Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doctor Proctor" data-source="post: 4554075" data-attributes="member: 78547">Again, there's no rule showing what you say either.&nbsp; You're arguing that &quot;melee weapon&quot; is an inherent property of certain objects, regardless of use.&nbsp; As I posted above though, the only definition of melee weapon that I can find defines it as a weapon &quot;which you use to attack foes within reach of the weapon&quot;.&nbsp; So therefore, if you're not attacking within the reach of the weapon, it's not a melee weapon anymore.&nbsp; It would be, at best, an improvised ranged weapon if it was light enough, and at worst it would be an impermissible action. The definition of &quot;reach&quot; is also very clear, and would not extend to the range granted to a thrown weapon when it's counting as a ranged weapon.Where are you getting that rule from?&nbsp; There's literally nothing in the PHB which indicates this.&nbsp; The rule is that a melee weapon is a weapon that is used to attack foes within reach of the weapon, period.&nbsp; Then, as a separate rule, a melee weapon with the thrown property counts as a ranged weapon when thrown.&nbsp; Since it's being thrown it's attacking a foe out of reach, and therefore is no longer a melee weapon for purposes of determining it's weapon type.&nbsp; Nowhere does it say that this invalidates the thrown property as it's specifically a property of thrown weapons.&nbsp; You would be arguing that the property of thrown weapons invalidates thrown weapons.&nbsp; Obviously this is false, which means that your basic assumption is also false.&nbsp; Ergo, it's not a melee weapon when thrown.&nbsp; Why can you not understand this?Additionally, it's all in the same paragraph.&nbsp; These aren't separate rules from different sections, it's a single cohesive paragraph outlining the weapons categories.&nbsp; You can't get any more basic than that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doctor Proctor, post: 4554075, member: 78547"] Again, there's no rule showing what you say either. You're arguing that "melee weapon" is an inherent property of certain objects, regardless of use. As I posted above though, the only definition of melee weapon that I can find defines it as a weapon "which you use to attack foes within reach of the weapon". So therefore, if you're not attacking within the reach of the weapon, it's not a melee weapon anymore. It would be, at best, an improvised ranged weapon if it was light enough, and at worst it would be an impermissible action. The definition of "reach" is also very clear, and would not extend to the range granted to a thrown weapon when it's counting as a ranged weapon. Where are you getting that rule from? There's literally [B]nothing[/B] in the PHB which indicates this. The rule is that a melee weapon is a weapon that is used to attack foes within reach of the weapon, period. Then, as a separate rule, a melee weapon with the thrown property counts as a ranged weapon when thrown. Since it's being thrown it's attacking a foe out of reach, and therefore is no longer a melee weapon for purposes of determining it's weapon type. Nowhere does it say that this invalidates the thrown property as it's [B]specifically a property of thrown weapons[/B]. You would be arguing that the property of thrown weapons invalidates thrown weapons. Obviously this is false, which means that your basic assumption is also false. Ergo, it's not a melee weapon when thrown. Why can you not understand this? Additionally, it's all in the same paragraph. These aren't separate rules from different sections, it's a single cohesive paragraph outlining the weapons categories. You can't get any more basic than that. [/QUOTE]

Verification