Improvised magic weapons

[Quoz]

My low level party, all 2nd or 3rd level with no magic weapons is about to get into a fight with a bunch of undead that are resistant to magic weapons. We only have 2 casters, one of whom is a death cleric and his only offensive cantrip deals necrotic damage, which we also suspect will be resisted or immune.

Trying to think outside the box, the only magic items in the party are a +1 shield, gloves of swimming and climbing, and a set of as yet identified pipes. My big question: does a magic item like a shield that is used as an improvised weapon count as a magic weapon for bypassing resistance? Does making an unarmed strike with magic gloves? Would using a lit torch as a club add fire damage? Are there any other stunts or tricks we could prep in a short rest that might even the odds?

[DarthPenance]

Wait resistant to magic weapons? Do you mean non-magical?
Well, to be fair, if it's only resistance, not outright immunity, you are fine with your current weapon, even if they deal half-damage the shield would only deal like 1d4 + strenght with no proficiency, if your GM is understanding and the gloves doing normal punch damage, which is 1 + strenght if you're not monk.
The torch does 1d4 fire damage if used as a weapon, but no attribute boost or proficiency, if you're a martial dps you should have at least a d8 weapon, and since you have proficiency in them, it will deal more damage than the magic improvised weapons, so you should be fine.
Skeletons are weak to bludgeoning though, so maybe try using a weapon that does that type of damage, if your characters had no way of knowing that, don't, or else the GM may be angry of metagaming.

[clash]

I would let magic gloves work for unarmed strikes. As for the improvised weapons sure. The shield would work but unless you are proficient in improvised weapons you will have a hard time to hit with it. Probably not worth it unless these guys have low ac. As for the fire damage again I would let that work, the drawback being that the weapon you are weilding is on fire, so you might take some fire damage as well.

[Easy_Lee]

Suppose you spend a round pouring oil on your sword and lighting it on fire. It wouldn't work in real life but your DM might allow it.

Otherwise, I don't see any reason why using a magic item as an improvised magic weapon should not work.

[Mikal]

I wouldn't allow it personally, but your DM might.

[Easy_Lee]

I wouldn't allow it personally, but your DM might.

What is your reasoning?

[lperkins2]

So, for the torch specifically, I believe in the PHB description on the torch, it does 1 pt fire damage if used as a weapon. It doesn't say it acts as a club (1d4+str) that also deals 1 pt fire, just straight 1 pt fire. Makes them useful in a pinch against trolls, but not for much else.

[Mikal]

What is your reasoning?

Multifactored

1) You're likely to do the same damage with your non magic weapons than you are with your improved weapons, so it's a waste of time and effort. You might also be able to use something more inventive, such as say, flammable oil and a spark. But you might want to make sure you have someone with an alchemy proficiency to make sure you don't use too little or too much...

2) In my game world magic creates specific effects (which is the only way I could wrap my head around the fact that objects can't take damage from say Eldritch Blast...). This means that a item that isn't a weapon with an enchantment won't overcome effects that require a magic weapon, even if you use it to bash someone over the head, or punch someone in the face with the gloves, or... I dunno, shank em with the pipes somehow?

3) I prefer actual tactics and strategy vs. just creating shortcuts in my game, as well as making choices with consequences. You get X, but it may not make Y as useful. Same reason I don't allow dex spears or short swords refluffed as longswords for a monk who doesn't want to go Kensei but still wants to have a longsword and look cool.

If you want a RAW reason well... the items don't say you can use them as improved weapons that are magical. So it falls to DM ruling, which I've already talked about above.

[JackPhoenix]

What is your reasoning?

Mine would be that it's not a weapon and the enchantment isn't designed in a way that would cause harm to creatures vulnerable to magic weapons. Otherwise, you could argue that simply casting Light (or any other lasting spell that could target objects) on a weapon (or any object) would make it qualify as a magic weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

Mine would be that it's not a weapon and the enchantment isn't designed in a way that would cause harm to creatures vulnerable to magic weapons. Otherwise, you could argue that simply casting Light (or any other lasting spell that could target objects) on a weapon (or any object) would make it qualify as a magic weapon.

The game text is pretty loose on what's going on, I'll give you that. And some things don't work exactly as we'd expect, anyway. My favorite (unrelated): blind archers shooting each other with longbows from 150 feet away are more likely to hit each other than prone crossbowmen shooting from 10 feet away.

If your ruling makes sense to you and your table, that's what's important.

[Mikal]

Mine would be that it's not a weapon and the enchantment isn't designed in a way that would cause harm to creatures vulnerable to magic weapons. Otherwise, you could argue that simply casting Light (or any other lasting spell that could target objects) on a weapon (or any object) would make it qualify as a magic weapon.

Another good reason.

[RSP]

A "magical weapon" is a specific thing in D&D, not just the normal English meaning of combining those two words. If you look at the Magical Weapons in the DMG, you won't find armor or misc items. It's also why some staves specifically state they work as magical weapons (and therefore, others don't count as magical weapons), and why magical rods don't count as magical clubs.

[Easy_Lee]

A "magical weapon" is a specific thing in D&D, not just the normal English meaning of combining those two words. If you look at the Magical Weapons in the DMG, you won't find armor or misc items. It's also why some staves specifically state they work as magical weapons (and therefore, others don't count as magical weapons), and why magical rods don't count as magical clubs.

That isn't codified. You're making assumptions based on your understanding of the text, like we all do.

For fun, I'm curious to see what Mearls would have to say about a fighter with Tavern Brawler throwing a magical shield as an improvised weapon.

Also, Conjuration Wizards can summon a weapon with minor Conjuration: "its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 2 metres." So, by your ruling, is that a magical nonmagical weapon? Is it a magic weapon but not a "magic weapon"?

[JackPhoenix]

That isn't codified. You're making assumptions based on your understanding of the text, like we all do.

For fun, I'm curious to see what Mearls would have to say about a fighter with Tavern Brawler throwing a magical shield as an improvised weapon.

Also, Conjuration Wizards can summon a weapon with minor Conjuration: "its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 2 metres." So, by your ruling, is that a magical nonmagical weapon? Is it a magic weapon but not a "magic weapon"?

MM will likely say he would allow it. That, however, doesn't mean anything... JC is the authority on what's RAI.

[RSP]

That isn't codified. You're making assumptions based on your understanding of the text, like we all do.

For fun, I'm curious to see what Mearls would have to say about a fighter with Tavern Brawler throwing a magical shield as an improvised weapon.

Also, Conjuration Wizards can summon a weapon with minor Conjuration: "its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 2 metres." So, by your ruling, is that a magical nonmagical weapon? Is it a magic weapon but not a "magic weapon"?

For minor conjurarion, I think the intent is for it not to count as a magic weapon. It's a "non-magical object" that appears ("is visibly") magical. I think if the intent was summoning magic weapons it would have been spelled out.

For the other part: a Staff of Power can be wielded as a +2 magical quarterstaff. A Staff of Healing cannot. A Rod of Lordly Might can be used as a +3 mace; a Rod of the Pact Keeper cannot. I'm not saying it wouldn't be okay to rule that a staff of healing counts as a magic weapon (+0), but in my opinion, the design intent is clear in that they decided to separate magic weapons from other magic items. Again, they have different categories for that reason, and why, at least as I believe they intended it, you can't use a Bowl of Commanding Water Elementals as a magical shield or say the Quiver of Ehlonna on your back is "magical armor."

[Easy_Lee]

For minor conjurarion, I think the intent is for it not to count as a magic weapon. It's a "non-magical object" that appears ("is visibly") magical. I think if the intent was summoning magic weapons it would have been spelled out.

For the other part: a Staff of Power can be wielded as a +2 magical quarterstaff. A Staff of Healing cannot. A Rod of Lordly Might can be used as a +3 mace; a Rod of the Pact Keeper cannot. I'm not saying it wouldn't be okay to rule that a staff of healing counts as a magic weapon (+0), but in my opinion, the design intent is clear in that they decided to separate magic weapons from other magic items. Again, they have different categories for that reason, and why, at least as I believe they intended it, you can't use a Bowl of Commanding Water Elementals as a magical shield or say the Quiver of Ehlonna on your back is "magical armor."

Regarding the Quiver, there's no such thing as improvised armor in 5e. However, we do have improvised weapons complete with damage die. Show me the text that specifies whether a magical improvised weapon counts as an improvised magic weapon.

[RSP]

Regarding the Quiver, there's no such thing as improvised armor in 5e. However, we do have improvised weapons complete with damage die. Show me the text that specifies whether a magical improvised weapon counts as an improvised magic weapon.

The OP was asking about whether magic items used as weapons would equal improvised "magic weapons." I stated my reasoning for why I don't think it would (that is, magic weapons are a specific thing). You could certainly use a Rod of the Pact Master as an improvised weapon, per RAW. I don't think the intent is that it acts as a magic weapon any more than "I punch it with my magic ring of spell storing" means you're attacking with a magic weapon.

I'm not sure why you're demanding I show anything else.

[RSP]

Also, Staff of Charming: "The staff can also be used as a magic quarterstaff." This line is unnecessary if any magic item can be used as a magic weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not sure why you're demanding I show anything else.

Because you can't and that's my point. There is no rule one way or the other. Jack Phoenix already stated that he thinks even Mearls and Crawford would disagree in ruling this one. I don't think much more needs to be said.


Also, Staff of Charming: "The staff can also be used as a magic quarterstaff." This line is unnecessary if any magic item can be used as a magic weapon.

Actually, a magical quarterstaff and improvised magical weapon would be different things regardless. The same can be said of any magic item that doesn't specify it can be used as a weapon. Tables aren't listed as weapons, either, but that doesn't stop Tavern Brawlers even by the RAW.

[Unoriginal]

For minor conjurarion, I think the intent is for it not to count as a magic weapon. It's a "non-magical object" that appears ("is visibly") magical. I think if the intent was summoning magic weapons it would have been spelled out.

For the other part: a Staff of Power can be wielded as a +2 magical quarterstaff. A Staff of Healing cannot. A Rod of Lordly Might can be used as a +3 mace; a Rod of the Pact Keeper cannot. I'm not saying it wouldn't be okay to rule that a staff of healing counts as a magic weapon (+0), but in my opinion, the design intent is clear in that they decided to separate magic weapons from other magic items. Again, they have different categories for that reason, and why, at least as I believe they intended it, you can't use a Bowl of Commanding Water Elementals as a magical shield or say the Quiver of Ehlonna on your back is "magical armor."


Also, Staff of Charming: "The staff can also be used as a magic quarterstaff." This line is unnecessary if any magic item can be used as a magic weapon.

The wording of the staves is most likely because some of the staves are proper quarterstaves, while others are not built for what.

Regardless, the point is that the magic infused in the weapon is what allows it to bypass the damage resistance. It's resistance to magical attack, not to magical weapons. A Moon-Touched Sword (from the Xanathar's) does bypass resistance to non-magical attacks, even if the sword's only power is to glow.

It's debatable if non-weapon magic items can bypass the resistance, though. Could you use the gauntlets of a magic armor you're wearing to bypass the resistance?

Would the spell Magic Weapon work on a chair the Barbarian grabbed to bash an enemy with it?

[RSP]

The wording of the staves is most likely because some of the staves are proper quarterstaves, while others are not built for what.

Regardless, the point is that the magic infused in the weapon is what allows it to bypass the damage resistance. It's resistance to magical attack, not to magical weapons. A Moon-Touched Sword (from the Xanathar's) does bypass resistance to non-magical attacks, even if the sword's only power is to glow.

