As I stated from the description before.
A Fighting Tankard says "This steel tankard functions as a +1 light hammer."
'Functions as' does not mean 'is' a +1 light hammer. It is a steel tankard, not a light hammer.
I will not wordplay with the word "Is" and words "Functions as".
I just read up on Mark Seifter.
He does work for Paizo and is on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game design team.
But his credited works are for Familiar Folio, Monster Codex and Occult Adventures Playtest.
I find him to be a excellent source of information and one we should listen to, but not to take his word as law. He is not an expert in weapons, magic or magic weapons.
Perhaps he is unaware of the existence of the Fighting Tankard.
I just read up on Mark Seifter.
He does work for Paizo and is on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game design team.
But his credited works are for Familiar Folio, Monster Codex and Occult Adventures Playtest.
I find him to be a excellent source of information and one we should listen to, but not to take his word as law. He is not an expert in weapons, magic or magic weapons.
Perhaps he is unaware of the existence of the Fighting Tankard.
I never said what he said was RAW. But he does have insight into the system. All of the Devs have stated that anything posted in that thread is not strictly rules correct, but having a Dev weigh in does help at times. So what I posted is not RAW or RAI, but it is insight into it.
Furthermore, I had asked this once before and the general consensus was that I was being semantic and that Improvised Weapons are not weapons and do not count for anything where you need a weapon.
As for your Fighting Tankard, it's a special exception. It's where it functions as a Light Hammer, meaning for all intents and purposes by the rules it attacks like and damages like a light hammer, even though it is a Mug. For all intents and rulings, this could be written as "This Light Hammer looks and also functions as a tankard."
|
As I stated from the description before.
A Fighting Tankard says "This steel tankard functions as a +1 light hammer."'Functions as' does not mean 'is' a +1 light hammer. It is a steel tankard, not a light hammer.
I will not wordplay with the word "Is" and words "Functions as".
Sure, it's a steel tankard, not a light hammer, but it isn't improvised if you use it as a +1 light hammer.
So you want your Mithril Frying Pan to function as a +1 Heavy Mace, you can do that. That said, it's not an improvised weapon if it's a +1 Heavy Mace....
I never said what he said was RAW. But he does have insight into the system. All of the Devs have stated that anything posted in that thread is not strictly rules correct, but having a Dev weigh in does help at times. So what I posted is not RAW or RAI, but it is insight into it.
Furthermore, I had asked this once before and the general consensus was that I was being semantic and that Improvised Weapons are not weapons and do not count for anything where you need a weapon.
As for your Fighting Tankard, it's a special exception. It's where it functions as a Light Hammer, meaning for all intents and purposes by the rules it attacks like and damages like a light hammer, even though it is a Mug. For all intents and rulings, this could be written as "This Light Hammer looks and also functions as a tankard."
I haven't made any claim about you.
I find it interesting that some people seem to think I am trying to argue with them.
I am not. I am here only to discuss and state facts of Pathfinder.
Sure, it's a steel tankard, not a light hammer, but it isn't improvised if you use it as a +1 light hammer.
So you want your Mithril Frying Pan to function as a +1 Heavy Mace, you can do that. That said, it's not an improvised weapon if it's a +1 Heavy Mace....
How does one use a Mithril Frying Pan as a +1 Heavy Mace?
How does one use a Mithril Frying Pan as a +1 Heavy Mace?Sure, it's a steel tankard, not a light hammer, but it isn't improvised if you use it as a +1 light hammer.
So you want your Mithril Frying Pan to function as a +1 Heavy Mace, you can do that. That said, it's not an improvised weapon if it's a +1 Heavy Mace....
I'd say you don't. You use it as an improvised heavy mace.
|
|
How does one use a Mithril Frying Pan as a +1 Heavy Mace?Sure, it's a steel tankard, not a light hammer, but it isn't improvised if you use it as a +1 light hammer.
So you want your Mithril Frying Pan to function as a +1 Heavy Mace, you can do that. That said, it's not an improvised weapon if it's a +1 Heavy Mace....
