Had a discussion with a friend, and we are of two-minds.
I say yes, by the fact improvised weapon's are simple weapons and a tool is an item a character can reasonably keep with them.
He says no, given a previous errata that indicates the line "improvised weapons are simple weapons" is simply to dictate the proficiency modifier you use, along with the existence of improvised pummel.
We were hoping to see if there are any declarative rules on the subject. We were specifically discussing the Tool item, and not say, a random stick you find on the ground.
Since forum search is down at the moment of posting, at least for the two of us, we have no idea if this has been discussed previously, so my apologies if we're missing some clarification that is buried within the annals of forum history.
Thank you for your time if you choose to engage with this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the hivemind stands pretty firmly against it with the argument that an improvised weapon is not a weapon until you Strike with it.
That's not how it's written and is in fact it's stated in the opposite. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not 'are counted as simple weapons' but are simple weapons.
He says no, given a previous errata that indicates the line "improvised weapons are simple weapons" is simply to dictate the proficiency modifier you use, along with the existence of improvised pummel.
When they intend for it to be just for proficiency, they state that. For instance, look at Ancestry weapon feats once. Take Dwarven Weapon Familiarity for instance: "for the purposes of proficiency, you treat any of these that are martial weapons as simple weapons and any that are advanced weapons as martial weapons." Improvised weapons could very easily say 'For the purposes of proficiency, improvised weapons are simple weapons' but it doesn't say that.
Secondly, I'm not sure what improvised pummel has to do with it.
Third, the FAQ stating "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use" is just restating what weapon categories do; they indicate what proficiency modifier you use. If it was meant to only be an indication of what proficiency to use, as I pointed out, they make that very clear when they want to; Replacing "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use" with 'this is for the purposes of proficiency only' if that's what they wanted it to mean.
So in conclusion, they errata'd improvised weapon and, in the remaster when they included other weapon options that were only for proficiency only, opted to only state "improvised weapons are simple weapons" [even when they had ALL the room they wanted to add context in the FAQ since it's not bound to a page count like the books]. This leads me to conclude that "improvised weapons are simple weapons" actually means what it says.
EDIT: also, having improvised weapons only count as weapons when in use [or for only proficiency] means that they do not qualify for prerequisites that require weapons. For instance, you couldn't Lunge as you aren't holding a weapon. Dueling Parry, Brutish Shove, Brutal Finish, Twin Takedown ect as you have to be wielding weapons before you can use them. A lot of weapons attacks/abilities break down and stop working for improvised weapon when you stop counting them as simple weapon and make them transitory ones.
Notice the rule's shape: it lives in the act of attacking. The object is an improvised weapon while you attack with it, and damage and traits are GM-assigned per attack. Nothing in it converts a tool into a weapon as an item, and etching is not something you do during an attack.
If this were true, how does the transitory weapon status work with abilities that require a weapon? Is the player just out of luck? That seems too bad to be true doesn't it?
We were hoping to see if there are any declarative rules on the subject. We were specifically discussing the Tool item, and not say, a random stick you find on the ground.
There is not clear RAW on the matter. You and your GM already have both sides of the discussion fairly well established. And whether the item in question is a tool, such as a shovel, or just a stick doesn't make a difference.
-----
That's not how it's written and is in fact it's stated in the opposite. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not 'are counted as simple weapons' but are simple weapons.
That's not the argument that people are making.
Yes, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but also items only count for their usage while they are actually being used in that way.
A 1-hand weapon is intrinsically a 1-hand weapon, even if it has the 2-hand trait. A 1-hand weapon (with or without the 2-hand trait) is only a 2-hand weapon while it is being used in that manner. So even though you could use a Frying Pan as an improvised thrown weapon, doesn't mean that you can etch a Returning rune onto it.
Similarly, a shovel is not a weapon intrinsically. A shovel is only an Improvised Weapon while it is being used as a weapon.
Whether that means that it is an Improvised Weapon only during the Strike action, or if it counts as an Improvised Weapon for the entire time it is being wielded as a weapon is not important. The point is that while the weapon is being etched with a rune, it is not being used as an Improvised Weapon, so the etching process will fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but also items only count for their usage while they are actually being used in that way.
No, the statement is quite clear; "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". It's much like a crossbow with a reinforced stock on it. It is simultaneously wielding a ranged and a melee weapon; there is no magic way to wield it as only ranged or only melee.
Hands:
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item. The GM may determine that an item is too big to carry in one hand (or even two hands, for particularly large items).
