Dart question

[KnightSteve]

Why is the dart not a light weapon? I am using it with a monk, and it feels silly that I can't hold one dart in each hand and throw both. Started an argument in the pbp game I am playing, and I was wondering what sort of input the GitP people have while I wait on our DM's final word.

[gfishfunk]

They really ought to be light. Hell, you should be able to hold three in one hand while you throw with the other, and quickly grab each additional dart to throw as part of the attack without expending an additional object interaction - but that is not RAW, just me saying crap about crap.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes, darts are silly. You can use daggers in this manner, though.

[RickAllison]

Why is the dart not a light weapon? I am using it with a monk, and it feels silly that I can't hold one dart in each hand and throw both. Started an argument in the pbp game I am playing, and I was wondering what sort of input the GitP people have while I wait on our DM's final word.

The reason you can't TWF with those has nothing to do with the Light property, but the fact that they are ranged weapons. TWF only activates with use of a light, melee weapon. Also, nothing stops you from using both if you have Extra Attack. A level 20 fighter Minotaur can run into battle carrying a maul and a dagger, shove someone prone, stab them with his horns, throw the dagger at the person behind them, then swipe the greatsword down in two hands at the prone target. Would it be practical and efficient to do so? Probably not, he would likely do more damage by just attacking with the maul, but it would be dynamic and fun.

[Stan]

TWF only activates with use of a light, melee weapon.

Actually, the twf rules allow you to make ranged attacks if the weapon has the thrown property. (phb. p. 195) I think adding the melee aspect in the wording was unnecessary as darts are about the only thing affected.

I would totally allow twf with darts. It's the same damage as 2 daggers and less than 2 handaxes.

nerd time: war darts were not much like game darts, more like stubby javelins with heavy ends so they didn't tumble in flight. Think lawn darts with sharpened ends thrown directly at someone. Here's a Roman dart:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatsortofequipmentdidtheancientromans-130618004230-phpapp01/95/ancient-roman-war-equipment-5-638.jpg?cb=1371516192

[RickAllison]

Actually, the twf rules allow you to make ranged attacks if the weapon has the thrown property. (phb. p. 195)

I would totally allow twf with darts. It's the same damage as 2 daggers and less than 2 handaxes.

nerd time: war darts were not much like game darts, more like stubby javelins with heavy ends so they didn't tumble in flight. Think lawn darts with sharpened ends thrown directly at someone. Here's a Roman dart:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatsortofequipmentdidtheancientromans-130618004230-phpapp01/95/ancient-roman-war-equipment-5-638.jpg?cb=1371516192

That is if melee weapons have the thrown property. It does not waive the requirement, it establishes that a melee weapon can be used to make a ranged weapon attack.

As for whether it should be allowed, I see no problem. The difference is whether it can be house-ruled to be allowed (yes) or if it is allowed by the book (no).

For the war darts, I'm very well aware. That is actually why I think they don't merit the light designator, as you have a mini-spear that is weighted in a manner great for throwing, but awful for the fluid movement necessary for TWF.

Balance-wise, TWF with darts is just fine. RAW, it's not. Simulation-wise, it doesn't make sense either.

[Easy_Lee]

Just to be clear, melee weapons with the thrown property are valid for TWF when thrown. From the book: "Two-Weapon Fighting - When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon...If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."

[Mr.Moron]

Probably just an oversight would be my guess. I mean it's a missing keyword on relatively unpopular weapon that's exactly the kind of thing that can worm it's way through even multiple editing passes.

[RickAllison]

Probably just an oversight would be my guess. I mean it's a missing keyword on relatively unpopular weapon that's exactly the kind of thing that can worm it's way through even multiple editing passes.

A better question is why the hand crossbow has the Light property. The only way it comes into play is if one decides to start pistol-whipping foes with it. My best guess would be it is a carryover from past versions of the rules, probably one that required light weapons in order to attack with one in each hand (so hand crossbow+sword is viable).

[Foxhound438]

spend the extra scratch on actual daggers, it's the same range, you can throw another as a bonus action, and its damage die is still dependent on monk weapon die, so it upgrades to d6 at 5th level and so on.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Actually, the twf rules allow you to make ranged attacks if the weapon has the thrown property. (phb. p. 195) I think adding the melee aspect in the wording was unnecessary as darts are about the only thing affected.

