An improvised weapon is not technically a "weapon"

[Dalebert]

Created this thread to avoid clogging the RAW thread.

Example:


D u e l i n g
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand...

Dueling requires you to be wielding a melee weapon, i.e. something designed primarily to be a weapon for melee. It's okay if you also happen to be able to use it in some other way like throwing or cleaning under your fingernails but it was designed to be used as a melee weapon. Saying "I can use <certain thing> as a weapon", i.e. improvised weapon, doesn't mean it's a weapon. It means you're using something that definitely wasn't designed to be a weapon as best you can. You might be really good at that improvisation if you took tavern brawler feat, for instance. It doesn't transform the object into something it's not. It transforms your ability to improvise well. It's still not a "weapon" in the sense of what various rules are referring to.

Consider this. If a spell listed a torch as a material component, would you allow someone to use a pillow? Would you let them use any item that could theoretically be held and set on fire? "Torch" is referring to something that's designed to be held in one hand and set on fire to provide light for a sustained period of time. That you could pick up a pillow and set it on fire and get light for a bit does not make that pillow a torch for the purposes of meeting the requirements set by the rules. When they say "weapon", they mean an actual weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

When they say "weapon", they mean an actual weapon.

Correct.
An Improvised Weapon is not a weapon, in and of itself.
It "becomes" a weapon for a fraction of a second, in that very instant where you hit someone with it. The moment prior when you're swinging it, and the moment after the blow lands, it is not a weapon. In the instant that it hits, and only in that instant, it is.
So you can't TWF with ImpWeaps, and you can't cast Magic Weapon on it because it isn't a valid target (unless your DM hand-waives and lets you do these things), but you can indeed Smite with it, for example.

[alchahest]

I wish there were a call out in tavern brawler "For you, improvised weapons are considered simple melee weapons, and if you are a monk you may treat them as monk weapons as well."

mainly because I want to play Jackie Chan style antics

[Dalebert]

It "becomes" a weapon for a fraction of a second, in that very instant where you hit someone with it.

That's an excellent way of thinking of it, I suppose.


Q 363: Because improvised weapons and unarmed strikes are not really 'weapons', does that mean they bypass resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons?

A 363 Re: Unarmed strikes: definitely not based on precedent. Otherwise there would be no need for monk unarmed strikes to gain that feature at monk level 6.

Re: improvised weapons, I think DivisibleByZero's answer best represents the intent--in that instant you smack something, that dinner plate is a weapon. Before that point, you're holding an object with a purpose for carrying food and you're just as likely be holding it to go gather some cookies from the party table as attack something with it. Crawford himself has said that falling damage bypasses a lycanthrope's resistance to non-magical and non-silvered weapon attacks because it's not an attack. RAI, I would say that the effect is intended to only work with regard to intentional attacks on the creature; not falling dmg and probably also not gigantic boulders falling on the creature for instance by the same reasoning. It has been clarified that even unarmed strikes are "melee weapon attacks" but not an "attack with a melee weapon". Thus a paladin / druid can smite with a dire wolf bite.

By strict RAW-lawyering, you could make the case to your DM. I do think he will laugh at you and quickly move on.

[Flashy]

My hesitation back in the RAW thread really just boiled down to unwillingness to call improvised weapons not weapons in all cases when the section is a touch ambiguous about how you should think about them.

I think that there are definitely cases where it's not reasonable (dueling with a shield, overcoming damage resistance, etc), but I ALSO think there are cases where it is. I think it's utterly reasonable that a rogue might want to apply sneak attack dice to an attack with a broken bottle or a paladin might want to smite while breaking a chair over someone's head. Since I'm not seeing anything in the improvised weapon section that contradicts either of those choices it seems (to me) like the whole situation is fundamentally in the realm of DM discretion.

I really like DivisibleZero's way of thinking about it, I'm just not totally positive that that's EXPLICIT in the rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

My hesitation back in the RAW thread really just boiled down to unwillingness to call improvised weapons not weapons in all cases when the section is a touch ambiguous about how you should think about them.

I think that there are definitely cases where it's not reasonable (dueling with a shield, overcoming damage resistance, etc), but I ALSO think there are cases where it is. I think it's utterly reasonable that a rogue might want to apply sneak attack dice to an attack with a broken bottle or a paladin might want to smite while breaking a chair over someone's head. Since I'm not seeing anything in the improvised weapon section that contradicts either of those choices it seems (to me) like the whole situation is fundamentally in the realm of DM discretion.

I really like DivisibleZero's way of thinking about it, I'm just not totally positive that that's EXPLICIT in the rules.

You might not be seeing that part, but it's there. Particularly the part about DM discretion.

