Remember the roll to hit doesn't just represent hitting the target -- it represents hitting the target and hurting it. At ten feet it's fairly easy to get the dagger to go blade first into a target, however the dagger isn't exactly designed for throwing.
The things that are designed to be thrown are throwing knives which are weighted and balanced, the regular dagger is a completely different beast.
So while you can get it to travel 10 feet and go blade first without much problem getting it to actually travel further than that and keep a stable flight isn't going to be easy.
When you go online and google up "daggers" most of what you see either aren't combat worthy (the blades are much too short) or are throwing daggers.
Look at the following images:
Please note the wide range of shapes and sizes. That's the main reason you're not throwing for 20 feet or so.
Ignoring the realism debate, I've found that increasing it to 20 increments and allowing for strength to both damage and attack on throwing weapons helps make them not as useless. Giving the strength to attack and damage helps give martial types a reason to grab throwing weapons instead of a bow. They can still take dex for attack and keep strength to damage if they want - and mind you, negative strength doesn't give negative damage.
As someone who has actually thrown knives and axes at wooden targets, 10 feet sounds reasonable for the range increment.
At ten feet, I can usually get the pointy end of the knife to hit the target with enough force to stick. Twenty feet is rather more challenging (although less so with an axe than a knife). At thirty feet, people are making jokes about "testosterone throws" and (unless you have a lot of skill) which end of the knife hits first is not very predictable.
You can liken it to something most people probably have more experience throwing.. say, a game of horseshoes
at the normal game range you can calculate the rotation fairly accurately if you've practiced a little.
Move things back to double the distance and although skill still factors in to some degree, you're really tossing things up to a lot of luck. From a strength perspective there's no problem getting it there, but getting it there accurately and with precision is a whole different story.
Hi there folks,
I'm fairly new to this game so it is probably that I'm repeating something that has already been said. If that is the case I apologize in advance.
First time I've seen these questions...
First off is the range. Now I'm no athlete (if you saw me you'd agree) but even 300 pound ole me can throw something weighing one pound, streamlined or not at least 20 feet with pretty good accuracy.
But can you throw it 10' with even more accuracy? I would wager you could. You can throw a dagger 20' within the rules, but you take a -2 modifier compared to throwing it 10', which seems reasonable to me.
I'm currently sitting about 10' away from my front door, and the far wall I would guess is in the 20' (ish) range. I could potentially throw a knife to the far wall and hit a mid sized target, but I'm certain my odds would improve if that target was on the front door instead.
Secondly, it seems rather strange that strength plays no part in the distance you can throw a hand thrown weapon.
Strength certainly affects how far you can throw things, but if you have two people capable of throwing a weapon to a target, I'm not convinced the stronger person has an advantage to hit it.
Remember the rules give you minuses to hit for every factor the weapons range is exceeded, but they aren't actually limiting your maximum range until you reach 5 range increments (or 50' for a dagger).
I would say a strong person may be able to throw a dagger further than 50' (and likewise, a weak person may not even be able to throw that far), I would suggest there aren't rules for that because it would complicate rule that are not likely to come up very often (once you've reached a -10 to hit due to range, your likely wasting your time anyways)
Hi there folks,
I'm fairly new to this game so it is probably that I'm repeating something that has already been said. If that is the case I apologize in advance.
First time I've seen these questions...
First off is the range. Now I'm no athlete (if you saw me you'd agree) but even 300 pound ole me can throw something weighing one pound, streamlined or not at least 20 feet with pretty good accuracy.But can you throw it 10' with even more accuracy? I would wager you could. You can throw a dagger 20' within the rules, but you take a -2 modifier compared to throwing it 10', which seems reasonable to me.
I'm currently sitting about 10' away from my front door, and the far wall I would guess is in the 20' (ish) range. I could potentially throw a knife to the far wall and hit a mid sized target, but I'm certain my odds would improve if that target was on the front door instead.
Secondly, it seems rather strange that strength plays no part in the distance you can throw a hand thrown weapon.Strength certainly affects how far you can throw things, but if you have two people capable of throwing a weapon to a target, I'm not convinced the stronger person has an advantage to hit it.
Remember the rules give you minuses to hit for every factor the weapons range is exceeded, but they aren't actually limiting your maximum range until you reach 5 range increments (or 50' for a dagger).
I would say a strong person may be able to throw a dagger further than 50' (and likewise, a weak person may not even be able to throw that far), I would suggest there aren't rules for that because it would complicate rule that are not likely to come up very often (once you've reached a -10 to hit due to range, your likely wasting your time anyways)
Another part strength kicks in is damage, while the dexterous guy can hit the target, he won't do much more than blunt off where the strength gifted man will benefit from his better physique through a higher damage roll.
Actually it sounds pretty gimp to me. I would make the throwing dagger a separate weapon that has the following:
Throwing dagger
light weapon, 1d4(medium sized) 20/x2 20 foot range, piercing damage type
Please note that's about the difference between the Hand Axe and the Throwing Axe. I figure doing the same for the dagger won't be too much of a problem. I would even leave it a simple weapon since figuring out how to actually throw a throwing dagger is rather simple.
I'm kind of interested in the stronger = further range thing Treantmonk mentioned upthread a bit. I'm also interested in "stronger = more likely to penetrate" as that's the whole basis for granting the Str bonus to hit in the first place, no?
That being the case, with the muscle-powered weapons, it would seem that they should probably use Str bonus "to hit" rather than dex in ranged "to hit" checks, no?
On the strength and range thing ... what if each +1 of strength (or -1 for that matter) equated to about +5' (or one square) in terms of range. So, normal range = 10' on a dagger, but get a beast (18 str) to chuck it, and his "effective range" (ie: no penalty range) is upped by +20' (5'/+1 and 18 = +4) to have HIS dagger throwing effective up to 30' instead of the 10' default?
Conversely, a weak guy (str 8) would only have a range of say 5' because he just can't get the "umpf" behind the toss to make the distance.
