can you target improvised weapons with things that only affect weapons?

[newguydude1]

stuff like spells with target:weapon or weapon enchantments. turn an improvised weapon into a mwk improvised weapon and apply weapon enchantments.

[Darg]

Unless the spell says it gets treated as a magic item then it doesn't make it a "magic item" for the purpose of being masterwork.

WotC uses weapon as "weapon" or "category of weapon" freely without standardized text to differentiate them. In the case of the magic weapon spell for example, there is the implication of targeting manufactured weapons. An improvised weapon can't also be manufactured to be a weapon otherwise it would not be an improvised weapon.

That said, there is no rule preventing an item actively being used as an improvised weapon from being targeted by target: weapon spells.

That said, I've read that dragon's brawler class gives you the ability to choose improvised weapon for feats like weapon focus. This would let you qualify it to be a kensai's signature weapon. This would make it a magic weapon and thus a masterwork item.

[newguydude1]

Unless the spell says it gets treated as a magic item then it doesn't make it a "magic item" for the purpose of being masterwork.
i think you misunderstood. i was asking if i could turn a improvised weapon like a chair and turn it into a mwk improvised weapon using the normal mwk weapon crafting rules, and then use the magic weapon enchanting rules to turn it into a +1 flaming improvised weapon.


WotC uses weapon as "weapon" or "category of weapon" freely without standardized text to differentiate them. In the case of the magic weapon spell for example, there is the implication of targeting manufactured weapons. An improvised weapon can't also be manufactured to be a weapon otherwise it would not be an improvised weapon.

That said, there is no rule preventing an item actively being used as an improvised weapon from being targeted by target: weapon spells.

so your saying i can cast magic weapon on a chair? cause i want to do something like that.


That said, I've read that dragon's brawler class gives you the ability to choose improvised weapon for feats like weapon focus. This would let you qualify it to be a kensai's signature weapon. This would make it a magic weapon and thus a masterwork item.

drunken master also does something like that iunno.

[Darg]

i think you misunderstood. i was asking if i could turn a improvised weapon like a chair and turn it into a mwk improvised weapon using the normal mwk weapon crafting rules, and then use the magic weapon enchanting rules to turn it into a +1 flaming improvised weapon.

You can't make a masterwork improvised weapon because then it would be designed to be a weapon and no longer improvised. At best it would be a custom masterwork weapon. That's why I mentioned a work around if it was important to you. Since you can't make a masterwork improvised weapon, find a way to classify it as one.



so your saying i can cast magic weapon on a chair? cause i want to do something like that.

Technicality says you can. If you use it as a weapon it is a weapon. I personally wouldn't prevent it from happening, and I don't know a DM that would prevent it. That said, it might not be much of a benefit considering the non-proficiency penalty.


drunken master also does something like that iunno.

Drunken Master doesn't give you proficiency and doesn't make the improvised weapon capable of being a masterwork weapon. Without proficiency you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls. Brawler removes that penalty and lets you chose "improvised weapon" as the beneficiary of weapon specific feats.

[newguydude1]

Technicality says you can. If you use it as a weapon it is a weapon. I personally wouldn't prevent it from happening, and I don't know a DM that would prevent it. That said, it might not be much of a benefit considering the non-proficiency penalty.

the real purpose is to use animate weapon or personal weapon augmentation to get a humanoid animated object instead of a sword or a quarterstaff animated object. damage is gonna be worse cause improvised weapon damage is horrible but numbers isnt everything. it came up in a previous thread i made and everyone there all unanimously pummeled me saying improvised weapons are not weapons.

so i thought id make a proper thread about it.

[Gruftzwerg]

While an improvised weapon may be used in combat almost like a real weapon, it ain't a real weapon. As such it isn't a valid target for things (spells / effects /enhancements..) that "target weapons".

Note that special attacks like sunder and disarm can also be used against items (which includes improvised weapons). e.g.

If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails.

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC.

And as already mentioned: Something can't be improvised and masterwork at the same time. Their definitions exclude each other. As such no weapon enhancement for improvised weapons.

You can however use anything that buffs your attacks directly (targeting your attack/dmg stats not your weapon). E.g. "Bless"

[hamishspence]

"Masterwork" isn't a weapons-only thing. You can have masterwork armour, masterwork artisan's tools, and so on.

So, you could be hitting someone with a masterwork shield, and it would be both improvised and masterwork, in that sense.

[Darg]

While an improvised weapon may be used in combat almost like a real weapon, it ain't a real weapon. As such it isn't a valid target for things (spells / effects /enhancements..) that "target weapons".

Note that special attacks like sunder and disarm can also be used against items (which includes improvised weapons). e.g.



And as already mentioned: Something can't be improvised and masterwork at the same time. Their definitions exclude each other. As such no weapon enhancement for improvised weapons.

You can however use anything that buffs your attacks directly (targeting your attack/dmg stats not your weapon). E.g. "Bless"

Except an improvised weapon is a real weapon. Weapon is not a defined term in 3.5. While it may not be crafted for such a reason, the fact of its use as one makes it a weapon by definition. Therefore it is a legal target as a weapon. For good or ill. The fact it has "weapon" in it's name should be a dead giveaway. If improvised weapons aren't weapons then natural weapons can't be weapons for the same reason.


So, you could be hitting someone with a masterwork shield, and it would be both improvised and masterwork, in that sense.

Not actually true. RAW, a shield is both a weapon and armor. Therefore a masterwork shield is at the same time masterwork armor and weapon. It cannot be an improvised weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

Except an improvised weapon is a real weapon. Weapon is not a defined term in 3.5. While it may not be crafted for such a reason, the fact of its use as one makes it a weapon by definition. Therefore it is a legal target as a weapon. For good or ill. The fact it has "weapon" in it's name should be a dead giveaway. If improvised weapons aren't weapons then natural weapons can't be weapons for the same reason.


Weapons (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm)are defined in 3.5.

And improvised weapons reads:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, ...
It's clear that improvised weapons are not weapons and sole can be used similar to weapons in combat. Just because you use something like a weapon doesn't turn it into a weapon in 3.5 terms. And the permission the rule gives is a specific exception that is sole limited to the use of improvised weapons as weapons in combat and ain't a general rule what is and what is not a weapon. As such, improvised weapons are not a legal target for effects that target "weapons".

[hamishspence]

Not actually true. RAW, a shield is both a weapon and armor. Therefore a masterwork shield is at the same time masterwork armor and weapon.
It doesn't count as a masterwork weapon for "weapon enhancement purposes"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#masterworkArmor

Shield Bash Attacks
You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.


The masterwork quality of a suit of armor or shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if the armor or shield is used as a weapon.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.

An artisan's tool is a better example of "masterwork" combined with "improvised weapon", true. Still, in an emergency I could see somebody using a chain shirt as an improvised bludgeoning weapon.


improvised weapons are not a legal target for effects that target "weapons".

That might be RAI in your opinion, but it it RAW, that, for example, it is impossible to cast Magic Weapon on an improvised weapon?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm

[Gruftzwerg]

The masterwork quality of a suit of armor or shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if the armor or shield is used as a weapon.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.
Specific trumps General:

An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.


An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

While armor and shields can't be masterwork weapons, they still can be enhanced as magic weapons. Note that these are specific rules and may not be extrapolated to other things like e.g. Improvised Weapons. (It doesn't become a general rule!)





An artisan's tool is a better example of "masterwork" combined with "improvised weapon", true. Still, in an emergency I could see somebody using a chain shirt as an improvised bludgeoning weapon.



That might be RAI in your opinion, but it it RAW, that, for example, it is impossible to cast Magic Weapon on an improvised weapon?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm
See above. The rules for improvised rules are clear that they are not weapons: "...not crafted to be weapons.. "
As such, they can't be targeted as weapons.

Compare it with monk's unarmed strike ability:
Regular (non-monk) unarmed strike ain't a weapon. But it behaves like a light weapon for certain things (twf, disarm/sunder...).
The monk's unarmed strike has the specific exception to be affected by spells and effects that target manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Further, unarmed strikes aren't enhanced (crafting) the same way as a normal magical weapon. You enhance unarmed strikes via other items that can specifically target your unarmed strikes.(e.g. Necklace of Natural Attacks)
As such, you bypass the masterwork requirement for normally enhancing a weapon magically.

Improvised Weapons, as said, disqualify themselves as weapons in general and I don't know any way to enhance em in any other way (like with unarmed strikes).

[hamishspence]

"Not crafted to be weapons" explains why they always have a nonproficiency penalty (unless you're a Brawler).

But they have everything else. They can be light, one handed, or two handed. They have a critical threat range, and do double damage on a Critical hit. They can have a range increment.

It's reasonable, IMO, to interpret their inclusion under "Weapons" as meaning that they are a specific subset of weapon.


Take the disarm action, for example. If you try to disarm someone of their "improvised melee weapon" and fail - do they get to disarm you, or not, because an improvised weapon isn't a real weapon? if you're the one using the improvised weapon to do the disarming, does their weapon end up on the ground, or not, because "you're not doing so with a weapon"?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#disarm


Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.

If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails.

Step 1
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. (If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making a disarm attempt.) If the defender’s attack of opportunity deals any damage, your disarm attempt fails.

Step 2
Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a -4 penalty on the roll.

Step 3
Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square.

If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him.

"Improvised weapons don't count as weapons" opens up a real can of worms.

[Gruftzwerg]

It's reasonable, IMO, to interpret their inclusion under "Weapons" as meaning that they are a specific subset of weapon.

Well.. imho Improvised Weapons are already kinda a "specific subset of weapons".
It's just that this subset explains how non-weapon objects can be misused in combat.
Just because you can misuse something as a weapon, doesn't turn it into a real weapon.

To give you a real life example:
In many countries when you are in your last years of school, you have a few weeks of practical training in a local company to have an impression how working as an adult is.
While you work in the company for a few weeks like any other worker, you aren't an official worker there. You are just a school kid on his practical training. Not more, not less.

The same can be said here with the "Improvised Weapon rules". This rule allows you to use non-weapons in combat. Not more, not less.

I hope I could clear up your thought. If you still have doubts, feel free to ask more questions^^

[hamishspence]

Well.. imho Improvised Weapons are already kinda a "specific subset of weapons".
It's just that this subset explains how non-weapon objects can be misused in combat.
Just because you can misuse something as a weapon, doesn't turn it into a real weapon.The word "misused" is not present in the rules description.

And, as I mentioned, there's lots of cases where it being treated as a weapon will be relevant - such as the aforementioned disarming scenario.

[Gruftzwerg]

The word "misused" is not present in the rules description.

And, as I mentioned, there's lots of cases where it being treated as a weapon will be relevant - such as the aforementioned disarming scenario.

I used "misused" here due to the penalty they receive and the fact that they aren't weapons. Sorry if it was confusing.

And regarding disarm/sunder..:
In these situations your improvised weapon is what it really is: "a non-weapon item/object" and not a weapon and thus receives the entire non-weapon treatment in these chases.


If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails.

The penalty the text is talking about is the standard -4 penalty for using an improvised weapon.

[hamishspence]

And regarding disarm/sunder..:
In these situations your improvised weapon is what it really is: "a non-weapon item/object" and not a weapon and thus receives the entire non-weapon treatment in these chases.

Sunder doesn't have a "using a nonweapon to make a sunder attempt" option.



https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder

Sunder
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)

Step 1
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder. (If you have the Improved Sunder feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making the attempt.)

Step 2
Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3
Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.

If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage.


So you're arguing that a giant holding a massive pole (say, a lamp post) and using it as an "improvised bludgeoning weapon" can't make sunder attempts with it, no matter how solid the pole is?

[Gruftzwerg]

Sunder doesn't have a "using a nonweapon to make a sunder attempt" option.




So you're arguing that a giant holding a massive pole (say, a lamp post) and using it as an "improvised bludgeoning weapon" can't make sunder attempts with it, no matter how solid the pole is?

No that is not what I tried to say.

You can make disarm/sunder attempts with an improvised weapon. The improvised Weapon rules give you the permission to use em in combat. But that still doesn't turn em into weapons. But that is not what I was referring to.

I was talking about the situation, when you try to disarm/sunder an improvised weapon. (the opposite).

Sorry if it was misleading.

[hamishspence]

You can make disarm/sunder attempts with an improvised weapon. The improvised Weapon rules give you the permission to use em in combat. But that still doesn't turn em into weapons.
If it RAW counts as a weapon for the purpose of answering the question "can it be used to make Sunder attempts at all", why can't it count as a weapon for other purposes as well?

Think of all the feats that have "weapon" or "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" in their language - do they all work with improvised weapons of the appropriate type?

Can Improved Precise Strike:

"In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen."

or Rapid Shot

"You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon. The attack is at your highest base attack bonus, but each attack you make in that round (the extra one and the normal ones) takes a -2 penalty. You must use the full attack action to use this feat."

be used with a few thrown rocks?

How about Deflect Arrows used to Deflect Rocks?

"You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed."

Or Two Weapon Defence

"When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2."

with a pair of bowling pins used in Skittles?

And so forth.

If improvised weapons are weapons for most purposes - why shouldn't it be all purposes?

Why shouldn't Truevenom Weapon or Prevenom Weapon, work on the metal ruler that the psychic warrior picked up and is using as an improvised slashing weapon, for example?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/truevenomWeapon.htm

Or Holy Sword, for a paladin?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySword.htm

[Darg]

I used "misused" here due to the penalty they receive and the fact that they aren't weapons. Sorry if it was confusing.

And regarding disarm/sunder..:
In these situations your improvised weapon is what it really is: "a non-weapon item/object" and not a weapon and thus receives the entire non-weapon treatment in these chases.


The penalty the text is talking about is the standard -4 penalty for using an improvised weapon.

The penalty is the nonproficiency penalty...:


Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

This way you don't get a -8 penalty. And should be proof enough as you can only be nonproficient with weapons and armor.

[Gruftzwerg]

If it RAW counts as a weapon for the purpose of answering the question "can it be used to make Sunder attempts at all", why can't it count as a weapon for other purposes as well?


have a look at the rules and notice that nowhere the rules tell you that improvised weapons "count as weapons". It's the opposite. They talk about how you can use anything "not crafted as weapon" in combat.
We have rules how non-weapons behave in combat. But we don't have any rules telling you that they count as weapons.




Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
And just because it can have a size category like light weapon, doesn't turn it into a weapon either by the rules. It doesn't work like that, sry.

[hamishspence]

Do you agree or disagree with the notion that Rapid Shot can be used with improvised throwing weapons like rocks?

And how about Power Attack for improvised melee weapons?


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack

If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

[Gruftzwerg]

The penalty is the nonproficiency penalty...:



This way you don't get a -8 penalty. And should be proof enough as you can only be nonproficient with weapons and armor.

Yeah, your right. Sorry for not being precise here..^^
But still ain't a proof here. Improvised Weapons is a specific rule (for non-weapons) which makes explicit use (again specific) of the nonproficiency rules.



Do you agree or disagree with the notion that Rapid Shot can be used with improvised throwing weapons like rocks?
Disagree. By RAW the rocks are just mere improvised throwing weapons and not ranged weapons.

in 3.5 by RAW we have a finite number of weapons published in the books. In the PHB/SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#)you can find the most common weapons in 3.5. Weapon are defined. Each weapon is presented in the "Weapon:" lists and has a description.

The description of improved weapons however still denies that they are weapons.

edit:
Power Attack targets your melee attack rolls and not your weapon. It denies anything that counts as a light weapon (except unarmed strikes and natural weapons). Thus unless you have an improvised weapon that would count as "light weapon" sized, you can use Power Attack with it.

[hamishspence]

The description of improved weapons however still denies that they are weapons.

It says they weren't crafted to be weapons - not that they aren't weapons, when being used as them.


By RAW the rocks are just mere improvised throwing weapons and not ranged weapons.



I can understand Rapid Shot not working because the rule is that it takes a standard action to throw one light or one-handed improvised weapon.

But I can't see why Deflect Arrows would not work on a small thrown object.


Power Attack targets your melee attack rolls and not your weapon.

But it functions differently depending on what weapon is being used. An improvised weapon that is "a two-handed weapon" will do extra damage equal to 2x Power Attack number.

[Gruftzwerg]

It says they weren't crafted to be weapons - not that they aren't weapons, when being used as them.

I can understand Rapid Shot not working because the rule is that it takes a standard action to throw one light or one-handed improvised weapon.

But I can't see why Deflect Arrows would not work on a small thrown object.


But it functions differently depending on what weapon is being used. An improvised weapon that is "a two-handed weapon" will do extra damage equal to 2x Power Attack number.

"Improvised Weapons" is a sub-rule of the weapon rules. And it talks about how non-weapon objects can be used in combat. Nowhere is even the slightest suggestion that they count as weapons. The size rules for improvised weapons is needed for the use in combat and therefore mentioned. The size rules don't give you the permission to count improvised weapons as weapons.

edit: Deflect Arrows
Yeah, you may not deflect stones unless they are fired from a sling. Maybe stones who are use as improvised weapons are harder to predict because they aren't balanced weapons? Who knows why they didn't go for Ranged Attacks overall here (I guess because of ranged spell attack..^^).

[hamishspence]

If you're going to use "improvised weapons" in combination with feats or spells, you need to treat "weapon" in a feat or spell's description consistently.

