Wondering if this is Society legal somehow


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 276 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

This is AWESOME! I just rented Tangled for my daughter and was inspired. I am now making a White Haired Witch (to get the hair on) with the Huble Beginnings and Rough and Ready traits to get a make the frying pan of doom! So! I am so happy! I searched 'frying pan' and 'weapon' and was amazed there was not only a thread, but such an active and fun to read thread.

Thank you all! Yay!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Flynn Rider wrote:
Yeah, frying pans! Who knew?


lol Exactly Frying Pans are quite dangerous in the proper hands.

Shadow Lodge

Arizhel wrote:

This is AWESOME! I just rented Tangled for my daughter and was inspired. I am now making a White Haired Witch (to get the hair on) with the Huble Beginnings and Rough and Ready traits to get a make the frying pan of doom! So! I am so happy! I searched 'frying pan' and 'weapon' and was amazed there was not only a thread, but such an active and fun to read thread.

Thank you all! Yay!

That is the awesomist thing to come out of this thread.


So reading over the basic descriptions, it says it is best to choose an appropriate weapon at 1d4. So I am thinking Light Mace. Both are light weight hunks of metal with handles, and I like the idea of using Weapon Finesse to make the frying pan a compatible with Weapon Finesse (mostly because of the movie flavor).

Rough and Ready wrote:

Your intense familiarity with the tools of your trade allows you to use them in combat as if they were actual weapons and makes them more effective for that purpose than they would normally be.

Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.

Humble Beginnings wrote:

You didn't have any intention of becoming an adventurer, but a single, unexpected confrontation changed everything.

Benefit: Choose one of the following: boot, bucket, frying pan, mug, rolling pin, spade, or stool. You are treated as having the Catch Off-Guard feat when wielding the chosen item. (These items should all be considered improvised melee weapons that deal 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.)

Light Mace wrote:
Mace, light 5 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 4 lbs. B —

So, a small sized light mace? Or can you not make a frying pan a light weapon? Looking for input from PSF GM types. I would allow just because it is such a great idea.

Edit: Sorry for the hijack.


I think I read somewhere that in order for a weapon to qualify as light it must be able to be used whiled grappled. Could you see someone using a frying pan while grappled?

I had the same idea but was wanting to use the frying pan from the barmaid that did 1d6 damage.

I have heard in Pathfinder Society that you can't reskin a item to function like another. So you would get the frying pan at 1d4 with the bonus to attack.

It would never be able to be enchanted.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrkMagusX wrote:
I think I read somewhere that in order for a weapon to qualify as light it must be able to be used whiled grappled.

Where'd you hear that? It doesn't make much sense, given that a grappled PC can do anything that doesn't require both hands to do, up to and including full-attacking with a one-handed weapon.


Check under the rules for Light, One handed, two handed weapons . It should be there. I can't get to the site while at work.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

The light weapon in a grapple thing in a 3.5ism. It was changed to one handed in pathfinder.

Dark Archive

I see his problem its an inconsistancy in the rules between the two sections, Grappling section clearly denotes you may use a light OR 1 handed weapon in a grapple. Equipment section however still only mentioned being used in a grapple for light weapons. However one handed weapons arent forbidden from being used in a grapple in the equipment chapter so in this case the grappling rules apply

Grapple section from Combat chapter

"If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details."

Weapon section from Equipment chapter

"Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."


Ah ha, according to your highlighted section, you can use light or one one handed if you are the person grappled.

You can use only a light weapon if you are the one grappling..

So the victim can use either, the aggressor can use only light.

Based on the movie, I would really want a light frying pan then, since she repeatedly whacked Flynn in the head with the pan while he was tangled.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka The Great Rinaldo!

I am pretty sure you are reading too much into the exact wording there, Arizhel. I believe "while grappling" is intended to mean "when you have the grappled condition", hence you can use light or one handed to attack during a grapple, regardless of which person you are.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

How did it work in 3.5? If per chance you could only use light weapons in a grapple (but not one-handed weapons), then the answer is simple: Pathfinder changed it to include one-handed weapons but missed a spot when cleaning up related wording. Can someone check that?

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@Arizhel
I believe the general consensus is such.

  • Standard frying pan, elig for catch off guard and rough and ready.
    Masterwork frying pan (or frying pan made out of exotic materials) no
  • MW weapon bonus, but still qualifies for the above.
  • MW frying pan balanced as a weapon, masterwork weapon No longer eligible for catch off guard, most folks say not eligible for rough and ready.* Treat it as the light mace. (keep in mind light weapons get no benefit from being used two handed.

    *

    Spoiler:
    I find the flaw in Rough and Ready being in the edit I mean trait's feat's writing, not the effect. As Jiggy pointed out upthread (and I missed in my initial read) swords, shields, bows, etc are definitely the tool of the Profession: Soldier.

  • 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

    From 3.5

    If you're grappling

    Attack Your Opponent

    You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    To Matthew - I disagree that there is a consensus.

    To Chris - Every chance I have witnessed, the CS refuses to make a ruling until enough players jump onto the bandwagon and essentially force their hands into doing so.

    "Expect table variation" appears more often than not.

    Requiring such a ruling from campaign leadership is a cop-out. Just take responsibility for the ruling and leave it at that - no one is faulting you for that.

    To all: I maintain that an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name and that fact alone means any argument to the contrary is an attempt at disallowing something via semantics and it is a weak position at best. IMO the entire reason for rough and ready (or catch off guard) is to allow for this type of flavor in the game.

    But I am not in charge of every game. Therefore, some GMs will rule it one way and some will rule it another. This will give players like myself an opportunity to find another table when the need arises.

    To Jiggy: Stacking the feat/trait and MW/enchantment, as has been used as the primary argument against the whole "MW/enchanted improvised weapon" thing - by Jiggy and others, appeals to game balance. Yet, on previous posts there was a denial that game balance had anything to do with it.

    Jiggy: "Power level does not determine legality," etc..

    Now that improvised, enchanted weapons have been shown to exist within the rules (the aforementioned enchanted arrows used in melee) we are back to discussing game balance:

    Jiggy: "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."

    First of all, they are taking a significant drawback mechanically, using feats and traits to do less damage than any real fighter with a real weapon.

    Roleplaying eventually has to give way to the combat engine, if the PC wishes to fight. Being completely helpless against certain types of creatures with DR until you conform to an artificially applied rule (in lieu of official ruling) is not seeking a game advantage. It is a desire to not nerf the PC even *further* by not only having to waste feats, skiil points and traits, but also money in weaponry, both "real" and "improvised."

    Secondly, the combat styles are not mutually exclusive. You are *reading* it that way. There is a big difference.

    Thirdly, nothing is "shut down here" until we have a campaign ruling. In which case, see above.

    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.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    @Some Random Player:
    I still maintain that my interpretation of these rules is not based on game balance. Where you appear to have... let's say "misunderstood"... is where someone was upset about the claim that you couldn't combine improvised weapons and weapon enchantments and tried to paint it as a ruling to cater to powergamers and keep roleplayers down. My comment about the mechanical differences between the two interpretations was an explanation of why that claim (about powergaming versus roleplaying) was false; it was NOT a premise presented in support of my interpretation, nor was it ever meant to be, nor was it presented in any such fashion. You are choosing to apply tangentially-related comments to a different subject than said comments were actually talking about, and then using that fabrication to paint me as a hypocrite.

    Feel free to rule as you like at your tables, but leave the misrepresentation of those who disagree with you out of it, alright?

    The Exchange 5/5

    "an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name " .... wow.

    Sorry - this is kind of like saying

    an non-weapon is a weapon by its very name.

    When I was a child and wanted a pony, my mother improvised and gave me a broom... it was my improvised horse. Didn't make it a horse, even if I insisted that it was.

    I got no horses in this race. I haven't had anyone at my table ask to use an improvised weapon sense 1st Ed. days. But, you know, if someone were to sit at my table now and say...

    "I took pruninghook and I'm using it as a improvised bill-guisarme" I would have no problem with that. If he then said "I'm having it converted to a masterwork pruninghook" I would comment that he get's a +2 on profession gardener with it, as it is a masterwork tool. If he wanted to make it a masterwork improvised bill-guisarme? huh? it would be a masterwork bill-guisarme! nothing improvised about it!

    The improvised bill-guisarme is a weapon that has been converted from a tool, it has moved thru the steps improvised-->actual and is on it's way to -->masterwork. Where is the disconnect here? The billhook can be a Tool or a weapon, the two are balanced differently, and sharpened differently and used differently. Converting one to the other is a simple process. so it would go something like this...
    Masterwork tool-->tool-->improvised weapon-->weapon-->masterwork weapon.
    something that is the perfict tool for trimming trees, is not the best balanced weapon. If you get a smith to "fix" the Improvised Weapon to be better, the part he is fixing is removing the "improvised".

