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 know what you mean, but "it's up to the DM" isn't exactly misinformation, it just isn't the best information.
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 know what you mean, but "it's up to the DM" isn't exactly misinformation, it just isn't the best information.
Yeah yeah yeah, but for that reason, I'd still call it bad advice.
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.
You're correct that my statements aren't incorrect. because they're correct.
But, as to this claim that "the DM decides" being an exception to the rule, and not the rule. That. That is false. "The DM's option" is explicitly the rule. Middle. Paragraph.
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 rule" for Improvised weapons. it is the full quote for improvised weapons. directly from the phb. Right smack dab in the middle of the rule for improvised weapons it tells you all about how the DM determines if you can treat non-weapon objects as if they simply were normal weapons. And then if they're not going to do that, then it expands what to do next.
But step 1 is for the DM to decide if it is similar to a normal weapon or not. That is 100% done every time you use an improvised weapon.
Using an item as an improvised weapon refers to using all of the improvised weapon rules, not just ignore the middle paragraph because... *answer missing*.
If you're only going to latch on to the second half of the POST SCRIPT and not the body of text actually critical of your position, then why are you even typing? You're just ignoring anything and everything you don't have a rebuttal for. That's not how you argue your point.
When you let the point stand, unchallenged, you're conceding it.
We KNOW how a flask/vial work, and it's NOT as an approximation to an actual weapon. Your constantly trying to argue the inverse is a task of Sisyphean proportions. Your constantly pointing to a REMINDER that the DM can decide things, encouraging the player to look for connections and think laterally, isn't helping your case, either.
No, really, the entire point of that middle paragraph is for the player to try and convince the DM to let them treat an improvised weapon as an actual weapon. It isn't telling the DM what they can do. It's telling the player what the DM can do. All so they can make a case to persuade the DM.
(I'm on mobile, so I apologize for the formatting and terseness of my reply.)
If you're only going to latch on to the second half of the POST SCRIPT and not the body of text actually critical of your position, then why are you even typing? You're just ignoring anything and everything you don't have a rebuttal for. That's not how you argue your point.
When you let the point stand, unchallenged, you're conceding it.
That's not how anything works. And I assure you you don't want me replying to every post I disagree with on every single last point everyone makes that I could critique. I get flack for doing that too much as it is, don't invite me to escalate.
We KNOW how a flask/vial work, and it's NOT as an approximation to an actual weapon. Your constantly trying to argue the inverse is a task of Sisyphean proportions. Your constantly pointing to a REMINDER that the DM can decide things, encouraging the player to look for connections and think laterally, isn't helping your case, either.
I'm constantly point to the actual rule for improvised weapons. The one printed in the PHB. You can character it as a reminder if you want, but, just remember that when you are using an improvised weapon... any improvised weapon, your DM has the option to treat it as a regular weapon and you should expect this to happen often. Since, you know, that the rule.
No, really, the entire point of that middle paragraph is for the player to try and convince the DM to let them treat an improvised weapon as an actual weapon. It isn't telling the DM what they can do. It's telling the player what the DM can do. All so they can make a case to persuade the DM.
I disagree. The entire improvised process is the player attacks with a non-weapon object. Step 1 is for the DM to either decide to treat it as some other weapon or not, and if not, step 2 is to have it simply deal a d4 of DM-determined type damage. That's the rule. Yall ignoring step 1 and arguing in circles about why you're allowed to skip step 1.
I disagree. The entire improvised process is the player attacks with a non-weapon object. Step 1 is for the DM to either decide to treat it as some other weapon or not, and if not, step 2 is to have it simply deal a d4 of DM-determined type damage. That's the rule. Yall ignoring step 1 and arguing in circles about why you're allowed to skip step 1.
Because step 1 is "Check to see if it is an actual weapon instead of an improvised weapon." And we have made that point (nearly continuously since ~ post #124), you just don't seem to have a rebuttal and ignore it.
