Wondering if this is Society legal somehow


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 276 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Chris, what about a cane?

The Ezren issue you keep laying out for people to step in is more an issue of reskinning than of improvised weapons.

Ezren has a club as his bonded item. He gets to say "It's shaped like so, and I walk with it like a cane." He also gets to give it weapon enhancements if he likes.

Any given PC could get a club. They can say "It's shaped like so, and I use it for rolling out dough." They also get to give it weapon enhancements if they like.

And neither is interacting with the improvised weapon rules in this case.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Matthew, do you consider Ezren's cane an improvised weapon?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Chris, what about a cane?

The Ezren issue you keep laying out for people to step in is more an issue of reskinning than of improvised weapons.

Ezren has a club as his bonded item. He gets to say "It's shaped like so, and I walk with it like a cane." He also gets to give it weapon enhancements if he likes.

Any given PC could get a club. They can say "It's shaped like so, and I use it for rolling out dough." They also get to give it weapon enhancements if they like.

And neither is interacting with the improvised weapon rules in this case.

Lucky he didn't say it looked like a pig.

That would be OP.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Some Random Player, as I've said, I've had the pleasure of having Farmer Bob at my table and I think he's a cool character. I *like* the flavor. I don't think he's over-powered.

But I don't think the rules allow for a non-weapon to be made into a masterwork weapon, or a magic weapon. Put another way, once you convert that rolling pin, board-with-a-nail-in-it, or sack of potatoes into masterwork weapons, they are no longer "improvised weapons".

At that point, in a home campaign, we'd sit down and figure out what sorts of weapons they've become. (My guess: club, pick, and giant-sized sap.) I'm waiting for Mark to come on and explain how we can make that determination in PFS.

Yes, actually, the rules do allow for making some improvised weapons into magical weapons. In bulk, even.

Arrows, for melee, are considered improvised weapons. Arrows can be made out of special materials, and can be enhanced like non-improvised weapons.

That is, of course, because they are also considered as ammunition.

But that +1 Bane: Human, Holy arrow would still retain those enchantments if you used it as a melee weapon in your hand instead of firing it from a bow of some sort.

Have a nice day.


Oooh... a mic drop from kinevon!

The Exchange

I think the Improvised Weapons rule was put in there cause they can't list every single thing that could be used as a weapon. You take something than figure where it fits on the chart size for the dmg and whether it is light , one handed, or 2 handed.

There are countless items that would make great weapons in the right hands. Lets look at the feat Deadly Dealer. It allows you to throw cards as deadly weapons given you have to have Arcane Strike and Sleight of Hand rank 5.

Its a gray area in the rules and will always be a issue for debate until we get a official ruling as what makes a item a weapon. The pick axe is a mining tool and a weapon. Items can have more than one purpose.

Deadly Dealer:

Your skill with handling cards and arcane talents allow you to turn mundane cards into deadly weapons.

Prerequisites: Arcane Strike, Sleight of Hand 5 ranks.

Benefit: You can throw a card as though it were a dart, with the same damage, range, and other features. You must use the Arcane Strike feat when throwing a card in this way, or else the card lacks the magical force and precision to deal lethal damage. A card is destroyed when thrown in this way.

Harrow cards are treated as masterwork weapons when thrown using this feat, but are still destroyed after they are thrown. A harrow deck can no longer be used as a fortunetelling device after even a single card is thrown.

A spellcaster with this feat can enhance a deck of cards as though it were a ranged weapon with 54 pieces of ammunition. This enhancement functions only when used in tandem with this feat, and has no affect on any other way the cards might be used. Only a character who possesses this feat can make use of an enhanced deck of cards, and must still use the Arcane Strike feat to activate the cards’ enhancement.


Funky Badger wrote:

Lucky he didn't say it looked like a pig.

That would be OP.

He can make it look like just about anything, as long as it can fit the clubs description (wooden stick, sometimes with spikes or nails) and weighs 3 lbs. It's just a wooden stick that looks like a pig!

Lantern Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16

Funky Badger wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Chris, what about a cane?

The Ezren issue you keep laying out for people to step in is more an issue of reskinning than of improvised weapons.

Ezren has a club as his bonded item. He gets to say "It's shaped like so, and I walk with it like a cane." He also gets to give it weapon enhancements if he likes.

