D&D 5E Chucking daggers: how do we throw two?

[Thyrwyn]

I'm pretty sure I read a Twitter response by Jeremy saying that a "melee thrown" weapon isn't a "ranged" weapon.

<shrugs> I hadn't seen that. Seems like a silly distinction to make. Why gimp thrown weapons that can also be used in melee?

 

[Cernor]

Later on it says in the Thrown property section:

If a weapon has the thrown property, you can use it to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon.

If the thrown weapon became a ranged weapon for the attack, rather than being a melee weapon used to make a ranged weapon attack, then that last sentence wouldn't need to be there. That also supports the idea of weapons being either melee or ranged, because if a dagger swapped between being a ranged and a melee weapon based on the attack it makes, it could be considered both a melee and ranged weapon until the attack type is chosen.

 

[yakuba]

As to whether or not Sharpshooter applies to a weapon with the throw property, I would argue that it should. The only definition of melee weapons and ranged weapons is this:

"A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance."

PHB p. 146

Therefore, a dagger is either, depending on how it is used, not where it is listed on the equipment table. IMHO.

Your interpretation is incorrect. The only definition of ranged and melee weapons is the table. In this case you assume that ""A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you" is equivalent to saying " A weapon used to attack a target within 5 feet of you is a melee weapon". That is not what the sentence says. The sentence says that melee weapons are in the set of things that can be used to attack a target within 5 feet of you. It does not say that the set of things that can be used to attack a target within 5 feet of you is the set of melee weapons. A more clarifying example of this fallacy is recognizing that

"A dog is a mammal" does not imply that "A mammal is a dog."

 

[jayoungr]

If the thrown weapon became a ranged weapon for the attack, rather than being a melee weapon used to make a ranged weapon attack, then that last sentence wouldn't need to be there. That also supports the idea of weapons being either melee or ranged, because if a dagger swapped between being a ranged and a melee weapon based on the attack it makes, it could be considered both a melee and ranged weapon until the attack type is chosen.

Would it break the game to do that? Especially since it's the whole concept of the character. Or if it would be too powerful just to let daggers share both types, what would you suggest as a limiting factor?

 

[Cernor]

Would it break the game to do that? Especially since it's the whole concept of the character. Or if it would be too powerful just to let daggers share both types, what would you suggest as a limiting factor?

It wouldn't break the game, but it would screw with the weapon system as it stands: Because ranged weapons use Dex as their default ability score but melee weapons use Str, any thrown weapon would have essentially have the finesse property when it's thrown (but not otherwise), making a Str-based throwing build unviable. I can't see what else it would add to the game other than negating some of the rules that specifically require a melee or ranged weapon (such as Sharpshooter and the dual wielding rules); the loss of niche protection isn't really worth the benefit of enabling a few more exploitative builds.

If you want to use Sharpshooter, the only light ranged weapon is the hand crossbow, which is balanced by a high cost (at low levels), low range (without Sharpshooter), low damage, and an inability to use two at once (or shoot one more than once) without taking the Crossbow Expert feat. But then that isn't a thrown weapon, so it doesn't fit your initial character concept. The rules as they are are fine for a character that throws daggers, as long as you understand that you probably won't be doing the majority of your group's damage.

 

[jayoungr]

It wouldn't break the game, but it would screw with the weapon system as it stands: Because ranged weapons use Dex as their default ability score but melee weapons use Str, any thrown weapon would have essentially have the finesse property when it's thrown (but not otherwise), making a Str-based throwing build unviable.

Homebrew a Thrown Weapon Master feat allowing the taker to use Str instead of Dex?

Alternatively, just make sure the character has a good Dex score, and if that means losing some effectiveness in melee, accept that fact?

the loss of niche protection isn't really worth the benefit of enabling a few more exploitative builds.

Might not be an issue depending on who else is playing at the table. If there isn't another ranged fighter in the group, niche protection wouldn't be lost.

