D&D 5E Do I get sneak attack if I throw a Rapier or whack someone with my heavy crossbow

[Charlaquin]

Nowhere in the improvised weapon rules does it say that properties are lost. A thrown rapier retains the finesse property.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If weapons kept their properties when using them as improvised weapons, then whacking someone over the head with your Longbow would require Ammunition

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I know. I'm more pointing out the absurdity of following RAW to the nth degree. I wouldn't give a thrown rapier sneak attack, but would give it to handaxes.

so how do you reconcile, under your interpretation of the rules, that a rogue can sneak attack with a hand axe if they throw it, but not if they use it for a melee attack?

 

[Charlaquin]

If weapons kept their properties when using them as improvised weapons, then whacking someone over the head with your Longbow would require Ammunition

Technically not true. The ammunition property specifies that you need ammunition to make a ranged attack with the weapon.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the record, I actually think it’s really dumb that throwing melee weapons or attacking in melee with ranged weapons causes them to lose their properties (does a maul stop being heavy if you throw it? Does a hand crossbow stop being light if you pistol whip somebody with it?), and I don’t think it’s clearly communicated in the text that that’s the case. I would probably rule differently myself. But it is explicitly the intent.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Technically not true. The ammunition property specifies that you need ammunition to make a ranged attack with the weapon.

Ok, so whacking is free, but you need ammo to throw the bow!

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, so whacking is free, but you need ammo to throw the bow!

I’m not sure RAW even allows you to attack with a bow by throwing it. Much like the goblin being too unwieldy to count as an improvised weapon when thrown, I don’t think throwing a bow would constitute a ranged weapon attack.

 

[Maxperson]

Tweets don't mean a whole lot. Nothing, really. He changes stuff from tweets far too often to even have the value of Sage Advice, and Sage Advice is highly suspect.

 

[fearsomepirate]

For the record, I actually think it’s really dumb that throwing melee weapons or attacking in melee with ranged weapons causes them to lose their properties (does a maul stop being heavy if you throw it? Does a hand crossbow stop being light if you pistol whip somebody with it?), and I don’t think it’s clearly communicated in the text that that’s the case. I would probably rule differently myself. But it is explicitly the intent.

The "heavy" property means a small character has disadvantage when using it. If a gnome throws a 10-lb maul, isn't the fact that it's a non-proficient attack that does 1d4 damage penalty enough?

 

[Maxperson]

so how do you reconcile, under your interpretation of the rules, that a rogue can sneak attack with a hand axe if they throw it, but not if they use it for a melee attack?

RAW often comes up with some silly combinations of things. When that happens, I need to fix the issue. I would allow sneak attack with a handaxe to work when used in melee as well. It's not like it breaks anything to allow the axe to be used that way. I find the Sneak Attack weapon limitations to be arbitrary and in many cases, nonsensical. Size is more the factor with me. Most weapons that are heavy, two handed, lances, etc. would not be usable, but the rest are fine.