|
No, he is saying that it isn't even possible.
Close. There are the general combat rules, and then there are special abilities which may modify them.
In the rules, weapons are used precisely the way the rules say they are, in terms of game mechanics. For example, if the rules define a weapon as a Double weapon, then you may treat it as such. If the rules fail to define a particular weapon as a Double weapon, then you may absolutely not use it as a Double weapon.
Unless you have a written special ability which says you can! For example, you may use a rapier in combat, and when you do you use the rules for a rapier. It isn't a double weapon, so you cannot, RAW, use the hilt as if it were a different weapon with different game mechanics than the whole rapier. But if you had some swashbucklery special ability called 'Modified Fist', and this special ability says that you can punch with the hilt, then you can! But without such a special ability, you cannot, RAW.
And we come to the longspear. The general rules for a longspear mean that, as a reach weapon, it cannot be used to attack adjacent foes. If you have a special ability that let's you, then you can! Without such an ability, RAW, you cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the crux that we are not going to bypass. Without a game rule to the contrary then a spear shaft is a non-weapon object. Your interpretation is different but isn't supported by any rule.
There is no rule that says when a pointy bit gets added to a stick that the stick stops being its own object.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good news.
My characters no longer provoke when punching someone when they do not have Improved Unarmed strike. A fist is an object which is a part of a creature. So from now on my characters threaten with their fists and can punch things without provoking, albeit at a -4 penalty. Yay.
Never mind what the rules say about unarmed strikes. It's not important. My fist is an object. Triangles. That's important.
Also, my wizards in the future will all have above-average Wisdom scores, which improves perception, including visual acuity. So from now on they will write spells into their spellbook smaller, consuming less materials and pages. Never mind what the rules say on the topic of spellbooks... there's this thing about vision.
Also also, I don't need Quick Draw anymore. Dropping an item is a free action, so from now on I'm going to carry spare weapons in my teeth, and under my armpits. When I want to switch weapons, I'll just drop one from my teeth into my hands. Clearly if the weapon can hit the ground, it can hit my hand, which is even closer and has a smart adventurer attached to it. Never mind what the rules say about what actions are required to draw a weapon... there's this rule about dropping things.
Reductio ad absurdum. When there are rules for what a player wants to do, you use those rules. In the case of the longspear, you use the rule that very specifically, explicitly, clearly, unambiguously and obviously says it CANNOT be used to attack adjacent targets. Focusing on improvised weaponry is attempting to build a loophole in a very absolute rule.
Nine pages now of ridiculousness, and none of it is more sensible than the examples I've made above. Once again, rule what you will at your table, but the CRB speaks on the topic. I'll even let you use the longspear as an improvised weapon, just like a chair with reach... you can't attack adjacent targets with it. Enjoy.
@Anguish - I'm not sure I agree on the level of ridiculousness. Some of the examples upthread are somewhat less, and others even more ridiculous. I'd say you are safely in the middle.
There are a lot of pages here. I read through the first few pages, and then it turned into back and forth, and I'm not sure I understand the implications being argued. Specifically:
Does the argument include which of the following:
A. The ability to use a weapon hilt as improvised increases the threat range of many weapons automatically.
B. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range only with the Catch Off-Guard feat.
C. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range based on how the weapon is currently wielded (requires a free action on my turn to do so).
And does it include:
A. With a feat (Catch Off-Guard), all opponents are now considered flat-footed versus the hilt of my weapon.
B. If the weapon hilt threatens regardless of grip, anyone who moves into my threatened space is also considered flat-footed versus my AoO (with COG).
...which of the above apply to what is currently being argued, and am I missing parts of it?
There are a lot of pages here. I read through the first few pages, and then it turned into back and forth, and I'm not sure I understand the implications being argued. Specifically:
Does the argument include which of the following:
A. The ability to use a weapon hilt as improvised increases the threat range of many weapons automatically.
B. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range only with the Catch Off-Guard feat.
C. The ability to use a weapon hilt as an improvised weapon increases the threat range based on how the weapon is currently wielded (requires a free action on my turn to do so).And does it include:
A. With a feat (Catch Off-Guard), all opponents are now considered flat-footed versus the hilt of my weapon.
B. If the weapon hilt threatens regardless of grip, anyone who moves into my threatened space is also considered flat-footed versus my AoO (with COG)....which of the above apply to what is currently being argued, and am I missing parts of it?
