Dagger Throwing Build

[odigity]

Friend of mine is playing a Rogue 3, planning on multiclassing Fighter and getting into dagger throwing as the primary combat mechanic. Was wondering if anyone's seen any good dagger throwing specialist builds posted in the 5e forums yet, since it doesn't seem popular or well-covered by existing guides.

Our current draft is:


Fighter 6 (Champion) / Rogue 14 (Arcane Trickster) [6 feats]

Rogue is Arcane Trickster because he likes the spells, and wants to eventually get Haste -- hence Rogue 14.

Summary of contributing abilities:

Rogue
- Sneak Attack (7d6 burst 1-2 times/round)
- Cunning Action (mobility to stay out of melee reach)
- Spells for Find Familiar, buffs (Mirror Image), Mage Hand tricks, ench/illus for distraction and non-combat tricks (he's a high Cha swashbuckler archetype)
- Uncanny Dodge (for when they get to close and hit you)
- Blindsense (awesomeness)

Fighter
- Archery fighting style (+2 to thrown Dagger attacks)
- Action Surge (needs no comment)
- Champion crits (will be seeking advantage to trigger Sneak Attack, so lots of rolls = lots of crit chances)
- Extra Attack (needs no comment)

Feats (can take six of the following seven)
- +4 Dex (2x feats) to max at 20
- Sharpshooter (the most important and first, extends dagger range to 60' without disadvantage, ignore all but total cover, and get "Power Attack" option: -5 hit for +10 dmg)
- Lucky (he's a swashbuckler archetype)
- Martial Adept (Ripose to provide a Reaction attack to enable possibility of second Sneak Attack in a round)
- Dual Wielder (second free Dagger draw, +1 AC, option to switch to Rapier/Dagger or dual Rapiers when appropriate)

The build started with the recognition that:
- SA works just as well with ranged as with melee (just choose an enemy next to an ally)
- the extra 1-2 avg dmg per attack from using a Shortsword or Rapier just wasn't worth much compared to (a) the other sources of damage (b) the lack of an at-will ranged weapon attack (c) the cost of the Dual Wielder feat
- if you accept d4s and go all-dagger, you can take advantage of archery styles/feats
- standing far away and using a bow is boring, and combat tends to be close-range even then, so daggers are sufficient (or superior) in most cases

The star of the build is Sneak Attack, but it's just one of three sources of extra damage. There are also critical hits, which can stack with Sneak Attack (since SA dice also get doubled), so you end up with a highly volatile (but fun in a gambler sense) damage output pattern. The third source is the power attack from Sharpshooter, which can add 10dmg on top of the mediocre d4 base, and is more sustainable than SA since you can do it on every attack when it makes sense. The +2 from Archery style helps mitigate the -5 penalty, and as a Rogue you're already putting effort into finding ways to gain Advantage (surprise, hiding, Faerie Fire, etc), which gives you two chances at your attack roll anyway. The rest of the build options are designed to increase the number of attacks in order to increase the chance to land your SA and crits. Once you've landed your SA, you use power attack on the rest of your attacks for the turn to keep your sustained dmg up. Maximum potential for a round:

Attack action: 2 attacks with Extra Attack from Fighter 5
- repeatable once per short rest from Action Surge
Bonus action: 1 attack for Two-Weapon Fighting (can use on Cunning Action instead if already landed SA)
Haste action: 1 attack

The strategy is to never close within reach of your enemy and never let them close with you if you can help it, but if they do and swing:
- on a miss, Riposte if not already used (once per short rest)
- on a hit, Uncanny Dodge

[danweasel]

Better check with your DM on whether Archery can apply to thrown weapons. RAW, it doesn't, and RAI is unclear:

Mearls (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/sharpshooter/) says daggers count as both melee and ranged weapons for the Sharpshooter feat, but Crawford (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/?s=archery) specifically says that Archery style does not work with melee weapons and that a dagger, even when thrown, is still a melee weapon.

RAW: Archery specifies a ranged weapon, not a ranged attack, and daggers are listed under melee weapons. The ranged property says that melee weapons with that property can be used to make ranged attacks, not that they are treated as ranged weapons.