I would totally allow twf with darts. It's the same damage as 2 daggers and less than 2 handaxes.

nerd time: war darts were not much like game darts, more like stubby javelins with heavy ends so they didn't tumble in flight. Think lawn darts with sharpened ends thrown directly at someone. Here's a Roman dart:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatsortofequipmentdidtheancientromans-130618004230-phpapp01/95/ancient-roman-war-equipment-5-638.jpg?cb=1371516192

This! I might rule that you can melee with the dart, but on a hit the dart leaves your hand (stuck in the body of the target).

[Naanomi]

As ranged weapons, you can throw multiple darts without using your item interaction/free draw; so they do have some use, even if a rare one (dart throwing battlemaster?)

[RickAllison]

As ranged weapons, you can throw multiple darts without using your item interaction/free draw; so they do have some use, even if a rare one (dart throwing battlemaster?)

Not really by RAW. It is the ammunition quality that you are thinking of. Of course, I don't think many DMs would be likely to oppose that, it is a very reasonable ruling.

[Foxhound438]

As ranged weapons, you can throw multiple darts without using your item interaction/free draw; so they do have some use, even if a rare one (dart throwing battlemaster?)

good old shield and sharpshooter

[Fflewddur Fflam]

spend the extra scratch on actual daggers, it's the same range, you can throw another as a bonus action, and its damage die is still dependent on monk weapon die, so it upgrades to d6 at 5th level and so on.

The one bummer about this is you can't throw three daggers consistently with extra attack and the bonus action from TWF. If you start out holding a dagger in each hand, you can throw, use your interaction to draw another dagger, throw that with your extra attack and then use your bonus action to throw your off-hand dagger.

Now, you have zero weapons in your hands and unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, you can only draw one dagger to throw the next round.

Monks can use the shortbow since it's a simple weapon, I like using that for range with my monk (whenever I do range, which is not often).

Daggers do not have the "ammunition" property, which allows you to draw it with every attack, so you can't pull off throwing more than one dagger a turn on consecutive turns without the Dual Wielder feat which allows you to draw two weapons on your turn.

[RickAllison]

The one bummer about this is you can't throw three daggers consistently with extra attack and the bonus action from TWF. If you start out holding a dagger in each hand, you can throw, use your interaction to draw another dagger, throw that with your extra attack and then use your bonus action to throw your off-hand dagger.

Now, you have zero weapons in your hands and unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, you can only draw one dagger to throw the next round.

Monks can use the shortbow since it's a simple weapon, I like using that for range with my monk (whenever I do range, which is not often).

Well... Yeah. Throwing weapons is frankly an awful primary method of fighting. Even pilum and plumbata were used by infantry as they closed, countered a fusillade, or other strategic points, not as a main method of combat. A better example of how throwing weapons would be used is in Lord of the Rings: Conquest. There, the fighter uses his throwing axe as a strategic ranged weapon, not a go-to style.

Now if someone can provide real-life examples of how throwing weapons were used as the primary method of warfare, I will accept it. I know spears did see some use where more dedicated weapons weren't available (big sticks of wood that are pointed aren't exactly rare), and spear-throwers were a thing, but is there historical evidence of people going into battle while chucking throwing axes as the primary attack method?

[Mr.Moron]

Well... Yeah. Throwing weapons is frankly an awful primary method of fighting. Even pilum and plumbata were used by infantry as they closed, countered a fusillade, or other strategic points, not as a main method of combat. A better example of how throwing weapons would be used is in Lord of the Rings: Conquest. There, the fighter uses his throwing axe as a strategic ranged weapon, not a go-to style.

Now if someone can provide real-life examples of how throwing weapons were used as the primary method of warfare, I will accept it. I know spears did see some use where more dedicated weapons weren't available (big sticks of wood that are pointed aren't exactly rare), and spear-throwers were a thing, but is there historical evidence of people going into battle while chucking throwing axes as the primary attack method?

This is a bad standard to use. Warfare is about masses of people fighting against other masses of people, almost always in open spaces, often in tight shoulder to shoulder formations. D&D is more akin to a street fight. A handful of dudes up against another handful dudes or one big guy, often in narrow indoor spaces, almost never in tight formation.