Any given PC could get a club. They can say "It's shaped like so, and I use it for rolling out dough." They also get to give it weapon enhancements if they like.

And neither is interacting with the improvised weapon rules in this case.

Lucky he didn't say it looked like a pig.

That would be OP.

What you did there, I sees it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like this rolling pin-wielding baker wants to have his cake and eat it...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:
Matthew, do you consider Ezren's cane an improvised weapon?

I don't, no. But his stat block does specifically call it a 'cane' and not a 'club' Yet we don't see 'cane' listed in the weapon charts. So either there's an allowance for a masterwork item to be given stats that don't match the tool, or an official PFS iconic is 'wrong'.

Joggy must be too busy 'setting traps' that he thinks everyone is.


hello, my name is ninja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:

Lucky he didn't say it looked like a pig.

That would be OP.

He can make it look like just about anything, as long as it can fit the clubs description (wooden stick, sometimes with spikes or nails) and weighs 3 lbs. It's just a wooden stick that looks like a pig!

Nah, making things look like pigs undermines the very fabric that PFS is built upon.

Or something.

(Sorry, for clarity - this is an convoluted reference to forum history, and as such is awfully unfunny and should probably be ignored)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If catch off guard does not apply to the baker wielding the rolling pin in the dungeon setting (why would he be there in the first place, AND I think the hat would throw people off more than the RP, but I digress) then it shouldn't apply anywhere else.

Obviously there is a reason for the feat. An aberration or outsider may not even know what a rolling pin IS so if we are going to say it doesn't apply for one reason, it certainly shouldn't apply for another. But then any GM could argue it *never* applies for one reason or another.

You're a Pathfinder->Pathfinders are deadly-> sorry I ain't buying that rolling pin gag. No feat for you. And...no one wants to play with me as a GM anymore.

Also, I forget who said it with the rough and ready->profession:soldier->WP: falcata.

That would be using the rules to get a bonus beyond what it is believed to be RAI, i.e. a free exotic weapon proficiency.

Someone taking a penalty for using a club at d6 or even d8 over an allowed greatsword at 2d6 is obviously not meant to abuse the rules in a mechanical way like the falcata example.

An improvised weapon IS a weapon. It even says "weapon" next to "improvised." I don't know how anyone on here or anywhere else is going to be able to successfully argue against that one. It is just a crappy weapon, but a weapon nonetheless.

An IW is not listed on the weapon table. It was not designed for combat, even though it could be optimized and enchanted for combat. That is why a rolling pin will only ever do damage as a club at d6 instead of d10.

I don't understand why this is so difficult. Some read the rules one way, others are obviously reading it another.

Honestly, the problem I thought people would have with the folding chair is that they would say it is technically not a TOOL of a trade. I used profession:fisherman for the use of the stool, but profession:milkmaid and profession:competitive drinker should work well too.

I never thought we would be arguing so much about something that makes so much obvious, logical sense. Some GMs wont allow it. NBD.

I just won't play with GMs who want such specific interpretations on rules that don't matter one whit to game balance or outcome. I won't take it personally and they shouldn't either.

And Jiggy, I hope the "personal attacks" thing wasn't directed at me. I don't do that sort of thing on discussion forums. OK, maybe if they really deserve it... ;) but that was not my intent.

Jiggy wrote:
@Todd Morgan - With the caveat that his rolling pin no longer interacts with things like the Catch Off-Guard feat, sounds awesome. :)


My edit button can't be found - but I wanted to add that crafting items in PFS takes place completely behind the scenes. Crafting rules are therefore assumed rather than applied straight out of the book. (We can't be using the game's crafting rules 'cuz they're not allowed.)

We can, however buy items with specific guidelines on item cost. It would seem that with the number of unique and custom items out there on chronicles, as long as a PC has the gold and PP to buy said improvised weapon, it should be allowed.

Also, the measure of the trait "rough and ready" is more than just feat vs. trait. It is feat vs. trait + skill points, something fighter types do not have in excess.

Dark Archive

kinevon wrote:

Yes, actually, the rules do allow for making some improvised weapons into magical weapons. In bulk, even.

Arrows, for melee, are considered improvised weapons. Arrows can be made out of special materials, and can be enhanced like non-improvised weapons.

