Throwing rocks: can you add proficiency?

[diplomancer]

So, from what I've been able to find out, throwing a rock would be an improvised weapon, and you'd not be able to add your proficiency bonus unless you have Tavern Brawler.

But this is thoroughly silly. Throwing rocks do not require any special training (or, alternatively, pretty much everyone acquires that training during childhood).

So, DMs, do you let PCs and Humanoid NPCs (or with arms similar to humanoids) to add their proficiency when throwing a rock?

This is not entirely academic. Consider Magic Stone; people have noted that, when someone other than the caster throws the rock, they add the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll; but it doesn't say anything about proficiency. Some have argued that this means that it's the attacker's proficiency that should be used (I agree, by the way, but am happy that my regular DM plays it otherwise, keeping my Tiny Servants relevant into later tiers). But if only Tavern Brawlers have proficiency with throwing rocks, this means that EVEN the caster does not get to add his proficiency! (unless he uses a sling and has proficiency in it- I believe all Classes have it, but there's no reason to assume that a Commoner would).

[Lvl45DM!]

So, from what I've been able to find out, throwing a rock would be an improvised weapon, and you'd not be able to add your proficiency bonus unless you have Tavern Brawler.

But this is thoroughly silly. Throwing rocks do not require any special training (or, alternatively, pretty much everyone acquires that training during childhood).

So, DMs, do you let PCs and Humanoid NPCs (or with arms similar to humanoids) to add their proficiency when throwing a rock?

This is not entirely academic. Consider Magic Stone; people have noted that, when someone other than the caster throws the rock, they add the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll; but it doesn't say anything about proficiency. Some have argued that this means that it's the attacker's proficiency that should be used (I agree, by the way, but am happy that my regular DM plays it otherwise, keeping my Tiny Servants relevant into later tiers). But if only Tavern Brawlers have proficiency with throwing rocks, this means that EVEN the caster does not get to add his proficiency! (unless he uses a sling and has proficiency in it- I believe all Classes have it, but there's no reason to assume that a Commoner would).

I mean, unless you're arguing that there is a secret art to glassing someone with a bottle, I think its more that rocks aren't really that good as throwing weapons, and that inherent disadvantage is expressed by not using proficiency modifier, rather that "You have no idea how to throw a rock".

[Rynjin]

Traditionally, the non-proficiency penalty for using an Improvised Weapon (in previous editions, a -4 to your attack roll) is meant more to represent that the weapon is unsuited for actual combat without some kind of weird training. Throwing a rock and hitting people over the head with chairs is not something a warrior will typically do; there's a reason you use a sword or even a club over just a rock.

It's also just a bit of an abstraction in general, the same way your character might be proficient in using a longsword but not, like, a falcata for whatever reason. Despite the fact that they're both just swords, with one you take that non-proficiency penalty, and the other you don't. Because reasons.

So no, I wouldn't allow the Proficiency bonus to be used with a rock in 5e, because it's an Improvised Weapon. Moreover, because 5e is actually quite lenient when it comes to Improvised Weapons due to this clause: "In many cases, 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 DM ’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 doesn't even fit that much scrutiny. A rock has "no resemblance to a weapon". It is as improvised as an Improvised Weapon gets. Below a spear, below even a club, sits the rock. And as a projectile, it's even worse; not aerodynamic, not sharp, etc. None of the properties that would make it an effective weapon of war.

In essence, I think this is one of the times when verisimilitude and RAW perfectly match up.

[ProsecutorGodot]

On the first note, I would counter that just because anyone can throw a rock doesn't automatically mean they have proficiency in doing so in regards to being a weapon.

On the magic stone note, sure there's a decent enough argument through RAW here that it should work that way, but in this instance I think it's a more than fair assumption that they previous mention of a spell attack and a clause that only changes this modifier if it is not the caster making such a roll means proficiency would be involved, likely intended to be the attackers. The choice of wording here is obviously not the best, but I think it's meant to have the spell grant it "weapon you are proficient with" properties. This is of course me making a lot of assumptions, I'm willing to rule one way or another depending on group preference.

