Basically that is saying they did not have the time, interest and/or budget to come up with real rules so they just fudged something. I often feel that a lot of 5e is like that. A lot of rules that are as they are 'because reasons' rather than logically consistent. There is a lot about 5e that I like too, mind... Also that additional information is from a module, not a core book. One should not have to buy modules to get core rules.
many rules are left intentionally vague for numerous reasons (although, ya, the math inconsistencies are my personal pet peeve - and prices). your last sentence doesn't make sense. if you call core rules whatever is in DMG MM and PHB, then its impossible to need to buy modules to get core rules...but your idea in general means that everything should be locked in stone with those 3 books and the room for expansion and development is removed. One of the core concepts of D&D is flexibility and the ability to pick what you want for your table.
Those warship details do not seem to be in the PHB or DMG, nor even any of the other supplemental books.... They seem to be in a module instead. Also there is intentionally vague and there is next to no detail at all. Furthermore, there seems to be a sizeable faction of players that treat such bare bones descriptions as all that is needed and at face value.
pretty sure we're talking around each other - the first reply to this thread pretty definitively answers the OP's question. I was providing a reference if the reader really wanted to go down the crew size path which would be homebrew - since that's where the convo went after answering the original question. Not sure what you're saying that hasn't already been said and everyone agrees with.
I do not see anything actually saying there is no proficiency involved in knowing how to use said weapons.
Do you see anything that does say there is a proficiency in using Siege Weapons? I'd prefer that there was actually. I think a straight +6 hit is too generous for just anyone to have.
I shot one with my Cleric that has a -1 Dex mod, lol.
It would be total Homebrew but, I think it shout be a Martial category or specific proficiency by Siege Weapon type.
I think they should be a tool proficiency like Vehicles (Land) are.
Also a reasonable option, particularly since tool proficiencies can be learned in down time, whereas skill and weapon proficiencies inexplicably cannot.
You cannot learn to forage by trial and error, or even with a teacher, but you can learn to handle everything from a canoe to the largest warship in a single easy course....
I allow individual Skill, Armor, and Weapon proficiencies to be learned during downtime too. Heck, for that stuff I even allow 1 hour of Long Rest time to be used for those trainings (including tools). It takes a long time, but nobody seems to mind when they can get at least 1/2 proficiency in a couple months of “correspondence training” 1 hour/night. It took the Players 3 months to do 1 week in-game, so it isn’t very OP.
You cannot learn to forage by trial and error, or even with a teacher
I think this depends on how you read the rules - foraging can be influenced by 3 things (that I'm aware of): Survival skill (DMG), Nature skill (ToA), and the Herbalism kit (XGE).
If you look at the herbalism kit, you can train through trial and error because the 'instructor' isn't defined and therefore open to interpretation. For something like that I'd say you can have good ol' mother nature as your instructor (or call it a god, or whatever you want)- this doesn't conflict with RAW. The cost of the training could be represented by additional food while you learn to forage, purchased tips and guidance from locals, replace worn out boots, etc.
I'd say you can go into the woods for ~10 weeks, pay some money and come out with proficiency with a herbalism kit - increasing your ability to forage - which was learned through trial and error...and it fits within RAW imo.
Weapon knowledge does not teach you what parts of the animal are safe to eat, nor how to track or preserve meat for travel. Plus weapon proficiencies cannot be learned in downtime either :P
I may have missed it if has already been stated, but the DMG lists them as objects. Not trying to jump into the RAW vs homebrew discussion, but I would guess classifying them as objects was an intentional decision to eliminate any guesswork on whether a proficiency would apply, as there are no object proficiencies in 5e.
I may have missed it if has already been stated, but the DMG lists them as objects. Not trying to jump into the RAW vs homebrew discussion, but I would guess classifying them as objects was an intentional decision to eliminate any guesswork on whether a proficiency would apply, as there are no object proficiencies in 5e.
In what way are tools or normal (i.e. non-siege) weapons not objects? The alternative to classification as objects would be to classify them as creatures, or I suppose as energy....
From a 5e RAW standpoint, tools are tools, weapons are weapons. Tools and weapons, along with any other physical thing, are objects, but not all objects are either tools or weapons. The only objects you can have a proficiency in are objects that are defined as tools, weapons, and vehicles. You can't be proficient with a ballista any more than you can be proficient with a comb, because while both are objects, neither are classified as a weapon, tool, or vehicle. Again, all of this is RAW definitions of the words, not homebrew, as this is the rules forum and not the homebrew forum. Can a DM create a homebrew proficiency for anything and everything in a game? Absolutely. Can you be proficient with an object that isn't a weapon, tool, or vehicle while staying within RAW? No.
They're expected to be used, that's why there are rules for their use. There are multiple published adventures that have ballista in them that PCs can use, most prominently Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Just because there isn't a proficiency available for them doesn't mean they aren't usable.
Again, "weapon" is a defined type of object with its own subset of rules. A "tool" is a defined type of object with it's own subset of rules. A ballista is not defined as either... it is defined as an object, therefore no proficiency is available for it.
For what it's worth, the devs put some thought into it. One example is that "Weapons" in 5e are essentially invulnerable. You don't have to track your sword's HP, AC, and damage threshold to keep it from breaking every combat. Same with tools. "Objects", however, have rules for their durability. So even though all three of these items can have a semantic overlap, they worked to make sure there isn't a rule overlap that could cause confusion based on the defined rules for each category of object in the game.
But you need to be able to measure out the tension, angle and torque for the machinery to fire properly and effectively. Otherwise you may fall very short.
