| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously the necklace is an item, so that's easy, but is it a weapon? It's not on the weapons table, but then neither is a deck of cards.
This right here is the key as far as I can tell, and the reason why the Fane's Fourberie feat needs the line at the end saying "A character who has this feat can enchant a single deck of playing cards as a magic weapon, etching fundamental and property runes directly onto the deck of cards." Normally they wouldn't be able to, as a deck of cards isn't a weapon, but the feat specifically allows them to. Necklace of Knives, on the other hand, has no such addendum.
I don't think it would be allowed RAW either. Not to say that it would be broken to allow/houserule putting runes on the necklace just like you can on the deck of cards. ABP would give you nearly the same effect.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, no you cannot add runes to the necklace of knives as it is not a weapon.
I would argue that a necklace could be an improvised weapon* and therefore could have runes added.
Of course, this doesn't actually help you much since you aren't actually attacking with the necklace itself but rather with a knife it creates, so this idea still ends up in the 'just does not work' bucket...
*Nothing says it has to be a particularly effective improvised weapon.
RAW, no you cannot add runes to the necklace of knives as it is not a weapon.I would argue that a necklace could be an improvised weapon* and therefore could have runes added.
Adding runes to a non-weapon object because it could be considered an improvised weapon is not something that I would allow. It falls into the problem of 'inherent item properties' vs 'as-used properties'. Same as wielding a 1-handed weapon in two hands doesn't let you use the shifting rune to transform it into other 2-handed weapons. The weapon's inherent property is still a 1-handed weapon even when you are using it as a 2-handed weapon and it counts as such during its use. A non-weapon item is inherently a non-weapon item and can't have runes etched onto it even if you plan to use it as an improvised weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding runes to a non-weapon object because it could be considered an improvised weapon is not something that I would allow. It falls into the problem of 'inherent item properties' vs 'as-used properties'. Same as wielding a 1-handed weapon in two hands doesn't let you use the shifting rune to transform it into other 2-handed weapons. The weapon's inherent property is still a 1-handed weapon even when you are using it as a 2-handed weapon and it counts as such during its use. A non-weapon item is inherently a non-weapon item and can't have runes etched onto it even if you plan to use it as an improvised weapon.RAW, no you cannot add runes to the necklace of knives as it is not a weapon.I would argue that a necklace could be an improvised weapon* and therefore could have runes added.
The requirement on the Shifting rune is based on the hands required rather than the number of hands used ('another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield'): A one-handed weapon used in two hands still only requires 1 hand, even if you do slightly better damage when using both hands...
I might be missing something, but I don't see the issue with adding runes to improvised weapons: It's generally not a good use of a rune, but I don't see any reason you couldn't do it if you really wanted to...
Of course, we are definitely going off on a tangent here...
|
I might be missing something, but I don't see the issue with adding runes to improvised weapons: It's generally not a good use of a rune, but I don't see any reason you couldn't do it if you really wanted to...
"I choose to treat my Greater Staff of Fire/Healing/WhateverTF (or literally any powerful magic item/specific magic weapon) as an Improvised Weapon."
THIRTY SECONDS LATER
"I spend my downtime placing X/Y/Z Property Runes (Specifically Shifting being a HUGE issue) on the Improvised Weapon."
That is, unless you decide to authoritatively decree that no ACTUAL weapon can ever be treated as an Improvised Weapon which the RAW seems to suggest is the case. It still becomes an issue for the purpose of turning any old Magic Item in the system into a whatever 1 or 2 Handed Weapon that you desire at a moment's notice while having it retain all of its normal magical properties and simultaneously losing the Improvised Weapon penalty while it's Shifted.
|
|
I might be missing something, but I don't see the issue with adding runes to improvised weapons: It's generally not a good use of a rune, but I don't see any reason you couldn't do it if you really wanted to...
"I choose to treat my Greater Staff of Fire/Healing/WhateverTF (or literally any powerful magic item/specific magic weapon) as an Improvised Weapon."
THIRTY SECONDS LATER
"I spend my downtime placing X/Y/Z Property Runes (Specifically Shifting being a HUGE issue) on the Improvised Weapon."