What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
So if I can't enchant my mithril waffle iron as a weapon, can I at least commission a +1 Mithril Longhammer that I can use to make waffles with when I'm not hitting people with it?
It seems like the answer is obviously "yes" though the blacksmith might think you're daft. The problem with improvised weapons as I see it is mostly that they're not really balanced/sharpened/reinforced etc. to be weapons. It seems like if you smash up a chair and just grab a big piece you're going to end up with an improvised weapon, but if you break up a chair deliberately and select a big piece and you sand it down, you can have a club no problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
I'm questioning the +1 part as it is a magic +1. Not Frying Pan to Heavy Mace.
How are you getting a non-magic Mithril Frying Pan to a magic +1 Heavy Mace?
How does one use a Mithril Frying Pan as a +1 Heavy Mace?Sure, it's a steel tankard, not a light hammer, but it isn't improvised if you use it as a +1 light hammer.
So you want your Mithril Frying Pan to function as a +1 Heavy Mace, you can do that. That said, it's not an improvised weapon if it's a +1 Heavy Mace....
What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
Hmm... giving it some more thought and given the 4 lb weight of a skillet matching the 4 lb weight of a light mace, I'm thinking improvised light mace is the best you're gonna get. As a GM, I wouldn't allow the flaming quality either even if the skillet was enchanted to heat and cook stuff put in it. Maybe if pressed solidly onto an opponent and held there while it was being grappled...
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the aforementioned tankard, "X functions as Y" is a very common phrase in Pathfinder. We use it to indicate that any and all rules that apply to X also apply to Y. If there are any exceptions or conditions, they are listed in the item/spell/etc. entry. If none are listed, X and Y are functionally identical.
One of the core principles of D20 rules design is "specific beats general". In this case, the specific ("functions as +1 light hammer") overrides the general assumption ("a tankard is an improvised weapon") because a +1 light hammer is not an improvised weapon. You don't get to pick and choose in what ways X function as Y; you get all the properties unless exceptions are mentioned.
So if I can't enchant my mithril waffle iron as a weapon, can I at least commission a +1 Mithril Longhammer that I can use to make waffles with when I'm not hitting people with it?
It seems like the answer is obviously "yes" though the blacksmith might think you're daft. The problem with improvised weapons as I see it is mostly that they're not really balanced/sharpened/reinforced etc. to be weapons. It seems like if you smash up a chair and just grab a big piece you're going to end up with an improvised weapon, but if you break up a chair deliberately and select a big piece and you sand it down, you can have a club no problem.
I would image that the -4 to attack rolls on using improvised weapons cover the balanced part, while HP and hardness is cover by the object material and thickness for reinforcement. As for sharpness, not all weapons have edges, there are blunts weapons.
Regarding the aforementioned tankard, "X functions as Y" is a very common phrase in Pathfinder. We use it to indicate that any and all rules that apply to X also apply to Y. If there are any exceptions or conditions, they are listed in the item/spell/etc. entry. If none are listed, X and Y are functionally identical.
One of the core principles of D20 rules design is "specific beats general". In this case, the specific ("functions as +1 light hammer") overrides the general assumption ("a tankard is an improvised weapon") because a +1 light hammer is not an improvised weapon. You don't get to pick and choose in what ways X function as Y; you get all the properties unless exceptions are mentioned.
The "specific beats general" line is dangerous and I am not willing to talk about it. There is was a storm going on 2WF and 2HW about "specific beats general" that makes this discussion looks like a calm, polite British tea party.
Not touching the "specific beats general" line. No thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so you won't discuss "is" vs "functions as" and won't discuss "specific beats general", yet you claim to be "here only to discuss and state facts of Pathfinder".
I think there's nothing left to discuss until Paizo sets us straight.
Ok, so you won't discuss "is" vs "functions as" and won't discuss "specific beats general", yet you claim to be "here only to discuss and state facts of Pathfinder".
I think there's nothing left to discuss until Paizo sets us straight.
A Paizo answer would be for the best.
