| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no grey area to me.
An improvised weapon is something you pick up from whatever is lying around you and start whaling with it. The feats that aid this are designed to do exactly that. Carrying something around with the intent to use it as a weapon violates the spirit of the feat.
Anything that's masterwork, is by definition.... no longer improvised.
I don't agree with that definition, or the spirit; catch off-guard is more about your opponent not expecting you to be too dangerous with a regular hammer or a golf club - two items not specifically engineered to be used as weapons. But if crafted properly, they could easily look like mundane items, but function like masterwork improvised weapons.
And about the enchanting. I have no doubt that improvised weapons can be enchanted, as long as they have the 300 gp masterwork quality/component required to enchant weapons.
Items don't have a "mouse-over popup" that tells you if it's a weapon or not. Enchanting items as weapons requires they where crafted with exceptional care and craftmanship, ie. the 'masterwork component', and the 'Craft Magic Arms and Armor' feat. If those two requirements are met, then you end up with an item enchanted as a weapon - possibly an object usable as an improvised weapon. Many weapons started out as tools.
And because in game - And this is important to me :)
Fighter: "How about this throwing hammer? It's good quality."
Wizard: "Sure, I can enchant that."
Fighter: "Great! I also have this carpenter's hammer that I like to surprise people with. Made it myself. Same quality and all. How about that?"
Wizard: "Sorry, no... that's not a weapon."
Fighter: "But... okaaaay, I also found this pretty stick in a cave, how about that."
Wizard: "Easy-peasy, a fine club like that. I can enchant that."
Fighter: "..."
So this falls in the big bucket of rulings based on "Why wouldn't it be possible?"
|
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.
Only objects crafted as weapons can be made into masterwork weapons, unless specifically stated otherwise.
By definition, an improvised weapon is an object not crafted to be a weapon.
Therefore, by rule, an improvised weapon cannot be made as a masterwork weapon, without a specific exception.
|
|
The exception is that they are both weapons and shields simultaneously, and may be made made with the masterwork armour/shield property and/or the masterwork weapon property. With the right property they may be given the appropriate enchantmentsYou keep saying this, despite the text explicitly saying you can't. It says "You cannot make a version of such items that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls". Somehow, you're getting from there to "you CAN make a version..."
Would I allow it anyway? Yes. Is it rules-legal? No. Is that a problem? Yes.
Shields are weapons. They have an entry in the weapon table and a line of options to make them good at this job. They do not provide a sound counterpoint to your example because both in the game and historically they are weapons. There is a FEAT that allows you to apply the shield's enhancement bonus to attack rolls. It is not an enchanting option. Hope that clears up the confusion.
Improvised weapons are improvised first and weapons second.So they ARE weapons, you say? After all, shields are weapons second,andthey can be enchanted. There's nowhere in the rules that places "priority" on what something is. Are Half-orcs orcs first and humans second? Is an urgosh an axe first and a spear second?
A chair leg is a weapon (bludgeoning, melee, throwing, improvised). The last bit doesn't invalidate the whole thing.
The chair leg is a club. You masterwork a chair leg as a weapon and you have made a masterwork club. Improvised weapons is a category of anything you find that can be used to do damage. Pencils, bowls, playing cards, and your dead friend's dismembered torso are all capable of doing damage, but they are not designed as weapons and cannot be mastered individually. They are not weapons in the sincere sense of the word. They are merely capable of doing damage. My point in the statement "improvised first..." is to bring to focus the core part of the definition of an improvised weapon. It is improvised.
im·pro·vised
ˈimprəˌvīzd
adjective
adjective: improvised
1.
created and performed spontaneously or without preparation; impromptu.
"an improvised short speech"
done or made using whatever is available; makeshift.
"we slept on improvised beds"
Compared to something that is masterwork
mas·ter·work
ˈmastərˌwərk
noun
noun: masterwork; plural noun: masterworks
1.
a masterpiece.mas·ter·piece
ˈmastərˌpēs
noun
1.
a work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship.
"a great literary masterpiece"
Makeshift =/= outstanding workmanship
So, bottom line, if you masterwork a bowl, it is an excellent bowl and still a terrible weapon. Making it masterwork would confer no COMBAT bonus to it, because to be a masterwork bowl it would become even better at performing bowl-type duties. Holding water, maybe soup. Decorating the space it is in, those sorts of things.
