|
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.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.
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....
The shaft of a longspear is designed as part of the whole weapon.
Without rules that allow you to attack with different parts of a weapon as if they were different weapons/objects, then you can't.
The consequence of this is that the rules don't treat parts of a weapon as separate objects, thus they are not 'non-weapon' objects, thus the improvised weapon rules do not apply to parts of weapons/objects, just whole, non-weapon objects.
|
|
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.
So...
The shaft of a longspear isn't a weapon, and isn't crafted to be a weapon?
Sweet! Improvised weapon rules for attacking with the shaft of a longspear.
Glad we came to an agreement finally.
When you attack with something, you don't use rules for what that object may become, nor use rules for what it used to be. You must use the rules for what it is.
|
No.
The difference between Thrown and Projectile, in regards to their use as improvised weapons.
You stated melee weapons cannot be improvised melee weapons, therefore, you must agree that ranged weapons cannot be improvised ranged weapons.
Thrown and Projectile, are just subtypes of ranged weapons, just as reach is a subtype of melee.
|
|
No.
The difference between Thrown and Projectile, in regards to their use as improvised weapons.You stated melee weapons cannot be improvised melee weapons, therefore, you must agree that ranged weapons cannot be improvised ranged weapons.
Thrown and Projectile, are just subtypes of ranged weapons, just as reach is a subtype of melee.
I don't agree, let alone 'must'.
Ranged weapons already are broken down into thrown and projectile. I didn't do that. It's RAW.
|
|
No.
The difference between Thrown and Projectile, in regards to their use as improvised weapons.You stated melee weapons cannot be improvised melee weapons, therefore, you must agree that ranged weapons cannot be improvised ranged weapons.
Thrown and Projectile, are just subtypes of ranged weapons, just as reach is a subtype of melee.
I don't agree, let alone 'must'.
Ranged weapons already are broken down into thrown and projectile. I didn't do that. It's RAW.
Yes. Thrown and Projectile are separate.
That is not what is in question.
They are both, still, ranged weapons.
You have created a restriction, in how weapons can be used in an improvised fashion.
Your restriction, is that a melee weapon, cannot be used in an improvised fashion, as a melee weapon.
So, by this restriction, a ranged weapon, cannot be used in an improvised fashion, as a ranged weapon.
Melee is melee. Ranged is ranged.
Well, actually, a club is an One-handed weapon.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.
The longspear (a two-handed weapon) shaft acts like a club when used as an improvised weapon, except the -4 to attack and does not get the masterwork or magical qualities of the longspear. (pulled from three different sources)
How often would a player actually use the club side? What situations would people find using the club side beneficial?
When you attack with something, you don't use rules for what that object may become, nor use rules for what it used to be. You must use the rules for what it is.
So, you're now saying you can attack with the shaft of a lonspear as an improvised weapon, yes? Just wanna be sure I'm understanding.
Because a shaft is a shaft. And a shaft is covered by improvised weapon rules.
I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
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.
Is "object" a game term? If yes, then prove it. If no, then shafts are objects.
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.
You still avoid answering the question.
Is object a game term?
Wow. Pretty much the World vs. Malachi, at this point. I would just drop it, if I were you. He's not going to refute 300+ worth of posts that have at several points blatantly contradicted themselves, at this point in the conversation.
Let's bottom line it. The rules provide every possible use for a longspear. You can use it all regular like. You can use it to do non-lethal damage by taking a -4 penalty. You can throw it by taking a -4 penalty. You could probably throw it to do non-lethal by taking a -8 penalty. You could take it apart and use the spear head as an improvised dagger, and the haft as an improvised quarterstaff. You could break it in half and dual wield it as an improvised shortspear and an improvised club. But, if you want to use a longspear as an improvised club, ________________________________________________________*__________________ ______________________________________________________________<--------- --------- Left blank so that anyone with a modicum of common sense can draw their own conclusion.
*The correct answer is, "you can do so by taking a -4 penalty to attack."
|
|
Well, actually, a club is an One-handed weapon.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.
