Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
Basically and even then I'll definitely agree it's a stretch.
But in that case it's an attack not a Use an Object action so they couldn't do it with their BA anyway.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
I want to say there's precedent for this. I can't remember if it was 3.5 or Pathfinder, but I remember crossbows that could shoot flasks/vials as ammunition.
I could see a special weapon, such as this, being compatible with a rogue's Sneak Attack. But then we're homebrewing.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
The DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and RAW.
This entire forum has no purpose whatsoever if we answer every single question with this and then walk away. The reason we have this forum is so PCs can set reasonable expectations prior to session 0 and so DMs can enact policy while cognizant and aware of what they're doing. It's unproductive in the extreme to tell either party the fundamentally true statement that 5E supports any DM making any ruling they want on any issue in any way they see fit, except when talking to someone who doesn't already know that - and there's no evidence here that that's the case. Your goal on here should be to provide substantive answers that cover what else the RAW says, if anything, when answering questions.
This is what I said 28 and 46 comments/5 and 6 days ago. Then I stopped commenting since there was nothing new to discuss. Now I'm just watching the back and forth of "all the applicable rules say no," vs "but this 1 sentence says the DM decides, so it could be yes."
All over whether a vial/flask works like a dagger...
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
Basically and even then I'll definitely agree it's a stretch.
But in that case it's an attack not a Use an Object action so they couldn't do it with their BA anyway.
I agree it'd be a stretch and like you say the acid vial wouldn't be used the way it's described.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
Basically and even then I'll definitely agree it's a stretch.
But in that case it's an attack not a Use an Object action so they couldn't do it with their BA anyway.
I agree it'd be a stretch and like you say the acid vial wouldn't be used the way it's described.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
The DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and RAW.
This entire forum has no purpose whatsoever if we answer every single question with this and then walk away.
This isn't the answer to every single question on this forum. It is the answer to this question on this forum.
A DM can absolutely tell you you can use a broken glass bottle as a dagger, and to treat it as such. That is a RAW ruling in compliance with the Improvised Weapon rules.
A DM could also decide that a broken glass bottle is not sufficiently similar to a dagger, and not let you treat it as one, instead following the final paragraph of improvised weapon rules for guidance instead. This too is a RAW ruling in compliance with the Improvised Weapon Rules.
Both are correct. The Improvised Weapon rule specifically and explicitly says that the DM determines this.
You don't. I don't. The DM does.
The reason we have this forum is so PCs can set reasonable expectations prior to session 0 and so DMs can enact policy while cognizant and aware of what they're doing.
Sure. In this case everyone should expect that when it comes to improvised weapons, their DM will make a ruling about how they behave, per the improvised weapon rules they might only do a d4, or they might be treated as a similar weapon if your DM feels it is similar enough. That. That is the expectation we should all have.
It's unproductive in the extreme to tell either party the fundamentally true statement that 5E supports any DM making any ruling they want on any issue in any way they see fit, except when talking to someone who doesn't already know that - and there's no evidence here that that's the case.
I have not invoked this, not once. And in fact have denounced the accusation that I was invoking it numerous times now. There is no need to continue to state, or imply, that I am making this argument when I am not. Please stop.
This is not a case of "the DM always has final say" being invoked. This is a case of the specific rule in question explicitly saying that the "DM's option" is the only determining factor for how to tell if a improvised weapon can or cannot be used as a similar enough weapon.
There is literally no other RAW mechanism for determining if an improvised weapon can be used as a weapon other than your DM's call.
None.
Your goal on here should be to provide substantive answers that cover what else the RAW says, if anything, when answering questions.
I am.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We have a rule for improvised weapons that basically says "If the DM says A=B then C, else D" and a rule for vials that says "use rules D." What's the confusing part? Why are we stopping to say "what if C? The DM could say C. It is a valid ruling to say C." The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon. "The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
The DM can change anything in the game, that is not an invalid ruling. That doesn't make it the correct one, especially when we have actual rules that tell you how to use the feature in question.
We have a rule for improvised weapons that basically says "If the DM says A=B then C, else D" and a rule for vials that says "use rules D."
^That's blatantly false.
We have rule X that says if DM says A=B then C, else D. And then the rule for vials says use rule X.
Because, for the umpteeth time, using a weapon as a regular weapon is IN the improvised weapon rules that the vial says to use. Not just the else D.
