D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[Mistwell]

I also find it interesting that you are defining degrees of similarity and using that to make your "ruling" when the rules never mention objects similar in some ways but not in others.

What rule allows you to say shields are similar enough to maces to be treated like a mace for damage but not similar enough to a mace to be able to benefit from proficiency?

The second paragraph spells out the first two levels. You treat it as the weapon damage if it's "similar". And then "At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object [at proficiency bonus]".

To me, the DMs option is saying "DM decides - is it so similar that it's 'as if it were that weapon' (the language of the rule)?" If yes, may use proficiency. If on the other hand it's not that high level of similar but still similar, than don't use proficiency. Regardless, use the weapon damage die for all levels of similarity.

Third paragraph is the third category - "An object that bears no resemblance".

5e uses natural language in the rules, and intentional DM flexibility for judgement calls in those rules. The natural language of "bears no resemblance" is to me "it's nothing at all like". And the natural language of "as if it were that weapon" is to me "it's almost the same." And, obviously there is something between "it's nothing at all like" and "it's almost the same" and the rules offer a suggestion on how to rule that middle ground - with a DM's call on whether or not you can use your proficiency bonus.

That's how I read this rule. And I don't think it's at all a stretch (in fact I have no dog in this fight - this hasn't come up at my table that I can recall). This is how I read a lot of 5e rules, and based on reactions I see here and at reddit and on how the authors explained their thinking on various rules like stealth, I think this is how the authors intended rules like this to be used...with a flexible range of how to handle things and a lot of DM judgement calls as to where something falls withing that range. It's pretty rare that the rules give you only an on or off resolution. Where it can be done, the authors usually provided more than just those two types of rulings for the DM to make. And that's what I think they did with this set of rules.

 

[Ganymede81]

I don't get this, either!

I've just been trying to clarify my comment you originally replied to. The one I originally thought you made a joking reply to, taking my reasoning to a ridiculous extreme.

But if you weren't making a joke, and instead you took my reasoning to a ridiculous extreme to mange a point, I don't know what you're point was.

I was making a joke.

 

[FrogReaver]

Side point. How much damage does hitting someone with an Apple seed do?

It does not resemble a weapon. So it would do 1d4 damage by rule?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Side point. How much damage does hitting someone with an Apple seed do?

It does not resemble a weapon. So it would do 1d4 damage by rule?

This is absurd.

1) It would do no damage because it is harmless.

2) If propelled to extremely high speeds by magic, it would deal damage based on the spell used, if any

3) It can support a character dealing potentially lots of damage or other effects if it is a component to a spell.

4) With enough seeds and an Herbalism or poisoner's kit, a character could make cyanide, coat it on a blowdart, and deal 1 piercing damage + and effect from the poison (exact effect to be determined by DM as it is unlikely be similar enough to basic poison and in my view is more dangerous, though others may equally correctly see enough similarity to treat it as basic poison).

5) Maybe in my game I say the gulthias tree has seeds similar to shotputs in weight and hardness, but maybe not texture or size. Of course, shotputs aren't defined in 5e game, but they seem similar enough in their damage output capabilities to be on par with a one-handed warhammer, so I'll say a shotput deals 1d8 (having been hit by a shotput, this is severe underestimate. Its a 16 lb. metal ball for those that don't know, so maybe a maul would be a better stand in, but will go with this). It will also have the thrown property. And thus so will my gulthias tree seeds since it is a good enough stand in for a shotput. So I will give it a range of 60'/100'. A character coupd throw it and if it hits it deals 1d8 + strength. But no other weapon in the game is lile a shot put in use. While it could hit like a warhammer, it is not used like a warhammer. Nor is it thrown like a spear or javelin. And so, the player would not add proficiency bonus to the attack. Of course unless he took the background Track Athlete, in which case I might allow adding proficiency. Oh! And the gulthias tree is also spiky! So I might also allow it to deal piercing damage, and it may even hurt the chaeacter using it without a special glove!

Don't come at us with absurd examples. Because an apple seed is not going to be used like a weapon because it cannot do harm in that way. But there are untold creative ways an appleseed could be used. Or items that are not even close to being covered such as a shotput. A DM has to make those calls. And that judgement supported by the rules, text, and philosophy of 5e D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not talking about whether it’s a good rule. It’s a terrible rule but I don’t see a way to get fancifully step around the RAW on this and stay out of house rule territory. Do you?

This is absurd.

1) It would do no damage because it is harmless.

2) If propelled to extremely high speeds by magic, it would deal damage based on the spell used, if any

3) It can support a character dealing potentially lots of damage or other effects if it is a component to a spell.