The longspear (a two-handed weapon) shaft acts like a club when used as an improvised weapon, except the -4 to attack and does not get the masterwork or magical qualities of the longspear. (pulled from three different sources)
How often would a player actually use the club side? What situations would people find using the club side beneficial?
Ah! Please forgive me! You're talking about using the wrong end of a longspear as an improvised club. I thought you were talking about a club crafted to be a club. : /
Anyway, that's been answered since your post as well as previously. This thread is about what the rules actually are, not about whether using a longspear as an improvised club is a good idea or not. : )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Objects are not restricted to being complete units. ie. the "p key" on my keyboard is an object just as much as the entire keyboard is.
The "p key" on my keyboard was not designed to be a keyboard.
Now again so everyone can follow along; the "spear shaft" of my spear is an object just as much as the entire spear is.
The "spear shaft" of my spear was not designed to be a spear.
When I use my "spear shaft" in concert with my spear tip is functions as a complete spear. A weapon described in game rules.
When I use my "spear shaft" separate of my spear tip is functions as an improvised weapon. The function of which are described in game rules.
This all comes down to the use of the word object. The designers have stated many times that unless a word has a specific game meaning (ie. the actual meaning of a word is replaced by a printed game meaning) it uses its English meaning. In English "spear shaft" IS an object.
So unless you provide a game definition of "object" that disallows "spear shaft" from being one, you are wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? This hasn't been put to bed yet?
A longspear is a reach weapon. Do the rules say "you may use the shaft of a reach weapon as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent squares"? No. They say "you cannot attack adjacent squares".
We're done. We've been done for a five or six pages.
This thread STILL isn't about what should be or what is allowed at what table. It's about what the rules say, and they remain utterly clear and specific. Do the rules say "you may use part of a reach weapon as something other than the reach weapon itself to circumvent the rule that we DID print that says you CANNOT attack adjacent targets"? No. They don't.
Cannot. It says cannot. Arguing a reading of the rules that turns "cannot" into "can" is abusing those rules.
Really? This hasn't been put to bed yet?
A longspear is a reach weapon. Do the rules say "you may use the shaft of a reach weapon as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent squares"? No. They say "you cannot attack adjacent squares".
They don't say "you may use a chair as an improvised weapon" either. They are not specific as to what objects you may use as improvised weapons at all, except potentially they exclude objects crafted as weapons (though with the same reasoning an adventuring wizard cannot covet her spellbook more than her dagger).
Until "object" has been clarified as a game term - and we still have no evidence of it as being that rather than used in the common sense of the word - a shaft is an object not designed as a weapon.
It's about what the rules say, and they remain utterly clear and specific.
Actually, there are two unclarities in the rules, and none of those two are what you talk about in your post.
1. Is the first sentence of the section of the rules used as a short summary (like it is in many other sections) or an actual rule?and
2. Is "object" an exclusive game term, including only weapons, manacles, chains, rope, walls and doors, or is it used in a general sense, including any "material thing that can be seen and touched"?
The first is kind of vague and up to table variation, the second I believe is clearly a "no, it's used in a general sense". To prevent a spearshaft to be used as a weapon, both answers would have to be a "no", but the first can only really be answered by dev input and while the second is easily provable, the proponent of that interpretation simply refuses to provide evidence of it, ignoring any posts asking for evidence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? This hasn't been put to bed yet?
A longspear is a reach weapon. Do the rules say "you may use the shaft of a reach weapon as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent squares"? No. They say "you cannot attack adjacent squares".
We're done. We've been done for a five or six pages.
This thread STILL isn't about what should be or what is allowed at what table. It's about what the rules say, and they remain utterly clear and specific. Do the rules say "you may use part of a reach weapon as something other than the reach weapon itself to circumvent the rule that we DID print that says you CANNOT attack adjacent targets"? No. They don't.
Cannot. It says cannot. Arguing a reading of the rules that turns "cannot" into "can" is abusing those rules.