:shrugs:
Seems simple enough (and fun) additions to make really. I think that *maybe* full on ranged weapons (ie: bows and crossbows really) should probably still key off of dex, though. Not sure ... the obvious counter example I can think of is Braveheart - the stronger guy missed the target with his throw (ie: str =/= accuracy), and Wallace nailed it (ie: dex = accuracy). Of course, for that example to hold water, then we have to toss out even the abstraction of why str is added to hit and damage in the first place ... and that's just weird.
I think the above would certainly do spades for "thrown" weapon types in general.
Sure as soon as you show me a muscle man capable of actually hitting what he is putting all that force between simply to reach.
In the end the reason thrown weapons get str mod to damage is because of the extra "umpf" which helps it travel there faster (i.e. with more energy)... but that doesn't make you accurate.
I'm also interested in "stronger = more likely to penetrate" as that's the whole basis for granting the Str bonus to hit in the first place, no?
That being the case, with the muscle-powered weapons, it would seem that they should probably use Str bonus "to hit" rather than dex in ranged "to hit" checks, no?
I might agree if opponents were all the broad sides of barns. Dexterity is the to-hit stat for ranged because of the hand-eye coordination needed to hit a target that doesn't want to get hit with a big knife :)
That being the case, with the muscle-powered weapons, it would seem that they should probably use Str bonus "to hit" rather than dex in ranged "to hit" checks, no?
No. Not at all.
DEX is for hand-eye coordination and precision, STR is for penetration and damage.
STR bonus applies to hit with melee weapons since your foe is right there and the abstract combat system doesn't consider precision strikes like japping a misericorde into someone's eye slit in their helmet (well, except for Weapon Finesse, which takes STR out of the attack roll). So, no real chance of missing a target right in front of us. Instead, we pound through their defenses, using our STR to penetrate their armor.
DEX bonus applies to precision attacks, which covers hitting stuff we can't reach (ranged attacks). It also includes the Weapon Finesse feat which allows light weapons to make precision melee strikes using their DEX.
In other words, getting a weapon that relies on accuracy to strike the intended target is a function of DEX.
Now, damaging that target is a function of how hard you strike the target, so that is always STR, no matter what kind of attack you make (except mechanical ranged weapons that don't get any STR bonus).
On the strength and range thing ... what if each +1 of strength (or -1 for that matter) equated to about +5' (or one square) in terms of range. So, normal range = 10' on a dagger, but get a beast (18 str) to chuck it, and his "effective range" (ie: no penalty range) is upped by +20' (5'/+1 and 18 = +4) to have HIS dagger throwing effective up to 30' instead of the 10' default?
Conversely, a weak guy (str 8) would only have a range of say 5' because he just can't get the "umpf" behind the toss to make the distance.
:shrugs:
Impractical.
By this rule a typical starting fighter could hurl a dagger over 200 feet. Sure, he would be -8 to hit, but hey, with a good roll, he could actually hit an orc at 200' and dish out damage with a dagger. I don't even think Olympic dagger throwers have that kind of range.
OK, there are no Olympic dagger throwers. But there are Olympic javelin throwers. Your proposed rule would let a typical 1st level fighter throw a javelin 325 feet. The 2004 Olympic gold medal for men's javelin throw was for a distance of 283 feet, 9.5 inches. I'm sure an Olympic-class athelete must have some levels in Expert, at least. Yet a 1st level fighter can outthrow him by more than 40 feet.
Me, if I decided to put STR into weapon ranges, I would limit it a bit more. Maybe something like this. Normally a thrown weapon only gets 5 range increments. I would change that to allow extra range increments, one additional range increment per point of STR bonus, but never more than 10 range increments (matching mechanical ranged weapons).
So, yeah, our javelin thrower could hit 300' under this rule, still more than an Olyimpic gold medal winner, but at least he would be at -18 to hit anything at that range rather than only -8. And the dagger would max out at 100 feet with the same -18 penalty at that range. Good luck hitting anything at all, especially point-first, chucking a dagger 100' (and if you can, then you probably have quite a few more levels than a common farm boy).
Actually, sounds to me that based on those tourney results, the way it works right now is pretty spot on. The best knife throwers at a knife throwing tournament were completely incapable of hitting a target more than 50' away, just like in D&D. The ones that were able to hit targets at 40'-50' probably had years of training and practice, right? So lets see how this would work in Pathfinder:
First the AC of the target:
10 (base) -5 (0 Dex for a stationary target) +1 (Small Size modifier; I don't think a 1 meter target could be any less) = 6 AC
At 50', the attack roll will be taking a -8 penalty from the range increments. So even your average commoner with a +0 ranged attack bonus can hit this target on a roll of 14, or 35% of the time. If we go with a 1st level fighter with a Dex of 16, Point Blank Shot (which doesn't give a bonus at max range) and Far Shot we get a +0 net attack roll, which hits the AC 75% of the time. By only 3rd level his BAB, along with Weapon Focus and a masterwork weapon, will be high enough so that he only misses on a 1.
In other words, the system as it stands right now, based on your real life example, is already better than real life.
That said, I've always felt that the d20 system doesn't let you play an archtypical throwing weapon specialist very effectively, and that has always annoyed me. Pathfinder made things worse with the change from the 3.5 Far Shot feat (halving penalties instead of doubling increments). The true issue here doesn't lie in the ranges though, it lies with the fact that the power curves assume magic weapons after a certain point, but a character generally cannot afford enough magic weapons to make all his attacks in a full-round attack effective. On top of that even if an 11th level fighter had 3 (or more) magic daggers to throw on a full attack, he'd need to make sure that he'd spent even more gold making sure they're all returning (and thus reducing their potential damage output), and then make sure he stays rooted to the spot after he's thrown. That's another (throwing) axe to grind though.
