I am playing a goblin with Junk Tinker in PFS and it is nearly time for me to begin upgrading my gear with fundamental runes.
However, all of my gear is Shoddy. Since runes require a certain quality of materials to be applied, I was wondering if it was even possible to apply runes to Shoddy weapons and armor. Do non-special material weapons and armor require a base quality of "normal," rather than Shoddy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think shoddy means poor craftsmanship much more than poor materials. There's no rules against making shoddy items our of high quality Orichalcum, for example.
And for regular materials, the price difference between different qualities is negligible, so I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to etch runes into shoddy items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have they clarified what happens to Runes inscribed on an item when it is destroyed ?
Nope. Nothing special is said about the runes in that case. You still have the same situation where there is no special clarification, so some people say "the runes are part of the item, obviously it's all destroyed, because nothing suggests otherwise" and other people say "that's so much wealth destroyed that it's too bad to be true, so they must be somehow recoverable from the fragments of the destroyed item".
I have seen people argue fairly successfully that runes can be put onto improvised weapons.
I don't agree with that ruling and can also argue fairly successfully that it is not RAW. But that argument of mine involves the item not being classified as a weapon when it is not being used in a Strike action.
A shoddy weapon is still classified as a weapon even while it is sitting unattended on a table. It seems to me to be a completely valid target for etching runes onto.
I don't agree with that ruling and can also argue fairly successfully that it is not RAW. But that argument of mine involves the item not being classified as a weapon when it is not being used in a Strike action.
That's not true though: "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." This isn't a conditional statement based on making a strike action or making an attack. For instance, you could use Hand of the Apprentice works with an improvised weapon or attach a spellheart/talisman to one. There is nothing in the rules to back up the impermanence of an improvised weapon being a weapon outside on an attack or combat: it doesn't say 'you can make attacks with an Improvised weapons as if they are simple weapons' or 'Improvised weapons are treated as simple weapons when used in an attack." Using this line of logic leads to being unable to use things like Twin Parry. A torch doesn't stop being an improvised weapon outside of combat.
Do non-special material weapons and armor require a base quality of "normal," rather than Shoddy?
I'm with the others: anything that's a weapon can hold a rune. Now that isn't to say a DM might rule differently, just that I don't see a book rule reason for that ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing in the rules to back up the impermanence of an improvised weapon being a weapon outside on an attack or combat: it doesn't say 'you can make attacks with an Improvised weapons as if they are simple weapons' or 'Improvised weapons are treated as simple weapons when used in an attack." Using this line of logic leads to being unable to use things like Twin Parry. A torch doesn't stop being an improvised weapon outside of combat.
Like I said, the argument is reasonable.
But just because there is no rule explicitly saying that an improvised weapon is not a weapon when not being used as such, does not mean that it is a weapon when not being wielded as a weapon. There is also no rule explicitly saying that the item is a weapon while it is not being used as one. The rule you quote is for items that are being wielded as improvised weapons. The conditionality of that rule is clearly implied. Not every item can even be an improvised weapon. And not every item that could potentially be an improvised weapon actually is one - it depends on actually being used as a weapon.
So with the lack of rules either way, we would both have to be using argument from ignorance fallacy to try and disprove the opposing argument.
I'm not trying to say that you can't use Dueling Parry or even Implement's Empowerment with an improvised weapon.
My argument is that similar to the ruling regarding handedness of a weapon (that a one-handed weapon is a one-handed weapon while it is sitting on a table or wielded in one hand, but when wielded in two hands it is a two-handed weapon for feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon), an improvised weapon is only a weapon while it is being wielded as a weapon.
A table leg is not a weapon while it is holding up a table. Or while it is on a crafting bench trying to have runes etched onto it.
Edit: As a note of compromise, if a player wanted to permanently treat a table leg as a weapon and etch weapon runes onto it, I would probably allow it to be converted into a shoddy weapon - which does qualify as a weapon at all times.
But just because there is no rule explicitly saying that an improvised weapon is not a weapon when not being used as such, does not mean that it is a weapon when not being wielded as a weapon.
there doesn't need to be one when there is a rule that says it IS a weapon: full stop. The onus would be on proving it isn't one, not on reaffirming what the rules tell us.
There is also no rule explicitly saying that the item is a weapon while it is not being used as one.
There is: "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." That is as explicit as you can get, as there isn't a proviso or exception in that statement. I torch in a sconce doesn't lose the ability to deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage because it's not in someones hands.
The rule you quote is for items that are being wielded as improvised weapons.