Refs make the calls, but the ref ignoring what the rulebook says is making a bad call. But it seems to me that "the DM decides" is saying that there is no other rules support for your position.
I disagree. The entire improvised process is the player attacks with a non-weapon object. Step 1 is for the DM to either decide to treat it as some other weapon or not, and if not, step 2 is to have it simply deal a d4 of DM-determined type damage. That's the rule. Yall ignoring step 1 and arguing in circles about why you're allowed to skip step 1.
Because step 1 is "Check to see if it is an actual weapon instead of an improvised weapon."
No. Not "instead". You'll not find that phrasing in the actual rules.
The rule is to treat your object as an actual weapon by using the improvised weapon rules. Using a non-weapon object as a standard weapon is it being an improvised weapon. that's what the term means. You're improvising... a weapon.
A table leg being used as a club... is an improvised weapon. Definitionally this is true. it isn't a club. it is an improvised weapon being used as a club. This is the basic function of improvised weapons.
To not be actual weapons. but to be used as if they were weapons.
That's the whole point of the rule here.
And we have made that point (nearly continuously since ~ post #124), you just don't seem to have a rebuttal and ignore it.
Because your point is wrong. I've rebutted it often, you keep stating that using a non-weapon object as a standard weapon somehow stops it from being an improvised weapon but that's pure fiction unsupported by the text of the improvised weapon rules. I keep quoting it in hopes it will get read for what it actually says. Really, reread it with an open critical mind and you'll see what it actually says.
Using an object as a similar standard weapon is using it as an improvised weapon. <-- That's a fact.
Refs make the calls, but the ref ignoring what the rulebook says is making a bad call. But it seems to me that "the DM decides" is saying that there is no other rules support for your position.
"The DM's option" is what the Improvised Weapon rules say. But, if you're looking for rules on Improvised Weapons but think you should be looking somewhere other than the Improvised Weapon rules to find it...
So long story short you don’t have any reason why “treat as an improvised weapon” means not that other than the DM could also be wrong about what resembles one of the things listed in the weapon tables?
No, really, the entire point of that middle paragraph is for the player to try and convince the DM to let them treat an improvised weapon as an actual weapon. It isn't telling the DM what they can do. It's telling the player what the DM can do. All so they can make a case to persuade the DM.
I disagree. The entire improvised process is the player attacks with a non-weapon object. Step 1 is for the DM to either decide to treat it as some other weapon or not, and if not, step 2 is to have it simply deal a d4 of DM-determined type damage. That's the rule. Yall ignoring step 1 and arguing in circles about why you're allowed to skip step 1.
As a general rule, an improvised weapon deals 1d4 damage. And when you take the Use an Object to throw acid or alchemist's fire, you're making a ranged weapon attack with a specific damage override. And since you ignored this point previously I'll reiterate it now. Not all ranged weapon attacks are made with ranged weapons. They can be made with manufactured melee weapons (like a dagger or handaxe), natural weapons (like a manticore'sTail Spike action), or with an improvised weapon (like the aforementioned vial or flask).
We aren't ignoring the middle paragraph. We see it, acknowledge it, and immediately recognize that these particular bits of adventuring gear are not similar to any actual weapon. And I say this with confidence because their lack of resemblance is self-evident. They explicitly behave like no entry on either weapon table. We've been saying this for days. And any DM who wishes to treat such items as actual weapons, granting proficiency or weapon properties where none are explicitly stated, is going against the RAW because the RAW for those items tells us how to use them.
And it's fine for the DM to make whatever call they want. But this forum isn't about DM interpretation. It's a discussion on the rules as written. The DM's word may be law, but that does not mean their word will always be RAW. And we are under no obligation to patronage their table if they act accordingly.
But step 1 is for the DM to decide if it is similar to a normal weapon or not. That is 100% done every time you use an improvised weapon.