If an improvised weapon can be "a two-handed weapon" for Power Attack, or "a light, off-hand weapon" for Two-Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defence,

why is it not "a weapon" for the purposes of, say, the Keen Edge spell?

You can't have it both ways - counting as a weapon for some things and not for others, when there's no clear demarcation. Pick one.

[Calthropstu]

i think you misunderstood. i was asking if i could turn a improvised weapon like a chair and turn it into a mwk improvised weapon using the normal mwk weapon crafting rules, and then use the magic weapon enchanting rules to turn it into a +1 flaming improvised weapon.



so your saying i can cast magic weapon on a chair? cause i want to do something like that.



drunken master also does something like that iunno.

Making a chair flaming is easy. Just set it on fire.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you're going to use "improvised weapons" in combination with feats or spells, you need to treat "weapon" in a feat or spell's description consistently.

If an improvised weapon can be "a two-handed weapon" for Power Attack, or "a light, off-hand weapon" for Two-Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defence,

why is it not "a weapon" for the purposes of, say, the Keen Edge spell?

You can't have it both ways - counting as a weapon for some things and not for others, when there's no clear demarcation. Pick one.

Just having a weapon size category for combat uses doesn't turn it into a weapon.
Power Attack affects your melee attacks overall and doesn't care if you use a weapon or not for the attack (compare with Rapid Shot which does call out the use of Ranged Weapons). It only cares for the "effective size category as weapon" of the object you use.
The rule lets Improvised Weapons count as having those size categories, since these are required to use em in combat (e.g for PA, TWF, Special Attacks..). But this doesn't let em count overall as weapons.

I'm repeating myself here. The rules never tell you that they count as weapons. The permission to count as having weapon size categories for combat doesn't change that.

[hamishspence]

It's in the name - Improvised weapon.

Take the Psionic Weapon feat:


Psionic Weapon [Psionic]
You can charge your melee weapon with additional damage potential.

Prerequisite
Str 13.

Benefit
To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus.

Your attack with a melee weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus.

Would you ban players from using it with improvised weapons?

[Gruftzwerg]

It's in the name - Improvised weapon.

It's in the definition of Improvised Weapons:

objects not crafted to be weapons
They are defined as "not crafted to be weapons". "not ...to be" should be clear here.

edit: Psionic Charge
By RAW prionic charge only works with melee weapons, not with melee attacks overall. As such improvised weapons get a NO here.

[hamishspence]

It simply explains why they're not as good as regular weapons. It doesn't mean that they're


"not weapons at all for any Weapon Targeting purposes."


By RAW prionic charge only works with melee weapons, not with melee attacks overall. As such improvised weapons get a NO here.
I believe this this is an unnecessarily restrictive reading of "RAW" - and a good example of how different people can interpret "what is RAW" differently.

You agreed that Sunder works with improvised weapons - despite the fact that it specifically says "melee attack with a weapon" not "melee attack" on its own.




You can make disarm/sunder attempts with an improvised weapon.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder

Sunder
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here.

[Gruftzwerg]

It simply explains why they're not as good as regular weapons. It doesn't mean that they're


"not weapons at all for any Weapon Targeting purposes."

I believe this this is an unnecessarily restrictive reading of "RAW" - and a good example of how different people can interpret "what is RAW" differently.

You can assume that this wasn't the intention of the designers (RAI=rules as intended). But RAW is clear and precise here. Nothing conflicts from a pure RAW reading. Just because RAW doesn't reflect common sense or how you want the rules to work doesn't change RAW in any way.
You can make claims for RAI and I would totally support this in an actual game anyone plays. But it ain't RAW. Just remind yourself of "healing by drowning" to have a vague concept of what RAW in 3.5 means. Nobody plays RAW (there are only people pretending that they play RAW, but they never do it to 100%. otherwise everybody would play pun pun or at least would have always a bucket of water for emergence heals when someone is "dying" (status -1 till -9).


edit: Sunder
The Improvised Weapon rules allow you to threat certain types of em as slashing or bludgeoning weapon. This is the same situation as with weapon size categories. Just because IW have damage types doesn't turn em into "weapons".
And if you sunder an Improvised Weapon, you threat em as non-weapon objects that are held (see rules for attacking held objects).

[hamishspence]

RAW is clear and precise here.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.


Nothing conflicts from a pure RAW reading. Just because RAW doesn't reflect common sense or how you want the rules to work doesn't change RAW in any way.


There's no such thing as a "pure RAW reading" - only an individual's interpretation of RAW. Language just isn't that precise.

[Gruftzwerg]

We'll have to agree to disagree here.




There's no such thing as a "pure RAW reading" - only an individual's interpretation of RAW. Language just isn't that precise.

Sorry but you are ignoring rule text ("not crafted to be a weapon") and imagine rule text (count as "weapon"). That has nothing to do with rules as written (RAW). That is RAI, rules as intended, or how rules should have been.

[hamishspence]

Sorry, but we disagree on the interpretation of certain phrases.

All "not crafted to be a weapon" means, for rules purposes, is "guarantees a nonproficiency penalty when used as a weapon, wielded as a weapon, etc.", in a D&D context.

"Improvised weapon" is a subset of the larger category, "weapon".

And "not crafted to be a weapon" identifies that subset.

The Glossary definition of "melee weapon" in the PHB might say "handheld weapon designed for close combat" but it oversimplifies. Armour Spikes prove that a melee weapon does not have to be handheld, for example.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sorry, but we disagree on the interpretation of certain phrases.

All "not crafted to be a weapon" means, for rules purposes, is "guarantees a nonproficiency penalty when used as a weapon, wielded as a weapon, etc.", in a D&D context.

"Improvised weapon" is a subset of the larger category, "weapon".

And "not crafted to be a weapon" identifies that subset.

The Glossary definition of "melee weapon" in the PHB might say "handheld weapon designed for close combat" but it oversimplifies. Armour Spikes prove that a melee weapon does not have to be handheld, for example.

Armor Spikes:

The spikes count as a martial weapon.
Armor Spike call out a specific exception to the general definition of martial weapons. Specific trumps general. Do Improvised Weapons make any kind of clear statement in this regards?

The Improvised Weapon paragraph does the opposite. It talks about "objects not crafted to be weapons".
It gives you rules how things not intended to be weapons behave in combat.

Your interpretation implies that everything is a weapon. Sure, even in real life we can weaponize everything. But do we call em weapons and apply rules/laws for weapons on em? Only if they really are weapons. A forest worker doesn't need a weapon license for a chainsaw just because you can use it as weapon. That is what you are trying to tell us here. Just because something can be weaponized, you try to forcefully apply all weapon rules to it without any rule text that backs that up.

[afroakuma]

There is phrasing in the Rules Compendium which I think is informative.


To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to actual weapons to find a reasonable match

Obviously this won't actually change how any given DM decides to interpret this, but it's there. Now we can start arguing semantics about how "actual" isn't defined. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I can understand "Melee Weapon" (as opposed to just "Weapon") being limited.

The Weapon Focus feat just says "Weapon" and can be used with all Weapons, even Natural Weapons. Many monsters have Weapon Focus (Bite) or Weapon Focus (claw).

Things like that, which just say "Weapon" apply to everything - Natural, Improvised, and "Designed to be used as a Weapon"

Things that say "Melee Weapon" never work on a Natural Weapon by contrast - so a case could be made that the "designed" bit is important.


Yeah, you may not deflect stones unless they are fired from a sling. Maybe stones who are use as improvised weapons are harder to predict because they aren't balanced weapons? Who knows why they didn't go for Ranged Attacks overall here (I guess because of ranged spell attack..^^).Deflect Arrows has a specific "Does not work on spells" exception.

Given that "Weaponlike spells" do qualify as "ranged weapons" for the purposes of feats like Point Blank Shot (see Complete Arcane), I would say that "ranged weapon" does not need to have been specifically designed that way, and that an "improvised ranged weapon" is still a ranged weapon. Same with "natural ranged weapon" - any creature that fires quills or needles.

If you can block an arrow, you can block a quill.

[Calthropstu]

Here's my take. The definition of improvised weapon states an item not crafted to be a weapon. This precludes it from being enchanted as a weapon as that is crafting it for use as a weapon.
However, when an improvised weapon is held as a weapon, it does, in fact, count as a weapon and can be sundered or affected by other effects that targets weapons as it is being used as a weapon despite it not being crafted as such.
A broken bottle can be smacked with a sword. A chair leg wielded as a club can be struck and shattered. A billboard can be knocked from someone's hand.

[hamishspence]

However, when an improvised weapon is held as a weapon, it does, in fact, count as a weapon and can be sundered or affected by other effects that targets weapons as it is being used as a weapon despite it not being crafted as such.
A broken bottle can be smacked with a sword. A chair leg wielded as a club can be struck and shattered. A billboard can be knocked from someone's hand.And conversely, it can be used to do the sundering, or the disarming:


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#disarm

Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.

A tiger could plausibly "attempt to disarm their opponent" - slapping the weapon out of their hand with a swipe of the paw - so why not a guy with a chair leg?


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder

Sunder
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here.

Similarly a swipe from an elephant's trunk or a tiger's claws - or an improvised slashing/bludgeoning weapon, should be able to break an enemy's weapon or shield.




Here's my take. The definition of improvised weapon states an item not crafted to be a weapon. This precludes it from being enchanted as a weapon as that is crafting it for use as a weapon.


Makes sense in the context of creating a "+1 chair leg".


But lots of spells and powers have "Melee Weapon" or even, just "Weapon" as the target, from Magic Weapon to Prevenom Weapon to Holy Sword, to Keen Edge, and so forth.

[newguydude1]

since rules compendium came up

WEAPON CATEGORIES
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), the ease of wielding it (light, onehanded, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, Large, and so on). Most weapons deal lethal damage, but others deal only nonlethal damage. Improvised is another category.

so improvised weapons is another category of weapons. raw right there. open and shut.

using english baseball bats are weapons but in d&d they are improvised weapons.
broken bottles are weapons but in d&d they are improvised weapons.

there are manufactured and natural weapons
there are melee, reach, and ranged weapons

there are lots of types of weapons. so when something says "weapon" instead of manufactured weapons, it encompasses all weapons.

case in point weapon focus doesnt say manufactured weapons, so you see monsters with weapon focus claw or bite.
case in point, starmantle doesnt restrict itself to manufactured weapons so natural weapons get damage halved too.

[Darg]

since rules compendium came up


so improvised weapons is another category of weapons. raw right there. open and shut.

using english baseball bats are weapons but in d&d they are improvised weapons.
broken bottles are weapons but in d&d they are improvised weapons.

there are manufactured and natural weapons
there are melee, reach, and ranged weapons

there are lots of types of weapons. so when something says "weapon" instead of manufactured weapons, it encompasses all weapons.

case in point weapon focus doesnt say manufactured weapons, so you see monsters with weapon focus claw or bite.
case in point, starmantle doesnt restrict itself to manufactured weapons so natural weapons get damage halved too.

It's right there in the PHB under the title "Weapon Categories."

Weapon focus could be used with improvised weapons. The problem is that it requires proficiency. Which is why I mentioned the brawler class as it basically gives you proficiency. And if it doesn't because the DM is stuck up, dragon also has an improvised weapon proficiency feat.

[afroakuma]

so improvised weapons is another category of weapons. raw right there. open and shut.

Your inquiry is resolved to your own satisfaction, then?


using english baseball bats are weapons but in d&d they are improvised weapons.

Eh, I would say in D&D a baseball bat is a club or equivalent to one.

[hamishspence]

Eh, I would say in D&D a baseball bat is a club or equivalent to one.
In D20 Modern, a club is the sort of thing used by police - nightsticks and so on. A hockey stick, by contrast, comes under Improvised weapons.

Might depend just how well-balanced the club is, for whether "regular club" stats are appropriate.



Remember that a regular club is designed to be thrown - it has a listed range increment.

[afroakuma]

In D20 Modern, a club is the sort of thing used by police - nightsticks and so on. A hockey stick, by contrast, comes under Improvised weapons.

Might depend just how well-balanced the club is, for whether "regular club" stats are appropriate.

Remember that a regular club is designed to be thrown - it has a listed range increment.

A regular club isn't particularly "designed" at all, as indicated by the PHB description and image. A baseball bat is considerably more aerodynamic and controllable than your average hunk of wood, and for throwing purposes I would expect more consistent than the traditional T-shaped nightstick.

I don't think a hockey stick is an appropriate point of comparison - comparing regulation equipment, hockey sticks have half the mass, not distributed for hitting, while baseball bats are for exactly that purpose.

[hamishspence]

A regular club isn't particularly "designed" at all, as indicated by the PHB description and image. A baseball bat is considerably more aerodynamic and controllable than your average hunk of wood, and for throwing purposes I would expect more consistent than the traditional T-shaped nightstick.

I don't think a hockey stick is an appropriate point of comparison - comparing regulation equipment, hockey sticks have half the mass, not distributed for hitting, while baseball bats are for exactly that purpose.
The D20 Modern club is wood though- more of a "policeman's truncheon". Aren't the T-shaped nightsticks metal?

Baseball bats are Large (in D20 Call of Cthulhu) - basically Greatclubs, not clubs, but without any of the spikes or metal bands D&D Greatclubs are normally shown with.


Whether it's a baseball bat, a cricket bat, a hockey stick, or a golf club, the point is that it's not designed for hitting heads, but balls.

A regular club isn't particularly "designed" at all, as indicated by the PHB description and image.

That's how "things with range increments" work.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#thrownWeapons

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range Increment column on Table: Weapons), but a character who does so takes a -4 penalty on the attack roll.

Anything that does have a range increment, is designed to be thrown.

[afroakuma]

The D20 Modern club is wood though- more of a "policeman's truncheon". Aren't the T-shaped nightsticks metal?

Wouldn't know, not in law enforcement. I assume they would use various metals or other modern materials preferentially to wood, though I have certainly seen those batons in wood before, though not necessarily in use by law enforcement.


Baseball bats are Large (in D20 Call of Cthulhu) - basically Greatclubs, not clubs, but without any of the spikes or metal bands D&D great clubs are normally shown with.

In D&D 3.5 terms, a greatclub is 8 lbs and a club is 3. A regulation baseball bat is generally 2-3 lbs depending on era.

In any event, this has become work rather than enjoyment, so I will bow out.

[hamishspence]

Would you at least be prepared to agree that when "weapon" is mentioned in, say "Sunder" it doesn't just mean manufactured weapon - that a tiger can Sunder with its claws?





In D&D 3.5 terms, a greatclub is 8 lbs and a club is 3. A regulation baseball bat is generally 2-3 lbs depending on era.

Hence an improvised weapon the size of a greatclub being worse than one.

[afroakuma]

Would you at least be prepared to agree that when "weapon" is mentioned in, say "Sunder" it doesn't just mean manufactured weapon - that a tiger can Sunder with its claws?

I never disputed that. All I did was quote the Rules Compendium as regards improvised weapons.

As far as I am concerned, from a DM standpoint, this is one of those things where the same word is being used to mean multiple things that often but not always travel together, hence the role of the DM in adjudicating when it gets silly. Animate weapon should actually have a target of "manufactured weapon which can be wielded by the caster without nonproficiency or size penalties", but does not, which could technically result in your hands shooting out from your hands, or a Colossal spiked chain that you drag around suddenly shrinking. The editors rode pretty hard on the fact that the game comes with an adjudicator to patch RAW holes.

Anyway, that's my position. Tiger sundering with claws, absolutely. +1 flaming bust of Mozart, no.

[Falontani]

Your interpretation implies that everything is a weapon. Sure, even in real life we can weaponize everything. But do we call em weapons and apply rules/laws for weapons on em? Only if they really are weapons. A forest worker doesn't need a weapon license for a chainsaw just because you can use it as weapon. That is what you are trying to tell us here. Just because something can be weaponized, you try to forcefully apply all weapon rules to it without any rule text that backs that up.

I believe airports in fact, do.

[hamishspence]

Tiger sundering with claws, absolutely. +1 flaming bust of Mozart, no.


How about "Deflect Arrows" working on sling bullets but not on "thrown improvised weapons" or on manticore spikes?

RAW, or a misreading of what "ranged weapon" means?

[afroakuma]

How about "Deflect Arrows" working on sling bullets but not on "thrown improvised weapons" or on manticore spikes?

Do you actually care about my prospective rulings as a DM? If so, why?

[hamishspence]

Do you actually care about my prospective rulings as a DM? If so, why?I'm interested in hearing if you think "RAW" is sometimes ambiguous and "a matter of opinion" rather than "there is only one RAW answer".


And if you agree that "ranged weapon" covers more than just manufactured ones, or not - just as "melee weapon" might cover more than just manufactured weapons, or not.


Why might I care? Feedback. I'd like to know if several people on the forums with a reputation for reasonableness, think I'm just "blinding myself to How Things Work" or not.




The title of this thread is "can you target improvised weapons with things that only affect weapons?"


I'm looking at it from the perspective


"can you do things with improvised weapons that can only be done with weapons"


And extending the question to natural weapons as well, at least in some cases.

[Thurbane]

Detect Weaponry can detect improvised weapons, but "only if the wielder actively intends to use such an item as a weapon".

