D&D 5E Making Thrown Weapon Attacks Melee Attacks

[Esker]

Sure, but I see it two ways. Yes, you can't be good or effective in every situation for mechanical balance. But also, if you are in a situation in which you can't contribute at all, it becomes much less fun. This is doubly so because most core classes (before subclasses) seem to have both melee and ranged options available. Barbarian and Paladin seem to be the only exception to this, and sets up greater frustration for these characters if there is no way to close the distance.

Monks too (if we're talking before subclasses). But I guess at least they're DEX-based so can use a shortbow or light crossbow better than a typical paladin or barbarian.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Monks too (if we're talking before subclasses). But I guess at least they're DEX-based so can use a shortbow or light crossbow better than a typical paladin or barbarian.

Plus since darts are considered monk weapons, there is mechanical options for them to use their martial arts abilities with ranged weapons.

Pretty much all spellcasters have ranged and melee martial cantrip options, and all spellcasters have spell options for support, melee, or range. Fighters can use their many attacks and action surge with any weapons. Hunter's mark for rangers works on ranged or melee attacks (let's be honest, Hunter's Mark is more class feature than spell). Rogues can sneak attack from melee or range. The only core classes without any base support for range are barbarians and paladins. This means that even if they are prepared with a backup range option, they are the only class with zero ability to apply any mechanical benefits to ranged attacks.

 

[Zardnaar]

Barbarians can put 14 Dex medium armor and bow for back up weapon. Not great but better than spear throwing.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Barbarians can put 14 Dex medium armor and bow for back up weapon. Not great but better than spear throwing.

I'm not saying that barbarians can't use ranged weapons. I'm saying that none of their core class abilities support their being able to use class abilities with such weapons. You cannot apply rage damage bonus or reckless attack to a ranged attack, even when made with a thrown weapon. To me, not only does that seem silly, but it makes combat less fun for that player if they feel like they can't meaningfully contribute in an encounter.

With what I'm proposing, attacks made with thrown weapons are still sub-optimal, but they allow a player to feel like they can contribute in an encounter when they are prepared to do so.

And you know what? This may not be your cup of tea, @Zardnaar. That's fine. No one is forcing you to adopt it or agree. But rather than pointing out that barbarians or paladins can use ranged weapons (which no one is debating because clearly they can), what I think would be more helpful is a discussion of what unintended effects this might have regarding balance concerns. Class or feat combinations that would potentially break the game if thrown weapon attacks counted as melee attacks.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not saying that barbarians can't use ranged weapons. I'm saying that none of their core class abilities support their being able to use class abilities with such weapons. You cannot apply rage damage bonus or reckless attack to a ranged attack, even when made with a thrown weapon. To me, not only does that seem silly, but it makes combat less fun for that player if they feel like they can't meaningfully contribute in an encounter.

With what I'm proposing, attacks made with thrown weapons are still sub-optimal, but they allow a player to feel like they can contribute in an encounter when they are prepared to do so.

And you know what? This may not be your cup of tea, @Zardnaar. That's fine. No one is forcing you to adopt it or agree. But rather than pointing out that barbarians or paladins can use ranged weapons (which no one is debating because clearly they can), what I think would be more helpful is a discussion of what unintended effects this might have regarding balance concerns. Class or feat combinations that would potentially break the game if thrown weapon attacks counted as melee attacks.

Those classes are kinda one trick ponies and it's what you sign up for when you chose the class.

Paladin can MC for example or take magic initiate for some cantrips. Oath of Ancients has ranged options.

Paladin's stupidly powerful their lack of oomph at range is one if the few drawbacks they have.

Barbarians are hosed at range true but once again whikevraging they're stupidly good at melee.

Do they get nerfed at what they're good at in order to shore up a weakness?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Those classes are kinda one trick ponies and it's what you sign up for when you chose the class.

Paladin can MC for example or take magic initiate for some cantrips. Oath of Ancients has ranged options.

Paladin's stupidly powerful their lack of oomph at range is one if the few drawbacks they have.

Barbarians are hosed at range true but once again whikevraging they're stupidly good at melee.

Do they get nerfed at what they're good at in order to shore up a weakness?

I'm less concerned about balance. I do care about balance and I understand very well that both barbarians and paladins are designed strictly for melee. What I am proposing is ways to increase player enjoyment and reduce the need for system mastery. Can barbarians or paladins be built to allow for competency (if not effectiveness) with ranged weapons? Yes. Can they use ranged weapons, even when it is the sub-optimal choice? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean a player is having fun. The way I play and my tables tend to play is to emphasize that all the players are heroes. Does that mean that each one is always the star of the show? No.

Does a fighter shine when an area is in an anti-magic field? Absolutely. But how fun is that encounter for the wizard player? I'd argue it's probably not too engaging for that player. Would it break the game to allow the wizard to still cast spells but perhaps at a higher spell slot cost? Or limit them to cantrips? I'd say no. Would it allow that wizard player to still enjoy the encounter and give them a reason to be more invested in how they can participate? Absolutely.

So once again, I don't find it very helpful to tell me reasons why you think my idea is dumb. Maybe it is for your table. No one is forcing you to adopt it or trying to convince you of its merit. But what would be really helpful, and what I've been asking for, is shining light on my blindspots in terms of ways that such a rule change may break the game.