Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Darts really should be better throwing weapons than daggers, since they are purpose-made for throwing and have fletching etc. to allow for stable and long flight. Maybe extend the range to 40/80?
D&D 5E Darts - Originally melee, or ranged originally strength?
- Thread starter Yunru
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Yeah. D&D has always had an issue with ranged weapons. I mean, there's bows, and then everything else. Which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Sure, you had English Longbowmen, but, it's not like EVERYONE had these honking huge draw bows. The vast majority of bows are pretty low draw weight and the rules don't reflect this.
I mean, sure, a bow is effective, but, hurts as much as a longsword? Really? And it means that thrown weapons are the red headed step child of pretty much any game. How often do you actually see characters throw anything? You might see the odd spear get hucked when a baddy is out of melee range, but, it's still very, very rare.
It doesn't really make much sense that a spear, which is 20 times heavier than an arrow does less damage. And a sling does half damage of an arrow?
Has anyone actually seen a sling used in a 5e game?
Cutting the damage on arrows down to d6 or even d4 would go a LONG way to bringing ranged characters and melee characters up to parity.
I mean, sure, a bow is effective, but, hurts as much as a longsword? Really? And it means that thrown weapons are the red headed step child of pretty much any game. How often do you actually see characters throw anything? You might see the odd spear get hucked when a baddy is out of melee range, but, it's still very, very rare.
It doesn't really make much sense that a spear, which is 20 times heavier than an arrow does less damage. And a sling does half damage of an arrow?
Has anyone actually seen a sling used in a 5e game?
Cutting the damage on arrows down to d6 or even d4 would go a LONG way to bringing ranged characters and melee characters up to parity.
hi all,
Hussar agreed, but also long or heavy bows also required high strength to have the arrow fully nocked and gain full effect.
I would also boost true slings to D6 damage as simple weapons or d8 as martial weapons.
The only reason for using the bow over the sling is training time.
Simon
Last edited:
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.
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.
Charles Rampant
Adventurer
To be fair, how often did people historically use throwing weapons? The Romans of course had their two pila, but those are described in the sources for being as much for damaging enemy shields and disrupting formations as for killing, though I'm sure it hurt a great deal if one went through your head. Ancient Germans had their throwing axes I think. Other than that, throwing weapons were never really that big a thing, right? Mongols, Japanese, Persians, Medieval English, Crusader armies, Chinese: all of them are - to me, at least - associated with archery (or, uh, xbowery) far more than thrown weapons. In other words, they only really appeared as a big thing in the ancient mediterranean to my (far from encyclopaedic) knowledge. And while sure, we all remember the velites and balearic slingers from Rome: Total War, I'm not sure that you could describe ancient warfare as one dominated by throwing weapons; it was really heavy infantry clashes, with throwing weapons used to annoy and disrupt prior.
So maybe we don't see a lot of throwing weapon action in the game simply because they are not a very strong weapon choice in general. I mean, an archer can fire further and more times, thanks to the quiver and arrows, than a guy with javelins can, and the game rules are likely to reflect that just from a basic attempt to mimic what players expect.
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. Throwing weapons get used occasionally, especially at low levels where people don't have other options for bonus actions or when they start 50ft away from the opponents. I tend to be vague over hand use, and not worry about how precisely they are carrying a sword and shield while also throwing a hand axe, which possibly also helps promote their use.
Edit: I didn't mention Africa, the Americas, or Australasia in my discussion above. Eurocentric, eh. I did once play an 'Aboriginal tribesman' in an online 3.5 D&D game, who wandered around in light armour and a shield while tossing Javelins as his main attack. Pretty cool imagery, but not necessarily the most powerful thing I could have done.
So maybe we don't see a lot of throwing weapon action in the game simply because they are not a very strong weapon choice in general. I mean, an archer can fire further and more times, thanks to the quiver and arrows, than a guy with javelins can, and the game rules are likely to reflect that just from a basic attempt to mimic what players expect.
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. Throwing weapons get used occasionally, especially at low levels where people don't have other options for bonus actions or when they start 50ft away from the opponents. I tend to be vague over hand use, and not worry about how precisely they are carrying a sword and shield while also throwing a hand axe, which possibly also helps promote their use.
Edit: I didn't mention Africa, the Americas, or Australasia in my discussion above. Eurocentric, eh. I did once play an 'Aboriginal tribesman' in an online 3.5 D&D game, who wandered around in light armour and a shield while tossing Javelins as his main attack. Pretty cool imagery, but not necessarily the most powerful thing I could have done.
They were there, they just didn't get a lot of screen time, as it were. Norse used spear and axe. Indeed, everyone used spear.
D&D just does a poor job of modeling where they would be used for the most part. There is very little approach up to the clash, armor represents hard to hit and not difficulty to damage, movement is very fast, etc etc. there are other systems that do this part better, to be sure.
My own group dislikes ranged weapons as well. So much so that it is relatively easy to flummox them with a flying opponent or ones that are difficult to reach. I started toying with putting in archers (maybe it should have been slingers or javelineers!) in difficult to reach locations that required skill checks to get to quickly, or time (and exposure) to get to slowly. It really changed a lot of battle dynamics. It also gave something for those flanker types to do, and forced choices like "do I stay here and sneak attack every round against the fighters target, or do I use my superior skills and get in close on those archers, lose sneak attack, but also make them stop shooting everyone"
Ranged combat exclusively is pretty dull to play though.
D&D just does a poor job of modeling where they would be used for the most part. There is very little approach up to the clash, armor represents hard to hit and not difficulty to damage, movement is very fast, etc etc. there are other systems that do this part better, to be sure.
My own group dislikes ranged weapons as well. So much so that it is relatively easy to flummox them with a flying opponent or ones that are difficult to reach. I started toying with putting in archers (maybe it should have been slingers or javelineers!) in difficult to reach locations that required skill checks to get to quickly, or time (and exposure) to get to slowly. It really changed a lot of battle dynamics. It also gave something for those flanker types to do, and forced choices like "do I stay here and sneak attack every round against the fighters target, or do I use my superior skills and get in close on those archers, lose sneak attack, but also make them stop shooting everyone"
Ranged combat exclusively is pretty dull to play though.
Kabouter Games
Explorer
The problem comes when verisimilitude overcomes simplicity, which happens almost instantly. Anyone else remember weapon type vs armor types and speed factors? [shudder] That got complicated very quickly.
It helps me to view D&D combat as hopelessly abstract and keep my head there.
Because maces should do full damage against flexible armors, and stuff like that. And once I start down that road I start throwing books across the room. Better to just smile, nod, and ignore the inconsistencies while being thankful for simplicity and speed.I don't have a problem with ranged attacks. My players know that it's better to attrit at range than just wait for, say, the goblin horde to close.
Then again, so do the goblins - in their most recent encounter, one goblin in a great location sniped the crap out of them. Took them forever to get at him, and by the time they slaughtered him the reinforcements arrived. It got to be a very interesting resource-management exercise for them after that. Cheers,
Bob
www.r-p-davis.com
P.S. I'm considering a house-rule that darts (shuriken, knives, whatever) have a ROF of 2. I'm not sure that it shouldn't be a feat, though, like:
Knife Thrower
You have mastered the art of throwing small weapons. When you take the attack action with darts or daggers (or mechanical equivalent, like shuriken or knives), you gain the following benefits:
- Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on attack rolls with those weapons.
- You can throw two weapons per Attack action, provided you have a sufficient supply of appropriate weapons.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
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.