There might be other melee fighters, but since they're likely to be using larger/more damaging weapons than a dagger, I don't think they'd be worried about niche protection.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Would it break the game to do that? Especially since it's the whole concept of the character. Or if it would be too powerful just to let daggers share both types, what would you suggest as a limiting factor?

I don't think it would break the game to consider a thrown weapon a ranged weapon when making a ranged attack. The last sentence of the thrown descriptor still applies.

The only oddball situation this creates would be a STR based character with the Sharpshooter feat deciding to throw his thrown/melee weapon at an adjacent enemy to take advantage of the -5/+10 damage. This is balanced by the fact that he would be at Disadvantage to do so. Unless he also took Crossbow Expert...just so he could pull this off. Any character at my table that considers this to be worth two feats will be rewarded

 

[Cernor]

Homebrew a Thrown Weapon Master feat allowing the taker to use Str instead of Dex?

Because that makes sense... Change the entire weapon system to accommodate one extremely uncommon build, then homebrew a feat to return things to the way they were before. It would definitely be easier to leave the rules as-is and suck it up that you can't use Sharpshooter with daggers.

Also, there's a reason the only light ranged weapons are hand crossbows, and I already talked about those in a previous post. If thrown weapons let you use Sharpshooter as well as the TWF rules, then thrown builds are a tad broken, having the same number of attacks as combining CE/SS or PAM/GWM (builds widely considered to be "broken"), but without the cost of having to take the second feat to balance it out. If you want to take away the benefit of TWF but keep the ability to use SS, why not use a bow to deal better damage per attack since you'll be making the same number of attacks?

 

[Thyrwyn]

Your interpretation is incorrect. The only definition of ranged and melee weapons is the table.

I just quoted you a definition; the table is an illustration.

In this case you assume that ""A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you" is equivalent to saying " A weapon used to attack a target within 5 feet of you is a melee weapon". That is not what the sentence says. The sentence says that melee weapons are in the set of things that can be used to attack a target within 5 feet of you. It does not say that the set of things that can be used to attack a target within 5 feet of you is the set of melee weapons. A more clarifying example of this fallacy is recognizing that

"A dog is a mammal" does not imply that "A mammal is a dog."

Tools are not animals and are not subject to unary classification. What is the difference between a knife and a dagger? a dagger and a short sword? a short sword and a long sword? Between a knife intended to be used in a kitchen (a tool) and a knife intended to be used in a fight (a weapon - or is that a tool also?)? If I attack someone with a kitchen knife, I will be charged with "assault with deadly weapon", so which is it?

If I fill the bed of my busted pick-up truck with dirt and plant it full of gardenias is it a truck or a garden? Do I still own a truck?

Things can belong to more than one category. My interpretation of the weapons definition is exactly that - a weapon is classified according to how it is used. The thrown property is still relevant and meaningful, as it determines which attribute may be used to modify attack rolls and damage.

As to Cernor's concern that thrown weapon users would be "broken" because they could get as many attacks as other so-called "broken" builds: The thrown weapon user is still limited by a) how fast s/he can draw new weapons and b) is still hampered by limited range. A Sharpshooter throwing handaxes can throw 3 if they start the turn with one in each hand. Furthermore, they are even more limited because they end the turn empty-handed, and so c) can not repeat the trick next round and d) cannot use their reaction to take an AoO with a weapon. Also, e) using an action surge only adds 1 more attack, because of the limit on drawing weapons. Finally, f) magic weapons affect 1 attack per fight - 'cause you just threw it away.

Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is far, far more dangerous.

 

[jayoungr]

Because that makes sense... Change the entire weapon system to accommodate one extremely uncommon build, then homebrew a feat to return things to the way they were before.

Um? No need for sarcasm. This doesn't have to be played anywhere outside the OP's table. I'm just trying to figure out a way to help make it work for one group.

Possibly darts would be a better model for daggers. I'm interested in hearing other ideas. But on the whole, I'd rather talk about ways it could be made to work than just have someone say "Can't be done, suck it up."