4) With enough seeds and an Herbalism or poisoner's kit, a character could make cyanide, coat it on a blowdart, and deal 1 piercing damage + and effect from the poison (exact effect to be determined by DM as it is unlikely be similar enough to basic poison and in my view is more dangerous, though others may equally correctly see enough similarity to treat it as basic poison).

5) Maybe in my game I say the gulthias tree has seeds similar to shotputs in weight and hardness, but maybe not texture or size. Of course, shotputs aren't defined in 5e game, but they seem similar enough in their damage output capabilities to be on par with a one-handed warhammer, so I'll say a shotput deals 1d8 (having been hit by a shotput, this is severe underestimate. Its a 16 lb. metal ball for those that don't know, so maybe a maul would be a better stand in, but will go with this). It will also have the thrown property. And thus so will my gulthias tree seeds since it is a good enough stand in for a shotput. So I will give it a range of 60'/100'. A character coupd throw it and if it hits it deals 1d8 + strength. But no other weapon in the game is lile a shot put in use. While it could hit like a warhammer, it is not used like a warhammer. Nor is it thrown like a spear or javelin. And so, the player would not add proficiency bonus to the attack. Of course unless he took the background Track Athlete, in which case I might allow adding proficiency. Oh! And the gulthias tree is also spiky! So I might also allow it to deal piercing damage, and it may even hurt the chaeacter using it without a special glove!

Don't come at us with absurd examples. Because an apple seed is not going to be used like a weapon because it cannot do harm in that way. But there are untold creative ways an appleseed could be used. Or items that are not even close to being covered such as a shotput. A DM has to make those calls. And that judgement supported by the rules, text, and philosophy of 5e D&D.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You know, there is a differnce between house ruling and adjudication of the rules, right?

Here, let me help you, since you claim to have such wonderful reading comprehension, but your ability to recognize the actually definitions of words like resemble could maybe use improvement.

Adjudicate

verb (used with object), ad·ju·di·cat·ed,ad·ju·di·cat·ing.
to pronounce or decree by judicialsentence.
to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.

verb (used without object),ad·ju·di·cat·ed, ad·ju·di·cat·ing.
to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon)

Adjudicate
verb
ad·ju·di·cate | \ə-ˈjü-di-ˌkāt \
adjudicated; adjudicating

Definition of adjudicate
transitive verb

: to make an official decision about who is right in (a dispute) : to settle judicially

The school board will adjudicateclaims made against teachers.

intransitive verb
: to act as judge
The court can adjudicate on this dispute.

So when a DM is ruling at their table how something happens, it is adjudication. They are not house ruling. They are using the rules and interpretting them based on what is happening in the game to be in line with what is written, how they read it, taking into account the context of the unique qualities of their game, their group, their play style, and what would maximize enjoyment of the game for them. So you see, people can disagree with how you might rule, but that does not mean their ruling is any less or more correct than yours. And it is not a house rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

You know, there is a differnce between house ruling and adjudication of the rules, right?

Here, let me help you, since you claim to have such wonderful reading comprehension, but your ability to recognize the actually definitions of words like resemble could maybe use improvement.





So when a DM is ruling at their table how something happens, it is adjudication. They are not house ruling. They are using the rules and interpretting them based on what is happening in the game to be in line with what is written, how they read it, taking into account the context of the unique qualities of their game, their group, their play style, and what would maximize enjoyment of the game for them. So you see, people can disagree with how you might rule, but that does not mean their ruling is any less or more correct than yours. And it is not a house rule.

I agree but It definitely crosses over into house rule territory when the actual rules are being ignored no matter how much sophistry is trying to be applied.

 

[Yunru]

I agree but It definitely crosses over into house rule territory when the actual rules are being ignored no matter how much sophistry is trying to be applied.

Nonsense. Any improvised weapon which doesn't match a weapon enough does do 1d4, yes.
But it's up to the DM what can be used as an improvised weapon.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nonsense. Any improvised weapon which doesn't match a weapon enough does do 1d4, yes.
But it's up to the DM what can be used as an improvised weapon.

Improvised weapons are defined in the first paragraph. Please refer there for what qualifies. Hint it doesn’t say dms decision.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I agree but It definitely crosses over into house rule territory when the actual rules are being ignored no matter how much sophistry is trying to be applied.

Wrong. The rules are not being ignored. They are being extended based on a reasonable reading and interpretation of existing rules and using personal judgement on how it might be reflected at a game table mechanically. Clearly the reading that has been proposed by myself and others is reasonable since multiple people have demonstrated that it is a fair interpretation of the rules, just as your interpretation has been judged by others to be reasonable and fair. However, the claim that a reading that is not in agreement to your reading, to use your own words, is outlandish.

Besides, who are you to say any of us are wrong? Last I checked, you didn't design or build this system. You have no right to state what is right or wrong or fair or not. You can do that for your own table and play experience, but not assume so over other players or groups.