D&D 5E Fighting Style - Archery

[Tormyr]

God yes, Halflings need to be good for something.

"I throw the halfling!"

*Rolls 1*

"Lucky!"

 

[fjw70]

RAW I would say no, but I would definitely allow it. I would treat any Melee weapon with a stated range as a ranged weapon when thrown.

 

[Zaran]

Why is anyone bothering the designers with this? Let your GM make the decision and/or stop analyzing each word. This game is all about intention and we don't have to be Magic: The Gathering players like we did in 4e. Someone who specializes in ranged weapons will be better hitting the target than someone who isn't. It doesn't matter if they throw an axe or a broadsword or a stuffed duck. Let your GM decide. If you are the GM, then use common sense. Does it make sense to you? That's all that matters in YOUR game. Who cares what Mearls or Crawford do in their games, their games don't have stuffed ducks.

 

[Syntallah]

Why is anyone bothering the designers with this? Let your GM make the decision and/or stop analyzing each word. This game is all about intention and we don't have to be Magic: The Gathering players like we did in 4e. Someone who specializes in ranged weapons will be better hitting the target than someone who isn't. It doesn't matter if they throw an axe or a broadsword or a stuffed duck. Let your GM decide. If you are the GM, then use common sense. Does it make sense to you? That's all that matters in YOUR game. Who cares what Mearls or Crawford do in their games, their games don't have stuffed ducks.

Amen!

/endthread

 

[Dausuul]

So, in answer to your question:
Crawford says no (1, 2).
Mearls says yes (1, 3, 4), but risks people wanting to extend it further (5).

As I understand it, Crawford is the official Rules Guy, so his ruling trumps Mearls's. It also comports better with the written rules. The ability specifies ranged weapons, not ranged attacks. A weapon either has the ranged property or it does not; it doesn't change depending on how it's being used.

You are, of course, free to rule otherwise. It won't break the game if the fighter can get +2 to hit with a thrown axe. The main thing is that you shouldn't be able to use Archery and Dueling on the same attack. +2 to hit or +2 to damage, not both.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Strange that the PHB calls javelins melee weapons. I don't think I've heard of anybody (willingly) using one for melee in history.

A javelin is just a variant of short spear that happens to be light and balanced enough for throwing well. Light infantry use all kinds of spears, including short and light ones.

IIRC, Julius Caesar hid light infantry in tall grass and enticed the opposing cavalry to attempt a flanking attack from there. The infantry were specifically instructed to keep their javelins right in the face of the horsemen.

 

[sigfile]

Why is anyone bothering the designers with this? Let your GM make the decision and/or stop analyzing each word. This game is all about intention and we don't have to be Magic: The Gathering players like we did in 4e. Someone who specializes in ranged weapons will be better hitting the target than someone who isn't. It doesn't matter if they throw an axe or a broadsword or a stuffed duck. Let your GM decide. If you are the GM, then use common sense. Does it make sense to you? That's all that matters in YOUR game. Who cares what Mearls or Crawford do in their games, their games don't have stuffed ducks.

Adventurers League. That's why.

 

[Henrix]

It's not as if it'd break the game and be totally overpowered.


If anybody gets the least bit if enjoyment out of it, let them.
Don't block your players unnecessarily.

 

[OpsKT]

Adventurers League. That's why.

And that's why I quit public play of D&D and Magic.

 

[sigfile]

And that's why I quit public play of D&D and Magic.

That's a pity. Really. While some are better than others, the AL adventures are pretty good. The nit-picky arguments that seem to consume the message boards aren't (in my experience) anywhere near as prevalent in actual play.