I just noticed the Weapon Improviser archetype is PFS legal, and presumably the new Magus study will be as well. Both rely heavily upon improvised weapons which are pretty much up to GM interpretation.
Would a Weapon Improviser in PFS need to buy and carry around a bag of improvised weapons like bricks? Is it alright to pick them up in adventures? Does PFS have a chart of common improvised weapons that GMs can reference or is it mostly left up to individuals?
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
If you buy a bag of bricks and plan to use them as weapons, they probably aren't "improvised" anymore. A common 'loophole' that gets suggested when talking about improvised weapons is buying something like, a chunk of precious material and bludgeoning people with it as an "improvised" weapon, for a fraction of the cost of an actual precious material weapon, and that's clearly not intended - if you want your "weapon" to count as a special material, you need to pay the listed price for it. And if you consistently use a specific item as your improvised weapon, it's no longer 'improvised' and you should use actual weapon (stats) to represent it.
You probably would need to pick them up during an adventure, but they wouldn't 'carry over' to the next one if you found one you liked (and it wouldn't be an improvised weapon anyway if you started to use it regularly).
Improvised weapons are up to individual GMs. I would assume that most let you choose between an 1d4 finesse/agile pointy thing (basically a dagger) or a 1d6 bludgeoning thing (basically a club) or maybe 1d8 two-handed blunt thing (basically a two-handed staff), anything above those seems... I want to say unlikely, but also partly unreasonable. An improvised weapon should always be *worse* than an actual weapon (because it isn't meant to be used as a weapon), so I'd probably pick stats from a simple weapon that is closest in resemblance and maybe drop a trait or two off.
Yes, this does mean that the new magus would never benefit from having an "improvised weapon with forceful or backstabber" because there are no simple weapons with those traits, but honestly, that archetype is amazingly bad (aside from a single OP feat it has) and would work much better (or rather, at all) in regular campaign where you could talk with your GM beforehand and either agree to a list of random possible improvised weapon stats, or to some sort of point-buy "build your own improvised weapon" system.
|
|
A couple of ideas for acceptable statlines
1d4 with agile, 1 handed
1d4 with Thrown 10ft, 1 handed
1d6, 1 handed
1d6 with reach, 2 handed
1d8, 2 handed
I will say that I don't have a problem with apmeone carrying around an improvised weapon if they're just trying to make a character who uses farming implements as weapons or something. Cheaky attempts to use chunks of precious metal will be vetoed as being too small to use.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
I agree - I need to rephrase that "consistently using the same thing is no longer improvised" bit - I too did have an improvised weapon user (in 1e), that always used a beartrap as their weapon of choice. However, I always asked GM if it was okay to treat it as an 1d6 weapon and didn't care about the damage type GM would assing to it - and if they had said "no, too unwieldly for 1d6, it's 1d4" I would have just responded with "Fine, show me a stick that's big enough for 1d6 and I'll use that instead."
The problem with "consistently using a specific object as an 'improvised' weapon" only comes up if it's used as an excuse to get more from the weapon than what a baseline actually improvised weapon would be: If you're fine with your favored improvised weapon (be it a wooden sword, a broom, an umbrella, a brick) getting the same stats as a stick, a long stick, or a rock that you pick off the ground, then there's probably no issue. But if the favored 'improvised' weapon is something like "a very sharp chunk of silver" or "a cold iron pot" and the you describe it in a specific way in an attempt to get it to function as if it had specific qualities, then you should probably use an actual weapon instead. Like a silver dagger or a cold iron frying pan.
If you buy a bag of bricks and plan to use them as weapons, they probably aren't "improvised" anymore.
So you are saying if I carry around a bag of bricks long enough I no longer need improvised weapon abilities to use them! They will become regular simple/martial weapons.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
... No, I'm saying that if your character concept revolves around using the same object every single time, go for a weapon that best represents what you're doing instead of expecting a GM to always rule the same way.
My character has a bag of bricks they use as "Improvised" weapons: No way to be sure what stats Gm will give it.
My character has a bag of Bricks - light hammers actually, brick just fits the theme better and gives a nicer mental picture: 1d6 martial thrown 20ft agile.
If a GM complains about bricks not being light hammers/that's taking 'reskinning too far' -> "Fine, the character wields a bag of light hammers (for the GM), (everybody else is free to imagine them throwing bricks)."
