Phb ranger + cleric =pet death loophole all because wotc forgot to allow releases of pets or a defined limit.
This extra pet can't do much because of the action economy but a phb beast master ranger is literally better off if their pet dies (in a state willing to return)
A rogue with tavern brawler and great weapon master can make a melee attack with a longbow as an improvised weapon, dealing an additional 10 damage and qualifying for sneak attack, since sneak attack states "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon" and the longbow is a ranged weapon.
No, that wouldn't work. In the improvised weapons rules it tells you: "Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such". So, in this case, the longbow should be treated as a club, which does not qualify for a sneak attack.
Regarding the GWM, it depends on how the DM understands the bow. If he thinks it's heavy enough to be considered a maul, it could be applied. But common sense dictates that it be more like a club.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but that can't be done.
It can be done. I'd argue why but this isn't really a thread to go back and forth about people's posts it is simply to post neat interactions between rules. If you want to have that discussion make a new thread about it.
Well, actually I don't need any clarification. A ranged weapon does not have the "ranged" property unless you use it as a ranged weapon. If you use a logbow, or a crossbow, or whatever to melee, it's treated as its closest proxy or, if there's none, just an improvised weapon (d4 damage with nothing else). That is what the PHB says, but it is also common sense.
A rogue with tavern brawler and great weapon master can make a melee attack with a longbow as an improvised weapon, dealing an additional 10 damage and qualifying for sneak attack, since sneak attack states "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon" and the longbow is a ranged weapon.
No, that wouldn't work. In the improvised weapons rules it tells you: "Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such". So, in this case, the longbow should be treated as a club, which does not qualify for a sneak attack.
Regarding the GWM, it depends on how the DM understands the bow. If he thinks it's heavy enough to be considered a maul, it could be applied. But common sense dictates that it be more like a club.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but that can't be done.
It can be done. I'd argue why but this isn't really a thread to go back and forth about people's posts it is simply to post neat interactions between rules. If you want to have that discussion make a new thread about it.
Well, actually I don't need any clarification. A ranged weapon does not have the "ranged" property unless you use it as a ranged weapon. If you use a logbow, or a crossbow, or whatever to melee, it's treated as its closest proxy or, if there's none, just an improvised weapon (d4 damage with nothing else). That is what the PHB says, but it is also common sense.
So if you throw a dagger so it hits pommel first, which would arguably be using it as an improvised weapon rather than as a dagger, it has no thrown property, only improvised so just drops straight down?
A dagger deals 1d4 damage. Any weapon you throw without having the "throw" property deals 1d4 damage. So even if we want to twist the rules absurdly and against common sense, it doesn't matter if you want to distinguish if the dagger hits with the pommel or with the blade.
What the rules tell you is that a weapon without the throw property can be thrown as an improvised weapon and does 1d4 damage. So even if it doesn't have that property you can throw it.
Then, when you use a weapon for a purpose other than its own, the DM can assign another weapon to it as a proxy (for example, if you hit melee with a crossbow, or throw it, it could be considered a "light hammer" for all purposes), or if no suitable proxy exists consider it an improvised weapon as normal. That's up to the DM, and common sense is supposed to apply.
What I do think would fall into the "silly" category is the following. A Wizard with Tavern Brawler feat hitting with a chair leg, and whose DM considers it to be a club for which he has no proficiency, would not be considered proficient even if he has Tavern Brawler (the chair leg would be a "club", not an improvised weapon ). Obviously the one being "silly" here is the DM, not the interaction itself, since the most logical and friendly thing would be to let him use his feat considering the chair leg as an improvised weapon.
What the rules tell you is that a weapon without the throw property can be thrown as an improvised weapon and does 1d4 damage. So even if it doesn't have that property you can throw it.
Then, when you use a weapon for a purpose other than its own, the DM can assign another weapon to it as a proxy (for example, if you hit melee with a crossbow, or throw it, it could be considered a "light hammer" for all purposes), or if no suitable proxy exists consider it an improvised weapon as normal. That's up to the DM, and common sense is supposed to apply.
What I do think would fall into the "silly" category is the following. A Wizard with Tavern Brawler feat hitting with a chair leg, and whose DM considers it to be a club for which he has no proficiency, would not be considered proficient even if he has Tavern Brawler (the chair leg would be a "club", not an improvised weapon ). Obviously the one being "silly" here is the DM, not the interaction itself, since the most logical and friendly thing would be to let him use his feat considering the chair leg as an improvised weapon.
You seem to have missed my point. How is a weapon that does have the thrown property get treated when used in an improvised fashion, i.e. thrown pommel first? Does a spear thrown blunt end first still do 1d6? Can it be thrown at all that way?
And if the rules say that the tavern brawling wizard has no proficiency swinging a table leg at people because it is too club-like, the wizard should clearly stab with it, which would indeed be silly.
This is argument ad absurdum. Of course if you use a weapon as an improvised weapon, it is treated as an improvised weapon.
