Can you cast Magic Weapon on a flask of alchemist's fire? If so, does it affect the splash too?


Rules Questions


Is the alchemist's fire (or a flask of acid, for that matter) "weapon like" enough to qualify for the magic enhancement bonus? And if you think it is, then there is a follow-up question: does the +1 to damage apply only to the main hit, or also to the splash damage?

I understand that this is hugely wasteful, that nobody would bother to spend a Magic Weapon spell on a single thrown flask. But IF I wanted to waste the spell this way, does it work? And is there anything in the rules to prove that it works?

Liberty's Edge

Magic Weapon wrote:


Target weapon touched

It doesn't say "weapon like item touched", it says"weapon touched". To qualify as a weapon an object needs to be in the "weapon table" of some rulebook. Alchemist fire and acid flask aren't in those tables, so they aren't valid targets for that spell.

The Exchange

Diego Rossi wrote:
Magic Weapon wrote:


Target weapon touched
It doesn't say "weapon like item touched", it says"weapon touched". To qualify as a weapon an object needs to be in the "weapon table" of some rulebook. Alchemist fire and acid flask aren't in those tables, so they aren't valid targets for that spell.
Ultimate Equipment page 106 wrote:

Alchemical Weapons

Alchemical weapons are designed to harm others, though they may have additional uses. Each of these substances can be made with the Craft (alchemy) skill; the DC to craft the item is listed in Table 2–16: Alchemical Weapons.

Table 2-16 classifies various alchemical weapons as light, one-handed, or ranged. (Alchemist's fire and acid flask are ranged.)

Liberty's Edge

Belafon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Magic Weapon wrote:


Target weapon touched
It doesn't say "weapon like item touched", it says"weapon touched". To qualify as a weapon an object needs to be in the "weapon table" of some rulebook. Alchemist fire and acid flask aren't in those tables, so they aren't valid targets for that spell.
Ultimate Equipment page 106 wrote:

Alchemical Weapons

Alchemical weapons are designed to harm others, though they may have additional uses. Each of these substances can be made with the Craft (alchemy) skill; the DC to craft the item is listed in Table 2–16: Alchemical Weapons.
Table 2-16 classifies various alchemical weapons as light, one-handed, or ranged. (Alchemist's fire and acid flask are ranged.)

Chapter 2 GEAR

Weapons are in
Chapter 1 ARMS AND ARMOR

BTW, even assuming that the container is a valid target, you are casting magic weapon on it, not on the content. At most you get a +1 to hit. No increase in damage, as the damage is an energy effect, not a weapon effect (some alchemical items can be different, I am speaking of acid and alchemical fire).


Per the rules, it is unclear, as there are several interpretations.

There is already a small debate about this online and it appears there are two camps of thought. It depends on whether you and your GM consider a Flask as a weapon or not, or if it's considered neither, and it's actually something else entirely, such as Ammunition or merely an item.

Personally, I view an Empty Flask as an Improvised Weapon. Once you fill it with Alchemist's Fire or Acid, it becomes a weapon-- it is now intended to be used in combat, therefore it's a weapon.

Are Alchemical Weapons treated like weapons or alchemical items <---- click here for what others have said about this

Or, type: "pathfinder 1e can alchemists fire be enchanted like a weapon" into google, and have a look around yourself.

Alchemical Weapons[/url wrote:


(Simple)
Ranged Weapons/Other Price Dmg Critical Range Weight1 Type2 Special Source
Acid 10 gp 1d6 ×2 10 ft. 1 lb. acid splash
Alchemist’s fire 20 gp 1d6 ×2 10 ft. 1 lb. fire splash

^---- Alchemical Weapons

So, there are two ways this can happen in combat: Either it's a "Weapon", or it's "Not a Weapon". Anything that is used as a weapon that is considered "Not a Weapon" instantly becomes an Improvised Weapon.

1) Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Fire have a range increment, damage, and a critical multiplier, and are even classified as a simple ranged weapon. So, if you and your GM decide it CAN be a weapon, then it can be enchanted just as easily as any other thrown weapon. There is a caveat though, even if you consider it to be a weapon, only Masterwork weapons may be enchanted-- but the spell Magic Weapon makes no distinction as to whether it must be a masterwork weapon or not, so the spell *could* work on a non-masterwork flask. The only limitations of the spell is that it doesn't affect Natural Weapons or Unarmed Strikes, and it makes no mention or requirement of a masterwork vs. non-masterwork; it just says "weapon".

2) If you and your GM consider it to be an Improvised Weapon, then it cannot be enchanted, but that's when you buy a pair of Gloves of Improvised Might and start chucking +1 att/dmg flasks as improvised weapons. If you plan on fighting like this on a mostly-regular basis, I would consider some Improvised Weapon feats to help this be better, like Shikigami Style feat chain and Throw Anything.

