|
Wow. over 1600 posts.
Well, I haven't read them all but I thought I'd share my experience. Apologies if this has been raised earlier in the thread.
I trained in the use of the longspear whilst I was in an historical re-enactment society. The longspear very definitely threatened opponents at range, but once the opponent stepped inside the reach of the spear(point) I was in trouble. The longspear is both too long and too heavy to make any kind of useful attack with the haft against an adjacent foe. It is absolutely reasonable for the rules to state that a reach weapon doesn't threaten an adjacent foe.
However - could I attempt to hit an adjacent foe with the haft of my longspear? Sure. It's physically possible, but difficult and likely to result in my getting stuck by whatever weapon the foe has in hand. Therefore, making an improvised attack with a longspear haft is possible IRL and should be possible in game.
I would say it is a different matter to state that one can threaten an adjacent target though: you can make an improvised attack, but you're in no position to threaten (barring special training that in game would be represented by an appropriate feat or class feature).
Incidentally, most of the time I was using a longspear I was also using a large shield. The shield was slung over my shoulder and my "off hand" gripped both the haft of the spear and one of the straps of the shield. Effective, totally historically accurate (11th century England), but not, I think, allowable by the rules of our roleplaying game :)
Supervillan. The Koreans got around this by focusing on kicks if an opponent closed distance (on any one of their ridiculous number of polearms).
Monk sighs and flurries.
Supervillan, what was the length of the longspears you trained with? There is a range where bashing is still a great option, but then it ceases to be easy to do (this reminds me of an old dispute with a friend who favours 4ft staves over 6-7 ft).
As the spear is so prevalent across cultures, I know that some have so much blade (why bash when you can just disembowel them?) and some are shaped well for bashing. Then there is the old lizard killer if we are talking Greek longspears.
For your last point supervillan, spear and shield (and any polearm and shield) was finally allowed by pathfinder with a fighter archetype. I was rather impressed. Really considering halberd and tower shield.
Link
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fig hter-archetypes/phalanx-soldier
@Cayzle: I don't quite get your continued objection. In your last post, you say you would allow (as DM) someone to use a longspear as an improvised weapon. Very obviously the only rules that would cover that action would be the improvised weapon rules. You would probably apply them to the letter exactly how we have interpreted them through this entire thread. How is that not RAW???
I really do think that people use the threads on this rules forum when they want answers to rules questions. Then they go back to their DM and say, "Well, there's no FAQ, but the consensus on the rules forum is XYZ."
At least, that is how *I* use these forums, and others I know do too.
So my point is, we clearly do not have a consensus on this issue of using weapons in improvised ways. The decision should default to the DM. The player should not be able to quote this thread as an appeal to "authority."
Whether I personally as a DM would rule one way or the other is irrelevant. More to the point is that there is no answer RAW. And when there is no RAW, the DM gets to decide.
Just browse the big majority of the threads in this forum. People are talking about what the rules let them do. IMNSHO, the rules are silent on this "weapons as improvised weapons" question. The most we can say here is, "have some options, but you should ask your DM."
We do not say that, for example, when a player asks "Do inquisitors get proficiency with racial weapons from weapon familiarity?" for example. The consensus on this forum on that point is clear. The player whose DM disagreed could make an argument that the rules forum supports his point.
We're not just a debating society here. We give guidance to players with questions. We even have a certain measure of authority when we all agree. With 1600+ posts on this one, we're not giving much guidance or speaking with authority! :-)
No you do not get to challenge ALL assumptions.
You have argued that developer statements don't matter and you don't feel any need to accept them.
I think you have this a little backwards. The one developer statement we have for this situation supports our side. Your side is the one that won't accept it. If you're saying that "we should"... well, maybe reconsider your stance.
So my point is, we clearly do not have a consensus on this issue of using weapons in improvised ways. The decision should default to the DM. The player should not be able to quote this thread as an appeal to "authority."
Yeah, but ultimately every action defaults to the DM. No player gets to use forum consensus, developer quotes, or even the CRB to ram a ruling down their DM's throat.
But, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if a player declares an action, and you can clearly identify the rules that govern that action, AND you apply them exactly as they're written, isn't that RAW?
What I'm saying is, if a player declares an action, and you can clearly identify the rules that govern that action, AND you apply them exactly as they're written, isn't that RAW?
Sure, if "you can clearly define the rules." In my opinion, in this case, you cannot. There are too many conflicting ideas in the rules to be clear. The rule that says reach weapons cannot be used against adjacent foes. The rule that says (per my interpretation) that you cannot apply the improvised weapon rules to actual weapons.
1600+ posts says this: You cannot clearly identify the rules that govern using reach weapons against adjacent targets if you take the -4 penalty, etc. Therefore, not RAW.
Therefore, default to the DM's decision, but do not call it RAW. And that decision goes under the "homebrew" label, which is fine.
No player gets to use forum consensus, developer quotes, or even the CRB to ram a ruling down their DM's throat.
Of course not. But what we say, what the devs say, what the rules say, those words matter. Not enough to "ram a ruling down a DM's throat." But they have some weight. When we all post here with a clear consensus, it means at least a little. Enough to tip the balance and help DMs decide how to adjudicate issues, often.
OK, perfect example just now from a PbP game I run. Player is a halfling 30 ft up on a rooftop. Party is below fighting owlbears. Player posts, "I'll use acrobatics to soften my fall. I'll jump off the roof. I'll take damage, but can I use the rules for falling objects to hurt an owlbear."
