Throw a mele weapon (without thrown trait)

Yesterday I had a player (ranger) that decided to throw his Warhammer to the enemy (10ft).

He said that he don't suffer any range penality becouse hunter pray mark ignores first range increment penalty.

¿How should this work RAW?

¿What's the dice damage of the weapon? ¿Can he add his STR to damage? ¿What's the proficinecy?

Thanks!

He couldn't have done that.

No trait = Tossing the weapon
Thrown trait = Throwing the weapon

Because a warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait, it would be an improvised thrown weapon. STR to damage is always a part of thrown weapons. For all improvised weapons the other answers are:

Proficiency - Simple Weapon proficiency.

Damage dice and traits - What you, as the GM, feel is appropriate.

Because a warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait, it would be an improvised thrown weapon. STR to damage is always a part of thrown weapons. For all improvised weapons the other answers are:

Proficiency - Simple Weapon proficiency.

Damage dice and traits - What you, as the GM, feel is appropriate.

You forgot "You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon." Improvised Weapons, Core Rulebook pg. 278

I didn't forget it. It wasn't one of the questions. (I did, however, forget to account for people maybe not knowing that Improvised Weapons take a penalty)

I don't think I'd treat a weapon as an improvised weapon.

I mean, giving a warhammer the thrown trait by simply lowering his damage die and giving a -2 penalty? It's a sensible penalty, but it seems going against either the improvised weapon feature ( looking at the given examples: A chair, and a vase ) and the trait system ( I don't need to bring a thrown weapon. I can thrown my 1d8 weapon dealing 1d4 rather than 1d6 with a mere -2, if needed ).

I mean, allowing to use it "once" during the campaign may serve for RP purposes, I guess, but using something deliberately meant for "objects used as improvised weapons" more as a standard rule would be a no, for me.

I don't see how you could get to the idea that "throwing that object is impossible, because it's a weapon not designed for throwing" is more reasonable than "throwing that weapon won't work the same way as wielding it properly, because it's not designed for throwing".

I mean, can you throw a greatsword? Absolutely. One of the most hilarious sales videos in modern history spent entirely too much time trying to make that a selling point. So saying the action can't be taken would just be weird. Does that mean it's a good idea, and that it should be particularly accurate, or that it should deal the same damage as a melee Strike? No, so improvised weapon fits.

You got me slightly wrong there.

I'd allow you to toss a greatsword, but I wouldn't allow you to throw it in order to hit and deal damage to enemies, because the "improvised weapon rules" are not meant for "weapons".

They deliberately point out how to fight with a chair, a table or even a dead horse.

It's flavor vs mechanics ( and here I state again, I could allow it with no issue as a heroic action once per adventure, maybe ).
Personal choices.

Part of the "improvised (in a way the weapon wasn't designed for) weapon" and "less effective use of the weapon" difference (assuming the same numbers otherwise) is that in the former case it seems Runes wouldn't necessarily apply while in the latter case Runes would.

It seems a weapon not built for throwing would just as likely contact w/ the handle, flat of the blade, etc. as with the damaging bits, so I'd think the Runes shouldn't apply.
On the flip side there are weapons where all the parts are meant to Strike with, aren't there? Ex. Bo Staff.

I'd allow you to toss a greatsword, but I wouldn't allow you to throw it in order to hit and deal damage to enemies, because the "improvised weapon rules" are not meant for "weapons".

This actually is what I thought you were saying, and what I cannot understand.

Quote:

I'd allow you to toss a greatsword, but I wouldn't allow you to throw it in order to hit and deal damage to enemies, because the "improvised weapon rules" are not meant for "weapons".

This actually is what I thought you were saying, and what I cannot understand.

Reading the OP seemed that the player wanted to:

- Use a melee weapon as thrown weapon with the same damage die
- Talking about first increment ( where there's no ranged increment to begin with )
- Not considering the -2 ( here they missed the improvised weapon rules though ).

Leaving that much freedom between the lines of rules is imo unhealthy for the game. For example, do you think the ranger would have still considered throwing his weapon knowing that:

- Runes wouldn't have applied
- 1d4 rather than 1d8
- -2 on hit

?

And more than that, why in the world there would be a player/character trying to use over and over the improvised weapon mechanics with a greatsword during a 1-20 AP ( Back to "I'd allow it once in while" )?

But same could be said about the versatile trait ( who cares, I use it as an improvised weapon when it's needed, even with the malus. It's better than hitting DR 10/15 ).

But maybe it's just me who consider a -2, and a lower damage die, not enough given what a character may get in exchange ( talking just about mechanics ).

I didn't forget it. It wasn't one of the questions. (I did, however, forget to account for people maybe not knowing that Improvised Weapons take a penalty)

Yeah, I meant it for others as it seemed the OP wasn't quite sure how things worked.

Quote:

I'd allow you to toss a greatsword, but I wouldn't allow you to throw it in order to hit and deal damage to enemies, because the "improvised weapon rules" are not meant for "weapons".

This actually is what I thought you were saying, and what I cannot understand.

Yeah, this seems kind of odd. I could toss a tree branch at someone but if I call it a club I then find myself unable to throw it at them anymore. It's kind of like PF1 allowing you to hit with the haft of a polearm as an improvised weapon: when you use a weapon in a way other than as it was intended [IE built], IMO it's falls under improvised. I'd find it quite odd if I couldn't hit someone with my bow if I ran out of arrows.

Improvised weapon feels like the appropriate ruling for throwing a weapon that doesn't have the Thrown trait.

Can you throw a rock?
Can you throw a bar of steel?
Can you throw a rock that looks vaguely like a sword?
Can you throw a rock that was deliberately crafted to look like a sword?
Can you throw a sword (a bar of steel that was deliberately crafted to be a sword)?

Yeah, it is kind of a slippery slope argument. But it is really hard for me to draw the line between what is an improvised weapon and what is just a gimmick.

As another nod to the gimmicky feel of throwing your weapons as an improvised throwing weapon, I would also remove all of the effects of runes on the weapon. Those only work when the weapon is being used as intended.

