daggers and darts are near identical. The only differences between them are weight, cost, and the dagger can be used in melee normally while the dart would be an Improvised Weapon. (More on this later.)
Scimitars (if you're proficient with them) and shortswords are also similar, with the notable differences being their respective damage types and (again) weight and cost.
Rapiers cannot normally be used with Two-Weapon Fighting, but that doesn't mean they cannot be used without a second attack. (More on this later.)
Slings and arrows (heh) are straight-forward enough. Crossbows have the added restriction of only being able to fire once per turn, due to the Loading property. But since rogue's don't have Extra Attack, this is mostly a non-issue. (More on this later.)
Nets are a special case; pun intended. You don't roll a weapon die, so there's no damage type to apply your Dexterity modifier to. Bummer, I know. This also means no Sneak Attack, since that feature just deals additional damage of the same type as your weapon. And you're also not normally proficient with nets. However...
The Gladiator background (a variant on the Entertainer) can grant proficiency with nets. It's even offered up as a suggestion.
Spells, such as faerie fire, can grant Advantage on all attacks against affected targets. This counters the Disadvantage normally incurred by the attack.
It is possible to train up proficiency; though weapons aren't explicitly mentioned so it's up to the DM. There are also other (optional) methods, such as Multiclassing and the Weapon Master feat.
The optional Crossbow Expert feat can negate the Disadvantage for attempting ranged attacks while engaged in melee. This also synergizes with the hand crossbow; allowing you to attack twice in one turn: once with your action and again with your bonus action.
Acid vials and flasks of alchemist's fire are also odd little ducks. Using them can mean making a ranged attack with an Improvised Weapon, but you aren't taking the Attack action to do so. Rather, you're taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action. It all comes down to the terminology used in their respective descriptions. That said, we do have to clarify a few things:
They are not proper ranged weapons so you cannot use them to trigger Sneak Attack.
They're still improvised weapons, so you still lack proficiency with the attack roll, by default. I suggest taking the Tavern Brawler feat (if available) to get around this.
You're still making a ranged attack, so you still get to add your Dexterity modifier to the damage roll. In the case of the alchemist's fire, this adds to every round the target burns.
Because you're taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action, rather than the Attack action, they can be combined with the Thief's Fast Hands to make a ranged attack as a bonus action. Armed with a rapier, such a rogue could, indeed, make two attacks in one turn; one melee and one ranged.
So, if all optional rules from the PHB are on the table, a variant human rogue (with both the Gladiator background and the Tavern Brawler feat) is especially formidable and versatile. By becoming a Thief at 3rd-level, they can throw flasks and vials as a bonus action; adding both their proficiency bonus to the attack roll and their Dexterity bonus to the damage roll. At 4th-level they can take Crossbow Expert and use nets in melee with no issue. And, if we're allowing point buy, I think a starting array of Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 14 is pretty good. And for added fun, they might eventually gain Expertise with Athletics. Being able to punch a commoner for 3 (1d4 + 1) bludgeoning damage, and then grapple them with your bonus action, sounds like a baller time.
Many things, including that darts are eligible for Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter but Daggers aren't, Daggers are eligible for Dueling fighting style but Darts aren't, and that isn't even getting into the stuff I disagree with you about :)
Many things, including that darts are eligible for Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter but Daggers aren't, Daggers are eligible for Dueling fighting style but Darts aren't, and that isn't even getting into the stuff I disagree with you about :)
I didn't bother with those because they didn't seem relevant. The bulk of rogue damage comes from Sneak Attack. Blowing a feat on ≈4 damage, or trading -5 to hit (thus reducing the likelihood of a successful Sneak Attack) for +10 damage, just doesn't seem worth it in my book. Especially when the usefulness of those feats are improved dramatically upon by classes with Extra Attack.
And how much have you been right about on page 1 anyway? ;)
Did some skimming of this thread, and I was surprised to see generic untyped damage (such as Hunter's Mark says it deals, but many spells do this - I was recently in another thread pointing out to someone that Warding Bond doesn't specify the passed-along type, either, and type was very relevant there, as OP wanted to discuss Warding Bond cast by a raging Totem Barbarian just prior to raging - meaning that untyped would actually be better, because Totems are resistant to anything that isn't psychic, so if "untyped" damage exists, Totem Barbarians are resistant to it while raging) brought up. It's really not a solved problem what happens when a Ranger with Hunter's Mark up hits someone with a Flame Tongue? Or a Rogue Sneak Attacks with a Flame Tongue Rapier? That sort of issue must arise constantly, and a ruling on it would directly help address the deep weirdness with nets, because right now we have the curious case that Hex lets a net deal 1d6 necrotic damage, but Hunter's Mark may deal 0 damage, 1d6 bludgeoning, or 1d6 "untyped", based on interpretation.