ZappoHisbane did an awesome job of answering your post, but I want to take a shot at this bit:
Now I realize these guys are not your average '0 level characters' in game terms, but you'd like to think a fighter with some decent ranged weapon feats behind him (representing the hours they put in) should be able to do 30' without getting hammered by increment penalties.
I would like to think that, and I do think that.
At first level, a fighter with two feats (all fighters have at least two feats at that level) - you did say "some decent ranged weapon feats" - has a net penalty of -1 to hit a target at 30'.
Only -1.
I would hardly call that "hammered by increment penalties".
The two feats:
Point Blank Shot (+1 to hit with ranged weapons up to 30')
Far Shot (divide all range penalties by 2)
So the penalty at 30' is -4 to a farmboy with no training, but "with some decent ranged weapons feats", specifically these two decent feats, that cuts the penalty to -2 and gives him +1 to hit for a net penalty of only -1.
And that's available at level 1 to anyone who wants to take it (or level three if they don't get any bonus feats from race or class).
******************************************
Really, I understand your frustration. A normal guy, or a normal monster, suffers horrible range penalties for any hurled weapon. But that only represents using those weapons with no training. Once trained with a mere two feats, we see that even low-level combatants can quickly reach Bayonne tournament-champion skills.
The difference is how much training and practice and effort they put into their weapon-throwing? Not much training, a lot of missing. But a lot of training, not much missing.
Well, here's where I think present day RL kind of gets in the way of what one might do in RPG RL. In the latter, you make money by throwing daggers at people. It's called adventuring and you can do that full-time. These guys I'm talking about? Unless they work in a carnival or are government hired black ops folks, they probably don't. Rather they probably have a full time job behind a desk or on a construction site, dependent on their skill set. I'm guessing the majority of them have commitments outside of work, like families. So really, how much time do you think they have in the week to chuck daggers compared to how much time a PC in Pathfinder has? :)
Here is the problem with that scenario. Let's say I take those two feats at first level. Now I am a dagger throwing specialist who can do 1d4 + STR bonus per round if he hits at -1. And I am a fighter or I wouldn't get those two feats to start. Want to guess how many job offers I get? :)
HH
With respect, HH, you're changing your issue. Your OP was all about the limited range of a thrown dagger. Now your position seems to be about the limited usefulness of choosing dagger as your primary weapon.
Of course it's weak.
Who in their right minds would bring a dagger to s swordfight? Who in their right minds would choose to use a dagger as their only means of offense AND choose a life of constant danger by running of to strange and deadly locatoins in a hostile, monster-infested world?
Daggers are small compared to the really useful melee weapons or the relly powerful ranged weapons. They are expected to do less damage. How practical a system would we have if a longsword does 1d8 and a dagger does 2d8 damage?
That all being said, consder this:
A fighter with 18 STR stabbing with a dagger does 1d4+4 damage averaging 6.5 damage. The same fighter hacking with a longsword does 1d8+4 damage averaging 8.5 damage. That dagger is doing just over 75% of the damage that a longsword is doing.
That same fighter throwing his dagger does 1d4+4 damage. Throwing his longsword requires extra feats and disarms him (how many longswords can a guy carry, anyway?).
So our dagger guy gives up 25% of his damage capacity for the ability to instantly switch between ranged and melee, something the longsword guy cannot do.
Or even better, the longsword guy carries daggers for necessity and invess in those two feats when he can, though maybe not at first level. Best of both worlds, really.
Really, I don't know what else you'd expect from a dagger. You have the range of tournament champions and (conceivably) Olympic class athletes. You have 75% of the damage output of a longsword (seems to me that figure is unrealistically high but that's how it's always been). You have more damage output than an ordinary longbow. And after all, the dagger looks tiny and worthless compared to a longsword or longbow.
Seems more than enough for a dagger.
Ok - fair enough on maintaining the Dex/Str distinction on "to hit" (although with the roots of melee remaining abstract, it's still a debatable thing - though not something I'm particularly interested in bothering with beyond making note of the systems assumptions for case A, and exemptions for case B - different thread, though).
I'm not sold on "realism" as a reason AT ALL for increasing range of thrown weapons ... not even marginally.
Adding what little is suggested still doesn't even come close to approaching the "real" ranged weapons ranges (ie: bows and x-bows), so range-wise, all it does it actually move that dagger/thrown weapons options into a more usable "range" increment ... and little else.
Comparing any of these "hero" sorts to "olympic level" doesn't even fully wash as this guys, by mid-levels are WAY beyond even olympic performance levels. Seriously ... talking about this class/level based system, most "olympic" athletes would be lucky to push a level 3 in ANY class. So, no - I completely reject "it's not reasonable" as a reason. Period.
As for the rest - invest your feats and what have you, and as Blake pointed out, there's what about a 2 point difference for *most* weapons by that point. It's not the end-all/be-all of weaponry choices, and that +2 points of damage is pretty negligible overall. {ie: I see the dagger exactly as Blake does mechanically - small dip in damage to gain a ranged capability.}
My issue goes well beyond daggers, though. I'm looking at thrown ANY weapon ranges as wft?!?! If it's going to be a choice/option in this larger than life style of game (seriously - anyone deny this about D20?), it should be somehow effective for doing what it does. 10' of range with no chance for improvement is crap. Terrible range on all thrown weapons is crap ... IF it's fully static and never changes regardless of the individual doing the throwing.
Since we've brought up olympic-types, look at the throwers - the stronger guys make the distance (not talking about accuracy - point's been ceded already). Olympic throwers aren't really going for accuracy so much as distance, and NO this is not discounting their skill in learning how to throw "well" by any means. However, if you're chuckin' a 12lb shotput from the shoulder, the beefy guy is going to out-distance the stick-figure at least 9/10 times (I'll grant the random off day or something there). It requires muscle to "power it through" is all I'm getting at.
I'm fine w/the more "mechanical" ranged weapons working on a sort of static range and the like, but they're also getting some sick ranges, keep in mind. A bow fires like say 100' w/no penalty at all. At the same 100', the dagger fires at 10 range increments ... regardless of how strong the thrower is.