The rules say you can use non-weapon objects as improvised weapons. A spear shaft is a non-weapon object.
I know it makes your DM parts feel funny, but there is no balance concern as has been pointed out already. There are multiple other rules-rules legal ways to accomplish the same mechanics and do so better (without using class features, the gauntlet for example). So even though you DM parts are feeling funny, explore your new sensations and embrace you new life after you let go of your "GM MUST CONTROL BAD PLAYERS THINK CREATIVE" instincts subside. You will see that it a more enjoyable experience all around.
Plus it is totally rules legal, unless you have a game rule definition of object that is different from the English one.
|
|
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.
I've been thinking about this, instead of sleeping; thanks for that. : )
In the case of melee weapons which are designed to be worn instead of held (such as a boot blade or breastplate covered in armour spikes), there is no RAW to attack with them in melee whilst they are held but not worn.
This is where the DM must come up with an answer that makes sense to him.
In this case, the spiky bit certainly is designed as a weapon. Looking at the rules which are written, I see that the best match for this is the rule for throwing a melee weapon: they have the same -4 to attack, the same crit threat range and multiplier of 20/x2, and the same thrown range increment as the improvised weapon rule would give you, but unlike that rule it applies to weapons.
So that's the best solution I can come up with, by using the rules that do exist to come up with a reasonable answer.
But I wouldn't come on to the rules thread and claim that it's RAW. it's not. I just made it up, regardless of the similarity to the rules for improvised weapons.
If there were written rules for using worn weapons when they are not worn, those are the rules I would use and those would be RAW. if I changed them to match mine, mine would not be RAW.
The idea that you can use the shaft of a spear as an improvised club, no matter how close it is to RAW and no matter how much it may make sense to you, is not RAW.
This is not a situation where the rules are silent so the DM is forced to make his own. The rules for attacking with different parts of a single weapon exist, in various forms. If you use a double weapon, or have a special ability which allows you to do so, you certainly can. In the absence of such a written ability, you may not.
Similarly, the rules are not silent on the issue of attacking an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon. There is a definate rule: no, you cannot. The DM doesn't need to make up a rule, it's there already.
And if he chooses to make up a rule similar to the rule for improvised weapons, or apply that rule to a situation it does not cover, then that is no longer RAW.
There is no prohibition anywhere in the rules against using an object (no matter what other categories you might place it in) as an improvised weapon. Period. End statement.
The Improvised Weapon Rules simply state that you can use objects, not intended as weapons, as improvised weapons. It is not a prohibition against using a weapon as an improvised weapon.
The only real argument that has any merit is the reach prohibition against adjacent targets. The language there is fairly unambiguous.
So, the only question is: If you use a longspear as "something else", does it continue to possess the reach special quality?
Unfortunately, after a great deal of consideration, I would have to say yes. The best comparison is the non-lethal rules, and if wielded to do non-lethal, it most certainly would continue as a reach weapon.
Strictly RAW: I would say weapons can be wielded as improvised weapons without a doubt. But, they don't stop being the thing they are (a longspear, in this case). So, the strict wording of the reach weapon rules still apply.
RAI: No problem. Bash away.
I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?This is, in fact, the question asked in the OP. : )
Please hit FAQ.
I know. I was quoting you out of context because I was puzzled as to why you are arguing so passionately against being allowed a longspear as an improvised weapon at close range when it was your idea in the first place. Are you just trying to argue on the less popular side so the thread keeps going and you get more FAQs?
I won't hit FAQ myself because the question is too trivial. In a home game, house-rule it. In a PFS game, wear a glove-weapon to keep things simple for the GM. It's not something that comes up all the time like a Paladin trying to use Detect Evil as a move action.
|
|
Yes. Thrown and Projectile are separate.
That is not what is in question.
They are both, still, ranged weapons.
You have created a restriction, in how weapons can be used in an improvised fashion.
Your restriction, is that a melee weapon, cannot be used in an improvised fashion, as a melee weapon.