====================================

Personally for the sake of argument, I'd say that if it is filled with acid/alch fire, then it's intended to be used in combat and therefore a weapon, and can be enchanted just like any other ranged weapon, but you'd need a masterwork-quality flask to do it. If you're using the spell Magic Weapon, then you can enchant a non-masterwork flask for a +1 att/dmg flask. Hugely wasteful? Absolutely. Impossible? No. Also, I would add that if it's a +1 att/dmg, then it would not apply to the splash portion of the damage, but it would apply to the single target that you hit; so for example, there are 3 goblins adjacent to 1 goblin. You throw it at the 1 goblin and deal 1d6 +1 damage with a +1 to hit to the 1 goblin, and would also deal 1 damage as splash damage to the other 3 goblins.

I think you should show your GM the conflicting arguments that I posted above, and show him this thread about what the other gurus have said, and come to your own decision about how to handle this.


Could u cast Masterwork Transformation on it to make it a masterwork flask? Assuming you are of the camp that consideres it a weapon.


Trokarr wrote:
Could u cast Masterwork Transformation on it to make it a masterwork flask? Assuming you are if the camp that consideres it a weapon.

Yes.


A little off topic but topic adjacent I’ve always been curious about what would happen if you used an alchemical splash weapon as an improvised melee weapon (the old beer bottle over the head kinda deal except the bottle is filled with acid). I’ve never actually seen that done in a game and just kinda curious of what RAW/RAI might be in play (probably not a lot it’s kind of an oddball thing to do). If it were to come up at my table I would have the attack (if successful) deal damage equivalent to a basic unnamed strike(1d3 for medium sized attacker) plus the full damage of the splash weapon added after. Resolve the attack on regular AC not touch since you’re actually trying to do damage with the flask itself not the contents, and the attacker takes splash damage from the attack. Just kinda curious what other people think feel free to just throw in an opinion.


Trokarr wrote:
A little off topic but topic adjacent I’ve always been curious about what would happen if you used an alchemical splash weapon as an improvised melee weapon (the old beer bottle over the head kinda deal except the bottle is filled with acid). I’ve never actually seen that done in a game and just kinda curious of what RAW/RAI might be in play (probably not a lot it’s kind of an oddball thing to do). If it were to come up at my table I would have the attack (if successful) deal damage equivalent to a basic unnamed strike(1d3 for medium sized attacker) plus the full damage of the splash weapon added after. Resolve the attack on regular AC not touch since you’re actually trying to do damage with the flask itself not the contents, and the attacker takes splash damage from the attack. Just kinda curious what other people think feel free to just throw in an opinion.

I would handle that as:

-4 to hit, unless you have Catch Off Guard. It would deal 1d3 slashing damage (as a small-sized dagger) + 1d6 fire (or acid), and you as the attacker would receive 1 fire or acid damage for being in the splash zone.

If you miss the target's actual AC but defeat the target's Touch AC, I would give you the PC the option to miss entirely, or to merely break the flask on the target's armor/shield and not cause 1d3 slashing damage, but you would cause 1d6 fire/acid damage to the target, and 1 fire/acid to yourself.

If you fail to defeat the target's touch AC, then you whiff.

If you roll a nat 1, the bottle would break on you, causing 1d6 fire damage to yourself, and 1 fire/acid damage to your target for being in the splash zone.

If you roll a nat 20, you would deal 2d3 slashing and 2d6 fire/acid damage to the target, while taking 1 fire/damage yourself for the splash zone. Roll a %die 50/50 to see if you blind the target for 1 round.


Seems fairly reasonable. I’m assuming that the attack would not provoke as it is a melee attack. Also assuming you have catch off-guard or a similar ability would you be considered armed and therefore able to make AoOs with such a tactic? Also assuming you have the weapon in hand.


If you were an alchemist would you add INT to the damage? The Alchemist Throw Anything ability only states that you add your INT to damage with alchemical splash weapons. It does not specify THROWN alchemical splash weapons (of course INT would be added to the splash damage that you as the attacker would take - not a particularly good idea I admit). If you’ve got some elemental resistance to the attack it might be worth it tho.


Trokarr wrote:
Seems fairly reasonable. I’m assuming that the attack would not provoke as it is a melee attack. Also assuming you have catch off-guard or a similar ability would you be considered armed and therefore able to make AoOs with such a tactic? Also assuming you have the weapon in hand.

Yeah, it's considered non-proficient, but armed nonetheless. -4 to the attack, but you don't provoke an AoO.


Trokarr wrote:
If you were an alchemist would you add INT to the damage? The Alchemist Throw Anything ability only states that you add your INT to damage with alchemical splash weapons. It does not specify THROWN alchemical splash weapons (of course INT would be added to the splash damage that you as the attacker would take - not a particularly good idea I admit).

Yeah, if you have an ability from a class feature or an archetype, then you would add Int or w/e it says to do.

