Do grenade weapons (Dynamite, Alchemist Fire, Acid) get Ranged bonuses

[Cikomyr]

Do the grenade weapons get bonuses from Archery Fighting Style (+2 damage), or can get benefits from Sharpshooter feat?

Online, it says that since Alchemist fire or Acid is a ranged attack, you get the Dex bonus as additional damage.

A friend gave me an idea for a cool Ranger concept, and I want to assess its validity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do the grenade weapons get bonuses from Archery Fighting Style (+2 damage), or can get benefits from Sharpshooter feat?

Online, it says that since Alchemist fire or Acid is a ranged attack, you get the Dex bonus as additional damage.

A friend gave me an idea for a cool Ranger concept, and I want to assess its validity.

Archery style does not grant +2 damage, it grants +2 on attacks made with ranged weapons. Which those are not. Specifically, they're improvised weapons that are used by making a ranged attack roll. They do not use the Attack action, they use the Use an Item action. I'm AFB about Sharpshooter, but I would not allow it to apply (as it's not a ranged weapon).


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, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack [ed: not a ranged weapon attack] against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.

As this is not a weapon, it does not benefit from any ability that enhances weapons. Nor does it add DEX to damage (since it specifies the damage dealt. As a note, adding DEX to damage for acid or Alchemist's Fire just doesn't make any fictional sense to me either, which is notable.

[KOLE]

This is a messy one, last I checked. You’re stepping into debated territory.

If I remember correctly, by RAW, no. A dagger is a melee weapon. Because of the thrown propery, you are allowed to make a ranged attack, but this does not make it a ranged weapon.

Technically speaking, this disqualified it from feats like sharpshooter. Most DM’s allow it, however.

In the case of alchemist fire, i believe it only counts as an improvised weapon technically speaking, so without tavern brawler, you’re not getting anything on it but a straight roll.

I don’t recall what dynamite is classified under in that section of the DMG. It might be considered a ranged weapon. But I’d be really leery about adding Sharpshooter damage to that. It feels cheesy and harms versimillitude.

EDIT: ninja’d.
DOUBLE EDIT: Found the Dynamite section in the DMG. It’s an object with specific wording, DC, and damage, not a weapon of any kind, so by RAW, no.

[Xetheral]

Archery style does not grant +2 damage, it grants +2 on attacks made with ranged weapons. Which those are not. Specifically, they're improvised weapons that are used by making a ranged attack roll. They do not use the Attack action, they use the Use an Item action. I'm AFB about Sharpshooter, but I would not allow it to apply (as it's not a ranged weapon).

Don't forget the rule on PHB 146 that says: "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged." From Crawford's tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576) we know that improvised weapons are weapons when you attack with them. So, because all weapons are melee and ranged, and improvised weapons are weapons (when you attack with them) there is a very strong argument that improvised weapons must be either melee or ranged when you attack with them. (Because the rules don't specify, it would be up to the DM to apply the definitions of "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon" (also on PHB 146) to determine whether to classify a particular improvised weapon as melee or ranged.)

This is admittedly a very controversial question, but I for one don't see any way to reconcile the explicit rule that all weapons are either melee or ranged with the idea that improvised weapons are somehow neither.


As this is not a weapon, it does not benefit from any ability that enhances weapons. Nor does it add DEX to damage (since it specifies the damage dealt. As a note, adding DEX to damage for acid or Alchemist's Fire just doesn't make any fictional sense to me either, which is notable.

Crawford has confirmed (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=en) that you add Dex to damage on ranged attacks with Alchemist's Fire. Presumably the same logic applies to all grendade-like weapons.

Whether or not one can use sharpshooter would of course depend on whether the DM decides to classify the grenade as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon (or neither, if the DM decides the rule on page 146 somehow doesn't apply).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't forget the rule on PHB 146 that says: "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged." From Crawford's tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576) we know that improvised weapons are weapons when you attack with them. So, because all weapons are melee and ranged, and improvised weapons are weapons (when you attack with them) there is a very strong argument that improvised weapons must be either melee or ranged when you attack with them. (Because the rules don't specify, it would be up to the DM to apply the definitions of "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon" (also on PHB 146) to determine whether to classify a particular improvised weapon as melee or ranged.)