    Not realizing that is kind of like me, claiming my broom is a pony.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

    Some Random Player wrote:
    To all: I maintain that an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name

    Except it isn't:

    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...

    5/5

    Arrows are ammunition which by the rules in the CRB can be bought as magic weapons. Arrows being used in melee as an improvised weapon is a secondary quality, so the primary role's enchantment carries over.

    If masterwork pricing/benefits were the same for weapons, armor or skill kits this discussion would be different. Weapons are 300gp, armor is 150gp and skill kits are usually 100gp or less to buy the masterwork version instead of the standard version. Buying special material upgrades behave in a similar manner. Based on shields not being able to get the benefits of both simultaneously, other items can't as well.

    Most items that fall into the category of being used as improvised weapons fall into components of skill kits. Looking at the pricing differences above it should be clear the developers didn't intent for people to be carrying around pots and pans with combat related magic powers.


    I have no issue with saying that the Skillet I used that does 1d6 damage is no longer a Improvised weapon and has been altered to function as a weapon there by loosing the benefits of Rough and Ready to be able to enchant it. It was appealing to see a person wielding something that look like a skillet so the first impression was WTF he is just a cook caught in the crossfire lets go for the guy wielding the greatsword that looks like a threat.

    Martial Artist are trained to take anything and use it as a killing tool with ease so whats wrong with finding a way to pull off a character that instead of uses conventional looking weapons decides to use those items that appear as mundane in a way to be deadly.

    Its not like I said I wanted to take a Spatula and use it as a weapon.
    Of course I can see someone sharpening said spatula down and balancing the metal in a way to allow ease of swinging and thus look you have a weapon that Appears to be just a mundane spatula until careful examination.

    I have always chose Tabletop RPGs over MMORPGs for the ability to use your imagination to only the limits of the person.

    Instead of shooting everything down saying its against rules lets search for ways to fit it in the rules while getting the same results "A item that looks mundane to the naked eye but in essence is a deadly weapon"

    5/5

    Well you run into one of two problems. The first is that Pathfinder does not have rules to convert improvised weapons into real weapons. The Second is that PFS specifically doesn't allow reskinning, so you can't make a weapon look like something it isn't- like a frying pan.

    No one is saying you can't make the characters you want to, but you also have to understand and accept the limitations you will encounter during the character's career. If you make a martial character based on using improvised weapons you will lose most of your combat viability when fighting creatures with DR.

    If you want to go outside the rules to make these concepts more viable over the long run you should try using them in a homegame where the GM is free to be as flexible as they want.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So, I have taken all of your opinions to heart, and this is what I have come up with, so let me know what you all would think if I sat down at your table, and explained it as follows:

    "I took Rough and Ready and Humble Beginnings on this character, not because I expected them to be incredibly powerful, but because it amused me and after I watched Tangled the concept just made me smile.

    "I am not considering her trusty mithral frying pan to be a 'weapon' and I will not treat it as such for purposes of stacking the Masterwork quality. I did buy the masterwork pan because it fits the character concept, not because I expect a +1 to attack rolls. I know the masterwork tool will not help with my Tinker day job checks.

    "To overcome this seeming combat inefficiency and to add Rapunzel flavor, I started as a White Haired Witch. The majority of my actual attacks will be through the clever use hair.

    "Although both frying pans and hair are fun, they are not necessarily conducive to actual combative capacity, So after level 1, I moved into Hexcrafter Magus to be an actual competent adventurer and to be able to provide assistance to my allies in combat.

    "I will be using the various frying pans I have, generally coated with special non-stick (weapon blanch) coatings to help overcome DR, but for the most part my combat ability will be the Hexcrafter skills and spells channeled through my character's hair.

    "All I ask is that on occasion, I get to whack some person I grapple with my hair in the head with the frying pan."

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    @Arizhel - Clever to use weapon blanches to get past DR with improvised weapons!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:
    @Arizhel - Clever to use weapon blanches to get past DR with improvised weapons!
    Jurassic Park wrote:
    "Clever girl..."

    Sorry Jiggy, couldn't resist the Jurassic Park nod :)

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    DrkMagusX wrote:
    I have no issue with saying that the Skillet I used that does 1d6 damage is no longer a Improvised weapon and has been altered to function as a weapon there by loosing the benefits of Rough and Ready to be able to enchant it.

    Great! That seems to be the only thing really in contention, so go-go Kitchen Killer! :)

    Quote:

    It was appealing to see a person wielding something that look like a skillet so the first impression was WTF he is just a cook caught in the crossfire lets go for the guy wielding the greatsword that looks like a threat.