If you are dexterous or strong enough to throw a thrown weapon and have it hit, it does its normal damage. The odds of "hitting" with the wrong end are either irrelevant to the damage or included in the odds of "missing." If you intentionally use your weapon wrong, that is exactly what the improvised weapon rules are for, since they include those examples.
By the way, polearm master tells us essentially that the wrong end of a spear (and some similar weapons) is identical to an improvised weapon: it does 1d4 bludgeoning damage when used with the feat.
And this discussion is clearly not the point of this thread. Don't drag us into the weeds on this.
You're complicating your life in an absurd way, and I don't know for what reason. You see, what the rule tells you is that you can throw any weapon without the throw property as an improvised weapon. The dagger has that property. However, if you're using it as an improvised weapon for whatever reason (eg it's a "blunt" dagger, or it's broken, or whatever), you'd still roll the d4 but you wouldn't be proficient with it. It is an improvised weapon for all purposes.
Now, if you want to throw it to hit with the pommel for some reason, that's up to the DM. The DM could consider it an improvised weapon with Bludgeoning type damage since the weapon is not meant to hit with the pommel, or consider that you are proficient enough to use it in such an unusual way (dealing bludgeoning damage, but being a dagger to all other effects).
"Does a spear thrown blunt end first still do 1d6?". It is the same case as before. In my case, I would consider it to be an improvised weapon since a spear is not meant to be used that way, and it doesn't have the right balance to throw it like that. But it's already up to the DM's judgment. "Can it be thrown at all that way?" Yes. Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Another thing is if it is considered an improvised weapon or not. I judge so, since you are using it in a way that it is not intended.
If a game table gets to the point of discussing whether the wizard is stabbing with the chair leg, or hitting with it, to use the Tavern Brawler feat, something is seriously wrong with that table. The best thing is not to play together, in my opinion.
"if you are dexterous or strong enough to throw a thrown weapon and have it hit" refers to the attack roll. That basically asks "was your attack roll sufficient to overcome the armor class of the enemy?" Your strength or dexterity absolutely factor into the determination as to whether a weapon attack hits.
And Yes, I am saying that if you hit with a spear intentionally as a weapon its damage is 1d6. If you do it wrong, on purpose then you're using it as an improvised weapon, so it is 1d4. If you use PAM's butt end attack, it is 1d4. I am saying all of those things. I know, it's more than one thought. It's crazy! You can have more than one situation. I even pointed those instances out in the last post.
If a game table gets to the point of discussing whether the wizard is stabbing with the chair leg, or hitting with it, to use the Tavern Brawler feat, something is seriously wrong with that table. The best thing is not to play together, in my opinion.
Near as I can tell, this thread is about silly, presumably unintended rules combinations, not about what is likely to be considered a serious topic at any given table.
You, yourself, pointed (no pun intended) that the tavern brawling wizard might be considered non-proficient with a table leg simply because it is too club-like. One could make the same argument as you, that any table where that was considered a serious point of debate is one best not to play with. Ditto for any other examples that might come up in this threat that qualify as silly, unintentional rules interactions.
Yeah, what happens is that I proposed it as a "silly" DM. If the player is already "silly" too, it is better to stop playing. Because on top of that, if the DM gets even silly and says that the chair leg has been broken so that it doesn't have a sharp point, it's a never ending story.
My cults are dead, let's talk about myself where they used to be. I am The_cool_Elsecaller, a transfem lesbian who is still in the closet to all but a few people I know IRL. I enjoy video games, reading, writing, and sleeping. Feel free to PM me if you want writing advice or just want to talk.
"Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination"
You can't even cast a Ray of Frost unless there's a creature within 60 feet. Despite saying A frigid beam of blue-white light streaks out, it fundamentally has to lock onto a creature. But it can also miss the creature. You therefore can't cast it as a warning shot over a creature's head, but you can miss the creature and shoot it over the creature's head.
If you start digging a tunnel with Mold Earth, after digging down sufficiently far, you could get from the US to Northern Africa (4830km / 3000 miles/ 3,168,000 feet) in 316,800 minutes, or 5280 hours, or 220 days. If you had a team of 20 apprentice wizards capable of casting it, assuming they took half a day off to rest each time, you'd create an Atlantic Tunnel in 22 days.
Unfortunately, you very quickly run out of "loose earth" when digging down ... so I don't think this would work. (oops - sorry someone else already mentioned this).
P.S. The thread seems to be on absurdities in the rules that are actually allowed by the rules (several good ones mentioned) ... of course that can lead to "discussions" when some of the suggestions require a DM to interpret the rules in a particular way - whether or not the interpretation is justifiable becomes a source of discussion.
Phb ranger + cleric =pet death loophole all because wotc forgot to allow releases of pets or a defined limit.
This extra pet can't do much because of the action economy but a phb beast master ranger is literally better off if their pet dies (in a state willing to return)
Well, actually I don't need any clarification. A ranged weapon does not have the "ranged" property unless you use it as a ranged weapon. If you use a logbow, or a crossbow, or whatever to melee, it's treated as its closest proxy or, if there's none, just an improvised weapon (d4 damage with nothing else). That is what the PHB says, but it is also common sense.
