No rule strips an improvised weapon of the magical status the object had prior to becoming an improvised weapon
The improvised weapon rule defines exactly what an improvised weapon does, and it makes no provision for it inflicting damage that bypasses resistance to non-magical damage
No rule strips an improvised weapon of the magical status the object had prior to becoming an improvised weapon
The improvised weapon rule defines exactly what an improvised weapon does, and it makes no provision for it inflicting damage that bypasses resistance to non-magical damage
The improvised weapon rule also doesn't tell us what ability to use with an improvised weapon, because those rules are elsewhere. Likewise, the rules defining what counts as a magical attack are elsewhere. Absolutely nothing in the improvised weapon rules says that other relevant rules don't apply anymore. You still roll with Strength if it's a melee attack, you still roll with Dexterity if it's a ranged attack, you still add your ability modifier to damage. The improvised weapon rules make no provision for these things, yet (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) you're fully willing to accept them. If you can highlight what difference you see between which ability you use and whether or not it's a magical attack, I'm all ears.
I am not sure that you can fall back on general rules for combat if you want to use the example of making weapon attacks with something that is not a weapon.
I am not sure that you can fall back on general rules for combat if you want to use the example of making weapon attacks with something that is not a weapon.
So, are you saying you don’t use Strength for melee attack rolls with improvised weapons, then? Sorry, again I’m just not clear what you’re actually trying to say.
What I am saying is that when you use an object as an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon, it is effectively no longer that object for the purposes of the attack. It doesn't matter what properties the object had previously. You are now attacking with an improvised weapon. All improvised weapons share the statistics laid out in the improvised weapon rules. No improvised weapons inflict damage that bypasses resistance to non-magical damage because the rule does not say that it does. In short, there are no improvised magic weapons unless an object's description creates an exception by saying so.
This is my understanding of the rules as they are written and as they are intended. I also think I have not added anything in this post that I have not already said. I acknowledge that my position does not convince you, and I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion.
What I am saying is that when you use an object as an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon, it is effectively no longer that object for the purposes of the attack. It doesn't matter that properties the object had previously. You are now attacking with an improvised weapon. All improvised weapons share the statistics laid out in the improvised weapon rules. No improvised weapons inflict damage that bypasses resistance to non-magical damage because the rule does not say that it does. In short, there are no improvised magic weapons unless an object's description creates an exception by saying so.
This is my understanding of the rules are they are written and as they are intended. I also think I have not added anything in this post that I have not already said. I acknowledge that my position does not convince you, and I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion.
I'm just trying really hard to understand why that's your understanding of the rules as they are written, because they are not written that way.
Your foundational assumption is thus: "[W]hen you use an object as an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon, it is effectively no longer that object for the purposes of the attack. It doesn't matter that properties the object had previously."
I am not aware of any textual support for this, and you haven't provided any (aside from that it doesn't not say it, which we both know isn't how the rules work; they do what they say, not what they don't), and it also has some very strange ramifications. If we follow your interpretation, a bag of holding stops being a bag of holding if I try to bean someone with it. What happens to the items inside it? What about items that require attunement? That they require attunement is a "property," so if that ceases during an improvised attack, do you have to spend an hour re-attuning to it? Is a creature trapped in an iron flask instantly freed when you throw it at someone?
Or how about an even more salient example, [equipment]alchemist's fire[/equipment]? If the improvised weapon rule does in fact invalidate all other properties of the item, how can alchemist's fire function at all? It explicitly says to treat it as an improvised weapon, and it doesn't include any text to the effect of "except as noted here." It certainly feels as though we should be led to conclude that such text isn't necessary, because there's no rule that would remove the additional properties granted to the item.
It's not really that your position doesn't convince me; it's that I'm having trouble identifying what your position even is. I never have a problem just disagreeing with someone if I can at least understand where they're coming from. The reason I'm so invested in this is not that I'm trying to convince you that I'm right, it's that I'm trying to understand you and so far I can't. I cannot see what is written in the text that leads you to your conclusion, and I want to. I want to know what the heart of the disagreement is, because as I currently see it, it's "you are literally making stuff up," which I don't think is fair to you, but it's all I've got.