[Mastikator]

TBH if you have "all simple weapons" then probably and if you have "all martial weapons" then definitely.

[Wraith]

I've always interpreted Proficiency to refer to the fact that a warrior can get 'used' to a weapon. They're familiar with it's weight, reach and heft so that they can use it fluidly and get the most of its potential to bare. This more or less works with spells that use Proficiency, too - the mage gets used to the 'feel' of the spell, how to shape it and how to make it work on an instinctual level. It's almost like attunement, in a way - spend a little time practising with a longsword so you can swing it cleanly and without losing the centre of gravity, etc.

This is why Proficiency doesn't work too well with improvised weapons - no two rocks are the same shape or weight, so to pick one off the floor at random and being able to use it efficiently to nail a small target at 30 paces is a lot to ask of even a trained warrior. Unless, of course, they have spent time and effort in getting used to very quickly evaluating irregular objects and getting a sense for how they'll fly - earning a feat, in mechanical terms.

Alternatively, I might let a Player trade one of their skills/proficiencies to include "improvised weapons" rather than requiring the feat, if they want to make it a big part of their character. It doesn't make a lot of sense that someone can practice fighting with rocks or bottles or whatever and get used to ALL rocks and bottles, but very little in D&D makes sense in that regard so I don't mind hand-waving it away.

[Unoriginal]

"Even a child can swing a hammer, therefore everyone is proficient in all the hammer-like weapons".

Rocks are improvised weapons, so if you want to add your proficiency bonus to throwing rocks you need Tavern Brawler.

Spending time throwing rocks as a kid does not mean you can do it efficiently to hurt someone in a combat situation. Same way that being a trained carpenter doesn't mean you'll know how to use a warhammer well.

Giants, for example, do use rocks as lethal weapons, and they train for it.

[MoiMagnus]

First, two assumptions:
(1) We're not playing a survival games where players lack on a regular basis not access to their usual tools and weapons.
(2) The "rock" is not some sort of OP alien technology that would be strictly better than available weapons if I were to give free proficiency to the PCs with it.

With those two assumptions, this question will only occur when the PCs try to be creative. So you'd bet I'd give the answer that enable creativity, rather than answering "well, no you're not proficient in throwing rocks, so just use your bow and stop trying to interact cleverly with the environment".
[This is also a decision of fairness with respect to how I handle monsters. If I were to homebrew on-the-fly a ranged attack to a monster called "throwing rocks", this attack would probably have the attack bonus and damage adequate for the CR of the creature. Not that I can't also add that they trained all their life for it as a GM, but still.]

Though I will agree with Lvl45DM!. Lack of proficiency on improvised weapons is supposed to represent that they are just not adequate for fighting, not that they are complex to use.

[diplomancer]

Fair enough, and good points; but it still feels weird to me that a Wizard (who's had little combat training) can throw a dagger better than he can throw a rock. I know very little of either of those actions, to be honest, but I'd imagine that throwing daggers to hit a target (with the pointy end!) takes considerably more training than throwing a rock.

Edit: oh, and in the Magic Stone issue, I can see now my mistake; since it's a spell attack, not a weapon attack, proficiency with the weapon is irrelevant. Spell attacks add proficiency, period. I'm also now more in doubt about whether the intent is to add the caster's proficiency or the attacker, and am actually leaning to the ruling that it should be the caster's.

[Dork_Forge]

Fair enough, and good points; but it still feels weird to me that a Wizard (who's had little combat training) can throw a dagger better than he can throw a rock. I know very little of either of those actions, to be honest, but I'd imagine that throwing daggers to hit a target (with the pointy end!) takes considerably more training than throwing a rock.

In reality throwing a dagger intending to stab someone with it is a terrible move, the Vlad Taltos books actually cover this quite well, it's basically summed up as 'when you throw something sharp in someone's general direction, they flinch' if you're lucky and practiced you can get a cut or maybe even a stab more than the handle or hilt hitting first.

