Ive always liked one short sword and one dagger in the off hand for two weapon fight precisely becomes of their ability to throw if I down my current target.their extra properties such as thrown often make them worth using over a shortsword
What do you think about my proposed dagger feat above (post #29)? That was an attempt to give flavorful benefits to dagger use without just straight boosts to damage or accuracy.Just that one style though, so that's maybe not the right standard for comparison? That same style already buffs the dagger to d4+2 as well, so the comparison within characters with that style works just fine. I'm not poo-pooing the thread idea here either btw, just wondering if flavor and increased range of weapon use can't be accomplished in ways other than damage buffs.
Gotta love the interpretation of 5E...The first two benefits of the feat apply to daggers since, right, they refer to "ranged (weapon attacks)", but the third benefit (the -5/+10 option) refers to "ranged weapons", so that one doesn't work with daggers.
Well, interpretation aside, “ranged weapon” and “ranged weapon attack” are distinct phrases in 5e, in spite of the “natural language” goal of the rules text.Gotta love the interpretation of 5E...
View attachment 116188
You read this as "ranged (weapon attacks)" and I read it as "(ranged weapon) attacks", so I wouldn't let this, by my interpretation of the feat, apply to anything that is not actually a ranged weapon as listed on the weapon table. Especially when you consider the first lines is about "ranged weapons".
But would I care if someone did it the other way? Nope.
Oh, I don't know... they are distinct phrases, but when you consider the language used throughout 5E I think it follows well enough.Well, interpretation aside, “ranged weapon” and “ranged weapon attack” are distinct phrases in 5e, in spite of the “natural language” goal of the rules text.
Well, right, that’s the correct reading. You can use the first two parts of the feat on any attack made at range, ie a “ranged weapon attack”.Oh, I don't know... they are distinct phrases, but when you consider the language used throughout 5E I think it follows well enough.
A "ranged (weapon attack)" could be throwing a longsword at someone, for example, because it is a "weapon attack" and since I have thrown it, it is "ranged". So if you follow this then you could apply the feat's first two features to throwing a longsword.
As where a dagger cannot be a "(ranged weapon) attack" because it is not a "ranged weapon", it is a melee weapon, as defined by its designation under "Simple Melee Weapons" in the PHB. Since it is not a "ranged weapon", you cannot make a "(ranged weapon) attack" with it.
So, yeah, take your pick and have fun either way.
I’d be fine as well with something like “+1 attack and” some very simple secondary benefit, but honestly I really like the idea of the expert with such weapons just being deadly accurate with them, to the point where it’s comparable to someone with “better” weapons.This. The simplest and most straightforward solution is usually the best for me.
No, that is your reading. I was actually pointing out why it is absurd given that by your reading I could throw a longsword and you would consider it a "ranged weapon attack". So, I was actually arguing against how you read it, as in my post to @Esker .Well, right, that’s the correct reading. You can use the first two parts of the feat on any attack made at range, ie a “ranged weapon attack”.
You cannot use the final part of the feat on the thrown long sword or the thrown dagger, because neither is an “attack with a ranged weapon”.
Yeah, no. I’m not going to rehash the whole argument, but feel free to check out Crawford’s Sage Advice ruling on the matter.No, that is your reading. I was actually pointing out why it is absurd given that by your reading I could throw a longsword and you would consider it a "ranged weapon attack". So, I was actually arguing against how you read it, as in my post to @Esker .
And actually, your reading goes against the language used in the PHB. The Thrown property allows you to make a "ranged attack", not a "ranged weapon attack." Making an attack at range is not the same thing as making a "ranged weapon attack", i.e. an attack with a ranged weapon.
View attachment 116219
You can only make a "ranged weapon attack" by attacking with a "ranged weapon".
View attachment 116220
"Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged." A dagger, as listed in the PHB, is classified as melee. So, the thrown property allows you to make a ranged attack with a dagger, but does not make it a "ranged weapon" and therefore you cannot make a "ranged weapon attack" with it, you can only make a "ranged attack" with it.
This language is also what prevents Sharpshooter from working with spells. You can make "ranged attacks" with spells, but they are not "ranged weapon attacks", and they are thus designated "ranged spell attacks". If Sharpshooter took out the word "weapon" from the first two benefits, it could apply equally well to weapons or spells because it would simply be "ranged attacks."
