Magical Thrown Weapons

[Irish Musician]

So, I know in past editions (at least some of them) magical thrown weapons have immediately come back to the person wielding them. Is it like that in 5e as well or no? I can't seem to find it so I thought I'd ask the OOTS hivemind :smallsmile:

[Fwiffo86]

Not all magical thrown weapons in previous editions returned when thrown. Only those that specifically said so in their description did so. In 5e, this is still the norm.

[Shining Wrath]

In 3.5 the ability in question was the +1 cost "Returning" modifier to your weapon. Since 5e lacks Ye Olde Magic Mart there's no way to just pay gold and add "Returning" or equivalent.

IIRC the Hammer of Thunder has this feature and possibly other weapons. You can add it to any weapon you like as a DM as a relatively minor improvement.

[SwordChuck]

So, I know in past editions (at least some of them) magical thrown weapons have immediately come back to the person wielding them. Is it like that in 5e as well or no? I can't seem to find it so I thought I'd ask the OOTS hivemind :smallsmile:

From what I recall that was only a function of 4e magic items.

3e had the returning property though.

5e does not have this as a base function though there may be a magic item that does.

[Mr.Moron]

They don't automatically return.

I think not having it automatic is good because it opens up more design space. Thrown magic weapons can be built with the assumptions:


They can't be readily re-used in the same attack sequence.
Are more susceptible to loss by theft or accident after leaving the person.


Which leaves room for things that might be more powerful or nonsensical with a weapon always on your person. Especially since it does nothing to stop you from putting returning on designs that don't take advantage of that design space.

[Irish Musician]

Even the Legendary Hammer doesn't have it though.....

HAMMER OF THUNDERBOLTS

Weapon (maul), legendary

You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made
with this magic weapon.

Giant's Bane (Requires Attunement). You must be wearing a belt of giant strength (any variety) and gauntlets of ogre power to attune to this weapon. The attunement ends if you take off either of those items. While you are attuned to this weapon and holding it, your Strength score increases by 4 and can exceed 20, but not 30. When you roll a 20 on an attack roll made with this weapon against a giant, the giant must succeed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or die. The hammer also has 5 charges. While attuned to it, you can expend 1 charge and make a ranged weapon attack with the hammer, hurling it as if it had the thrown property with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. If the attack hits, the hammer unleashes a thunderclap audible out to 300 feet. The target and every creature within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn. The hammer regains 1d4 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn.

Seems to me at least IT would have it mentioned in there somewhere.

[SwordChuck]

They don't automatically return.

I think not having it automatic is good because it opens up more design space. Thrown magic weapons can be built with the assumptions:


They can't be readily re-used in the same attack sequence.
Are more susceptible to loss by theft or accident after leaving the person.


Which leaves room for things that might be more powerful or nonsensical with a weapon always on your person. Especially since it does nothing to stop you from putting returning on designs that don't take advantage of that design space.

Meh.

I prefer to think of martials at least as competent as Captain America and I've seen that dude throw his shield, it bounce around, and then it comes back to him and it isn't even magic.

There should be rules for nonmagical return/ricochet of thrown weapons. Maybe not everyone can do it but an athletics check could work to make it possible.

[tieren]

Which leaves room for things that might be more powerful or nonsensical with a weapon always on your person. Especially since it does nothing to stop you from putting returning on designs that don't take advantage of that design space.

Be careful with that. An EK or a blade lock could bond most thrown weapons to make them auto returning. If you balance around it not coming back it could bite you.

[Irish Musician]

Meh.

I prefer to think of martials at least as competent as Captain America and I've seen that dude throw his shield, it bounce around, and then it comes back to him and it isn't even magic.

There should be rules for nonmagical return/ricochet of thrown weapons. Maybe not everyone can do it but an athletics check could work to make it possible.

Or much like the Hammer of Thunderbolts. I mean, I wouldn't expect a +1 hammer to come back to a character. But something as Legendary as that I, as a DM, imagine it would.