But you need to be able to measure out the tension, angle and torque for the machinery to fire properly and effectively. Otherwise you may fall very short.
That would be what failing to meet AC covers, as well as why the engine only has a +6 to hit in the cited example. That’s not a particularly high mod for hitting anything one would be inclined to bring siege weaponry to bear against.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that D&D 5e is a game where combat is almost exclusively a matter of small groups fighting each other, as opposed to making much use of either vehicle combat or siege warfare. Ergo, the initial rules for siege engines and comparable equipment are light and are more designed as DM-facing content than player-facing.
Given that these generally require crews to operate I would expect any proficiency to be more of a tool proficiency rather than a weapon proficiency. Similar to land vehicles there are no general rules in RAW for what a score in that proficiency would mean, but it can be homebrewed for a given situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
many rules are left intentionally vague for numerous reasons (although, ya, the math inconsistencies are my personal pet peeve - and prices). your last sentence doesn't make sense. if you call core rules whatever is in DMG MM and PHB, then its impossible to need to buy modules to get core rules...but your idea in general means that everything should be locked in stone with those 3 books and the room for expansion and development is removed. One of the core concepts of D&D is flexibility and the ability to pick what you want for your table.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
pretty sure we're talking around each other - the first reply to this thread pretty definitively answers the OP's question. I was providing a reference if the reader really wanted to go down the crew size path which would be homebrew - since that's where the convo went after answering the original question. Not sure what you're saying that hasn't already been said and everyone agrees with.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Do you see anything that does say there is a proficiency in using Siege Weapons? I'd prefer that there was actually. I think a straight +6 hit is too generous for just anyone to have.
I shot one with my Cleric that has a -1 Dex mod, lol.
It would be total Homebrew but, I think it shout be a Martial category or specific proficiency by Siege Weapon type.
I think they should be a tool proficiency like Vehicles (Land) are.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I allow individual Skill, Armor, and Weapon proficiencies to be learned during downtime too. Heck, for that stuff I even allow 1 hour of Long Rest time to be used for those trainings (including tools). It takes a long time, but nobody seems to mind when they can get at least 1/2 proficiency in a couple months of “correspondence training” 1 hour/night. It took the Players 3 months to do 1 week in-game, so it isn’t very OP.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think this depends on how you read the rules - foraging can be influenced by 3 things (that I'm aware of): Survival skill (DMG), Nature skill (ToA), and the Herbalism kit (XGE).
If you look at the herbalism kit, you can train through trial and error because the 'instructor' isn't defined and therefore open to interpretation. For something like that I'd say you can have good ol' mother nature as your instructor (or call it a god, or whatever you want)- this doesn't conflict with RAW. The cost of the training could be represented by additional food while you learn to forage, purchased tips and guidance from locals, replace worn out boots, etc.
I'd say you can go into the woods for ~10 weeks, pay some money and come out with proficiency with a herbalism kit - increasing your ability to forage - which was learned through trial and error...and it fits within RAW imo.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Why do you think they first invented weapons?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
you'd have to ask the
cylonswarforged that one.Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Did you read my post #38?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, there is a feat for that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I may have missed it if has already been stated, but the DMG lists them as objects. Not trying to jump into the RAW vs homebrew discussion, but I would guess classifying them as objects was an intentional decision to eliminate any guesswork on whether a proficiency would apply, as there are no object proficiencies in 5e.
From a 5e RAW standpoint, tools are tools, weapons are weapons. Tools and weapons, along with any other physical thing, are objects, but not all objects are either tools or weapons. The only objects you can have a proficiency in are objects that are defined as tools, weapons, and vehicles. You can't be proficient with a ballista any more than you can be proficient with a comb, because while both are objects, neither are classified as a weapon, tool, or vehicle. Again, all of this is RAW definitions of the words, not homebrew, as this is the rules forum and not the homebrew forum. Can a DM create a homebrew proficiency for anything and everything in a game? Absolutely. Can you be proficient with an object that isn't a weapon, tool, or vehicle while staying within RAW? No.
They're expected to be used, that's why there are rules for their use. There are multiple published adventures that have ballista in them that PCs can use, most prominently Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Just because there isn't a proficiency available for them doesn't mean they aren't usable.
Again, "weapon" is a defined type of object with its own subset of rules. A "tool" is a defined type of object with it's own subset of rules. A ballista is not defined as either... it is defined as an object, therefore no proficiency is available for it.
For what it's worth, the devs put some thought into it. One example is that "Weapons" in 5e are essentially invulnerable. You don't have to track your sword's HP, AC, and damage threshold to keep it from breaking every combat. Same with tools. "Objects", however, have rules for their durability. So even though all three of these items can have a semantic overlap, they worked to make sure there isn't a rule overlap that could cause confusion based on the defined rules for each category of object in the game.
But the answers to all of this is perfectly obvious, isn't it?
But you need to be able to measure out the tension, angle and torque for the machinery to fire properly and effectively. Otherwise you may fall very short.
That would be what failing to meet AC covers, as well as why the engine only has a +6 to hit in the cited example. That’s not a particularly high mod for hitting anything one would be inclined to bring siege weaponry to bear against.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that D&D 5e is a game where combat is almost exclusively a matter of small groups fighting each other, as opposed to making much use of either vehicle combat or siege warfare. Ergo, the initial rules for siege engines and comparable equipment are light and are more designed as DM-facing content than player-facing.
Given that these generally require crews to operate I would expect any proficiency to be more of a tool proficiency rather than a weapon proficiency. Similar to land vehicles there are no general rules in RAW for what a score in that proficiency would mean, but it can be homebrewed for a given situation.