Mold Earth & Shape Water Cantrip Weapons

[Garfunion]

Would you allow this at your table?

Your player has the Tavern Brawler feat, which gives them proficiency to use objects as weapons. The DM chooses a weapon that closely matched the object and the player uses those weapon stats.

This means the player could use mold earth & shape water cantrips to make weapons they could use.

[nickl_2000]

Would you allow this at your table?

Your player has the Tavern Brawler feat, which gives them proficiency to use objects as weapons. The DM chooses a weapon that closely matched the object and the player uses those weapon stats.

This means the player could use mold earth & shape water cantrips to make weapons they could use.

There is no difference between hitting someone with a rock or an icicle in damage when they have tavern brawler. If they want that fluff sure why not. I wouldn't have an ice weapon do cold damage though.

EDIT: I wouldn't allow them to make an attack as part of casting the cantrip. However, if they want to make one before the battle or use the first round to cast the spell and make one, sure. Sounds fun.

[ciarannihill]

Would you allow this at your table?

Your player has the Tavern Brawler feat, which gives them proficiency to use objects as weapons. The DM chooses a weapon that closely matched the object and the player uses those weapon stats.

This means the player could use mold earth & shape water cantrips to make weapons they could use.

Sure, why not? Shape Water feels like it's effects allow this inherently, using its second and fourth to, say, pull water from a waterskin and freeze it into a weapon or something seems fine since it takes 2 actions to even make it, not even talking about using the weapon. Plus it only lasts an hour.

Doesn't seem like it "breaks" anything, and in a situation where the party has lost their weapons or something I think this is a pretty clever work around.

[Unoriginal]

Would you allow this at your table?

Your player has the Tavern Brawler feat, which gives them proficiency to use objects as weapons. The DM chooses a weapon that closely matched the object and the player uses those weapon stats.

This means the player could use mold earth & shape water cantrips to make weapons they could use.

Anything you would make with those cantrip would be a 1d4 improvised weapon.

[ImproperJustice]

I mean, why not.

Then hit the guy with your waterskin for good measure.

Tavern Brawler is fun. We had a player frequently arm themselves with magical dungeon dressing for those times when it was needed, like a magic wall torch, mug, or small statue.....

Good times.

[Garfunion]

Anything you would make with those cantrip would be a 1d4 improvised weapon.Why?

“In many cases, an improvised weapons is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.”

This means shaping water into the shape of a quarterstaff, can be treated as a quarterstaff. Or I could shape it into a dagger and would be treated as such.

[MrStabby]

Why?

“In many cases, an improvised weapons is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.”

This means shaping water into the shape of a quarterstaff, can be treated as a quarterstaff. Or I could shape it into a dagger and would be treated as such.

Given that you can match the shape of the weapon in question, I have to agree. I have some worries about Ice being able to hold an edge at room temperature (well for more than a couple of seconds) but any bludgeoning weapon should surely be fine.

[Unoriginal]

This means shaping water into the shape of a quarterstaff, can be treated as a quarterstaff. Or I could shape it into a dagger and would be treated as such.

It's still made out of ice. Or of earth.

[JackPhoenix]

Why?

“In many cases, an improvised weapons is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.”

This means shaping water into the shape of a quarterstaff, can be treated as a quarterstaff. Or I could shape it into a dagger and would be treated as such.

Very fragile quarterstaff with none of the hardness or density of wood.

Dagger made from ice, even more fragile, unable to hold proper sharp edge, easily stopped by any armor, and too light to be any useful when thrown.

You'd do more damage by freezing the water in the waterskin, then swinging it around as a blunt object.


It's still made out of ice. Or of earth.

Ice. You can move a pile of dirt around with Mold Earth, but it's still just a pile of dirt, it won't stay in shape.

[Garfunion]

Given that you can match the shape of the weapon in question, I have to agree. I have some worries about Ice being able to hold an edge at room temperature (well for more than a couple of seconds) but any bludgeoning weapon should surely be fine.It is magically frozen, it does not melt. You could spill scalding water on it and it would not melt(although saving throw might be in order).