Then again in reality a knife made for throwing and a knife made for fighting are pretty different too, D&D doesn't do a good job of simulating real life, it'd probably be a lot less fun if it did.

[MoiMagnus]

but I'd imagine that throwing daggers to hit a target (with the pointy end!) takes considerably more training than throwing a rock.

Running is easier than riding a bicycle.
But running at 10m/s (world record) will take significantly more training than riding a bike at 10m/s. Because the bike is actually designed to help you at it.
So for the same end result, riding a bike takes significantly less training than running.

So are "throwing daggers". In D&D peoples throw daggers rather than short swords because the design of the dagger actually helps at throwing (that's what their in-game stat block says, even if IRL practicality might disagree on that). For the same end result, it is probably easier to learn how to throw a dagger than learning how to throw a rock (if you're ever even able to reach the same precision by throwing a rock).

[Segev]

There are four ways I can think of to be proficient with throwing rocks using rules meant for PCs:

Polymorph or similar into a giant or other creature proficient with them.
Tavern Brawler
Weapon Mastery (take "rocks" as one of your weapons")
Equipment Sphere Rock Throwing Talent (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/equipment#toc17) from Spheres of Might, ir you're using that supplement.

Normally, I would not mention a third-party optional rule system as an answer, not when it requires buy-in on Spheres's level to integrate, but this is kind-of bespoke for this specific request.

[Osuniev]

Fair enough, and good points; but it still feels weird to me that a Wizard (who's had little combat training) can throw a dagger better than he can throw a rock.


I think it's more : "A wizard throwing a dagger is more likely to hurt their enemy than throwing a rock".

Both do 1d4 damage, but a dagger/knife to the throat is more likely to kill/hurt someone than a rock to their (probably armored) head.

THAT difference is represented by the higher probability of the rock doing nothing (ie, missing the target's AC), because no proficiency bonus.

Now, a PC with the Tavern Brawler feat will be able to throw rocks so powerfully and accurately that they'll be just as lethal as daggers.

But if this was a free proficiency, there would be no reason (for non-Rogue) to fight with daggers instead of stones. Which is absurd. No one would ever buy a dagger.

[diplomancer]

Running is easier than riding a bicycle.
But running at 10m/s (world record) will take significantly more training than riding a bike at 10m/s. Because the bike is actually designed to help you at it.
So for the same end result, riding a bike takes significantly less training than running.

So are "throwing daggers". In D&D peoples throw daggers rather than short swords because the design of the dagger actually helps at throwing (that's what their in-game stat block says, even if IRL practicality might disagree on that). For the same end result, it is probably easier to learn how to throw a dagger than learning how to throw a rock (if you're ever even able to reach the same precision by throwing a rock).

"The same end result" here would also include damage; rocks should do less damage than daggers; probably should have lower range too; but it shouldn't be harder (with similar training time) to hit a target with it in the same range category.


I think it's more : "A wizard throwing a dagger is more likely to hurt their enemy than throwing a rock".

Both do 1d4 damage, but a dagger/knife to the throat is more likely to kill/hurt someone than a rock to their (probably armored) head.

THAT difference is represented by the higher probability of the rock doing nothing (ie, missing the target's AC), because no proficiency bonus.

Now, a PC with the Tavern Brawler feat will be able to throw rocks so powerfully and accurately that they'll be just as lethal as daggers.

But if this was a free proficiency, there would be no reason (for non-Rogue) to fight with daggers instead of stones. Which is absurd. No one would ever buy a dagger.

See above; also, daggers are finesse, so the VAST majority of dagger users, with higher Dex than Str, WOULD have very good reasons to, usually, prefer daggers to rocks.

[Imbalance]

As someone who spent a great deal of his childhood throwing both rocks and knives, I just have to grin at people downplaying the lethality of the former. I've never had much difficulty locating or modifying stones that would be somewhat aerodynamic and also have sharp edges. As a child, like, before the age of ten. Later, I learned about flint knapping, and have myself manufactured daggers from stone.

That said, there's no mistaking the superiority of good steel, and the way the abstract here balances that difference is fine with me. I'm also fine with tucking any rock throwing proficiency behind a feat, since, clearly, not everybody grew up like I did.

[Valmark]

Throwing rocks is something everyone can do, yes, but so is throwing a pen, or whatever other small object (well as long as they have enough whatever to beat air resistance). Being able to throw it well enough is another thing.

Training with a weapon purposefully to fight is profoundly different.

Although the main reason I wouldn't let Proficiency apply is that there's a feat made purposefully for it (Tavern Brawler)- it wouldn't be fair to let PCs apply their proficiency bonus to improvised weapons without the feat.



Edit: oh, and in the Magic Stone issue, I can see now my mistake; since it's a spell attack, not a weapon attack, proficiency with the weapon is irrelevant. Spell attacks add proficiency, period. I'm also now more in doubt about whether the intent is to add the caster's proficiency or the attacker, and am actually leaning to the ruling that it should be the caster's.

It's the attacker's. They are making the spell attack, not the caster- thus they add their own Proficiency Bonus. The ability bonus is an exception explicit in the test, so that uses the caster's.

I feel like the fact that it needs to specify the ability score is the caster's further shows that the rest of the attack's modifier should act as normal.

[Trask]

Throwing rocks was actually not an uncommon battlefield tactic throughout the real world on battlefields in the pre-modern era.

I think I would allow proficiency bonus to be used for rocks, because really it's all about knowing how to throw one effectively and having the strength to really let it fly, and characters are larger than life heroes.

Valmark mentioned that the real reason they wouldn't want let it work is because of the tavern brawler feat, not trying to derail but that is honestly one of the reasons why some of us don't like feats like that. You can't do X thing that you just thought of because you don't have the feat, not because it wouldn't work.

[KorvinStarmast]

Throwing a rock and hitting people over the head with chairs is not something a warrior will typically do; I've seen a few bar fights when I was ashore (Navy) that contradicts that assertion. :smallcool:

It's also just a bit of an abstraction in general Yes to this.

So no, I wouldn't allow the Proficiency bonus to be used with a rock in 5e, because it's an Improvised Weapon. Concur.

Rocks are improvised weapons, so if you want to add your proficiency bonus to throwing rocks you need Tavern Brawler. (Or the other suggestion, the feat Weapon Master)

Giants, for example, do use rocks as lethal weapons, and they train for it. It's their form of bowling. :smallbiggrin:

As someone who spent a great deal of his childhood throwing both rocks and knives, I just have to grin at people downplaying the lethality of the former. There's a Mr Goliath on the phone, he'd like to subscribe to your newsletter and offer testimonials. :smallbiggrin:

[da newt]

As someone who has participated in many a company picnic softball game and or water balloon fight, I can unequivocally state that not everyone can throw worth a crap. Some folks can throw a rock (or baseball) with velocity and accuracy, and there are plenty of folks who I would stand 25 feet from and let them throw rocks at my unarmored body all day with little concern for my well being.

With that said, a sling is a simple ranged weapon that everyone is proficient in that is designed for hurling rocks at much greater lethality than just tossing them. But they do cost 1 sp, and crafting one requires a bit of rope and leather, so it's way beyond an adventurer's skill ...


But then again, the MM states an Ape with ST 16, DX 14 (and INT 6) who has worse bio-mechanics for throwing than humans, has a +5 to hit with a thrown rock (25/50' range, 1d6+3 damage), so I could easily be persuaded that a human with throwing experience and similar ST/DX ought to have equivalent rock hucking skill.

[Dork_Forge]

Throwing rocks was actually not an uncommon battlefield tactic throughout the real world on battlefields in the pre-modern era.

I think I would allow proficiency bonus to be used for rocks, because really it's all about knowing how to throw one effectively and having the strength to really let it fly, and characters are larger than life heroes.

