Missile Mastery "anything" range? Options

[Yerameyahu]

Hehe. Assume I'm not blatantly violating the rules under discussion, no.

[Umidori]

So TJ, if I approached you in the street angrily brandishing a broken bottle, you would not feel threatened because I didn't have a "weapon"? If the police got involved you would tell them I was "unarmed"? If I were charged, it wouldn't be for assault with a deadly "weapon"?

In real life, most anything you use to attack someone with is a weapon - legally, logically, linguistically, and in every other way.

In Shadowrun, any object with which a normal character can directly deal damage is a weapon. (So for example, broken glass on the ground isn't a weapon just because you can throw someone onto it.)

If anything, Shadowrun is more strict about what is considered a weapon than real life is. But nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE in the rules does it state, suggest, imply, hint at, or in any other way give any evidence in support of the possibility of the notion that Arsenal's Improvised Throwing Weapons are not classed as "Throwing Weapons" in exactly the same way that Arsenal's Improvised Melee Weapons are classed as "Melee Weapons".

The DV bonuses to Blades and Blunt damage from martial arts still apply to Improvised Melee Weapons. Likewise, the DV bonuses to Non-Explosive Throwing Weapons damage from Missile Mastery still apply to Improvised Throwing Weapons.

~Umi

[Yerameyahu]

The question is not 'is an improvised weapon a weapon?' That's not even relevant. The question is, 'does Missile Mastery mean non-improvised weapons in this instance?' It's not clear that it does.

Repeated recourse to 'the dictionary argument' doesn't add anything, in addition to being hard to defend: would people normally say a playing card, a bowling ball, etc. are weapons? Is your fist a weapon? Your gloves? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Those bonuses are skill-linked, irrelevant.

[Umidori]

A fist is a weapon.
A bowling bowl is a weapon.
A playing card is not a weapon.
Normal gloves are not weapons.
Sap gloves are weapons.

Ask yourself this - "If I brandish this [object] at a police officer, will I get in trouble?"

If the answer is YES - congratulations, it's a weapon!
If the answer is NO - don't worry, it still might be a weapon depending on whether it's dangerous in a non-obvious way! (like sap gloves, or a zip gun, etc)
If the answer is THE OFFICER WOULD LAUGH AT ME - sorry pal, not a weapon!

"Stand back! I've got a sturdy, heavy, blunt object!"
Vs.
"Stand back! I've got a poker chip!"

~Umi

[Yerameyahu]

Ah, but the policeman doesn't know that you deal Str/2 P with that laughable object. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Anyway, this definition is simply too arbitrary and too broad. This is the 'I know it when I see it' definition.

I don't even care which decision you make about Improvised Weapons and the +1; as I said before, it's clear to me that we're dealing with 3 notional categories (nonweapons, improvised weapons, and 'normal' weapons), but what you do with them is your own business. I object to these BS 'linguistic' arguments, though. Unless the game is obviously using a defined keyword (and it's not), you can't claim with surety what Missile Mastery was talking about there. After all, people using the same argument as you above have used it to reach different conclusions: a couple people said that *everything* gets +1, because they're all obviously being used as weapons.

[wilcoxon]

What part of "a Potted Plant is not a Weapon" do you not understand or agree with? I mean really... Has nothing to do with thinking I am right and others of you are wrong. Just becasue something can deal damage when used in a manner not consistent with its manufacture and end-use does not make it a weapon. They are IMPROVISED for a reason. The act of Improvising them allows you to use them in a way they were never intended to be used. If they were never intended to be used as a Weapon, then they are not Weapons. That is basic common sense. If I am carrying a baseball and baseball bat with me while I walk home from a game, the cops will not stop me to ask me about the weapons I am carrying. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WEAPONS, even though I can kill someone with them if I beat them enough with them.

Not sure why you cannot grasp that concept. And the fact that several others have stated the same thing (but likely much more eloquently, to be sure) leads me to believe that you are just sniping to snipe.

Regardless... Looks like I am finished with this unelss something of interest actually crops up. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Umm. Sure. "Basic common sense" that both the law and the definition of weapon disagree with.

Cops will pretty much never stop you to ask about weapons you are carrying except firearms.

Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing about you. You have contributed nothing other than your own personal view (backed up by nothing) to this discussion and keep sniping at me (and others).

What's so hard to grasp about needing evidence to back up your personal opinion? It certainly can't be fact without something to back it up.

From a rules persepective... If I'd written Arsenal, I likely would not have included potted plant or body under improvised throwing weapons. I suppose part of it comes down to views on the intent of Missile Mastery. I see it as clearly being to make the adept better at throwing anything that normally could be thrown for damage (and able to throw almost anything else for some damage). You disagree and seem to be hung up on the word "improvised" in the Missile Mastery description (none of the examples given are improvised weapons - they are non-weapons).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Umm. Sure. "Basic common sense" that both the law and the definition of weapon disagree with.

Cops will pretty much never stop you to ask about weapons you are carrying except firearms.

Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing about you. You have contributed nothing other than your own personal view (backed up by nothing) to this discussion and keep sniping at me (and others).

What's so hard to grasp about needing evidence to back up your personal opinion? It certainly can't be fact without something to back it up.

From a rules persepective... If I'd written Arsenal, I likely would not have included potted plant or body under improvised throwing weapons. I suppose part of it comes down to views on the intent of Missile Mastery. I see it as clearly being to make the adept better at throwing anything that normally could be thrown for damage (and able to throw almost anything else for some damage). You disagree and seem to be hung up on the word "improvised" in the Missile Mastery description (none of the examples given are improvised weapons - they are non-weapons).

The law does not disagree... Do you believe that cops will stop me for carrying a Baseball Bat? or a Potted Plant? Or a Bowling Ball? Not in my country they do not. And if they are not stoping me, it is because they are NOT weapons. Now, If I use that baseball bat in a beating, that would be a different story.

I can guarantee that if I am carrying a Sword, I will likely be stopped (if noticed) and politely asked why I am carrying a sword.

As for the examples given, they are now Improvised Weapons, becasue the thing thrown is now an item used to cause damage. Yes, I agree that they are not weapons, but they have been improvised into one by the act of its use.

Don't know if I am making sense...

Have a nice day...

[Umidori]

I never said "carrying" any of those things.

I said "brandishing" them. Specifically at the police officer.

Aren't you the very same guy who loves to point out how item availability can be completely unrestricted and you can therefor own any non-R or non-F item you like, but walking down the street with it in public view might get you in trouble?

Regardless, this argument is getting unbelieveably absurd. You're only willing to respond to other people's evidence, you aren't willing to offer a scrap of your own. Logical debate cannot exist where one party refuses to participate in the logical discussion. We're done here.

~Umi

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I never said "carrying" any of those things.

I said "brandishing" them. Specifically at the police officer.

Aren't you the very same guy who loves to point out how item availability can be completely unrestricted and you can therefor own any non-R or non-F item you like, but walking down the street with it in public view might get you in trouble?

Nope, that is not me...

Regardless, this argument is getting unbelieveably absurd. You're only willing to respond to other people's evidence, you aren't willing to offer a scrap of your own. Logical debate cannot exist where one party refuses to participate in the logical discussion. We're done here.

~Umi

Common Sense needs eveidence? New one on me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Common Sense says that a Bowling ball is not a weapon. What more need be said?
But you are right, the issue is pretty absurd. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Have a great day.

[Umidori]

Common Sense needs eveidence? New one on me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, actually.

To the Ancient Hebrews, stoning people to death for minor crimes was just common sense. The unprovoked murder of people who belonged to certain rival tribes like the Philistines, or the heretical Hebrew-related Samaritans was just common sense. The ownership of slaves, the total dominance of women, the violence conducted toward those of different heritages or religious beliefs, all of it was unquestioned common sense.

I find it absurd to even consider the possibility that you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's far more palatable to believe you're simply spuriously trying to be infuriating for a lark, rather than the notion that you do not comprehend what logic is, or how it operates, or why it is used, and that you live your life in a state of complete and utter personal certainty of everything you think you know and find any questioning of those supposed truths to be absurd and infuriating as if they were self-evidently absolute, objective, and uncontestable.