That is, of course, because they are also considered as ammunition.

But that +1 Bane: Human, Holy arrow would still retain those enchantments if you used it as a melee weapon in your hand instead of firing it from a bow of some sort.

Have a nice day.

BAM, great example!

The Exchange

To update you all I have played in one game with this build and didn't even bring put the skillet. I come to see the character as a person that wants to look mundane with his Cane (swordcane). The first impression that someone would get would be he travels with the pathfinders as a henchman or cook givin the skillet on his back. I wanted to look as non threatening as possible.

Anyone have any suggestions on further ideas?


Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Chris, what about a cane?

The Ezren issue you keep laying out for people to step in is more an issue of reskinning than of improvised weapons.

Ezren has a club as his bonded item. He gets to say "It's shaped like so, and I walk with it like a cane." He also gets to give it weapon enhancements if he likes.

Any given PC could get a club. They can say "It's shaped like so, and I use it for rolling out dough." They also get to give it weapon enhancements if they like.

And neither is interacting with the improvised weapon rules in this case.

i have made a character like this but have not played him yet. how did you play a session and not get into combat?

the rp concept i was playing around with was to be a coward who didn't want to go into combat, but as a player i didn't want to make my fellow players angry by not contributing. i made him a cad so he has a decent skill list to do useful things outside of combat, but his build only gets 4 skill points per level (2 fighter, 1 int, 1 favored class bonus), but i would think other people might start to get angry with a practically useless character following them around (even though i'm supposed to be just a cook)

The Exchange

I got into combat mostly used the swordcane, but was able to deceive the bad guy into thinking I was a cook just passing through and got close enough to surprise em.

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
I'm looking at said table, and I'm not seeing them.

Look for items with the "improvised" keyword. I use d20pfsrd.com, but I'm sure your search-fu can find them on your site of choice.

There's a number of improvised weapons listed on the weapons chart, that therefore can be enchanted as magic weapons.

Quote:
But both of your premises are false, so there goes your entire argument.

Right back at you.

Liberty's Edge

ShakaUVM wrote:
There's a number of improvised weapons listed on the weapons chart, that therefore can be enchanted as magic weapons.

Are there? The only ones I can see on the PRD are arrows and bolts. These are listed under ranged weapons and indented, with no damage dice or damage type, clearly marking them as ammunition rather than weapons. Or am I missing something?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Paz wrote:
Or am I missing something?

What you're missing is that he's looking at how a fan site chose to organize their information, and taking that to be equivalent to Paizo having published it that way.

The weapons table that Paizo published lists only actual weapons. Some fans decided to make their own table and add improvised weapons to it.

And ShakaUVM, like so many before him, hasn't yet noticed the difference.

Sczarni

Paz wrote:
asthyril wrote:
Not everyone who goes on a mission, is a pathfinder agent.
The main PFS page says 'Pathfinder Society Organized Play is a worldwide fantasy roleplaying campaign that puts YOU in the role of an agent of the Pathfinder Society'. That's pretty unambiguous. Why is a cook being invited into VC briefings, sent on voyages to Tian Xia, and visiting the Blakros Museum?

This whole thread brought up two points in my mind. First, I can understand that a character who comes straight off the farm that wanted to join the PFS would indeed need to go through 3+ years of combat and survival training to be mission approved. And sure, that character would not likely have any reason to use an unusual, normally improvised weapon regularly in combat. However the Pathfinder Society, though an important and relatively large group in the game world, is *not* the only such adventuring group. They also tend to hire out for missions on an as needed basis with folks such as mercenaries, guides, smugglers, etc. Don't you think it's not only possible but highly likely in a world of high fantasy that they would encounter an individual of extraordinary ability and unusual back story that they would then want to headhunt for their own society? If that person was competent enough to get their attention, complete their assignments and survive an adventure (no mean feat in and of itself!), who cares what they use to bash peoples brains in with?

Second, if fantasy role playing is ultimately our attempts at acting out in a world inspired by the good and great works of high fantasy, shouldn't we make allowances for those concepts that borrow from said works without directly aping them? Hell, mithril as a conceptual material didn't exist until Tolkien invented the name for his revised stories in the 1960sm, yet it is one of the most classic and fundamental RPG items.