It's still made out of ice. Or of earth.That doesn’t make it weaker as a weapon. You could add break rules if you want.

[nickl_2000]

It is magically frozen, it does not melt. You could spill scalding water on it and it would not melt(although saving throw might be in order).

That doesn’t make it weaker as a weapon. You could add break rules if you want.

For the sake of simplicity you can just make it 1d4+str damage. That way you don't need to worry about breaking rules or the ice slipping out of hands or anything. But by all means, do that at your table if it sounds fun. We are solid into DM adjudication at this point anyways

[Garfunion]

We are solid into DM adjudication at this point anyways Agreed, I think we reach that point.

[ciarannihill]

Anything you would make with those cantrip would be a 1d4 improvised weapon.

This for sure. I had assumed this was what the OP was referencing, but subsequent posts have corrected that assumption on my part. To be clear, I would also count them as 1d4 improvised weapons unless I was given a super compelling narrative reason to bend that.

[Garfunion]

This for sure. I had assumed this was what the OP was referencing, but subsequent posts have corrected that assumption on my part. To be clear, I would also count them as 1d4 improvised weapons unless I was given a super compelling narrative reason to bend that.
“Avatar the Last Airbender” or “The Legend of Korra” cartoon. A water or earth bender monk.

[ciarannihill]

“Avatar the Last Airbender” cartoon. A water or earth bender monk.

So you have an additional layer here, which is to say whether or not this created weapon is usable as a monk weapon.

If it was core to my players' character design/identity/fantasy and it doesn't super break anything I'd probably allow it, but with the caveat that I can modify how it works should it become a problem in the future. Having said that, I would totally understand and respect a DM choosing not to allow it.

[Citan]

Would you allow this at your table?

Your player has the Tavern Brawler feat, which gives them proficiency to use objects as weapons. The DM chooses a weapon that closely matched the object and the player uses those weapon stats.

This means the player could use mold earth & shape water cantrips to make weapons they could use.
Hi! Let's clear something first...

Anything you would make with those cantrip would be a 1d4 improvised weapon.

This for sure. I had assumed this was what the OP was referencing, but subsequent posts have corrected that assumption on my part. To be clear, I would also count them as 1d4 improvised weapons unless I was given a super compelling narrative reason to bend that.
Annnnd... You're both wrong. :)
The PHB *perfectly* allows it.

Combine the point from Improvised Weapon...

"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.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage"
This rule was clearly made primarily to give DM power to adjudicate leftovers from broken things like part of a chair or a broken bottle.
But the essential point is: "improvised weapon similar to an actual weapon can be treated as such and (character can) use his or her proficiency bonus.
"At DM option", so DM can keep power creep in check and rule about what is "similar enough".

But we are not talking about just "similar" objects here.

Confer "Mold Earth" / Shape Water relevant parts
"You cause the water to form into simple shapes"
"You cause shapes, colors, or both to appear on the dirt or stone, spelling out words, creating images, or shaping patterns."

I could understand a debate about Mold Earth because the text says that one causes shapes to "appear", so I could see one argue that it's all about "two-dimensional" visuals (although I would not view it like this myself, because otherwise how would people create good covers? :)).
But Shape Water is crystal clear (*haha*), so paired with the freeze effect you can perfectly create accurate replicas.

So, while everything is ultimately up to DM, I see no reason for any reasonable DM to forbid a player to create "simple (melee) weapons" at least, provided of course these are weapons that the character is proficient in (hinting on the fact he knows the weapons in and out since using them daily since years, so he has everything needed to accurately reproduct the shape).
However, obviously they will only deal physical, non-magical damage.

Also, obviously ranged weapons with the exception of darts is out (but creating darts from those spells would be a waste, although I'd probably allow a single "chain" of cantrip to create several).

So you have an additional layer here, which is to say whether or not this created weapon is usable as a monk weapon.

