D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

FrogReaver said:

I’m just saying what the rules say. Maybe it’s the rules you dislike. Me I’m fine hiuseruling all those things because I like house rules.

Click to expand...

This is not only demonstrably false, but reeks of reductive and dull reasoning. The difference between low tier high school reading comprehension and college level analytical skills. WotC has made it clear that in addition to RAW (Rules as Written) there is also RAI (Rules as Intended) and RAF (Rules as Fun). As such a strict reading of the text (even if it could be read as objectively as you claim it is) cannot be assessed without considering the other 2 factors. I am absolutely certain that the designers did not intend apple seeds to be more powerful that a blow dart or equally as powerful as a dagger. Thus your argument (we are house ruling while you are following the rules) is invalid and rulings and interpretationts outside of yours are equally justified well within the rules as written, as intended, and as fun.

Dausuul said:

No, you can hold an apple seed in one hand. "Wielding" means "to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively." If you cannot effectively use or actively employ a thing, you can't wield it, even if you can hold it.

Click to expand...

I can actively employ it to hit my enemies. This wielding.

Hawk Diesel said:

This is not only demonstrably false, but reeks of reductive and dull reasoning. The difference between low tier high school reading comprehension and college level analytical skills. WotC has made it clear that in addition to RAW (Rules as Written) there is also RAI (Rules as Intended) and RAF (Rules as Fun). As such a strict reading of the text (even if it could be read as objectively as you claim it is) cannot be assessed without considering the other 2 factors. I am absolutely certain that the designers did not intend apple seeds to be more powerful that a blow dart or equally as powerful as a dagger. Thus your argument (we are house ruling while you are following the rules) is invalid and rulings and interpretationts outside of yours are equally justified well within the rules as written, as intended, and as fun.

Click to expand...

I agree they didn’t intend that. That’s a good reason not to play that way. Sometimes what someone intends is not what they do or say. In this case they clearly stated in no ambiguous terms that an improvised weapon that doesn’t resemble a weapon does 1d4. I agree they didn’t intend this but their intentions don’t change RAW

FrogReaver said:

I agree they didn’t intend that. That’s a good reason not to play that way. Sometimes what someone intends is not what they do or say. In this case they clearly stated in no ambiguous terms that an improvised weapon that doesn’t resemble a weapon does 1d4. I agree they didn’t intend this but their intentions don’t change RAW

Click to expand...

1) I believe you are reading RAW incorrectly, or at least too narrowly. The language is actually much more vague than you claim it to be. That doesn't mean your reading is wrong per say, just that it is not the only way.

2) RAI absolutely matters and needs to be taken into account when making any kind of ruling in this game, especially because the designers have included in the core rule books the definitions and usage of RAW, RAI, and RAF. RAI might not physically change the words on the page, but it does change how one might interpret the spirit of the rules and thus how the mechanics would be represented and executed at a partixular game table.

I could wield my breath against an enemy and blow on them. Does that make it an improvised weapon? Can I deal 1d4 with my breathing since it does not resemble a weapon? Should my bad breath be as effective at killing a foe as a dagger?

FrogReaver said:

Not talking about whether it’s a good rule. It’s a terrible rule but I don’t see a way to get fancifully step around the RAW on this and stay out of house rule territory. Do you?

Click to expand...

Yes I do. Because it's expected you're not a martinet slavishly devoted to some "Rules As Written" concept. "Rules As Written" is an issue which was some prior editions of the game, but really isn't an issue for 5e. As stated in the DMG, "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." And from Xanathar's Guide, "The DM is key. Many unexpected events can occur in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become a slog. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be contrary to the openendedness of D&D. Here's the path the game takes: it lays a foundation of rules that a DM can build on, and it embraces the DM's role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

Obviously an apple seed does no damage when thrown. You don't need the improvised weapon rules to know that. The game is not flawed because it doesn't spell out for you that an apple seed does no damage when thrown. The DM makes that call and you move on. And yes, that's as much "Rules As Written" as anything else in the game. The game rules assume you are a walking, talking, thinking human being who will make rational decisions without the game telling you to make rational decisions.

Dausuul said:

What it does say: "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."

An object that cannot be wielded in one or two hands does not qualify as an improvised weapon. That leaves it up to the DM to decide what can be "wielded," which is more than enough gray area to justify a ruling of "You cannot 'wield' an apple seed. What the hell would that even mean?"

Click to expand...

I think the point here is that FrogReaver has some fundamental issue with gray areas in RPG rules. That it must be black and white or else it's flawed rules.

FrogReaver said:

Side point. How much damage does hitting someone with an Apple seed do?

It does not resemble a weapon. So it would do 1d4 damage by rule?

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

Not talking about whether it’s a good rule. It’s a terrible rule but I don’t see a way to get fancifully step around the RAW on this and stay out of house rule territory. Do you?

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

I’m just saying what the rules say. Maybe it’s the rules you dislike. Me I’m fine hiuseruling all those things because I like house rules.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

I can wield an apple seed in one hand. That bit of sophistry doesn’t resolve the seemingly poorly thought out 5e improvised weapon rules.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=6812267]Ganymede81[/MENTION] tell me again how FrogReaver could not have possibly been saying that a styrofoam weapon which looks similar to a real weapon would not do the real weapon's damage by the Rules As Written. I dare yah!

I told you he was reading the rules that literally, to that level of absurdity. I was not wrong. He really is, as can be seen in his appleseed argument.

Mistwell said:

[MENTION=6812267]Ganymede81[/MENTION] tell me again how FrogReaver could not have possibly been saying that a styrofoam weapon which looks similar to a real weapon would not do the real weapon's damage by the Rules As Written. I dare yah!

I told you he was reading the rules that literally, to that level of absurdity. I was not wrong. He really is, as can be seen in his appleseed argument.

Click to expand...

Well, now I'm a little scared for my life, what with my upcoming LARP game this weekend.