This just doesn't even make sense in any way.
I'm ok w/the idea of "max ranges", but isn't there already a max of like 10 range increments being "impossible" as a shot or something? {cant' think off hand}
I'm fine w/that, and I'm NOT suggesting to make a dagger into bow-effectiveness over distances. I'm not even saying that the default range increments should be altered (ie: the base weapon ranges make sense, more or less - certain things just *carry* better for lack of a better explanation). I'm saying that strength and muscle power should be a factor in determining distance in some fashion.
Maybe even something that's like ... progressive in range maybe? Looking at the 18 str guy now, 1st range increment (RI for short now) = 15' (granting a +1 for the high strength), then 2nd RI = +20', or 35' total (accounting for the +2 bonus), then 3rd RI = +25', or 60' (for the +3 bonus) and so on ... something that just ups the range overall. It's still never going to catch up with a bow, nor should it, BUT it does account for strength, and let it interact w/the range, and it certainly adds to the utility of a weapon choice that's really unfairly penalized.
:shrugs:
Actually, given that I was the one who started this thread I'm most definitely not changing the issue. :) To me, the issue has always been about extending the range increments of the dagger, not so I could heave it down a football field, but to get rid of the range penalties associated with throwing anywhere past 10' A reply above by me even suggests that while an increase in the first range increment might be warranted, further range increments should be halved from the first to prevent the 'long bomb'.
As for who would bring a dagger to a sword fight? Probably the guy who is really, really bored with seeing big strong guys with superswords hack and slash. Yeah, it is effective, but it is an easy way to go and it's been done to death :) I'm just looking for something a little different, something not tried often. Something I feel should be workable as a character concept, but unfortunately as the present rules are written is not. If you read the entire thread, you'll find there are others here that also find the fact that this particular concept isn't viable is also a loss to the game. That's all I'm trying for here. Just a little variety. I hope you can understand that. :)
I'm in agreement with you that the concept of the thrown weapon specialist just isn't viable with the rules that we have currently. I disagree wholeheartedly that it's an only issue with the range increments though. They're a minor issue. The big problems are the cost of enchanting thrown weapons (since you'd want more than one; the archtypical image is someone with a bandoleer of throwing knives), and/or the cost and significant drawbacks of the returning property. The small range increments comes well after those issues.
Solutions that I've always had bouncing around in my head include a magic item that temporarily bestows a fixed enchantment on weapons for throwing only (such as a bandoleer, or bracers). Once thrown, they'd have to be sheathed in the item for x hours to regain the effect. Something along those lines. Quick Draw would still be required to gain multiple attacks in a round.
If the ranged increment penalties bug you as they stand right now, you could also go back to the 3.5 version of Far Shot. Rather than halving the penalties, it doubles the increments. That would give daggers the ability to throw up to 20' without penalty, though it would be -2 for every 20' beyond that, up to a max range of 100' (!), at a -8 penalty.
For my part, I'm torn on going back to 3.x's Far Shot, as the reduced penalties is also a good mechanic ... if anything, I'd probably be more inclined to create some new name for the old feat and let it be an option out there as well.
None of that still does much to help out how strength would/should increase/affect range, though.
On the more "realistic" front and to avoid a "long bomb" sort of thing (which I still contend is very unlikely to happen, and does not even come close to comparing with the range of the real ranged weapons), what if there was a sort of 1-range only boost instead?
Fine - leave the existing range increments as they stand (ie: daggers are at 10'), BUT bump up the first, and ONLY the first one by a +5' distance (or some other # - like maybe 10', but not much beyond that) per each +1 of Str bonus? So, in essence it would simply increase the initial "base range" of a thrown weapon, and anything beyond this would revert to the weapon's listed range increment.
I think this would address it nicely, IMO.
1) Makes strength relevant in determining range (but not accuracy).
2) Doesn't allow for extreme range changes, but simply some effective ones.
3) Makes use of existing Range Increment numbers for various weapons.
This doesn't do much of anything for the multiple enchanting weapons, though. My solution for this, however, would be to revert to 2e's defaults on all of things thrown (almost anyway). So, I'd change "Returning" as a feature to make it "ready and usable" for whatever amount of attack actions you can make. It would also come back to you regardless of movement, etc. I would NOT go back to old school RoF w/this, though - too much.
Maybe introduce a simple equipment type of 'throwing daggers' and make them do a limited amount of melee damage (1d2/1d3) and then leave the 1d4 as a range thing. Maybe give it a -2 for use as a melee weapon (small, light, not really built for mid-range work, but ok on grapple/close up work), and let it be purchased like "ammunition" or something like that.
:shrugs:
Fine - leave the existing range increments as they stand (ie: daggers are at 10'), BUT bump up the first, and ONLY the first one by a +5' distance (or some other # - like maybe 10', but not much beyond that) per each +1 of Str bonus? So, in essence it would simply increase the initial "base range" of a thrown weapon, and anything beyond this would revert to the weapon's listed range increment.
I think this would address it nicely, IMO.
Well, it does address it. From a gamist perspective, it's a nice enhancement to the rules. From a simulationist perspective, it's too much.
Let's take the minimum value you propose: +5'/STR bonus to the first range increment.
Our human Bayonne tournament winners topped out really close to 50'. Let's assume we make a human knife expert using a fighter at level 1. He would have at least a 16 in STR and DEX (for melee and ranged combat). He takes Weapon Focus, Point Blank, and Far Shot (I bet anyone capable of winning a tournament would have those feats too since they represent long hours of practice and determination with a chosen ranged weapon).
Our guy is +1 (BAB) + 3 (DEX) + 1 WF = +5 to hit at 50' range. His range penalty at 45' is -2, at 50' is -3, and he can throw to 75' (23 feet further than the best champion at Bayonne).
To hit that target (AC 6) at 45' he only needs to roll a 3 and will hit it 9 times out of 10. That's good enough that our first level fighter would have won the Bayonne tournament in 2008 outright. At level 1. And the same guy could hit a target at 75' on a 6 (3 times out of 4).
He would literally be the Michael Jordan of knife throwing.
At level 1.
1) Makes strength relevant in determining range (but not accuracy).
Maybe too relevant.
Also, it does make STR relevant in determining accuracy. A strong guy with an 18 STR can throw a dagger 30' with no penalty. A normal guy with 10 STR would be -4 to hit at that range. So the strong guy will hit targets within 30' 20% more often. I would say that makes him more accurate.
2) Doesn't allow for extreme range changes, but simply some effective ones.
You're right, going from 50' range to 80' range is not extreme. Those guys from Bayonne might gawk a bit at such ranges, though.
You're right, going from 50' range to 80' range is not extreme. Those guys from Bayonne might gawk a bit at such ranges, though.Considering the longest recorded combat throw for a knife is 87', I would argue that that IS pretty extreme. (WW2)
Interesting. So some guy in combat threw I knife 35' farther than the latest tournament champion? In combat, in danger, surrounded by a million threats that he had to worry about, he managed to throw almost 70% farther than those tournament champions could achieve while calm, safe, and undistracted? What are all those guys in Bayonne doing wrong?
Maybe they just need the adrenaline rush of fighting for their lives...
If this is true, then maybe 80' for a knife range is back to being viable as a simulationist point of view. Do you have a source?
|
You're right, going from 50' range to 80' range is not extreme. Those guys from Bayonne might gawk a bit at such ranges, though.Considering the longest recorded combat throw for a knife is 87', I would argue that that IS pretty extreme. (WW2)Interesting. So some guy in combat threw I knife 35' farther than the latest tournament champion? In combat, in danger, surrounded by a million threats that he had to worry about, he managed to throw almost 70% farther than those tournament champions could achieve while calm, safe, and undistracted? What are all those guys in Bayonne doing wrong?
Maybe they just need the adrenaline rush of fighting for their lives...
If this is true, then maybe 80' for a knife range is back to being viable as a simulationist point of view. Do you have a source?
Probably dumb luck or lobbed it at 45deg and was lucky enough it fell in a group of nazis huddled behind a bunch of sandbags...
But a quick google yielded the source: page 94 of "Knife and Tomahawk Throwing"
His name was Skeeter, a Cherokee Indian in charge of the Moccasin Rangers.
Regarding Blake and "simulationist" ... you *did* catch the part about me NOT caring about "realism" at all, right? ;-)
All said, though - I'm with you on the final line of all that stuff.
I could care LESS about some "expert" thrower's opinion, honestly. Right now, as a game option it sucks, and it shouldn't suck. Every option should be fun and *reasonable* to play.
Most suggestions here hit around that point somehow, so tournaments and the like - irrelevant.
I do find it interesting that the longest "recorded" feat is something that blows away the current standards, though. Certainly throws into question "experts" at this tournament, anyway. ;-) That also bring, front and center the matter of citing anything in the first place ... you can only cite what's been recorded, or observed - not accomplished, or "within human capacity" to achieve.
Couple that with the fact that PC's, even from stat gen are pointedly NOT supposed to be "average" people at all. They are the exceptional, and I'd say that would go even further than "expert" throwers in that sense. When I hear "Oh, well the champion of X in France could only get yea-far on his best toss, so CLEARLY it's *not possible* to make such a shot," I get fumed. Heated. This game is SO far from "real" or even "simulationist" it's not even funny (witness the darned stealth rules fiasco that's popped up recently and *sniping* amongst other problems. Let alone just walking behind someone that is still fully likely to *see* you or something - point being: simulationist is a BIG stretch for this system). There are things that people can do and have never been recorded doing so - make it impossible?
People are capable of accomplishing some truly amazing things - I reject the notion that PC's, being THE best of the best can not.
As for range and distance, etc - the BEST options, even with suggestions and modification, are still bows and x-bows ... they lose nothing on this, and they fire at FULL bonuses w/no range penalties vs. that 80' shot making it to *maybe* hit at the what, -10? It's still 20' shorter than even a non-compound version of a bow ... and that bow fires that range w/no penalties ...
:shrugs:
Again, though, agreed about the final line and thought. :-D
@Hokie: yeah ... enchantment is problematic ... but honestly, for me, I've a bigger gripe by far with distance having NO interaction at all with the muscle-behind the toss of a THROWN weapon.
I've tossed up a few ideas for dealing with enchantment, but most will probably be accused of being "broken" or something. Honestly ... enchantments in general are more of a headache to me than I'm find them to be worth the time and investment of re-inventing them.
My best "reinventions" are more of the kind to just "go back to 2e's deafult" on them. Seriously, though ... 2e just didn't have this issue or problem with thrown weapons ... at all. (I do believe range was still off, but not as crippilingly terrible as 3.x's iteration of the rules and such governing them).
EDIT: @Blake - not sure how you did the #'s, but the thought was that only the 1st range increment was increased by the str bonus. A +3 would mean +15' to the 10', so the first range increment for Mr. Daggers would be 25'. Everything after that would add +10' and a -2 to hit. But with a max of 10 range increments, it would cap out at 115' and be at a -20 to hit.
Vs. existing dagger default, still the 10 increment limit would net a -20, and would be at 100' ... my suggestion adds 15' to the front, and back ends of this ... not really much of a boost. :shrugs:
Your #'s just threw me was all ...
EDIT: @Blake - not sure how you did the #'s, but the thought was that only the 1st range increment was increased by the str bonus. A +3 would mean +15' to the 10', so the first range increment for Mr. Daggers would be 25'. Everything after that would add +10' and a -2 to hit. But with a max of 10 range increments, it would cap out at 115' and be at a -20 to hit.
Vs. existing dagger default, still the 10 increment limit would net a -20, and would be at 100' ... my suggestion adds 15' to the front, and back ends of this ... not really much of a boost. :shrugs:
Your #'s just threw me was all ...
Per RAW, thrown weapons only get 5 range increments, not 10. Only the "real" ranged weapons get 10 incements (those that are mechanical, such as bows and crossbows).
As for the -2 to hit, yes, that's without the Far Shot feat. I was assuming that anyone who might show up and win a dagger throwing tournament would have such a feat, so I also gave it to my first level fighter in my example. That is why he is -3 at 55':
00-25: -0
26-35: -1
36-45: -2
46-55: -3
56-65: -4
66-75: -5 (and maximum range)
EDIT: @Blake - not sure how you did the #'s, but the thought was that only the 1st range increment was increased by the str bonus. A +3 would mean +15' to the 10', so the first range increment for Mr. Daggers would be 25'. Everything after that would add +10' and a -2 to hit. But with a max of 10 range increments, it would cap out at 115' and be at a -20 to hit.
Vs. existing dagger default, still the 10 increment limit would net a -20, and would be at 100' ... my suggestion adds 15' to the front, and back ends of this ... not really much of a boost. :shrugs:
Your #'s just threw me was all ...
Per RAW, thrown weapons only get 5 range increments, not 10. Only the "real" ranged weapons get 10 incements (those that are mechanical, such as bows and crossbows).
As for the -2 to hit, yes, that's without the Far Shot feat. I was assuming that anyone who might show up and win a dagger throwing tournament would have such a feat, so I also gave it to my first level fighter in my example. That is why he is -3 at 55':
00-25: -0
26-35: -1
36-45: -2
46-55: -3
56-65: -4
66-75: -5 (and maximum range)
Thanks - I missed that piece.
{forgot about the 1/2 penalty outright, too}
In all honesty, the Far Shot feat is a case of taking something that is not designed for what one would have in mind for a throwing specialist but is the best bad option available.
Sort of like using scissors to cut the grass. Yeah technically scissors do cut things and have their advantages over a lawnmower, but for the purpose you need a cutting tool for, they are woefully inadequate.
I'm not sure what you mean here. How is Far Shot not designed for throwing?
As I see it, the feat is even more useful for throwing. I am far more likely to want to bean an orc at 50' with a thrown weapon (-8, but -4 with Far Shot) than I am to want to bean an orc at 500' (also -8/-4). Heck, very few encounters even take place at those kinds of ranges - it might never come up.
In fact, if you follow raw, if that orc is standing in a wide open meadow, with no cover or concealment, on a cloudless sunny day, I have to roll a Perception check at DC 49 to even see him standing there. Silly, but true - he is invisible to any normal character. I don't even know why any ranged weapon in the RAW has ranges much beyond 300' (DC 29 to see an orc in plain sight in good lighting). Which isn't the point.
But my point is, there is no way I am ever really going to test the extreme ranges of a longbow or crossbow. Even if it does come up, it might be only once or twice in a character's lifetime, even if he's optimized for using them, unless your campaign has a fondness for giant outdoor encounters. But I am certainly going to test the extreme ranges of thrown weapons an awful lot of the time, especially if I'm optimized for using them.
So, yeah, Far Shot will be 100x more useful on thrown weapons than it will be on "fired" weapons.
(side note: I do wish you would get on board with the HTML quotation tags; it's much easier to read)
Alright, I've said a lot about what's in the RAW, and even more about why some of the ideas here are impractical from a simulationist viewpoint. And I offered a suggestion to bring STR into the range mechanic.
But I haven't really taken a shot at addressing the OP.
So here goes.
What we need are multiple solutions. And I propose not changing the core mechanics because, frankly, range seems to work OK for the farmboy (based on those Bayonne results). So what we need are ways for a specialist to improve his ability above and beyond the limitations of the common farmboy. And above and beyond the Bayonne expectations because that is too limiting for a fantasy game.
This sounds like what feats are for. So let's take a shot at a couple:
First a disclaimer. Following these suggestions, our strongman Fred (see the examples at the bottom) gains +4 to hit at 10', +6 to hit at 20', and +8 to hit at 30-50', and has a fair chance to hit at 50-60' - using a dagger (note the extra bit of range, too). I don't know of any feats anywhere in the book that offer this kind of increase, so these feats might be overpowered. But they do seem in line with what the OP wants, and since the weapons in question really suck, mechanically, overpowering sucky weapons might be acceptible.
Like any good strongman, you know that power is the solution to all your needs. You've trained to hurl powerful ranged attacks that punch through your enemies' armor.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+
Benefit: You may use your Strength score instead of your Dexterity score when deterimining your ranged attack modifier with thrown weapons or with Composite bows. This feat may only be used when attacking targets within 3 range increments, or 100 feet, which ever is lesser.
Normal: All ranged attacks use Dexterity for calculating to hit modifiers.
This feat works exactly like Weapon Finesse, but in reverse, and only for thrown weapons or composite bows (other mechanical weapons have limits inherent in their mechanics that prevent using great strength to gain bonus to hit or damage). But it doesn't work at long ranges - at those kinds of ranges you're generally arching your throw/shot anyway, and the initial muscle power has little effect on the trajectory at that point.
I included Dexterity as a prerequisite because accuracy is still a function of Dexterity. A clumsy guy throwing a knife really hard will probably miss his target by a mile, but a dexterous guy throwing a knife really hard will bury it up to the hilt in his target.
You hurl thrown weapons with great force and surprising accuracy, often throwing them farther than would seem possible.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13+, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Benefit: Add 5' per point of Strength bonus to your first range increment. For every 10' added in this fashion, reduce the last range increment by 5'. If that last range increment is reduced to 0 by doing so, then your maximum range is determined by 4 range increments instead of 5.
Special: You may only add a distance to your first range increment equal to double the Range of the weapon you are throwing.
This feat extends the first range increment based on Strength, but reduces the last range increment by half the amount we increased. It also limits the increases to double the Range of the weapon.
