Masterwork improvised weapons and enchanting them


Rules Questions

151 to 185 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

+3 back scratcher of eye gouging and ripping......

Blinds foes and gets to those hard to reach places....

Silver Crusade

karossii wrote:
Can improvised weapons be enchanted? I say yes. I see nothing aside from opinion and a lot of 'common sense' arguments otherwise. To me, most of the arguments against it are the ones reaching and stretching to pervert the rules. As I said, I could be wrong, but that is honestly what I am seeing in this thread.

I do not see any support for your statement other than the word Weapon is in the phrase Improvised Weapons.

Please indicate the rules for enchanting a scroll tube to be +1 Flaming.
Please indicate the rules for enchanting a cheese wheel to be +2 Impact.
Please indicate the rules for enchanting a bucket to be +1 Holy Bane(water elemental).
Please indicate the rules for enchanting a person (valid improvised weapon via barbarian fu) to be +2 Defending.

Really, I want to see an argument for enchanting improvised weapons that doesn't rely on the word weapon following the adjective improvised. Telling me a beer stein is a weapon does not make it so. It is a beer stein. I can bash a face in with it, sure, but it is designed to hold beverages. I can bash faces in with dead animals, and old poo, as well. At every turn more than one individual has brought up the definitions provided in the game, the language and requirements of the enchanting section, as well as every other scrap of language and supporting mechanism for the argument against it.

Your turn.

You show us, definitively, why you should be allowed to enchant rolled up newspapers, tea kettles, bottle corks, tongs, or anything else as a weapon.


karossii wrote:
Except nothing ever requires a shield to have shield spikes to be enchanted as a weapon, and several existing magical shields explicitly lack shield spikes. Therefor you have an incorrect conclusion based on faulty logic.

1) A weapon must be a Masterwork Weapon to be enchanted.

PRG 551: "Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon."

2) Masterwork weapons add +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls
PRG 149: "A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

3) You cannot make an ordinary shield a Masterwork Weapon.
PRG 149: "Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
PRG 153: "The masterwork quality of a suit of armor or shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if the armor or shield is used as a weapon."

4) UNLESS it has Shield Spikes.
Pathfinder SRD: "However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes."

There is nothing faulty about my logic. My logic is sound. I want to be wrong, however. I want you to provide a counterexample. I want to see a non-spiked shield that's enchanted as a weapon, because I think requiring spikes is silly. You say such examples exist - show me! Please! I want to see them!.


ErrantPursuit wrote:

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...)

karossii wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:

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.

Except in the case of an arrow or bolt you are explicitly wrong. The rules clearly and specifically state that any character can use an arrow as an improvised melee weapon with the stats of a dagger. It is turning an existing weapon (ranged ammunition) into an improvised weapon (melee), simply by using it in a manner it is not normally used.

Quote:
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!)

Meaning any and all weapons can be used as an improvised weapon simply by 'doing it wrong' as you so state...

Quote:
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?

I took my time in replying to make sure of this. I was wrong. I am not sure why or how I made this mistake, I thought I was right in that. My best guess is the fact that an improvised thrown weapon is listed in the tables (to give range, I assume).

Yet even not being listed on the chart does not remove the fact that they are clearly spelled out as a weapon in the weapons chapter.

Quote:
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.

Except when it is aan actual weapon being used as an improvised weapon, as in the examples I and others have given.


Bizbag wrote:
karossii wrote:
Except nothing ever requires a shield to have shield spikes to be enchanted as a weapon, and several existing magical shields explicitly lack shield spikes. Therefor you have an incorrect conclusion based on faulty logic.

1) A weapon must be a Masterwork Weapon to be enchanted.

PRG 551: "Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon."

2) Masterwork weapons add +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls
PRG 149: "A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

3) You cannot make an ordinary shield a Masterwork Weapon.
PRG 149: "Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
PRG 153: "The masterwork quality of a suit of armor or shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if the armor or shield is used as a weapon."