[SwordChuck]

Or much like the Hammer of Thunderbolts. I mean, I wouldn't expect a +1 hammer to come back to a character. But something as Legendary as that I, as a DM, imagine it would.

That could be more like Thor's hammer then. It magically comes back without much effort on the user's part (mental thought or use an item action).

Normal weapons though? Athletics.

[Mr.Moron]

Be careful with that. An EK or a blade lock could bond most thrown weapons to make them auto returning. If you balance around it not coming back it could bite you.

These both use the action economy bonus action and action respectively, so neither is a method of using a thrown a weapon the same attack sequence. You can't balance them around them not coming back ever but "not for any other attacks this round" is a very safe assumption.



Meh.

I prefer to think of martials at least as competent as Captain America and I've seen that dude throw his shield, it bounce around, and then it comes back to him and it isn't even magic.

There should be rules for nonmagical return/ricochet of thrown weapons. Maybe not everyone can do it but an athletics check could work to make it possible.

Which is a fine preference. It comes with the trade offs of


A) Making captain-america throwing ability not particularly special.
B) Not being able to do anything that requires throwing to be a drawback.



Being fine with these trade offs or preferring them as default doesn't mean it isn't useful to at least bring up they are trade-offs in a broader discussion.

I think if you want it to be open regardless of magic, a feat or fighter class feature would be appropriate.

[GlenSmash!]

For the Dwarven Thrower the description specifically mentions it returns to the user's hand. I believe there was a magic spear or javelin with that description as well.

I thought it was odd that the Hammer of Thunderbolts' description does not mention this. I think it's an oversight on WotC's part.

While Captain America's shield is not explicitly magical, it is made out of a unique vibranium-steel alloy. In 5th edition mundane items made out of special materials like Mithral armor are treated like magic items.

[SwordChuck]

Which is a fine preference. It comes with the trade offs of


A) Making captain-america throwing ability not particularly special.
B) Not being able to do anything that requires throwing to be a drawback.



Being fine with these trade offs or preferring them as default doesn't mean it isn't useful to at least bring up they are trade-offs in a broader discussion.

I think if you want it to be open regardless of magic, a feat or fighter class feature would be appropriate.


It stays special because not every player will use it. Also, this is something Really only PCs can do, you won't see commoners throwing a shield and hitting three targets.

Players typically try to play different from each other though I would love to see a platoon of different characters pass along a thrown weapon by bouncing it off an enemy...

Magic has too many options already, people are way too reliant on saying "because magic" to the point where they can't even comprehend and my other option for cool things.

Feats aren't needed, the core options can cover this. Feats should be about specific stuff not a general thing like throwing a weapon.

Fighters are some of the most boring classes to play. I would rather it be a general rule (much like shove or grapple) so you aren't show horned into a specific class to do such a basic idea. Why could a barbarian not throw an item and bounce it back to them after they hit an enemy? I have the same issue with other points to the game.

[Mr.Moron]

It stays special because not every player will use it. Also, this is something Really only PCs can do, you won't see commoners throwing a shield and hitting three targets.

Players typically try to play different from each other though I would love to see a platoon of different characters pass along a thrown weapon by bouncing it off an enemy...

Magic has too many options already, people are way too reliant on saying "because magic" to the point where they can't even comprehend and my other option for cool things.

Feats aren't needed, the core options can cover this. Feats should be about specific stuff not a general thing like throwing a weapon.

Fighters are some of the most boring classes to play. I would rather it be a general rule (much like shove or grapple) so you aren't show horned into a specific class to do such a basic idea. Why could a barbarian not throw an item and bounce it back to them after they hit an enemy? I have the same issue with other points to the game.

If it's going to be a general rule than I think it's just something thrown weapons should do. When you throw a weapon it bounces and comes back to you. Trying to tie into skill checks (Athletics) is just going to make it so that Rogues & Bards are the best at it and also give you multiple rolls to resolve an attack, which slows play.

