3.5 improvised weapons and enchntments

[Menzath]

so this is an off shoot off this thread
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...Gnome-Calculus!

In an argument over if arrows can even be enchanted with the morphing property. The argument starts about page 2.

For brevity I will just pick up where the we just left off, I won't quote gruftzwerg's last post, but simply respond to it.

1. We have prestige classes and specific feats and races that let us use items not normally weapons, as weapons. This gives precedent for anything that can be treated as a weapon can be enchanted as such so long as it qualifies under the enchanting rules.

2. The permission is in arrows text itself, it is teated as a light improvised weapon.

3. You are half correct. We can treat arrows as masterwork because they can already be made masterwork under normal rules. That's why hulking hurlers can use masterwork art that has been enchanted. Still qualifies as a weapon to them under specific rules, and meets being master work for enchanting. Same with musical instruments, which also have precedent for being enchanted.

4. I doubt a table could be made masterwork under dnd rules as well, same with vials. But we are doing neither to begin with, we are using arrows.

4.b. wishful thinking... I do not believe I have been wishful in my thought processes, and even though I may look for new evidence and rules, I also do not think I am grasping at straws. You are free to disagree but I feel that alliterations aside, I have not been disproved.

5.

You can reshape a morphing weapon into any other melee or thrown weapon of the same size and type (light, one-handed, or two-handed). For instance, a morphing greatsword could become a spear, greataxe, or dire flail.
If a single weapon created with the morphing property becomes a double weapon, only one end of the double weapon retains
the weapon's magical bonus, although the other end is masterwork. If a double weapon created with the morphing property becomes a single weapon, it can have the properties of either end of the original double weapon. The properties of the other end are dormant but not lost; they become active again when the morphing weapon once again becomes a double weapon.

Emphasis mine. So yes, morphing can change into thrown weapons. It explicitly says so. And alchemical flasks and vials under splash rules are thrown ranged weapons, even when empty.

[Vizzerdrix]

So could a drinking stein be enchanted as a weapon? I`ve always wanted to make a dwarf who smashes face with his trusty battle stein, while maintaining a quenched thirst!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So could a drinking stein be enchanted as a weapon? I`ve always wanted to make a dwarf who smashes face with his trusty battle stein, while maintaining a quenched thirst!

It would make quaffing the blood of your enemies much easier. And if the stein was cursed to produce unlimited, say, acid...?

[Blue Jay]

3. You are half correct. We can treat arrows as masterwork because they can already be made masterwork under normal rules. That's why hulking hurlers can use masterwork art that has been enchanted. Still qualifies as a weapon to them under specific rules, and meets being master work for enchanting. Same with musical instruments, which also have precedent for being enchanted.

I do not agree with this reasoning. Here's the relevant quote from the SRD:

To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value. Additional magic supplies costs for the materials are subsumed in the cost for creating the magic weapon—half the base price given on Table: Weapons, according to the weapon’s total effective bonus.

(emphasis mine)

You're treating "masterwork" and "weapon" as two separate, unrelated requirements, or two separate and unrelated boxes to check. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, because we already know that not all items with the word "masterwork" affixed to them meet all the criteria for being enhanced as magic weapons (for example, masterwork armor doesn't meet all the requirements, even though it checks both the "masterwork" and "weapon" boxes). In fact, look at the quote above. It specifically says "a masterwork weapon." It doesn't say, "an object that is both masterwork and a weapon": there's nothing in that sentence that implies that "masterwork" and "weapon" can be treated as two separate and unrelated requirements.

Plus, let's have a go at some other SRD quotes:

Masterwork Weapons
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

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...

Looking at those two definitions side-by-side, doesn't it seem pretty counter-intuitive to say something it both "not crafted to be a weapon" and "a finely crafted weapon" at the same time? This speaks pretty clearly to RAI: improvised weapons are not supposed to count as masterwork weapons, and are also not supposed to be enhanced as magic weapons.