4) UNLESS it has Shield Spikes.
Pathfinder SRD: "However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes."

There is nothing faulty about my logic. My logic is sound. I want to be wrong, however. I want you to provide a counterexample. I want to see a non-spiked shield that's enchanted as a weapon, because I think requiring spikes is silly. You say such examples exist - show me! Please! I want to see them!.

How then do you explain that a shield without shield spikes can and is made into a magical weapon? Shield spikes are much like a double weapon. They can be made masterwork and enchanted separately from the shield, just as the two ends or heads or whatever of a magical weapon can be made masterwork and enchanted separately. That does not mean they are two objects. Yet a shield without spikes can also be enchanted. It is right there in the rules text. There exist example magic shields in various published materials which do B damage, making it evident they have no spikes.

That is an invented requirement based on 3.5 text, and is not applicable to the pathfinder discussion.

Silver Crusade

karossii wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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.

This. Malachi's got it.

1) Rule: Weapons can be made masterwork, then enchanted.
2) RULES EXCEPTION: Shields may not be made masterwork weapons
3) Rule: Shields may be enchanted as magic weapons
4) SEGFAULT: It is not possible to enchant a weapon that is not a masterwork weapon.
5) RULES EXCEPTION: Adding shield spikes to your shield allows you to make the shield a masterwork weapon
6) SOLUTION: A shield must have shield spikes to be made a masterwork weapon, which can then be enchanted as a weapon.

This is the RAW. As for RAI, I'd allow a player to make a Bludgeoning shield masterwork and enchant it anyway. They'd do the slightly lower damage of a not-spiked shield, of course.

Except nothing ever requires a shield to have shield spikes to be enchanted as a weapon, and several existing magical shields explicitly lack shield spikes. Therefor you have an incorrect conclusion based on faulty logic.

Although the example used a spiked shield (which is a single object, not two objects nailed together) it could just as easily have been a normal shield and the same rules would apply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
karossii wrote:
How then do you explain that a shield without shield spikes can and is made into a magical weapon?

My explanation is that they cannot, until you link me one of these counterexamples you keep mentioning, or at least tell me which publication I might find it in; I've got access to a few.

Quote:
Shield spikes are much like a double weapon. They can be made masterwork and enchanted separately from the shield, just as the two ends or heads or whatever of a magical weapon can be made masterwork and enchanted separately.

Shield spikes aren't anything like a double weapon. There isn't an item called "shield spikes". Any non-tower shield can instead be a Spiked shield for 10gp more. It is not a distinct "slot" on the shield, it's one item called a Spiked Shield. If it's Spiked, the rules say you can make it a Masterwork Weapon. If it's not, the rules rather specifically say it cannot be made a Masterwork Weapon.

Again, I think this is a silly restriction. I want to see one of these vaunted counterexamples. I want this strict RAW reading to be proven wrong by a counterexample. As written, though, there's a segfault in the qualification - shields can be magic only if they're spiked.

Silver Crusade

karossii wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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!

I am not intimating you should drop the argument and say I am correct because of my motives or lack thereof. I am saying those who are making suppositions and arguments based on their assumptions of intent, and in the basest form, name calling and slinging insults which are irrelevant to a rules debate, should stop it.

If I am wrong, I am. I can accept it. It would not be the first time. But to be told my argument is invalid when it is not, based on an assumption of munchkinism or power gaming, or whatever... that is what I am saying is an obvious sign of a weak mind.

And as to whether or not further resources could allow abuse of a rule being used to claim the rule is not valid - that is in itself a faulty argument. If a supplemental feat chain comes out which makes toughness or power attack the basis of an obviously broken combo, that does not invalidate that feat. It simply means intelligence and regulation is required when using it.

Can improvised weapons be enchanted? I say yes. I see nothing aside from opinion and a lot of 'common sense' arguments otherwise. To me, most of the arguments against it are the ones reaching and stretching to pervert the rules. As I said, I could be wrong, but that is honestly what I am seeing in this thread.

