Gruftzwerg
2021-03-01, 12:51 AM
This is a discussion that emerged in the defensive fighter thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625928-Defensive-Fighter). I would highly recommend to read it to have an overview of the discussion so far. the topic comes up around post #28 and the discussion gets in full motion at page 2.
"It's about melee weapons which have a range increment and thus can be thrown"
"Do they count as ranged weapon per 3.5 rules?"
My intention here is to showchase how the Primary Source Rule (and its byproduct "Specific beats General") connect the rules in 3.5 together. But as it seems we have different views about that in the community.
Thus I would like anybody interested to join this "friendly" conversation. We may have different opinions here, but we argue for the sake of RAW and are not arguing here to get emotional/angry.
And just because we argue what RAW is, that doesn't mean that anybody advises you to play RAW.
So pls don't get the wrong impressions here ;)
_____________________________________________
I'll start where we stopped and thus will quote Darg's last reply:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line
of sight.
There is no permission to make a ranged attack with a melee weapon. There is no text that says a thrown melee weapon becomes a ranged weapon to qualify for making ranged attacks. One can not make a ranged attack with a melee weapon without a third party such as the Throw Anything feat.
"Reading between the lines" to come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense to everyone else when the alternative is perfectly functional and has no dysfunction within the rules without requiring permission from the player rather than the rules themselves doesn't make sense. We have pointed out flaws with your argument and presented counter arguments where the foundation has yet to be challenged in any significant way.
Good to know that you have still problems with Specific beats General (but doesn't become General). Those melee weapons that "can" be thrown call this out and as such give you the permission to "use" em as thrown weapon in combat (make ranged attacks). But that's it. It doesn't allow for enhancements to target em as thrown weapon.
Compare it with Shields. They also allow to be used as weapon. And they call out a specific rule exception that lets them also be enchanted as weapon. Do those melee weapons that can be thrown make any similar call? No.
The rules do call out thrown weapons being ranged weapons in several places. Ones which have been quoted in this very thread. The book even provides a definition for one to use at the back of the book. If the only result of presenting this evidence is being slapped in the face with primary source logic that ignores topic precedence , a discussion cannot be had.
You quoted the "general" definition of "ranged attacks". But its the definition of "melee weapons" that some can be "used to be thrown" (specific). This is further specified by the definition of those weapons and reflected by their range increment in the weapons table, despite them being categorized as melee weapons. That allows those melee weapons to be thrown. But nowhere do the rules give you the permission to treat em as "ranged weapon". Just because you can use something for a thrown weapon attack doesn't turn it into a "thrown weapon" by 3.5 definitions.
Those weapons are clearly defined as melee weapons by the weapons list and only have the specific permission to be thrown in combat. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as said: the primary source is the "weapons" section in the PHB and sets the rules. Any quotes from any other source is "specific" and can only alter rules for its niche. They don't become global rules. Imagine again my real life example: Just because a broken bottle can be used as "weapon" to harm someone (specific), you don't get sued for breaking a bottle by accident (a general situation) for possessing a weapon.
As such, melee weapons that can be thrown are not "ranged weapons".
"It's about melee weapons which have a range increment and thus can be thrown"
"Do they count as ranged weapon per 3.5 rules?"
My intention here is to showchase how the Primary Source Rule (and its byproduct "Specific beats General") connect the rules in 3.5 together. But as it seems we have different views about that in the community.
Thus I would like anybody interested to join this "friendly" conversation. We may have different opinions here, but we argue for the sake of RAW and are not arguing here to get emotional/angry.
And just because we argue what RAW is, that doesn't mean that anybody advises you to play RAW.
So pls don't get the wrong impressions here ;)
_____________________________________________
I'll start where we stopped and thus will quote Darg's last reply:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line
of sight.
There is no permission to make a ranged attack with a melee weapon. There is no text that says a thrown melee weapon becomes a ranged weapon to qualify for making ranged attacks. One can not make a ranged attack with a melee weapon without a third party such as the Throw Anything feat.
"Reading between the lines" to come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense to everyone else when the alternative is perfectly functional and has no dysfunction within the rules without requiring permission from the player rather than the rules themselves doesn't make sense. We have pointed out flaws with your argument and presented counter arguments where the foundation has yet to be challenged in any significant way.
Good to know that you have still problems with Specific beats General (but doesn't become General). Those melee weapons that "can" be thrown call this out and as such give you the permission to "use" em as thrown weapon in combat (make ranged attacks). But that's it. It doesn't allow for enhancements to target em as thrown weapon.
Compare it with Shields. They also allow to be used as weapon. And they call out a specific rule exception that lets them also be enchanted as weapon. Do those melee weapons that can be thrown make any similar call? No.
The rules do call out thrown weapons being ranged weapons in several places. Ones which have been quoted in this very thread. The book even provides a definition for one to use at the back of the book. If the only result of presenting this evidence is being slapped in the face with primary source logic that ignores topic precedence , a discussion cannot be had.
You quoted the "general" definition of "ranged attacks". But its the definition of "melee weapons" that some can be "used to be thrown" (specific). This is further specified by the definition of those weapons and reflected by their range increment in the weapons table, despite them being categorized as melee weapons. That allows those melee weapons to be thrown. But nowhere do the rules give you the permission to treat em as "ranged weapon". Just because you can use something for a thrown weapon attack doesn't turn it into a "thrown weapon" by 3.5 definitions.
Those weapons are clearly defined as melee weapons by the weapons list and only have the specific permission to be thrown in combat. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as said: the primary source is the "weapons" section in the PHB and sets the rules. Any quotes from any other source is "specific" and can only alter rules for its niche. They don't become global rules. Imagine again my real life example: Just because a broken bottle can be used as "weapon" to harm someone (specific), you don't get sued for breaking a bottle by accident (a general situation) for possessing a weapon.
As such, melee weapons that can be thrown are not "ranged weapons".