Let's take this to the outer edge to illustrate the absurdity of the entire argument. My improvised weapon is people. There's a barbarian power that lets me do this. How do I make another person masterwork for the purposes of my combat? What about dead people? Can I take a corpse to the mortuary and have it made masterwork? Of course not. I appreciate that you want to eek the most out of an improvised weapon build, but it's not going to work by creating and enchanting wind chimes, horse shoes, ladders, and buckets.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makeshift =/= outstanding workmanship
Best way to put it.
If you have a masterwork bowl it doesn't help as a weapon and if you add the masterwork (to attack) bowl then it is no longer Improvised as it has been designed as a real weapon (and you lose all Improvised weapon benefits.)
|
|
*Sigh* Fine, moving on:
Improvised weapons aside, I'm still curious what people think about shields. It rather explicitly says you cannot make one a masterwork weapon (such that it grants +1 to attack rolls), but also says you can enchant them as a magic weapon.
I think there are two possibilities:
1. Being a masterwork shield (for the -1 ACP) qualifies you to enchant a shield as a weapon, independently of any enchantments to its armor classExample: +1 light fortification heavy steel shield, +1 flaming
Total price is either (20+150 + [2^2*1000] + [(2^2*2000)*1.5]) = 16170
or (20+150 + [(2^2*1000)*1.5] + [2^2*2000]) = 14170
Depending on which enchantment came first.2. One of the two entries is wrong, and you can, indeed, make a shield a masterwork weapon for +1 to attack rolls.
[Note I'm not planning on extending any logic to improvised weapons, I'm just curious about shields]
In the move from 3.5 to PF there have been several errors that have crept in. Some errors have remained and actually led to the PF rules being non-sensical when the 3.5 rules made perfect sense. Some examples: threatening the 10-foot diagonal with a reach weapon; missing out the requirement to observe verbal/somatic components when using spellcraft to identify a spell as it is being cast, leading to a belief that a still, silent spell has visible and audible phenomena that aren't spell components.
Maybe this is another one. I'll check my 3.5 rules when I get home, and see if there's a discrepancy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no vested interest in this build. Ascribing motivation to me is only going to color your impression of why I might be making any given argument, and obliquely ridiculing me by using the silliest-sounding objects is not becoming of you, sir. Given how profusely posters on this forum argue for strict RAW readings, it seems to me that one might look at what the rules say.
Sure, I presumed that you had a vested interest. My mistake. The derision of the items is kind of sad though. Jackie Chan used the bucket, the ladder, and the horse shoe to devastating cinematic effect in his movies, and the wind chime came from an old era spy movie where it became an improvised garrote. Improvised weapons often seem silly, and part of the appeal, in my opinion, of using them is to be able to point out you beat some big bad npc with a herring or some such. Even in the recent Bourne movies the main character primarily defeated his attacker with a rolled up magazine and other sundries. If you feel obliquely ridiculed by the various improvised weapon examples that is unfortunate.
As for what the rules say, I felt that Malachi has been doing an excellent job indicating where the rules support masterwork crafting and improvised weapons. If it was vague, then let us focus on what happens when you create a masterwork version of an object. Since the absurdist examples will not suffice as they are not distinctly covered we can look at the moderate examples. Items that can be made masterwork but are not weapons, such as a shovel, clothing, etc become masterwork tools. These provide a +2 circumstance bonus to the purpose at which the tool was intended to be used. The game refers to this as the skill check associated with the tool use.
Should you use the spell masterwork transformation the result is the same. The crafted item becomes masterwork at its intended purpose. It could then be used to create a wondrous item but the masterwork quality does not extend to combat. The rules specifically spell out the items' qualities as a tool with a distinct purpose. Not a weapon as supported by the definitions provided here and the lack of an entry on any weapon table. Further, there are clear enchanting rules set up for both weapons, armor, shields, and wondrous items. Of specific interest is the clear wording from Magic Weapons
All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
A masterwork bowl is not a masterwork weapon. It is a masterwork tool. In order for it to become a magic weapon it would also require status as a masterwork weapon, which, as a tool, it cannot obtain.
Well, then what about the part of the entry for Shields that says you can? PRG 152: "but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
You were discussing the facts about enchanting enhancement bonuses to add to attack and damage and some allegedly conflicting statements made by another forum member. I was merely attempting to clarify that specific misunderstanding. I did not realize it was necessary to include full details from the previous debate points to ensure clarity. I will try to read the situation more clearly in the future.
|
|
Home now; done the research.