Without looking it all up, I can break it down for you in a fairly simple way.
An improvised weapon is not a weapon.
An improvised weapon is "treated" like a weapon for a fraction of a second when the attack is made, but is not inherently a weapon in any sense at any other time.
Am improvised weapon, seeing as it is not actually a weapon, has no weapon properties (finesse, heavy, etc).
Any ability or feature which requires a "weapon" cannot be used with an improvised weapon.
Any feature or ability which requires a melee weapon attack can be used with an improvised weapon unless it also requires a weapon.
Any DM may ignore or replace any of these guidelines as they see fit, either in whole or for individual cases (such as your Rogue with a broken bottle).

Consider a Pally/Rogue holding a knitting needle, who has the Defensive Duelist feat (for some strange reason).
He can attack with it as if it were a stiletto, using it as a dagger, and getting permission from his DM to apply his proficiency bonus to attack and applying sneak attack to the damage, who also uses Divine Smite on the attack. For all intents and purposes in the game world, he just made a dagger attack.
That same DM also rules that he can't use DD as a reaction though, because while the DM may allow the Rogue to use the knitting needle as a stiletto/dagger to attack, and granting him SA to damage, it is NOT a stiletto/dagger, and so does not have the finesse property required to use the DD feat.
At every moment of combat, the Rogue is holding a knitting needle.
At the exact moment that he attacks, it is treated as a stiletto. But ONLY in that moment.
Usually the situation will treat the ImpWeap as a club (usually without proficiency) instead of a stiletto, but that's the gist of it.
Make sense?

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

I would say that the key phrasing on improvised weapons is here


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 GM’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.


The phrasing causing the dispute is " can use a similar object as if it were that weapon". This implies that the objects use is now similar to the that of the weapon. If I had a cart, for example, whose axles happen to be the exact size shape and weight of the average quarterstaff. To the point at which I could put a quarterstaff in place of any axle and the cart would go on as normal. In this scenario I see no problem with grabbing one of these axles and casting Shillelagh on it.

[DivisibleByZero]

I would say that the key phrasing on improvised weapons is here

The phrasing causing the dispute is " can use a similar object as if it were that weapon". This implies that the objects use is now similar to the that of the weapon. If I had a cart, for example, whose axles happen to be the exact size shape and weight of the average quarterstaff. To the point at which I could put a quarterstaff in place of any axle and the cart would go on as normal. In this scenario I see no problem with grabbing one of these axles and casting Shillelagh on it.

Sure, as long as your DM allows it.
That's what "at the DM's discretion" is in there for. It's ultimately his/her decision, not yours.

[PeteNutButter]

You might not be seeing that part, but it's there. Particularly the part about DM discretion.

Without looking it all up, I can break it down for you in a fairly simple way.
An improvised weapon is not a weapon.
An improvised weapon is "treated" like a weapon for a fraction of a second when the attack is made, but is not inherently a weapon in any sense at any other time.
Am improvised weapon, seeing as it is not actually a weapon, has no weapon properties (finesse, heavy, etc).
Any ability or feature which requires a "weapon" cannot be used with an improvised weapon.
Any feature or ability which requires a melee weapon attack can be used with an improvised weapon unless it also requires a weapon.
Any DM may ignore or replace any of these guidelines as they see fit, either in whole or for individual cases (such as your Rogue with a broken bottle).

Consider a Pally/Rogue holding a knitting needle, who has the Defensive Duelist feat (for some strange reason).
He can attack with it as if it were a stiletto, using it as a dagger, and getting permission from his DM to apply his proficiency bonus to attack and applying sneak attack to the damage, who also uses Divine Smite on the attack. For all intents and purposes in the game world, he just made a dagger attack.
That same DM also rules that he can't use DD as a reaction though, because while the DM may allow the Rogue to use the knitting needle as a stiletto/dagger to attack, and granting him SA to damage, it is NOT a stiletto/dagger, and so does not have the finesse property required to use the DD feat.
At every moment of combat, the Rogue is holding a knitting needle.
At the exact moment that he attacks, it is treated as a stiletto. But ONLY in that moment.
Usually the situation will treat the ImpWeap as a club (usually without proficiency) instead of a stiletto, but that's the gist of it.
Make sense?

You are inventing a rule out of thin air saying that it is only treated as a dagger when he attacks with it. If the DM lets you treat it as a dagger it is a dagger, for attacks and reactions.

As far as I know(AFB) there is nothing in the improvised weapon section specifying only when you attack, or any timing at all.

[DivisibleByZero]

You are inventing a rule out of thin air saying that it is only treated as a dagger when he attacks with it. If the DM lets you treat it as a dagger it is a dagger, for attacks and reactions.

