D&D 5E Darts - Originally melee, or ranged originally strength?

You could just have Darts/Thrown Daggers modify the rules for drawing weapons:

..to allow the users of throwing knives/darts to draw two darts/dagger, one for each hand. Call it the 'Handy' property or the like.

True.

Not that anyone has actually asked me for it. It's an interesting intellectual exercise, figuring out how to approach something like this. :)

I like to have ways to tell the player, "Sure, it works like this" rather than "No, the rules don't allow it." And it's only a matter of time before I get a character concept that's all Gambit and stuff. Not that I play much anymore as I'm usually behind the screen, but this thought process makes me think it'd be fun to play a dart/dagger-based Assassin. Poison on each blade, Sneak Attack, etc.

Thanks! :cool:

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Darts are not under melee weapons category because you can't effectively use them to stab someone. They're versatile because you can use strength or dex.
Darts are finesse weapons, allowing them to be used w/ either strength or dexterity. A versatile weapon can be used one or two handed.

Though a "bastard dart" might be kinda cool.
 

I would boost the range of the sling to have a range equivalent to the longbow. This matches historical information on them. I would also increase the damage to a d6. http://www.imperium-romana.org/uploads/5/9/3/3/5933147/scientificamerican1073-34.pdf For an insightful article on the sling from a couple years after some of us were born ;)

Truthfully, the use of weapon categories as a game balance point is the real issue here, as slings are as good as longbows for damage and range, and only lack in the training aspect (they actually take more). Spears do just as much damage as any one handed sword, and shields are the red headed step child.

There isn't really enough granularity in the game at this point to illustrate the differences between the weapons. I think it works better when you just abstract out the weapons and just say "you can do X damage in melee and Y damage at range Z with weapons". That way you can use whatever you want and just debate numbers in the context of the class.

the other option is to actually model the weapons, but you need s fair amount of knowledge for that, and I wouldn't make access to a class feature then.

Wow, that is a really interesting article - thanks! Indeed, it was published exactly 2 years after I was born. ;)

While I do believe that the weapons needs a good tweak - especially the ranged and thrown stuff - I'm content to use it as is (for now). The simplicity and ease of playing 5E is what brought me back to the game. If there was a comprehensive overhaul of melee and ranged weapons, their damage and combat styles I would be interested.

If I wanted realism, I would join up with the Unified Weapon Master (https://uwm.tv/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/unified-weapons-master-future-fighting/)
 
Last edited:

Wow, that is a really interesting article - thanks! Indeed, it was published exactly 2 years after I was born. ;)

same as myself ;)

While I do believe that the weapons needs a good tweak - especially the ranged and thrown stuff - I'm content to use it as is (for now). The simplicity and ease of playing 5E is what brought me back to the game. If there was a comprehensive overhaul of melee and ranged weapons, their damage and combat styles I would be interested.

I go back and forth on it. there is some real joy there. But I also like 13th ages simplified system.

Perhaps sometime I'll extract the weapon stuff out and make a realistic subsystem
 

To be fair, how often did people historically use throwing weapons? The Romans of course had their two pila.
In some periods as many as six, I think it was, but they were much smaller versions, more like the D&D dart. The Celts were also big into spears and javelins, with many exotic points, and smaller javelins translated as 'darts.' Before the Romans, the Greek peltasts, the primary skirmishers outside of the phallanx, used javelins and slings.

So you've got a couple thousand years of thrown weapons (and spear & shield) being primary weapons of war, included in the building of two vast empires.

Ancient Germans had their throwing axes I think.
The Franks were notorious for the francisca, for instance.

Other than that, throwing weapons were never really that big a thing, right?
Other than most of the history of western civilization? I suppose...

Mongols, Japanese, Persians, Medieval English, Crusader armies, Chinese: all of them are - to me, at least - associated with archery
The Mongols, 'Scythians' I think it was among the Persians, and yes the famed English (actually originally Welsh) longbowmen were notoriously archers. Agincourt was so famous because the triumph of archery over armor was such an unusual thing.

Back to D&D: I hear that many groups are dominated by bows and crossbows. I've not found that myself, since it seems that my players really like cutting people's heads off in melee, but obviously that's just anecdotal.
It's not an unusual anecdote. The ranged DPR type appeals to a sub-set of players, and it works really, really well in 5e. Though most casters can neatly step in and be very effective at ranged combat, obviously. The melee type also has its fans who'll play it whether it's optimal (or even viable) or not.

I didn't mention Africa, the Americas, or Australasia
Africa was pretty varied, of course. The Zulu for instance, threw spears and fought with clubs until Shaka built an empire using the spear in formation, instead. I'm not up on Egyptian or Kush warfare, I'm sure it varied over the thousands of years in question. In Australia, throwing weapons were very much the thing - the famed boomerang of course, and the woomera (in messoamerica the atlatl was a similar weapon), though you could argue that it's a missile weapon using spears as ammunition in D&D terms.


But, yeah, D&D wildly underrates the spear and the shield (and especially the combination of the two, which dominated warfare for most of the history of warfare), and overrates swords (as much status symbol as practical weapon) and draw-bows (because Robin Hood, let's face it).

The problem comes when verisimilitude overcomes simplicity, which happens almost instantly. Anyone else remember weapon type vs armor types and speed factors? [shudder]
Yes. I don't remember many other DMs using them, either (I liked the idea, especially at low level when there wasn't that much else to deal with). Even so, I simplified weapon vs armor to actual types (cutting, bludgeoning, piercing) so there were fewer adjustments to sift through, and also just ruled that magic weapons ignored negative adjustments, and magic armor positive ones, so that once everyone was kitted out we could forget about it.
 

Remove ads

Top