Though, if you use a splash weapon (a ranged weapon) as a melee weapon, then it's considered an Improvised Weapon. Much like if you were using an Arrow to stab someone or a crossbow to bludgeon someone, it would be considered an improvised use of the weapon.


I kinda thought this might be an interesting tactic to use with an Underground Chemist Rogue. If you were flanking you could do sneak damage as well. Would definitely need some elemental resistance to make it viable.


Aasamar have multiple resistances I believe.Tiefling too. Has some potential.


Splash Weapon rules

Splash Weapons wrote:


A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don’t take the –4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target. If the target is Large or larger, you choose one of its squares and the splash damage affects creatures within 5 feet of that square. Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as the damage from the rogue’s sneak attack class feature).

You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can’t target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares.

^----- for reference


Now what about the Concentrated Splash Feat. It forgoes splash damage for 1.5x damage. I would still rule that the attacker takes splash damage regardless. It’s practically going off in your hand as it is. Just too cheesy to let you avoid hurting yourself and do bonus damage at the same time.


Trokarr wrote:
Now what about the Concentrated Splash Feat. It forgoes splash damage for 1.5x damage. I would still rule that the attacker takes splash damage regardless. It’s practically going off in your hand as it is. Just too cheesy to let you avoid hurting yourself and do bonus damage at the same time.

I would say no. The point of the Concentrated Splash feat is to use the splash weapon appropriately as a ranged weapon. If you're using it as a melee weapon, it's an improvised weapon now, and your Concentrated Splash feat no longer applies. Using a splash weapon as a melee weapon is much like using a crossbow to bludgeon or an arrow to stab, because it's not being used as intended---> therefore it's an improvised use of the weapon.

You obviously have a lot of questions about this, I think you should start a new thread so we can cast the legendary spell Un-hijack Thread.


Lolz I’m done now I think. If I ever decide to do a build like this it would definitely need GM approval anyway. Fun to think about tho.


Unless I run it as an NPC……,.hmmmm.


outshyn wrote:
Is the alchemist's fire (or a flask of acid, for that matter) "weapon like" enough to qualify for the magic enhancement bonus

While certain 'alchemical weapons' might be weapon-enough to qualify, you have to separate the alchemical effect from the alchemical item. For instance, the liquid blade formed from a vial of liquid blade would likely qualify, but the vial of liquid blade wouldn't.

I would say that while I think a 'flask of alchemist's fire' probably does qualify in this case, being made to be used in combat (ie. the flask is likely designed to break when thrown, rather than being like a leather flask for water or lamp oil) I don't think it applies to the alchemical concoction itself, and I don't see where the 'flask' of alchemist's fire does any damage other than from the ignition or contact of the chemical itself. There's no, "take 1 bludgeoning damage and 1d6 from the fire", for example. So I would allow it, but the bonus would only apply to the attack roll, not to damage for the hit or the alchemist fire's effects.


commentary

Personally I think it's okay to target an Alchemical Weapon with Magic Weapon. It's somewhat silly and borderline but in a broadstroke they are used as weapons in the game. Nobodies topping off your birthday cake with a bit of alchemist's fire. If a caster can target an Improvised Weapon with Magic Weapon then I cannot see saying NO to an intended weapon-like object (alchemical weapon). The obvious answer is it says "Weapon" in the title.

It is a case of semantics that your home GM will have to decide.
Players and GMs should talk about this before it comes up in the game with the player having made assumptions. If you are running an Alchemist it's more important.

Weapons are defined two ways; by weapon chart, by use case. One could argue that all of the weapon chart items conform to a specific use case and if they are used differently (than implied) then their damage drops as they are now improvised weapons/objects.
Spells (which aren't weapons but everyone assumes they are as they attack casters) are a good case. Rays are called out as benefiting from ranged combat feats. Certainly the spell effects could be considered a weapon and some specifically are. I'm just pointing out that it is hit or miss, some effects are, most are not. Could you target a Force Sword with Magic Weapon? Wands(fancy expensive wooden stick) are considered weapons but don't have a listed damage... it took YEARS to get weapon damage for rods.

I'll also point out that the game plays rather loose with what defines a single object. The flask and contents are sold and used as a unit. If anyone has made a plastic model with connected parts you realize there's wiggle room in Fabricate. Creatures make saves for themselves and all their worn stuff. Putting stuff in a bag a caster can Shrink Item the bag and its contents. There are many examples.
I'd be cautious parsing alchemical weapons into container and contents and saying different rules apply. It would make sense when they are separate but not when sold together as a unit.


Azothath wrote:

If a caster can target an Improvised Weapon with Magic Weapon then I cannot see saying NO to an intended weapon-like object (alchemical weapon). The obvious answer is it says "Weapon" in the title.