As another nod to the gimmicky feel of throwing your weapons as an improvised throwing weapon, I would also remove all of the effects of runes on the weapon.

This is a hard one: After I thought about it, I think Runes still work [that still apply of course]. The reason is that it's still a simple weapon with runes attached to it as an improvised weapon. I can't see why my improvised weapon rock couldn't have runes on it [it's a simple weapon] so I can't find a reason to say a tossed longsword is different.

breithauptclan wrote:

As another nod to the gimmicky feel of throwing your weapons as an improvised throwing weapon, I would also remove all of the effects of runes on the weapon.

This is a hard one: After I thought about it, I think Runes still work [that still apply of course]. The reason is that it's still a simple weapon with runes attached to it as an improvised weapon. I can't see why my improvised weapon rock couldn't have runes on it [it's a simple weapon] so I can't find a reason to say a tossed longsword is different.

I can see it both ways.

As you mention, it is classified as a simple weapon and does have runes on it.

On the other hand, can I etch a weapon potency rune onto a soup cup? Even if I fully intend to use it as a weapon at some point in the near future? It isn't actually a weapon. Which is the requirement for etching weapon runes. They can be etched onto weapons.

If someone is going to be doing this on a regular basis, I would point them to the Weapon Improviser archetype.

I would allow it, with or without runes, and have it treated as an improvised weapon.

I would also allow a flaming tea cup to keep both a character's tea and their enemies hot.

On the other hand, can I etch a weapon potency rune onto a soup cup?

It's Dm fiat on what counts as an improvised weapon. If it does count, that good to go on runes IMO.

Even if I fully intend to use it as a weapon at some point in the near future?

Intent doesn't matter as far as I know: it's either a weapon or not.

It isn't actually a weapon.

But that's the thing with PF2: even things not intended to be a weapon are weapons if you can do damage with them. If a plate does a single point of damage when smashed over someone's head, it's a weapon. They could of had it 'count as' a weapon but they instead made them actual simple weapons.

They can be etched onto weapons.

Yes, and the game says chairs, mugs, frozen fish, large bone, nice skipping stone, ect are weapons as long as the DM allows them as improvised weapons.

If someone is going to be doing this on a regular basis, I would point them to the Weapon Improviser archetype.

I don't disagree: getting rid of that -2 item penalty is quite important. For that archetype, I think doubling rings and a gauntlet with the runes on it would work out better as you'll keep breaking your improved weapon.

breithauptclan wrote:

If someone is going to be doing this on a regular basis, I would point them to the Weapon Improviser archetype.

I don't disagree: getting rid of that -2 item penalty is quite important. For that archetype, I think doubling rings and a gauntlet with the runes on it would work out better as you'll keep breaking your improved weapon.

Not if they are using coffee pots with weapon runes on them instead of relying on Improvised Pummel.

But that's the thing with PF2: even things not intended to be a weapon are weapons if you can do damage with them. If a plate does a single point of damage when smashed over someone's head, it's a weapon. They could of had it 'count as' a weapon but they instead made them actual simple weapons.

Is a teapot a weapon? It isn't classified as such. So maybe, but it is a bit ambiguous.

The rules for Improvised Weapons read to me (RAI) that a teapot would only be a weapon during the time in which it is being used in a Strike. If all objects in the world should be considered weapons, they should probably be classified as such in the weapon rules and tables. Not buried as a vague statement in the Improvised Weapon rules that just says that 'Improvised weapons are simple weapons.' Instead of saying 'Improvised weapons are considered simple weapons.' That is a very fine hair to split.

The viking archetype also allows a character to use a table as a shield.

ps: Thanks breithauptclan. Gimmick was the word I was looking for when I tried to address what the player the OP mentioned tried to do ( get an advantage of the system ).

The rules for Improvised Weapons read to me (RAI) that a teapot would only be a weapon during the time in which it is being used in a Strike. If all objects in the world should be considered weapons, they should probably be classified as such in the weapon rules and tables. Not buried as a vague statement in the Improvised Weapon rules that just says that 'Improvised weapons are simple weapons.' Instead of saying 'Improvised weapons are considered simple weapons.' That is a very fine hair to split.

"Improvised weapons are simple weapons." This seems pretty unambiguous to me. And IMO it's in the exactly the right place: everyone knows that there are items in the world that are dangerous, and can hurt you, that weren't built as a weapon per se. A pitch fork is the classic 'peasant weapon' that people use when a 'normal' weapon isn't available. So looking for improvised weapon when using an improvised weapon seems right.

As to a fine hair to split, not to me. To me, it seems quite deliberate as they have changed racial weapon abilities to changed the weapon type [advance to martial for instance] to only work for proficiency. This hasn't changed even after a archetype about improvised weapons was made. IMO, the default state of any dangerous object is simple weapon.

The rules for Improvised Weapons read to me (RAI) that a teapot would only be a weapon during the time in which it is being used in a Strike.

This is where the wording matters. If it'd just for the strike, it's be that change I talked about where it only counter for proficiency. I just don't see the RAI in there that it meant something it doesn't actually say.

RAW no you can't do it. You can only throw a weapon that has the thrown trait. This is a melee weapon, therefore it can only make melee strikes unless it has the thrown trait.

If you want to treat it as an improvised weapon I think that can be RAI. You are using an item that was not designed as a thrown weapon as a thrown weapon. But that means 1) you take a -2 to hit, and 2) the damage dice and type is 100% up to the GM.

For the OP, its simple weapon proficiency. Everything else is up to you. You can say it adds full Str Mod, or half or none. It should do no more than d6, since that is the damage of a light hammer, something that is explicitly designed to be thrown. I would probably allow most weapon runes to apply. Striking, yes. Flaming/Frost etc, yes. Grievous, no b/c improvised weapons don't have a weapon category.

As to a fine hair to split, not to me. To me, it seems quite deliberate as they have changed racial weapon abilities to changed the weapon type [advance to martial for instance] to only work for proficiency. This hasn't changed even after a archetype about improvised weapons was made. IMO, the default state of any dangerous object is simple weapon.