I'd probably rule in your friend's favor, or at least allow him to take a version of Archery that only applied to thrown weapons, but you'll want to get that ruling before proceeding.

[odigity]

Better check with your DM on whether Archery can apply to thrown weapons. RAW, it doesn't, and RAI is unclear...

How horrid.

[Wolfsraine]

I like this! I'm actually doing something similar and playing a swashbuckler type of character. I don't have it as fleshed out as you do though.

Currently I'm a 2 Rogue/ 1 Fighter and was planning on going into Assassin and the fighter archetype that gets maneuvers to get that swashbuckley feel with trips and riposte. Possibly ending at 17 assassin/3 fighter if we make it that far.

I was inclined to possibly dip into ranger because hordebreaker seems like it can be a fun ability, also I should mention that I'm probably the tankiest character of the group also so anything that can keep the attention on me is probably a bonus. At level 3 I'm sitting at a 17 AC which is alright for now, or at least it seems to be.

[danweasel]

How horrid.

Funny how these two threads are blending into each other. I don't think it's a hard ruling to get, especially if you ask for +2 to throwing weapons only. It's not any more powerful or flexible than Archery at that point, just flavored differently.

The real cheese would be trying to get a Champion Fighter with throwing weapons that are eligible for Archery's +2 hit and Dueling's +2 to damage, arguing that your daggers should qualify as both ranged weapons and melee weapons simultaneously. But any DM that lets you pull that one on him deserves what he gets.

[odigity]

Funny how these two threads are blending into each other.

That's not an accident -- I started both. The reason we switched from Dueling style to Archery style is because we realized we couldn't apply Dueling to a short sword/throwing dagger dual wielder, and decided to drop down to dual daggers and optimize entirely for ranged attacks.


The real cheese would be trying to get a Champion Fighter with throwing weapons that are eligible for Archery's +2 hit and Dueling's +2 to damage, arguing that your daggers should qualify as both ranged weapons and melee weapons simultaneously. But any DM that lets you pull that one on him deserves what he gets.

Meh. It's still peanuts compared to the optimized GWF builds. At the end of the day, we're just throwing d4 daggers. Even with a +2 to hit and damage, it's still not dead sexy.

[Gwendol]

I'd go with Mearls ruling on this one and allow thrown weapons to benefit from the archery fighting style.

[Nargrakhan]

But any DM that lets you pull that one on him deserves what he gets.

Not an attack on you danweasel, but I hate this kind of comment. This is the sort of activity that helps makes more DM's turn into paranoid control freaks who want houserules to nerf everything because they fear OP'ing. Exploiting the naiveté or inexperience of a DM is foul play IMHO.

[Easy_Lee]

I question whether fighter is needed for this character. Seems the point is getting sneak attack as much as possible, for which pure rogue with the feat for a few maneuvers should suffice.

[Regulas]

1.Darts.

They are literally just daggers that count as ranged weapons but can be used in melee as needed.

Give your darts the exact shape of a dagger and tada you now have ranged weapon daggers.


2: Do your campaigns ordinarily go to level 20? If not I would consider you adjust the build assuming something like a level 8-12 char. In that vein the one issue I have with taking fighter ranks at all is the loss of sneak attack damage.

Also Note that any extra attacks from fighter won't get sneak damage as it's only the first hit in a round, so the archery style is all you really get from the class, if he is set on multiclassing would ranger/hunter offer more options for a ranged player?

Fighter gives armour you wont use since your not in melee, weapons you won't use cause your already profecient, a few extra D4's at the expense of several d6's. Being forced to consume a lot more daggers. I mean it's really not that great a pick for a dagger thrower.

[Human Paragon 3]

The only thing that matters is that your DM allows it to work, and I think he probably will.

Anyway, I recommend Assassin rogue for a dagger thrower. You need to make your daggers as deadly as possible if that's your focus, and double damage in the surprise round will be just the trick, I think. Boost initiative with the Alert feat.

[silveralen]

The only thing that matters is that your DM allows it to work, and I think he probably will.

Anyway, I recommend Assassin rogue for a dagger thrower. You need to make your daggers as deadly as possible if that's your focus, and double damage in the surprise round will be just the trick, I think. Boost initiative with the Alert feat.