Now, using Tolkien as a model, doesn't it follow that a character of humble beginnings put into extraordinary circumstances who just happens to find that they are best suited to using, oh say, a frying pan to great effect in a fight, who proved their ability and worth time and time again would be invited into an adventuring party and/or society, cough,Samwise Gamgee, cough?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Mr Retsej,

The "Seeker of Secrets" sourcebook outlines such characters, and considers such field promotions "very rare".

Liberty's Edge

On the first point: I'm prepared to concede that there are probably a handful of Pathfinder agents in Golarion that didn't come through the normal initiation process. However, I would expect they'd need to have proven themselves to be exceptionally effective to have caught the eye of someone in a position to bring them in to the PFS.

On the second point: No-one's arguing that PCs can't use improvised weapons, like Samwise did on occasion.

What's causing raised eyebrows is the assertion that it's possible to get a masterwork 'weaponised' frying pan, which can then be enchanted to become a +2 thundering frying pan or whatever, while the PC still gets the benefit of a trait/feat for wielding an improvised weapon. You can read my reasons for believing this to be disallowed (including quotes from the actual rules) here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not really an improvised weapon anymore at that point. It's just a fancily skinned club or mace.

Trying to keep it as a forever improvised is problematic. You are becoming more and more famous. Any 'surprise' factor is rapidly being lost as word of 'That crazy Pathfinder with the skillet' gets around.

Asking GMs of PFS to decide when this happens is unreasonable with the fact that you could be sitting down in front of a new GM every time.

Therego, the basic answer is no, to cut down on table variation and exception-based play. If you want to be an improvisational expert, that's awesome, but you're going to have to actually snag something from the environment to keep that surprise fresh, or go with the reskinned normal weapon.

Shadow Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:

Mr Retsej,

The "Seeker of Secrets" sourcebook outlines such characters, and considers such field promotions "very rare".

One character in a given pathfinder community (ie an metro area and surroundings under a Venture Captain) fitting this concept=very rare. Bluntly, this is one idea that is so original I doubt it would be copied, so it would remain very rare.

That aside, this is unlike the pig thing where the character was re-skining a little too much. The person in question has found a legal way to achieve a concept within the rules (though not what I'd do, I'd say club=skillet). To ban it because a given GM doesn't like it is problamatic.

Paz, your link seems to back the idea that this is allowed.

Besides, if this is taken to extremes, my tiefling will have to give up live kittens (iron rations).

Liberty's Edge

Kerney wrote:
Paz, your link seems to back the idea that this is allowed.

In what way does it do that?

PRD wrote:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
PRD wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.

Emphasis mine.

Given the text above, I don't see how it can be argued that an improvised weapon can be a 'normal weapon', of which one can make a masterwork version.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I agree. I think the most reasonable ruling would be: if a player sat at my table with a "magical +1 ghost touch, undead bane hairbrush", I'd shrug and allow the weapon (as a re-skinned short club), but not allow him any advantages that rely on it being an improvised weapon. His 'Catch Off-Guard' or 'Improvised Weapon Mastery' wouldn't apply, any more than it would to a +1 ghost touch, undead-bane mace.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Mr Retsej,

The "Seeker of Secrets" sourcebook outlines such characters, and considers such field promotions "very rare".

PFS is moving away from that a bit. linky

Shadow Lodge

Paz wrote:
Kerney wrote:
Paz, your link seems to back the idea that this is allowed.

In what way does it do that?

PRD wrote:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...
PRD wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.

Emphasis mine.

Given the text above, I don't see how it can be argued that an improvised weapon can be a 'normal weapon', of which one can make a masterwork version.

Link came down one below the quote you meant to quote (I think), which was nothing but your ruling and people have already come up with some pretty good counter arguments which have already been mentioned. What caught my attention was the final quote by the original poster, where he mentioned going to three GMs and getting okays and presumably having the rules to back them up.

I submit to you the practical side; that in my area if that character was brought to a table, nine out of ten GMs would be okay with the character and half the holdouts would allow it if they where convinced there was no unbalancing mechanical advantage which there isn't compared to a heck of a lot of perfectly legal stuff out there. A single +1 is to hit is hardly overpowering.

