|
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...
I can't tell if you are being nice, or a condescending ass.
@bbt: Well, it is meant in jest, and not condescending. I am enjoying the discussion. And "unteresting" was a typo. It is interesting.
Seriously, sometimes it seems like you are agreeing with the OP, and then Malachi isn't. :)
|
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.
The weirdest thing for me is that several people are basing their objections on the idea that a spear isn't an object, but an infinite amount of different objects that are definitely not weapons so therefore can be used as improvised weapons without involving the actual longspear at all, because we all know that longspears absolutely cannot be used to attack an adjacent foe.
In an otherwise empty room, there is a longspear.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: One, a longspear.
Q: Is it a weapon?
A: Yes.
In order to be able to use this weapon as if it weren't and then as if it were a different weapon, you have to change this reality and answer the questions differently.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: As many as I can imagine.
Q: Are these objects weapons?
A: Only one is. None of the others are, so the rules let me use any of them as if they were.
I believe that this position is dishonest, and spouted purely to get around the known rule forbidding the use of this weapon to attack adjacent targets.
|
|
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'll say again, this is a consequence of the rules.
You may visualise it as striking for non-lethal. But however you imagine it, according to the rules you're making a melee attack with a melee weapon (musket axe) and you must use the stats for that weapon.
You could certainly rule otherwise, and it may even be a good idea. But then by definition it's not RAW.
|
|
"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.
Look at the bolded part. The reason you don't threaten when unarmed has nothing to do with being unable to punch something. It's because you can only threaten with weapons, per game rules.
Special abilities/feats may change this. For example, the feat Improved Unarmed Strike means that your unarmed attacks now count as weapons, and as such now threaten.
The reason improvised weapons do not threaten is because, by definition, they are not weapons.
If you're standing over a prone foe while holding a chair, if you don't have an actual way to threaten him then you won't be able to take the AoO he provokes for standing up.
All is not lost: ready an action to belt him with the chair with the trigger 'If he stands up or draws a weapon or attacks me, I'll belt him with the chair'.
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.The weirdest thing for me is that several people are basing their objections on the idea that a spear isn't an object, but an infinite amount of different objects that are definitely not weapons so therefore can be used as improvised weapons without involving the actual longspear at all, because we all know that longspears absolutely cannot be used to attack an adjacent foe.
In an otherwise empty room, there is a longspear.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: One, a longspear.
Q: Is it a weapon?
A: Yes.
In order to be able to use this weapon as if it weren't and then as if it were a different weapon, you have to change this reality and answer the questions differently.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: As many as I can imagine.
Q: Are these objects weapons?
A: Only one is. None of the others are, so the rules let me use any of them as if they were.
I believe that this position is dishonest, and spouted purely to get around the known rule forbidding the use of this weapon to attack adjacent targets.
Sure is a nice house rule you have here on what objects are. Also, not interested in why you think this should be allowed or not, just the RAW.
|
|
Sure is a nice house rule you have here on what objects are. Also, not interested in why you think this should be allowed or not, just the RAW.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.The weirdest thing for me is that several people are basing their objections on the idea that a spear isn't an object, but an infinite amount of different objects that are definitely not weapons so therefore can be used as improvised weapons without involving the actual longspear at all, because we all know that longspears absolutely cannot be used to attack an adjacent foe.
In an otherwise empty room, there is a longspear.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: One, a longspear.
Q: Is it a weapon?
A: Yes.
In order to be able to use this weapon as if it weren't and then as if it were a different weapon, you have to change this reality and answer the questions differently.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: As many as I can imagine.
Q: Are these objects weapons?
A: Only one is. None of the others are, so the rules let me use any of them as if they were.
I believe that this position is dishonest, and spouted purely to get around the known rule forbidding the use of this weapon to attack adjacent targets.
No problem.
RAW, the object in the room is a longspear. When you attack with it you use the rules for longspears. As a weapon, the improvised weapon rules do not apply when making melee attacks with it. RAW.
Again, malachi, is object a game term or not?
Also, stop switching between arguing "this doesnt make sense" and "this is RAAAW!!!!". Its dishonest.
