Is there a reason thrown weapon rules make no sense in fifth edition?

[Talionis]

I just spent too much of my life reading old threads regarding melee attack vs melee weapon attack. I think I understand the RAW rule but I'm curious if anyone understands why a popular trope of the dagger throwing guy is really unsupported in fifth edition.

It makes no sense for it to be easier and faster to reload a bow or cross bow than to palm another dagger. Range and damage are worse for daggers so why make the build even worse?

I'm just surprised they didn't treat thrown daggers as ammunition and as arrows or bolts. They actually went out of their way to make thrown weapons more complicated and worse.

I was happy to see strength thrown weapons supported.

I'm also very surprised they didn't have a specific feat for the play style.

Is there a mechanical reason?

I don't see a balance reason. I can see not wanting Smite and other melee attack bonuses not being carried into ranged attacks.

[StorytellerHero]

When loading a bow or crossbow, you have to first draw the ammunition and then nock the ammunition before you can take aim and fire.

When loading a dagger, you just draw the dagger then take aim and fire.

[Phoenix042]

This frustrates me as well. It wouldn't have been hard to build it into the system. As it is, throwing a single weapon is sometimes a decent enough idea if you don't have many attacks, but really, it shouldn't be limited so much. Having to take a totally unrelated feat (dual wielder) just to be able to throw two weapons per turn is silly, and having no additional feat support for the fighting style is really lame.

My group has tried in several editions to make thrown weapons characters work.

Really wish this was more supported.

[Zman]

Yeah, for all the things 5e does well, they missed the boat on a couple.

I wrote a Throwing Feat that works well and fits the trope. It's in my Tweaks, located in its on thread just a bit down, or the direct homebrewery page is linked in my sig. I also added a couple of different play styles especially if you use my Weapons and Armor Tweaks as well.

[Dudewithknives]

What I find very odd is that you can dual wield hand axes but you can't dual wield darts... I mean darts, really.

Then again in 5th you can use a quarterstaff 1 handed and call it a polearm but a spear is not a polearm.

I solve it by making drawing a weapon part of the attack action.

The issue I hit is carrying all the weapons to throw considering there is no returning property except on one specific very expensive weapon.

I so want a Blinkback Belt.

[Zman]

### Thrown Weapon Expert
You always hit your mark, gain the following benefits:
* Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your thrown weapon attack rolls.
* Your thrown weapon attacks ignore half cover and treat three-quarters cover as half cover.
* You can draw weapons with the thrown property as a free action and can make as many attacks in a round as you have attacks and weapons available.
* As a bonus action you may draw and throw a light or finesse thrown weapon so long as you have at least one free hand.

[Hrugner]

Throwing weapons always seem to get the short end of the stick. It looks like they worked to ensure that a character couldn't both dual wield their thrown weapon and get sharpshooter with it, which is a good idea since having a low level character with two sharpshots would be a big pain in the ass for balancing purposes. But in order to avoid that one problem they dropped any support for thrown weapons.

[Foxhound438]

*title*

because if it isn't something a wizard would do, of course WOTC would make it crappy

I honestly think it was an oversight in the initial rules...

or maybe they wanted to make fighters/paladins/barbarians with javelins as their only ranged option way less powerful than dedicated ranged classes (warlock, rogue, ranger) but as a side effect made throwing daggers just as bad. I would say that it's fine on rogue because you can throw daggers with 2wf, but at that point you're still better off using a hand crossbow with CBE in every situation.

[Kane0]

There's also the kerfuffle with Melee weapons, Ranged weapons, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks and ranged spell attacks (sometimes using weapons). That should be cleaned up.

[Talionis]

There's also the kerfuffle with Melee weapons, Ranged weapons, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks and ranged spell attacks (sometimes using weapons). That should be cleaned up.
100% seems like they made this so convoluted when all needed to do was distinguish between ranged and melee. So much energy to nerf a trope that by its nature is always worse than a bow archer.

[Beelzebubba]

Well, I'd argue a skilled archer could definitely fire as fast as a dagger thrower.

Watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

[Beelzebubba]

There's also the kerfuffle with Melee weapons, Ranged weapons, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks and ranged spell attacks (sometimes using weapons). That should be cleaned up.

How is it a kerfuffle?

And it should be cleaned up how, for what benefits to the game?

[hymer]

For throwing, I let the throwers use their free item interaction to draw as many throwing weapons as they have attacks, as long as they don't use a shield. Throwing isn't a particularly strong option anyway. The poor range means it's basically a backup option for strength builds.

I expect the balance issue perceived by the developers lies in how a bow and most crossbows require two hands to use, while a throwing build can mechanically use a shield at the same time.

[Lombra]

Well, I'd argue a skilled archer could definitely fire as fast as a dagger thrower.

Watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

Please, that's an arrow juggling demonstration, he is a skilled archer, but the video shows arrow tricks that wouldn't be of actual use during fights. In real life. In fantasy D&D that's a very good depicton of what could happen when fighters get down to it.

[hymer]

Please, that's an arrow juggling demonstration, he is a skilled archer, but the video shows arrow tricks that wouldn't be of actual use during fights. In real life. In fantasy D&D that's a very good depicton of what could happen when fighters get down to it.

Beelzebubba is talking about how swiftly you can shoot X arrows compared to how swiftly you can throw X thrown weapons. The video demonstrates pretty clearly that the difference needn't be great.

[Lombra]

Beelzebubba is talking about how swiftly you can shoot X arrows compared to how swiftly you can throw X thrown weapons. The video demonstrates pretty clearly that the difference needn't be great.

Swiftly doesn't imply effectively; but as I said we're in a fantasy world where striking with a longsword takes the same effort as striking with a maul, and drawing, aiming and shooting with a shortbow takes the same time and effort of drawing, aiming and shooting a longbow (which takes the same time and effort as striking with a dagger), so I wouldn't really bother with IRL simulations of what could be achieved by superhuman characters. By the way I think that one should be able to throw darts and daggers as long as he has attacks to do it, it just seems reasonable.

[Theodoxus]

For throwing, I let the throwers use their free item interaction to draw as many throwing weapons as they have attacks, as long as they don't use a shield. Throwing isn't a particularly strong option anyway. The poor range means it's basically a backup option for strength builds.

I expect the balance issue perceived by the developers lies in how a bow and most crossbows require two hands to use, while a throwing build can mechanically use a shield at the same time.

:smallconfused: Except in your rules?

[Sigreid]

My group just decided to let you thow a weapon for each attack you can make and not strest over it.

[hymer]

Swiftly doesn't imply effectively;

Indeed. But whether the bow or the thrown weapon has the advantage there is another question entirely. :smallsmile:


By the way I think that one should be able to throw darts and daggers as long as he has attacks to do it, it just seems reasonable.

I agree entirely.


:smallconfused: Except in your rules?

Yes, because see above. :smallsmile:

[EvilAnagram]

This was a pretty big oversight. Sure, it doesn't really affect rogues much because they only get one attack, but a ranger or fighter who specializes in daggers suffers.

I put in a house rule that someone can draw as many light thrown weapons and ranged thrown weapons (darts) as they have attacks.

[Joe the Rat]

There's also the kerfuffle with Melee weapons, Ranged weapons, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks and ranged spell attacks (sometimes using weapons). That should be cleaned up.
Weapon Attack: Attack with an object or part of the attacker
Spell Attack: Attack with magic/ magical effect
Melee Attack: Attack within reach of the creature/weapon/range of spell. The "attack vector" stays in contact with the attacker.
Ranged Attack: Attack within range of the weapon/effect/spell. The "attack vector" travels away from the attacker.




Attack
Type
Melee
Ranged
Special Cases


Weapon
Attack
Melee Weapon Attack
Ranged Weapon Attack
"Attack with a ___ weapon"


Spell
Attack
Melee Spell
Attack
Ranged Spell Attack
Booming Blade
Thorn Whip



Special cases:
"Attack with a ____ weapon" - This is a subset of melee attack that requires a weapon. Natural attacks and unarmed strikes do not count.
Booming Blade (and green flame blade) - These are not spell attacks. These are spells that include "attack with a melee weapon" as a component.
* Spells attacks always have a range; whether they are melee or ranged depends on the spell description. Thorn whip has a 30' range (akin to a ranged attack), but is a melee spell attack).

This is all pretty straightforward. It's the thrown weapons that get weird. They are melee weapons (and can be used in "attack with a melee weapon") that can be used to make ranged weapon attacks, but may or may not count as ranged weapons (for "attack with a ranged weapon" cases) when used that way.

Personally, I class n weapon by use: If it's in your hand and you're hitting someone with it, it's a melee weapon. If you're launching something at someone, it's a missile weapon. A thrown weapon can be used with archery and sharpshooter. hitting someone with your bow or hammer-tossing your maul is an improvised weapon.

Without the draw and fire, thrown weapons are pretty much a Rogue thing... and that sort of works for me. Instead of a fusillade of random objects every turn, you're lining up the badass toss-in-the-back-with-sneak-attack shot. But I have no problem treating thrown weapons as ammunition for the purposes of draw-and-fire. If you want something intermediate, I suggest darts. They are essentially cheaper daggers that are classed solely as missile weapons, and frankly ought to count as ammunition. I liken them more to throwing blades than pilum or atl-atl arrows (or lawn darts), but that's a matter of aesthetic.

[Tanarii]

Because D&D came from wargames, in which 100 archers made 1 ranged attack to determine if they eliminated an enemy unit, and 100 soldiers with swords did the same. (Which is also why hit points exist.)

Also because somewhere along the line, D&D moved from 1 minute rounds with 1 missile attack per round vs multiple melee attacks per round (but with only 1 effective attack) to 6-10 second rounds, with 1 missile attack or 1 (actual) melee attack. I think it was 2e combat & tactics that first made the change, off the top of my head.

Basically, because it's a game that was designed to be a very abstract game first, and then slowly turned into more of a simulation along the way. The rules have been adjusted over time to where they reached a balance point most DMs and players can accept, but there's no way it'll realistically represent any form of real world combat. The best we can hope for is balanced rules.

But yeah, I think thrown weapon users could use some love. OTOH if you make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire, maybe some ammunition limits would be in order. Or at least NPCs pointing and making fun of the guy with 10 daggers strapped to each bicep. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

It makes no sense for it to be easier and faster to reload a bow or cross bow than to palm another dagger. Range and damage are worse for daggers so why make the build even worse?

Because it's easier and faster to pick up an ammunition from a quiver, aim and shoot than to get your hand on your dagger, aim and throw it.



I'm just surprised they didn't treat thrown daggers as ammunition and as arrows or bolts. They actually went out of their way to make thrown weapons more complicated and worse.

Thrown daggers are daggers. You're throwing your weapon.

Thrown weapons are hardly practical. Even things like throwing spears were outclassed by bows pretty significantly.

DnD doesn't simulate real life combat, but it still tries to be internally coherent.

[Hrugner]

My group just decided to let you thow a weapon for each attack you can make and not strest over it.

That's a potential reading of the use an object action description that wouldn't require any change of rules. "You normally interact with an object as part of another action such as when you draw a sword to make an attack. When an object requires your action for it's use, you take the Use an Object action." Since a dagger requires an attack action for it's use, it doesn't require the use object action for it's use and can be drawn as part of an attack.

I'm not sure why the other interpretation is adhered to. It's not as if it says you draw a sword as part of an attack action.

[Tanarii]

That's a potential reading of the use an object action description that wouldn't require any change of rules. "You normally interact with an object as part of another action such as when you draw a sword to make an attack. When an object requires your action for it's use, you take the Use an Object action." Since a dagger requires an attack action for it's use, it doesn't require the use object action for it's use and can be drawn as part of an attack.

I'm not sure why the other interpretation is adhered to. It's not as if it says you draw a sword as part of an attack action.
Where are you finding this. Because this is what the basic rules says on p70, other activity on your turn:
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.


