|
What is the functional difference between these abilities? Both allow the normal use of the weapon without penalty... Just remember that proficiencies don't actually GIVE proficiencies, they just remove penalties: That is unless the lack of penalties IS proficiency... ;)Yes and no. The difference is that a player with weapon proficency is both proficent AND lacks the non-proficency penalties.Here is the rub... Where in martial, simple or exotic weapon proficiency feats are you given proficiency? The ONLY benefit is removing non-proficiency penalties.
It's in the name of the feat....
You are correct, that in rules, being proficent, and, being unproficent while ignoring the non-proficency penalties, is basically the same thing. That is, until you try to take a feat that requires proficency.
It's similar to a wizard having a shield with no armor check penalty (like a darkwood or mithril heavy shield) and wanting the Shield Focus feat. Yeah, having no armor check penalty negates the non-proficency penalty for using a shield without proficency, but you'd still need shield proficency if you wanted to take a feat that requires it.
It really isn't the same at all... Wearing armor or using a shield with an Armor-Check Penalty of 0 doesn't mean you are proficient with said armor or shield. You are still suffering a non-proficiency penalty. That penalty just happens to be 0 because the non-proficiency rules for Armor and Shields were not very well written.
Meanwhile, any feat which negates the penalty for lacking the appropriate proficiency penalty is, in effect, making you proficient because proficiency in Pathfinder is only defined as not suffering the described penalty for lacking proficiency. Gotta love "conversational" writing though, they could have simply had Martial Weapon Proficiency say "Benefits: Select one Martial Weapon. You are proficient in the use of the selected weapon." but that would have made far too much sense and been consistent with the verbiage of the Weapon and Armor Proficiency sections of Class entries.
Regardless, if what you claim above were true, no one would legally be able to select Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) (or any other exotic weapon which they did not begin play proficient with). Yet at 7th level, Amiri, the Iconic Barbarian, has Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword).
Which he wouldn't because they aren't weapons.Improvised weapon
Simple weapon
Martial weapon
Exotic weaponIt's right in the category name.
So your now of the position that "Natural weapons can be masterworked and enchanted?
If there were a Craft (Alchemy) DC listed for "Bear" so that you could create a mundane bear, or if they were Items and therefore legal targets for Masterwork Transformation... than yes, technically you could.
So your now of the position that "Natural weapons can be masterworked and enchanted?Which he wouldn't because they aren't weapons.Improvised weapon
Simple weapon
Martial weapon
Exotic weaponIt's right in the category name.
1. Magic items are "items" not "creatures".
2. To create a masterwork item with Masterwork Transfermation you have to demonstrate that a masterwork equivalent is possible. This is trivial with improvised weapons. (Holds up a mithral frying pan, which, by RAW, is always masterwork.)
They only way you are going to enchant a creature is via magic tattoos. Monk's, of course, are en exception. They count as manufactured weapons.
|
Which he wouldn't because they aren't weapons.Improvised weapon
Simple weapon
Martial weapon
Exotic weaponIt's right in the category name.
I have been able to contain myself for more than a day on this post, but now I have missed my save and must comment on this....
Sorry - this is kind of like saying
an non-weapon is a weapon by its very name. After all non-weapon has "weapon" "right in the category 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. It was still a broom, doing "stand in" as a pony.
So... "I've 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 this pruninghook and I'm using it as a improvised bill-gisarme" 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 now a masterwork tool. If he wanted to make it a masterwork improvised bill-gisarme? huh? it would be a masterwork bill-gisarme! nothing improvised about it! Well... I guess he could then use it as an improvised pruninghook - yeah, it would be a bill-gisarme (Masterwork in fact!), doing "stand-in" service as a pruninghook.
The bill-gisarme 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. In fact they are mounted on their pole differently... Converting one to the other is a "sort of" simple process that any blacksmith could do... so it would go something like this...
Masterwork tool-->tool-->improvised weapon-->weapon-->masterwork weapon.
something that is the perfect 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.
An "improvised" anything is not an anything - that's what improvised means! It means you are using something that is not what you are using it for! (Unless we change the meaning of "Improvised").
If I use a sprocket to improvise a widgit for my car - it is not a widgit, it's a sprocket.
If I use a towel as an improvised rug, it's not a rug, it's a towel.
If I use a sheet as an improvised toga, it's still a sheet, not a toga.
If my PC picks up a gnome and uses it to hit the monster, the gnome is NOT a weapon... it's a gnome! (wow - can I enchant my Gnome buddy with "Flaming"?)
so ... your post has caused me to respond when I planned to ignore this thread...
Guard "please leave your weapons on the table."
PC "Here ya go gnome buddy, jump on up there..."
I'm unsure what the point of all this is.... I mean if someone really wanted to base a character around using sewing needles I guess I'd let them take a weapon focus for it - but it just becomes another weapon at that point.
I thought the point of improvised weapons was to use anything that was handy and thus never 'appear armed'...? Focusing on something and or enchanting it just turns it into a weapon - no one is going to treat you as unassuming if you are carrying a chair leg that is on fire or crackling with electricity.
I just don't get the rub...
Well, to be fair, you have to activate the Flaming Enchantment, your +1 Flaming Improvised Club isn't actually on fire all the time.
Also, on the topic of Farming Implements, Flails, Sai, Scythes, and Sickles are all farming implements... I think Tonfa were too IIRC. Lots of the eastern weapons were essentially unmodified farm implements that martial arts developed around because peasants weren't permitted to carry legitimate weapons of war at that time.
I've had a few players want to use Improvised Weapons of one form or another.
I had a Bolt-Ace that took Catch-Off Guard and Amateur Swashbuckler and used her Crossbow Bolts as fairly effective melee weapons (as well as the stock of her crossbow).
I had a Drunken Rager Barbarian that use an enormous Keg as their primary weapon and would take swigs from it between attacking rounds to maintain their Rage.
The issue of enchantment never really came up, since these were low-level characters, but if I were to have a character ask, I would allow it because there really isn't much damage to be done (game balance wise) by allowing my players to have fun with an unusual concept. Even the Catch-Off-Guard + Disarm exploit really isn't that awesome... since Natural Attacks or Spiked Gauntlets cannot be Disarmed. The character could have just taken Improved Feint instead and been much more effective.
|
|
I'm unsure what the point of all this is.... I mean if someone really wanted to base a character around using sewing needles I guess I'd let them take a weapon focus for it - but it just becomes another weapon at that point.
I thought the point of improvised weapons was to use anything that was handy and thus never 'appear armed'...? Focusing on something and or enchanting it just turns it into a weapon - no one is going to treat you as unassuming if you are carrying a chair leg that is on fire or crackling with electricity.
I just don't get the rub...
It's probably a PFS thing. In PFS, you can't just ask the GM to override a written rule, you have to follow them exactly. So for casual play, asking the GM is the solution here, if you want an unconventional weapon. If the goal is PFS usage, then this discussion has more meaning. And then some casual GMs defer rulings to the rules forum, just so they don't have to look things up.
I do agree with your logic, though. Once they make it into a weapon, it really ceases to be improvised.
It's really simple. If improvised weapons are weapons, then EVERYTHING is a weapon.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I do agree with your logic, though. Once they make it into a weapon, it really ceases to be improvised.
+1
The forums have a couple useful things:
- Give PFS GM answers to rules questions - PFS RAW is misrepresented often, it means don't change encounters and ban stuff. Do RAI if known not awkward RAW interpretations.
- Bring unclear things to Paizo attention for FAQ.
- Give GM both sides to have them make their choice between.
We can't accomplish those goals if we shout down anyone not using our "most liberal" interpretations and call their interpretations "not RAW".
PFS GMs are not supposed to look to the forums for rules under any circumstances (Citation). Developer Intent is completely irrelevant to PFS unless it is supported by an official FAQ, Errata, or Clarification Document. However James is otherwise correct that the Rules Forums exist to bring unclear rules to Paizo's attention so that they can be officially FAQ'd, Errata'd, or Clarified. They also serve as a place for casual GMs to discuss the Rules as Written, and the Intent of the Rules, for the purposes of making their own house rulings. It is also a great place for Players and GMs alike to discuss ways that we can break the game legally.
James is right. The PFS GMs are supposed to rules the game as they feel the rules work. All Cantriped's quote says is that you can't use a DEV post to Force a GM to rule a certain way. But PFS GMs are very much able to read rules thread to decide how they'd rule something.
PFS GMs are free to rule in whatever manner they see fit barring official sources overriding/clarifying the rule.
So if a PFS GM says that you can't mounted charge since you have reach and your mount doesn't it's rules for that table. And since I highly doubt you can provide official source that says otherwise it's the GM's right to be able to rule that way since that's how he feels the written rules work.
If a GM says or does something and there's an official clarification on that matter then he must follow that clarification. But for things not clarified, which is most things, the GM is supposed to rule as he feels the rules are. Meaning that prior to the official clarification a PFS GM had complete power and legality ruling that shield master only negated TWF penalties.
