It's not true by RAW at all. If you want to call the MM RAW, then RAW says that monsters are proficient with whatever the DM decides. End of story.
The basic commoner statblock has a club. Not a dagger, not a light crossbow, not a sling.
Nowhere does it limit then to only their stat block.
Nor does it say they are proficient with anything else.
Yes it is. The standard commoner is a commoner with whatever simple weapon the DM wants it to have. The default block doesn't indicate any kind of standard. You aren't going to walk into a city and see every commoner walking around with a club.
Ok then oathbows and arrows of dragon slaying?
You think a D&D modern game means that a commoner can't use a modern firearm as a simple weapon?
No they can clearly use it .... WITHOUT adding their proficiency bonus.
You don't seem to understand this basic concept. Using something ~= being proficient with something.
I never said the commoners could not use crossbows. I said they would need a 19 to hit the dragon because they would not add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll (just like the Rogue I played a while back that sneak attacked with a heavy crossbow regularly).
Er.. I'll quote it again with the page so you can believe me this time. 5e PHB page 146. I'll bold it and underline it for aid.
Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial. Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency.
You are taking this quote from the 2014 PHB (which is not repeated in the 2024 PHB) out of context. It says most people, and it is talking about PCs. The reason it says "most" in the 2014 rules and Wizards, Sorcerers and Druids did not get proficiency in Simple Weapons, while every other class did. Think about that for a minute - you are saying a completely untrained commoner should be able to use simple weapons more effectively than a 20th level Wizard who is a grizzled veteran of many battles and who can probably slay a Dragon single handedly if pressed!
And if we are going to use 2014 rules, I think it is important to use what the 2014 MM actually says about this:
Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment.
See the Players Handbook for rules on using armor or weapons without proficiency."
"You decide", is quite different than they are proficient.
These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners."
Yep very often found in their hands being swung without proficiency
I mean, you can stick your head in the sand and try to pretend that the paragraph there doesn't mean that commoners, which make up 70%-90%(depending on the society) of people, aren't part of most people if you want to.
No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is they should not get their proficiency bonus when they use them.
You seem to not be able to grasp the copncept that someone can use something they are not proficient in.
Commoners should absolutely use these weapons and anything else they can get their hands on. They should use a catapult or a ballistae if one is available. But they should not add their proficiency bonus.
Using a weapon <> proficient with a weapon.
I'd hate playing in the game you play in. Any game where a gladiator who is specifically trained to use pretty much every weapon, isn't proficient any weapon but the spear in his stat block, would drive me crazy. Games need to make sense.
Nope. He is trained to use a net and a spear.
No. No you are not talking about what makes sense. What makes sense is commoners being able to use clubs, daggers, quarterstaves, light crossbows, etc.
There is no way someone who is not trained extensively should be able to use either a dagger or a crossbow effectively in combat.
Club yes. Quarterstaff - it depends on exactly what you mean by that. Oriental Bo stick - no, 16th century English Quarterstaff - no, Galdalfs walking stick - sure.
If we want to bring logic into this discussion, you can break simple weapons into three groups:
Easy to use without training: Club, Greatclub, Small hammer, Sickle, Shortbow, Spear, Dart, Hand Axe (when not throwing it)
Hard to use in combat without extensive training: Light Crossbow, Javelin, Dagger, Hand axe (when throwing), Sling
Weapons which it is not clear exactly what they refer to and could be hard or easy depending: Mace, Quarterstaff
The SIMPLE weapons. Hell, crossbows in the hands of commoners was historically something feared by knights in plate.
Crossbows in the hands of infnatry and they were crossbows which would be "Heavy" in D&D parlance.
Why? Because it took almost no training to use. Just point and pull the trigger.
Sure out of combat if you don't want to hit anything. In combat, when you have to superelevate and lead and quickly reload. Not really.
What you are incorrectly describing as RAW is a bunch of nonsense. It makes no sense at all.
It makes no sense to give commoners "proficiency" in anything more than the most basic weapons they would use for shoveling hay, hunting etc.
Commoners are not trained combatants, unlike Wizards, Rogues etc.
I am not saying they should not use them, I am saying I don't think they should get their proficiency bonus.
You also state that it is "stupid" that commoners can kill a Dragon and then in defending that argument you purposely interpret the rules and CHOOSE to give them benefits that make this easier.
IF we are using 2014 rules it is very clear that you choose whether to make your peasants proficient with crossbows. If you think they should not be able to slay a Dragon, making the choice to give them proficiency does not make any sense.