    .....

    Instead of shooting everything down saying its against rules lets search for ways to fit it in the rules while getting the same results "A item that looks mundane to the naked eye but in essence is a deadly weapon"

    I do have a concern with this, but I think there's a workaround:

    If you "zoom out" for a second, detaching yourself from this idea and looking at the big picture, you'll see that what you're asking for is essentially this:
    "I want all the baddies to ignore me until I attack."
    How I'd probably handle this request at my table (off the top of my head), would be to let you make a Bluff check to look like a non-combatant (possibly with a small circumstance bonus if you have no clearly visible 'real' weapons), up until you take a clearly threatening action. Might even make your first target flat-footed, depending on the situation.

    Does that seem appropriate to you?


    DrkMagic, if you ever make it to my neck of the woods, you are more than welcome to play that character on my table. I can just imagine the comedy that came from it, especially after my table last night having fun with my Gentleman Barbarian.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Jiggy wrote:
    DrkMagusX wrote:
    I have no issue with saying that the Skillet I used that does 1d6 damage is no longer a Improvised weapon and has been altered to function as a weapon there by loosing the benefits of Rough and Ready to be able to enchant it.

    Great! That seems to be the only thing really in contention, so go-go Kitchen Killer! :)

    Quote:

    It was appealing to see a person wielding something that look like a skillet so the first impression was WTF he is just a cook caught in the crossfire lets go for the guy wielding the greatsword that looks like a threat.

    .....

    Instead of shooting everything down saying its against rules lets search for ways to fit it in the rules while getting the same results "A item that looks mundane to the naked eye but in essence is a deadly weapon"

    I do have a concern with this, but I think there's a workaround:

    If you "zoom out" for a second, detaching yourself from this idea and looking at the big picture, you'll see that what you're asking for is essentially this:
    "I want all the baddies to ignore me until I attack."
    How I'd probably handle this request at my table (off the top of my head), would be to let you make a Bluff check to look like a non-combatant (possibly with a small circumstance bonus if you have no clearly visible 'real' weapons), up until you take a clearly threatening action. Might even make your first target flat-footed, depending on the situation.

    Does that seem appropriate to you?

    I have an interesting sideline on this.

    I have a heavy AC character (more than one actually) that can't hit the broadside of a barn with a weapon. But he's always up in the front line, blocking and drawing fire. I regularly (15% or so) encounter judges who just have the monsters ignore him. I mean, not even take a first swing at him in an encounter. In the first encounter, the judge will say, "WHAT is your AC?" and I never get attacked again (unless it's a touch attack or a grapple - which they always take) - sometimes the monsters don't even take AOOs on my guys. Even when I use a Hat of Disguise to look like one of the other PCs (one of my guys has two Hats, and loans one out, so we switch figures. It's worked once when the judge forgot we had "swapped looks"). It's not really a problem, I've learned to adapt my play (and it's kind of nice not being attacked), I just find it the opposite of the "I'm harmless" look. The "I'm dangerous" look.

    Oh! and I can see monsters that would swing on the "low level henchman cook" first - undead esp. Kill the henchman and run away - they'll bury him and we can dig him up later for lunch.


    nosig wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    DrkMagusX wrote:
    I have no issue with saying that the Skillet I used that does 1d6 damage is no longer a Improvised weapon and has been altered to function as a weapon there by loosing the benefits of Rough and Ready to be able to enchant it.

    Great! That seems to be the only thing really in contention, so go-go Kitchen Killer! :)

    Quote:

    It was appealing to see a person wielding something that look like a skillet so the first impression was WTF he is just a cook caught in the crossfire lets go for the guy wielding the greatsword that looks like a threat.

    .....

    Instead of shooting everything down saying its against rules lets search for ways to fit it in the rules while getting the same results "A item that looks mundane to the naked eye but in essence is a deadly weapon"

    I do have a concern with this, but I think there's a workaround:

    If you "zoom out" for a second, detaching yourself from this idea and looking at the big picture, you'll see that what you're asking for is essentially this:
    "I want all the baddies to ignore me until I attack."
    How I'd probably handle this request at my table (off the top of my head), would be to let you make a Bluff check to look like a non-combatant (possibly with a small circumstance bonus if you have no clearly visible 'real' weapons), up until you take a clearly threatening action. Might even make your first target flat-footed, depending on the situation.

    Does that seem appropriate to you?

    I have an interesting sideline on this.