Actually none of those is part of the main discussion. 1A likely follows as a natural extension but would still require house ruling. What is being discussed is if it is allowed AT ALL, ie under any set of circumstances , to use the butt of a spear to hit an adjacent opponent.
Things which would be totally in the realm of house rules would be:
Can I do both types of attack in the same round?
Is there a required change of grip? / What kind of action would that be?
And all the questions you asked would fall there as well.
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.
It is not a red herring. If object is not a game term, spear shaft is an object, lacking weapon stats - a non-weapon object. If object is a game term and excludes spear shafts, then it is not a non-weapon object.
So it's absolutely not a red herring. Again: Is object a game term?
So I can't stick the tip of my spear up into the air and use the butt end to push sheep along as I herd them? Really? That's odd, as something like that happens all the time.
If I have a magic longspear and someone takes it and breaks it in half over their knee, is it still magic? What part is magic? The sharp tip or the whole spear? If only the sharp tip, then why would it stop working if someone only broke the shaft...and why would the shaft have extra hpts to it in the first place? If the whole spear, then why can't I choose to hit someone with the butt end of it or cross check them and still treat it like a spear, albeit with d6 blunt damage? It's not a double weapon. It is a spear from tip to butt. The normal use implies sticking the tip into something. But just as I can reverse an axe head to bludgeon something, I could smack something with the butt end. The rules concerning reach are just talking about the normal use. Improvise it if you want to be a stickler about it. But while you're at it, why not separate Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) into Weapon Focus (Punch), Weapon Focus (Kick), Weapon Focus (Head butt), Weapon Focus (Knee strike), and Weapon Focus (Elbow Strike)? You could probably even toss in Weapon Focus (stiff arm) among a few others.
Stop with the hair splitting. It's a spear. It really isn't too much more than a quarterstaff with a sharp tip on one end. And a quarterstaff isn't really much more than a double-club. Rule lawyering the thing to death is only going to sap any fun out of the game. Unless rule lawyering it to death is the fun. In that case remind me never to sit at those tables. heh
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
This would seem to violate the very purpose of the Reach property of a longsepar.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
If you are holding a longspear, you can't use it against an adjacent foe. The rules are quite clear on this.
Arguing that while holding a longspear you can pretend it isn't a longspear is just silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
This would seem to violate the very purpose of the Reach property of a longsepar.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.If you are holding a longspear, you can't use it against an adjacent foe. The rules are quite clear on this.
Arguing that while holding a longspear you can pretend it isn't a longspear is just silly.
Arguing that a shaft isn't an object is just silly.
We're not talking about a longspear. We're talking about a shaft.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't using the spear. You are using its shaft, and inefficiently. Hence penalties.
Arguing that a longspear wielded by your character isn't a longspear is just silly.
The rules for Reach don't say, "you threaten all squares 10 feet away - and also threaten adjacent squares with a -4 to hit". They specifically state that you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
You aren't using the spear. You are using its shaft, and inefficiently. Hence penalties.Arguing that a longspear wielded by your character isn't a longspear is just silly.
The rules for Reach don't say, "you threaten all squares 10 feet away - and also threaten adjacent squares with a -4 to hit". They specifically state that you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
He isn't arguing that at all.
He is arguing that a shaft is an object and thus can be used via Improvised Weapon rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the crux that we are not going to bypass. Without a game rule to the contrary then a spear shaft is a non-weapon object. Your interpretation is different but isn't supported by any rule.
There is no rule that says when a pointy bit gets added to a stick that the stick stops being its own object.
This is the crux.
In the combat rules, the magic/spellcasting rules, the rules for class abilities, the rules for how weapons work, all these things define, in RAW, how they are used in terms of game mechanics.
If the rules say 'This is how a longspear works', then that's RAW.
If anyone says 'Actually, I'm using it in a way which is forbidden in the rules', well you can...but it ceases to be RAW.
Ceasing to be RAW isn't always a bad thing, but it definitely is not RAW!
