D&D 3E/3.5 Throwing Spears in 3.5

[Garnfellow]

In 3.0 there was a weapon called a shortspear that in 3.5 is called just a plain old spear.

Whatever you call them, we're talking about a simple, two-handed melee weapon that can also be thrown for 1d8/x3 points of damage.

In 3.0, there was a rule for throwing 2-handed weapons:

Thrown weapons can only be thrown one-handed. A character can throw a thrown weapon with one hand even if it would be two-handed for you due to the character's size, but doing so counts as a full-round action because the weapon is bulkier and harder to handle than most thrown weapons. Add the character's Strength bonus to damage.

Did this rule go away with all the weapon sizing changes in 3.5? I can't seem to find it in the SRD.

In other words, is it a full-round action to throw a spear in 3.5, or can I chuck a bunch them with a full attack action if I've got a high enough BAB?

 

[Infiniti2000]

In 3.0 there was a weapon called a shortspear that in 3.5 is called just a plain old spear.

There's a shortspear in 3.5, too. As well as a longspear.

Whatever you call them, we're talking about a simple, two-handed melee weapon that can also be thrown for 1d8/x3 points of damage.

The shortspear is one-handed.

Did this rule go away with all the weapon sizing changes in 3.5? I can't seem to find it in the SRD.

The SRD has this: "Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action."

In other words, is it a full-round action to throw a spear in 3.5, or can I chuck a bunch them with a full attack action if I've got a high enough BAB?

It's a full round action to throw a spear, but not a shortspear.

 

[Garnfellow]

There's a shortspear in 3.5, too. As well as a longspear.

Right, but in 3.0 it was called a halfspear.

The shortspear is one-handed.

Except in 3.0, where it was two-handed.

The SRD has this: "Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action."

That's right -- but that quote also comes right in the middle of a discussion of throwing a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown.

 

[MoonZar]

BTW i dont understand why in 3.5 the "spear" must be used with two hand for a 1d8 damage weapon. In 3.0 and 2nd edition you always could use a "spear" of 1d8 damage in one hand.

The "shortspear" purpose is a light weapon that you could use Weapon Finesse i guess, but this should not make the "spear" a two handed weapon. The "longspear" is already a two handed weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Right, but in 3.0 it was called a halfspear.

Just to be clear, read your first post again. Specifically: "In 3.0 there was a weapon called a shortspear that in 3.5 is called just a plain old spear." Since I don't have my 3.0 books anymore, I didn't bother correcting your original statement, just responded to it. So, is your original post in error? I assumed you didn't realize that 3.5 has three types of spears.

Except in 3.0, where it was two-handed.

What was two-handed, the shortspear? The halfspear? Which one are you talking about now?

That's right -- but that quote also comes right in the middle of a discussion of throwing a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown.

I don't know what you mean. In 3.5, both the shortspear and the spear are designed to be thrown (they have range increments). Only the longspear is not designed to be thrown.

Care to start over again, correcting any typos so we don't miscommunicate further?

 

[Li Shenron]

IIRC

3.0 Half-spear AKA 3.5 Shortspear

damage 1d6
one-handed simple melee weapon
range 20ft (can be thrown with no penalty, attack action)

3.0 Shortspear AKA 3.5 Spear

damage 1d8
two-handed simple melee weapon
range 20 ft (can be thrown with no penalty, full-round action)

3.0 Longspear AKA 3.5 Longspear

damage 1d8
two-handed simple melee weapon with reach
no range* (can be thrown with -4 penalty, full-round action)

*range defaulted at 10ft

The more longspear damage is "balanced" by the fact that it is not good to throw.

 

[Garnfellow]

IIRC . . .

Bingo. You nailed it. My question is this:

3.0 Shortspear AKA 3.5 Spear

damage 1d8
two-handed simple melee weapon
range 20 ft (can be thrown with no penalty, full-round action)

In 3.0, throwing this weapon was clearly a full-round action. Is it also a full-round action in 3.5?

 

[Infiniti2000]

In 3.0, throwing this weapon was clearly a full-round action. Is it also a full-round action in 3.5?

Yes, he's said, I've said it. It's a two-handed weapon and requires a full-round action to throw.

 

[Garnfellow]

Yes, he's said, I've said it. It's a two-handed weapon and requires a full-round action to throw.

I know you're trying to help, and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I even think throwing a two-handed weapon /should/ be a full round action. But I don't see where this rule is written anywhere in the 3.5 SRD or the PHB. I'm just asking for someone to show me where this rule is in 3.5

The section from the SRD that you quoted /doesn't/ answer my question because it doesn't apply to a spear -- which is a two handed weapon that is designed to be thrown. The section you quoted is only talking about throwing weapons that are not designed to be thrown -- like chucking a battleaxe. Here's the whole passage.

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range Increment column on Table: Weapons), but a character who does so takes a -4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No problem, Garnfellow, no offense taken. I see where you are stuck, though. The whole paragraph and title should be considered. I quoted only the pertinent sentence while you deleted the first two sentences and the title. Is there any reason why you think that the first sentence and title do not belong to the remainder of the paragraph? I think you are under the false assumption that starting in the third sentence, the rest of the paragraph is only about weapons not normally meant to be thrown. While it does seem that way, there's no reason to think that that rule doesn't apply to all two-handed thrown weapons. Unless the actual PH has clarifying text, this paragraph is the best you got.