I included a Dexterity rquirement for the same reason as the first feat, and I also put his into the Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot feat chain to make it less accessible to low-level characters - learning this feat will take a bit of dedication to thrown weapons (and besides, anyone who wants it will want those other two feats also, so it's not too big a deal).
Since it's a bit odd, I'll give an example of the last feat:
Fred takes the Longshot feat so he can throw daggers farther. He's big and strong with a 20 Strength and a 13 Dexterity, and he meets the other feat prerequisites.
His first range increment increases by 20' to a total of 30'. At this range he suffers no penalty throwing his daggers. Note, he only gets +20' (not +25') even though he has a +5 Strength bonus, because he is limited to double the Range of a dagger, which is 10'. He also subracts 10' from the last range increment, which reduces it 0, so this range increment doesn't exist for him anymore.
Range table:
10' -0 -0
20' -2 -0
30' -4 -0
40' -6 -2
50' -8 -4
60' NA -6
Note that I'm not counting BAB, or magic items, or anthing else. This table (and the following one) only show the modifiers based on the feats in question and nothing else that isn't spcifically listed.
The first column is his normal range increments without the feat, the second column is the new range increments with the feat. Fred has gained 10' overall and can throw better than the best of the Bayonne champions. Even more impressive, between 10' and 20' Fred has gained +2 to hit, and between 20' and 50' he has gained +4 to hit. So thanks to this feat, he is much more likely to hit anything in his original range, and also gained an extra 10' to his maximum range.
In the case of the second feat, having the greater Strength really didn't let Fred throw a whole lot farther than a farmboy, but it let his Strength increase his accuracy within all ranges except the first 10' (where there was no penalty anyway).
Now if we combine both feats (and the prerequisites), the table looks like this:
Range table:
10' +2 +6 (point blank)
20' -0 +6 (point blank)
30' -2 +6 (point blank)
40' -5 +3
50' -7 +1
60' NA -5
This table uses Dexterity (+1) to calculate the first column and Strength (+5) to calculate the second column, and the benefit of Point Blank Shot is applied to the first 30'. Also, Fred can only use his Strength bonus to hit for the first 3 range increments, so that last range increment is calculated using Dexterity.
Fred has clearly become an awesome knife thrower!
Man, and we thought the complaints about the katana were bad....
I never even really thought about having a fighter throw a dagger at great ranges.
But then I mostly play rogues, and I like to keep my throwing to less than 30 feet. *shrugs*
greg
Alright, I've said a lot about what's in the RAW, and even more about why some of the ideas here are impractical from a simulationist viewpoint. And I offered a suggestion to bring STR into the range mechanic.
But I haven't really taken a shot at addressing the OP.
So here goes.
What we need are multiple solutions. And I propose not changing the core mechanics because, frankly, range seems to work OK for the farmboy (based on those Bayonne results). So what we need are ways for a specialist to improve his ability above and beyond the limitations of the common farmboy. And above and beyond the Bayonne expectations because that is too limiting for a fantasy game.
This sounds like what feats are for. So let's take a shot at a couple:
{Clipped out some really cool suggestions for brevity sake}
Nicely done, Blake. Once again, why you are one of the posters whose opinions and suggestions I like to read. Don't always agree. But well argued and thought out. IF my players ever have issue with the raw of thrown weapons, I will definitely consider these adjustments.
greg
{Clipped out some really cool suggestions for brevity sake}
Nicely done, Blake. Once again, why you are one of the posters whose opinions and suggestions I like to read. Don't always agree. But well argued and thought out. IF my players ever have issue with the raw of thrown weapons, I will definitely consider these adjustments.
greg
Thanks for the props!
Too bad you don't always agree. My goal is to get everyone to agree with my way of doing things, and then I'll start a game company and make a game that everyone likes! Built in customer base, too!
:)
As for me, I don't know if I would use these feats myself; I just whipped them up to help out the OP (I felt I had been to dissenting on his thread without adding much value). Dunno if they're really what he wants, but we'll see.
On the other hand, they don't seem too gamebreaking, so maybe I can find a place for them. Maybe a dagger-throwing troll. Large daggers, of course...
Alright, lots of long posts here, so I sort of skimmed through them all and I don't think this was mentioned. Anyway, a lot of people would consider the ninja to be highly trained with thrown weapons, even after you weed out the misinformation about them. The following paragraphs are from a book titled Knife Throwing Techniques of the Ninja by Michael E. Peters:
Estimating DistancesA knife thrower must be able to judge distances with a good degree of precision in order to throw accurately. Such ability can only be gained from long hours of practice. Begin with established distances which are marked off. Once a Ninja learns to hit a target from any distance from five to thirty feet, he or she should practice to be able to hit the target at any range in between. Long distance throws from thirty up to fifty feet can be practiced in advanced training.
Knife Rotations
Short range throws, approximately ten feet or less, usually cause a knife to travel in a straight line to the target. Beyond this range, however, throwing knives execute one or more spins or half spins (up to several in number) before striking the target. Only through experience and dedicated training can a Ninja learn to estimate distance and judge how many rotations or half rotations a knife will need to make in order to strike a target point first. Remember that knives thrown by the handle must execute whole or complete spins (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc). Knives thrown by the blade must execute a number of half spins (l/2,1 1/2, 2 1/2, 3 1/2, etc). Once the basic theories and principles listed in this section have been learned, the Ninja must establish an effective training program.
Now if this is accurate and the top range that ninja learn to throw knives is 50 feet, you better believe the average fighter in D&D should not be able to throw any further with accuracy either.
|
what does average fighter mean anyhow?
a level one fighter?
You could always add in a prerequisite of bab+4. Then your fighter can survive four or five longswords in the stomach, and recovers completely in just over a week :p Seems reasonable to me that at that point, he sort of passes beyond real world estimations.
You know, characters that use throwing weapons get a TON of feats that can help them. The twf chain *giggling at two-weapon rend*, to two/thirds of the archery feats, and more.