No... PFS GMs are supposed to rule in accordance with how the rules are written, not with how they feel they should have been written.
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
They are not allowed to ignore a written rule simply because a developer has posted on a forum that its literal wording does not match how they intended the rule to be adjudicated. Only an official FAQ, Errata, or Clarification Document can change overrule RAW.
A PFS GM is free to make their own rulings only if the rules as written are ambiguous or there are no rules as written for the situation. Such as when declaring the amount of damage done by an improvised weapon not already explicitly defined in a legal source (like say, clubbing an enemy with a gold ingot for example).
It's beyond unhelpful to have a rules interpretation that has differing interpretations and come to a PFS table unwilling to accept the rules interpretations of the GM.
Yes it is. If I were playing at your table, I would keep my opinions to myself (because I'm not your GM). However, I'm not currently at your table (and therefore you are not my GM) so I am entirely within my rights to tell you that, in my opinion, your statements on several topics demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to follow the rules set forth by the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide or the Pathfinder ruleset as a whole.
No... PFS GMs are supposed to rule in accordance with how the rules are written, not with how they feel they should have been written.
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.They are not allowed to ignore a written rule simply because a developer has posted on a forum that its literal wording does not match how they intended the rule to be adjudicated. Only an official FAQ, Errata, or Clarification Document can change overrule RAW.
A PFS GM is free to make their own rulings only if the rules as written are ambiguous or there are no rules as written for the situation. Such as when declaring the amount of damage done by an improvised weapon not already explicitly defined in a legal source (like say, clubbing an enemy with a gold ingot for example).
Right, but we obviously there exists differing views on what the written rules are saying. Thus there's nothing forcing a GM to accept one version of interpreting the rules over your version.
My personal view is that if like I feel there's 30% of people saying it works 1 way that it's likely to be a potential issue at the table, RAW isn't likely clear enough to "force" people into a certain view. But even for the stuff that almost everyone agrees upon, the GM is the one deciding the rules to the best of his ability for that table.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I am entirely within my rights to tell you that, in my opinion, your statements on several topics demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to follow the rules set forth by the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide or the Pathfinder ruleset as a whole.
You can have that opinion, but you won't find any support for your view from the PFS leadership.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM's have to make arbitrary rulings about particulars that clash with expected outcomes all the time. One thing that can be done is to ask on these boards here to clarify the situation if the particular issue is likely to come up again. (such as Improvised Weapons not being able to be improved beyond their original use)
The rules system for 3.5, and for Pathfinder that uses the OGL of 3.5, is large and varied, with a lot of interaction that can sometimes be misread or deliberately misconstrued for the player's advantage. From double wielding Earth Breakers to this issue here, there are simply some things that go way beyond the intent of the rules as they are written.
As a GM, I try to run the game without getting to much into the "hows" and "whys" of a character. If I think something is off, I ask. Usually, the explanation is on par with how the interaction is for that particular.
To say that "RAW" is a strict reading of the holy CRB and it's extended scripture is putting a burden on the GM to allow anything that the player explains away as the one true meaning. Usually, a RAW reading is focused on a very small part of the overall entry and how a phrase or grouping of words allows for things beyond the intent of the author.
Now, that isn't to say all the players that ever play Pathfinder (or any RPG's in general) try to gain the system in this way, but it is usually those instances when "RAW" readings issues come into play.
No... PFS GMs are supposed to rule in accordance with how the rules are written, not with how they feel they should have been written.
It seems like that's not the distinction that Chess Pwn is maintaining. That is to say, in a case where the rules as written do not specifically address a given situation, a GM has no choice but to read the rule, interpret what it means, and apply that meaning to the situation. This isn't "I am rewriting the rule so it says what I want" it's "I am reading and interpreting text."
It's entirely possible, common, and perhaps unavoidable for two people to take in the same information and have different interpretations of it.
Prior to the Shield Master FAQ both "this feat only refers to TWF penalties" and "this feat refers to all penalties period" were both valid readings of the feat (that's why we got the answer from the PDT.) Neither one was more RAW than another, and going over the rules text with a microscope wasn't going to help any.
It's basically impossible to run this game without some level of interpretation from the GM. After all, "I ready an action to cast Mage Hand, what does unattended mean?" is going to vary a lot from GM to GM since that term is not strictly defined anywhere in the rules (and it's not really worth the column inches or the PDT's time to define it.)