Read. The rules.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). 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.
^This is the whole rule for Improvised weapons. Using a thing as if it were a weapon IS using an improvised weapon.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We have a rule for improvised weapons that basically says "If the DM says A=B then C, else D" and a rule for vials that says "use rules D."
^That's blatantly false.
We have rule X that says if DM says A=B then C, else D. And then the rule for vials says use rule X.
Because, for the umpteeth time, using a weapon as a regular weapon is IN the improvised weapon rules that the vial says to use. Not just the else D.
Read. The rules.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). 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.
^This is the whole rule for Improvised weapons. Using a thing as if it were a weapon IS using an improvised weapon.
Well if that's the case then you can't use it for fast hands any way as you can't attack as a bonus action with that... Only use an object.
I would also assume it doesn't have the light property so you can't do 2 weapon fighting.... So yeah it's not going to happen as the bonus action anyway.
Sneak attack only works with weapon attacks so overall I don't see an avenue here anyway
We have a rule for improvised weapons that basically says "If the DM says A=B then C, else D" and a rule for vials that says "use rules D."
^That's blatantly false.
We have rule X that says if DM says A=B then C, else D. And then the rule for vials says use rule X.
Because, for the umpteeth time, using a weapon as a regular weapon is IN the improvised weapon rules that the vial says to use. Not just the else D.
Read. The rules.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). 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.
^This is the whole rule for Improvised weapons. Using a thing as if it were a weapon IS using an improvised weapon.
Only when the improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon. Flasks and vials are not.
To repeat: The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon. "The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
If there's no rule solution to this other than "But the DM could" then it is outside of the text of the actual rules -- even rules that reference the paragraph about improvised weapons a DM deems similar to weapons. You wanna know why? Because "treat it as an improvised weapon" takes that choice away by telling you exactly what to do.
YMMV but for me as a DM to determine a similar object can be treated as a weapon, it would need to have similar size, weight and way to hold, wield and use than said weapon. While a table leg can be similar to a club, an acid vial isn't similar to any existing weapon to be treated as one.
To repeat: The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon.
Yes. It is. Treating something as an actual weapon is inherently part of treating it as an improvised weapon if your DM determines it is similar enough. That is what the Improvised Weapon Rules say to do. Middle paragraph.
"The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
"DM's option" is the rule. There is no problem.
If there's no rule solution to this other than "But the DM could" then it is outside of the text of the actual rules -- even rules that reference the paragraph about improvised weapons a DM deems similar to weapons.
What do the rules tell us is the means of determining if a broken branch can be used as a similar weapon? What is the single criteria and who decides it? Can you answer this simple question truthfully with something other than "It is similar enough to an actual weapon as determined by your DM"?
That is the RAW means of determining what non-weapon objects, ie improvised weapons, get treated as normal weapons. There is no other RAW answer here. Neither you or anyone in this entire thread has provided one other that "how you'd personally rule if you were DMing".
You wanna know why? Because "treat it as an improvised weapon" takes that choice away by telling you exactly what to do.
A broken table-leg being used as a mace is... drum roll... An improvised weapon.
A broken wine bottle being used as a dagger is an example of... drum roll continues... An improvised weapon.
A ripped up stop sign with a chunk of concrete hanging on the end being used as a maul is an example of... drum roll crescendos... An improvised weapon.
Any non-weapon item that is being used as a standard weapon, because your DM says it is similar enough to treat it as that weapon.... is an improvised weapon.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Will you guys just agree to disagree already? This tangent isn't even the main topic of the thread and the semantics of whether or not 1 DM's house rules are RAW or not has no bearing on anyone looking for rule clarifications.
Will you guys just agree to disagree already? This tangent isn't even the main topic of the thread and the semantics of whether or not 1 DM's house rules are RAW or not has no bearing on anyone looking for rule clarifications.
I would love for that to be the outcome, here. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen. People have a habit of digging in their heels when presented with information that challenges their biases. We see it with medicine, politics, religion, science, and more. People don't like to believe they're wrong. Just as they don't want to believe they can marks for a confidence scheme. But we're all vulnerable. What's holding us back is one person who keeps arguing against the masses. And they've missed what is arguably the most important aspect of the rules for Improvised Weapons.
They're for the player's benefit.
