The original title for this thread was going to be "Adding DEX mod to the damage roll of Acid Vials?" however upon further thinking I figured the current title was a better fit...
To elaborate, do you add your DEX mod when you roll the damage dice for an Acid Vial? It states 2d6 acid damage when you use it in such a way so I've always just assumed that was it. "Specific beats general" and all that.
However upon further reading into improvised weapons, and heck, weapons as a whole, they only ever mention the damage dice the weapon deals and that you can add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll if you are proficient.
When looking into damage rolls the players handbook only mentions the following. "When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage."
So I guess my main question at this point is...Do improvised weapons count as 'weapons'?
I can't actually find any ruling regarding this, improvised weapons simply has the word 'weapon' in it. It doesn't make it an actual weapon as far as I am aware. Whether I am attacking with a table leg like a club with Strength or throwing a shard of glass like a dart with Dexterity, the damage is going to be 1d4 since its an improvised weapon (RAW anyway). But do I add my ability modifier to the damage of improvised weapons?
Assuming "NO" then could you please tell me where that is written? I probably missed something. Ideally I'm looking for a RAW answer, RAI is also appreciated but RAW takes precedent here.
Assuming "YES" then I move on to the following question/scenario.
An acid vial states that a target hit by it takes 2d6 acid damage, since it is treated as an improvised weapon when used to attack, do I now add my ability modifier to its damage since it is now a "weapon"?
Going to reiterate that I am looking for a RAW answer in the strictest sense possible. DM Fiat/opinions definitely exists but for the sake of this argument/question I am looking for a RAW answer.
Yes. They are called "weapons" right in their name, they appear in the "weapons" section of the PHB, they roll a weapon damage dice and otherwise have the same sorts of rules as the PHB uses to describe weapons such as range, damage types, hands they occupy, proficiency bonuses to attacks...
The argument against this? "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such." That sentence, and only that sentence, is (arguably) saying that an improvised weapon is not an "actual weapon," and the argument would be that only "actual weapons" (whatever those are) are "weapons" for the purpose of other features that require a "weapon."
I find that a very weak argument. Improvised Weapons are weapons.
Ah, that's good to hear then. I just wasn't quite sure. I'm for the argument that improvised weapons are weapons.
Moving on then the question would be can I add my ability modifier to specific items then, such as the Acid Vial that I mentioned. I'm trying to figure out now if I add my ability mod to damage rolls with them. Since acid vials are weapons, I do add them don't I?
The ability score that you use to make a weapon attack (strength for melee weapon attacks, dexterity for ranged weapon attacks) is added to the damage roll of that attack generally.
Specific rules can provide exceptions. For instance, when making a Two-Weapon Fighting attack, you are specifically instructed not to add your ability score modifier to that damage, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting Style or the modifier is negative.
There is no specific rule that provides that you do not add your ability score modifier to ranged or melee weapon attacks that you make with improvised weapons. So, you do.
Then my questions have been answered! Thanks for the quick replies.
There are very good reasons to disagree with Chicken_Champ - improvised weapons not only have no rules letting them qualify as ranged or melee, ruling that they do qualify as ranged or melee has implications everywhere else, including applying the Dual Wielder fear to shields (assuming you count them as melee, not ranged) and applying Sneak Attack to Acid Vials (assuming you count them as ranged, not melee). You can play on your table as your GM sees fit, but RAW, improvised weapons have no rule letting them qualify as melee or ranged, and you can only add your ability modifier to attacks with melee or ranged weapons, not all weapon attacks (see page 14). If you do want them to qualify as melee or ranged, you have to ask your GM what each weapon counts as - classification is not based simply on how the weapon is used. For example, when you throw a dagger, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon - you don't reclassify the weapon as a ranged weapon for the purposes of that attack. Similarly, if you want your vial of acid to count as a <melee or ranged> weapon, it has to be up to your GM what it counts as - don't assume it's ranged just because you're throwing it (it certainly could be - Darts are thrown ranged weapons, for example).
I would agree that as an improvised weapon the normal dex bonus would apply. I believe this is meant to represent the ability to aim at exposed areas to maximise the skin contact. I would say for any lasting effects, damage over time, that it would become an effect and no longer a weapon, so subsequent rounds wouldn't have the same bonus.
Then my questions have been answered! Thanks for the quick replies.
