None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
Well of course weapons do - the entire point of using a weapon is to attack with it. It's effect is sticking the pointy end into something or smooshing someones face in. That is the entire reason that somebody would use a weapon in combat isn't it? You don't use a warhammer to write a poem.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
Well of course weapons do - the entire point of using a weapon is to attack with it. It's effect is sticking the pointy end into something or smooshing someones face in. That is the entire reason that somebody would use a weapon in combat isn't it? You don't use a warhammer to write a poem.
Will you please show me the weapon that has that effect in its description. I can't find it.
Functionally, you are right. Mechanically, you are wrong. I am only here to talk about rules and mechanics.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
Well of course weapons do - the entire point of using a weapon is to attack with it. It's effect is sticking the pointy end into something or smooshing someones face in. That is the entire reason that somebody would use a weapon in combat isn't it? You don't use a warhammer to write a poem.
You're running into something I've talked about a few times... the collision of Game vs. Simulation. D&D is a Game with Simulation elements, not a Simulation with Game Elements. That's how the rules are built. You will run into logical dead-ends sometimes when you apply simulation concepts against the rules. Combat is stated to occur in 6 seconds/round, and everyone takes their actions simultaneously, but this rarely would make any sense if you tried to reconstruct a round of combat after the fact to explain how characters were in the positions where the various attacks and actions occured all at the same time. If I can just create or destroy water, why can't I just create water in someone's lungs and drown them? You'll run into impossibilities and ridiculousness everywhere once you start to look for it. But the fact of the matter is, as part of being a Game, weapons have special rules attached to them that other objects don't. Using a weapon for its intended purpose does not qualify for the Use an Object Action, even though it is an action done by using an object for its intended purpose. Using your sword to swing and hit a giant snail in the face is a separate action from using a sword to chop a rope, even if they both would literally, in real life, involve the exact same motion and movement of muscles.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
Well of course weapons do - the entire point of using a weapon is to attack with it. It's effect is sticking the pointy end into something or smooshing someones face in. That is the entire reason that somebody would use a weapon in combat isn't it? You don't use a warhammer to write a poem.
You could use a warhammer to write a poem, by scribbling in the sand with its haft. In doing so, you'd be using the Use an Object action, not the Attack action. More conceivably, though, you could knock over a freestanding item with the flat of your longsword, you could poke a door with your mace to open it, you could use your halberd's reach to throw a lever 10' away from you, you could use your sling to cover a small stone with a Light spell on it, to avoid giving away your position... all those actions use weapons and are not Attack actions. When you use a weapon to attack, though, you use the Attack action. If it helps, think of it as "specific beats general": using an object for its intended purpose is generally the Use an Object action, but specifically using a weapon for its intended purpose (attacking) is the Attack action.
I am starting to think it is a generation thing. I am approaching 50, have been playing D&D since the 1980's - all versions except 4th ed. When I run or play D&D I don't get my dictionary out to get the absolute, literal meaning of every single rule. I use my common sense, and apply my intelligence to make the game run smoothly and be fun for everyone. The people I play with regularly all do the same. It doesn't matter if someone is technically correct in their very carefully worded exploitation of a rule loophole because the exact definition of a specific word includes xyz. It's a game, real world physics goes out of the window when you have people throwing lightning bolts around. Sometimes you just have to use a little bit of common sense, otherwise what's the point of even playing? It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on. I don't play rpg computer games, I tried once, the utter frustration and monotony of grinding out the latest gear, cutting down the 10 millionth tree to become a master wood cutter and all that nonsense. People going nuts if you don't have the absolute best, most optimised character. I find it really sad that my hobby of nearly 40 years has denigrated into a state where people scream about who's dictionary has the most accurate definition of a single word in a single rule that allows them to get an advantage over someone else. I think I am done with these forums.
It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on.