When the rule says the DM has the option of treating the improvised weapon as if it were an actual weapon, it's just reiterating Rule Zero to the player. The DM has always had that option. If the text were missing, the DM would still have that option. The point of including it is to give the player context. It gets the little gray cells firing; looking for connections. Can this random object be used as an improvised weapon? How about that one? And would I be considered proficient? It's there to teach lateral thinking.
The point of this thread, this entire subforum, is to give advice on how the rules either expressly do work or should work. And if the best someone can come up with is, "Maybe, go ask your DM," then they don't actually have anything to contribute. Because repeating the option of DM's fiat isn't helpful.
An improvised weapon either resembles an actual weapon or it doesn't. If acid or alchemist's fire resembled an actual weapon, then it's reasonable to assume their respective descriptions would say so. But they don't, so it's not a reasonable assumption. Not when their damage mechanics differ from every actual weapon listed in the PHB. And not when their throwable range most closely resembles that of an improvised weapon that isn't an actual weapon.
The Devil's advocate would still have us treat this as a multiple choice question. Fine, we have two possible answers, but only one possible answer best fits the answer in question. This isn't something anyone should be flipping a coin over.
When the rule says the DM has the option of treating the improvised weapon as if it were an actual weapon, it's just reiterating Rule Zero to the player. The DM has always had that option. If the text were missing, the DM would still have that option. The point of including it is to give the player context. It gets the little gray cells firing; looking for connections. Can this random object be used as an improvised weapon? How about that one? And would I be considered proficient? It's there to teach lateral thinking.
The point of this thread, this entire subforum, is to give advice on how the rules either expressly do work or should work. And if the best someone can come up with is, "Maybe, go ask your DM," then they don't actually have anything to contribute. Because repeating the option of DM's fiat isn't helpful.
There is no other method for determining if a non-weapon object can be used as if it were a normal weapon other than the 2nd paragraph of the Improvised Weapon Rules that state under no uncertain terms that it is "DM's option".
Point to some other method if you think there is one. No one has, yet, in this entire thread.
Why? Because there is no other method. Improvised weapon rules are explicitly in the DM's hands. No other method even makes sense.
An improvised weapon either resembles an actual weapon or it doesn't.
True. The DM decides which it is.
If acid or alchemist's fire resembled an actual weapon, then it's reasonable to assume their respective descriptions would say so.
The DM decides.
But they don't, so it's not a reasonable assumption.
The DM decides what objects resemble standard weapons per the Improvised Weapon Rules.
Not when their damage mechanics differ from every actual weapon listed in the PHB. And not when their throwable range most closely resembles that of an improvised weapon that isn't an actual weapon.
Fair call to make when you DM. All DM's can make whatever call they want here and it is RAW regardless. Yours is perfectly valid, so is anyone else's.
The Devil's advocate would still have us treat this as a multiple choice question. Fine, we have two possible answers, but only one possible answer best fits the answer in question. This isn't something anyone should be flipping a coin over.
Even if I agreed with you, that is something that would belong in DM's Tips forum or whatever. Not here is Rules and mechanics. Here we discuss the reality of the rules. not what is a solid and best practice ruling. The reality of the Improvised Weapons Rules is they leave the decision entirely and solely in DM's hands on what non-weapon object are or are not similar enough to real weapons to be treated as them. Unless someone can actually provide some other RAW method for making that determination, the actual rule here is that the DM decides.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To repeat: The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon. "The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
If there's no rule solution to this other than "But the DM could" then it is outside of the text of the actual rules -- even rules that reference the paragraph about improvised weapons a DM deems similar to weapons. You wanna know why? Because "treat it as an improvised weapon" takes that choice away by telling you exactly what to do.
Saying that "A broken table-leg being used as a mace is... drum roll... An improvised weapon." is still not "treating it as an improvised weapon" That's still wrong. You know why? Because you still didn't address the logic gap in the quote from post #177. Treating it as an actual weapon is an out, allowing you to bypass the improvised weapon rules. Again, the ref may make the call, but the rulebook still tells you the rules. You are just yelling "make more bad calls, refs." That is absolutely not helpful rules advice.
DxJxC, I absolutely hate bad advice being the last post in a thread. Someone who comes here looking for information might be interested in whether you can add your PB to the attack made with a vial. You cannot. People should be able to find that information easily.