Still, that spell is a cone-shaped emanation, so not really something that directly affects weapons.

[hamishspence]

"Something is only a weapon if the wielder actively intends to use it as a weapon" is pretty logical.

[Calthropstu]

Whether it's a baseball bat, a cricket bat, a hockey stick, or a golf club, the point is that it's not designed for hitting heads, but balls.



This statement is just begging for "called shot to the balls" with said equipment.

[Thurbane]

While technically not an improvised weapon, I do love War Mug of the Ogre Magi (Dragon Compendium p.143): a magic mug that essentially acts as a +2 club, and deals nonlethal damage. Also, drinks never spill from the mug! :smalltongue:

100% will be dropping this as loot at some point in my games.

[Gruftzwerg]

Would you at least be prepared to agree that when "weapon" is mentioned in, say "Sunder" it doesn't just mean manufactured weapon - that a tiger can Sunder with its claws?




Hence an improvised weapon the size of a greatclub being worse than one.
I never made the claim that "weapons" only covers manufactured weapons. What I do is, showing you that all other categories make positive claims about being an actual weapon.

The Weapon Descriptions section does this for weapons found on the "weapons"-list: (includes unarmed strike and manufactured weapons)

Weapons found on Table: Weapons ...

Natural Weapons does make positive claims:

Natural weapons are weapons that are ...
They qualify for making sunder attack with a weapon. You just can't sunder em because they are not held!

If we look at Improvised Weapons, the rules only makes a negative claim about them counting as weapons:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
It talks about objects used in combat. Not weapons. An explicit denial of them being weapons.
As such, you can make Sunder attempts with an Improvised weapon too, since it only requires "a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon". And the damage types (in our chase bludgeoning weapon) is part of the "damage potential" Improvised Weapons get.
But they are still not "weapons". As such, when you try to Sunder an Improvised Weapon, it counts as "an object held":

(Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.
Try to picture the typical movie scene when someone gets attack by a swordsman and tries to defend himself with a small limb of a tree. The improvised weapon is just a mere object and can easily be attacked and sliced into bits. Imho the 3.5 rules reflect this very good here.



I believe airports in fact, do.
"Specific trumps General, but doesn't become General", even in real life. Since real life rules & laws also follow a rule hierarchy and keywords like 3.5 does, nothing from my point of view changed here.


I'm interested in hearing if you think "RAW" is sometimes ambiguous and "a matter of opinion" rather than "there is only one RAW answer".
There are some situations in 3.5 where the rules don't provide enough information or indicators that only one possible interpretation remains. But imho, I've shown enough evidence that "Improvised Weapons", while being a weapon category, are still not "weapons", since their definition in 3.5 is the exceptional rule how to use non-weapons in combat. A clear denial of the "weapon" status. This category never claims them to be "weapons" as e.g. Natural Weapons does.


And if you agree that "ranged weapon" covers more than just manufactured ones, or not - just as "melee weapon" might cover more than just manufactured weapons, or not.
Sure the they do.
Ranged Weapons != manufactured weapon
As already shows, Natural Weapons make positive claims that they are "weapons". And there are a few natural ranged weapons (e.g. Spitting abilities or Spikes that can be used as ranged weapons by some monster).
Improvised Weapons can be ranged weapons to. Remember that the Improvised Weapons provides rules for "improvised thrown weapon" (and thrown weapons count as Ranged Weapons).



Why might I care? Feedback. I'd like to know if several people on the forums with a reputation for reasonableness, think I'm just "blinding myself to How Things Work" or not.
Nah, I wouldn't put it such hard words. We have all been there.^^
3.5 is a mess of rules scattered over different books and chapters. It is a pain for anyone to get used to em imho. The biggest problem is that all rules assume the Primary Source Rule as given to prevent dysfuntions. And most of us play for years without even knowing the existence of this important part of the rule puzzle. This leads to many wrong assumptions and bad habits about how the rules work by RAW.
I'm not claiming to be perfect here, just that I somehow got used to the Primary Source rules after years of struggle. So, welcome to the club of people who care about rules ;)




The title of this thread is "can you target improvised weapons with things that only affect weapons?"

I'm looking at it from the perspective


"can you do things with improvised weapons that can only be done with weapons"


And extending the question to natural weapons as well, at least in some cases.

To sum everything up: Imho, it is clear that Improvised Weapons don't qualify as "weapons". Natural Weapons on the other hand makes a positive claim about being "weapons".
_______________
RAW: As always.. Nobody plays 100% RAW and nobody (should) suggest to do so. We just need RAW as a starting point for our forum debates, build showcases and competitions.
What rule interpretation suits your table best is something you have decide for yourselves (with the DM and other players at your table).
But an interest in RAW is always a good thing to have imho. Because getting used to rule hierarchy will help you to understand rules and laws (!) in real life. It helps to see possible exploits and weaknesses in rules/laws and thus helps with better decision making (personal life, business or politics).

[hamishspence]

Ranged Weapons != manufactured weapon
As already shows, Natural Weapons make positive claims that they are "weapons". And there are a few natural ranged weapons (e.g. Spitting abilities or Spikes that can be used as ranged weapons by some monster).
Improvised Weapons can be ranged weapons to. Remember that the Improvised Weapons provides rules for "improvised thrown weapon" (and thrown weapons count as Ranged Weapons).


Then why did you argue that improvised thrown weapons don't count as ranged weapons?


By RAW the rocks are just mere improvised throwing weapons and not ranged weapons.


Deflect Arrows
Yeah, you may not deflect stones unless they are fired from a sling. Maybe stones who are use as improvised weapons are harder to predict because they aren't balanced weapons? Who knows why they didn't go for Ranged Attacks overall here (I guess because of ranged spell attack..^^).




The PHB glossary entry for "ranged weapons" only covers ones that are "designed for ranged attacks".


Yet if you're prepared to agree now that natural ranged weapons and improvised ranged weapons are still "ranged weapons" for the purposes of feats like Deflect Arrows, or spells that say "Ranged Weapon", then why can't the same logic apply to melee?


If you're going to say an "improvised ranged weapon is still a ranged weapon for all feat and magic purposes" then why not

"an improvised melee weapon is still a melee weapon for all feat and magic purposes".

[Gruftzwerg]

Then why did you argue that improvised thrown weapons don't count as ranged weapons?



The PHB glossary entry for "ranged weapons" only covers ones that are "designed for ranged attacks".


Yet if you're prepared to agree now that natural ranged weapons and improvised ranged weapons are still "ranged weapons" for the purposes of feats like Deflect Arrows, or spells that say "Ranged Weapon", then why can't the same logic apply to melee?


If you're going to say an "improvised ranged weapon is still a ranged weapon for all feat and magic purposes" then why not

"an improvised melee weapon is still a melee weapon for all feat and magic purposes".

When I said, "Improvised Weapons can be ranged weapons ", I meant for the purpose of using them in combat under the Improvised Weapon rules. The rules give this permission to "any creature that uses one" (Improvised Weapon)!
They still don't count as ranged weapon for other purposes. Sorry for the misleading wording.

e.g.:

You throw a rock at me as improvised weapon with the permission to throw it (like a ranged weapon).

When I try to deflect the attack with Deflect Arrow, I can't. Because I don't use em and thus can't profit from the Improvised Weapon rules. The permissions as what it counts are very limited by the rule text of Improvised Weapons.
It's a ranged attack, yeah.. but still not a ranged weapon for all purposes that try to "target" it.

This is what I mean with that 3.5 is a pile of messy rules. It is sometimes hard to make a statement without causing irritation or conflicts because you used the wrong words (a 3.5 keyword)..
I just needed several minutes to gasp the situation regarding your last question and to get back into the thought loops of my last post. It's a headache.

[hamishspence]

Sometimes a feat description switches from "ranged weapon" to "ranged attack", or specifically nominate "thrown weapons".


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#deflectArrows
Deflect Arrows [General]
Prerequisites
Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit
You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

Attempting to deflect a ranged weapon doesn’t count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#reflectArrows
Reflect Arrows [Epic]
Prerequisites
Dex 25, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit
When you deflect an arrow or other ranged attack, the attack is reflected back upon the attacker at your base ranged attack bonus.




This is what I mean with that 3.5 is a pile of messy rules. It is sometimes hard to make a statement without causing irritation or conflicts because you used the wrong words (a 3.5 keyword)..
I just needed several minutes to gasp the situation regarding your last question and to get back into the thought loops of my last post. It's a headache.



IMO the whole idea that "Ranged Weapon" is a keyword, defined in the glossary, and anything that does not match the glossary definition exactly, is excluded, is problematic. For one thing, it would exclude all "ranged natural weapons" because they're not designed, strictly speaking - making it impossible to use Deflect Arrows on a manticore's spikes.


"Improvised weapons are weapons, because the word "weapon" is in the very description" IMO works better. "Weapon" is the important part, and "improvised" is a modifier to "weapon" - enforcing the nonproficiency penalty - just as "natural" is a modifier to "weapon".


I don't see anything about, say, a thrown rock or other clunky thing, that would make it impossible to deflect, or even catch (with Snatch Arrows), when other things the same mass are easy to deflect, even if they fly much faster.

Why would one be able to snatch a speeding arrow out of the air, but not a much slower-moving thrown rock?

[Darg]

This argument isn't going anywhere. One either believes that being used as a weapon qualifies it for things that mention weapons and the other does not. Weapon isn't defined. Therefore it is wholly up to the DM on how to define it. RAW allows for the broad English definition. RAW also allows a DM to decide whether something is appropriate. Saying improvised weapons aren't classified as weapons when used as weapons is like saying a shield is not a weapon because it is only treated as a weapon when you make shield bash attacks even though it is classified as a weapon.

[gogogome]

This argument isn't going anywhere. One either believes that being used as a weapon qualifies it for things that mention weapons and the other does not. Weapon isn't defined. Therefore it is wholly up to the DM on how to define it. RAW allows for the broad English definition. RAW also allows a DM to decide whether something is appropriate. Saying improvised weapons aren't classified as weapons when used as weapons is like saying a shield is not a weapon because it is only treated as a weapon when you make shield bash attacks even though it is classified as a weapon.

The argument is finished, we have reached a consensus. Don't mistake one person, just one, who is arguing what he wants instead of looking at everything objectively as an entire side of an argument.

Let me just summarize everything.
Improvised weapons are a category of weapons so they're weapons.
"actual weapons" are referring to manufactured weapons, which improvised weapons are not.
The rules treat improvised weapons as weapons in every single area of the rules

Therefore spells that aren't targeting manufactured weapons or natural weapons can target improvised weapons. If the spell said "target: actual weapons" then it won't apply to improvised weapons. But if it says "target: weapons" it will.

Thurbane has shown us a spell that unambiguously says improvised weapons are weapons.
newguydude1 has shown as a text that unambiguously says improvised weapons are weapons.

And the one and only person who is opposing made his intentions quite clear

That is what you are trying to tell us here. Just because something can be weaponized, you try to forcefully apply all weapon rules to it without any rule text that backs that up.
He doesn't like that all objects can be considered weapons so he is
1. Trying to make the word "weapon" mean manufactured weapons even though this breaks every single weapon related rule in the game.
2. Arbitrarily tries to separate the word "weapon" in the rules text and the word "weapon" in spell descriptions as completely separate things.
And then says he's right. Arbitrarily.

Don't take the one and only one person trying to defy the rules text as the discussion going nowhere. There is literally just one person denying this right now.
He needs to prove that the word "weapon" in the weapon rules, rules compendium, and detect weaponry is a different word than "weapon" in magic weapon's spell description. Which is impossible so that concludes this discussion.

edit: Forgot to add that in a conflict of sources, glossary loses out 100% of the time. Not only does it lose out to the PHB, but it also loses out to the Rules Compendium. Also the glossary is just so full of errors I stopped using it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sometimes a feat description switches from "ranged weapon" to "ranged attack", or specifically nominate "thrown weapons".


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#deflectArrows
Deflect Arrows [General]
Prerequisites
Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit
You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

Attempting to deflect a ranged weapon doesn’t count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#reflectArrows
Reflect Arrows [Epic]
Prerequisites
Dex 25, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit
When you deflect an arrow or other ranged attack, the attack is reflected back upon the attacker at your base ranged attack bonus.





IMO the whole idea that "Ranged Weapon" is a keyword, defined in the glossary, and anything that does not match the glossary definition exactly, is excluded, is problematic. For one thing, it would exclude all "ranged natural weapons" because they're not designed, strictly speaking - making it impossible to use Deflect Arrows on a manticore's spikes.
Reflect Arrows (Epic) does boost Deflect Arrows in two different ways.
1. extends the situations it may be used from "ranged weapon" to "ranged attacks"
2. enable to reflect em back at you base attack bonus
You are just trying to treat em the same for your interpretation, while by RAW they are not.



"Improvised weapons are weapons, because the word "weapon" is in the very description" IMO works better. "Weapon" is the important part, and "improvised" is a modifier to "weapon" - enforcing the nonproficiency penalty - just as "natural" is a modifier to "weapon".
The definition of "Improvised Weapons" bears more weight than the "weapon" in its name. The definition claims to provide rules how "objects" not designed to be a weapon (complete denial of the "weapon" status!) can be used in combat (no indicator to let em count as weapons).



I don't see anything about, say, a thrown rock or other clunky thing, that would make it impossible to deflect, or even catch (with Snatch Arrows), when other things the same mass are easy to deflect, even if they fly much faster.

Why would one be able to snatch a speeding arrow out of the air, but not a much slower-moving thrown rock?
I never claimed that RAW makes sense from a common sense perspective. I tried to explain this with the "healing by drowning" argument. Even I would houserule it away, but that doesn't change my RAW point of view.



This argument isn't going anywhere. One either believes that being used as a weapon qualifies it for things that mention weapons and the other does not. Weapon isn't defined. Therefore it is wholly up to the DM on how to define it. RAW allows for the broad English definition. RAW also allows a DM to decide whether something is appropriate. Saying improvised weapons aren't classified as weapons when used as weapons is like saying a shield is not a weapon because it is only treated as a weapon when you make shield bash attacks even though it is classified as a weapon.
Even if I would follow your argument that weapons are undefined, the very definition of Improvised Weapons still denies the weapon status.


The argument is finished, we have reached a consensus. Don't mistake one person, just one, who is arguing what he wants instead of looking at everything objectively as an entire side of an argument.
First excuse me, but it is rude to speak about someone in 3rd person when he is there and you can talk directly to him. I don't bite and feel that this is a bit rude and provocative. Further, since when is a RAW debate a democratic process where you can just ignore a minority argument? No one has ill intentions here. So lets be friendly to each other pls.


Let me just summarize everything.
Improvised weapons are a category of weapons so they're weapons.
"actual weapons" are referring to manufactured weapons, which improvised weapons are not.
The rules treat improvised weapons as weapons in every single area of the rules
The definition of Improvised Weapon denials the weapon status and bears more weight "Specific beats General"!


Therefore spells that aren't targeting manufactured weapons or natural weapons can target improvised weapons. If the spell said "target: actual weapons" then it won't apply to improvised weapons. But if it says "target: weapons" it will.

Sole spells and effects that target your "attacks" can improve your improvised weapon attacks. e.g. "Bless"

Thurbane has shown us a spell that unambiguously says improvised weapons are weapons.
Specific doesn't become General! As such the Primary Source rule prevents the spell from making any general rule changes. You should have expected this answer by now if you try to use the Primary Source rule.

newguydude1 has shown as a text that unambiguously says improvised weapons are weapons.
The definition of Improvised Weapons is more specific on that and thus trumps that.


And the one and only person who is opposing made his intentions quite clear

He doesn't like that all objects can be considered weapons so he is
1. Trying to make the word "weapon" mean manufactured weapons even though this breaks every single weapon related rule in the game.
2. Arbitrarily tries to separate the word "weapon" in the rules text and the word "weapon" in spell descriptions as completely separate things.
And then says he's right. Arbitrarily.
And what is my intention here? All you did here is an inaccurate summary of what I supposedly said.
1. I claim that weapons are defined by the "weapons" list. And that list includes "Unarmed Strikes" and "Manufactured Weapons". Further I said, that Natural Weapon makes a positive statement about their "weapon" status while Improvised Weapons does the opposite. I never said, what you implied here.
2. Primary Source Rule explains how a spells text has no right to change rules on a global level. It can only make specific changes/exceptions for its own niche. e.g. Invisibility redefines for itself what an attack is, but that doesn't become a general/global rule for everything. It only applies to its own specific niche (the spells effect).


Don't take the one and only one person trying to defy the rules text as the discussion going nowhere. There is literally just one person denying this right now.
He needs to prove that the word "weapon" in the weapon rules, rules compendium, and detect weaponry is a different word than "weapon" in magic weapon's spell description. Which is impossible so that concludes this discussion.

edit: Forgot to add that in a conflict of sources, glossary loses out 100% of the time. Not only does it lose out to the PHB, but it also loses out to the Rules Compendium. Also the glossary is just so full of errors I stopped using it.
Again just minority joker..
You need to understand that the very definition of Improvised Weapon ( the rule text not its name) is more specific than general weapon rules. As such the statement that Improvised Weapons are "objects not crafted to be weapons" shows that they are object and not weapons. We have a positive indicator for objects and a negative indicator for weapons
______________________________

If I would follow your arguments, I could use the same argument for "weapon-like" spells and effect.
I'm going to enhance my Eldritch Glaive/Ice Axe now...
I hope that we can all agree that this doesn't work. But with your arguments, I could argue that weapon is in "weapon-like" and thus it is a valid weapon. You see how this arguments is flawed? Just because "weapon" is part of the "keyword" here doesn't give it the "weapon" status. You still need to read the definition of the keywords/key-terms.