The 3.5 PHB is functionally identical to PF in that it clearly says (in the section on 'masterwork weapons') that even though shields are weapons they cannot be made into mwk weapons; they become mwk shields instead.
However, both 3.5 and PF say (in the shield descriptions) that:-
An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
So I checked the magic item chapters in both editions. Both say:-
Shields: Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
However, while the PF CRB leaves it there, the 3.5 DMG has a costed example, which continues the above paragraph:-
For example, a +1 buckler with +1 shield spikes would cost 3,475gp (15gp for the basic buckler, 150gp to make it masterwork, 1000gp for the +1 bonus to AC, 10gp for the spikes, 300gp to make them masterwork, and 2000gp to make the spikes a +1 weapon).
First, it appears to be mwk as both a shield and a weapon and adding both costs for a combined +450gp. This seems to go against the proscription on making shields into masterwork weapons.
Second, in case you think that the shield and its spikes are two separate objects, this is not the case:-
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
So the spikes change it from a bashing weapon into a piercing weapon, but it is still a single object. it also repeats word for word what the basic shield description says about enhancement bonuses not adding to attacks/damage, but can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
Since the example clearly shows that a combined magic weapon/magic shield has both mwk weapon and mwk shield properties, that this gives the lie to the earlier prohibition on making shields into mwk weapons.
On the other hand, on the subject of Primacy, it was said that whenever the PHB and DMG were in conflict, the PHB takes precedence. This can't really be the case in PF since both the PHB and the DMG were combined into a single book: the CRB.
So....any thoughts?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So....any thoughts?
I think you are reading way too much in the line that makes it clear you can't pay 150 gp and get the benefit of the 150 gp Armor and 300 gp Weapon Masterwork property.
I read the same lines and it seems to be clearly saying:
If you spend 150 gp you get the ACP benefit of Masterwork Shield
and
If you spend 300 gp you can "own right" it into a Masterwork Weapon Shield.
<well-stated arguement>
[stamp of approval]
As an aside and at the risk of derailing the thread, is there a way to make a weapon look like a non-weapon object ? Like a hat of disguise, but for weapons ? If there is, you could have your +2 mace of bashing, but it looks like a bowling pin (or whatever).
|
|
there's a belt in ultimate equipment. you can enchant it as a weapon using the 2000gp for the belt as the base masterwork price. The belt then reshapes to whatever weapon ( or one weapon , chosen when the belt is made? )
lets your character say things like "boy, don't make me take my belt off." to bandits.
plus you can wear it to fancy social gatherings without arousing suspicion.
who gets aroused when your belt comes off is another matter for chelaxians.
|
|
So....any thoughts?I think you are reading way too much in the line that makes it clear you can't pay 150 gp and get the benefit of the 150 gp Armor and 300 gp Weapon Masterwork property.
I read the same lines and it seems to be clearly saying:
If you spend 150 gp you get the ACP benefit of Masterwork Shield
and
If you spend 300 gp you can "own right" it into a Masterwork Weapon Shield.
Well, I agree!
But it clearly says that even though shields are weapons they can't be mwk weapons, only mwk shields.
Then shows that they can be mwk weapons in the magic item chapter.
This is a clear contradiction. We have to choose which way to go, and I'd definately choose to allow mwk weapon shields. I can see no downside.
Can you?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But it clearly says that even though shields are weapons they can't be mwk weapons, only mwk shields
We don't agree that line says what you say it says.
I see it saying essentially
... you can make it masterwork shield for the ACP benefit but this doesn't make it a masterwork weapon, for that you need to make it masterwork separately a weapon ...
|
Lets clear some things up, shall we?
. . .
Regarding Shields, you can make a Mwk Shield and it enhances defense, but not offense; but, being Mwk, it can be enchanted either for offense or defense purposes, just that, by specific exception, its Mwk bonus doesn't apply to attack rolls.
Nope. That's not how I see it.
Assuming it's even possible to enchant a shield to +1 for attack purposes, you don't get to do that cheaper than the 2300 you'd pay for any other +1 weapon. So the 150 you pay for a masterwork shield doesn't cover the 300 you'd have to pay for a masterwork weapon, and doesn't qualify the shield to receive a +1 weapon enchantment.
Shield are not a right example. Shields are both a piece of armor and a weapon as described by the armor and weapon tables in the CRB. Both aspect of the shield have to be enchanted separately. They are in no way improvvised.
|
|
The specifically costed magic weapon/shield is masterwork twice; once as a mwk shield and again as a mwk weapon. It is then enchanted with shield bonuses at magic shield prices AND separately enchanted as a magic weapon with magic weapon prices.