Even if I agreed with you, that is something that would belong in DM's Tips forum or whatever. Not here is Rules and mechanics. Here we discuss the reality of the rules. not what is a solid and best practice ruling. The reality of the Improvised Weapons Rules is they leave the decision entirely and solely in DM's hands on what non-weapon object are or are not similar enough to real weapons to be treated as them. Unless someone can actually provide some other RAW method for making that determination, the actual rule here is that the DM decides.
I'm going to repeat myself, not only because I think it's warranted but because you skipped what is arguably the most relevant segment from my previous post.
The point of this thread, this entire subforum, is to give advice on how the rules either expressly do work or should work. And if the best someone can come up with is, "Maybe, go ask your DM," then they don't actually have anything to contribute. Because repeating the option of DM's fiat isn't helpful.
If the best any of us have is an excuse to punt on answering the actual question, then we don't have an answer. Because "Maybe, go ask your DM" doesn't tell you how the rules are written.
The "reality of the rules" is that we are told expressly how the aforementioned flask and vial work. We know to treat them as an improvised weapon, which nobody has proficiency with by default. We know their respective ranged attack and damage rolls incorporate the user's Dexterity modifier, but they lack the distance of any actual weapon. (In fact, it matches the distance of an improvised weapon that is dissimilar to an actual weapon.) We know the damage mechanics are unlike any actual weapon, simple or martial. We know they shatter on impact and are not reusable, which is also unlike any actual weapon. (Even ammunition can be policed for a 50% recovery rate.)
So while the "reality of the rules" is that the DM could say to treat a flask/vial like an actual weapon, that would be a ruling which goes against both the RAW and the RAI. The "reality of the rules" is you have been giving objectively bad advice for several pages, now.
P.S.
My own opinions on this evolved over time. A year and a half ago, I didn't even think this interaction with Fast Hands was even possible. I responded in this thread with comments that bordered on snark. And I was wrong, both in my then-attitudes and in my ability to read and see the rules for what they are. But I was only able to do that because I pulled my head out of the sand. It meant rereading all the relevant rules. It meant listening to and valuing the opinions of others. The rules as written are as clear about the aforementioned flask/vial not being like actual weapons as they can be.
What Ravnodaus has stated isn't technically incorrect. But it is unhelpful because the DM has the option to decide anything, to treat anything as anything else. Reminding the player of this, and pointing to it as a full-throated answer, is highlighting the exception which proves the rule and not the rule itself. You may as well be saying the rules don't actually matter.
I believe Grimus is referring to treating the sling as an improvised weapon that resembles a sling in order to enable ammunition that isn't sling bullets, such as acid vials.
Basically and even then I'll definitely agree it's a stretch.
But in that case it's an attack not a Use an Object action so they couldn't do it with their BA anyway.
I want to say there's precedent for this. I can't remember if it was 3.5 or Pathfinder, but I remember crossbows that could shoot flasks/vials as ammunition.
I could see a special weapon, such as this, being compatible with a rogue's Sneak Attack. But then we're homebrewing.
This is what I said 28 and 46 comments/5 and 6 days ago. Then I stopped commenting since there was nothing new to discuss. Now I'm just watching the back and forth of "all the applicable rules say no," vs "but this 1 sentence says the DM decides, so it could be yes."
All over whether a vial/flask works like a dagger...
I agree it'd be a stretch and like you say the acid vial wouldn't be used the way it's described.
Agreed
This isn't the answer to every single question on this forum. It is the answer to this question on this forum.
A DM can absolutely tell you you can use a broken glass bottle as a dagger, and to treat it as such. That is a RAW ruling in compliance with the Improvised Weapon rules.
A DM could also decide that a broken glass bottle is not sufficiently similar to a dagger, and not let you treat it as one, instead following the final paragraph of improvised weapon rules for guidance instead. This too is a RAW ruling in compliance with the Improvised Weapon Rules.
Both are correct. The Improvised Weapon rule specifically and explicitly says that the DM determines this.
You don't. I don't. The DM does.
Sure. In this case everyone should expect that when it comes to improvised weapons, their DM will make a ruling about how they behave, per the improvised weapon rules they might only do a d4, or they might be treated as a similar weapon if your DM feels it is similar enough. That. That is the expectation we should all have.
I have not invoked this, not once. And in fact have denounced the accusation that I was invoking it numerous times now. There is no need to continue to state, or imply, that I am making this argument when I am not. Please stop.