Valmark mentioned that the real reason they wouldn't want let it work is because of the tavern brawler feat, not trying to derail but that is honestly one of the reasons why some of us don't like feats like that. You can't do X thing that you just thought of because you don't have the feat, not because it wouldn't work.

I mean, tactic as in they actually tried to kill each other, or whilst posturing two opposing side would grab rocks around them and throw them at the other side?

Throwing rocks was a legitimate tactic at one time, that's why the sling became a thing, throwing a rock a distance by hand and expecting to do much is, well not very productive. Slings brought much higher speeds with smaller projectiles and made it viable.

[diplomancer]

As someone who has participated in many a company picnic softball game and or water balloon fight, I can unequivocally state that not everyone can throw worth a crap. Some folks can throw a rock (or baseball) with velocity and accuracy, and there are plenty of folks who I would stand 25 feet from and let them throw rocks at my unarmored body all day with little concern for my well being.

With that said, a sling is a simple ranged weapon that everyone is proficient in that is designed for hurling rocks at much greater lethality than just tossing them. But they do cost 1 sp, and crafting one requires a bit of rope and leather, so it's way beyond an adventurer's skill ...


But then again, the MM states an Ape with ST 16, DX 14 (and INT 6) who has worse bio-mechanics for throwing than humans, has a +5 to hit with a thrown rock (25/50' range, 1d6+3 damage), so I could easily be persuaded that a human with throwing experience and similar ST/DX ought to have equivalent rock hucking skill.

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd give it to everyone; but, though it's obviously not RAW, I would give it to every adventurer (and perhaps nerf the damage-1d3 perhaps?)

And I'd like to give a +1 to those who stated "well, this perfectly ordinary thing is gated behind a feat, so you can't do it" is terrible design.

[Unoriginal]

Throwing rocks was actually not an uncommon battlefield tactic throughout the real world on battlefields in the pre-modern era.

Do you mean slings? Because slings are much more viable weapons than just "throwing rocks".

Aside from slings, there was the "let rocks drop on people below during a siege", which was lethal but that's a question of gravity, not of throwing skills.



And I'd like to give a +1 to those who stated "well, this perfectly ordinary thing is gated behind a feat, so you can't do it" is terrible design.

This does not apply here. Everyone can throw a rock. Throwing a rock with lethal precision, on the other hand, is not a perfectly ordinary thing.


Yeah, I'm not sure I'd give it to everyone; but, though it's obviously not RAW, I would give it to every adventurer (and perhaps nerf the damage-1d3 perhaps?)

So basically you want rock-throwing to be a ranged unarmed attack? Everyone can do it but it has bad damage?

[diplomancer]

Do you mean slings? Because slings are much more viable weapons than just "throwing rocks".

Aside from slings, there was the "let rocks drop on people below during a siege", which was lethal but that's a question of gravity, not of throwing skills.



This does not apply here. Everyone can throw a rock. Throwing a rock with lethal precision, on the other hand, is not a perfectly ordinary thing.



So basically you want rock-throwing to be a ranged unarmed attack? Everyone can do it but it has bad damage?

Almost this, yes, I was just about to edit my post for that. 1+Str damage, str to hit (it's thrown, not ranged), everyone's proficient, range 20/40.

But I'd also add; not lethal precision at all; to be even slightly good at it, a decent str would be required. But it IS the kind of thing I'd expect a 20th level fighter with 12 str do with greater accuracy per attack than a 1st level fighter with the same strength (i.e, it's the kind of thing where proficiency bonus should apply).

[follacchioso]

Note that with Tavern Brawler, by RAW you could technically throw the rock, move into melee range with the target if your speed allows it, then use the BA to grapple as per the feat description.

[Valmark]

Note that with Tavern Brawler, by RAW you could technically throw the rock, move into melee range with the target if your speed allows it, then use the BA to grapple as per the feat description.

It actually depends on the interpretation of 'when'- imo you're not doing it when you hit if you need to first hit then move then grapple.

