Does this work? Crazy rules interaction

[diplomancer]

1- sneak attack works with an attack with a ranged weapon;
2- the third bullet point of Sharpshooter (-5,+10) also requires an attack with a ranged weapon; most notably, neither point 1 nor point 2 require a Ranged Weapon Attack.
3- Reckless attack requires a melee weapon attack that uses Str
4- you can make melee weapon attacks with Ranged weapons, if you treat them as improvised weapons. As they are not finesse weapons, those are Str-based.
5- a Barbarian/Rogue could combine Sneak Attack, Reckless Attack, and Sharpshooteras long as he used his ranged weapon to make a melee weapon attack. Tavern Brawler would give proficiency to those attacks.

Would this work? There's a lot of investment, so it's definitely not broken, more of a meme build. But would it work, nonetheless? If you use a Sling, you can even finally have a sap-using Rogue.

[JNAProductions]

I would not consider a melee attack with an improvised weapon to be a ranged weapon attack, even if the improvised weapon is a bow or whatnot.

By a certain wonky reading of RAW it works, but I would not allow it.

[diplomancer]

I would not consider a melee attack with an improvised weapon to be a ranged weapon attack, even if the improvised weapon is a bow or whatnot.

By a certain wonky reading of RAW it works, but I would not allow it.

I just edited to add it, before reading your post; points 1 and 2 do not require Ranged Weapon Attacks, just attacks with Ranged weapons. What the Rogue's doing is definitely a Melee Weapon Attack, but with an (improvised) Ranged weapon.

[animorte]

I believe the moment you intend to use the ranged weapon for a melee attack roll, it no longer attains the ranged attribute as it is now an improvised weapon. Maybe unless you're throwing it at somebody, then it's no longer a melee weapon.

[JNAProductions]

I just edited to add it, before reading your post; points 1 and 2 do not require Ranged Weapon Attacks, just attacks with Ranged weapons.

I would not consider a weirdly-shaped club a ranged weapon.

I’d be fine with some homebrew to allow for a Tavern Brawler Rogue or a sap weapon that a Rogue could use, but torturing RAW to achieve this end (even though it’s not really unbalanced) wouldn’t fly at my table.

[Dame_Mechanus]

I just edited to add it, before reading your post; points 1 and 2 do not require Ranged Weapon Attacks, just attacks with Ranged weapons. What the Rogue's doing is definitely a Melee Weapon Attack, but with an (improvised) Ranged weapon.

By using the weapon as an Improvised weapon, you are overriding its other attribute. Look at a hatchet; while it can be thrown or used as a melee weapon, the instant you decide to throw it, it does not count as a melee weapon or a melee attack for purposes of anything tied to being a melee weapon and/or attack. Similarly, once you're using a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon, that overrides it being normally counted as a ranged weapon.

[diplomancer]

By using the weapon as an Improvised weapon, you are overriding its other attribute. Look at a hatchet; while it can be thrown or used as a melee weapon, the instant you decide to throw it, it does not count as a melee weapon or a melee attack for purposes of anything tied to being a melee weapon and/or attack. Similarly, once you're using a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon, that overrides it being normally counted as a ranged weapon.

Quite the contrary; if that was the case, as you're making a Ranged Weapon Attack, that would mean that if you throw a Long Sword, that should use Dexterity. The "thrown" property that some weapons have specifically override this rule.

And anyhow, the rule specifically says "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, (...), it also deals 1d4 damage." It can't be a Ranged weapon and not be a Ranged weapon at the same time.

Look, I'm not saying here that this is RAI at all, it clearly is not intended; it's just a funny and weird rules interaction, that's about exploring the implications of the intended differences between "ranged weapon attacks", "melee weapon attacks", "attack with a melee weapon" and "attack with a ranged weapon", and wondering if, by RAW, it works. But it's clearly absurd that being a great marksman allows you to boink someone on the head with a power attack, that you recklessly made.

[JackPhoenix]

By using the weapon as an Improvised weapon, you are overriding its other attribute. Look at a hatchet; while it can be thrown or used as a melee weapon, the instant you decide to throw it, it does not count as a melee weapon or a melee attack for purposes of anything tied to being a melee weapon and/or attack. Similarly, once you're using a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon, that overrides it being normally counted as a ranged weapon.

Bad first example... handaxe (assuming that's what you mean by hatchet, because there's no hatchet in the equipment tables) has a Thrown property, which means it can be used to make ranged attacks while still being melee weapon. If it wasn't throwing weapon, you would be correct.


Quite the contrary; if that was the case, as you're making a Ranged Weapon Attack, that would mean that if you throw a Long Sword, that should use Dexterity. The "thrown" property that some weapons have specifically override this rule.

If you throw a longsword as an improvised weapon, you do use dexterity. Dexterity is the default stat to use for ranged weapon attacks, thrown property overrides that and allows you to use strength instead.

[diplomancer]

Bad first example... handaxe (assuming that's what you mean by hatchet, because there's no hatchet in the equipment tables) has a Thrown property, which means it can be used to make ranged attacks while still being melee weapon. If it wasn't throwing weapon, you would be correct.



If you throw a longsword as an improvised weapon, you do use dexterity. Dexterity is the default stat to use for ranged weapon attacks, thrown property overrides that and allows you to use strength instead.

Oh, you're right, I didn't think of that; But I still think that the Ranged weapon is stil a Ranged weapon (or the rule I quoted is meaningless), even if you use it for a melee attack, in the same way that the long sword is still a melee weapon, not a ranged one, when you throw it (or you COULD use the third bullet point of Sharpshooter with it, as well as have Sneak Attack work; you just couldn't use the Barbarian's Reckless attack).

"Ranged", or "Melee", for that matter, is not a weapon property( "Range" is a property, not "Ranged"). If something is in the table for melee weapons, it's a melee weapon, if something's on the table for ranged weapons, it's a ranged weapon

[Dame_Mechanus]

I think the general consensus here (even with my poor attempt to remember the rules precisely... there's a reason I'm not a rules lawyer or even a rules paralegal) is that even if you could point to the RAW bits that say it should work, any GM would give you a look and say a polite but firm "no." Much like the good old-fashioned peasant railgun, just because it's a strictly literal reading of the rules doesn't override basic logic.

[Jervis]

1- sneak attack works with an attack with a ranged weapon;
2- the third bullet point of Sharpshooter (-5,+10) also requires an attack with a ranged weapon; most notably, neither point 1 nor point 2 require a Ranged Weapon Attack.
3- Reckless attack requires a melee weapon attack that uses Str
4- you can make melee weapon attacks with Ranged weapons, if you treat them as improvised weapons. As they are not finesse weapons, those are Str-based.
5- a Barbarian/Rogue could combine Sneak Attack, Reckless Attack, and Sharpshooteras long as he used his ranged weapon to make a melee weapon attack. Tavern Brawler would give proficiency to those attacks.

Would this work? There's a lot of investment, so it's definitely not broken, more of a meme build. But would it work, nonetheless? If you use a Sling, you can even finally have a sap-using Rogue.

Don’t forget to add in great weapon master with a heavy crossbow. So by bashing someone in the head with a heavy crossbow you can add sharpshooter and great weapon master.

[diplomancer]

Don’t forget to add in great weapon master with a heavy crossbow. So by bashing someone in the head with a heavy crossbow you can add sharpshooter and great weapon master.

Ha! Touche. But with a -10 to hit, even the advantage from Reckless Attack would be too small to compensate for it.

[Christew]

Would this work? There's a lot of investment, so it's definitely not broken, more of a meme build. But would it work, nonetheless? If you use a Sling, you can even finally have a sap-using Rogue.
The ammunition property gets in your way here -- you treat it as an improvised weapon, not just adjust the damage die. "If you use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee Attack, you treat the weapon as an Improvised Weapon (see “Improvised Weapons” later in the section)." -PHB

If you follow JC, he says no, absent DM permission. "If you use a weapon in a way that turns it into an improvised weapon—such as smacking someone with a bow—that weapon has none of its regular properties, unless the DM rules otherwise." -JC

[diplomancer]

The ammunition property gets in your way here -- you treat it as an improvised weapon, not just adjust the damage die. "If you use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee Attack, you treat the weapon as an Improvised Weapon (see “Improvised Weapons” later in the section)." -PHB

If you follow JC, he says no, absent DM permission. "If you use a weapon in a way that turns it into an improvised weapon—such as smacking someone with a bow—that weapon has none of its regular properties, unless the DM rules otherwise." -JC

But as I've said, "Ranged" or "Melee" are not weapon properties, I.e, they are not found on the list of different weapon properties.

