No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
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.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
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.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
If your thesis is simply "the DM is free to do X" then you aren't contributing to the discourse. Because your entire position embraces relativism, it inherently devalues any and all attempts at discussing the rules─what they mean, both expressed and implied, and their weight.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
If your thesis is simply "the DM is free to do X" then you aren't contributing to the discourse. Because your entire position embraces relativism, it inherently devalues any and all attempts at discussing the rules─what they mean, both expressed and implied, and their weight.
The RULE is that what a improvised is treated as is quote:
"At the DM’s option"
Any other answer isn't the rule, it is a personal opinion about how you would make a ruling.
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.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
If your thesis is simply "the DM is free to do X" then you aren't contributing to the discourse. Because your entire position embraces relativism, it inherently devalues any and all attempts at discussing the rules─what they mean, both expressed and implied, and their weight.
The RULE is that what a improvised is treated as is quote:
"At the DM’s option"
Any other answer isn't the rule, it is a personal opinion about how you would make a ruling.
Okay, so what in your personal opinion would be a suitable stand-in for a flask of alchemist's fire or vial of acid? What ranged weapons do they resemble? That is, after all, why you're allowing them to be used with a rogue's Sneak Attack; correct? Because they wouldn't fit the requirement otherwise?
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
If your thesis is simply "the DM is free to do X" then you aren't contributing to the discourse. Because your entire position embraces relativism, it inherently devalues any and all attempts at discussing the rules─what they mean, both expressed and implied, and their weight.
The RULE is that what a improvised is treated as is quote:
"At the DM’s option"
Any other answer isn't the rule, it is a personal opinion about how you would make a ruling.
Okay, so what in your personal opinion would be a suitable stand-in for a flask of alchemist's fire or vial of acid? What ranged weapons do they resemble? That is, after all, why you're allowing them to be used with a rogue's Sneak Attack; correct? Because they wouldn't fit the requirement otherwise?
My personal ruling is irrelevant. The rules tell us that the DM determines this. There is no correct answer here, the rule is that anything the DM says is the correct answer. You cannot determine it in advance here on this forum because every DM's individual answer is the correct answer for their table, per RAW.
This isn't always the case, most rules (RAW) do have objective answers. This one, per RAW, directly and explicitly says the DM's option is the RAW.
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.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow. It’s the same for a flask. There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply. So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
It’s the same for a flask.
Yes.
There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
At your table, sure.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
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 were discussing whether the rules allowed something, but now every argument is countered with "the rules say it is up to the DM." And there isn't any discussion to be had past that point.
"The rules don't say you can, but the DM could." It is a non-argument argument.
So I can fast hand the vial of acid to delicately dissolve the lock on the door I am next to but not the 8 foot tall monster next to me.
That makes a lot of sense.
The door isn’t dodging. The 8 foot tall isn’t an inanimate object staying perfectly still while you try to pour acid on them. ‘These things are not the same’. Not even remotely.
We were discussing whether the rules allowed something, but now every argument is countered with "the rules say it is up to the DM." And there isn't any discussion to be had past that point.
The rules explicitly allow your DM to allow it.
"The rules don't say you can directly, but the rules say your DM can say you can."
^This would be more accurate.
Edit: I really can't tell why this is controversial. Can you attack with a broken bottle as if it was a dagger? Yes or no? (Hint: The answer isn't yes, or no) The answer? Improvised weapon rules let your DM decide this. The answer is: at their option. This is true for any and all improvised weapons. Whether you can use them as some other weapon or not is 100% and entirely a DM call.
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.
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee weapon.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
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.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged weapon.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
It’s the same for a flask.
Yes.
There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
At your table, sure.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
I don’t know how to separate on my phone, but simply put;
1. If a DM decided that a thrown bar stool counted as an attack with a longbow I would immediately get up and leave that table. It’s utterly ridiculous and you know it. 2. Yes the damage does come from how hard you throw it. If you pick up a rock and throw it with no effort then it bounces off without doing any damage. Sure the weight of the rock plays a part but even so. To say otherwise is just patently ridiculous.
Your entire argument hinges on if the dm decides it does then it does. The entire premise of the game is that the dm can add, modify or ignore any rule in any book as they see fit. So basically you don’t have an argument at all. You just don’t want to ‘lose’.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
It’s the same for a flask.
Yes.