So, I've certainly hit instances of Jeremy Crawford contradicting the RAW and, more importantly, his own tweets (meaning it's impossible to be sure you've found all of his tweets on a matter, even if you've decided to declare his most recent tweets to trump his older tweets). That said, I know his opinion is at least widely respected. I found these:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/808824943299264512<-- JC declaring that Hunter's Mark (and by extension all similar abilities - for example, I found a tweet explicitly saying to check this tweet for resolving Sneak Attack) deals any type you want, chosen from the types originally dealt by the weapon (ordinarily there's only one of these, but for a Flame Tongue Rapier, you could choose Piercing or Fire, as you like)
Neither of these assertions are in the PHB, the DMG, or the Sage Advice Compendium. They lead to questions I've just realized I also don't know the answer to, like what type is the Sneak Attack damage if you stab someone with a Rapier while you have Hex up? Are you allowed to choose necrotic? The wording on Hex matches the wording on Flame Tongue. Things get even stranger with a nets - if the rule is that you by definition can't deal untyped damage, so any time the rules would force you to, you instead deal 0, then Hunter's Mark doesn't work with a net at all, but not only does Hex work just fine, maybe you can use Hex to Sneak Attack with a net with the Necrotic type.
So I've come to the conclusion absolutely no-one knows how nets really work. I'll just present my findings to my GM, I guess. :)
I went insane once trying to parse what damage is “magical” and what’s mundane on a sneak attack with a regular weapon with dueling style covered in poison that’s subject to hunters mark and hexblades curse... and what (if anything) is different if it’s a +1 weapon instead :)
this is a very poorly defined area within the PHB. Perhaps it’s “obvious” to some, but the more you think about it, the more you realize there’s a lot of problematic assumptions you’re making with significant balance implications...
daggers and darts are near identical. The only differences between them are weight, cost, and the dagger can be used in melee normally while the dart would be an Improvised Weapon. (More on this later.)
Scimitars (if you're proficient with them) and shortswords are also similar, with the notable differences being their respective damage types and (again) weight and cost.
Rapiers cannot normally be used with Two-Weapon Fighting, but that doesn't mean they cannot be used without a second attack. (More on this later.)
Slings and arrows (heh) are straight-forward enough. Crossbows have the added restriction of only being able to fire once per turn, due to the Loading property. But since rogue's don't have Extra Attack, this is mostly a non-issue. (More on this later.)
Nets are a special case; pun intended. You don't roll a weapon die, so there's no damage type to apply your Dexterity modifier to. Bummer, I know. This also means no Sneak Attack, since that feature just deals additional damage of the same type as your weapon. And you're also not normally proficient with nets. However...
The Gladiator background (a variant on the Entertainer) can grant proficiency with nets. It's even offered up as a suggestion.
Spells, such as faerie fire, can grant Advantage on all attacks against affected targets. This counters the Disadvantage normally incurred by the attack.
It is possible to train up proficiency; though weapons aren't explicitly mentioned so it's up to the DM. There are also other (optional) methods, such as Multiclassing and the Weapon Master feat.
The optional Crossbow Expert feat can negate the Disadvantage for attempting ranged attacks while engaged in melee. This also synergizes with the hand crossbow; allowing you to attack twice in one turn: once with your action and again with your bonus action.
Acid vials and flasks of alchemist's fire are also odd little ducks. Using them can mean making a ranged attack with an Improvised Weapon, but you aren't taking the Attack action to do so. Rather, you're taking the Use an Object action. It all comes down to the terminology used in their respective descriptions. That said, we do have to clarify a few things:
They are not proper ranged weapons so you cannot use them to trigger Sneak Attack.
They're still improvised weapons, so you still lack proficiency with the attack roll, by default. I suggest taking the Tavern Brawler feat (if available) to get around this.
You're still making a ranged attack, so you still get to add your Dexterity modifier to the damage roll. In the case of the alchemist's fire, this adds to every round the target burns.
Because you're taking the Use an Object action, rather than the Attack action, they can be combined with the Thief's Fast Hands to make a ranged attack as a bonus action. Armed with a rapier, such a rogue could, indeed, make two attacks in one turn; one melee and one ranged.
So, if all optional rules from the PHB are on the table, a variant human rogue (with both the Gladiator background and the Tavern Brawler feat) is especially formidable and versatile. By becoming a Thief at 3rd-level, they can throw flasks and vials as a bonus action; adding both their proficiency bonus to the attack roll and their Dexterity bonus to the damage roll. At 4th-level they can take Crossbow Expert and use nets in melee with no issue. And, if we're allowing point buy, I think a starting array of Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 14 is pretty good. And for added fun, they might eventually gain Expertise with Athletics. Being able to punch a commoner for 3 (1d4 + 1) bludgeoning damage, and then grapple them with your bonus action, sounds like a baller time.
Did I forget anything?
Uh... in no particular order:
It's widely agreed upon that as the four flask non-weapons tell you you have to make an attack to throw them, they use the Attack action, not the Use an Object action, because the Attack action is the one that by definition lets you make an attack. If Thieves could throw them as a bonus action, they'd be a lot less bad, but I thought it was just accepted that throwing them uses the Attack action (meaning also, of course, that someone with Extra Attack and two flasks can throw both of them). The same logic would apply to however your table handles the rule for lit torch attacks - i.e. it's the Attack action, not Use an Object.
You can't possibly be right about Alchemist's Fire - Alchemist's Fire doesn't deal direct damage (unless the flask hits for 1d4 bludgeoning, I don't know). AF damages the target for a fixed amount at the start of each of its turns. There just isn't a rule in the game letting you add a stat modifier to that - you'd maybe have a case if it dealt 1d4 fire damage on hit (it doesn't) and if the ongoing damage said it was the original damage again (also doesn't).
For all four flask weapons, the rule letting you potentially add dex mod damage is dependent on attacking with a ranged weapon (this is on page 14). To take an easier example than fire, oil, or holy water, this means Acid can deal 2d6 + Dex Mod damage if and only if I can sneak attack with it. It's just impossible to be allowed to add Dex mod to damage but not be allowed to Sneak Attack with it, base (special rules can change this once you have them, like Martial Arts from Monks).
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread to someone else, granting Improvised Weapons the melee and ranged types also means radically upgrading a swathe of other abilities, like how the Dual Wielder feat is now radically upgraded for shield users (Sage Compendium functionally affirms that you can attack with a shield as an improvised weapons). That seems unlikely at best. Note that weapons in the weapons table remain melee or ranged no matter how they're used - if you try to rule weapons adopt the type of how they're used, one of the things you will break is the Thrown rule - e.g. you will render it legal to Sneak Attack with Thrown Spear. I am quite certain it is not.
There is no rule in the game backing up your assertion that just because a weapon is improvised, you lack proficiency. I've looked. As a corollary, this means e.g. stabbing with a dart in melee doesn't mean you lose proficiency if you were proficient with darts to begin with.
Gladiators can start with a physical net as part of their gear, not net proficiency.
I appreciate the advice on Faerie Fire and Crossbow Mastery, but I was going to fix the disadvantage issue on nets with Sharpshooter, which is part of why I'm trying to suss out how additive damage works with a net.
Doing this in one post cost I'm tired and heading for bed.
Many things, including that darts are eligible for Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter but Daggers aren't, Daggers are eligible for Dueling fighting style but Darts aren't, and that isn't even getting into the stuff I disagree with you about :)
See what I just said about throwing spears. There's no question at all that that is exactly how the rules work. Here, have some verbatim rules text unambiguously addressing one of them, as an example. This is from the Sage Advice Compendium, which as a reminder, is 100% official, just like the PHB itself. Its word is law. You very explicitly cannot apply Archery to Daggers.
Does the Archery fighting style work with a melee weapon that you throw? No, the Archery feature benefits ranged weapons. A melee weapon, such as a dagger or handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged attack with it.
A melee weapon with thrown property that is being thrown is thrown as that weapon. A longbow that is being used to whack someone in melee is not being used as a longbow, according to a longbows properties, but rather as an improvised Quarterstaff or club. That would be the argument for calling an improvised weapon a melee weapon when used in melee, but a properly designed thrown melee weapon not becoming an improvised ranged weapon.
But that’s kinda my two cents, not a lot written to latch onto with imp weapons. I treat imp weapons as melee in melee and ranged at range. Conventional melee weapons are melee in melee. Conventional melee weapons with thrown are still melee weapons when thrown at range. Conventional ranged weapons are ranged at range. Tidy enough for me, and leads to predictable rule interactions which don’t lead to any surprising or (in my eyes) unintended results
It's widely agreed upon that as the four flask non-weapons tell you you have to make an attack to throw them, they use the Attack action, not the Use an Object action, because the Attack action is the one that by definition lets you make an attack. If Thieves could throw them as a bonus action, they'd be a lot less bad, but I thought it was just accepted that throwing them uses the Attack action (meaning also, of course, that someone with Extra Attack and two flasks can throw both of them). The same logic would apply to however your table handles the rule for lit torch attacks - i.e. it's the Attack action, not Use an Object.
You can't possibly be right about Alchemist's Fire - Alchemist's Fire doesn't deal direct damage (unless the flask hits for 1d4 bludgeoning, I don't know). AF damages the target for a fixed amount at the start of each of its turns. There just isn't a rule in the game letting you add a stat modifier to that - you'd maybe have a case if it dealt 1d4 fire damage on hit (it doesn't) and if the ongoing damage said it was the original damage again (also doesn't).
For all four flask weapons, the rule letting you potentially add dex mod damage is dependent on attacking with a ranged weapon (this is on page 14). To take an easier example than fire, oil, or holy water, this means Acid can deal 2d6 + Dex Mod damage if and only if I can sneak attack with it. It's just impossible to be allowed to add Dex mod to damage but not be allowed to Sneak Attack with it, base (special rules can change this once you have them, like Martial Arts from Monks).
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread to someone else, granting Improvised Weapons the melee and ranged types also means radically upgrading a swathe of other abilities, like how the Dual Wielder feat is now radically upgraded for shield users (Sage Compendium functionally affirms that you can attack with a shield as an improvised weapons). That seems unlikely at best. Note that weapons in the weapons table remain melee or ranged no matter how they're used - if you try to rule weapons adopt the type of how they're used, one of the things you will break is the Thrown rule - e.g. you will render it legal to Sneak Attack with Thrown Spear. I am quite certain it is not.
There is no rule in the game backing up your assertion that just because a weapon is improvised, you lack proficiency. I've looked. As a corollary, this means e.g. stabbing with a dart in melee doesn't mean you lose proficiency if you were proficient with darts to begin with.
Gladiators can start with a physical net as part of their gear, not net proficiency.
I appreciate the advice on Faerie Fire and Crossbow Mastery, but I was going to fix the disadvantage issue on nets with Sharpshooter, which is part of why I'm trying to suss out how additive damage works with a net.
Doing this in one post cost I'm tired and heading for bed.
You only have proficiency with an improvised weapon if its use resembles a weapon you're already proficient with. Ultimately, this is left up to the DM, but nothing about throwing a vial of acid or flask of alchemist's fire resembles anything found in the PHB. So, erring on the side of caution, you're not proficient when using them. Emphasis on use.
"As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact."
"As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact."
We can't even use grenades as examples for comparison because, while they're also adventuring gear, they rely on saving throws and so don't count as improvised weapons for the purposes of this discussion. But I digress. Because of the above language, you're taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action to throw either one of these. You cannot simply splice throwing these two objects into an Attack action if you have Extra Attack. You have to use your whole action to throw one.
But you're still making a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, so your Dexterity modifier still applies. The rule for dealing damage with a weapon doesn't care if the weapon is improvised, Melee, or Ranged. A weapon is a weapon. Otherwise, we'd be saying that melee attacks with improvised weapons don't add your Strength modifier to the damage rolls. And we know they do. I mean, Crawford has weighed in on the subject before. And while you're free to disregard his advice at your own table, I certainly don't treat his every utterance as gospel, this is how they're treated in AL. It is worth consideration.
And because they're still improvised weapons, not proper ranged weapons, that lack the Finesse, Sneak Attack won't apply.
So I've come to the conclusion absolutely no-one knows how nets really work. I'll just present my findings to my GM, I guess. :)
I'm with you there. A few things in 5e simply aren't fleshed-out enough to fully work. They feel unfinished or forgotten. Nets fall into that category.
Restraining at-will is very strong. It's quite a bit stronger than grappling and better control than any cantrip. They needed to balance that out with a downside, and I guess the one they ended up with was just to make them nearly unplayable.
But you're still making a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, so your Dexterity modifier still applies. The rule for dealing damage with a weapon doesn't care if the weapon is improvised, Melee, or Ranged. A weapon is a weapon. Otherwise, we'd be saying that melee attacks with improvised weapons don't add your Strength modifier to the damage rolls. And we know they do. I mean, Crawford has weighed in on the subject before. And while you're free to disregard his advice at your own table, I certainly don't treat his every utterance as gospel, this is how they're treated in AL. It is worth consideration.