[noob]

The ammunition property gets in your way here -- you treat it as an improvised weapon, not just adjust the damage die. "If you use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee Attack, you treat the weapon as an Improvised Weapon (see “Improvised Weapons” later in the section)." -PHB

If you follow JC, he says no, absent DM permission. "If you use a weapon in a way that turns it into an improvised weapon—such as smacking someone with a bow—that weapon has none of its regular properties, unless the DM rules otherwise." -JC

Wow so now I can swing a bow at an opponent and it will have none of its regular properties, so it will lack a weight and stop being wooden and then the monster will be surprised to be hit by a 0 kinetic energy moss bar.

[JNAProductions]

Wow so now I can swing a bow at an opponent and it will have none of its regular properties, so it will lack a weight and stop being wooden and then the monster will be surprised to be hit by a 0 kinetic energy moss bar.

Game properties. Not the in-universe properties.

[Christew]

But as I've said, "Ranged" or "Melee" are not weapon properties, I.e, they are not found on the list of different weapon properties.
But also as you've said "Range" is. If a weapon is stripped of the "Ammunition" and "Range" properties by dint of being used to make an improvised weapon attack, it becomes an Improvised Weapon, not an "(improvised) Ranged Weapon."

As I said, you could conceivably use such semantic arguments and references to table headings to convince a DM to let you do it, but this proposal has been kicking around the internet for some time. General consensus is: not RAW.

[diplomancer]

Having thought and read more about it, I've concluded it does not work, though not for the reasons pointed out so far (though JNAProductions was very near the mark).

1- I would definitely not say "it's improvised, that means it's not ranged". "Improvised" is orthogonal to the melee/ranged dichotomy.
2- furthermore, as "ranged" is not a weapon property, but a weapon classification, saying "a weapon used improvisededly loses its properties" makes no difference.
3- However, the Weapon's table is NOT the only rule about whether something is a Melee or a Ranged weapon; check out this line:


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.

Though the first sentence reinforces point number 1 (I.e, being "improvised" is irrelevant to whether a weapon is ranged or melee, ALL weapons, improvised or not, are either ranged or melee), the second sentence makes it clear that, unless there are other specific rules that supersede it (and there are none in this case), when you use a weapon to attack a target within 5 feet of you, that's a melee weapon. That it would be a ranged weapon if you used it properly and not improvisededly makes no difference.

This does mean that the other rule I quoted, I.e, "if you use a Ranged weapon to make a melee attack..." is, strictly speaking, wrongly written, as it's not really a Ranged weapon in that case... though to write it out properly would probably require very convoluted wording, and this more simple wording conveys the meaning well enough.

[noob]

Having thought and read more about it, I've concluded it does not work, though not for the reasons pointed out so far (though JNAProductions was very near the mark).

1- I would definitely not say "it's improvised, that means it's not ranged". "Improvised" is orthogonal to the melee/ranged dichotomy.
2- furthermore, as "ranged" is not a weapon property, but a weapon classification, saying "a weapon used improvisededly loses its properties" makes no difference.
3- However, the Weapon's table is NOT the only rule about whether something is a Melee or a Ranged weapon; check out this line:



Though the first sentence reinforces point number 1 (I.e, being "improvised" is irrelevant to whether a weapon is ranged or melee, ALL weapons, improvised or not, are either ranged or melee), the second sentence makes it clear that, unless there are other specific rules that supersede it (and there are none in this case), when you use a weapon to attack a target within 5 feet of you, that's a melee weapon. That it would be a ranged weapon if you used it properly and not improvisededly makes no difference.

This does mean that the other rule I quoted, I.e, "if you use a Ranged weapon to make a melee attack..." is, strictly speaking, wrongly written, as it's not really a Ranged weapon in that case... though to write it out properly would probably require very convoluted wording, and this more simple wording conveys the meaning well enough.
Does it means weapons with reach are ranged weapons when used to hit at targets 10 feet away?(at which point it is a melee ranged weapon attack or something else equally confusing)

[diplomancer]

Does it means weapons with reach are ranged weapons when used to hit at targets 10 feet away?(at which point it is a melee ranged weapon attack or something else equally confusing)

As I've said, unless there's another rule to supersede it. The Reach property is one of those rules, as is the Thrown property. A somewhat weird implication of this, apparently, is that a thrown Long Sword (that does not have the Thrown property) is an (improvised) Ranged Weapon.

[noob]

As I've said, unless there's another rule to supersede it. The Reach property is one of those rules, as is the Thrown property. A somewhat weird implication of this, apparently, is that a thrown Long Sword (that does not have the Thrown property) is an (improvised) Ranged Weapon.

So you could use sharpshooter on a thrown longsword but not on a thrown dagger?
I did reread the rule and it is not clear:

Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.
It does not says it is a melee weapon during the throwing, just that you can use the ability modifiers you would use on a melee attack.
As for a reach weapon it only mentions increasing reach and does not use any weapon related vocabulary, it increases reach when you attack and it increases it outside of that scenario only for opportunity attacks purposes.

[Keltest]

As I've said, unless there's another rule to supersede it. The Reach property is one of those rules, as is the Thrown property. A somewhat weird implication of this, apparently, is that a thrown Long Sword (that does not have the Thrown property) is an (improvised) Ranged Weapon.

A DM can call it an improvised melee weapon with the thrown property if they want to, and frankly I dont think theres any reason not to. "Improvised ranged weapon" isnt some sort of default stat block you have to use, after all. Its customizable to the context.


It does not says it is a melee weapon during the throwing, just that you can use the ability modifiers you would use on a melee attack.
As for a reach weapon it only mentions increasing reach and does not use any weapon related vocabulary, it increases reach when you attack and it increases it outside of that scenario only for opportunity attacks purposes.

the Thrown property doesnt change the weapon's type vis a vis melee/ranged, so if it was a melee weapon before having the thrown property added, it remains a melee weapon. Ditto reach.

[Keravath]

Quick question ... do you think the OPs suggestion to use Sharpshooter with a ranged weapon for a melee attack would work with the weapon in the spoiler? It is a ranged weapon that can also explicitly be used as a quarterstaff.


"Gwa’thern Faln
Weapon (longbow), rare (requires attunement)
This ancient longbow’s staff is fashioned from a thick, gnarled piece of yew and polished to a lustrous shine. The weapon (whose name means Shadowbreaker in Elvish) was once wielded by a legendary elven warrior. You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon—which can also be used as a quarterstaff. By whispering the bow’s name and firing
an arrow at a point you can see within 60 feet, you can use an action to cast faerie fire (save DC 15). Once used, this property of the bow can’t be used again until the following dawn."

from Riddle of the Raven Queen

[Keltest]

Quick question ... do you think the OPs suggestion to use Sharpshooter with a ranged weapon for a melee attack would work with the weapon in the spoiler? It is a ranged weapon that can also explicitly be used as a quarterstaff.


"Gwa’thern Faln
Weapon (longbow), rare (requires attunement)
This ancient longbow’s staff is fashioned from a thick, gnarled piece of yew and polished to a lustrous shine. The weapon (whose name means Shadowbreaker in Elvish) was once wielded by a legendary elven warrior. You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon—which can also be used as a quarterstaff. By whispering the bow’s name and firing
an arrow at a point you can see within 60 feet, you can use an action to cast faerie fire (save DC 15). Once used, this property of the bow can’t be used again until the following dawn."

from Riddle of the Raven Queen



I'm of the opinion that if youre using it as a quarterstaff, then its not a bow for the purposes of weapon properties and skills.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Yes by RAW this works, there is a distinction between "ranged weapon attack" and "attack with a ranged weapon" and it does specify the latter, not the former.

I'd allow it at my table. you're taking a two feats and a -10 to hit to try and make this work, totally fair in my book to get an extra 20 damage out of a melee attack.

[Chronos]

Quoth Diplomancer:

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.
If this rule is applicable, does this mean that a crossbow used to attack an adjacent enemy is a melee weapon?

[diplomancer]

If this rule is applicable, does this mean that a crossbow used to attack an adjacent enemy is a melee weapon?

It is if you're boinking him on the head, making a Melee attack, it isn't if you shoot a bolt at him, making a Ranged attack; there's a specific rule about making Ranged attacks at melee distance that overrides this general rule.