I don't quite get this line of reasoning. I feel that this is less about trying to game the system using the Thief's Fast Hands ability and more about making certain that this particular ability is used as intended. An Acid Vial is, quite frankly, not a particularly useful item... it's a 25gp Single Use item that requires a feat to gain proficiency in it. I have never once been in a campaign where someone used an Acid Vial as their full action during combat because it's not worth the effort and investment. Even a Thief is most often going to get more value out of using their Cunning Action to stealth or disengage... but it's cool that, in those rare moments where a bit of acid to the face would make all the difference, a Thief has the option to pull off something fun and interesting. Letting the Thief player take advantage of that isn't giving them special treatment to allow a Munchkin to pull off some unintended super move... it just allows the subclass to excel in one of the aspects of the game the subclass was designed for.
I am starting to think it is a generation thing. I am approaching 50, have been playing D&D since the 1980's - all versions except 4th ed. When I run or play D&D I don't get my dictionary out to get the absolute, literal meaning of every single rule. I use my common sense, and apply my intelligence to make the game run smoothly and be fun for everyone. The people I play with regularly all do the same. It doesn't matter if someone is technically correct in their very carefully worded exploitation of a rule loophole because the exact definition of a specific word includes xyz. It's a game, real world physics goes out of the window when you have people throwing lightning bolts around. Sometimes you just have to use a little bit of common sense, otherwise what's the point of even playing? It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on. I don't play rpg computer games, I tried once, the utter frustration and monotony of grinding out the latest gear, cutting down the 10 millionth tree to become a master wood cutter and all that nonsense. People going nuts if you don't have the absolute best, most optimised character. I find it really sad that my hobby of nearly 40 years has denigrated into a state where people scream about who's dictionary has the most accurate definition of a single word in a single rule that allows them to get an advantage over someone else. I think I am done with these forums.
I don't think it's an age thing. I'm not quite 50, yet, but I'm well into my 40's, and we're obviously arguing opposite sides here. If anything, I've found younger generations are more likely to ignore rules and play fast and loose for the sake of roleplaying.
But this is the "rules and game mechanics" forum, where people come to talk about the literal rules, about specific situations and how the actual rules apply to them. It is specifically not the forum where people talk about how they house rule situations, nor about which rules they dislike and therefore ignore or change. So, while elsewhere in the boards you might find comments like "I guess RAW says you can throw a flask of oil with Fast Hands, but I've never found that to make any sense at all, so we don't do it in our games" met with responses like "oh yeah, that make sense, thanks!" and "really? we follow RAW and it works great for us. Interesting how it works the other way for you guys, cool!", here you'll tend to see more meticulous arguments regarding specific details of rules, with long, often bitter arguments about the meaning of specific words, etc. It's not everybody's cup of tea, definitely. But it should not be taken as criticism of how anybody plays their game, just as an academic discussion of how the rules, as written, work. In fact, I've seen, many times, in this forum, people arguing about how a rule works one way, but they play it a different way in their games.
Finally, don't draw conclusions about the state of the game based on a very small, if vocal, minority. Most people, by far, are enjoying the game and not worrying about whether a vial of acid uses an Attack action or a Use an Object action to throw. In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
[Omitted: argumentum ad verecundiam] [Omitted: reductio ad absurdum] It's a game, real world physics goes out of the window when you have people throwing lightning bolts around. Sometimes you just have to use a little bit of common sense, otherwise what's the point of even playing? It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on. I don't play rpg computer games, I tried once, the utter frustration and monotony of grinding out the latest gear, cutting down the 10 millionth tree to become a master wood cutter and all that nonsense. People going nuts if you don't have the absolute best, most optimised character. [Omitted: argumentum ad passiones/argumentum ad verecundiam/reductio ad absurdum (3 fallacies in 1 sentence combo)]
I agree with you about people trying to min-max and the toxicity of MMOs etc. That is why I am so opposed to people trying to manipulate the rules so any martial class can make 2 or more attacks with these items as a single action, instead of 1 specialized subclass having to use its bonus action.