So, by this restriction, a ranged weapon, cannot be used in an improvised fashion, as a ranged weapon.
A melee weapon canoot be used as an improvised melee weapon, a projectile weapon cannot be used as an improvised projectile weapon, a thrown weapon cannot be used as an improvised thrown weapon.
The words you are putting in my mouth lead to the absurdities you mention. Strawman.
The words I actually write do not.
Melee is melee. Ranged is ranged.
Melee is melee. Thrown is thrown. Projectile weapons are projectile weapons. Ammunition is ammunition.
I didn't create these game terms. They are RAW.
|
|
There is no prohibition anywhere in the rules against using an object (no matter what other categories you might place it in) as an improvised weapon. Period. End statement.
That's not how the rules work. If there were no RAW about improvised weapons, then RAW would be that the game doesn't allow any object which doesn't have weapon stats to be used as a weapon.
It takes a specific written rule to allow it by RAW. There is a rule, and if you follow that rule then you are able to make attacks with objects that don't have weapon stats, because the improvised weapons rule tells you how to provide those stats.
Because that rule says it applies to non-weapons, then RAW it only applies to non-weapons. There would need to be a rule to allow weapons to be used as improvised weapons in order for you to do so. There are some special abilities that may let you do this, and if you have such an ability then you can. If you lack such an ability then you can't.
The Improvised Weapon Rules simply state that you can use objects, not intended as weapons, as improvised weapons. It is not a prohibition against using a weapon as an improvised weapon.
It is not permission. You need a rule permitting you to do it, or you can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW says that I can use non-weapon objects as an improvised weapon. A spear shaft is a non-weapon object.
There is really nothing else to this conversation.
Congratulations. 7 pages and going strong discussing whether or not we can hit a guy with a 2-handed stick. Until now I never thought a topic like this would have enough discussion-worthy material. Impressive. :)
It seems to me all together reasonable and within the rules to say that after I've struck one guy 10ft North with my spear, I could (for necessity or show) use the butt end to deliver an improvised, teeth-cracking bash into the face of his friend who was sneaking up to flank me 5ft South.
It would also seem reasonable to snatch up the scabbard end of a peace-bonded sword and use it to shatter the potion vial that an enemy is about to drink.
My simple input anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A melee weapon canoot be used as an improvised melee weapon, a projectile weapon cannot be used as an improvised projectile weapon, a thrown weapon cannot be used as an improvised thrown weapon.
Do you have RAW to back this up, or are these your house-rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no prohibition anywhere in the rules against using an object (no matter what other categories you might place it in) as an improvised weapon. Period. End statement.That's not how the rules work. If there were no RAW about improvised weapons, then RAW would be that the game doesn't allow any object which doesn't have weapon stats to be used as a weapon.
It takes a specific written rule to allow it by RAW. There is a rule, and if you follow that rule then you are able to make attacks with objects that don't have weapon stats, because the improvised weapons rule tells you how to provide those stats.
Because that rule says it applies to non-weapons, then RAW it only applies to non-weapons. There would need to be a rule to allow weapons to be used as improvised weapons in order for you to do so. There are some special abilities that may let you do this, and if you have such an ability then you can. If you lack such an ability then you can't.
The Improvised Weapon Rules simply state that you can use objects, not intended as weapons, as improvised weapons. It is not a prohibition against using a weapon as an improvised weapon.It is not permission. You need a rule permitting you to do it, or you can't.
This is a ridiculous statement.
There is no rule that gives you permission to go to sleep. There are rules that discuss the benefits of getting 8 hours of sleep. There are rules that discuss the penalties of not getting enough sleep. But, the only way, by the written rules, to go from awake to asleep, is to fail a save against a spell or a poison.
You simply cannot play the game believing that only those things explicitly stated as permissable in the rules are allowed. You have to exercise some reasonable, common sense judgements on what is written as well as what they couldn't possibly have a need to write.
|
|
There is no prohibition anywhere in the rules against using an object (no matter what other categories you might place it in) as an improvised weapon. Period. End statement.That's not how the rules work. If there were no RAW about improvised weapons, then RAW would be that the game doesn't allow any object which doesn't have weapon stats to be used as a weapon.