As far as I know(AFB) there is nothing in the improvised weapon section specifying only when you attack, or any timing at all.

You're missing the point.
It is not a dagger at all unless the DM decides it is, and at they point he or she can make any ruling they want, up to, including, and beyond those which I listed as examples.

[GlenSmash!]

and if you are a monk you may treat them as monk weapons as well."

mainly because I want to play Jackie Chan style antics

I would rule of cool that all day long.

You want to hit somebody with a latter and have a Martial Arts bonus action attack? You got it!

[ZorroGames]

I would rule of cool that all day long.

You want to hit somebody with a latter and have a Martial Arts bonus action attack? You got it!

How about hitting someone with a former?

(Heading quickly for the door using the ladder as an improvised shield.)

[GlenSmash!]

How about hitting someone with a former?

(Heading quickly for the door using the ladder as an improvised shield.)

/facepalm :smallbiggrin:

I won't even go back and edit my post.

[Willie the Duck]

I feel this is par for the course. I remember in 3e the rules for shield bashing were such that they could only be used as an off-hand attack (so if you were disarmed, you had better attack with a punch first, possibly drawing an AoO, before smashing with your shield). D&D has never been great with those edge cases like using found objects as weapons, shields as weapons, or like edritch glaives not technically being weapons.

Part of me is irked because I feel like better rule wording could have solved this. OTOH, if the wording were 99% there, it might leave open some ridiculously abusive combo (which could be closed by house-ruling, but then again so can this).

[Socratov]

/facepalm :smallbiggrin:

I won't even go back and edit my post.

If anything the resulting comments actually make this thread a better place.

As for the actual question at hand, it is at DM discretion and when DMing you are deemed smart enough to rule as you see fit (so Dalebert, DivisibleByZero, your points are as valid as any other).

Personally I'd use de Duck-test: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, it's enough for me to consider it fowl.

So what does that mean? Well, if a rogue is gonna try to attack with a knitting needle, it's enough for me to treat it like a dagger, though with reduced damage and only a few uses (as it's nowhere near sturdy enough to handle more then a couple of stabs). Can the rogue use DEX and apply sneak attack? Well, sure. Stabbin' kidneys doesn't change because you use a different pointy object... On the opposite, if a barbarian hulks up and rips a decent size tree out of the ground, well enter greatclub territory.

In fact I feel the underlined part of this entry from the weapons section in the PHB sums it up perfectly:


Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close 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. In many cases, 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. (underlining mine)

[Easy_Lee]

The whole weapon vs non weapon thing has been around a while. Unarmed strikes used to be on the weapon table, too. Then they weren't, so you couldn't cast elemental weapon on the monk's body anymore. Real shame, that.

If the feature says weapon, it applies only to stuff on the weapons table. If the feature says weapon attack, it applies to anything you use to make an attack. A paladin might be having a polite dinner with a vampire, then stand up, rip the leg off the table, and smite the vampire with that table-leg. That works within the rules.

[Quoxis]

You're missing the point.
It is not a dagger at all unless the DM decides it is, and at they point he or she can make any ruling they want, up to, including, and beyond those which I listed as examples.

Then this entire thread is meaningless.

If your DM allows you to use a needle as a dagger, it's your right by RAW to use it as a dagger, be it for attacking or for features or magic calling for it.
If he doesn't allow it at all, the discussion is for naught.
If he allows attacking, but not anything else, he's houseruling, which is perfectly fine - don't get me wrong - but "an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" is the RAW, and i see no way to interpret it into "it can be treated as such, except when it can't for reasons you've made up to be nitpicky".

Edit: Sorry, that last part sounded harsh, which it wasn't intended to.

[Quoxis]

The whole weapon vs non weapon thing has been around a while. Unarmed strikes used to be on the weapon table, too. Then they weren't, so you couldn't cast elemental weapon on the monk's body anymore. Real shame, that.

A monkladin can still bring down a nasty ol' branding smite with his fist, yo.

[DivisibleByZero]

Then this entire thread is meaningless.

If your DM allows you to use a needle as a dagger, it's your right by RAW to use it as a dagger, be it for attacking or for features or magic calling for it.
If he doesn't allow it at all, the discussion is for naught.
If he allows attacking, but not anything else, he's houseruling, which is perfectly fine - don't get me wrong - but "an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" is the RAW, and i see no way to interpret it into "it can be treated as such, except when it can't for reasons you've made up to be nitpicky".

Edit: Sorry, that last part sounded harsh, which it wasn't intended to.