This is admittedly a very controversial question, but I for one don't see any way to reconcile the explicit rule that all weapons are either melee or ranged with the idea that improvised weapons are somehow neither.

Crawford has confirmed (https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956666040783552512?lang=en) that you add Dex to damage on ranged attacks with Alchemist's Fire. Presumably the same logic applies to all grendade-like weapons.

Whether or not one can use sharpshooter would of course depend on whether the DM decides to classify the grenade as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon (or neither, if the DM decides the rule on page 146 somehow doesn't apply).

From a strict RAW perspective (which is not one I generally take, but some people care), none of those tweets is official. They're just "Crawford as DM".

From my normal position, I find that very wonky. They are to be treated as an improvised weapon (for the purposes of deciding how to adjudicate the attack roll), but they are not otherwise weapons (and thus the PHB 146 line does not apply). Weapons are things on the weapon table, or those improvised weapons that the DM rules are similar enough (table leg => club, for example). Anything else is not a weapon (and thus is neither a ranged nor a melee weapon, because it's not a weapon), even if used like one. Otherwise you end up with issues with "X attack with a weapon" or "attacks with an X weapon" abilities. Easier to say:
* is on table? Use the category given.
* is not on table? not a weapon unless specified otherwise (ie unarmed strike).

Note that the acid and AF say "make a ranged attack", not "make a ranged weapon attack". That's an important qualifier.

And I can't see how it makes any sense to add DEX to the burning damage caused by the volatile substance.

So RAW or not, that's how I would rule. No DEX to damage, no proficiency (unless Tavern Brawler), no Sharpshooter or Archery Fighting Style. YMMV, ask your DM for specifics.

[Xetheral]

From a strict RAW perspective (which is not one I generally take, but some people care), none of those tweets is official. They're just "Crawford as DM".

From my normal position, I find that very wonky. They are to be treated as an improvised weapon (for the purposes of deciding how to adjudicate the attack roll), but they are not otherwise weapons (and thus the PHB 146 line does not apply). Weapons are things on the weapon table, or those improvised weapons that the DM rules are similar enough (table leg => club, for example). Anything else is not a weapon (and thus is neither a ranged nor a melee weapon, because it's not a weapon), even if used like one. Otherwise you end up with issues with "X attack with a weapon" or "attacks with an X weapon" abilities. Easier to say:
* is on table? Use the category given.
* is not on table? not a weapon unless specified otherwise (ie unarmed strike).

Note that the acid and AF say "make a ranged attack", not "make a ranged weapon attack". That's an important qualifier.

And I can't see how it makes any sense to add DEX to the burning damage caused by the volatile substance.

So RAW or not, that's how I would rule. No DEX to damage, no proficiency (unless Tavern Brawler), no Sharpshooter or Archery Fighting Style. YMMV, ask your DM for specifics.

That's fair. From my perspective, using an object to try to do harm is sufficient to qualify the object as a weapon under the normal usage of the word "weapon", and the rules don't specify a different definition. (Sure, the book includes a list of weapons, but it also explicitly states that the list is only common weapons, so I don't think there is a good argument that "weapon" is defined by the list.) I therefore find it wonky to try to argue that improvised weapons aren't weapons when attacking with then. Just different perspectives on which approach is less wonky, I guess. :)

[SanFlash]

Can we all agree that, as for now, acid vials and co. are very bad? Takes the whole action to throw one (no extra attacks), no bonuses because improvised. They cost a lot for early levels, and don't offer nothing when you go past 4.
Would giving some bonuses, like the ones granted from feats and fighting styles, really be a so bad thing? So that they can be actually interesting to use?

[Bjarkmundur]

Can we all agree that, as for now, acid vials and co. are very bad? Takes the whole action to throw one (no extra attacks), no bonuses because improvised. They cost a lot for early levels, and don't offer nothing when you go past 4.
Would giving some bonuses, like the ones granted from feats and fighting styles, really be a so bad thing? So that they can be actually interesting to use?

Well, there's that alchemist feat that allows a player to maximize the numbers rolled on a single healing potion during a short rest that lasts for 1 hour. I don't see why this feat couldn't be Houseruled to apply to other consumables. I know a couple of players that would love that mechanic.

As a general rule, no. I don't want this depate to bleed over to spell scrolls or bonus damage to saving throw spells because 'technically I'm attacking with the spell'. Just no.

[Xetheral]

Can we all agree that, as for now, acid vials and co. are very bad? Takes the whole action to throw one (no extra attacks), no bonuses because improvised. They cost a lot for early levels, and don't offer nothing when you go past 4.
Would giving some bonuses, like the ones granted from feats and fighting styles, really be a so bad thing? So that they can be actually interesting to use?

They're good for Thief rogues. Items that require an action, like the grenade-like objects, use the Use an Object action, which Thief rogues can take as a bonus action.

[Zalabim]

As a note, adding DEX to damage for acid or Alchemist's Fire just doesn't make any fictional sense to me either, which is notable.
Adding DEX to damage for acid or alchemist's fire uses the same fictional sense as DEX to damage for arrows, darts, and finesse weapons. Where you would hit matters.

[Tanarii]

They're good for Thief rogues. Items that require an action, like the grenade-like objects, use the Use an Object action, which Thief rogues can take as a bonus action.
Good for a thief, but pretty expensive. Of course, if you're playing in a campaign where there's nothing for players to spend money on, then IIRC the average hoard is enough that they can afford to start dropping enough cash to use one every round of combat, assuming they aren't excessively extended combats (i.e. chase scenes with combat actions interspersed).

[JackPhoenix]

Technically speaking, this disqualified it from feats like sharpshooter. Most DM’s allow it, however.

To make things more confusing, it's disqualified from 1/3 of Sharpshooter. First two points require ranged weapon attack, only -5/+10 part requires the attack to be made with ranged weapon.

For extra fun, shoot Magic Stone from a sling. It's now ranged spell attack with ranged weapon, which means it qualifies for the last point, but not for the first two, even though sling using normal bullets qualifies for all 3.


Can we all agree that, as for now, acid vials and co. are very bad? Takes the whole action to throw one (no extra attacks), no bonuses because improvised. They cost a lot for early levels, and don't offer nothing when you go past 4.
Would giving some bonuses, like the ones granted from feats and fighting styles, really be a so bad thing? So that they can be actually interesting to use?

Generally, yes. Alchemist's fire is interesting, though, as it burns forever unless extinguished with the Dex check. Combine with oil for extra damage, or with some way to make the target unable to take actions. And objects can't make ability checks.... OTOH, they also don't get turns, so.... yeah.

[Xetheral]

Good for a thief, but pretty expensive. Of course, if you're playing in a campaign where there's nothing for players to spend money on, then IIRC the average hoard is enough that they can afford to start dropping enough cash to use one every round of combat, assuming they aren't excessively extended combats (i.e. chase scenes with combat actions interspersed).

The tool use rules in XGTE can cut the price in half, for one vial/flask per long rest. And an Alchemy Jug can provide two vials worth of acid per day as long you have sufficient empty vials. And oil is dirt cheap, and synergizes nicely with any casters with Firebolt.

An extra 2d6 + Dex Mod damage (for Acid) is no joke. At 5th level, that will increase a Thief's per-round damage by at least 50%. Even at 11th level, it's at least a 30% damage boost. In practice, it won't be used every round because the Thief has other competing uses for its bonus action, but it's a great option for rounds when you don't need to hide, dash, or disengage.

Still, you're right that it's an expensive option. Whether or not it's worth it will, as you say, depend entirely on the opportunity cost of spending gold in a particular campaign.