Since the purpose of this thread is to nail down the RAW for this situation, any 'common sense' answer which directly contradicts the RAW has no place.
Written rules, in this game, always trump unwritten rules which would be contrary to those written rules, in terms of what's RAW and what's not.
It is written that reach weapon cannot attack an adjacent target. It is not written that they can. Ergo, RAW, they cannot.
It is written that some weapons have the Reach quality. It is not written that this quality may be ignored when using such a weapon. Ergo, RAW, you may not ignore the Reach quality.
It is written that some weapons have the Reach quality. It is not written that any weapon without that quality 'might or might not have that quality; it doesn't say so it could be either'. Ergo, RAW, if a weapon is not labelled as a reach weapon then it is definitely not a reach weapon.
It is written that a longspear is a weapon. It is not written that a weapon is made up of an infinite number of non-weapon objects that may be used as if they were not the whole weapon. Ergo, RAW, they are not.
It is written that the improvised weapons rule applies to objects not designed to be weapons. It is also written that a longspear is a weapon. It is not written that you can treat a weapon as if it were not a weapon. Ergo, RAW, a weapon may not be treated as if it were not a weapon when making an attack for which it has been designed.
If you have a written special ability which alters the way any of these rules work for you, then you may use that ability in accordance with its description. If you don't have a special ability which lets you ignore the RAW, then RAW, you cannot.
You can certainly ignore RAW at your table, but when you do it is by definition no longer RAW.
You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.
Similarly, I can hold my rifle to my shoulder and use it as a ranged weapon OR I can wield it (with bayonette) as a piercing weapon OR I can use it as a bludgeoning weapon (buttstroke). But I can't do all three simultaneously. I must shift how I'm wielding it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone says 'Actually, I'm using it in a way which is forbidden in the rules', well you can...but it ceases to be RAW.
Ceasing to be RAW isn't always a bad thing, but it definitely is not RAW!
Since the purpose of this thread is to nail down the RAW for this situation, any 'common sense' answer which directly contradicts the RAW has no place.
Written rules, in this game, always trump unwritten rules which would be contrary to those written rules, in terms of what's RAW and what's not.
It is written that reach weapon cannot attack an adjacent target. It is not written that they can. Ergo, RAW, they cannot.
It is written that some weapons have the Reach quality. It is not written that this quality may be ignored when using such a weapon. Ergo, RAW, you may not ignore the Reach quality.
It is written that some weapons have the Reach quality. It is not written that any weapon without that quality 'might or might not have that quality; it doesn't say so it could be either'. Ergo, RAW, if a weapon is not labelled as a reach weapon then it is definitely not a reach weapon.
It is written that a longspear is a weapon. It is not written that a weapon is made up of an infinite number of non-weapon objects that may be used as if they were not the whole weapon. Ergo, RAW, they are not.
It is written that the improvised weapons rule applies to objects not designed to be weapons. It is also written that a longspear is a weapon. It is not written that you can treat a weapon as if it were not a weapon. Ergo, RAW, a weapon may not be treated as if it were not a weapon when making an attack for which it has been designed.
You don't use it in a forbidden way. The rules are very silent on how to use a shaft in combat... except where 'objects' are concerned in the Improvised Weapons section.
There isn't any rule which forbids the use of a shaft to attack an adjacent opponent.
We are following the RAW by using the Improvised Weapon rules for fighting with a shaft.
Stop claiming we are breaking RAW for fighting with a Longspear when we continuously claim to be fighting with the object known as a shaft.
Show us something that defines an alternate game definition of 'object', or accept that a shaft is indeed an 'object'.
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Where in the rules does it state this?
What part of the RAW covers switching between the "weapony" parts of a weapon and the "non-weapony" parts?
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Where in the rules does it state this?
What part of the RAW covers switching between the "weapony" parts of a weapon and the "non-weapony" parts?
A Longspear is a 2handed weapon, and requires 2 hands to wield. If you are wielding a shaft you don't have enough free hands to be wielding a longspear.
Letting go of an object in your hands or re-grasping it with a free hand are both free actions. Thus during your turn you could freely switch between wielding a shaft and a longspear, but not outside of your turn.