To your first point, I say maybe. You're both potentially right, and absolutely wrong. It's his decision. And that decision doesn't have to be a blanket. And even if he does make a blanket ruling, it is not your RIGHT to do anything, because the decision rests with him. You're not entitled to a single thing with regards to improvised weapons unless he grants it to you.
As to your third point, that's just incorrect. An Improvised Weapon is not enough like a weapon to be treated as such, but it certainly might be if the DM decides it to be so. It's at his discretion. Also at his discretion, if he decides that it's close enough, is exactly how much like a weapon it is and what it can be used for. The DM making a ruling on the fly to fit the situation on hand is not house-ruling. Claiming that it is indicates that you may possibly not understand the design philosophy behind this edition of the game to begin with.
Make rulings, not rules.
The DM making a ruling is not the same as house ruling. Not even close.
If you think it is, then you may as well just admit that every single table that has ever played this game is house ruling pretty much all the time.

As for the thread being meaningless, I once again disagree. An Improvised Weapon is not, in fact, a weapon. Many people think that because it muses that word to describe it, that it must be, but this is wrong. It's the focus of many discussions. Are all of those discussions meaningless?

[stoutstien]

I just reworded most of the tavern brawler feat into a new fighting style available to all classes that provides them. Along with making the weapon master feat ininclude the whole list of styles. Been trying to work in a select list for monks around lv 11 when I feel they lack staying power.

[Willie the Duck]

Personally I'd use de Duck-test: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, it's enough for me to consider it fowl.

But not foul, right? Gotta reputation to keep up. :smallbiggrin:


Then this entire thread is meaningless.

RAW threads aren't meaningless, but are of a very limited scope. However, as DBZ points out, that the DM has to make a ruling upon the weapon-ness of an improvised weapon is RAW.

[SkipSandwich]

My personal ruling is is that improvised weapons are sufficiently "weapon-like" to count as "weapons" for those with the proficiency/feats/class features to wield them as such, but no amount of proficiency allows a chair leg to count as a "club" for effects that specifically call for a club (such as Shillelagh).

So yes, i would rule that a broken bottle is sufficiently dagger-like to benefit from the finesse property, including the ability to use the Defensive Duelist feat with it, however in practice I would also rule such a fragile weapon would immediately break after being used in such a way, so you could only get away with it once and would be disarming yourself in the process.

As a house rule regarding improvised weapons, whenever a player makes an attack with an improvised weapon, on a successful hit i roll a die equal to the weapon's base damage die, on a 1 the weapon breaks. Particularly fragile items (such as the fore-mentioned broken bottle) generally break after a single use no matter what and some especially sturdy items (generally anything made mostly of metal) may not have to roll for breakage at all.

The broken bottle bit has actually come up often enough that I have a specific edge case for it where if the bottle starts unbroken, you can use it once treating it as a club which causes it to break, you then get one more use treating it as a dagger before it becomes useless.

[KorvinStarmast]

With greatest respect to you all, and the deep analysis that went in to this

An improvised weapon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0654.html)is indeed a weapon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html).

Particularly when being used as such -- it was a few moments ago a barstool, but now it is the means by which a can of whoopass is dished out. If the wizard is willing to burn a spell slot to enchant a barstoo, so that the fighter can bypass the immunity problem and effectively hit the wererats in this grubby, seaside tavern, then make it so. :smallcool:

Improvised weapons have a close relationship with "rule of cool" game play. (I vote against the player hating title to this thread).



but no amount of proficiency allows a chair leg to count as a "club" for effects that specifically call for a club (such as Shillelagh).

Let us agree to disagree.

[Quoxis]

To your first point, I say maybe. You're both potentially right, and absolutely wrong. It's his decision. And that decision doesn't have to be a blanket. And even if he does make a blanket ruling, it is not your RIGHT to do anything, because the decision rests with him. You're not entitled to a single thing with regards to improvised weapons unless he grants it to you.
As to your third point, that's just incorrect. An Improvised Weapon is not enough like a weapon to be treated as such, but it certainly might be if the DM decides it to be so. It's at his discretion. Also at his discretion, if he decides that it's close enough, is exactly how much like a weapon it is and what it can be used for. The DM making a ruling on the fly to fit the situation on hand is not house-ruling. Claiming that it is indicates that you may possibly not understand the design philosophy behind this edition of the game to begin with.
Make rulings, not rules.
The DM making a ruling is not the same as house ruling. Not even close.
If you think it is, then you may as well just admit that every single table that has ever played this game is house ruling pretty much all the time.

As for the thread being meaningless, I once again disagree. An Improvised Weapon is not, in fact, a weapon. Many people think that because it muses that word to describe it, that it must be, but this is wrong. It's the focus of many discussions. Are all of those discussions meaningless?

