Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7512609" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post.&nbsp; So Thank You!I agree with you that this part is about proficiency.&nbsp; The part about damage starts in the next paragraph but it's still all under the same section.So reading comprehension and context would dictate that since this part talks about physical similarity of objects to a weapon (aka club to table leg) then the next paragraph that immediately uses the word resemblance is talking about the same kind of similarity (Especially given that you acknowledge my view is a valid one).&nbsp; The authors didn't suddenly shift focus from talking about what I'm terming physical similarity and then suddenly without any additional words start in the very next sentence begin to use resemblance to a weapon as a totally difference concept.&nbsp; It's all connected.&nbsp; So it's actually not distinct at all.&nbsp; It's all the same thing.&nbsp; An improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such, a character can use an object similar to a weapon and apply proficiency bonus, a character when not using an object resembling a weapon does 1d4 damage... All that is saying the same thing.&nbsp; I don't mean to be rude, but this is like basic reading comprehension stuff...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7512609, member: 6795602"] I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post. So Thank You! I agree with you that this part is about proficiency. The part about damage starts in the next paragraph but it's still all under the same section. So reading comprehension and context would dictate that since this part talks about physical similarity of objects to a weapon (aka club to table leg) then the next paragraph that immediately uses the word resemblance is talking about the same kind of similarity (Especially given that you acknowledge my view is a valid one). The authors didn't suddenly shift focus from talking about what I'm terming physical similarity and then suddenly without any additional words start in the very next sentence begin to use resemblance to a weapon as a totally difference concept. It's all connected. So it's actually not distinct at all. It's all the same thing. An improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such, a character can use an object similar to a weapon and apply proficiency bonus, a character when not using an object resembling a weapon does 1d4 damage... All that is saying the same thing. I don't mean to be rude, but this is like basic reading comprehension stuff... [/QUOTE]

Verification