If it was core to my players' character design/identity/fantasy and it doesn't super break anything I'd probably allow it, but with the caveat that I can modify how it works should it become a problem in the future. Having said that, I would totally understand and respect a DM choosing not to allow it.
Or not. :)
Since the character chooses how to shape, he can shape it as a weapon. So as soon as DM allows player to treat it "as a normal weapon", it will be also a "monk weapon" (unless someone would dare argue that the proficiency comes from the materials used for the weapon, and not the shape XD).

--


@OP : so here you go, this is a great idea indeed. :)
Tavern Brawler is just to be on the safe side, but I know no DM that would refuse you creating things like clubs, lances, or daggers provided the character is likely to know that kind of item intimately and player is clearly telling the DM beforehand that it is his goal.

[Vogie]

Mold Earth, no... I could see if you wanted to use the spell as something like a bag of ball bearings, or maybe inscribe something like a rune into the floor, but it explicitly just makes shapes out of loose dirt or stone. Note you could grab a 5 ft cube of dirt, and then duck behind it as cover, especially if you're Small.

If you really wanted to go crazy, I could see someone lobbying for creating a +1 AC buckler out of dirt and rocks, that would also break immediately after it blocks a blow.


Shape Water, however, I could see. This actually has a bit of precedent in Pathfinder's "Riverclub Ring", which allows the wearer to reach into the water, and pull out a club of water out. I would rule that Any Simple weapon with no string or moving parts (so, Club, Dagger, Greatclub, handaxe, javelin, light hammer, mace, quarterstaff, sickle, spear, or dart) could be created and wielded... but it is likely to break (but not melt) after the attack.

I'd probably have the wielder roll a d20 after they attack with such weapon. The DC to avoid the weapon breaking would start at 5, and increase by 5 for each subsequent strike (thus only lasting at longest 4 attacks).

So anyone with Shape Water would be able to create 2 simple weapons out of Water with 1 action, Freeze it with another action, and rock 2 ice weapons for an hour. It's not great, but is very cool. Great for 2 free daggers, or javelins. I could see an enterprising Druid being able to use it to create a club or quarterstaff to then use Shillelagh on.

It'd be fundamentally worse than, say, a pact of the blade or shadow blade casting, and worse than produce flame even... but it'd certainly be fun.

[ciarannihill]

Hi! Let's clear something first...


Annnnd... You're both wrong. :)
The PHB *perfectly* allows it.

Combine the point from Improvised Weapon...

This rule was clearly made primarily to give DM power to adjudicate leftovers from broken things like part of a chair or a broken bottle.
But the essential point is: "improvised weapon similar to an actual weapon can be treated as such and (character can) use his or her proficiency bonus.
"At DM option", so DM can keep power creep in check and rule about what is "similar enough".

But we are not talking about just "similar" objects here.

Confer "Mold Earth" / Shape Water relevant parts
"You cause the water to form into simple shapes"
"You cause shapes, colors, or both to appear on the dirt or stone, spelling out words, creating images, or shaping patterns."

I could understand a debate about Mold Earth because the text says that one causes shapes to "appear", so I could see one argue that it's all about "two-dimensional" visuals (although I would not view it like this myself, because otherwise how would people create good covers? :)).
But Shape Water is crystal clear (*haha*), so paired with the freeze effect you can perfectly create accurate replicas.

So, while everything is ultimately up to DM, I see no reason for any reasonable DM to forbid a player to create "simple (melee) weapons" at least, provided of course these are weapons that the character is proficient in (hinting on the fact he knows the weapons in and out since using them daily since years, so he has everything needed to accurately reproduct the shape).
However, obviously they will only deal physical, non-magical damage.

Also, obviously ranged weapons with the exception of darts is out (but creating darts from those spells would be a waste, although I'd probably allow a single "chain" of cantrip to create several).

Or not. :)
Since the character chooses how to shape, he can shape it as a weapon. So as soon as DM allows player to treat it "as a normal weapon", it will be also a "monk weapon" (unless someone would dare argue that the proficiency comes from the materials used for the weapon, and not the shape XD).

--


@OP : so here you go, this is a great idea indeed. :)
Tavern Brawler is just to be on the safe side, but I know no DM that would refuse you creating things like clubs, lances, or daggers provided the character is likely to know that kind of item intimately and player is clearly telling the DM beforehand that it is his goal.