Wrong. The DM does not decide whether the improvised weapon is similar to a normal weapon or not. Read your own quote of the PHB again. The DM decides whether to treat an improvised weapon that is similar to a normal weapon as that normal weapon. Obviously, the DM can choose whatever, whenever. But regarding this particular rule, and given an improvised weapon which is similar to a normal weapon, the DM can choose to treat it as a regular weapon. It does not say that the DM gets to decide what is similar and what is not. That will be obvious, in many cases. In the cases where it's not so obvious, then, as usual, the DM decides. Acid and alchemist fire flasks are very obviously not similar to any weapons. Even if they were designed to look similar, they don't work similarly. Obviously, again, the DM can choose to treat them as regular weapons. The DM could also choose to treat them as spell scrolls, and have Wizards learn Acid Arrow and Fireball from them. Or treat them as creatures, and have them decide whether they break and deal damage or not, based on how they've been treated by the party. Or whatever. But those aren't good answers to the question, even if they're technically true.
If it’s an improvised weapon you don’t get proficiency bonus, and it’s at disadvantage. Tell me how disadvantage and a +3 to hit is OP in any sense especially if it’s only 2d6, on average that’s 6 damage. The artillerist gets 2d8 as a bonus action to multiple creatures
Lowkey if the player(s) are constantly buying vials of acid/alchemist fires and shit id just let them do it as a bonus action with the fast hands. its gunna get costly real fast if you chuck 10 vials of acid a session thats on average about 250gp a game. And if you use xanathars downtime activities thats still a whole week a player made to make some of these resources they use. **** it id let em. Is this an official answer? No, but as a DM I would allow it.
The point was made literally years ago, but I think it bears reminding that casting a spell uses a resource and very often results in making a ranged or melee spell attack, why would Using an Object that requires an attack suddenly make the action used to allow the attack the "Attack Action"? This is all about keywords. Spell attack in the casting example simply indicates that the ability score used to determine the hit roll is your spell's casting mod. Likewise, the stipulation about the vials being used as an improvised weapon only really comes into play for the purposes of determining how to calculate a hit roll, seeing as improvised weapon indicates no proficiency use in the hit roll. Furthermore, the acid vial, alchemist fire, etc. Would only be allowed to be used as a full action, regardless of extra attack features BECAUSE Extra Attack stipulates the use of the Attack Action to make multiple attacks. In the case of the Thiief, because they are allowed to Use an Object as a Bonus Action, they are taking a full bonus action to use the item, which grants a single attempt at an attack using the vial as an improvised weapon.
Beardsinger if you say that throwing acid vials is an attack action then I think you allow your 11th lvl fighters to throw 3 acid vials at the same time through attack action, oh wait they don't care because 2d6 is lower than a 1d8+3 so then why have acid vials in the first place if they're not going to be used?
The thief Rogue is already really bad compared to Arcane tricksters or Swashbucklers, and Acid Vials and Alchemist's fire have a GP cost, so why limiting it unnecessarily?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know what you mean, but "it's up to the DM" isn't exactly misinformation, it just isn't the best information.
Yeah yeah yeah, but for that reason, I'd still call it bad advice.
You're correct that my statements aren't incorrect. because they're correct.
But, as to this claim that "the DM decides" being an exception to the rule, and not the rule. That. That is false. "The DM's option" is explicitly the rule. Middle. Paragraph.
^ This is "the rule" for Improvised weapons. it is the full quote for improvised weapons. directly from the phb. Right smack dab in the middle of the rule for improvised weapons it tells you all about how the DM determines if you can treat non-weapon objects as if they simply were normal weapons. And then if they're not going to do that, then it expands what to do next.
But step 1 is for the DM to decide if it is similar to a normal weapon or not. That is 100% done every time you use an improvised weapon.
It is not an exception. It is the rule.
I got quotes!
But not the rule relevant to an item that 100% tells you not to do that.
Using an item as an improvised weapon refers to using all of the improvised weapon rules, not just ignore the middle paragraph because... *answer missing*.