This is not a case of "the DM always has final say" being invoked. This is a case of the specific rule in question explicitly saying that the "DM's option" is the only determining factor for how to tell if a improvised weapon can or cannot be used as a similar enough weapon.
There is literally no other RAW mechanism for determining if an improvised weapon can be used as a weapon other than your DM's call.
None.
I am.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We have a rule for improvised weapons that basically says "If the DM says A=B then C, else D" and a rule for vials that says "use rules D." What's the confusing part? Why are we stopping to say "what if C? The DM could say C. It is a valid ruling to say C." The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon. "The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
The DM can change anything in the game, that is not an invalid ruling. That doesn't make it the correct one, especially when we have actual rules that tell you how to use the feature in question.
^That's blatantly false.
We have rule X that says if DM says A=B then C, else D. And then the rule for vials says use rule X.
Because, for the umpteeth time, using a weapon as a regular weapon is IN the improvised weapon rules that the vial says to use. Not just the else D.
Read. The rules.
^This is the whole rule for Improvised weapons. Using a thing as if it were a weapon IS using an improvised weapon.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well if that's the case then you can't use it for fast hands any way as you can't attack as a bonus action with that... Only use an object.
I would also assume it doesn't have the light property so you can't do 2 weapon fighting.... So yeah it's not going to happen as the bonus action anyway.
Sneak attack only works with weapon attacks so overall I don't see an avenue here anyway
Only when the improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon. Flasks and vials are not.
To repeat: The rule doesn't say "use any part of the improvised weapon rules" it say "treat it as an improvised weapon." Treating something as an actual weapon is explicitly not treating something as an improvised weapon. "The DM could..." doesn't actually address that rules problem.
If there's no rule solution to this other than "But the DM could" then it is outside of the text of the actual rules -- even rules that reference the paragraph about improvised weapons a DM deems similar to weapons. You wanna know why? Because "treat it as an improvised weapon" takes that choice away by telling you exactly what to do.
YMMV but for me as a DM to determine a similar object can be treated as a weapon, it would need to have similar size, weight and way to hold, wield and use than said weapon. While a table leg can be similar to a club, an acid vial isn't similar to any existing weapon to be treated as one.
Yes. It is. Treating something as an actual weapon is inherently part of treating it as an improvised weapon if your DM determines it is similar enough. That is what the Improvised Weapon Rules say to do. Middle paragraph.
"DM's option" is the rule. There is no problem.
What do the rules tell us is the means of determining if a broken branch can be used as a similar weapon? What is the single criteria and who decides it? Can you answer this simple question truthfully with something other than "It is similar enough to an actual weapon as determined by your DM"?
That is the RAW means of determining what non-weapon objects, ie improvised weapons, get treated as normal weapons. There is no other RAW answer here. Neither you or anyone in this entire thread has provided one other that "how you'd personally rule if you were DMing".
A broken table-leg being used as a mace is... drum roll... An improvised weapon.
A broken wine bottle being used as a dagger is an example of... drum roll continues... An improvised weapon.
A ripped up stop sign with a chunk of concrete hanging on the end being used as a maul is an example of... drum roll crescendos... An improvised weapon.
Any non-weapon item that is being used as a standard weapon, because your DM says it is similar enough to treat it as that weapon.... is an improvised weapon.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Will you guys just agree to disagree already? This tangent isn't even the main topic of the thread and the semantics of whether or not 1 DM's house rules are RAW or not has no bearing on anyone looking for rule clarifications.
I would love for that to be the outcome, here. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen. People have a habit of digging in their heels when presented with information that challenges their biases. We see it with medicine, politics, religion, science, and more. People don't like to believe they're wrong. Just as they don't want to believe they can marks for a confidence scheme. But we're all vulnerable. What's holding us back is one person who keeps arguing against the masses. And they've missed what is arguably the most important aspect of the rules for Improvised Weapons.
They're for the player's benefit.
When the rule says the DM has the option of treating the improvised weapon as if it were an actual weapon, it's just reiterating Rule Zero to the player. The DM has always had that option. If the text were missing, the DM would still have that option. The point of including it is to give the player context. It gets the little gray cells firing; looking for connections. Can this random object be used as an improvised weapon? How about that one? And would I be considered proficient? It's there to teach lateral thinking.