A hypothetical level 5 rogue finds a Pick with some runes that look really useful. Especially since said rogue's primary weapon was lost in a swimming obstacle a while back. But since the rogue doesn't have proficiency in martial weapons, all attacks would be made without proficiency. 'But wait,' says the rogue. 'I can just swing it as an improvised weapon. I have expert proficiency with those, so the -2 penalty for improvised weapons will bring me back down to the same proficiency level as though I had taken Weapon Proficiency to gain proficiency in this weapon. So I'll just swing it as though it is a Mace and all of the weapon runes on it should still work just fine.'

And somehow you don't think this is a gimmick based on ambiguous rules that is too good to be true?

The rogue doesn't say "I'll swing it as a mace, and the runes will apply."

They might say they want to swing it in some way it wasn't designed for, but resulting damage, whether runes can apply, etc are all things that they have to ASK.

And somehow you don't think this is a gimmick based on ambiguous rules that is too good to be true?

You skipped a steps; "The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits the improvised weapon should have." As such, the thief can never "just swing it as though it is a Mace" unless their DM says that it gains the same damage [and type], uses the same number of hands and has the same traits as a Mace: only then can they "just swing it as though it is a Mace".

It could ONLY be too good to be true if your DM just lets it be whatever weapon you say it is and you ignore the -2 penalty: I'll note that a +2 is the difference between a fighter and other martials proficiencies, not something to just sweep out of the way as something minor either. I'm not sure how picking up something and having it be a full proficiency behind is "too good to be true", especially when the DM, NOT the player, defines it's stats.

Your ruling is very nearly equivalent to giving a General Feat for free. Even dropping the damage die size a step or two feels like a gimmick. How is this not strictly more powerful than either having to pay the General Feat for the proficiency with the weapon, or paying the time and money taking it back to town and transferring the runes onto a weapon that the character can use?

And the example is only at level 5. At level 13 the rogue gets master proficiency with that improvised weapon. And still only a -2 penalty. So at that point it is actually better for their attack bonus to skip the Weapon Proficiency and use any martial weapon they want to as an improvised weapon.

It isn't proper for the improvised weapon to also be doing equivalent damage as well. Lowering the damage die only goes so far.

Your ruling is very nearly equivalent to giving a General Feat for free.

You and I have different ideas on "very nearly equivalent": a -2 item bonus is quite significant as is the inability of the PLAYER to set the abilities of the weapon. IMO it is quite significantly below what general feats give.

How is this not strictly more powerful than either having to pay the General Feat for the proficiency with the weapon, or paying the time and money taking it back to town and transferring the runes onto a weapon that the character can use?

#1 it's a free -2 item penalty to hit: this makes it SIGNIFICANTLY worse that any other simple weapon you can use unless the weapon is at least a 2 higher bonus than the weapon you are using. Seems fine.

#2 Transfering it to another weapon gets you a +2 to hit... Seems worth it: if you could pay that money to make a weapon +2 to hit, who WOULDN'T?

And the example is only at level 5. At level 13 the rogue gets master proficiency with that improvised weapon. And still only a -2 penalty. So at that point it is actually better for their attack bonus to skip the Weapon Proficiency and use any martial weapon they want to as an improvised weapon.

What now? It's better to take a -2 to hit... I don't think you and I are playing the same game. What does a non-simple weapon get you if used as in improvised weapon? -2 to hit and an unknown damage dice, damage type and traits. This means that if you attack with a longsword but hit with the pommel, you are -2 to hit and the DM might say it does a 1d4 B damage and shove. How again would this be BETTER than having a +2 to hit with a dagger that does the same damage and has the traits Agile, Finesse, Thrown 10 ft., Versatile S? I'm genuinely confused by your thinking.

It isn't proper for the improvised weapon to also be doing equivalent damage as well. Lowering the damage die only goes so far.

What's proper is for the DM to say. For something like the OP's example, for tossing a warhammer 10', I'd be comfortable allowing it to deal the same damage for the -2 to hit: getting hit with swung big lump of metal isn't going to be very different from getting hit with a tossed big lump of metal. Now if it was a Scythe, I'd likely drop the damage die and make it B damage given how hard it would be to attempt a hit with the blade's edge.

graystone wrote:

As to a fine hair to split, not to me. To me, it seems quite deliberate as they have changed racial weapon abilities to changed the weapon type [advance to martial for instance] to only work for proficiency. This hasn't changed even after a archetype about improvised weapons was made. IMO, the default state of any dangerous object is simple weapon.

A hypothetical level 5 rogue finds a Pick with some runes that look really useful. Especially since said rogue's primary weapon was lost in a swimming obstacle a while back. But since the rogue doesn't have proficiency in martial weapons, all attacks would be made without proficiency. 'But wait,' says the rogue. 'I can just swing it as an improvised weapon. I have expert proficiency with those, so the -2 penalty for improvised weapons will bring me back down to the same proficiency level as though I had taken Weapon Proficiency to gain proficiency in this weapon. So I'll just swing it as though it is a Mace and all of the weapon runes on it should still work just fine.'

And somehow you don't think this is a gimmick based on ambiguous rules that is too good to be true?

I do.

I also think all the "improvised weapons" should be seen thinking about AP and Real possibilities.

Which means that the chances a character would be forced to rely on an improvised weapon during an AP, or any other play, are zero.

What has to be prevented, is to give players a "possibility" obviously not meant for "real weapons" but for "objects"

Players: Hey Paizo, what about fighting with no weapons? can we use logs or chairs to fight or are we tied to our fists and unarmed attack?

Paizo: You can use improvised weapons if you can't find a weapon, for example you might use the chains you found in your cell or the chair next to you in the tavern. A sturdy pot on the table or even a poker. Then the DM will tell you ( improvising ) his damage and eventual traits. Those will could as simple weapons.

Players: Oh good, so I can also swing an enemy with the handle of my sword, if I find an enemy weaken to B or resisting to P/S.

Paizo: I didn't say that ( nor created improvised weapon rules for this purpose, since different weapons have different traits ), but maybe your DM may allow it.

Turning it into a gimmick.

