To me an improvised weapon isn't a weapon but at my option may treat it as one for proficiency bonus. Using a similar object as if it were a weapon never meet feature's prerequisite where a specific weapon type or property is required since it's still an object how i rule 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 a particular, yet non-specified weapon from the weapons tables, with its specific weapon properties."
Especially when there's a whole paragraph dedicated to objects which don't resemble weapons. Such as the aforementioned acid and alchemist's fire. Even if we take Crawford's words at face value, and I'm inclined to because I can see his reasoning, the general rule is merely that ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. But we can make a ranged weapon attack with a handaxe with Strength, thanks to the thrown property. And some ranged weapon attacks, like a manticore's Tail Spike action, aren't actual weapons at all.
It seems obvious that if the intent was to allow Sneak Attack with any ranged weapon attack, like how Divine Smite requires a melee weapon attack, it would say so. But it doesn't. It specifies a weapon property or weapon category.
Oh and gents, let us be intellectually honored : how the hell a breaking flask of acid would qualified for sneak attack extra damage just because thrown from a rogue? The flavor around the sneak attack is that the rogue wait patiently during all his attack action to strike once because he ''know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction''
A well placed dagger in the arm pit or arrow a the base of the neck, even a shortsword that plungue beside a collarbone is thematically qualified for a sneak attack .... not a flask of acide that no matter where it splash it remains in surface .... I mean ... cmon! Dont ruin the game in favor of weird exploitation of rules
Oh and gents, let us be intellectually honored : how the hell a breaking flask of acid would qualified for sneak attack extra damage just because thrown from a rogue? The flavor around the sneak attack is that the rogue wait patiently during all his attack action to strike once because he ''know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction''
A well placed dagger in the arm pit or arrow a the base of the neck, even a shortsword that plungue beside a collarbone is thematically qualified for a sneak attack .... not a flask of acide that no matter where it splash it remains in surface .... I mean ... cmon! Dont ruin the game in favor of weird exploitation of rules
Where you get hit matters just as much with acid or fire as it does with a blade. If a sling can deliver a high level rogues +10d6 sneak attack damage on a d4 projectile and we call that realistic, then so too could he deliver a deadly accurate vial of shattering glass and acid.
HP and Damage are both abstracts. 20 points of damage to one guy might look like getting solidly punched but to some other guy it might represent being turned to paste. The DM (and the player) help shape these abstract numbers into a narrative when they describe the action as it unfolds. How realistic that description is, is well, fully in your hands.
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."
The so called "exception" to the improvised rules isn't in fact an exception because it is smack dab in the very middle of the improvised rules. It isn't an exception so much as a core part of them.
Maybe you need the full rules to review again?
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
It even discusses treating the improvised weapon as something similar before presenting alternatives. And it even says "often". That ain't an "exception". It is the core function of the rule.
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.
Improvised weapons telling you that you don't have to treat something as an improvised weapon some of the time doesn't mean that when you are told to treat something as an improvised weapon you shouldn't. Let me say it again: If you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon, even though... whatever..., then you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means not treating it as a non-improvised weapon.
There is a logic gap in your argument that's so large that I'm not sure why you are even arguing the point. Your statements don't fit within the literal written rules or within their spirit. That makes it just misguided. I don't care what you could do with an improvised weapon that resembles another weapon and neither do the rules here. We're actually talking about particulars in this case. Vials do not resemble any of the weapons on any of the lists.
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."
The so called "exception" to the improvised rules isn't in fact an exception because it is smack dab in the very middle of the improvised rules. It isn't an exception so much as a core part of them.
Maybe you need the full rules to review again?
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
It even discusses treating the improvised weapon as something similar before presenting alternatives. And it even says "often". That ain't an "exception". It is the core function of the rule.
You're putting the right emphasis on the wrong paragraph. Flasks and vials don't resemble any actual weapons, so you should default to the third paragraph, here, and not the second.
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."
The so called "exception" to the improvised rules isn't in fact an exception because it is smack dab in the very middle of the improvised rules. It isn't an exception so much as a core part of them.
Maybe you need the full rules to review again?
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
It even discusses treating the improvised weapon as something similar before presenting alternatives. And it even says "often". That ain't an "exception". It is the core function of the rule.
You're putting the right emphasis on the wrong paragraph. Flasks and vials don't resemble any actual weapons, so you should default to the third paragraph, here, and not the second.
That is a perfect example of a ruling you can make at your table as a DM, yes. Other DMs can make their own rulings. DM's option.
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, it isn’t. Because if it were, the vials would tell you which weapon they count as, rather than improvised weapons. I‘m really unsure what is so tough to understand in “treat it as an improvised weapon” that you think it means something other than “treat it as an improvised weapon.”
Improvised weapons telling you that you don't have to treat something as an improvised weapon some of the time doesn't mean that when you are told to treat something as an improvised weapon you shouldn't.
Some of the time? No. Often.
And, it isn't that you don't treat them as an improvised weapon. That seems to be where you're getting confused. They are still an improvised weapon behaving like an improvised weapon.
If you use a broken bottle as a dagger because the DM says they're similar enough. thatis still treated as an improvised weapon. Because the rule to treat it as a dagger is in the improvised weapon rules.
Definitionally, an item behaving like, and being used like, a standard weapon... because your DM decided it was similar enough.... is an improvised weapon. And using improvised weapon rules.
You've somehow got it in your head that a broken bottle being used as a dagger isn't still an improvised weapon using improvised weapon rules. It is.
Let me say it again: If you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon, even though... whatever..., then you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means not treating it as a non-improvised weapon.
See above. tlrd; using an improvised weapon as a standard weapon as per the improvised weapon rules means using it as an improvised weapon because it is per improvised weapon rules.
There is a logic gap in your argument that's so large that I'm not sure why you are even arguing the point. Your statements don't fit within the literal written rules or within their spirit. That makes it just misguided. I don't care what you could do with an improvised weapon that resembles another weapon and neither do the rules here. We're actually talking about particulars in this case.
Hmm.
Vials do not resemble any of the weapons on any of the lists.
This is a perfectly valid ruling a DM could make, yes. They could also rule otherwise and that's just as valid. DM's option. <--- Pretty unequivocal.
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, it isn’t. Because if it were, the vials would tell you which weapon they count as, rather than improvised weapons. I‘m really unsure what is so tough to understand in “treat it as an improvised weapon” that you think it means something other than “treat it as an improvised weapon.”
I've explained this.
Treating a broken bottle as a dagger is treating it as an improvised weapon.
Why? Because the Improvised weapon rules are where we're allowed to treat it as a dagger!
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.
Improvised weapons telling you that you don't have to treat something as an improvised weapon some of the time doesn't mean that when you are told to treat something as an improvised weapon you shouldn't.
Some of the time? No. Often.
And, it isn't that you don't treat them as an improvised weapon. That seems to be where you're getting confused. They are still an improvised weapon behaving like an improvised weapon.
If you use a broken bottle as a dagger because the DM says they're similar enough. thatis still treated as an improvised weapon. Because the rule to treat it as a dagger is in the improvised weapon rules.
Definitionally, an item behaving like, and being used like, a standard weapon... because your DM decided it was similar enough.... is an improvised weapon. And using improvised weapon rules.
You've somehow got it in your head that a broken bottle being used as a dagger isn't still an improvised weapon using improvised weapon rules. It is.
Let me say it again: If you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon, even though... whatever..., then you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means not treating it as a non-improvised weapon.
See above. tlrd; using an improvised weapon as a standard weapon as per the improvised weapon rules means using it as an improvised weapon because it is per improvised weapon rules.
There is a logic gap in your argument that's so large that I'm not sure why you are even arguing the point. Your statements don't fit within the literal written rules or within their spirit. That makes it just misguided. I don't care what you could do with an improvised weapon that resembles another weapon and neither do the rules here. We're actually talking about particulars in this case.
Hmm.
Vials do not resemble any of the weapons on any of the lists.
This is a perfectly valid ruling a DM could make, yes. They could also rule otherwise and that's just as valid. DM's option. <--- Pretty unequivocal.
You're arguing in circles.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you think a flask or vial is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon, from one of the weapon tables, then state which one you think it is. Because, and I can't state this clearly enough, the use of the word "often" does not mean this is one of those times.
You're putting the cart before the horse and twisting yourself into knots to justify it.
Improvised weapons telling you that you don't have to treat something as an improvised weapon some of the time doesn't mean that when you are told to treat something as an improvised weapon you shouldn't.
Some of the time? No. Often.
And, it isn't that you don't treat them as an improvised weapon. That seems to be where you're getting confused. They are still an improvised weapon behaving like an improvised weapon.
If you use a broken bottle as a dagger because the DM says they're similar enough. thatis still treated as an improvised weapon. Because the rule to treat it as a dagger is in the improvised weapon rules.
Definitionally, an item behaving like, and being used like, a standard weapon... because your DM decided it was similar enough.... is an improvised weapon. And using improvised weapon rules.
You've somehow got it in your head that a broken bottle being used as a dagger isn't still an improvised weapon using improvised weapon rules. It is.
Let me say it again: If you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon, even though... whatever..., then you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means not treating it as a non-improvised weapon.
See above. tlrd; using an improvised weapon as a standard weapon as per the improvised weapon rules means using it as an improvised weapon because it is per improvised weapon rules.
There is a logic gap in your argument that's so large that I'm not sure why you are even arguing the point. Your statements don't fit within the literal written rules or within their spirit. That makes it just misguided. I don't care what you could do with an improvised weapon that resembles another weapon and neither do the rules here. We're actually talking about particulars in this case.
Hmm.
Vials do not resemble any of the weapons on any of the lists.
This is a perfectly valid ruling a DM could make, yes. They could also rule otherwise and that's just as valid. DM's option. <--- Pretty unequivocal.
You're arguing in circles.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you think a flask or vial is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon, from one of the weapon tables, then state which one you think it is. Because, and I can't state this clearly enough, the use of the word "often" does not mean this is one of those times.
You're putting the cart before the horse and twisting yourself into knots to justify it.
I don't decide if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon. You don't decide if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon. The DM decides if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon.
Every DM's judgement on what is or is not similar to a weapon differs. And they are all RAW correct.
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.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
The DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and RAW.
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.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
The DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and RAW.
How is it you've gone for three pages with little more than a "maybe" while still ignoring every other bit of evidence that clearly tilts it against the argument of treating them as actual weapons?
EDIT: For example, I can't find anything "sufficiently similar" about 2d6 acid damage, or 1d4 fire damage that begins the following turn and not at the moment of impact, to an actual weapon. Because, and this might sound crazy, if something is "sufficiently similar" to an actual weapon then it should behave as that weapon would. That means using the same damage die, type, and weapon properties. And the aforementioned flask and vial objectively do not.
I’d be quite disappointed if I wasted a consumable magic item and got the exact same effect as using a dagger. 1d4+dex+ sneak attack seems like a waste of the ability of getting use out of that 2d6 acid damage.
But back to the actual point: There are two things described in the improvised weapon rules: using something else as an actual weapon and then what you get as an improvised weapon. The actual weapon rules are a distractor. They're there because they're often relevant. But they're explicitly not relevant when you're asked not to use them by something telling you that this is not an actual weapon, so go ahead and use the actual improvised weapon rules.
"DM decides" is a logic gap caused by a distractor. I understand the point of it. It is a bit like saying "You get tea when you have cookies or toast. You get toast." "Oh, I love getting cookies."
In other words "The referee decides the foul" might be a true statement, that doesn't mean the ref can't be wrong or what the rules tell you a foul should be.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
The DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and RAW.
This entire forum has no purpose whatsoever if we answer every single question with this and then walk away. The reason we have this forum is so PCs can set reasonable expectations prior to session 0 and so DMs can enact policy while cognizant and aware of what they're doing. It's unproductive in the extreme to tell either party the fundamentally true statement that 5E supports any DM making any ruling they want on any issue in any way they see fit, except when talking to someone who doesn't already know that - and there's no evidence here that that's the case. Your goal on here should be to provide substantive answers that cover what else the RAW says, if anything, when answering questions.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?
To me an improvised weapon isn't a weapon but at my option may treat it as one for proficiency bonus. Using a similar object as if it were a weapon never meet feature's prerequisite where a specific weapon type or property is required since it's still an object how i rule it.
Especially when there's a whole paragraph dedicated to objects which don't resemble weapons. Such as the aforementioned acid and alchemist's fire. Even if we take Crawford's words at face value, and I'm inclined to because I can see his reasoning, the general rule is merely that ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. But we can make a ranged weapon attack with a handaxe with Strength, thanks to the thrown property. And some ranged weapon attacks, like a manticore's Tail Spike action, aren't actual weapons at all.
It seems obvious that if the intent was to allow Sneak Attack with any ranged weapon attack, like how Divine Smite requires a melee weapon attack, it would say so. But it doesn't. It specifies a weapon property or weapon category.
Oh and gents, let us be intellectually honored : how the hell a breaking flask of acid would qualified for sneak attack extra damage just because thrown from a rogue? The flavor around the sneak attack is that the rogue wait patiently during all his attack action to strike once because he ''know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction''
A well placed dagger in the arm pit or arrow a the base of the neck, even a shortsword that plungue beside a collarbone is thematically qualified for a sneak attack .... not a flask of acide that no matter where it splash it remains in surface .... I mean ... cmon! Dont ruin the game in favor of weird exploitation of rules
Where you get hit matters just as much with acid or fire as it does with a blade. If a sling can deliver a high level rogues +10d6 sneak attack damage on a d4 projectile and we call that realistic, then so too could he deliver a deadly accurate vial of shattering glass and acid.
HP and Damage are both abstracts. 20 points of damage to one guy might look like getting solidly punched but to some other guy it might represent being turned to paste. The DM (and the player) help shape these abstract numbers into a narrative when they describe the action as it unfolds. How realistic that description is, is well, fully in your hands.
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 so called "exception" to the improvised rules isn't in fact an exception because it is smack dab in the very middle of the improvised rules. It isn't an exception so much as a core part of them.
Maybe you need the full rules to review again?
It even discusses treating the improvised weapon as something similar before presenting alternatives. And it even says "often". That ain't an "exception". It is the core function of the rule.
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.
Improvised weapons telling you that you don't have to treat something as an improvised weapon some of the time doesn't mean that when you are told to treat something as an improvised weapon you shouldn't. Let me say it again: If you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon, even though... whatever..., then you aren't treating it as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means not treating it as a non-improvised weapon.
There is a logic gap in your argument that's so large that I'm not sure why you are even arguing the point. Your statements don't fit within the literal written rules or within their spirit. That makes it just misguided. I don't care what you could do with an improvised weapon that resembles another weapon and neither do the rules here. We're actually talking about particulars in this case. Vials do not resemble any of the weapons on any of the lists.
You're putting the right emphasis on the wrong paragraph. Flasks and vials don't resemble any actual weapons, so you should default to the third paragraph, here, and not the second.
That is a perfect example of a ruling you can make at your table as a DM, yes. Other DMs can make their own rulings. DM's 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.
No, it isn’t. Because if it were, the vials would tell you which weapon they count as, rather than improvised weapons. I‘m really unsure what is so tough to understand in “treat it as an improvised weapon” that you think it means something other than “treat it as an improvised weapon.”
Some of the time? No. Often.
And, it isn't that you don't treat them as an improvised weapon. That seems to be where you're getting confused. They are still an improvised weapon behaving like an improvised weapon.
If you use a broken bottle as a dagger because the DM says they're similar enough. thatis still treated as an improvised weapon. Because the rule to treat it as a dagger is in the improvised weapon rules.
Definitionally, an item behaving like, and being used like, a standard weapon... because your DM decided it was similar enough.... is an improvised weapon. And using improvised weapon rules.
You've somehow got it in your head that a broken bottle being used as a dagger isn't still an improvised weapon using improvised weapon rules. It is.
See above. tlrd; using an improvised weapon as a standard weapon as per the improvised weapon rules means using it as an improvised weapon because it is per improvised weapon rules.
Hmm.
This is a perfectly valid ruling a DM could make, yes. They could also rule otherwise and that's just as valid. DM's option. <--- Pretty unequivocal.
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've explained this.
Treating a broken bottle as a dagger is treating it as an improvised weapon.
Why? Because the Improvised weapon rules are where we're allowed to treat it as a dagger!
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.
Did you actually even read that paragraph? It says that is only a valid option for things that resemble actual weapons. That isn’t a RAW ruling.
You're arguing in circles.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you think a flask or vial is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon, from one of the weapon tables, then state which one you think it is. Because, and I can't state this clearly enough, the use of the word "often" does not mean this is one of those times.
You're putting the cart before the horse and twisting yourself into knots to justify it.
I don't decide if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon. You don't decide if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon. The DM decides if it is sufficiently enough like an actual weapon.
Every DM's judgement on what is or is not similar to a weapon differs. And they are all RAW correct.
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 DM determines what is or is not sufficiently similar. Whatever they decide is correct and 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.
How is it you've gone for three pages with little more than a "maybe" while still ignoring every other bit of evidence that clearly tilts it against the argument of treating them as actual weapons?
EDIT: For example, I can't find anything "sufficiently similar" about 2d6 acid damage, or 1d4 fire damage that begins the following turn and not at the moment of impact, to an actual weapon. Because, and this might sound crazy, if something is "sufficiently similar" to an actual weapon then it should behave as that weapon would. That means using the same damage die, type, and weapon properties. And the aforementioned flask and vial objectively do not.
I’d be quite disappointed if I wasted a consumable magic item and got the exact same effect as using a dagger. 1d4+dex+ sneak attack seems like a waste of the ability of getting use out of that 2d6 acid damage.
But back to the actual point: There are two things described in the improvised weapon rules: using something else as an actual weapon and then what you get as an improvised weapon. The actual weapon rules are a distractor. They're there because they're often relevant. But they're explicitly not relevant when you're asked not to use them by something telling you that this is not an actual weapon, so go ahead and use the actual improvised weapon rules.
"DM decides" is a logic gap caused by a distractor. I understand the point of it. It is a bit like saying "You get tea when you have cookies or toast. You get toast." "Oh, I love getting cookies."
In other words "The referee decides the foul" might be a true statement, that doesn't mean the ref can't be wrong or what the rules tell you a foul should be.
This entire forum has no purpose whatsoever if we answer every single question with this and then walk away. The reason we have this forum is so PCs can set reasonable expectations prior to session 0 and so DMs can enact policy while cognizant and aware of what they're doing. It's unproductive in the extreme to tell either party the fundamentally true statement that 5E supports any DM making any ruling they want on any issue in any way they see fit, except when talking to someone who doesn't already know that - and there's no evidence here that that's the case. Your goal on here should be to provide substantive answers that cover what else the RAW says, if anything, when answering questions.
Overall I struggle as well as I can't think of something that I as a DM would say it resembles.... The sling is about the only thing I can think of but that would require you toss the vial from the sling... Which I might allow.
That's about the only way I can see it working.
In such case wouldn't the vial ressemble an ammunition rather than the weapon itself?