There are very good reasons to disagree with Chicken_Champ - improvised weapons not only have no rules letting them qualify as ranged or melee, ruling that they do qualify as ranged or melee has implications everywhere else, including applying the Dual Wielder fear to shields (assuming you count them as melee, not ranged) and applying Sneak Attack to Acid Vials (assuming you count them as ranged, not melee).
Improvised weapons are not ranged weapons or melee weapons, but they do make ranged weapon attacks and melee weapon attacks, and you add damage modifiers to such attacks.
Improvised weapons are also not shields. If you take a smashing board in hand, you are not getting a bonus to AC.
Sneak attack only applies to ranged weapons, not all ranged weapon attacks, so again, non-issue.
You can play on your table as your GM sees fit, but RAW, improvised weapons have no rule letting them qualify as melee or ranged, and you can only add your ability modifier to attacks with melee or ranged weapons, not all weapon attacks (see page 14).
The rules in making an attack seem to disagree with you, but please link "page 14" for those of us who are on DDB and don't have a physical book in front of them at all tines...
If you do want them to qualify as melee or ranged, you have to ask your GM what each weapon counts as - classification is not based simply on how the weapon is used. For example, when you throw a dagger, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon - you don't reclassify the weapon as a ranged weapon for the purposes of that attack.
So in your games, throwing a longsword uses STR and the thrown property has no effect?
Similarly, if you want your vial of acid to count as a <melee or ranged> weapon, it has to be up to your GM what it counts as - don't assume it's ranged just because you're throwing it (it certainly could be - Darts are thrown ranged weapons, for example).
I thought it was a ranged attack because that is what the item specifically said it was, though the fact that it is thrown a range is also a clear indicator:
make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon.
The claim that a “melee weapon” is anything other than a weapon used to make melee attacks, or at the very least, that a DM isn’t encouraged to decide if table legs are melee weapons at the same time they’re deciding if it deals blunt damage or resembles a club... is not as obvious (or even as reasonable) as DxJxC is making it out to be. You will find no text saying (or even implying) that improvised weapons are not melee or ranged weapons.
The two sides of this argument are very easy to summarize the rule text for or against (section headings, plain language on one side for them being weapons, “similar to an actual weapon” on the other for them not). If your DM wants to dive into an endless quagmire of layering additional unwritten rules and RAI considerations on top of that, that’s your choice, but overcomplicate this very simple (and very unnecessary) question at your own peril, because there’s absolutely no potential for harm to your game in either direction since nobody ACTUALLY builds for improvised weapon attacks. All that’s really at stake is, was it a waste of money when you bought that acid vial, and another waste of a turn when you threw it, or not?
The claim that a “melee weapon” is anything other than a weapon used to make melee attacks, or at the very least, that a DM isn’t encouraged to decide if table legs are melee weapons at the same time they’re deciding if it deals blunt damage or resembles a club... is not as obvious (or even as reasonable) as DxJxC is making it out to be. You will find no text saying (or even implying) that improvised weapons are not melee or ranged weapons.
Wait, have you found text saying or even implying that improvised weapons ARE melee or ranged weapons?
And I am not going to argue that improvised weapons deemed to be similar to other weapons don't have those weapons properties or count as whatever that weapon counts as for features, etc.
But I will argue that you don't get to add sneak attack or sharpshooter damage to alchemist fire.
Improvised weapons are not ranged weapons or melee weapons, but they do make ranged weapon attacks and melee weapon attacks, and you add damage modifiers to such attacks.
This is true - I thought it was false, but I did some research in response to your post, and the PHB contradicts itself. I appreciate you drawing my attention to that! I'll cover this more below.
Improvised weapons are also not shields. If you take a smashing board in hand, you are not getting a bonus to AC.
This is true, but shields can be used as improvised weapons. The SAC even explicitly discusses it.
Sneak attack only applies to ranged weapons, not all ranged weapon attacks, so again, non-issue.
This is true. I was talking about the consequences of letting an improvised weapon be a ranged weapon.
The rules in making an attack seem to disagree with you, but please link "page 14" for those of us who are on DDB and don't have a physical book in front of them at all tines...
As I mentioned above, the PHB contradicts itself; your reading is entirely consistent with one of the two rules. Here are the two rules entries at hand:
P14:
For attacks with melee weapons, use your Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls. A weapon that has the finesse property, such as a rapier, can use your Dexterity modifier instead. For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. A melee weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your Strength modifier instead.