I am starting to think it is a generation thing. I am approaching 50, have been playing D&D since the 1980's - all versions except 4th ed. When I run or play D&D I don't get my dictionary out to get the absolute, literal meaning of every single rule. I use my common sense, and apply my intelligence to make the game run smoothly and be fun for everyone. The people I play with regularly all do the same. It doesn't matter if someone is technically correct in their very carefully worded exploitation of a rule loophole because the exact definition of a specific word includes xyz. It's a game, real world physics goes out of the window when you have people throwing lightning bolts around. Sometimes you just have to use a little bit of common sense, otherwise what's the point of even playing? It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on. I don't play rpg computer games, I tried once, the utter frustration and monotony of grinding out the latest gear, cutting down the 10 millionth tree to become a master wood cutter and all that nonsense. People going nuts if you don't have the absolute best, most optimised character. I find it really sad that my hobby of nearly 40 years has denigrated into a state where people scream about who's dictionary has the most accurate definition of a single word in a single rule that allows them to get an advantage over someone else. I think I am done with these forums.
Ah I see. So now that you've been thoroughly proven wrong, we're a bunch of roudy kids on your stoop, waving our dictionaries and barrating you about semantics. Nice deflection.
This has nothing to do with age and for you to imply as such is incredibly insulting. Attributing the entire concepts of "gaming the system" and "rules lawyering" onto a group of people becuase of their age is ignorant and rude.
What's even more frustrating is this debate has had absolutely nothing to do with those things. It isn't gaming the system to try and understand how the rules are properly implemented, and in reality very little has had to be discussed and sussed out to prove the opposition is wrong.
I butted into this conversation because I saw that the "common sense" being used to dictate house rules didn't even make sense either. Proving how the rule actually worked served as a way to show that the game allows much more manually dexterous activities with a bonus action, and that people were being unfair to the Thief by limiting this based on "realism". Nothing here is about chasing power or gaming the system. It literally can't be, because a Thief throwing a vial or what have you as a bonus action simply isn't broken. It's not even that good. It's just a fun thing they can do that I think is a shame for people to put the kibosh on based on bad rules knowledge and flawed logic.
You probably still have me on ignore, but I felt this needed to be addresses anyways. Your behavior is abhorrent Beardsinger.
In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
Except for that Thief with the fast hands who sees his archetype limited by a misunderstanding of the basic terms :p
Ultimately, my intention is to throw a flask of oil as a Action and a alchemist fire as a bonus action on the same target and make sure it is in respect of the Rules as Written. I think we can agree this is possible as RAW.
In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
Except for that Thief with the fast hands who sees his archetype limited by a misunderstanding of the basic terms :p
Ultimately, my intention is to throw a flask of oil as a Action and a alchemist fire as a bonus action ont he same and make sure it is in respect of the Rules as Written. I think we can agree this is possible as RAW.
Due to the low damage it would likely just be better to sneak attack anyway
In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
Except for that Thief with the fast hands who sees his archetype limited by a misunderstanding of the basic terms :p
Ultimately, my intention is to throw a flask of oil as a Action and a alchemist fire as a bonus action on the same target and make sure it is in respect of the Rules as Written. I think we can agree this is possible as RAW.
Most people, not all. And "when we play", not "when we're arguing on the forums". :D
I meant to express the fact that while people come here (the rules forum) to argue about rules, that doesn't mean that all of us argue rules constantly in our games.
In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
Except for that Thief with the fast hands who sees his archetype limited by a misunderstanding of the basic terms :p
Ultimately, my intention is to throw a flask of oil as a Action and a alchemist fire as a bonus action ont he same and make sure it is in respect of the Rules as Written. I think we can agree this is possible as RAW.
Due to the low damage it would likely just be better to sneak attack anyway
That's irrelevant, though. There may be many reasons why they might prefer to light an opponent on fire instead of stabbing them with a dagger. Immunity to piercing damage, for one. But, also, any number of specific situational reasons.
Sneak attack with Short sword : 4d6+3 = 17 dmg on the average
Flask of Oil = 1d4+3
Alchemist Fire =1d4
Fire damage over time for two rounds = 2d4+10
Perfect situation of this combo : 4d4+13 = 23 dmg on the average
However this combo is designed to mess up any caster that need to maintain concentration, not specefically deal damage.
So this is something I'm much less sure about.
Does the object thrown deal the initial 1d4 + dexterity damage from it being treated as an improvised weapon? Or does it only deal the damage (or other effect) that is specified in the item's description?