The rules:-

Quote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.

Your motives are not the reason your case is flawed; there are all the other reasons pointed out and quoted in this thread.

Silver Crusade

karosii wrote:
Except in the case of an arrow or bolt you are explicitly wrong. The rules clearly and specifically state that any character can use an arrow as an improvised melee weapon with the stats of a dagger. It is turning an existing weapon (ranged ammunition) into an improvised weapon (melee), simply by using it in a manner it is not normally used.

Ammunition is not a weapon in and of itself. That is why, if you try to use it as a weapon, it is improvised. The projectile delivers the killing force provided by the delivery mechanism. This is just physics. When you use your hand or arm to attack with an arrow you are replacing the bow with your muscles. You are improvising the delivery mechanism. The arrow is not a weapon in its own right. You could deliver bullets with a sling, at which point you are improvising ammunition for the sling.

karosii wrote:
Meaning any and all weapons can be used as an improvised weapon simply by 'doing it wrong' as you so state...

Actually this is a feature fairly explicit to the monk archetype. Everyone else must take a non-proficiency penalty (the same numeric disadvantage.) The long sword does not become an improvised weapon. That would require some form of transformation. The sword does not undergo a transformation, instead it remains a sword with all sword properties. It is treated like an improvised weapon in the hands of the monk, and even then it is not treated like the weapon it actually is, because the monk is instead using it like a club. The sword does not turn into a club, even if it did then it would still be a real weapon.

The relevant point is that Improvised Weapons are, by definition, not designed to be used as weapons and are merely being put to that purpose. A sword actually is a weapon and designed to be used in combat. When a Monk of the Empty Hand picks one up it is still a real weapon designed for combat. He's just not using as a sword should be used.

Monk of the Empty Hand wrote:
A monk of the empty hand treats normal weapons as improvised weapons
karosii wrote:
Except when it is aan actual weapon being used as an improvised weapon, as in the examples I and others have given.

Used as an improvised weapon. It did not transform into an object that is not a weapon. The counter point is invalid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errant Pursuit wrote:
Ammunition is not a weapon in and of itself. That is why, if you try to use it as a weapon, it is improvised.

Since you can enchant ammunition, could you use arrows with your improvised weapon feats? You bypass the "can't enchant non-weapons" bit, and I haven't seen anything that says item qualities go away if you use the item differently - for example, they don't stop being Cold Iron if you use them in melee.

We know the magic isn't tied to the bow, because the bow doesn't have to be magic to benefit from the arrow's enhancement bonus.

They'd be the exception rather than the rule, of course.

Silver Crusade

Re: The shield debate...

Bizbag wrote:

2) Masterwork weapons add +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls

PRG 149: "A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

3) You cannot make an ordinary shield a Masterwork Weapon.
PRG 149: "Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

This does not contradict, but instead looks to be a case of general vs specific.

General = #2: A shield is a weapon. It has weapon feats, fighter grouping (close), proficiency requirements, and weapon table entries.
Specific = #3: When you make a shield masterwork quality you are restricted by the shield's rules (which are specific compared to the masterwork weapon ruling as they apply to only one weapon: shields).

Silver Crusade

Bizbag wrote:
Errant Pursuit wrote:
Ammunition is not a weapon in and of itself. That is why, if you try to use it as a weapon, it is improvised.

Since you can enchant ammunition, could you use arrows with your improvised weapon feats? You bypass the "can't enchant non-weapons" bit, and I haven't seen anything that says item qualities go away if you use the item differently - for example, they don't stop being Cold Iron if you use them in melee.

We know the magic isn't tied to the bow, because the bow doesn't have to be magic to benefit from the arrow's enhancement bonus.

They'd be the exception rather than the rule, of course.