[tieren]

These both use the action economy bonus action and action respectively, so neither is a method of using a thrown a weapon the same attack sequence. You can't balance them around them not coming back ever but "not for any other attacks this round" is a very safe assumption.



I agree with your statement. Mine was more based around the idea that a DM might make some amazing hammer of nova-ability that was designed to be tossed once an encounter and end up with it getting tossed every round.

I didn't mean to imply you'd be chucking 4 javelins of lightining a round or anything.

[SwordChuck]

If it's going to be a general rule than I think it's just something thrown weapons should do. When you throw a weapon it bounces and comes back to you. Trying to tie into skill checks (Athletics) is just going to make it so that Rogues & Bards are the best at it and also give you multiple rolls to resolve an attack, which slows play.

So? They have expertise, a class feature, don't see an issue with it.

Rogues are most well made martial class and bards are a top tier caster class. Why is this an issue? They already are designed better and they offer so much more to a player than what the fighter can give them.

Yeah they will be better than fighters, barbarians, and others with athletics. That's just what they do, if they choose to go that route.

[Mr.Moron]

So? They have expertise, a class feature, don't see an issue with it.

Rogues are most well made martial class and bards are a top tier caster class. Why is this an issue? They already are designed better and they offer so much more to a player than what the fighter can give them.

Yeah they will be better than fighters, barbarians, and others with athletics. That's just what they do, if they choose to go that route.

I tend to think of Rogues & Bards more as skill-focused characters than "Martials". Particularly considering rogues lack of of Extra Attack and Bard's access to 9th level spells. I was operating under the assumption that the best at "Captain America" stuff would be those classes most soldier-y: Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Fighter in particular.

That difference in classification is what caused the disconnect. If you see Rogues/Bards as the rightful kings of the roost in the throwing weapon space then a design based on athletics skill checks fine. I'd be worried the extra rolling could slow things down. Did you have specific mechanics in mind as to when and often in a round you roll and what the failure/success of those rolls do?

[SwordChuck]

I tend to think of Rogues & Bards more as skill-focused characters than "Martials". Particularly considering rogues lack of of Extra Attack and Bard's access to 9th level spells. I was operating under the assumption that the best at "Captain America" stuff would be those classes most soldier-y: Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Fighter in particular.

That difference in classification is what caused the disconnect. If you see Rogues/Bards as the rightful kings of the roost in the throwing weapon space then a design based on athletics skill checks fine. I'd be worried the extra rolling could slow things down. Did you have specific mechanics in mind as to when and often in a round you roll and what the failure/success of those rolls do?

Rightful has nothing to do with it. Really Rogues and Fighters could be one class as they are so similar. Both are martial weapon masters who are primary strikers and have a couple of meh secondary roles unless they pick up feats. Rogues have the advantage of potentially being a skill monkey but that's something you don't really need anymore.

Strength based armored (w/shield) rogues are quite brutal and make absolutely great replacement for the Fighters (seen heavy weapons used with sneak attack, didn't hurt balance until you brought in the feat that gives -5/+10.

Yeah the fighter can do damage but the Rogue keeps up quite well and is a lot more mobile and defensive. My friend really showed how well the armored rogue can become.

Bards aren't skill monkeys. They are full casters who can be very proficient in skills. They might be the best designed full caster. Maybe not the strongest, but the most well designed as they are quite flexible on many different areas (skills, weapons, spells, etc...).

Besides, rogues and bards are known for being cunning and tricky. Most will rely on dex so will be throwing light weapons. A rogue throwing a dagger and having it ricochet off a chandelier in order to sneak attack a target is just plain awesome, tricky, and scary.

Athletics versus DC to see if the PC can ricochet the item. DC would be set based on how stressful the situation is (based on how deadly the encounter is). All movement of the item is counted and you don't get extra distance (though a power throw option could be nice, +5 DC to increase range?).

Less than deadly: 5
Deadly: 10
Really deadly: 15
Impossible: 20
Complete Curbstomp: 25

(i forgot the level types of encounters, haha).