If I am correct and you're simply seeking to get a rise out of me, congratulations, I am perturbed. If not, I am so very sorry.

~Umi

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yes, actually.

To the Ancient Hebrews, stoning people to death for minor crimes was just common sense. The unprovoked murder of people who belonged to certain rival tribes like the Philistines, or the heretical Hebrew-related Samaritans was just common sense. The ownership of slaves, the total dominance of women, the violence conducted toward those of different heritages or religious beliefs, all of it was unquestioned common sense.

I find it absurd to even consider the possibility that you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's far more palatable to believe you're simply spuriously trying to be infuriating for a lark, rather than the notion that you do not comprehend what logic is, or how it operates, or why it is used, and that you live your life in a state of complete and utter personal certainty of everything you think you know and find any questioning of those supposed truths to be absurd and infuriating as if they were self-evidently absolute, objective, and uncontestable.

If I am correct and you're simply seeking to get a rise out of me, congratulations, I am perturbed. If not, I am so very sorry.

~Umi

And yet today, none of that tripe is common sense. We do not live in ancient times.
I do know what logic is. Logically, claiming that a Bowling Ball is a Weapon, is crazy.
It would be more apt to say that a Bowling ball is capable of being USED as a weapon (really, what can't be, if you try hard enough), but that does not make it a Weapon.

I am not seeking to get a rise out of anyone. I am just astounded that there are a least a few people who do not get what I am saying. I never said a Bowling ball could not be used to kill someone. Or a Potted Plant, or anything else you would like to ascribe to me. My statement was very simple. Non-Weapons (and Improvised Weapons) are not weapons (for the most part; an explosive device is still an explosive device regardless of what it is made of, and are still controlled, but we were never talking about such things in the first place), even when they can be used to kill someone. I could kill you with a Phone Book, if I tried hard enough, and yet classifying it as a weapon is ludicrous.

And there is no need to be sorry... I truly do not understand how you, an obviously thinking individual, could believe that the many things we have discussed (bowling ball, plants, etc) are actually classified as weapons. NOT CAN BE (if used for that purpose), but actually ARE classified as such. Yes, ONCE YOU HAVE USED said Object for attacking and damaging a person, then it is likely to be classified as a deadly weapon (though an improvised one at that), but in the context of the Missile Mastery Power, even an Improvised throwing weapon SHOULD NOT GAIN a +1 DV, FOR THE VERY SIMPLE FACT THAT THE ITEMS IN QUESTION ARE NOT WEAPONS. And that was the crux of the conversation to start with (to bring it back to the OP topic; I think).

In the end, it is only a +1 DV. I know exactly how I treat the question. You have other ideas on the matter, whether they make sense to me or not. You have yet to try to actually provide me with an explanation as to WHY you believe that way. All you have done is throw terms at me and demand I read about them. So you are educated, good for you. All you did is irritate me, rather than actually having a conversation. EXPLAIN why you think this way, don't demand that I prove that a Potted Plant is not a Weapon. Maybe we will actually get somewhere.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Shortstraw]

{Improvised Weapons} ⊂ {All Weapons} (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

That's not quite the issue. There is some ambiguity in the Missile Mastery entry about whether 'all weapons' get the bonus, or only something like 'normal weapons', *or* even possibly 'anything used as a weapon' (which then includes the playing card example).

[Shortstraw]

Technically I believe they should but I don't believe a little house ruling would be inappropriate (although the dice pool penalty from using improvised already punishes them for not using decent weapons).

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, though that part itself is a little wonky: why no penalty for a playing card/anything else that falls into that Missile Mastery category? (Because they hadn't thought of it yet, or because MM is conferring some special penalty-negation, or what?) I guess it all depends. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[wilcoxon]

And yet today, none of that tripe is common sense. We do not live in ancient times.
I do know what logic is. Logically, claiming that a Bowling Ball is a Weapon, is crazy.
It would be more apt to say that a Bowling ball is capable of being USED as a weapon (really, what can't be, if you try hard enough), but that does not make it a Weapon.

I am not seeking to get a rise out of anyone. I am just astounded that there are a least a few people who do not get what I am saying. I never said a Bowling ball could not be used to kill someone. Or a Potted Plant, or anything else you would like to ascribe to me. My statement was very simple. Non-Weapons (and Improvised Weapons) are not weapons (for the most part; an explosive device is still an explosive device regardless of what it is made of, and are still controlled, but we were never talking about such things in the first place), even when they can be used to kill someone. I could kill you with a Phone Book, if I tried hard enough, and yet classifying it as a weapon is ludicrous.

And there is no need to be sorry... I truly do not understand how you, an obviously thinking individual, could believe that the many things we have discussed (bowling ball, plants, etc) are actually classified as weapons. NOT CAN BE (if used for that purpose), but actually ARE classified as such. Yes, ONCE YOU HAVE USED said Object for attacking and damaging a person, then it is likely to be classified as a deadly weapon (though an improvised one at that), but in the context of the Missile Mastery Power, even an Improvised throwing weapon SHOULD NOT GAIN a +1 DV, FOR THE VERY SIMPLE FACT THAT THE ITEMS IN QUESTION ARE NOT WEAPONS. And that was the crux of the conversation to start with (to bring it back to the OP topic; I think).

In the end, it is only a +1 DV. I know exactly how I treat the question. You have other ideas on the matter, whether they make sense to me or not. You have yet to try to actually provide me with an explanation as to WHY you believe that way. All you have done is throw terms at me and demand I read about them. So you are educated, good for you. All you did is irritate me, rather than actually having a conversation. EXPLAIN why you think this way, don't demand that I prove that a Potted Plant is not a Weapon. Maybe we will actually get somewhere.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So, let me ask you one final question. Are any of these weapons: nunchaku, sai, kama/sickle, scythe, machete, bo staff, or tonfa (police nightstick)?

*ALL* of these are improvised weapons - they are all farming implements. By your logic, they are not weapons and should not get any bonuses that apply to weapons.

What about javelins and some other sporting equipment? These are a little different having originally been weapons and now being sport paraphernalia.

Also, you can make plenty of explosives from household materials. In general, none of them are controlled (except some fertilizers now post OK City). How is an improvised explosive different from an improvised weapon to you? I see no difference - they are both used as a weapon but (usually) not designed to be a weapon (in the case of the explosives, the components are not intended to be a weapon - the user clearly has the intent but that's the same as using a baseball bat as a club).

After stepping away and thinking about it, the big problem I have (and I think at least one other based on his comments) with your point of view is that it is based on the perception of a weapon which is highly subjective (so there is no way to discuss until you provide something that is not subjective (all of your "opponents" have provided non-subjective criteria (even if all of them don't agree exactly either))).

[Yerameyahu]

They're originally derived from farming implements, which is hardly the same thing. But that's besides the point, because the actual examples mentioned were 'bowling ball, potted plant', and other 'non-weapon' things like that.

[Draco18s]

They're originally derived from farming implements, which is hardly the same thing. But that's besides the point, because the actual examples mentioned were 'bowling ball, potted plant', and other 'non-weapon' things like that.

How about a scythe?

[wilcoxon]

They're originally derived from farming implements, which is hardly the same thing. But that's besides the point, because the actual examples mentioned were 'bowling ball, potted plant', and other 'non-weapon' things like that.

Nope. They aren't originally derived from farming implements. They *are* farming implements (eg improvised weapons). In at least most of those cases, there is no difference (other than more modern materials) between the farming implement and the "weapon". Many of those can still be found in use as farming implements (at least on small rural farms).

And, TJ was talking about *all* improvised weapons (not just bowling ball or potted plant).

[Yerameyahu]

Draco18s, I'm not worried about anyone throwing a scythe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Or nunchaku, sickles, tonfa, etc., for that matter.

No, things that are related can be found in use. The items that are real farm tools are bad weapons, and the 'weaponized' versions are bad farm tools. As I said, though, that's beside the point. There's a difference between 'weapons that have mundane uses' (baseball bat) and 'non-weapons used at weapons by normal people' (potted plants); there's also 'non-weapons magically weaponized by a Missile Master', just for completeness. You should feel free to decide which of these get +1, but recourse to these flaky definitions (yes, by you or TJ, or whoever) is just a mess.

You should also bear in mind that Arsenal cares about if the item is a 'standard' *throwing* weapon; on the list are things like Pistol and Sword. Everyone would call those weapons, but no one would call them normal throwing weapons (unless you're fighting Superman).

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

TJ, if my MM adept throws a rocket launcher at someone, does he get the +1 increase in damage?

[Yerameyahu]

It's improvised! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[StealthSigma]

Technically I believe they should but I don't believe a little house ruling would be inappropriate (although the dice pool penalty from using improvised already punishes them for not using decent weapons).

That penalty did not exist with Missile Mastery and was only included in Arsenal.

--

So basically... all of the Improvised Ranged Weapons. Which are listed in the Projectile and Throwing Weapons section of Arsenal. And are not their own separate section, but are a subsection of the Projectile and Throwing Weapons section of Arsenal.

But then you have the part directly after where you state that those very same weapons do NOT get the bonus.

You basically make my argument for me, congratulations.

PROJECTILE WEAPONS - THROWING WEAPONS - ARROWHEADS - IMPROVISED THROWING WEAPONS.

All four of these sub-categories are in identical sized fonts which gives them equal precedence within the parent category PROJECTILE AND THROWING WEAPONS. That is sufficient evidence to declare Throwing Weapons and Improvised Throwing Weapons as two separate categories.

Since Missile Mastery applies to category of weapons (it must otherwise the bonus could not be applied en masse without defining each and every weapon that it applies to) you cannot apply it to the PROJECTILE AND THROWING WEAPONS category since the power includes no exclusions requiring it to be applied equally to bows and other projectile weapons.

That all said, nowhere in arsenal, except under the PROJECTILE AND THROWING WEAPONS category does Arsenal group Throwing Weapons and Improvised Throwing Weapons together. They are maintained in separate charts so the argument on whether these are all Throwing Weapons is completely moot. They are not Throwing Weapons. They are Improvised Throwing Weapons.

The power lists two types of weapons Thrown Weapons and Improvised Thrown Weapons. These phrases still refer to the original categories of Throwing Weapons and Improvised Throwing Weapons. The only difference of the two is the state of the weapon in whether it has been thrown or not. This is actually a necessity since the power should only be applied to weapons that have been thrown and not ones that are readied. I can still stab you with a throwing knife but it will only deal (STR/2+1)P and not (STR/2+2)P as per the power since the weapon has not yet been thrown.

*confused squint*

It doesn't matter to me if all items get at least STR/2. It's a blanket statement. Someone using the power gets STR/2 (the value granted by the power) or the listed damage code in the improvised weapon table if it's higher. There's no reason to penalize the user and they still get the option to switch it to physical rather than stun damage if the weapon would normally deal stun.

--

To clarify my point, if one were to argue that the Improvised Throwing Weapons in Arsenal should not have the benefit apply as they were added after Street Magic introduced the power (and thus do not meet the original intention of the power at the time it was written), one would also have to argue that the "normal" Throwing Weapons that are also added by Arsenal (namely boomerangs, harpoons and javelins) also do not receive the benefit of Missile Mastery for the same reason.

That logic only applies if the rules do not apply to a category of weapons, which it is fairly clear the the rules are dealing with established categories of weapons.

[Shortstraw]

That penalty did not exist with Missile Mastery and was only included in Arsenal.

Yes. You seem to be saying I can't build one of the 5 core metatypes with the karma system because it was added in a later book and down not specifically mention them...

[StealthSigma]

Yes. You seem to be saying I can't build one of the 5 core metatypes with the karma system because it was added in a later book and down not specifically mention them...

You greatly misunderstand the purpose of applying changes chronologically. Chronological application lets you understand the intent of a rule at the time it was written. Once you understand the intent, then you can throw more splat on it in order to properly interpret how that splat is supposed to work with the rule. No matter what, in any system where rules (or laws) are added incrementally there are invariable situations that arise where rules (or laws) do not jive properly. Rarely are people ever paid to go through and read every single rule (or law) that is written and see how the new rule (or law) works with what has come before. In the case of law it is often left to judges to interpret these laws using intent as well as interpret what happens when laws do not play nice together.