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.
Fair enough as its kind of unclear how that would work...
d4 +3 = 5.5 + (1d4) = 11 damage from the first round? Then 1d4+5 for two rounds? or 7.5 average.
Vs Sneak Attacks with off hand shortsword: 4d6+3 = 17 on first round.
Assuming you went in for the sneak attack on both in the second round: Alchemy Flemy: 35.5 for two rounds (assuming they do not put the fire out) Reg ol Rogue boi: 34 damage
It is a ''use object action'' as action and ''use object action'' as bonus action using Fast Hands. Still I think I was wrong on one point ; the dex modifier would be applied on both flask since they are both ''use object action'' and on those thrown you can apply the dex modifier for the damage (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=fr)
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.
I think you mean FluketheWarlock, not me, but in any case, I agree.
It is a ''use object action'' as action and ''use object action'' as bonus action using Fast Hands. Still I think I was wrong on one point ; the dex modifier would be applied on both flask since they are both ''use object action'' and on those thrown you can apply the dex modifier for the damage (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=fr)
I brought up two-weapon fighting rules to prove that improvised weapon attack damage includes your ability modifier. Had nothing to do with the larger matter at hand or legality of Fast Hands usage (which I hope we have already covered thoroughly at this point lol)
The question now is if the effects listed in the item descriptions replaces the improvised weapon damage, or does it happen in addition to the improvised weapon damage. I would totally allow it, but I'm still not sure if it is what is intended by the rules. RAW is a fickle beast.
That sage advice helps establish that the damage from the item is boosted by dex, but it does not establish whether the item also deals regular improvised weapon damage.
Edit: Lol Tonio you're a ninja. I was in fact referring to the breakdown that you had posted about the damage.
Hahaha wow. You're right. Brain. What is happening. I could have sworn I saw your picture attached to that post. I even went back and looked at it after you said I was addressing the wrong person.
''An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)''.
I just assumed with that line that the flask bears no resemblance to any weapon ... the closest one would be the bullet from the sling. This is why I add the 1d4
''I brought up two-weapon fighting rules to prove that improvised weapon attack damage includes your ability modifier. Had nothing to do with the larger matter at hand or legality of Fast Hands usage (which I hope we have already covered thoroughly at this point lol)''
Yeah I 100% understand the logic behind having the item deal the initial 1d4 + dexterity improvised weapon damage. I would rule that way, and I hope most DMs do because it gives love to an underpowered, but fun playstyle and follows the Rule of Cool (the best rule).
BUT, I'm just not sure that it's supposed to work like that RAW. I would not be surprised if the item descriptions were meant to first; indicate that the weapon attack roll is made as an improvised weapon, and second; indicate that the damage of such an attack is replaced by the effects listed in the item description.
and second; indicate that the damage of such an attack is replaced by the effects listed in the item description.
It dosent replace any damage listed in the item description, it is simply add because it is thrown. The 1d4 fire damage of the alchemist fire just occur at the begin of the affected creature. However, the 1d4+dex modifier apply to the thrown at your turn.
I'm not saying the improvised damage replaces anything. I'm saying it's entirely possible that the only effect you get from the item is the one listed in the description and that regular improvised weapon damage is not dealt.
I would say that it replaces the damage, for two reasons.
Firstly, this applies to both throwing the flask and splashing it on the target. Would splashing a liquid on to a target really cause bludgeoning damage?
In addition, all other effects I've seen which add to the damage done say "an additional d4 fire damage" or similar wording. This doesn't, so I would say that it causes only the effect described, not the standard improvised weapon damage.
My though about this is that the ''throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.'' of the flask provoque the bludgoening damage. Improvised weapon state that ''An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)''. I personnaly think that a solid container of 1 pounds would cause bludgoening damage.
Concerning the Alchemist fire
Samething on the impact since the flask is a solid container of 1 pounds. ''As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.''
I'm trying but may have difficulty understanding your point based on RAW. Please, expose your thought about this using RAW material since it is a thread about rules & mechanics.