-----

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of improvised weapons having magical enhancements. I just don't think you can justify it the way you have. I prefer to justify it through clear and explicit house rules.

[CharonsHelper]

Looking at those two definitions side-by-side, doesn't it seem pretty counter-intuitive to say something it both "not crafted to be a weapon" and "a finely crafted weapon" at the same time? This speaks pretty clearly to RAI: improvised weapons are not supposed to count as masterwork weapons, and are also not supposed to be enhanced as magic weapons.

-----

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of improvised weapons having magical enhancements. I just don't think you can justify it the way you have. I prefer to justify it through clear and explicit house rules.

I 100% agree. But as a bit of a work-around, you could still probably have Magic Weapon cast on an improvised weapon, and then make it permanent. The big drawback is that it would have the potential to be hit with a Dispel Magic, and unlike an enchanted magic weapon, its boost would be gone forever.

Maybe a wand of Greater Magic Weapon would be a better option. Or give an arcane ally a 3rd rank pearl of power or two if they cast it for you, though the magic enhancement from it would likely be lower than you could afford for a weapon enchantment.

[Menzath]

I do not agree with this reasoning. Here's the relevant quote from the SRD:



You're treating "masterwork" and "weapon" as two separate, unrelated requirements, or two separate and unrelated boxes to check. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, because we already know that not all items with the word "masterwork" affixed to them meet all the criteria for being enhanced as magic weapons (for example, masterwork armor doesn't meet all the requirements, even though it checks both the "masterwork" and "weapon" boxes). In fact, look at the quote above. It specifically says "a masterwork weapon." It doesn't say, "an object that is both masterwork and a weapon": there's nothing in that sentence that implies that "masterwork" and "weapon" can be treated as two separate and unrelated requirements.

Plus, let's have a go at some other SRD quotes:





Looking at those two definitions side-by-side, doesn't it seem pretty counter-intuitive to say something it both "not crafted to be a weapon" and "a finely crafted weapon" at the same time? This speaks pretty clearly to RAI: improvised weapons are not supposed to count as masterwork weapons, and are also not supposed to be enhanced as magic weapons.

-----

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of improvised weapons having magical enhancements. I just don't think you can justify it the way you have. I prefer to justify it through clear and explicit house rules.

Thats an easy enough thing to prove. In this we have been using arrows, they already are enchantable weapons.
But in this instance I am enchanting them as meele weapons because arrows text let's us use them as such(albeit as improvised weapons).

As for enchanting steins... i suppose a drunken master could have them qualify as a weapon. And if you make it out of adamantine or another material that automatically makes it masterwork, that could work.

Also if something is masterwork, and can be used as a weapon, would that not make it viable to become an enchanted weapon?

Also I believe it was mentioned in a similar thread years back, the justicars abilty to treat manacles as a type of weapon. For them masterwork manacles would be a masterwork weapon and fit the requirements. Same with giants and an adamantine "rock" chunk. To them it is a weapon. If to someone it can be classified as a weapon, and can be masterwork, it can become a magic weapon since it fits the exact description.

But again arrows already fit this criteria to begin with.

[Gruftzwerg]

@ Menzath

You aren't applying the rules correctly.

Specific beats General != Specific becomes General

When we talk in 3.5 about Specific beats General, it means that in a specific situation there is an exception. But only for this specific niche and nowhere else. It doesn't become a general rule.

I'll try to explain it via an example:

Just because the monk's unarmed strike are treated as manufactured and natural weapon for the purpose of enhancements and effects doesn't mean that a druid with Improved Unarmed Strike feat may do it. The druid may even not do it when he have a Monk's Belt, since the belt only gives your the unarmed damage of a monk and not the entire unarmed strike ability of the monk. You need the monk's unarmed strike ability for this, be it from monk itself or one of the other sources that give you access too (Swordsage unarmed variant and some PRC).

or in our chase:

Improvised weapons rules allows you to use non weapons items for combat. But that doesn't allow you to enchant em as weapon, just because you can use em as weapon to some degree in combat. You need the explicit ability to treat em as masterwork weapon for the purpose of enchantments to do so and we lack any rule for that.