The value of thrown weapons aside "primary method of warfare" just isn't relevant to D&D.

[RickAllison]

This is a bad standard to use. Warfare is about masses of people fighting against other masses of people, almost always in open spaces, often in tight shoulder to shoulder formations. D&D is more akin to a street fight. A handful of dudes up against another handful dudes or one big guy, often in narrow indoor spaces, almost never in tight formation.

The value of thrown weapons aside "primary method of warfare" just isn't relevant to D&D.

Then in single-combat, anything. Street youths cutting each other down in the streets of X, bandits in Y, nobles of House Z, anything! Give me a smidgen of evidence that can actually be considered in favor of it, please.

I don't think there would be much because throwing weapons is generally a bad idea. They lack range and are often less compact than more dedicated ranged ammunition, and the few weapons that perform well while remaining compact also tend to be expensive to lose.

Heck, let's look at Assassin's Creed to see how someone more dedicated to thrown weaponry can perform. Even then, we see more of Ezio and Altair having the Dual-Wielder feat with those rather than a constant barrage. Or we can look at Batman! He tends to fight hand-to-hand while occasionally throwing out Batarangs when strategically advantageous. These don't seem to suggest that someone throwing these constantly is viable even in fiction.

[Dr. Cliché]

Then in single-combat, anything. Street youths cutting each other down in the streets of X, bandits in Y, nobles of House Z, anything! Give me a smidgen of evidence that can actually be considered in favor of it, please.

I don't think there would be much because throwing weapons is generally a bad idea. They lack range and are often less compact than more dedicated ranged ammunition, and the few weapons that perform well while remaining compact also tend to be expensive to lose.

Heck, let's look at Assassin's Creed to see how someone more dedicated to thrown weaponry can perform. Even then, we see more of Ezio and Altair having the Dual-Wielder feat with those rather than a constant barrage. Or we can look at Batman! He tends to fight hand-to-hand while occasionally throwing out Batarangs when strategically advantageous. These don't seem to suggest that someone throwing these constantly is viable even in fiction.

The advantage of throwing weapons lies not in effectiveness but in concealment. Sure, bows and crossbows are better at killing (though the latter has a far longer reload time than D&D 5e would suggest), but they're also really obvious. Bows are just too large and crossbows are too bulky (not to mention that keeping a loaded one concealed would carry its own risks, whilst unveiling one only to laboriously load it would rather ruin the surprise). Hand-crossbows are a bit better, but would still be hard to conceal due to their shape (they can't lie flat in any direction). In contrast, a person can easily conceal dozens of darts (whether in the form of literal darts or as any small throwing weapon like shurikens) on his person, without it being at all obvious. With practice, they can be revealed and thrown in one fluid motion.

Darts aren't the most effective ranged weapon. Not by a long shot (hah!). The point is that you're not taking them because they're effective - you're taking them because they're discreet. In open warfare or in places where you can nonchalantly walk around with a war-bow, then yeah, darts are pretty rubbish. However, in places where you can't openly carry weapons, small, easily concealed darts and daggers are vastly better than having no weapons at all.

[RickAllison]

The advantage of throwing weapons lies not in effectiveness but in concealment. Sure, bows and crossbows are better at killing (though the latter has a far longer reload time than D&D 5e would suggest), but they're also really obvious. Bows are just too large and crossbows are too bulky (not to mention that keeping a loaded one concealed would carry its own risks, whilst unveiling one only to laboriously load it would rather ruin the surprise). Hand-crossbows are a bit better, but would still be hard to conceal due to their shape (they can't lie flat in any direction). In contrast, a person can easily conceal dozens of darts (whether in the form of literal darts or as any small throwing weapon like shurikens) on his person, without it being at all obvious. With practice, they can be revealed and thrown in one fluid motion.

Darts aren't the most effective ranged weapon. Not by a long shot (hah!). The point is that you're not taking them because they're effective - you're taking them because they're discreet. In open warfare or in places where you can nonchalantly walk around with a war-bow, then yeah, darts are pretty rubbish. However, in places where you can't openly carry weapons, small, easily concealed darts and daggers are vastly better than having no weapons at all.