P194+P196:
The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity.
When attacking with a weapon. you add your ability modifier-the same modifier used for the attack roll- to the damage.
The second set of rules does mean Dex modifier applies to Vial of Acid and Holy Water damage, but not Alchemist's Fire damage (and, famously, it's a very deep rabbit hole trying to figure out exactly how lit torches work).
So in your games, throwing a longsword uses STR and the thrown property has no effect?
Well, that depends. Which rule are you accepting as true, p14 or p194? P14 means a thrown longsword uses STR, and P194 means a thrown longsword uses DEX. Longswords don't have the thrown property, so of course the property has no effect on a longsword. The weapon's lack of the thrown property has an effect no matter what, as it will reduce damage to 1d4.
I thought it was a ranged attack because that is what the item specifically said it was, though the fact that it is thrown a range is also a clear indicator:
I was discussing what the weapon counted as, not the attack.
Again, I genuinely didn't realize the PHB offers two mutually contradictory explanations of how to determine the appropriate modifier for an attack; your example of choosing the appropriate modifier for a thrown longsword is an excellent example of the two rules being at odds. This emphasizes my point that you should ask your GM to declare what the rules are for your campaign.
A thrown long sword is not a melee weapon. It’s an improvised ranged weapon.
A thrown dagger is a melee weapon, because it’s thrown property allows one to make ranged weapon attacks with the melee weapon, without improvisation.
Im getting sucked innnn, but there’s still time to turn back, this doesn’t need to be overanlyzed down the rabbit hole of hair splitting unwritten rule language and RAI slippery slopes. Is a “silvered weapon” a weapon (immediately below improvised weapons)? Yeah, why wouldn’t it be? Were all the sections before and after improvised weapons discussing weapons? Yes? Then, why are we trying to poke holes and divine some intent to deceive players by hiding nonweapon “improvised weapons” in the middle of all that?
A weapon, a manufactured weapon, a broken weapon, a primitive weapon, a magical weapon, an improvised weapon... a whatever weapon, they’re all weapons. Sneak Attack doesn’t require a “manufactured weapon” or an “actual weapon” or a “conventional weapon” etc. “Melee weapon” is not a term defined as being limited to “manufactured weapons” either. No language suggests that melee weapons are anything other than weapons you use in melee, and ranged weapons you use at range (other than the Thrown property being a specific exception).
Whyyyyy do you WANT to overcomplicate this, is what I don’t understand? What gets you out of bed even starting from a position to LOOK for support for improvised weapons being nonweapons, let alone being persuaded that you’ve found proof for that bizarre conclusion?
As I mentioned above, the PHB contradicts itself; your reading is entirely consistent with one of the two rules. Here are the two rules entries at hand:
P14:
For attacks with melee weapons, use your Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls. A weapon that has the finesse property, such as a rapier, can use your Dexterity modifier instead. For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. A melee weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your Strength modifier instead.
P194+P196:
The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity.
When attacking with a weapon. you add your ability modifier-the same modifier used for the attack roll- to the damage.
The second set of rules does mean Dex modifier applies to Vial of Acid and Holy Water damage, but not Alchemist's Fire damage (and, famously, it's a very deep rabbit hole trying to figure out exactly how lit torches work).
Both these rules can be true without contradicting themselves. The rule for using ability scores for attacks with weapons, does not say it is the only time it is used. A weapon attack with a non-melee, non-ranged weapon simply wont use those rules (as they don't apply), it will use the rules for making an attack (which do apply).
The only time they contradict is when throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property or when making a melee attack with a ranged weapon. Luckily there is another rule that specifically covers that in improvised weapons, so we follow that specific rule (as specific beats general).
(And whatever the RAI for alchemist fire is, is hard to argue RAW, so I'll leave that alone).
The only time they contradict is when throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property or when making a melee attack with a ranged weapon. Luckily there is another rule that specifically covers that in improvised weapons, so we follow that specific rule (as specific beats general).
But that's not true. I quoted you the two relevant rules, both of which are equally general. There is no rule specific to improvised weapons that applies here that I can find - certainly not one I quoted at you.
The only time they contradict is when throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property or when making a melee attack with a ranged weapon. Luckily there is another rule that specifically covers that in improvised weapons, so we follow that specific rule (as specific beats general).
But that's not true. I quoted you the two relevant rules, both of which are equally general. There is no rule specific to improvised weapons that applies here that I can find - certainly not one I quoted at you.
No, you didn't quote it but there definitely is one:
If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
Obviously, the question is whether the second sentence is the definition of those things or a description of how they work. Taking the second sentence as a descriptive and the classifications elsewhere (which is, in fact the natural way to read it) means that if a weapon is not classified as melee or ranged, it must be neither. What constitutes that classification? Who knows! But that text is directly before tables that certainly seem to classify some of the most common weapons in D&D.
Then again, I don’t know what it matters. As Chicken_Champ said, if you are using an action for an acid vial, you’ve already been penalized enough. Adding your DEX modifier to it only seems fair.
The onlyissue that I have with improvised weapons is when people try to game the game by claiming that their sword and shield are both a single melee weapon in one hand and two weapons at the same time to claim two obviously mutually exclusive benefits.
Reading it as a definition means that all weapons are ranged or melee, no conundrums. Reading it as a descriptor means some weapons (those not on the table or otherwise defined) can conceivably be “weapons” that are neither ranged nor melee, leading to bizarre confusion about what ability scores attack with them, general rule gaps, and non-natural language.
So... choice A causes no problems, choice B causes tons of problems, and the written language supports both A and B.
So... why are you approaching this TRYING to prove B? B is undesirable, counterintuitive, not explicitly required... so it’s not “right,” if there’s an equally supported alternative. Don’t invent unwritten rules that nerf player attacks. That is just “bad” rule interpretation, you should read rules with the charity needed to not twist yourself into a dead end.
I am not. I changed my thinking (see edits above). As I said, the only conundrum I see is calling a single item both a weapon and not a weapon in order to claim two mutually exclusive benefits at the same time. That is a level of jiggery-pokery that doesn’t belong in anything fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The original title for this thread was going to be "Adding DEX mod to the damage roll of Acid Vials?" however upon further thinking I figured the current title was a better fit...
To elaborate, do you add your DEX mod when you roll the damage dice for an Acid Vial? It states 2d6 acid damage when you use it in such a way so I've always just assumed that was it. "Specific beats general" and all that.
However upon further reading into improvised weapons, and heck, weapons as a whole, they only ever mention the damage dice the weapon deals and that you can add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll if you are proficient.
When looking into damage rolls the players handbook only mentions the following.
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage."
So I guess my main question at this point is...Do improvised weapons count as 'weapons'?
I can't actually find any ruling regarding this, improvised weapons simply has the word 'weapon' in it. It doesn't make it an actual weapon as far as I am aware. Whether I am attacking with a table leg like a club with Strength or throwing a shard of glass like a dart with Dexterity, the damage is going to be 1d4 since its an improvised weapon (RAW anyway). But do I add my ability modifier to the damage of improvised weapons?
Assuming "NO" then could you please tell me where that is written? I probably missed something. Ideally I'm looking for a RAW answer, RAI is also appreciated but RAW takes precedent here.
Assuming "YES" then I move on to the following question/scenario.
An acid vial states that a target hit by it takes 2d6 acid damage, since it is treated as an improvised weapon when used to attack, do I now add my ability modifier to its damage since it is now a "weapon"?
Going to reiterate that I am looking for a RAW answer in the strictest sense possible. DM Fiat/opinions definitely exists but for the sake of this argument/question I am looking for a RAW answer.
Yes. They are called "weapons" right in their name, they appear in the "weapons" section of the PHB, they roll a weapon damage dice and otherwise have the same sorts of rules as the PHB uses to describe weapons such as range, damage types, hands they occupy, proficiency bonuses to attacks...
The argument against this? "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such." That sentence, and only that sentence, is (arguably) saying that an improvised weapon is not an "actual weapon," and the argument would be that only "actual weapons" (whatever those are) are "weapons" for the purpose of other features that require a "weapon."
I find that a very weak argument. Improvised Weapons are weapons.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah, that's good to hear then. I just wasn't quite sure. I'm for the argument that improvised weapons are weapons.
Moving on then the question would be can I add my ability modifier to specific items then, such as the Acid Vial that I mentioned. I'm trying to figure out now if I add my ability mod to damage rolls with them. Since acid vials are weapons, I do add them don't I?