The point of this thread, this entire subforum, is to give advice on how the rules either expressly do work or should work. And if the best someone can come up with is, "Maybe, go ask your DM," then they don't actually have anything to contribute. Because repeating the option of DM's fiat isn't helpful.
An improvised weapon either resembles an actual weapon or it doesn't. If acid or alchemist's fire resembled an actual weapon, then it's reasonable to assume their respective descriptions would say so. But they don't, so it's not a reasonable assumption. Not when their damage mechanics differ from every actual weapon listed in the PHB. And not when their throwable range most closely resembles that of an improvised weapon that isn't an actual weapon.
The Devil's advocate would still have us treat this as a multiple choice question. Fine, we have two possible answers, but only one possible answer best fits the answer in question. This isn't something anyone should be flipping a coin over.
There is no other method for determining if a non-weapon object can be used as if it were a normal weapon other than the 2nd paragraph of the Improvised Weapon Rules that state under no uncertain terms that it is "DM's option".
Point to some other method if you think there is one. No one has, yet, in this entire thread.
Why? Because there is no other method. Improvised weapon rules are explicitly in the DM's hands. No other method even makes sense.
True. The DM decides which it is.
The DM decides.
The DM decides what objects resemble standard weapons per the Improvised Weapon Rules.
Fair call to make when you DM. All DM's can make whatever call they want here and it is RAW regardless. Yours is perfectly valid, so is anyone else's.
Even if I agreed with you, that is something that would belong in DM's Tips forum or whatever. Not here is Rules and mechanics. Here we discuss the reality of the rules. not what is a solid and best practice ruling. The reality of the Improvised Weapons Rules is they leave the decision entirely and solely in DM's hands on what non-weapon object are or are not similar enough to real weapons to be treated as them. Unless someone can actually provide some other RAW method for making that determination, the actual rule here is that the DM decides.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Saying that "A broken table-leg being used as a mace is... drum roll... An improvised weapon." is still not "treating it as an improvised weapon" That's still wrong. You know why? Because you still didn't address the logic gap in the quote from post #177. Treating it as an actual weapon is an out, allowing you to bypass the improvised weapon rules. Again, the ref may make the call, but the rulebook still tells you the rules. You are just yelling "make more bad calls, refs." That is absolutely not helpful rules advice.
DxJxC, I absolutely hate bad advice being the last post in a thread. Someone who comes here looking for information might be interested in whether you can add your PB to the attack made with a vial. You cannot. People should be able to find that information easily.
I'm going to repeat myself, not only because I think it's warranted but because you skipped what is arguably the most relevant segment from my previous post.
If the best any of us have is an excuse to punt on answering the actual question, then we don't have an answer. Because "Maybe, go ask your DM" doesn't tell you how the rules are written.
The "reality of the rules" is that we are told expressly how the aforementioned flask and vial work. We know to treat them as an improvised weapon, which nobody has proficiency with by default. We know their respective ranged attack and damage rolls incorporate the user's Dexterity modifier, but they lack the distance of any actual weapon. (In fact, it matches the distance of an improvised weapon that is dissimilar to an actual weapon.) We know the damage mechanics are unlike any actual weapon, simple or martial. We know they shatter on impact and are not reusable, which is also unlike any actual weapon. (Even ammunition can be policed for a 50% recovery rate.)
So while the "reality of the rules" is that the DM could say to treat a flask/vial like an actual weapon, that would be a ruling which goes against both the RAW and the RAI. The "reality of the rules" is you have been giving objectively bad advice for several pages, now.
P.S.
My own opinions on this evolved over time. A year and a half ago, I didn't even think this interaction with Fast Hands was even possible. I responded in this thread with comments that bordered on snark. And I was wrong, both in my then-attitudes and in my ability to read and see the rules for what they are. But I was only able to do that because I pulled my head out of the sand. It meant rereading all the relevant rules. It meant listening to and valuing the opinions of others. The rules as written are as clear about the aforementioned flask/vial not being like actual weapons as they can be.
What Ravnodaus has stated isn't technically incorrect. But it is unhelpful because the DM has the option to decide anything, to treat anything as anything else. Reminding the player of this, and pointing to it as a full-throated answer, is highlighting the exception which proves the rule and not the rule itself. You may as well be saying the rules don't actually matter.