That is an excellent point for why they have them as an option. Not really helpful for darts, since the version in the PHB is pretty dang bulky, but it works for thugs like daggers. Grabbing and throwing can be done, using the item interaction. Using the feat, you can even double that speed.

[KnightSteve]

spend the extra scratch on actual daggers, it's the same range, you can throw another as a bonus action, and its damage die is still dependent on monk weapon die, so it upgrades to d6 at 5th level and so on.

That's the problem. My character doesn't use daggers. I built him this way for a reason. So, no daggers, or dagger-clone darts. And it's not for melee. I just want to throw 2 darts one action, just liking swinging two light weapons.

[Dr. Cliché]

That is an excellent point for why they have them as an option. Not really helpful for darts, since the version in the PHB is pretty dang bulky, but it works for thugs like daggers. Grabbing and throwing can be done, using the item interaction. Using the feat, you can even double that speed.

Yeah, darts are a bit disappointing. Really weird that they don't have light, given that Daggers are light weapons and Darts are 1/4 the weight of a dagger. :smallconfused:

As a DM, I'd definitely house rule that Darts are Light weapons.

The other aspect is that I see 'dart' as a catch-all term for any small, sharp thrown weapon. Hence, I could easily see many knives or daggers being classes as darts, depending on their weight.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

The other aspect is that I see 'dart' as a catch-all term for any small, sharp thrown weapon. Hence, I could easily see many knives or daggers being classes as darts, depending on their weight.

Yeah, with monks I always see darts as shuriken, basically. That's a much better image than a monk pulling out a dart with a glass of beer in the other hand, playing bullseye at the local bar.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, with monks I always see darts as shuriken, basically. That's a much better image than a monk pulling out a dart with a glass of beer in the other hand, playing bullseye at the local bar.

It is certainly odd. The darts in the PHB should be more like the plumbata, but are too low in damage for it. They certainly aren't bar darts. Star shurikens also aren't a good representation for them, they would be more like a blowgun without the loading property (primarily used to inflict poison, rather than to kill). Knife shurikens, kunai I think, would be darts.

[Waffle_Iron]

Now if someone can provide real-life examples of how throwing weapons were used as the primary method of warfare, I will accept it. I know spears did see some use where more dedicated weapons weren't available (big sticks of wood that are pointed aren't exactly rare), and spear-throwers were a thing, but is there historical evidence of people going into battle while chucking throwing axes as the primary attack method?

Eh, to me, DND is not a real world combat tactics simulator. It is a genre emulator. The real world doesn't have firebolts or magic missiles, or cure light wounds, but the sword and sorcery fiction genre does.

There's plenty of media in which throwing daggers is a valid attack style, so I can understand players wanting to see it well supported.

[RickAllison]

Eh, to me, DND is not a real world combat tactics simulator. It is a genre emulator. The real world doesn't have firebolts or magic missiles, or cure light wounds, but the sword and sorcery fiction genre does.

There's plenty of media in which throwing daggers is a valid attack style, so I can understand players wanting to see it well supported.

To me, reality dictates what an ordinary person in D&D can do, while feats and class features represent what extraordinary and/or fictitious characters can do. So an ordinary person is capable of throwing the one weapon, while extraordinary individuals like Ezio and Batman have Dual-Wielder and can throw 2. I don't see much of any fictitious accounts of people who are consistently throwing three or more as a main method of battle. Most of them use throwing weapons to supplement their main style. Show me some that defy that logic, please.

[Mr.Moron]

To me, reality dictates what an ordinary person in D&D can do, while feats and class features represent what extraordinary and/or fictitious characters can do. So an ordinary person is capable of throwing the one weapon, while extraordinary individuals like Ezio and Batman have Dual-Wielder and can throw 2. I don't see much of any fictitious accounts of people who are consistently throwing three or more as a main method of battle. Most of them use throwing weapons to supplement their main style. Show me some that defy that logic, please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOjIDhJIG0

Granted he's a Cyborg. However that's just a sci-fi take on why your powers are better than others. He doesn't do anything I wouldn't expect out of someone with a few levels in any ninja-type class in a fantasy RPG.

I'm sure I could find a fantasy example if I cared to look, but I've just been playing a ton of overwatch recently and this popped into my head immediately. Wasn't there an X-Men who primarily threw things as weapon?

