Okay, I kinda assumed like, about 30 feet. If you're asking to throw a person the distance a longbow fires then...yeah, no.
Reasonable. Yet this is also a distance that most characters can already move at. So unless you're launching the person being thrown over an obstacle or over a chasm, this distance isn't likely to be enticing.
Making an attack requires using your action. So it was implied.
Is it the thrower's action, or the throwee's action? Or is it the throwee's action, and the thrower's reaction? Or is it just the throwee doing all the rolling? See, you believe it to be implied, but there are many ways that it can be interpreted without clarity regarding which is "right" or "expected." Certainly if the only one player is investing in the action economy and is the one being thrown, and they are only making a DC 15 Athletics or Acrobatics check to effectively jump 30ft and get their attack, with lower but guaranteed damage on a miss (using your improvised weapon damage suggestion), then I would say this is too generous. No attack roll, making a reasonably easy DC for athletic or acrobatics for those with proficiency, and no possibility of a miss is certainly abusable with potential problems. But if the thrower has to invest something, whether in action economy or resources, then I would expect the potential reward to be slightly better since you are only effectively moving a distance you could do on your own, and giving up two potential attacks for one.
Annnnnd this is exactly why I don't put up with these shenanigans.
You're not doing it to be cool. You're doing it to game the system. To minimize your investment and maximize your output, which while fine just exposes the fact that your real interest here is to abuse the system to gain power.
I'm sorry, but please don't assume my motivations or reasons. Most often, I am actually the DM. With the player's consent, I AM the system. I am the rules adjudicator, I am every NPC and villain, and I am the world. I have nothing to gain by "gaming the system." I do have much to gain, however, by making a fun, enjoyable game that balances immersion with elements of fantasy and storytelling. My interest is solely in improving my ability to adjudicate the rules on the fly, be able to read the room regarding what is going to maximize enjoyment, and create reasonable challenges for my players. The written rules and mechanics provide a structure and precedent, but it is impossible for any rule system to reasonably cover every possible action the players may attempt. Systems that attempt to do this turn out like 3.5 or Pathfinder. But ultimately, it is the DM's call. But the DM only has as much power as their players give them, via the social contract of the game. Thus, it is in my best interest as the DM to find ways to keep my players happy, while also ensuring that I am having fun running the game.
Which is exactly why I'm such a rules stickler in the first part. If you just think it would be cool, then who cares what the cost is, who cares what the damage is? You do it because it's totally epic. Not because it becomes a superior method of attack than any other.
Nothing wrong with being a stickler for rules. But once again, the absence of a specific rule in 5e is not evidence that it cannot be done, only that it is left to the DM to decide how best to handle the situation.
Also, we have very different ideas of what is "cool," or "epic." D&D is not just about storytelling. It is also a game. Thus, for something to be cool or epic, it not only needs to satisfy the storytelling aspect, but also the game aspect. Hence, some success a player has that is "cool" or "epic" is also effective at achieving a desired result. If I am playing as a monk, I can say I run 30' to my target and attack. Or I can describe my monk leaping that distance in a single bound, unleashing a flurry of strikes targeting the soft spots and vulnerable joints of my enemy, making them wail in agony against my assault. Notice that effectively and mechanically, there is literally no difference between these two turns, except for how they are described. But describing every mundane, normal turn in these terms makes these cool actions common place and boring. While I am certainly practicing as a wordsmith, these are not the things that will be remembered. However, using creative problem-solving to attempt something risky, that is "cool" and "epic." Even failing such attempts can be "cool," "epic," or lead to the stories that players and DM alike will remember and retell for years to come. The ordinary actions and tactics that get used over and over again are not what make things memorable.
So yes, we are in agreement that there should be a cost to pulling off crazy, "epic" maneuvers. There should be risk. But the reward should be commensurate with what is spent, and what is risked. If two players have to use their action, then the potential reward should be at least what the two characters could have done separately with their actions. If additional resources are required, such as specific spells, then the potential reward should be even greater. If there is a risk of catastrophic failure, such as not making it across that ravine you are being tossed over, or needing multiple checks to determine the degree of success of failure, than the reward should match what is put in.