Usage [held]:
If a character must wield the item to use it, this entry in the item’s stat block lists the word “held” along with the number of hands the character must use when wielding the item, such as “held in 1 hand.” The rules for carrying and using items are provided here.
The same hands you use for tools is the same as for wielding and there is no action to 'switch' from tool to weapon use. As such, you are wielding/using them when you have the required hands on them. As such, it's always a weapon, just one with an innate -2 to hit. There just isn't a way in game to hold a item that's a improvised weapon in such a way that they aren't wielding it as a weapon [unless they aren't using the required hands to use/wield].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not the argument that people are making.
Yes, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but also items only count for their usage while they are actually being used in that way.
A 1-hand weapon is intrinsically a 1-hand weapon, even if it has the 2-hand trait. A 1-hand weapon (with or without the 2-hand trait) is only a 2-hand weapon while it is being used in that manner. So even though you could use a Frying Pan as an improvised thrown weapon, doesn't mean that you can etch a Returning rune onto it.
Similarly, a shovel is not a weapon intrinsically. A shovel is only an Improvised Weapon while it is being used as a weapon.
Whether that means that it is an Improvised Weapon only during the Strike action, or if it counts as an Improvised Weapon for the entire time it is being wielded as a weapon is not important. The point is that while the weapon is being etched with a rune, it is not being used as an Improvised Weapon, so the etching process will fail.
So if I decide to use a warhammer as an improvised tool hammer to fix a creaky floor board, it's no longer a weapon because it's not being used in that way?
Because that's what you just said.
And the whole thing gets silly with something like a Club, where the description says it can literally just be a tree branch. There's nothing special about it being a weapon vs an improvised weapon: it's a big stick you hit things with. A 2x4 is a Club, RAW (or maybe a Greatclub depending on how strong you are).
This whole argument seems to be reading the rules and then trying to find the most complex interpretation there is, rather than the much simpler "improvised weapons are simple weapons because the book says so and thus act like weapons". The item itself isn't intelligent and can't glean intent: the magic doesn't suddenly decide "I'm a weapon right now because I'm being swung and then I'm suddenly not when I get put down."
Meaning that yes, you could put a rune on a stein if you wanted to and then you're ready for a barifght. Cayden Cailean would be proud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had a discussion with a friend, and we are of two-minds.
I say yes, by the fact improvised weapon's are simple weapons and a tool is an item a character can reasonably keep with them.
He says no, given a previous errata that indicates the line "improvised weapons are simple weapons" is simply to dictate the proficiency modifier you use, along with the existence of improvised pummel.
We were hoping to see if there are any declarative rules on the subject. We were specifically discussing the Tool item, and not say, a random stick you find on the ground.
Since forum search is down at the moment of posting, at least for the two of us, we have no idea if this has been discussed previously, so my apologies if we're missing some clarification that is buried within the annals of forum history.
Thank you for your time if you choose to engage with this post.
As mentioned, you've got the RAW answers, and it's not explict. Speaking as a GM, though... ask your GM why this matters? Like, the rules can be interpreted multiple ways on this, but the rules also don't really matter in a case like this.
If someone really wants to put a rune on a frying pan, what's the harm? Improvised weapons are generally worse than regular weapons across the board. This is highly unlikely to be game breaking. If someone wants to be able to use their blacksmithing hammer to bonk things as an improvised weapon, why not?
The game itself acknowledges such a thing could exist in the Battle Lute, which is both a weapon and a tool (a musical instrument). This one is both not an improvised weapon and also gives its weapon potency bonus to Performance Checks, which is way better than what the player is asking for here.
This is a case where it makes sense to just set the rulebook aside and say yes, because finding a way to say yes to thematically fun ideas that don't break the game is what a good GM does.
(It's also ironic that you mentioned a random stick, because RAW a random stick of sufficient size is a Club which is a weapon and isn't improvised.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but that's not all there is to it. You keep beating that one line and ignoring the one directly before it, The one that says WHEN an object is an improvised weapon
"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."
"You're making an attack with an improvised weapon" does not say the thing is only an improvised weapon when you're swinging it. It says "it's an improvised weapon", full stop.
If it's an improvised weapon, it's still an improvised weapon the rest of the time. That's the whole point of an improvised weapon: it's some regular object that you're using in a way it wasn't designed. No properties of it suddenly change when you start swinging it around.
I find it ironic you're saying that Graystone is ignoring the line about it saying when an object is an improvised weapon when that line does not in fact say any such thing.