The "Improvised Weapon" paragraph is as specific exception to use objects not designed to be weapon for combat.

[hamishspence]

Reflect Arrows (Epic) does boost Deflect Arrows in two different ways.
1. extends the situations it may be used from "ranged weapon" to "ranged attacks"
2. enable to reflect em back at you base attack bonus
You are just trying to treat em the same for your interpretation, while by RAW they are not.

The point is, that using the "deflect arrows feat only works on manufactured weapons" interpretation, Reflect Arrows can only work on manufactured weapons too - because it specifically says "when you deflect an arrow" - in other words, referring back to the previous feat.


Only things eligible for deflection, can be reflected.

[Gruftzwerg]

The point is, that using the "deflect arrows feat only works on manufactured weapons" interpretation, Reflect Arrows can only work on manufactured weapons too - because it specifically says "when you deflect an arrow" - in other words, referring back to the previous feat.


Only things eligible for deflection, can be reflected.
Yeah, your rights on this. My bad ;)
So, Reflect Arrows still only counts for ranged weapons and not ranged attacks overall. Just shows the bad editing in the 3.0 epic handbook^^

[hamishspence]

I think it shows that the PHB glossary definition of "ranged weapon" (and "melee weapon") is too narrow to be relied on for rules purposes.

It's worth noting that "manufactured weapon" includes "found items" like rocks and logs:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#manufacturedWeapons

Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

If a log can be a "manufactured weapon" despite the fact that it was never "crafted to be a weapon" - why can't it be an example of "improvised weapon" and "melee weapon" and "weapon"?

[Gruftzwerg]

I think it shows that the PHB glossary definition of "ranged weapon" is too narrow to be relied on for rules purposes.

Even if we ignore the glossary definition, nothing changes from my point of view. The "ranged" in ranged weapon would be a property added to "weapons" (unarmed strike + manufactured weapons + natural weapons). Still no changes for "objects not crafted to be weapon".

Edit:


Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

If a log can be a "manufactured weapon" despite the fact that it was never "crafted to be a weapon" - why can't it be an example of "improvised weapon" and "melee weapon" and "weapon"?

The Link is from the Special Abilities section, thus I assume that it is a quote of the MM.

Primary source for Improvised Weapons is the Weapons section found in the PHB. As such, MM and the Special Abilities section may only make specific exceptions for their niche.
As such, the quote makes a specific exception for monster descriptions and doesn't provide any new global/general rules.

[hamishspence]

Still no changes for "objects not crafted to be weapon".


All weapons that aren't natural weapons are objects - with hardness, and hit points.




Primary source for Improvised Weapons is the Weapons section found in the PHB.

The PHB Glossary does not have a "Manufactured" section. As such, the primary source for manufactured weapons is the MM.

[Gruftzwerg]

All weapons that aren't natural weapons are objects - with hardness, and hit points.



The PHB Glossary does not have a "Manufactured" section. As such, the primary source for manufactured weapons is the MM.
apples != fruits
all apples are fruits, but that doesn't mean that all fruits are apples

as such: objects != weapons
While all weapons are objects, that doesn't mean that all objects become weapons.


Manufactured Weapons are part of the "Weapons" topic. As such the Primary Source is the "Weapons" section in the PHB and not the MM. The MM can only make specific exceptions for its own niche.

[Asmotherion]

stuff like spells with target:weapon or weapon enchantments. turn an improvised weapon into a mwk improvised weapon and apply weapon enchantments.

I'd say yes, but within reason. I once had a Hexblade Bladelock who argued a Pie made with the intent to be thrown in someone's face was a valid form for his Pact Weapon as it was technically an improvised weapon.

Overall, depends on the Tone of the Campain, and what your DM is willing to allow. I'd suggest keeping it within things that can be interpreated as weapons without thinking too much out of the box.

PS: Woops, I thought this was the 5e subforum. Either way, same logic still applies. Don't go too overboard.

[hamishspence]

The "ranged" in ranged weapon would be a property added to "weapons" (unarmed strike + manufactured weapons + natural weapons). Still no changes for "objects not crafted to be weapon".

It's the other way round - "improvised" is a property added to "manufactured weapons" (any objects used in combat) to indicate that they are poorly adapted for combat - hence, among other things, the nonproficiency penalty.

A case can be made that, in many cases, "weapons" or "melee weapons" excludes natural weapons.



https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psionicFist

Psionic Fist [Psionic]
You can charge your unarmed strike or natural weapon with additional damage potential.
Prerequisite
Str 13.
Benefit
To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. Your unarmed strike or attack with a natural weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage.

You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psionicWeapon
Psionic Weapon [Psionic]
You can charge your melee weapon with additional damage potential.
Prerequisite
Str 13.
Benefit
To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus.
Your attack with a melee weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus.

Psionic Fist exists because "melee weapon" excludes "natural weapon", so you need something to do the job for natural weapons.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm
Target: Weapon touched
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm
Target: Living creature touched

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon.

Magic Fang exists because "weapon touched" is supposed to exclude natural weapons. Though, unlike Psionic Weapon, the Magic Weapon spell actually states it outright, rather than taking the "it's self-evident" approach.

[Calthropstu]

I'd say yes, but within reason. I once had a Hexblade Bladelock who argued a Pie made with the intent to be thrown in someone's face was a valid form for his Pact Weapon as it was technically an improvised weapon.

Overall, depends on the Tone of the Campain, and what your DM is willing to allow. I'd suggest keeping it within things that can be interpreated as weapons without thinking too much out of the box.

PS: Woops, I thought this was the 5e subforum. Either way, same logic still applies. Don't go too overboard.

I already covered this. Objects not intended to be weapons cannot recieve weapon enchantments because that is specifically making them intended to be weapons. At that point, you are creating a new manufactured weapon which is under dm purview for the details.

[hamishspence]

For permanent magic items, yes - but spells like Magic Weapon, Holy Sword, and Keen Strike, are normally temporary rather than permanent.

If a character is holding an "improvised weapon" and intends to use it - and they (or their ally) casts one of the above spells - will it work or will it fizzle?

[Calthropstu]

For permanent magic items, yes - but spells like Magic Weapon, Holy Sword, and Keen Strike, are normally temporary rather than permanent.

If a character is holding an "improvised weapon" and intends to use it - and they (or their ally) casts one of the above spells - will it work or will it fizzle?

I see no reason my above statement does not hold true. You are temporarily manufacturing them to be weapons, under dm purview. Seeing how spells can literally create magic weapons from nothing, enhancing the broken glass bottle you are menacing people with does not seem out of the question.

[hamishspence]

You are temporarily manufacturing them to be weapons, under dm purview. Seeing how spells can literally create magic weapons from nothing, enhancing the broken glass bottle you are menacing people with does not seem out of the question.The question is, after you've cast the spell on the weapon, assuming the spell doesn't fizzle, does the weapon still have to follow the improvised weapon rules?

Is it still saddled with the +4 "improvised weapon nonproficiency penalty" or are you replacing it with the trait "Exotic weapon" and using that penalty instead?

IMO, "manufacturing something to be a weapon" is only an issue at creation. Enhancing something is not the same thing as manufacturing it - and the weapon doesn't change type from "improvised" to exotic just because the spell's been cast on it.


As such, a character with the Improvised Weapon Proficiency feat from Dragon 295, who takes up a improvised weapon that has been temporarily enhanced, doesn't change their -2 penalty for a -4 penalty for "wielding an exotic weapon".

Similarly, a Brawler (who has no penalty at all) wouldn't change it for a -4 Exotic Weapon Nonproficiency penalty.


stuff like spells with target:weapon or weapon enchantments. turn an improvised weapon into a mwk improvised weapon and apply weapon enchantments.

Regarding permanently creating a magic weapon out of a masterwork musical instrument like a flute, for example, I wouldn't allow it, under the following logic.


Only masterwork weapons (and masterwork shields) can be made into magic weapons.
All masterwork weapons (besides ammunition) have a 300 gp masterwork component, and grant +1 enhancement on attack rolls (except masterwork shields, which have a 150 gp component instead).

A masterwork flute costs 100 gp, not "cost of instrument (5gp) + 300 gp masterwork component".

This means that it will not have that +1 enhancement on attack rolls, and will not be eligible for transformation into a magic weapon.

Both a flute and a masterwork flute, count as regular "improvised weapons" not "masterwork improvised weapons" - you can't give the 300 gp Masterwork Weapon component and the +1 Masterwork Weapon enhancement bonus, to anything that is not an actual weapon, in the process of crafting.

[Calthropstu]

The question is, after you've cast the spell on the weapon, assuming the spell doesn't fizzle, does the weapon still have to follow the improvised weapon rules?

Is it still saddled with the +4 "improvised weapon nonproficiency penalty" or are you replacing it with the trait "Exotic weapon" and using that penalty instead?

IMO, "manufacturing something to be a weapon" is only an issue at creation. Enhancing something is not the same thing as manufacturing it - and the weapon doesn't change type from "improvised" to exotic just because the spell's been cast on it.


As such, a character with the Improvised Weapon Proficiency feat from Dragon 295, who takes up a improvised weapon that has been temporarily enhanced, doesn't change their -2 penalty for a -4 penalty for "wielding an exotic weapon".

Similarly, a Brawler (who has no penalty at all) wouldn't change it for a -4 Exotic Weapon Nonproficiency penalty.

This quickly gets into the realm of "ask your gm." Judging especially by the hotly contested portions of this thread, the rules are very definitely self conflicting.

At this point we should consider what the desired spell DOES. Consider the following:
A towel
A chair
A potted plant
A chair leg
Another combatant

How would magic weapon affect each of these items? I can't imagine making a towel harder would be beneficial. I can see maybe a chair, but a chair is multiple items pieced together. Does the entire chair become tougher or just the part you are holding? A chair leg is the very definition of a club. A potted plant? It gets wierd really fast. And if you pick up someone else in the combat and throw them at another combatant (something very much possible)... are you saying I can make a +3 halfling with magic weapon?
It is very much ask gm territory.

[hamishspence]

A chair leg is the very definition of a club. "Chair leg" and similar items, that are like weapons, but too imbalanced to make good weapons, are the best bets for "the spell ought to work on them".

Rocks spring to mind. A rock is exactly like a sling stone - but flies more slowly and less accurately.

A halfling wizard casting magic weapon on the halfling fighter's rock, and then the fighter throwing it - that seems very D&D IMO. Being great rock throwers was the halfling schtick, in Tolkien at least.

[Calthropstu]

"Chair leg" and similar items, that are like weapons, but too imbalanced to make good weapons, are the best bets for "the spell ought to work on them".

Rocks spring to mind. A rock is exactly like a sling stone - but flies more slowly and less accurately.

A halfling wizard casting magic weapon on the halfling fighter's rock, and then the fighter throwing it - that seems very D&D IMO. Being great rock throwers was the halfling schtick, in Tolkien at least.

And if I were your gm, I would wholeheartedly agree. I would, however, disagree that casting magic weapon on an unconcious or dead halfling would make it a magic weapon. Hrnce why I say we have entered "ask the gm/situational area of the game.

[hamishspence]

Yup. GM adjudicating it situation by situation, makes more sense to me in this context, than:


"RAW, improvised weapons are not weapons, the spell does not work"


because of how dubious and IMO unprovable the statement "improvised weapons are not weapons" is, to me, in the context of the rules.

[Calthropstu]

Yup. GM adjudicating it situation by situation, makes more sense to me in this context, than:


"RAW, improvised weapons are not weapons, the spell does not work"


because of how dubious and IMO unprovable the statement "improvised weapons are not weapons" is, to me, in the context of the rules.

I can see it being interpreted that way, but I can also see it as "you've cast a spell on the item now making it intended to be a weapon so it's now temporarily an exotic weapon."

I can also see it being ruled to be both an exotic AND improvised. Nothing states an item cannot be both not manufactured and manufactured. Kinda silly, but this whole argument has gotten a little out there. Behold my +5 holy unholy naked girl statue of spell storing.

[hamishspence]

Behold my +5 holy unholy naked girl statue of spell storing.
A holy unholy weapon would be great for a Neutral character who fights both Good and Evil "imbalances" a lot.

They'd have to get somebody else to make the item though - different people at that, one to add the holy property and one to add the unholy property:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#unholy
It bestows one negative level on any good creature attempting to wield it.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#holy
It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it.

The succubus paladin would not get on well with it though - because they count as Good (from their actual alignment) and they count as Evil (from their subtype), they would take two negative levels when wielding the holy unholy weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yup. GM adjudicating it situation by situation, makes more sense to me in this context, than:


"RAW, improvised weapons are not weapons, the spell does not work"


because of how dubious and IMO unprovable the statement "improvised weapons are not weapons" is, to me, in the context of the rules.
I agree that a DM call is the best advice here for actual play at tables.
But I still claim that it is clearly RAW if you fully apply the Primary Source rule.
Nobody play 100% RAW and nobody should suggest it.


I can see it being interpreted that way, but I can also see it as "you've cast a spell on the item now making it intended to be a weapon so it's now temporarily an exotic weapon."

I can also see it being ruled to be both an exotic AND improvised. Nothing states an item cannot be both not manufactured and manufactured. Kinda silly, but this whole argument has gotten a little out there. Behold my +5 holy unholy naked girl statue of spell storing.
The spell does nowhere mention any changes like that being possible and as such you ain't been given the permission to do so. You may houserule it that way, but that is that. It's not even RAI since the text does nowhere indicate any intentions in change at all.

[Falontani]

Can you use magic vestment on mage armor?

[Gruftzwerg]

Can you use magic vestment on mage armor?

by RAW, Mage Armor is not "armor":

The spell is not in the Primary Source for armor. As such it has to show any intent to change/extend/alter any general rules. But it doesn't call out that it is/counts as armor. And as shown in previous examples, the "armor" in its name ain't enough. (This is the same reason why monks can profit from Mage Armor without loosing their monk abilities).

Therefore Magic Vestment can't target Mage Armor by RAW.

[newguydude1]

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles): Intimately familiar with the capture of criminals, justiciars have learned to do more with a pair of manacles than restrain a lawbreaker. A justiciar of 3rd level or higher can swing a pair of metal manacles in one hand as if they were a club without taking a penalty for using an improvised weapon. Masterwork manacles can be wielded as if they were a masterwork light flail.

this is like what, the 4th rule text saying improvised weapons are weapons? you guys gonna try and dismiss this as well?

[InvisibleBison]

this is like what, the 4th rule text saying improvised weapons are weapons? you guys gonna try and dismiss this as well?

While I agree that improvised weapons are a kind of weapon, I don't see how the text you quoted supports that conclusion. Would you please explain why you think it does?

[newguydude1]

While I agree that improvised weapons are a kind of weapon, I don't see how the text you quoted supports that conclusion. Would you please explain why you think it does?

Exotic Weapon Proficiency [General]

Choose a type of exotic weapon. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.
Prerequisite

Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).
Benefit

You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal

A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special

You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon. Proficiency with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe has an additional prerequisite of Str 13.

A fighter may select Exotic Weapon Proficiency as one of his fighter bonus feats.

that quote shows improvised weapons are exotic weapons and you can select it for the exotic weapon proficiency feat.

[smasher0404]

I'll point out if the argument hinges on the "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat", we explicitly see other things that we do designate with weapons that follow that description. Natural Weapons aren't crafted to be weapons (due to the nature of not being crafted), but are weapons. Mechanically by RAW, they aren't objects so thus wouldn't be classified under the Improvised Weapon rules, but it is fairly clear that by RAW being crafted to be weapons is not a prerequisite to actually being a weapon (assuming we all agree that Natural Weapons are classified as weapons).

(With regards to the "actual weapon" line from Rules Compendium, if I recall there were some arguments floating around a few years back that by RAW Rules Compendium does not have the authority to overrule the core books. The SRD also lacks the word 'actual' from that sentence in its description of Improvised Weapons.)

From a RAI perspective, treating Improvised Weapons as weapons for the purposes of effects and adjudication closes many more logical dysfunctions than it creates. Disarm, as previously mentioned, completely breaks if you do not allow Improvised Weapons to be treated as weapons since Disarm specifically requires attack rolls between weapons (except in the case of snatching worn items). If improvised weapons cannot be classified as weapons, you wouldn't be able to disarm someone using an improvised weapon. Logically, it makes no sense that I could disarm someone attacking me with a club, but couldn't disarm someone attacking me with a crowbar (which is explicitly treated as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to a club of its size).

[hamishspence]

Natural Weapons aren't crafted to be weapons (due to the nature of not being crafted), but are weapons.

This one's a bit tricky. Should the existence of both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang, be taken as evidence that anything that does work for regular weapons does not work for natural weapons, or not?

Some spells that say "Target - weapon" specifically disallow natural weapons. Some don't. This could be precedent that a spell of this kind has to specifically disallow natural weapons, in order to not work on them.