Arrows only count as light weapons for the purpose of using em as improvised weapons, which you need as info for specific combat situations (TWF, Sunder, Disarm..). This means, an arrow is a bad at sundering other weapons but can be used with TWF for less penatly (-2/-2). It does not allow to count as masterwork weapon for the purpose of weapon enchantments.

[Menzath]

@ Menzath

You aren't applying the rules correctly.

Specific beats General != Specific becomes General

When we talk in 3.5 about Specific beats General, it means that in a specific situation there is an exception. But only for this specific niche and nowhere else. It doesn't become a general rule.

I'll try to explain it via an example:

Just because the monk's unarmed strike are treated as manufactured and natural weapon for the purpose of enhancements and effects doesn't mean that a druid with Improved Unarmed Strike feat may do it. The druid may even not do it when he have a Monk's Belt, since the belt only gives your the unarmed damage of a monk and not the entire unarmed strike ability of the monk. You need the monk's unarmed strike ability for this, be it from monk itself or one of the other sources that give you access too (Swordsage unarmed variant and some PRC).

or in our chase:

Improvised weapons rules allows you to use non weapons items for combat. But that doesn't allow you to enchant em as weapon, just because you can use em as weapon to some degree in combat. You need the explicit ability to treat em as masterwork weapon for the purpose of enchantments to do so and we lack any rule for that.

Arrows only count as light weapons for the purpose of using em as improvised weapons, which you need as info for specific combat situations (TWF, Sunder, Disarm..). This means, an arrow is a bad at sundering other weapons but can be used with TWF for less penatly (-2/-2). It does not allow to count as masterwork weapon for the purpose of weapon enchantments.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects....
Phb.pg.41

Crafting and item enchentment is neither a spell or effect.
Also we already have improvised weapon rules in their own section. Its redundant to also have arrows list that they can be improvised weapons, unless its a specific rule.

Also monks fists are not treated as masterwork either for enchanting. So your analogy seems misplaced.

And just because something is bad at (non monk)unarmed strikes, doesnt make it not a natural attack. Its just that creatures without a listed natural attack just suck at it.

Arrows only count as light weapons for the purpose of using em as improvised weapons

You are separating the text on arrows.

An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon
Phb.pg.114

Its almost the other way around. When used as a meele weapon, it is both light and improvised.

[Vizzerdrix]

It would make quaffing the blood of your enemies much easier. And if the stein was cursed to produce unlimited, say, acid...?

Enchant it as an everfull mug. Give it frost damage, and as many poison boosters as you can find. Sizing too! Make it as big as you can with sizing, activate the frost, then activate the everfull mug feature. Alcohol is a poison, so the poison boosting (I know I`ve seen a few weapons that can do this!) Should enhance the hooch.

[Gruftzwerg]

Crafting and item enchentment is neither a spell or effect.
Also we already have improvised weapon rules in their own section. Its redundant to also have arrows list that they can be improvised weapons, unless its a specific rule.

Also monks fists are not treated as masterwork either for enchanting. So your analogy seems misplaced.

And just because something is bad at (non monk)unarmed strikes, doesnt make it not a natural attack. Its just that creatures without a listed natural attack just suck at it.

1. Crafting an item enhancement is not an effect itself, but what you put on the item is an effect, since it affects the item (and/or its user).
2. I never implied that a monk's unarmed strike counts as masterwork. "Masterwork" is just another layer of rules that prevent them to get enchanted directly. But they need to count as manufactured or natural weapon in the first place to be legally effected by those things.
3. This was to show that because something is a specific exception, that it doesn't carry over to become a general rule. A monk can profit from (Greater) Magic Weapon & (Greater) Magic Fang, anyone who doesn't have the monk's unarmed strike ability doesn't get the options for his (normal) unarmed strikes.

