D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[Mistwell]

It looks like you're employing a straw man argument here. Do you honestly believe that by "physically similar" the other poster actually meant "merely look alike?"

Yes, I definitely think that's what Frog means. Pretty sure he's clarified it several times to mean look similar, and not be about weight or material or striking portion.

For example, there is this clarification Frog made to his position, "The force a shield can apply resembles the force a mace can apply. But the rules don’t talk about forces. They talk about object 1 resembling object 2."

So he definitely means to say that the ability to strike something with the same force is not part of an object "physicially simialar" to another object. He definitely means "resembles" which appears to ignore things like the force one can apply to the object. I don't think I am strawmanning him. We've been through several Q&As with him at this point to drill down on what he means. He chose to use the word "resemble" as the synonym, which means "have qualities or features, especially those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like." I think it's fair to say Frog is focused on the two objects physically looking like each other.

 

[Ganymede81]

Yes, I definitely think that's what Frog means. Pretty sure he's clarified it several times to mean look similar, and not be about weight or material or striking portion.

For example, there is this clarification Frog made to his position, "The force a shield can apply resembles the force a mace can apply. But the rules don’t talk about forces. They talk about object 1 resembling object 2."

So he definitely means to say that the ability to strike something with the same force is not part of an object "physicially simialar" to another object. He definitely means "resembles" which appears to ignore things like the force one can apply to the object. I don't think I am strawmanning him. We've been through several Q&As with him at this point to drill down on what he means.

Really? You haven't considered that he might instead be loose with his terminology?

Do you truly, honestly believe that he thinks a styrofoam hammer would do the same damage as a real hammer?

 

[Yunru]

Really? You haven't considered that he might instead be loose with his terminology?

Do you truly, honestly believe that he thinks a styrofoam hammer would do the same damage as a real hammer?

No. Hence why it's being used to point out the absurdity of Frog's argument.

 

[Ganymede81]

No. Hence why it's being used to point out the absurdity of Frog's argument.

Yeah, we call that a strawman.

He's clearly not talking merely about visual appearance, and you plainly acknowledge that here. And yet, here you are, refuting a silly argument that he is not actually making.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The rule says:
Often, 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. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus

It’s clearly talking about objects that are physically similar to weapons. Don’t you agree?

No, I don't agree. Because the section you reference deals with whether a character might include their proficiency bonus when using the object as an improvised weapon. It has nothing to do with the amount of damage that object deals when used as a weapon. By this rule, it means that a character proficient with clubs is able to wield a table leg with relatively similar proficiency, and thus include this bonus on attack rolls. It has nothing to do with damage.

I would be fine with someone stating that a person proficient with clubs does not have proficiency using a shield as a weapon, since they are distinct enough in their use that proficiency in clubs would not apply to shields, and thus that character could not include their proficiency bonus in the attack roll.

This is very distinct from how much damage a weapon does. A club and a shield may do similar damage. But they way they are used to deal that damage is different enough that proficiency in one does not entail proficiency in another.

As such, you can hit just as hard with a shield, but maybe not as often.

 

[Yunru]

Yeah, we call that a strawman.

He's clearly not talking merely about visual appearance, and you plainly acknowledge that here. And yet, here you are, refuting a silly argument that he is not actually making.

Incorrect. He clearly is talking merely about visual appearance. See: It's used like a mace/club, it's made out of similar materials, but it's a houserule because it doesn't look like one.

You have read the thread, right?

 

[Ganymede81]

Incorrect. He clearly is talking merely about visual appearance. See: It's used like a mace/club, it's made out of similar materials, but it's a houserule because it doesn't look like one.

You have read the thread, right?

Yet again, you haven't considered the possibility that he is merely being imprecise with his terminology?

If he's accounting for material composition, as you clearly admit here, he can't be using "physical similarity" as "looks alike."

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it is not in my opinion limited to physically similar. I think physically similar is one aspect of similar you can use, but it's not the only one. For exmple if you used an object which looks exactly like a mace but it's made of styrofoam, it's not similar enough to a mace for the purposes of this rule. Because whether or not the object can actually hit with the force of a mace, or with the sharpened points of a mace such that it can puncture in a manner similar to a mace, are also aspects that should be reflected on before deciding if the object is similar enough or not to use a mace as the comparison.

I mean, I understand why you're focused on the physical aspect of a table leg LOOKING like a club, but why are you ignoring that the table leg is also made of wood like the club, and the table leg weighs about what a club would weigh, and a table leg has a blunt striking surface like a clubs striking surface, and all the other similarities between the two? Why are you focused on just the way the objects look to decide they are similar?

Then you don't understand what I'm saying

 

[FrogReaver]

Incorrect. He clearly is talking merely about visual appearance. See: It's used like a mace/club, it's made out of similar materials, but it's a houserule because it doesn't look like one.

You have read the thread, right?

Then you don't understand what I'm saying either

 

[WaterRabbit]

Yeah, we call that a strawman.

He's clearly not talking merely about visual appearance, and you plainly acknowledge that here. And yet, here you are, refuting a silly argument that he is not actually making.

No it is not. You are being imprecise with your terminology. The rhetorical technique he is using is called reductio ad absurdum.