It's debatable if non-weapon magic items can bypass the resistance, though. Could you use the gauntlets of a magic armor you're wearing to bypass the resistance?

Would the spell Magic Weapon work on a chair the Barbarian grabbed to bash an enemy with it?

I disagree on the staves. There are different types of magic items: staves aren't, by default, magic weapons. Neither is armor. Neither is Wonderous Items, etc.

Logically, if some non-Magic Weapons specifically state they can be used as magic weapons, and rest don't, it means the ones that don't aren't able to be used as Magic Weapons. Not to mention, it's not just staves that say that: at least the Rods work the same way.

[RSP]

Because you can't and that's my point. There is no rule one way or the other. Jack Phoenix already stated that he thinks even Mearls and Crawford would disagree in ruling this one. I don't think much more needs to be said.


No. There is a thing called a weapon. There is a thing called a magic weapon. There is a rule that utilizes improvised weapons, which is when one uses a non-weapon to make an attack.

The rule says nothing about magical items becoming magical improvised weapons. It says "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." Is a Staff of Healing an object you can hold in one or two hands (that isn't a weapon)? Yes. Therefore it becomes an improvised weapon (not an improvised magic weapon - which doesn't exist in the RAW).

Now, one could rule a Staff of Healing is similar enough to a quarterstaff that it counts as a staff per the RAW: "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." However, we know this isn't the general case otherwise all Magic Rods would be magic maces or magic clubs. All Magic Staves would be Magic Weapons. But we know that isn't isn't true as the rules specify that only a certain few count as such.

It's not a case of me having to find a quote saying "there is no such thing as an improvised magic weapon," it's a case of those things being distinct items in the rules and nothing tells us (other than what's stated above) to combine them.

[Easy_Lee]

No. There is a thing called a weapon. There is a thing called a magic weapon. There is a rule that utilizes improvised weapons, which is when one uses a non-weapon to make an attack.

The rule says nothing about magical items becoming magical improvised weapons. It says "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." Is a Staff of Healing an object you can hold in one or two hands (that isn't a weapon)? Yes. Therefore it becomes an improvised weapon (not an improvised magic weapon - which doesn't exist in the RAW).

Now, one could rule a Staff of Healing is similar enough to a quarterstaff that it counts as a staff per the RAW: "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." However, we know this isn't the general case otherwise all Magic Rods would be magic maces or magic clubs. All Magic Staves would be Magic Weapons. But we know that isn't isn't true as the rules specify that only a certain few count as such.

It's not a case of me having to find a quote saying "there is no such thing as an improvised magic weapon," it's a case of those things being distinct items in the rules and nothing tells us (other than what's stated above) to combine them.

You're making absolute statements based on assumptions. "...we know this isn't the general case otherwise all Magic Rods would be magic maces or magic clubs..." That's a common fallacy on these forums.

Suffice it to say that you don't know what the designers intend unless you ask them, and designer intent does not always influence DM rulings. Nor do your assumptions.

[RSP]

You're making absolute statements based on assumptions. "...we know this isn't the general case otherwise all Magic Rods would be magic maces or magic clubs..." That's a common fallacy on these forums.

Suffice it to say that you don't know what the designers intend unless you ask them, and designer intent does not always influence DM rulings. Nor do your assumptions.

Assuming only the items that specifically state they act as magic weapons, count as magic weapons, is the same assumption that only the classes that state they get extra attack, should get the benefit of extra attack.

This is how the rules work: they tell you what an item or a feature, a class, etc, can do.

The same argument you take to state "all staves are magic weapons, even though only a select few state they have that feature"; would also work for "all classes get extra act, even though only a select few state they have that feature."

You can dislike that rule. You can state I'm making incorrect assumptions. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that those are what the rules state.

[ImproperJustice]

I think someone with the Tavern Brawler feat should definitely be able to inflict damage with improvised magic objects as if they were magical weapons.

And honestly why not let players use the items in such a way?
I may give a chance they would break in some fashion on a Natural 1 maybe. It would depend on the item.