It'd work if you were already in melee range though.

[diplomancer]

Note that with Tavern Brawler, by RAW you could technically throw the rock, move into melee range with the target if your speed allows it, then use the BA to grapple as per the feat description.

Yeah, Tavern Brawler is an ok half-feat, with some fun flavour and some cool, but somewhat limited, abilities; I can't imagine literally anyone picking it solely for the proficiency in throwing rocks and, upon learning his DM gives this proficiency for free, say "nevermind, I'll take Athlete instead".


It actually depends on the interpretation of 'when'- imo you're not doing it when you hit if you need to first hit then move then grapple.

It'd work if you were already in melee range though.

Don't get me started on that! RAW, if you have PAM, you can attack someone with your Glaive, kill him, then move 20' and have a bonus action attack with the butt of the Glaive against someone else ! Makes zero narrative sense (if you CAN attack, why are you attacking with the butt and not the sharp end after moving 20'?), but that's how it is. Probably the easiest nerf to PAM would be to require that the bonus action attack be against someone in range of the last attack that triggers PAM.

Edit: I'm thinking of a meme image here; some massive fighter bragging "I'm a master of arms! I can use all weapons, from the lowly dagger to the exotic whip to the massive maul with equal competence!", and someone just giving a rock to him and saying "let's see how good you are with this".

[follacchioso]

It actually depends on the interpretation of 'when'- imo you're not doing it when you hit if you need to first hit then move then grapple.

It'd work if you were already in melee range though.there is a way to RP this.

The character throws a rock at an enemy. The target is so distracted by the unexpected move, that the PC is able to quickly move closer and start a grapple.

At least this is the way I RP this that time when I threw an harpsichord at an enemy. But we're getting off topic.

[elyktsorb]

Why would anyone throw rocks in a world where slings are easily available?

It's 1 silver piece and barely weighs anything and I pretty much put it on any character because even if I run out of sling stones, there's almost always rocks around.

[Segev]

Why would anyone throw rocks in a world where slings are easily available?

It's 1 silver piece and barely weighs anything and I pretty much put it on any character because even if I run out of sling stones, there's almost always rocks around.

You were disarmed but rocks are nearby, or maybe there are big rocks (fist-sized or so) but no pebbles?

You have a decent point, but there ARE cases. Also, "style."

[elyktsorb]

You were disarmed but rocks are nearby, or maybe there are big rocks (fist-sized or so) but no pebbles?

You have a decent point, but there ARE cases. Also, "style."

I mean if being disarmed is an express concern hiding a sling is not hard.

I'm also going to throw out that throwing rocks usually doesn't do much to creatures with thick hides or people wearing any kind of armor unless it hits a particular point.

[Segev]

I mean if being disarmed is an express concern hiding a sling is not hard.

I'm also going to throw out that throwing rocks usually doesn't do much to creatures with thick hides or people wearing any kind of armor unless it hits a particular point.

I think, in practice, people who want to throw rocks like the visual of it. It's their "character fantasy" for that build. And "unless it hits a particular point" would be represented by lack of proficiency, actually. Proficiency would represent ability to throw them to that "particular point."

Though I also think that "throwing rocks" conjures an image of much bigger stones than the sling stones used as ammo. At least fist- or softball-sized, and going up to head-sized or more. Not really practical for human-scale throwers who aren't super-strong, but this is, again, fantasy we're talking about.

[HPisBS]

I think, in practice, people who want to throw rocks like the visual of it. It's their "character fantasy" for that build. And "unless it hits a particular point" would be represented by lack of proficiency, actually. Proficiency would represent ability to throw them to that "particular point."

Though I also think that "throwing rocks" conjures an image of much bigger stones than the sling stones used as ammo. At least fist- or softball-sized, and going up to head-sized or more. Not really practical for human-scale throwers who aren't super-strong, but this is, again, fantasy we're talking about.

I'd just want it for a Rune Knight. As a huge Fighter, I'd want to be able to do all the basic things that huge giants can do.