Graystone has a point when it comes to

The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals

And quoting his last example

For something like the OP's example, for tossing a warhammer 10', I'd be comfortable allowing it to deal the same damage for the -2 to hit

I wouldn't give him the full damage, but rather 1+ STR/DEX. This because knowing you can throw a non thrown weapon with a simple -2 ( maintaining the same damage ) will obviously result in players deliberately using it.

Players have to know for sure that improvised weapons should be their last choice in terms of combat ( or maybe something specific if all the players are breaking out from a prison, "before they find real weapons" ).

Anyway, I yet have to see a player, given the system mechanics, asking to use specific parts of the weapon, as I have yet to see players without weapons.

Players have to know for sure that improvised weapons should be their last choice in terms of combat

They do have an entire archetype that's all about using improvised weapons, so they aren't always items of last resort. As such, it doesn't seem RAI to nerf them SO hard that they deal "1+ STR/DEX" damage. I also don't see people clamoring to throw melee weapons at a -2 to hit [and no returning] if they have access to normal thrown/ranged weapons that don't have the -2.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Players have to know for sure that improvised weapons should be their last choice in terms of combat

They do have an entire archetype that's all about using improvised weapons, so they aren't always items of last resort. As such, it doesn't seem RAI to nerf them SO hard that they deal "1+ STR/DEX" damage. I also don't see people clamoring to throw melee weapons at a -2 to hit [and no returning] if they have access to normal thrown/ranged weapons that don't have the -2.

They do have an intere archetype to use logs and chairs as improvised weapons.

Whether you're smashing someone over the head with a bar stool, tossing a mug of ale in their face to blind them, or stabbing your foes with a broken bottle, you can find weapons anywhere and employ them creatively whenever a fight breaks out. Because you fight with disposable weapons, you don't need to be as careful with your weapons as other warriors do, and you can break them when needed to win a fight without feeling any regrets later.

The archetype is clearly not meant for players to hit with the handle of a sword which doesn't have the bludgeoning versatile trait, though metagamers might demand to exploit it by saying "it's an improvised weapon" ( eventually, claiming it's realistic or for RP purposes ).

It is possible to hit somebody with the handle of a weapon, but the game has a ton of weapons with different traits, and any player can bring plenty of them, so there's no excuses to me to allow exploits like those.

If the player lost his weapons and have to find something to fight with until he can get his hands on a proper one ( or if the player is a weapon improviser ), then the improvised rules would kick, allowing that character to make use of different objects as weapons ( they can even break after a single hit, if the dm decides so ).

ps: I consider the -2 a huge nerf, but I also think it's not something which has to be considered to justify ( For example, allowing the full weapon damage die, because the -2 is enough as malus. Nope. you get either -2 and a way lower damage, which means that next time the character would consider bringing a ranged or thrown weapon with him, knowing he won't be able to deal his full damage at range, if required ).

The moment players actively search for using the improvised weapon feature, we lost.

breithauptclan wrote:

Your ruling is very nearly equivalent to giving a General Feat for free.

You and I have different ideas on "very nearly equivalent": a -2 item bonus is quite significant as is the inability of the PLAYER to set the abilities of the weapon. IMO it is quite significantly below what general feats give.

breithauptclan wrote:

How is this not strictly more powerful than either having to pay the General Feat for the proficiency with the weapon, or paying the time and money taking it back to town and transferring the runes onto a weapon that the character can use?

#1 it's a free -2 item penalty to hit: this makes it SIGNIFICANTLY worse that any other simple weapon you can use unless the weapon is at least a 2 higher bonus than the weapon you are using. Seems fine.

You are focusing too much on that -2 penalty. It doesn't become a -2 penalty when compared to getting martial weapon proficiency once the character's simple weapon proficiency becomes higher than trained. At that point, using the martial weapon at trained proficiency is the same bonus as using it untrained as an improvised weapon. And once the character has master proficiency with simple weapons, using it as an improvised weapon has a better bonus. The only way to restore any semblance of balance at that point is to reduce the amount of damage that the weapon deals and the traits it has.

I also point out that this problem is not consistent across character level. At low level, the -2 penalty is significant because they don't have the higher proficiency. At mid level the -2 is less important because of expert proficiency compensating for it. At higher level the -2 penalty is not much of a disincentive at all. So having a damage penalty that also scales with increased level is needed. At low level the damage penalty is trivial or minor. At mid level the damage penalty is noticeable. At high level the damage penalty is significant. And the best option that I see that already exists in the game is to prevent the runes from working.

#2 Transfering it to another weapon gets you a +2 to hit... Seems worth it: if you could pay that money to make a weapon +2 to hit, who WOULDN'T?

And time. Don't forget the time cost. The money generally isn't the problem. Swapping those runes around is not something that you can do during an adventure.

Yeah, using weapons that you are actually proficient with is generally a much better choice. So if the player is trying to use an improvised weapon, that usually means that either they messed up when getting equipment (not having a ranged weapon in the OP's example), or there is a plot reason that they don't have their normal equipment (losing their weapon in my example). Being able to sidestep all of the consequences of either of those scenarios doesn't make for a good game. Sure, in the first case it may be due to a novice player and maybe they should be given some slack. But not by bending the rules. By having them find a reasonable ranged weapon during the adventure.

The archetype is clearly not meant for players to hit with the handle of a sword which doesn't have the bludgeoning versatile trait, though metagamers might demand to exploit it by saying "it's an improvised weapon" ( eventually, claiming it's realistic or for RP purposes ).

You'll have to show me where it's clear on this because I don't see that.

It is possible to hit somebody with the handle of a weapon, but the game has a ton of weapons with different traits, and any player can bring plenty of them, so there's no excuses to me to allow exploits like those.

What is the exploit? I'd truly don't see it. A -2 to hit, a likely drop in damage and likely no or different traits... Seems like a back-up option and not an exploit.

: I consider the -2 a huge nerf, but I also think it's not something which has to be considered to justify ( For example, allowing the full weapon damage die, because the -2 is enough as malus. Nope. you get either -2 and a way lower damage, which means that next time the character would consider bringing a ranged or thrown weapon with him, knowing he won't be able to deal his full damage at range, if required ).