You can reword it as much as you want, but what you're saying is "everything is up to the DM", which renders the discussion meaningless as in "you cannot find a 100% correct solution" because "everything is up to the DM". That's what my first statement was about.
The rest is my personal interpretation, in which i still cannot see a major flaw other than apparently wrong use of geek lingo intricate mechanical terms, e.g. house rule vs. ruling, for which i deeply apologize.

[DivisibleByZero]

You can reword it as much as you want, but what you're saying is "everything is up to the DM", which renders the discussion meaningless as in "you cannot find a 100% correct solution" because "everything is up to the DM". That's what my first statement was about.
The rest is my personal interpretation, in which i still cannot see a major flaw other than apparently wrong use of geek lingo intricate mechanical terms, e.g. house rule vs. ruling, for which i deeply apologize.

First I'll direct you to a couple of tweets relevant to the discussion.

@JeremyECrawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F1 1%2F18%2Fa-shield-isnt-a-weapon%2F)
@mackenzie884 An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise.

@JeremyECrawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/729789771560591360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 6%2F18%2Fcan-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat%2F)
Dual Wielder is intended to work with actual weapons. Using the feat with improvised weapons is up to the DM. #DnD

Now I'll repeat what I said to begin with.


Correct.
An Improvised Weapon is not a weapon, in and of itself.
It "becomes" a weapon for a fraction of a second, in that very instant where you hit someone with it. The moment prior when you're swinging it, and the moment after the blow lands, it is not a weapon. In the instant that it hits, and only in that instant, it is.
So you can't TWF with ImpWeaps, and you can't cast Magic Weapon on it because it isn't a valid target (unless your DM hand-waives and lets you do these things), but you can indeed Smite with it, for example.

I wasn't making that up or talking out of my arse.

It is not a weapon, by the game's standards, at all, in any way, except for the fraction of a second during which you land a blow with it.
An improvised weapon is not a weapon. It is specifically a thing which is not a weapon but which is being used as a weapon for a moment. If it really were a weapon, it would not be improvised.
As such, anything which requires a weapon does not apply to an improvised weapon at all.
Your DM may make a ruling on the fly to hand-waive this, and if he or she does, then the exact extent to which you can use it as a weapon is entirely in their hands.
It is not a weapon. Not at all. Not by the game's standards. That's the normal state. If the DM deviates from that normal state and allows it, then the degree by which they deviate from it is up to them.
Are you following now?

If I allowed a player to use an improvised weapon as a weapon, and they argued with me about what that entailed, I would simply not allow them to use it as a weapon anymore.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Then this entire thread is meaningless.




The question this thread is trying to answers is whether or not being proficient with an attack with X item makes X item a "weapon" for the purposes of spells and class abilities?

This is rather important since all objects that can be carried in one or two hands counts as a improvised weapon. By raw if you can lift it, you can attack with it. It raises the question of what makes a club different from a table leg? If any large hunk of wood has the same properties as any other large hunk of wood, what makes one large hunk of wood a "real weapon" and the other a "improvised weapon"?

The messy part comes when a player gets the tavern brawler feat and now has a +3 bookshelf of goblin smitting

[PeteNutButter]

The question this thread is trying to answers is whether or not being proficient with an attack with X item makes X item a "weapon" for the purposes of spells and class abilities?

This is rather important since all objects that can be carried in one or two hands counts as a improvised weapon. By raw if you can lift it, you can attack with it. It raises the question of what makes a club different from a table leg? If any large hunk of wood has the same properties as any other large hunk of wood, what makes one large hunk of wood a "real weapon" and the other a "improvised weapon"?

The messy part comes when a player gets the tavern brawler feat and now has a +3 bookshelf of goblin smitting

So to sum up the best way to put this is: An improvised weapon is by default not a weapon as far class features go. If the DM determines an improvised weapon is close enough to a weapon that it could function as a weapon, then it is a weapon.

There is an item in CoS that is a magic improvised weapon that specifically functions as a club. Is it a club? As far as game features go, yes.

All this timing of it is based on tweets and has no bearing in RAW. Of course a DM could rule that it is a weapon at moment x, but not at moment y, and that doesn't conflict with what is bolded above.

[DivisibleByZero]

All this timing of it is based on tweets and has no bearing in RAW.

The tweets say exactly what the RAW does.


I m p r o v is e d W e a p o n s
Som etim es characters don’t have their w eapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An im provised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a w agon wheel, or a dead goblin.
In many cases, an im provised w eapon 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 w ere that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resem blance 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 m elee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An im provised thrown w eapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

An improvised weapon is a thing which is specifically not a weapon for game purposes. A weapon for game purposes is something listed on the Weapons table.
Everything else is an improvised weapon.
Under that header of everything else, you have two categories.
1) Things which do not resemble weapons at all.
2) Things which might be considered close enough to resemble weapons, at the DM's discretion.
Of those from the second category, the DM has carte blanche in determining exactly what that entails, because: Make Rulings, Not Rules.
When in doubt, treat it like a club, with no proficiency, and lacking the Light property.