Edit: Oh, I see, you're reading the Use an Object (p72 in the basic rules). Well, unfortunately you're not reading all the rules on the subject. The rules are clear that interacting with a second object uses your action. (I don't think it's a bad house-rule though.)

[Sigreid]

Where are you finding this. Because this is what the basic rules says on p70, other activity on your turn:
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.


Edit: Oh, I see, you're reading the Use an Object (p72 in the basic rules). Well, unfortunately you're not reading all the rules on the subject. The rules are clear that interacting with a second object uses your action. (I don't think it's a bad house-rule though.)

In this case we agreed as a group that the text of the rules takes a back seat to coolness and playability when a player wanted to be a javelin thrower.

[Hrugner]

Where are you finding this. Because this is what the basic rules says on p70, other activity on your turn:
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.


Edit: Oh, I see, you're reading the Use an Object (p72 in the basic rules). Well, unfortunately you're not reading all the rules on the subject. The rules are clear that interacting with a second object uses your action. (I don't think it's a bad house-rule though.)

Blegh, I see, thank you. I blame the books format and take none of the blame. None of it!

[Sigreid]

To continue my hersey against the rules, if I had a 20 fighter with a hammer of thunderbolts, I would let him throw it 4 times a turn with its returning ability. Why? Because it let's him be too cool for school when using his class features and an item that took all of his attunement slots to use.

[Tanarii]

In this case we agreed as a group that the text of the rules takes a back seat to coolness and playability when a player wanted to be a javelin thrower.
I don't have a problem with that.

Other than Fighter, what classes or builds is this limitation on throwing likely to matter for? (Ignoring for a second the stupidity of Darts.)

[Sigreid]

I don't have a problem with that.

Other than Fighter, what classes or builds is this limitation on throwing likely to matter for? (Ignoring for a second the stupidity of Darts.)

Any of the 2 attack classes on the second round where they didn't have the javelin in hand at the start of their turn.

Edit : I'm not saying any table should or shouldn't do what we did. Just stating what my table does.

[Tanarii]

Edit : I'm not saying any table should or shouldn't do what we did. Just stating what my table does.Understood. On my part, I was trying to make clear I'm not casting any judgement on what your table does or doesn't do.

[Sigreid]

Understood. On my part, I was trying to make clear I'm not casting any judgement on what your table does or doesn't do.

I understood you as well. The edit was for those who seem to enjoy going round the twist. 😆

[Doug Lampert]

What I find very odd is that you can dual wield hand axes but you can't dual wield darts... I mean darts, really.

You are aware that historical "darts" used as weapons are basically smaller javelins, 1-2 feet with a lead weight to add to the impact and help it fly (air resistance is proportionally less for heavier objects).

They are quite a bit longer and about as heavy as hand axe (both usually less than a pound).

[Hrugner]

You are aware that historical "darts" used as weapons are basically smaller javelins, 1-2 feet with a lead weight to add to the impact and help it fly (air resistance is proportionally less for heavier objects).

They are quite a bit longer and about as heavy as hand axe (both usually less than a pound).

They're about twice as heavy as a bo shuriken made from modern materials, so I'd guess they're just bo shuriken made from steel. Lawn dart weight varies, but a wooden steel lawn dart like the Widdy weighs a quarter ounce, so that's an unlikely candidate. Kestros darts are about the same weight as a bo shuriken, but require the sling thing to use. I'm having trouble finding any javelin type weapons weighing less than a pound. Maybe a Falarica or one of those small fishing harpoons from emergency kits?

[da_chicken]

It makes no sense for it to be easier and faster to reload a bow or cross bow than to palm another dagger.

I agree. I recommend ignoring the rule about restricting the number of weapons you can draw in a round.

It's a bad rule. It's not realistic in any sense. It doesn't prevent anything abusive since neither thrown weapons nor two weapon fighting are particularly powerful. Necklace of fireballs already tells you it takes an action to use so I really question just what they're trying to restrict.

Don't make a feat for it. That's a waste of everybody's time. You don't need a feat to ignore a bad rule. Just ignore the rule that does nothing but restrict you from what everybody knows you should be able to do already. Just say that drawing readily accessible weapons is limited to the number of hands you have or attacks you can make.

[Toofey]

I've been playing that people get to throw as many as the number of attacks with weapons marked thrown and it's a whole action to throw a non-thrown weapon... In fact looking at my PHB I'm not sure how that isn't the RAW

can someone please enlighten me (in case I'm playing AL) also, what do people think of that, I haven't been requiring a feat or anything.

[Talionis]

Because it's easier and faster to pick up an ammunition from a quiver, aim and shoot than to get your hand on your dagger, aim and throw it.



Thrown daggers are daggers. You're throwing your weapon.

Thrown weapons are hardly practical. Even things like throwing spears were outclassed by bows pretty significantly.

DnD doesn't simulate real life combat, but it still tries to be internally coherent.

I'm sure you can load a crossbow or bow quickly, but I'm sure you can also pull out a throwing knife pretty darn quickly in real life. They might also have special pouches that work like quivers.

To some degree it's not even an issue because you can do more damage and at more range with a bow or crossbow so both are already better.

But it amazes me 5E in so many ways simplified 3.5 E and yet they seem to make throwing knives awful and complicated.

I can figure out house rules. My table just treats anything thrown as ranges and if you are in melee and keeping it in your hands it's melee. Archery works with thrown weapons. Dueling doesn't. We treat everything like ammunition.

I still really miss my Master Thrower which was basically a Battle Master with small changes.

I'm super curious why they expended the mental energy to nerf throwing weapons when they were already a worse version of Archery with no upside?

[EvilAnagram]

I'm sure you can load a crossbow or bow quickly
Point of order: you can't load a crossbow quickly. Professional soldiers whose lives depended on drawing that crossbow bolt could not load a crossbow in under a minute. Musketmen are Speedy Gonzales fast compared to the time it takes to load a crossbow capable of killing a human being. Drawing and throwing a knife is much, much faster.

[Talionis]

Point of order: you can't load a crossbow quickly. Professional soldiers whose lives depended on drawing that crossbow bolt could not load a crossbow in under a minute. Musketmen are Speedy Gonzales fast compared to the time it takes to load a crossbow capable of killing a human being. Drawing and throwing a knife is much, much faster.

Which is why the Chinese invented the repeating crossbow. So not all crossbows can be fired quickly.

[Maxilian]

But there is a feat that let you interact with 2 items in the same turn (so you can in theory work with it -Though it only work when taking out your weapons and not actually interact with items -So you will need a LOT of daggers-)

[Maxilian]

I've been playing that people get to throw as many as the number of attacks with weapons marked thrown and it's a whole action to throw a non-thrown weapon... In fact looking at my PHB I'm not sure how that isn't the RAW

can someone please enlighten me (in case I'm playing AL) also, what do people think of that, I haven't been requiring a feat or anything.

I think the detail comes after you throw them the first time, cause for the next time you will be able to interact with only 1 weapon (only being able to take out one of your daggers at a time, so next time, because of the lack of weapons, you will just be able to throw 1 dagger)

[Unoriginal]

I'm sure you can load a crossbow or bow quickly, but I'm sure you can also pull out a throwing knife pretty darn quickly in real life. They might also have special pouches that work like quivers.

Pretty sure as long as you're doing it once, you can draw one weapon for free.



To some degree it's not even an issue because you can do more damage and at more range with a bow or crossbow so both are already better.


Thrown weapons are for when you're using a melee weapon and needs to do a ranged attack too. They're not as good as regular ranged weapons, but they allow other reactions.



But it amazes me 5E in so many ways simplified 3.5 E and yet they seem to make throwing knives awful and complicated.

It didn't simplify 3.5. It's a simpler game that doesn't work like 3.5.



I'm super curious why they expended the mental energy to nerf throwing weapons when they were already a worse version of Archery with no upside?

They didn't nerf throwing weapons, they simply decided that it was not a very powerful thing. Same way they decided that punching wouldn't be very good as default.



I'm not really seeing what's so bad about thrown weapons, though. You can use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an attack with a bonus action.

A combatant could perfectly draw a dagger for free, throw it as a bonus action, and still attack with another weapon.

[Dudewithknives]

You are aware that historical "darts" used as weapons are basically smaller javelins, 1-2 feet with a lead weight to add to the impact and help it fly (air resistance is proportionally less for heavier objects).

They are quite a bit longer and about as heavy as hand axe (both usually less than a pound).

Only if you are in Europe, what you describe is more like a pilum or just a javelin, darts could easily just more shuriken like or essentially like throwing a 10 penny nail at someone.

However because ranged weapons can not have the light property, dual wielding throwing ranged weapons can't really work.

I played a rogue who was a dagger specialist for a long time. Worked fine, but then again not really a drawing issue with only 1 attack a turn under normal conditions.

[LordCdrMilitant]

What I find very odd is that you can dual wield hand axes but you can't dual wield darts... I mean darts, really.

Then again in 5th you can use a quarterstaff 1 handed and call it a polearm but a spear is not a polearm.

I solve it by making drawing a weapon part of the attack action.

The issue I hit is carrying all the weapons to throw considering there is no returning property except on one specific very expensive weapon.

I so want a Blinkback Belt.

It's easier to dual wield melee weapons than darts.

I've tried. [Never tried handaxes, though, but cut-and-thrust with two swords is doable. It's hard. Really hard.]

[brainface]

Point of order: throwing weapons were terrible in 3.5. They've not nerfed it from 3rd edition so much as continued the trend. ^^

(When I say they were terrible, I mean largely once you started needing magic weapons--throwing weapons returned at the end of the round, so you needed to buy a dagger for each iterative attack, and the returning property cost a +1 enhancement bonus, so they were more expensive, you needed the quick draw feat to do it at all, when you could just "use a bow" to ignore all this and deal more damage right off the bat. In 4e, I believe you could throw a single magic dagger as an area attack using the appropriate power, which may have strained credulity but you know, you could do it. I want to think it was also easier to do in 2e but I'm not familiar enough with the rules to say.)

[McNinja]

I don't think many people actually understand how quick both professional archers/knife throwers can draw, aim, and shoot/throw. It takes less than a second. The same way a professional shooter can draw a pistol and shoot in less than a second, and hit a watermelon sized-target from 20 yards.

I've always assumed that if you were using throwing weapons, you'd just draw and throw in the same attack, because when throwing knives, you're literally just extending your arm, especially if you're throwing underhand.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I don't think many people actually understand how quick both professional archers/knife throwers can draw, aim, and shoot/throw. It takes less than a second. The same way a professional shooter can draw a pistol and shoot in less than a second, and hit a watermelon sized-target from 20 yards.

I've always assumed that if you were using throwing weapons, you'd just draw and throw in the same attack, because when throwing knives, you're literally just extending your arm, especially if you're throwing underhand.

I'm not a professional archer, and it takes me more than more than a minute to fire a 6-arrow end. However, as I understand it, the in-battle sustained fire rate for longbowmen was around a minute for 6 arrows, upwards to 12 / minute for short periods.

I've never thrown knives, though.

[Talionis]

3.5 master Thrower had Palm Throw trick that allowed attacking twice for each attack iteration. Then all you needed were good ways to increase your damage per attack.

[JBPuffin]

I'm not really seeing what's so bad about thrown weapons, though. You can use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an attack with a bonus action.

A combatant could perfectly draw a dagger for free, throw it as a bonus action, and still attack with another weapon.

It's a cool rule. If I wasn't playing a melee-loving character, I might do more of this.

I'd love a way to use hand crossbow like this, even if it's​ only, like, within 20 feet. I made it a fighting style for a shadow-based class I wrote.

[StorytellerHero]

It may be important to note that drawing and nocking an arrow in a stationary position against a stationary target is going to be much faster than the typical move-and-fire/shoot-at-moving-targets dynamic of what one might usually see in DnD combat.