View attachment 116221
The final benefit was written as it was because of the "proficient" rider clause. It would be redundant to write:
"Before you make a ranged weapon attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with,"
They simply didn't need the first "ranged weapon" and it sounds awkward to include it.
So, in summary: Thrown weapon = "ranged attack", not "ranged weapon attack". Thus, none of the benefits of Sharpshooter can work with Thrown weapons, only "ranged weapons" as classified in the PHB.
THAT is my interpretation and why I wouldn't allow Sharpshooter (any part of it) to work with thrown weapons. Especially, as I stated before, when the opening sentence is about "ranged weapons" and the feat is not called "Sharpthrower".
Now, hidden out there somewhere might be a tweet or SA note to the contrary, which is cool if there is, and I am fine with having Sharpshooter apply to thrown weapons if the table wanted it as I don't see it hurting anything and only makes thrown weapons more appealing. But, by a strict reading of the rules, I would say "No. No, sir, indeed."
(Jeez... that was long and I hate myself for it! See? See what I had to do! Bad dnd4vd, bad! )
There isNow, hidden out there somewhere might be a tweet or SA note to the contrary, which is cool if there is
Yeah, I knew you would go to the unarmed strikes thing, but since it was after 1:30 AM when I posted, I was too tired to bother addressing that last night.Yeah, no. I’m not going to rehash the whole argument, but feel free to check out Crawford’s Sage Advice ruling on the matter.
Any ranged attack made with a weapon is a ranged weapon attack, but is only an attack with a ranged weapon of it is made with a weapon in the Ranged category.
This is related to the fact that Unarmed Strikes arent weapons, but are used to make melee weapon attacks.
This is brutal, I like it. I'd specify that it applied when using a single dagger in one hand, and maybe that the free attack with grapple applied every turn they were grappled.Knife Fighter
When using a dagger you gain a +1 bonus to hit and deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d4, and when you grapple a creature you can make a free attack on that creature with advantage.
2d4 is close to 1d4+2, but it is doubled on criticals unlike static damage bonuses. It also works with dual-wielding or dueling style (if you stack styles). OTOH, if you go knife+free hand, you can use the free hand to grapple and get an attack anyhow. The +1 to hit makes it extremely tempting for rogues, who want to connect more than anything.
This also permits the two-knife build that throws one knife, then grabs and stabs, etc.
Sure, I get all that. I was just pointing out how silly the distinction is IMO. It is another issue with how the books and features were written. To make the distinction between a ranged weapon attack and an attack with a ranged weapon and such... oy.@dnd4vr, this last post confuses me. That "ranged weapon attack" means "ranged attack with a weapon" is right there. It confirms what @doctorbadwolf and I have been saying -- the first two benefits (but not the third) work with thrown weapons -- and contradicts what you said earlier.
BTW, the GWM feat has a parallel structure. Only the -5/+10 clause requires a heavy two-handed weapon.
I made up a feat that lets a dagger wielder do 2d4. Seemed okay.Due to the nature of rules a dagger is the weakest weapon around, something that's only used as a last resort weapon by most classes, and only effective (in it's versatility as something that can be thrown) by Rogues and Monks of a high enough level. But a dagger in the hands of someone who knows how to use one effectively can be a very deadly. I don't want to bother for now in a Fighter subclass that specializes in dagger fighting. So my ideas so far are.
When attacking with a dagger in melee it does 1d6 damage, while grappling an opponent the dagger does 1d8 damage instead.
Improvised ranged weapon attacks have a range of 20/60. That includes throwing Melee weapons.There is
The fact that the phrasing is different between the first two benefits and the third is a signal of intent.
As to the longsword, nothing in the rules allows a longsword to be thrown, thus you can't make a ranged attack with it, unless the DM allows you to do so as an improvised weapon. However since it has no listed range, the "attack at long range w/o disadvantage" clause is meaningless. If the DM wanted to allow you to throw a longsword as an improvised weapon, then I suppose sharpshooter would allow you to ignore cover.
And get +2 to hit from archery style?Improvised ranged weapon attacks have a range of 20/60. That includes throwing Melee weapons.
It would, oddly, only do 1d4+strength damage.
It’s in the PHB, under Improvised Weapons.