[Bobthewizard]

1- sneak attack works with an attack with a ranged weapon;
2- the third bullet point of Sharpshooter (-5,+10) also requires an attack with a ranged weapon; most notably, neither point 1 nor point 2 require a Ranged Weapon Attack.
3- Reckless attack requires a melee weapon attack that uses Str
4- you can make melee weapon attacks with Ranged weapons, if you treat them as improvised weapons. As they are not finesse weapons, those are Str-based.
5- a Barbarian/Rogue could combine Sneak Attack, Reckless Attack, and Sharpshooteras long as he used his ranged weapon to make a melee weapon attack. Tavern Brawler would give proficiency to those attacks.

Would this work? There's a lot of investment, so it's definitely not broken, more of a meme build. But would it work, nonetheless? If you use a Sling, you can even finally have a sap-using Rogue.

When you swing a longbow as a staff, you are not using it as a longbow so it becomes an improvised weapon which is a melee weapon, and is no longer a ranged weapon. Otherwise it would still have the ammunition property and you could throw it 600'.

1. It's no longer a ranged weapon and is not a finesse weapon so you can't use sneak attack.
2. You can't use sharpshooter with an improvised weapon since it is now a melee weapon.
3. I think reckless attack works
4. correct
5. no


If you throw a longsword as an improvised weapon, you do use dexterity. Dexterity is the default stat to use for ranged weapon attacks, thrown property overrides that and allows you to use strength instead.

A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon, uses strength, and does 1d4 damage. The thrown property isn't what allows STR with thrown weapons. STR is the default and finesse is what allows you to use DEX.

"Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property."

"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

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 DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."


As I've said, unless there's another rule to supersede it. The Reach property is one of those rules, as is the Thrown property. A somewhat weird implication of this, apparently, is that a thrown Long Sword (that does not have the Thrown property) is an (improvised) Ranged Weapon.

A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon. It is a melee weapon being used to make a ranged attack but it is not a Ranged Weapon. Think of ranged weapons as those that shoot some type of ammunition. Melee weapons can be thrown for ranged attacks but are still melee weapons. That's why a rogue can't sneak attack with a hand ax.

[Spiritchaser]

I would threaten to drop a random piano type object on my son’s character when he suggested this.

And he totally would suggest this

[JackPhoenix]

A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon, uses strength, and does 1d4 damage. The thrown property isn't what allows STR with thrown weapons. STR is the default and finesse is what allows you to use DEX.

Nope:


"Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property."

See the bolded part. The thrown property is what allows you to make ranged attack with strength. A thrown longsword lacks that property, and thus defaults to the stat used for ranged attacks:

"The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity."


A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon. It is a melee weapon being used to make a ranged attack but it is not a Ranged Weapon. Think of ranged weapons as those that shoot some type of ammunition. Melee weapons can be thrown for ranged attacks but are still melee weapons. That's why a rogue can't sneak attack with a hand ax.

Nope. If a melee weapon doesn't have thrown property, it's used as improvised ranged weapon when thrown. Ammunition has no relevance: there are ranged weapons without ammunition property, namely, dart and net.

[Keltest]

Nope:



See the bolded part. The thrown property is what allows you to make ranged attack with strength. A thrown longsword lacks that property, and thus defaults to the stat used for ranged attacks:

"The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity."



Nope. If a melee weapon doesn't have thrown property, it's used as improvised ranged weapon when thrown. Ammunition has no relevance: there are ranged weapons without ammunition property, namely, dart and net.

Improvised weapons function however the DM decides for them to function in the circumstances. More so than usual I mean. The game does not default to either state. Personally, I'm of the opinion that throwing something like a sword should be an improvised melee weapon with the thrown property, but there is no rule that says it must, or must not, be that anywhere.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not gonna engage in this discussion beyond this chimin in (because in my mind the RAW is clear as to how it works).

Jack is right, an improvised weapon that is not deemed as sufficiently similar to a "real" weapon, deals 1d4 damage and has no other properties.

[Christew]

Jack is right
Mostly. This part is either wrong or misleadingly worded.

If a melee weapon doesn't have thrown property, it's used as improvised ranged weapon when thrown.
If a melee weapon doesn't have the thrown property and is thrown, it doesn't become a ranged weapon.
"The act of throwing a melee weapon doesn't transform it into a ranged weapon." -JC
It is a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, and therefore a ranged weapon attack, but it is not an attack with a ranged weapon.

an improvised weapon that is not deemed as sufficiently similar to a "real" weapon, deals 1d4 damage and has no other properties.
This is an accurate statement.

[diplomancer]

Mostly. This part is either wrong or misleadingly worded.

If a melee weapon doesn't have the thrown property and is thrown, it doesn't become a ranged weapon.
"The act of throwing a melee weapon doesn't transform it into a ranged weapon." -JC
It is a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, and therefore a ranged weapon attack, but it is not an attack with a ranged weapon.

This is an accurate statement.

If a melee weapon that does not have the Thrown property does not become a Ranged weapon when thrown (as per the definition of Ranged and Melee weapons that I quoted earlier), than a Ranged weapon that's used to boink an enemy in the head does not become a melee weapon; and we're back to my original post, and the crazy meme build would work (which I now think is wrong, but would be correct in that interpretation).

[JackPhoenix]

Mostly. This part is either wrong or misleadingly worded.

If a melee weapon doesn't have the thrown property and is thrown, it doesn't become a ranged weapon.
"The act of throwing a melee weapon doesn't transform it into a ranged weapon." -JC
It is a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, and therefore a ranged weapon attack, but it is not an attack with a ranged weapon.

That quote is within the context of using a weapon with thrown property; such weapon is still a melee weapon when used that way. As longsword does NOT have thrown property, it's used as improvised ranged weapon when thrown.

[Chronos]

I think it's possible, given the hodgepodge of rules that we have, that a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown but is thrown anyway might not get any ability score modifier to attack and damage.

[JackPhoenix]

I think it's possible, given the hodgepodge of rules that we have, that a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown but is thrown anyway might not get any ability score modifier to attack and damage.

It's not possible unless a rule specifically says you don't get to add modifier (like with TWF BA attack). Melee weapon attacks use Str, ranged weapon attack use Dex.

[Christew]

If a melee weapon that does not have the Thrown property does not become a Ranged weapon when thrown (as per the definition of Ranged and Melee weapons that I quoted earlier), than a Ranged weapon that's used to boink an enemy in the head does not become a melee weapon; and we're back to my original post, and the crazy meme build would work (which I now think is wrong, but would be correct in that interpretation).
They both become improvised weapons. The "definition" you posted is presented free from context to make it seem more universal. If you restore the beginning of the paragraph -- "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" -- then it's pretty clear the standard reading would be "every weapon on the Weapon table," and not "every weapon that may appear in the game including improvised weapons."

That quote is within the context of using a weapon with thrown property; such weapon is still a melee weapon when used that way. As longsword does NOT have thrown property, it's used as improvised ranged weapon when thrown.
Improvised ranged weapon is functionally not a thing. The only time an improvised weapon would be considered a ranged weapon is if it is deemed sufficiently similar to a weapon appearing in the ranged section of the Weapon table (at which point it would functionally be treated as that weapon entry and therefore would not use STR and Tavern Brawler proficiency would likely be redundant). A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon being used to make a ranged weapon attack, it is not a ranged weapon.

[diplomancer]

They both become improvised weapons. The "definition" you posted is presented free from context to make it seem more universal. If you restore the beginning of the paragraph -- "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" -- then it's pretty clear the standard reading would be "every weapon on the Weapon table," and not "every weapon that may appear in the game including improvised weapons."

Improvised ranged weapon is functionally not a thing. The only time an improvised weapon would be considered a ranged weapon is if it is deemed sufficiently similar to a weapon appearing in the ranged section of the Weapon table (at which point it would functionally be treated as that weapon entry and therefore would not use STR and Tavern Brawler proficiency would likely be redundant). A thrown longsword is an improvised weapon being used to make a ranged weapon attack, it is not a ranged weapon.

So your argument is that an improvised weapon is neither melee nor ranged. But this is just plain weird; if I get a small rock (smaller than my closed fist, if need be, so it probably wouldn't make a very good melee weapon), and throw it at a window on the second floor, that is clearly an improvised ranged weapon; if I get a metal pan and bash it against someone's skull, that is clearly an improvised melee weapon. "Improvised" is simply not a category that is opposed to "melee" or "ranged", in the same way that "melee" and "ranged" are opposed to each other. "Improvised" is opposed to "Proper", or "Regular".