Compare Keen Edge, which specifically disallows natural weapons, to Holy Sword, which doesn't:



https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm
This spell makes a weapon magically keen, improving its ability to deal telling blows. This transmutation doubles the threat range of the weapon. A threat range of 20 becomes 19-20, a threat range of 19-20 becomes 17-20, and a threat range of 18-20 becomes 15-20. The spell can be cast only on piercing or slashing weapons. If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target. (Treat shuriken as arrows, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.)

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySword.htm
This spell allows you to channel holy power into your sword, or any other melee weapon you choose. The weapon acts as a +5 holy weapon (+5 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls, extra 2d6 damage against evil opponents). It also emits a magic circle against evil effect (as the spell). If the magic circle ends, the sword creates a new one on your turn as a free action. The spell is automatically canceled 1 round after the weapon leaves your hand. You cannot have more than one holy sword at a time.

If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supersede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.

This spell does not work on artifacts.

Note: A masterwork weapon’s bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack.

Or, compare Align Weapon, which specifically disallows Natural Weapons, to Bless Weapon, which doesn't.

[smasher0404]

This one's a bit tricky. Should the existence of both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang, be taken as evidence that anything that does work for regular weapons does not work for natural weapons, or not?

Some spells that say "Target - weapon" specifically disallow natural weapons. Some don't. This could be precedent that a spell of this kind has to specifically disallow natural weapons, in order to not work on them.

Compare Keen Edge, which specifically disallows natural weapons, to Holy Sword, which doesn't:


Or, compare Align Weapon, which specifically disallows Natural Weapons, to Bless Weapon, which doesn't.

I'd argue (and rule personally) that weapon-based abilities have to specifically exclude Natural Weapons to not affect them, and those that do are specifically overriding the general definition of weapons. Looking at animal statblocks, Weapon Focus( *Insert Natural Weapon Here* ) is denoted as a valid choice for a feat, and Weapon Focus requires specifically designating a weapon with specific exceptions being made for unarmed strikes, grapples, and rays. Given Natural Weapons is not a listed exception, and is a valid target for the feat, they must be considered weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

this is like what, the 4th rule text saying improvised weapons are weapons? you guys gonna try and dismiss this as well?

Dunno, this feels like.. the 10+th time I repeat the Primary Source rule here. Are you still dismissing it?^^

1. "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles)" is not part of the Primary Source

2. As such, it can only makes specific exceptions to the general rules. Which it does do. It only gives you the permission for its specific niche, not for everything else. It's "Specific trumps General" and not "Specific becomes General". You are doing the same mistakes over and over again by ignoring the Primary Source rule.

I don't wanna sound rude, so no ill intentions here: But pls try to get used to the Primary Source rule.
I feel a bit dizzy here from repeating it over and over again. I'm not a parrot ;)

[hamishspence]

Dunno, this feels like.. the 10+th time I repeat the Primary Source rule here. Are you still dismissing it?^^

A case could be made that you are reading too much into "not crafted to be weapons".


I'll point out if the argument hinges on the "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat", we explicitly see other things that we do designate with weapons that follow that description. Natural Weapons aren't crafted to be weapons (due to the nature of not being crafted), but are weapons. Mechanically by RAW, they aren't objects so thus wouldn't be classified under the Improvised Weapon rules, but it is fairly clear that by RAW being crafted to be weapons is not a prerequisite to actually being a weapon (assuming we all agree that Natural Weapons are classified as weapons).


I'd argue (and rule personally) that weapon-based abilities have to specifically exclude Natural Weapons to not affect them, and those that do are specifically overriding the general definition of weapons. Looking at animal statblocks, Weapon Focus( *Insert Natural Weapon Here* ) is denoted as a valid choice for a feat, and Weapon Focus requires specifically designating a weapon with specific exceptions being made for unarmed strikes, grapples, and rays. Given Natural Weapons is not a listed exception, and is a valid target for the feat, they must be considered weapons.

If natural weapons are weapons, despite not being crafted to be weapons, maybe, even by RAW, improvised weapons are weapons despite not being crafted to be weapons.

"Natural" is a prefix to "weapon" that opens up certain rules. "Improvised" is a prefix to "weapon" that opens up certain other rules.

[magicalmagicman]

A case could be made that you are reading too much into "not crafted to be weapons".

Primary source rules says improvised weapons are a category of weapons whether they are crafted to be one or not.

Even if we stick to just English here, something not crafted to be a weapon can still be a weapon. Farming equipment have been used as weapons throughout history. Ninjas went out of their way to create fighting styles with farming equipment.

Gruftzwerg is just desperate at this point.

[hamishspence]

Primary source rules says improvised weapons are a category of weapons whether they are crafted to be one or not.

Even if we stick to just English here, something not crafted to be a weapon can still be a weapon. Farming equipment have been used as weapons throughout history. Ninjas went out of their way to create fighting styles with farming equipment.


Works for me.



Sure, even in real life we can weaponize everything. But do we call em weapons and apply rules/laws for weapons on em? Only if they really are weapons. A forest worker doesn't need a weapon license for a chainsaw just because you can use it as weapon.

It's fairly safe to say that if you are caught attacking someone with a piece of farming equipment, you will be charged with "carrying a deadly weapon" and "assault with a deadly weapon" if the equipment is sufficiently dangerous.

And for less deadly ones, there is "offensive weapon" - you can be charged with "carrying an offensive weapon" in these sorts of cases.

[newguydude1]

Works for me.



It's fairly safe to say that if you are caught attacking someone with a piece of farming equipment, you will be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" if the equipment is sufficiently dangerous.

i dont get it. i dig deep and find a direct text that says improvised weapons are exotic weapons. and you guys are still talking about this. if a direct rule text is not enough then what is it gonna take?

[hamishspence]

The argument is that it's only an exotic weapon in the hands of that particular PRC,

and that under normal circumstances, you can't have the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles)" or, if you're attempting to emulate Riddick, the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Teacup)".

[newguydude1]

The argument is that it's only an exotic weapon in the hands of that particular PRC,

and that under normal circumstances, you can't have the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles)" or, if you're attempting to emulate Riddick, the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Teacup)".

what??? if that prc is the only one thats proficient with it it wouldnt say exotic weapon proficiency. it would just say he doesnt get the penalty.


how about this one?

Improvised Throwing Weapons: At 3rd level, the exotic weapon master can use artisan's tools to fashion a usable throwing weapon from any object (rock, branch, melee weapon, or the like) that she can lift. This process takes at least 1 hour, or more if conditions are poor. The range increment for such an improvised weapon is 10 feet. It deals 1d6 points of damage (×2 on a critical hit), and its threat range is 20. The exotic weapon master is automatically proficient with her improvised throwing weapon; anyone else who wishes to use it must spend an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to avoid the —4 nonproficiency penalty. Most objects do bludgeoning damage; sharp items do piercing damage instead.

is this enough?

[hamishspence]

Good point. This does indicative that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat can be taken for any improvised thrown weapon that has been fashioned by an Exotic Weapon Master.

Can it be taken for improvised melee weapons though, or thrown ones bigger or smaller than the ones described? That's trickier.

[Gruftzwerg]

A case could be made that you are reading too much into "not crafted to be weapons".


If natural weapons are weapons, despite not being crafted to be weapons, maybe, even by RAW, improvised weapons are weapons despite not being crafted to be weapons.

"Natural" is a prefix to "weapon" that opens up certain rules. "Improvised" is a prefix to "weapon" that opens up certain other rules.
Imho you are ignoring the clear statement "not crafted to be weapons". "not be" is a clear denial of that status. The text refers to "objects" used in "combat". It doesn't say "used as weapons".

And as already said regarding Natural Weapons. NW make a clear positive statement that they are "weapons".

To "be" or "not to be", that is here the question ;)

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.
You are trying to interpret/treat a clear negative like the same as a clear positive here. Sorry but that is totally wrong.


Primary source rules says improvised weapons are a category of weapons whether they are crafted to be one or not.

Even if we stick to just English here, something not crafted to be a weapon can still be a weapon. Farming equipment have been used as weapons throughout history. Ninjas went out of their way to create fighting styles with farming equipment.

Gruftzwerg is just desperate at this point.
1. The Primary Source for Improvised Weapons is the "weapons" topic in the PHB.
2. The Improvised Weapon rules are part of this primary source and are more specific for its own topic. As such they may trump any general statements made before in the very same Primary Source. "Specific Trumps General"
3. As such, the definition in the "Improvised Weapons" is the rule that counts here the most. And as said several times, these specific primary source rules say "not crafted to be weapon".


Works for me.



It's fairly safe to say that if you are caught attacking someone with a piece of farming equipment, you will be charged with "carrying a deadly weapon" and "assault with a deadly weapon" if the equipment is sufficiently dangerous.

And for less deadly ones, there is "offensive weapon" - you can be charged with "carrying an offensive weapon" in these sorts of cases.
As said, the Primary Source rule works the same with real life rules and laws:
1. You have a general definition of weapons. These have to face all the special treatment that the law enforces on "real weapons" (carry, usage..). (general)
2. Then you have specific situation where the rules/laws threat objects as weapons. But that doesn't start to enforce all weapon rules/law on them. A farmer may still carry his "potentially deadly weapon" farming tools around while working. While a store owner of a store the farmer enters, can make their houserules to not allow "potentially weapons" to be carried into the store (specific).

Primary Source rule works in two ways. Denying other sources to make new global rules, but allows on the same moment that you may create more specific rules. "Improvised Weapons" in the weapons section of the PHB did this. It gives specific rules for em. While on the same time it is the general rule for "Improvised Weapons", so any other source that tries to make any changes can only do that for their specific niche (like Improvised Weapon does as sub-topic of weapons).

.. in the Primary Source rule we believe. Amen! ;)

[hamishspence]

An improvised weapon is a normal object that is being used as a weapon.

Once you're actually using it as a weapon, it is a weapon, legally. So why not mechanically?

As pointed out earlier, an ordinary object carried with intent to use it as a weapon, will ping the Detect Weaponry spell.


1. The Primary Source for Improvised Weapons is the "weapons" topic in the PHB.
2. The Improvised Weapon rules are part of this primary source and are more specific for its own topic. As such they may trump any general statements made before in the very same Primary Source. "Specific Trumps General"
Specific trumps general - and the specific situation - intent to use the object as a weapon, trumps the general situation for objects.

[Gruftzwerg]

An improvised weapon is a normal object that is being used as a weapon.

Once you're actually using it as a weapon, it is a weapon, legally. So why not mechanically?

As pointed out earlier, an ordinary object carried with intent to use it as a weapon, will ping the Detect Weaponry spell.

Where does the rules tell you that you use em as weapons? Would you call out that statement in the Improvised Weapon rules in the Primary Source? As far as I can see that rule only talks about improvised weapons being used in combat.


see use in combat

In 3.5 terms:
using an object in combat != using a weapon in combat

Edit:
As pointed out earlier, an ordinary object carried with intent to use it as a weapon, will ping the Detect Weaponry spell.
Not part of the Primary Source and thus only creates a specific niche rule for itself.

Primary Source Rule, Amen...

[hamishspence]

It's how nonproficiency, in combat, works:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

Click on the nonproficient link, and it takes you to "Weapon, armor and shield proficiency".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#weaponArmorAndShieldProficienc y

Weapon, Armor, and Shield Proficiency
A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

[Gruftzwerg]

It's how nonproficiency, in combat, works:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

Click on the nonproficient link, and it takes you to "Weapon, armor and shield proficiency".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#weaponArmorAndShieldProficienc y

Weapon, Armor, and Shield Proficiency
A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

yeah, the Imrpovised Weapon rule makes use of the nonproficient rule. So what? I fail to see how this should affect my point of view, sorry. Pls explain if I did miss anything important.

[hamishspence]

yeah, the Imrpovised Weapon rule makes use of the nonproficient rule. So what? I fail to see how this should affect my point of view, sorry. Pls explain if I did miss anything important.

You can only be nonproficient with weapons, armour, and shields. Since an improvised weapon is not armour or a shield, it must be a weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can only be nonproficient with weapons, armour, and shields. Since an improvised weapon is not armour or a shield, it must be a weapon.

Specific trumps General:

The "Improvised Weapon" section creates rules for a "specific" situation and thus trump the general rules for "nonproficient".

Nothing changed and the "Primary Source Rule" still holds everything together.

[hamishspence]

IMO that's not how the Primary Source rule applies to this situation.


The general rule for objects used in combat, is that they're weapons, and the specific rule for improvised weapons is that they get a -4 penalty because they're not designed to be used in combat, not because they're not weapons at all.

The specific situation "Improvised" applies the -4 nonproficiency penalty. It doesn't do anything else.


This is especially self-evident with ranged attack rolls and ranged weapons. The definition of "ranged attack roll" (on page 311 of the PHB) is "attack with a ranged weapon". If you're making an attack roll with an object, at a distance, it's a ranged weapon, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[Darg]

Would have been better if it were spelled out as: "Improvised weapons are a category of weapon that includes objects not designed to be used in combat?"

That's literally how the PHB lays it out in front of you. Would that have changed your perspective if WotC said it straight up like that?

[smasher0404]

Imho you are ignoring the clear statement "not crafted to be weapons". "not be" is a clear denial of that status. The text refers to "objects" used in "combat". It doesn't say "used as weapons".

And as already said regarding Natural Weapons. NW make a clear positive statement that they are "weapons".

To "be" or "not to be", that is here the question ;)


You are trying to interpret/treat a clear negative like the same as a clear positive here. Sorry but that is totally wrong.




No, you are trying to take a statement as a clear negative on Weapon status, when the statement makes no such claim. You are ignoring the "crafted" part of the sentence to make your point. However, being "crafted to be a weapon" is not actually a necessary condition to BE a weapon. Case in point, Natural Weapons (which by RAW are weapons) cannot be crafted (in most cases), and therefore are not "crafted to be a weapon".


Note:
Manufactured Weapons:
Are Mechanically Objects
Are Crafted to Be Weapons
Have Stats as Weapons

Natural Weapons:
Are not Mechanically Objects (they are part of the Creature, not a distinct Object)
Are NOT Crafted to be Weapons (due to not being crafted)
Have Stats as Weapons

Improvised Weapons
Are Mechanically Objects (like Manufactured Weapons)
Are NOT Crafted to be Weapons (by Definition) (like Natural Weapons)
Have Stats as Weapons (sometimes explicitly (such as Manacles, and Crowbars), other times via the guidelines set out in the Improvised Weapons section). (Like All Weapons)

The only real difference between Improvised Weapons and the commonalities between the two other categories of Weapons is a lack of an explicit means of gaining proficiency.

[Gruftzwerg]

IMO that's not how the Primary Source rule applies to this situation.


The general rule for objects used in combat, is that they're weapons, and the specific rule for improvised weapons is that they get a -4 penalty because they're not designed to be used in combat, not because they're not weapons at all.

The specific situation "Improvised" applies the -4 nonproficiency penalty. It doesn't do anything else.


This is especially self-evident with ranged attack rolls and ranged weapons. The definition of "ranged attack roll" (on page 311 of the PHB) is "attack with a ranged weapon". If you're making an attack roll with an object, at a distance, it's a ranged weapon, no ifs, ands, or buts.
The most "specific" "general rule" is the definition of "Improvised Weapons" in the Primary Source "Weapons". The definition never did give us the permission to count improvised weapons as "weapons". The definition talks about objects. The sole part where weapon is mentioned is the "not crafted to be weapon"-part. And that is not how you make a positive statement about something counting as "weapons". We have sole permission for "using objects in combat", not more not less.

_________________________


Would have been better if it were spelled out as: "Improvised weapons are a category of weapon that includes objects not designed to be used in combat?"

That's literally how the PHB lays it out in front of you. Would that have changed your perspective if WotC said it straight up like that?If this statement would have been part of the definition of "Improvised Weapons" itself yeah. But sadly it is not part of it. The "Improvised Weapons" definition is the most specific general rule and as such trumps any regular general rule.

I'll try to give another 3.5 example where we have a similar situation: Special Abilities (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)and Natural Abilities
1. The entire page is called Special Abilities
2. Natural Abilities is defined as:
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
3. Special Abilities proves that NA are not part of it:
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.


Despite being on the "Special Abilities" page, Natural Abilities are still excluded from them.
With Improvised Weapons, we have a similar situation. Despite "Improvised Weapons" being categorized as weapon category, the actual improvised weapons theirselves are ruled as "objects being used in combat".

_________________________



Improvised Weapons
Are Mechanically Objects (like Manufactured Weapons)
Are NOT Crafted to be Weapons (by Definition) (like Natural Weapons)
Have Stats as Weapons (sometimes explicitly (such as Manacles, and Crowbars), other times via the guidelines set out in the Improvised Weapons section). (Like All Weapons)

The only real difference between Improvised Weapons and the commonalities between the two other categories of Weapons is a lack of an explicit means of gaining proficiency.

The difference is, that we have positive statements for being a weapon for:
1. unarmed strikes
2. manufactured weapons
3. natural weapons

The definition of Improvised Weapon itself lacks the positive statement as the other categories have. "Objects not crated to be weapon" is not a positive statement that they "are" or "count" as weapons. It's "objects ... used in combat" and not "objects... used as weapons".

