That post wasn't directed at you, TJ. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The previous one was: if it's got a listed DV, it probably makes sense that it gets the bonus. If not, it gets the Mastery DV. This is just a rule of thumb situation. If you want to argue that the GM should decide, then do so. It's not very useful to argue that 'TJ should decide', though.

It is only a viable option for Bear shifters.

The way we run it Throwing Weapons (the category) get the +1 DV, everything else is improvised and doesn´t. Easy that way.

The examples for improvised weapons given here do not normally make good improvised throwing weapons, and Str/2 is actually a downgrade for several entries on the Improvised weapons table from Arsenal. So there is certainly room for discussion. I see "Missile" Mastery as a two-part power that enhances stuff intended as non-explosive throwing weapon and allows using light objects as improvised throwing weapons.

TJ, do me a favor, look up the word "tautology", please.

*facepalm*

~Umi

Weapon:
1 A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
2 A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".

If I use a pot plant to hurt you it's a weapon by definition.

That would imply that a falling character would receive more damage than any character that was fallen upon. That seems moderately counter-intuitive. At the gery least they should both be subject to roughly the same damage.

I hate to mix thing up here (... No I don't (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) but:


and:


The way I read these two items is:

1) The Arsenal book refers to the items listed in the Improvised Thrown Weapons table as "thrown weapons" (see emphasis in first quote). These are items that anyone can throw using the thrown weapons skill and cause damage. Items such as pens, snowballs, or playing cards can be thrown but they do not cause damage.

2) The Missile Mastery power gives a +1 DV to any thrown weapon (see emphasis in second quote above). Therefore, any item listed in the Improvised Thrown Weapons table would get the +1 DV from the Missile Mastery power.

3) The Missile Mastery power give items that would not normally cause damage a damage code of (STR/2), but also calls them improvised thrown weapons. Therefore, as pointed out in #1 and #2 above they would also get the +1 DV. Please note: as molotov cocktails do not explode (they flash and flare but do not explode) they would get the +1.

4) Any thrown item that causes stun damage can be changed to physical damage by the use of Missile Mastery.

5) The only thrown items that would not receive the +1 DV are explosive thrown items (see emphasis in second quote).

To the OP's question, at our table, we that the approx weight and compare it to one of the items in the list and use those ranges.

Yes. Which actually causes more problems with the interpretation being thrown about that classified improvised weapons with listed DVs as weapons.

--



If we look at the common definition of a weapon "a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings" then clause 2 is wasted text since there are no non-weapons. As soon as an object is used to inflict damage, it becomes a weapon. That means that everything not in the Improvised Weapon table deals exactly 1P damage since it lacks a damage code.

Of course, we can look at the wording in Arsenal for Improvised Melee or Throwing Weapons.





With that in mind that means there must be a line drawn to delineated between weapons and non-weapons. One of these makes more logical sense than the other.

Method 1 is to say that if the object has a DV code then it is considered a weapon. This method has significant problems in light of the wording in Arsenal regarding Improvised Weapons and Improvised Throwing Weapons due to the fact that those tables are non-exhaustive.
Method 2 is to say that if the object's design intent was to cause harm then it is considered a weapon.

Yes. There is some room for wiggle here, even though both sides are going out of their way to declare absolute victory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I'm well aware that the *simplified* interpretation I mentioned, for example, is merely that. It's quick and easy, and therefore suffers a bit in terms of 'reasonable': I agree that there are listed DV items on the Improvised table that probably shouldn't get +1, and there are some that should. However, this basically requires, as I said, direct GM calls on every single item. I prefer to avoid that, but it's hardly necessary to do so for everyone. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

On the other hand, it's clearly inadequate to say 'anything used as a weapon gets the +1', when literally everything you throw is therefore being used as a weapon. This is just saying 'the adept gets +1 DV on all throwing', which doesn't seem to be what Missile Mastery stipulates for e.g. playing cards.

I hate to get involved in this, but this is easy to solve:

Anything that is a weapon by the normal rules (i.e. not an improvised weapon; knives, shuriken, etc.) gets the +1
Anything the rules list as an improvised weapon gets the listed damage (i.e. the missile master get the same damage a normal person gets with a bowling ball)
Anything that is comparable to the improvised table (it's not a bowling ball, it's potted plant, that's pretty close) uses the table.
Anything else is Str/2

I would disagree there. It is just saying that a playing card privides no damage. To a Missile Mastery adept, a playing card provides damage of (STR/2)P. And because it is a thrown weapon, the Missile Mastery adept gets an additional +1 because it is non-explosive.

And everyone seems to be taking the added damage section out of context. It is just stating that small object that do not normally cause damage would cause damage in the hands of a Missile Mastery adept, not they do not get the +1. That is a different section.

,edit: to add additional thought>

That is possibly one interpretation, but it's certainly phrased in an odd order if that's the intended 'RAW'. It seems strange to me personally to apply that level of power creep, as well, when the point seemed to be 'you better than normal with weapons, and you can also use non-weapons, yay!'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) They could have literally just said, 'Missile Mastery gives +1 DV to all throwing attacks', is all.