So no, I don't agree that the correct interpretation of the sentence I quoted should be "every weapon (on the Weapon table) is classified as either melee or ranged", and not simply "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged", nor have I seen any evidence for it yet. Improvised weapons, like regular weapons, are also either Melee or Ranged.

[Christew]

So your argument is that an improvised weapon is neither melee nor ranged. But this is just plain weird; if I get a small rock (smaller than my closed fist, if need be, so it probably wouldn't make a very good melee weapon), and throw it at a window on the second floor, that is clearly an improvised ranged weapon; if I get a metal pan and bash it against someone's skull, that is clearly an improvised melee weapon.
Unless it is deemed sufficiently "similar to an actual weapon" then no, it is not treated as a melee weapon or ranged weapon. I agree it is a weird use of language and could have been easily avoided by some more differentiated terms, but your rock is a ranged weapon attack made with an improvised weapon and your pan is a melee weapon attack made with an improvised weapon (assuming it is not deemed a club or something).

"Improvised" is simply not a category that is opposed to "melee" or "ranged", in the same way that "melee" and "ranged" are opposed to each other. "Improvised" is opposed to "Proper", or "Regular".
"Proper/Regular" weapons are those that appear on the Weapons table (which are divided into the categories of Ranged weapons and Melee weapons), so opposition aside, Improvised implies not a Melee or Ranged weapon (again unless deemed sufficiently similar). You are conflating ranged/melee as the terms relate to the distance from which a weapon attack is made and Ranged/Melee as categories on the Weapons table.

So no, I don't agree that the correct interpretation of the sentence I quoted should be "every weapon (on the Weapon table) is classified as either melee or ranged", and not simply "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged", nor have I seen any evidence for it yet. Improvised weapons, like regular weapons, are also either Melee or Ranged.
Which is totally within your rights as an independent thinking human being. That doesn't really change the RAW though. The evidence is in how paragraphs are used -- they group information on a single theme under a broader subject. The paragraph you quoted is about the Weapons table as evidenced by its introductory sentence. Proper structuring would dictate that your interpretation would require either starting a new paragraph or making clear that the subsequent sentence is not informed by the preceding ones (neither of which are present here).

Improvised weapons can be used to make melee weapon attacks or ranged weapon attacks -- unless they are deemed sufficiently similar to weapons that appear on the Weapons table, they are not Melee or Ranged weapons.

[diplomancer]

Unless it is deemed sufficiently "similar to an actual weapon" then no, it is not treated as a melee weapon or ranged weapon. I agree it is a weird use of language and could have been easily avoided by some more differentiated terms, but your rock is a ranged weapon attack made with an improvised weapon and your pan is a melee weapon attack made with an improvised weapon (assuming it is not deemed a club or something).

"Proper/Regular" weapons are those that appear on the Weapons table (which are divided into the categories of Ranged weapons and Melee weapons), so opposition aside, Improvised implies not a Melee or Ranged weapon (again unless deemed sufficiently similar). You are conflating ranged/melee as the terms relate to the distance from which a weapon attack is made and Ranged/Melee as categories on the Weapons table.

Which is totally within your rights as an independent thinking human being. That doesn't really change the RAW though. The evidence is in how paragraphs are used -- they group information on a single theme under a broader subject. The paragraph you quoted is about the Weapons table as evidenced by its introductory sentence. Proper structuring would dictate that your interpretation would require either starting a new paragraph or making clear that the subsequent sentence is not informed by the preceding ones (neither of which are present here).

Improvised weapons can be used to make melee weapon attacks or ranged weapon attacks -- unless they are deemed sufficiently similar to weapons that appear on the Weapons table, they are not Melee or Ranged weapons.

The RAW, meaning, the rules in the book, is what I've quoted. That you interpret it to be exclusively to weapons on the table because of "paragraph structure" is on you.

But let's translate it in even plainer English: "Weapons are used to attack foes, either near or far". How can that sentence apply only to particular weapons, and not to any thing that is used to attack foes, whether it was made with that intention or used desperately as a last resort?

1- An improvised weapon is a weapon, at least at the moment it's used as one, which is the moment that matters for our purposes.
2- an improvised weapon can be used to attack an adjacent foe or a further away foe.
3- therefore, an improvised weapon can be either Melee or Ranged.

This is just plain English.

[Christew]

The RAW, meaning, the rules in the book, is what I've quoted.
You have indeed quoted the book. You also removed the quote from context and in doing so distorted your ability to garner it's meaning.

That you interpret it to be exclusively to weapons on the table because of "paragraph structure" is on you.
Interpreting the meaning of a sentence based on surrounding sentences, especially those in the same paragraph, is pretty standard practice for understanding written English.

But let's translate it in even plainer English: "Weapons are used to attack foes, either near or far".
Let's not, because that would be silly and only serve to compound any existing distortion.

1- An improvised weapon is a weapon, at least at the moment it's used as one, which is the moment that matters for our purposes.
2- an improvised weapon can be used to attack an adjacent foe or a further away foe.
3- therefore, an improvised weapon can be either Melee or Ranged.
1- sure
2- sure
3- therefore, an improvised weapon can be used to make either melee weapon attacks or ranged weapon attacks.

You seem to be parsing "X weapon attack" as an "attack" made with "X weapon." That is not how it works. "Weapon attack" is differentiated from "spell attack." X is just indicating at what range the attack is being made. There is a reason that the first two bullets of Sharpshooter use one construction and the third point uses another.

This is just plain English.
Clearly that doesn't prevent it from being read in such a way as to create the impression that "crazy rules interactions" aren't precluded. Limitations of language and all that.

[diplomancer]

You have indeed quoted the book. You also removed the quote from context and in doing so distorted your ability to garner it's meaning.

Interpreting the meaning of a sentence based on surrounding sentences, especially those in the same paragraph, is pretty standard practice for understanding written English.

Let's not, because that would be silly and only serve to compound any existing distortion.

1- sure
2- sure
3- therefore, an improvised weapon can be used to make either melee weapon attacks or ranged weapon attacks.

You seem to be parsing "X weapon attack" as an "attack" made with "X weapon." That is not how it works. "Weapon attack" is differentiated from "spell attack." X is just indicating at what range the attack is being made. There is a reason that the first two bullets of Sharpshooter use one construction and the third point uses another.

Clearly that doesn't prevent it from being read in such a way as to create the impression that "crazy rules interactions" aren't precluded. Limitations of language and all that.

And now you're starting to put words in my mouth. No, I'm not referring weapon attacks at all, nor have I mentioned them. I am well aware that you don't need a weapon for a weapon attack. But if you ARE using a weapon, whether it's improvised or not, that weapon will, necessarily, be either Melee or Ranged (I.e, it will be used to attack either foes at hand or at a distance, because that's what those words mean).

And I'm still waiting on your rules quotation that shows that only weapons on the weapon table are Ranged or Melee, and that improvised weapons are, by definition, neither Melee nor Ranged.

[Christew]

And now you're starting to put words in my mouth. No, I'm not referring weapon attacks at all, nor have I mentioned them. I am well aware that you don't need a weapon for a weapon attack. But if you ARE using a weapon, whether it's improvised or not, that weapon will, necessarily, be either Melee or Ranged (I.e, it will be used to attack either foes at hand or at a distance, because that's what those words mean).
How am I putting words in your mouth? Your argument appears to boil down to:
1- it is a weapon
2- I'm making a melee weapon attack with it
3- therefore it is an attack with a melee weapon

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your claims.

Edit:
And I'm still waiting on your rules quotation that shows that only weapons on the weapon table are Ranged or Melee, and that improvised weapons are, by definition, neither Melee nor Ranged.
I mean, I believe we are already looking at the same section and most of it has already been quoted, but if you insist.

"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 (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
- an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon > read an improvised weapon is NOT an actual weapon (per earlier, actual weapons are categorized as melee or ranged)
- If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack > read a ranged weapon may be used to make a melee attack, it may NOT be used as a melee weapon

[diplomancer]

How am I putting words in your mouth? Your argument appears to boil down to:
1- it is a weapon
2- I'm making a melee weapon attack with it
3- therefore it is an attack with a melee weapon

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your claims.

Edit:
I mean, I believe we are already looking at the same section and most of it has already been quoted, but if you insist.

"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 (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
- an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon > read an improvised weapon is NOT an actual weapon (per earlier, actual weapons are categorized as melee or ranged)
- If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack > read a ranged weapon may be used to make a melee attack, it may NOT be used as a melee weapon

Here's the thing: you can't, logically, go from "actual weapons are either ranged or melee" to "things which are not actual weapons, when used as weapons, are neither ranged nor melee". That's just poor logic. You'd have to add the qualifier "only" to the first sentence, and that qualifier is nowhere to be found in the rules (and it would be just weird if it was, since, putting aside rules for a moment and just thinking about it, improvised weapons CAN be used either as ranged or as melee, and some of them will be better to attack enemies at range, like a small rock, and others will be better to attack enemies close by, like an iron pan).

When you look at monster blocs, you see plenty of weapons that are not on the weapon table; some of them are used to make ranged weapon attacks, others are used to make melee weapon attacks; but, according to your interpretation they are not improvised, but neither are they melee nor ranged, since they're not on the weapons table. I have no idea what they are.

Incidentally; if your last paragraph was actually true (I know you're just quoting from the rules, but it's contradicted by other rules, and it's what led me to think that the first post idea would work), since nothing in it states that it stops being a Ranged weapon when you use it as an improvised weapon, then my first post would be correct, and you would be able to Reckless attack, since you're making a melee weapon attack with Str, and still get sneak attack and -5, +10 from Sharpshooter, since you're making that melee weapon attack with a Ranged weapon, as absurd as that would be; however, once you use a crossbow to boink someone on the head, it's now an improvised melee weapon, not a ranged weapon that's being used improvisededly on melee.

[Christew]

Here's the thing: you can't, logically, go from "actual weapons are either ranged or melee" to "things which are not actual weapons, when used as weapons, are neither ranged nor melee". That's just poor logic. You'd have to add the qualifier "only" to the first sentence, and that qualifier is nowhere to be found in the rules (and it would be just weird if it was, since, putting aside rules for a moment and just thinking about it, improvised weapons CAN be used either as ranged or as melee, and some of them will be better to attack enemies at range, like a small rock, and others will be better to attack enemies close by, like an iron pan).
Nah. You're just conflating weapon attacks and weapons again.

When you look at monster blocs, you see plenty of weapons that are not on the weapon table; some of them are used to make ranged weapon attacks, others are used to make melee weapon attacks; but, according to your interpretation they are not improvised, but neither are they melee nor ranged, since they're not on the weapons table. I have no idea what they are.
Examples? I'm not going to review the entire MM, but I'm pretty sure they tend to be natural weapons or from the Weapons table. Also a poor example since monster blocks and player characters don't follow the same rules.

Incidentally; if your last paragraph was actually true (I know you're just quoting from the rules, but it's contradicted by other rules, and it's what led me to think that the first post idea would work), since nothing in it states that it stops being a Ranged weapon when you use it as an improvised weapon, then my first post would be correct, and you would be able to Reckless attack, since you're making a melee weapon attack with Str, and still get sneak attack and -5, +10 from Sharpshooter, since you're making that melee weapon attack with a Ranged weapon, as absurd as that would be; however, once you use a crossbow to boink someone on the head, it's now an improvised melee weapon, not a ranged weapon that's being used improvisededly on melee.
Nah. Just an improvised weapon. You are using it to make melee weapon attacks.

How many times do the terms "improvised ranged weapon" and "improvised melee weapon" appear in the rules again?

[diplomancer]

Nah. You're just conflating weapon attacks and weapons again.

No. I'm not talking about weapon attacks at all.


Examples? I'm not going to review the entire MM, but I'm pretty sure they tend to be natural weapons or from the Weapons table. Also a poor example since monster blocks and player characters don't follow the same rules.

Fire Giant Dreadnought, for instance. They Dual wield shields, which are not exactly proper shields, because the math does not fit. They are weird weapons that add 1.5 to AC? A Scythe is not on the weapons table, but there are a few monsters that wield one

And player characters can become monsters, through spells like Shapechange, while still retaining all their class features. So "monster blocks and player characters don't follow the same rules" does not solve the problem.



Nah. Just an improvised weapon. You are using it to make melee weapon attacks.

Actually, it says "if a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack", and nowhere does it state that it stops being a Ranged weapon; it is solely your interpretation that "it is now an improvised weapon that is neither melee nor ranged, i.e, that is neither used to attack foes at hand (melee) nor used to attack foes at a distance (ranged)." I'm "translating" the terms "melee" and "ranged" to highlight the impossibility of a weapon, whether improvised or not, being neither. It has to be one or the other.


How many times do the terms "improvised ranged weapon" and "improvised melee weapon" appear in the rules again?

There's no need for that. Melee/Ranged is a dichotomy that, by definition, applies to all weapons, and Improvised is orthogonal to it. How many times do the rules say that improvised weapons are neither melee nor ranged? Or where does it say "there are three types of weapons, Melee, Ranged, and Improvised"? It doesn't, because that doesn't make sense. What it does say is that there are two types of weapons, Melee and Ranged; "improvised" is not a third type that stands apart from these two, but a different way of categorising a weapon, I.e, "proper", something made to be a weapon (of which the weapon table in the PHB contains an incomplete list, though the rules mentioned about that table applies to weapons on different tables, like the firearms table in the DMG), or "improvised", something that is only used as a weapon at a particular moment, though it originally had some other purpose.

[Christew]

No. I'm not talking about weapon attacks at all.
Well, you don't think you are, but that's because of the conflation. See here:

improvised weapons CAN be used either as ranged or as meleeYou mean improvised weapons can be used to make either melee or ranged weapon attacks.

Fire Giant Dreadnought, for instance. They Dual wield shields, which are not exactly proper shields, because the math does not fit. They are weird weapons that add 1.5 to AC? A Scythe is not on the weapons table, but there are a few monsters that wield one
A perfect example of monsters and players following different rules.

And player characters can become monsters, through spells like Shapechange, while still retaining all their class features. So "monster blocks and player characters don't follow the same rules" does not solve the problem.
Shapechange doesn't grant you equipment.

Actually, it says "if a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack", and nowhere does it state that it stops being a Ranged weapon; it is solely your interpretation that "it is now an improvised weapon that is neither melee nor ranged, i.e, that is neither used to attack foes at hand (melee) nor used to attack foes at a distance (ranged)." I'm "translating" the terms "melee" and "ranged" to highlight the impossibility of a weapon, whether improvised or not, being neither. It has to be one or the other.
Nah. It doesn't.

There's no need for that. Melee/Ranged is a dichotomy that, by definition, applies to all weapons, and Improvised is orthogonal to it. How many times do the rules say that improvised weapons are neither melee nor ranged? Or where does it say "there are three types of weapons, Melee, Ranged, and Improvised"? It doesn't, because that doesn't make sense. What it does say is that there are two types of weapons, Melee and Ranged; "improvised" is not a third type that stands apart from these two, but a different way of categorising a weapon, I.e, "proper", something made to be a weapon (of which the weapon table in the PHB contains an incomplete list, though the rules mentioned about that table applies to weapons on different tables, like the firearms table in the DMG), or "improvised", something that is only used as a weapon at a particular moment, though it originally had some other purpose.
There are two types of actual weapons, and then there are improvised weapons.

[Keltest]

Personally I would like to see a rules citation for improvised weapons not being weapons.

[diplomancer]

A perfect example of monsters and players following different rules.

Whether they follow different rules or not is irrelevant. Is a Monster's Scythe a Melee Weapon? It's definitely a weapon, and it's not improvised, and it is not to be found on the weapons' table.


Shapechange doesn't grant you equipment.

Yes it does. It gives you a creature's statistics, and a creature's equipment is, explicitly, per Monster Manual introduction, part of its statistics. So a DM has to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon; I am pretty sure about how any DM, including you were it not for this discussion where you're making the bizarre claim that the "melee/ranged dichotomy applies only to the weapons table" (even when there are weapons that are not on that table elsewhere in the rules, and they all follow the pattern of being either melee or ranged), would rule on that.


Nah. It doesn't.

Yes it does (insert Monty Python argument sketch)


There are two types of actual weapons, and then there are improvised weapons.

Citation needed (to show that improvised weapons are neither melee nor ranged).


Personally I would like to see a rules citation for improvised weapons not being weapons.

Yeah, that's what I've been asking for a while.

[Christew]

Whether they follow different rules or not is irrelevant. Is a Monster's Scythe a Melee Weapon? It's definitely a weapon, and it's not improvised, and it is not to be found on the weapons' table.
Monsters don't get feats.

Yes it does. It gives you a creature's statistics, and a creature's equipment is, explicitly, per Monster Manual introduction, part of its statistics. So a DM has to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon; I am pretty sure about how any DM, including you were it not for this discussion where you're making the bizarre claim that the "melee/ranged dichotomy applies only to the weapons table" (even when there are weapons that are not on that table elsewhere in the rules, and they all follow the pattern of being either melee or ranged), would rule on that.
Nah. "No transformation spell gives you gear unless the spell's description says it does." -JC

[diplomancer]

Monsters don't get feats.
I have no idea what's the connection between your statement and my question. And this is false, monsters get whatever DMs decide to give to them; and this is irrelevant, because PCs can get all of a monster's statistics while still retaining their class features. So instead of avoiding my direct question with an irrelevant statement, how about trying to answer it instead? It's quite simple, I'm sure you can answer it:

"Is a Monster's Scythe a melee weapon"?


Nah. "No transformation spell gives you gear unless the spell's description says it does." -JC

Since that's not on Sage Advice Compendium, it has as much value as anyone's opinion; it might even be an indication towards RAI. But not only is it not RAW, it's a straight contradiction of RAW. If you get a creature's statistics (you do), and a creature's statistics include the equipment on its stat block (it does, as per MM introduction), then, by RAW, Shapechange gives you gear. What happens if you hand over that gear to someone else is up to the DM, I'd just make it disappear to make things simpler and prevent any possible abuse.

[Christew]

I have no idea what's the connection between your statement and my question. And this is false, monsters get whatever DMs decide to give to them; and this is irrelevant, because PCs can get all of a monster's statistics while still retaining their class features. So instead of avoiding my direct question with an irrelevant statement, how about trying to answer it instead? It's quite simple, I'm sure you can answer it:

"Is a Monster's Scythe a melee weapon"?
Tough to say with any specificity since you haven't named the monster block you are referencing, but I would imagine it is listed as an action that produces either a ranged weapon attack, melee weapon attack, ranged spell attack, or melee spell attack.

Since "scythe" does not appear on the Weapons table, it is not a melee weapon or a ranged weapon in the same way it is not a simple weapon or a martial weapon unless either the specific entry says so or the DM rules it such.


Since that's not on Sage Advice Compendium, it has as much value as anyone's opinion; it might even be an indication towards RAI. But not only is it not RAW, it's a straight contradiction of RAW. If you get a creature's statistics (you do), and a creature's statistics include the equipment on its stat block (it does, as per MM introduction), then, by RAW, Shapechange gives you gear. What happens if you hand over that gear to someone else is up to the DM, I'd just make it disappear to make things simpler and prevent any possible abuse.
I'm going to go ahead and consider the opinions of the game's principal rule designer to have more value than yours.

[diplomancer]

Tough to say with any specificity since you haven't named the monster block you are referencing, but I would imagine it is listed as an action that produces either a ranged weapon attack, melee weapon attack, ranged spell attack, or melee spell attack.

Since "scythe" does not appear on the Weapons table, it is not a melee weapon or a ranged weapon in the same way it is not a simple weapon or a martial weapon unless either the specific entry says so or the DM rules it such.

Death Pact Angel, for instance.

Let's go slowly; is it a weapon?



I'm going to go ahead and consider the opinions of the game's principal rule designer to have more value than yours.

Feel free to use a tweet to disregard clear and unambiguous RAW at your table. For forum discussions, we've got to stick to RAW. Crawford himself says that his tweets are "how he would rule", not RAW, and not RAI (RAI is what makes it to Sage Advice Compendium, which is not even the case here).

[Mellack]

Since that's not on Sage Advice Compendium, it has as much value as anyone's opinion; it might even be an indication towards RAI. But not only is it not RAW, it's a straight contradiction of RAW. If you get a creature's statistics (you do), and a creature's statistics include the equipment on its stat block (it does, as per MM introduction), then, by RAW, Shapechange gives you gear. What happens if you hand over that gear to someone else is up to the DM, I'd just make it disappear to make things simpler and prevent any possible abuse.

It is in Sage Advice. https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-i-use-true-polymorph-can-i-gain-equipment/
also https://www.sageadvice.eu/a-lot-of-creature-stats-have-equipment-referenced-how-does-that-interact-with-the-shapechange-spell/

RAW is no equipment from the spell.

[Christew]

Death Pact Angel, for instance.

Let's go slowly; is it a weapon?
Let's not.

"When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player's Handbook.

Melee and Ranged Attacks
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook."
It would appear to be a melee weapon attack.

Feel free to use a tweet to disregard clear and unambiguous RAW at your table. For forum discussions, we've got to stick to RAW. Crawford himself says that his tweets are "how he would rule", not RAW, and not RAI (RAI is what makes it to Sage Advice Compendium, which is not even the case here).
Nah. For forum discussions, we've got to follow the forum rules. I'd say any available resource is open to a claimant and it is up to the respondent to evaluate those resources as they see fit. You are welcome to choose not to value Crawford's statements and I am welcome to choose not to value yours.

[diplomancer]

Let's not.

It would appear to be a melee weapon attack.

Nah. For forum discussions, we've got to follow the forum rules. I'd say any available resource is open to a claimant and it is up to the respondent to evaluate those resources as they see fit. You are welcome to choose not to value Crawford's statements and I am welcome to choose not to value yours.

Yes, you're free to disregard RAW, but that makes your argument of less use to people who are not at your table. You can even use Jeremy Crawford's guidance at your table, if you want to, but it will still not be the RAW, and will be contradicted by it. I will point out, though, that in this particular case of Shapechange, I'm not "sharing my opinion", I'm saying what the RAW is. You are free to not value the RAW.

For people who want to know and use the RAW and not a houserule, Shapechange gives you the statistics of a Monster, which, by Monster Manual Introduction (both in its list of "monsters statistics" and its definition of what "monsters statistics" are), includes a monster's equipment. This means a DM, if he wants to follow RAW and give the Shapechanged caster the Monster's statistics, without houseruling the spell, will have to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon. Thankfully, that's a very easy decision, as it obviously is a melee weapon; it's a weapon, it has reach, it does not have range, it works on melee weapon attacks; obviously a melee weapon. It's definitely not "a melee weapon attack", as a melee weapon attack is not an object. It is a weapon with which the Death Pact Angel makes melee weapon attacks.

Ironic, but not unexpected, that now you're conflating weapons with melee weapon attacks.

[Damon_Tor]

Yes, you're free to disregard RAW, but that makes your argument of less use to people who are not at your table. You can even use Jeremy Crawford's guidance at your table, if you want to, but it will still not be the RAW, and will be contradicted by it. I will point out, though, that in this particular case of Shapechange, I'm not "sharing my opinion", I'm saying what the RAW is. You are free to not value the RAW.

It is absolutely your opinion. Nothing about the situation is unambiguous. Neither the Monster's Manual nor the Shapeshift spell in particular are written in anything like a programming language, and plenty of ambiguity exists in both sources to make interpretations of the text besides your own valid.


For people who want to know and use the RAW, Shapechange gives you the statistics of a Monster, which, by Monster Manual Introduction (both in its list of "monsters statistics" and its definition of what "monsters statistics" are), includes a monster's equipment. This means a DM, if he wants to follow RAW and give the Shapechanged caster the Monster's statistics, without houseruling the spell, will have to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon.

They give you the statistics of a different creature with many caveats, including that you transform into an average example of that creature. That clause right there is enough for any DM to rule in whatever way fits his purposes regarding equipment. An average duergar, for example, is not holding a warpick and a javelin, despite the entry in the Monster Manual listing those weapons. The duergar species includes innumerable civilians who aren't likely to be walking around armed.

[diplomancer]

It is absolutely your opinion. Nothing about the situation is unambiguous. Neither the Monster's Manual nor the Shapeshift spell in particular are written in anything like a programming language, and plenty of ambiguity exists in both sources to make interpretations of the text besides your own valid.



They give you the statistics of a different creature with many caveats, including that you transform into an average example of that creature. That clause right there is enough for any DM to rule in whatever way fits his purposes regarding equipment. An average duergar, for example, is not holding a warpick and a javelin, despite the entry in the Monster Manual listing those weapons. The duergar species includes innumerable civilians who aren't likely to be walking around armed.

What Shapechange actually says is "you transform into an average creature of that type, one without class levels or the spellcasting feature"

So what the spell means by "an average creature of that type" is quite explicit in the spell itself. Otherwise the spell's meaningless, as it's impossible to know what are the statistics of an "average" anything, apart from what's in the Monster Manual; I.e, what appears in the Monster Manual is an average type of a particular creature.

An "average" Duergar is the one given in the Monster Manual, one with Warwick and a javelin, not a hypothetical creature that is androgynous and ageless.

[JNAProductions]

What Shapechange actually says is "you transform into an average creature of that type, one without class levels or the spellcasting feature"

So what the spell means by "an average creature of that type" is quite explicit in the spell itself. Otherwise the spell's meaningless, as it's impossible to know what are the statistics of an "average" anything, apart from what's in the Monster Manual; I.e, what appears in the Monster Manual is an average type of a particular creature.

An "average" Duergar is the one given in the Monster Manual, one with Warwick and a javelin, not a hypothetical creature that is androgynous and ageless.

If you're a computer, maybe.
If you're a living, breathing person... You can make reasonable assumptions. Not everyone will make the same assumptions, but I don't think you'll find many DMs who would rule that you get a Duergar's weapons just because the Monster Manual has them equipped with them.

[Damon_Tor]

What Shapechange actually says is "you transform into an average creature of that type, one without class levels or the spellcasting feature"

So what the spell means by "an average creature of that type" is quite explicit in the spell itself. Otherwise the spell's meaningless, as it's impossible to know what are the statistics of an "average" anything, apart from what's in the Monster Manual; I.e, what appears in the Monster Manual is an average type of a particular creature.

An "average" Duergar is the one given in the Monster Manual, one with Warwick and a javelin, not a hypothetical creature that is androgynous and ageless.

The creature you transform is average, without class levels, and without the spellcasting feature. You can't simply ignore the word "average" in that sentence because it isn't useful to your argument. If all they meant from that sentence was "you turn into a creature of that type without class levels or the spellcasting feature" they would have written exactly that.

[Keltest]

Im unclear on where the ambiguity is here. We're given a definition of stat block and what it includes, and a spell that tells you to use one. Where's the problem?

[Christew]

Yes, you're free to disregard RAW, but that makes your argument of less use to people who are not at your table. You can even use Jeremy Crawford's guidance at your table, if you want to, but it will still not be the RAW, and will be contradicted by it. I will point out, though, that in this particular case of Shapechange, I'm not "sharing my opinion", I'm saying what the RAW is. You are free to not value the RAW.
You are saying what your interpretation of the RAW is (aka "sharing your opinion"). Anything beyond a citation of the RAW, is definitionally not the RAW.

For people who want to know and use the RAW and not a houserule, Shapechange gives you the statistics of a Monster, which, by Monster Manual Introduction (both in its list of "monsters statistics" and its definition of what "monsters statistics" are), includes a monster's equipment.
"Equipment in a generic monster's stat block is typical for a creature of that sort. The equipment is not an inherent part of the monster. Rather, it is a convenient suggestion for the DM." -JC

"When you transform, you choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground, merges into the new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal. The DM determines whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change shape or size to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge into your new form. Equipment that merges has no Effect in that state." -Shapechange
So, per your interpretation, what happens when a player shapechanges into a new form wherein:
1) it is practical for the new form to wear the player's armor, and
2) the player elects that the armor is worn by the new form, but
3) the new form refers to armor in its stat block?

This means a DM, if he wants to follow RAW and give the Shapechanged caster the Monster's statistics, without houseruling the spell, will have to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon. Thankfully, that's a very easy decision, as it obviously is a melee weapon; it's a weapon, it has reach, it does not have range, it works on melee weapon attacks; obviously a melee weapon. It's definitely not "a melee weapon attack", as a melee weapon attack is not an object. It is a weapon with which the Death Pact Angel makes melee weapon attacks.
You're doing that "if it can make melee weapon attacks it must be a melee weapon" thing again.

Ironic, but not unexpected, that now you're conflating weapons with melee weapon attacks.
Nah. Still you. I was just citing the RAW where it says "Scythe: Melee Weapon Attack."

[GooeyChewie]

Yes, you're free to disregard RAW, but that makes your argument of less use to people who are not at your table. You can even use Jeremy Crawford's guidance at your table, if you want to, but it will still not be the RAW, and will be contradicted by it. I will point out, though, that in this particular case of Shapechange, I'm not "sharing my opinion", I'm saying what the RAW is. You are free to not value the RAW.

For people who want to know and use the RAW and not a houserule, Shapechange gives you the statistics of a Monster, which, by Monster Manual Introduction (both in its list of "monsters statistics" and its definition of what "monsters statistics" are), includes a monster's equipment. This means a DM, if he wants to follow RAW and give the Shapechanged caster the Monster's statistics, without houseruling the spell, will have to decide whether the Scythe is a melee weapon. Thankfully, that's a very easy decision, as it obviously is a melee weapon; it's a weapon, it has reach, it does not have range, it works on melee weapon attacks; obviously a melee weapon. It's definitely not "a melee weapon attack", as a melee weapon attack is not an object. It is a weapon with which the Death Pact Angel makes melee weapon attacks.

Ironic, but not unexpected, that now you're conflating weapons with melee weapon attacks.

I can see an argument that by RAW the attacks listed in the monster stat blocks are statistics. But if that's the case, then we shouldn't be adding anything to them by RAW. And in that case, they aren't weapons at all, much less melee weapons or ranged weapons.

I think it's very reasonable to consider the attacks which logically would be weapons to be objects. But if we make that distinction, then they aren't really statistics of the monster, only of the weapon. And in that case, it's up to the DM to determine the unwritten aspects of the weapon statistics.

What I cannot reconcile is calling the attacks statistics in order to justify getting them with Shapechange, and then also claiming that the attacks are made with an object which has its own statistics beyond what is written in the stat block.

[diplomancer]

You are saying what your interpretation of the RAW is (aka "sharing your opinion"). Anything beyond a citation of the RAW, is definitionally not the RAW.

Ok. I will cite just the RAW:

Shapechange:
"Your game Statistics are replaced by the Statistics of the chosen creature, though you retain your Alignment and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores You also retain all of your skill and saving throw Proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature, If the creature has the same Proficiency as you, and the bonus listed in its Statistics is higher than yours, use the creature's bonus in place of yours. You can't use any legendary Actions or lair Actions of the new form."

So, Shapechange makes a general rule, and carves out exceptions to it. Equipment is not one of those exceptions, since it at no point references the new creature's equipment.

Now, for the Monster Manual:

I will just cite the headings, or I would quote several pages of material, but those are the headings under "Statistics"


Size
Type
Alignment
Armor Class
Hit Points
Speed
Ability Scores
Saving Throws
Skills
Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities
Armor, Weapon, and Tool Proficiencies
Senses
Languages
Challenge
Experience Points
Special Traits
Actions
Reactions
Equipment





You're doing that "if it can make melee weapon attacks it must be a melee weapon" thing again.

No, I'm not. I know perfectly well an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon, nor are natural weapons. What I'm saying is:
1- IF it's a weapon,
2- AND it's used to make melee weapon attacks
3- Then, unless there are specific rules stating otherwise, it's a melee weapon

That step 1 is essential to my point of view, but you ignore it when you, again, repeat the unfounded assertion that I'm conflating those things.


Nah. Still you. I was just citing the RAW where it says "Scythe: Melee Weapon Attack."

While conveniently ignoring the RAW that states the Monster makes two attacks with its Scythe. Scythe is not the Weapon Attack, it's the weapon with which the monster makes its attack. You cannot make an attack with an attack.

[Damon_Tor]

You cannot make an attack with an attack.

We're heading into some fascinating territory here.

[diplomancer]

We're heading into some fascinating territory here.

Yeah, when someone says a Scythe is not a weapon, but an attack, we go into that territory...

[Christew]

I will just cite the headings, or I would Quote several pages of material, but those are the headings under "Statistics"
Yeah, I'm reading the same pages you are (and your position is not a new one). I don't find headings a compelling source of rules information. Especially when the relevant section under that heading says "A stat block rarely refers to equipment, other than the armor and weapons used by a monster." -MM p.11
Armor and weapons are objects used by a monster, not inherent aspects of a monsters form.

No, I'm not. I know perfectly well an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon, nor are natural weapons. What I'm saying is:
1- IF it's a weapon,
2- AND it's used to make melee weapon attacks
3- Then, unless there are specific rules stating otherwise, it's a melee weapon

That step 1 is essential to my point of view, but you ignore it when you, again, repeat the unfounded assertion that I'm conflating those things.
1- IF it's a weapon,
2- AND it's used to make melee weapon attacks
3- THEN it's a weapon capable of making melee weapon attacks.

It's exasperatin' how much you keep conflatin'.