I am not a official source. Please do not expect me to act or respond like one. I am new to Pathfinder, less then 6 months and only played 3 games.
But as I read the rules and read the treads on the websites. I am finding there is a big difference between RAW and people assumptions.
I can at least cite the Rule-books. I can not cite someones assumptions.
As a long time player and GM, I can say that I have never had this officially ruled or have had too many others agree with enchanting an improvised weapon. I am definitely on the side that says "Why not be able to enchant a frying pan?" because it really doesn't make too much of a difference to me, but I do understand the logic into why others would say we cannot.
I understand that "logically", once an improvised weapon is designed to be a masterwork weapon, that it really isn't improvised anymore. If I take a fork and sharpen it to have the same stabbing potential as a dirk, is it really a fork anymore or now just a three (or more) pronged dirk?
And then, what bonuses would the masterwork "weapon/item" have? Does a masterwork shovel still provide the bonuses to digging as well as bonuses to hit? And if so, why should a player use a long spear when they can just get a spade instead? That way they have all the bonuses of long spears while getting a bonus to dig. At least they cannot get too many feats for the tactic assuming the spade counts as an improvised weapon, but an inquisitor may not care.
So even though I want my spade to one day become a +1 Undead Bane Spade that still gives me bonuses on digging, I understand why others have a problem with it.
If you are playing a home game, trying getting the GM to be sympathetic to your cause. PFS, understand it's not legal for now, but you can attempt to keep asking the question hoping that one day an official will come out and say: "Yes, you can enchant improvised weapons!" or "No, none of that nonsense!"
Can you make the breastplate a flaming burst weapon?
I would if It had armor spikes and they had flaming on it.
What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
I'm questioning the +1 part as it is a magic +1. Not Frying Pan to Heavy Mace.
How are you getting a non-magic Mithril Frying Pan to a magic +1 Heavy Mace?
Anything made of mithral is automatically masterwork.
Anything made of mithral is automatically masterwork.What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
I'm questioning the +1 part as it is a magic +1. Not Frying Pan to Heavy Mace.
How are you getting a non-magic Mithril Frying Pan to a magic +1 Heavy Mace?
No, not they aren't. The text for special materials parses the issue more carefully than that. It says:
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.
(emphasis mine)
A skillet fashioned from mithral may be lighter and food may rarely stick to it (as described in the Ultimate Equipment book), but it is not described, in its description, as giving the user a bonus on their cooking check for being masterwork. And an improvised weapon such as a skillet being wielded in anger... isn't created as a weapon whether mithral or adamantine or the magically solidified tears of French people forced to eat the food of English chefs.
I never said what he said was RAW. But he does have insight into the system. All of the Devs have stated that anything posted in that thread is not strictly rules correct, but having a Dev weigh in does help at times. So what I posted is not RAW or RAI, but it is insight into it.
Furthermore, I had asked this once before and the general consensus was that I was being semantic and that Improvised Weapons are not weapons and do not count for anything where you need a weapon.
As for your Fighting Tankard, it's a special exception. It's where it functions as a Light Hammer, meaning for all intents and purposes by the rules it attacks like and damages like a light hammer, even though it is a Mug. For all intents and rulings, this could be written as "This Light Hammer looks and also functions as a tankard."
I haven't made any claim about you.
I find it interesting that some people seem to think I am trying to argue with them.
I am not. I am here only to discuss and state facts of Pathfinder.
I never said you did or didn't. You are assuming. Also, you never responded to what I said.
Also, refusing to listen to the rules of Pathfinder that state the rules for your situation, but then asking us to prove it is rather unproductive. It's like asking how 1+1=2 and then refusing the rules of math on how 1+1=2 by saying that you are afraid it will cause a large discussion... which you are asking for.
The rules have been stated about Specific trumping general. Either ask for homerules or follow the rules?
Exactly..
It can't be made flaming. Modify it to have weapons (that are, in fact enchanted separately) and the spikes can be enchanted.
In other words, no longer an improvised weapon. Spikes can be. You must make it a weapon to enchant.
And there's your answer. You yourself modify it to make it a weapon. Nothing else allows it.
I think you got the wrong idea.
In pathfinder, money is limited. I would not bother enchanting most improvised weapons. Only weapons that will be used in battle.
I much rather have a War hammer over a normal hammer. It does not matter if the rules are okay if I can enchant both the same way. I will plan and spend to improve the Superior item.
If for some reason money become a non issue in pathfinder, then maybe I do want a frying pan with flaming on it to get my steak with a nice seared finished and bash any orc that dares to interrupt my cooking.
I never said you did or didn't. You are assuming. Also, you never responded to what I said.
Also, refusing to listen to the rules of Pathfinder that state the rules for your situation, but then asking us to prove it is rather unproductive. It's like asking how 1+1=2 and then refusing the rules of math on how 1+1=2 by saying that you are afraid it will cause a large discussion... which you are asking for.
The rules have been stated about Specific trumping general. Either ask for homerules or follow the rules?
Where does it say in the the rulebook that Specific trumping general? I have not seen it yet.
A Paizo answer would be for the best.
I am not a official source. Please do not expect me to act or respond like one. I am new to Pathfinder, less then 6 months and only played 3 games.
But as I read the rules and read the treads on the websites. I am finding there is a big difference between RAW and people assumptions.
I can at least cite the Rule-books. I can not cite someones assumptions.
Where does it say in the the rulebook that Specific trumping general? I have not seen it yet.
It's a foundational assumption of d20 games, Pathfinder being a version thereof published under the Open Gaming License. All d20 games are exception based systems, and Pathfinder simply inherits this from its legacy as an offshoot of 3.5.
A lot of things in Pathfinder simply do not work if you do not allow feats, abilities, items to make specific exceptions to general rules.
Not all TTRPGs are like this, but this entire family of games very much is.
I never said you did or didn't. You are assuming. Also, you never responded to what I said.
Also, refusing to listen to the rules of Pathfinder that state the rules for your situation, but then asking us to prove it is rather unproductive. It's like asking how 1+1=2 and then refusing the rules of math on how 1+1=2 by saying that you are afraid it will cause a large discussion... which you are asking for.
The rules have been stated about Specific trumping general. Either ask for homerules or follow the rules?
Where does it say in the the rulebook that Specific trumping general? I have not seen it yet.
I agree that it is not explicitly printed in the book, but honestly, it is very much what makes the game work.
The rule for calculating attack generally says to use your strength modifier, but with weapon finesse the character may specifically use their dexterity modifier instead. Specific in this case, trumps general. If not, then the feat means nothing because the rules say that the character uses their strength modifier.
I would like to add that you are becoming very defensive over nothing at the moment. The most hostility that anyone has thrown at you was that line in TrinitysEnd that suggested you "houserule or follow rules", and even then that was relatively light compared to the tone I'm gathering from your posts.
People are stating why, at the moment, a character is not allowed to enhance an improvised weapon, and although we both disagree and would rather see a different ruling, it's not the case. Until a dev or someone of the sort states otherwise, the majority is against us. It's time to consider the possibility that we are incorrect with our feelings (or our interpretations) on the matter.
And not a masterwork weapon. Show me where it says it makes it a masterwork weapon.Anything made of mithral is automatically masterwork.What is a heavy mace? It's a heavy metal weight mounted on a pole or handle.
Or are you questioning the "heavy" part? For the weapon profiles, the Heavy Mace is the one that has a longer handle so you can use it with two hands instead of one. So it's a bigger frying pan than some, a good size frying pan to cook breakfast for the entire party. If you go this route, flaming would be a very fitting special quality.
I'm questioning the +1 part as it is a magic +1. Not Frying Pan to Heavy Mace.
How are you getting a non-magic Mithril Frying Pan to a magic +1 Heavy Mace?
The general rules is mithral weapons are masterwork.
Show me a specific rules that alters the general rule for improvised weapons. Failing to provide a specific rule, the general rule stands.
I no longer understand what you want from this thread. This is a thread a out treating items as weapons. One aspect is about making them enchanted. You listed a tankard item as a way of being enchanted (which was proven to no longer be improvised.)