Since this shows that you can make shields into mwk weapons so that it can be enchanted as a weapon, it must be okay to make it a mwk weapon and then not enchant it!
It also shows (by requiring the +300gp mwk weapon cost) that it can't be enchanted as a magic weapon without first being a mwk weapon, as normal for magic weapons. Therefore this does not allow improvised weapons to be masterwork as weapons or enchanted as weapons. Shields are also weapons, but improvised weapons are by definition not weapons.
|
|
But it clearly says that even though shields are weapons they can't be mwk weapons, only mwk shieldsWe don't agree that line says what you say it says.
I see it saying essentially
... you can make it masterwork shield for the ACP benefit but this doesn't make it a masterwork weapon, for that you need to make it masterwork separately a weapon ...
Yes, we are forced to understand it that way, just to stay sane! It's the only way we can reconcile these contradictory rules.
I think it is clearly the way forward. : )
To those arguing against this, please answer the following questions;
1) Improvised Weapon is listed as a weapon in the tables. This means an improvised weapon is a weapon, period. There are traits, feats, and class features which all make it quite evident and obvious that improvised weapons follow all of the standard weapon rules, within the described exceptions. An exception does indeed exist (Unarmed Strike) where there is a weapon that cannot be enhanced by magic as other weapons normally can be. But it is a specific exception, spelled out in the rules as an exception. Is there any such specific exception listed for the weapon, 'improvised weapon'?
An improvised weapon is a weapon, yes, but it is not a normal weapon.
Normal weapons are not improvised.Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, ...
So for something to be an improvised weapon, it must be something that wasn't crafted to be a weapon.
Masterwork Weapons
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.
An improvised weapon isn't a "normal" weapon, it's an improvised weapon. Normal weapons aren't improvised, and therefore can't be masterwork weapons (but they can be masterwork whatever-else-they-were).
Special materials
Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality;
If I pick up a nugget of naturally occuring Adamantine (if such things exist) and use it as an improvised weapon to club someone with, it isn't a masterwork improvised weapon, it's still a misshapen lump of metal. It has to be made into a weapon before you get the +1 to hit bonus. You'd still get any hardness if someone tries to sunder it and overcome the appropriate DR.
|
|
This has all been covered in the posts you missed, including rules quotes, but I'll précis it in separate posts.
1) Improvised Weapon is listed as a weapon in the tables. This means an improvised weapon is a weapon, period. There are traits, feats, and class features which all make it quite evident and obvious that improvised weapons follow all of the standard weapon rules, within the described exceptions. An exception does indeed exist (Unarmed Strike) where there is a weapon that cannot be enhanced by magic as other weapons normally can be. But it is a specific exception, spelled out in the rules as an exception. Is there any such specific exception listed for the weapon, 'improvised weapon'?
As specified in the definition of 'improvised weapon's in the rules, sometimes things that are not designed to be weapons are used to whack people. Ergo, they are not weapons by definition. Also, only weapons can be masterwork weapons. Shields are weapon.
Whereabouts is 'improvised weapon' on the weapons table? I can't see it in the CRB, and improvised weapons are defined in the CRB.
Improvised weapons use the normal rules for weapon attacks (what else would they use?), but modified because they are not weapons.
|
|
2) A shield is not an improvised weapon. It is a weapon of its own right - a shield can bash. A SEPARATE weapon, shield spikes, can be added to a shield, but are not required for the shield to be a weapon. A shield as a weapon does have certain specific rules exceptions listed. One of those is that a shield can never be made into a masterwork weapon, only a masterwork armor component. Another is that it can still be enchanted as a weapon. Nowhere (including 3.5 rules) does it ever call for 300 GP to make a masterwork weaponized shield (the listed example is specific to adding shield spikes, which is not required to attack and deal damage with a shield, nor to enchant a shield as a weapon). I understand and agree with the logic desiring an additional 300GP cost to enhance the shield as a masterwork 'weapon' before enchanting it as a weapon. But can you find any rules text illustrating or supporting this interpretation? Because as far as I can tell, it is a long stretch and calling for 'RAI' over 'RAW' to insert this requirement, no matter how common sensical it may be.
As stated in the description of a spiked shield, the spikes are not a separate object to the shield, but simply change the shield from a bludgeoning weapon into a piercing weapon. Therefore the only priced example we have shows that the single object of 'spiked shield' is masterwork in two ways: as a mwk shield AND as a mwk weapon. Yes, this is against what it says earlier in 'masterwork weapons', but consistent with what it says about being enchantable as magic weapons, bearing in mind that you need a mwk weapon to be the target of the magic weapon enchantment.
So was there a general consensus on the answer to this because I wanted to make a character wielding a frying pan (there was a product where an NPC wielded a frying pan that dealt +1 fire damage) but wanted to know if I could enhance it magically or with enhancement bonuses to make it viable in later levels.
1) Improvised Weapon is listed as a weapon in the tables. This means an improvised weapon is a weapon, period.
Eh? Where do you see that?
TL; Read Most-
OP- If you want to wield a crowbar, is it not infinitely easier to agree to treat it as a club that functions as a crowbar? If you're carrying it about while adventuring, it does kinda lose that "improvised" status.
Perhaps you were a warehouse worker in a Magnimar, and knowing how to both use a tool for trade and defense was necessary for survival...
Improvised weapons and their associated feats bring to my mind many Jackie Chan movies, not one singular "non-weapon" as a character's trick.
Ask your GM. If it were me, I'd use your intentions to fuel my ruling. If it's for flavor, sure, but it's a club that can pry open boxes and such. It can be masterwork and can be enchanted; and sure, +1 to attack rolls for MW quality. But it is not considered an improvised weapon; we are just re-skinning a club, which is actually a fun way to revisit the lowly lump of wood.
If you're trying to game the feat, I'd suggest you turn your creativity elsewhere, because you're wasting a feat here if your intention is to enchant a crowbar.
|
|
3) Please stop calling out people falsely for arguing for this as munchkin or min/max or whatever. I do have a vested interest in this, but it has nothing to do with min/maxing anything, only as a purely flavorful issue (a drunkard meleer whose primary weapon is an ale stein - even if it were to be optimized, it would be weaker than any standard weapon or unarmed attack I might choose in its place; it is a choice being made purely for flavor). It is quite obvious that you do not know the individuals you are arguing against, or their intents - so please drop the assumptions (which as everyone knows just makes an ass out of you and umption), the pseudo personal attacks, and address this as a rules debate where clarity of the rules is the ultimate goal.
While none of us can know your personal motives for sure, when writing and interpreting rules it would be folly to blindly allow a skewed interpretation that could so easily be abused.
Your personal motives may be as pure as the driven snow, but we can't rule that only people who won't abuse a rule get to use it! If it were allowed to enchant improvised weapons as if they were actual weapons then we'd have +5 Vorpal rolled-up newspapers (paper cut, anyone?) before the day is out. This would be better than a longsword to someone with those feats that let you do 1d8 (19-20/x2) with improvised weapons, while allowing Sneak Attack damage on every single attack!
|
|
Well, it looks like a coffin nail has worked lose again. Let's see if we can't put that back and bury this one. (Again...)
(...at least the shield enchanting discussion was productive and informative...)
An improvised weapon is a weapon, yes, but it is not a normal weapon.
Normal weapons are not improvised.Not in all situations. If I take a polearm and wield it as if it were a staff, it is an improvised weapon. If I take an arrow or bolt and wield it as a dagger or dirk, it is an improvised weapon. If a monk of the empty hand wields almost any weapon, it is an improvised weapon. You are making sweeping statements which do not always hold true. And given that these examples exist, others can as well.
This is a terrible argument. A polearm used as a staff is being used as intended. A polearm is a staff weapon (the pole) with an armament attached (the arm). Choosing to use it as a staff is simply choosing to use it as it was intended. The feature of the armament prevents any literal translation as the weight changes, and there's some kind of stabby/cutty/bashy thing on one end. Staves do not have that. Many techniques transfer quite well, however. The techniques that do not, actually can't work or work with different consequences. (Oh no! I smashed his face in. I just meant to knock him out.)
You can take an arrow head and use it in melee...with a feat. And even then it is not used like a dagger. It is used like a pointy stick. To use an arrow (ammunition) as a melee weapon you are definitely improvising it. However, the arrow is not the weapon any more than the bullet and cartridge are the weapon. Both the arrow and the bullet rely on the delivery mechanism to achieve effectiveness. Improvising the delivery is: improvising a new weapon. It is not turning an existing weapon into an improvisation.