I'm also not suggesting to be "unrealistic" (a strange term for a fantasy role-playing game). I'm not saying one should allow a player to try and phase through a solid wall just because it would be cool. But if there are other circumstances or other resources the players are bringing to bare that make sense for what they are attempting, then I am more likely to allow it and see what happens. But I am not going to go into (or at least actively try to not go into) such situations looking to punish creativity or make things unreasonably difficult just because I'm not about how the players want to play the game. It's their game too. That should be respected. If I don't think something is reasonably possible, I'll let the players know and I'll provide my reasoning for transparency's sake. Which may encourage the players to try a different route. But it may encourage them to double down and make new suggestions and creative problem-solving that could possibly address my initial concerns. To me, that isn't "gaming the system," but rather being thoughtful about the possibilities achievable within the system given certain, possibly scenario specific, conditions and constraints.
None of this "makes sense" to me in the type of power-level 5E is going for.
Ok. Once again, I will point to abilities, spells, and items that would make this tactic more feasible and also limited. Characters with Powerful Build, Enlarge, Reduce, Bear's Strength, Rage, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Potions of Giant's Strength, Gust of Wind, Jump... there are so many things that already exist in D&D that contribute to parts of this maneuver being possible. How is a fastball special not within the power level of 5e?
The OP asked for some examples of how to handle it simply. I provided one. If other people want to do it, I'm more than happy to work with them to enable them to do it in their games. My participation in this thread is on the basis of that I enjoy thinking about these sorts of challenges. It's not because I enjoy the particular meat of the question.
This is absolutely fair, and please I hope that you do not take my comments as a personal attack or stating that you "aren't playing D&D right." If you have taken what I've said in that way, my apologies. As I reread your original post, I think I reacted more emotionally to your post without reading it through carefully. Certain elements struck a chord with me, such as the idea of "punishing" players through dice. I think this triggered thoughts of previous experiences I've had where a DM allowed me to attempt something, only to nerf my success to the point that it was effectively a failure even though I technically succeeded based on the parameters I was given. In my experience, this approach is frustrating to players, and if a DM feels strongly enough that something doesn't fit in the game or make sense, it would be better to state as much and be upfront with the players, rather than to present yourself as being ok with the player-directed course of action while functionally making it impossible. So, my apologies for getting fired up and misdirecting that energy at you. That wasn't my intention.
I don't see this as particularly creative, and taking the hard way is not by any means a superior tactic.
My guess is that it depends on the context of the challenge the players are going against. As a regular move that players might start every combat with, sure. It would get boring and mundane quick. Maybe even be abused by the players. But in situations where it could add to the action and cinematics of the challenge, scene, and story? It could be gold. Additionally, it may not be taking the hard way. If the spellcaster is out of spells, the rogue is out of arrows/bolts, and the bad guy is getting away with a chasm between them and the players? It may be the only thing they can think of to prevent the bad guy from getting away.
But I think you misunderstand me. When I say difficulty, I don't mean that the action or attempt is hard. I mean that reward should be commensurate with what the players invested, as well as the possible consequences of failure. If two or more players invest their actions or even whole turn for something, then the possible outcome should be at least equal to what those players could have achieved individually, so long as it makes sense and is reasonable for the desired outcome. Additional resources such as spells, use of class/race abilities, or consumable items should also be taken into consideration.
You're overcomplicating this.
1: Can the Thrower carry the target as a light load?
2: Can the Thrower hit the AC of their target?
3: Can the Fastball make the Acrobatics check to be pointed in the right direction?
What if my group doesn't bother with encumbrance or typically need rules regarding what a light load is? And yes, maybe I am overcomplicating this. But by engaging in this discussion, I'm also training myself to consider things that I might not have otherwise considered when I'm blind-sided by my players requesting to do something that either isn't covered in the rules, or that I have forgotten the particular rules that govern this action. No one remembers every rule, especially not in the midst of the game. And no one wants to slow the game down for the DM to take 20 minutes to find and remember the rule or go over rules that might guide the adjudication without directly covering it.
The rest of those things are just noise.
Maybe for you. But clearly we see and value different things. What sounds like noise to you is a beautiful melody to me (Get off my lawn! These crazy kids with that noise and mumble rap. That's not music!)
I really dislike retconning things in the middle of a game for any reason. So I am strict up front and open things up later. It always feels worse to me to be open at the start and strict later on.
Sure. And that's your style and it works for you. But that doesn't mean the tool is not available to you should you need it. A DM that is open with their players and discusses concerns about the game openly is going to ultimately engage in a more cooperative, cohesive game that evolves towards the best possible game experience.