I think you misunderstood something: for a specific situation, a warhammer tossed 10', I didn't see damage dropping. My answer would have been different with a scythe or something not made to deal damage with it's pure mass like a hammer. Now for other instance, I'd agree lower damage is likely warranted, but I strongly disagree with "way lower": I don't see the point as bringing a real ranged/thrown weapon is always better even if it's just the -2 to hit or low throw increment: adding "way lower damage" just seems needlessly punitive for, IMO, no good reason.

I mean a simple branch [a club] has a range inclement of 10' and does full damage so I have a hard time seeing a warhammer as dramatically less aerodynamic or weighty.

You are focusing too much on that -2 penalty.

Conversely, I think you aren't giving it enough focus. No matter how you cut it, you are using it at a -2 to other weapon you could pick up, and likely at higher damage... I fail to see how it deserves less focus than I give it. It's a significant penalty.

The rest about using it at a lesser proficiency is pointless quibbling IMO. Why saddle yourself with the lower chance to hit, likely lower weapon die and likely lower traits? You are literally losing ground to a normal simple weapon and for some reason you're holding it up as some huge benefit... I just don't get it. At best, you're get a weapon with similar stats to another weapon you could get but with a free -2 to hit... Oh goodie, the -2 makes me SOOO powerful [even though it's worse that just punching someone]. :P

I also point out that this problem is not consistent across character level.

No, a -2 is a -2 is a -2: it's 2 less to hit and a -2 to crit on EVERY SINGLE STRIKE and you make a lot of strikes. Every miss by 1-2 and missed crit by 1-2 is painfully felt no matter the level. I could be 20th level and I wouldn't opt for that free -2 and I can't see why anyone else would either. I just don't get how it would ever seem insignificant.

And time. Don't forget the time cost.

*yawn* I'm not even going to take this seriously. Unless the entire game is one big speed-run, this isn't an issue. It takes only a single day/rune. 1. This in a game where people casually talk about taking a feat at low level and retrain out of it later when a better one becomes available and that takes a week. This doesn't seem a real concern the majority of the time.

Yeah, using weapons that you are actually proficient with is generally a much better choice.

No, it really is better all the time outside a weird corner case: no generally here.

So if the player is trying to use an improvised weapon, that usually means that either they messed up when getting equipment (not having a ranged weapon in the OP's example), or there is a plot reason that they don't have their normal equipment (losing their weapon in my example).

I don't know why you two seem to want to severely punish the bad boys and girls that game with you for the very serious crime of making a mistake with equipment... It just kind of seems mean and needlessly punitive. I can't see any sane character NOT picking up a better non-minus 2 weapon as soon as possible: I don't think kicking someone when they are down is needed. 'You where bad for not having enough money to buy enough arrows. Bad! You deserve to deal a 1d1 damage die with that mace tossed 5' in the air! It's your own fault and you need to think about how wrong you where!' :P

Fact is ( at least to me ), Graystone, that the game is meant to be played in a specific way.

Choose your ancestry, your class, your weapons, and fight with them.

During the adventure you'll level up unlocking new feats, spells and combat moves.

You'll also get runes for your weapon, or even better weapons ( a character may change his weapon because he wants to or just to try out different traits. Or a mix of this ).

And that's pretty much what's this 2e.

Though I am discussing this here, I know for sure that neither I am never going to find a single person asking to use a weapon in a way that weapon is not designed for, nor going to find someone willingful to push the "improvised weapon" mechanics on "real weapons".

Just because of common sense and rules.

Unless, of course, specific situations which see, for example, a party deprived of weapons. But that's it.

That's why, to me, there's no reason to punish anybody, because there won't be anybody who'll ask to use those specific rules for purposes they are not meant for.

Finally, talking about the improvised weapon archetype, what do you expected from Paizo?

To point out that their idea was not an armed character hitting enemies around with the hilt of the sword or throwing around greatswords?

But maybe I am just lucky the groups I play with tend to just follow the rules without trying to overcomplicating things ( or simply we share the same ideas. It can be either ).

Fact is ( at least to me ), Graystone, that the game is meant to be played in a specific way.

I think so too: in this situation I think you're narrowing it a bit too far.

Though I am discussing this here, I know for sure that neither I am never going to find a single person asking to use a weapon in a way that weapon is not designed for, nor going to find someone willingful to push the "improvised weapon" mechanics on "real weapons".

LOL Paizo itself used "improvised weapon" mechanics on "real weapons": in PF1 you could use the haft of your polarms as a club. So I'm not sure how you can say it's not designed for it.

PF1 FAQS: "You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon." So I just don't know why it seems SO unimaginable: it's not like they haven't allowed it before.
PF1 core: "Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
PF2 core: "Improvised Weapons: If you attack with something that wasn’t built to be a weapon, such as a chair or a vase, you’re making an attack with an improvised weapon."

See why it makes total sense to me when the base explanation for both editions note something 'not crafted as a weapon' but one allowed for using a weapon in an unintended way counted for it? IMO, if it's intended to be different in PF2 then it should be clearly said it doesn't work.

Just because of common sense and rules.

LOL Common sense isn't so common, as what people see as that can very quite a lot: that's why I look at the rules part first and look at it by what makes sense to me: for myself, it doesn't make sense to have an improvised weapon rule and then interpret it in a way so no one would every use it.

Finally, talking about the improvised weapon archetype, what do you expected from Paizo?

To point out that their idea was not an armed character hitting enemies around with the hilt of the sword or throwing around greatswords?

I'm not expecting anything: you where the one that said there was clear intent and I don't see the clear 'it's GOT to suck or people might sometinmes use that rule' intent.

PF1 FAQS: "You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon." So I just don't know why it seems SO unimaginable: it's not like they haven't allowed it before.
PF1 core: "Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
PF2 core: "Improvised Weapons: If you attack with something that wasn’t built to be a weapon, such as a chair or a vase, you’re making an attack with an improvised weapon."

So, aart from the 1e faq, everything points out at using items ( not weapons ) as weapons.

Same goes with the Improvised Weapon archetype description.