[Easy_Lee]

Arguments will go nowhere here. Many differentiate improvised weapons, weapon attacks, and weapons. If memory serves, Crawford rules all of these as distinct things. But not every DM does.

At the end of the day, the question of whether an improvised weapon counts as a weapon for a given effect is a ruling - not a house rule, not RAW, but a ruling. Given 5e's philosophy of rulings, not rules, this is unsurprising.

[greenstone]

It's still not a "weapon" in the sense of what various rules are referring to.

I wish the game did a better job of explicitly explaining this.

If you hit someone with a helmet or mug, you are making a "melee weapon attack" but you are not "making an attack with a weapon".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wish the game did a better job of explicitly explaining this.

If you hit someone with a helmet or mug, you are making a "melee weapon attack" but you are not "making an attack with a weapon".

Here's the decision tree I use--I'm sure it has edge cases, but it might help someone keep track.

1) Can the attack be made without penalty within 5 feet of an enemy?
1a) Yes => It is a Melee attack.
1b) No => It is a Ranged attack.
2) What ability modifier is added to the attack roll before considering any exceptions?
2a) STR or DEX (or CON, in principle) => Weapon attack
2b) INT, WIS, or CHA => Spell Attack. Exception: substitution features (shillelagh, the SCAG cantrips, and the upcoming Hexblade feature don't change the type of the attack).
3) Is the attack made with an item listed in the Weapons table?
3a) Yes => Attack with a weapon.
3b) No => Attack (not with a weapon).

The two "weapon" uses are, I'll admit, sub-optimal. Maybe call it a Melee Physical Attack, a Ranged Physical attack, a Ranged Spell attack, etc? Still doesn't cover the bases exactly, but closer IMO.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Here's the decision tree I use--I'm sure it has edge cases, but it might help someone keep track.

1) Can the attack be made without penalty within 5 feet of an enemy?
1a) Yes => It is a Melee attack.
1b) No => It is a Ranged attack.
2) What ability modifier is added to the attack roll before considering any exceptions?
2a) STR or DEX (or CON, in principle) => Weapon attack
2b) INT, WIS, or CHA => Spell Attack. Exception: substitution features (shillelagh, the SCAG cantrips, and the upcoming Hexblade feature don't change the type of the attack).
3) Is the attack made with an item listed in the Weapons table?
3a) Yes => Attack with a weapon.
3b) No => Attack (not with a weapon).

The two "weapon" uses are, I'll admit, sub-optimal. Maybe call it a Melee Physical Attack, a Ranged Physical attack, a Ranged Spell attack, etc? Still doesn't cover the bases exactly, but closer IMO.

So if a character has proficiency with clubs they really have proficiency Melee Physical attacks using club like objects? That hardly seems like a logical extension of the rules as written.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So if a character has proficiency with clubs they really have proficiency Melee Physical attacks using club like objects? That hardly seems like a logical extension of the rules as written.

Anyone can make Melee Physical attacks with any item (or with their bare hands). Having proficiency in a particular weapon gives a bonus to that attack roll. Thus, someone with club proficiency can add his proficiency bonus to Melee Physical attacks when using a club[1] (as a specific exception to the normal modifier calculation).

*Non-weapon: Is 1d20 + MOD >= AC? If yes, hit. If no, miss. Not an "attack with a weapon," for obvious reasons.
*Non-proficient weapon: Is 1d20 + MOD >= AC? If yes, hit. If no, miss. An "attack with a weapon", just not as an effective one.
*Spell, natural weapon, or unarmed attack: Is 1d20 + MOD + PROFICIENCY >= AC? If yes, hit. If no, miss. Only an "attack with a weapon" if a feature specifically calls it out as being such (SCAG cantrips, qualifying monk unarmed attacks, etc).
*Proficient weapon: Is 1d20 + MOD + PROFICIENCY >= AC? If yes, hit. If no, miss. An attack with a weapon, for obvious reasons.

Note that proficiency really doesn't affect whether something is an attack with a weapon or not. It affects what you add to the roll, but not the overall classification.

[1] What counts as a [weapon]? Any physical object that a DM says counts as a [weapon], really. You're guaranteed that things specifically listed in the weapon table count. Anything else is DM's discretion.