Let's not go stealing extra bases here. I don't think anyone's agreed that improvised weapons are considered valid targets for magic weapon. I think they're most definitely not considered weapons. Even weapons that are definitely weapons become improvised weapons when used improperly/improvisationally (ie. a longspear used as an improvised weapon, say to attack adjacent foes, doesn't get any enhancement bonuses or its normal threat range or damage).

So even if an improvised weapon, like a chair leg or a bow being use to bash someone nearby, could have magic weapon cast on it, it wouldn't benefit from it. Casting it on a valid target, like a bow or an set or arrows wouldn't apply the bonus if beating someone in melee with the bow or stabbing someone with an arrow like a dagger.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone actually bothered to look at Table 2-16 in Ultimate Equipment? It's literally a list of alchemical "weapons" in the exact same format as any other "weapon" table. In case you don't actually own the book, here's a link to the table from Paizo's own reference document.

source:
If you're relatively new you may not know that Paizo used to internally maintain their own SRD covering all the hardcover books. Right after Bestiary 5 was released, they decided that since Archive of Nethys was covering all the same material - and at no cost to Paizo - they would stop maintaining their own SRD. Since then Archives of Nethys has been the official SRD. No quotes around the word official, it was formally announced by Paizo.

Anyway, Paizo transferred their SRD to AoN. It's now hosted in the original format on AoN if you know where to look (legacy.aonprd.com). It's still occasionally useful, like for seeing a table in the original format. I'm also kinda fond of the searchable Bestiary Index.

If you do ever use this, bear in mind that it does not cover any softcovers other than the Technology Guide and doesn't cover anything at all past Bestiary 5.

As for the "container and fluid are different items" argument: not too long ago there was a discussion on these boards about the glove of storing. If you treat the container as a separate item then when you store a potion, the flask would get stored empty and the potion would pour over your hand and down onto the ground. That interpretation wasn't a serious argument, it was intended to point out the flaws in hypertechnical reading.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Azothath wrote:

If a caster can target an Improvised Weapon with Magic Weapon then I cannot see saying NO to an intended weapon-like object (alchemical weapon). The obvious answer is it says "Weapon" in the title.

Let's not go stealing extra bases here. I don't think anyone's agreed that improvised weapons are considered valid targets for magic weapon. I think they're most definitely not considered weapons. ...

It was a logical statement (If A then B, then B'.) as one of the arguments supporting the usage. The second statement was another 'prima facie' supporting argument based on clearly obvious titles.

on Improvised Weapons (discussing the first conditional statement)
Reviewing the Weapons link to AoN I don't see anything denying that Improvised Weapons are not weapons, quite the opposite. Is there text in RAW that clearly states that Improvised Weapons are not weapons? They are in the Weapon section of the CRB. Again, this hails back to the fact that the game treats it as a Use Case. Please don't quote RAW about objects as they are not weapons. Secondly, the weapon list is a subset of defined specific examples so that will not prove anything for this wider argument based on CRB text.

I'm not going to debate whether the bonus applies, I feel that's a distraction from meeting the targeting requirement of a spell. If targeting can be validated for the wider Use Case of Improvised Weapons then that will allow Alchemical Weapons.

The second statement just takes things at face value. Are Alchemical Weapons weapons? It's a very simple argument that relies on the term Weapons being used in the title and descriptions along with details in the usage of the items (to hit, range increments, etc). It's akin to asking, Are 'spotted dogs' dogs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is in regards to the consideration that magic weapon can be cast on improvised weapons specifically. Alchemists weapons and most splash weapons aren't improvised weapons.

Azothath wrote:
It's akin to asking, Are 'spotted dogs' dogs?

No what you're saying is akin to asking "Are 'hot dogs' dogs?" or "is 'imitation crab' crab?" or "Is 'something-that-isn't-a-tool-for-a-specific-job-that-is-used-as-an-improvis ed-tool-for-a-job-it-wasn't-intended' the same as the tool it's imitating?"

The answer is 'It depends'. It depends on the context of the question.

You could walk up and ask for two dogs, and depending on the context and the person you're talking to (a veterinarian, a pet shop owner, or a food vendor) you will get different results. The same is true for the context of whether alchemist's fire counts as a weapon for purposes of magic weapon. Fists and feet are 'weapons' (unarmed strike_, which are listed in the weapon charts, but that doesn't mean they count as weapons when you see a sign that says 'No weapons permitted on premises.'

Melee weapons, ranged weapons, natural weapons, monk weapons, improvised weapons, thrown weapons, alchemical weapons, and splash weapons can all be considered 'weapons' in some context. And then you have ammunition, which is listed under weapons but isn't a weapon. And then you have weapons that are treated as ammunition for some purposes (shuriken). Some of those categories may overlap or interconnect with each other on certain contexts or effects, but that doesn't make every other instance true. A monk weapon can also be a melee weapon but not a thrown weapon, until it's thrown, when it becomes an improvised thrown weapon. An alchemical weapon can be a splash weapon (acid, alchemist's fire) or a melee weapon (liquid blade). Not every one of those applies to every situation that affects 'weapons' equally.