Point is: If you want to benefit from abilities that require improvised weapons, actually improvise your weapons on the fly. If you want a character that uses a specific object as their weapon of choice, don't go for an improvised build because they aren't improvising, go for the closest actual weapon and just introduce it during character introduction and check with the GM that they are fine with the (hopefully just a small) re-skinning, like using using a staff that 'looks like a broom' or using a spear that 'looks like a pitchfork'
... No, I'm saying that if your character concept revolves around using the same object every single time, go for a weapon that best represents what you're doing instead of expecting a GM to always rule the same way.
My character has a bag of bricks they use as "Improvised" weapons: No way to be sure what stats Gm will give it.
My character has a bag of Bricks - light hammers actually, brick just fits the theme better and gives a nicer mental picture: 1d6 martial thrown 20ft agile.
If a GM complains about bricks not being light hammers/that's taking 'reskinning too far' -> "Fine, the character wields a bag of light hammers (for the GM), (everybody else is free to imagine them throwing bricks)."Point is: If you want to benefit from abilities that require improvised weapons, actually improvise your weapons on the fly. If you want a character that uses a specific object as their weapon of choice, don't go for an improvised build because they aren't improvising, go for the closest actual weapon and just introduce it during character introduction and check with the GM that they are fine with the (hopefully just a small) re-skinning, like using using a staff that 'looks like a broom' or using a spear that 'looks like a pitchfork'
It's more of a question of always having a weapon available for these archetype/Magus study in Organized Play than specifically being the bag of bricks magus. I didn't want to build a PFS improvised weapon character if I wouldn't have access to improvised weapons I can use. In some of the scenarios I played in it could be restrictive with what is in the scene and what I can interact with, so the theoretical bag of bricks was a backup idea if there's nothing to pick up.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
That's a fair concern. Aside from some very specific situations (you're in a room that's specifically cleared/empty, like a cell or some something) I would personally as a GM assume that there's *something* within grasp that you can grab and use as an improvised weapon, **at all times**. Claiming that "nope, no loose rocks, no branches, no nothing" in an abandoned ruins or dungeon seems just... hostile, for no good reason - preventing a character's build from working for no benefit whatsoever - But I recognise that some GMs are less comfortable with "yes and.." / improvising and if the room looks very empty on the map (like most of the flipmat tiles), they may be tempted to say that "nope, nothing here you can use".
I hope that you never face a situation where the GM goes "there's nothing here you could use as an improvised weapon" because I think that shouldn't really ever happen.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I think the argument of "you're too trained in using this as an improvised weapon, it doesn't qualify as improvised anymore" is a weird one. IMHO, it doesn't matter how trained you are with using a weapon, it's whether the item was intended to be used as a weapon that qualifies it as an improvised weapon. I get that the idea of an improvised weapon fighter kind of muddies that, but with that logic, it would mean, that if you fight with the same kind of weapon for long enough, you lose benefits from using it, rather than gaining them. "I've spent years fighting with whatever was on hand in order to survive: a table leg, a broken bottle, the dented helm of a defeated foe. I know how to use each item to its maximum efficiency... And now that I've mastered it, I lose the +1 item bonus to attacks with it."
But yeah, unless a room is specifically stated to be spotless, there's always something to use as a weapon. It'd be weird if a cantrip like Telekinetic Projectile would randomly fizzle, while a similar Ignition cantrip would still work.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
The argument isn't that "you're too trained, it doesn't qualify as an improvised weapon", the argument is "you're not actually improvising, pick an actual weapon to represent your weapon of choice, instead of claiming that you're improvising when you are not."
It's not about a character losing benefits, it's about a player building an "improvised" weapon build that does not actually use improvised weapons - if the character always fights with a broom, make a staff-build instead of an improvised-build, because that character is not improvising and you shouldn't be claiming that they are.
Imagine someone playing a wizard but describing it like each of their spells isn't actually spell, but a consumable - they say they are throwing an alchemist fire, but they are casting a fireball. They say they are giving you an "elixir of extra actions", but they are casting a haste. If they want the class fantasy of alchemist, they should be playing an alchemist, not reskinning a wizard to work like an alchemist.
Or the improvised weapon, but other way around. Imagine playing a character where you describe how you pick up the leg of a chair and swing it at the troll, dealing... (2d12+4)x2+d12 damage! "How the heck is that leg chair hitting that hard?" "Oh, improvised weapons suck, so this is actually my +1 striking heavy pick (fatal)" -> No, if you want to improvise, improvise, if you want to use a single weapon, make a build that uses a single weapon instead of claiming you're improvising when you're not.
ESPECIALLY if you're using a build that constantly breaks the weapons. How many brooms are you carrying around?!