Let's look at Alchemist's Fire:
This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.
What I'm not sure about is if this sentence applies to only the attack roll as a way for us to understand what bonuses to apply. Does the damaging effect listed afterwards replace the basic damage of an improvised attack, or is it in addition to the basic 1d4 + dexterity for throwing an improvised weapon? I'm not sure.
If the effects listed in the items are their only effects for landing the attacks, then the damage output of such a combo goes way down. I would still like alchemist's fire as a way to trigger more concentration saves quite a bit, but I would combine it with a sneak attack as the action instead.
Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.
Alchemist's Fire (flask)
This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.
Bonus Action : thrown the Alchemist's Fire : 1d4 bludgeoning damage
From this point and on :
''the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns'' + ''the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil'' (the oil burns for 2 rounds)
Target need to invest action to stop the fire damage, also a great deal against caster. After your turn, damage is automatically deal over time and sneak attack might goes on ... or light up other caster / fire vulnerable creature
The improvised weapon damage rules set the damage die. They don't override the basic tenants of an attack which has you apply the modifier you used for the attack roll to the damage roll. The rules for two-weapon fighting set the precedent for this. Those rules specifically call out that you do not add your ability modifier to the damage of the attack. Improvised Weapon rules do not have any such text.
I just have no idea if the effects listed in the item descriptions replace that damage or happen in conjunction with it.
Personally I would allow the full improvised weapon damage because it makes sense to me that the impact of the container would hurt, and nothing about this is even remotely overpowered. No idea if that is what is RAW though.
Edit: Tonio you replied while I was typing. That looks right to me, although I believe the bonus action attack should also recieve +dexterity to damage on the initial hit. Honestly still unsure if this is legal, but I'm leaning towards, yes, the objects also deal the damage of an improvised weapon.
The distinction comes from the fact the acid vial item itself calls you to Use an Item to use it.
It's just how the rules panned out.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
Well of course weapons do - the entire point of using a weapon is to attack with it. It's effect is sticking the pointy end into something or smooshing someones face in. That is the entire reason that somebody would use a weapon in combat isn't it? You don't use a warhammer to write a poem.
I get that. Like I said, I can see that this is RAW and, because of that, I would allow it.
It still feels wrong on so many levels.
Will you please show me the weapon that has that effect in its description. I can't find it.
Functionally, you are right. Mechanically, you are wrong. I am only here to talk about rules and mechanics.
Agree there!
You're running into something I've talked about a few times... the collision of Game vs. Simulation. D&D is a Game with Simulation elements, not a Simulation with Game Elements. That's how the rules are built. You will run into logical dead-ends sometimes when you apply simulation concepts against the rules. Combat is stated to occur in 6 seconds/round, and everyone takes their actions simultaneously, but this rarely would make any sense if you tried to reconstruct a round of combat after the fact to explain how characters were in the positions where the various attacks and actions occured all at the same time. If I can just create or destroy water, why can't I just create water in someone's lungs and drown them? You'll run into impossibilities and ridiculousness everywhere once you start to look for it. But the fact of the matter is, as part of being a Game, weapons have special rules attached to them that other objects don't. Using a weapon for its intended purpose does not qualify for the Use an Object Action, even though it is an action done by using an object for its intended purpose. Using your sword to swing and hit a giant snail in the face is a separate action from using a sword to chop a rope, even if they both would literally, in real life, involve the exact same motion and movement of muscles.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
You could use a warhammer to write a poem, by scribbling in the sand with its haft. In doing so, you'd be using the Use an Object action, not the Attack action. More conceivably, though, you could knock over a freestanding item with the flat of your longsword, you could poke a door with your mace to open it, you could use your halberd's reach to throw a lever 10' away from you, you could use your sling to cover a small stone with a Light spell on it, to avoid giving away your position... all those actions use weapons and are not Attack actions. When you use a weapon to attack, though, you use the Attack action. If it helps, think of it as "specific beats general": using an object for its intended purpose is generally the Use an Object action, but specifically using a weapon for its intended purpose (attacking) is the Attack action.