You are separating the text on arrows.


Its almost the other way around. When used as a meele weapon, it is both light and improvised.

"When used as melee weapon" doesn't equal "to count as full weapon". It refers to the arrow being used as "improvised weapon".
I still fail to see any evidence for your position, sorry.

[Menzath]

1. Crafting an item enhancement is not an effect itself, but what you put on the item is an effect, since it affects the item (and/or its user).
2. I never implied that a monk's unarmed strike counts as masterwork. "Masterwork" is just another layer of rules that prevent them to get enchanted directly. But they need to count as manufactured or natural weapon in the first place to be legally effected by those things.
3. This was to show that because something is a specific exception, that it doesn't carry over to become a general rule. A monk can profit from (Greater) Magic Weapon & (Greater) Magic Fang, anyone who doesn't have the monk's unarmed strike ability doesn't get the options for his (normal) unarmed strikes.



"When used as melee weapon" doesn't equal "to count as full weapon". It refers to the arrow being used as "improvised weapon".
I still fail to see any evidence for your position, sorry.

1. Not quite, they are magical properties, enchanted onto things. The results of those properties are effects.

2. Sorry your analogy seemed to run on so I had trouble seperating meaning. Yes monks are one of the few cases where it says they are also manufactured weapons. Still no relevance.

3. Arrow text is just as specific, it says we can use it as a meele weapon, and that it is both light and improvised when done so. Also arrows already count as weapons and can be masterwork for enchanting, this specific wording should just open up meele weapon properties to be enchanted onto them.

Even then the general rules for improvised weapons, being weapons, should still count for magic item crafting, as long as it meets the requirements of also being masterwork.

[Gruftzwerg]

1. Not quite, they are magical properties, enchanted onto things. The results of those properties are effects.

2. Sorry your analogy seemed to run on so I had trouble seperating meaning. Yes monks are one of the few cases where it says they are also manufactured weapons. Still no relevance.

3. Arrow text is just as specific, it says we can use it as a meele weapon, and that it is both light and improvised when done so. Also arrows already count as weapons and can be masterwork for enchanting, this specific wording should just open up meele weapon properties to be enchanted onto them.

Even then the general rules for improvised weapons, being weapons, should still count for magic item crafting, as long as it meets the requirements of also being masterwork.

so what? I still fail to see where the rules allow you to enchant em as melee weapons? We have rules for using em as improvised weapon use of arrows and we can have masterwork arrows, but where have you been given the option to enchant em as melee weapons? Just being able to use em as improvised weapon is not enough.
We are talking here about 2 different properties, "being able to use as improvised light weapon" and "being able to be enchanted as melee weapon". The rules only give you permission to the first and not the latter.

[Menzath]

so what? I still fail to see where the rules allow you to enchant em as melee weapons? We have rules for using em as improvised weapon use of arrows and we can have masterwork arrows, but where have you been given the option to enchant em as melee weapons? Just being able to use em as improvised weapon is not enough.
We are talking here about 2 different properties, "being able to use as improvised light weapon" and "being able to be enchanted as melee weapon". The rules only give you permission to the first and not the latter.

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.

However, only masterwork items may be enhanced to become magic armor and weapons.

Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value.

Dmg.pgs 282-286.

So, we have a weapon. It is masterwork, and meets the being meele and light for gaining an enchantment.

Do I have to spend a few hours to find wotc printed material where they have enchanted nonsense, or are you going to keep arguing semantics?

Also you never answered my earlier argument about special classes and races treating something that is normally not a weapon as one. Would that item then be a valid target for enchantment if they could treat it as a weapon?

[Gruftzwerg]

Dmg.pgs 282-286.

So, we have a weapon.

