| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an improvised weapon. Unless you have some feat or ability in improvised weapons, you take -4 to attack. Additionally a light weapon will not deal more than 1d4 damage; a one-handed and a two-handed weapon not more than 1d6. Only crit on a natural 20, and only a x2 multiplier.
(Catch Off Guard feat will let you wield melee improvised weapons without penalty. Monk of the Empty Hand will also let you wield improvised weapons without penalty. Improvised Weapon Mastery increases the damage dice and crit threat range.)
I just watched a man with an accent beat a tire with the wrong end of a sword, thank you.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can, with this feat:
Weapon Versatility (Combat)
You can use your favored weapons in unconventional ways.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning,
piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by
that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon’s normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action. If your base attack bonus is +5 or higher, using this feat is a free action instead.
|
Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
The improvised weapon rule is the only way to get game mechanics for a non-weapon, and it works by finding the closest actual weapon and modifying those stats.
But weapons already have those stats, and you can't ignore them and pretend it has different stats.
Even if the rules allowed you to use, say, a longsword as an improvised weapon, then the most similar weapon to a longsword...is a longsword! So you would use those stats.
Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
I disagree with this statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any time you use a melee weapon without a range increment as a missile weapon, or a missile weapon as a melee weapon, you have turned an actual weapon into an improvised one. But, really, what you want is the Weapon Versatility mentioned by blackbloodtroll. (IMO, half-swording and pommel strikes wouldn't be turning your sword into an improvised weapon - many longswords had their pommels and crossguards designed with that sort of thing in mind.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement.
Even if the rules allowed you to use, say, a longsword as an improvised weapon, then the most similar weapon to a longsword...is a longsword! So you would use those stats.
No. Using a longsword as an improvised warhammer (reverse grip) would mean the most similar weapon would be a warhammer or light hammer. It would only be similar to a longsword if you used the slicing end to do damage.
...
Weapon Versatility (Combat) is another way to solve the same problem. It has the advantage that it keeps the damage dice of your weapon (2d6 greatsword-cum-hammer!). But the disadvantage of being keyed to specific weapons, and costing a feat.
Using them as improvised weapons instead does not require a feat and can be done with all weapons, but takes a significant attack penalty and typically smaller damage dice. There are several feats that can remove the penalty and improve the damage dice though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...The improvised weapon rule is the only way to get game mechanics for a non-weapon, and it works by finding the closest actual weapon and modifying those stats.
But weapons already have those stats, and you can't ignore them and pretend it has different stats.
Even if the rules allowed you to use, say, a longsword as an improvised weapon, then the most similar weapon to a longsword...is a longsword! So you would use those stats.
This has already been hashed out in a thousand+ post thread. Please don't restart it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement.
Actually, among people who study historical weapons, it's commonly understood that most pommels and crossguards on swords were designed for use as weapons. (I have no articles laying out this clause, and the books I have which would address this issue are out of hand right at this moment, but I will state that resources of a more scholastic nature also disagree with you.) Any sword not so designed would be the exception, not the rule. In that case, you'd probably be talking about a wall-hanger or other non-weapon that was never intended for actual use anyway, and then it would be an improvised weapon even if wielded from the hilt.
Per Apocryphile's request, I will leave my correction at that - my stance on this matter was already stated above, and remains unchanged.
Personally I'd consider half swording and pommel strikes to be using a lethal weapon to do non lethal damage (and all the standard rules for such an occurrance).
Simple but effective and without needing to create any new rules or calling it an improvised weapon (because non lethal usually imposes an attack penalty anyway).
Do you have any idea what pommel strikes and half-swording are? A pommel strike was historically referred to as a "murder stroke", mechanically equivalent to hitting someone with a mace or a warhammer (depending on whether or not you went with the pommel or the crossguard). Half-swording consists of placing a hand on the blade to use the point like a short spear - the thrusts generated can be notably stronger than a two-handed swing and are generally used to penetrate the weak points in heavy armor. Neither are anything like using the flat of the blade at least from a mechanical standpoint (what you were probably thinking of), and both would most certainly produce lethal damage by default. (You could try to do subdual damage with these methods, but only insofar as the fact that you could do subdual damage with a mace or spear if you went out of your way to do so, i.e. ate an additional -4 penalty.)