I'm not expecting anything: you where the one that said there was clear intent and I don't see the clear 'it's GOT to suck or people might sometinmes use that rule' intent.

I guess I am not following then.

Is it common that your players ( or people you play with ) go with a single weapon and use it as a different weapon damage type when required?

Let's assume an enemy with slashing resistance.

Do the players you play with just go with a couple of weapons, knowing that there are 3 different damage types and that a different weapon ( which is cheap as a 2 handed one, or free if you use a one hand or dual wield given the rings ) or do the go on adventuring just with a greastsword asking "I wanna hit the enemy with the hilt of my Bastard sword " or "I wanna pierce it with my bastard sword"?

Or even more amusing, do they ask to use a bow as a club expecting it not to break after one hit?

Using them this way is "possible", but reality ( actual games ) is quite the opposite.

The whole idea of using an item designed as a weapon as an Improvised Weapon, which is for items that are explicitly not designed to be weapons, as ridiculous. If it's a weapon, you shouldn't expect to be able to use it as an Improvised Weapon. The GM should keep those cases to a minimum, as it encourages intentional abuse of the proficiency system.

Applicable cases I would allow a weapon to be used in an improvised way:
Throwing your weapon at someone (Lower damage die, range increment of 5 or 10ft depending on bulk)

Smacking someone with a strung bow (only a d4 or d6, would possibly damage the bow)

I would not allow players to gain a different damage type with a weapon by making it "improvised". If they want to bludgeon something they should have bought gauntlets.

So, aart from the 1e faq, everything points out at using items ( not weapons ) as weapons.

I doesn't need to be anyplace else: it disproves that it's SO unimaginable, you'd never see anyone even think about it...

Is it common that your players ( or people you play with ) go with a single weapon and use it as a different weapon damage type when required?

No, not common but it happens in games I play in. [I usually don't DM or play as a secondary one].

Do the players you play with just go with a couple of weapons, knowing that there are 3 different damage types and that a different weapon ( which is cheap as a 2 handed one, or free if you use a one hand or dual wield given the rings ) or do the go on adventuring just with a greastsword asking "I wanna hit the enemy with the hilt of my Bastard sword " or "I wanna pierce it with my bastard sword"?

Well this 100% depends on level: at 1st, you can afford to swap weapons around [you're just using up Bulk]. Once you get higher though, people start to stick with a weapon or 2 [mostly dual weapons or a melee and ranged] as the cost starts getting prohibitive either in money or actions [you know how many actions you need to move around a doubling ring to another weapon in combat?]. So I've occasionally see people use a weapon in an improvised way: it's never been a big deal as it's NEVER as good as a regular weapon. It's been the farthest thing from disruptive.

Or even more amusing, do they ask to use a bow as a club expecting it not to break after one hit?

I've seen it done before and some someone can't intentionally break an object with an attack, there is no reason to assume a bow breaks. Again, random tree branch #316 doesn't ever break when used as a Club so why assume a bow breaks? We aren't talking about the real world. And the funny part was that it was worse than if they'd punched it: they where forced into melee and didn't want to touch the flaming skeleton.

Using them this way is "possible", but reality ( actual games ) is quite the opposite.

This just seems super odd: I play PF2 BECUASE you can do things that are impossible in the real world, otherwise you're playing accountants and actuaries. It's like someone watching john wick and commenting after evert death how it could never happen 'in real life'. It's not like the gunslinger talent that allowed you to throw a weapon into someone, shoot it and have it fly back into your hand... There are limits to even fantasy combat.

The whole idea of using an item designed as a weapon as an Improvised Weapon, which is for items that are explicitly not designed to be weapons, as ridiculous.

*roll eyes* SO ridiculous, PF1's FAQs explicitly allowed it. LOL

The GM should keep those cases to a minimum, as it encourages intentional abuse of the proficiency system.

As I asked the others, what possible abuse is there? I still haven't seen anything that comes close IMO.

breithauptclan wrote:

And time. Don't forget the time cost.

*yawn* I'm not even going to take this seriously. Unless the entire game is one big speed-run, this isn't an issue. It takes only a single day/rune. 1. This in a game where people casually talk about taking a feat at low level and retrain out of it later when a better one becomes available and that takes a week. This doesn't seem a real concern the majority of the time.

People complain about their players camping in a dungeon for 30+ minutes healing up. Imagine how they would feel if you wanted to camp in a dungeon for an entire day (per rune) transferring runes around.

You haven't convinced me that the -2 penalty, removing traits, and lowering damage die size is sufficient for higher levels. I haven't convinced you of my case that the weapon rune effects should be removed also and that is fine. People reading through this thread should have enough information now to fully understand the impact of their rulings at their table on this issue. And that is really all I am here for.

I've seen it done before and some someone can't intentionally break an object with an attack, there is no reason to assume a bow breaks. Again, random tree branch #316 doesn't ever break when used as a Club so why assume a bow breaks? We aren't talking about the real world. And the funny part was that it was worse than if they'd punched it: they where forced into melee and didn't want to touch the flaming skeleton.

When you use a bow to strike, it's up to the DM telling you anything ( damage, traits, consequences ).

Or do you think that if you strike a wall or an armored character with a pot you can't break it ( the pot )?

This just seems super odd: I play PF2 BECUASE you can do things that are impossible in the real world, otherwise you're playing accountants and actuaries. It's like someone watching john wick and commenting after evert death how it could never happen 'in real life'.

Same, but I do not explicitly look after "improvised weapon rules" to exploit ( not the right term I guess, since if I am correct exploit has a negative approach. I don't know whether there's a "neutral" variant of it. English's not my native language ) normal weapon mechanics, just because the game already offer me a tons of weapons, and swapping weapons is part of the game ( action management, intelligence work ahead knowing your enemies, getting alternatives not to slow/bring down your party ).

Anyway, seems that we just had different experiences.

To me stuff like this happened just in the circumstances I described, while to you more frequently and in different situations.

People complain about their players camping in a dungeon for 30+ minutes healing up. Imagine how they would feel if you wanted to camp in a dungeon for an entire day (per rune) transferring runes around.