It takes a specific written rule to allow it by RAW. There is a rule, and if you follow that rule then you are able to make attacks with objects that don't have weapon stats, because the improvised weapons rule tells you how to provide those stats.
Because that rule says it applies to non-weapons, then RAW it only applies to non-weapons. There would need to be a rule to allow weapons to be used as improvised weapons in order for you to do so. There are some special abilities that may let you do this, and if you have such an ability then you can. If you lack such an ability then you can't.
The Improvised Weapon Rules simply state that you can use objects, not intended as weapons, as improvised weapons. It is not a prohibition against using a weapon as an improvised weapon.It is not permission. You need a rule permitting you to do it, or you can't.This is a ridiculous statement.
There is no rule that gives you permission to go to sleep. There are rules that discuss the benefits of getting 8 hours of sleep. There are rules that discuss the penalties of not getting enough sleep. But, the only way, by the written rules, to go from awake to asleep, is to fail a save against a spell or a poison.
You simply cannot play the game believing that only those things explicitly stated as permissable in the rules are allowed. You have to exercise some reasonable, common sense judgements on what is written as well as what they couldn't possibly have a need to write.
Is it your position that, in areas of the rules that are meticulously defined (as opposed to things the rules don't care about, like sitting down, pooping or going to sleep), that unless the rules specifically state you can't do something, that therefore you can?
I was going to have a rant at Malachi on this, but I've changed my mind.
I believe that this is worth FAQing because it is certainly possible to argue that the rules say that a reach weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
I consider that an indefensible interpretation, for the reasons so many other posters have made already, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why someone who is so certain of their understanding of the rules thought this needed a Rules Question in the first place.
Now, I've been proven wrong by the designers in the past, and I can see a possible game balance issue (not much of one) for denying the option, so I'm not going to definitively state my belief that I am right, though I will be very surprised if I'm not, but if I can use a ten-foot pole as an improvised weapon, it's a weird universe in which the laws of nature say "chop two feet off it, socket a sharp bit of metal on the end, and now you can't used it like you were a minute ago, because the rules of the universe say that if there's a sharp pointy bit on your stick you can no longer use it as a stick to hit things with - you must use the pointy bit."
|
|
Do you have RAW to back this up, or are these your house-rules?
A melee weapon canoot be used as an improvised melee weapon, a projectile weapon cannot be used as an improvised projectile weapon, a thrown weapon cannot be used as an improvised thrown weapon.
These are the rules of the game. When you use a weapon for it's intended purpose, you use the stats provided. Nothing in the improvised weapon rules allows you to ignore those stats in favour of the stats for a different weapon.
Of course, if you have a special ability that let's you, great! If you don't then you can't
|
|
I was going to have a rant at Malachi on this, but I've changed my mind.
I believe that this is worth FAQing because it is certainly possible to argue that the rules say that a reach weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
I consider that an indefensible interpretation, for the reasons so many other posters have made already, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why someone who is so certain of their understanding of the rules thought this needed a Rules Question in the first place.
Now, I've been proven wrong by the designers in the past, and I can see a possible game balance issue (not much of one) for denying the option, so I'm not going to definitively state my belief that I am right, though I will be very surprised if I'm not, but if I can use a ten-foot pole as an improvised weapon, it's a weird universe in which the laws of nature say "chop two feet off it, socket a sharp bit of metal on the end, and now you can't used it like you were a minute ago, because the rules of the universe say that if there's a sharp pointy bit on your stick you can no longer use it as a stick to hit things with - you must use the pointy bit."
It's not the rules of the universe that are under examination, only the rules of Pathfinder.