So while I appreciate your post, I don't 100% agree with it for a few reasons (some more flimsy than others, granted :smalltongue:):

Firstly, while it notes the use of "similar" objects in the PHB, one could easily argue that the massive difference in weight and balance between a piece of ice in the shape of a sword and an actual sword would make it dissimilar enough to disqualify it. Weapon weight and balance are hugely important to wielding a weapon, unless this is the standard weapon of this character (an example of a narrative justification like I mentioned previously) I probably wouldn't make it a 1-to-1 analog. It might also depend on the weapon they want to make, something like a Rapier with a more specific balance compared to a Club that mostly just need forward weight might be a different ruling.
Secondly, the ability to allow this as a DM option implies the reverse as well, that a DM can choose to disallow the use of these objects as weapon analogs. OP isn't asking if any DM can allow this, because of course they could, the DM can kind of allow anything. OP was asking if we would personally allow it, which is a totally different question about which it is difficult to be "wrong" (although for certain you could be more or less reasonable).
Thirdly, the use of improvised weapons (which the first and second points have implied these could be) as Monk weapons is also a DM question. RAW I believe they aren't usable in that way, but once again DM can kind of allow whatever they want. Personally, as previously mentioned, if there's a narrative focus for this I'd allow it generally.
Finally, the ability for someone proficient in a weapon to accurately recreate from memory is an assertion I find fault with. Weapon making and weapon use are two very different skills, and while knowing one can make learning the other easier (as would the magic in this scenario), one could argue unless the character uses this as their primary means to combat (ie, familiarity with using the spell to craft) or has previous weapon crafting experience they wouldn't be able to make perfect replicas of actual weapons for sure just by being proficient in them (though I would likely forgo this point personally. As I said, being more or less reasonable is a thing in this scenario and this is where it gets a little pedantic for me personally -- I'm just trying to make a point about why someone might not like this).

It depends a lot on the situation at hand for me. If a full caster who I've never seen perform combat in melee all of a sudden wanted to do this because they read about it online, compared to a Monk or gish that frequently used this as their primary form of combat doing it I might rule differently. It would depend on context for my table.



Having said all of this: Yes, you correctly indicate that RAW it is possible to do it the way OP wants assuming the DM is on board. And although there's this big post replying to you, it's all kind of just disagreeing slightly with one point you made, not your overall sentiment. Kind of looks at a glance a lot more argumentative than I really feel, just trying to clarify my view and explore other reasons someone might disallow this in a devil's advocate type of manner because it's interesting to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Tiadoppler]

I could see rulings either way depending on campaign style.

Ice is hard and fairly dense, and can be sharp, but is very brittle.
Dirt and pebbles are heavy but can't really hold an edge.

But at the end of the day, it's really cool!

If a PC has the tool proficiency needed to craft a weapon of a certain type, I'd allow them to use Mold Earth/Shape Water to create temporary ones that function as that weapon type. They're not magical weapons (so there's no balance issue), and my campaigns don't usually rely on the PCs not having basic equipment. If a character wants to carry a bottle of water that he can turn into a icy spear for self defense... that's awesome!

If they lack that tool proficiency, they are limited to improvised weapons.

Rule of fun.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Confer "Mold Earth" / Shape Water relevant parts
"You cause the water to form into simple shapes"
"You cause shapes, colors, or both to appear on the dirt or stone, spelling out words, creating images, or shaping patterns."

I could understand a debate about Mold Earth because the text says that one causes shapes to "appear", so I could see one argue that it's all about "two-dimensional" visuals (although I would not view it like this myself, because otherwise how would people create good covers? :)).
But Shape Water is crystal clear (*haha*), so paired with the freeze effect you can perfectly create accurate replicas.

I think in reference to mold earth you're stretching it pretty far by reading "Patterned shapes in dirt or stone" as "Potentially usable weapons" Perhaps if Mold Earth worked functionally like Mystical Pigments you could, but otherwise you're basically just making the image of a sword appear on the earth.