The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement.Actually, among people who study historical weapons, it's commonly understood that most pommels and crossguards on swords were designed for use as weapons. (I have no articles laying out this clause, and the books I have which would address this issue are out of hand right at this moment, but I will state that resources of a more scholastic nature also disagree with you.) Any sword not so designed would be the exception, not the rule. In that case, you'd probably be talking about a wall-hanger or other non-weapon that was never intended for actual use anyway, and then it would be an improvised weapon even if wielded from the hilt.
Per Apocryphile's request, I will leave my correction at that - my stance on this matter was already stated above, and remains unchanged.
Oh yes, absolutely. Historically the Mordsstreich and similar alternate weapon utilization were important techniques in the German school of swordsmanship. I agree, also, that the pommel and the like were made for the purpose of being used as a weapon. My statement refers to the rules context within Pathfinder: since the longsword, for example, is only a slashing weapon (not slashing-or-bludgeoning), the hilt/pommel are not considered weapons for the purpose of the rules.
|
|
This has already been hashed out in a thousand+ post thread. Please don't restart it.Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...The improvised weapon rule is the only way to get game mechanics for a non-weapon, and it works by finding the closest actual weapon and modifying those stats.
But weapons already have those stats, and you can't ignore them and pretend it has different stats.
Even if the rules allowed you to use, say, a longsword as an improvised weapon, then the most similar weapon to a longsword...is a longsword! So you would use those stats.
I can see the wisdom of that. Objectively, the matter is still unresolved.
So how can it be okay for the first guy to say 'use a weapon as improvised' (as if it were not in dispute), but not okay for me to put the other POV?
If you can give me a clue how to square that particular circle I'd be grateful. : )
@Malachi:
Apply Occam's Razor of Gaming: OP had a problem and now has a solution that allows him to play what he envisions with a suitable feat/ability tax. This is preferable to "it cannot be done"; and thus Occam's Razor of Gaming implies that all things being equal (or equally unresolved), then the more fun solution applies.
If you want to do mordhau i would just give -4 for penalty (it is kinda standart penalty for improvised/dealing nonlethal/dealing lethal with punches)
|
|
@Malachi:
Apply Occam's Razor of Gaming: OP had a problem and now has a solution that allows him to play what he envisions with a suitable feat/ability tax. This is preferable to "it cannot be done"; and thus Occam's Razor of Gaming implies that all things being equal (or equally unresolved), then the more fun solution applies.
That applies to the OP's problem, not mine. : )
|
|
Not to derail the thread, but is that the full text of the feat? You could adjust your grip on a club or firearm to deal slashing damage? Seems kind of...odd. I'd prefer improvised rules to that.You can, with this feat:
Weapon Versatility (Combat)
You can use your favored weapons in unconventional ways.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning,
piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by
that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon’s normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action. If your base attack bonus is +5 or higher, using this feat is a free action instead.
Yes. That is the entire text.
I suppose, for some, it would require a bit of time to envision how it is done, but it is not impossible.
Mechanically, I find it balanced, and easy to run.
I like that.
"I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
|
|
"I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
This feat does exactly that.
Common sense, the feat does as written. No exceptions.
Absolute RAW, and RAI.
"I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
This feat does exactly that.
Common sense, the feat does as written. No exceptions.
Absolute RAW, and RAI.
Nonsense. I am not going to submit to the guy who insists that things are the way he wants them to be because "RAW, dude, eat it!" Not while I'm GM.
|
|
Nonsense. I am not going to submit to the guy who insists that things are the way he wants them to be because "RAW, dude, eat it!" Not while I'm GM."I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
This feat does exactly that.
Common sense, the feat does as written. No exceptions.
Absolute RAW, and RAI.
Then you houseruled it to do absolutely nothing.
The same as ruling that Weapon Finesse does not allow you to use Dexterity for attack rolls for anything.
This is not some silly tactic used with a "RAW, so screw you" behind it.
It is fully intended to do, what you are ruling it cannot do.
How do you even see this feat functioning?
Really, your "it does nothing, ever" ruling makes no sense.
I'm with you, Ed. I would politely ask the person claiming their otherwise non-edged club can do slashing damage with this feat to kindly leave.
As for house-ruling this feat to do nothing... Common sense. A sword that has a point can be used to pierce instead of slashing. A sword with a pommel can be used to bash instead of piercing or slashing.
