D&D 5E Swift Quiver for throwing daggers

[Flamestrike]

Swift quiver only applies to ranged weapons doesnt it?

And daggers are melee weapons. Not ranged.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Swift quiver only applies to ranged weapons doesnt it?

And daggers are melee weapons. Not ranged.

They also have the thrown property. That gives them range.

 

[DwarfDruid]

I'm of two minds about this.

First of all, I don't think that making a new item is really needed, simply a house-rule. "You may draw and throw as many thrown weapons as you have attacks. This counts as your object interaction for the round." The downside to doing this is that you would probably have no weapon for Opportunity Attacks. The only reason to consider the magic item over this is balance (see below).

For balance... I don't know. This specific example wouldn't be a problem (daggers are crappy ranged weapons compared to bows), but it could become more of an issue with other weapons. I have a Polearm Great Weapon Fighter in my party, and his big downside is ranged combat. If he could draw and throw 2 javelins a round, he would start to overshadow the elf archer (especially since he could "hold" his polearm in his off hand while making the attacks, then use the weapon for opportunity attacks).

RAW I believe you can hold a pole arm in one hand, and still draw and throw two javlins a turn as long as you have Extra Attack and the third feature of the Dual Wielder feat.

 

[DwarfDruid]

Swift quiver only applies to ranged weapons doesnt it?

And daggers are melee weapons. Not ranged.

This is why a new spell would need to be made (mentioned in the OP). Swift quiver only works with quivers and the like. A new spell would have to be made to affect a belt or a strap of daggers.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

They also have the thrown property. That gives them range.

With the way the rules are written, being able to use a weapon for an attack at range does not inherently make it a ranged weapon (only being listed as a ranged weapon on the weapons table does).

 

[Flamestrike]

They also have the thrown property. That gives them range.

Yeah but they're not ranged weapons. They're melee weapons with a throwing range attached.

You cant get the +2 to hit from archery style with them.

But you can get the +2 from dueling style.

 

[grendel111111]

The two weapon fighting feat let's you draw two weapons a turn already and you get +1 AC when you have two weapons.

So when you throw them do you end up losing the AC bonus as well as not having a weapon to do AoO with?

 

[DwarfDruid]

So when you throw them do you end up losing the AC bonus as well as not having a weapon to do AoO with?

That seems like it would be the case, unless you started the turn with the original two daggers in hand, threw them, and then drew them after the attack. That way the turn would end with two daggers in you hand, so as long as you started combat without having to draw two daggers, you could always have opportunity attack potential, or that bonus AC.

 

[psychophipps]

That seems like it would be the case, unless you started the turn with the original two daggers in hand, threw them, and then drew them after the attack. That way the turn would end with two daggers in you hand, so as long as you started combat without having to draw two daggers, you could always have opportunity attack potential, or that bonus AC.

Pretty much my thoughts on it, sir. Thanks for saving me a post!

 

[Horwath]

I say this: why not just be lenient enough with rules interpretation that thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition so you always get your normal amount of attacks in an attack action with them?

Seems easier than all alternatives.

This.

thrown weapons are so underpowered that we even allow someone who wields 2handed weapon to lose the grip from the main hand, throw javelins/daggers and then regrips it after the attack action.