And because they're still improvised weapons, not proper ranged weapons, that lack the Finesse, Sneak Attack won't apply.
That would mean that I get to add my STR mod when I hit someone with a Torch too right?
But you're still making a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, so your Dexterity modifier still applies. The rule for dealing damage with a weapon doesn't care if the weapon is improvised, Melee, or Ranged. A weapon is a weapon. Otherwise, we'd be saying that melee attacks with improvised weapons don't add your Strength modifier to the damage rolls. And we know they do. I mean, Crawford has weighed in on the subject before. And while you're free to disregard his advice at your own table, I certainly don't treat his every utterance as gospel, this is how they're treated in AL. It is worth consideration.
And because they're still improvised weapons, not proper ranged weapons, that lack the Finesse, Sneak Attack won't apply.
That would mean that I get to add my STR mod when I hit someone with a Torch too right?
If you can use a torch it to make a melee attack as an improvised weapon, then yes. But not when you're using it as a lit torch for 1 fire damage. Remember, a thing only does what it says it does. No more, and no less. It doesn't say it's a weapon, improvised or otherwise, so by RAW you don't add your modifier to the damage.
I say "if you can" because torch construction isn't exactly clear. We don't know if they're the colloquial club-like torches, or if they're rushlights. Personally, I'm in the latter camp. But, as with much in 5e, it's up to the DM. Rulings, not rules.
Wow, that's a lot. I'll try and add my two cents.
So, if all optional rules from the PHB are on the table, a variant human rogue (with both the Gladiator background and the Tavern Brawler feat) is especially formidable and versatile. By becoming a Thief at 3rd-level, they can throw flasks and vials as a bonus action; adding both their proficiency bonus to the attack roll and their Dexterity bonus to the damage roll. At 4th-level they can take Crossbow Expert and use nets in melee with no issue. And, if we're allowing point buy, I think a starting array of Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 14 is pretty good. And for added fun, they might eventually gain Expertise with Athletics. Being able to punch a commoner for 3 (1d4 + 1) bludgeoning damage, and then grapple them with your bonus action, sounds like a baller time.
Did I forget anything?
Many things, including that darts are eligible for Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter but Daggers aren't, Daggers are eligible for Dueling fighting style but Darts aren't, and that isn't even getting into the stuff I disagree with you about :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I didn't bother with those because they didn't seem relevant. The bulk of rogue damage comes from Sneak Attack. Blowing a feat on ≈4 damage, or trading -5 to hit (thus reducing the likelihood of a successful Sneak Attack) for +10 damage, just doesn't seem worth it in my book. Especially when the usefulness of those feats are improved dramatically upon by classes with Extra Attack.
And how much have you been right about on page 1 anyway? ;)
Did some skimming of this thread, and I was surprised to see generic untyped damage (such as Hunter's Mark says it deals, but many spells do this - I was recently in another thread pointing out to someone that Warding Bond doesn't specify the passed-along type, either, and type was very relevant there, as OP wanted to discuss Warding Bond cast by a raging Totem Barbarian just prior to raging - meaning that untyped would actually be better, because Totems are resistant to anything that isn't psychic, so if "untyped" damage exists, Totem Barbarians are resistant to it while raging) brought up. It's really not a solved problem what happens when a Ranger with Hunter's Mark up hits someone with a Flame Tongue? Or a Rogue Sneak Attacks with a Flame Tongue Rapier? That sort of issue must arise constantly, and a ruling on it would directly help address the deep weirdness with nets, because right now we have the curious case that Hex lets a net deal 1d6 necrotic damage, but Hunter's Mark may deal 0 damage, 1d6 bludgeoning, or 1d6 "untyped", based on interpretation.
So, I've certainly hit instances of Jeremy Crawford contradicting the RAW and, more importantly, his own tweets (meaning it's impossible to be sure you've found all of his tweets on a matter, even if you've decided to declare his most recent tweets to trump his older tweets). That said, I know his opinion is at least widely respected. I found these:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/808833377621057536 <-- JC declaring all damage is typed, despite the rules never directly stating this.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/808824943299264512<-- JC declaring that Hunter's Mark (and by extension all similar abilities - for example, I found a tweet explicitly saying to check this tweet for resolving Sneak Attack) deals any type you want, chosen from the types originally dealt by the weapon (ordinarily there's only one of these, but for a Flame Tongue Rapier, you could choose Piercing or Fire, as you like)
Neither of these assertions are in the PHB, the DMG, or the Sage Advice Compendium. They lead to questions I've just realized I also don't know the answer to, like what type is the Sneak Attack damage if you stab someone with a Rapier while you have Hex up? Are you allowed to choose necrotic? The wording on Hex matches the wording on Flame Tongue. Things get even stranger with a nets - if the rule is that you by definition can't deal untyped damage, so any time the rules would force you to, you instead deal 0, then Hunter's Mark doesn't work with a net at all, but not only does Hex work just fine, maybe you can use Hex to Sneak Attack with a net with the Necrotic type.