That is, unless you decide to authoritatively decree that no ACTUAL weapon can ever be treated as an Improvised Weapon which the RAW seems to suggest is the case. It still becomes an issue for the purpose of turning any old Magic Item in the system into a whatever 1 or 2 Handed Weapon that you desire at a moment's notice while having it retain all of its normal magical properties and simultaneously losing the Improvised Weapon penalty while it's Shifted.
As I recall, there is a specific ruling that magic staves can't take property runes, so this loophole is already closed (A specific staff rule overrides the general rule for weapons, improvised or not)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Could be an improvised weapon" is not the same thing as "being a weapon" which is the requirement for runes.
Actually that's exactly what it means:
Improvised WeaponsSource Core Rulebook pg. 278
"Improvised weapons are simple weapons."
Not treated as simple weapons, Not counted as weapons. they ARE simple weapons, and as you pointed out, they would then meet the requirement for runes. unless of course you are trying to argue that simple weapons aren't weapons. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which clearly indicates it's not a weapon except when actively using it to attack.
If that was true then it'd count as a simple weapon instead of being one. NOTHING in the rules suggests it's only a simple weapon when you attack with it any more than a club isn't a weapon when it's sitting on the ground: IMO, it's a pretty weak argument when compared to a plain statement "Improvised weapons are simple weapons."
As to all the rest, since the dm gives an improvised weapon it's stats, I fail to see why there is all this worry about abuse, like putting runes on armor for a kick or body slam... So what if someone did? You can already do so with a gauntlet. Why would it be outrageous to do so with a boot or breastplate? I still haven't figured out where the exploit is.
I see that it should be RAI: 'Improvised weapons count as simple weapons for proficiencies and feats' (and probably some other things I forgot about). But they saved a couple of words and made the paragraph 'more readable'. Now we have this discussion as a result.
I don't agree: they have changed ancestry weapon feats from reading 'are simple' to 'for proficiencies, they are simple'. If it was RAI, I'd think they'd have switched it for improvised weapons too. So I don't agree it's was impossible to make it readable and have them 'count as'.
for instance, take the unchanged feat Catfolk Weapon Familiarity: "For you, martial catfolk weapons are simple weapons and advanced catfolk weapons are martial weapons.
Compare to the changed feat Dwarven Weapon Familiarity "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons." See how EASY it was to make it clear and readable? So I don't agree it's RAI that they "count as' simple but that it's RAI and RAW that they ARE simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I put a Shifting Rune on a stool, can I turn it into a table or is there an issue due to the different number of legs?
Do I "wield" a stool when I'm sitting on it?
That's super important for my next build: A Stumbling Stance Monk following Cayden Cailean and fighting with 2 beers and a stool!
My goal is to Flurry of Blows with Beer, Beer, Stool. Because I use my stool, I fall and it activates my Stumbling Stance for obvious reasons. I then turn my fallen stool into a table for total cover.
Next round I stand up, which cancels my Stumbling Stance for obvious reasons, I turn my table into a stool, I Flurry of Blows with Beer, Beer, Stool, sit on the stool (free action) and sip one of my beer (which is a potion of healing as I follow Cayden Cailean).
That's a sick build!!!!
Sorry, I lost my mind...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, an item is only an improvised weapon while it is being attacked with.
The thing is, it never states that it's a transitory item. There is NOTHING that indicates that an improvised weapon changes when dropped. The way it's presented in the rules, a dagger and a table leg as exactly the same for weapon category: simple, and that never changes. Nothing in "If you attack with something that wasn’t built to be a weapon, such as a chair or a vase, you’re making an attack with an improvised weapon" suggests that the item wasn't an improvised weapon before [or after] it was picked up for the attack. No amount of reading between the lines came overcome "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." It's cool if you want to houserule them differently but they are quite plainly and clearly simple weapons.
If I put a Shifting Rune on a stool, can I turn it into a table or is there an issue due to the different number of legs?
Do I "wield" a stool when I'm sitting on it?
Well that depends 100% on the DM and how many hands a stool requires vs a table. As to wielding a stool by sitting on it, I'd say sure as long as you have a hand coming out of your butt...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BloodandDust: Rather than trying to tweak the necklace, I'd discuss with the dm a way to make the doubling rings also work if the weapon is thrown.
This way you'll be able to enhance a gauntlet and draw daggers from the necklace ( for flavor purposes. The same can be done with a bag of holding , so I see no harm in this ) and throw them, dealing damage.