Actually, I would say yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantPursuit wrote:

General = #2: A shield is a weapon. It has weapon feats, fighter grouping (close), proficiency requirements, and weapon table entries.

Specific = #3: When you make a shield masterwork quality you are restricted by the shield's rules (which are specific compared to the masterwork weapon ruling as they apply to only one weapon: shields).

I guess it boils down to whether or not a "masterwork weapon" has to be of the "+1 to attack rolls" variety to qualify for magic enchantment. The rules for shields suggest they do not, but it's vague, especially since Spikes goes out of its way to say they can be masterwork.

ErrantPursuit wrote:
Actually, I would say yes.

Hooray!

@Karossi: You could ask your GM (if they're a stickler), if you can use enchanted Arrows for your improvised weapon, and just ask if you can CALL it a beer stein for fluff (and don't use it as a container or fire it from a bow).

Quote:
That is an invented requirement based on 3.5 text, and is not applicable to the pathfinder discussion.

That's quite an accusation. Especially since I cited every single rule with a source, and all of them were the Pathfinder Corebook or the Pathfinder SRD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.

Regardless of your stance, this is not a terribly convincing argument, as "normal" is just too easy to equivocate around. When I read that statement, for instance, it simply means that a masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a weapon that would otherwise not be any different from a typical instance of that weapon. Since I view an improvised weapon as a weapon, there is no proscription in that sentence.

Not sure why I'm still posting in this thread, though; it's gone way past nowhere and plunged headlong into nowhen. RAW does not have a definitive, unambiguous answer for this other than The Most Important Rule.

Silver Crusade

blahpers wrote:
Since I view an improvised weapon as a weapon

The language many times differentiates between normal weapons and improvised weapons. As has been quoted and linked several times the definitions are distinct and different as well. Further, when masterworked the results are different. While you may choose to believe anything you see fit, there is no actual systemic support for this argument that has been presented. If you would care to present some then I may reconsider my position on the absurdity of the leading statement.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

what makes something masterwork? beyond the craftsmanship, its finely balanced, well made, put together well and strong.

what does masterwork transformation spell do? it brings out all of those elements magically in an otherwise mundane object.

is there a great difference between a masterwork club and an exquisitely crafted table leg that's had masterwork transformation cast on it? the spell brings out fine balance and strong form magically. it could now function as a masterwork improvised weapon. It may be hard to hold, or odd looking and confusing to most people, that explains the improvised penalty. but thats offset by its craftsmanship in the mwk bonus for a net -3.

I wanted a masterwork chain to use as a weapon in one game. the gm agreed that a length of chain made from mithral would count as masterwork but be an improvised weapon as there's no "Chain" weapon entry in pathfinder like there may have been in 3.5e. just a spiked chain.
I used my mithril chain as an improvised weapon, and took catch off guard eventually to mitigate the improvised penalty.

whats so incredulous about an adamantine crowbar that's well put together and finely balanced, doing more than helping you open doors well ( pfs' trusty buddy provided a +4 bonus instead of a typical mwk tool's +2 ). Why shouldn't it also count as a masterwork weapon when used as a club, but treated as improvised?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seraphimpunk wrote:
a masterwork club and an exquisitely crafted table leg that's had masterwork transformation cast on it?

No, they are identical. Namely, neither are Improvised Weapons.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

masterwork transformation will transform a table leg into a masterwork club?? thats new to me.


Looks like I'm just going to house rule this one.

Silver Crusade

There is nothing wrong in crafting a beer stein,, crowbar, lump hammer, fan, table leg, etc. as a masterwork weapon.

But as soon as you have deliberately crafted it as a masterwork weapon then you have crafted it as a weapon. It is then, by definition, not an improvised weapon.

Quote:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.

The improvised weapon feats only apply to objects not crafted to be weapons. Masterwork weapons are crafted to be weapons. Therefore, feats that apply to improvised weapons don't apply to masterwork weapons.