[Tanarii]

An extra 2d6 + Dex Mod damage (for Acid) is no joke. At 5th level, that will increase a Thief's per-round damage by at least 50%. It affects my personal judgement on the matter that while I do think Thief fast hands works (which is a content in point to begin with), I certainly don't think it gets Dex mod to damage. I can't recall even seeing the idea suggested before this thread.

[Xetheral]

It affects my personal judgement on the matter that while I do think Thief fast hands works (which is a content in point to begin with), I certainly don't think it gets Dex mod to damage. I can't recall even seeing the idea suggested before this thread.

I was certainly surprised by Crawford's ruling. I wouldn't have guessed that greande-like objects were intended to get Dex to damage. I don't have an issue with it though, as I think it makes the damage potential more in line with the price. And it makes a certain amount of sense (from a simulation standpoint) that better aim results in more of the acid or alchemists fire hitting the target, or more of it hitting the target in a less-protected spot. Alchemist's fire igniting someone's unprotcted face, for example, is certainly going to be worse than igniting a surcoat over armor.

[Feddlefew]

I've been running it as weapons targeting an area or that deal splash damage don't get +Dex to AOE damage. That said, if someone aims at and hits a creature with a thrown object it'd deal an extra 1d4 + Dex or Str [physical damage type] to that particular creature.

[CapnWildefyr]

Acid, grenades, flaming oil do damage based on quantity or distance from the blast, and the die roll reflects that variability. In 5e acid does flat damage. If I splash it on a bad guys head, it does the same damage as if i splash it on his chest or arm. A certain amount of acid dissolves a certain amount of bad guy. If he gets it in the eyes, hes just blinded too.

This is different than a weapon like a thrown dagger, where the damage really does depend on where it strikes, how deeply (str), did I get an artery (dex mod for thrown), etc. With acid and fire it may seem like location matters, but if the acid dissolves my arm I am just as dead as if it dissolves my head.

These items are AOE. Its similar to (not the same) as wall of fire for example. Doesnt matter what body part contacts the wall, same damage regardless.

[Stone-Ears]

I mean I feel like if you made a slingshot for grenades, acid, and oil, you should be able to strike accurately wherever you want to so that might benefit from Sharpshooter and such.

If you hit something with a high speed projectile like acid, that's gonna hurt a little bit. I could make the argument that if you hit something with a glass oil vial in the head, that's akin to taking a beer bottle to the head in terms of force and that's gonna do some damage.

So if you added a slingshot in the equation, that would be way better and probably easier to argue than throwing it since throws are really hard to be accurate on in real life.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean I feel like if you made a slingshot for grenades, acid, and oil, you should be able to strike accurately wherever you want to so that might benefit from Sharpshooter and such.

If you hit something with a high speed projectile like acid, that's gonna hurt a little bit. I could make the argument that if you hit something with a glass oil vial in the head, that's akin to taking a beer bottle to the head in terms of force and that's gonna do some damage.

So if you added a slingshot in the equation, that would be way better and probably easier to argue than throwing it since throws are really hard to be accurate on in real life.

Except beer bottles hurt because they don't break, and acid vials only hurt if they break. The vials are supposed to be flimsy, so the damage comes from the contents.

[AHF]

Acid, grenades, flaming oil do damage based on quantity or distance from the blast, and the die roll reflects that variability. In 5e acid does flat damage. If I splash it on a bad guys head, it does the same damage as if i splash it on his chest or arm. A certain amount of acid dissolves a certain amount of bad guy. If he gets it in the eyes, hes just blinded too.

This is different than a weapon like a thrown dagger, where the damage really does depend on where it strikes, how deeply (str), did I get an artery (dex mod for thrown), etc. With acid and fire it may seem like location matters, but if the acid dissolves my arm I am just as dead as if it dissolves my head.

These items are AOE. Its similar to (not the same) as wall of fire for example. Doesnt matter what body part contacts the wall, same damage regardless.