Let's stop right here. Where is the quote that allows arrows to count as weapons (overall or for enchanting purposes, not sole as improvised weapon)? We are still missing that.

It is masterwork, and meets the being meele and light for gaining an enchantment.

Do I have to spend a few hours to find wotc printed material where they have enchanted nonsense, or are you going to keep arguing semantics?

Masterwork Arrow = Masterwork Ammunition != Masterwork Weapon
counting as light weapon for the purpose of using it as Improvised Weapon != counting as weapon

Also you never answered my earlier argument about special classes and races treating something that is normally not a weapon as one. Would that item then be a valid target for enchantment if they could treat it as a weapon?

Depends on the exact wording of the ability. You would need to quote them and I can respond with a case by case response. It would need to count as masterwork weapon or explicitly call out to be a legal target for weapon enhancements.
I can't give an accurate answer to a vague question here, since there is no standard for the abilities you are mentioning here.

[Menzath]

Let's stop right here. Where is the quote that allows arrows to count as weapons (overall or for enchanting purposes, not sole as improvised weapon)? We are still missing that.


Masterwork Arrow = Masterwork Ammunition != Masterwork Weapon
counting as light weapon for the purpose of using it as Improvised Weapon != counting as weapon



Depends on the exact wording of the ability. You would need to quote them and I can respond with a case by case response. It would need to count as masterwork weapon or explicitly call out to be a legal target for weapon enhancements.
I can't give an accurate answer to a vague question here, since there is no standard for the abilities you are mentioning here.

Oh boy. In the phb pgs.112-113 the list of weapon categories and their descriptions, the last subsection of meele and ranged weapons section, lists ammunition. Later on page.122 is the section for masterwork weapons and costs, of which ammunition is listed with pricing.

In dmg.pg.221 the weapons section of magic items lists ranged weapons and ammunition. Later on dmg.228. For specific magic weapons, sleeping arrows are listed.

Because of the wording of the first sections that describe what is either a meele or ranged weapon, or what two categories weapons fall into when enchanted, those sentences dictate that ammunition are ranged weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

Oh boy. In the phb pgs.112-113 the list of weapon categories and their descriptions, the last subsection of meele and ranged weapons section, lists ammunition. Later on page.122 is the section for masterwork weapons and costs, of which ammunition is listed with pricing.

In dmg.pg.221 the weapons section of magic items lists ranged weapons and ammunition. Later on dmg.228. For specific magic weapons, sleeping arrows are listed.

Because of the wording of the first sections that describe what is either a meele or ranged weapon, or what two categories weapons fall into when enchanted, those sentences dictate that ammunition are ranged weapons.

ok, point for them being "ranged weapons" that can be masterwork weapons.
but that still doesn't allow you to enchant it as "melee weapon" with morphing sadly..

The problem is that a masterwork (melee) weapon is something that is better than the average weapon of its kind.
An arrow can be used as an improvised light weapon with dagger stats. But the "improvised weapon" automatically makes it worse than the average dagger. So an masterwork arrow will never be an masterwork melee weapon unless you can get rid of the "improvised weapon" status somehow (e.g. a special item that doesn't have this issue. I'm not aware if there is such a weapon 3.5, but would be interesting to know if there is any? Anyone knows?).

[Blue Jay]

Thats an easy enough thing to prove. In this we have been using arrows, they already are enchantable weapons.
But in this instance I am enchanting them as meele weapons because arrows text let's us use them as such(albeit as improvised weapons).

Arrows are certainly an edge case where it's unclear what side they should fall on. Personally, I'm inclined to lean in your favor on this specific point, just because it's fun to visualize an archer stabbing enemies with an arrow when they get too close to shoot them (I even created a homebrew archer class that granted an ability to make melee arrow attacks with proficiency). It's also really intuitive to transfer the masterwork property from ranged to melee use in this case, because the two uses are so similar.

