Throwing Weapon Return

[Hypersmurf]

I admit that this interpretation is not supported by Cust Serv's answer in the FAQ.

So the book says A, the FAQ says B, and it's fair to assume that what they meant was C?

I confess I'm not seeing it myself...

-Hyp.

 

[yu gnomi]

I don't know precisely what they meant wrt your questions. I am fairly sure that they meant to override the PHB. The ricochet interpretation is mine, and I wasn't trying to imply that it was from WOTC.

I probably should have said it would be fair for a DM to assume that the weapon ricochets.

 

[DLichen]

Once again I have to advocate separating rule terminology from flavor in this case. The game book uses attack to mean attack rolls and attack power interchangeably, it is probably best to avoid an interpretation of attack that would break the rules on a case by case basis.

I personally believe that attack on divine challenge implies attack power since attack rolls just breaks too much of the flavor of the power (fireballs suddenly hurting wizards unless they target paladins only, etc.) and that splitting it up on a power by power basis is just clumsy and leads to messy situations.

Any power that is close blast should imply that the one attack, no matter how it occurs in flavor since flavor can change and changing the flavor should change the rules to a minimal extent unless otherwise desired, should not trigger divine challenge if it includes the paladin.

This makes the returning function an area for DMs and players to design by themselves on the merit of the weapon while keeping play simple. Since a dagger that flies like Captain America's shield can function the same in combat as a dagger that magically splits into shadow copies when thrown without causing any headaches.