Sumshine's page

When can I preorder this?

I strongly disagree with you.

You could use the same argument for a pick, sickle, kama, flail, hammers, and trident.

You could say that all of those have a tool version and a weapon version, but even then you would still have to say that the kua-toa and sahuagin barbed nets are weapons, which may or may not exist in pathfinder, but they easily could exist in pathfinder even if they don't have their own stats.

Gladiators fought to the death. The net was used as a tool to kill people. That isn't a pedantic argument.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I've said my piece.

This thread was created solely with the intention of verifying that nets are not weapons in pathfinder. I think that should be changed, since the only rules for it is an attack. How else would you define a weapon except by "its purpose is to attack someone or something else"?

Thanks! That was what I was looking for! #1 is actually the one that is most convincing for me. For #2 I think that you could argue moving the form into the shape it is already in (like making the element push in on itself in every direction but just enough to prevent it from moving into a different direction, not counting outside force) (this is how I was thinking about it). I agree on #3, but if 2 is valid you don't need 3 to work. #4 I am not as sure as you, because it still has the form of the weapon, but that was what I am leaning towards and it seems to be how most others interpret it.

Anyway, I am satisfied with the conclusion.

Fair enough I guess, although I think it is very strange that pathfinder would define something that *only* has a design to make attack action as "not a weapon".

The weapon infusion is the part of the rotation that would be doing that. The base kinesis would just be making it keep its form for as long as you sustain it.

Someone told me on the discord that nets are not weapons in pathfinder 2e, which seems weird to me. It is used to initiate a grapple, which is a type of strike action.

--The reason the classification matters to me is related to the post I made about weapon infusion. If it is a weapon, then I could make one that is an elemental blast, which was especially effective in a game that I was playing in. If it is not a weapon, then it must be a tool, so I would need to have the flash forge feat instead (albeit, it wouldn't count as a blast in that case). But I think a net should be a weapon, since the only listed purpose of it is to be used to make attacks.

(historically, nets were used by roman gladiators in one of their iconic loadouts. It wouldn't surprise me if they were used elsewhere.)

Hello,
Is it possible to use base kinesis to maintain the form of a weapon beyond your turn (since base kinesis can be sustained)? Is there any reason that it shouldn't count as a useable weapon of the same type if it is, for example if you give it to a fighter that broke their weapon?

The kinetic blast talks about gathering "elemental matter" and weapon infusion states that it forms a weapon. What is unclear is if the matter diffuses to the point of being useless in combat. I think that it probably doesn't diffuse during the same turn, because one of the weapon options is backswing, which suggests that it remains in the form long enough to use it again in the same turn.

I was discussing the question on discord yesterday but the conversation was buried before I could continue it within reason. The main argument that I saw on why it couldn't be used as a weapon if you retained the shape was because the matter of a blast is instantaneous and so the matter would diffuse so much as to be useless; however, I disagree in the case of weapon infusion, because it does include backswing as one of the options.

-- If it works the way I think it does, a limiting factor would be the number of actions in a turn, so you couldn't equip an entire army or something. I don't see this as being particularly overpowered, but I might be missing something.