[TheDarkKing]

Well, why wouldn't it be a weapon? It says it is a weapon right in the name- Improvised Weapon. That means it was a not a weapon a while ago, but since you are using it to attack someone, it has now become a weapon. Because that's what a weapon is, you know, a tool that you use to attack someone. A broken bottle or barstool might not be as effective as a sword or axe, but it still will injure, maim or kill.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, why wouldn't it be a weapon? It says it is a weapon right in the name- Improvised Weapon. That means it was a not a weapon a while ago, but since you are using it to attack someone, it has now become a weapon. Because that's what a weapon is, you know, a tool that you use to attack someone. A broken bottle or barstool might not be as effective as a sword or axe, but it still will injure, maim or kill.

It's a ruling. The usual justification is: if it's not on the weapons table, it's not a weapon. But don't think too hard about it, just ask your DM and move on. That's the best policy.

[Typhon]

So how would one classify a lumberjacks wood axe, a hatchet, a carpenters hammer, a miner's pick axe or a ten pound sledgehammer? These tools are not on the weapons table, but could all easily be used as weapons closely related to weapons on the table. It is also easy to see these being available in fairly common locations one might encounter civilized populations.

Now you want to tell me I couldn't use weapon enhancing magics on these tools? Specifically because, "they aren't on the weapons table" or "DM choice" as a denial statement? To me that comes across as disingenuous, dishonest, and extremely nit picky.

I readily acknowledge they are not designed to be weapons. However, the are designed to be used and abused at least as much if not moreso than standard weapons. They are also much more common than their table listed counterparts. So please tell me I am wrong with how I am seeing most of this conversation going.

[DivisibleByZero]

So how would one classify a lumberjacks wood axe, a hatchet, a carpenters hammer, a miner's pick axe or a ten pound sledgehammer? These tools are not on the weapons table, but could all easily be used as weapons closely related to weapons on the table. It is also easy to see these being available in fairly common locations one might encounter civilized populations.

Now you want to tell me I couldn't use weapon enhancing magics on these tools? Specifically because, "they aren't on the weapons table" or "DM choice" as a denial statement? To me that comes across as disingenuous, dishonest, and extremely nit picky.

I readily acknowledge they are not designed to be weapons. However, the are designed to be used and abused at least as much if not moreso than standard weapons. They are also much more common than their table listed counterparts. So please tell me I am wrong with how I am seeing most of this conversation going.

I don't expect that many DMs would have any problems allowing any of the above, but they would be well within their rights to not allow any of it if they so wished.

[Typhon]

I don't expect that many DMs would have any problems allowing any of the above, but they would be well within their rights to not allow any of it if they so wished.

Then that is pretty much saying a DM could disallow all or certain weapons from the table to not function with all or specific spells. Which would cause equal uproar.

Anything can be weaponized, but that doesn't mean it will be effective or durable.

IRL bottles make decent clubs before they break, but are pretty worthless against metal, wood, or stone. There is also no guarantee once it breaks there would be enough to use as a decent weapon of any sort, or that the action of the bottle breaking won't actually inflict damage on you. Catch 22 and all that.

Limiting options to DM say so or a table, is pretty uncreative and doesn't seem even marginally realistic, especially for a game where people literally throw around elemental energies regularly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then that is pretty much saying a DM could disallow all or certain weapons from the table to not function with all or specific spells. Which would cause equal uproar.


No, if it's in the table it's a weapon by default. Anything not in the table requires DM fiat to make it a weapon. The situations are inverses of each other.



Anything can be weaponized, but that doesn't mean it will be effective or durable.

IRL bottles make decent clubs before they break, but are pretty worthless against metal, wood, or stone. There is also no guarantee once it breaks there would be enough to use as a decent weapon of any sort, or that the action of the bottle breaking won't actually inflict damage on you. Catch 22 and all that.

Limiting options to DM say so or a table, is pretty uncreative and doesn't seem even marginally realistic, especially for a game where people literally throw around elemental energies regularly.

Bottles are actually pretty crappy clubs, broken or not. More so, they're hard to use with any skill (since their construction doesn't lend themselves to that. Thus, club damage (1d4), but no proficiency in use. That's the default for improvised weapons (ie not-weapons).

These are all game facts, and necessary ones. You can't enumerate all (or even any substantial number) of possible alternate weapons. You have to rely on a DM's judgement. That's central to this edition (and, in my opinion, a very good thing). If you don't trust the DM to not be a jerk, don't play with them. No amount of rules or text will stop a bad DM from being a jerk.

[Typhon]

No, if it's in the table it's a weapon by default. Anything not in the table requires DM fiat to make it a weapon. The situations are inverses of each other.

Let me know how you think a dm might handle decorative weapons. Also keep in mind that means weapons that actually exist that aren't on the table, it is really just fluffing anyways. So no adding katanas, even if they are just like longswords.


