we know that is how that works... unless the game says it works differently...

That is all we have to go on. Otherwise we fall back into the issue of

In game terms, define an 'object'.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, actually, a club is an One-handed weapon.
Sarrah wrote:
All I gotta say is 'who in their right mind would two-hand a normal (d4 small/d6 medium) club?'

I understood her question as referring to a club which is a light weapon for you.

The reason I thought that is because there is a very good reason to use a one-handed club in two hands, and that is to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage! This doesn't turn it into an improvised weapon.

Actually, this was so strange I'm not sure what her point actually is.

Grand Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
The mechanical evidence of how terrible this idea is has been provided.
I'm not asking if this is a terrible idea or a good idea. I'm asking if the written rules allow it.

This was response to another poster noting how terrible an idea it was.

This has already been established.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You only put the restriction at ranged and melee.

If a melee weapon cannot be used in an improvised fashion as a melee weapon, then a ranged weapon cannot be used in an improvised fashion as a ranged weapon.

To add a separation of thrown and projectile, is a houserule, in your current stance.

So, a crossbow is not designed to be thrown, just as a longspear is not designed to be used against adjacent opponents.

The differences between thrown and projectile weapons was not made by me! They and their respective definitions are RAW.

And it's not just that longspears weren't designed to attack adjacent foes; they are expressly forbidden from doing so by written rules. The game has them as deliberately designed not to be able to attack adjacent foes.

251 to 300 of 1,668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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