Chris Mortika wrote:
I agree. I think the most reasonable ruling would be: if a player sat at my table with a "magical +1 ghost touch, undead bane hairbrush", I'd shrug and allow the weapon (as a re-skinned short club), but not allow him any advantages that rely on it being an improvised weapon. His 'Catch Off-Guard' or 'Improvised Weapon Mastery' wouldn't apply, any more than it would to a +1 ghost touch, undead-bane mace.

Side note, I would point out a hairbrush isn't covered by the trait (which designates sturdy) and if someone were building a character from scratch, I'd recomend using the option you're proposing, only with a skillet.

But if someone built a character using a perfectly legal trait, backed it up with some perfectly legal feats, I would be very reluctant to make a ruling that smashed his character concept.

That is in campaign rules also, under, allow creative solutions, and more importantly, don't be a jerk.

Liberty's Edge

Kerney wrote:
Link came down one below the quote you meant to quote (I think), which was nothing but your ruling and people have already come up with some pretty good counter arguments which have already been mentioned. What caught my attention was the final quote by the original poster, where he mentioned going to three GMs and getting okays and presumably having the rules to back them up.

The link looks OK to me; must've been a browser/forum issue.

I imagine in the face of a player giving what sounds like a well-reasoned argument why something should work they way they're interpreting, many GMs will capitulate and let them have things their way, without ever checking the rules directly. If there are some rules to back up masterwork improvised weapons as a concept, I'd be glad to see them, but nobody's offered anything yet.

Quote:

But if someone built a character using a perfectly legal trait, backed it up with some perfectly legal feats, I would be very reluctant to make a ruling that smashed his character concept.

That is in campaign rules also, under, allow creative solutions, and more importantly, don't be a jerk.

Conversely, some people regard Golarion-lore and the verisimilitude of the setting as the most important thing, and someone who comes along with a 'silly' character concept is the one acting like a jerk.

'Creative solutions' is about clever ways of getting through an encounter, not a statement that all zany character concepts are immune to being questioned.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't even mind "silly" concepts, or outre concepts, or whatever. But I don't believe that the masterwork improvised weapon schtick is supported by the rules.

I'm not proposing to tell you how to rule at your table, Kerney. But at mine, the player will need to provide some evidence that the campaign staff (Mike or Mark) intend to allow for a masterwork potato. Without that, my understanding of the rules stands: he can weild his masterwork / magic potato, he can apply the improvised weapon feats to any actual improvised weapons, but he can't combine the two.

Shadow Lodge

Paz wrote:
Kerney wrote:
Link came down one below the quote you meant to quote (I think), which was nothing but your ruling and people have already come up with some pretty good counter arguments which have already been mentioned. What caught my attention was the final quote by the original poster, where he mentioned going to three GMs and getting okays and presumably having the rules to back them up.

The link looks OK to me; must've been a browser/forum issue.

I imagine in the face of a player giving what sounds like a well-reasoned argument why something should work they way they're interpreting, many GMs will capitulate and let them have things their way, without ever checking the rules directly. If there are some rules to back up masterwork improvised weapons as a concept, I'd be glad to see them, but nobody's offered anything yet.

I found the arrow improvised weapon convincing, but I think we need to agree to disagree.

Paz wrote:
Kerney wrote:

But if someone built a character using a perfectly legal trait, backed it up with some perfectly legal feats, I would be very reluctant to make a ruling that smashed his character concept.

That is in campaign rules also, under, allow creative solutions, and more importantly, don't be a jerk.

Conversely, some people regard Golarion-lore and the verisimilitude of the setting as the most important thing, and someone who comes along with a 'silly' character concept is the one acting like a jerk.

If I saw anything that violated Golarion-lore I'd report it to the VC. When Buffy, the martial artst/skillet slayer shows up, I'll be sure to, especially if his friend is playing a red headed witch named Willow.Concept isn't zany, compared to say, a summoner who thinks of her eidolon as her daughter, an alchemist barbaque chef, a 'hippy' cleric of Desna, all of which I played with and no one bated an eyelash to.

It might not always be to my taste, but it is not Golarion defying.

In comparision, a GM objecting to guy using a skillet as a weapon because it is 'silly' would be labled as 'special' and talked about behind his back and possibly be avoided as GM if he took it too far.