This chain of logic, supported by rules quotes, convinces me. What rules quotes and/or logic is there to convince me (or anyone) otherwise? Because 'improvised weapon' has the word 'weapon' in it? So does 'not a weapon'. Would you define 'not a weapon' as a weapon because it has the word 'weapon' in it? This is absurd!

Improvised weapon = not a weapon

Masterwork weapon = weapon

Masterwork weapon =/= improvised weapon

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

and then how do you determine proficiency Beer Stein?

most people treat it like an improvised weapon =P

Silver Crusade

Seraphimpunk wrote:

and then how do you determine proficiency Beer Stein?

most people treat it like an improvised weapon =P

Fair question, but the answer is easy.

As a weapon it needs an entry on the weapons table. It will be exotic (obviously). You set it's damage based on comparison with already existing weapons. It won't do as much damage or have as good a crit range/multiplier as existing weapons, because if it did then armies would already be using them on the battlefield. Assign it to a weapon group.

When designing a new weapon for the game you should do the work!

If its similar enough to an existing weapon then that's easier. For example, a crowbar crafted as a masterwork weapon (even if it is also a masterwork tool-pay for both qualities) would be a club. The work is already done for you, because the club already exists. It also has the advantage of not being exotic.

Easy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantPursuit wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Since I view an improvised weapon as a weapon
The language many times differentiates between normal weapons and improvised weapons. As has been quoted and linked several times the definitions are distinct and different as well. Further, when masterworked the results are different. While you may choose to believe anything you see fit, there is no actual systemic support for this argument that has been presented. If you would care to present some then I may reconsider my position on the absurdity of the leading statement.

I already have, but you've made up your mind on that matter, so there's little point in continuing. I simply pointed out that one of the most commonly repeated arguments in this thread has a distinct flaw and that it might be more useful to pursue other arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like people are over complicating at least part of the issue.

Say you're an Empty Handed Moonk. Due to your rules, you yreat weapons as if they were either a Club, Light Hammer or Quarterstaff, meaning any Weapon Focus/etc, feats you have focusing on those weapons would apply.

So an empty handed monk weilding a beer stein as a weapon treats it as a Light Hammer (since it's most likely a light weapon) and if he/she has Weapon Focus (Light Hammer) would get an extra +1. There's no need for Weapon Focus (beer stein).

Even for non monks, you'd be looking at what the improved weapon is counting as for purposes of feats and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:

Since you can enchant ammunition, could you use arrows with your improvised weapon feats? You bypass the "can't enchant non-weapons" bit, and I haven't seen anything that says item qualities go away if you use the item differently - for example, they don't stop being Cold Iron if you use them in melee.

We know the magic isn't tied to the bow, because the bow doesn't have to be magic to benefit from the arrow's enhancement bonus.

They'd be the exception rather than the rule, of course.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, as far as I can tell, yes.

Arrows can be made from various materials.
Arrows can be masterwork
Arrows can be enchanted
Arrows are improvised weapons when used in melee and act as a dagger of the same size.

I would assume the arrow still loses its enchantment when you hit someone with it though, so grab the quickdraw feat so you can pull another out of your quiver as a free action


I guess it does say "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed", but that'd be quite a stretch to read that RAW as "even in melee", especially since it says "one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost".. it'd be rather hard to "lose" an arrow you have in your hand, so it suggests this only applies to when fired from a bow.

Silver Crusade

Blindmage wrote:
So an empty handed monk weilding a beer stein as a weapon treats it as a Light Hammer (since it's most likely a light weapon) and if he/she has Weapon Focus (Light Hammer) would get an extra +1. There's no need for Weapon Focus (beer stein).

Incorrect. Weapon Focus(Light Hammer) works on Light Hammers. A beer stein is not a light hammer, Weapon Focus will not apply. Even if you treat the beer stein as a light hammer for the purpose of combat statistics. Weapon Focus and Specialization are very specific in the wording. You get the bonuses when using the appropriate weapon. Beer Stein =/= Light Hammer. Beer Stein hits like a light hammer in the hands of a particular kind of monk.

