Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7005780" data-attributes="member: 6689191">OK, lets just say, 3 weapons do 1d8 damage (Longbow, longsword, spear). Now look at what they can't do. The Bow is hampered by being useless in melee and requiring 2 hands, and the Longsword can't be used other than melee. Now what can't the spear do? well it can do what the bow does (attack from range), and it can do what the longsword does (Attack in melee). Therefore, it's demonstrably better because you don't need two weapons. Therefore, it makes sense to dial down the melee damage (because it's not dedicated melee), and dial down the range (not dedicated range), BUT it still keeps its main USP of attacking in both situations, which the others can't do. As I said, it's a feature, not a bug.If you were to "Bring the damage" up in line with a ranged weapon, that balance is broken, because now you have a hard hitting ranged weapon you can use in melee. And as you pointed out, your additional options bring your damage output up to a big 2-handed weapon level, but now you can carry a shield at the same time. So why take a longsword?IF, however, you want to be a cool dude chucking knives/chakrams/javellins about, then either reskin/reflavour/build a standard ranged weapon and take all the penalties associated with balancing it (crap in melee), let the long range sharpshooter feat apply to thrown weapons.Hell, if you wanna go mental, get a barbarian class with Sharpshooter, Two-Weapon Fighting (draw two weapons), and let them dual wield javelins. Reckless attack at 120ft? Yes please. (RAW states 'melee weapon attack' - javelin is a melee weapon).My point being, yes it may well be cool, but you'd be breaking the core balance between range, melee, and thrown weapons. And if you want the cool imagery of being a knife thrower, then just design a new weapon that works like a hand crossbow if you ain't going to melee much.</blockquote>

Verification