As to the rest, I have a similar (but opposite) outlook. The reason I asked this question is so that the devs put it to bed, one way or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it your position that, in areas of the rules that are...There is no prohibition anywhere in the rules against using an object (no matter what other categories you might place it in) as an improvised weapon. Period. End statement.That's not how the rules work. If there were no RAW about improvised weapons, then RAW would be that the game doesn't allow any object which doesn't have weapon stats to be used as a weapon.
It takes a specific written rule to allow it by RAW. There is a rule, and if you follow that rule then you are able to make attacks with objects that don't have weapon stats, because the improvised weapons rule tells you how to provide those stats.
Because that rule says it applies to non-weapons, then RAW it only applies to non-weapons. There would need to be a rule to allow weapons to be used as improvised weapons in order for you to do so. There are some special abilities that may let you do this, and if you have such an ability then you can. If you lack such an ability then you can't.
The Improvised Weapon Rules simply state that you can use objects, not intended as weapons, as improvised weapons. It is not a prohibition against using a weapon as an improvised weapon.It is not permission. You need a rule permitting you to do it, or you can't.This is a ridiculous statement.
There is no rule that gives you permission to go to sleep. There are rules that discuss the benefits of getting 8 hours of sleep. There are rules that discuss the penalties of not getting enough sleep. But, the only way, by the written rules, to go from awake to asleep, is to fail a save against a spell or a poison.
You simply cannot play the game believing that only those things explicitly stated as permissable in the rules are allowed. You have to exercise some reasonable, common sense judgements on what is written as well as what they couldn't possibly have a need to write.
The rules care a great deal about sleep. Things are different if you don't get it. Things happen after you get it. The game gives specific rules for how to achieve it.
Your position insists that you cannot just go to sleep because there are written rules explaining how to do it. You can't just go and do it your own way by RAW. By RAW the only ways to sleep are to fail a save from a sleep effect.
In fact by RAW Elves are always exhausted and can never prepare spells.
I was going to have a rant at Malachi on this, but I've changed my mind.
I believe that this is worth FAQing because it is certainly possible to argue that the rules say that a reach weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
This question is not really worth a dev response on its own. As far as I can tell, Malachi is basically the only person still defending the negative position. There's nothing wrong with stretching the rhetorical muscle on a good ol' fashion forum debate, but it hardly merits launching a FAQ campaign just to sway one person. Paizo employees have responded to smaller disagreements about rarer issues, but in those cases there's usually some mutually recognized fogginess to the rules.
On the other hand, the question of whether the written rules of Pathfinder circumscribe the totality of actions permissible in the game's universe, in every possible case and in every possible condition, or that they are intended to do so, would be worth a FAQ had it not already been answered many times over.
|
|
The rules care a great deal about sleep. Things are different if you don't get it. Things happen after you get it. The game gives specific rules for how to achieve it.
Your position insists that you cannot just go to sleep because there are written rules explaining how to do it. You can't just go and do it your own way by RAW. By RAW the only ways to sleep are to fail a save from a sleep effect.
In fact by RAW Elves are always exhausted and can never prepare spells.
If there were a chapter entitled 'Sleep', accompanied by comprehensive rules, then creatures would sleep according to those rules.
The book doesn't have those. But it does have a chapter on Combat supported by a large part of the chapter on Equipment which is largely about weapons and armour, and gives the game stats for those items to interact with the combat rules.
These are comprehensive. These tell us how weapons are used. That's how they are used, RAW. if the rules state that 'this' is how longspears work, that's how they work. Saying 'Ah, but they don't say that they can't work another way, so they can' is not how the rules work. If the rules tell us how combat works, we can't make other stuff up and still call it RAW.
Using different parts of whole weapons is in the rules! In Double weapons, and various special abilities. If you have one, you may use them as defined by the special ability you possess. If you don't have such an ability then you are limited to the general rules. A longspear is not a double weapon, therefore you can't attack with individual parts of it without a written ability that says you can.
The improvised weapon rules specify non-weapon objects. We don't need to define 'object' as a game term! We just need to know that 'weapon' is defined, and any object not so defined is therefore a non-weapon object. You can't use a weapon in a rule set aside for non-weapons, unless you have a special ability that says you can.