I don't know what you're referencing in terms of the covers, but I'd assume the functionality of Mold Earth to create cover comes from spending an extended amount of time piling up dirt. Mold Earth doesn't give you any ability to actually move stone, it lets you move "Loose Earth" (Gravel, Dirt, Sand). You can only reshape the surface of stone and not very well at that. I believe the fact that 2/3 of the spell effects reference dirt and stone specifically, while the remaining effect uses a different terminology supports this.

I also think you're stretching the term "Simple Shape" in Shape Water by implying that it could accurately reproduce a weapon. I would absolutely allow someone to make some kind of implement with it, likely a large icicle rod or a somewhat jagged tipped version of that (in various sizes even) but not every stick is a staff and not every sharp object is a longsword.

Also, just to be nitpicky about your Shape Water example, you can only have two non-instantaneous effects active at once. If you were to animate the water into a simple shape (an improvised weapon) and freeze it, that weapon could not be made translucent with the other non-instantaneous effect. You could make an argument that freezing it would maintain its shape letting you cancel that effect, but the spell also allows you to change the shape of water you have already frozen so I'm fairly certain that the intention is that the effect maintaining its shape needs to be kept active.

[Mellack]

I would say ice can make a simple bludgeoning weapon like a club, some shorter stabbing weapons, but it is not going to work for any sword. Ice doesn't have the structural strength to make a long and thin blade without snapping under its own weight.

[Citan]

So while I appreciate your post, I don't 100% agree with it for a few reasons (some more flimsy than others, granted :smalltongue:):

Firstly, while it notes the use of "similar" objects in the PHB, one could easily argue that the massive difference in weight and balance between a piece of ice in the shape of a sword and an actual sword would make it dissimilar enough to disqualify it. Weapon weight and balance are hugely important to wielding a weapon, unless this is the standard weapon of this character (an example of a narrative justification like I mentioned previously) I probably wouldn't make it a 1-to-1 analog. It might also depend on the weapon they want to make, something like a Rapier with a more specific balance compared to a Club that mostly just need forward weight might be a different ruling.


Finally, the ability for someone proficient in a weapon to accurately recreate from memory is an assertion I find fault with. Weapon making and weapon use are two very different skills, and while knowing one can make learning the other easier (as would the magic in this scenario), one could argue unless the character uses this as their primary means to combat (ie, familiarity with using the spell to craft) or has previous weapon crafting experience they wouldn't be able to make perfect replicas of actual weapons for sure just by being proficient in them (though I would likely forgo this point personally. As I said, being more or less reasonable is a thing in this scenario and this is where it gets a little pedantic for me personally -- I'm just trying to make a point about why someone might not like this).

I shamefully admit I never even thought about the difference in size/weight.
As an afterthought argument, I could argue that since it's a magic user creating the object he could increase the ice density... But is that even possible in fact? XD I'm completely clueless in physics.
So yeah, you have a point. One I don't fully agree with: some weapons I get would be hard to use or of lesser impact if lighter (like club), some others I don't see why (like dagger, where it's all about choosing the impact point). As for solidity, while I admit it's an extremely "shut up it's magic" argument, well... It IS actually magic XD, so I guess whether this kind of ice is as solid (and frail) as the natural or more resistant can be argued equally from both sides.
But yeah, ultimately you're right, this pushes more the use-case into DM arbitrary ruling than I thought, sadly. :)

However, I think we'll have to stay in disagreement in the "create from memory" point. I mean, I would certainly agree with you for things more complex or requiring precision like keys or shaped bottles or the like...
But I fail to see how a club is anything other than " a more or less regular stick", a lance "a big stick with pointy end" or a sword "a medium-sized, curved or not, stick with one side sharper than the other".
Especially since, absolutely *nothing* nor *nobody* would prevent a character that likes this idea to train himself with a model beside during downtime. :)
Especially also since, while I can certainly agree it would be hard to make a 100% perfect replica in weight/shape/edge, let's recall to be fair that while in reality fabrication quality is a thing (two supposedly identical weapons would be actually very different in how reliable or resistant they are), as well as wearing, in 5e both are completely ignored. That may be an argument towards "similar is good enough to make it behave like a 'true' one.