Unfortunately, the damage and range of those rocks would always be way lower by RAW.

[Trask]

Though I also think that "throwing rocks" conjures an image of much bigger stones than the sling stones used as ammo. At least fist- or softball-sized, and going up to head-sized or more. Not really practical for human-scale throwers who aren't super-strong, but this is, again, fantasy we're talking about.

Yes, thats what I meant. The sling doesn't replace rock throwing in this case because were talking about scooping up a baseball to softball sized rock and hurling at someone with enough force to dent a breastplate. Sling stones were smooth, small things usually with a point so they could be cast aerodynamically. I wouldn't be keen on making it my entire fighting style, but I certainly would like to be able to just hurl rocks at my foes, especially as fighter or barbarian type character who just ran out of javelins.

Rocks were thrown in battle as recently as the viking age, and not just off castle walls either, but actually hurled as part of combat, usually light or irregular troops would do that. In myths like the Illiad, we constantly see these princely greek heroes picking up boulders and shattering each other's bones with them, Hector even smashes open a wooden gate with a huge rock and the author will just offhandedly comment "Men just aren't this strong anymore." D&D definitely hews closer to that sort of "mythical reality" than realism. If a fighter wanted to pick up a basketball sized rock and hurl it with mighty force at a fleeing foe that sounds pretty awesome to me and I'm inclined to rule in favor of "cool" over "makes strict sense and adheres to RAW", especially when it comes to martial character capabilities. So lets just call rock throwing a "special case" that counts as simple weapon proficiency.

EDIT: A compromise could be to let belts of giant strength give the wearer the power to throw rocks as that giant. I've always thought that those items should do more than just increase your strength score, but let you use it like a giant would.

[Valmark]

Valmark mentioned that the real reason they wouldn't want let it work is because of the tavern brawler feat, not trying to derail but that is honestly one of the reasons why some of us don't like feats like that. You can't do X thing that you just thought of because you don't have the feat, not because it wouldn't work.
I forgot to clarify this point- this isn't about not being able to do something, it's about not being able to do something as well as somebody else who trained for it.

It's not really different from being able to cook (presumably well) vs having the Chef feat.

You can throw a rock, you just can't throw it as well as someone who actually trained for it (and for a slew of other non-weapon objects).



Don't get me started on that! RAW, if you have PAM, you can attack someone with your Glaive, kill him, then move 20' and have a bonus action attack with the butt of the Glaive against someone else ! Makes zero narrative sense (if you CAN attack, why are you attacking with the butt and not the sharp end after moving 20'?), but that's how it is. Probably the easiest nerf to PAM would be to require that the bonus action attack be against someone in range of the last attack that triggers PAM.

Edit: I'm thinking of a meme image here; some massive fighter bragging "I'm a master of arms! I can use all weapons, from the lowly dagger to the exotic whip to the massive maul with equal competence!", and someone just giving a rock to him and saying "let's see how good you are with this".
Yeah I always run PAM that way (the having to stay still way, I mean). It's still RAW anyway (In case somebody at the table cares, though tipically we don't).

And the meme would be glorious xD

there is a way to RP this.

The character throws a rock at an enemy. The target is so distracted by the unexpected move, that the PC is able to quickly move closer and start a grapple.

At least this is the way I RP this that time when I threw an harpsichord at an enemy. But we're getting off topic.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean that it doesn't make sense, just pointing out that it's not necessarily that way.

It makes a lot of sense to throw something to stun then tackle the enemy (or whatever the grapple really is in D&D. It's more like grabbing their sleeve or something like that).

[Damon_Tor]

This whole thread is moot: Magic Stones are a spell attack, not a weapon attack. Spell attacks always use proficiency.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This whole thread is moot: Magic Stones are a spell attack, not a weapon attack. Spell attacks always use proficiency.

The thread wasn't just about Magic Stone though, that just happened to be a tangent on the premise "So, DMs, do you let PCs and Humanoid NPCs (or with arms similar to humanoids) to add their proficiency when throwing a rock?". The debate then became whether this should be an inherent proficiency, a learned one or whether it should be even be possible to gain at all.