Then this really isn't the game for them then: the whole game revolves around easy healing between encounters and that takes time: it's more an issue with those players than the rune transference rule time.

You haven't convinced me that the -2 penalty, removing traits, and lowering damage die size is sufficient for higher levels.

Well if I can't convince you that it's worse to use a Weapon Potency (+1) staff equivalent instead of a Weapon Potency (+3) Bastard Sword, I don't know what to do: you're wandering into willful blindness territory then IMO.

I haven't convinced you of my case that the weapon rune effects should be removed also and that is fine.

*nods* It never stops being a weapon, so yeah: you'd have to show where where it stopped being a weapon at any point in transition from weapon to improvised weapon.

People reading through this thread should have enough information now to fully understand the impact of their rulings at their table on this issue. And that is really all I am here for.

That was the reason I stopped. I've never really encounters such resistance to runes and weapons as improvised weapons before.

When you use a bow to strike, it's up to the DM telling you anything ( damage, traits, consequences ).

Or do you think that if you strike a wall or an armored character with a pot you can't break it ( the pot )?

Personally, I draw the line with weapons built as weapons: I wouldn't expect the off hit to bother most weapons: if you do that for the bow then do you do so for a fall, Shove or grapple? How about potions in a bandoleer? Or one dropped from your hand? You start going down the 'realism' rabbit hole and it becomes even more un-fun IMO.

Secondly, the improvised weapon archetype kind of sets the standard for improvised weapons in combat and there they only break when dealing crits with special attack actions. So even normally breakable items, I'd give more leeway than I otherwise would. I'd likely only break something if it somehow enhanced the story/game: some poor archer fighting off a flaming skeleton? no breaking his bow just seems mean. Breaking a valuable vase over the head of it's owner, driving him into a rage? Yes, that sounds great.

The whole idea of using an item designed as a weapon as an Improvised Weapon, which is for items that are explicitly not designed to be weapons, as ridiculous. If it's a weapon, you shouldn't expect to be able to use it as an Improvised Weapon. The GM should keep those cases to a minimum, as it encourages intentional abuse of the proficiency system.

What abuse?

This kneejerk reaction kind of confuses me. Using objects in unintended ways to attack seems like exactly what the improvised weapon rules are for. The notion that someone shouldn't or couldn't be able to do that because it could be used as a weapon in a completely different way, I just don't get what that serves.

It's not like there's anything particularly abusable here. Improvised weapons are not good and also explicitly completely within the purview of GM discretion. It is literally impossible to pull off any shenanigans here. You're just going to make an attack with a hit penalty that probably does horrible damage too.

if you do that for the bow then do you do so for a fall, Shove or grapple? How about potions in a bandoleer? Or one dropped from your hand? You start going down the 'realism' rabbit hole and it becomes even more un-fun IMO.

I get your point, but mine was more about either the DM and the players using a given set of abilities they have, to deal with encounters.

One thing is getting close to an archer, forcing him to swap weapon or making him use fists rather than his ranged weapon, not to trigger AoO ( for example ).

Another one is contesting that a potion might drop from the bandolier during a fall or because of a trip attack.

I am fine with the archer dropping the bow and drawing his shortsword, stepping back and shot an arrow, stepping back and striding away, casting a spell, using shield cantrip and shot an arrow ( trying to mitigate the possible AoO with either +1 AC and DR ), and so on.

I see no reason to add other stuff nobody considered, in a situation which wouldn't need it.

One thing is getting close to an archer, forcing him to swap weapon or making him use fists rather than his ranged weapon, not to trigger AoO ( for example ).

I think he made a very rational choice to use the bow because he didn't know that punching the flaming skeleton didn't do him damage and he'd given his backup melee weapon to the fighter because the party had retreated from a Living Sap and the fighters weapon was left behind. You do what you have to do: Why would I punish the archer for handing off his weapon to the fighter and then not wanting to take the possibility of getting hit for free from an AoO [party failed the Recall check].

Another one is contesting that a potion might drop from the bandolier during a fall or because of a trip attack.

I don't see much difference: it's taking 'what makes sense in real life' over 'what makes a fun and interesting game to play'.

I am fine with the archer dropping the bow and drawing his shortsword, stepping back and shot an arrow, stepping back and striding away, casting a spell, using shield cantrip and shot an arrow ( trying to mitigate the possible AoO with either +1 AC and DR ), and so on.

Sure if the archer had a shortsword [he passed his mace off], had room to move [back was a rickety bridge], the bow did nothing in previous encounter with skeletons, had a spell [ranger without focus spells]... Again, it wasn't like he was overflowing with options as a low level ranger.

I see no reason to add other stuff nobody considered, in a situation which wouldn't need it.

I straight up don't get this even after trying to wrap my head around this. You can't imagine a scenario where a character might want to use a weapon in an unintended way? And it's not adding anything as it's already part of the game.

This thread got really complicated really fast. It should be pretty simple. Improvised attack rules should cover it. I guess the next question would be if runes would apply. Probably not I would say, although I could see the case for fundamental runes, especially with ABP.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

The whole idea of using an item designed as a weapon as an Improvised Weapon, which is for items that are explicitly not designed to be weapons, as ridiculous. If it's a weapon, you shouldn't expect to be able to use it as an Improvised Weapon. The GM should keep those cases to a minimum, as it encourages intentional abuse of the proficiency system.

What abuse?

This kneejerk reaction kind of confuses me. Using objects in unintended ways to attack seems like exactly what the improvised weapon rules are for. The notion that someone shouldn't or couldn't be able to do that because it could be used as a weapon in a completely different way, I just don't get what that serves.

I don't have a problem with improvised weapons generally. My problem is when you want to use an actual weapon as an improvised weapon and expect it to be better than any other random object you picked up - specifically items that have no weapon runes. That isn't what the improvised weapons rule is for.

Maybe some concrete math to illustrate.

G. Random Char: level 13; uses strength to hit; STR +3; expert proficiency in unarmed and simple weapons, no proficiency in martial or advanced weapons; current primary weapon is a +1 striking mace. Typical AC of enemies is 33. GM sees that this weapon is a bit below par, so provides a +2 greater striking longsword as loot in the middle of a dungeon. Player now has several options.

