Behold the power of Thrown Weapons!!

[Valdrax]

I think the idea is that since no sane crafter would make a one-shot magical throwing weapon, the techniques to make magic throwing weapons are always with the return enchantment.

Seconded. The idea of making a magical throwing weapon that doesn't return is silly. Who would spend the money on a weapon that amounts to a one-per-encounter attack or, worse, that amounts to arming your enemies?

 

[Cadfan]

Actually I don't like that. It should be a very nominal cost but still cost something. Should every magic sword glow like a torch? That is what I liken it too. I throw my greatsword and it teleports back to my hand or ricocheted off of the gelatinous cube back to my hand??? Nope don't like it...

Magic throwing weapons.

 

[Celebrim]

The concept of throwing weapons as your central weapon is fairly unrealistic. You are often just arming your enemy, and possibly leaving yourself without a weapon. And you can never really carry enough to be effective. Most of the reasons for using one are poorly modeled by D&D.

The only systematic soldier I can think of using throwing weapons as a primary weapon is a peltast, and then the reasons are primarily cost and technology. Besides, if you were a mercenary, you wouldn't try to beat something like a Spartan phalanx at its own game. You go hurl a few javelins, earn your pay, and then beat a hasty retreat. Let the rich men with thier fancy bronze armor fight it out chest to chest.

Throwing weapons are likely to be even less effective in 4E than previous editions. A throwing weapon is semi-reasonable if you are facing just one opponent. But fourth edition is going to increase the number of opponents. Likewise, a throwing weapon makes sense if you have a chance of crippling or killing your enemy in a single blow. But 4E is going to be increasing hit points relative to damage done.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While they may not be the most effective weapon, I always liked the concept of someone carrying one or two throwing weapons that while may not have the accuracy of an arrow or crossbow bolt, they do have a lot more omph! when they hit.

As you put it, good hit and run, or how I would play it good, run and hit and run some more.

I imagine larger throwing weapons like javelins could have say a built-in slow mechanic considering someone with a javelin stuck through them no matter how many HP they have won't be as fast or dexterous with it in them.

 

[Eldorian]

The concept of throwing weapons as your central weapon is fairly unrealistic. You are often just arming your enemy, and possibly leaving yourself without a weapon. And you can never really carry enough to be effective. Most of the reasons for using one are poorly modeled by D&D.

The only systematic soldier I can think of using throwing weapons as a primary weapon is a peltast, and then the reasons are primarily cost and technology. Besides, if you were a mercenary, you wouldn't try to beat something like a Spartan phalanx at its own game. You go hurl a few javelins, earn your pay, and then beat a hasty retreat. Let the rich men with thier fancy bronze armor fight it out chest to chest.

Throwing weapons are likely to be even less effective in 4E than previous editions. A throwing weapon is semi-reasonable if you are facing just one opponent. But fourth edition is going to increase the number of opponents. Likewise, a throwing weapon makes sense if you have a chance of crippling or killing your enemy in a single blow. But 4E is going to be increasing hit points relative to damage done.

Historically, thrown weapons were used as you were closing in to melee, or as a distraction during the stalking phase of a fight. Using thrown weapons primarily isn't very useful, yes, but you're playing it down too much. If I have an exploit that removes an enemy's shield bonus with a thrown weapon (often the goal of throwing something), then I consider this to be an improvement. Also, I would rather like a thrown weapon based specialist to be viable, and it's looking like it will be a rogue with his shuriken (which, btw, are not ninja stars, but throwing spikes, or coins sometimes).

In 3e, my barbarians almost always carried javelins as their ranged weapon of choice, due to the str bonus to damage. So I've always used thrown weapons, even though they weren't optimal most of the time.

 

[Cadfan]

Throwing weapons are likely to be even less effective in 4E than previous editions. A throwing weapon is semi-reasonable if you are facing just one opponent. But fourth edition is going to increase the number of opponents. Likewise, a throwing weapon makes sense if you have a chance of crippling or killing your enemy in a single blow. But 4E is going to be increasing hit points relative to damage done.

Your first point contradicts your second. How many one opponent fights in 3e were there, where you could expect to kill your single opponent with one thrown weapon?

Throwing weapons in 4e will be stronger because the biggest 3e disadvantage to thrown weapons was that, unless you invested feats in them, you could only draw and throw one per round. This cost you your full attack action. Now you only get one attack per round, so a thrown weapon is comparatively much better.

How much stronger they will be is anyone's guess, but having the ability to throw down a little ranged damage once or twice a fight never hurt anybody. And they'll certainly be nice against minions.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

How much stronger they will be is anyone's guess, but having the ability to throw down a little ranged damage once or twice a fight never hurt anybody. And they'll certainly be nice against minions.

I just had a mental image of a fighter chucking a javelin and it skewering 3 kobold minions in a row on it and ebbing itself into a wall, mhmm, fun

 

[The Little Raven]

The concept of throwing weapons as your central weapon is fairly unrealistic.

Realism can die in a fire, for all I care. Cool is way better than realistic.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... First the Bards, now Throwing Weapons... 4E is the Mariachi Trilogy!

 

[RandomCitizenX]

Realism can die in a fire, for all I care. Cool is way better than realistic.

That is what I am talking about