D&D 5E Throwing Weapons is Cool! So why is it weak?
Salamandyr
Adventurer
It is weak because of the direction that high level damage for warriors went.
At one point, in the play tests, they experimented with fighters (and by extension barbarians paladins and other warrior types, but I can't remember if they were in the playtest yet) rolling mulitple damage dice as they went up in level rather than making multiple attacks.
However, people like to make multiple attacks. It lets the split their damage; it lets them roll more dice. It lets them take more time on their turn so they aren't taking 30 seconds to finish their turns and then waiting 15 minutes while the DM adjudicates the effects of the wizards spell.
That's great; multiple attacks are fun, and they are the traditional way for warrior types to appear superior to other classes at fighting in D&D--so tradition.
However, this advantage becomes a negative when you can't either a) justify re-using the same weapon over and over again to make multiple attacks, or b) you can't justify pulling out ammo like it's a semiautomatic to fire, from a verisimilitude standpoint.
You've got a couple options--scrap verisimilitude and let players carry javelins in 20 packs like arrows, drawing and throwing them as necessary. Or you could come up with an option where thrown weapons work like cantrips, and you roll multiple weapon dice at 5th, 11th, 17th level (or whatever levels correspond). Unless you beef up their dice (say 2 more dice at each threshold), they'll still be weaker than bows, but they won't feel quite so much like wasted time.
The other thing to look at is the really paltry range, where thrown weapons are for all intents and purposes, melee weapons. For this, I'd actually recommend lowering the short range for bows & crossbows (keeping the long range the same, just bringing the point where you're rolling w/disadvantage closer) as a favor to thrown weapon afficianados and melee guys.
At one point, in the play tests, they experimented with fighters (and by extension barbarians paladins and other warrior types, but I can't remember if they were in the playtest yet) rolling mulitple damage dice as they went up in level rather than making multiple attacks.
However, people like to make multiple attacks. It lets the split their damage; it lets them roll more dice. It lets them take more time on their turn so they aren't taking 30 seconds to finish their turns and then waiting 15 minutes while the DM adjudicates the effects of the wizards spell.
That's great; multiple attacks are fun, and they are the traditional way for warrior types to appear superior to other classes at fighting in D&D--so tradition.
However, this advantage becomes a negative when you can't either a) justify re-using the same weapon over and over again to make multiple attacks, or b) you can't justify pulling out ammo like it's a semiautomatic to fire, from a verisimilitude standpoint.
You've got a couple options--scrap verisimilitude and let players carry javelins in 20 packs like arrows, drawing and throwing them as necessary. Or you could come up with an option where thrown weapons work like cantrips, and you roll multiple weapon dice at 5th, 11th, 17th level (or whatever levels correspond). Unless you beef up their dice (say 2 more dice at each threshold), they'll still be weaker than bows, but they won't feel quite so much like wasted time.
The other thing to look at is the really paltry range, where thrown weapons are for all intents and purposes, melee weapons. For this, I'd actually recommend lowering the short range for bows & crossbows (keeping the long range the same, just bringing the point where you're rolling w/disadvantage closer) as a favor to thrown weapon afficianados and melee guys.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
One last thing...
Make all weapons throwable. No feats. You just do it.
Why?
Cuz it's cool.
Make all weapons throwable. No feats. You just do it.
Why?
Cuz it's cool.
mellored
Legend
Thrown weapons don't actually work that well in real life, so there's that. But given that wiggling your fingers with some bat guano works even less, I feel we might at well allow the fantasy.
IMO:
Thrower
*You can add your proficiency bonus when throwing a weapon or improvised weapon.
*You can freely pick up or draw any object as part of the same action or attack you throw it with.
*If you throw a magical thrown weapon that you are attuned to, you can instantly summon it to your hand with no action, potentially attacking with it multiple times in the same turn.
*As a bonus action, you can make a single ranged attack with a thrown weapon.
IMO:
Thrower
*You can add your proficiency bonus when throwing a weapon or improvised weapon.
*You can freely pick up or draw any object as part of the same action or attack you throw it with.
*If you throw a magical thrown weapon that you are attuned to, you can instantly summon it to your hand with no action, potentially attacking with it multiple times in the same turn.
*As a bonus action, you can make a single ranged attack with a thrown weapon.
