Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
If not, how does a play group resolve this issue?
Well... Far shot lessens the penalty, but still... Whether it is intent or tradition, I dunno, but it is rather risky business throwing daggers up close and personal so you are likely not doing it due to range penalty. Good question :-)
Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
If not, how does a play group resolve this issue?
To be fair, you did forget (c) attack things between 6 and 10 feet away.
To be fair, you did forget (c) attack things between 6 and 10 feet away.Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
If not, how does a play group resolve this issue?
Where's that like-button?
To be fair, you did forget (c) attack things between 6 and 10 feet away.Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
If not, how does a play group resolve this issue?
Kind of impossible in a game that frequently relies on a grid map that uses 5-ft. increments.
You are either 5 feet away, in which case you provoke, or you are 10 feet away, which is your first range increment so you take a -2 to hit. With the way the game is intended to be played (with a map and minis) there is no real way around it.
Hence why I see this as a design flaw when it comes to short range throwing weapons.
Kind of impossible in a game that frequently relies on a grid map that uses 5-ft. increments.
You are either 5 feet away, in which case you provoke, or you are 10 feet away, which is your first range increment so you take a -2 to hit. With the way the game is intended to be played (with a map and minis) there is no real way around it.
Hence why I see this as a design flaw when it comes to short range throwing weapons.
Well, you didn't specify THAT. :) It's only impossible if you choose to make it impossible. Also, you get the range penalty after 10 feet, so if you're being that square (haha, pun) about it, you can use a thrown weapon risk or range penalties if the target is 10 feet away.
Edit: Ninja'ed! But to clarify, I think this was a change from 3.5 where the range increment would start at 10 feet, so the confusion is valid.
|
Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
If not, how does a play group resolve this issue?
"Range: Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range. Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target. For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments." (bold added)
10 feet (2 squares) is not more than 10 feet. Attacks at 10 feet have no range penalty and do not provoke AoO.
Note, the situation does come up if attacking two squares on a diagonal, but can be resolved with a 5-foot-step.
But seriously, if the enemy is 10 ft. away, then you take that 5 ft. step and melee them.
The original point is valid, 10 ft. increment is the same as penalizing all those weapons with a minimum -2 to hit.
But seriously, if the enemy is 10 ft. away, then you take that 5 ft. step and melee them.
Because this is a great plan if you're built for ranged combat.
|
|
But seriously, if the enemy is 10 ft. away, then you take that 5 ft. step and melee them.
The original point is valid, 10 ft. increment is the same as penalizing all those weapons with a minimum -2 to hit.
You step up and melee them if that's what you want to do.
At 10 feet, there is no range penalty. There may be very good reasons to not melee, whether due to the attacking character's abilities, weapons and feats, or due to defenses that the creature might have. That you have a choice to melee isn't the same as 10 feet being a minimum -2 to hit.
Yup. Add that a lot of critters have reach and most of the time throwing stuff is plain waste of actions.
Which is a shame.
|
|
If y'all wanna say that throwing builds are ineffective, that's a different issue. If you wanna say that reach is an advantage vs. throwing, that's a different issue. If you wanna say that at certain levels of play or vs. types of creatures that might be encountered at certain levels of play, that reach results in the rules-based limitations on thrown weapons limit their utility, that's a different issue. None of this is a statement about what the rules are.
OP misunderstood or misstated the rule. A weapon with 10 foot range has zero attack penalty when thrown from 10 feet.
I suspect that you were thinking of the 3.5 wording regarding range inc.
From the Hypertext SRD
"Range Increment
Any attack at less than this distance is not penalized for range. However, each full range increment imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot out to ten range increments."
As others have stated, one can use 10' Range weapons at 10' with no penalty.
------------------
Yeah, the main idea is that thrown weapons are garbage but at least you get to add your str to damage.