There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
At your table, sure.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
I don’t know how to separate on my phone, but simply put;
1. If a DM decided that a thrown bar stool counted as an attack with a longbow I would immediately get up and leave that table. It’s utterly ridiculous and you know it.
It is a fantasy game, realism isn't necessary for some people's games. Your preference is valid, play the games you like to play... but that doesn't have any bearing on the RAW.
2. Yes the damage does come from how hard you throw it. If you pick up a rock and throw it with no effort then it bounces off without doing any damage. Sure the weight of the rock plays a part but even so. To say otherwise is just patently ridiculous.
The damage is from the fire, or from the acid. Neither do bludgeoning nor slashing damage. Your claim here is unsupported. You can even "splash" it on a target. Strength has no impact on this.
Your entire argument hinges on if the dm decides it does then it does. The entire premise of the game is that the dm can add, modify or ignore any rule in any book as they see fit. So basically you don’t have an argument at all. You just don’t want to ‘lose’.
My entire argument hinges on the text of the improvised weapon rules. The RAW.
If you claim that a rogue cannot use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is a false claim.
If you claim that a rogue can use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is also a false claim.
The only true claim is that a rogue can use the vial with sneak attack if the DM determines they can use it as [insert finesse or ranged weapon here] per the Improvised Weapon rules.
Edit: Again, the same question for can a broken bottle be used as a dagger? Claiming the RAW says yes, or claiming the raw says no... are both false. The raw says: DM option.
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.
I think your entire argument can be summed up more directly as: "treat the acid as an improvised weapon" doesn't mean that. I see why you're saying it, but certainly saying that the exception applies to a thing that expressly tells you to treat the thing in a certain way is not a "RAW" interpretation.
Of course a DM is free to change that, but that doesn't make it RAW.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
It’s the same for a flask.
Yes.
There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
At your table, sure.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
I don’t know how to separate on my phone, but simply put;
1. If a DM decided that a thrown bar stool counted as an attack with a longbow I would immediately get up and leave that table. It’s utterly ridiculous and you know it.
It is a fantasy game, realism isn't necessary for some people's games. Your preference is valid, play the games you like to play... but that doesn't have any bearing on the RAW.
2. Yes the damage does come from how hard you throw it. If you pick up a rock and throw it with no effort then it bounces off without doing any damage. Sure the weight of the rock plays a part but even so. To say otherwise is just patently ridiculous.
The damage is from the fire, or from the acid. Neither do bludgeoning nor slashing damage. Your claim here is unsupported. You can even "splash" it on a target. Strength has no impact on this.
Your entire argument hinges on if the dm decides it does then it does. The entire premise of the game is that the dm can add, modify or ignore any rule in any book as they see fit. So basically you don’t have an argument at all. You just don’t want to ‘lose’.
My entire argument hinges on the text of the improvised weapon rules. The RAW.
If you claim that a rogue cannot use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is a false claim.
If you claim that a rogue can use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is also a false claim.
The only true claim is that a rogue can use the vial with sneak attack if the DM determines they can use it as [insert finesse or ranged weapon here] per the Improvised Weapon rules.
Edit: Again, the same question for can a broken bottle be used as a dagger? Claiming the RAW says yes, or claiming the raw says no... are both false. The raw says: DM option.
The DMG also says the following on page four.
And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
Whether you care to admit it or not, you're advocating for a position embracing rules relativism. That the only rules at the table that matter are what the DM decides. That's not a constructive argument because any DM can decide whatever they want. And when anything goes, the rules as written no longer matter.
Even if we say a broken chair leg is a close enough approximation to a club to let the wielder use their proficiency (or a broken bottle, a dagger), they don't stop being an improvised weapon. They're just close enough to being a regular weapon that those proficiencies can be used. A bottle-dagger might work in melee, but thrown? No, it simply isn't balance enough to be used as a dagger for a ranged attack. Maybe I'd treat it as a light hammer. Or maybe I'd have the player roll to decide between the two. But that's my ruling on that subject.
What's perhaps most frustrating, for me, is what I perceive as your inability to commit to your own thesis. You say the DM can assign whatever. And you say a flask/vial can be used as a ranged weapon, compatible with Sneak Attack. Fine, give us what you think is an example. If you can't, or won't, then I can only assume you're just taking up the position of Devil's advocate. And if that's your aim, then just come out and say so.
Having said that...if all you have is a DM could, but no one here (including yourself) would, then you may as well be arguing for null.
EDIT: And the character's Strength modifier could absolutely be relevant to the damage dealt with a flask or vial. When you make a weapon attack, you add the ability modifier used for the attack roll to the damage dealt. So, depending on how the DM interprets the improvised weapon, a character could add their Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll. Since, you know, not every ranged attack uses Dexterity. It's only ranged weapons that use it by default. Jeremy Crawford has tweeted that alchemist's fire uses Dexterity, so it stands to reason the same applies to acid. But it's not in the SAC, and his tweets aren't considered official guidance.
I think it's worth mentioning that the rules cited, so far, for improvised weapons are incomplete. Up until now, only the following portion has received any attention.
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.
But that's on the second paragraph. There is a third. And when talking about acid and alchemist's fire, I find it far more relevant.
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.
Not all improvised weapons need to resemble actual weapons. And the aforementioned items also express specific overrides. They both appear to just stop at 20 feet, but I'm inclined to grant them a long range of 60 feet anyway, and their damage is altered as well. The damage die for the acid is increased from 1d4 to 2d6, and the fire is dealt not when the attack hits but on the following turn. And it should go without saying that specific beats general, which means these two improvised weapons don't really resemble actual weapons.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
It’s the same for a flask.
Yes.
There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
At your table, sure.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
I don’t know how to separate on my phone, but simply put;
1. If a DM decided that a thrown bar stool counted as an attack with a longbow I would immediately get up and leave that table. It’s utterly ridiculous and you know it.
It is a fantasy game, realism isn't necessary for some people's games. Your preference is valid, play the games you like to play... but that doesn't have any bearing on the RAW.
2. Yes the damage does come from how hard you throw it. If you pick up a rock and throw it with no effort then it bounces off without doing any damage. Sure the weight of the rock plays a part but even so. To say otherwise is just patently ridiculous.
The damage is from the fire, or from the acid. Neither do bludgeoning nor slashing damage. Your claim here is unsupported. You can even "splash" it on a target. Strength has no impact on this.
Your entire argument hinges on if the dm decides it does then it does. The entire premise of the game is that the dm can add, modify or ignore any rule in any book as they see fit. So basically you don’t have an argument at all. You just don’t want to ‘lose’.
My entire argument hinges on the text of the improvised weapon rules. The RAW.
If you claim that a rogue cannot use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is a false claim.
If you claim that a rogue can use a vial with sneak attack, per RAW. That is also a false claim.
The only true claim is that a rogue can use the vial with sneak attack if the DM determines they can use it as [insert finesse or ranged weapon here] per the Improvised Weapon rules.
Edit: Again, the same question for can a broken bottle be used as a dagger? Claiming the RAW says yes, or claiming the raw says no... are both false. The raw says: DM option.
The DMG also says the following on page four.
And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
Whether you care to admit it or not, you're advocating for a position embracing rules relativism. That the only rules at the table that matter are what the DM decides. That's not a constructive argument because any DM can decide whatever they want. And when anything goes, the rules as written no longer matter.
I'm not, and it isn't generally a great idea to tell people what their position is. instead, listen to what they say, and accept that.
I'm not arguing that this is a DMs have the final say because general DMs can make up whatever. I'm saying that in this case the rule itself can only be determined by individual DMs and there isn't an objectively correct answer.
The specific rule for Improvised weapons is that the DM decides. Can a broken glass bottle be used as a dagger? DM decides. Not a yes. Not a NO. Instead: DM decides.
That isn't true for most rules. It is true for Improvised weapons.
Why is Improvised Rules like that? Because the PHB says, and this is a direct rules text quote, mind you, on how to handle improvised weapons, THE rule for improvised weapons:
"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."
This is not some stance on rules relativism. THE rule for this specific mechanic ONLY allows for DMs to determine the result. there is no objective determination to be found here. Claiming there is is factually incorrect.
Even if we say a broken chair leg is a close enough approximation to a club to let the wielder use their proficiency (or a broken bottle, a dagger), they don't stop being an improvised weapon. They're just close enough to being a regular weapon that those proficiencies can be used. A bottle-dagger might work in melee, but thrown? No, it simply isn't balance enough to be used as a dagger for a ranged attack. Maybe I'd treat it as a light hammer. Or maybe I'd have the player roll to decide between the two. But that's my ruling on that subject.
Those are all valid choices you can make when you're DMing. They'd be RAW, too, since the rule is that it is all determined at your option. A different DM could say no, none of those items are similar enough, you cannot treat them like those weapons. his ruling would also be RAW, because the determination was at his option. I could DM and decide all items are close enough to a weapon that I always allow people to use some weapon stat instead, and guess what? That's also a perfectly RAW ruling because it was my option as a DM. All answers are the correct one here because the ONLY way to determine what improvised weapons can or cannot be used is: The DM's option.
That's it. That's the only RAW answer here.
What's perhaps most frustrating, for me, is what I perceive as your inability to commit to your own thesis. You say the DM can assign whatever. And you say a flask/vial can be used as a ranged weapon, compatible with Sneak Attack. Fine, give us what you think is an example. If you can't, or won't, then I can only assume you're just taking up the position of Devil's advocate. And if that's your aim, then just come out and say so.
My position is all answers a DM might give at the table is correct. And RAW. Me giving you DM advice on what I think is reasonable, here, and how I'd rule it is entirely irrelevant to what the rule is, that any and all decisions the DM makes is the RAW valid one.
Because I could say no improvised weapons count as real weapons at my table...and guess what? That is consistent with my stated opinion about the RAW. or I could say very select items are treated as counterpart weapons, and that would also be consistent with my reasoning about the RAW. I could say nothing is ever similar enough and even that is consistent. ALL answers to "How Rav would do it" would be consistent with what I am saying is RAW. My personal "DM option" is entirely and wholly irrelevant to the text of the game, as written in the PHB, on Improvised Weapons (Chapter 5: Equipment, Weapons, paragraph two.).
So what's frustrating, for me, is the insistence on getting me to share something about my games that isn't even relevant to the topic. And treating my reluctance to do so as somehow a detractor from the argument despite it being entirely consistent with my stated opinion.
Having said that...if all you have is a DM could, but no one here (including yourself) would, then you may as well be arguing for null.
I am arguing for null. Which is why I keep saying that people who say No to it are incorrect. the answer isn't No. The answer isn't yes. The answer is null until that answer is provided by your DM.
EDIT: And the character's Strength modifier could absolutely be relevant to the damage dealt with a flask or vial. When you make a weapon attack, you add the ability modifier used for the attack roll to the damage dealt. So, depending on how the DM interprets the improvised weapon, a character could add their Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll. Since, you know, not every ranged attack uses Dexterity. It's only ranged weapons that use it by default. Jeremy Crawford has tweeted that alchemist's fire uses Dexterity, so it stands to reason the same applies to acid. But it's not in the SAC, and his tweets aren't considered official guidance.
So here you have a perfect example of Jeremy calling it a ranged weapon. And him saying to add dex to the damage. This is an example of a "DM's option" that would indeed allow a rogue to sneak attack with it.
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.
That's quite a wall of text, which, it looks like, still doesn't address the fact that "treat [it] as an improvised weapon" doesn't mean "treat it as an exception to the improvised weapon rules by using it* as a particular, yet non-specified weapon from the weapons tables, with its specific weapon properties."
No, i think they’ve defaulted to “anything that isn’t on the list of ranged weapons doesn’t count as a ranged weapon.”
They linked to the SAC about melee weapons. They've assumed it is a melee 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.
So you’ve missed the point. So what?
It is about melee weapons not counting as ranged weapons when you attack with them. It has obvious implications to the current application: Improvised weapons don’t become ranged weapons either.
They can. I've quoted this rules excerpt already. I'll do it again for your benefit.
A DM is free to treat it as a ranged 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.
If your thesis is simply "the DM is free to do X" then you aren't contributing to the discourse. Because your entire position embraces relativism, it inherently devalues any and all attempts at discussing the rules─what they mean, both expressed and implied, and their weight.
The RULE is that what a improvised is treated as is quote:
"At the DM’s option"
Any other answer isn't the rule, it is a personal opinion about how you would make a ruling.
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.
Okay, so what in your personal opinion would be a suitable stand-in for a flask of alchemist's fire or vial of acid? What ranged weapons do they resemble? That is, after all, why you're allowing them to be used with a rogue's Sneak Attack; correct? Because they wouldn't fit the requirement otherwise?
My personal ruling is irrelevant. The rules tell us that the DM determines this. There is no correct answer here, the rule is that anything the DM says is the correct answer. You cannot determine it in advance here on this forum because every DM's individual answer is the correct answer for their table, per RAW.
This isn't always the case, most rules (RAW) do have objective answers. This one, per RAW, directly and explicitly says the DM's option is the RAW.
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.
That’s not what it means at all. It means that if the improvised weapon is similar to an existing weapon that the character is proficient with then their proficiency would count for the improvised weapon. Thus a straight tree branch could count as a quarterstaff, spear, or javelin. A chair leg could be a light club, but picking up an entire chair and throwing it doesn’t somehow make it a bow. It’s the same for a flask. There are no actual weapons in dnd that a flask is similar enough to in order for this rule to apply. So no, it would not count as a ranged weapon, would not get pb added in, and wouldn’t count for sneak attacks.
Moreover a thrown flask - like a thrown rock, or thrown axe, or thrown hammer is muscle powered meaning they use strength and not a dex based attack. That on its own completely rules out sneak attack.
A DM is entirely within their RAW right to allow you to attack with a chair as if it were a bow. The Improvised Rules say as much. the decision for what is or is not similar to existing weapons is at the DM's option.
Yes.
That sounds like a valid ruling a DM could make at their table, but not the only one.
At your table, sure.
The damage of a flask doesn't come from how hard you throw it.
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.
"The rules don't say you can, but the DM could." It is a non-argument argument.
The door isn’t dodging. The 8 foot tall isn’t an inanimate object staying perfectly still while you try to pour acid on them. ‘These things are not the same’. Not even remotely.
The rules explicitly allow your DM to allow it.
^This would be more accurate.
Edit: I really can't tell why this is controversial. Can you attack with a broken bottle as if it was a dagger? Yes or no? (Hint: The answer isn't yes, or no) The answer? Improvised weapon rules let your DM decide this. The answer is: at their option. This is true for any and all improvised weapons. Whether you can use them as some other weapon or not is 100% and entirely a DM call.
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.
I don’t know how to separate on my phone, but simply put;
1. If a DM decided that a thrown bar stool counted as an attack with a longbow I would immediately get up and leave that table. It’s utterly ridiculous and you know it.
2. Yes the damage does come from how hard you throw it. If you pick up a rock and throw it with no effort then it bounces off without doing any damage. Sure the weight of the rock plays a part but even so. To say otherwise is just patently ridiculous.
Your entire argument hinges on if the dm decides it does then it does. The entire premise of the game is that the dm can add, modify or ignore any rule in any book as they see fit. So basically you don’t have an argument at all. You just don’t want to ‘lose’.
It is a fantasy game, realism isn't necessary for some people's games. Your preference is valid, play the games you like to play... but that doesn't have any bearing on the RAW.
The damage is from the fire, or from the acid. Neither do bludgeoning nor slashing damage. Your claim here is unsupported. You can even "splash" it on a target. Strength has no impact on this.
My entire argument hinges on the text of the improvised weapon rules. The RAW.
Edit: Again, the same question for can a broken bottle be used as a dagger? Claiming the RAW says yes, or claiming the raw says no... are both false. The raw says: DM option.
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.
I think your entire argument can be summed up more directly as: "treat the acid as an improvised weapon" doesn't mean that. I see why you're saying it, but certainly saying that the exception applies to a thing that expressly tells you to treat the thing in a certain way is not a "RAW" interpretation.
Of course a DM is free to change that, but that doesn't make it RAW.
The DMG also says the following on page four.
Whether you care to admit it or not, you're advocating for a position embracing rules relativism. That the only rules at the table that matter are what the DM decides. That's not a constructive argument because any DM can decide whatever they want. And when anything goes, the rules as written no longer matter.
Even if we say a broken chair leg is a close enough approximation to a club to let the wielder use their proficiency (or a broken bottle, a dagger), they don't stop being an improvised weapon. They're just close enough to being a regular weapon that those proficiencies can be used. A bottle-dagger might work in melee, but thrown? No, it simply isn't balance enough to be used as a dagger for a ranged attack. Maybe I'd treat it as a light hammer. Or maybe I'd have the player roll to decide between the two. But that's my ruling on that subject.
What's perhaps most frustrating, for me, is what I perceive as your inability to commit to your own thesis. You say the DM can assign whatever. And you say a flask/vial can be used as a ranged weapon, compatible with Sneak Attack. Fine, give us what you think is an example. If you can't, or won't, then I can only assume you're just taking up the position of Devil's advocate. And if that's your aim, then just come out and say so.
Having said that...if all you have is a DM could, but no one here (including yourself) would, then you may as well be arguing for null.
EDIT: And the character's Strength modifier could absolutely be relevant to the damage dealt with a flask or vial. When you make a weapon attack, you add the ability modifier used for the attack roll to the damage dealt. So, depending on how the DM interprets the improvised weapon, a character could add their Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll. Since, you know, not every ranged attack uses Dexterity. It's only ranged weapons that use it by default. Jeremy Crawford has tweeted that alchemist's fire uses Dexterity, so it stands to reason the same applies to acid. But it's not in the SAC, and his tweets aren't considered official guidance.
I think it's worth mentioning that the rules cited, so far, for improvised weapons are incomplete. Up until now, only the following portion has received any attention.
But that's on the second paragraph. There is a third. And when talking about acid and alchemist's fire, I find it far more relevant.
Not all improvised weapons need to resemble actual weapons. And the aforementioned items also express specific overrides. They both appear to just stop at 20 feet, but I'm inclined to grant them a long range of 60 feet anyway, and their damage is altered as well. The damage die for the acid is increased from 1d4 to 2d6, and the fire is dealt not when the attack hits but on the following turn. And it should go without saying that specific beats general, which means these two improvised weapons don't really resemble actual weapons.
I'm not, and it isn't generally a great idea to tell people what their position is. instead, listen to what they say, and accept that.
I'm not arguing that this is a DMs have the final say because general DMs can make up whatever. I'm saying that in this case the rule itself can only be determined by individual DMs and there isn't an objectively correct answer.
The specific rule for Improvised weapons is that the DM decides. Can a broken glass bottle be used as a dagger? DM decides. Not a yes. Not a NO. Instead: DM decides.
That isn't true for most rules. It is true for Improvised weapons.
Why is Improvised Rules like that? Because the PHB says, and this is a direct rules text quote, mind you, on how to handle improvised weapons, THE rule for improvised weapons:
"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."
This is not some stance on rules relativism. THE rule for this specific mechanic ONLY allows for DMs to determine the result. there is no objective determination to be found here. Claiming there is is factually incorrect.
Those are all valid choices you can make when you're DMing. They'd be RAW, too, since the rule is that it is all determined at your option. A different DM could say no, none of those items are similar enough, you cannot treat them like those weapons. his ruling would also be RAW, because the determination was at his option. I could DM and decide all items are close enough to a weapon that I always allow people to use some weapon stat instead, and guess what? That's also a perfectly RAW ruling because it was my option as a DM. All answers are the correct one here because the ONLY way to determine what improvised weapons can or cannot be used is: The DM's option.
That's it. That's the only RAW answer here.
My position is all answers a DM might give at the table is correct. And RAW. Me giving you DM advice on what I think is reasonable, here, and how I'd rule it is entirely irrelevant to what the rule is, that any and all decisions the DM makes is the RAW valid one.
Because I could say no improvised weapons count as real weapons at my table...and guess what? That is consistent with my stated opinion about the RAW. or I could say very select items are treated as counterpart weapons, and that would also be consistent with my reasoning about the RAW. I could say nothing is ever similar enough and even that is consistent. ALL answers to "How Rav would do it" would be consistent with what I am saying is RAW. My personal "DM option" is entirely and wholly irrelevant to the text of the game, as written in the PHB, on Improvised Weapons (Chapter 5: Equipment, Weapons, paragraph two.).
So what's frustrating, for me, is the insistence on getting me to share something about my games that isn't even relevant to the topic. And treating my reluctance to do so as somehow a detractor from the argument despite it being entirely consistent with my stated opinion.
I am arguing for null. Which is why I keep saying that people who say No to it are incorrect. the answer isn't No. The answer isn't yes. The answer is null until that answer is provided by your DM.
So here you have a perfect example of Jeremy calling it a ranged weapon. And him saying to add dex to the damage. This is an example of a "DM's option" that would indeed allow a rogue to sneak attack with it.
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.
That's quite a wall of text, which, it looks like, still doesn't address the fact that "treat [it] as an improvised weapon" doesn't mean "treat it as an exception to the improvised weapon rules by using it* as a particular, yet non-specified weapon from the weapons tables, with its specific weapon properties."
*added in edit.