Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ccooke" data-source="post: 6499608" data-attributes="member: 6695890">Yes, this is absolutely true.My point is that by a reasonable interpretation of the rules, it is possible to argue that the Tavern Brawler feat allows you proficiency with attacks made with any weapon (and that this is a bad thing which some small amount of thought is probably justified to come up with a decent ruling that mitigates exploitation)The fact that GMs come in a wild variety of leniencies does not mean there is no problem here. Nor does it mean that my preferred way to interpret the improvised weapon rules (which is not particularly lenient; If someone picks up a weapon I'll allow them to use it as something that I decide it resembles (and by that I include things like &quot;if the thing they're holding is two handed and they don't have proficiency with anything you hold in a similar manner, they're out of luck&quot;) that they have proficiency with, or as a 1d4 weapon without proficiency if I don't think it resembles anything.(In terms of weapons resembling other weapons, I'd allow a spear to be used as a quarterstaff, and a greatsword as a greatclub, but I would not allow a greatsword to be used as a (non-great) club or a quarterstaff. In the first case, a greatsword is two-handed and a club isn't. In the other, where you put your hands on a quarterstaff is very different to where you would hold a greatsword (and while it seems that two handed use of a greatsword did include holding the blade sometimes, I'd consider that to be something that requires specific training)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ccooke, post: 6499608, member: 6695890"] Yes, this is absolutely true. My point is that by a [I]reasonable[/I] interpretation of the rules, it is possible to argue that the Tavern Brawler feat allows you proficiency with attacks made with any weapon (and that this is a bad thing which some small amount of thought is probably justified to come up with a decent ruling that mitigates exploitation) The fact that GMs come in a wild variety of leniencies does not mean there is no problem here. Nor does it mean that my preferred way to interpret the improvised weapon rules (which is not particularly lenient; If someone picks up a weapon I'll allow them to use it as something that [B]I[/B] decide it resembles (and by that I include things like "if the thing they're holding is two handed and they don't have proficiency with anything you hold in a similar manner, they're out of luck") that they have proficiency with, or as a 1d4 weapon without proficiency if I don't think it resembles anything. (In terms of weapons resembling other weapons, I'd allow a spear to be used as a quarterstaff, and a greatsword as a greatclub, but I would not allow a greatsword to be used as a (non-great) club or a quarterstaff. In the first case, a greatsword is two-handed and a club isn't. In the other, where you put your hands on a quarterstaff is very different to where you would hold a greatsword (and while it seems that two handed use of a greatsword did include holding the blade sometimes, I'd consider that to be something that requires specific training) [/QUOTE]

Verification