Seraphimpunk wrote:
is there a great difference between a masterwork club and an exquisitely crafted table leg that's had masterwork transformation cast on it? the spell brings out fine balance and strong form magically. it could now function as a masterwork improvised weapon. It may be hard to hold, or odd looking and confusing to most people, that explains the improvised penalty. but thats offset by its craftsmanship in the mwk bonus for a net -3.

The table leg is part of the table, You masterwork the table and then break the leg off...the leg is not crafted for hitting things. Instead it is designed for supporting heavy things. You can use a table leg as a serviceable club, but it is not a "designed for combat club". You get a penalty because the weight is off, the shape is wrong, the grip is wrong, the hitting end has peculiarities, the wood is of the wrong type and not seasoned properly for this kind of work, etc... Not because people look at you funny.

Further, a club is a pretty weak argument to make because it is the simplest of simple weapons, even a haunch of lamb can be used as a club. If I masterwork my haunch of lamb can I get +1 to hit? What do you mean I cannot masterwork my improvised weapon haunch of lamb? See? Improvised weapons is an enormous category of items that are not actually weapons being put to that use. If you want to enchant one that's fine, it becomes a wondrous item and uses those rules. Not the weapon rules. Under the definition of improvised weapon they are described as not weapons and you must approximate the effect using a real weapon. Why is this ambiguous?

blahpers wrote:
I already have, but you've made up your mind on that matter, so there's little point in continuing. I simply pointed out that one of the most commonly repeated arguments in this thread has a distinct flaw and that it might be more useful to pursue other arguments.

I looked. You haven't.

    Here's the breakdown:
  • #1 Making a joke about frying pans
  • #2 A comment on doing non-lethal damage and indicating that you think if you spend 300gp on an item you should get +1 to hit with a stein as masterwork. This is the closest I have seen to you making a case as to why non-weapons should be considered weapons and receive a weapon bonus after being masterworked.
  • #3 Gary Gygax joke disparaging someone else's argument.
  • #4 To say you feel normal weapon is ambiguous term. Incidentally this argument amounts to saying "I think I can define beer stein as a normal weapon"
  • #5 To tell me you had made an argument that you have yet to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:
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).

Found it. At least for weapons there is the "Glamered" weapon property from Ultimate Equipment. Sadly the weapon shows its true form in combat, but otherwise you can have your +2 flaming saucepan.


Bizbag wrote:
I guess it does say "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed", but that'd be quite a stretch to read that RAW as "even in melee", especially since it says "one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost".. it'd be rather hard to "lose" an arrow you have in your hand, so it suggests this only applies to when fired from a bow.

yeah I would not have the get lost part, but I would say they get destroyed and discharge their enchantment on a hit. Or else it would be pretty lame that you could re use it the same as another magic weapon for 1/50th the cost.


BuzzardB wrote:
yeah I would not have the get lost part, but I would say they get destroyed and discharge their enchantment on a hit. Or else it would be pretty lame that you could re use it the same as another magic weapon for 1/50th the cost.

Indeed it would be lame. Another way of resolving it is to extend the rule about enchanting ammunition to buying it. You have to enchant ammunition in batches of 50 (or it you don't per RAW, rule that they do), and if they're cheeky about it and try to just buy them, have the shopkeepers refuse to sell except in batches. If it's *really* important to them why that is, use it as an adventure hook.

Silver Crusade

BuzzardB wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
I guess it does say "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed", but that'd be quite a stretch to read that RAW as "even in melee", especially since it says "one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost".. it'd be rather hard to "lose" an arrow you have in your hand, so it suggests this only applies to when fired from a bow.
yeah I would not have the get lost part, but I would say they get destroyed and discharge their enchantment on a hit. Or else it would be pretty lame that you could re use it the same as another magic weapon for 1/50th the cost.