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
The broom to staff example does show why the broom is important: it evokes a certain fantasy. Sure, you can use a staff, which has better stats, and be done with it, but that's not the point. Some people want to use a broom because they like the idea of wielding a broom, and are happy there are rules that support that fantasy. Look, if there weren't rules for improvised weapons (and even an entire archetype), I'd be all for reflavouring a staff to a broom, but since there are, you need to cater to that. Yes, a broom is very similar to a staff, but you shouldn't just swap A with B just because B exists.
I really don't get your "You're not improvising enough" argument. I mean that in the sense that I don't understand you, not that I disagree with it. Yes, the character is really trained with brooms. So what? What's the harm in that? As long as the character isn't fudging the rules (bulk limits, costs, whatever), why wouldn't you allow it? The only argument I can think of is that improvised weapons might not be intended for long-time combat, and might break. That seems reasonable to me. In this case, staves are free so brooms should be a few copper pieces at most, and a brick could be a rock (free) or light hammer (3 silver pieces), so it's not like that's going to break the bank after level 1.
The example of the table leg is a disingenuous one. That one doesn't fit the mechanics to the flavour, and almost seems like it's intended to deceive the GM. Okay, for PFS it's a little more difficult, but you could easily discuss with your GM what the stats for each item could be, and if they agree to the reflavouring. There should not be a "gotcha" moment on either side of the table. Similarly, as long as they stick to the mechanics, and take all the same tags into account (concentrate and such) , I'd totally allow the Wizard to play an Alchemist (for a home game, not PFS).
|
|
Some people want to use a broom because they like the idea of wielding a broom,
I totally get that, and that's why I think it's totally fine to say you're using a broom - And reskinning a staff as a broom is fine in my opinion, because they are very similar - a long wooden stick. "This long wooden stick has brushes on one end" is not different from "this wooden stick has been ellaborately carved to look as if it had a scaly egg on the end, and it's been painted in rainbow colours". It's just a visual difference.
and are happy there are rules that support that fantasy.
That part is the issue though. The rules support *improvising* a weapon. If you use a broom to fight all day every day, you aren't improvising. You could be a fighter and just pick club weapon group, and voila - you're master in using your broom. Cool! However, picking improvised weapons is a *different* class fantasy. It's not about training to be the best with a broom, it's about *improvising* your weapons. Using whatever you have at hand. A broom that you carry around all day every day and then beating someone up with it is not an improvised weapon, it's a weapon you've trained in extensively.
I really don't get your "You're not improvising enough" argument. I mean that in the sense that I don't understand you, not that I disagree with it. Yes, the character is really trained with brooms.
That's is exactly the problem. The character *IS trained* in using a broom. There's nothing wrong with that! But why would you pick an archetype that's specifically about using **things you are NOT trained with** to represent **BEING trained in** a very specific weapon?
So what? What's the harm in that? As long as the character isn't fudging the rules (bulk limits, costs, whatever), why wouldn't you allow it?
I'm not exactly saying that a GM shouldn't allow a character to use weapons that are not improvised, for feats that require improvised weapons. I'm saying that the *player shouldn't do it*.
For pfs specifically - because you can't guarantee that for every game, your broom has the same stats. Improvised weapons are, by their nature, fickle. The player can not determine the stats for their broom beforehand, and if you're using the broom all day every day, you probably assume that it works a certain way all day every day - not that the stats change from day to day.The only argument I can think of is that improvised weapons might not be intended for long-time combat, and might break.
I think that's less of a concern - we're not considering maintenance of any other weapon either. Unless, of course, you're using the specific feats and abilities that can cause it to break.
The example of the table leg is a disingenuous one. That one doesn't fit the mechanics to the flavour,
Just like "improvising" every day with the same doesn't match the fact that you're actually highly trained with it. Or a wizard pretending to be an alchemist. You're portraying one thing as a different thing.
If a player shouldn't "pick random debris and use them as an improvised weapon, except that they are actually using their greatsword stats for each strike", then the player shouldn't "use the same weapon all day every day for every strike, except that they are using stats as if they were using random improvised weapons with every strike".
and almost seems like it's intended to deceive the GM.
Just like the example with the wizard pretending to be an alchemist.
Okay, for PFS it's a little more difficult, but you could easily discuss with your GM what the stats for each item could be, and if they agree to the reflavouring.
Yes... For a homegame, the GM can homebrew you a character that has the power of the wizard but without the magic.
I'd totally allow the Wizard to play an Alchemist (for a home game, not PFS).
I'll just respond to this by quoting yourself:
Yes, a broom is very similar to a staff, but you shouldn't just swap A with B just because B exists.