He isn't arguing that at all.
He is arguing that a shaft is an object and thus can be used via Improvised Weapon rules.
Why? This thread isn't about shafts, chairs, horseshoes or waterballoons. It's about longspears.
Unless of course by "shaft" you mean "shaft with a metal point on the end that is sold in weapons shops as a 'longspear'", in which case I'd like to point out that you're now talking about a shaft with the reach property, preventing it from being used to strike adjacent opponents.
Look, I get it. You don't like the RAW. Fine. House-rule. Because all this talk of shafts continues to ignore not only the word of RAW but the spirit of it as well. "Makes sense" is a fine justification for house-rules.
|
|
You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.
Similarly, I can hold my rifle to my shoulder and use it as a ranged weapon OR I can wield it (with bayonette) as a piercing weapon OR I can use it as a bludgeoning weapon (buttstroke). But I can't do all three simultaneously. I must shift how I'm wielding it.
No. If you hold, in two otherwise free hands, a loaded rifle with a charged bayonet, you may make your allotted attacks for the round with either interchangeably (as long as it has loaded ammunition), and you don't need any action whatsoever, free or otherwise, to 'change' how you use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He isn't arguing that at all.
He is arguing that a shaft is an object and thus can be used via Improvised Weapon rules.
Why? This thread isn't about shafts, chairs, horseshoes or waterballoons. It's about longspears.
Unless of course by "shaft" you mean "shaft with a metal point on the end that is sold in weapons shops as a 'longspear'", in which case I'd like to point out that you're now talking about a shaft with the reach property, preventing it from being used to strike adjacent opponents.
Look, I get it. You don't like the RAW. Fine. House-rule. Because all this talk of shafts continues to ignore not only the word of RAW but the spirit of it as well. "Makes sense" is a fine justification for house-rules.
I like the RAW just fine. So clearly you do not 'get it'. By RAW you can use a shaft as an Improvised Weapon.
Do you not like the RAW? Fine. House-rule. Make it so that shafts and stocks and whatever other objects you please cannot be used to strike an opponent in combat. But 'round here we discuss the RAW. Improvised Weapons, no matter how open ended this rules section is... is RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the RAW just fine. So clearly you do not 'get it'. By RAW you can use a shaft as an Improvised Weapon.He isn't arguing that at all.
He is arguing that a shaft is an object and thus can be used via Improvised Weapon rules.
Why? This thread isn't about shafts, chairs, horseshoes or waterballoons. It's about longspears.
Unless of course by "shaft" you mean "shaft with a metal point on the end that is sold in weapons shops as a 'longspear'", in which case I'd like to point out that you're now talking about a shaft with the reach property, preventing it from being used to strike adjacent opponents.
Look, I get it. You don't like the RAW. Fine. House-rule. Because all this talk of shafts continues to ignore not only the word of RAW but the spirit of it as well. "Makes sense" is a fine justification for house-rules.
Please show in the RAW where it states you can use a sub-part of an object designed to be a weapon as an improvised weapon.
No. If you hold, in two otherwise free hands, a loaded rifle with a charged bayonet, you may make your allotted attacks for the round with either interchangeably (as long as it has loaded ammunition), and you don't need any action whatsoever, free or otherwise, to 'change' how you use it.You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.
Similarly, I can hold my rifle to my shoulder and use it as a ranged weapon OR I can wield it (with bayonette) as a piercing weapon OR I can use it as a bludgeoning weapon (buttstroke). But I can't do all three simultaneously. I must shift how I'm wielding it.
I disagree. If I had a bastard sword and EWP(bastard sword), I can take each of my attacks one-handed or two-handed (assuming both hands free), but I very much DO have to change how I'm wielding it between attacks. Same with the rifle. (Edit: Especially if I want to grasp it by the barrel and swing it around two-handed like a great-club a la Davey Crockett at the Alamo paintings)
|
|
You don't use it in a forbidden way. The rules are very silent on how to use a shaft in combat... except where 'objects' are concerned in the Improvised Weapons section.
Exactly. the written rules allow you to use a longspear as a single, whole weapon. There are no written rules that allow you to use a weapon as if it weren't nor which allow you to use parts of a weapon as if they were a were made up of lots of non-weapons. Ergo, RAW, you can't.
