Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ccooke" data-source="post: 6499617" data-attributes="member: 6695890">But that's not what I'm saying - you're making some assumptions that are incorrect, here.I am completely happy with improvised use of random objects that don't resemble weapons, and I fully expect that most uses of the Tavern Brawler feat will apply to them.I'm pointing out that a reasonable interpretation of the rules allows an exploit in the specific case where an improvised weapon strongly resembles or is an actual weapon.  This is a completely viable ruling, but it is a ruling nonetheless. I don't rule things that way, others don't rule things that way and the rules as they exist don't favour your interpretation over any other. You would have to make another ruling to cut off the exploitable condition in the TB feat, though, since it's the preceding sentence which causes the issue: "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club." - sure, your ruling says that normal people would not get proficiency with this table leg club. Someone with the TB feat does get proficiency, but only if they don't later take some sandpaper to the chair leg and make a real club out of it (unless, of course, they have proficiency with clubs)Then your issue is with the basic improvised weapon rules, which specifically say that "in many cases", this will be the case. Applying proficiency is left at the GM's discretion, and I would prefer to rule in a different direction to you. That's fine, and your answer to this is easier - just please accept that when the PHB and Basic rules say "The DM may do this thing", there is clear support for the DM to, if they want, do that thing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />I don't see it as lessened, since I am simply reading the rules and applying them. That I make a choice to do an optional thing in a different direction to you does not mean I'm houseruling the game; both interpretations are explicitly supported. And again, the problem that I'm pointing out in the Tavern Brawler feat has nothing to do with whether someone without the feat gets proficiency because they're fighting with something that looks like a greatclub or not. It has to do with what happens when someone with the feat uses an actual weapon as the actual weapon it is and argues that they get proficiency, because a reasonable interpretation of the rules says that they do. Not everyone's interpretation. Certainly not, I believe, a good or intended interpretation. But a reasonable one nonetheless.</blockquote>

Verification