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.The weirdest thing for me is that several people are basing their objections on the idea that a spear isn't an object, but an infinite amount of different objects that are definitely not weapons so therefore can be used as improvised weapons without involving the actual longspear at all, because we all know that longspears absolutely cannot be used to attack an adjacent foe.
In an otherwise empty room, there is a longspear.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: One, a longspear.
Q: Is it a weapon?
A: Yes.
In order to be able to use this weapon as if it weren't and then as if it were a different weapon, you have to change this reality and answer the questions differently.
Q: How many objects are in the room?
A: As many as I can imagine.
Q: Are these objects weapons?
A: Only one is. None of the others are, so the rules let me use any of them as if they were.
I believe that this position is dishonest, and spouted purely to get around the known rule forbidding the use of this weapon to attack adjacent targets.
Here is a fun one for you.
. . /.\
. /. . .\
/_ _ _\
We have a triangle made up of 9 line segments. (ignore the dots, needed placeholders for spacing >.<)
Move five of those line segments to form 4 triangles.
"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.
Look at the bolded part. The reason you don't threaten when unarmed has nothing to do with being unable to punch something. It's because you can only threaten with weapons, per game rules.
Special abilities/feats may change this. For example, the feat Improved Unarmed Strike means that your unarmed attacks now count as weapons, and as such now threaten.
The reason improvised weapons do not threaten is because, by definition, they are not weapons.
If you're standing over a prone foe while holding a chair, if you don't have an actual way to threaten him then you won't be able to take the AoO he provokes for standing up.
All is not lost: ready an action to belt him with the chair with the trigger 'If he stands up or draws a weapon or attacks me, I'll belt him with the chair'.
The requirement to threaten is the ability to make a melee attack. And one which isn't unarmed.
A melee attack with an improvised weapon qualifies.
The word "weapon" doesn't even show up in the text about threatening... not even once.
You can threaten with all kinds of things, besides weapons. Natural attacks sure can. So... teeth, claws, horns, slams, tails etc. Held spell charges can be used to threaten too. "Run by me and taste this here Shocking Grasp!! /cackle"
Anything that you can make a melee attack with, and isn't an unarmed attack. That's all it takes. 'per tha rulez'
.
Here is a fun one for you.. . /.\
. /. . .\
/_ _ _\We have a triangle made up of 9 line segments. (ignore the dots, needed placeholders for spacing >.<)
Move five of those line segments to form 4 triangles.
../_\
/_\/_\|
|
The requirement to threaten is the ability to make a melee attack. And one which isn't unarmed.
'Unarmed' is the crucial part. If a policeman wants to know if a perp is armed, he means weapons. The fact that furniture is in the vicinity is not the question.
'Unarmed' doesn't mean 'holding nothing', it means 'without weapons'. By definition an improvised weapon is not a weapon, therefore if all you are holding is something that is not a weapon then you are unarmed.
A melee attack with an improvised weapon qualifies.
Attacking and threatening are not the same thing in the rules. Arms, as in armaments, threaten. Non-weapons don't.
|
|
Again, malachi, is object a game term or not?
Also, stop switching between arguing "this doesnt make sense" and "this is RAAAW!!!!". Its dishonest.
Again, Ilja, this is a red herring.
What matters is that 'weapon' absolutely does have a game definition, and the thing that distinguishes weapons form non-weapon objects is that they have weapon stats. Therefore, an object which lacks weapon stats is a non-weapon object. Thus, the need for the improvised weapon rules so that you can obtain weapon stats when you want to execute an attack with something that isn't a weapon.
|
|
Just because you can philosophically imagine an object as made of an infinite number of sub-objects, this doesn't mean that the object stops being what it is.
Even if you imagine a longspear as made up of any sub-objects as you can think of, it never stops being a longspear.
When you attack with any part of it, you are manipulating the entire spear, not just the part you imagine or the portion that you hold or that makes contact with the enemy. This whole object, and therefore any parts which you can imagine, is forbidden by the rules to attack an adjacent foe.
This whole object is a weapon. According to the rules, you attack with weapons in the ways described by the rules.
There are weapons which may be used as if they were more than one weapon: Double weapons. A longspear isn't a Double weapon, therefore cannot be used as if it was without a special ability which let's you.
The requirement to threaten is the ability to make a melee attack. And one which isn't unarmed.'Unarmed' is the crucial part. If a policeman wants to know if a perp is armed, he means weapons. The fact that furniture is in the vicinity is not the question.
'Unarmed' doesn't mean 'holding nothing', it means 'without weapons'. By definition an improvised weapon is not a weapon, therefore if all you are holding is something that is not a weapon then you are unarmed.
A melee attack with an improvised weapon qualifies.Attacking and threatening are not the same thing in the rules. Arms, as in armaments, threaten. Non-weapons don't.
If an improvised weapon isn't an armed attack then it provokes an AoO when you attack with it. I've never seen that happen...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
Here is a fun one for you.. . /.\
. /. . .\
/_ _ _\We have a triangle made up of 9 line segments. (ignore the dots, needed placeholders for spacing >.<)
Move five of those line segments to form 4 triangles.
../_\
/_\/_\
Ah!! A triangle made up of other triangles!! Kill it for us Malachi! It shouldn't exist!
/runs in terror
Again, malachi, is object a game term or not?
Also, stop switching between arguing "this doesnt make sense" and "this is RAAAW!!!!". Its dishonest.
Again, Ilja, this is a red herring.
What matters is that 'weapon' absolutely does have a game definition, and the thing that distinguishes weapons form non-weapon objects is that they have weapon stats. Therefore, an object which lacks weapon stats is a non-weapon object. Thus, the need for the improvised weapon rules so that you can obtain weapon stats when you want to execute an attack with something that isn't a weapon.
I keep saying a shaft is mysteriously absent a weapon entry, and thus is a non-weapon object by which we use the Improvised Weapon rules to determine how it interacts in combat.
Bu... you keep saying.. what? An object isn't an object because it is part of another object?
But... you keep failing to explain why you say that. There isn't any txt stating that an object isn't an object if it a part of an object, rules wise. And absent rules text telling us an object isn't an object...we have to assume that it is, indeed, an object. Because that is a true statement.
1.A shaft is an object. True.
2.A shaft is not a defined weapon. True.
A shaft can be used as an Improvised Weapon. Conclusion.
Either object(verb) to point 1 or point 2. With a specific RAW text explanation.
The requirement to threaten is the ability to make a melee attack. And one which isn't unarmed.'Unarmed' is the crucial part. If a policeman wants to know if a perp is armed, he means weapons. The fact that furniture is in the vicinity is not the question.
'Unarmed' doesn't mean 'holding nothing', it means 'without weapons'. By definition an improvised weapon is not a weapon, therefore if all you are holding is something that is not a weapon then you are unarmed.
A melee attack with an improvised weapon qualifies.Attacking and threatening are not the same thing in the rules. Arms, as in armaments, threaten. Non-weapons don't.
You're making a good bit of that up whole cloth.
Threatening calls out specifics that are required. Able to make a melee attack. Not unarmed.
We know what unarmed means in game... because it is well defined. And an improved weapon surely doesn't make unarmed attacks. So... 2 requirements to threaten. Able to make a melee attack. Not unarmed. Let us compare that to using an improvised weapon.
1. We can make a melee attack with an Improvised Weapon. True.
2. We are not unarmed while wielding an Improvised Weapon. True.
We threaten with improvised weapons. Conclusion.
Do you disagree with statement 1 or 2? Can you provide some RAW that disagrees?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The requirement to threaten is the ability to make a melee attack. And one which isn't unarmed.'Unarmed' is the crucial part. If a policeman wants to know if a perp is armed, he means weapons. The fact that furniture is in the vicinity is not the question.
If the perp is brandishing a folding chair, and possibly bludgeoning people with it, he is most certainly armed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol.
also, after reading the entire thread, i'm still confused as to why Malachai seems to think it's okay to attack with the butt of his crossbow which is still (in every way that a longspear is) crafted to be a weapon... he's being really disingenuous.
his reasoning probably goes something like "well the crossbow is meant to be a projectile weapon so obviously using it as a melee weapon is improvising", but that's exactly the same as "the longspear isn't meant to be used against an adjacent target so obviously that's improvising".
lol.
also, after reading the entire thread, i'm still confused as to why Malachai seems to think it's okay to attack with the butt of his crossbow which is still (in every way that a longspear is) crafted to be a weapon... he's being really disingenuous.
his reasoning probably goes something like "well the crossbow is meant to be a projectile weapon so obviously using it as a melee weapon is improvising", but that's exactly the same as "the longspear isn't meant to be used against an adjacent target so obviously that's improvising".
Precisely. House rules and common sense are perfectly fine when they work for him, but otherwise "RAW ONLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT INTENT OR DEVELOPER COMMENTSZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!1111"
Nevermind that RAI is just as much if not more pertinent on the rules forum as RAW.
There's no need to accuse folks of spurious motives. It's possible for an otherwise reasonable person to adopt an unreasonable paradigm, and reach the wrong answer for the right reasons.
in the words of the great Andy Dufresne:
"How can you be so obtuse?"
"What? What did you call me?"
"Obtuse. Is it deliberate?"
|
|
lol.
also, after reading the entire thread, i'm still confused as to why Malachai seems to think it's okay to attack with the butt of his crossbow which is still (in every way that a longspear is) crafted to be a weapon... he's being really disingenuous.
his reasoning probably goes something like "well the crossbow is meant to be a projectile weapon so obviously using it as a melee weapon is improvising", but that's exactly the same as "the longspear isn't meant to be used against an adjacent target so obviously that's improvising".
Interesting.
Reach weapons may not be used to attack adjacent opponents. It's a rule.
Two-handed weapons (made for a creature your size) require two hands to use. It's a rule.
Can you use a two-handed weapon as an improvised one-handed weapon? No.
Can you use a reach weapon as an improvised non-reach weapon? No.
On the subject of whether non-weapons threaten, if you believe that improvised weapons threaten, and that longspears can be used as improvised non-reach weapons, then if the only object you held were a longspear then you would threaten at both 5-feet and 10-feet. But this is not the case: reach weapons for medium creatures threaten at 10-feet but not 5-feet, indicating that either longspears cannot be improvised weapons or that improvised weapons don't threaten.
Which is it?
I notice you failed to address the point of the post you quoted. A crossbow is a weapon. Why do you feel, by RAW, that you can attack with it in melee?
|
|
I keep saying a shaft is mysteriously absent a weapon entry, and thus is a non-weapon object by which we use the Improvised Weapon rules to determine how it interacts in combat.
Bu... you keep saying.. what? An object isn't an object because it is part of another object?
In an otherwise empty room there is a longspear. In the rules of the game this is a weapon. It is one object. If you take that longspear out of the room, how many objects remain in the room? None.
From the position you're taking, there are infinitely many objects in the room. So how come when I take a single object from the room (the longspear), there are no objects left in the room?
This whole idea of pretending that a longspear is actually as many objects as you like is dishonest.
But... you keep failing to explain why you say that. There isn't any txt stating that an object isn't an object if it a part of an object, rules wise. And absent rules text telling us an object isn't an object...we have to assume that it is, indeed, an object. Because that is a true statement.
Since the rules are permissive, if the rules say a weapon is a weapon, then it is. If the rules fail to say that a longspear is really many non-weapon objects, then that's not the case in the game rules. To be true, you'd have to cite text which says a longspear is several non-weapon objects. Unwritten text does not trump written text. The text says it's a weapon, the text does not say it's lots of non-weapons, therefore the text wins.
|
|
I notice you failed to address the point of the post you quoted. A crossbow is a weapon. Why do you feel, by RAW, that you can attack with it in melee?
In order to attack with a weapon, they are given weapon stats in order to use the combat rules.
If an object doesn't have weapon stats for the attck you're making with it, then the way you get some is to use the improvised weapon rules. Crossbows don't have weapon stats to attack in melee, so they must use the improvised weapon rules in order to get them.
Now a question for you: how do you move the improvised weapon that is the shaft, without moving the whole longspear?
|
|
So you really believe that if a perp had ripped off a chair leg and was braining people with it, that the radio call would say 'subject unarmed'?Do you think if he was using a rubber chicken he would be armed? Or if he were wearing a ring and punching people?If the rubber chicken were capable of, and was indeed braining people?
Yes.
Being armed is "holding an item in your hands capable of causing grievous bodily harm. A rubber chicken doesn't apply. A heavy table leg, a sharpened stick, a broken shard of glass? Definitely DO count.
You can poke an eye out with a finger. So, when you are unarmed are you armed?
|
|
Does the spear have stats for a bludgeoning attack at five foot range? No. So it has no stats for the attack you are making with it.I notice you failed to address the point of the post you quoted. A crossbow is a weapon. Why do you feel, by RAW, that you can attack with it in melee?In order to attack with a weapon, they are given weapon stats in order to use the combat rules.
If an object doesn't have weapon stats for the attck you're making with it, then the way you get some is to use the improvised weapon rules. Crossbows don't have weapon stats to attack in melee, so they must use the improvised weapon rules in order to get them.
Now a question for you: how do you move the improvised weapon that is the shaft, without moving the whole longspear?
It has no stats for that attack because it is forbidden for it to make an attack against an adjacent foe.
I ask again: how can you move the non-weapon shaft without moving the whole longspear?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could reasonable strangle someone with a sufficiently flexible and lengthy rubber chicken.
I notice you failed to address the point of the post you quoted. A crossbow is a weapon. Why do you feel, by RAW, that you can attack with it in melee?In order to attack with a weapon, they are given weapon stats in order to use the combat rules.
If an object doesn't have weapon stats for the attck you're making with it, then the way you get some is to use the improvised weapon rules. Crossbows don't have weapon stats to attack in melee, so they must use the improvised weapon rules in order to get them.
Now a question for you: how do you move the improvised weapon that is the shaft, without moving the whole longspear?
What does moving have to do with it?
|
|
The question isn't being answered because its not a relevant question.Does the spear have stats for a bludgeoning attack at five foot range? No. So it has no stats for the attack you are making with it.I notice you failed to address the point of the post you quoted. A crossbow is a weapon. Why do you feel, by RAW, that you can attack with it in melee?In order to attack with a weapon, they are given weapon stats in order to use the combat rules.
If an object doesn't have weapon stats for the attck you're making with it, then the way you get some is to use the improvised weapon rules. Crossbows don't have weapon stats to attack in melee, so they must use the improvised weapon rules in order to get them.
Now a question for you: how do you move the improvised weapon that is the shaft, without moving the whole longspear?
It has no stats for that attack because it is forbidden for it to make an attack against an adjacent foe.
I ask again: how can you move the non-weapon shaft without moving the whole longspear?
It's relevant because it shows that the shaft is not a different, separate object to the whole spear, and the assertion that it is is the only excuse you have to claim it can be used as a non-reach improvised weapon in the face of the fact that it's a reach weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improvised weapon rule doesn't say anything about a "separate" object. RAW only please.
No, he is saying that it isn't even possible.
|
|
Interesting. Do you have the rule where it says the object has to be "separate"?
So you are saying that in the pathfinder world if you club someone in the head with the pommel of a sword, nothing happens?
The rules forbid weapons with the reach quality from attacking an adjacent foe. How can you attack with part of the weapon without using the whole of the weapon?
In the rules of the game, the longspear is treated as a single weapon and has weapon stats for melee attacks. Part of those rules forbid it being used to attack adjacent foes. If it's an object which is simultaneously a weapon and a non-weapon, you can't make part of it attack without making the whole of it attack, and the whole of it is forbidden from attacking.
We know that the rules treat it as a single thing, because there are rules for weapons which are treated as more than one thing (Double weapons), and a longspear is not one of them.
As always, the written rules trump contradictory imagined unwritten rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The written rules for improvised weapons are not imaginary.