Throwing weapons very directly are tiered into good and bad, with most of them being bad. Ordered by Throwing range>Base Damage(where lethal>nonlethal)>Critical>Cost>Weight we get a chart something like this. (I seem to remember reading somewhere that all weapons get thrown one-handed but that could be a 3.5 ruling, so handedness is a non-issue right now.) APG included (Others in parentheses). Best to worst.
(Crystal chakram)
Chakram
Javelin
(Shrillshaft javelin)
Boomerang
Spear
(Syringe spear)
Pilum
Shortspear
(Aklys)
(Throwing shield)
Starknife
Dart
Hammer, light
(Hunga munga)
(Totem spear)
Trident
(Dwarven maulaxe)
Club
Axe, throwing
Dagger
(Switchblade knife)
(Stingchuck, empty)
Wooden stake
(Shoanti bola)
Shuriken
Bolas
Net
Basically, thowing weapons can be decent as long as you get your quickdraw and use Javelins, Spears, or Chakrams. Looking at what is in the low range thrown catagory, totem spear and below, those are simply not great weapons in general. For lack of a better way to describe it, they suck and were meant to suck. Shuriken is the only low end throwing weapon to really stand up to combat use . . . by monk flurry only. For everyone else, shuriken are just there to save you the quickdraw but are virtually not worth taking the proficencey. Those low end thrown weapons for the most part are just there so you can have the threat of a ranged attack, so you can say "I might hit you with this junk I am holding." Either that or to give an extra attack to characters who otherwise would not get to attack.
(Aside)We kinda like to think of shuriken as awesome weapons, but you basically are just throwing thin five-inch nails at people. The club is a more threatening weapon really 90% of the time. Brick or small metal disk. If I happen to have on a leather jerkin I would probably be protected from the tiny metal disk, but that brick will still crack some ribs.
The barbarian probably gets the best milage out of thrown weapons (big suprise) because of the automatic str-to-damage they offer, allowing him to kick butt at a short distance regardless of if he could actually move to the target (like flying stuff). Damage output still strongly favors melee, like always.
Not to mention that throwing weapons are horribly inefficient to enchant (except shuriken, but they disappear when they hit).
What I'm saying is that you can't build a thrower with the same outlook as an archer.If y'all wanna say that throwing builds are ineffective, that's a different issue. If you wanna say that reach is an advantage vs. throwing, that's a different issue. If you wanna say that at certain levels of play or vs. types of creatures that might be encountered at certain levels of play, that reach results in the rules-based limitations on thrown weapons limit their utility, that's a different issue. None of this is a statement about what the rules are.
OP misunderstood or misstated the rule. A weapon with 10 foot range has zero attack penalty when thrown from 10 feet.
Well, no, and you shouldn't be able to, since bows really DO have a HUGE mechanical advantage over thrown weapons. But from a flavor stanpoint, I see your point -- and agree, since I'm currently playing a character who relies on thrown weapons a lot. There COULD, and arguably SHOULD, be a niche for non-barbarian throwers. Their one advantage that is not exploited is they require less space.
In D20 Modern, the Gunslinger AC has a class feature called Close Combat Shot, which allows firing a small or medium firearm without incurring an AoO. What about making it a feat, reskinning it to apply to thrown weapons, make Point Blank Shot a prereq, and voila! A more effective short-range throwing character.
I would use a Dart due to the fact that is a thrown weapon.
The throwing Knife
Critical: ×2
Range Increment: 20 ft
Type: Piercing or slashing
Hardness: 10
Is not in pathfinder.
HURRAY FOR PATHFINDER CHANGES!
Yes, I was thinking of the v3.5 rule, which states that you take the penalty for each full range increment (which screws you at 10 feet).
As for throwing knives, I just use dart stats and call them throwing knives.
Hmm, the dagger in the Core Rulebook has a 10 ft. range increment right there in the table.
Darts are more like little javelins (anywhere from 1-3 feet long) than what most people consider "lawn darts."
Slightly off point, but worthwhile to note anyway....
A feat should make you good at something.
A feat that makes you "less bad" at something is weaksauce.
I'm looking at you "Far Shot".
