Thrown Fighting Style lets you draw the weapon at part of a melee attack

[Greywander]

As long as the weapon has the thrown property, you can draw it as part of the attack, even if you're not throwing it.

Discuss.

One possible use I see is with a Soulknife, who might like to throw their psychic blades, but might occasionally need to draw a real dagger (e.g. to make OAs).
This can also let you draw the weapon when you attack and then sheathe it afterwards (e.g. if you need your hands free for spellcasting). (I've seen it argued that by RAW you're not limited on the number of interactions, only the number of items you can interact with, so drawing and sheathing the same weapon on the same turn should be fine. Not entirely sure I believe this, but with the fighting style we don't have to worry about it.)

[Kane0]

It enrages me anew every time i hear and thus think about it.

Drawing a bullet, an arrow or a bolt cost you nothing. I dont see why the same should not apply to darts or other weapons you are gping to throw.

And if it WAS an honest oversight on the part of the devs that’s fine, we can correct mistakes. Thats what errata and updates are for.
Placing that correction as part of a fighting style and making it functionally a tax I heavily object to.

Edit: To your point more precisely, yes that is a nice benefit. I'm not sure how much it benefit it would practically be, but being able to sheathe things freely without dropping them would be useful for when you need a free hand to cast a spell, grapple a goon, catch a rope, etc.

[Hytheter]

And if it WAS an honest oversight on the part of the devs that’s fine, we can correct mistakes. Thats what errata and updates are for.

That would require them to admit that they were wrong. 9_9

[Kane0]

That would require them to admit that they were wrong. 9_9

The existence of errata, revisions of items like the Bladesinger and Artificer between releases, the DND Next Playtest and ongoing UA proves that they are capable of it in some form.

But yeah, often the really roundabout way they go about it is far more annoying than simply ignoring it. Look at the poor Ranger for example.

[Greywander]

Honestly I'm having a hard time remembering when errata made the game better (aside from fixing some obvious bugs). I'm still salty about one-handed ranged weapons needing a second hand to reload; like what was the point of making them one-handed in the first place? And Tasha's took BB/GFB from having a couple of questionable interactions to outright not working as intended.

Okay, I can think of a couple good changes after all. Tasha's clarified that artificers need to hold a tool or infused item for all their spells because all their spells now have a material component, which the tool can be used as. Previously, they had to hold a tool or infused item when casting any of their spells, even if the spell didn't have a material component. First of all, spell foci don't normally need to be held, so long as you have a free hand to access them. Second, a hand holding a spell focus is not a free hand, and thus can't be used for somatic components if the spell doesn't also have material components. Third, a spell focus can't replace costly components, and yet the artificer still had to hold a tool in one hand, meaning they needed a second hand free for handling the costly materials (reminder that artificers get shield proficiency, so having two hands free is unlikely). It was dumb and stupid and I'm glad they changed it.

Letting Bladesingers replace an attack with a cantrip is also interesting. It's just so rare that they buff something, they almost always nerf the fun out of things. I'd hazard to say that errata might be about 70% just clarifying that it works exactly the way you thought it did or was supposed to, 28% nerfing things to make them less fun, and 2% buffing things to make them more fun. Don't get me wrong, sometimes a nerf is needed, but it's almost always not fun, and they have a tendency to nerf things that didn't need it.

[Hytheter]

Letting Bladesingers replace an attack with a cantrip is also interesting.

I'm upset that they gave it to Bladesinger instead of Eldritch Knight, personally.

[P. G. Macer]

I'm upset that they gave it to Bladesinger instead of Eldritch Knight, personally.

While it makes sense for Eldritch Knights to have it, EKs get Extra Attack from the Fighter base class (while Bladesingers get it from their subclass), so it’s harder to patch in. You could add it to the War Magic feature at 7th level, but that still leaves a gap that Bladesingers don’t have. I’m not sure there is an elegant way to give Eldritch Knights Bladesinger-style Extra Attack, even with errata, without applying it to the Fighter base class itself.

[MaxWilson]

While it makes sense for Eldritch Knights to have it, EKs get Extra Attack from the Fighter base class (while Bladesingers get it from their subclass), so it’s harder to patch in. You could add it to the War Magic feature at 7th level, but that still leaves a gap that Bladesingers don’t have. I’m not sure there is an elegant way to give Eldritch Knights Bladesinger-style Extra Attack, even with errata, without applying it to the Fighter base class itself.

It's not hard to patch it - - just grant it to EKs at third level. It won't do anything until they get Extra Attack at 5th level.

[DwarfFighter]

It enrages me anew every time i hear and thus think about it.

Drawing a bullet, an arrow or a bolt cost you nothing. I dont see why the same should not apply to darts or other weapons you are gping to throw.

And if it WAS an honest oversight on the part of the devs that’s fine, we can correct mistakes. Thats what errata and updates are for.
Placing that correction as part of a fighting style and making it functionally a tax I heavily object to.


I agree that it is weird that you cannot draw two hand axes to use as melee weapons, but with this fighting style you can draw two or more of them for throwing. I can't imagine what sort of technique a character might have developed where drawing and throwing a weapon is more effective than drawing and not throwing!

Personally I house rule that throwing a weapon doesn't count for the "interact with one object" part of the rules. If you want to use thrown weapons you need one hand free, and you can throw as many weapons as you can make attacks. If you are already holding another item in both hands you will need to use your "interact with one object" to stow it, or get rid of it, or otherwise free up your hand.

To accommodate this new fighting style I figure I can house rule that to allow you to start and end your action with stowing and retrieving the same held object. We'll see if it ever becomes an issue.