I got quotes!
If you're only going to latch on to the second half of the POST SCRIPT and not the body of text actually critical of your position, then why are you even typing? You're just ignoring anything and everything you don't have a rebuttal for. That's not how you argue your point.
When you let the point stand, unchallenged, you're conceding it.
We KNOW how a flask/vial work, and it's NOT as an approximation to an actual weapon. Your constantly trying to argue the inverse is a task of Sisyphean proportions. Your constantly pointing to a REMINDER that the DM can decide things, encouraging the player to look for connections and think laterally, isn't helping your case, either.
No, really, the entire point of that middle paragraph is for the player to try and convince the DM to let them treat an improvised weapon as an actual weapon. It isn't telling the DM what they can do. It's telling the player what the DM can do. All so they can make a case to persuade the DM.
(I'm on mobile, so I apologize for the formatting and terseness of my reply.)
That's not how anything works. And I assure you you don't want me replying to every post I disagree with on every single last point everyone makes that I could critique. I get flack for doing that too much as it is, don't invite me to escalate.
I'm constantly point to the actual rule for improvised weapons. The one printed in the PHB. You can character it as a reminder if you want, but, just remember that when you are using an improvised weapon... any improvised weapon, your DM has the option to treat it as a regular weapon and you should expect this to happen often. Since, you know, that the rule.
I disagree. The entire improvised process is the player attacks with a non-weapon object. Step 1 is for the DM to either decide to treat it as some other weapon or not, and if not, step 2 is to have it simply deal a d4 of DM-determined type damage. That's the rule. Yall ignoring step 1 and arguing in circles about why you're allowed to skip step 1.
I got quotes!
Because step 1 is "Check to see if it is an actual weapon instead of an improvised weapon." And we have made that point (nearly continuously since ~ post #124), you just don't seem to have a rebuttal and ignore it.
Refs make the calls, but the ref ignoring what the rulebook says is making a bad call. But it seems to me that "the DM decides" is saying that there is no other rules support for your position.
No. Not "instead". You'll not find that phrasing in the actual rules.
The rule is to treat your object as an actual weapon by using the improvised weapon rules. Using a non-weapon object as a standard weapon is it being an improvised weapon. that's what the term means. You're improvising... a weapon.
A table leg being used as a club... is an improvised weapon. Definitionally this is true. it isn't a club. it is an improvised weapon being used as a club. This is the basic function of improvised weapons.
To not be actual weapons. but to be used as if they were weapons.
That's the whole point of the rule here.
Because your point is wrong. I've rebutted it often, you keep stating that using a non-weapon object as a standard weapon somehow stops it from being an improvised weapon but that's pure fiction unsupported by the text of the improvised weapon rules. I keep quoting it in hopes it will get read for what it actually says. Really, reread it with an open critical mind and you'll see what it actually says.
Using an object as a similar standard weapon is using it as an improvised weapon. <-- That's a fact.
"The DM's option" is what the Improvised Weapon rules say. But, if you're looking for rules on Improvised Weapons but think you should be looking somewhere other than the Improvised Weapon rules to find it...
I got quotes!
So long story short you don’t have any reason why “treat as an improvised weapon” means not that other than the DM could also be wrong about what resembles one of the things listed in the weapon tables?
Just a big old cascade of failure then?
As a general rule, an improvised weapon deals 1d4 damage. And when you take the Use an Object to throw acid or alchemist's fire, you're making a ranged weapon attack with a specific damage override. And since you ignored this point previously I'll reiterate it now. Not all ranged weapon attacks are made with ranged weapons. They can be made with manufactured melee weapons (like a dagger or handaxe), natural weapons (like a manticore's Tail Spike action), or with an improvised weapon (like the aforementioned vial or flask).