@all: I completely agree that authorizing weapons from Mold Earth would be complete houserule. I've been overriding the exact writing for quite some time in my game it seems. My players enjoyed it though and it never broke anything so I guess it's a positive mistake. ^^

[ciarannihill]

Not to be a pain in the butt, but I like these types of conversations so I'm diving in, heh.


I shamefully admit I never even thought about the difference in size/weight.
As an afterthought argument, I could argue that since it's a magic user creating the object he could increase the ice density... But is that even possible in fact? XD I'm completely clueless in physics.
So yeah, you have a point. One I don't fully agree with: some weapons I get would be hard to use or of lesser impact if lighter (like club), some others I don't see why (like dagger, where it's all about choosing the impact point). As for solidity, while I admit it's an extremely "shut up it's magic" argument, well... It IS actually magic XD, so I guess whether this kind of ice is as solid (and frail) as the natural or more resistant can be argued equally from both sides.
But yeah, ultimately you're right, this pushes more the use-case into DM arbitrary ruling than I thought, sadly. :)

It depends on how in the weeds you want to get with the dagger thing, but to illustrate my point -- most daggers tend to have their weight slightly more heavily towards the handle/pommel area (a bit like Rapiers) for the sake of swift control and aiming of the thrusting tip. I had assumed (due to the nature and level of the spell) that we were talking about regular ice that simply does not melt for 1 hour, meaning the density doesn't change. To shift the balance heavily you'd need to pack on enough material to make it very dissimilar physically from the profile you're trying to mimic. But like I said, getting into the weeds at this point, which may or may not be where you want to be as a DM. I would agree that this gets too out there for my use, certainly.


However, I think we'll have to stay in disagreement in the "create from memory" point. I mean, I would certainly agree with you for things more complex or requiring precision like keys or shaped bottles or the like...
But I fail to see how a club is anything other than " a more or less regular stick", a lance "a big stick with pointy end" or a sword "a medium-sized, curved or not, stick with one side sharper than the other".
Especially since, absolutely *nothing* nor *nobody* would prevent a character that likes this idea to train himself with a model beside during downtime. :)
Especially also since, while I can certainly agree it would be hard to make a 100% perfect replica in weight/shape/edge, let's recall to be fair that while in reality fabrication quality is a thing (two supposedly identical weapons would be actually very different in how reliable or resistant they are), as well as wearing, in 5e both are completely ignored. That may be an argument towards "similar is good enough to make it behave like a 'true' one.

@all: I completely agree that authorizing weapons from Mold Earth would be complete houserule. I've been overriding the exact writing for quite some time in my game it seems. My players enjoyed it though and it never broke anything so I guess it's a positive mistake. ^^

This might just be the forging nerd in me, but I've seen plenty of beautifully crafted and accurate looking knives and blade fail spectacularly at cutting/chopping/thrusting etc from seemingly minor details like poor edge alignment, balance, and even edge geometry or blade cross-section, things most people wouldn't even notice about a blade. Those types of details are where I suspect the biggest flaws would appear with this type of manufacture, since materials are essentially perfect. Now is this waaaaay more pedantic a thing to get into when it comes to this situation in a DnD game? Pretty much, yeah :smalltongue:.
But this type of stuff is why I might let a martial character who is familiar with weapon usage and who has fought using this method to do this without issue, but a full-caster who's never showed interest in melee combat trying to make a bunch of longswords this way for the party who's lost their gear? I might make them improvised weapons, not actual longswords in function.
I mean context is everything, and I tend to air on the side of "Rule of Cool" when something isn't broken AF, so I'd allow this if a player felt like this was a reasonably important part of their character image.

BTW, respectful disagreement is somewhat rare in general, especially on the internet and I'd like to make a point of saying kudos/thanks for keeping it that way. :smallbiggrin:

[Citan]

Not to be a pain in the butt, but I like these types of conversations so I'm diving in, heh.