-DF

[Cybren]

It's not hard to patch it - - just grant it to EKs at third level. It won't do anything until they get Extra Attack at 5th level.

If you could always swap one of your attacks, even if it is your only attack, it would also let you use a blade cantrip with things conditional on the attack action and not just the attack, so it would do marginally something.

[Greywander]

I can't imagine what sort of technique a character might have developed where drawing and throwing a weapon is more effective than drawing and not throwing!
I think people might have missed the entire point of this thread: you don't need to throw the weapons to draw them as part of the attack. The only requirements are (a) the weapon has the thrown property, and (b) you're attacking with the weapon. For example, a rogue who makes an OA while their hands are empty could draw a dagger and attack with it, and still have the dagger in their hand on their next turn.

[Kane0]

Yes more on topic, that's good for people that want a hand free to cast spells, grapple, use items, or interact with the environment mid-combat

[Thunderous Mojo]

I think people might have missed the entire point of this thread: you don't need to throw the weapons to draw them as part of the attack. The only requirements are (a) the weapon has the thrown property, and (b) you're attacking with the weapon. For example, a rogue who makes an OA while their hands are empty could draw a dagger and attack with it, and still have the dagger in their hand on their next turn.
Likewise a character with the GWM and Polearm Master feats and Extra Attack potentially could attack with a Greatsword once, then drop the Greatsword, and draw a spear and attack, setting up using the spear and the second bullet point of the PAM feat

Just as "Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government", I'm equally unsure being able to freely draw weapons with the Thrown Property to use in melee is a solid basis to develop a character around.

It is a nice, flavorful addition, that has niche uses, but the most powerful thrown weapons are the Trident and Spear. I'm not immediately thinking of a a way to use the Fighting Style in a way that alters how Nets typically function.

A Path of Wild Magic Barbarian that acquired the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style could potentially use the Fighting Style to Dual Wield two Greatswords if they happen to get the number four result on the subclass' Wild Magic table.

While cool, again I am not sure I would base a character around such an unpredictable occurrence.

Fair warning, if you take the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style, some Wag might call you a 'Tosser'.

[JonBeowulf]

Fair warning, if you take the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style, some Wag might call you a 'Tosser'.

I will now, thanks.

[Greywander]

Apparently an older edition had a Throw Anything feat (Tavern Brawler fills that gap in 5e, I guess). I remember hearing a story where the bard had an ability that let him conjure instruments, so he summoned a giant gong. The barbarian, who had the Throw Anything feat, then picked up and threw the gong at a dragon they were fighting. While the paladin was standing on top of it (for some reason). I forget the exact details of the story, but IIRC the paladin argued that since he was riding the gong, he could treat it like a mount. I don't remember what ability the paladin used, but the gong ended up decapitating the dragon.

Anyway, while it's limited to weapons that can be thrown (another reason why everyone should carry a dagger or two), the ability to draw a weapon as part the attack is pretty neat, if not super useful outside of actually throwing the weapon. It can let you draw two weapons without the feat, or allow you to use your item interaction for something else (such as putting the weapon away to keep your hands free). It's pretty niche, but it does let you cheat the action economy, and there aren't a lot of ways to do that.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I agree that the 'free draw' is a nice addition. In 1e I had a Bard character that used thrown daggers as their main attack. (Bards in 1e started as Fighters, then at a certain level switched classes to Thief, and then later finished up as a Druid).

I enjoyed that character immensely, so I appreciate thrown weapons in general.

Monks and Barbarians, I think, could derive some value from the Fighting Style. A 5th level Monk/ 7th level Psi Warrior could Stunning Strike and TK Thrust with any simple thrown weapon, allowing the PC to knock something prone or push it 10' from a distance of 30'.

I suspect quite a few tables already allow PCs to draw Thrown weapons as part of the Attack action already, without need for a Fighting Style or Feat.

It sucks to tell a player with a Paladin that only has javelins as their ranged option, that essentially they can only make one attack, even if they have the Extra Attack feature, due to what seems to the player to be a point of rules minutia.

I've certainly 'forgotten' to enforce this bit of RAW, a few times...so the player doesn't feel frustrated.

[MaxWilson]

I suspect quite a few tables already allow PCs to draw Thrown weapons as part of the Attack action already, without need for a Fighting Style or Feat.

It sucks to tell a player with a Paladin that only has javelins as their ranged option, that essentially they can only make one attack, even if they have the Extra Attack feature, due to what seems to the player to be a point of rules minutia.

I've certainly 'forgotten' to enforce this bit of RAW, a few times...so the player doesn't feel frustrated.

Yep. Since I let spellcasters manipulate items from a component pouch (eye of newt) without charging an item interaction, as part of Cast A Spell, it seems only fair to allow dagger drawing as part of an Attack action, without charging an object interaction.

[DwarfFighter]

I think people might have missed the entire point of this thread: you don't need to throw the weapons to draw them as part of the attack. The only requirements are (a) the weapon has the thrown property, and (b) you're attacking with the weapon. For example, a rogue who makes an OA while their hands are empty could draw a dagger and attack with it, and still have the dagger in their hand on their next turn.

While that is correct, it is still weird that this fighting style means you are better at both drawing weapons and throwing/striking with them, than you you are with just drawing the weapon and... just holding it.


-DF

[Thunderous Mojo]

Yep. Since I let spellcasters manipulate items from a component pouch (eye of newt) without charging an item interaction, as part of Cast A Spell,
I run it the same way.

I'm ok with spellcasters being able to open doors and hurl spells. 🧙🏻