D&D 5E Throwing Weapons is Cool! So why is it weak?

[Voi_D_ragon]

Nah, they still suck. It's the ranges. Essentially, a javelin's short range is the same distance easily closable by a melee opponent, meaning they're useful only if you'd rather make a single thrown attack of prof+DEX, usually a weak stat for those resorting to thrown weapons, rather than finish closing to the target. Other thrown weapons are worse (20 ft short range). Heck, daggers' long range is a single move + dash for just about everything.

So, to the OP a feat that improves thrown weapons:

1) the thrower can draw a thrown weapon as part of an attack.
2) the thrower doubles the short range of the weapon when making an attack (eg, javeline 60' short, daggers 20' short). No change to long range.
3) the thrower can use STR in place of DEX for attack or DEX in place of STR for damage (for all cases where this may not be the case).

There, the standard 3 bits and they make thrown weapons slighter more attractive.

Thank you for this, first thing. Second, what if instead of modifying the ranges of the weapons themselves we added a movement component to throwing weapons as an attack: either you may move 5 ft per attack/move half your speed after you use the attack action and attack only with thrown weapons/slow down any creature you hit with thrown weapons for 1 turn? (or maybe limited to 1 creature/round).

Also, would a feat like this (either the version above or with my modifications/anyone else's) be attractive enough to anyone (apart from a thrown weapon fan simply looking for any way to not make his build suck) that they would "waste" an ASI on it to get the feat?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you for this, first thing. Second, what if instead of modifying the ranges of the weapons themselves we added a movement component to throwing weapons as an attack: either you may move 5 ft per attack/move half your speed after you use the attack action and attack only with thrown weapons/slow down any creature you hit with thrown weapons for 1 turn? (or maybe limited to 1 creature/round).

Also, would a feat like this (either the version above or with my modifications/anyone else's) be attractive enough to anyone (apart from a thrown weapon fan simply looking for any way to not make his build suck) that they would "waste" an ASI on it to get the feat?

A fighter might. Getting a 60' ranged attack with javelins based on STR for attack and damage isn't negligible. Given that a big issue with melee types is missed attack opportunities due to not being in range to make an melee attack, the ease of use and bump to effectiveness should be good. I have a battlemaster in my game that would jump at this feat, and that's after I houseruled it that drawing was part of the attack already. My next game will run something similar to this.*

*the battlemaster character is actually the first time I was confronted with just how bad thrown weapons were, so I'm late to the game and applied a patch. On consideration, I've come up with the above.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Nah, they still suck. It's the ranges. Essentially, a javelin's short range is the same distance easily closable by a melee opponent, meaning they're useful only if you'd rather make a single thrown attack of prof+DEX, usually a weak stat for those resorting to thrown weapons, rather than finish closing to the target. Other thrown weapons are worse (20 ft short range). Heck, daggers' long range is a single move + dash for just about everything.

That's not unrealistic though. They're most useful for those situations where you want flexibility. Hence backup.

So, to the OP a feat that improves thrown weapons:

1) the thrower can draw a thrown weapon as part of an attack.
2) the thrower doubles the short range of the weapon when making an attack (eg, javeline 60' short, daggers 20' short). No change to long range.
3) the thrower can use STR in place of DEX for attack or DEX in place of STR for damage (for all cases where this may not be the case).

There, the standard 3 bits and they make thrown weapons slighter more attractive.

For the third option, I'd suggest something more along the lines of being able to throw weapons while within 5ft of an opponent without suffering disadvantage. The advantage of thrown weapons is that they are generally melee weapons with the extra versatility of having a ranged option, so playing up to their unique properties seems more appropriate. You can already choose to use either Str or Dex simply by your choice of weapon.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Recall that javelins are melee weapons, so you use your Strength on the attack and damage rolls. Javelins primarily exist to give a ranged option to high-Strength melee types.

(Daggers are melee weapons, so you would normally use Strength when you throw them, but the finesse property allows you to throw them with Dexterity instead.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've been seriously considering a house rule (I hear its actually not uncommon) to allow thrown weapons to be drawn as part of the attack. Just like ammunition.

I do that. I don't even consider it a house-rule though, since all it takes is not being super-strict about the object interaction rules and I am already doing that just to stop players wasting time figuring out whether they have to drop X or if they can put X back in its place while still doing Y.

I mean, who *doesn't* want to play Navajas (Danny Trejo's wickedly cool assassin from Desperado)?

I don't want to play any bad-guy character that Danny Trejo has ever played - they are all guaranteed to die, and it's usually brutal. I'll play Machete though.

 

[Corwin]

I don't want to play any bad-guy character that Danny Trejo has ever played - they are all guaranteed to die, and it's usually brutal. I'll play Machete though.

To me, in an RPG, it's not so much whether my PC dies. But *how*, if he does. I'll take a brutal, awesome death, any day, as long as it made for good story.

 

[Igwilly]

To me, in an RPG, it's not so much whether my PC dies. But *how*, if he does. I'll take a brutal, awesome death, any day, as long as it made for good story.

Epic death is cool. My main villains will always die in some epic scene, no matter what the rules say.

 

[cmad1977]

I've been seriously considering a house rule (I hear its actually not uncommon) to allow thrown weapons to be drawn as part of the attack. Just like ammunition.

That's my default. I didn't realize this was 'against the rules'. I just imagine if someone's using javelins in combat they're kinda prepared to use more than 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To me, in an RPG, it's not so much whether my PC dies. But *how*, if he does. I'll take a brutal, awesome death, any day, as long as it made for good story.

I agree, right up until the point of it being absolutely certain that death or otherwise massive failure will happen - and that's what is true of Danny Trejo playing bad guys. He's said that he tries to show younger audiences that bad guys die or end up in prison, so they should try to live a decent life.

With an RPG, I'd rather leave it more up to the dice than that.

 

[Mad_Jack]

Y'know, even as far back as AD&D I don't think I ever followed the rules for drawing thrown weapons...

My "houserule" has always been that you can draw and throw as many thrown weapons as you have attacks - with the corollary being that all the thrown weapons have to be easily accessible, and the corollary to that being that it's fairly obvious to onlookers and opponents that such weapons are being worn/carried in a manner that makes them easily drawn and thrown - much like the Danny Trejo pic above, such weapons would be carried in a bandolier, tucked into specially-made bracers or hanging from a belt, etc. One of my 4E rangers had a special "gunfighter's rig" she wore that had three throwing axes holstered on the front of each thigh (I actually thought of making one for myself - even I could easily pull and throw three axes in six seconds with it).


I'd definitely agree about the first two bullet points of the proposed feat...
For the third, perhaps you might remove the penalty for being lightly obscured by cover or other creatures.