While conveniently ignoring the RAW that states the Monster makes two attacks with its Scythe. Scythe is not the Weapon Attack, it's the weapon with which the monster makes its attack. You cannot make an attack with an attack.
But you can make an attack with something that is not a weapon (as you mentioned earlier). The stat block doesn't say that it is a weapon and it doesn't appear on the Weapons table.
"These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." -MM p.10-11
Some conspicuous use of quotation marks in this portion of the RAW ....


Yeah, when someone says a Scythe is not a weapon, but an attack, we go into that territory...
I haven't said that it is not a weapon. I am merely highlighting that the RAW does not tell us that it IS a weapon. Since it is undefined, I would ask my DM. But that's just me -- I don't like to conflate the idea of a melee weapon with that of a thing capable of making a melee weapon attack.

Also, you ignored my question about Shapechange.

[JackPhoenix]

It is in Sage Advice. https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-i-use-true-polymorph-can-i-gain-equipment/
also https://www.sageadvice.eu/a-lot-of-creature-stats-have-equipment-referenced-how-does-that-interact-with-the-shapechange-spell/

RAW is no equipment from the spell.

Sage Advice is not RAW, and it's not even official RAI or ruling, unlike Sage Advice COMPENDIUM. It's just a site that collects tweets.


It would appear to be a melee weapon attack.

Melee weapon attack using WHAT? The same text you quote says the "weapon" may be either manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. There's no third option... so you claim that the scythe is a natural weapon?

[Christew]

Melee weapon attack using WHAT?
The Scythe.

The same text you quote says the "weapon" may be either manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. There's no third option... so you claim that the scythe is a natural weapon?
Nah.
- Might be A or B
=/=
- Must be either A or B

You are both changing words and adding words to the RAW. Your binary is your own creation.

[diplomancer]

The Scythe.

Nah.
- Might be A or B
=/=
- Must be either A or B

You are both changing words and adding words to the RAW. Your binary is your own creation.

"What's a scythe?"
"A scythe is a melee weapon attack that uses a scythe".

I guess I'm done here.

[JackPhoenix]

The Scythe.

And the scythe is what? Is it a manufactured weapon? Is it a natural weapon? Is it unarmed strike? What is it, according to you?


Nah.
- Might be A or B
=/=
- Must be either A or B

You are both changing words and adding words to the RAW. Your binary is your own creation.

I'm not changing anything, I'm paraphrasing. But please, feel free to tell me how what I've wrote says something so radically different than "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." that I've somehow missed there's a different option.

[Mellack]

Sage Advice is not RAW, and it's not even official RAI or ruling, unlike Sage Advice COMPENDIUM. It's just a site that collects tweets.



Melee weapon attack using WHAT? The same text you quote says the "weapon" may be either manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. There's no third option... so you claim that the scythe is a natural weapon?

At the time his tweets were still considered official (it was 2018). So I think it was considered RAW, at least at that time. If this were to come up in official play do you not think sage advice would carry some weight?

[Christew]

"What's a scythe?"
"A scythe is a melee weapon attack that uses a scythe".
I mean, you can put whatever you want inside quotation marks, but that is not a statement I made. My position could more accurately stated as "The stat block for a Deathpact Angel states that one of its available actions is to make a melee weapon attack with its scythe. Since neither the text of the stat block nor the Weapons table tell us that the scythe is a melee weapon, it is up to the DM to decide if it qualifies as one."

I guess I'm done here.
Sad to hear. Do you want to offer an answer to my question about your interpretation of Shapechange before you go?

And the scythe is what? Is it a manufactured weapon? Is it a natural weapon? Is it unarmed strike? What is it, according to you?
It is up to the DM that has chosen to use a Deathpact Angel in the game. My guess would be a manufactured item, but that is pure conjecture. I have neither interest in nor knowledge of the Ravnica setting or its lore. A Deathpact Angel's Scythe might be some kind of bony protrusion from its arm for all I know (and the stat block tells me) -- hence deference to the DM.

I'm not changing anything, I'm paraphrasing. But please, feel free to tell me how what I've wrote says something so radically different than "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." that I've somehow missed there's a different option.
If you add to or modify the words to the point that the meaning is changed, then you are not paraphrasing.

"These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks" is a binary. It tells us that all melee and ranged attacks will be either spell attacks or weapon attacks.

"The 'weapon' might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon" is not a binary. It tells us that the "weapon" being used to make a weapon attack could be one of the the two examples listed or something else.

One provides an exclusive list and the other does not. Modifying the language of a non-exclusive list in order to make it an exclusive list (like by inserting the term "either") is not paraphrasing because you have fundamentally changed the meaning of the original text.

[JackPhoenix]

If you add to or modify the words to the point that the meaning is changed, then you are not paraphrasing.

"These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks" is a binary. It tells us that all melee and ranged attacks will be either spell attacks or weapon attacks.

"The 'weapon' might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon" is not a binary. It tells us that the "weapon" being used to make a weapon attack could be one of the the two examples listed or something else.

One provides an exclusive list and the other does not. Modifying the language of a non-exclusive list in order to make it an exclusive list (like by inserting the term "either") is not paraphrasing because you have fundamentally changed the meaning of the original text.

So, if there's something a weapon might be, something that isn't manufactured weapon or natural weapon, what is it? The third option would be "unarmed strike", but that's explicitly not a weapon, so it's irrelevant.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I believe the moment you intend to use the ranged weapon for a melee attack roll, it no longer attains the ranged attribute as it is now an improvised weapon. Maybe unless you're throwing it at somebody, then it's no longer a melee weapon.

Using this kind of interpretation, the range increment listed in thrown weapons would be the operative detail to determine if a weapon is ranged.

Personally, that's how I rule it, allowing rogues to sneak attack with light hammers, throwing axes etc (because all of those are reasonable, there are bars and sporting events built around hitting a tiny target with a hand axe).

but if you don't allow rogues to use hand axes for SA, then you have to (not have to but should for consistency) let GWM feat using rogues bludgeon people to death with their heavy crossbow.

While I understand the inclination to treat a weapon not used for its intended purpose as an improvised weapon, I don't recall that being actual RAW anywhere. I think RAW, if you are proficient with a weapon, then you add proficiency to attacks with it and the weapon deals its damage dice. So a Heavy Crossbow makes a mean club. That said, I think a DM ruling a weapon being used in a way incongruent with its intended function loses some damage is fine, dropping one or 2 die sizes would be very reasonable.

In the OP's case, I don't think SS works, but I think GWM will since I don't think it specifies melee weapons, just weapons with the heavy and two-handed properties.

I've been thinking about this a lot. At the end of the day, it's a fun thought experiment, but not as effective as just shooting the target with the HCB.

Also, I post all of this with the caveat that I'm old and do not recall things as accurately as I did in my youth, so if I'm wrong, I still think my way is more fun.

[Christew]

So, if there's something a weapon might be, something that isn't manufactured weapon or natural weapon, what is it? The third option would be "unarmed strike", but that's explicitly not a weapon, so it's irrelevant.
In the interest of not distorting the text, it says "manufactured item or natural weapon." So how about a rock? Not a manufactured item, not a natural weapon, appears in stat blocks in the MM. As indicated by the non-exclusive list.


While I understand the inclination to treat a weapon not used for its intended purpose as an improvised weapon, I don't recall that being actual RAW anywhere. I think RAW, if you are proficient with a weapon, then you add proficiency to attacks with it and the weapon deals its damage dice. So a Heavy Crossbow makes a mean club. That said, I think a DM ruling a weapon being used in a way incongruent with its intended function loses some damage is fine, dropping one or 2 die sizes would be very reasonable.
*Snip*
Also, I post all of this with the caveat that I'm old and do not recall things as accurately as I did in my youth, so if I'm wrong, I still think my way is more fun.
The improvised weapon entry includes this bit:
"If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage." That said, never let rules get in the way of fun.

[JackPhoenix]

In the interest of not distorting the text, it says "manufactured item or natural weapon." So how about a rock? Not a manufactured item, not a natural weapon, appears in stat blocks in the MM. As indicated by the non-exclusive list.

A rock is clearly natural weapon. Now, if the rock was worked somehow, it's manufactured item.

[Christew]

A rock is clearly natural weapon. Now, if the rock was worked somehow, it's manufactured item.
:biggrin: Cheers.

[Keltest]

A rock is clearly natural weapon. Now, if the rock was worked somehow, it's manufactured item.

Rocks are naturally occurring by definition. If its worked, then its not a rock. Ipso facto, rocks are always natural weapons.