Why are thrown weapons so underwhelming?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Seekers just plain need some better powers. Their control is so weak in general that they're relegated to playing ersatz striker, a role they are only marginally capable of addressing mostly with RBA tricks. You can make a modestly effective character at low levels, but then sadly their upper level stuff is even more terrible, with many of their upper paragon/epic powers being mostly on a par with heroic tier stuff from most other classes.

Really, the class just needs an expansion that provides some actually usable powers. 75% of the ones they have now are garbage and there are whole levels where there isn't so much as one reasonable choice. As a hybrid option they have some merits, but even then it is tough going.

 

[Chzbro]

I think we're spending too much time saying how 'this works if you play rogue or ranger', lots of other classes still want to throw stuff.

My point is, though, that it doesn't work if you're a STR ranger who wants to throw or a DEX ranger who wants to melee. Thrown weapons are balanced against their versatility, but very few powers allow them to be versatile.

In other words, a DEX ranger will always prefer to Twin Strike with a bow to a thrown weapon because the bows are just better ranged weapons. But that doesn't mean we should just make thrown weapons more powerful to compete with bows. What if instead we made powers that made using a thrown weapon more attractive than a weapon restricted to range or melee only?

If a couple fighter/warlord/whatever else powers were ranged or melee, then thrown weapons would start looking as good for them as a dagger currently does for a rogue.

Keep in mind: many thrown weapons also have the off-hand classification. Just making thrown weapons better would also have the unintended consequence of making dual-wielding better. An "improved" throwing axe would have to be main-hand only (probably) and that won't make people happy either I'm guessing. That said, the tratnyr does stink. Someone should fix that.

 

[DracoSuave]

Given that the only strikers that can make use of thrown weapons in their powers are rogues, rangers, and executioners, the question is if those classes are fine around it? Yes, they are.

The only other classes that do are leaders or the seeker, a controller. Thrown weapons dont feature in the damager builds for any of those; The ranged options for the leaders are defensive (prescient bard, insightful warlord, and the battlesmith needs melee to buff) and the damage seeker build is bow based.

 

[Destil]

Oversight? Looked intentional to me since 4e classes are supposed to "know their place" and have their powers carefully rigged to enforce their party role.

Uhm, without powers that allow ranged attacks who would it be breaking? Fighters? Rangers (ranged attacks, check)? Rogues get it right because the dagger is crazy.

The problem is that thrown weapon builds weren't in PHB1 and thus there's no weapons for them. Seekers, for instance.

 

[Saeviomagy]

There needs to be a military heavy thrown weapon that is a raw upgrade over the javelin. Effectively a trident that has 10/20 range. That means that the superior version would be a +2/1d10 10/20 one-handed thrown weapon. That means that for the benefit of one-handedness and the ability to attack in melee, you lose a die size and range compared with a superior bow. Basically I think the trident was a flavour-inspired mistake.

light thrown weapons are odd. We should expect to see a +3 1d6 5/10 military light thrown weapon, but instead we get the shortsword, which isn't throwable. That means we don't get a +3 1d8 5/10 superior weapon, instead we (used to) get the rapier.

Crossbows are odd too - compared with a bow they get a +3 instead of +2 and pay the price of a reduced damage dice. Then they get a negative reload property slapped on top of that.

I think these are all due to the hidden "rogue tax" that weapons (except for the dagger) which rogues can use have been given. Rogue useable weapons seem to have been reduced by roughly 1 die type/1 property across the board. The fallout from that is that we get things like the drow long knife which is no longer really rogue useable, but is still suffering from that tax because it's built off of a rogue taxed weapon as it's base.

 

[DracoSuave]

The upgrade to the javelin was invented. Its called a 'ballista.'

Sadly its impractical for adventuring so you must settle for the miniature versions, the bow and crossbow.

Sorry the weapon you want hasnt been invented.

 

[Mummolus]

Sorry the weapon you want hasnt been invented.

On the contrary, the pilum (plural pila) was a significant improvement over the javelins used by skirmishers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On the contrary, the pilum (plural pila) was a significant improvement over the javelins used by skirmishers.

The pilum is pretty much the archetypal javelin if you ask me.

Remember, there is the sort of thing that people call a 'javelin' which is used in distance throwing contests. Not much like the weapon. There wasn't anything super unique about Roman pila. It is commonly thought of when speaking of javelins since obviously everyone remembers the Roman stuff. Like all weapons, if you want to get very picky you can hairsplit your way to 100 variations, but like longswords each weapon really covers a range of very similar styles.

 

[Mummolus]

The pilum is pretty much the archetypal javelin if you ask me.

Remember, there is the sort of thing that people call a 'javelin' which is used in distance throwing contests. Not much like the weapon. There wasn't anything super unique about Roman pila. It is commonly thought of when speaking of javelins since obviously everyone remembers the Roman stuff. Like all weapons, if you want to get very picky you can hairsplit your way to 100 variations, but like longswords each weapon really covers a range of very similar styles.

Pila were longer and heavier than the standard javelin, which the Romans called veruta. Veruta were used by skirmishers, pila by the hastati and principes.

I broadly agree with you, just couldn't resist, given the sarcasm at work in the post I replied to.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The builds that problematic:

a) Bard (they don't have many, if any, powers that are themselves versatile, so a thrown weapon just let's you use both melee and ranged powers with the same weapon, meaning no swapping, and not having to buy two items ... functionally similar to them using a weapliment with the added benefit of being able to take an expertise feat instead of Master at Arms). If they want to have ranged, melee and implement options, a one-handed thrown weapon let's them use an implement in the off hand.

b) Artificer: Same deal as the bard, with the benefit of having weapon powers that can be ranged or melee.

c) Warlord: Most of their attacks are melee, with a few ranged ones. They get the benefit of using the ranged options without giving up on shield use, having to pick between no melee options or needing to get multiple magic weapons, and again getting to grab a specific expertise instead of Master at Arms

d) Ranger: They only get a few powers (from MP2 mostly) that allow for STR ranged attacks or DEX melee attacks, but using those, and/or a balanced STR/DEX build, gives some added benefits.

e) Seeker: They do get the benefit of a decent MBA (if their secondary stat, STR, is good enough), an encounter power that is STR based, and a few powers that require it, but unless it's a hybrid of some kind, it doesn't really need a melee weapon outside of some minor benefits for it.

For the Seeker especially, and most of the others (apart from the ranger), a good two handed thrown weapon would probably be the best. A two handed d10 heavy thrown weapon would make sense ... it could be bad range (like a trident) for military, and decent range (like the tratnyr) for superior, if nothing else.