But I'm still unsure that a masterwork arrow counts as a masterwork melee weapon by RAW or RAI. To me, the definitions of "masterwork weapon" and "improvised weapon" still conflict: a "masterwork improvised weapon" is both "not made for use as a weapon" and also "a weapon of superior quality," and that doesn't seem like a tenable situation for me.

But, I don't really see any point in arguing much further here: I think I'm happy to give you this one and let arrows' masterwork quality apply to use as melee weapons, though I think it needs to be treated as a special case, and not one that can be extrapolated to other improvised weapons.

As for enchanting steins... i suppose a drunken master could have them qualify as a weapon. And if you make it out of adamantine or another material that automatically makes it masterwork, that could work.

This point is another intriguing case. But, I think it hinges on whether or not you can actually make a stein out of adamantine. Normally, only objects that are typically made of metal can be made of adamantine. Steins aren't normally made out of metal, so I don't think you can make an adamantine stein by RAW.

But, in the case of other objects, it's not so easily dismissed. Like, an iron candlestick. That could certainly be made of adamantine, and then I think you'd have a better argument for counting that as a masterwork weapon. But, I don't think that's necessarily clear, either. For example, does adamantine armor automatically count as a masterwork weapon? Or does an adamantine battleaxe count as a masterwork shield? You've got to think critically about the extent of the word "masterwork," and that brings me to my next point:

Also if something is masterwork, and can be used as a weapon, would that not make it viable to become an enchanted weapon?

We already know that a "masterwork" quality isn't a monolithic thing. A shield can have two different qualities that are both called "masterwork" --- one that enhances it as an armor/shield, and one that enhances it as a weapon --- and neither of those qualities grants the benefits of the other. So, the precedent is that different types of "masterwork" quality do not necessarily provide the same benefits. So, what you need to show is that the "masterwork" quality of an artwork or a masterwork artisan's tool grants the benefits of the "masterwork" quality that is specifically for weapons.

Keep in mind that the text about enhancing weapons doesn't just say the weapon needs to be of "masterwork quality": it specifically uses the phrase "masterwork weapon." So, that seems to be a pretty clear statement that you specifically need the type of "masterwork" quality that enhances a weapon, and not just any quality that has the name "masterwork."

Also I believe it was mentioned in a similar thread years back, the justicars abilty to treat manacles as a type of weapon. For them masterwork manacles would be a masterwork weapon and fit the requirements. Same with giants and an adamantine "rock" chunk. To them it is a weapon. If to someone it can be classified as a weapon, and can be masterwork, it can become a magic weapon since it fits the exact description.

I don't agree with the manacles example: I think your argument is still contingent on the incorrect notion that all "masterwork" qualities are interchangeable for this purpose. I do think it would be perfectly reasonable for a justiciar to have a set of manacles that are also crafted as a masterwork flail (because he wields them like a flail). But, I think you'd need to pay separately for the "masterwork manacles" quality and the "masterwork weapon" quality.

On the other hand, I think the rock example checks out. You can make a masterwork catapult stone, so I don't see why you couldn't make a masterwork giant's stone.

But you're again right to point out these edge cases: my (and Gruftzwerg's) basic argument does hit a snag when deciding how to handle objects that are sometimes considered improvised weapons and sometimes considered proper weapons. I think there's a case to be made that, when an object is wielded as an improvised weapon, it can't benefit from any enhancements or magical properties. So, a giant's +1 flaming rock is just a plain ol' rock for my half-orc barbarian, and a justiciar's +2 manacle-flail of impact is just a plain ol' set of manacles for my elf ranger. But, it's a definite gray area, and I don't blame you for interpreting it in a different direction. But, I do think you need to address the non-interchangeable "masterwork" qualities conundrum before you extrapolate too far beyond these edge cases.