I'm not quite following this. Since you are using real life analogies to explain the rationale instead of simply declaring what the RAW states from a game mechanics perspective (i.e., you justify the dex bonus to damage by pointing out that a dagger that stabs an artery does more damage to the body than one that hits a less vital spot), I don't see why that wouldn't apply equally to acid, fire, etc. In fact, your examples are great ones for making that exact argument.

I can live without my arm. I can't live without my head. A vial of acid that burns a 2'' hole through the middle of my head kills me. One that burns a 2'' hole through my leg offers a very good chance for survival, particularly if there are medical personnel in the area.

It just seems like these examples you raise undermine your position. If there is a wall of fire, it absolutely makes a difference whether I stick my hand in the fire or my head for how likely I am to survive. Burning my head to a crisp, it doesn't matter if the ambulance arrives right as I finish. Burning my hand to a crisp while the ambulance arrives is a wholly different scenario.

[CapnWildefyr]

I'm not quite following this. Since you are using real life analogies to explain the rationale instead of simply declaring what the RAW states from a game mechanics perspective (i.e., you justify the dex bonus to damage by pointing out that a dagger that stabs an artery does more damage to the body than one that hits a less vital spot), I don't see why that wouldn't apply equally to acid, fire, etc. In fact, your examples are great ones for making that exact argument.

I can live without my arm. I can't live without my head. A vial of acid that burns a 2'' hole through the middle of my head kills me. One that burns a 2'' hole through my leg offers a very good chance for survival, particularly if there are medical personnel in the area.

It just seems like these examples you raise undermine your position. If there is a wall of fire, it absolutely makes a difference whether I stick my hand in the fire or my head for how likely I am to survive. Burning my head to a crisp, it doesn't matter if the ambulance arrives right as I finish. Burning my hand to a crisp while the ambulance arrives is a wholly different scenario.

I do see your point,... But not in terms of game mechanics. My point is that in the game there is no distinction at all provided, there is no "hit location and effects" table. Yes, damage to your head in real life is worse than damage to your leg -- as long as you still have hp left, that is. In DnD its all about hp total, and without a hit location table, damage gets tallied against the same hp supply. So 1d4+1 hp to my head or leg makes no difference in the RAW unless I get a blinded condition or similar tacked on. If i have 6 hp, i survive 2-5 hp damage.

I probably should have stayed away from the real life analogies, sorry, that just confused things.

I can understand how you can see it the other way, because the argument for adding Dex damage makes sense even for me until i think about the lack of control on a splash attack and no hit location table. As someone else stated, its an aoe attack.

Finally, in DnD terms, there is no difference regarding how I contact a wall of fire. I take the same damage no matter what body part touches it.

[Zalabim]

On a similar subject, I think a lit torch does 1 (+strength modifier) fire damage when used as an improvised weapon, and treating the damage as all fire instead of 1d4+strength modifier (and 1 fire) damage is actually better for most of the purposes you'd really use a torch for: physical resistant and fire vulnerable creatures. The real problem is no one is proficient with these improvised attacks. Still, see how well a torch handles mummies.

Acid, grenades, flaming oil do damage based on quantity or distance from the blast, and the die roll reflects that variability. In 5e acid does flat damage. If I splash it on a bad guys head, it does the same damage as if i splash it on his chest or arm. A certain amount of acid dissolves a certain amount of bad guy. If he gets it in the eyes, hes just blinded too.

This is different than a weapon like a thrown dagger, where the damage really does depend on where it strikes, how deeply (str), did I get an artery (dex mod for thrown), etc. With acid and fire it may seem like location matters, but if the acid dissolves my arm I am just as dead as if it dissolves my head.

These items are AOE. Its similar to (not the same) as wall of fire for example. Doesnt matter what body part contacts the wall, same damage regardless.
These items are not AOE. They're specifically targeted. There are some items that are AOE, like bombs, grenades, and specifically dynamite from the title, but acid flasks, holy water, and alchemist's fire are not AOE.