The ability score that you use to make a weapon attack (strength for melee weapon attacks, dexterity for ranged weapon attacks) is added to the damage roll of that attack generally.
Specific rules can provide exceptions. For instance, when making a Two-Weapon Fighting attack, you are specifically instructed not to add your ability score modifier to that damage, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting Style or the modifier is negative.
There is no specific rule that provides that you do not add your ability score modifier to ranged or melee weapon attacks that you make with improvised weapons. So, you do.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Then my questions have been answered! Thanks for the quick replies.
I have actually seen a JC tweet that this is how it is intended to work. Even alchemist fire is intended to add DEX to the fire damage.
There are very good reasons to disagree with Chicken_Champ - improvised weapons not only have no rules letting them qualify as ranged or melee, ruling that they do qualify as ranged or melee has implications everywhere else, including applying the Dual Wielder fear to shields (assuming you count them as melee, not ranged) and applying Sneak Attack to Acid Vials (assuming you count them as ranged, not melee). You can play on your table as your GM sees fit, but RAW, improvised weapons have no rule letting them qualify as melee or ranged, and you can only add your ability modifier to attacks with melee or ranged weapons, not all weapon attacks (see page 14). If you do want them to qualify as melee or ranged, you have to ask your GM what each weapon counts as - classification is not based simply on how the weapon is used. For example, when you throw a dagger, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon - you don't reclassify the weapon as a ranged weapon for the purposes of that attack. Similarly, if you want your vial of acid to count as a <melee or ranged> weapon, it has to be up to your GM what it counts as - don't assume it's ranged just because you're throwing it (it certainly could be - Darts are thrown ranged weapons, for example).
I would agree that as an improvised weapon the normal dex bonus would apply. I believe this is meant to represent the ability to aim at exposed areas to maximise the skin contact. I would say for any lasting effects, damage over time, that it would become an effect and no longer a weapon, so subsequent rounds wouldn't have the same bonus.
Wouldn’t call that pointless hand wringing a “good” reason, but it’s sure... something :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Improvised weapons are not ranged weapons or melee weapons, but they do make ranged weapon attacks and melee weapon attacks, and you add damage modifiers to such attacks.
Improvised weapons are also not shields. If you take a smashing board in hand, you are not getting a bonus to AC.
Sneak attack only applies to ranged weapons, not all ranged weapon attacks, so again, non-issue.
The rules in making an attack seem to disagree with you, but please link "page 14" for those of us who are on DDB and don't have a physical book in front of them at all tines...
So in your games, throwing a longsword uses STR and the thrown property has no effect?
I thought it was a ranged attack because that is what the item specifically said it was, though the fact that it is thrown a range is also a clear indicator:
The claim that a “melee weapon” is anything other than a weapon used to make melee attacks, or at the very least, that a DM isn’t encouraged to decide if table legs are melee weapons at the same time they’re deciding if it deals blunt damage or resembles a club... is not as obvious (or even as reasonable) as DxJxC is making it out to be. You will find no text saying (or even implying) that improvised weapons are not melee or ranged weapons.
The two sides of this argument are very easy to summarize the rule text for or against (section headings, plain language on one side for them being weapons, “similar to an actual weapon” on the other for them not). If your DM wants to dive into an endless quagmire of layering additional unwritten rules and RAI considerations on top of that, that’s your choice, but overcomplicate this very simple (and very unnecessary) question at your own peril, because there’s absolutely no potential for harm to your game in either direction since nobody ACTUALLY builds for improvised weapon attacks. All that’s really at stake is, was it a waste of money when you bought that acid vial, and another waste of a turn when you threw it, or not?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wait, have you found text saying or even implying that improvised weapons ARE melee or ranged weapons?
And I am not going to argue that improvised weapons deemed to be similar to other weapons don't have those weapons properties or count as whatever that weapon counts as for features, etc.
But I will argue that you don't get to add sneak attack or sharpshooter damage to alchemist fire.
This is true, but shields can be used as improvised weapons. The SAC even explicitly discusses it.
This is true. I was talking about the consequences of letting an improvised weapon be a ranged weapon.