At any rate, it's definitely not your job to explain yourself to me until I understand, I'm not gonna take it personally if you don't have the energy for this. I just want to be clear that my issue isn't that you're not convincing me, it's that I just don't understand, and my goal isn't to convince you, it's to figure out where the actual disagreement is.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in this edition. There’s “damage from magical attacks/weapons” and everything else. Since an improvised weapon is not actually a weapon, it can’t be a “magic weapon.” Therefore it cannot deal “damage from a magic weapon.”
This actually isn't entirely true. Resistance is always against non-magical attacks, not attacks from non-magical weapons. The MM defines a magical attack as an attack delivered by (among other things) magic items, not magic weapons specifically.
Please site where in the MM it is. Your claim isn’t very helpful without a page number to look it up.
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.
Both of these statements are true:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The improvised weapon rule also doesn't tell us what ability to use with an improvised weapon, because those rules are elsewhere. Likewise, the rules defining what counts as a magical attack are elsewhere. Absolutely nothing in the improvised weapon rules says that other relevant rules don't apply anymore. You still roll with Strength if it's a melee attack, you still roll with Dexterity if it's a ranged attack, you still add your ability modifier to damage. The improvised weapon rules make no provision for these things, yet (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) you're fully willing to accept them. If you can highlight what difference you see between which ability you use and whether or not it's a magical attack, I'm all ears.
I am not sure that you can fall back on general rules for combat if you want to use the example of making weapon attacks with something that is not a weapon.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So, are you saying you don’t use Strength for melee attack rolls with improvised weapons, then? Sorry, again I’m just not clear what you’re actually trying to say.
What I am saying is that when you use an object as an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon, it is effectively no longer that object for the purposes of the attack. It doesn't matter what properties the object had previously. You are now attacking with an improvised weapon. All improvised weapons share the statistics laid out in the improvised weapon rules. No improvised weapons inflict damage that bypasses resistance to non-magical damage because the rule does not say that it does. In short, there are no improvised magic weapons unless an object's description creates an exception by saying so.
This is my understanding of the rules as they are written and as they are intended. I also think I have not added anything in this post that I have not already said. I acknowledge that my position does not convince you, and I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion.
EDIT: typos
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm just trying really hard to understand why that's your understanding of the rules as they are written, because they are not written that way.
Your foundational assumption is thus: "[W]hen you use an object as an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon, it is effectively no longer that object for the purposes of the attack. It doesn't matter that properties the object had previously."
I am not aware of any textual support for this, and you haven't provided any (aside from that it doesn't not say it, which we both know isn't how the rules work; they do what they say, not what they don't), and it also has some very strange ramifications. If we follow your interpretation, a bag of holding stops being a bag of holding if I try to bean someone with it. What happens to the items inside it? What about items that require attunement? That they require attunement is a "property," so if that ceases during an improvised attack, do you have to spend an hour re-attuning to it? Is a creature trapped in an iron flask instantly freed when you throw it at someone?
Or how about an even more salient example, [equipment]alchemist's fire[/equipment]? If the improvised weapon rule does in fact invalidate all other properties of the item, how can alchemist's fire function at all? It explicitly says to treat it as an improvised weapon, and it doesn't include any text to the effect of "except as noted here." It certainly feels as though we should be led to conclude that such text isn't necessary, because there's no rule that would remove the additional properties granted to the item.
It's not really that your position doesn't convince me; it's that I'm having trouble identifying what your position even is. I never have a problem just disagreeing with someone if I can at least understand where they're coming from. The reason I'm so invested in this is not that I'm trying to convince you that I'm right, it's that I'm trying to understand you and so far I can't. I cannot see what is written in the text that leads you to your conclusion, and I want to. I want to know what the heart of the disagreement is, because as I currently see it, it's "you are literally making stuff up," which I don't think is fair to you, but it's all I've got.
At any rate, it's definitely not your job to explain yourself to me until I understand, I'm not gonna take it personally if you don't have the energy for this. I just want to be clear that my issue isn't that you're not convincing me, it's that I just don't understand, and my goal isn't to convince you, it's to figure out where the actual disagreement is.
Please site where in the MM it is. Your claim isn’t very helpful without a page number to look it up.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#VulnerabilitiesResistancesandImmunities
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting