Can you sneak attack with thrown flasks of alchemist's fire, holy water, acid, etc.?

[ATHATH]

Because if so, a Thief could throw a flask with their bonus action, then use their normal action to ready an action to shoot an enemy at the beginning of the turn of whoever's next in the initiative order (and use their reaction to activate said readied action), enabling them to get two sneak attacks in a single round (albeit by spending a decent chunk of money).

[Ganymede]

I'm not so sure that making attacks with acid, holy water, etc. count as "use an object" actions instead of "attack" actions.

[Tanarii]

Doesn't SA require a ranged weapon, not just a ranged attack?

[Chaosvii7]

All of those items require you to use an action to use them as a weapon. Fast Hands only lets you Use an Object (which is a specific action) as a bonus action, and while the wording on both that ability and the aforementioned specific action seems to imply that it covers anything that doesn't take a specific amount of time to use already. Those items already take longer than an action so I'd reason that they're meant to always take an action when used in that way - though maybe if you come up with an unconventional way to perform the action I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Though being able to sneak attack with that subset of weapons really make me want Alchemist to be a rogue archetype.

[Tanarii]

All of those items require you to use an action to use them as a weapon.
This is a highly restrictive reading. I see it brought up occasionally on the forums, but I've yet to meet a DM IRL that subscribes to it. Its a safe bet your Theif will be able ti throw them as Bonus Actions in AL without issue.

[Mjolnirbear]

I believe you can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon. If that is the case, RAW, then the answer would be no.

However, it sounds fairly cool, and it's not like those objects do tons of damage nor are cheap to obtain or make. In my game I'd be inclined to allow it on one target at a time (not on splash damage, for instance), with the proviso that the ruling be withdrawn if it does turn out to break something in the game.

[Mith]

I would allow it for the "Surprise vial of Acid TO THE FACE!" Rule of Fun.

Anyone else recall Spoony the Bard's Thief World campaign? That story comes to mind.

[Thrudd]

It doesn't really make sense to allow sneak attacks with these items, since the rationale for a sneak attack's extra damage is hitting with precision a particularly vulnerable target area (why they require finesse weapons, as arbitrary as that distinction is). These things are all area/splash damage effects, impossible to target precisely. The bottle breaks and acid, oil, etc. splashes all over the place.

[JackPhoenix]

Alchemical items aren't finesse or ranged, or any, weapons. They can be thrown as improvised weapons, which falls under the Attack action, not Use an Object action.

[Ganymede]

I would allow it for the "Surprise vial of Acid TO THE FACE!" Rule of Fun.

You don't need to let rogues double up on sneak attacks in order to have fun throwing acid at people's faces. You can do one without the other.

[Eric Diaz]

RAW, no:

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.


RAF... I'd allow it.

EDIT: Oh, hadn't read the whole OP. This doesn't seem to be RAI nor RAW nor RAF, so no. If the Pc is just making an improvised weapon attack with the MAIN action I'd allow it.

[Dalebert]

It doesn't really make sense to allow sneak attacks with these items, since the rationale for a sneak attack's extra damage is hitting with precision a particularly vulnerable target area (why they require finesse weapons, as arbitrary as that distinction is). These things are all area/splash damage effects, impossible to target precisely. The bottle breaks and acid, oil, etc. splashes all over the place.

This. It undoubtedly is not sneak attack compatible because it's not even a weapon; much less a finesse one which is required for sneak attack. That said, I think it is usable by a thief as a bonus action because as we just established, it's not a weapon and it's not an attack. If it's an attack, then someone with extra attack(s) can use it more than once.

Compare it to Booming Blade. Booming Blade is the "cast a spell" action that then requires an attack roll to complete. Acid or Alchemist Fire is the "use an object" action that then requires an attack roll. It's not a weapon. It's definitely not a finesse weapon. So not only do you not get sneak attack, most characters are not proficient unless they're proficient with improvised weapons because that covers things which are not weapons.

So thieves could use them as a bonus action without proficiency or sneak attack, but ATs couldn't because Mage Hand specifically cannot attack.

[ImproperJustice]

So your surprising an opponent and inflicting extra damage because they are caught unprepared?

Sure.

Honestly, why does it matter what weapon your using?

Shouldn’t getting jacked with a club over the head, or taking a suprise sword strike to the gut be just as damaging as getting nailed at ground zero with the flask attacks listed above?

Sure they should. Silly rules mechanics.

[No brains]

Perhaps if you had Tavern Brawler, the proficiency could make the cast that the acid is enough of a 'weapon' to be a 'ranged weapon'. It's a hard to rule fringe case.

Then again, acid is like 50gp a vial, so it's not that imbalanced to pour some money into a stronger attack. Also DMs should note that barghests, black dragons, clay golems and mimics can painlessly enjoy a fizzy bath in acid when it keep popping up.

[JNAProductions]

Is This Raw?
By the looks of it, no.

Would I Allow This?
No. Hell no.

Would I Allow Something Like This?
Yes. I'd allow you to throw it as an Attack and enjoy Sneak Attack from that, but you can't make an attack with Cunning Action. No, not even with Fast Hands.

[Mith]

You don't need to let rogues double up on sneak attacks in order to have fun throwing acid at people's faces. You can do one without the other.

I think Eric sums my reaction up much better than I could.


RAW, no:

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.


RAF... I'd allow it.

EDIT: Oh, hadn't read the whole OP. This doesn't seem to be RAI nor RAW nor RAF, so no. If the Pc is just making an improvised weapon attack with the MAIN action I'd allow it.

[R.Shackleford]

It doesn't really make sense to allow sneak attacks with these items, since the rationale for a sneak attack's extra damage is hitting with precision a particularly vulnerable target area (why they require finesse weapons, as arbitrary as that distinction is). These things are all area/splash damage effects, impossible to target precisely. The bottle breaks and acid, oil, etc. splashes all over the place.


$5 says getting acid in your eyes hurt more than acid on your chest (hile wearing clothes or armor).

[Mjolnirbear]

Is This Raw?
By the looks of it, no.

Would I Allow This?
No. Hell no.

Would I Allow Something Like This?
Yes. I'd allow you to throw it as an Attack and enjoy Sneak Attack from that, but you can't make an attack with Cunning Action. No, not even with Fast Hands.

This is a really good point.

[Desteplo]

Using items: bonus action

Attacking: action and does not qualify for fast hands

Oil: item (fast hands if you spill it, which is part of the description)
Improvised weapon (no longer an item, does not qualify)

You can make a terrain feature as a fast hands (essentially flammable grease spell) but you can’t use it to attack as it becomes a weapon which doesn’t qualify
Otherwise DM has a say if they’re light (technically they can count as improvised melee weapons that’ll shatter on hit)
But normally they’d be thrown weapons (using only strength) but in description says “ranged Attack” so they use dex

Sneak attack says “finesse or ranged weapon”

Item says “ranged Attack” as an improvised weapon.

So it’s loose wording. But sounds like it’s a ranged Attack (not a thrown weapon)

So it’s a “Ranged Attack with an improvised weapon.” So technically it’s a weapon, and specifically called out as a ranged Attack. Sneak attack

[stoutstien]

The question is can a attack that does no damage trigger sneak attack? Nets? Flasks of oil or alchemist fire( the effect does damage not the attack itself)

[Mjolnirbear]

Using items: bonus action

Attacking: action and does not qualify for fast hands

Oil: item (fast hands if you spill it, which is part of the description)
Improvised weapon (no longer an item, does not qualify)

You can make a terrain feature as a fast hands (essentially flammable grease spell) but you can’t use it to attack as it becomes a weapon which doesn’t qualify
Otherwise DM has a say if they’re light (technically they can count as improvised melee weapons that’ll shatter on hit)
But normally they’d be thrown weapons (using only strength) but in description says “ranged Attack” so they use dex

Sneak attack says “finesse or ranged weapon”

Item says “ranged Attack” as an improvised weapon.

So it’s loose wording. But sounds like it’s a ranged Attack (not a thrown weapon)

So it’s a “Ranged Attack with an improvised weapon.” So technically it’s a weapon, and specifically called out as a ranged Attack. Sneak attack

Ranged attack with improvised weapon, yes. Attack with a ranged or finesse weapon, no.

Sneak attack wording specifies the weapon must be ranged or finesse. An improvised weapon is neither. An example is a weapon with the thrown property. It is still a melee weapon, not a ranged weapon. Dagger otherwise qualifies because it is finesse, but handaxe does not, for example. Having a range does not mean it's Ranged. Welcome to D&D.

Of course many of us are for it anyways. RAW isn't always the best way to go. It's best to know what rule you're breaking, though.

[Requilac]

The Use an Object action doesn’t allow you to throw alchemical substances as a bonus action. I am sorry if I sound aggressive here, I just want to make a point and I don’t hold any disdain towards you at all. All of the alchemical substances the OP listed require an action to throw because it says so in their descriptions. Read the descriptions of all these items on the PHB and you will see that all of them say that they require an action to attack with.

Acid: “As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet,..treating the acid as an improvised weapon.”

Alchemist’s Fire: “As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact... treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon”

Holy Water: “As an action, you can splash the contents of this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet... treating the holy water as an improvised weapon”

There is no RAI or debate on whether it takes an action to throw an alchemical substance. The PHB’s description of the objects makes it obviously clear by RAW. You could house rule it if you wish, I would probably allow it myself as a DM, but it’s certianly not what WotC was intending.

Also, this wouldn’t work because SA only applies to finesse or ranged weapons. Acid, alchemist’s fire and holy water are treated as improvised weapons when making the attack roll so they can’t be considered “ranged weapons” in the common sense.

[R.Shackleford]

The Use an Object action doesn’t allow you to throw alchemical substances as a bonus action. I am sorry if I sound aggressive here, I just want to make a point and I don’t hold any disdain towards you at all. All of the alchemical substances the OP listed require an action to throw because it says so in their descriptions. Read the descriptions of all these items on the PHB and you will see that all of them say that they require an action to attack with.

Acid: “As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet,..treating the acid as an improvised weapon.”

Alchemist’s Fire: “As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact... treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon”

Holy Water: “As an action, you can splash the contents of this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet... treating the holy water as an improvised weapon”

There is no RAI or debate on whether it takes an action to throw an alchemical substance. The PHB’s description of the objects makes it obviously clear by RAW. You could house rule it if you wish, I would probably allow it myself as a DM, but it’s certianly not what WotC was intending.

Also, this wouldn’t work because SA only applies to finesse or ranged weapons. Acid, alchemist’s fire and holy water are treated as improvised weapons when making the attack roll so they can’t be considered “ranged weapons” in the common sense.

I'm with you... However here is where RAW is weird. (Edit: by which i mean, why there is such a debate on what is usable with fast hands. Either fast hands is awesome or it sucks depending on the ruling... JC has said that healers kit doesn't count).


Use an Object

You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.

This is where things get weird.


Alchemist’s Fire: This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist’s fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

Now it takes an action to use the item. Right? So using the rules above would make it fall under Use an Object. Since, you know, you're using an object that normally takes an action to use.

Unless Alchemist Fire isn't an object? But that's silly, its an object is it not?

There in lies the issue. They made rules for using objects, made objects, and then made gear/magic items... Which gear and magic items have specific actions to use... And forgot about one key piece of information. 5e was made with plain English and simplicity in mind. So any object should be an object.

Maybe there has been an errata that deals with what an object is, what an item is, and all that.

I know there's a tweet saying that the healer's kit isn't usable via fast hands... :/ which is just mean.

[Dalebert]

The Use an Object action doesn’t allow you to throw alchemical substances as a bonus action.

Of course not. It's the Fast Hands ability that allows it. Use an Object that's normally a full action can be a bonus action for a thief and only for a thief.


Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves’ tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object action.

There's the notion that it's actually a weapon but it's not in the weapon section. It's in the equipment section. And if you decide it's a weapon attack, then people with extra attacks can eventually throw up to four of them. That's more broken to me than allowing thieves to do it as a bonus action when they clearly cannot get sneak attack with it. It's just a little extra dmg for them that likely won't use their proficiency bonus and is fairly expensive as a limiting factor.


I acknowledge some ambiguity. You can decide to treat it as a weapon but I do feel you need to decide one way or the other. You can't deny someone their cake and also not let them eat it... or something. Because there are rules for weapons and there are rules for using an object. You just have to make up your mind. I've decided they're objects and that their use against creatures requires an attack roll, thus denying them to be used as if they're weapons for things like extra attack. Otherwise I can picture lots of characters using them in addition to attacking because extra attack is a fairly common feature.

[Requilac]

This is where things get weird.

Now it takes an action to use the item. Right? So using the rules above would make it fall under Use an Object. Since, you know, you're using an object that normally takes an action to use.

Unless Alchemist Fire isn't an object? But that's silly, its an object is it not?

There in lies the issue. They made rules for using objects, made objects, and then made gear/magic items... Which gear and magic items have specific actions to use... And forgot about one key piece of information. 5e was made with plain English and simplicity in mind. So any object should be an object.

Maybe there has been an errata that deals with what an object is, what an item is, and all that.

I know there's a tweet saying that the healer's kit isn't usable via fast hands... :/ which is just mean.

The logic you are making is flawed. A sword is also an object, so following this logic wouldn’t the rogue be able to use Fast Hands to make an attack with the sword? I can’t imagine any DM ruling that possible, so why would somebody rule it like that if a different weapon is being used?

You are forgetting the basic rule of 5e that is stated in the introduction; specific beats general. Alchemist’s Fire states that it takes an action to make an attack with it. The rules for Use an Objet say you can use your action to well, use an object in general. Alchemist’s Fire is more specific, so it takes precedence. Throwing Alchemist’s Fire is it’s own action and cannot be thrown with Use an Object. Now, is this perfectly RAW? Not necessarily, but it is a clear case in which Specific beats General should be used.

I can see the confusion a little bit now, but I still find the logic agains the case I made greatly inconsistent.

[Requilac]

Of course not. It's the Fast Hands ability that allows it. Use an Object that's normally a full action can be a bonus action for a thief and only for a thief.

I don’t believe I understand your argument. Why would Fast Hands being a bonus action change my logic at all?




There's the notion that it's actually a weapon but it's not in the weapon section. It's in the equipment section. And if you decide it's a weapon attack, then people with extra attacks can eventually throw up to four of them. That's more broken to me than allowing thieves to do it as a bonus action when they clearly cannot get sneak attack with it. It's just a little extra dmg for them that likely won't use their proficiency bonus and is fairly expensive as a limiting factor.

I acknowledge some ambiguity. You can decide to treat it as a weapon but I do feel you need to decide one way or the other. You can't deny someone their cake and also not let them eat it... or something. Because there are rules for weapons and there are rules for using an object. You just have to make up your mind. I've decided they're objects and that their use against creatures requires an attack roll, thus denying them to be used as if they're weapons for things like extra attack. Otherwise I can picture lots of characters using them in addition to attacking because extra attack is a fairly common feature.


I don’t understand what you are saying. I never said that alchemical substances such as acid, alchemist’s Fire and holy water were weapons, I said that they are treated as an improvised weapon when making the attack roll. That’s not my interpretation, it’s literally what the PHB says.

Acid: “In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon”

Alchemist’s Fire: “Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon”

Holy Water: “In either case, make a ranged attack against a target creature, treating the holy water as an improvised weapon.”

I was stating that since those alchemical substances specified that a specific action is required to attack with them in their description, you must use that action and not take the Use an Object action. And then I later clarified my statements by citing that the rule of Specific beats General takes precedence. Please don’t use arguments I never made against me, it makes it difficult for me to respond.

[R.Shackleford]

The logic you are making is flawed. A sword is also an object, so following this logic wouldn’t the rogue be able to use Fast Hands to make an attack with the sword? I can’t imagine any DM ruling that possible, so why would somebody rule it like that if a different weapon is being used?

You are forgetting the basic rule of 5e that is stated in the introduction; specific beats general. Alchemist’s Fire states that it takes an action to make an attack with it. The rules for Use an Objet say you can use your action to well, use an object in general. Alchemist’s Fire is more specific, so it takes precedence. Throwing Alchemist’s Fire is it’s own action and cannot be thrown with Use an Object. Now, is this perfectly RAW? Not necessarily, but it is a clear case in which Specific beats General should be used.

I can see the confusion a little bit now, but I still find the logic agains the case I made greatly inconsistent.

My logic isn't flawed as weapons are specifically in the weapon section. Weapons have their own rules. Items are not weapons unless used as an improvised weapon.

Also, the general rule specifically accounts for the specific rule as it's right in the general rule.

I'll quote it and bold/underline it.


You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.

The general rule in this case calls out to the specific rule of using an object with an action.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd definitely allow it, but the RAW answer seems to be no...

[R.Shackleford]

I'd definitely allow it, but the RAW answer seems to be no...

RAW is yes, RAI is no.

Though with RAI, you can't use a healer's kit with fast hands.

[Requilac]

My logic isn't flawed as weapons are specifically in the weapon section. Weapons have their own rules. Items are not weapons unless used as an improvised weapon.

What is the functional difference between a weapon and an object though if we are being honest though? Any object can be used as an improvised weapon after all. A fighter with Extra Attack can pick up a goblet and whack someone over the head with it twice in one turn, because that goblet is being used as an improvised weapon. What do you mean by saying “weapons have their own rules”? Such as what? Literally anything can be a weapon by the rules when someone decides to use it as a weapon. Similarly, said fighter can still hit someone with a vial or acid, it would just deal 1d4+ Str modifier bludgeoning damage instead of any acid damage.

An object is just a material thing hat can be seen and touched. A weapon is still an object, and nothing in the 5e PHB says otherwise.



Also, the general rule specifically accounts for the specific rule as it's right in the general rule.

I'll quote it and bold/underline it.

The general rule in this case calls out to the specific rule of using an object with an action.

The PHB states that “If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins”. If the rule for alchemist’s Fire is more specific than the one for the very general Use an Object action, it takes precedence. The general rule does not account for the specific rule here, and even if it did the more specific rule would take precedence because it’s, well, more specific. Are you honestly trying to tell me that throwing a flask of alchemist’s Fire at an enemy is less specific than using any object in any manner? If you believe this to be true, I concede under the grounds that I don’t possibly know what else I could say.

[Mellack]

If you are making an attack roll, and using it as an improvised weapon, that sounds like an attack with a weapon. That should fall under the attack action, not the use an object action.

[Dalebert]

If you are making an attack roll, and using it as an improvised weapon, that sounds like an attack with a weapon. That should fall under the attack action, not the use an object action.

If an improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, then everything is treated as a weapon. That’s why many folks here will say that an improvised weapon, by definition is NOT a weapon. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to improvise.

[JNAProductions]

If an improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, then everything is treated as a weapon. That’s why many folks here will say that an improvised weapon, by definition is NOT a weapon. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to improvise.

But it's still an attack. Requiring, as such, the Attack action, or something similar (Berserker Barbarian could do this as a bonus action, not a Thief Rogue).

[Mellack]

If an improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, then everything is treated as a weapon. That’s why many folks here will say that an improvised weapon, by definition is NOT a weapon. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to improvise.

Don't the rules say if there is any question, check if there is an attack roll. If there is an attack roll, it is an attack. Attacks use the attack action or cast a spell action, not the use an object action.

[Dalebert]

Don't the rules say if there is any question, check if there is an attack roll. If there is an attack roll, it is an attack. Attacks use the attack action or cast a spell action, not the use an object action.

That’s backwards. It’s not that attacks use the “cast a spell" action. It’s that some spells both require and grant you an attack, e.g. Firebolt or Booming Blade. Similarly, when you use acid or alchemist’s fire as an action, it both requires and grants you an attack. Again, neither acid nor alchemist’s fire are listed as weapons. Their descriptions describe what happens when you use them.

[JackPhoenix]

That’s backwards. It’s not that attacks use the “cast a spell" action. It’s that some spells both require and grant you an attack, e.g. Firebolt or Booming Blade. Similarly, when you use acid or alchemist’s fire as an action, it both requires and grants you an attack. Again, neither acid nor alchemist’s fire are listed as weapons. Their descriptions describe what happens when you use them.

Yes: you use them as improvised weapons, which are used through the Attack action.

[JNAProductions]

Dalebert, if you want to make an attack as a bonus action, use TWF. You can even throw daggers with TWF, so... What are you trying to accomplish here?

If you really, REALLY wanted to TWF with, say, a dagger and some acid, I'd let you, but you don't get a free, SA-enabled attack without following the rules on normal attacks.

Edit: Also, as should be clear from this thread: If you ever want to do this in a game, ASK YOUR DM FIRST! Some will say yes, some no, but ultimately, THAT is what matters.

[Dalebert]

Yes: you use them as improvised weapons, which are used through the Attack action.

Okay. Like I said, there’s ambiguity to allow room for interpretation. Do you feel it’s less broken to allow extra attack for many classes (up to 4 attacks) with acid or alchemist’s fire, or just one archetype of one class to do it as a bonus action?

[JNAProductions]

Okay. Like I said, there’s ambiguity to allow room for interpretation. Do you feel it’s less broken to allow extra attack, up to four, for many classes, with acid or alchemist’s fire, or just one archetype of one class to do it as a bonus action?

It's more broken for one archetype.

Doing 4d4 damage as a level 20 Fighter is not broken, when you can (at 10X the range) do 4d8+20 or, in melee, do 8d6+20, and that's well before magic items or other buffs.

Whereas Rogues are balanced around their one attack (two with TWF only) and, currently, there are literally only TWO WAYS to get a free bonus action attack. (At least that I can think of off-hand. If I'm wrong, please inform me.)

Frenzy (which sucks, but that's due to Exhaustion, not bonus action attacks being bad) and Scimitars of Speed, which are really good items.

Edit: Also, I should note that without Tavern Brawler, you lack proficiency bonus with it. So you're literally hitting worse than the Fighter doing 4d8+60 damage (thanks to Sharpshooter) at 600'.

[Dalebert]

It's more broken for one archetype.

Not sold on that and I'll explain why.


Doing 4d4 damage as a level 20 Fighter is not broken, when you can (at 10X the range) do 4d8+20 or, in melee, do 8d6+20, and that's well before magic items or other buffs.

Acid is actually 2d6 and AF is 1d4 every round until the enemy takes an action to put it out; not just 1d4 and over. It's actually potentially a crowd control maneuver that a tier 3 fighter could use on three different opponents and anyone with extra attack could do once in addition to attacking, unlike a thief who has to sacrifice their more precious bonus action which they can utilize for a number of beneficial effects.


Whereas Rogues are alanced around their one attack (two with TWF only) and, currently, there are literally only TWO WAYS to get a free bonus action attack. (At least that I can think of off-hand. If I'm wrong, please inform me.)

Frenzy (which sucks, but that's due to Exhaustion, not bonus action attacks being bad) and Scimitars of Speed, which are really good items.

Well, you already said it and I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of it. Their most obvous "free" 2nd attack is their off-hand attack which they can use to land their sneak attack if they missed with their first attack, and that can include a ranged attack with a thrown finesse weapon. Not quite free options are xbow expert which requires a feat investment or a 1 level dip into fighter to add their ability bonus to off-hand dmg. Both of those do additional dmg AND give a 2nd chance to land sneak attack--something acid or AF don't grant.


Edit: Also, I should note that without Tavern Brawler, you lack proficiency bonus with it. So you're literally hitting worse than the Fighter doing 4d8+60 damage (thanks to Sharpshooter) at 600'.

This is just a really confusing point to raise because it doesn't help your case. First, you're trying to say it's more broken for the rogue to get acid or AF as a bonus action but then one of your points is that the rogue is hitting worse than a fighter with sharpshooter. Meanwhile, your failing to account for the -5 to-hit required for that sharpshooter dmg. So in many cases (like when the fighter isn't tier 4), they will have a better chance to hit with the acid or AF when their prof bonus is less than 5. Sharpshooter is very conditional in that sense. You have to risk not doing any dmg at all due to the to-hit penalty.

I agree that the rogue is suffering from a big to-hit penalty because unless they invested in Tavern Brawler, they're more likely to miss altogether after wasting their precious bonus action and 25gp or 50gp, but that supports my point that it's more balanced. So compared to the regular extra attacks of many classes, it's inferior. And then if you try to say it's not broken for characters with extra attack because they're better off attacking with sharpshooter, you have to then account for the -5 to-hit, so no. It's not that simple.

I just don't consider the sacrifice of one of a character's extra attacks to be comparable to the sacrifice of a rogue's bonus action. The rogue's sacrifice seems greater.

[Desteplo]

Sage advice compendium:
“What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?

It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as speci ed in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee- weapon attack” if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.”

Sounds like improvised weapons work for sneak attack (which by description they are ranged attacks, ranged attacks use dex) using oil or alchemist fire, are ranged weapon attacks.

[Laolir]

Sneak attack doesn't care about the type of attack, it require a finesse or ranged weapon. Alchemist fire is neither a ranged nor a finesse weapon so it doesn't qualify for sneak attack.

For the Thief fast hand, the alchemist fire require an action to use (Use an object action, "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action.") and JC already stated on Twitter than "not every attack is delivered by the Attack action"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/720728407730819072 (Sorry, I can't put link)

It does looks like a Thief should be able to throw an acid flask or alchemist fire with a bonus action, but it wouldn't qualify for sneak attack.

[JackPhoenix]

Acid is actually 2d6 and AF is 1d4 every round until the enemy takes an action to put it out; not just 1d4 and over. It's actually potentially a crowd control maneuver that a tier 3 fighter could use on three different opponents and anyone with extra attack could do once in addition to attacking, unlike a thief who has to sacrifice their more precious bonus action which they can utilize for a number of beneficial effects.