_______________________

@ everybody

Where do you see a positive statement in the definition of Improvised Weapons? Does it say, they are or count as weapons?


Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Fist sentence talks about "objects not crafted as weapon" and the second sentence continues to talk about "objects". After the nonprocient rule comes the info to determine the size category. And if that should result in "improvised thrown weapon"(a category. again no permission) you are given the required range increment for that. No permission to use or count em as weapons as far as I see it.

[Doctor Awkward]

stuff like spells with target:weapon or weapon enchantments. turn an improvised weapon into a mwk improvised weapon and apply weapon enchantments.

I looked into this a while ago and I kept referring back to this ruling from the Player's Handbook, on page 113, under the Improvised Weapons description:

Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

And I kept asking over and over, "If you can enchant an improvised weapon as though it were a weapon, why can't you become proficient in it as well?"

The only answer I could arrive at is that you can't because it's not actually a weapon. So they can't be the enchanted nor the target of spells that only target weapons.

[newguydude1]

I looked into this a while ago and I kept referring back to this ruling from the Player's Handbook, on page 113, under the Improvised Weapons description:


And I kept asking over and over, "If you can enchant an improvised weapon as though it were a weapon, why can't you become proficient in it as well?"

The only answer I could arrive at is that you can't because it's not actually a weapon. So they can't be the enchanted nor the target of spells that only target weapons.

you can. exotic weapon proficiency lets you select specific objects as weapons. i posted two quotes somewhere earlier in the thread.

one prc gives you exotic weapon proficiency manacles as a feat
another prc says your party members can take exotic weapon proficiency improvised throwing weapon to use the throwing weapons you craft.

[smasher0404]

The difference is, that we have positive statements for being a weapon for:
1. unarmed strikes
2. manufactured weapons
3. natural weapons

The definition of Improvised Weapon itself lacks the positive statement as the other categories have. "Objects not crated to be weapon" is not a positive statement that they "are" or "count" as weapons. It's "objects ... used in combat" and not "objects... used as weapons".



You are taking the lack of a positive statement as a negative, when the default (when no positive or negative is given) is to default to real-world logic. An improvised weapon is a weapon by real-world standards, improvised being a modifier upon the term weapon. Natural Weapons has a positive statement as part of its definition because the verbiage allows for it. Improvised weapons could not use the word weapon instead of object in its game definition, because the inclusion would have resulted in the inclusion of Natural Weapons (because Natural Weapons aren't crafted for combat).

There is also actually a positive statement that improvised weapons are at least sometimes actually weapons. From the SRD (and PHB pg. 114):

"An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2)."

and a melee weapon is defined as a "A handheld weapon designed for close combat." (PHB pg. 310).




I looked into this a while ago and I kept referring back to this ruling from the Player's Handbook, on page 113, under the Improvised Weapons description:


And I kept asking over and over, "If you can enchant an improvised weapon as though it were a weapon, why can't you become proficient in it as well?"

The only answer I could arrive at is that you can't because it's not actually a weapon. So they can't be the enchanted nor the target of spells that only target weapons.

Or because no class/feat grants that proficiency. The ability to become proficient in its use is never given as a necessary quality of being a weapon. If Exotic Weapon Proficiency no longer existed, Exotic Weapons wouldn't cease to be weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

you can. exotic weapon proficiency lets you select specific objects as weapons. i posted two quotes somewhere earlier in the thread.

one prc gives you exotic weapon proficiency manacles as a feat
another prc says your party members can take exotic weapon proficiency improvised throwing weapon to use the throwing weapons you craft.
Specific beat General but doesn't become a general rule. Those are specific exception to the norm and don't set any new global rules. They only count for their own niche.

This shows that you are still ignoring the primary source rule..


You are taking the lack of a positive statement as a negative, when the default (when no positive or negative is given) is to default to real-world logic. An improvised weapon is a weapon by real-world standards, improvised being a modifier upon the term weapon. Natural Weapons has a positive statement as part of its definition because the verbiage allows for it. Improvised weapons could not use the word weapon instead of object in its game definition, because the inclusion would have resulted in the inclusion of Natural Weapons (because Natural Weapons aren't crafted for combat).

There is also actually a positive statement that improvised weapons are at least sometimes actually weapons. From the SRD (and PHB pg. 114):

"An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2)."

and a melee weapon is defined as a "A handheld weapon designed for close combat." (PHB pg. 310).





Or because no class/feat grants that proficiency. The ability to become proficient in its use is never given as a necessary quality of being a weapon. If Exotic Weapon Proficiency no longer existed, Exotic Weapons wouldn't cease to be weapons.

Even by real word standards "improvised weapons" aren't treated as "weapons" in general. Only under "specific circumstances" they count as weapon in real life. In 3.5 it works the similar. You are allowed to use em in combat with the mentioned rules. Full Stop. Nothing mentions that they are weapons.

And the definition of "improvised Weapons" in the PHB "weapons" section is what counts here. And that very passage avoids a postive statement about "being or counting as a weapon" and sole talks about "objects". The sole thing that could be treated as indicator is the "not crafted as weapon" part which would deny it rather than confirming it.
3.5 is permission based and the very definition of the term didn't give you this permission in any kind. We have positive statements for all the other weapon categories.

[smasher0404]

Specific beat General but doesn't become a general rule. Those are specific exception to the norm and don't set any new global rules. They only count for their own niche.

This shows that you are still ignoring the primary source rule..



Even by real word standards "improvised weapons" aren't treated as "weapons" in general. Only under "specific circumstances" they count as weapon in real life. In 3.5 it works the similar. You are allowed to use em in combat with the mentioned rules. Full Stop. Nothing mentions that they are weapons.

And the definition of "improvised Weapons" in the PHB "weapons" section is what counts here. And that very passage avoids a postive statement about "being or counting as a weapon" and sole talks about "objects". The sole thing that could be treated as indicator is the "not crafted as weapon" part which would deny it rather than confirming it.
3.5 is permission based and the very definition of the term didn't give you this permission in any kind. We have positive statements for all the other weapon categories.

The arrow example isn't providing an exception to the general rule however, but outlining how to treat an arrow used as an improvised melee weapon (giving an explicit 'weight' category for its use). It shows an intent that improvised weapons are weapons, because it does not call out an exception, but rather sets up an equivalency (arrow as a melee weapon = one-handed improvised weapon).

It doesn't need an explicit positive statement to begin with because, by the actual definition of Manufactured Weapons, improvised weapons are a subset of Manufactured Weapons. The definition of Manufactured Weapons calls out "found items" such as rocks and logs as being considered manufactured weapons when wielded as weapons.

By the definition of improvised weapons (objects that were not crafted for combat), "found items" such as logs and rocks are improvised weapons since they are objects not crafted for combat. They are also explicitly manufactured weapons by the definition of manufactured weapons given by the glossary of the Monster Manual. That shows a clear intent that improvised weapons should be considered manufactured weapons.

It is very clear that the designers intended for Improvised Weapons to be considered weapons. There is also enough circumstantial evidence to show that they should be treated as such.

[Gruftzwerg]

The arrow example isn't providing an exception to the general rule however, but outlining how to treat an arrow used as an improvised melee weapon (giving an explicit 'weight' category for its use). It shows an intent that improvised weapons are weapons, because it does not call out an exception, but rather sets up an equivalency (arrow as a melee weapon = one-handed improvised weapon).

It doesn't need an explicit positive statement to begin with because, by the actual definition of Manufactured Weapons, improvised weapons are a subset of Manufactured Weapons. The definition of Manufactured Weapons calls out "found items" such as rocks and logs as being considered manufactured weapons when wielded as weapons.

By the definition of improvised weapons (objects that were not crafted for combat), "found items" such as logs and rocks are improvised weapons since they are objects not crafted for combat. They are also explicitly manufactured weapons by the definition of manufactured weapons given by the glossary of the Monster Manual. That shows a clear intent that improvised weapons should be considered manufactured weapons.

It is very clear that the designers intended for Improvised Weapons to be considered weapons. There is also enough circumstantial evidence to show that they should be treated as such.

Improvised Weapons are never a subset of manufactured weapons. It's a subset of "weapons". But Improvised weapons defines itself as object used in combat and not as weapons. As such it trumps all other general rules, since it is the most specific general rule. (see Special Abilities and Natural Abilities as mentioned above).

The arrow example is a specific example. As such, it can only create specific rules for its niche. It doesn't set new general/global rules (it never had the permission for that thanks to the Primary Source Rule). It gives you the specific exception to use arrows as melee weapons. Nowhere does it say that they count as melee weapon, nor that they are melee weapons. The text is not saying what you try to interpret into it.

Again you try to turn specific rules into general rules without any permission. You are constantly doing this and I assume your next argument will again ignore the Primary Source rule and I will once again refer you back to it...

[hamishspence]

Improvised Weapons are never a subset of manufactured weapons. It's a subset of "weapons".

The MM says otherwise, by defining "manufactured weapons" so broadly as to include rocks and logs.

Given that almost every PC race is in the MM - it's not a case of "the PHB is general, the MM is specific" - rather, all three books, united, are the "primary source" for D&D - not "PHB is primary, MM and DMG are secondary compared to it"

[Gruftzwerg]

The MM says otherwise, by defining "manufactured weapons" so broadly as to include rocks and logs.

Given that almost every PC race is in the MM - it's not a case of "the PHB is general, the MM is specific" - rather, all three books, united, are the "primary source" for D&D - not "PHB is primary, MM and DMG are secondary compared to it"

You don't get the Primary Source Rule:

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
In our chase we have "topic" precedence. The topic is "weapons" and the primary source for it is the PHB and not the MM. The rule calls out that the PHB "gives all the rules for playing the game" and "weapons" are a part of that rule.
"Improvised Weapons" is defined in those general rules and as such the definition is more specific than any general "weapon" rule. But since it is still part of the general "weapon" rules in the PHB, it can't be changed on a general/global level by other sources. Other sources (than the weapon section in the PHB) can only make specific exceptions for their own niche (Specific trumps General). But it doesn't become a general rule. E.g. when a specific spell rule things different than the general rules, those rules only count for that specific spell and don't become a new general rule. As such, MM has no permission to make or change any general rules for improvised weapons. It could only make exceptions for it's niche, if the wording of the rule explicitly calls that out. (e.g. Invisibility changes what counts as an attack for itself. it doesn't become a general rule).

Primary Source Rule strikes again..^^

[Doctor Awkward]

you can. exotic weapon proficiency lets you select specific objects as weapons. i posted two quotes somewhere earlier in the thread.

one prc gives you exotic weapon proficiency manacles as a feat
another prc says your party members can take exotic weapon proficiency improvised throwing weapon to use the throwing weapons you craft.

It does not. The Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat asks you to choose a type of exotic weapon to become proficient in. This specifically limits the feats functionality to weapons labeled as exotic by the rules. Improvised weapons are distinct and do not have this label.

Prestige classes which grant such proficiency are quite clearly an exception to this general rule. You are trying to treat an exception as new rules text to support your conclusion.

[hamishspence]

Given the many occasions where table makes more sense than text, it's quite clear that the "primary source rule" shouldn't be taken too seriously.


In any case, MM isn't changing a specific "Manufactured Weapons" rule in the PHB, because the PHB has no definition of "Manufactured Weapons". All the text in the "Weapon" entry does not use the word "Manufactured".

. The rule calls out that the PHB "gives all the rules for playing the game" and "weapons" are a part of that rule.
"Improvised Weapons" is defined in those general rules and as such the definition is more specific than any general "weapon" rule. But since it is still part of the general "weapon" rules in the PHB, it can't be changed on a general/global level by other sources.

The inclusion of Improvised weapons within the "general weapon rules" indicates that the "general weapon rules" cover them - and therefore, that they are weapons.

If they weren't weapons, the Improvised Weapon rules would be somewhere else.

[Gruftzwerg]

Given the many occasions where table makes more sense than text, it's quite clear that the "primary source rule" shouldn't be taken too seriously.
And you left what is defined as Rules As Written and admitted that you talk about Rules As Intended (or How the Rules should work). If you want to make RAI assumptions, that is fine with me. If you want to make houserule suggestion, I have no problem either (I would maybe even support it at my own tables..). But stop calling your assumption RAW, when you ignore actual rules for the sake of whatever..



In any case, MM isn't changing a specific "Manufactured Weapons" rule in the PHB, because the PHB has no definition of "Manufactured Weapons". All the text in the "Weapon" entry does not use the word "Manufactured".

Does the text mention any intent to change rules on a global level?

I'll give you a few 3.5 examples where this is the chase:

1. Errata description itself
2. Primary Source Rule in the Errata
3. Draconomicon
4. Rules Compendium
5. Spell Compendium

All these examples have rule text that shows a clear intent to change or set rules on a global/general level.
Your Manufactured Weapons section in the MM lacks any wording to show a clear intent to change or add rules on a global/general level. It is in the wrong book to make new rules or to change em on a global level without the explicit mention of the intent to change/add. It doesn't work that way, since we have the Primary Source Rule..

[hamishspence]

Does the text mention any intent to change rules on a global level?

It doesn't need to, because there is no PHB "Manufactured Weapons" rule to change, in the first place.


Reread your PHB. Check the Glossary for the word "Manufactured". It's not there. Check the Index for the word "Manufactured". It's not there.

[newguydude1]

It does not. The Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat asks you to choose a type of exotic weapon to become proficient in. This specifically limits the feats functionality to weapons labeled as exotic by the rules. Improvised weapons are distinct and do not have this label.

Prestige classes which grant such proficiency are quite clearly an exception to this general rule. You are trying to treat an exception as new rules text to support your conclusion.

have you even read the quote

Improvised Throwing Weapons: At 3rd level, the exotic weapon master can use artisan's tools to fashion a usable throwing weapon from any object (rock, branch, melee weapon, or the like) that she can lift. This process takes at least 1 hour, or more if conditions are poor. The range increment for such an improvised weapon is 10 feet. It deals 1d6 points of damage (×2 on a critical hit), and its threat range is 20. The exotic weapon master is automatically proficient with her improvised throwing weapon; anyone else who wishes to use it must spend an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to avoid the —4 nonproficiency penalty. Most objects do bludgeoning damage; sharp items do piercing damage instead.

you see the part where the party members without the prc can select improvised weapons as exotic weapon proficiency right?

[hamishspence]

you see the part where the party members without the prc can select improvised weapons as exotic weapon proficiency right?
True, but after 1 hour of "fashioning" the phrase "not crafted to be a weapon" may no longer be applicable.

An improvised weapon with 1 hour of fashioning isn't an improvised weapon any more in this paradigm.


Presumably, each "fashioned" improvised weapon of a different shape would require a separate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

So you'd get "Exotic Weapon Proficiency - fashioned rock", "Exotic Weapon Proficiency - fashioned branch" and so forth.




My view is that even improvised weapons that haven't undergone the "fashioning process" that this PRC can put them through, are still weapons - and that the Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon and Holy Sword and Keen Edge spells, will all work on them, if the damage is right (Keen Edge only works on slashing weapons). Slashing improvised weapons can be conceived, so do exist, even if this character cannot fashion them.


treating Improvised Weapons as weapons for the purposes of effects and adjudication closes many more logical dysfunctions than it creates. Disarm, as previously mentioned, completely breaks if you do not allow Improvised Weapons to be treated as weapons since Disarm specifically requires attack rolls between weapons (except in the case of snatching worn items). If improvised weapons cannot be classified as weapons, you wouldn't be able to disarm someone using an improvised weapon. Logically, it makes no sense that I could disarm someone attacking me with a club, but couldn't disarm someone attacking me with a crowbar (which is explicitly treated as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to a club of its size).
This, IMO, sums it up best.

[newguydude1]

True, but after 1 hour of "fashioning" the phrase "not crafted to be a weapon" may no longer be applicable.

An improvised weapon with 1 hour of fashioning isn't an improvised weapon any more in this paradigm.


Presumably, each "fashioned" improvised weapon of a different shape would require a separate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

So you'd get "Exotic Weapon Proficiency - fashioned rock", "Exotic Weapon Proficiency - fashioned branch" and so forth.




My view is that even improvised weapons that haven't undergone the "fashioning process" that this PRC can put them through, are still weapons - and that the Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon and Holy Sword and Keen Edge spells, will all work on them, if the damage is right (Keen Edge only works on slashing weapons). Slashing improvised weapons can be conceived, so do exist, even if this character cannot fashion them.


This, IMO, sums it up best.

the result of "fashioning" is "improvised throwing weapon". you telling me an "improvised throwing weapon" is not an improvised throwing weapon?

[hamishspence]

For the maker it is, possibly (as an exception to "not crafted to be thrown"). For anyone else it's an exotic weapon.

[newguydude1]

For the maker it is, possibly (as an exception to "not crafted to be thrown"). For anyone else it's an exotic weapon.

so you really are saying an improvised throwing weapon is not an improvised throwing weapon but an exotic weapon despite its name as improvised throwing weapon.

[hamishspence]

One modified by a character with that PRC, yes. All it takes to remove the "improvised" trait is a little crafting work.


A little crafting work (maybe taking a bit longer?) can even turn a branch (improvised weapon) into a club (simple weapon).