As mentioned, you've got the RAW answers, and it's not explict. Speaking as a GM, though... ask your GM why this matters? Like, the rules can be interpreted multiple ways on this, but the rules also don't really matter in a case like this.If someone really wants to put a rune on a frying pan, what's the harm? Improvised weapons are generally worse than regular weapons across the board. This is highly unlikely to be game breaking. If someone wants to be able to use their blacksmithing hammer to bonk things as an improvised weapon, why not?
We mainly wanted to see if there were any explicit and official rulings.
We are not foreign to house-ruling, given we made a house rule where PCs gain Hero Points on non-modified Critical Successes (aka any crit that isn't a result from a class feature altering your degree of success) so we'd remember to use them.
In our own discussion, we've more or less agreed that when I GM, I'd allow it and when he GMs he wouldn't. We can respect each other's rulings cause we're friends first and foremost.
In my opinion these rules were left in a grey zone so they could be interpreted either way, giving the GM flexibility.
But to directly address your question? There is no harm in allowing runes to be etched, and there is no harm in disallowing it.
For my own GMing, I'll introduce a house rule called "persistent improvised weaponry" where it allows a player to upgrade an improvised weapon as one would a normal weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but that's not all there is to it. You keep beating that one line and ignoring the one directly before it, The one that says WHEN an object is an improvised weapon
"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."
So you're saying that I could never use abilities that require weilding a weapon with improvised weapons? Does that sound like the correct reading to you? For instance, do you think you shouldn't be able to Brutish Shove with a table leg wielded in 2 hands? Lots of things like this break as they have a requirement of wielding a weapon and ruling in a way that they are only weapons while attacking means you can't use them with improvised weapons.
We mainly wanted to see if there were any explicit and official rulings.
We are not foreign to house-ruling, given we made a house rule where PCs gain Hero Points on non-modified Critical Successes (aka any crit that isn't a result from a class feature altering your degree of success) so we'd remember to use them.
In our own discussion, we've more or less agreed that when I GM, I'd allow it and when he GMs he wouldn't. We can respect each other's rulings cause we're friends first and foremost.
In my opinion these rules were left in a grey zone so they could be interpreted either way, giving the GM flexibility.
But to directly address your question? There is no harm in allowing runes to be etched, and there is no harm in disallowing it.
For my own GMing, I'll introduce a house rule called "persistent improvised weaponry" where it allows a player to upgrade an improvised weapon as one would a normal weapon.
Just in case you haven't run across it, I thought I'd mention the Improvised Pummel feat from the Weapon Improviser archetype. It gives you the choice of applying your Handwraps runes to your improvised weapons or applying what is basically a version of automatic bonus progression to your improvised weapons.
If someone really wants to put a rune on a frying pan, what's the harm?
Frying pans are actual weapons. In fact, they are the favored weapons of two deities. :)
I shouldn't have said the object is an improvised weapon only while you attack with it. The cleaner claim: the improvised-weapons paragraph never grants full weapon status, and the proof sits in the same paragraph. An improvised attack carries a -2 item penalty, and the GM assigns damage and traits per attack, "if any". If "improvised weapons are simple weapons" were full category membership, an improvised attack would deal ordinary simple-weapon damage at full proficiency with no penalty. It does neither. The errata's own note says what the sentence is for: "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use." Proficiency, not item status.
This just isn't true. For instance, Shoddy items take a –2 item penalty to attacks and checks same as Improvised weapons; this doesn't make them not weapons. And the fact that the DM sets traits and damage doesn't make them not weapons either. All it means is that the DM decides if an item can be an improvised weapon and what it's stats are. Once an item is an improvised weapon, it stays that way though. For instance, a torch is always an improvised weapon as per the RAW rules; in never stops being one.
Lastly, nothing implies transient weapon status let alone anything explicit about it. It's as simple as them saying 'For the purposes of proficiency, improvised weapons are simple weapons' and they opted not to. There's no rules text backing this up that I know.
So what the paragraph grants is attack-time mechanics for things that aren't weapons. What the object "is" between attacks is never asserted and never denied, because nothing in the rules needs it to be anything.
No, it quite clearly says they are simple weapons; they have wording when it's dealing with proficiency only and they didn't use it. The paragraph is about weapons that weren't built to be one, not about granting non-weapons damage.
That dissolves the weapon-ability worry. Brutish Shove doesn't care what the object is between actions; the feat makes a Strike with the weapon, and at that moment you are attacking with the object, so the improvised rules are live: it is an improvised-weapon attack, -2 and all, and the feat functions. Requirements met during an attack are met. If an ability ever required a weapon outside any attack, that would be a genuine gap in the rules and a GM call, and it would be a different question from etching.