It would slow down battle about as much or less than a knowledge check, a shove, a grapple, or a spell being cast.

[brainface]

The issue to me with non-returning magical throwing weapons is that it makes them so much worse than simply using a bow? For mundane weapons, it works out fine because essentially each knife or javelin you throw is simply a piece of ammunition. But if I had something holy avenger tier, I wouldn't ever throw that unless it was coming back. ^^

I like the way 4e did it simply because I felt you could be "knife-thrower" guy and not be a joke? I think non-returning only works if you think of the weapons as ammunition, i.e. the same availability/price as a flaming arrow or some such, and not like a flaming bow. 3e's method irritated me to no end, because it felt like an immense gold tax to really not equal the damage of a longbow? (Because if I recall correctly, returning functioned poorly with iterative attacks--the weapon returned the next round. So if you had four knife attacks you needed... four magical knives? Each of which cost more than a magical bow with the same enchantment and had a lower base damage.)

To look at it another way, if a player wants to be "javelin thrower guy" then he needs returning javelins or some magical brace of javelins, if someone wants to throw their axe once in a while as an act of desperation, well, then it makes sense it doesn't come back or requires some difficult skill check.

[Irish Musician]

The issue to me with non-returning magical throwing weapons is that it makes them so much worse than simply using a bow? For mundane weapons, it works out fine because essentially each knife or javelin you throw is simply a piece of ammunition. But if I had something holy avenger tier, I wouldn't ever throw that unless it was coming back. ^^

I like the way 4e did it simply because I felt you could be "knife-thrower" guy and not be a joke? I think non-returning only works if you think of the weapons as ammunition, i.e. the same availability/price as a flaming arrow or some such, and not like a flaming bow. 3e's method irritated me to no end, because it felt like an immense gold tax to really not equal the damage of a longbow? (Because if I recall correctly, returning functioned poorly with iterative attacks--the weapon returned the next round. So if you had four knife attacks you needed... four magical knives? Each of which cost more than a magical bow with the same enchantment and had a lower base damage.)

To look at it another way, if a player wants to be "javelin thrower guy" then he needs returning javelins or some magical brace of javelins, if someone wants to throw their axe once in a while as an act of desperation, well, then it makes sense it doesn't come back or requires some difficult skill check.

See, that's my point (and I'll use the Legendary hammer again as an example). It has this amazing, awesome throwing property to it.....but somehow I am just supposed to throw away my Legendary hammer and not expect it to come back to me? A hammer which my character spent years questing to get and the thing doesn't even come back to me after I throw it? I am all about not abusing the power of the "returning thrown weapon"....but the pendulum needs to swing the other way too so people don't get fixed into using just bows for any sort of ranged attacks. Because that gets boring eventually and, frankly, limits the options of the types of characters you can make.

[SwordChuck]

The issue to me with non-returning magical throwing weapons is that it makes them so much worse than simply using a bow? For mundane weapons, it works out fine because essentially each knife or javelin you throw is simply a piece of ammunition. But if I had something holy avenger tier, I wouldn't ever throw that unless it was coming back. ^^

I like the way 4e did it simply because I felt you could be "knife-thrower" guy and not be a joke? I think non-returning only works if you think of the weapons as ammunition, i.e. the same availability/price as a flaming arrow or some such, and not like a flaming bow. 3e's method irritated me to no end, because it felt like an immense gold tax to really not equal the damage of a longbow? (Because if I recall correctly, returning functioned poorly with iterative attacks--the weapon returned the next round. So if you had four knife attacks you needed... four magical knives? Each of which cost more than a magical bow with the same enchantment and had a lower base damage.)

To look at it another way, if a player wants to be "javelin thrower guy" then he needs returning javelins or some magical brace of javelins, if someone wants to throw their axe once in a while as an act of desperation, well, then it makes sense it doesn't come back or requires some difficult skill check.

We could just say that all mundane ammunition and thrown weapons aren't tracked and that we will typically have enough for an encounter. Then let the player decide if they come back, richochet, or they need to be picked up.