[Menzath]

Arrows are certainly an edge case where it's unclear what side they should fall on. Personally, I'm inclined to lean in your favor on this specific point, just because it's fun to visualize an archer stabbing enemies with an arrow when they get too close to shoot them (I even created a homebrew archer class that granted an ability to make melee arrow attacks with proficiency). It's also really intuitive to transfer the masterwork property from ranged to melee use in this case, because the two uses are so similar.

But I'm still unsure that a masterwork arrow counts as a masterwork melee weapon by RAW or RAI. To me, the definitions of "masterwork weapon" and "improvised weapon" still conflict: a "masterwork improvised weapon" is both "not made for use as a weapon" and also "a weapon of superior quality," and that doesn't seem like a tenable situation for me.

But, I don't really see any point in arguing much further here: I think I'm happy to give you this one and let arrows' masterwork quality apply to use as melee weapons, though I think it needs to be treated as a special case, and not one that can be extrapolated to other improvised weapons.

In this instance and a few edge cases I see nothing wrong with having to pay extra gold to have it bee a masterwork weapon(ranged, projectile) and masterwork weapon(meele), and i definitely do not see enchants from meele and ranged being cross compatible. I think the enchants would be use specific, but still count against total enchanments.

This point is another intriguing case. But, I think it hinges on whether or not you can actually make a stein out of adamantine. Normally, only objects that are typically made of metal can be made of adamantine. Steins aren't normally made out of metal, so I don't think you can make an adamantine stein by RAW.

According to stein wiki, they can be made of silver and pewter. So metals work, though a steel/adamantine one would weigh considerably more.

But, in the case of other objects, it's not so easily dismissed. Like, an iron candlestick. That could certainly be made of adamantine, and then I think you'd have a better argument for counting that as a masterwork weapon. But, I don't think that's necessarily clear, either. For example, does adamantine armor automatically count as a masterwork weapon? Or does an adamantine battleaxe count as a masterwork shield? You've got to think critically about the extent of the word "masterwork," and that brings me to my next point:



We already know that a "masterwork" quality isn't a monolithic thing. A shield can have two different qualities that are both called "masterwork" --- one that enhances it as an armor/shield, and one that enhances it as a weapon --- and neither of those qualities grants the benefits of the other. So, the precedent is that different types of "masterwork" quality do not necessarily provide the same benefits. So, what you need to show is that the "masterwork" quality of an artwork or a masterwork artisan's tool grants the benefits of the "masterwork" quality that is specifically for weapons.

Keep in mind that the text about enhancing weapons doesn't just say the weapon needs to be of "masterwork quality": it specifically uses the phrase "masterwork weapon." So, that seems to be a pretty clear statement that you specifically need the type of "masterwork" quality that enhances a weapon, and not just any quality that has the name "masterwork."

I'll agree to that, the masterwork quality being different from the masterwork-weapon, or masterwork-armor qualities. I guess that is something the crafter has to decide upon when the item is made.

I don't agree with the manacles example: I think your argument is still contingent on the incorrect notion that all "masterwork" qualities are interchangeable for this purpose. I do think it would be perfectly reasonable for a justiciar to have a set of manacles that are also crafted as a masterwork flail (because he wields them like a flail). But, I think you'd need to pay separately for the "masterwork manacles" quality and the "masterwork weapon" quality.

On the other hand, I think the rock example checks out. You can make a masterwork catapult stone, so I don't see why you couldn't make a masterwork giant's stone.

/nod

But you're again right to point out these edge cases: my (and Gruftzwerg's) basic argument does hit a snag when deciding how to handle objects that are sometimes considered improvised weapons and sometimes considered proper weapons. I think there's a case to be made that, when an object is wielded as an improvised weapon, it can't benefit from any enhancements or magical properties. So, a giant's +1 flaming rock is just a plain ol' rock for my half-orc barbarian, and a justiciar's +2 manacle-flail of impact is just a plain ol' set of manacles for my elf ranger. But, it's a definite gray area, and I don't blame you for interpreting it in a different direction. But, I do think you need to address the non-interchangeable "masterwork" qualities conundrum before you extrapolate too far beyond these edge cases.