I'd rather do fantasy stuff in a fantasy game, thanks."I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
Thank you for reducing role playing adventures of heroes, sorcery, and mythical creatures to the level of purposefully misconstruing rules text for the sake of (in this case, at least) making a point.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians can already One-hand a 8 foot long, 160 lb Mallet, without magical assistance, but slashing with a Club, is too far a stretch thematically?
Note, this means they can wield two of them.
You can even already do slashing and piercing with your foot.
Somehow, this, of all things, breaks verisimilitude?
|
|
Thank you for reducing role playing adventures of heroes, sorcery, and mythical creatures to the level of purposefully misconstruing rules text for the sake of (in this case, at least) making a point.I'd rather do fantasy stuff in a fantasy game, thanks."I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".
No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.
There is no misconstruing here.
I have no idea how one can even say that, without a very convoluted excuse behind it.
You're conflating an extraordinary, superhuman feat that draws on ancient mythos with a banal twist that is contingent on an overly literal reading of game rules.
Different people look for different things from their game. I get that. And we might have to agree to disagree on that basis. That having been said, let's not kid ourselves about what the Paizo designers intended when they came up with an archetype that could wield gigantic weapon versus what Player X is up to when he argues this feat allows him to deal slashing or piercing damage with a club.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Answer! : club has nails/spikes. Now with extra sharp pointy bits you can slash and pierce using quoted feat. PHEW. Verisimilitude preserved.
I offered you my thoughts above, but here goes again. :)
Most swords are slashing weapons. If they have a point and a pommel, this feat should allow them to be used as piercing (point of the blade) or bludgeoning (pommel) weapons. Someone wielding a morningstar should be able to use it as a bludgeoning (haft) or piercing (spikes) weapon. Someone wielding a baseball bat that wants to do slashing or piercing damage with it needs to get a different weapon... or alter it in some way to justify the request.
Where RAW is concerned, I don't disagree there is a hole to be exploited. Again, I just think that would be a cheap trick and against the spirit of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a roleplay standpoint it's pretty weird but I wouldn't really call it a cheap trick. The gain from this feat is fairly marginal... It prevents you from really needing backup weapons, but the way Pathfinder works already heavily enforces the "pick one and stick with it" method of martial training.
To me, Weapon Versatility means I can use an Earth Breaker and nothing else. Because when you're fighting with a freaking hammer it would feel disgraceful to have to drop it for some dinky sword to get past an enemy's DR.
I am disputing RAW on those specific instances when someone is exploiting them achieve something other than RAI. Again, if you think the RAI is for a baseball bat-like club to inflict slashing and/or piercing damage when employed with this feat, let's just agree to disagree. :)
I really feel like if it was intended to only work with swords the word sword would show up in the flavor text.
Now that you mention "baseball bat"-like clubs, the idea of sticking a nail in a baseball hat isn't exactly novel and would cause piercing damage. If the feat really bothers you just come up with stuff like that, your character tinkering around with the weapon she knows better than anything in order to hit things that it normally wouldn't hit.
Since when do DMs everywhere have to abide by every feat, archetype, and prestige class written/published by Paizo? These are options--nothing more, nothing less.
Arachnofiend, please read my posts more thoroughly. I already mentioned that, and in the event that I wasn't clear enough, allow me to go on record here: modifying a weapon to achieve different damage effects would be perfectly acceptable in my eyes - within the realms of common sense. Want to stick a spike through your club to deal piercing damage with this feat? Sounds good. Want to argue that the pointy reverse end of your warhammer's head should do piercing damage? Even better! Want to argue that the un-modified short bow you're being forced to use as an ad-hoc melee weapon somehow does slashing or piercing damage? I'm not with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You swing your earthbreaker/club/other-blunt-instrument in such a manner as to better facilitate skin tearing, either by fracturing open bones or making such deep impacts into the fleshy parts of the body that they result in open wounds; that would be enough explanation for me. This would be more easily done on a blunt weapon with sharp corners/edges, like a flanged mace, or already long and narrow, like a sai, but the game doesn't differentiate there, and I don't care to either. (I'd accept Arachnofiend's tinkering solution as well, though I consider it perfectly plausable that someone who's paid two feats into specializing with a weapon would be skilled enough to use their weapon that way without needing to modify it.)