I am starting to think it is a generation thing. I am approaching 50, have been playing D&D since the 1980's - all versions except 4th ed. When I run or play D&D I don't get my dictionary out to get the absolute, literal meaning of every single rule. I use my common sense, and apply my intelligence to make the game run smoothly and be fun for everyone. The people I play with regularly all do the same. It doesn't matter if someone is technically correct in their very carefully worded exploitation of a rule loophole because the exact definition of a specific word includes xyz. It's a game, real world physics goes out of the window when you have people throwing lightning bolts around. Sometimes you just have to use a little bit of common sense, otherwise what's the point of even playing? It's about having a fun evening with friends and escaping the real world for a bit, not gaming a system for every last +1 or bonus that you can get your hands on. I don't play rpg computer games, I tried once, the utter frustration and monotony of grinding out the latest gear, cutting down the 10 millionth tree to become a master wood cutter and all that nonsense. People going nuts if you don't have the absolute best, most optimised character. I find it really sad that my hobby of nearly 40 years has denigrated into a state where people scream about who's dictionary has the most accurate definition of a single word in a single rule that allows them to get an advantage over someone else. I think I am done with these forums.
I don't quite get this line of reasoning. I feel that this is less about trying to game the system using the Thief's Fast Hands ability and more about making certain that this particular ability is used as intended. An Acid Vial is, quite frankly, not a particularly useful item... it's a 25gp Single Use item that requires a feat to gain proficiency in it. I have never once been in a campaign where someone used an Acid Vial as their full action during combat because it's not worth the effort and investment. Even a Thief is most often going to get more value out of using their Cunning Action to stealth or disengage... but it's cool that, in those rare moments where a bit of acid to the face would make all the difference, a Thief has the option to pull off something fun and interesting. Letting the Thief player take advantage of that isn't giving them special treatment to allow a Munchkin to pull off some unintended super move... it just allows the subclass to excel in one of the aspects of the game the subclass was designed for.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I don't think it's an age thing. I'm not quite 50, yet, but I'm well into my 40's, and we're obviously arguing opposite sides here. If anything, I've found younger generations are more likely to ignore rules and play fast and loose for the sake of roleplaying.
But this is the "rules and game mechanics" forum, where people come to talk about the literal rules, about specific situations and how the actual rules apply to them. It is specifically not the forum where people talk about how they house rule situations, nor about which rules they dislike and therefore ignore or change. So, while elsewhere in the boards you might find comments like "I guess RAW says you can throw a flask of oil with Fast Hands, but I've never found that to make any sense at all, so we don't do it in our games" met with responses like "oh yeah, that make sense, thanks!" and "really? we follow RAW and it works great for us. Interesting how it works the other way for you guys, cool!", here you'll tend to see more meticulous arguments regarding specific details of rules, with long, often bitter arguments about the meaning of specific words, etc. It's not everybody's cup of tea, definitely. But it should not be taken as criticism of how anybody plays their game, just as an academic discussion of how the rules, as written, work. In fact, I've seen, many times, in this forum, people arguing about how a rule works one way, but they play it a different way in their games.
Finally, don't draw conclusions about the state of the game based on a very small, if vocal, minority. Most people, by far, are enjoying the game and not worrying about whether a vial of acid uses an Attack action or a Use an Object action to throw. In fact, most people in this forum are probably not worrying about that, either, when we play. =)
I agree with you about people trying to min-max and the toxicity of MMOs etc. That is why I am so opposed to people trying to manipulate the rules so any martial class can make 2 or more attacks with these items as a single action, instead of 1 specialized subclass having to use its bonus action.
Ah I see. So now that you've been thoroughly proven wrong, we're a bunch of roudy kids on your stoop, waving our dictionaries and barrating you about semantics. Nice deflection.
This has nothing to do with age and for you to imply as such is incredibly insulting. Attributing the entire concepts of "gaming the system" and "rules lawyering" onto a group of people becuase of their age is ignorant and rude.
What's even more frustrating is this debate has had absolutely nothing to do with those things. It isn't gaming the system to try and understand how the rules are properly implemented, and in reality very little has had to be discussed and sussed out to prove the opposition is wrong.