How is he doing 3 attacks? Assuming he starts with a flask in his hand, he throws it, uses object interaction to draw another, throws it, and... he's out of free object interactions. He also used 50-100 gp for those two attacks, he couldn't use his proficiency unless he took a feat widely considered suboptimal, increasing the chance to miss, couldn't use fighting styles or feats to improve his attacks further, and, considering this is level 11+ fighter we're talking about, any bonuses from magic weapon. And his range is 20', compared to 120' even without feats for a longbow.

Even for the rogue, it would be suboptimal, and that's before the losing sneak attack.

[Windwaert]

Sorry to necro this thread, but I think the fast hand attack would qualify for Sneak Attack (SA) RAW.

Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Holy Water, and Oil are all use object actions that can be used with the thief's fast hands. They are objects, but they are improvised weapons during the attack:



@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.
11:04 AM - 17 Nov 2015


PHB:
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.

Surely these flask would be improvised ranged weapons during the attack.

Oil treated as improvised ranged weapon would deal 1d4 + DEX (default improvised weapon damage, since no damage is specified (PHB rules)) and it qualifies for SA.

I can't wrap my head around the alchemist's fire. The damage is delayed and repeated, and it includes the DEX modifier, but how would SA factor into this???

[Toofey]

RAW and RAI no.

But this is clearly a good rule, that would lead to cool stuff, and would on most attacks only add the 1/round class ability sneak attack damage. There's no good reason to disallow this and the damage pile if you let it crit would be satisfying.

[Wildarm]

Takes up a bonus action which could be used for the many other ways to get an extra attack(and thus sneak attack). Requires choosing Thief subclass which is not the most optimal(IMO) apart from it's capstone ability. Costs a pile of gold if you're doing it all the time. Seems balanced to me and should work according to RAW. Plus it's piles of fun to have your rogue throwing out hazards, flashbangs, and smokebombs in a fight. I've considered playing a Warforged Envoy Rogue with a built in alchemy tools just for this. "Hostiles detected. Deploying countermeasures."

[Windwaert]

You kinda need Tavern Brawler for this to work, which is quite a tax. Luckily oil isn't too expensive, 1sp, but it is also not that exciting.

[Dudewithknives]

You kinda need Tavern Brawler for this to work, which is quite a tax. Luckily oil isn't too expensive, 1sp, but it is also not that exciting.

It does not work even with tavern brawler, even if you could use Fast Hands to throw acid, which you can't.

A sneak attack has to come from a finesse or ranged weapon.

A Flask, even if you throw it, is not a ranged weapon.
It is an attack you are making at range.
There is no such thing as an improvised ranged weapon only improvised weapons with the thrown property.

Then again, JC has rulled completely against printed word in the book based on the use of Fast Hands, as he said donning and doffing a shield is ok, which is not an object interaction at all.
It is just something that takes an amount of time listed as one acton, not useing object interaction.

By RAW, no throwing the flask to attack at all.
DEFINATELY not using it for sneak attack.

You MIGHT get a lenient GM or one that just does not care that would let you do it anyway, but it is definately not allowed by the rules.

[Windwaert]

There is no such thing as an improvised ranged weapon only improvised weapons with the thrown property.


Then why does Crawford state that Alchemist's fire uses DEX for the attack? If it were an improvised thrown (melee) weapon, it would use STR, no? I can't find the rules that would explicitly exclude improvised ranged weapons from existing.

This is all very confusing.

[JackPhoenix]

Then why does Crawford state that Alchemist's fire uses DEX for the attack? If it were an improvised thrown (melee) weapon, it would use STR, no? I can't find the rules that would explicitly exclude improvised ranged weapons from existing.

This is all very confusing.

Like most improvised weapons, it's neither ranged nor melee weapon.

Ranged attacks default to Dex, using Str only applies to melee weapons with thrown property.

[Windwaert]

Like most improvised weapons, it's neither ranged nor melee weapon.

Ranged attacks default to Dex, using Str only applies to melee weapons with thrown property.

How can weapons be neither ranged nor melee when the rule states: "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged." (PHB Page 146) ?

[JackPhoenix]

How can weapons be neither ranged nor melee when the rule states: "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged." (PHB Page 146) ?

Weapons can't.

Improvised weapons, however, are not weapons (with the exception of throwing non-thrown melee weapons or hitting someone in melee with ranged weapon). They count as a weapon for the instant they are used to attack, but they do not qualify for abilities that require ranged or melee weapons, because they aren't ones.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1031675018168549376

[Windwaert]

Weapons can't.