I dunno, constant advantage with arcane trickster is really nice.

[charcoalninja]

The only thing that matters is that your DM allows it to work, and I think he probably will.

Anyway, I recommend Assassin rogue for a dagger thrower. You need to make your daggers as deadly as possible if that's your focus, and double damage in the surprise round will be just the trick, I think. Boost initiative with the Alert feat.

Another thing to note is that you can't draw weapons for free, so after your first round of attacks you get screwed by action economy.

Example;
Round 1, daggers drawn: throw 2 daggers, spend free interaction to draw 2 more daggers. Drawing any more weapons requires an action which you don't have so you can't make more than 4 attacks ever. And even then you require dual wielder to do this at all.

If you DON'T have your daggers in hand already the most attacks you can make in a round is 2 as you must spend your free interaction with weapons to draw both daggers and your action and bonus action to throw them.

That is the real limiter on throwing builds and why they don't work for crap in 5e.

[Easy_Lee]

Another thing to note is that you can't draw weapons for free, so after your first round of attacks you get screwed by action economy.

Example;
Round 1, daggers drawn: throw 2 daggers, spend free interaction to draw 2 more daggers. Drawing any more weapons requires an action which you don't have so you can't make more than 4 attacks ever. And even then you require dual wielder to do this at all.

If you DON'T have your daggers in hand already the most attacks you can make in a round is 2 as you must spend your free interaction with weapons to draw both daggers and your action and bonus action to throw them.

That is the real limiter on throwing builds and why they don't work for crap in 5e.

It may be possible to work around this with darts. The dart can be seen as ammunition, which is drawn as part of the attack.

[Human Paragon 3]

Rogue only gets 1 attack anyway (2 with TWF). Another reason to stick with rogue, or just 1-4 fighter levels.

[Regulas]

Another thing to note is that you can't draw weapons for free, so after your first round of attacks you get screwed by action economy.

Example;
Round 1, daggers drawn: throw 2 daggers, spend free interaction to draw 2 more daggers. Drawing any more weapons requires an action which you don't have so you can't make more than 4 attacks ever. And even then you require dual wielder to do this at all.

If you DON'T have your daggers in hand already the most attacks you can make in a round is 2 as you must spend your free interaction with weapons to draw both daggers and your action and bonus action to throw them.

That is the real limiter on throwing builds and why they don't work for crap in 5e.

This I would probably discuss with the DM to get a special carrier set-up. You know like the bandoleer of daggers across the chest or on the arm. And so long as there are daggers in these slots then you can count them as "ammunition" for drawing purposes.

[odigity]

1.Darts.
They are literally just daggers that count as ranged weapons but can be used in melee as needed.
Give your darts the exact shape of a dagger and tada you now have ranged weapon daggers.


That's pretty clever. I always ignore darts.

Also, to everyone questioning the usefulness of the Fighter's Extra Attack - what if your first two miss? No Sneak Attack. That's the point, to improve the chances of delivering that attack each turn. And with two other sources of extra damage (improved crits, Sharpshooter), those extra attacks can still be meaningful even after Sneak Attack lands. I outlined all of this in my length OP.

[Regulas]

That's pretty clever. I always ignore darts.

Also, to everyone questioning the usefulness of the Fighter's Extra Attack - what if your first two miss? No Sneak Attack. That's the point, to improve the chances of delivering that attack each turn. And with two other sources of extra damage (improved crits, Sharpshooter), those extra attacks can still be meaningful even after Sneak Attack lands. I outlined all of this in my length OP.

As long as accuracy is more important to you, it just feels like a lot of side levels to take when you could look at buffs or teamplay or magic items. Also note while it only works with daggers and not darts (lol) you can technically two weapon fight to get an extra ranged attack as they are both light melee weapons. So you can get at least 2 attacks with daggers (but not darts) as a rogue.

[Easy_Lee]

That's pretty clever. I always ignore darts.

Also, to everyone questioning the usefulness of the Fighter's Extra Attack - what if your first two miss? No Sneak Attack. That's the point, to improve the chances of delivering that attack each turn. And with two other sources of extra damage (improved crits, Sharpshooter), those extra attacks can still be meaningful even after Sneak Attack lands. I outlined all of this in my length OP.