A tweet from Jeremy Crawford about it:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/861685935213117440
A dagger deals 1d4 damage. Any weapon you throw without having the "throw" property deals 1d4 damage. So even if we want to twist the rules absurdly and against common sense, it doesn't matter if you want to distinguish if the dagger hits with the pommel or with the blade.
What the rules tell you is that a weapon without the throw property can be thrown as an improvised weapon and does 1d4 damage. So even if it doesn't have that property you can throw it.
Then, when you use a weapon for a purpose other than its own, the DM can assign another weapon to it as a proxy (for example, if you hit melee with a crossbow, or throw it, it could be considered a "light hammer" for all purposes), or if no suitable proxy exists consider it an improvised weapon as normal. That's up to the DM, and common sense is supposed to apply.
What I do think would fall into the "silly" category is the following. A Wizard with Tavern Brawler feat hitting with a chair leg, and whose DM considers it to be a club for which he has no proficiency, would not be considered proficient even if he has Tavern Brawler (the chair leg would be a "club", not an improvised weapon ). Obviously the one being "silly" here is the DM, not the interaction itself, since the most logical and friendly thing would be to let him use his feat considering the chair leg as an improvised weapon.
This is argument ad absurdum. Of course if you use a weapon as an improvised weapon, it is treated as an improvised weapon.
If you are dexterous or strong enough to throw a thrown weapon and have it hit, it does its normal damage. The odds of "hitting" with the wrong end are either irrelevant to the damage or included in the odds of "missing." If you intentionally use your weapon wrong, that is exactly what the improvised weapon rules are for, since they include those examples.
By the way, polearm master tells us essentially that the wrong end of a spear (and some similar weapons) is identical to an improvised weapon: it does 1d4 bludgeoning damage when used with the feat.
And this discussion is clearly not the point of this thread. Don't drag us into the weeds on this.
You're complicating your life in an absurd way, and I don't know for what reason. You see, what the rule tells you is that you can throw any weapon without the throw property as an improvised weapon. The dagger has that property. However, if you're using it as an improvised weapon for whatever reason (eg it's a "blunt" dagger, or it's broken, or whatever), you'd still roll the d4 but you wouldn't be proficient with it. It is an improvised weapon for all purposes.
Now, if you want to throw it to hit with the pommel for some reason, that's up to the DM. The DM could consider it an improvised weapon with Bludgeoning type damage since the weapon is not meant to hit with the pommel, or consider that you are proficient enough to use it in such an unusual way (dealing bludgeoning damage, but being a dagger to all other effects).
"Does a spear thrown blunt end first still do 1d6?". It is the same case as before. In my case, I would consider it to be an improvised weapon since a spear is not meant to be used that way, and it doesn't have the right balance to throw it like that. But it's already up to the DM's judgment.
"Can it be thrown at all that way?" Yes. Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Another thing is if it is considered an improvised weapon or not. I judge so, since you are using it in a way that it is not intended.
If a game table gets to the point of discussing whether the wizard is stabbing with the chair leg, or hitting with it, to use the Tavern Brawler feat, something is seriously wrong with that table. The best thing is not to play together, in my opinion.
I think this is the last I'll say on the subject.
"if you are dexterous or strong enough to throw a thrown weapon and have it hit" refers to the attack roll. That basically asks "was your attack roll sufficient to overcome the armor class of the enemy?" Your strength or dexterity absolutely factor into the determination as to whether a weapon attack hits.
And Yes, I am saying that if you hit with a spear intentionally as a weapon its damage is 1d6. If you do it wrong, on purpose then you're using it as an improvised weapon, so it is 1d4. If you use PAM's butt end attack, it is 1d4. I am saying all of those things. I know, it's more than one thought. It's crazy! You can have more than one situation. I even pointed those instances out in the last post.
Yeah, what happens is that I proposed it as a "silly" DM. If the player is already "silly" too, it is better to stop playing. Because on top of that, if the DM gets even silly and says that the chair leg has been broken so that it doesn't have a sharp point, it's a never ending story.
Ima just say it. Coffeelock
My cults are dead, let's talk about myself where they used to be. I am The_cool_Elsecaller, a transfem lesbian who is still in the closet to all but a few people I know IRL. I enjoy video games, reading, writing, and sleeping. Feel free to PM me if you want writing advice or just want to talk.
"Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination"
-First Ideal of the Knights Radiant
Extended Signature. Real Extended Signature
Unfortunately, you very quickly run out of "loose earth" when digging down ... so I don't think this would work. (oops - sorry someone else already mentioned this).
P.S. The thread seems to be on absurdities in the rules that are actually allowed by the rules (several good ones mentioned) ... of course that can lead to "discussions" when some of the suggestions require a DM to interpret the rules in a particular way - whether or not the interpretation is justifiable becomes a source of discussion.
It is. That was the intent.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands