When throwing any of the items listed below as an improvised weapon, which attack modifiers would you consider if you have the Tavern Brawler feat? My thought is if you're throwing the items (ranged attack) it would be +(DEX modifier) for the attack roll. With the Tavern Brawler feat it would be +(DEX mod + Proficiency). Is that accurate?
I would think all of those would use STR modifier.
EDIT: I still feel like this SHOULD be true, but I am satisfied that people have shown that in general, it's going to be DEX for thrown improvised weapons.
They would all use STR when thrown. Thrown weapons are not ranged weapons, and only thrown weapons that carry the Finesse property are eligible for using either STR or DEX.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
They are all dex. Thrown weapons only can use strength if they are also melee weapons. None of those are melee weapons, they only have ranged attack modes when used as improvised weapons. Ranged weapons can indeed have Thrown (see Darts, which are also dex-only).
Acid does have an attack within 5 feet option, but still describes it as a “splash” which reads as a ranged attack to me (with automatic disadvantage for being in melee, a la Net). If your DM disagrees and calls that a Strength-based melee attack (which would be very weird), then Acid would be the one outlier that you would have a choice of dex or str for when throwing at range. But I really don’t think so.
General Rule: Melee attacks use Str, Ranged attacks use Dex.
Specific Rule #1: Finesse Property. Allows melee attacks with that weapon to use Dex.
Specific Rule #2: Thrown Property. Allows a melee weapon to be used to make a ranged weapon attack, using whichever mod you would use for melee (weapons with the finesse property allow you to choose).
Melee weapons without the Thrown property that are used to make a ranged attack (e.g throwing a longsword) are improvised weapons and deal damage as such. Throwing a melee weapon that does not have the Thrown property, therefore, uses Dex for the attack and damage rolls, and deals 1d4 of the relevant damage type on a hit.
Having the Tavern Brawler feat does not change this, it only allows you to add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls made with improvised weapons. Therefore, throwing any of those items would use your Dex mod for the attack and damage rolls.
Alchemist's Fire specifically says in the listing "make a ranged attack, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon", so with Tavern Brawler it would be DEX+proficiency, I think.
Since I'm not on my phone now, just to expand a little...
Acid/Alchemist Fire/Oil/Holy Water/etc don't explicitly have the Thrown property, but it's reasonable to assume that when used as an improvised weapon they do ("As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet.."). From the Thrown property, "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack" at least implies that weapons described as being thrown probably should come with that property (after all, that's the only conceivable reason why they bothered to give Nets and Darts the property, since they're already ranged weapons). So as a baseline assumption, I'd argue that we should grant that Acid (vial), Alchemist's Fire (flask) and the rest are improvised weapons with the Thrown property.
The general rule is that ranged attacks are made with Dexterity, and melee attacks with Strength. Thrown doesn't change that for anything other than melee weapons used to make ranged attacks: "If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon."
Reading the descriptions of these items, if we're forced to ask a binary "is this describing an improvised melee weapon, or an improvised ranged weapon?" I think we'll all agree that the various flasks/vials are quite clearly ranged weapons. If so, Thrown's "if the weapon is a melee weapon..." sentence doesn't trigger, and does nothing to change the fact that ranged attacks are generally made with Dexterity.
...by directing us to the Sage Advice compendium which makes no mention of it whatsoever. Thanks Jeremy!
There is this long one that might be what he was referring to:
How do I know which ability modifier to use with an attack roll and its damage roll?
The Player’s Handbook specifies which ability modifier to use with an attack roll (PHB "Attack Rolls") and which one to use with the corresponding damage roll (PHB "Damage Rolls"). Here’s a summary:
Attack Type
Attack Roll
Damage Roll
Melee weapon attack
Strength mod.*
Strength mod.
Ranged weapon attack
Dexterity mod.*
Dexterity mod.
Spell attack
Spellcasting abilitymod.**
Depends on effect
* Add your proficiency bonus if you’re using a weapon with which you’re proficient.
** Add your proficiency bonus. Your spellcasting ability is determined by your class or whatever feature gave you the ability to make the spell attack.
For example, if you make a melee weapon attack with a longsword, you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls of the attack. In contrast, if you make the spell attack of the fire bolt cantrip, you add your spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll. If you’re a wizard, Intelligence is your spellcasting ability, so add your Intelligence modifier. Fire bolt doesn’t tell you to add your modifier to its damage roll, though, so you don’t.
Various features in the game make explicit exceptions to the rule. For example, a weapon that has the finesse property lets you choose whether to use your Strength or Dexterity modifier with it. Another example: when you use the two-weapon fighting option in the Player’s Handbook(PHB "Two-Weapon Fighting"), you don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. You do, however, still add your ability modifier to the attack roll, since the option doesn’t tell you not to. In other words, you follow the general rule until an exception in the game tells you not to.
What about unusual cases like the green-flame blade spell? The spell, which appears in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, tells you to make a melee attack with a weapon. Look at the table above, and you see that, under normal circumstances, you use your Strength modifier when you make a melee weapon attack. It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack. If a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so. For examples, take a look at fire bolt and ray of frost. Both say it — “spell attack.”
The short answer is they are ranged weapon attacks with no rules exceptions, they use DEX to attack and add DEX to damage (I know right. You don't even think about that part).
16:00 - Improvised weapons are meant to do a flat d4 damage.
He was only talking about damage dice. He never once mentioned modifiers. Even when talking about clubs. He never said "flat" d4 damage. He said it didn't count as a simple or martial weapon and that you don't add proficiency to hit. He did not say that it doesn't count as a melee or ranged attack or that you don't add ability mod to hit and damage.
Further, it was a JC tweet where I found out that you add ability modifier to damage for acid, alchemist fire, etc because (in his words) "Alchemist's fire is treated as an improvised weapon. When you hurl it at someone, you make a ranged attack against them. The damage roll of a ranged weapon attack includes your Dexterity modifier." Which all matches what is in the PHB.
Nobody got time for a 39:00 minute video just to hear JC riff on rules without textual support to backup his claims. If there’s an argument to be made that all improvised weapons do d4 regardless of whether they “resemble a weapon,” I would love to see it typed out.
I do agree that acid etc add +Dex to the damage roll, but I don’t agree that they do another d4 on top of the damage described in their item description (not clear, is Texas even arguing for that?)
I do agree that acid etc add +Dex to the damage roll, but I don’t agree that they do another d4 on top of the damage described in their item description (not clear, is Texas even arguing for that?)
It doesn't add an extra d4. The item description replaces the damage of improvised weapons. I don't think TexasDevin is arguing that.
Nobody got time for a 39:00 minute video just to hear JC riff on rules without textual support to backup his claims. If there’s an argument to be made that all improvised weapons do d4 regardless of whether they “resemble a weapon,” I would love to see it typed out.
I did link the timestamp, but that's a fair request. I linked the video so I can transcribe the part I'm referring to. I thought the video was a good watch all the same. It's always refreshing to hear Jeremy explain in detail why a certain thing is the way it is rather than trying to discern it from a short tweet.
We have a rule for that. It's the improvised weapon rule. And what the rule is, basically, that if it's something that was not designed to be used as a weapon, and doesn't resemble a weapon in any way, you can still attack with it. But it doesn't count as a simple or a martial weapon. It essentially doesn't have any of those categories that a weapon would have because it's this only partially-formed weapon that you are now using. You don't have proficiency with it unless you have one of the few things in the game that does give you proficiency with improvised weapons. So you don't get to add you proficiency bonus to your attack roll and no matter what it is, it just does a d4 damage, showing that a weapon--something that has been crafted for battle--is going to deal more damage than the vase you just picked up off the side table to smash into the person's head.
So not only does he explicitly say that it only does 1d4 damage, he then goes on to explain his reasoning behind why the rule was designed that way. It's not a particularly controversial position. Jeremy is only reiterating what the improvised weapon rules already say. I know you were just being colloquial, but here is the "textual support to back up his claims". (PHB 147)
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.
There you go. 1d4 damage. As some people in this channel enjoy saying, a rule does what it says it does and nothing more.
All of that being said, Jeremy stresses throughout the entire video that if the improvised weapon in question bears any resemblance to a usable weapon, the DM is encouraged to just call it what it resembles. If you're arguing that a glass vial should be treated like an Acid (vial), then by all means use what is spelled out there. Even though it isn't a weapon, the item description includes a provision for it to be used as one.
1) IW that don’t resemble weapons deal 1d4 and are non proficient
2) IW that do resemble weapons aren’t IW at all, and are in all respects the weapon they resemble. So there is no such thing as a IW table leg club, just a Club.
#1 is fine and uncontroversial (well... a little controversial I guess. If I’m hella strong, enlarged, and start throwing boulders... 1d4?) #2 directly contradicts the RAW and should be disregarded.
#2 doesn’t contradict RAW in the slightest. The following is a direct quote from the PHB’s explanation of improvised weapons:
“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.”
I mean, it does say "at the DMs option" but yeah, you're pretty well on the mark with that statement. The more I looked into it, the more it seemed like the rule was just "If the player improvises the weapon, the DM improvises the way to run it" and that isn't going to be very satisfying to anyone in the rules and game mechanics subforum :)
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.
Table leg clubs are still improvised weapons. Class or other features which interact with improvised weapon will interact with table leg clubs, but not with regular clubs. Tavern Brawler, for example. If JC is saying that there is only one sort of improvised weapon, and that is one which does not resemble another weapon and deals 1d4 damage, then that is incorrect because the rules lay out two classes of IW: those that resemble weapons, and those that do not.
It may feel like hair splitting. But knowing whether a weapon is or is not an Improvised Weapon is potentially important piece of information, the rules have provided for that status to be tracked, and JC's hand waiving to erase that status may be a good approximation of how things work out is not actually RAW.
I’m certainly not watching the entire 40 minute video to check exactly what Crawford says in it, and feel free to ignore me if Crawford really does do what you’re saying, but based on what TexasDevin has said, you’re definitely misrepresenting Crawford’s statement.
According to TexasDevin, “All of that being said, Jeremy stresses throughout the entire video that if the improvised weapon in question bears any resemblance to a usable weapon, the DM is encouraged to just call it what it resembles.”
It sounds like all Crawford is doing is pointing at an existing rule that exists in the PHB and saying “we recommend taking this rule seriously, even if it’s just an ‘option.’” Nothing about that says “a table leg isn’t an improvised weapon.” It just says “a table leg is similar enough to a club for it to do 1d6 damage and let the attacker apply their proficiency bonus to the attack roll.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When throwing any of the items listed below as an improvised weapon, which attack modifiers would you consider if you have the Tavern Brawler feat?
My thought is if you're throwing the items (ranged attack) it would be +(DEX modifier) for the attack roll. With the Tavern Brawler feat it would be +(DEX mod + Proficiency). Is that accurate?
I would think all of those would use STR modifier.EDIT: I still feel like this SHOULD be true, but I am satisfied that people have shown that in general, it's going to be DEX for thrown improvised weapons.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
They would all use STR when thrown. Thrown weapons are not ranged weapons, and only thrown weapons that carry the Finesse property are eligible for using either STR or DEX.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
They are all dex. Thrown weapons only can use strength if they are also melee weapons. None of those are melee weapons, they only have ranged attack modes when used as improvised weapons. Ranged weapons can indeed have Thrown (see Darts, which are also dex-only).
Acid does have an attack within 5 feet option, but still describes it as a “splash” which reads as a ranged attack to me (with automatic disadvantage for being in melee, a la Net). If your DM disagrees and calls that a Strength-based melee attack (which would be very weird), then Acid would be the one outlier that you would have a choice of dex or str for when throwing at range. But I really don’t think so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
General Rule: Melee attacks use Str, Ranged attacks use Dex.
Specific Rule #1: Finesse Property. Allows melee attacks with that weapon to use Dex.
Specific Rule #2: Thrown Property. Allows a melee weapon to be used to make a ranged weapon attack, using whichever mod you would use for melee (weapons with the finesse property allow you to choose).
Melee weapons without the Thrown property that are used to make a ranged attack (e.g throwing a longsword) are improvised weapons and deal damage as such. Throwing a melee weapon that does not have the Thrown property, therefore, uses Dex for the attack and damage rolls, and deals 1d4 of the relevant damage type on a hit.
Having the Tavern Brawler feat does not change this, it only allows you to add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls made with improvised weapons. Therefore, throwing any of those items would use your Dex mod for the attack and damage rolls.
Alchemist's Fire specifically says in the listing "make a ranged attack, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon", so with Tavern Brawler it would be DEX+proficiency, I think.
Since I'm not on my phone now, just to expand a little...
Acid/Alchemist Fire/Oil/Holy Water/etc don't explicitly have the Thrown property, but it's reasonable to assume that when used as an improvised weapon they do ("As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet.."). From the Thrown property, "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack" at least implies that weapons described as being thrown probably should come with that property (after all, that's the only conceivable reason why they bothered to give Nets and Darts the property, since they're already ranged weapons). So as a baseline assumption, I'd argue that we should grant that Acid (vial), Alchemist's Fire (flask) and the rest are improvised weapons with the Thrown property.
The general rule is that ranged attacks are made with Dexterity, and melee attacks with Strength. Thrown doesn't change that for anything other than melee weapons used to make ranged attacks: "If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon."
Reading the descriptions of these items, if we're forced to ask a binary "is this describing an improvised melee weapon, or an improvised ranged weapon?" I think we'll all agree that the various flasks/vials are quite clearly ranged weapons. If so, Thrown's "if the weapon is a melee weapon..." sentence doesn't trigger, and does nothing to change the fact that ranged attacks are generally made with Dexterity.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Jeremy Crawford helpfully addressed this very issue...
...by directing us to the Sage Advice compendium which makes no mention of it whatsoever. Thanks Jeremy!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is this long one that might be what he was referring to:
The short answer is they are ranged weapon attacks with no rules exceptions, they use DEX to attack and add DEX to damage (I know right. You don't even think about that part).
Let's watch a video!
16:00 - Improvised weapons are meant to do a flat d4 damage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
He was only talking about damage dice. He never once mentioned modifiers. Even when talking about clubs. He never said "flat" d4 damage. He said it didn't count as a simple or martial weapon and that you don't add proficiency to hit. He did not say that it doesn't count as a melee or ranged attack or that you don't add ability mod to hit and damage.
Further, it was a JC tweet where I found out that you add ability modifier to damage for acid, alchemist fire, etc because (in his words) "Alchemist's fire is treated as an improvised weapon. When you hurl it at someone, you make a ranged attack against them. The damage roll of a ranged weapon attack includes your Dexterity modifier." Which all matches what is in the PHB.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956666040783552512?s=19
Nobody got time for a 39:00 minute video just to hear JC riff on rules without textual support to backup his claims. If there’s an argument to be made that all improvised weapons do d4 regardless of whether they “resemble a weapon,” I would love to see it typed out.
I do agree that acid etc add +Dex to the damage roll, but I don’t agree that they do another d4 on top of the damage described in their item description (not clear, is Texas even arguing for that?)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It doesn't add an extra d4. The item description replaces the damage of improvised weapons. I don't think TexasDevin is arguing that.
I did link the timestamp, but that's a fair request. I linked the video so I can transcribe the part I'm referring to. I thought the video was a good watch all the same. It's always refreshing to hear Jeremy explain in detail why a certain thing is the way it is rather than trying to discern it from a short tweet.
So not only does he explicitly say that it only does 1d4 damage, he then goes on to explain his reasoning behind why the rule was designed that way. It's not a particularly controversial position. Jeremy is only reiterating what the improvised weapon rules already say. I know you were just being colloquial, but here is the "textual support to back up his claims". (PHB 147)
There you go. 1d4 damage. As some people in this channel enjoy saying, a rule does what it says it does and nothing more.
All of that being said, Jeremy stresses throughout the entire video that if the improvised weapon in question bears any resemblance to a usable weapon, the DM is encouraged to just call it what it resembles. If you're arguing that a glass vial should be treated like an Acid (vial), then by all means use what is spelled out there. Even though it isn't a weapon, the item description includes a provision for it to be used as one.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ah. So there’s two halves to his statement:
1) IW that don’t resemble weapons deal 1d4 and are non proficient
2) IW that do resemble weapons aren’t IW at all, and are in all respects the weapon they resemble. So there is no such thing as a IW table leg club, just a Club.
#1 is fine and uncontroversial (well... a little controversial I guess. If I’m hella strong, enlarged, and start throwing boulders... 1d4?) #2 directly contradicts the RAW and should be disregarded.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
#2 doesn’t contradict RAW in the slightest. The following is a direct quote from the PHB’s explanation of improvised weapons:
“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.”
I mean, it does say "at the DMs option" but yeah, you're pretty well on the mark with that statement. The more I looked into it, the more it seemed like the rule was just "If the player improvises the weapon, the DM improvises the way to run it" and that isn't going to be very satisfying to anyone in the rules and game mechanics subforum :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
From Chapter 5: Equipment:
Table leg clubs are still improvised weapons. Class or other features which interact with improvised weapon will interact with table leg clubs, but not with regular clubs. Tavern Brawler, for example. If JC is saying that there is only one sort of improvised weapon, and that is one which does not resemble another weapon and deals 1d4 damage, then that is incorrect because the rules lay out two classes of IW: those that resemble weapons, and those that do not.
It may feel like hair splitting. But knowing whether a weapon is or is not an Improvised Weapon is potentially important piece of information, the rules have provided for that status to be tracked, and JC's hand waiving to erase that status may be a good approximation of how things work out is not actually RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’m certainly not watching the entire 40 minute video to check exactly what Crawford says in it, and feel free to ignore me if Crawford really does do what you’re saying, but based on what TexasDevin has said, you’re definitely misrepresenting Crawford’s statement.
According to TexasDevin, “All of that being said, Jeremy stresses throughout the entire video that if the improvised weapon in question bears any resemblance to a usable weapon, the DM is encouraged to just call it what it resembles.”
It sounds like all Crawford is doing is pointing at an existing rule that exists in the PHB and saying “we recommend taking this rule seriously, even if it’s just an ‘option.’” Nothing about that says “a table leg isn’t an improvised weapon.” It just says “a table leg is similar enough to a club for it to do 1d6 damage and let the attacker apply their proficiency bonus to the attack roll.”