Dwarven thrower?

[Aussiehams]

G'day all.
I think my DM is going to give my Pally a dwarven thrower. This is a cool item, but it seems like a bit of a trap for a paladin.
They work best when thrown, but if used at range you can't smite with it.
Is that right?

[nickl_2000]

That is correct that you can only smite with a melee weapon attack, but it is still a +3 weapons when you aren't throwing it... That is nothing to scoff at.

Frankly that's a sweet weapon because it gives you Paladin something to do when you can't quite reach your target or when you are running out of smite spells. Also Banishing and Branding Smite are weapons attacks, not specifically melee weapon attacks. Also, your improved divine smite says when you hit with a "melee weapon" and a warhammer is a melee weapon, even if it has the thrown property.

So, there are lots of times you can use it and use it very well.

[TyGuy]

I think a reasonable house rule could be allowing for divine smite on ranged attacks if they're called before the attack roll. Meaning they could actually waste the slot on a miss.

[Dalebert]

I think a reasonable house rule could be allowing for divine smite on ranged attacks if they're called before the attack roll. Meaning they could actually waste the slot on a miss.

Eh. "Reasonable" is subjective of course but I disagree. Divine smites are already really good and not intended to be a ranged option. As was pointed out, branding smite and banishing smite already exist as very decent thrown options.

[TyGuy]

Eh. "Reasonable" is subjective of course but I disagree. Divine smites are already really good and not intended to be a ranged option. As was pointed out, branding smite and banishing smite already exist as very decent thrown options.
Technically one could almost rules lawyer it as RAW already

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. if it's interpreted as [melee weapon] attack instead of melee [weapon attack].

Any ways, the range on the thrower is 20'/60', and there's the hefty risk of wasting a slot on a miss which the spells and melee smite don't suffer. Hardly broken imo.

[Trickery]

That is correct that you can only smite with a melee weapon attack, but it is still a +3 weapons when you aren't throwing it... That is nothing to scoff at.

Frankly that's a sweet weapon because it gives you Paladin something to do when you can't quite reach your target or when you are running out of smite spells. Also Banishing and Branding Smite are weapons attacks, not specifically melee weapon attacks. Also, your improved divine smite says when you hit with a "melee weapon" and a warhammer is a melee weapon, even if it has the thrown property.

So, there are lots of times you can use it and use it very well.

Good observations. And yeah, I'd be pretty happy to get this on a Paladin.

[GlenSmash!]

Not a trap, but not as useful as it would be on a Fighter.

[Bjarkmundur]

I allow Ranged Smites, using d6 instead of d8. I think Kane0 had the idea.

It allows ranged smites, but it's a less efficient use for a spell slot, so a player won't over use it. Why deal 4d6 when you can deal 4d8 instead? The only reason to do so is for a tactical advantage (hit a priority target you can't reach, for example) which is exactly the style of play I feel is worth encouraging. Don't deal damage just for damage; try to find the best way to solve the conflict, such as cutting the head of a snake, or stopping the ritual, instead of just bashing what ever's close to you.