What is it you want from this thread? What is you are looking to get out of it?
I obviously understand money is a factor. But that's not a factor in the FAQ. So it becomes moot.
What is it you want from this thread then? And guy, I'm not trying to belittle you or be hostile. I'm just massively confused as to what you want to be shown or proven here.
Anyways, I think my stance is clear. They are not "weapons" for most feats abilities and enchants. Outlier examples exists. But those are specific examples that trump the general rule of no.
I want people to stop making assumption.
I want people to pick up the rulebook and say "Hey, the book doesn't say anything about this and that which I took for granted the whole time"
I want people to think outside the box that doesn't exist.
I want people to understand the rules as written instead of as believed.
I want people to open their minds to new ways of thinking.
There will always be difference of opinion. And that is okay. But if someone says something that conflict with your views. Challenge them by citing rules and using specific example found in pathfinder materials, not with more assumptions. Open your mind to the possibly that the other view may be correct.
Specific trumping general is an assumption. If you can not back it up with written rules.
Someone made the fighting Tankard. Someone who understands the the rules far better then I do. This item was tested by other experts who knows the the rules better then I do. Pathfinder experts approved this item and printed it.
Perhaps this whole time the idea that improvised weapons are weapons and can be enchanted as weapon is not new. And the pathfinder experts know that improvised weapons are weapons, but feel no need to write it out as they already written the rules and it is up to you to read them carefully and understand what they really mean.
The Pathfinder experts do not need to spell things out for you. They need not address every little thing written. They need not teach you to read, problem solve or come to a logically reason based on the rules written out for you.
They rewrote and added to a set of rules that already exist. It is up to us to read the book to find the rules that support or conflict with an idea, not the Pathfinder experts.
What I want is for people to think and then act, instead of feeling and reacting.
The things I want are simple things really. Simple, but not easy thing.
Some of you will react to my comment and respond with strong feelings.
I can only hope that there will a few who that will stop for a moment to think, then act.
This will be my last post for a while as I let folk find the answer for themselves.
Have a wonderful day.
Specific trumping general is an assumption. If you can not back it up with written rules.
This is the only part of this I am going to respond to at all
Either:1. Specific trumps general is considered part of the framework this system works off of whether or not it is written.
or
2.General is always right and no feat/spell/skill use/class/prestige class/archetype that has a change to the general rules works.
Here's the thing Vince, people have pointed out rules, citations, and even developer comments. All of which you have tossed aside because they don't fit with what you hope this to be. This whole game is just interpretation really as the Core Rulebook even says that it's just a guideline and that anything in it can be changed. I had a GM who said that the "knock" spell allowed you to essentially "flick people away", simply because she thought it was an underrated spell and wanted to give it more flavor.
I'm not assuming anything right now. Specific beats general IS a real thing. If you do not think so, then your games must be really hard as everyone is a cookie cutter of each other as the rogue's talents essentially do nothing, the monk's unarmed strikes are neither natural or manufactured, and Paladin will still get diseased beyond 3rd level. I can give quite a few examples of things where they obviously trump the general rule, such as Fast Stealth, Weapon Finesse, Agile, and Dazzling Display. It's what makes abilities and feats important as most of the time the rules don't allow the character to do the things that the abilities and feats say they can do.
And the Fighting Tankard is a great example to convince a GM to let you use an enhanced improvised weapon, but sadly it is a very specific magic item that cannot be made through normal means outside of crafting that specific item. I cannot craft a frying pan that does the same thing without GM approval (as with most crafting in general). And the part about someone making it who knows the rules better than you, you also denied a post by Mark Seifer, claiming he isn't a worthy source.
About your argument in general, I really hope you're right. I really hope that we have been doing this wrong all along and that a player can enhance an improvised weapon. Nothing would make my Gravedigger happier. But right now, the rules do not support it.
I GM... A LOT... and I haven't even seen a monster, bad guy, or anything that had a general magical improvised weapon (I think I saw a guy with a magical Instrument that could be used as a weapon, but that's the closest I've got and it was specifically written that he could).