You are correct though, a spell attack always involves a proficiency bonus. That tangential statement that being non-proficient with a regular rock makes Magic Stone ignore proficiency would be moot.

[Tanarii]

Fair enough, and good points; but it still feels weird to me that a Wizard (who's had little combat training) can throw a dagger better than he can throw a rock. I know very little of either of those actions, to be honest, but I'd imagine that throwing daggers to hit a target (with the pointy end!) takes considerably more training than throwing a rock.
The real question to me is why Wizards and Sorcerers get any weapon proficiencies at all. It must be because they're special / adventurers.

(A better answer is probably "tradition / sacred cow".)

[Man_Over_Game]

It's worth noting that, technically, the rules basically say that anything used as a weapon must either resemble a weapon or be an Improvised Weapon.

That's it. The only other "third" category is if you're proficient in something that normally wouldn't be a weapon but you're specially trained to use it as one anyway.


On the note regarding Sorcerers and Wizards being proficient in throwing a dagger or whatever, I would have really liked to see several "tiers" of training with weapons, where you can use extra traits that normally wouldn't be accessible. For example, the Thrown trait isn't accessible on Daggers until you have Martial Training Level 2, and Quarterstaves get Reach on Martial Training Level 3, etc. Wizards and Sorcerers would be Martial Level 0, limited to melee weapons, two-handed crossbows, and no armor, that sorta thing.

[Rynjin]

The real question to me is why Wizards and Sorcerers get any weapon proficiencies at all. It must be because they're special / adventurers.

(A better answer is probably "tradition / sacred cow".)

A combination of theming and practicality. Though for 5e, where Cantrips are actually combat capable, it's less necessary. But back in Ye Olde Days you kinda needed to have proficiency in SOMETHING.

Though I do think it makes sense for everyone in the game to have proficiency in Simple weapons; they are simple for a reason. I think the basic idea is they are "peasant weapons" that are relatively easy to pick up and use; hence crossbow and sling vs bow, dagger vs sword, etc.

Quarterstaff is one of the ones I've always looked askance at though, since there are actually quarterstaff combat styles (both European and Asian), but I guess that's what stuff like Quarterstaff Master was always meant to represent rather than just bonking somebody with your walking stick.


It's worth noting that, technically, the rules basically say that anything used as a weapon must either resemble a weapon or be an Improvised Weapon.

That's it. The only other "third" category is if you're proficient in something that normally wouldn't be a weapon but you're specially trained to use it as one anyway.


On the note regarding Sorcerers and Wizards being proficient in throwing a dagger or whatever, I would have really liked to see several "tiers" of training with weapons, where you can use extra traits that normally wouldn't be accessible. For example, the Thrown trait isn't accessible on Daggers until you have Martial Training Level 2, and Quarterstaves get Reach on Martial Training Level 3, etc.

This was something previous editions actually did, sort of. For example, a Bastard Sword used to be a two-handed weapon if you had Martial proficiency, but could be used one-handed if you had Exotic weapon proficiency.

Honestly...this is probably something best left on the cutting room floor. It was so infrequently used, and was so infrequently USEFUL that it's best to just ignore it.

[greenstone]

I've always interpreted Proficiency to refer to the fact that a warrior can get 'used' to a weapon. ...
This is why Proficiency doesn't work too well with improvised weapons - no two rocks are the same shape or weight, so to pick one off the floor at random and being able to use it efficiently to nail a small target at 30 paces is a lot to ask of even a trained warrior.
I like that way of thinking about it. I'm going to use thiswhen explaining it to my table, whcih have the same question.

[Falconcry]

” My way isn’t very sportsmanlike. -Fezzik “

[Tanarii]

It's worth noting that, technically, the rules basically say that anything used as a weapon must either resemble a weapon or be an Improvised Weapon.
Or be an unarmed attack. Or a natural weapon.