Last edited:
Well, in most of my experience*, thrown weapons are more like backup weapons when the “real” weapons won’t do the trick.
Keep in mind that recent D&D didn’t intended to balance thrown weapons against other major styles, and simply the designers never bothered making them better.
Which is a terrible mistake: thrown weapons are cool and not-totally-ridiculous, so they should efficient, although in their own way. Honestly, I don’t care about their real-world efficiency.
Which brings me to the question: what do you want thrown weapons to do? They should be efficient ranged weapons, but they shouldn’t be exactly like bows, crossbows, guns, etc**. They should have a unique feature, and other disadvantages to counterbalance it. Think: It’s the damage? The range? The ability score unusual to ranged weapons? The number of attacks used? There’s a lot to think here. Once you decide it, you can effectively re-design thrown weapons.
*There’s one exception: as I’m reading AD&D 2nd edition core rules, if you make a single-classed Fighter, with high strength bonus (exceptional strength, that is) and specialize in either throwing daggers or darts (other weapons won’t do the trick), you actually get a very high damage output; completely broken. I don’t know about the splatbooks yet, but fixing this is one of very few house-rules that I’ll adopt in my game even if I’m just testing it.
**My first try on making guns made them too much similar to already existing ranged weapons. That must have been one of the factors why that, despite being balanced, almost no-one was interested in using them.
Keep in mind that recent D&D didn’t intended to balance thrown weapons against other major styles, and simply the designers never bothered making them better.
Which is a terrible mistake: thrown weapons are cool and not-totally-ridiculous, so they should efficient, although in their own way. Honestly, I don’t care about their real-world efficiency.
Which brings me to the question: what do you want thrown weapons to do? They should be efficient ranged weapons, but they shouldn’t be exactly like bows, crossbows, guns, etc**. They should have a unique feature, and other disadvantages to counterbalance it. Think: It’s the damage? The range? The ability score unusual to ranged weapons? The number of attacks used? There’s a lot to think here. Once you decide it, you can effectively re-design thrown weapons.
*There’s one exception: as I’m reading AD&D 2nd edition core rules, if you make a single-classed Fighter, with high strength bonus (exceptional strength, that is) and specialize in either throwing daggers or darts (other weapons won’t do the trick), you actually get a very high damage output; completely broken. I don’t know about the splatbooks yet, but fixing this is one of very few house-rules that I’ll adopt in my game even if I’m just testing it.
**My first try on making guns made them too much similar to already existing ranged weapons. That must have been one of the factors why that, despite being balanced, almost no-one was interested in using them.
Last edited:
Voi_D_ragon
Explorer
What I think I've gathered from earlier posts is that weapon throwers should be mobile and/or annoying- slowing you down with attacks or moving after an attack/when you close up on them or attacking you when you get close enough to strike them. About the number of attacks: would being able to make an off-hand attack for each main hand attack (strictly with thrown weapons) be broken as hell? Maybe only with 1d4 weapons?
About their disadvantages, range is already a big enough handicap, while damage may be considered another (without counting the object interaction restrictions, the biggest thrown weapon is 1d6).
Brandegoris
First Post
Wouldn't be hard to House Rule this.
Just allow feats that work for Bows to work for thrown weapons and BAM! Win!
Just allow feats that work for Bows to work for thrown weapons and BAM! Win!
Voi_D_ragon
Explorer
Guy, sorry but don't ask to me: I don't play 5e; I'm just giving ideas. I hope that was useful
Haahahahah no prob, just you know, you got me thinking. Anyone can answer my post above if they have ideas.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Don't just make it a feat. All that does is turn thrown weapons into a "build".
Instead of a build, make it a tactic. Make it something that any fighter might do, either at the beginning of combat, before the melee guys have gotten into range. Or, when the villain is getting away "I throw my sword at him!".
For that, thrown weapons just need to be effective enough to be worthwhile without investmennt. If they're only worthwhile when speccing into it, then only specialists will do it.
Instead of a build, make it a tactic. Make it something that any fighter might do, either at the beginning of combat, before the melee guys have gotten into range. Or, when the villain is getting away "I throw my sword at him!".
For that, thrown weapons just need to be effective enough to be worthwhile without investmennt. If they're only worthwhile when speccing into it, then only specialists will do it.
