Improvised Weapons emphasis mine says
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
This is a very semantic question, but it is possible this rule could be read as applying a -8 to a character's attack bonus. The "and" is what gives me pause. The clause before the "and" says the creature is to be considered nonproficient with the weapon, which provides a -4 penalty all on its own. If the "and" were replaced with "therefore" I'd say that's all you are applying, but since the word "and" is used, it leads to a possible reading of an additional -4 penalty on top of the nonproficiency penalty.
I've always just run it as a -4, but now that I look closely at the rule I'm not sure that's correct.
So what's the correct penalty to apply?
It is just a -4 penalty. It does not mean they take a non-proficiency penalty of -4 and a special -4 improvised weapon penalty. It means they cannot be proficient with it SO they take a -4 penalty (they and meaning the same as the so that I put in there).
That's how I've always ruled it, but a player was thinking about a particular character and wanted to know if the "and" meant "and" or "so/therefore." I'd never even really looked at it in that light before, and said I'd check for clarification. Thanks for the confirmation.
It definitely could be read that way, but I'm sure it's not. Using 'so/therefore' would definitely have been a better phrasing.
and = thus
and = thus
Edit: I've, on very rare occasion, seen and used to mean thus or therefore. In reading the rule I can see it (the word and) trying to convey that point, but it doesn't change the fact that "and" usually means "in addition to," rather than "consequently."
and = thusEdit: I've, on very rare occasion, seen and used to mean thus or therefore. In reading the rule I can see it (the word and) trying to convey that point, but it doesn't change the fact that "and" usually means "in addition to," rather than "consequently."
While "and" (like many, many words) has multiple meanings, here it seems to be mentioning the -4 penalty for the ease of reference. If the meaning was "in addition to", you'd likely see language to that end used.
E.g., "Any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object in addition to the normal penalty for being nonproficient."
I understand why there might be some initial confusion on reading the language, but I think context is pretty clear that it's simply explaining (on the spot, rather than forcing people to refer back to where the nonproficiency penalty is originally listed) what "nonproficient" means. It certainly would have been more clear had they tacked on "as a result" at the end of the sentence or before "takes a -4 penalty". Or they could have thrown in a "thus" or "therefore" after the "and". But space is a premium and all that.
Effectively I believe that there's an implied 'so' in there - "and so...".
Personally, I'd rephrase it something like: "Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature using an improvised weapon in combat takes a -4 penalty due to lack of proficiency with the object." That gets the point across more clearly and it saves some word count.