So I will throw a bunch of citation from the PRD, and you can take what you want from them. Just know that I want to enhance improvised weapons, and that even so, do not believe it is possible 'RAW'.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat—commonly bottles, chair legs, stray femurs, and that sort of thing. 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 critical 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.
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
And for the Special Material being "Masterwork", there is a difference between masterwork weapons and masterwork items.
Tool, Masterwork: This well-made item is the perfect tool for the job. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a related skill check (if any). Bonuses provided by multiple masterwork items do not stack.
Okay, here's a hypothetical scenario.
The PC's have been tracking a series of Lycanthrope attacks. They are currently at a dinner hosted by the local lord they are working for, when one of his retainers shape-shifts into Werewolf (Hybrid Form) and attacks. One of the PCs grabs the Solid Silver Tea Pot off the table and begins beating the Werewolf with it.
Does this improvised weapon bypass the Werewolf's DR 10/silver?
If YES:: Then Scenario 2
In a previous game session, the PCs acquired a decent quantity of raw Adamantine Ore, which they largely used to have armor and weapons made. Bob, being 'that guy' had a Beer Stein made. If they fight an Iron Golem, and Bob uses his Adamantine Beer Stein as an improvised weapon, does it bypass the Golem's DR 15/Adamantine?
If he uses the Stein to try to Sunder an Item, does it ignore hardness less than 20?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Section Break~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another question I'd love to have some sort of official answer on is, if you have a Fighting Tankard, Does it work with Catch Off-Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery?
Yes to all things in both scenarios and I would rule yes on the section break.
Me humbly thinks that people are posting some... can't find the proper word... extreme(?) scenarios that are very unlikely to happen, much less if the GM thinks about these things beforehand, and even less if the party have the 'just in case items' at hand.
In any case. If someone expects a night ambush then usually they keep a dagger close to them instead of a heavy piece of metal armor.
Now the wolfmen night party really catches me off guard, most lycanthropes are feral and don't feel comfy inside society. Maybe ratmen? In any case, a silver fork that bypasses DR and deals... 1d3+STR dmg? it's a good tool for the party fighters, specially if they have none of their main weapons at hand.
Same with the golem, allowing the fighter to do something in combat against it is a fair choice.
I share mostly of Link2000's point of view on the matter. If there's some pc/npc that uses improvised weapons as main weapons for the sake of 'balance' they should also follow the same rules as manufactured weapons.
Meaning, they can be magically enchanted and be affected by magic spells that targets also weapons. The feats need a bit of thinking, once the improvised weapon is assigned to a category (i.e. fork as a light simple blade dealing piercing damage) one knows if it could be finessable or not. IMO the dmg roll die should be one category less than their manufactured cousins.
My thoughts on the matter.
I hope this gets answered.
I want to know if I have to use a combat scabbard or if I can use something more flavorful.
|
|
In any case. If someone expects a night ambush then usually they keep a dagger close to them instead of a heavy piece of metal armor.
Now the wolfmen night party really catches me off guard, most lycanthropes are feral and don't feel comfy inside society. Maybe ratmen? In any case, a silver fork that bypasses DR and deals... 1d3+STR dmg? it's a good tool for the party fighters, specially if they have none of their main weapons at hand.
The fork is an interesting one, because it could be argued to actually be a manufactured weapon (Tiny Trident, maybe).
But for your question, yes, the material of an improvised weapon counts for bypassing DR. I think the silver weapons take a penalty on piercing and slashing damage, so that might apply too.
That said, the material only would apply if you actually are striking with that part of the object. No issues with a silver fork, but a wooden handled silver knife isn't going to bypass DR/Silver unless you strike with the silver part...I know common sense, but...internet.
I hope this gets answered.
I want to know if I have to use a combat scabbard or if I can use something more flavorful.
There is nothing in the rules that exempt combat scabbards from anything that applies to improvised weapons.
If a FAQ rules that improvised weapons cannot be masterwork, that ruling would apply to the combat scabbard, baring a specific exemption.