A fighter'd actually get to use more of his feats to improve his core attack type.
The biggest issue with a throwing build is the sheer volume of weapons you go through. Very expensive to enchant them all. But with a little help from your dm, there's a way to make it easier.
Allow a bandoleer to function as a bow for the purposes of enhancing the ammo. Or something similar with a dagger sheathe, that also creates a temporary dagger that disappears once it impacts something. Of course, you'd want to require two of those to keep the costs balanced with a two-weapon fighter, but hey.
four attacks from bab, three from twf chain, and one from speed, and it's really painful to enchant eight weapons all at once :p
Now if this is accurate and the top range that ninja learn to throw knives is 50 feet, you better believe the average fighter in D&D should not be able to throw any further with accuracy either.
Oh Noes! Not the dredz ninja's! They'll wlil like flippp oute and killz uz als! lol!01010!
what does average fighter mean anyhow?
a level one fighter?
You could always add in a prerequisite of bab+4. Then your fighter can survive four or five longswords in the stomach, and recovers completely in just over a week :p
Or two days of bed-rest with a decent healer.
I thought of BAB prerequisites, but the first feat (Muscleman Finesse) is based off of Weapon Finesse and that has no BAB prerequisite. And the second feat (Longshot) isn't based off of anything, but with two other feat Prerequisites, most people couldn't get it at first level (a Human fighter or ranger could), but most everyone else will need a few levels to get there, even more if they take other stuff first, and that should suffice for a level restriction, at least in my opinion.
There's also a feat called Brutal Throw I believe, that has appeared in one or two 3.5 supplements that simply allows you to use your STR instead of Dex for throwing weapons. This may have been called Axe Thrower in one source as well I think. It's been awhile...
As I said before, someone as far away as that orc is going to have dibs called on him by the Ranger. The problem, as I've said many times before isn't what happens between feet 30 and 60, it's what happens between feet 0 and 30. It's what happens there that makes the Dagger useless as a throwing option and therein lies the problem.
Yes, but in the distance you're describing, Far Shot effectively gives the dagger thrower +1 to hit at 10-20' and +2 to hit at 20-30'. It gives a bowman or a crossbowman absolutely nothing at those ranges. Which means, Far Shot is useless to the mechanical weapons at the range you're describing, and under 30' Far Shot is better than Weapon Focus for a dagger thrower (and it stacks with Weapon Focus so why not have both).
I'd say it's still made for throwers far more than it is for archers, just becaues the nature of the game, the close-combat ranges, and the almost non-existent combats at ranges over a couple hundred feet. If I were playing a bow-optimized character in the Core ruleset only, I would probably never take Far Shot, unless I could truly think of nothing else to take. But it would be the second or third feat I would take if I were a dagger-optimized character. And that's speaking strictly of Core.
Now, I know you want more. Did you check out those two feats I wrote up?
And DragonMonster_Blake isn't even factoring in your BAB for bein' a fighter. It seems like the short range is the sweet spot for your dagger thrower.
Yes, your guy needs to spend some feats on it..but heck.. he is a fighter and them folks gotta spend them on something. And don't get me goin' about him at higher levels.
I mean, GOSH, it is just a dagger. You shouldn't be uber at it at first level with no feats and no special abilities. Honest, RAW seems swell to me. ( then again, I run only CORE games, so per'aps I am prejudicial *shrugs* )
greg
EDIT AFTERTHOUGHT : Oh, and instead of haversack or weight reducing magic, maybe just make sure your daggers get "returning" on them.
I like the feats for the most part, Blake. Things I'm not that much sold on myself:
1) Finesse in the strength title. "Brutal Throw" sounds a bit better, though. I do like you you made a Dex 13 matter for the build, though.
2) Maybe even restrict it specifically to Thrown weapons only as well (my thought anyway - bow types really do not need this at all).
3) Longshot - why deny the 5th range increment? With that exception, it's pretty good otherwise. Seems a bit ... dense in that whole "less range" nonsense as it goes along. Just leave it as simple additions. The sky will not fall if a 5th range increment approaches some 80' or so ...
For the thread in general, I think I've got my answers for adjusting things:
*Feats - new feats to add options specifically centered around and as a bonus for Throwing concept characters.
*That bandoleer idea is pretty fantastic. Especially making "returning" be one of the things folded into it - nice idea. Maybe charge the "non-standard space" thing for building it, eh? It's a very cool way to handle this whole "increasing magic item" costs w/the thrower build.
*To handle things before hitting bandoleer costs, create a new type of dagger w/penalties in melee (except maybe a grapple), and have them function exactly as "ammunition" in treatment (yes ... even the magical "explode on impact" nonsense *rollseyes* )
*Simply house-rule the function of the "returning" feature back to it's pre-3.x days (ie: it'll come back wherever you move).
there are also the "gloves of endless javelins" from the Magic Item Compendium p.194 - free action to create a +1 javelin that lasts 1 round. they could very easily be adapted to daggers. using the combine magic effects pricing to add the effects of "gauntlets of extended range" MIC p.103 - doubles the range increments of thrown weapons or object.
both items are pretty cheap. (7k and 2k not combined)
There's actually a glove that creates daggers as well, but it's limited in scalability when you go up in levels, which is the issue I'm most concerned about (adding new enhancements like Flaming and such). IIRC, The Glove has 5 charges per day. A +1 Dagger costs 1 charge, a +3 Dagger costs 5, or something like that. It can also create mundane daggers at will at no charge. In all cases the daggers vanish after something like 5 rounds.
With items like that and the Gloves of Endless Javelins, it's difficult to determine how much it should cost to add Keen or one of the energy damage modifiers to the weapon's capabilities. Without that, the item is only useful for first few levels after you can afford it. I picture the bandoleer idea costing the same (or with perhaps a one time premium) as a normal magic weapon, provided that the items thrown from it immediately lose their magical properties.