There isn't any rule which forbids the use of a shaft to attack an adjacent opponent.
Exactly. There is no rule which lets you do that, and there are rules which define attacking with that object which is a longspear. Ergo, RAW, when you attack with a longspear you use the rules for longspears, no matter how many non-weapons you imagine are part of the longspear.
We are following the RAW by using the Improvised Weapon rules for fighting with a Longspear when we continuously claim to be fighting with the object known as a shaft.
It is written that the improvised weapon rules apply to objects not designed to be weapons. Whatever claims you make about imagining the spear as several non-weapons, this is not written. Ergo, it is a weapon and not a non-weapon in RAW.
If shagging sheep were illegal, your claim that 'Oh, no, your Honour! I wasn't shagging the whole sheep, just one specific part of it. And one part of a sheep isn't technically "a sheep", so I'm not guilty of shagging a sheep even though I was caught red...er...handed!', won't convince the court of your innocence.
Show us something that defines an alternate game definition of 'object', or accept that a shaft is indeed an 'object'.
In order for a spear shaft to be used as a different weapon than the whole, unbroken spear of which is a part, you would have to provide a written exception to the rules about how spears work. Without a written exception, the rules that are written trump any unwritten rule which is contrary.
|
|
I disagree. If I had a bastard sword and EWP(bastard sword), I can take each of my attacks one-handed or two-handed (assuming both hands free), but I very much DO have to change how I'm wielding it between attacks. Same with the rifle.No. If you hold, in two otherwise free hands, a loaded rifle with a charged bayonet, you may make your allotted attacks for the round with either interchangeably (as long as it has loaded ammunition), and you don't need any action whatsoever, free or otherwise, to 'change' how you use it.You can threaten with an improvised weapon.
Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet.
Not simultaneously. You either wield the longspear properly (as a longspear) and threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent OR you wield an improvised weapon (that happens to be shaped like a longspear) and only threaten adjacent. Not both at the same time.
Similarly, I can hold my rifle to my shoulder and use it as a ranged weapon OR I can wield it (with bayonette) as a piercing weapon OR I can use it as a bludgeoning weapon (buttstroke). But I can't do all three simultaneously. I must shift how I'm wielding it.
Yes and no.
You have to use a free action to switch from holding a weapon in one hand to holding it in two hands (or vice versa). But using the weapon to fire a bullet requires two hands, and using it to strike with the bayonet also requires two hands, so no grip switching is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the root of one argument here is some believe there is a prohibition on using objects meant as weapons as improvised weapons. The quoted rules text is "Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." followed by a sentence about non-proficiency and the penalties.
Compare to the inappropriately sized weapons paragraph above the improvised weapons paragraph. It begins with "Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it." followed by a sentence about penalties for the size difference.
To me, these first sentences are an explanation of the philosophy, if you will, or reason for the mechanical penalties that follow. "Fluff" vs "Crunch" if you must. But certainly not a prohibition on using a weapon in a way that was not intended by the weapon builder. Are you really going to insist that I can't use my wheel lock pistol as an improvised club because of them ?
It seems to me that the root of one argument here is some believe there is a prohibition on using objects meant as weapons as improvised weapons. The quoted rules text is "Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." followed by a sentence about non-proficiency and the penalties.
Compare to the inappropriately sized weapons paragraph above the improvised weapons paragraph. It begins with "Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it." followed by a sentence about penalties for the size difference.
To me, these first sentences are an explanation of the philosophy, if you will, or reason for the mechanical penalties that follow. "Fluff" vs "Crunch" if you must. But certainly not a prohibition on using a weapon in a way that was not intended by the weapon builder. Are you really going to insist that I can't use my wheel lock pistol as an improvised club because of them ?
That might be true if the second sentence in the Improvised Weapons rules didn't specifically reference the first sentence.
Sentence 1:
"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
Sentence 2:
"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"
So the rules refer specifically to objects "not crafted to be weapons". It then clarifies in the second sentence again that "such objects are not designed for this use".
Since the rest of the rules refer explicitly to the first sentence, it isn't just 'flavor text'.