It depends on how in the weeds you want to get with the dagger thing, but to illustrate my point -- most daggers tend to have their weight slightly more heavily towards the handle/pommel area (a bit like Rapiers) for the sake of swift control and aiming of the thrusting tip. I had assumed (due to the nature and level of the spell) that we were talking about regular ice that simply does not melt for 1 hour, meaning the density doesn't change. To shift the balance heavily you'd need to pack on enough material to make it very dissimilar physically from the profile you're trying to mimic. But like I said, getting into the weeds at this point, which may or may not be where you want to be as a DM. I would agree that this gets too out there for my use, certainly.



This might just be the forging nerd in me, but I've seen plenty of beautifully crafted and accurate looking knives and blade fail spectacularly at cutting/chopping/thrusting etc from seemingly minor details like poor edge alignment, balance, and even edge geometry or blade cross-section, things most people wouldn't even notice about a blade. Those types of details are where I suspect the biggest flaws would appear with this type of manufacture, since materials are essentially perfect. Now is this waaaaay more pedantic a thing to get into when it comes to this situation in a DnD game? Pretty much, yeah :smalltongue:.
But this type of stuff is why I might let a martial character who is familiar with weapon usage and who has fought using this method to do this without issue, but a full-caster who's never showed interest in melee combat trying to make a bunch of longswords this way for the party who's lost their gear? I might make them improvised weapons, not actual longswords in function.
I mean context is everything, and I tend to air on the side of "Rule of Cool" when something isn't broken AF, so I'd allow this if a player felt like this was a reasonably important part of their character image.

BTW, respectful disagreement is somewhat rare in general, especially on the internet and I'd like to make a point of saying kudos/thanks for keeping it that way. :smallbiggrin:
Well...
I rest my case and hands my hat to you.
You obviously have a knowledge about these things a hundrefold like mine. XD

My leaving argument will be: "fortunately (or not ? XD), most people have my level of knowledge, not yours, so there is a better chance for a random DM to get on the "do what you want" side of the thing". :smalltongue:
(Thanks for the details by the way, it's interesting. If I may, where does this come from? Actual university study or just browsing fan sites?)

[ciarannihill]

Well...
I rest my case and hands my hat to you.
You obviously have a knowledge about these things a hundrefold like mine. XD

My leaving argument will be: "fortunately (or not ? XD), most people have my level of knowledge, not yours, so there is a better chance for a random DM to get on the "do what you want" side of the thing". :smalltongue:
(Thanks for the details by the way, it's interesting. If I may, where does this come from? Actual university study or just browsing fan sites?)

Honestly, part of it is reading stuff about historical weapon use and manufacture, but you can get a certain degree of basic knowledge from Forged in Fire (it's a competition show on the History channel about blacksmithing), it's not comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination, but they do demonstrate how flaws in some of those details can alter performance dramatically.

But like I said getting that into the weeds is being needlessly pedantic for a nifty little use of a cantrip, just speaking as a devil's advocate a bit there, heh.

[Garfunion]

What about using a weapon made of ice in a finesse way? It is not about piercing through the armor but, more about finding the “holes” in the armor.
Example; player breaks a bottle over the counter to stab someone, RAW this would affectively be a dagger. The player isn’t going to try to stab through the armor they’re going to try to use the broken bottle to stab at the “holes” in the armor. The same could be done with the chunk of ice. So using a weapon made of ice in a more finesse away would be more plausible, in my mind at least.

[Jophiel]

Having played with my share of icicles in my time, I know well the joy of seeing some impressive looking massive stabby thing and then having it break apart in your six-year old hands with hardly any effort. I couldn't see anything made from the contents of a single waterskin lasting more than an attack or two at most. Ice just isn't very strong at the thicknesses we're talking about. As someone else mentioned, you'd be better off freezing it into a solid lump in the waterskin and swinging that at someone's head than trying to fashion a traditional weapon out of it.

If someone said they wanted to make an ice dagger (or even a sword, axe, etc) and use it at the standard 1d4 improvised weapon damage then, sure, Rule of Cool and all that. If someone says they're making 1d8 melee weapons, we're going to run into an issue.