[RickAllison]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOjIDhJIG0

Granted he's a Cyborg. However that's just a sci-fi take on why your powers are better than others. He doesn't do anything I wouldn't expect out of someone with a few levels in any ninja-type class in a fantasy RPG.

I'm sure I could find a fantasy example if I cared to look, but I've just been playing a ton of overwatch recently and this popped into my head immediately. Wasn't there an X-Men who primarily threw things as weapon?

Just timing his throws, they are about in line with a Dual-Wielder throwing around knives, maybe a little faster. And maybe you are thinking of Gambit, who throws pyrokinetically- charged cards when he isn't mixing it up in melee.

[Mr.Moron]

Just timing his throws, they are about in line with a Dual-Wielder throwing around knives, maybe a little faster. And maybe you are thinking of Gambit, who throws pyrokinetically- charged cards when he isn't mixing it up in melee.

My point is that he's throwing 3 at a time with one hand, and that isn't grossly out of line with the impressions I've got for ninja types generally. D&D really abstracts out the attack action so even a 3-Shuriken throw might only be "One AttacK'. I guess my point is that Throwing Knife guy is certainly an Archetype found commonly enough that I do understand how folks would expect to play it. It also animates rather well in my mind, though tastes vary.

I was just trying to address this point:

I don't see much of any fictitious accounts of people who are consistently throwing three or more as a main method of battle. Most of them use throwing weapons to supplement their main style. Show me some that defy that logic, please.

[Coidzor]

To me, reality dictates what an ordinary person in D&D can do, while feats and class features represent what extraordinary and/or fictitious characters can do. So an ordinary person is capable of throwing the one weapon, while extraordinary individuals like Ezio and Batman have Dual-Wielder and can throw 2. I don't see much of any fictitious accounts of people who are consistently throwing three or more as a main method of battle. Most of them use throwing weapons to supplement their main style. Show me some that defy that logic, please.

Have fun with your guy at the gym fallacy, then, I guess.

[RickAllison]

My point is that he's throwing 3 at a time with one hand, and that isn't grossly out of line with the impressions I've got for ninja types generally. D&D really abstracts out the attack action so even a 3-Shuriken throw might only be "One AttacK'. I guess my point is that Throwing Knife guy is certainly an Archetype found commonly enough that I do understand how folks would expect to play it. It also animates rather well in my mind, though tastes vary.

I was just trying to address this point:

Absolutely. Heck, I could see someone holding eight kunai in their hands. That might be difficult to sustain for a level 20 fighter (who can blow through that in one turn with Action Surge), but someone with only three attacks could sustain that for several rounds, even without Dual-Wielder.

Edit: for the person claiming the fallacy, I never claimed that was what I could do. What I was claiming is that if millions of soldiers throughout history couldn't make it as practical as other methods of warfare, it probably requires an extraordinary person to pull off. It is not Guy-At-The-Gym, it is historical precedent. That is not a fallacy, that is evidence for an argument.

Also, have fun with your "Argument from Fallacy" or the fallacy fallacy. Pointing out that an argument has a fallacy does not discredit the argument, it just shows a potential flaw to work from to discredit it. Meanwhile, that kind of fallacy alone is literally uselesse, it contributes exactly nothing.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't see much of any fictitious accounts of people who are consistently throwing three or more as a main method of battle. Most of them use throwing weapons to supplement their main style. Show me some that defy that logic, please.

There's always Mai from Avatar the Last Airbender:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qBWxJNBaag0/UeE9F2iw7VI/AAAAAAAABa8/-38ZnROeU3E/w800-h800/Mai-with-Ninja-Stars-avatar-the-last-airbender-23914857-565-454.png

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/avatar/images/a/ab/Mai_versus_Kyoshi_Warriors.png/revision/latest?cb=20130705211407

https://youtu.be/KBbcSTsUM0g?t=55

[Coffee_Dragon]

I agree with RickAllison: "a fictional character does it so D&D rules should cover it" is not a terribly good argument (let's call it the Genre Trope Mashup Abomination Fallacy because that'll annoy someone). Sure, D&D has always made a point of trying to appeal to people wanting to emulate genre specifics in the game, but there are reasons no game tries to mock-simulate everything, including a) it's stupid and b) it's impossible.