Combat/weapons aren't the only part of the rules which only allow you to do what the rules specifically say you can: the magic chapters are full of it, so are the chapters on classes and their abilities.
You only have a special ability (like Rage or spellcasting) if you have that ability written in the book and applying to you. You cannot say 'Ah, I know barbarians can Rage, but it doesn't say that commoners can't Rage, therefore they can!'
Nor can you say 'Ah, the longspear description doesn't say I can't attack with the shaft, therefore I can!'
Nor can you say 'Ah, the improvised weapons rules say they are for non-weapon objects, but they don't say they aren't for weapons, therefore they are!'
The rules don't work that way. And you know it.
|
|
I was going to have a rant at Malachi on this, but I've changed my mind.
I believe that this is worth FAQing because it is certainly possible to argue that the rules say that a reach weapon cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
This question is not really worth a dev response on its own. As far as I can tell, Malachi is basically the only person still defending the negative position. There's nothing wrong with stretching the rhetorical muscle on a good ol' fashion forum debate, but it hardly merits launching a FAQ campaign just to sway one person. Paizo employees have responded to smaller disagreements about rarer issues, but in those cases there's usually some mutually recognized fogginess to the rules.
On the other hand, the question of whether the written rules of Pathfinder circumscribe the totality of actions permissible in the game's universe, in every possible case and in every possible condition, or that they are intended to do so, would be worth a FAQ had it not already been answered many times over.
I've just looked and 62 people have hit FAQ. So it's not just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then if you do not need to define "object" as a game term then you accept the standard English definition. Spear shaft qualifies as an object in English. Spear shaft is not a weapon defined by game terms. Therefore a spear shaft can be used as an improvised weapon.
Also, your house rules about sleeping are nice but this is the rules forum and RAW is clear that Elves can't sleep, so they are always exhausted and can never prepare spells.
Just remember that by Malachi's logic you can hit someone with a musket stock but you can't use the identical stock on a musket axe to do the same attack...
That could almost makes some sense if you don't think about it...
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
I have hi the FAQ.
I have been wondering about a similar question. Can you Threat with a longbow using it as an improvised melee weapon?
I remember once upon a time, playing in games where you said what you intended to do, and the rules simply were there to help determine how well that worked.
But... for rules to 'forbid' you from performing actions that are rather obviously possible? That is a very modern gamer issue.
You can of course attack with the wrong end of the spear at adjacent opponents. Is it a good idea? probably not. Can you? The answer must be a yes.
To say no to that question means tossing out any sense of choice or realism. That is to say that either you are not actually in control of your own character, or that reality somehow forbids you from doing things that should clearly be possible... like shaking a stick at a dude.
Which is exactly why this will NEVER, EVER, EVER nor SHOULD it EVER, EVER, EVER, be answered in a FAQ.
Because it is yet another in a long, sad line of questions that are not covered in the rules because they are common sense.
Is heat damage and fire damage the same? That question has been asked here by many fools, and still many more fools have hit the FAQ button. I've seen the answer from the designers, and it is that they will never FAQ that because you ought to know it without being told. Inane questions like these abound. "If I'm not flying, am I walking? I don't believe I am because the rules on flying don't say that when I don't fly I walk!" I warned the designers of 3.0 way back when it was announced and bits were leaking out, that they were rewarding the worst of the players out there - people who cannot allow their characters to take a breath without a rule governing it - by codifying every little action, and that has been proven true again and again over the years.
In short (too late), don't expect to get a FAQ for this, because it is common sense that the answer is yes. It does not need to be in the rules. Any reasonable GM will say, "yeah, I've seen a hundred movies where a guy gets hit in the face with the pommel or haft of a weapon, rather than with the business end (Darth Maul vs. Qui-Gon Jinn, anybody?!?!?), no problem."