It is very clear that improvised weapons are not considered 'normal' weapons. Gloves of improvised might don't apply to ''normal' weapons. Torches and lamp oil aren't weapons, but they can be used as weapons and the fact that they are common probably led to the inclusion of their effects in an easy to reference area for convenience.

Lamp oil can be thrown as a splash weapon as well, but it isn't a normal weapon or even technically an improvised weapon. If you allow magic weapon to be cast on it, should the bonus damage apply when you pour it out onto the ground and light it for 2 rounds dealing 1d3 fire damage? If so... why not just be able to cast it on a puddle of lamp oil? Is that a weapon? All I'm saying is that whether magic weapon could be cast on alchemist's fire isn't the whole question asked, but also whether it actually does anything. Just like magic weapon cast on a long spear that is used in an improvised manner has no real effect or point.


Belafon wrote:
Has anyone actually bothered to look at Table 2-16 in Ultimate Equipment? It's literally a list of alchemical "weapons" in the exact same format as any other "weapon" table.

I did in my first post on this thread. I linked it and quoted it. Alch Fire and Acid Flask are definitely a weapon, and it has a range increment, damage, and a critical multiplier, and are even classified as simple ranged weapons.

However, I do understand that there are others who disagree with this because it has it's own "splash weapon" rules that muddy the waters as to whether this is a proper weapon or not. But count me amongst the camp that says these are definitely weapons.


Pizza Lord wrote:

{1} This is in regards to the consideration that magic weapon can be cast on improvised weapons specifically. Alchemists weapons and most splash weapons aren't improvised weapons.

{2} ...

{3} Melee weapons, ranged weapons, natural weapons, monk weapons, improvised weapons, thrown weapons, alchemical weapons, and splash weapons can all be considered 'weapons' in some context. And then you have ammunition, which is listed under weapons but isn't a weapon. And then you have weapons that are treated as ammunition for some purposes (shuriken). Some of those categories may overlap or interconnect with each other on certain contexts or effects, but that doesn't make every other instance true. A monk weapon can also be a melee weapon but not a thrown weapon, until it's thrown, when it becomes an improvised thrown weapon. An alchemical weapon can be a splash weapon (acid, alchemist's fire) or a melee weapon (liquid blade). Not every one of those applies to every situation that affects 'weapons' equally.

{4} It is very clear that improvised weapons are not considered 'normal' weapons. ...

{numbered for clarity}

P1: I'd agree that Alchemical Weapons aren't Improvised Weapons. This line of reasoning addresses separating the item into its container and effective component. Doing this makes the container an improvised weapon. Secondly Improvised Weapons are an encompassing range of objects that can include items that are denied being weapons based on weapon chart listings.

P2: n/a

P3: I agree that the context in the Game is that the objects are used as weapons. This is exactly the Use Case I talked about in the beginning.

P4: By 'normal' I assume you mean designed to be used as a weapon. I'd point out that Alchemical Weapons are designed to be used as weapons.

5: I'll add the the simple argument of the title "Alchemical Weapons" being weapons is Prima Facie. It requires disproval and does not need to be proven.

Liberty's Edge

Belafon wrote:

Has anyone actually bothered to look at Table 2-16 in Ultimate Equipment? It's literally a list of alchemical "weapons" in the exact same format as any other "weapon" table. In case you don't actually own the book, here's a link to the table from Paizo's own reference document.

** spoiler omitted **

As for the "container and fluid are different items" argument: not too long ago there was a discussion on these boards about the glove of storing. If you treat the container as a separate item then when you store a potion, the flask would get stored empty and the potion would pour over your hand and down onto the ground. That interpretation wasn't a serious argument, it was intended to point out the flaws in hypertechnical reading.

I am not convinced, as table 2-16 in Chapter 2 Gear, while we have a Chapter 1 Arms and Armor.

Maybe it is possible to cast Magic weapon on the flask, as it is made to be thrown offensively, but Magic weapon doesn't increase Energy damage, so it will not affect the fire damage. As the flask doesn't do any physical damage, there isn't any damage that could be increased.

Weapons created through alchemical items, like the Liquid blade, are valid targets.

About enhancing improvised weapons, there is a FAQ:

Quote:
Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).

it is here. I (and I think most people) would have liked a FAQ about enhancing improvised weapons instead that an incidental comment, but that is what we have.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Maybe it is possible to cast Magic weapon on the flask, as it is made to be thrown offensively, but Magic weapon doesn't increase Energy damage, so it will not affect the fire damage. As the flask doesn't do any physical damage, there isn't any damage that could be increased.

What’s the basis for this position? Would you suggest that Magic Weapon doesn’t work on a Battle Poi? That’s energy damage but is very clearly still a weapon. Nothing within Magic Weapon precludes energy damage.