Verisimilitude wise, I could see a wizard consenting to enchant someone's 'lucky' skillet (provided they payed 300 gp for weapon grade master working). I could also see a sorcerer/wizard enchanting an item in an emergency and using said skillet because that is what the character is used to using.

Paz wrote:
'Creative solutions' is about clever ways of getting through an encounter, not a statement that all zany character concepts are immune to being questioned.

It is for that. It's also a general call to interpret the rules broadly.

Shadow Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:

I don't even mind "silly" concepts, or outre concepts, or whatever. But I don't believe that the masterwork improvised weapon schtick is supported by the rules.

I'm not proposing to tell you how to rule at your table, Kerney. But at mine, the player will need to provide some evidence that the campaign staff (Mike or Mark) intend to allow for a masterwork potato. Without that, my understanding of the rules stands: he can weild his masterwork / magic potato, he can apply the improvised weapon feats to any actual improvised weapons, but he can't combine the two.

I think we're interpreting what to do in absence of a ruling. I say, without a ruling, be broad minded while your a 'strict constructionist'. I can live with that and would respect your ruling at your table also.

Heck, if it were tier 1-2, I'd bring a ranger named Chris with the favored enemy 'pig' in your honor if I was sure I could pull it off as an inside joke rather then an insult.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kerney wrote:
In comparision, a GM objecting to guy using a skillet as a weapon because it is 'silly'

Folks in this thread aren't objecting to a PC using a skillet to hit people. They're objecting to calling a specially-made-to-be-better-at-hitting-people object "improvised". Pretending your opposition holds a more absurd position than they actually do is pretty poor form.

Kerney wrote:
...would be labled as 'special' and talked about behind his back and possibly be avoided as GM if he took it too far.

Just because you aimed your personal attack at "anyone with such-and-such a position" instead of naming names doesn't mean it's suddenly not a personal attack anymore.

Liberty's Edge

Kerney wrote:
paz wrote:
Conversely, some people regard Golarion-lore and the verisimilitude of the setting as the most important thing, and someone who comes along with a 'silly' character concept is the one acting like a jerk.

If I saw anything that violated Golarion-lore I'd report it to the VC. When Buffy, the martial artst/skillet slayer shows up, I'll be sure to, especially if his friend is playing a red headed witch named Willow.Concept isn't zany, compared to say, a summoner who thinks of her eidolon as her daughter, an alchemist barbaque chef, a 'hippy' cleric of Desna, all of which I played with and no one bated an eyelash to.

It might not always be to my taste, but it is not Golarion defying.

In comparision, a GM objecting to guy using a skillet as a weapon because it is 'silly' would be labled as 'special' and talked about behind his back and possibly be avoided as GM if he took it too far.

I think this line of discussion has strayed from the point, and that's probably my fault.

If a player came to my table with a skillet-wielding PC, I might think it was silly; I might even roll my eyes if I'd had a bad day. In the main though, that would be that.

If he started stacking improvised weapon traits/feats and masterwork/magical weapon bonuses, then I'd disallow one or the other, in the same way as Chris described above.

Shadow Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Kerney wrote:
In comparision, a GM objecting to guy using a skillet as a weapon because it is 'silly'
Pretending your opposition holds a more absurd position than they actually do is pretty poor form.

I'm objecting to said GM objecting to a character concept because they found it silly. As to whether pretending your opposition "holds a more absurd position than they do" is a judgement call. I intentionally did not go after Chris for example when he mentions potatos and combs when the trait mentions sturdy items.

Jiggy wrote:
Kerney wrote:
...would be labled as 'special' and talked about behind his back and possibly be avoided as GM if he took it too far.
Just because you aimed your personal attack at "anyone with such-and-such a position" instead of naming names doesn't mean it's suddenly not a personal attack anymore.

I stated it based on local experience and as a statement based off that experience. That is all. I did not mean it as a personal attack. However, I could see how you choose to see it as such. I could say more but I think we should a leave it.

Paz wrote:
I think this line of discussion has strayed from the point, and that's probably my fault.

My fault as well for bringing up the practical 'would most GM's allow it' test and what followed.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Kerney wrote:


I think we're interpreting what to do in absence of a ruling. I say, without a ruling, be broad minded while you're a 'strict constructionist'. I can live with that and would respect your ruling at your table also.