The designers expect you to reason this out, just as thousands, if not millions of players have done before you. There is nothing new about this question. It comes up all the time. GMs allow it all the time.
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
AND - no. OR - yes. Pick the squares you threaten. Switch as a free action on your turn.
{edit}And it's closest to a Quarterstaff not a club.
@bbt "Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Far as I know, you do not threaten with improvised weapons.
This is one of the many reasons why this tactic sucks.
So if you're lying on the ground and I'm standing over you with a chair in my hands ready to strike you with it, I don't get an AoO if you stand up? Or say you want to run past me to get at my ally. I can't hit you with the chair as you run past?
That doesn't sound right. Otherwise Pippin had the wrong idea of it, jumping into Strider's room with a stool in hand ready for a fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
Sounds like you threaten with improvised weapons to me.
Well, I suppose.
That does mean you threaten, as long as you are holding any object, whatsoever.
I just recently watched a movie where this dude folded up a piece of paper like origami and stabbed a dude with it. The dude died. Good times.
Anywho... yeah, if you have an object in your hands that can be used to attack with, you threaten. Realistically, weird stuff can happen if you try to attack with a potion flask or whatever...and sometimes it is a good idea to probably not take an attack of opportunity to attack a guy with that hundred thousand gold valued ancient painting or whatever you happen to be holding that is fragile or valuable... but you could do it.
Well, I suppose.
That does mean you threaten, as long as you are holding any object, whatsoever.
Maybe technically true, but I would think GM common sense would determine what can be used as a weapon and what can't. Maybe I can stab you with a pencil I'm holding, but I doubt this Breath Mint in my hand is going to do much good when you try to run past me.
Depends. Is that chicken past its expiration date? Salmonella can be quite deadly without the proper medication or clerical aid. Plus the stink... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some very unteresting comments. From reading this, some folks think:
* a spear shaft isn't designed to be a spear. Not sure what it is designed to be. Maybe a spear shaft. Which is totally a thing. No, an object. ;)
* you don't threaten or get AoOs with improvised weapons. Firepokers are out then.
* some delicious stuff about equivalence in melee, thrown and ranged weapons and their various utlization as melee, thrown and ranged as well as improvised weapons. I'm not quite understanding it but it was fun.
* there is no way in all of the multiverse anyone would ever not wear a gauntlet when wielding a longspear. So what happens if you are imprisoned, naked and overpower a guard who has a longspear, but foolishly, nay, cruelly left the house without their gauntlet? Now you have a longspear, and no gauntlet. It happens. This is not Cornucopia, and thus questions like the OP are in fact valid. ;)
Bemoan the sadness of the topic, or the ridiculousness of the positions. I'm quite happy Malachi brought this up, if only because it exposed a lot of irritable posters, some name calling and some patronizing. Near as I can tell, Malachi has remained civil throughout, though having read the entire thread, and some posts more than once, I think he may have changed "sides" a number of times, and because folks don't always use quotes properly or identify show they are replying to, there don't always seem to be explicit and well-defined cadres arguing one way or another. Though I don't quite think it's Malachi versus the rest...
Still interested, but I think it's clear that the game mechanics and rules mean you can't treat any part of a weapon as an improvised weapon, because the rules don't disitnguish between parts of a weapon. Sadly, you cannot, RAW attack an adjacent foe with a longspear.
Happily, in my games you totes can, and I think the whole improvised weapon idea is getting deepsixed. Seen too many peeps killed with a firepoker in popular culture. Getting -4 to hit because it wasn't "designed" to be a weapon is ludicrous. A quick study of almost all weapons finds that many of them began as agricultural implements or hunting tools. About the only actual weapon that exists is the sword - useless for anything except cleaving other humans limb from viscera, or perhaps solving Gordian knots. Just ask hunters today. Guns are for hunting.
Peace out homies, whether thy be at 5' or 10'. My longspear is coming for ya!!!
Seriously though, I would think what could be used as an improvised weapon and what couldn't would fall to GM decision. Just because most things can, doesn't necessarily mean ALL things can.