Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ZHDarkstar Jun 13, 2015 10:54:17	The only information that I can find to derive the improvised weapon equivalent of rods are the drawings in the DMG, the generic description of rods, and the entry for the Rod of Lordly Might, which lists it as a mace. Would it be a far stretch to treat all other rods as improvised maces? The generic description of rods is most confusing part. It lists the weight range as 2 lbs (club) to 5 lbs (mace), but none of the rods in the DMG have a weight listing. The only rod with a listed weight is the genwric arcane focus rod, which weighs 2 lbs.   Personally, I'm more inclined to rule on the side of maces for magic rods and clubs for generic rods. However, I wanted to get the opinions of the rest of the community, as this has potential AL implications. There's a Fighter/Warlock at one of my tables contemplating rebuilding to a Pally Bladelock when she found out that a Rod of the Pact Keeper is in this season's Expeditions.   Also, how would you rule a wand as an improvised weapon, club or dagger?
#2 jaelis Jun 13, 2015 11:07:34	I'm afraid I'd play that a rod is an improvised weapon, and a wand is too flimsy to attack with at all.    Ruling that a rod works like a club means it works with shilellagh. Maybe you'd call that a problem maybe not, but its something to be aware of.
#3 ZHDarkstar Jun 13, 2015 12:14:07	Well it's hard to look at a 2-3' long rod and not think at least "club." It was the weight disparity in the DMG description and RoLM which put me between the two weapon types for improvised weapon use. It doesn't make sense to use the generic improvised weapon rule, as the general size and shape of a rod is not that dissimilar to the table leg that is "akin to a club" (PHB 147)   The shilellagh interaction already exists with magical staves and their generic foci counterparts, so treating rods as clubs would just be more the same. Ruling them as maces would instead lock the damage at 1d6, instead of 1d4 -> 1d8 shilellagh scale.   As for wands, I think that 1d4 piercing damage would work. No weapon equivalent, though. Think getting stabbed by a really sharp pencil...
(Reply to #3) OoftaMeg	ZHDarkstar wrote:
(Reply to #4) ZHDarkstar	OoftaMeg wrote:
#6 Kalani Jun 13, 2015 16:54:49	I would rule that a rod is an improvised club. It is not a club however, and therefore would not work with shillelagh. It would however, deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and benefit from a characters proficiency bonus in club
#7 ZHDarkstar Jun 13, 2015 17:31:47	Kalani wrote:
#8 jaelis Jun 13, 2015 18:19:02	OoftaMeg wrote:
#9 ZHDarkstar Jun 13, 2015 18:50:48	Another question to go along with this topic. Would a magical rod used as an improvised weapon count as magical for overcoming resistance?
(Reply to #8) OoftaMeg	jaelis wrote:
#11 jaelis Jun 13, 2015 19:02:40	OoftaMeg wrote:
#12 jaelis Jun 13, 2015 19:05:54	ZHDarkstar wrote:
(Reply to #11) OoftaMeg	jaelis wrote:
#14 ZHDarkstar Jun 13, 2015 19:15:37	jaelis wrote:
#15 lawrencehoy Jun 14, 2015 21:01:25	OoftaMeg wrote:
#16 Saeviomagy Jun 15, 2015 21:00:10	So the general consensus is that if I have a stone/bone club, shillelagh does not work?   Personally I would describe each rod individually, and classify as either a club or mace (or sometimes neither) as the description suggests. I probably wouldn't even count them as improvised unless they are significantly unlike a weapon.   Similar for wands (or staves, or any other magic item that might be weapon shaped). If I decide that a want is a half foot long shaft of pure diamond with sharp ends, it's probably ok to shank someone with. If it's most other materials, it will work for a shanking, but is likely to break in the process.   I would probably count attacks with them as magical too. It's not that big a deal normally, and if it causes someone to stab something with their wand of fireballs as a last-ditch resort, all the better.
(Reply to #16) OoftaMeg	Saeviomagy wrote:
#18 ZHDarkstar Jun 16, 2015 9:48:13	Saeviomagy wrote:
#19 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 10:36:00	The Weaponized Rod is the only one that isn't considered an improvised weapon. It is a weapon in its own right (with stats = to a mace).   As such, I would probably make all other rods do less damage than the weaponized rod, in an effort to not step on its toes. If all rods deal damage as a mace, the weaponized rod feels like an inferior magic item. Yay......Its not an improvised weapon (rolls eyes).    When all else fails, an improvised weapon deals 1d4 damage of the appropriate type. The fact that clubs deal the same damage is irrelevant (and only of relevance for the purpose of whether a DM might allow you to benefit from your proficiency bonus to attack). Shields for example, never gain a proficiency bonus to attack (as they are not like any weapon on the weapon table).
#20 ZHDarkstar Jun 16, 2015 13:44:15	The only weaponized rod (RoLM) is certainly not an inferior magic item, as it's also a Flametongue, +3 battleaxe, and +3 spear; in addition to being a +3 mace. Granting rods mace damage would not take away any of RoLM's might. Plus, the rods wouldn't be considered magic weapons, unless the magic items states otherwise. It's simply adapting the magic staff as quarterstaff ruling to rods.   Can you seriously look at the pictures of the rods on DMG 195-196 and say that they all don't have the same basic damage die as the RoLM? The Rod of Absorption and Rod of Rulership both appear to be sporting similar mass and shape as the RoLM. I know it's a bit of a stretch to use art depictions to justify rulings on mechanics, but I view the included art as the baseline appearance of those items for the magic item modification tables. Otherwise, why would WotC include them if they weren't representative of the depicted items?   Honestly, I could care less either way it's ruled. I just found this topic interesting because of the possible ramifications to my tables. The rod is turning out to be the colloid of improvised weapons. There's enough evidence for both sides of the argument that its damage die was up for debate.   Hopefully, we'll see some DMG errata soon to clarify this. Upon further inspection of RoLM, button 1 needs clarification as to what type of sword the Flametongue is, as Flametongue can be applied to any sword. Historically, button 1 was a longsword, which is how I'll rule it
#21 Kalani Jun 16, 2015 13:48:57	Each DM can rule it the way they choose... Thats the beauty of the Improvised Weapon rules - it is subject to DM fiat as to what weapon they consider it "similar to". I happen to think its more like a club because thats how I imagine them. But that, by no means makes a different weapon choice any less valid - that is, assuming they aren't saying its like a glaive or something ridiculous.