[Talionis]

Point of order: throwing weapons were terrible in 3.5. They've not nerfed it from 3rd edition so much as continued the trend. ^^

(When I say they were terrible, I mean largely once you started needing magic weapons--throwing weapons returned at the end of the round, so you needed to buy a dagger for each iterative attack, and the returning property cost a +1 enhancement bonus, so they were more expensive, you needed the quick draw feat to do it at all, when you could just "use a bow" to ignore all this and deal more damage right off the bat. In 4e, I believe you could throw a single magic dagger as an area attack using the appropriate power, which may have strained credulity but you know, you could do it. I want to think it was also easier to do in 2e but I'm not familiar enough with the rules to say.)

I think I agree on relative power level in 3.5, they were underpowered, but they could be optimized to be playable in most games.

In 5E they have really nerfed them to be virtually unplayable. I can see no way to optimize other than Rogue.

Whether or not thrown weapons are realistically good people do enjoy playing throwers and if magic is real in game then throwers could be a thing.

[Unoriginal]

In 5E they have really nerfed them to be virtually unplayable. I can see no way to optimize other than Rogue.

Whether or not thrown weapons are realistically good people do enjoy playing throwers and if magic is real in game then throwers could be a thing.

One, it's not nerfing.

Two, why do you think that thrown weapons are that bad?

[Logosloki]

The issue I had with darts as a weapon in this edition is that there are two darts that come to people's minds - the lawn dart (the one you throw at the pub after a few pints about 15cm long and weighs like a sparrow, if that) and the plumbata (half a metre to a metre long with a weighted head and an arrow tail). For reference a Pilum, the Roman Javelin is about 2m in length and the Olympic Javelin from memory is 2.5m in length.

The DMG lists the shuriken as a dart in the wuxia conversion guide so I would suspect that wotc might have been thinking about lawn dart sized darts when they made the darts category. I'd probably list the Plumbata as a Javelin, even though it isn't really one as such.

[EvilAnagram]

In 5E they have really nerfed them to be virtually unplayable. I can see no way to optimize other than Rogue.

Beast Master and Beast Conclave Rangers both have only one attack. If you want it to be thrown, have at it.

[Unoriginal]

Beast Master and Beast Conclave Rangers both have only one attack. If you want it to be thrown, have at it.

You can literally have a thrown attack for free.

[hymer]

You can literally have a thrown attack for free.

Is that the non-literal interpretation of 'literal'?

[Talionis]

One, it's not nerfing.

Two, why do you think that thrown weapons are that bad?

You'd be hurting your team using one or two medium range attacks per round with fairly low damage and almost no way to increase that damage. Most characters have ways to increase damage at level 5 and 11. Most of those don't work well with thrown weapons.

It's nerfed from 3.5 where it was far from optimal but optimizable to acceptable levels.

Two ways this edition seem to allow thrown weapons, Rogue Sneak Attack and a back up for melee fighters to hit something melee and then hit something else not real close.

[Unoriginal]

Is that the non-literal interpretation of 'literal'?

Nah, it's the literal one.

You can get your thrown weapon in hand for free. You are now two-weapon fighting. When you use the Attack action in such a way, you can do one more attack with your second weapon, and throw it if it's a thrown weapon.

Ergo, you can start your turn with only one weapon in hand, do your attack, and throw a thrown weapon for no added cost.

[hymer]

Nah, it's the literal one.

You can get your thrown weapon in hand for free. You are now two-weapon fighting. When you use the Attack action in such a way, you can do one more attack with your second weapon, and throw it if it's a thrown weapon.

Ergo, you can start your turn with only one weapon in hand, do your attack, and throw a thrown weapon for no added cost.

Well doesn't that cost your free item interaction and your bonus action? Okay, the first one's free (if you'll pardon the pun).

[Unoriginal]

Well doesn't that cost your free item interaction and your bonus action? Okay, the first one's free (if you'll pardon the pun).

Fair enough, it costs you your bonus action. So not literally free.