Are we sure that Jeremy Crawford meant that the "standard thing to do" is to treat it like an improvised weapon. Or is it truly just to change the damage die, which is what the text says

@DavidCoffron From that same exact twitter thread: "If you use a weapon in a way contrary to its design (melee attack w/ a ranged weapon), see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147)."

@guildsbounty pointing them to that section does not change what the rules in that section say since the rule of changing the damage die appears in that section

@DavidCoffron Except he is literally saying "If you are using a weapon in a way contrary to its design, such as making a melee attack with a ranged weapon, then go look at the Improvised Weapons rules for how you are supposed to handle them." It's not like he's saying two completely unrelated things in a single sentence. Why would he point you to a set of rules if you weren't supposed to use that set of rules to adjudicate the thing he was just talking about?

@guildsbounty That is not what he is "literally saying." He is literally saying "If you use a weapon in a way contrary to its design (melee attack w/ a ranged weapon), see 'Improvised Weapons' (PH, 147)." You do use those set of rules for adjudicating if it changes the damage die to 1d4 (even if it doesn't use the rest of the rules in that section)

This comments discussion is getting a little lengthy. Could a mod punt this off to chat?

@guildsbounty There you go

There we go...

Ok...so, how are you interpreting what Crawford wrote? Because the result seems pretty clear to me: If you use a weapon in a way it was not designed to be used, such as using a Ranged Weapon to make a Melee Attack, then go see the Improvised Weapons rules. (my interpretation, of course)

that is correct and within those rules is the section that says to use a d4 damage die instead of what is usual

You go to those section to see the "standard thing to do"

He doesn't clarify what that is

Do note that those are two separate statements. "If you use a weapon in a way contrary to its design (melee attack w/ a ranged weapon), see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147)." was one statement, "If you turn the page, you'll see the standard thing to do with a ranged weapon being used as a melee weapon." was a second statement.

The first makes it fairly clear to me that he is saying "If you use a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, use the Improvised Weapons rules." and then "If you need to figure out how to adjudicate this, the rules for doing so are on the next page."

But using the Improvised Weapons rules (which is what he says) does not necessarily imply that the weapon should be treated as an improvised weapon

It could be saying that within that section are the ruels for a melee attack with a ranged weapon

I don't see how you're getting that interpretation. If the 'rules for how to make a melee attack with a ranged weapon' didn't include the fact that doing so was 'improvised,' then why are those rules written inside of the Improvised Weapons heading?

I can't answer why they are organized the way they are. Like I said I know you are right RAI, but I'm talking about RAW

And the RAW is generally understood under a plain English understanding. And, by a plain English understanding...if something is written under a heading, then the heading applies to it.

By a simple English reading, you wouldn't give something a Heading of "How to regain hitpoints" and then write the contents of that section about something unrelated to how to regain hitpoints.

False. That statement is entirely untrue. There are many places where a heading does not refer to the rules

So a section heading about Improvised Weapons says that everything within this section is rules for Improvised Weapons.

The Improvised Weapons section is under the super-section Weapons, but JC has ruled that they do not count as weapons for Weapon Bond (Eldritch Knight)

Oops wrong link: sageadvice.eu/2016/05/19/…

wrong link again: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/111253/…

Okay. I did my best trying to explain...don't have time to keep going. Best of luck finding the explicit explanation you seem to be looking for. I'd recommend directly asking Jeremy Crawford about this one, because I don't think you're going to buy anything I have to say. Have a good one....

wrong link again. Where is that thing

I plan to ask JC as soon as he's back from break

Here is the link I couldnt find: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/719958571908218882

So headings do not imply rulings

Crawford has clarified that improvised weapons are only considered "improvised weapons" when being used as one to attack (e.g. using a ranged weapon for a melee attack, using a chair leg to club someone, etc.): sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon

"An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise."

@V2Blast then I'll have to find another counter example for this "heading rule" later

@DavidCoffron if you really feel that strongly, why not put your answer? @V2Blast and I basically have the same answer and your debating with both of is. Put up your counter and see how it floats.