My though about this is that the ''throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.'' of the flask provoque the bludgoening damage. Improvised weapon state that ''An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)''. I personnaly think that a solid container of 1 pounds would cause bludgoening damage.
Concerning the Alchemist fire
Samething on the impact since the flask is a solid container of 1 pounds. ''As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.''
I'm trying but may have difficulty understanding your point based on RAW. Please, expose your thought about this using RAW material since it is a thread about rules & mechanics.
OK, here's my thinking.
Firstly, from a logical point of view (I'll get to RAW in a minute), there is the same effect whether you throw the flask or splash the liquid. Looking at the description of the Oil Flask, it says "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." There are no separate effects for these two, so they both have identical effects. Now, would it be remotely logical that splashing a bit of oil on a creature to do 1d4+mod bludgeoning damage (or damage of any type, really)?
Now on to the rules. I am extrapolating from the other rules, as I don't think there is an explicit one. All of the items which I can find which do damage in addition to the damage done normally say so explicitly. For instance, flame-tongue says: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage to any target it hits." The [Tooltip Not Found], on the other hand, says: "On a hit, the target is covered in oil." Nothing is written about this being in addition to anything, the effect of the oil or oil flask hitting its target is that the target is covered in oil. Similarly, the Alchemist's Fire (flask) doesn't say that the fire damage is in addition to anything, just "On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns." The effect of the hit is that the target takes 1d4 fire damage on each of its turns. The item defines the effect of the hit, and the effect is what is written.
Now, as I said, this is extrapolating. However, given the "extra ____ damage" format is used throughout the rules but is not used here, I think it's difficult to justify another conclusion.
Just as another logical aside, an object which shatters on impact will generally do less damage than one which stays intact. The fact that the object is deforming uses up part of the energy. When a reasonable part of the weight is the liquid inside, this would be even more pronounced as the kinetic energy contained within the liquid (which is the majority of the kinetic energy of the thrown item) would have little to no effect once the container was broken.
Yeah I mean I would likely allow it as it is inline with what a rogue would be doing with just a shortsword but is more flavorful so I would be fully into it regardless of what the RAW is.
I have to admit with your last point you convince me and paradoxaly it is because of your non RAW argument... what a game!
Yeah, it's an odd game. The fact that it's supposed to be read as natural language, and that many parts are not well defined, means that much of the discussion I have about the "rules" comes down to the things which aren't written in the rules lol.
To misquote a classic: "A strange game. The only losing move is not to play."
Urth I agree with your argument for the RAW implementation. Another good example to look at would be Booming Blade andd Green-Flame Blade.
Booming Blade
On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
The text in the spell description is quite clear in letting us know that the regular weapon attack happens as well as the spell effect. Alchemist's Fire and the like do not.
I'm on board with your splashing shouldn't deal damage logic as well, and it also serves to indicate that regular improvised damage was not intended.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the only effects garnered are the ones listed in the item description.
BUT, I'm with Optimus that I would allow it, and I think it should be because promoting odd playstyles without presenting anything even remotely broken is all upside to me. I wouldn't award improvised damage to someone simply splashing the liquid, but I would award it to someone smashing a jug or vial on someone. I understand the physics you've presented, but I think a container breaking on someone is still worthy of 1d4 damage.
Urth I agree with your argument for the RAW implementation... BUT, I'm with Optimus that I would allow it, and I think it should be because promoting odd playstyles without presenting anything even remotely broken is all upside to me. I wouldn't award improvised damage to someone simply splashing the liquid, but I would award it to someone smashing a jug or vial on someone. I understand the physics you've presented, but I think a container breaking on someone is still worthy of 1d4 damage.
That's fair enough. I'm down with that. I find that very similar to my response that I'd allow someone to use their attack to use the acid/oil/alchemist's fire etc.: It's not RAW, but it makes sense.
There are many parts of RAW which don't make much sense, to me, and I house rule around for fun and profit. The objective is to have fun, at the end of the day :)
Sorry to bring up a necro post here but man, this was some heated discourse. I only came here to see some cool uses of Fast Hands, didn't think it would be such a touchy subject.
One thing that the deniers of Vial of Acid as "Use an Object" bonus action don't seem to be accounting for when they say "oh sure, just give the rogue a whole other attack for free!" is.. well, it isn't free at all. In fact it's very costly! Every attempt costs you 25gp whether you hit or not. If a ranger had to pay that much for every arrow then we'd probably have to stop hand waiving resource management.
And that's just the most bang for your buck option, all the poisons are WAY more expensive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough as its kind of unclear how that would work...
d4 +3 = 5.5 + (1d4) = 11 damage from the first round?
Then 1d4+5 for two rounds? or 7.5 average.
Vs Sneak Attacks with off hand shortsword: 4d6+3 = 17 on first round.
Assuming you went in for the sneak attack on both in the second round:
Alchemy Flemy: 35.5 for two rounds (assuming they do not put the fire out)
Reg ol Rogue boi: 34 damage
Pretty dang close actually.
It is not a case of two-weapon fighting.
It is a ''use object action'' as action and ''use object action'' as bonus action using Fast Hands. Still I think I was wrong on one point ; the dex modifier would be applied on both flask since they are both ''use object action'' and on those thrown you can apply the dex modifier for the damage (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=fr)
I think you mean FluketheWarlock, not me, but in any case, I agree.
I brought up two-weapon fighting rules to prove that improvised weapon attack damage includes your ability modifier. Had nothing to do with the larger matter at hand or legality of Fast Hands usage (which I hope we have already covered thoroughly at this point lol)
The question now is if the effects listed in the item descriptions replaces the improvised weapon damage, or does it happen in addition to the improvised weapon damage. I would totally allow it, but I'm still not sure if it is what is intended by the rules. RAW is a fickle beast.
That sage advice helps establish that the damage from the item is boosted by dex, but it does not establish whether the item also deals regular improvised weapon damage.
Edit: Lol Tonio you're a ninja. I was in fact referring to the breakdown that you had posted about the damage.
That's just it, I don't think I ever posted a damage breakdown! o_O
Hahaha wow. You're right. Brain. What is happening. I could have sworn I saw your picture attached to that post. I even went back and looked at it after you said I was addressing the wrong person.
I think I need to take a walk or something.
Improvised Weapons
''An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)''.
I just assumed with that line that the flask bears no resemblance to any weapon ... the closest one would be the bullet from the sling. This is why I add the 1d4
''I brought up two-weapon fighting rules to prove that improvised weapon attack damage includes your ability modifier. Had nothing to do with the larger matter at hand or legality of Fast Hands usage (which I hope we have already covered thoroughly at this point lol)''
We are on the same page yeah :)
Yeah I 100% understand the logic behind having the item deal the initial 1d4 + dexterity improvised weapon damage. I would rule that way, and I hope most DMs do because it gives love to an underpowered, but fun playstyle and follows the Rule of Cool (the best rule).
BUT, I'm just not sure that it's supposed to work like that RAW. I would not be surprised if the item descriptions were meant to first; indicate that the weapon attack roll is made as an improvised weapon, and second; indicate that the damage of such an attack is replaced by the effects listed in the item description.
It dosent replace any damage listed in the item description, it is simply add because it is thrown. The 1d4 fire damage of the alchemist fire just occur at the begin of the affected creature. However, the 1d4+dex modifier apply to the thrown at your turn.
I'm not saying the improvised damage replaces anything. I'm saying it's entirely possible that the only effect you get from the item is the one listed in the description and that regular improvised weapon damage is not dealt.
I would say that it replaces the damage, for two reasons.
Firstly, this applies to both throwing the flask and splashing it on the target. Would splashing a liquid on to a target really cause bludgeoning damage?
In addition, all other effects I've seen which add to the damage done say "an additional d4 fire damage" or similar wording. This doesn't, so I would say that it causes only the effect described, not the standard improvised weapon damage.
Concerning the Oil flask
My though about this is that the ''throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.'' of the flask provoque the bludgoening damage. Improvised weapon state that ''An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)''. I personnaly think that a solid container of 1 pounds would cause bludgoening damage.
Concerning the Alchemist fire
Samething on the impact since the flask is a solid container of 1 pounds. ''As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.''
I'm trying but may have difficulty understanding your point based on RAW. Please, expose your thought about this using RAW material since it is a thread about rules & mechanics.
OK, here's my thinking.
Firstly, from a logical point of view (I'll get to RAW in a minute), there is the same effect whether you throw the flask or splash the liquid. Looking at the description of the Oil Flask, it says "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." There are no separate effects for these two, so they both have identical effects. Now, would it be remotely logical that splashing a bit of oil on a creature to do 1d4+mod bludgeoning damage (or damage of any type, really)?
Now on to the rules. I am extrapolating from the other rules, as I don't think there is an explicit one. All of the items which I can find which do damage in addition to the damage done normally say so explicitly. For instance, flame-tongue says: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage to any target it hits." The [Tooltip Not Found], on the other hand, says: "On a hit, the target is covered in oil." Nothing is written about this being in addition to anything, the effect of the oil or oil flask hitting its target is that the target is covered in oil. Similarly, the Alchemist's Fire (flask) doesn't say that the fire damage is in addition to anything, just "On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns." The effect of the hit is that the target takes 1d4 fire damage on each of its turns. The item defines the effect of the hit, and the effect is what is written.
Now, as I said, this is extrapolating. However, given the "extra ____ damage" format is used throughout the rules but is not used here, I think it's difficult to justify another conclusion.
Just as another logical aside, an object which shatters on impact will generally do less damage than one which stays intact. The fact that the object is deforming uses up part of the energy. When a reasonable part of the weight is the liquid inside, this would be even more pronounced as the kinetic energy contained within the liquid (which is the majority of the kinetic energy of the thrown item) would have little to no effect once the container was broken.
I have to admit with your last point you convince me and paradoxaly it is because of your non RAW argument... what a game!
Yeah I mean I would likely allow it as it is inline with what a rogue would be doing with just a shortsword but is more flavorful so I would be fully into it regardless of what the RAW is.
Yeah, it's an odd game. The fact that it's supposed to be read as natural language, and that many parts are not well defined, means that much of the discussion I have about the "rules" comes down to the things which aren't written in the rules lol.
To misquote a classic: "A strange game. The only losing move is not to play."
Urth I agree with your argument for the RAW implementation. Another good example to look at would be Booming Blade andd Green-Flame Blade.
The text in the spell description is quite clear in letting us know that the regular weapon attack happens as well as the spell effect. Alchemist's Fire and the like do not.
I'm on board with your splashing shouldn't deal damage logic as well, and it also serves to indicate that regular improvised damage was not intended.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the only effects garnered are the ones listed in the item description.
BUT, I'm with Optimus that I would allow it, and I think it should be because promoting odd playstyles without presenting anything even remotely broken is all upside to me. I wouldn't award improvised damage to someone simply splashing the liquid, but I would award it to someone smashing a jug or vial on someone. I understand the physics you've presented, but I think a container breaking on someone is still worthy of 1d4 damage.
That's fair enough. I'm down with that. I find that very similar to my response that I'd allow someone to use their attack to use the acid/oil/alchemist's fire etc.: It's not RAW, but it makes sense.
There are many parts of RAW which don't make much sense, to me, and I house rule around for fun and profit. The objective is to have fun, at the end of the day :)
Sorry to bring up a necro post here but man, this was some heated discourse. I only came here to see some cool uses of Fast Hands, didn't think it would be such a touchy subject.
One thing that the deniers of Vial of Acid as "Use an Object" bonus action don't seem to be accounting for when they say "oh sure, just give the rogue a whole other attack for free!" is.. well, it isn't free at all. In fact it's very costly! Every attempt costs you 25gp whether you hit or not. If a ranger had to pay that much for every arrow then we'd probably have to stop hand waiving resource management.
And that's just the most bang for your buck option, all the poisons are WAY more expensive.