That's exactly how I'd rule it. : )

We are expected to use our thinky bits and understand why 50% get lost or destroyed on a miss and why they get destroyed on a hit.

On a miss a shot arrow will disappear into the undergrowth or hit a wall or other hard obstruction. This would not be the case if you missed while using it like a dagger; on a miss it won't sail into the distance or hit a wall.

On a hit, though, whether shot or held, the same thing happens: it hits the target and is damaged in the process.


So, any reomtely chance there is an oficial claricfication by a dev? a unoficial one would be apreciated too.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
So, any reomtely chance there is an oficial claricfication by a dev? a unoficial one would be apreciated too.

Doubt it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Apocryphile wrote:
Nicos wrote:
So, any reomtely chance there is an oficial claricfication by a dev? a unoficial one would be apreciated too.
Doubt it...

Player: "Can I have a +2 rolling pin for my rogue, to give him free sneak attacks against unarmed opponents?"

Me: "Sure, I read that thread too, if you want to invest two feats to be able to have a weapon that is equal to a longsword, but also has that, I don't care. 300 extra gold for masterwork weapon"

Player: "But that thread shows so much evidence that you can't do it!"

Me: "That thread also shows that taking Martial Weapon Proficiency doesn't grant you actual proficiency, use your head, goofball. Enjoy your rolling pin, other rogues are probably going to make fun of you."

My rule 0-if the players are having fun, and it doesn't upset the game... Go for it. Free sneak attacks against unarmed opponents for the cost of two feats (or just one if you want a suboptimal weapon), who gives a centaur poop?

I will settle this. Improvised WEAPON. No argument has shown that the word weapon was a mistake. They could have called the feat "Improvisational fighter" and talked about using "nearby objects" and "battlefield debris or any unusual object".

They did not.

The use of the word WEAPON means that these objects are what they have been described to be. People defend dumber rules than this with more proof.

Obviously, a person can't be enchanted, because they can't be CRAFTED. You can argue that if you were to make a personally researched spell, you could craft a masterwork person... but the CRAFT skill doesn't allow for it.

The rules clearly state that anything can be a weapon:

The monk of the empty hand eschews normal weapons in favor of whatever is lying around—rocks, chair legs, flagons of ale, even a simple quill pen ALL BECOME DEADLY WEAPONS in the hands of such a monk. A monk of the empty hand draws on his own ki to infuse his improvised weapons with power, and can transform a broken bottle into a magical weapon.

There. A quote from the rules.

Paizo has stated that specific trumps general, so I refer to this, and only this, as it specifically states that "whatever is lying around... all become deadly weapons".

Some would argue that it is only in the hands of the monk. I respond with "where does it say that the magical WEAPON status is somehow LOST?"

This is totally silly. This whole thing. Every GM is going to have their own ruling, but I think if someone wants a frying pan that is better against unarmed opponents at the cost of two feats... what the heck is the problem?

Beer stein is even cooler. Kudos for that one, hope it worked out.

Peace.


I mean, not to respond to my own post, but if you really want to go all literal, look at "Improvised Weapon Master":

You can turn nearly any object into a deadly weapon, from a razor-sharp chair leg to a sack of flour.

This literally states that you can actually turn a chair leg to a sack of flour.

Read it.

Reeeeeead iiiiiiit...

We all know that isn't the intention, but that is a direct quote.
It also clearly states you can turn nearly any object into a deadly weapon.

Turn it into a weapon.

Weapon. If we assume the word "weapon" implies a status that the item must have to be enchanted, then it has gained this status. No mention of losing weapon "status" if it gets put down.

Anyway, if literal and clearly intentional quotes aren't enough, GM always gets final say.

Don't even know why I'm adding this, the whole thing seems to trivial compared to Legendary Items... Mythic Rules etc...

151 to 185 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Masterwork improvised weapons and enchanting them All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.