D&D 5E Making Thrown Weapon Attacks Melee Attacks

[Esker]

Exactly. The third feature is worded, “ Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.” A dagger or a javelin is not “a ranged weapon you’re proficient with.”


It was confirmed that melee weapons with the thrown property do not qualify for that part of Sharpshooter.
(Does Sharpshooter feat should work with daggers?)

I think we're on the same page. The third benefit (the -5/+10 part) already doesn't apply to thrown weapons. But as of now the first two (no disadvantage at long range; ignore half and 2/3 cover) do. If you make thrown attacks melee attacks, then they no longer would.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I think we're on the same page. The third benefit (the -5/+10 part) already doesn't apply to thrown weapons. But as of now the first two (no disadvantage at long range; ignore half and 2/3 cover) do. If you make thrown attacks melee attacks, then they no longer would.

And I think that this would be important to consider and maintain for balance reasons. If a barbarian could apply rage and reckless attack, or a paladin smite at long range with javelins and daggers that could become an issue. I think these feats would become must haves for paladins and barbarians, even without the third bullet point, if the first two bullets would continue to apply to thrown weapons.

 

[Esker]

And I think that this would be important to consider and maintain for balance reasons. If a barbarian could apply rage and reckless attack, or a paladin smite at long range with javelins and daggers that could become an issue. I think these feats would become must haves for paladins and barbarians, even without the third bullet point, if the first two bullets would continue to apply to thrown weapons.

I don't necessarily think the feat would become a must-have, but it would certainly introduce a powerful option that wasn't there before. I agree that it's probably good that thrown attacks stick to one or the other, and don't get the benefits of both melee and ranged attacks at the same time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey all. So I know that thrown weapons use your strength modifier for attacks and damage at range unless they have the finesse property (like daggers). Thrown weapons are also typically bigger, meaning without a magic item you can only carry a few at a time. For example, I don't see a character realistically carrying more than 4 javelins at a time. So based on this, how impactful would it be on the game to treat thrown weapon attacks as melee attacks rather than ranged attacks?

A few immediate and obvious changes this would have involve are the barbarian, paladin, and great weapon master. A barbarian could apply rage damage and reckless attack to a thrown weapon, a paladin could smite with a thrown weapon, and a great weapon master could benefit from select attacks at range.

Obviously this could cause issues, since these abilities don't seem to have been designed to allow them to work at range. Ranged attacks are already fairly powerful in 5e, and I am reluctant to give it even more power with the above proposed change.

But I'm also leaning towards trying this in my game, specifically because the natural logical limit on the number of thrown weapons that can be held. Technically you also need an object interaction to pull a weapon without the dual wielder feat, which limits it to effectively once per round regardless of the number of attacks a character has.

Additionally, what sparked this was a recent game that I play in where I play a paladin 8/barbarian 1 (I know, weird combo but it was more of an RP choice than anything). We got to the boss fight, who was very mobile. Most of the other players (actually now that recall, all the other players) are spellcasters. So it didn't affect them too much, but I felt like I spent multiple turns doing nothing but trying to move into position only for the boss to move away. This not only caused my rage to expire (did not have any javelins to use) but was also very frustrating in a fight that should have been more fun. So it got me thinking about everything presented above, and that someone in a similar position could still feel like a part of the fight.

What do other people think? Is this a feature rather than a bug? Are there other unintended consequences such a change might have that I haven't considered?

This is an interesting idea. I’ve been toying with making bows finesse, rather than Dex only, but this might also work.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we're on the same page. The third benefit (the -5/+10 part) already doesn't apply to thrown weapons. But as of now the first two (no disadvantage at long range; ignore half and 2/3 cover) do. If you make thrown attacks melee attacks, then they no longer would.

Ahh, I see what happened. When you said the change would make it so you couldn’t use them with Sharpshooter, you were talking about the first two benefits, where I was only thinking about the third. My mistake.

 

[Shiroiken]

Thrown weapons are also typically bigger, meaning without a magic item you can only carry a few at a time. For example, I don't see a character realistically carrying more than 4 javelins at a time.

While not represented in 5E, traditionally javelins would be carried in something similar to a quiver. You couldn't carry 20-40 like arrows, but 8-10 (using 2 quivers) really isn't out of the question. It would prevent a thrown weapon based character, but honestly the fact that you can only draw 1 weapon to throw each round makes it pretty terrible for warriors anyway (at least after level 5).

 

[Zardnaar]

Hey all. So I know that thrown weapons use your strength modifier for attacks and damage at range unless they have the finesse property (like daggers). Thrown weapons are also typically bigger, meaning without a magic item you can only carry a few at a time. For example, I don't see a character realistically carrying more than 4 javelins at a time. So based on this, how impactful would it be on the game to treat thrown weapon attacks as melee attacks rather than ranged attacks?

A few immediate and obvious changes this would have involve are the barbarian, paladin, and great weapon master. A barbarian could apply rage damage and reckless attack to a thrown weapon, a paladin could smite with a thrown weapon, and a great weapon master could benefit from select attacks at range.

Obviously this could cause issues, since these abilities don't seem to have been designed to allow them to work at range. Ranged attacks are already fairly powerful in 5e, and I am reluctant to give it even more power with the above proposed change.

But I'm also leaning towards trying this in my game, specifically because the natural logical limit on the number of thrown weapons that can be held. Technically you also need an object interaction to pull a weapon without the dual wielder feat, which limits it to effectively once per round regardless of the number of attacks a character has.

Additionally, what sparked this was a recent game that I play in where I play a paladin 8/barbarian 1 (I know, weird combo but it was more of an RP choice than anything). We got to the boss fight, who was very mobile. Most of the other players (actually now that recall, all the other players) are spellcasters. So it didn't affect them too much, but I felt like I spent multiple turns doing nothing but trying to move into position only for the boss to move away. This not only caused my rage to expire (did not have any javelins to use) but was also very frustrating in a fight that should have been more fun. So it got me thinking about everything presented above, and that someone in a similar position could still feel like a part of the fight.

What do other people think? Is this a feature rather than a bug? Are there other unintended consequences such a change might have that I haven't considered?

It's the downside of forgetting to carry ranged weapons.

Generally carry.

Primary weapon
Secondary weapon (dealing bludgeoning damage)

Ranged weapon

A few daggers/darts

Some thrown weapons or more darts/daggers if Dex based.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

It's the downside of forgetting to carry ranged weapons.

Generally carry.

Primary weapon
Secondary weapon (dealing bludgeoning damage)

Ranged weapon

A few daggers/darts

Some thrown weapons or more darts/daggers if Dex based.

Right, but it's not just about carrying a secondary weapon. If you carry a secondary weapon and can't use your class abilities with it, it can be very frustrating.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right, but it's not just about carrying a secondary weapon. If you carry a secondary weapon and can't use your class abilities with it, it can be very frustrating.

Sure but that's part of D&D. You're not gonna shine in every situation and there's a counter for everything.

Barbarians are a bit of a one trick pony. Moreso than fighters.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

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.