This isn't true. There is never any instance of items gaining or losing anything in the rules.
My argument is that similar to the ruling regarding handedness of a weapon (that a one-handed weapon is a one-handed weapon while it is sitting on a table or wielded in one hand, but when wielded in two hands it is a two-handed weapon for feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon), an improvised weapon is only a weapon while it is being wielded as a weapon.
I can't agree with this: take a torch once. Would you expect someone with a torch in hand to have to take an action out to 'wield' the torch as an improvised weapon? Or someone Forcing Open a door with a crowbar to do so with a crowbar? The torch has combat stats lying on the ground without someone wielding it and that's what's getting enhanced: its properties don't change. it's as much of a club in or out of combat. It doesn't lose the ability to deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage on the floor any more than a frying pan* would.
Edit: As a note of compromise, if a player wanted to permanently treat a table leg as a weapon and etch weapon runes onto it, I would probably allow it to be converted into a shoddy weapon - which does qualify as a weapon at all times.
It's not something that's going to be much of an issue in the majority of instances. I wouldn't be upset if a DM ruled as you do, I'd just disagree with it. This is a situation where i don't really see the rules argument making sense for it not working.
*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.
The question becomes 'what is considered an improvised weapon?'
Is a chair an improvised weapon? A leg of a chair? While that leg of the chair is still part of the chair? A rope? While someone is climbing it? The tapestries hanging on the wall?
In short, are you ever going to find random items with weapon runes inscribed on them?
And as I mentioned, I would allow someone to consider a random item to be a shoddy weapon instead of an improvised weapon if they are going to be using it as a weapon long-term.
*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.
And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question becomes 'what is considered an improvised weapon?'
Is a chair an improvised weapon? A leg of a chair? While that leg of the chair is still part of the chair? A rope? While someone is climbing it? The tapestries hanging on the wall?
In short, are you ever going to find random items with weapon runes inscribed on them?
And as I mentioned, I would allow someone to consider a random item to be a shoddy weapon instead of an improvised weapon if they are going to be using it as a weapon long-term.
That would make for awesome treasures to find. So it must be true.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
What about using a runestone as an improvised weapon ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
Since transferring runes from a runestone saves you the 10% rune cost, using a rolling pin to carry a rune will most likely be more expensive than using the stone in the end.
Since transferring runes from a runestone saves you the 10% rune cost, using a rolling pin to carry a rune will most likely be more expensive than using the stone in the end.*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
That responds to the cost part of that.
How about the time part? Does your reasoning account for having to go back to town to buy those runestones? Or spending days crafting them instead?
What about using a runestone as an improvised weapon ?*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
Whether the weapon runes on a runestone used as an improvised weapon work depends on how official you think this ruling is.
|
|
Whether the weapon runes on a runestone used as an improvised weapon work depends on how official you think this ruling is.What about using a runestone as an improvised weapon ?*PS: having someone 100% be able to enchant their frying pan alone would make me give any DM side eye over any ruling disallowing improvised weapon runes.And I would fire back that I would give a player the side eye if they grab a rolling pin and want to transfer their weapon runes onto it just to save them the time and cost of buying runestones.
Very interesting. And completely at odds with the RAW I could find (ie the "improvised weapons are simple weapons" part).
So, expect table variance.
Very interesting. And completely at odds with the RAW I could find (ie the "improvised weapons are simple weapons" part).
Not at odds with the idea that Improvised Weapons are only weapons when wielded as such.
And that runes only apply to items that they are intended for.
So, expect table variance.
Yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very interesting. And completely at odds with the RAW I could find (ie the "improvised weapons are simple weapons" part).Not at odds with the idea that Improvised Weapons are only weapons when wielded as such.
And that runes only apply to items that they are intended for.
So, expect table variance.Yes.
I honestly have not seen RAW clearly stating that Improvised weapons are only weapons when wielded as such. I might have missed it though.
I honestly have not seen RAW clearly stating that Improvised weapons are only weapons when wielded as such. I might have missed it though.
There isn't.
But there also isn't clear RAW stating that any item that could possibly be an improvised weapon is considered a weapon at all times.
As has been said, there is the RAW that an item that is an Improvised Weapon is a simple weapon, but that doesn't say what items are or are not Improvised Weapons. And it certainly doesn't say that if an item is used as an Improvised Weapon then it is forevermore considered an Improvised Weapon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>I honestly have not seen...
>There isn't.ffs. It's the first sentence. Yeah, that second sentence is verrry convincing... when it's quoted without context 9_9
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. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon. The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have.
Not built to be a weapon, but still a simple weapon.
I stand by my reading of RAW for my table.
>I honestly have not seen...
>There isn't.ffs. It's the first sentence. Yeah, that second sentence is verrry convincing... when it's quoted without context 9_9
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. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon. The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have.
Well, cool. That dramatically increases the viability of my argument that an item is only an improvised weapon while someone is wielding it.
If you are attacking with the item, then it is an attack with an improvised weapon.
If you are not attacking with the item, then it is just an item.
So...why not let them. Is there not room in Pathfinder for El Kabong?
Again, I would convert El Kabong to a shoddy weapon instead. If nothing else to avoid problems caused by that YouTube video saying that improvised weapons can't be affected by runes.
Ruling that you can put a rune on a random item by considering it an improvised weapon, and then turning around and saying that the improvised weapon doesn't benefit from the rune when you hit someone with it... seems like a bad GM call.
>I honestly have not seen...
>There isn't.ffs. It's the first sentence. Yeah, that second sentence is verrry convincing... when it's quoted without context 9_9
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. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon. The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have.Not built to be a weapon, but still a simple weapon.
I stand by my reading of RAW for my table.
Now to make it a +1 striking table …
Honestly, I can’t see an abuse of etching runes on an improvised weapon. I might assess a small cost — say, the cost between a ‘real’ weapon and what they spent on it — but otherwise let the fighter chef have his vorpal cleaver.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>I honestly have not seen...
>There isn't.ffs. It's the first sentence. Yeah, that second sentence is verrry convincing... when it's quoted without context 9_9
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. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon. The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have.Not built to be a weapon, but still a simple weapon.
I stand by my reading of RAW for my table.
Now to make it a +1 striking table …
Honestly, I can’t see an abuse of etching runes on an improvised weapon. I might assess a small cost — say, the cost between a ‘real’ weapon and what they spent on it — but otherwise let the fighter chef have his vorpal cleaver.
I feel the cost is already there in the Dedication feat required to use it without the penalty.
Honestly I do not understand why there is all this pushback against a fun but underpar option.
|
|
I used to be on the fence about the Improvised Weapon question but I fell off some time ago.
It's not clear how it should be run so the GMs have to make a call, the one I made is that things are only EVER treated as Weapons via the Improvised Weapons rule while they are actively being wielded AS an Improvised Weapon. The main reason for that is to interpret it in a more generous manner would make it so that anything/everything in the game would be considered a Simple Weapon literally at all times up to and including body parts and that's a can of worms that is best left closed and on the shelf IMO.
The biggest example of where this leans into bonkers territory is when you evaluate the Shifting Rune and the fact that if it's allowed you could use the Shifting Rune to turn any Weapon or Object used as an Imp Weapon into ANY other standard piece of equipment in the universe that has the same general handedness which is just busted, especially if you don't end up artificially limiting Shifting to only allow the new forms be selected from either Common equipment or things the party already has "Access" to.
The biggest example of where this leans into bonkers territory is when you evaluate the Shifting Rune and the fact that if it's allowed you could use the Shifting Rune to turn any Weapon or Object used as an Imp Weapon into ANY other standard piece of equipment in the universe that has the same general handedness which is just busted, especially if you don't end up artificially limiting Shifting to only allow the new forms be selected from either Common equipment or things the party already has "Access" to.
So shifting could work similar to a travelers all-tool, with the difference being that one could create complex tools and the other are limited to handedness for a similar price... Where is this bonkers? Both would allow for weapons and tools with a price of 200-225 gold. Seems pretty reasonable to me when the game already allows sets the expectation of having all your tools in one place at 200 gp and "A tool can usually be used as an improvised weapon": why would it working the opposite, making a weapon that works as a tool, be bonkers?
I had not thought of Shifting.
Can my Champion of Torag use Blade Ally on an improvised weapon ?
IMO, things have gone very wrong if the god of the forge doesn't allow you to use blade ally on a tool [blacksmiths hammer].
|
|
IMO, things have gone very wrong if the god of the forge doesn't allow you to use blade ally on a tool [blacksmiths hammer].I had not thought of Shifting.
Can my Champion of Torag use Blade Ally on an improvised weapon ?
I could have used any deity really.
Good way for a Champion to create weapons on their spare time, since Shifting has no time limit AFAICT. Oddly appropriate for a Champion of Torag.
|
|
So shifting could work similar to a travelers all-tool, with the difference being that one could create complex tools and the other are limited to handedness for a similar price... Where is this bonkers? Both would allow for weapons and tools with a price of 200-225 gold. Seems pretty reasonable to me when the game already allows sets the expectation of having all your tools in one place at 200 gp and "A tool can usually be used as an improvised weapon": why would it working the opposite, making a weapon that works as a tool, be bonkers?The biggest example of where this leans into bonkers territory is when you evaluate the Shifting Rune and the fact that if it's allowed you could use the Shifting Rune to turn any Weapon or Object used as an Imp Weapon into ANY other standard piece of equipment in the universe that has the same general handedness which is just busted, especially if you don't end up artificially limiting Shifting to only allow the new forms be selected from either Common equipment or things the party already has "Access" to.
For one thing there's much more expensive options than 200 gp.
If you play in a world where they exist, a 6000 gp Steamflight pack is a non-magical object that could theoretically be used to hit people (using two hands I'd guess it's about the shape of a backpack and has a bulk of two).
Congratulations on your newfound flight for 250 gp (plus some water, a mundane funnel and whatever the cheapest two-handed weapon is)Even if you don't a Greater Alchemical chart is a sturdy and ridgid one handed object that costs 19'000 gp - and the shifting rune doesn't contain the Any-tools limit on not creating "anything more complex [than basic tools]".
That's quite some savings for a high-level Alchemist right thereFrom a less cash focused perspective there's also the various mundane items that grants slight item bonuses to various checks, many of which could theoretically be used as an improvised weapon...
I had not thought of that. Definitely falls under the Too Good To Be True clause.
...So shifting could work similar to a travelers all-tool, with the difference being that one could create complex tools and the other are limited to handedness for a similar price... Where is this bonkers? Both would allow for weapons and tools with a price of 200-225 gold. Seems pretty reasonable to me when the game already allows sets the expectation of having all your tools in one place at 200 gp and "A tool can usually be used as an improvised weapon": why would it working the opposite, making a weapon that works as a tool, be bonkers?The biggest example of where this leans into bonkers territory is when you evaluate the Shifting Rune and the fact that if it's allowed you could use the Shifting Rune to turn any Weapon or Object used as an Imp Weapon into ANY other standard piece of equipment in the universe that has the same general handedness which is just busted, especially if you don't end up artificially limiting Shifting to only allow the new forms be selected from either Common equipment or things the party already has "Access" to.
For one thing there's much more expensive options than 200 gp.
If you play in a world where they exist, a 6000 gp Steamflight pack is a non-magical object that could theoretically be used to hit people (using two hands I'd guess it's about the shape of a backpack and has a bulk of two).
Congratulations on your newfound flight for 250 gp (plus some water, a mundane funnel and whatever the cheapest two-handed weapon is)Even if you don't a Greater Alchemical chart is a sturdy and ridgid one handed object that costs 19'000 gp - and the shifting rune doesn't contain the Any-tools limit on not creating "anything more complex [than basic tools]".
That's quite some savings for a high-level Alchemist right thereFrom a less cash focused perspective there's also the various mundane items that grants slight item bonuses to various checks, many of which could theoretically be used
I’d say no. Shifting makes ‘real’ weapons so the magic itself would balk.
If you play in a world where they exist, a 6000 gp Steamflight pack is a non-magical object that could theoretically be used to hit people (using two hands I'd guess it's about the shape of a backpack and has a bulk of two).
It would also take a theoretic Dm to approve of it being an improvised weapon: it's only an exploit if the DM allows it as what is or isn't an improvised weapon, passed the noted ones like a torch, is 100% up to the DM.
Even if you don't a Greater Alchemical chart is a sturdy and ridgid one handed object that costs 19'000 gp - and the shifting rune doesn't contain the Any-tools limit on not creating "anything more complex [than basic tools]".
Same as above plus it has the Alchemical trait: "Alchemical items are powered by reactions of alchemical reagents." Does shifting provide "alchemical reagents"? I don't think so: it's not like making an Injection Spear with shifting comes with poison.
From a less cash focused perspective there's also the various mundane items that grants slight item bonuses to various checks, many of which could theoretically be used as an improvised weapon (again generally excluded from the Any-Tool for not being "basic").
But most of that category DO fall under travelers all-tool, aren't reasonable improvised weapon [as the DM has to approve] or are magical/alchemical. I can't think of anything offhand that's unreasonable. Additionally, NOTHING implies that shifting can make superior quality items so there is no reason to think it'd create Handcuffs (Superior) or Musical Instrument (Virtuoso). So even if it could make an Alchemical Chart, I don't see why it wouldn't be a Lesser one.
Wow. That reminds me of some of the crazy shenanigans from Critical Failures.