Heck, if it were tier 1-2, I'd bring a ranger named Chris with the favored enemy 'pig' in your honor if I was sure I could pull it off as an inside joke rather then an insult.

That would be cool. (Make it "favored enemy shape-shifters' though.)


So if I make a Skillet a Weapon persay it no longer is a Improvised Weapon and thus it can be enchanted regularly :) ?

Sovereign Court

DrkMagusX wrote:
So if I make a Skillet a Weapon persay it no longer is a Improvised Weapon and thus it can be enchanted regularly :) ?

If you can find a PFS-legal weapon named "Skillet," then yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think it was agreed that you could take a mace or club and describe it as awfully skillet shaped, and proceed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Well, pregen Ezren has an arcane-bonded club, which is described as a "cane".

Since it's a (masterwork) club, it's a weapon with a +1 to hit and can be upgraded with weapon enchantments, but doesn't interact with the improvised weapon rules/feats/traits/etc at all.

But he can still call it a cane.


Nuku wrote:
I think it was agreed that you could take a mace or club and describe it as awfully skillet shaped, and proceed.

You can't reskin items into something that already exists in the game. Skillets are listed in UE, other weapons can't be reskinned into it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok. So is this allowed or not? I thought it was just a few posts ago. The confusion burns.

I will stick to book-standard weapons, to avoid complications, but it would be nice to know how much freedom is had in describing our weapons.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Brian is probably correct, that a skillet is a defined object. So go for a cooking pan or wok.

The Exchange

Chris Mortika wrote:
Brian is probably correct, that a skillet is a defined object. So go for a cooking pan or wok.

Or a Cast-Iron frypan. heck! or an "Iron Spider"

Wiki..."Before the introduction of the kitchen stove in the mid-19th century, a commonly used cast iron cooking pan called a spider had a handle and three legs used to stand up in the coals and ashes of the fire."

You could then say "I kilt him with my red hot Iron Spider!"... or something like that.


What gets me is the barmaid has a Frying Pan, Serving Glass, and Serving tray all listed as weapons that she uses in the back of the GameMaster guide. I was under the impression the a item is no longer improvised once you make it a full fledge weapon. It no longer becomes something you just happen to grab and use. Its not something that will throw the cosmic balance of Pathfinder out of wack. If I ever get to go to a PaizoCon I will get offical rulings on the matter.

So I take the serving tray and alter it to better function as a thrown weapon. The idea originally was the character would just appear like a cook or henchman and not a threat. He just got so accustom to protecting his ketchin from thugs with the items he had on hand cause he never had weapons training. They seem to work better for him as they feel more natural.


The barmaid has the feats throw anything and catch off guard. The tray, frying pan and glass are detailed as being improvised weapons in the barmaid's description.

The tray, frying pan and glass do not have individual weapon stats, they have the listed damage of the improvised weapon size category they fall into for reference.

For the game to list those items as an actual weapon they would need a full weapon entry as seen in table 6-4 in the CRB. Until they get stats as a weapon in a legal PFS sourcebook they can't be made into masterwork or magic weapons.


Paizo can't list every single item that can be used as a weapon so I thought the Improvised Weapons trait was a catch all for anything that forgot to add.

Society seems to restricted so much it pushes away people whom enjoy the roleplay aspect of the game and promotes more to the people that enjoy combat and such.

Anyhow I will keep all this in mind for future concepts for PFS.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrkMagusX wrote:
Society seems to restricted so much it pushes away people whom enjoy the roleplay aspect of the game and promotes more to the people that enjoy combat and such.

If it were really about roleplaying, you'd be willing to use actual improvised weapons — and all the mechanical drawbacks thereof. The only thing getting shut down here is trying to gain the mechanical benefits of two mutually-exclusive combat methods.

So in this instance, it's the "people that enjoy combat and such" getting blocked, while people who "enjoy the roleplay aspect of the game" are still free to fight with improvised weapons if they wish.

Grand Lodge

Question for you to think about:

Spoon, sharpened. Still improvised, or treat it as a dagger?

What if the spoon you sharpened the edge of is mithril?

Or am I holding a jailbreak without prison bars?

151 to 200 of 276 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wondering if this is Society legal somehow All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.