I butted into this conversation because I saw that the "common sense" being used to dictate house rules didn't even make sense either. Proving how the rule actually worked served as a way to show that the game allows much more manually dexterous activities with a bonus action, and that people were being unfair to the Thief by limiting this based on "realism". Nothing here is about chasing power or gaming the system. It literally can't be, because a Thief throwing a vial or what have you as a bonus action simply isn't broken. It's not even that good. It's just a fun thing they can do that I think is a shame for people to put the kibosh on based on bad rules knowledge and flawed logic.
You probably still have me on ignore, but I felt this needed to be addresses anyways. Your behavior is abhorrent Beardsinger.
Except for that Thief with the fast hands who sees his archetype limited by a misunderstanding of the basic terms :p
Ultimately, my intention is to throw a flask of oil as a Action and a alchemist fire as a bonus action on the same target and make sure it is in respect of the Rules as Written. I think we can agree this is possible as RAW.
Due to the low damage it would likely just be better to sneak attack anyway
+3 Dex Modifier / Thief level 3
Sneak attack with Short sword : 4d6+3 = 17 dmg on the average
Flask of Oil = 1d4+3
Alchemist Fire =1d4
Fire damage over time for two rounds = 2d4+10
Perfect situation of this combo : 4d4+13 = 23 dmg on the average
However this combo is designed to mess up any caster that need to maintain concentration, not specefically deal damage.
Most people, not all. And "when we play", not "when we're arguing on the forums". :D
I meant to express the fact that while people come here (the rules forum) to argue about rules, that doesn't mean that all of us argue rules constantly in our games.
That's irrelevant, though. There may be many reasons why they might prefer to light an opponent on fire instead of stabbing them with a dagger. Immunity to piercing damage, for one. But, also, any number of specific situational reasons.
So this is something I'm much less sure about.
Does the object thrown deal the initial 1d4 + dexterity damage from it being treated as an improvised weapon? Or does it only deal the damage (or other effect) that is specified in the item's description?
Let's look at Alchemist's Fire:
What I'm not sure about is if this sentence applies to only the attack roll as a way for us to understand what bonuses to apply. Does the damaging effect listed afterwards replace the basic damage of an improvised attack, or is it in addition to the basic 1d4 + dexterity for throwing an improvised weapon? I'm not sure.
If the effects listed in the items are their only effects for landing the attacks, then the damage output of such a combo goes way down. I would still like alchemist's fire as a way to trigger more concentration saves quite a bit, but I would combine it with a sneak attack as the action instead.
Yeah you would not get the +Dex to damage IMO....just the D4.
So you would have to do several rounds of damage to outdo sneak attack... but you are right the concentration benefit would be great.
Also they would have to waste an action to put it out so I do see it as a viable strategy somewhat.
Oil (flask)
Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.
Alchemist's Fire (flask)
This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.
Ill break it down :
First Turn :
Action : thrown the Oil Flask : 1d4 bludgeoning damage + dex modifier (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=fr)
Bonus Action : thrown the Alchemist's Fire : 1d4 bludgeoning damage
From this point and on :
''the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns'' + ''the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil'' (the oil burns for 2 rounds)
Target need to invest action to stop the fire damage, also a great deal against caster. After your turn, damage is automatically deal over time and sneak attack might goes on ... or light up other caster / fire vulnerable creature
The improvised weapon damage rules set the damage die. They don't override the basic tenants of an attack which has you apply the modifier you used for the attack roll to the damage roll. The rules for two-weapon fighting set the precedent for this. Those rules specifically call out that you do not add your ability modifier to the damage of the attack. Improvised Weapon rules do not have any such text.
I just have no idea if the effects listed in the item descriptions replace that damage or happen in conjunction with it.
Personally I would allow the full improvised weapon damage because it makes sense to me that the impact of the container would hurt, and nothing about this is even remotely overpowered. No idea if that is what is RAW though.
Edit: Tonio you replied while I was typing. That looks right to me, although I believe the bonus action attack should also recieve +dexterity to damage on the initial hit. Honestly still unsure if this is legal, but I'm leaning towards, yes, the objects also deal the damage of an improvised weapon.