Liberty's Edge

MargarineMeadow wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Maybe it is possible to cast Magic weapon on the flask, as it is made to be thrown offensively, but Magic weapon doesn't increase Energy damage, so it will not affect the fire damage. As the flask doesn't do any physical damage, there isn't any damage that could be increased.
What’s the basis for this position? Would you suggest that Magic Weapon doesn’t work on a Battle Poi? That’s energy damage but is very clearly still a weapon. Nothing within Magic Weapon precludes energy damage.
MAGIC WEAPON wrote:
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Battle Poi wrote:
This pair of arm-length chains has handles at one end and heavy fuel-soaked torch heads at the other. The weight of the poi is insufficient to deal physical damage, but the burning fuel deals fire damage

It isn't the weapon that deals the damage, it is the fuel.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:
MargarineMeadow wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Maybe it is possible to cast Magic weapon on the flask, as it is made to be thrown offensively, but Magic weapon doesn't increase Energy damage, so it will not affect the fire damage. As the flask doesn't do any physical damage, there isn't any damage that could be increased.
What’s the basis for this position? Would you suggest that Magic Weapon doesn’t work on a Battle Poi? That’s energy damage but is very clearly still a weapon. Nothing within Magic Weapon precludes energy damage.
MAGIC WEAPON wrote:
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Battle Poi wrote:
This pair of arm-length chains has handles at one end and heavy fuel-soaked torch heads at the other. The weight of the poi is insufficient to deal physical damage, but the burning fuel deals fire damage

It isn't the weapon that deals the damage, it is the fuel.

so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?

are they usable with sneak attack with no damage?

because its not damage - its Damage 1d3 fire (small), 1d4 fire (medium)
saying "its the fuel" and considering that separate damage is same as saying a knife doesnt deal damage but the point does but thats seperate.


Name Violation wrote:
so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?

They deal extra damage on a crit. They have a crit range just like alchemical weapons like alchemist's fire do.

I will leave the sneak attack argument for others.

Name Violation wrote:
saying "its the fuel" and considering that separate damage is same as saying a knife doesnt deal damage but the point does but thats seperate.

If a weapon's description makes it clear that there's a difference than it applies. The description of a battle poi (as I've read it from quotes provided) makes it clear that it's the burning and the fuel that does it and that the delivery vehicle of that damage (the poi) is insufficient at dealing physical damage. If you use an unlit poi, it will deal no damage. It doesn't deal fire damage because that requires burning fuel (presumably by igniting the poi). It doesn't matter if it crits, because 2 times no damage is no damage. In the case of the battle poi, it's clear that the damage comes from the fuel that is commonly used to make it burn. By that understanding, if you're using a more flammable or hotter burning fuel or one that 'clings' to targets, then your GM can adjust it.

Just like damage from bows or crossbows or firearms is based on the bow, crossbow, or firearm in almost every case, there is enough common sense to say that the arrow, bolt, or bullet still plays a part (like if the ammunition is magical and the weapon is not). You can have a bullet that says it only deals 1 damage to targets and that will likely supersede the damage listing for the firearm that fired it.

Just like a boulder helm is 'wielded' or used differently than a dagger. Swinging it around like a chamberpot is not how it's described as being used or intended to be used for the statistics and damage listed (your GM might even rule it deals more damage if the improvised weapon he associates it with when used that way would be more than the helm's normal range, but it wouldn't get any 'boulder helm' bonuses).

They don't have to treat people like idiots and separate that it's the point of a knife, or the edge of a knife, or the blade of a knife that does the damage. Common sense and reasonable understanding of a weapon and its description makes it clear that hitting someone with the hilt shouldn't do the same 1d4 slashing damage as using it normally. At some point, you're improvising.

Liberty's Edge

Pizza Lord wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?

They deal extra damage on a crit. They have a crit range just like alchemical weapons like alchemist's fire do.

I will leave the sneak attack argument for others.

Sneak attacks add damage to the attacks, not to the weapons, so why what can be added to the weapon should matter on the attack delivered?

Magic weapon, instead, add an enhancement to the weapon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


Sneak attacks add damage to the attacks, not to the weapons, so why what can be added to the weapon should matter on the attack delivered?

Magic weapon, instead, add an enhancement to the weapon.

so can you sneak attack with a net then?

Liberty's Edge

Name Violation wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Sneak attacks add damage to the attacks, not to the weapons, so why what can be added to the weapon should matter on the attack delivered?

Magic weapon, instead, add an enhancement to the weapon.

so can you sneak attack with a net then?

What is the damage of the net? -

So what is the damage of the net attach? -
You have a non-value, so you can't add anything to it.

The effect of the net is to Entangle the opponent. Nothing to which you can add a bonus to damage.