That's not how Requirements works; for Brutish Shove Requirements: You are wielding a two-handed melee weapon.
Reading Rules Prerequisites: Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability.
It has to be that item to use it, IE it has to be a weapon before you can use the action. The activity requirements aren't the same as a subordinate action. And even if it worked for Brutish Shove, it fails for other like Dueling Parry that require wielding a weapon but do not involve an attack.
Etching doesn't need any transitory claim at all. Runes etch into "a specific type of armor, shield, or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry" (GM Core 224), and weapon runes are "etched onto a weapon" (GM Core 236). Nothing in the improvised paragraph hands a tool a weapon Usage entry to etch through. When Paizo wants a non-weapon to take runes, they write it into the item, and Explorer's Clothing is the standing example. The errata that made improvised weapons "simple weapons" added no such exception.
"etched onto a weapon" plus "Improvised weapons are simple weapons" = RAW followed. Seems straightforward to me. You still haven't overcome the very explicit sentence "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". As such, I see nothing stopping Runes on an improvised weapon.
Same conclusion as before, minus the overreach: a Tool is not an etchable weapon by RAW, and a GM who allows it is house-ruling.
There is RAW that says it's a weapon and none that say it at any point isn't one. Not being "built to be a weapon" doesn't equate to isn't a weapon. There are no qualifiers on "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". So I'm going to have to disagree on what you see as RAW. To be honest, IMO, it seems like reading in between the line to get a conclusion you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, I'll say that I don't really have skin in the game here. There is actually very little reason to put Runes on an improvised weapon as the Archetype to use them well involves breaking breaking them [and 'normal' weapons have traits and usually better damage]. I'm arguing from a purely 'this is how I read the rules' point of view.
I will simply refer you to the last time we discussed this, and my proposed compromise for such cases. But none of those apply to etching runes
I don't really recall a specific thread so I can't really refer back. If there is a specific point you want to put forth, please repost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, I'll say that I don't really have skin in the game here. There is actually very little reason to put Runes on an improvised weapon as the Archetype to use them well involves breaking breaking them [and 'normal' weapons have traits and usually better damage]. I'm arguing from a purely 'this is how I read the rules' point of view.
I'm not committed to either interpretation either, but it did occur to me that there might be some odd consequences under your interpretation.
For example, consider the rules for bucklers.
You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand.
Now consider just the introductory list of suggestions for Improvised Weapons given in the Weapon Improvisor archetype: broken stalagmite, large mushroom, old bones, barrel, crate, hook, branch, needles, or thorns, box, fruit, scale, sign, gavel, goblet, quill, lectern, bottle, mug, serving tray, or stool.
That list is just for inspiration, but it still covers a huge number of items many of which are light.
Under your interpretation, if an object could potentially be used as an improvised weapon then it is always a simple weapon even if the character is not using it as such and has no plans to use it as such.
So now holding a common light item like a goblet, quill, or an apple would automatically prevent a character from raising a buckler on that arm.
Given the range of items that could potentially be used as improvised weapons, the ability to hold non-weapons while raising a buckler becomes pretty much useless.
|
Just because virtually any item can be used as an improvised simple weapon, it doesn't mean that virtually any item can be etched with a rune or benefit from weapon status a priori. The same way if you're wielding a crossbow with both hands you don't qualify as threatening for the purposes of flanking simply because you might use the crossbow in melee as an improvised weapon. You need a bayonet or a reinforced stock for that, and whatever rune on the crossbow does not apply to its improvised weapon use if you choose to use it like that.
Clubs and the like are close enough to being weapons on their own accord that they are not improvised and resonate with whatever magic the runes grant. They are the exception. Nobody is going around writing runes on every item at the saloon just in case a bar fight comes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or a torch, a not uncommon item to hold in one's buckler hand
True. And consider how the Shifting rune would now work.
You'd be able to turn a sword into things like a torch, mug, trowel, tree branch, and a vast list of other items because they would all be simple weapons that require one hand. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally opinion, Improvised weapons aren't "nominally" weapons and don't qualify to be etched with runes. The line about "improvised weapons are simple weapons" is simply to explain how to deal with them with your proficiency when you start using that object as a weapon.
I do not take it as a statement that improvised weapons are always weapons, because that would basically mean there are no non-weapon objects that could be held, because anything you could hold could be used as a (poor) weapon.