"Because such object are not designed for this use" is again justification for the crunch that follows.
And you still contend that I can't use my wheel-lock pistol as a club because of this interpretation of those two sentences ?
"Because such object are not designed for this use" is again justification for the crunch that follows.
And you still contend that I can't use my wheel-lock pistol as a club because of this interpretation of those two sentences ?
You can do anything you like at your table. That's one of the great things about Pathfinder. House rules can tweak the game to be just right for a large variety of play styles.
You didn't answer my question. You (appear to) believe that by RAW a player can't use a pistol as an improvised club.
There are (at least) two interpretations of the sentences discussed above.
One interpretation is that weapons cannot be used as improvised weapons.
This interpretation prevents the use of a longspear at close range as a improvised bludgeoning weapon, but also to the conclusion that you can't use a pistol as a club.
Another is the interpretation that weapons used in a manner other than that intended are treated as improvised weapons. This interpretation allows the use of a pistol as a club, but might also allow the use of a longspear at close range as an improvised bludgeoning weapon.
Doesn't the case of the pistol influence the possibility that one interpretation is more likely than the other, regardless of what one believes about the longspear ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RDM - I think you're prevented from either grasping the shaft that way (I guess your hands just slip) or such attacks always automatically miss, because you can't make them. (insert smiley indicating amusement here)
So, in your world, what precisely happens when someone grips a long spear with two hands some distance apart and hits someone hard in the head with the shaft? Nothing? A hand reaches down from the heavens and prevents it from happening? The forehead magically becomes made of Adamantine and the shaft just bounces off?
Pathfinder isn't an emulator of the real world. Saying, "but this works when I try it" isn't a valid counter to the rules.
You can describe the way you hold a spear however you like. But it is still a Reach weapon that does 1d8 Piercing damage.
Some players may decide to describe using a different grip if they are doing non-lethal damage with the spear. That's fun for roleplaying and we encourage it at our table. But the weapon still has Reach and does 1d8 Piercing non-lethal damage in that case (with a -4 to hit sans feats).
So in other words, reality breaks. Thanks.
Don't know how to break it to you...But Pathfinder doesn't take place in reality.
I suggest that when you get a divide by zero error on something as simple as hitting someone in the head with a pole, then your understanding of the rules you are reading is probably in error.So in other words, reality breaks. Thanks.Don't know how to break it to you...But Pathfinder doesn't take place in reality.
There are countless times where Pathfinder does not emulate our reality. That's just the nature of the game.
Feel free to house rule anything that you feel doesn't fit your idea of how the world should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Let me preface- I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not making fun of Malachi, nor am I agreeing with him. I just saw a pattern in a post and wanted to comment because it kind of blew me over.
Ceasing to be RAW isn't always a bad thing, but it definitely is not RAW!
(Snip)
It is written...It is written...
It is written...
It is written...
It is written...
O.O
Preach it, Malachi!
No need to house rule when appropriate rules are sitting right in front of me, but thank you for the thought anyway.I suggest that when you get a divide by zero error on something as simple as hitting someone in the head with a pole, then your understanding of the rules you are reading is probably in error.So in other words, reality breaks. Thanks.Don't know how to break it to you...But Pathfinder doesn't take place in reality.There are countless times where Pathfinder does not emulate our reality. That's just the nature of the game.
Feel free to house rule anything that you feel doesn't fit your idea of how the world should be.
Appropriating one set of rules to apply to another is house rules. But it is your call to do so at your table.
When I decide to appropriate one set of rules to apply to another, I'll keep that in mind. Until then, I'll continue to use the appropriate ones in the book, to whit the ones for improvised weapons.
Indeed. The same rules that only apply to objects not crafted to be used as weapons.
Interesting theory you have there. Would make an interesting house rule.
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.
Nice try.
So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Because, there are rules for putting someone to sleep via spell or poison, but no exception made for "improvising" sleep on your own.
So, you are saying that by RAW your character can never go to sleep on his own?
Because, there are rules for putting someone to sleep via spell or poison, but no exception made for "improvising" sleep on your own.
Do the improvised weapon rules cover sleep? What does this have to do with using a longspear's haft as a weapon?