[Dr. Cliché]

I agree with RickAllison: "a fictional character does it so D&D rules should cover it" is not a terribly good argument (let's call it the Genre Trope Mashup Abomination Fallacy because that'll annoy someone). Sure, D&D has always made a point of trying to appeal to people wanting to emulate genre specifics in the game, but there are reasons no game tries to mock-simulate everything, including a) it's stupid and b) it's impossible.

That's true, but when you're already including super-magic-monk-ninjas it's a bit odd to not include one of their signature weapons.

It would be like specially including a Samauri class but not having a katana. :smallwink:

[RickAllison]

That's true, but when you're already including super-magic-monk-ninjas it's a bit odd to not include one of their signature weapons.

It would be like specially including a Samauri class but not having a katana. :smallwink:

I would like to point out that Genji and Mai both solve the main problem (ability to draw the weapons quickly) by using their object interaction to draw several in a set. Genji has sets of the from his gauntlet, while Mai keeps them up her sleeve that she draws before combat. This would probably be best represented by special equipment rather than a rules change.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Or prestige class majix, to keep any doofus from doing it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would like to point out that Genji and Mai both solve the main problem (ability to draw the weapons quickly) by using their object interaction to draw several in a set. Genji has sets of the from his gauntlet, while Mai keeps them up her sleeve that she draws before combat. This would probably be best represented by special equipment rather than a rules change.

Personally, I'd make Darts light and consider counting them as Monk Weapons.

[RickAllison]

Personally, I'd make Darts light and consider counting them as Monk Weapons.

I would not simply because it makes daggers go the way of the trident, something that is inferior in every way to another item. Darts are 20X cheaper than daggers and a quarter of the weight. In exchange, darts don't get to act as Light because they are clunky, while also not getting to act like a melee weapon.

This is really more of a problem with the weapon table than the concept. Darts are treated as the ranged weapon of choice for those who just want a cheap solution. Now, if you bumped up the price on them a ways above daggers, representing an expensive, but masterfully-crafted weapon (this is more like shuriken rather than pilum), that seems just fine. Also give them the ammunition quality to get around the drawing restrictions.

Masterwork throwing weapons:
20 gp
1d4 slashing or piercing
Finesse, light, thrown (30/90), ammunition, special
Special: Also counts as a melee weapon.

Just a quick writeup, it preserves the usefulness of the dagger while filling the throwing weapon need. Critiques are necessary and welcome.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would not simply because it makes daggers go the way of the trident, something that is inferior in every way to another item. Darts are 20X cheaper than daggers and a quarter of the weight. In exchange, darts don't get to act as Light because they are clunky, while also not getting to act like a melee weapon.

That's the thing though - it's basically the same situation at the moment, only reversed. Being cheaper and weighing less than daggers don't even come close to making up for the fact that darts are just crap.



This is really more of a problem with the weapon table than the concept. Darts are treated as the ranged weapon of choice for those who just want a cheap solution. Now, if you bumped up the price on them a ways above daggers, representing an expensive, but masterfully-crafted weapon (this is more like shuriken rather than pilum), that seems just fine. Also give them the ammunition quality to get around the drawing restrictions.

Masterwork throwing weapons:
20 gp
1d4 slashing or piercing
Finesse, light, thrown (30/90), ammunition, special
Special: Also counts as a melee weapon.

Just a quick writeup, it preserves the usefulness of the dagger while filling the throwing weapon need. Critiques are necessary and welcome.

Personally, I'd make darts light but take them down to d3 damage. Monks would have a special affinity with them (being able to apply martial arts damage), but for other classes they'd just be slightly worse daggers that are considerably cheaper and more plentiful.

[RickAllison]

That's the thing though - it's basically the same situation at the moment, only reversed. Being cheaper and weighing less than daggers don't even come close to making up for the fact that darts are just crap.



Personally, I'd make darts light but take them down to d3 damage. Monks would have a special affinity with them (being able to apply martial arts damage), but for other classes they'd just be slightly worse daggers that are considerably cheaper and more plentiful.

I think they wanted to avoid weird dice like d3s. That's why they skip from 1d4 down to just 1. Dropping darts down there would definitely make up for those bonuses.