It's definitely useful and, combined with archery, raises expected DPS by something in the range of 25% over pure rogue. I'm just not convinced it's worth what you lose: rogue progression at any level you take fighter, and a lost capstone (rogues have one of the better capstones). After all, if you wanted to maximized ranged DPS, why didn't you play fighter or ranger?

[D.U.P.A.]

About thrown weapons, can you make Extra attacks? They have no loading property, but is grabbing another thrown weapon fast enough to make multiple attacks?

[bloodshed343]

About thrown weapons, can you make Extra attacks? They have no loading property, but is grabbing another thrown weapon fast enough to make multiple attacks?

You explicitly can with darts. For other thrown weapons, ask your dm.

[charcoalninja]

You explicitly can with darts. For other thrown weapons, ask your dm.

Aka by RAW only with darts but they can't be dual wielded. With daggers by RAW no.

[bloodshed343]

Aka by RAW only with darts but they can't be dual wielded. With daggers by RAW no.

You can treat darts as daggers as per the improvised weapon rules when making melee attacks with darts. It would be easier to argue that darts=dagger for dual-wielding since there's some rules sort of supporting it.

Plus darts are cheaper.

[Easy_Lee]

The dual wield dagger throw thing is iffy by RAW, but I suspect nearl

[Easy_Lee]

The dual wield dagger throw thing is iffy by RAW, but I suspect most DMs will allow it. I personally would go further and homebrew a feat (dagger mastery or somesuch) if one of my players wanted to do this. So probably just ask your DM and let us know =D

[Vogonjeltz]

You explicitly can with darts. For other thrown weapons, ask your dm.

Where does it say this?

I came to the opposite conclusion, based on the information on page 190 "Other Activity on Your Turn", where it says you can interact with one object on your turn for free (example is drawing a weapon as part of an attack action). And interacting with a second object requires using your action. So throwing two weapons that are not already in hand would require an action, according to that.

I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for a character to be holding several darts/knives in one hand and using the other hand to throw them iteratively, but based on the rules this seems to be restricted to a maximum of 3 throws (throw one, free pull another and throw it, throw one in the off hand).

[Easy_Lee]

Where does it say this?

I came to the opposite conclusion, based on the information on page 190 "Other Activity on Your Turn", where it says you can interact with one object on your turn for free (example is drawing a weapon as part of an attack action). And interacting with a second object requires using your action. So throwing two weapons that are not already in hand would require an action, according to that.

I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for a character to be holding several darts/knives in one hand and using the other hand to throw them iteratively, but based on the rules this seems to be restricted to a maximum of 3 throws (throw one, free pull another and throw it, throw one in the off hand).

You draw ammunition as part of the attack (else fighters could only make one bow attack). So you argue that the weapon you're drawing (in this case darts) should be treated as ammunition for the purpose of a ranged attack.

[Wolfsraine]

Where does it say this?

I came to the opposite conclusion, based on the information on page 190 "Other Activity on Your Turn", where it says you can interact with one object on your turn for free (example is drawing a weapon as part of an attack action). And interacting with a second object requires using your action. So throwing two weapons that are not already in hand would require an action, according to that.

I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for a character to be holding several darts/knives in one hand and using the other hand to throw them iteratively, but based on the rules this seems to be restricted to a maximum of 3 throws (throw one, free pull another and throw it, throw one in the off hand).

I don't get it. This a fantasy game where your character is supposed to be able to do awesome stuff. I don't see an issue with allowing someone to get whatever amount of attacks they normally would get. If a fighter rogue has 3 attacks he should be able to launch 3 daggers across the battlefield.

Casters can reshape the planet, but god forbid a martial gets to do something as cool as tossing some knives around the battlefield. Classes like Swordsage and Warblade need to be mainstreamed into the game, or at least their abilities and maneuvers.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't get it. This a fantasy game where your character is supposed to be able to do awesome stuff. I don't see an issue with allowing someone to get whatever amount of attacks they normally would get. If a fighter rogue has 3 attacks he should be able to launch 3 daggers across the battlefield.

Casters can reshape the planet, but god forbid a martial gets to do something as cool as tossing some knives around the battlefield. Classes like Swordsage and Warblade need to be mainstreamed into the game, or at least their abilities and maneuvers.

Shhhh... People don't like that sort of thinking on this forum. It will start riots.

Anwyays,

I'll second the idea that Fighter isn't really needed for this build. Seems like assassin rogue would be the way to go.

[bloodshed343]

RaW, you can throw as many darts per round as you can attack, since darts are ammunition, and you can draw ammunition as part of making a ranged attack.

Also, per the rules, you can draw a MELEE weapon as part of the same action used to make a MELEE attack.

So I think it's safe to say that drawing a weapon as part of the same action as making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon is merely an oversight (edited by mice being chased by cats) and is RaI.

[Vogonjeltz]

You draw ammunition as part of the attack (else fighters could only make one bow attack). So you argue that the weapon you're drawing (in this case darts) should be treated as ammunition for the purpose of a ranged attack.

Sure we could argue they should be treated that way. The problem comes in that they aren't ammunition.


RaW, you can throw as many darts per round as you can attack, since darts are ammunition, and you can draw ammunition as part of making a ranged attack.

Also, per the rules, you can draw a MELEE weapon as part of the same action used to make a MELEE attack.

So I think it's safe to say that drawing a weapon as part of the same action as making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon is merely an oversight (edited by mice being chased by cats) and is RaI.

Darts are thrown weapons, they aren't ammunition. Right, a weapon. Emphasis on the singular nature therein, which is exactly why I pointed out the text where it says drawing another weapon would require you to use an action. (Rendering it impossible to draw two darts in a turn.)

[Easy_Lee]

Darts are thrown weapons, they aren't ammunition. Right, a weapon. Emphasis on the singular nature therein, which is exactly why I pointed out the text where it says drawing another weapon would require you to use an action. (Rendering it impossible to draw two darts in a turn.)

Assuming darts are the ammunition used by the blowgun, then they're sometimes treated as ammunition. Like has been said, probably an oversight.

[Vogonjeltz]

Assuming darts are the ammunition used by the blowgun, then they're sometimes treated as ammunition. Like has been said, probably an oversight.

Blowgun ammunition is blowgun needles, it's right there in the next page under the ammunition column.

[Easy_Lee]

Blowgun ammunition is blowgun needles, it's right there in the next page under the ammunition column.

Be that as it may, the point stands. You can draw weapons as part of an attack when it's a melee attack, and when it's a ranged attack that uses ammunition. So doing the same for ranged thrown weapons would hardly be out of the question. It may not be RAW, but I don't think any DM is going to disallow it. The dual wield thing is more questionable.

[charcoalninja]

Be that as it may, the point stands. You can draw weapons as part of an attack when it's a melee attack, and when it's a ranged attack that uses ammunition. So doing the same for ranged thrown weapons would hardly be out of the question. It may not be RAW, but I don't think any DM is going to disallow it. The dual wield thing is more questionable.

Can you provide a citation? As far as I recall drawing a weapon in anything but ammunition consumes your one free interact with an object you are allowed per turn refardless of being able to do it during an attack or not. So while you CAN draw a weapon as part of an attack it still consumes your one free interaction and once you're out of free interactions you can't draw anymore weapons without spending an action.

[Safety Sword]

Be that as it may, the point stands. You can draw weapons as part of an attack when it's a melee attack, and when it's a ranged attack that uses ammunition. So doing the same for ranged thrown weapons would hardly be out of the question. It may not be RAW, but I don't think any DM is going to disallow it. The dual wield thing is more questionable.

Three things:

1. I do think most DMs would allow a dagger thrower to draw and throw as a single action up to as many times as they have attacks. And if you throw all of your daggers away you won't have a weapon to defend yourself with if a big hairy fighter tries to chop your head off.

2. They're explicitly not ammunition, and I think that would be a silly way to try and convince your DM that way. It would have wider implications.

3. Darts. They're built for this and the rules for multiple throws are built in.

It makes me think that perhaps it's not intended that you can throw lots of daggers, because daggers already have the property that they can be melee weapons too.

Get out your house rules notebook guys.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Three things:

1. I do think most DMs would allow a dagger thrower to draw and throw as a single action up to as many times as they have attacks. And if you throw all of your daggers away you won't have a weapon to defend yourself with if a big hairy fighter tries to chop your head off.

2. They're explicitly not ammunition, and I think that would be a silly way to try and convince your DM that way. It would have wider implications.

3. Darts. They're built for this and the rules for multiple throws are built in.

It makes me think that perhaps it's not intended that you can throw lots of daggers, because daggers already have the property that they can be melee weapons too.

Get out your house rules notebook guys.

1: 3 attacks? Draw all at once... Or can we not have this?


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToipWUoIppcVYESFmXLY7NFbd3gg4hY DCtmFIYDMsPovEr_oFINQ


One would think darts would be easier than daggers.

2: Yes because it completely breaks the game wide open to allow darts to count as ammo. What's next? A wizard using some sort of spell that creates fire or ice? The madness!

[Safety Sword]

2: Yes because it completely breaks the game wide open to allow darts to count as ammo. What's next? A wizard using some sort of spell that creates fire or ice? The madness!

My point (that was apparently lost) is that convincing your DM to allow you to throw 3 daggers a round should not consist of trying to make an argument that daggers are ammunition when they are in fact not. You diminish your argument by trying that particular "wool over the eyes" attempt.

And the wider implications I was speaking of are that you can make a silly leap like throwing everything on the weapons table that isn't ammunition and saying "but it should be"...

[Easy_Lee]

Look at it this way. You can draw an arrow as part of the attack, right? Drawing an arrow is a bit harder than drawing a dagger since arrows are longer and have to be nocked, but that's allowed as part of the attack.

Compare drawing an arrow, nocking it, and firing to drawing a dagger and throwing it. Not looking for an opening to strike, not getting in a fighting stance, just throwing it. The reason why you can draw arrows as part of the attack is because drawing an arrow is part of the attack. If you draw and throw a dagger, then drawing the dagger was part of the attack.

That's why it should be allowed. I suspect any DM who doesn't allow it is either not thinking things through, or (wrongly) thinks it would be OP somehow.

[Vogonjeltz]

Three things:

1. I do think most DMs would allow a dagger thrower to draw and throw as a single action up to as many times as they have attacks. And if you throw all of your daggers away you won't have a weapon to defend yourself with if a big hairy fighter tries to chop your head off.

2. They're explicitly not ammunition, and I think that would be a silly way to try and convince your DM that way. It would have wider implications.

3. Darts. They're built for this and the rules for multiple throws are built in.

It makes me think that perhaps it's not intended that you can throw lots of daggers, because daggers already have the property that they can be melee weapons too.

Get out your house rules notebook guys.

Where are these rules for darts being ok for multiple throws?

[Gwendol]

Darts look like they are just thrown weapons, similar to daggers, but not suitable for melee fighting. I can't find any special rules around drawing them as part of an attack.

My suggestion would be to make a feat that allows this kind of interaction, possibly coupled with a DEX +1 increase.

[Easy_Lee]

Darts look like they are just thrown weapons, similar to daggers, but not suitable for melee fighting. I can't find any special rules around drawing them as part of an attack.

My suggestion would be to make a feat that allows this kind of interaction, possibly coupled with a DEX +1 increase.

This is what I would do. Some kind of "Dagger Mastery" or "Master Thrower" feat would be reasonable.

[bloodshed343]

This is what I would do. Some kind of "Dagger Mastery" or "Master Thrower" feat would be reasonable.

SpawnOfMorbo and I hashed out a feat to this effect. It originally included the phrase "you may draw a thrown weapon as part of the same action used to attack with it". I'll edit in a link to that thread.

Original: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386652-Dueling-with-thrown-javelin
Homebrew Thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386667-Thrown-Weapon-Master-(Feat)

[SliceandDiceKid]

I've built a dart/dagger rogue. In PHB, it says drawing a sword is a reasonable free action, but drawing two daggers or two darts is much easier to do. It's not raw, but it's a reasonable interpretation. My DM was fine with it, since I'm going suboptimal anyway...

Now I'm dipping fighter for shields, medium armor, fighting style, and a whip. Just seems really funny to me...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

SpawnOfMorbo and I hashed out a feat to this effect. It originally included the phrase "you may draw a thrown weapon as part of the same action used to attack with it". I'll edit in a link to that thread.

Original: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386652-Dueling-with-thrown-javelin
Homebrew Thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386667-Thrown-Weapon-Master-(Feat)


Kinda ran away with it to incorporate more skill contests...

At this point I think this should just be part of the skill contest rules.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386667-Thrown-Weapon-Master-(Feats)&p=18485097#post18485097

[bloodshed343]

Kinda ran away with it to incorporate more skill contests...

At this point I think this should just be part of the skill contest rules.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386667-Thrown-Weapon-Master-(Feats)&p=18485097#post18485097

Persuasive throw breaks my suspension of disbelief. How do you charm someone with a dart to the head?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Persuasive throw breaks my suspension of disbelief. How do you charm someone with a dart to the head?

You don't hit them with it, just get it close. Or you impress them with your awesome abity. They are charmed and help you out to the extent of what charms allows, doesn't mean they will fall for the same trick so soon again.

Bandit King: Why should I help you?

Rogue: Throws dagger that cuts a feather from a hat being worn by one of the Bandit King's underlings and causing said feather to split into 5 equally sized pieces.

Bandit King: Your ability impresses me, I could see myself becoming an ally with a talented individual such as yourself.


Edit: Do note all the fluff can be changed as desired. All that matters is the mechanics are sound. Which they are.

[JoeJ]

You don't hit them with it, just get it close. Or you impress them with your awesome abity. They are charmed and help you out to the extent of what charms allows, doesn't mean they will fall for the same trick so soon again.

Bandit King: Why should I help you?

Rogue: Throws dagger that cuts a feather from a hat being worn by one of the Bandit King's underlings and causing said feather to split into 5 equally sized pieces.

Bandit King: Your ability impresses me, I could see myself becoming an ally with a talented individual such as yourself.


Edit: Do note all the fluff can be changed as desired. All that matters is the mechanics are sound. Which they are.

I'm afraid I'm having trouble believing this. What if the target is a PC? Doesn't the player get to decide whether or not they found the ability impressive? I don't see how making a very skillful throw is enough to justify taking agency away from the players. And against NPCs, I'd expect it would be highly dependent on the individual's personality.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm afraid I'm having trouble believing this. What if the target is a PC? Doesn't the player get to decide whether or not they found the ability impressive? I don't see how making a very skillful throw is enough to justify taking agency away from the players. And against NPCs, I'd expect it would be highly dependent on the individual's personality.

Well, like normal, mental abilities from one PC should never be used on another PC. If you are mind raping fellow PCs you shouldn't be a party member and are in fact an antagonist and should turn in your character sheet.

[JoeJ]

Well, like normal, mental abilities from one PC should never be used on another PC. If you are mind raping fellow PCs you shouldn't be a party member and are in fact an antagonist and should turn in your character sheet.

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be PC vs. PC. If the DM tells a player that the BBEG threw a dart so skillfully that now you can't attack them because you think they're really cool, well, I imagine the player is going to (quite rightfully IMO) have a problem with that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be PC vs. PC. If the DM tells a player that the BBEG threw a dart so skillfully that now you can't attack them because you think they're really cool, well, I imagine the player is going to (quite rightfully IMO) have a problem with that.

What's the difference between that and an enemy using Friends and or any of the other spells that do this or worse?

Yeah that's what I thought, no difference.

[JoeJ]

What's the difference between that and an enemy using Friends and or any of the other spells that do this or worse?

Yeah that's what I thought, no difference.

If there's no difference between this ability and casting a spell, then why have it at all? Why not just cast the spell?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If there's no difference between this ability and casting a spell, then why have it at all? Why not just cast the spell?

Because this is an interesting nonmagical way to do something awesome without gimping your character by multiclassing.

Why not just get rid of the spell then?

Edit:

The no difference is in reference to a DM mind controlling a player. No matter how the DM does it, the result will be the same wither it is magical or nonmagical.

[JoeJ]

Because this is an interesting nonmagical way to do something awesome without gimping your character by multiclassing.

Why not just get rid of the spell then?

Edit:

The no difference is in reference to a DM mind controlling a player. No matter how the DM does it, the result will be the same wither it is magical or nonmagical.

Anybody can already use a feat to gain Charm Person. Is the only difference with yours that it uses a thrown weapon and it's not called "magic"? I don't see what that adds to the game over just refluffing the existing feat.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Anybody can already use a feat to gain Charm Person. Is the only difference with yours that it uses a thrown weapon and it's not called "magic"? I don't see what that adds to the game over just refluffing the existing feat.

*rolls eyes*

Because non-magic can't have nice things, yeah that's the only way to do things.

[JoeJ]

*rolls eyes*

Because non-magic can't have nice things, yeah that's the only way to do things.

??? Please explain. Is your feat the same as casting Charm Person or isn't it? If it's the same, what does it add to the game? If it's different, how does it differ?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

??? Please explain. Is your feat the same as casting Charm Person or isn't it? If it's the same, what does it add to the game? If it's different, how does it differ?

In the same way as using TNT to blow something up and using a desiel fuel and fertilizer mixture to blow something up.

They have the same end result but they are not the same process.

[Easy_Lee]

In the same way as using TNT to blow something up and using a desiel fuel and fertilizer mixture to blow something up.

They have the same end result but they are not the same process.

So it doesn't add, it's just a way of giving mundanes an identical power to casters without actually adding anything to the game. Why not drop the act and just give them charm person? It accomplishes the same thing without the unnecessary confusion. Better yet, why not give mundanes something original?

[JoeJ]

In the same way as using TNT to blow something up and using a desiel fuel and fertilizer mixture to blow something up.

They have the same end result but they are not the same process.

How are they different mechanically? Can the effect of the feat be dispelled? How many uses does the character have per short/long rest? A Charm Person effect that works like I'd expect a thrown weapon to work - useable at will and it can't be dispelled - would be an extremely OP feat.

But if it's mechanically identical to casting Charm Person, then how is it an improvement over simply casting the spell and refluffing it as "martial power" or whatever other term you like?

[Jacob.Tyr]

So wait... the guy came up with a feat that mimics a spell's effect, but refluffs it. And... the issue... is that it should just mimic a spell... but be refluffed...

[bloodshed343]

He created a feat which mimics a spell except it's significantly more abuseable and, to me, unfeasible.

[Jacob.Tyr]

He created a feat which mimics a spell except it's significantly more abuseable and, to me, unfeasible.
Five minute charm that can't be reapplied? Charm that, additionally, only grants Advantage on Charisma checks. Heck, this does about the same mechanically as having a decently thought out point does in my games, except you can't do it more than once a conversation and you spend a feat for it. It also requires persuasion vs insight, which honestly is the contest type I can see this affecting, so if you can make it then why the heck do you need to even use this ability?

Charm isn't some "You are my slave" ability anymore, it's just "Oh that was cool, I am now more receptive to what you have to say".

[bloodshed343]

Five minute charm that can't be reapplied? Charm that, additionally, only grants Advantage on Charisma checks. Heck, this does about the same mechanically as having a decently thought out point does in my games, except you can't do it more than once a conversation and you spend a feat for it. It also requires persuasion vs insight, which honestly is the contest type I can see this affecting, so if you can make it then why the heck do you need to even use this ability?

Charm isn't some "You are my slave" ability anymore, it's just "Oh that was cool, I am now more receptive to what you have to say".

For me the issue isn't the mechanical balance, it's the fluff. Personally, I'd make it only affect intimidation checks.

Bandit King: Why should I listen to you?
-Gruk the Half Orc tosses an axe, splintering a nearby tree. Half a second later, a feather on the cap of the bandit king falls, perfectly bisected.-
Bandit King: I see I have no choice in the matter.

[pwykersotz]

For me the issue isn't the mechanical balance, it's the fluff. Personally, I'd make it only affect intimidation checks.

Bandit King: Why should I listen to you?
-Gruk the Half Orc tosses an axe, splintering a nearby tree. Half a second later, a feather on the cap of the bandit king falls, perfectly bisected.-
Bandit King: I see I have no choice in the matter.

Strength or Dex based Intimidation!