Such a FAQ would also set precedence that simply placing an item on the weapon tables does not mean an item is a weapon - a precedence with wide ranging implications.
I hope this gets answered.
I want to know if I have to use a combat scabbard or if I can use something more flavorful.
There is nothing in the rules that exempt combat scabbards from anything that applies to improvised weapons.
If a FAQ rules that improvised weapons cannot be masterwork, that ruling would apply to the combat scabbard, baring a specific exemption.
Such a FAQ would also set precedence that simply placing an item on the weapon tables does not mean an item is a weapon - a precedence with wide ranging implications.
So it being on a weapon table is irreleevent.
Got it.
... Meh, guess I'll just have to use boring stuff like daggers then.
Much worse then getting to wield a paintbrush or such.
I guess this FAQ decides if improvised weapons are thrown into the "utterly useless" pile or the "kinds viable" pile.
I guess this FAQ decides if improvised weapons are thrown into the "utterly useless" pile or the "kinds viable" pile.
If a FAQ were to be written, yes.
If a FAQ were to be written, yes.
I guess this FAQ decides if improvised weapons are thrown into the "utterly useless" pile or the "kinds viable" pile.
My bet is if they do, it's thrown in the utterly useless pile.
I don't think they will. This question has been asked over and over again. I think they want to leave it up for the groups to decide upon themselves, as this concept can get a little whacky. Some people are going to use it to a relatively normal extent, while others will only make the situation more difficult.
Like, what happens if the barbarian wants to use the wizards "masterwork" golem as a general weapon? Can that wizard enchant the entire golem to be a +1 Corrosive weapon for said barbarian?
I know that I wouldn't plan on abusing it that way, but I can certainly see others trying.
So my gut feeling is that they are going to go the whole route of "If you GM says it's good, go for it! Just don't look to us if something goes wrong!" Which is good enough for me, although my PFS characters will be left out... Which is sad.
|
|
Improvised weapons are supposed to be next to useless. Candle sticks are not matches for swords.
Entirely disagree. Improvised weapons are simplistic weapons which lack the typical fancy options, like bonuses on certain manuvers or magical enhancement, but that doesn't mean they are entirely unequal.
The main advantage with an improvised weapon is how easy they are to replace. The other big advatage is that they usually have another purpose, of which they are very useful (like the crowbar or the Torch).
Improvised weapons shine against opponents that destroy your weapons, either via sunder, or some other anti-object option. They also allow lethal damage and the ability to threaten while you are essentially unarmed. And they allow underequipped characters to have access to different damage types or materials to bypass DR.
Last, Improvised weapons are very impressive in the hands of something with very high strength. Sure, manufactured weapons would be more impressive, but they don't really need them most of the time. And need is a big factor if play in a game where roleplaying is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last, Improvised weapons are very impressive in the hands of something with very high strength. Sure, manufactured weapons would be more impressive, but they don't really need them most of the time. And need is a big factor if play in a game where roleplaying is important.
"Sir, that is not an improvised weapon; it is a club."
And with those words the item can be made masterwork and enchanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I appreciate your tenacity Snowlily, and I feel that almost no GM would rule against you in the matter, the rules don't support improvised weapons becoming improvised masterwork weapons or improvised enhanced weapons at the moment.
I would love an FAQ on the matter, but I don't think it is going to happen, and if it does, I don't think it will be in our favor.
I had argued at one time that spells like "Ray of Frost" are usable against swarms. MANY people disagreed and eventually I had to change my outlook in any organized play environment to suit "the masses". I still disagree with the majority on that one, but that's the "common" interpretation.
Right now, the "common" interpretation on this subject is that an improvised weapon cannot become an improvised masterwork/enhanced weapon (barring specific examples, as you know, specific trumps general). I strongly encourage the idea of creating house-rules for groups as that creates a level of fun that is personalized. But in organized play, I am currently forced to question how a player had obtained a "+1 Frost Beer Bottle" and that even though I may allow it at my current table (as the ruling is not solid), that other GM's may argue against it and to expect table variance.