We aren't ignoring the middle paragraph. We see it, acknowledge it, and immediately recognize that these particular bits of adventuring gear are not similar to any actual weapon. And I say this with confidence because their lack of resemblance is self-evident. They explicitly behave like no entry on either weapon table. We've been saying this for days. And any DM who wishes to treat such items as actual weapons, granting proficiency or weapon properties where none are explicitly stated, is going against the RAW because the RAW for those items tells us how to use them.
And it's fine for the DM to make whatever call they want. But this forum isn't about DM interpretation. It's a discussion on the rules as written. The DM's word may be law, but that does not mean their word will always be RAW. And we are under no obligation to patronage their table if they act accordingly.
Wrong. The DM does not decide whether the improvised weapon is similar to a normal weapon or not. Read your own quote of the PHB again. The DM decides whether to treat an improvised weapon that is similar to a normal weapon as that normal weapon. Obviously, the DM can choose whatever, whenever. But regarding this particular rule, and given an improvised weapon which is similar to a normal weapon, the DM can choose to treat it as a regular weapon. It does not say that the DM gets to decide what is similar and what is not. That will be obvious, in many cases. In the cases where it's not so obvious, then, as usual, the DM decides. Acid and alchemist fire flasks are very obviously not similar to any weapons. Even if they were designed to look similar, they don't work similarly. Obviously, again, the DM can choose to treat them as regular weapons. The DM could also choose to treat them as spell scrolls, and have Wizards learn Acid Arrow and Fireball from them. Or treat them as creatures, and have them decide whether they break and deal damage or not, based on how they've been treated by the party. Or whatever. But those aren't good answers to the question, even if they're technically true.
For additional insight on improvised weapons there is this Dragontalk podcast with the Devs that discuss about it, which can be found here https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dragon-talk-greg-titian
If it’s an improvised weapon you don’t get proficiency bonus, and it’s at disadvantage. Tell me how disadvantage and a +3 to hit is OP in any sense especially if it’s only 2d6, on average that’s 6 damage. The artillerist gets 2d8 as a bonus action to multiple creatures
There is no rule that improvised weapons always attack at disadvantage.
Your DM may rule otherwise, but the "tightest" RAW reading possible is that it's 2d6+3, not 2d6, in this context.
No idea what you're trying to say here.
Lowkey if the player(s) are constantly buying vials of acid/alchemist fires and shit id just let them do it as a bonus action with the fast hands. its gunna get costly real fast if you chuck 10 vials of acid a session thats on average about 250gp a game. And if you use xanathars downtime activities thats still a whole week a player made to make some of these resources they use. **** it id let em. Is this an official answer? No, but as a DM I would allow it.
The point was made literally years ago, but I think it bears reminding that casting a spell uses a resource and very often results in making a ranged or melee spell attack, why would Using an Object that requires an attack suddenly make the action used to allow the attack the "Attack Action"? This is all about keywords. Spell attack in the casting example simply indicates that the ability score used to determine the hit roll is your spell's casting mod. Likewise, the stipulation about the vials being used as an improvised weapon only really comes into play for the purposes of determining how to calculate a hit roll, seeing as improvised weapon indicates no proficiency use in the hit roll. Furthermore, the acid vial, alchemist fire, etc. Would only be allowed to be used as a full action, regardless of extra attack features BECAUSE Extra Attack stipulates the use of the Attack Action to make multiple attacks. In the case of the Thiief, because they are allowed to Use an Object as a Bonus Action, they are taking a full bonus action to use the item, which grants a single attempt at an attack using the vial as an improvised weapon.
Beardsinger if you say that throwing acid vials is an attack action then I think you allow your 11th lvl fighters to throw 3 acid vials at the same time through attack action, oh wait they don't care because 2d6 is lower than a 1d8+3 so then why have acid vials in the first place if they're not going to be used?
The thief Rogue is already really bad compared to Arcane tricksters or Swashbucklers, and Acid Vials and Alchemist's fire have a GP cost, so why limiting it unnecessarily?