[noob]

Can you or can you not use a hammer to deal spiked gauntlets to someone wearing a starmantle cloak?
Did this thread finally find the answer?

[newguydude1]

One modified by a character with that PRC, yes. All it takes to remove the "improvised" trait is a little crafting work.


A little crafting work (maybe taking a bit longer?) can even turn a branch (improvised weapon) into a club (simple weapon).

except the end result is still an "improvised weapon". you cant call a nonimprovised weapon an improvised weapon. your not crafting anything. there are no stats for the "fashioned improvised weapon".


Can you or can you not use a hammer to deal spiked gauntlets to someone wearing a starmantle cloak?
Did this thread finally find the answer?

thread found an answer a long time ago. its only one person that disagrees. well two since doctor joined.

rules compendium says improvised weapons are a category of weapons
we got multiple prcs that says improvised weapons are exotic weapons. (surprises me that people say "exotic weapon proficiency: improvised weapons" is a "prc exclusive". since when is "exotic weapon proficiency" a prc exclusive?)
hamishspence pointed out the rules dont differentiate between manufactured, natural, or improvised weapons unless it specifically calls them out.

its open and shut.

and the one person disagreeing is yelling "primary source rule!" in order to ignore everything except the one phrase "not crafted to be a weapon" and then is trying very very very hard to make it sound like only things crafted to be weapons are weapons and try to somehow include natural weapons into this category and whatever.

i stopped reading. whenever someone yells "primary source rule!" when there is no conflict, i no longer read their posts.

[hamishspence]

there are no stats for the "fashioned improvised weapon".


Sure there are.

Thrown Weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning damage, range increment 10 ft, Crit x2

OR

Thrown Weapon, 1d6 slashing damage, range increment 10 ft, Crit x2

Weight - up to the DM and the player.

[newguydude1]

Sure there are.

Thrown Weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning damage, range increment 10 ft, Crit x2

OR

Thrown Weapon, 1d6 slashing damage, range increment 10 ft, Crit x2

Weight - up to the DM and the player.

thats what i meant. you have to use the guidelines to come up with it. it has no stats like dagger or spear.

the other prc shows "exotic weapon proficiency" can be selected for specific improvised weapons. manacles. ladder. chair. and exotic weapon master's fashioned improvised weapons are just another type of improvised weapon. its still an improvised weapon.

[hamishspence]

thats what i meant. you have to use the guidelines to come up with it.

Those specific numbers are given in the PRC.

I would tentatively agree that "fashioning" is not "crafting" and thus that the process of fashioning doesn't remove the "improvised" trait - it only adds the "exotic" trait.

[newguydude1]

Those specific numbers are given in the PRC.

I would tentatively agree that "fashioning" is not "crafting" and thus that the process of fashioning doesn't remove the "improvised" trait - it only adds the "exotic" trait.

and your saying that manacles is not an exotic weapon but is viable target for exotic weapon proficiency because a prc has somehow the ability to turn normal manacles into exotic weapons. when there is literally no mechanical benefit for being an exotic weapon.

if manacles and other improvised weapons are not exotic weapons then the prc would just say "no longer suffers the standard -4 non-proficiency penalty to hit when using a manacle as an improvised weapon" instead of calling it an exotic weapon and giving you the feat for free.

[hamishspence]

The PRC turns normal manacles into exotic weapons (for the character) along with giving proficiency in them.

[newguydude1]

The PRC turns normal manacles into exotic weapons (for the character) along with giving proficiency in them.

where does it say it turns manacles into exotic weapons


Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles): Intimately familiar with the capture of criminals, justiciars have learned to do more with a pair of manacles than restrain a lawbreaker. A justiciar of 3rd level or higher can swing a pair of metal manacles in one hand as if they were a club without taking a penalty for using an improvised weapon. Masterwork manacles can be wielded as if they were a masterwork light flail.

all i see is it giving you a free feat.

does it say "wield manacles as if it were an exotic weapon" anywhere?

[hamishspence]

where does it say it turns manacles into exotic weapons



all i see is it giving you a free feat.

does it say "wield manacles as if it were an exotic weapon" anywhere?

"Counts as an exotic weapon that you are proficient in" - in short, unlocking other feats that require proficiency. So a Justicar can take Weapon Focus (manacles), Weapon Specialisation (manacles) and so on.


But a character with no levels in the PRC, cannot take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (manacles) or any feats that require proficiency.

They still have the stats of a club (or, for the masterwork one, a light flail).

"exotic weapon proficiency" is in the description of the ability. That means it is a "PRC class ability version" of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

[newguydude1]

"Counts as an exotic weapon that you are proficient in"
i dont see this text in the prc anywhere. you cant just make up rules and try to pass them off as 1st party.

clubs and light flails are not exotic weapons. theyre simple weapons.
the prc doesnt say manacles count as exotic weapons nor does it say you can wield it as an exotic weapon.

without your made up rules, the conclusion is simple. no special treatment from the prc. improvised weapons are exotic weapons.

show me the rules man. where in the prc does it treat manacles as something other than normal improvised weapons?

[hamishspence]

show me the rules man. where in the prc does it treat manacles as something other than normal improvised weapons?I was going by the title of the ability.

It's worth noting that Monks don't get proficiency with light flails by default.


So if you interpret it as only "they may be used as a light flail"


rather than


"They get the virtual feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (masterwork manacles)" -


then, a Monk/Justiciar, instead of having the "improvised weapon penalty", has the "Not proficient with this particular simple weapon" penalty instead, when using masterwork manacles.


"It grants two virtual feats - Exotic Weapon Proficiency (manacles) and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (masterwork manacles)."


IMO works better.


Virtual feats can't be traded away with "embrace the dark chaos" and "shun the dark chaos" though.

Masters of the Wild details the concept of virtual feats:



Masters of the Wild p. 20:


If a character has a class feature or special ability that exactly duplicates the effects of a feat, then he or she can use that “virtual feat” as a prerequisite for other feats, as well as prestige classes, and so forth. [...] If the character ever loses the virtual prerequisite, he or she also loses access to any feats or other benefits acquired through its existence. For example, a ranger who wears armor heavier than light loses access to the virtual feats noted above, and thereby to Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as well. Acquiring a virtual feat does not give a character access to its prerequisites.

[Gruftzwerg]

It doesn't need to, because there is no PHB "Manufactured Weapons" rule to change, in the first place.


Reread your PHB. Check the Glossary for the word "Manufactured". It's not there. Check the Index for the word "Manufactured". It's not there.
Wrong. Manufactured Weapons are a subtopic of the "Weapons" topic. Weapons and their use in combat are "rules that you need to play the game" and the Primary Source Rule explicitly states that the PHB takes precedence in this chases. Read and apply the Primary Source Rule.


The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
Note that the rule only gives a few examples and that by the wording you have to think further and apply it to everything else that fits the patterns mentioned. As such, the PHB is the Primary Source for "Weapons" and all of its subtopics. Unless another source is more "specific" it may not add rules. Unless another source calls out the intention to add or change general rules, it may not do so. Any rules that other sources assume or refer to must be supported by the Primary Source or they don't count.


have you even read the quote


you see the part where the party members without the prc can select improvised weapons as exotic weapon proficiency right?
Have you even read the Primary Source Rule? You are pointing us to a more specific situation, where a PRC may trump general rules for its own niche, but can't make any changes on a global/general level. For that an explicit intention needs to be mentioned as permission (as shows in the examples of my last post if you did bother to read it). The Primary Source doesn't support the assumed general rules that the ability talks about. As such it only works for its niche.

If you want to argue about designer intends (RAI), that could be used as argument. Bot not if we talk about RAW. RAW is an abstract that doesn't care for intends or functionality (see: healing by drowning).

[hamishspence]

Wrong. Manufactured Weapons are a subtopic of the "Weapons" topic. Then where is the word "Manufactured" in the "Weapons topic" section of the rules?


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

I've compared the SRD version to the PHB version, and as far as I can tell, neither uses the word "Manufactured" anywhere. Thus, for a definition of the word "Manufactured" in the context of D&D, the MM version is valid.


Your definition of "Manufactured weapon" is "Object crafted to be a weapon" - and while you might be able to argue that it's RAI - it's not RAW, because the word "Manufactured" is not used in the PHB "Weapons" section.

The MM places "Manufactured" as the counterpart to Natural - any weapon that is not part of the creature's body, is a manufactured weapon. And that's a perfectly valid thing for the MM to do.

Using the MM as a guide, the tree of categories would be:

Weapon

Within this, "Manufactured" and "Natural"

Within Natural Weapon - "Melee" and "Ranged"

Within Manufactured Weapon "Improvised" and "crafted to be a weapon".

Within Improvised - "Melee" and "Ranged"

Within "crafted to be a weapon" - "Melee" and "Ranged".


This tree of categories, ensures that spells that say "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" work on Natural weapons unless the spell specifically states otherwise (like the Magic Weapon spell).

[Gruftzwerg]

Then where is the word "Manufactured" in the "Weapons topic" section of the rules?


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

I've compared the SRD version to the PHB version, and as far as I can tell, neither uses the word "Manufactured" anywhere. Thus, for a definition of the word "Manufactured" in the context of D&D, the MM version is valid.


Your definition of "Manufactured weapon" is "Object crafted to be a weapon" - and while you might be able to argue that it's RAI - it's not RAW, because the word "Manufactured" is not used in the PHB "Weapons" section.

The MM places "Manufactured" as the counterpart to Natural - any weapon that is not part of the creature's body, is a manufactured weapon. And that's a perfectly valid thing for the MM to do.

Using the MM as a guide, the tree of categories would be:

Weapon

Within this, "Manufactured" and "Natural"

Within Natural Weapon - "Melee" and "Ranged"

Within Manufactured Weapon "Improvised" and "crafted to be a weapon".

Within Improvised - "Melee" and "Ranged"

Within "crafted to be a weapon" - "Melee" and "Ranged".


This tree of categories, ensures that spells that say "Weapon" or "Melee weapon" work on Natural weapons unless the spell specifically states otherwise (like the Magic Weapon spell).
I guess we can agree that the weapons in the "weapons" list consists of "unarmed strike" and otherwise that what in real life is defined as manufactured weapons. If you dislike the term "manufactured weapon", we can switch it to the term "Weapons from the weapon list" to be more precise and we would have the same result from the rules. Any other book which presents additional weapons has text that show the intent to "add new weapon to the game" or something like that. As such, Improvised Weapons would still lack any positive wording regarding their status as weapons.

The MM is still not the Primary Source for Weapons. The Errata explicitly divides the topics for the PHB and MM in:


The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The Errata makes clear, that it is not the Primary Topic of the MM and as such it has no right to add or change rules unless it explicitly call out that intention (which it doesn't).

[hamishspence]

The Errata makes clear, that it is not the Primary Topic of the MM and as such it has no right to add or change rules unless it explicitly call out that intention (which it doesn't).

The Rules Compendium, however, does "explicitly call out that intention" at the start of the book.

Page 5, Rules Compendium: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

Page 150, Rules Compendium: Weapons: "Some creatures employ manufactured weapons when they attack. In essence, a manufactured weapon is any weapon that isn't intrinsic to the creature".

Weapon Categories:

Simple, Martial, and Exotic

Melee and Ranged

Light, One, and Two-Handed

Weapon Size

Nonlethal

Improvised


"Improvised" is a weapon category in the Rules Compendium. "Manufactured weapons" is defined in the Rules Compendium.

[Darg]

If you dislike the term "manufactured weapon", we can switch it to the term "Weapons from the weapon list" to be more precise and we would have the same result from the rules. Any other book which presents additional weapons has text that show the intent to "add new weapon to the game" or something like that. As such, Improvised Weapons would still lack any positive wording regarding their status as weapons.

Improvised Weapons is lacking any positive wording regarding their status as weapons? It's literally in the name and is specifically expressed as a category of "weapon" in the PHB. How do you define weapon? "A weapon is a weapon meant to kill things." That is not how definitions work. A proper definition wouldn't use the word being defined to define itself. "A weapon is an object used or created to be used to inflict harm to a body or another object." Improvised weapons is providing rules for weapons that were not created for that purpose, but are functioning as weapons. It is not a misnomer.

RAW clearly states they are in fact weapons. Using the definition of a weapon to try and prove that a weapon is not a weapon just because it doesn't state it is a weapon in its own definition is misguided.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, some things with the word "weapon" in the name are not weapons even in the D&D sense - but not many.


Most notable of these is "breath weapon". You cannot take Weapon Focus (breath weapon), cannot cast Magic Weapon or Magic Fang on your breath weapon, etc - because a breath weapon does not make attack rolls.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Rules Compendium, however, does "explicitly call out that intention" at the start of the book.

Page 5, Rules Compendium: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

Page 150, Rules Compendium: Weapons: "Some creatures employ manufactured weapons when they attack. In essence, a manufactured weapon is any weapon that isn't intrinsic to the creature".

Weapon Categories:

Simple, Martial, and Exotic

Melee and Ranged

Light, One, and Two-Handed

Weapon Size

Nonlethal

Improvised


"Improvised" is a weapon category in the Rules Compendium. "Manufactured weapons" is defined in the Rules Compendium.
Sorry but you still make the same mistake and ignore the more specific definition of "Improvised Weapons" on the very same page in the Rules Compendium (p150). There is an identical definition of Improvised Weapon, that can also be found in the PHB and SRD. Improvises Weapons is still the most specific general rule and thus trumps all other general weapon rules in that regard.

Try to train to apply the Primary Source Rule pls instead of ignoring it constantly.


Improvised Weapons is lacking any positive wording regarding their status as weapons? It's literally in the name and is specifically expressed as a category of "weapon" in the PHB. How do you define weapon? "A weapon is a weapon meant to kill things." That is not how definitions work. A proper definition wouldn't use the word being defined to define itself. "A weapon is an object used or created to be used to inflict harm to a body or another object." Improvised weapons is providing rules for weapons that were not created for that purpose, but are functioning as weapons. It is not a misnomer.

RAW clearly states they are in fact weapons. Using the definition of a weapon to try and prove that a weapon is not a weapon just because it doesn't state it is a weapon in its own definition is misguided.

We already had that argument and the counterargument is: "weapon-like spell". So next, you are going to enhance your Ice Axe or Elritch Glaive, because "weapon" is part of the "weapon-like spell"?^^ Sorry it doesn't work that way. This is 3.5 and we have rules to suppress common sense of that kind. The very definition of a word/term sets its boundaries. And that definition prevents interpretations like you try here.

Further I have shown similar thought loops like this with "Special Abilities (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)and Natural Abilities":
While Natural Abilities is listed in the Special Abilities page, it is at the same time (more specific) excluded as Special Ability. The same can be said about "Improvised Weapons" too. While the category is part of "weapons" the actual "Improvised Weapons" themselves don't count as weapons. They are defined as objects used in combat. Try to accept this non-intuitive concept pls.

[hamishspence]

There is an identical definition of Improvised Weapon, that can also be found in the PHB and SRD. Improvises Weapons is still the most specific general rule and thus trumps all other general weapon rules in that regard.
And that definition "not crafted to be a weapon" does not necessarily disqualify it from being one.

This is not a case of "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended" - this is a case of differing interpretations of Rules as Written.




We already had that argument and the counterargument is: "weapon-like spell". So next, you are going to enhance your Ice Axe or Elritch Glaive, because "weapon" is part of the "weapon-like spell"?^^ Sorry it doesn't work that way.
The rules are that some feats that can only be applied to weapons, can be applied to "weaponlike spells" (Weaponlike is all one word, not "Weapon-like"). Such as Weapon Focus, and Point Blank Shot.

[Gruftzwerg]

And that definition "not crafted to be a weapon" does not necessarily disqualify it from being one.

This is not a case of "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended" - this is a case of differing interpretations of Rules as Written.

The rules are that some feats that can only be applied to weapons, can be applied to "weaponlike spells" (Weaponlike is all one word, not "Weapon-like"). Such as Weapon Focus, and Point Blank Shot.
It ("not crafted to be weapon") doesn't qualify your either. Where is the text part in the "definition of Improvised Weapons" that qualifies them as weapons? The definition carefully avoids to call em weapon directly and only talks about objects used in combat. It's not defined as weapon! Remember that 3.5 is permission based and the very definition of the term didn't give you the permission to use/count em as weapons. Only to use "objects" in "combat". And depending on their shapes, you may use em like a light weapon, thrown weapon, 2h-weapon (the text refers to pick a similar weapon from the weapon list for the stats).. Still no permission to count em as "weapon".

Sorry, but this is sole a chase of RAW vs RAI. Cause RAW is pretty clear on this. Your arguments need to ignore the most important rule in 3.5: The Primary Source Rule. The rule that tells you how to use all the other rules. If you use that rule correctly, there is sole one way to interpret it. As long as you ignore the Primary Source Rule, your assumptions are RAI and not RAW based. RAW doesn't just mean, take the plain text in the books. RAW means, take the plain text in the books + the plain text in the ERRATA (including the Primary Source Rule).