Now, no way is this RAW! And I specify in my answer that I'm not committing to a precedent. But the Rule of Cool wins in this one, so I'm totally allowing it. In fact, I'm awarding a hero point to reward clever fun ingenuity, too.
But it is not RAW. The rules are for falling objects, not falling creatures!
1600+ posts says this: You cannot clearly identify the rules that govern using reach weapons against adjacent targets if you take the -4 penalty, etc. Therefore, not RAW.
This is a false statement. The rules have been pointed out, multiple times. It is indeed RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the smoking gun for my argument. Go back and re-read Malachi's original post. Read it carefully. In fact, continue reading his clarifications about what he wants - note how he never actually says he wants RAI, he wants ONLY RAW (in fact, several times he explicitly rejects questions about what was intended or what "common sense" says). The assertion here that it was "clear" that Malachi was actually after RAI is exactly what I am talking about - the systemic assumption that RAW can only mean what the designers intended to mean. That confusion cuts to the core of the central question of this thread, so I don't see how it can possibly be off topic to call it out and critique it. I will concede, however, that it is at least oddly consistent for you to chastise me for failing to follow the unwritten yet nonetheless somehow obvious intent of the thread, since that's basically what your rules interpretation comes down to as well.
Oh, and to be clear: My OPINION is that people are greatly overvaluing RAI in their home games. My ARGUMENT is that RAI doesn't equal RAW. My suspicion is that confusion over the latter point is the cause of the former.
No that is not your opinion. If Malachi is not sufficiently authoritative to clarify what he was seeking in his post and the developers are not adequately authoritative to clarify what they wrote in the rules then you are not sufficiently authoritative to tell us what opinion you have been putting forth in your posts.
I reject your assumption that your interpretation of your own opinion matters. Rather I believe your opinion is that you want everyone to play the game your way. You don't like everyone seeking answers from anyone that contradicts you. You are here in this thread to troll. You are here to bloviate a bunch of pseudo-philosophical drivel filled with buzz phrases such as "argumenation theory" in an effort to make yourself sound authoritative so that people will play the game your way. Nothing you can possibly say will change my mind on that because I do not consider you to be in anyway qualified to tell me what you intend by your own posts.
Therefore, default to the DM's decision, but do not call it RAW. And that decision goes under the "homebrew" label, which is fine.
I don't agree with this. Firstly, as far as I know, there is not a definition of homebrew and what should or should not be labeled. If you try and look up a definition you will find that the term is about making alcohol at home. Since that common definition doesn't make sense here, I will instead assume that it's being used as synonymous with House Rules.
If I am playing and the rules are unclear, and the GM is not changing a rule, then the GM is not using a house rule to say that the rules are to be interpreted in a specific way. At least not anymore than any other rules interpretations that they are within their purview to make.
But in my opinion a house rule is a rule that is created to deviate from the written rules. Your opinion on that may be different as well. (If everytime a GM makes a decision it could be considered a House Rule from then on, I suppose.)
Trying to label the stance that one side of this debate is following the rules and the other is using "homebrew" is problematic, because it turns into "right-play" vs "wrong-play". Which is unnecessary because the rules are unclear and it really should fall under GM purview until such a time as the rules are clarified.
All told, I think that this thread has played itself out. Either your GM will or won't allow it. At my table it would be allowed, but I don't read the rules like a legal document. I read them as rules to facilitate story telling, so when common sense says an action should be possible I will use the best fit in the rules to allow the action.
Reading the rules more like a legal document gets a reading where it doesn't expressly permit you to use a weapon in an improvised manner, therefore you can't. That style doesn't work for me or my group, but it doesn't mean that a group is wrong to play it that way. That is a stylistic difference and I believe that both groups can do that using RAW. (Note that neither side is breaking any rule as written to do this, so they don't need to create a house rule, they are just interpreting the rules in the manner that best fits their situation.)
I'm out of this for now, if the thread is still around at 2,000 or so posts I might pop back in and see what's going on and if any new ground has been broken.
And the haft of a spear used as an improvised weapon does not have reach, by the rules. Interesting how that works. By the rules.You forgot to finish your post with "anything relevant except that reach weapons aren't valid to attack adjacent targets." The rules do say that, inconvenient to your viewpoint as it is.And what the rules do is ... Not say.Let's try this to stir up the "do whatever you want at -4" crowd...
Why the heck would that be a bad thing? Martial Characters already have extremely limited options, especially at higher levels. The -4 is a significant penalty to perform a perfectly reasonable action that already comes at the penalty of not being able to use any weapon-related feats or enchantments.
You can already take a -4 to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, or vice versa. You can already take a -4 to deal damage with a pencil. That's pretty darn close to "whatever you want at a -4." Why is this the limit of possibility?
What in the world would allowing this action in your game do to it that would be so terrible?
I'm not saying it's terrible. It's just not what the rules say.
I'm on the record as saying I prefer the rules to say what they do, but that this is a reasonable area to house-rule on.
Because I can keep repeating myself... if improvising a longspear's shaft means that you can use said longspear to attack adjacent opponents, then you are clearly not permitted to improvise said spear, because the rules say that you can't attack adjacent targets with a longspear. Yet again, nothing in the improvised section states that it presents an exception to the rules established for reach weapons. Sorry, but when you find yourself doing something the rules say you cannot, something's gone wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? 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 blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and 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?
You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once. Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).