Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JohnnyBlaise May 16, 2015 20:06:04	So, I couldn't locate anywhere any rules about what weapons (or armor) a monster is proficient in.  This can come up for example if you are carrying, lets just say for argument sake, a vicious greatsword.  An Orog then kills you.  Can he then lean down and pick up that greatsword and pound your friends in the face with it using his proficiency bonus?   The best I could find was in the DMG under monster creation where it says you add its proficiency modifier and stat to determine it's attack roll.   Any rules or suggestions?   Related question, how long does it take an imp who has taken on the shape of a spider to climb into its really damn small suit of plate armor?  How much is it to make a suit of plate mail suitable for a normal spider?
#2 jaelis May 16, 2015 20:12:21	I'm pretty sure the monster manual says creatures are proficient with the weapons they are statted out with. Beyond that it would be up to the DM.   The spider armor is _really_ up to the DM.
#3 AaronOfBarbaria May 17, 2015 0:58:46	Monster Manual, page 9, sidebar in upper left corner.   Basically says what Jaelis said - monsters are proficient with what is in their stat blocks, and if you switch that gear it is up to you if they are proficient in what you've swapped them to having.
(Reply to #3) Kentor_Slowhand_02	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#5 AaronOfBarbaria May 17, 2015 13:41:31	How would I handle something like a shapeshifting dragon?   I'd have it be proficient in whatever weapons and armor I felt were approrpiate to that particular dragon.   As a more detailed example, I will use the dragon from the Mystara campaign setting named Synn: she has a human form in which she lives a lie that she is just a (powerful) human wizard, so I would have her be proficient in the same things that a wizard would be proficient in.   Of course, it is worth noting that my default stance on monsters is to simply have them be proficient in whatever they are actually using no matter the case - only reasons that are really important to the concept or purpose of the creature would convince me to not let them behave proficiently (i.e. Synn might actually be perfectly proficient in all armor and every weapon that exists, but in her human guise she would act as though she isn't because that helps maintain her cover by not prompting anyone to question where any non-typical talents were acquired).
#6 OoftaMeg May 17, 2015 14:33:09	Other than the proficiency with the weapon in their stat block, I would also base it oin the description of the monster.   Hobgobliins for example are listed as placing a lot of emphasis on martial skills so I would give them proficiencies in all weapons.  A grimlock on the other hand is just a degenerate subterranean thug.  They get simple weapons only, maybe nothing more advanced than a spear.   What role does the monster play in your world?  Militarily and strategically oriented or brute thug that runs around smashing things?  Maybe their primarily into magic and view weapons as being below them.  Answer those questions and you have your answer for what weapons they are proficient in.
#7 JohnnyBlaise May 17, 2015 21:57:33	Okay, so let me flip this a bit.  If I hand my Imp familair a net, and use my attack to instruct him to attack with the net, is he proficient?  How many times do I have to show him how to throw the net before he is "good" at it?
#8 BoldItalic May 18, 2015 1:47:27	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#9 jaelis May 18, 2015 5:59:43	Warlock familiars can attack, and that's the only way to get an imp familiar anyway.   I would say that imps are not proficient with nets.
#10 Razintarr May 19, 2015 8:36:47	I'd say the imp isn't proficient with a net either.   But if the imp turns invisible, so does the net. He can fly invisibly over enemies, then drop the net. I'd say that gives the imp advantage on the net attack.
#11 Mechatarrasque May 19, 2015 9:32:57	I think it depends on how big the net is.  If the net is for small or smaller enemies, I would allow it, but a net big enough for a medium foe is pretty big for the imp, both to use and to make invisible.  Bull's strength solves one part of that, but I would have to be convinced on the other part.
#12 Mad_Jack May 19, 2015 9:35:48	On the issue of the spider wearing armor, I'd have to say that since it lacks any means of putting the armor on, you'd need to do it yourself. It'd probably one take one round. As far as the cost, you'd need to go to someone like a jeweller or fine metal worker to make armor that small, which means that it'd be pretty expensive. Assuming you could find someone willing to do it, actual cost would be up to the DM.     (On the other hand, armor small enough to fit on a regular-sized spider (even a camel spider) probably isn't going to be thick enough to provide any real protection anyway.)
#13 JohnnyBlaise May 19, 2015 21:44:18	So, are you saying that a small creature, like a gnome, somehow gets less AC from plate than a large creature like a giant?  That's definitely not a rule.   As I understand it, imps are demons who are literally immortal - the idea that they couldn't figure out how to throw a net is pretty ludicrous.  I admit I had not thought about size of weapon issues, but Im pretty sure there is no rule about weapons for creatures of Tiny size either (there is a rule about small size creatures, but they never deal with smaller than that).     I guess what Im getting here from most people is, "DM Fiat."  Which is fine, just not you know, helpful.
(Reply to #13) RAJdeBoer	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#15 Noctaem May 21, 2015 4:13:37	It's a very slippery slope to start claiming that because of size, clear mechanical benefits like AC, is somehow different from creature to creature.  I don't think you guys have any authority to make such a claim outside of your own tables.  And I would recommend not making the "it's common sense" argument either.  What is common sense to you might not be what is common sense to someone else.
(Reply to #13) RAJdeBoer	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
(Reply to #15) RAJdeBoer	Noctaem wrote:
#18 Razintarr May 21, 2015 5:27:52	JohnnyBlaise wrote: