| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
When a warpriest uses the Magic Blessing to launch a melee weapon, is he at -4 penalty for throwing the weapon unless he takes the Throw Anything feat?
The Throw Anything feat only applies to Improvised Weapons.
Here's the rules reference:
It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
This -4 Penalty is not caused due to it being Improvised. It's caused because the weapon isn't designed to be thrown. Can it be construed to be Improvised? Sure, but it's not explicitly defined that way, so saying Throw Anything will apply is a bit of a stretch.
In order to negate this penalty, you'd need the Throwing Weapon property, which gives it an authentic 10 foot range increment, thereby removing the -4 penalty.
No. just.....no. If you apply the principle of "abilities are supposed to work", you'll have fewer of these questions.
No. just.....no. If you apply the principle of "abilities are supposed to work", you'll have fewer of these questions.
I'm confused as to your stance.
Per the rules, the -4 penalty is accrued from throwing a weapon not designed to be thrown. Improvised weaponry has nothing to do with that penalty.
If you were to throw a Coffee Cup, for example, you'd incur a -8 Penalty to the attack roll, one -4 because it's an Improvised Weapon (not designed to be used in combat), and another -4 because it's not designed to be a weapon to throw.
Throw Anything would negate the first -4 penalty, but not the second -4 penalty.
Again, could Throw Anything's penalty negating apply to weapons not being designed to be thrown? Maybe. But it's not explicit enough to give that inclination, since all it mentions is "Improvised Weapon," and not "Weapons not designed to be thrown."
I think he's talking about the Warpriest's lesser magic blessing. Not actually throwing a weapon.
I'm with manly, seems silly if it only worked with throwing weapons. It is treated like a thrown weapon, but uses WIS to hit because, hey, it's magic, so I think it works with any melee weapon, no penalty.
I think he's talking about the Warpriest's lesser magic blessing. Not actually throwing a weapon.
I'm with manly, seems silly if it only worked with throwing weapons. It is treated like a thrown weapon, but uses WIS to hit because, hey, it's magic, so I think it works with any melee weapon, no penalty.
To be clear, I spoke from a generic scenario: If it doesn't have a range increment listed, it's a -4 penalty to throw it. If it's not an actual weapon (i.e. not on the table), you take a -4 Improvisation penalty.
It works because it's treated as having a listed range increment (30 feet), similar to a weapon with the Throwing property.
If you were using the ability on a generic item (i.e. Coffee Cup), you'd still suffer a -4 Improvisation penalty, but you wouldn't suffer a -4 throwing penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't make sense. If you throw a warhammer, it's not an improvised weapon. But if instead you throw a tent stake driver with the exact same size, shape, and density of a warhammer, then it is an improvised weapon?
That doesn't make sense. If you throw a warhammer, it's not an improvised weapon. But if instead you throw a tent stake driver with the exact same size, shape, and density of a warhammer, then it is an improvised weapon?
By the rules, it is. The first is designed specifically to be used in combat, blocking attacks and killing enemies, something that requires a very dynamic approach to its craftsmanship. The other is designed to nail tent stakes into the ground, a much more linear purpose. Both of them have completely different applications. It's like saying a Phillips and a Flathead screwdriver are the same thing, or saying the Yard system and the Metric system are the same thing.
And if you say they are, by that logic then, a Large Longsword and a Greatsword should be the exact same thing.
Except they're not. For starters, they're named separately. Secondly, they're sized differently, meaning the former provides a -2 penalty. Thirdly, a Large Longsword calculates its item HP differently from a Medium-sized Greatsword, and if you were proficient with only Longswords (and not Greatswords), you'd suffer a -4 Non-proficiency Penalty with the Greatsword (but not the Longsword).
There are differences, seated behind the obscure mechanics of the game. Just because you hardly use them (or don't even use them at all) doesn't mean that they no longer exist. Are some of them stupid, and probably don't make sense? Yes. But they make sense because Magic and [reasons], and expecting Pathfinder to be a 100% analogous conversion of Real Life is absolutely absurd.
I see but what do you think of the #2 answer to this? It seems to me that if you can never use a weapon as an improvised weapon, he would have just said, "you can't use a weapon as a improvised weapon."
I'll preface this by saying that James Jacobs isn't a rules guy, and he has said as such. His input is okay for an idea as to how something was intended to work, or for some insight as to how something could be ran that was fair, but he has been wrong about rules in the past. The most recent one that I figured was on Shield Spikes being enchanted separately from a Shield.
That statement, from what I can tell, is saying that you can't magically enhance an Improvised Weapon as a base Magic Weapon. To a point, I can agree with that intention. I don't think it's reasonable for people to make a +5 Vorpal Frying Pan, and expect to be just as good as any other weapon.
To sum up the #2 part, here's what it boils down to:
When using a Magic Weapon of any sort as an Improvised Weapon, does it retain its enhancement bonuses or special qualities?
Nope.
According to James Jacobs, if I were to, for example, use the butt-end of a +2 Longspear, I would not receive the +2 Bonus to Attack and Damage Rolls using that butt-end, because the butt-end, which wasn't designed to be used to attack people with, is being used to attack people.
Similarly, if I had that +5 Vorpal Adamantine Frying Pan, its benefits would not confer because a Frying Pan, which was designed to basically decapitate and cook your chicken/turkey for you, is being used to do the same thing to, say, a Kobold.
To a certain extent, I agree. This is also somewhat backed by the Defending Weapon property FAQ, which says that, generally speaking, you must use items the way they were intended in order to receive their benefits. Regarding Defending, you must make attacks with the enchanted weapon in order to benefit from it.
Here, it makes sense that, even though a +5 Vorpal Adamantine Frying Pan is, in theory, extremely powerful, it's original intention wasn't for it to be used to smack people upside the head; it was designed to cook food.
Would it be unreasonable to allow the +2 to apply to the butt-end of a spear? Not at all. If anything, it encourages different styles of fighting, and quite frankly, unless the guy invested in it, you're basically kicking him while he's already down (FREE +4 TO HIT!!!). However, in the case of the spear, there are archetypes that specifically allow you to use a weapon the way it was intended while getting what you want, which is to attack enemies who are adjacent, so there certainly is a precedent against allowing it.
When a warpriest uses the Magic Blessing to launch a melee weapon, is he at -4 penalty for throwing the weapon unless he takes the Throw Anything feat?
I don't think you're actually "throwing" the weapon in this case. The weapon flies out of your hand and strikes an opponent. Even though the attack "is treated" as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, it is still a magical effect.
Darksol the Painbringer: You CAN become effectively proficient in a Frying Pan though. The Rough and Ready trait would allow you to "not take the improvised weapon penalty" for the Frying Pan and the weapon proficiency feats infer making "attack rolls with the weapon normally" = proficiency.