D&D 5E Extra Attacks with Dwarven Thrower?

[Caliban]

So definitely rule in favor of maximum fun for your table, but as far as RAW goes, it seems clear that the intended parsing of "ranged weapon attack" is "(ranged weapon) attack" not "ranged (weapon attack)".

I disagree. Many feats deliberately include one or more benefits that are more universal. For example - Crossbow Expert. The "no disadvantage for making a ranged attack when adjacent to a hostile creature" aspect functions with ANY ranged attack - thrown weapons, ranged spell attacks, bows, etc. Not just crossbows. This has been confirmed by the game designers.

 

[Harzel]

I disagree. Many feats deliberately include one or more benefits that are more universal. For example - Crossbow Expert. The "no disadvantage for making a ranged attack when adjacent to a hostile creature" aspect functions with ANY ranged attack - thrown weapons, ranged spell attacks, bows, etc. Not just crossbows. This has been confirmed by the game designers.

Yup. You are right. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-does-ranged-weapon-attack-mean/

 

[guachi]

Well, but the text before the bullet points says

You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:

So definitely rule in favor of maximum fun for your table, but as far as RAW goes, it seems clear that the intended parsing of "ranged weapon attack" is "(ranged weapon) attack" not "ranged (weapon attack)".

The part before the colon is flavor text and has no mechanical impact. Further, "ranged weapon attack" is always construed as "ranged (weapon attack)" and never "(ranged weapon) attack". I'm unaware of any rules situation where it's the latter and not the former. If they had meant the latter they would have worded it like the third bullet point and used "attack with a ranged weapon"

For a game that uses natural language it would certainly benefit from a glossary for all the standardized rules phraseology it uses.

 

[Shiroiken]

The one time it came up, I had the character (an NPC) choose multiple targets before the first attack. The hammer then bounced off each one, before returning to his hand (i.e. Thor). It did prevent multiple attacks to the same target, but this wasn't an issue since he was fighting the PCs.

By rule, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to return and allow multiple attacks in a round.

 

[Satyrn]

The one time it came up, I had the character (an NPC) choose multiple targets before the first attack. The hammer then bounced off each one, before returning to his hand (i.e. Thor). It did prevent multiple attacks to the same target, but this wasn't an issue since he was fighting the PCs.

By rule, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to return and allow multiple attacks in a round.

I would totally let a player say that, after the hammer hits a foe, the second attack happens as the head bounces off the target, spinning on its axis to hit him again before the hammer returns.

Or on a miss with the first attack, and the hammer has flown past the target, the second attack happens on the return to its wielder.

There are really an endless number of ways to describe a magical hammer providing multiple attacks without having to return to the wielder's hand if ond wants it to work that way.

 

[Gwarok]

You wouldn't want to use -5/+10 with a dwarven thrower very often anyway, the base damage is so high that you lose more damage than you gain if the -5 makes you miss.

While often your numbers will be correct depending on the target's AC, your point is unlikely to affect the decision making process of a player to want to specifically hit a bad guy in the face with his hammer from 50ft away

The one time it came up, I had the character (an NPC) choose multiple targets before the first attack. The hammer then bounced off each one, before returning to his hand (i.e. Thor).

Funny, the image I got was more Capt American doing that with his Shield, but sounds like we're more or less on the same page

 

[Tony Vargas]

For a game that uses natural language it would certainly benefit from a glossary for all the standardized rules phraseology it uses.

Using natural language means there's no such thing as standardized rules of phraseology. Instead, it's up to the DM to rule in all cases of ambiguity.

Even when the devs go on record on Twitter, it should probably be taken as how they'd rule as DMs rather then how they think everyone should rule.

 

[guachi]

Of course there's standardized phraseology in 5e. Restrained has a standardized meaning. So does Difficult Terrain.

5e has standardize phraseology all over the place it's just that the terms aren't always defined in an easy to locate place like, for instance, the appendix that has all the nasty status effects with fun illustrations.