[Mellack]

Would having thrown weapons able to return be good for their balance? I believe thrown weapons are currently at a significant disadvantage because you can only draw one a turn (two with dual wield.) That makes them a pretty poor option for anyone who has extra attacks.

[Zalabim]

Even the Legendary Hammer doesn't have it though.....

HAMMER OF THUNDERBOLTS

Weapon (maul), legendary

You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made
with this magic weapon.

Giant's Bane (Requires Attunement). You must be wearing a belt of giant strength (any variety) and gauntlets of ogre power to attune to this weapon. The attunement ends if you take off either of those items. While you are attuned to this weapon and holding it, your Strength score increases by 4 and can exceed 20, but not 30. When you roll a 20 on an attack roll made with this weapon against a giant, the giant must succeed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or die. The hammer also has 5 charges. While attuned to it, you can expend 1 charge and make a ranged weapon attack with the hammer, hurling it as if it had the thrown property with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. If the attack hits, the hammer unleashes a thunderclap audible out to 300 feet. The target and every creature within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn. The hammer regains 1d4 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn.

Seems to me at least IT would have it mentioned in there somewhere.

Bolded the part about it that really scares me. Also, as the underlined portion, I think I'd miss the strength bonus after throwing it as much as the weapon. Though if you just wanted a ranged attack, you can hold the Hammer in one hand and throw a Javelin with the other with your up to 30 strength. If only it wasn't limited by the ability to draw javelins.

[Sigreid]

Just like past editions some do, some dont.

[SwordChuck]

Would having thrown weapons able to return be good for their balance? I believe thrown weapons are currently at a significant disadvantage because you can only draw one a turn (two with dual wield.) That makes them a pretty poor option for anyone who has extra attacks.

It sucks that to use a magic throw weapon, you have to give it to an enemy... Unless my super rare awesome throwing weapon returns to me, no one else gets to play with it.

[Irish Musician]

Bolded the part about it that really scares me. Also, as the underlined portion, I think I'd miss the strength bonus after throwing it as much as the weapon. Though if you just wanted a ranged attack, you can hold the Hammer in one hand and throw a Javelin with the other with your up to 30 strength. If only it wasn't limited by the ability to draw javelins.

Just wanting a ranged attack isn't the point, though. If you have a weapon that is magical and has a throwing power (but normally wouldn't be a throwing weapon) esp one as badass as the Hammer, you want it to come back to you. Also, the fact that you need two other pieces of equipment just to wield it means that you busted your hump trying to get it and quested to find this thing. You don't want the power that it gives you to then, potentially, take away the hammer you worked so hard to get.

To me, having a thrown attack on a weapon like that and not letting it come back to you, is like having a sword that when you stab someone has a chance of just disappearing on you and not ever coming back. It is just silly.

[McNinja]

It is very odd that the Hammer of Thunderbolts does not have that property yet the Dwarven Thrower does, and the HoT is a higher rarity and supposedly more powerful.

It occurs to me that the Hammer of Thunderbolts is very poorly written. They were clearly going for a "Hammer of Thor" type weapon, but it actually has a chance of stunning you (it has a range of 20/60, so if you throw within 20 you have to take a save or be stunned since the thundeclap goes out to 30...), and the save-or-die effect is limited to only giants, whereas the Dwarven Thrower deals an additional 1d8 damage when thrown at anything and 2d8 against giants.

Honestly, the Dwarven Thrower seems like the better weapon. It always comes back, is a +3 weapon, and deals extra damage when thrown, and you don't have a chance of stunning yourself. The HoT is also essentially a +3 weapon (+1 weapon with +4 to STR equates to +3), but you lose the +4 STR when you throw it...

[Sigreid]

Not that it's a legitimate reason to pick a subclass, but the Eldrich Knight can bind two weapons that they can then call to hand with their bonus action. So you could crack a skull, fling at the archer and spend your bonus action to have your hammer back and ready to crack more skulls.