As I mentioned above, the PHB contradicts itself; your reading is entirely consistent with one of the two rules. Here are the two rules entries at hand:
The second set of rules does mean Dex modifier applies to Vial of Acid and Holy Water damage, but not Alchemist's Fire damage (and, famously, it's a very deep rabbit hole trying to figure out exactly how lit torches work).
Well, that depends. Which rule are you accepting as true, p14 or p194? P14 means a thrown longsword uses STR, and P194 means a thrown longsword uses DEX. Longswords don't have the thrown property, so of course the property has no effect on a longsword. The weapon's lack of the thrown property has an effect no matter what, as it will reduce damage to 1d4.
A thrown long sword is not a melee weapon. It’s an improvised ranged weapon.
A thrown dagger is a melee weapon, because it’s thrown property allows one to make ranged weapon attacks with the melee weapon, without improvisation.
Im getting sucked innnn, but there’s still time to turn back, this doesn’t need to be overanlyzed down the rabbit hole of hair splitting unwritten rule language and RAI slippery slopes. Is a “silvered weapon” a weapon (immediately below improvised weapons)? Yeah, why wouldn’t it be? Were all the sections before and after improvised weapons discussing weapons? Yes? Then, why are we trying to poke holes and divine some intent to deceive players by hiding nonweapon “improvised weapons” in the middle of all that?
A weapon, a manufactured weapon, a broken weapon, a primitive weapon, a magical weapon, an improvised weapon... a whatever weapon, they’re all weapons. Sneak Attack doesn’t require a “manufactured weapon” or an “actual weapon” or a “conventional weapon” etc. “Melee weapon” is not a term defined as being limited to “manufactured weapons” either. No language suggests that melee weapons are anything other than weapons you use in melee, and ranged weapons you use at range (other than the Thrown property being a specific exception).
Whyyyyy do you WANT to overcomplicate this, is what I don’t understand? What gets you out of bed even starting from a position to LOOK for support for improvised weapons being nonweapons, let alone being persuaded that you’ve found proof for that bizarre conclusion?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Both these rules can be true without contradicting themselves. The rule for using ability scores for attacks with weapons, does not say it is the only time it is used. A weapon attack with a non-melee, non-ranged weapon simply wont use those rules (as they don't apply), it will use the rules for making an attack (which do apply).
The only time they contradict is when throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property or when making a melee attack with a ranged weapon. Luckily there is another rule that specifically covers that in improvised weapons, so we follow that specific rule (as specific beats general).
(And whatever the RAI for alchemist fire is, is hard to argue RAW, so I'll leave that alone).
But that's not true. I quoted you the two relevant rules, both of which are equally general. There is no rule specific to improvised weapons that applies here that I can find - certainly not one I quoted at you.
No, you didn't quote it but there definitely is one:
Obviously, the question is whether the second sentence is the definition of those things or a description of how they work. Taking the second sentence as a descriptive and the classifications elsewhere (which is, in fact the natural way to read it) means that if a weapon is not classified as melee or ranged, it must be neither. What constitutes that classification? Who knows! But that text is directly before tables that certainly seem to classify some of the most common weapons in D&D.
Then again, I don’t know what it matters. As Chicken_Champ said, if you are using an action for an acid vial, you’ve already been penalized enough. Adding your DEX modifier to it only seems fair.
The only issue that I have with improvised weapons is when people try to game the game by claiming that their sword and shield are both a single melee weapon in one hand and two weapons at the same time to claim two obviously mutually exclusive benefits.
Reading it as a definition means that all weapons are ranged or melee, no conundrums. Reading it as a descriptor means some weapons (those not on the table or otherwise defined) can conceivably be “weapons” that are neither ranged nor melee, leading to bizarre confusion about what ability scores attack with them, general rule gaps, and non-natural language.
So... choice A causes no problems, choice B causes tons of problems, and the written language supports both A and B.
So... why are you approaching this TRYING to prove B? B is undesirable, counterintuitive, not explicitly required... so it’s not “right,” if there’s an equally supported alternative. Don’t invent unwritten rules that nerf player attacks. That is just “bad” rule interpretation, you should read rules with the charity needed to not twist yourself into a dead end.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not. I changed my thinking (see edits above). As I said, the only conundrum I see is calling a single item both a weapon and not a weapon in order to claim two mutually exclusive benefits at the same time. That is a level of jiggery-pokery that doesn’t belong in anything fun.