So after looking at rules compendium, it now lists improvised as a subcategory under weapons, like non-lethal, weapon size, and light/one-handed/two-handed.

That makes me think that it relies on user intent, much like making an object that is normally not a weapon a masterwork weapon, it relies on the crafters intent.

Although the short description on masterwork items in magic item creation(dmg.pg. 283.) Seems to contradict with other rules on making art and a few other odd items. Does not look like an errata or update to those rules either.

There seems to be a disconnect in the writers usage of masterwork. Sometimes it seems specific, other times it is generalized and says all other cases are wrong.

[Blue Jay]

So after looking at rules compendium, it now lists improvised as a subcategory under weapons, like non-lethal, weapon size, and light/one-handed/two-handed.

That makes me think that it relies on user intent, much like making an object that is normally not a weapon a masterwork weapon, it relies on the crafters intent.

Although the short description on masterwork items in magic item creation(dmg.pg. 283.) Seems to contradict with other rules on making art and a few other odd items. Does not look like an errata or update to those rules either.

There seems to be a disconnect in the writers usage of masterwork. Sometimes it seems specific, other times it is generalized and says all other cases are wrong.

I agree: the rules for this particular topic simply are not fully fleshed out, which is why I think it's a big gray area where RAW breaks down a bit. I still like the interpretation I presented in this thread, but I do recognize that it isn't perfect and doesn't cleanly address a lot of the gray area. It seems that the designers didn't really consider the possibility of a PC crafting a special improvised weapon the way you describe, which means the rules are not well-formed to handle it. So, I think we generally just have to rely on a DM's ruling to sort out the gray areas of this topic. I imagine that many DMs will have no problems letting you craft a +1 adamantine chair or something, even though it stretches some rules, simply because it adds to the player's fun.

Other DMs might find compromises (which is my preferred approach). I prefer that the improvised weapon rules only apply to weapons that are legitimately improvised, and not to weapons that you design or craft specially and carry around on your person. And I don't like seeing players lean on technicalities and loopholes to get the thing they want: I'd rather just handle it with a special house rule.

Like, if you have a non-weapon object you want to carry around and wield as an improvised weapon, I'd prefer to treat the object as an unusually-crafted version of a normal weapon, rather than as an improvised weapon. For example, a player in one of my games wanted his jester to wield a rubber chicken, so we worked it out together and eventually decided on a truncheon (from BoED) that was simply refluffed as a rubber chicken. That way, there was no need to engage the improvised weapon rules at all. I would prefer to handle your adamantine stein in this way: have it count as a light mace with an unusual construction.

I also created (but haven't yet used) a Tavern Brawler prestige class that has some abilities related to improvised weapons, including an automatic, magical +1 enhancement bonus for any improvised weapon you wield. That lets me keep the "legitimately improvised" aspect the way I like it without also robbing the player of the ability to wield a magic weapon. If I were to expand that class beyond its current 3 levels, I'd add more enhancement options, similar to a soulknife's mind blade enhancements.

One other homebrew option that I've not yet created, but would like to have available for any future improvised-weapon players, is a magic item that works kind of like a necklace of natural weapons, but applies to improvised weapons instead of natural weapons.

[Darg]

I think it has to do with the intent behind the crafting. Obviously something crafted as a weapon, say a chair, would be designed to be more sturdy, lightweight, and wield able. That said, you can't be proficient with the weapon without DM intervention.

So I think it boils down to what the object was designed to do. If it was designed to be a weapon, even if unconventional, it could be a masterwork weapon that you are nonproficient with. If it was made to be a random knickknack then it could be a masterwork knickknack that could be used as an improvised weapon. It wasn't made as a masterwork weapon, it was made as a masterwork knickknack. In this way you could enchant it as a knickknack but not a weapon.