Bottles are actually pretty crappy clubs, broken or not. More so, they're hard to use with any skill (since their construction doesn't lend themselves to that. Thus, club damage (1d4), but no proficiency in use. That's the default for improvised weapons (ie not-weapons).

Right. Because hitting someone with clear stone clubs isn't a thing at all. It also isn't like they have a part that lends to being held by a hand, ever. I mean clubs are super specialized too, so no possible way anyone could possibly be used to holding anything remotely like that.


These are all game facts, and necessary ones. You can't enumerate all (or even any substantial number) of possible alternate weapons. You have to rely on a DM's judgement. That's central to this edition (and, in my opinion, a very good thing). If you don't trust the DM to not be a jerk, don't play with them. No amount of rules or text will stop a bad DM from being a jerk.

DM's judgement, fiat if you prefer, and player consensus, agency if you prefer, are the very cornerstones of D&D, since the games inception. Those very concepts of the game are more bound to the game than the rules as written or intended. Thus why every table ever has eventually created house rules that those players agree to follow. Even if they are the petty silliness of determining it must be exactly in the written material from it's creators.

These are game guidelines, not facts and they are not always necessary. I always trust my DM and fellow players, until I know that I can't or shouldn't. I also know that jerks fill many roles, like trying to dictate the meaning and intent of rules for a game. The only real rules are the DM judges, the players challenge or concede judgements or rulings, and everyone be cool and have fun.

As far as enumerating every possible (or a substantial number) of improvised weapons, which are weapons when used as such. You know most end up as 1dx bludgeoning type damage and either will require one or two hands mostly due to size or shape. Including the decorative sword mentioned earlier, it was made for display not combat. No balance, no tempering to hold an edge, and most likely not made from optimally durable materials using optimal production methods.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let me know how you think a dm might handle decorative weapons. Also keep in mind that means weapons that actually exist that aren't on the table, it is really just fluffing anyways. So no adding katanas, even if they are just like longswords.



Right. Because hitting someone with clear stone clubs isn't a thing at all. It also isn't like they have a part that lends to being held by a hand, ever. I mean clubs are super specialized too, so no possible way anyone could possibly be used to holding anything remotely like that.



DM's judgement, fiat if you prefer, and player consensus, agency if you prefer, are the very cornerstones of D&D, since the games inception. Those very concepts of the game are more bound to the game than the rules as written or intended. Thus why every table ever has eventually created house rules that those players agree to follow. Even if they are the petty silliness of determining it must be exactly in the written material from it's creators.

These are game guidelines, not facts and they are not always necessary. I always trust my DM and fellow players, until I know that I can't or shouldn't. I also know that jerks fill many roles, like trying to dictate the meaning and intent of rules for a game. The only real rules are the DM judges, the players challenge or concede judgements or rulings, and everyone be cool and have fun.

As far as enumerating every possible (or a substantial number) of improvised weapons, which are weapons when used as such. You know most end up as 1dx bludgeoning type damage and either will require one or two hands mostly due to size or shape. Including the decorative sword mentioned earlier, it was made for display not combat. No balance, no tempering to hold an edge, and most likely not made from optimally durable materials using optimal production methods.

I happen to own two decorative weapons, as well as a wooden practice sword. One is a cheap, soft steel replica, the other is a much higher-quality (although not combat grade) replica. If I fought with the cheap one, it would give under the first good strike against an armored person (or if parried). It's so off-balance that using it is awkward even without striking. That's not a weapon, it's a toy. The other is much better, but not balanced for combat. Even if I were any good (which I'm not), the imbalance would definitely result in a penalty. Both are improvised weapons in any real combat, but a case could be made for the second one.

The wooden one is the best suited for actual duty, ironically. It's balanced right, it's good heavy wood properly treated for striking things. As a DM, that one would work as an upgraded club (maybe 1d6 bludgeoning).

Decorative items are decorative. They're not actual weapons--it says it right in their name.

[Typhon]

I am going to assume you are referring to a practice sword for kempo or a different martial combat practice weapon. If it is sized and weighted as a metal equivalent, then it should damage equivalently. Bludgeoning and not slashing of course though.

Not to doubt or deny it's quality of construction, but I doubt it would do well in actual combat. Then again there is the legend of Musashi.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am going to assume you are referring to a practice sword for kempo or a different martial combat practice weapon. If it is sized and weighted as a metal equivalent, then it should damage equivalently. Bludgeoning and not slashing of course though.

Not to doubt or deny it's quality of construction, but I doubt it would do well in actual combat. Then again there is the legend of Musashi.

Yeah. Its durability would likely be lacking, but much better than the cheap display sword I have, or the pot metal junk I saw at the last vendor I went to. Those were so off balance and heavy (not to mention poor quality construction) that they'd be more hazardous to the user than to the foe in actual combat.