The daggers won't be of any specific materials ( like adamantium, cold-iron, silver, etc... ), so there won't be any balance issue involved ( you'll be simply doing the same as with a returning dagger ).
No harm, and cool concept.
It certainly is a cool idea... but it doesn't work. Doubling Rings explicitly don't apply to thrown weapons.
That said, I'd say that there's nothing particularly unbalanced about having either a set of doubling rings or a necklace rune or some other appropriate workaround. It's just that it's not in the rules. Basically, you're going to have to talk with your GM. Tell him what you want (to have someone who carries scads of knives, and uses knives as their primary throwing weapon, but isn't falling behind from lack of item bonuses) and see if he's willing to make some sort of house rule to support you (possibly a ring that bears the enchant, but you also have to pay the cost of a returning rune on top?).
Sadly, if you're PFS, you're pretty much out of luck.
Well that depends 100% on the DM and how many hands a stool requires vs a table. As to wielding a stool by sitting on it, I'd say sure as long as you have a hand coming out of your butt...If I put a Shifting Rune on a stool, can I turn it into a table or is there an issue due to the different number of legs?
Do I "wield" a stool when I'm sitting on it?
You broke my build!!! I'm pretty sure it's because you hate me!
Nevermind.As a side note, I love the Shifting Rune on an improvised weapon to turn it into a table and take cover behind it. When you bend the rules, you can do crazy dope things.
When you bend the rules, you can do crazy dope things.
If the rules are bent, it's because they start off that way. They changed the ancestry weapon feats because they changed weapon types: it's not a loophole when the rules clearly state something. ;)
As a side note, I love the Shifting Rune on an improvised weapon to turn it into a table and take cover behind it.
You can use Deployable Cover for 15 gp... Or you can take Spell Trickster Dedication [Barrier Shield] and you can make cover every round costing 1 action. Shifting Rune doesn't seem like a bent rule here, it just seems overpriced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you bend the rules, you can do crazy dope things.If the rules are bent, it's because they start off that way. They changed the ancestry weapon feats because they changed weapon types: it's not a loophole when the rules clearly state something. ;)
Improvised weapons are supposed to be weapons you grab on the battlefield. Etching a rune into an improvised weapon proves that it's no more an improvised weapon, it's just a weird weapon of choice. So in my opinion it's a case of rule bending.
You can use Deployable Cover for 15 gp... Or you can take Spell Trickster Dedication [Barrier Shield] and you can make cover every round costing 1 action. Shifting Rune doesn't seem like a bent rule here, it just seems overpriced.
I was thinking of something bigger so I don't have to take actions to get behind it and end up with just standard cover. Like a wall. How many hands to use a wall as an improvised weapon?
I've found something even better. Grab a big long object, like a beam, for d12 and Reach, add a long blade (for Sweep), a heavy thingy (for Versatile Bludgeoning and Forceful) and a few hooks (Grapple, Trip and Disarm). And you have the new sh*t!
Carefully prepared improvised weapons are the best.
Improvised weapons are supposed to be weapons you grab on the battlefield. Etching a rune into an improvised weapon proves that it's no more an improvised weapon, it's just a weird weapon of choice. So in my opinion it's a case of rule bending.
I can't agree: they are clearly meant to be simple weapons as that's what the rules say they are. Just because they are things you can pick up in a brawl doesn't change anything: look at a Club once: "Clubs can be intricately carved pieces of martial art or as simple as a tree branch or piece of wood." the game quite clearly lays out that tree branches and random pieces of wood are simple weapons. Same with a Greatclub: "While many greatclubs are intricately carved, others are little more than a sturdy tree branch."
I was thinking of something bigger so I don't have to take actions to get behind it and end up with just standard cover. Like a wall. How many hands to use a wall as an improvised weapon?
IMO, something like that takes more than 2 hands to attack with: the closest thing would be a tower shield and that requires an action to get cover from it too.
I've found something even better. Grab a big long object, like a beam, for d12 and Reach, add a long blade (for Sweep), a heavy thingy (for Versatile Bludgeoning and Forceful) and a few hooks (Grapple, Trip and Disarm). Carefully prepared improvised weapons are the best.
As always, remember it's 100%, DM fiat on what damage or if it even gets any traits at all. You could go to all that trouble only to find out you end up with a spear you take a -2 with and can't throw... ;)
Graystone I think you may read the [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=82]weapon improviser archetype
I'm WELL aware of the archetype and what it does: I don't see any issues. Not one.
Look at improvised pummel for example
You mean the ability that breaks your improvised weapon if you crit... Sorry, not impressed on the free breaking of an item...
If the item has a Hardness greater than your level, or if it's an artifact, cursed item, or other item that's difficult to break or destroy, the item doesn't break and the attack is a hit instead of a critical hit.
Ok, so?... Weapons don't get more hp/hardness from magic so it's all materials so it's ALL materials and/or dm fiat on what they are. Add to that that the dm can control what materials are available, they can insure it's under or equal to your level if they wish: there is NO problem unless the Dm allows it.
I mean, giving runes to any object would go totally against the archetype and the feat.
Why? I see nothing about why magic items could be use: in fact, they even take that into account in the hardness [artifact, cursed item, or other item that's difficult to break or destroy].
A DM might concede you to "use your GS as a blunt weapon", eventually with a -2 on hit and lowering the dice ( leaving apart that with potency and property rune you'll be still ahead of the weapon improviser ) but another DM would ask you to draw an appropriate weapon, or find something really meant to deal bludgeoning damage.
GS? You hitting them with a Giant Scorpion?
On to the point, PF1 established that weapons where able to be used as improvised weapons. For instance, there is a faq about using a longspear haft to attack 5' away. As such, I don't get the you think it's something that a huge ask as it's something they have done before. Personally, I don't recall any DM not allowing ne to use a [non-feat] pommel strike, haft attack, hit with the flat of a blade, ect. It's really only people from the forums that seem to make a big deal about improvised weapons since the DM controls everything about them.
I once played under a GM that said "yeah sure" when a player asked if he could use an umber hulk's mandible as a scythe. The GM ruled that it did 2d6 damage, like the great swords of that time, with essentially no down sides.
The party then laid claim to the other mandible as well, then went out of its way to hunt down another umber hulk for its mandibles just so that everyone in the party could have one.
Though the GM learned their lesson and was far less generous with other monster body parts in the future (and boy did we ask after that!), we kept--and used--those umber hulk mandibles to the end of the campaign.
When we retired the campaign, it was said that the heroes had opened a thriving business dealing in various umber hulk mandible weapons for which their was great demand. XD
I can't agree: they are clearly meant to be simple weapons as that's what the rules say they are.
Around my table it's a clear no, and I'm following RAW: the rule is about Improvised Weapons, if it's not improvised then it doesn't fall into the rule, period. A weapon that wasn't originally meant for combat is still a weapon and I'll ask the player to choose what weapon in the book they want to use for their weapon statistics.
In my opinion, we have 2 ways of balancing the rule. You will balance by the choosing of traits and damage, encouraging the player to "prepare" their improvised weapons instead of drawing them on the battlefield. Personally, I won't balance through the traits and damage, I'll allow the player to grab Improvised Weapons that are equivalent and even sometimes better than actual weapons, if there's something especially efficient to grab. But I balance around the fact that they won't have the weapon they want all the time and they may even sometimes end up with a stupid rock.
What I want is to encourage the fighting style that the Weapon Improviser carries: Someone who fights with whatever they find on the battlefield. So if the player has a lot imagination, they can be quite efficient (even competitive) with a Weapon Improviser, and that's what I want.
I feel the same, though the archetype clearly needs some adjustements in terms of progression:
- It doesn't go past +2 greater striking ( and at high levels it's a very, very big issue )
- It comes 2 levels after the level the players get their upgrades ( this is off in terms of balance, especially because players will also benefit from property runes, getting increased damage ).So, more or less, in a party unable to hit "upgrades" by the level they are available ( no crafter, low level settlement, poor loot, etc... ) it's not really a big deal until higher until lvl 16, but from lvl 17+ I think the gap in terms of damage and hit ( as well as property runes and precious materials ) puts the archetype at a huge disadvantage.
I agree that there's an issue with the archetype, it's hard to determine if Paizo wants Weapon Improviser to be a valid combat strategy or a secondary ability if you play in a campaign where keeping your weapons with you is not always possible.
If I ever have a player interested by Weapon Improviser, I may consider using ABP for the improvised weapons (once they take Improvised Pummel).