And yeah, as said, the designers have failed big with not including it in the PHB in the first place. All their rules did base on this assumption (which is later known as the Primary Source Rule in the ERRATA). This caused us to learn the rules the wrong way for years. I myself didn't know about it for roughly my first 7 years. Then another 3 years until I started to slowly (!) realize what is does and why it is there (and mandatory). Suddenly many parts of the FAQ (not all, just many) did make sense: e.g. the size stacking ruling explained in the FAQ, which was heavily attacked by the community at first. Many thought that "they failed once again..". I was one of em. Until I realized how the Primary Source Rule affects the situation. That solved the mystery behind it. Now another 10 years later it defines how I view 3.5 rules and rules overall. All rulings are based on this kind of primary source rule assumption in real life: games, laws.. everything). What I try to tell here is, that the Primary Source Rule is the most important rule and you shouldn't ignore it lightly. It is your navigator for the rule hierarchy map.

[Thurbane]

So I guess after 5 pages, the answer is "Ask your DM". :smalltongue:

[newguydude1]

So I guess after 5 pages, the answer is "Ask your DM". :smalltongue:

No, the answer is yes. And it only took 2 pages.

[Gruftzwerg]

So I guess after 5 pages, the answer is "Ask your DM". :smalltongue:
My vote goes for "ask the Primary Source Rule" ;)


No, the answer is yes. And it only took 2 pages.
5 pages of Primary Source Rule and you still ignore it ;)

_____________

“Our Primary Source Rule in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on table as it is in books.
Give us this day our daily rules,
and forgive us our misinterpretations,
as we also have forgiven our teammates.
And lead us not into overoptimization,
but deliver us from Xp loss.”
Amen ^^

[magicalmagicman]

So I guess after 5 pages, the answer is "Ask your DM". :smalltongue:

hamishspence pointed out when the combat rules say the word "weapon" it includes improvised weapons.
Both core and the Rules Compendium explicitly say that improvised weapons are a "category of weapons."
There are spells that target weapons that explicitly address improvised weapons
There are PrCs that allow both the player and his party members to grab Exotic Weapon Proficiency with Improvised Weapons.

There is no wiggle room for other interpretations here. Anything that says "weapons" includes manufactured, natural, and improvised weapons unless explicitly excluded. You can take weapon focus: a type of improvised weapon.

This is as clear as the rules get.

On the other hand, we have one poster who says "weapon" in the combat rules has a different definition than the rest of d&d with no rule support.
One poster who says weapons that are not crafted cannot be "weapons" with no rule support which defies not only d&d's definition of a weapon, but also the English language's definition of a weapon.
One poster who claims "primary source rule" lets him completely disregard all supporting text regarding the subject matter that says he's wrong.
And so forth.

This kind of cherry picking arbitrary... um... whatever you call this. If you think these are valid arguments I guess you could say the answer is "ask your DM". Not at any of my tables though.

[newguydude1]

One poster who says weapons that are not crafted cannot be "weapons"

btw


Club: A wooden club is so easy to find and fashion that it has no cost.

i guess clubs arent weapons either because you didnt craft it.

[magicalmagicman]

btw



i guess clubs arent weapons either because you didnt craft it.

You quoted the wrong weapon


Sling: A sling hurls lead bullets. It doesn’t shoot as far as a crossbow, nor is it as powerful as a bow, but it’s cheap and easy to improvise from common materials. Druids and halflings favor slings. Your Strength modifier applies to damage rolls when you use a sling, just as it does for thrown weapons. You can fire, but not load, a sling with one hand. Loading a sling is a move action that requires two hands and provokes attacks of opportunity.
You can hurl ordinary stones with a sling, but stones are not as dense or as round as bullets. Thus, such an attack deals damage as if the weapon were designed for a creature one size category smaller than you (for instance, 1d3 instead of 1d4, or 1d2 instead of 1d3) and you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls.

According to our one poster these stones flung by the sling are not "ranged weapons" because they're not crafted.

It's just so ludicrous.

[Gruftzwerg]

hamishspence pointed out when the combat rules say the word "weapon" it includes improvised weapons.
Both core and the Rules Compendium explicitly say that improvised weapons are a "category of weapons."
There are spells that target weapons that explicitly address improvised weapons
There are PrCs that allow both the player and his party members to grab Exotic Weapon Proficiency with Improvised Weapons.

There is no wiggle room for other interpretations here. Anything that says "weapons" includes manufactured, natural, and improvised weapons unless explicitly excluded. You can take weapon focus: a type of improvised weapon.

This is as clear as the rules get.

On the other hand, we have one poster who says "weapon" in the combat rules has a different definition than the rest of d&d with no rule support.
One poster who says weapons that are not crafted cannot be "weapons" with no rule support which defies not only d&d's definition of a weapon, but also the English language's definition of a weapon.
One poster who claims "primary source rule" lets him completely disregard all supporting text regarding the subject matter that says he's wrong.
And so forth.

This kind of cherry picking arbitrary... um... whatever you call this. If you think these are valid arguments I guess you could say the answer is "ask your DM". Not at any of my tables though.
Again, the more specific definition of "Improvised Weapons" itself may trump other general rules, since it is part of those general rules but more specific. While the "Improvised Weapon - category" may count as a "weapon category", that doesn't mean that the actual "Improvised Weapon" count as weapons. It would carry over, if the definition wouldn't redefine em as "object used in combat".


btw



i guess clubs arent weapons either because you didnt craft it.
I guess you still didn't read the Primary Source Rules, cause otherwise you would know that this is a "specific" "exception" and doesn't become a general rule. "Clubs" are "special", not generic improvised weapons.
e.g you have 2 wooden sticks. One might be good enough to be a "club" because it has good physical properties for that. The other may be lacking those good qualities and just be a mere "improvised weapon". The DM decides if you find a "Club" or just a mere "improvised weapon". Because you know, Not any part of a any tree makes a "good club".

You still ignore the Primary Source Rule, Amen..


You quoted the wrong weapon



According to our one poster these stones flung by the sling are not "ranged weapons" because they're not crafted.

It's just so ludicrous.
What should I expect.. you too make the same mistake and try to use a "specific rule" as "general rule". The sling gives you the "specific" permission to use stones as ammunition and gives even more specific rules to handle them (dmg for one size category smaller).

___________

I'm praying here that you at least try to get the Primary Source Rule and stop just ignoring it with every arguments you bring up. 5 pages of total ignorance of the Primary Source Rule that I am constantly pointing out here.

And what do I get? Another "Minority Joker" + another argument that again ignores the Primary Source Rule...
Welcome to hell..

[hamishspence]

While the "Improvised Weapon - category" may count as a "weapon category", that doesn't mean that the actual "Improvised Weapon" count as weapons. It would carry over, if the definition wouldn't redefine em as "object used in combat".


All weapons (except natural weapons) are "objects" - which makes them "objects used in combat". No redefinition is taking place.

[Gruftzwerg]

All weapons (except natural weapons) are "objects" - which makes them "objects used in combat". No redefinition is taking place.

You mean those weapons that are clearly defined as weapons due to the weapon table (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons)(s)? All of those weapons are "explicitly" declared as "weapons" from the Primary Source.
We are still running in circles here. We already had that argument how the manufactured weapons and unarmed strike are clearly defined due to the table. You constantly somehow avoid all "specific" definitions in the Primary Source.

[hamishspence]

Natural weapons are not in the table, yet are "clearly defined as weapons" - just weapons that follow slightly different rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Natural weapons are not in the table, yet are "clearly defined as weapons" - just weapons that follow slightly different rules.

We had this also covered. Natural Weapons call themselves out as weapon in their very definition. Compare it with Improvised Weapons definition which talks about "objects used in combat". Their definition carefully avoids to call em directly as "weapon".

[Darg]

You mean those weapons that are clearly defined as weapons due to the weapon table (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons)(s)? All of those weapons are "explicitly" declared as "weapons" from the Primary Source.
We are still running in circles here. We already had that argument how the manufactured weapons and unarmed strike are clearly defined due to the table. You constantly somehow avoid all "specific" definitions in the Primary Source.

Pray tell where the books define certain weapons as weapons? Weapons on the table are categorized and ordered on the table for perusal.

Also, please tell us where the books let you take an action to attack with an improvised weapon? Melee attacks are only performed by melee weapons. Ranged attacks are only performed by ranged weapons. The rules for improvised weapons don't provide rules for what action is required to use an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons not being weapons makes them completely unusable as weapons by RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

Pray tell where the books define certain weapons as weapons? Weapons on the table are categorized and ordered on the table for perusal.

Also, please tell us where the books let you take an action to attack with an improvised weapon? Melee attacks are only performed by melee weapons. Ranged attacks are only performed by ranged weapons. The rules for improvised weapons don't provide rules for what action is required to use an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons not being weapons makes them completely unusable as weapons by RAW.

The "Weapons" label of the table by base logic about tables. The tables defines anything presented there as a weapon. It's called "Table: "Weapons" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons)" for a reason.


Weapons found on Table: Weapons ....
Further the entry text for the table explicitly calls out that the things in the table are weapons.

A 100% clear definition. Compare that with Improvised Weapons which is lacking a positive statement and only talks about "objects used in combat". The difference is clear as day & night.

The "Improvised Weapons" rule gives you the permission to use em in combat and refers the DM to pick a fitting weapon from the weapon list for its assumed stats (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing and light/1-h/2-h/thrown and dmg stats; crit is set to 20/x2 as norm for Improvised Weapons). All permissions given to make attacks are given ("specific" permission to be used in combat = permission to do attacks) and all needed stats are provided (on DM's decision as the rule points out).
I don't get where you did see the problem here (kindly asking)? Seems pretty clear to me at least.

[Darg]

The rules don't specifically mention that you are permitted to use improvised weapons with melee or ranged attacks. The rules only permit the use of weapons for attacks. "Use in combat" and an attack roll penalty don't tell you what kind of action to take to actually make an improvised weapon attack. Melee attacks only permit using a melee weapon. Ranged attacks only permit using ranged weapons. If improvised weapons are not weapons then it is impossible to make attacks.

So yes, while you can use them in combat with an attack roll penalty there isn't much else you can do if you can't even attack with them..


The "Improvised Weapons" rule gives you the permission to use em in combat and refers the DM to pick a fitting weapon from the weapon list for its assumed stats (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing and light/1-h/2-h/thrown and dmg stats; crit is set to 20/x2 as norm for Improvised Weapons). All permissions given to make attacks are given ("specific" permission to be used in combat = permission to do attacks) and all needed stats are provided (on DM's decision as the rule points out).
I don't get where you did see the problem here (kindly asking)? Seems pretty clear to me at least.

So if an improvised weapon is functioning as a club, it can make melee attacks? Therefore it satisfies the melee weapon permission to make melee attacks? So it is a weapon by use even if not by classification? Meaning it is a weapon in fashion and therefore an eligible weapon for things that require using a weapon such as disarm? Since it is a weapon in this regard and the target of spells being a weapon don't specifically require the target to be a weapon in all ways but simply considered a weapon. Then spells that target weapons can target improvised weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

The rules don't specifically mention that you are permitted to use improvised weapons with melee or ranged attacks. The rules only permit the use of weapons for attacks. "Use in combat" and an attack roll penalty don't tell you what kind of action to take to actually make an improvised weapon attack. Melee attacks only permit using a melee weapon. Ranged attacks only permit using ranged weapons. If improvised weapons are not weapons then it is impossible to make attacks.

So yes, while you can use them in combat with an attack roll penalty there isn't much else you can do if you can't even attack with them..



So if an improvised weapon is functioning as a club, it can make melee attacks? Therefore it satisfies the melee weapon permission to make melee attacks? So it is a weapon by use even if not by classification? Meaning it is a weapon in fashion and therefore an eligible weapon for things that require using a weapon such as disarm? Since it is a weapon in this regard and the target of spells being a weapon don't specifically require the target to be a weapon in all ways but simply considered a weapon. Then spells that target weapons can target improvised weapons.
The rules for Improvised Weapons give you all the permission needed to attack:

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
We have an explicit permission to attack with objects (-4 penalty). And we have permission to pick comparable weapon stats relative to its size and damage potential. And since it is a "specific situation" it can trump "general" rules. As such the general rules for melee/range attacks are bypassed.

Primary Source Rule and Specific trumps General. I'm getting motion sickness here from all the circles we are running in this thread..^^
PS: Pls don't be offended here, but it literary takes me zero effort to see each time where you did ignore the Primary Source Rule (or Specific Trumps General which is a byproduct of the same rule). We are reaching slowly the end of the 6. page here, where the same rules get ignored for the sake of a witch hunt here, imho..

[Darg]

Primary source says that a weapon is an object. Primary source does not say that objects not designed as weapons aren't weapons. This is the one thing you have to prove for your point to have validity. Normal language dictates that improvised weapons are weapons. The rules basically require it to make sense.

Primary source tells us that improvised weapons are a category of weapon. You have yet to actually provide convincing evidence that this isn't the case. Text trumps table. Therefore the text saying that improvised weapons are a category of weapon trumps their lack of inclusion in the table.

Please tell us where the rules say they aren't weapons and then your point is proven. It can't be implication as there is text that explicitly says they are weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

Primary source says that a weapon is an object. Primary source does not say that objects not designed as weapons aren't weapons. This is the one thing you have to prove for your point to have validity. Normal language dictates that improvised weapons are weapons. The rules basically require it to make sense.
1. As said, all other categories (the weapons and unarmed strike in the weapon list, natural weapons) did all give the property to count/be weapons in their very definition. Improvised Weapons carefully avoid that in its definition.

2. Even in normal language / real life, the "primary source rule" works the same. We have a general definition of (real) weapons. And than we have specific definitions for special niches (e.g. for laws, in certain building/area, in the plane...
But never become these specific definitions general definitions that apply everywhere where weapons are mentioned. Specific beats General, but doesn't become General.


Primary source tells us that improvised weapons are a category of weapon. You have yet to actually provide convincing evidence that this isn't the case. Text trumps table. Therefore the text saying that improvised weapons are a category of weapon trumps their lack of inclusion in the table.

Please tell us where the rules say they aren't weapons and then your point is proven. It can't be implication as there is text that explicitly says they are weapons.

The "Improvised-Weapons-category" is a weapon category. And as already said, when we wouldn't had a more specific definition of Improvised Weapons, it would carry over. But the more specific definition of Improvised Weapons labels em as "objects", despite the category being a "weapon category". These kind of things exist in 3.5 as shown in the Natural Abilities & Special Abilities example:

Natural Abilities (NA) is a part of the "Special Abilities" page (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#).
NA are defined as anything that is not EX, SLA, SU.

Then we have a "Special Abilities" paragraph that is defined as EX, SLA, SU and thus excludes NA.

While the category "Natural Abilities" is a "Special Abilities", the actual Natural Abilities themselves are not Special Abilities.

The same mental spaghetti as we have with "Improvised Weapon" and "Weapons".

[icefractal]

I would say that they're a weapon while they're being wielded. So you probably can't enhance one the normal way (Craft Magic Arms and Armor), but you could cast Magic Weapon on it.

The potential issue with animating them is that animated weapons don't generally move the same way as general animated objects. They fly/hover rather than walking, and they don't articulate in ways other than those directly related to attacking.

So by that standard, a weapon-animated humanoid statue would fly around with the limbs not bending, and attack by ramming into people. Like a very glitchy video game character.

[newguydude1]

I would say that they're a weapon while they're being wielded. So you probably can't enhance one the normal way (Craft Magic Arms and Armor), but you could cast Magic Weapon on it.

The potential issue with animating them is that animated weapons don't generally move the same way as general animated objects. They fly/hover rather than walking, and they don't articulate in ways other than those directly related to attacking.

So by that standard, a weapon-animated humanoid statue would fly around with the limbs not bending, and attack by ramming into people. Like a very glitchy video game character.

thats not true. animate weapon does not grant animated objects the ability to fly. they need to hop around at 10ft speed

animate object doesnt give animated weapons the ability to fly either so they need to hop around at 10ft speed too.

the only thing that does make animated weapons fly is the flying weapon enchantment.

and there are plently of flexible weapons. whips. flails. spiked chain.

[icefractal]

thats not true. animate weapon does not grant animated objects the ability to fly. they need to hop around at 10ft speedSo it doesn't, that's pretty goofy. Swords hopping around like hostile pogo sticks. :smallbiggrin:

Now that I look it up, it does work "in most ways as an animated object", so at most you'd need to put joints in. And find a way to wield it.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has ever used this spell for its "normal" purpose - a 3rd level spell with Concentration to get a mediocre summon, and the weapon used could get broken? And yeah, I'm sure a lot of Assassins want to use their actions on a minion that's noisier than them and doesn't have Sneak Attack or Death Attack. They even ruled out the one assassination use I could see (animate a needle and have it go through a keyhole or small crack to attack someone inside).

[newguydude1]

So it doesn't, that's pretty goofy. Swords hopping around like hostile pogo sticks. :smallbiggrin:

Now that I look it up, it does work "in most ways as an animated object", so at most you'd need to put joints in. And find a way to wield it.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has ever used this spell for its "normal" purpose - a 3rd level spell with Concentration to get a mediocre summon, and the weapon used could get broken?

if you look at the mmi official animated object picture, the objects can get quite bendy despite being made out of metal so i dont think you even need joints. they cant be so bendy that it gives them mechanical benefits like rope's constrict and stuff like that, but they can be bendy enough to wield another weapon imo. cause animated statues wielding a weapon is a staple of animated objects.