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

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

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?

Those bonuses are skill-linked, irrelevant.

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

Ah, but the policeman doesn't know that you deal Str/2 P with that laughable object. 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.

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...

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

Nope, that is not me...



Common Sense needs eveidence? New one on me.
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.

Have a great day.

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...

{Improvised Weapons} ⊂ {All Weapons}

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).

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).

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.

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))).

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?

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).

Draco18s, I'm not worried about anyone throwing a scythe. 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).

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

It's improvised!

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

--



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.



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.

--



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.

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.

Yeah but the rule in arsenal is general to unco thrown stuff not the specific ones listed in arsenal.

No, it doesn't. Missile Mastery refers to "throwing weapons" and "improvised throwing weapons" and not "Throwing Weapons" and "Improvised Throwing Weapons" (note the lack of capitals). The rule of thumb in Shadowrun books seems to be that any specific category is capitalized so Missile Mastery is simply using descriptors (which happened to match the Throwing Weapons category in the SR4 core book because there were only two). All three examples of "improvised throwing weapons" under Missile Mastery are non-weapons (things it would be impossible to list on the Improvised Throwing Weapons table because they deal 0 damage without Missile Mastery). Also, the "Improvised Throwing Weapons" category didn't even exist when Street Magic was written (it was added later in Arsenal).



Again, no, it is not clear. See reasoning above (the "categories" are not capitalized and the examples of "improvised weapons" under Missile Mastery are non-weapons (not things that can normally be improvised) and the improvised categories didn't even exist at that time).

This is supposed to be one of the thing a line editor (or project head) does - review rules to make sure they work together. At least it's one of the things I was paid to do (not for Shadowrun)...

That's the problem with RPG's - tons of unicorns no line editors

I stopped caring about your point after you used Rule of Thumb as the foundation for the rest of the paragraph. The Rule of Thumb is heuristic and not exhaustive. As a rule is more and more contested, the Rule of Thumb must be discarded.

It is fairly consistent but not entirely (hence the rule-of-thumb comment) - yet another thing that an editor is supposed to do (too bad Shadowrun has a history of relatively poor editing).

What about the other 2/3 of my reasoning (Improvised Throwing Weapons didn't even exist as a category when SM was written and all examples under MM being non-weapons (rather than improvised weapons))? You've only discarded 1 of the 3 reasons I gave supporting my position.

Okay. If you don't like my argument, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Missile Mastery is referring to weapon categories (and not just describing in English what the rule applies to)?

Both you and TJ seem to get hung up on the use of "improvised" in the description of Missile Mastery when it is pretty clearly used to mean something different than "improvised" does in Arsenal. The examples make it pretty clear it means non-weapon (rather than something used as a weapon not designed as a weapon) and, if you don't like argument based on example, the category of Improvised Throwing Weapons didn't even exist when SM was published.

The concept of improvised weapons was initially created with the BBB though it applied only to melee weapons. Street Magic created the improvised throwing weapon category distinct from throwing weapons with the Missile Mastery power so it doesn't particularly matter if the category did not exist prior to it.

The usage of the word improvised is very clearly an important point. The very definition of an improvised weapon is that which is not designed to be a weapon being used in that fashion. Baseball bats, sledgehammers, pens, and various other common items are used as improvised weapons. The problem with the examples in the power is that of the three listed, only one is truly harmless and that is playing cards. Pens are rigid enough to be dangerous and glasses, they're most likely referring to the kind you drink out of and not the kind you wear since those are far more likely to be found "laying around", can be dangerous due to the fragments that would result from them shattering on impact.

I am gathering from the posts that the Arsenal book came out after the Street Magic book did. Is there anywhere in Arsenal that is says that the arsenal rules supersede the books that came before it?

In addition, as I noted previously, the Improvised Weapons section in Arsenal does state that the list is only a sample. I am assuming (and I know that this is dangerous) that the list in Arsenal was in response to both the MM listing as well as the fact that some things should have a DV (like a baseball/cueball that is thrown).

If you read the entire sentence in SM (pg. 178) it says
The highlighted portion of this can be read two ways. This can be read to mean the category/class of throwing weapons (i.e. weapons designed to be thrown), or it can be read to mean that throwing is a verb. The way you read it is where the problem comes in. If you read it the first way, then only the items listed in the tables (and there are actually two tables, one in SR4a and one in Arsenal) get the +1 DV added to them. If you read it the second way, then any object that is thrown by the adept gets the +1 DV. It is all in where you put the emphasis (throwing weapons, or throwing weapons).

After re-reading it numerous times, I get me context clues from the first sentence: That to me says that the Missile Mastery adept is a master at throwing things and they all do damage. So I would read the second sentence with the second reading above and say that all items thrown get the +1 DV and (since SM came out before the defined damage listing in Arsenal) that items not listed with a damage code get (STR/2)P.

Also, something else to note; someone brought up the category verses description. In SM it states that
Please note the highlighted portion. That is not a category whether it is capitalized or not. The category name in Arsenal is
This could possibly be chalked up to the inconsistencies between books, but is just another point to be brought up.

No. Street Magic did not create the category of improvised throwing weapons. It used the word "improvised" in relation to one power (Missile Mastery).

Are you seriously saying that a pen can be a dangerous *thrown* weapon? I would grant you that some pens can make dangerous thrusting weapons but not throwing (at least not without a *ton* of practice with a specific pen).

You are the first person to point out that it does say "glasses" and not "eye glasses" (which is how I remembered it for some reason). A drinking glass could make a decent throwing weapon (provided it is one of the heavier ones).

So, are you saying that martial arts and other things that give a bonus to melee weapons do *not* give a bonus to baseball bats, sai, nunchaku, bo staff, sickle, scythe, machete, etc? All of those are improvised weapons by a strict definition (none were designed to be weapons). If the various things that give bonuses to melee weapons give a bonus to Improvised Melee Weapons then why would you argue that Missile Mastery does not do the same for throwing weapons? And, if you say that they don't give a bonus to those weapons, then I'll just stop replying and completely ignore this thread (unless somebody says something new about the original range question).

I would say it would get the bonus because of how weapon groupings are structured and organized. Improvised Melee Weapons is a subcategory of Melee Weapons, which also includes Blades, Clubs, and other subcategories such as Exotic Weapons.

Throwing weapons is a subcategory of Projectile and Throwing Weapons along with Projectile Weapons and Improvised Throwing Weapons.

Bonuses should apply downward but not horizontally based on hierarchy. That's why the bonus to Throwing Weapons does not apply to Improvised Throwing Weapons. They have equal precedence as far as categorization goes. That's why the bonus to melee weapons does apply to improvised. Melee Weapons is the all encompassing category that includes all those various subcats.

I think it's reached the point where this is required.

That makes no sense to me. Improvised Throwing Weapons are Throwing Weapons that were not meant to be thrown, therefore a subset of Throwing Weapons just like Improvised Melee Weapons is a subset of Melee Weapons (they are melee weapons that were not meant to be used that way). You cannot say one is and the other is not, they either both are or not.



Agreed

Could we perhaps all agree that the +1DV applies to aerodynamic throwing weapons, improvised or otherwise? I'd say it sounds a fair trade, all things considered.