So if you added a slingshot in the equation, that would be way better and probably easier to argue than throwing it since throws are really hard to be accurate on in real life.
The fact that humans are relatively good at throwing things accurately is one of the reasons we're all alive. There are multiple sports that depend on our ability to accurately throw things of various sizes. This comment is just so far out in left field, I can hardly believe anyone believes this.

I do see your point,... But not in terms of game mechanics. My point is that in the game there is no distinction at all provided, there is no "hit location and effects" table. Yes, damage to your head in real life is worse than damage to your leg -- as long as you still have hp left, that is. In DnD its all about hp total, and without a hit location table, damage gets tallied against the same hp supply. So 1d4+1 hp to my head or leg makes no difference in the RAW unless I get a blinded condition or similar tacked on. If i have 6 hp, i survive 2-5 hp damage.
The general conceit with HP is that if you have the HP to survive it, then it doesn't actually hit a vital location. But let's not make this an HP are meat points thread.

[KOLE]

I feel like we’re all getting off topic here.

From a RAW perspective to answer the question, the answer is no.

Could your DM feel differently? Absolutely. If this concept is important to your character, it’s worth talking with them about to see what they’re willing to allow. If I as a DM had a player who wanted their character to spend a lot of gold for these options and add Dex to damage, I’d probably allow it. But that’s irrelevant. Talk to your DM and see what they think before building this character.

If they’re a strict RAW DM and they answer “No”, you could work around this by playing a Thief Rogue. Use a ranged weapon, keep your distance so you don’t need to use Cunning Action to hide/disengage, and every turn bonus action toss acid/alchemist fire/grenade and the use your action to unleash your sneak attack empowered ranged attack with or without sharpshooter. You’ll be a competitive, optimized character that’s still slinging cool stuff at enemies, and doing a lot of damage.

[Tanarii]

And it makes a certain amount of sense (from a simulation standpoint) that better aim results in more of the acid or alchemists fire hitting the target, or more of it hitting the target in a less-protected spot. Alchemist's fire igniting someone's unprotcted face, for example, is certainly going to be worse than igniting a surcoat over armor.
Dammit, now I can't not see that view. I'm going to have to sit on the thought for a while, but Thief players may be thanking you in the future. :smallbiggrin:

[Zalabim]

It affects my personal judgement on the matter that while I do think Thief fast hands works (which is a content in point to begin with), I certainly don't think it gets Dex mod to damage. I can't recall even seeing the idea suggested before this thread.

I missed this earlier, but as another consideration: If a player wanted to use a chair as an improvised weapon, you might say it does 1d4, 1d6, or 1d8 damage. Doesn't matter. The question is: Do you assume they add their strength bonus to the chair's damage? Acid Flasks use the same rules.

[Xetheral]

Dammit, now I can't not see that view. I'm going to have to sit on the thought for a while, but Thief players may be thanking you in the future. :smallbiggrin:

*Bows* I'd never really paid much attention to Thief or grenade-like weapons until I had a chance to play in a published megadungeon. Knowing that the game would mostly be combat, I set out to design a character that maximized its number of in-combat options. (Both to make sure combat didn't get stale, and to increase the odds that I could find something effective to do each round that also involved roleplaying/characterizarion.) A Thief/Battlemaster (with an Arcana Cleric dip) fit the bill, and to play him I've had to learn a lot about some of the rough edges of the combat system. That included coming across the unexpected tweet about adding Dex Mod to damage. I'm still uncertain if Crawford expects the additional damage to repeat for Alchemists Fire, but we just run it as first-damage-roll only.

Also, as a further fun thing you can do with grenade-like weapons, I note that most Battlemaster manuevers work with any ranged weapon attacks and don't actually require the Attack Action. Bonus action Menacing vials of acid do great damage (comparable to an 11th level Firebolt!), have a potential debuff, and let you use your action for Cast a Spell or Dodge (or just more attacks). Of course, they're still expensive and have a lower hit chance.