Sneak attack has no rules on what weapon you can use to deliver it. You could use an improvised pencil just as well as an impact butchering axe and it will still work.

You could arguably say that you still need to deal damage to trigger sneak attack. But the ability itself says nothing about needing to damage, just that it deals extra damage when the conditions are met.

********************

* P.S. Arguing sneak attack wont solve the case of alchemy weapons being actual weapons or not.

The fact that alchemy weapons existed and only got on a table in ultimate combat tells me at least that originally they were not exactly intended to ve treated as normal weapons. Paizo is known to change thing, so them making it a legal target wouldn't be unprecedented.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?
They deal extra damage on a crit.

If a crit deals extra damage, why does enchanting them not make them deal extra damage?

Dark Archive

willuwontu wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?
They deal extra damage on a crit.

If a crit deals extra damage, why does enchanting them not make them deal extra damage?

if it doesnt get the +1 why does it get the x2?

if it doesnt get additional damage from a magic enhancement, why do other damage enhancers apply?

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

Battle poi

Source Adventurer's Armory pg. 2, Legacy of Fire Player's Guide pg. 22
Statistics
Cost 5 gp Weight 2 lbs.
Damage 1d3 fire (small), 1d4 fire (medium); Critical x2; Range —; Type fire; Special —
Category Light; Proficiency Exotic
Weapon Groups Flails
Description
This pair of arm-length chains has handles at one end and heavy fuel-soaked torch heads at the other. The weight of the poi is insufficient to deal physical damage, but the burning fuel deals fire damage. If you are proficient in battle poi, you are treated as if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for the purposes of making poi attacks. Poi can be extinguished by spending a full round action smothering them in sand or submerging them in water.
Name Violation wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
so they dont deal extra damage on crits either?
They deal extra damage on a crit.

If a crit deals extra damage, why does enchanting them not make them deal extra damage?

if it doesnt get the +1 why does it get the x2?

if it doesnt get additional damage from a magic enhancement, why do other damage enhancers apply?

They deal critical hits because they say that they deal critical hits.

Same for the x2.

The magical enhancement is applied to the weapon. The weapon damage is -.
Nothing to enhance.

If you have a +2 flaming weapon, to what is applied the enhancement?
to the physical damage, not to the energy damage.

Name Violation wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Sneak attacks add damage to the attacks, not to the weapons, so why what can be added to the weapon should matter on the attack delivered?

Magic weapon, instead, add an enhancement to the weapon.

so can you sneak attack with a net then?

Quote:

Net

Source Ranged Tactics Toolbox pg. 33, PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 143, Ultimate Equipment pg. 21
Statistics
Cost 20 gp Weight 6 lbs.
Damage — (small), — (medium); Critical —; Range 10 ft.; Type —; Special see text
...
If you hit, the target is entangled.

A net doesn't do any form of damage. You have nothing to which you can add the sneak attack.

+xd6 dices of entangle have no effect.


The reason why they are able to get crits but not enhantment bonuses is a quirk of how attack rolls work.

Battle Poi are weapons so they follow all the rules of weapons including being able to roll a crit, confirm a crit, and activating any critical feat that is relevant. But the ability of the weapon says that it deals - +1d4 fire damage, so it doesn't ever benefit from anything that boosts damage, not even vital strike or critcal hit x2 damage. It would benefit from Magic Weapon and get +X to hit, but it wouldn't be able to get bonus damage.

Battle Poi are in a similar situation as Handwraps and Poisoned sand tubes. Handwraps are "weapons" but all their stats are -, their entire use case is making it cheaper to enchant fist unarmed strikes. Poisoned sand tubes are "weapons" but their damage is whatever they get out of poisoning an enemy. Same thing with the launching crossbow, lasso, net, snag net, and flask thrower all are weapons whose primary effect are not damage or direct damage.


willuwontu wrote:
If a crit deals extra damage, why does enchanting them not make them deal extra damage?

It depends on the enchantment. There's dozens of possible enchantments that might or might not. Putting a +1 enchantment on a net will make it easier to attack with, but I don't believe anyone thinks it is intended to add 1 point of damage. Similarly, despite being a thrown weapon and thrown weapons adding Str bonuses, I don't believe anyone intended or reads that nets add Strength damage when they hit. Similarly, splash weapons like alchemist's fire don't deal sneak attack (or precision) damage.

It depends on a common sense viewpoint. If it doesn't appear that a weapon's damage or effect is based on how hard it hits, just whether it hits, then you can determine if any particular increase to damage should apply. A bard's inspire ability might work, magic weapon might work, prayer might work. Any or all or none might apply to any individual weapon at any time or not depending on how it used at any time, such as whether it's thrown or used improvisationally.

There's too many individual and special cases and possible circumstance and possible enhancements to attack or damage for any one-size-fits-all statement. So constantly bringing up new and exotic weapons, like nets or anything to discuss alchemical splash weapons or improvised weapons is just going to have an answer that works for some but not all. A liquid blade and alchemist's fire are both alchemical weapons, but they are not used the same nor would all the same things apply to each.