    I have a heavy AC character (more than one actually) that can't hit the broadside of a barn with a weapon. But he's always up in the front line, blocking and drawing fire. I regularly (15% or so) encounter judges who just have the monsters ignore him. I mean, not even take a first swing at him in an encounter. In the first encounter, the judge will say, "WHAT is your AC?" and I never get attacked again (unless it's a touch attack or a grapple - which they always take) -...

    I hate, I hate, I hate when GMs do that. Its part of why as a GM, I don't ask for a character for their stats unless I see something fishy. I will play a character with the tactics I feel they should have. I see a heavily armored fighter come up. I see a threat. I attack the threat. I'm using an undead that sees some sort of "aura" come from a caster. They are a threat. They won't be smart enough to km now that aura could hurt them.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    That would be very discouraging to me. My cleric's primary gift to my last group was just standing in the damn way, not reteating, and playing punching bag to a bunch of angry goblinoids. I was the highest level of the group and, high AC or not, the dang GM loved rolling high. Still, he did focus on me, and it saved the party, vs if they had ignored me and just marched on past.

    Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    nosig wrote:


    I have an interesting sideline on this.

    I have a heavy AC character (more than one actually) that can't hit the broadside of a barn with a weapon. But he's always up in the front line, blocking and drawing fire. I regularly (15% or so) encounter judges who just have the monsters ignore him. I mean, not even take a first swing at him in an encounter. In the first encounter, the judge will say, "WHAT is your AC?" and I never get attacked again (unless it's a touch attack or a grapple - which they always take) -...

    I played a game last night with my frontliner (second game she's ever gotten to play, level 6 with GM creds), I realized that she'll be falling into this category. AC of 27 with a shield. But luckily, that is what's great about 1 handed weapons.

    "Oh, the monster takes full attacks, misses? Next round it goes after someone else? Alright. Drop the shield, rage with reckless abandon. That 27 AC just dropped to a 19, but it doesn't matter because now I'm going to two-hand power-attack it to death."


    Jiggy what you said is acceptable. I have no problem with making bluff checks to deceive the villains. The character perhaps has a High bluff anyway due to the fact he is more of a talkative character rather than one that wants to get in every fight.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Well there you go then! A creative character who works within the rules and brings something unique to the table. :)


    Jiggy wrote:

    @Some Random Player:

    You are choosing to apply tangentially-related comments to a different subject than said comments were actually talking about, and then using that fabrication to paint me as a hypocrite.

    I made two direct quotes, both in-context.

    Jiggy wrote:
    Feel free to rule as you like at your tables, but leave the misrepresentation of those who disagree with you out of it, alright?

    No misrepresentation made nor intended. You used game balance (the application of penalties, as you said) as a direct supporting argument to your position. If you didn't want them connected, don't connect them.

    If they aren't related (as you now say) then they don't belong here, so in either case, don't blame the messenger.

    Incidentally, your mention of game balance also attempted to speak to the motivations of the creators of PCs in this situation, but I'll stop there.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    nosig wrote:

    "an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name " .... wow.

    Sorry - this is kind of like saying

    an non-weapon is a weapon by its very name.

    Anything wielded as a weapon is a weapon. If I beat you with a table leg, would you say I was unarmed?

    Better yet - "butcher knife" doesn't appear anywhere on the weapons list, either, deadly though it can be.

    Yet "knife" does - only if it is made of brass? So a butcher can wield a +1 knife, but not a +1 butcher knife?

    Pretty thin.

    EDIT: There is another argument for improvised weapons being weapons. Characters using improvised weapons do not provoke AoOs like fighting unarmed does. Therefore, IWs do appear to be weapons, even with the applied penalty.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Some Random Player wrote:
    I made two direct quotes, both in-context.

    I beg your pardon? Leaving out half of my post, as well as the statment my post was explicitly referencing, counts as "in-context"?

    You have an interesting idea of "context".

    Quote:
    No misrepresentation made nor intended. You used game balance (the application of penalties, as you said) as a direct supporting argument to your position. If you didn't want them connected, don't connect them.

    I didn't connect them. As I already pointed out, it was a reply to someone's side-comment, not the main topic.

    Something you would know if you were telling the truth about keeping my statements in context.


    I didn't take anything out of context. Taking them out of context would be applying them somewhere you didn't already do so yourself.

    I didn't include the entire post because the readers have opposed thumbs and the ability to use a scroll wheel.

    You brought both posts here referencing the same position you have on the same subject. IF you didn't want them here, you shouldn't have mentioned them.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Some Random Player wrote:
    Taking them out of context would be applying them somewhere you didn't already do so yourself.