I'm pretty okay with that, Draco18s, but it doesn't seem absurd that there could be some Improvised items that are very 'weaponlike' and 'deserve' the +1. I think the GM should feel free to exercise his discretion.

If the player thinks it should, they appeal to their DM, and the DM can rain judgement down upon them.

That, however, isn't a rules debate.

Let me try a different set of questions...

Would you agree that the intent of Missile Mastery is that the adept can throw things better than a normal person? If yes, then why would the adept not get +1 on the improvised throwing weapons listed in Arsenal (and any others the GM allowed)? Clearly the adept should not get the +1 when throwing non-weapons (for the Str/2 damage).

It seems to me that most people are getting stuck on the use of the word "improvised" in the description of Missile Mastery. All three examples of "improvised weapons" are complete non-weapons (eg do no damage) in the hands of someone without Missile Mastery. It's certainly not conclusive (being 3 examples) but that strongly suggests to me that the intent was for the first clause (+1 DV) to apply to any thrown weapon (improvised or not) that can be thrown for damage without Missile Mastery and for non-weapons to do Str/2 damage.

In any game I run, I'll run it as +1 DV to any thrown weapon (including improvised) that can be thrown for serious damage by someone without Missile Mastery. This isn't perfect - if I were to break it down, I'd say potted plant and body should not get the +1 (being extremely awkward and unaerodynamic to throw) but it seems better to keep it simple. In any game I play, I'll try to convince the GM to use this interpretation.

Note that the adept still gets any penalties the GM imposes for throwing awkward items (nowhere in Missile Mastery does it say he doesn't).

Looking at dates, I think part of the problem is that Street Magic was published before Arsenal (and nobody ever bothered to clarify Missile Mastery in the errata).

Right, there's clearly some distinction possible between 'not great weapons' and 'not at *all* weapons'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

What makes it a rules issue, Draco18s, is the strangeness of the interpretation required to make it work that way. It does seem like the books don't go together. But, again, I'm pretty okay with what you laid out, because it errs on the side of less power.

Part 3 starts up the circular logic, however. Especially given that the rules themselves state otherwise. If they were inteded to receive the +1 damage code it would have been listed as such.

Look at it this way, if something is doing only Str/2, what is the big frackin deal with it getting another +1? It's not like that extra 1 point is going to suddenly going to push it into an insta-kill attack.

It's the principle of the matter... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So basically, you're so concerned about injecting more "realism" that that little, tiny +1 somehow offends your sensibilities? *rolls eyes*

Nope... Has absolutley nothing to do about realism, it just grates against the sensibilities... *Rolls Eyes*

If a little +1 grates your sensibilities that much. Here's two words for you "Lighten Up"

QFT

Game mechanics aren't about lightening up. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) They're about the rules making sense and fitting together. This one is an issue because there seems to be a small failure of Street Magic and Arsenal to fit together smoothly. It's not hard to fix, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore everything.

Thank You Yerameyahu...

That's not just part of the problem. That's the entire problem. The only way to solve this is to apply rules chronologically.

Shadowrun : 26000
Street Magic : 26001
Arsenal : 26003

With the original rule book (26000), there was two throwing weapons. Shuriken (STR/2)P and Throwing Knives (STR/2+1)P.

Now apply Street Magic. Shuriken becomes (STR/2+1)P and Throwing Knives become (STR/2+2)P. All other objects that are thrown as a weapon become (STR/2)P. Essentially, any other thrown object has the potency of a shuriken, shuriken have the potency of throwing knives, and throwing knives become more potent. It is also probably worthwhile to note that the power permits staging stun damage to physical as well.

That is the original intent of the power. To restate that original intent, the power was designed to permit you to turn any object into a lethal throwing weapon and permit you to be more lethal with weapons that were designed to be thrown.

Now, along comes Arsenal and creates a table of sample objects that are not intended to be thrown and gives them a damage code and a range table with the implication that any object can be thrown and given a damage code. It also comes along with a new 0 to -3 penalty for throwing awkward objects. Most of these improvised weapons have a damage code on par with or greater than (STR/2) and many are P class damage rather than S.

Yes, you could give a +1 damage to every weapon, however that is definitely not in line with the spirit of the rules.

I think that there are three things that should happen that keeps the power within its intent.
1. Only weapons that are listed under "Throwing Weapon" categories in books get the straight +1 damage.
2. Adepts with the power get (STR/2) or the listed improvised damage code, whichever is higher and they have the option for that damage to be either S or P.
3. The optional awkwardness penalty for improvised throwing weapons shall be enforced with a minimum of -1 and a maximum of -3 based on the awkwardness of the object. Adepts with this power ignore the penalty. This gives them anywhere from +0-3 extra damage on the attack.

--



It has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with consistency, coherency, and how well the rule continues to align with its original intent as more and more splat is piled on. This power fails on at least two, if not all three, of those counts.