Dark Archive

Temperans wrote:

The reason why they are able to get crits but not enhantment bonuses is a quirk of how attack rolls work.

Battle Poi are weapons so they follow all the rules of weapons including being able to roll a crit, confirm a crit, and activating any critical feat that is relevant. But the ability of the weapon says that it deals - +1d4 fire damage, so it doesn't ever benefit from anything that boosts damage, not even vital strike or critcal hit x2 damage. It would benefit from Magic Weapon and get +X to hit, but it wouldn't be able to get bonus damage.

Battle Poi are in a similar situation as Handwraps and Poisoned sand tubes. Handwraps are "weapons" but all their stats are -, their entire use case is making it cheaper to enchant fist unarmed strikes. Poisoned sand tubes are "weapons" but their damage is whatever they get out of poisoning an enemy. Same thing with the launching crossbow, lasso, net, snag net, and flask thrower all are weapons whose primary effect are not damage or direct damage.

It doesn't deal "+1d4 fire damage", it deals 1d4 fire damage. It's not additional damage, it's the weapon's base damage. If it was +1d4 it wouldn't double on a crit.

A +1 laser rifle adds the +1 damage to its fire damage, why doesn't the poi?


Diego Rossi wrote:

If you have a +2 flaming weapon, to what is applied the enhancement?

to the physical damage, not to the energy damage.

It increases the listed damage of the weapon, which you may notice is 1d4 (fire) for battle poi. If I have a +2 longsword, it deals +2 slashing damage, does this mean that if I have a +2 warhammer, it deals +2 slashing damage in addition to its regular bludgeoning damage? No, instead the enchantment increases the damage based on the type that the weapon deals, and battle poi deal fire damage. That's all there is to it. I see absolutely no reason why in a world where magic can generically increase the damage of weapons, why that enchantment would not increase the effectiveness of the flames that are produced when the battle poi are lit.

Unless you're actively selling replacement heads for the poi and priced out the fuel used per time they're lit along with the duration they stay lit, I don't see the reason to consider the fuel to be separate from battle poi itself for the purposes of determining if it's a weapon. UI guess you could be saying that you can enchant the fuel they're soaked in, and purchase different types of enchanted fuels for them ... but I doubt you've made that many homebrew rules for them.


1) Tech items are extremely weird since they are pistols, but are more like spells, but they are separate from magic. Its a whole mess. The rules on them are practically "GM do what ever you think is appropriate", they explicitly tell you that in the part about mixing magic with tech items

Technological Equipment: Hybrid Items wrote:
All high-tech weapons and armor are considered masterwork for the purposes of adding magical enhancements to them (though they do not gain the other typical benefits for masterwork items). At the GM’s discretion, some magical special abilities might simply not be appropriate for application to certain technological items

By the rules tech weapons do not benefit from masterwork (enhancement bonus to hit) andnhave questionable use of enhancement bonus themselves. Trying to use tech item for justifying anything is like trying to use word casting to justify anything: Sure you can make some inferences but the whole thing is built like a house of cards.

2.A) Battle Poi deals no damage due to their weight, you can add some damage due to things that don't care about how much damage the weapon actually does. But really the battle poi is you trying to smack someone with a styrofoam ball, yeah its going to hurt from the fire but no matter how much hard you hit it really wont hurt normally.

2.B) Additional damage does not get multiplied on a crit so the 1d4 fire from the poi would not get multiplied, just like how the +1 fire damage from a lit torch wouldn't get multiplied. The listed damage is - or 0 +1d4 fire. The irrelevant damage then gets removed from the table.

3) Just because it exists does not mean that it will be good. If you want to add damage to the battle poi play as a class that can use warpriest focus weapon (it replaces the weapon's regular damage). As writen the battle poi is meant to be used with Blistering Feint and similar abilities.


Temperans wrote:
2.B) Additional damage does not get multiplied on a crit so the 1d4 fire from the poi would not get multiplied, just like how the +1 fire damage from a lit torch wouldn't get multiplied.

Sure, if it was additional damage, it wouldn't be multiplied, but it's not, the weapon's base damage is 1d4 (fire) for medium size.

Temperans wrote:
The listed damage is - or 0 +1d4 fire.

Really? Show me where it's listed as either of those. It's definitely not listed as that on AoN or in the book, so it'd be good to know what errata you're looking at for that info.

Liberty's Edge

Battle Poi is described so well that RAW it will stay aflame forever, without the need for fuel, replacement heads, or whatever.

"There is no need to buy torches or candles, people! Buy one of my Battle Poi and your house will be illuminated forever! Come! First come, First served!"

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you cast Magic Weapon on a flask of alchemist's fire? If so, does it affect the splash too? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.