    So like when I applied my statment to "how X relates to roleplaying and powergaming" and then you applied the same statement to "why I believe X in the first place"?

    Yes, that would be taking it out of context. That is exactly what you did. Glad the situation is clear to everyone now, so we can end this little derail.

    Have a nice day.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Some Random Player wrote:
    nosig wrote:

    "an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name " .... wow.

    Sorry - this is kind of like saying

    an non-weapon is a weapon by its very name.

    Anything wielded as a weapon is a weapon. If I beat you with a table leg, would you say I was unarmed?

    Better yet - "butcher knife" doesn't appear anywhere on the weapons list, either, deadly though it can be.

    Yet "knife" does - only if it is made of brass? So a butcher can wield a +1 knife, but not a +1 butcher knife?

    Pretty thin.

    EDIT: There is another argument for improvised weapons being weapons. Characters using improvised weapons do not provoke AoOs like fighting unarmed does. Therefore, IWs do appear to be weapons, even with the applied penalty.

    Yet riding a broom as a pony does not make it a pony.

    If your PC tried to beat my PC with a table leg, would I say he was unarmed? well... maybe? Depends.

    I would say that a table leg is an improvised weapon though, and with some work could be made into a real weapon, which, with more work, might be made into a masterwork weapon which could then be enchanted to +1. Can you get a +1 Magical "table leg"? sounds like it. Ah... it doesn't hold up a table well though, so if you used it for that it would be an improvised table leg then. (which, with some work could be made into a real table leg, which, with more work, might be made into a masterwork table leg, etc.).

    I'm pretty sure that "So a butcher can wield a +1 knife,..." and he could use a masterwork butcher knife. One would be good as a weapon and one would be good as a tool - can you guess which is which?

    And on that note I leave this conversation again - because "...there is no pleasing you" (Goldmember I think)


    On another side note - if improvised weapons are not to be considered actual weapons, then weapon blanches cannot be applied to them or used for their primary function (assuming there is another way they could be used) since they must be applied to weapons, as per their description.

    "When poured on a weapon and placed over a hot flame for a full round, they melt and form a temporary coating on the weapon. The blanching gives the weapon the ability to bypass one kind of material-based damage reduction, such as adamantine, cold iron, or silver. The blanching remains effective until the weapon makes a successful attack. Each dose of blanching can coat one weapon..."

    So, either IWs are weapons or no weapon blanches, either.

    Assistant Software Developer

    I removed a fighty post and a reply to it.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    As a datum: if a player at my table wanted to use weapon blanches or ghost salt on an improvised weapon, that would be fine at my table.

    Also, I wouldn't consider a drunk swinging a mug around with malice to be unarmed.

    I think the issue "does an improvised weapon act as a weapon" to be one question. I consider "can something be both a masterwork weapon and an improvised weapon at the same time" to be a separate issue.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Ross Byers wrote:
    I removed a fighty post and a reply to it.

    Thanks Ross - sorry for my part in that.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Chris Mortika wrote:

    As a datum: if a player at my table wanted to use weapon blanches or ghost salt on an improvised weapon, that would be fine at my table.

    Also, I wouldn't consider a drunk swinging a mug around with malice to be unarmed.

    I think the issue "does an improvised weapon act as a weapon" to be one question. I consider "can something be both a masterwork weapon and an improvised weapon at the same time" to be a separate issue.

    I'm not sure about the mug part... but if my judge ruled that way I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

    The weapon blanches? I would kind of question the player about the Improvised weapon he was using. Did he pick out a "well shaped tree branch" to be his club? Sounds like it is a weapon. Did he just grab a chair and brake a leg off and pour the blanch on in the middle of a fight? heck, I might even give him that too. Maybe he rolled a "craft weapon" craft roll to get a 0gp value weapon (a club)? (yeah, it's reaching - but I'd like to side with the player on this, and if he's in enough trouble to need the weapon RIGHT NOW...).

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    It's possible that a foe might have sundered, stolen, or otherwise destroyed a PC's weapon. I can imagine a PC with pouches of weapon blaches, a fire, an hour or two, and a bone taken from a recently-inanimate chimera skeleton.

    There's a situation where a PC might end up with an improvised weapon, with a weapon blanch.


    So how far does these post go before a Official steps in with some answers lol.

    The Exchange 5/5

    DrkMagusX wrote:
    So how far does these post go before a Official steps in with some answers lol.

    we doing a pool? I'll take 12 days... and maybe a second bet on 9. but only if it says up on the board that long.

    201 to 250 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.