The monk of the empty hand does not turn normal weapons into improvised weapons. Instead he wields them as if they were a specific different weapon altogether (listed under the class feature) and assumes improvised penalties (since he is using them in ways contrary to their design). These weapons do not become improvised weapons, they are treated as improvised because the monk is doing it wrong. (Two handed weapons are all treated like a staff. So, the greatsword is now being used like a staff. Sir, you are doing it wrong!)
Not always. See above.Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, ...So for something to be an improvised weapon, it must be something that wasn't crafted to be a weapon.
I saw above. It was terrible. Can you present an argument where the rules actually do say differently? (Spoiler, someone on this forum has already found one example.)
An improvised weapon is a normal weapon. It is listed right there in the weapons tables as a weapon. Nothing in the RAW prohibits making a masterwork or magical improvised weapon. RAI and "common sense" (which is never common and always varies from individual to individual/group to group - thus how it seems...Masterwork Weapons
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.An improvised weapon isn't a "normal" weapon, it's an improvised weapon. Normal weapons aren't improvised, and therefore can't be masterwork weapons (but they can be masterwork whatever-else-they-were).
If I pick up a nugget of naturally occuring Adamantine (if such things exist) and use it as an improvised weapon to club someone with, it isn't a masterwork improvised weapon, it's still a misshapen lump of metal. It has to be made into a weapon before you get the +1 to hit bonus. You'd still get any hardness if someone tries to sunder it and overcome the appropriate DR.Special materials
Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality;
karosii, you keep claiming that Improvised Weapons appear on the Weapons Table. Please show us on the doll where the improvised weapon touched you. I mean...where on the table is the entry for Improvised Weapons?
Specifically the Improvised Weapons rules entry informs us that we must find an approximate real weapon and base the improvised weapon on it, replacing the critical entry for 20/x2. So a piece of rope might become treated like a whip. You could treat an iron bar as club, or a piece of chandelier with the chain attached as a flail. This is to simplify rules for using real world objects in ways not intended.
Lastly, the Improvised Weapon, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and point at the juggling clown, is not a normal weapon. If it were normal it would not get a special rules entry "improvised" which details how to resolve the situation in which a character had to defend themselves with a cart wheel and two stale doughnuts, or a sleeping pallet, or four dead mice and the cat from next door, or...whatever.
|
|
Shields are an example of giving an object enhancement bonuses to attack, even though it is not considered a Masterwork Weapon. From UE:
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.This is the particular block describing how you'd make a magic shield that gets enhancement bonus as a weapon; it calls out nothing about having to make it both a Masterwork Weapon as well as a Masterwork Armor. No where in the rules does that specification exist. In fact, the rules specifically state that a Shield can not be made into a masterwork weapon, only a masterwork armor. But, it can still be enchanted as a weapon, with or without spikes. Therefore, an item doesn't need to be a masterwork version of something designed to be a weapon in order to take on enchantments towards attack/damage or special weapon enchantments.
Therefore, it can be logically derived from the existing rules that a Masterwork Fry Pan, while not granting +1 to hit, could be enchanted with +1 weapon enhancement along with the Flaming enchantment to yield a +1 Flaming Fry Pan which gets +1 to hit and damage and has the Flaming property and there exists no counter-example that I could find. If anyone cares to provide solid evidence to refute this such as a clear counter-example, it would be welcome. Barring that, the theory stands.
A clear counter-example? Okay!
In the move from 3.5 to PF, the rules examples from the 3.5 text weren't carried over. Perhaps because they weren't part of the OGL lisence, perhaps because the examples weren't on the PRD, perhaps both. But the fact remains.
PF has either created new examples or ditched the example altogether. For the section on enchanting magic shields, both editions have the same rules, but the 3.5 DMG had a clear example:-
For example, a +1 buckler with +1 shield spikes would cost 3,475gp (15gp for the basic buckler, 150gp to make it masterwork, 1000gp for the +1 bonus to AC, 10gp for the spikes, 300gp to make them masterwork, and 2000gp to make the spikes a +1 weapon).
Since the rules behind this example did not change between editions, this example is still valid. It remains the only example we have. It shows that the spiked shield is masterwork in two ways: as a shield AND as a weapon. It shows the individual costs (+150gp and +300gp). The description of spiked shield also shows that it is a single object, not a shield with separate spikes.
Therefore, the only example we have shows that the shield must be mwk as a weapon before it can be enchanted as a weapon, despite conflicting text elsewhere.
The consequence for improvised weapons remains that a mwk weapon must first be a weapon, and since improvised weapons are not weapons they cannot be enchanted as weapons nor made mwk as weapons.