So I've come to the conclusion absolutely no-one knows how nets really work. I'll just present my findings to my GM, I guess. :)
I went insane once trying to parse what damage is “magical” and what’s mundane on a sneak attack with a regular weapon with dueling style covered in poison that’s subject to hunters mark and hexblades curse... and what (if anything) is different if it’s a +1 weapon instead :)
this is a very poorly defined area within the PHB. Perhaps it’s “obvious” to some, but the more you think about it, the more you realize there’s a lot of problematic assumptions you’re making with significant balance implications...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Uh... in no particular order:
Doing this in one post cost I'm tired and heading for bed.
See what I just said about throwing spears. There's no question at all that that is exactly how the rules work. Here, have some verbatim rules text unambiguously addressing one of them, as an example. This is from the Sage Advice Compendium, which as a reminder, is 100% official, just like the PHB itself. Its word is law. You very explicitly cannot apply Archery to Daggers.
Does the Archery fighting style work with a melee weapon that you throw? No, the Archery feature benefits ranged weapons. A melee weapon, such as a dagger or handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged attack with it.
A melee weapon with thrown property that is being thrown is thrown as that weapon. A longbow that is being used to whack someone in melee is not being used as a longbow, according to a longbows properties, but rather as an improvised Quarterstaff or club. That would be the argument for calling an improvised weapon a melee weapon when used in melee, but a properly designed thrown melee weapon not becoming an improvised ranged weapon.
But that’s kinda my two cents, not a lot written to latch onto with imp weapons. I treat imp weapons as melee in melee and ranged at range. Conventional melee weapons are melee in melee. Conventional melee weapons with thrown are still melee weapons when thrown at range. Conventional ranged weapons are ranged at range. Tidy enough for me, and leads to predictable rule interactions which don’t lead to any surprising or (in my eyes) unintended results
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You only have proficiency with an improvised weapon if its use resembles a weapon you're already proficient with. Ultimately, this is left up to the DM, but nothing about throwing a vial of acid or flask of alchemist's fire resembles anything found in the PHB. So, erring on the side of caution, you're not proficient when using them. Emphasis on use.
We can't even use grenades as examples for comparison because, while they're also adventuring gear, they rely on saving throws and so don't count as improvised weapons for the purposes of this discussion. But I digress. Because of the above language, you're taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action to throw either one of these. You cannot simply splice throwing these two objects into an Attack action if you have Extra Attack. You have to use your whole action to throw one.
But you're still making a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, so your Dexterity modifier still applies. The rule for dealing damage with a weapon doesn't care if the weapon is improvised, Melee, or Ranged. A weapon is a weapon. Otherwise, we'd be saying that melee attacks with improvised weapons don't add your Strength modifier to the damage rolls. And we know they do. I mean, Crawford has weighed in on the subject before. And while you're free to disregard his advice at your own table, I certainly don't treat his every utterance as gospel, this is how they're treated in AL. It is worth consideration.
And because they're still improvised weapons, not proper ranged weapons, that lack the Finesse, Sneak Attack won't apply.
I'm with you there. A few things in 5e simply aren't fleshed-out enough to fully work. They feel unfinished or forgotten. Nets fall into that category.
Restraining at-will is very strong. It's quite a bit stronger than grappling and better control than any cantrip. They needed to balance that out with a downside, and I guess the one they ended up with was just to make them nearly unplayable.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That would mean that I get to add my STR mod when I hit someone with a Torch too right?
If you can use a torch it to make a melee attack as an improvised weapon, then yes. But not when you're using it as a lit torch for 1 fire damage. Remember, a thing only does what it says it does. No more, and no less. It doesn't say it's a weapon, improvised or otherwise, so by RAW you don't add your modifier to the damage.
I say "if you can" because torch construction isn't exactly clear. We don't know if they're the colloquial club-like torches, or if they're rushlights. Personally, I'm in the latter camp. But, as with much in 5e, it's up to the DM. Rulings, not rules.