D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[Mistwell]

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 I truly honestly believe he had not considered the implications of his position, and that he was wrong, and I hope that example will lead him to modifying his position. That's kinda one of the main reasons we discuss things, isn't it? Everyone experiences it sometimes where they don't really think through all the ramifications of their position and realize they were wrong when it's pointed out. You seem to be arguing it's unlikely he said something which could be wrong?

 

[Yunru]

I think that’s a reasonable conclusion for all involved.

See: My first post

 

[Mistwell]

Then you don't understand what I'm saying

Then you're not presenting your position clear enough for people to understand. So far everyone who has replied to you either read it the way I read it, or defended you by saying surely you're just being imprecise...without attempting to clarify what it would mean if you had been precise.

So...what is your position, if we're all wrong about what your position is?

If I wanted to say visually I would have said visually. That's obviously a silly position. Instead I said physically similar.

You repeatedly said resembling, and also made it clear physical force of the object isn't part of resembling, So, Resembling: "have qualities or features, especially those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like."

If this isn't what you mean, then say what you mean already man.

 

[Ganymede81]

You seem to be arguing it's unlikely he said something which could be wrong?

Ok, you're just screwing with me. Bye.

 

[FrogReaver]

No I truly honestly believe he had not considered the implications of his position, and that he was wrong, and I hope that example will lead him to modifying his position. That's kinda one of the main reasons we discuss things, isn't it? Everyone experiences it sometimes where they don't really think through all the ramifications of their position and realize they were wrong when it's pointed out. You seem to be arguing it's unlikely he said something which could be wrong?

And I truly believe everyone got fixated on the one sentence in the PHB rules section about damage being a d4 if the object doesn't resemble a weapon and that everyone forgot to take the context of the section in consideration.

 

[Mistwell]

And I truly believe everyone got fixated on the one sentence in the PHB rules section about damage being a d4 if the object doesn't resemble a weapon and that everyone forgot to take the context of the section in consideration.

Hey I am not the one that started this RAW vs House Rules debate man. If you're willing to say it's simply an interpretation of the rules which, while it does not match your personal interpretation of the rules, nevertheless remains one rational way to adjudicated it under the rules, then no further debate occurs.

You're the guy who said everyone who disagrees with him on this issue is making an "outlandish" argument.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hey I am not the one that started this RAW vs House Rules debate man. If you're willing to say it's simply an interpretation of the rules which, while it does not match your personal interpretation of the rules, nevertheless remains one rational way to adjudicated it under the rules, then no further debate occurs.

You're the guy who said everyone who disagrees with him on this issue is making an "outlandish" argument.

Just because you can twist something into saying something it doesn't say does not make it an interpretation. There's plenty of gray area in the rules. I totally agree. This is not one of those places.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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?

So, you and the others talking about this do realize that the rule you quoted about any physical/visual similarity is only to determine if you add your proficiency bonus or not. It has nothing to do with the amount of damage the improvised weapon will do. The damage die is fully up to the DM to decide, as far as I can tell.

A table leg being similarly shaped to a club means you get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack, not that it will also use the club's damage die. It could do less or it could be such a heavy leg that it requires two hands and will do more damage than a club. Same thing for a sharpened tent stake being similar enough to a dagger to let you use your dagger proficiency to stab with it. Etc. But again the DM gets to decide the amount of damage. I cannot think of any weapon in 5E that a shield would be similar enough to for you to get to use a proficiency bonus with, and for me as a DM, the size of the shield would determine the damage die used, barring anything official in the rules.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Just because you can twist something into saying something it doesn't say does not make it an interpretation. There's plenty of gray area in the rules. I totally agree. This is not one of those places.

There is no twist. The text can be read in a number of ways. Your dissent and disagreement does not invalidate the alternatives, and any argument you have made is not definitive enough nor strong enough to state otherwise.

Your entire argument hinges on your reading of the word resemble, which has already demonstrably been shown to have definitions that include comparison beyond visible and physical similarity. Your claim that the previous paragraph provides a stylistic way to interpet the second paragraph is over-ruled by the well known philosophy of 5e to purposefully be more vague, less lawyerly use of language, and provide wider leeway for the DM to interpret the rules.

Since there is no list that definitely answers this question to provide a wider representation of potential rulings regarding additional potential improvised weapons, one example cannot possibly provide a clear enough baseline upon which to more concretely or consistently rule one way or another.

You have no leg to stand here here. The claim that your reading of the rules is the one definitive way to read it is akin to claiming that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one worthy of merit. I would ask you to stop insisting that you are concretely "right" and dissenters are concretely "wrong," but it would seem doing so is futile. All I have to say is that I am so glad I never have to be at the same game table as you, and knowing that all your shouting into the void will be an effort of vanity because it seems clear that no one is taking you seriously. And with that, I am divesting myself from further attempts to reason with FrogReaver. I really hope he is not being serious and just trolling.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, you and the others talking about this do realize that the rule you quoted about any physical/visual similarity is only to determine if you add your proficiency bonus or not. It has nothing to do with the amount of damage the improvised weapon will do. The damage die is fully up to the DM to decide, as far as I can tell.

A table leg being similarly shaped to a club means you get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack, not that it will also use the club's damage die. It could do less or it could be such a heavy leg that it requires two hands and will do more damage than a club. Same thing for a sharpened tent stake being similar enough to a dagger to let you use your dagger proficiency to stab with it. Etc. But again the DM gets to decide the amount of damage. I cannot think of any weapon in 5E that a shield would be similar enough to for you to get to use a proficiency bonus with, and for me as a DM, the size of the shield would determine the damage die used, barring anything official in the rules.

You do know what context is right?