Improvised weapons, however, are not weapons (with the exception of throwing non-thrown melee weapons or hitting someone in melee with ranged weapon). They count as a weapon for the instant they are used to attack, but they do not qualify for abilities that require ranged or melee weapons, because they aren't ones.


Schrödinger's weapons... They not only count as weapons, JC literally said they are during the attack: Sorry, I cant link anything yet:

@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.
8:04 PM - Nov 17, 2015


The tweet you linked to refers to simple, martial, and natural categories, but does not say anything about the melee / ranged classification. Even if improvised weapons do not fit any of the categories, that does not excluded them from the having a melee / ranged classification. Am I missing something?

[JackPhoenix]

The tweet you linked to refers to simple, martial, and natural categories, but does not say anything about the melee / ranged classification. Even if improvised weapons do not fit any of the categories, that does not excluded them from the having a melee / ranged classification. Am I missing something?

You're missing that "classifications" and "categories" aren't mechanically different things. They are just two different words for the same concept (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/27/so-when-you-throw-a-dagger-it-becomes-a-ranged-weapon/).

[Windwaert]

You're missing that "classifications" and "categories" aren't mechanically different things. They are just two different words for the same concept.

But they are different things. A weapon can be martial and melee, or simple and ranged, etc.


There is weapon proficiency category (simple,martial,natural).
I was trying to refer to another, additional weapon aspect, the classification of what type of attacks are made with the weapon (ranged or melee).

[JackPhoenix]

But they are different things. A weapon can be martial and melee, or simple and ranged, etc.


There is weapon proficiency category (simple,martial,natural).
I was trying to refer to another, additional weapon aspect, the classification of what type of attacks are made with the weapon (ranged or melee).


Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the weapon can be classified as simple, martial or natural, and fit either ranged or melee category.

And improvised weapon is neither.

[Windwaert]

Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the weapon can be classified as simple, martial or natural, and fit either ranged or melee category.

And improvised weapon is neither.

The JC tweet you linked only showed that they do not fit any of the proficiency groups, I aggree on that point. Improvised weapons are still weapons, thus according to the PHB it is classified either melee or ranged. That last part is still not resolved.

[ThePolarBear]

The JC tweet you linked only showed that they do not fit any of the proficiency groups, I aggree on that point. Improvised weapons are still weapons, thus according to the PHB it is classified either melee or ranged. That last part is still not resolved.

It can be simply resolved by reading context: that part could very well be about the weapons that appear in the table. "Every weapon [in the table] is either ranged or melee".

[Windwaert]

It can be simply resolved by reading context: that part could very well be about the weapons that appear in the table. "Every weapon [in the table] is either ranged or melee".

True. I just wish they had actually written that. Currently it is unnecessary confusing (to me). They could've also made improvised weapon rules like the unarmed strike (errata), which is never a melee weapon.

OR make the flasks and vials actual weapons with stats. It seems to me the Use Object Action was enforced to limit them to once per turn. (I guess even flasks as actual weapons would've been limited anyways, due to only drawing one item per turn.)

[ThePolarBear]

True. I just wish they had actually written that. Currently it is unnecessary confusing (to me). They could've also made improvised weapon rules like the unarmed strike (errata), which is never a melee weapon.

Wait, do not misunderstand. "Can" as in "it is possible." I do not know if that is the actual answer. It could simply also be that improvised weapons are, as a whole, following rules more specific than the ones that govern normal weapons. Improvised weapons are, usually, objects that are not normally weapons that are weaponized on the fly. As such, they are simply "improvised weapons", that can be used to make an attack, be it ranged or melee. It works just like an unarmed attack - it follows its own rule - and is never a weapon, just like all natural weapons are not actually a weapon at all.

[Windwaert]

Wait, do not misunderstand. "Can" as in "it is possible." I do not know if that is the actual answer. It could simply also be that improvised weapons are, as a whole, following rules more specific than the ones that govern normal weapons. Improvised weapons are, usually, objects that are not normally weapons that are weaponized on the fly. As such, they are simply "improvised weapons", that can be used to make an attack, be it ranged or melee. It works just like an unarmed attack - it follows its own rule - and is never a weapon, just like all natural weapons are not actually a weapon at all.

I think those are all valid interpretations. If anything, this IMO shows that the rules (and JC) are not clear enough. RAI, Fast Hand Sneak Attacks were likely never intended, and I completely understand that DMs would rule against it. I just like to argue in favor of the build.