Continue using the +1 striking mace (transfer the runes after the adventure)

------

Use the +2 greater striking longsword without proficiency

-------

Use the +2 greater striking longsword as an improvised weapon. GM drops the damage die to d6.

-------

One of these options is clearly superior to the others. And it isn't one that I think is appropriate.

Some other options for comparison:

Using an actual mundane object as a +0 improvised weapon: expected damage 1.95

Having trained proficiency with martial weapons and using that +2 greater striking longsword: expected damage 6.6

Hold up in-game time and camp in the middle of the dungeon for 2 days transferring runes. +2 greater striking mace: expected damage 6.75

Yeah, that -2 penalty is noticeable (6.75 vs 5.4 expected damage). But it is also a +15 bonus to what your character would otherwise be entitled to given your feat choices when using that weapon. And if you rule that the weapon runes still apply, then it is a +2 bonus (from the rune) and two extra damage dice above what you should have when using an improvised weapon such as a chair leg that you ripped off of a bar room chair.

It's not like there's anything particularly abusable here. Improvised weapons are not good and also explicitly completely within the purview of GM discretion. It is literally impossible to pull off any shenanigans here. You're just going to make an attack with a hit penalty that probably does horrible damage too.

It is not abuseable if the GM is aware of the potentials for abuse. Yeah, a monk picking up a random object to use as a weapon against an enemy that causes damage when hit with an unarmed attack makes sense. Throwing a 2-hand melee weapon as a last ditch effort to finish off an enemy that is out of your range and about to take its next turn makes sense.

But don't expect to get regular weapon rune effects on the improvised attack also.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

The whole idea of using an item designed as a weapon as an Improvised Weapon, which is for items that are explicitly not designed to be weapons, as ridiculous.

*roll eyes* SO ridiculous, PF1's FAQs explicitly allowed it. LOL

Since when are rulings in PF1 applicable to PF2? That's like saying a 5e ruling applies here.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

The GM should keep those cases to a minimum, as it encourages intentional abuse of the proficiency system.

As I asked the others, what possible abuse is there? I still haven't seen anything that comes close IMO.

I'm talking about using WEAPONS as Improvised Weapons. If you pick up a Sawtooth Saber and aren't proficient with it, you shouldn't be able to still use it as "improvised" and gain almost all the benefits, with just a -2 penalty. It's a weapon already, if you aren't proficient you aren't proficient, you can't circumvent that by improvising.

Best case, I would say you can use it as a d4 slashing weapon with no traits. You don't get rewarded for trying to abuse rules and find loopholes in my book. See the post above for numbers explaining what we mean.

And remember, it's ALWAYS up to the GM what happens when someone tries to Improvise something. Any insistence otherwise it just players complaining about not being able to exploit a loophole.

Are people trying to say that you SHOULD be able to make an improvised attack and keep all the typical statistics of the weapon? That would definitely be unreasonable. Any decent dm would change it to suit the attack. Improvised weapons are simple weapons so it should follow simple weapon trends or slightly worse depending on the attack in question.

Since when are rulings in PF1 applicable to PF2? That's like saying a 5e ruling applies here.

I'm not using it as proof of a PF2 rule: we aren't debating that here. It's used as proof that it's not out of left field or crazy on it's face since it was claimed whole idea was ridiculous: and showing that this company used almost the exact wording and ruled that weapons could be used as improvised weapon shows that it's not "ridiculous" or outlandish.

I'm talking about using WEAPONS as Improvised Weapons. If you pick up a Sawtooth Saber and aren't proficient with it, you shouldn't be able to still use it as "improvised" and gain almost all the benefits, with just a -2 penalty. It's a weapon already, if you aren't proficient you aren't proficient, you can't circumvent that by improvising.

I don't think ANYONE here has ever said that you "gain almost all the benefits".

Best case, I would say you can use it as a d4 slashing weapon with no traits. You don't get rewarded for trying to abuse rules and find loopholes in my book. See the post above for numbers explaining what we mean.

Seems fair, as a 1-2 die drop seems reasonable, though I'd say runes would still be active. My disagreement with HumbleGamer was dropping damage from 1d8 to 1, which seemed excessive.

And remember, it's ALWAYS up to the GM what happens when someone tries to Improvise something. Any insistence otherwise it just players complaining about not being able to exploit a loophole.

Again, I just don't see this exploit. I've been keeping up with breithauptclan's posts on how bad it would be and I just don't see it. You're always worse off using it vs using a normal weapon you're proficient in: it's just for instances where you find yourself having to think out of the box for one reason or another [unless you're a weapon improviser of course].

As to players complaining, well if players and DM's don't agree with what is a reasonable ruling, they can go their separate ways. It doesn't make one of the other wrong.

Are people trying to say that you SHOULD be able to make an improvised attack and keep all the typical statistics of the weapon? That would definitely be unreasonable. Any decent dm would change it to suit the attack. Improvised weapons are simple weapons so it should follow simple weapon trends or slightly worse depending on the attack in question.

No, no one is.

That's what I figured. Have we solved the issue?

That's what I figured. Have we solved the issue?

I think it's solved but other think differently.

To sum it up, some think that you can use a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended, like throwing a weapon without Thrown or using the flat of your blade with a bastard sword and some don't. Some think runes don't work if you use improvised weapon with a weapon and some do.

Myself I see it this way: I think weapons can be used as improvised weapons and improvised weapon are simple weapon, so when you use a weapon as an improvised weapon, since it's still a weapon, the runes still work. Then of course, when used as an improvised weapon, the DM sets the damage die, damage type and traits.

So for the OP, myself I'd let the warhammer deal use it's full die [as it's only going 10' and dealing B] and I would have made it a range increment of 5' but since the character had Hunt Prey and ignored the second increment it didn't matter. Myself, I'd be a little more lenient with thrown damage if it wouldn't be too hard to throw [hammer throw is a thing] as you're tossing away your weapon and taking a -2 to hit. That said, I wouldn't be upset if a DM said it only did less damage.