Not to mention that throwing weapons are horribly inefficient to enchant (except shuriken, but they disappear when they hit).
I tried to overcome this with a houserule
Slightly off point, but worthwhile to note anyway....
A feat should make you good at something.
A feat that makes you "less bad" at something is weaksauce.
I'm looking at you "Far Shot".
I dunno.
In the first range increment, Weapon Focus is better.In the second range increment, Far Shot is tied with WF.
FS gets progressively better compared to WF.
However, for most adventurers, you're never beyond that 2nd increment, so WF is a better choice.
But for army archers in the field, FS means shooting a guy at 500 feet with a longbow is at -4 instead of -8. Shooting a guy at 1000 feet is at -9 instead of -18. That's a big difference in a battle.
But you have to take PBS to get FS (which is weird because you need the "good up close" feat to get to the "good far away" feat).
It's a problem.
For PCs, FS basically becomes "another +1 to hit that stacks with WF but only kicks in at the 2nd range increment." Which sort of means it extends PBS out to the 2nd range increment. Though you have the dead zone between the 30 ft. of PBS and the start of the 2nd range increment for FS, so that's also weird.
Weird.
Far Shot wasn't broken in 3.5 and didn't need fixing.
I allow Far Shot (v3.5) into my games, alongside Cleave (v3.5).
Far Shot wasn't broken in 3.5 and didn't need fixing.
I allow Far Shot (v3.5) into my games, alongside Cleave (v3.5).
Meanwhile, I never really saw the point of Far Shot in 3.5, but really dig the PF version. Being able to eliminate range penalties? Yes please.
just because a weapon category doesn't have an optimization doesn't mean there is not a use for them. it's still a situational rule system that comes in handy in well, curtain situation. You can't really optimize defensive fighting, withdrawing, and total defense either, it doesn't mean it's never used and can't come in handy.
I dont know how many times i've seem this happen. a melee character starts to move into position and realizes he's 10' away from being able to attack and he's unable to charge. at least with a thrown weapon EVEN if you take a penalty it's STILL an attack. and in the case of a decent melle character even with a -2 to -4 penalty you might even have a good shot of landing it!
the most times i ever used throwing weapons was a melee fighter. I would just stroll up casually chucking javelins. often times i dropped opponents even before i got in range. yeah i could have got a bow but javelins just seemed cooler and were cheaper than an appropriate strength bow :D not to mention it's just damn cool to throw a meager dagger and kill a monster with it lol!
Meanwhile, I never really saw the point of Far Shot in 3.5, but really dig the PF version. Being able to eliminate range penalties? Yes please.Far Shot wasn't broken in 3.5 and didn't need fixing.
I allow Far Shot (v3.5) into my games, alongside Cleave (v3.5).
It would be better if they combined the two concepts. You would see a lot more people taking it if it reduced the penalty to half AND increased the range you could fire/throw weapons.
Its current write up screws over weapon throwers even more than they already were.
Is it really the designer's intent that all throwing weapons with 10-foot range increments either (a) take a range penalty on every attack or (b) provoke attacks of opportunity?
Yes. Ranged combat in Dnd has always been set up so that composite bows are better than any other ranged weapon existing (including exotic weapons). Don't ask me why, but through 3.0, 3.5 and PF this was true and if they haven't changed it yet, presumably it is because they like it that way.
|
|
A rogue can use throw weapons efficiently in the right situation.
Recently one of my players was capable to get a group of 4 relatively low level drow flat footed within 30'.
Between the surprise round and the initiative he had won he was capable to kill all of them with throw weapon+sneak attack (the little fact that he has several +1 returning dagger looted from a bunch of enemies helped). If he had to move from a target to another he could have dropped 2 at most.
A bow would have worked as well as the returning daggers, but as the PC are having a protracted fight several groups of drow amid the ruins of a elven city using up all the ammunitions in minor encounters will not be the best choice.
Very situational, but the daggers are part of the rogue/assassin stereotype, much more than the bow, so there is some satisfaction seeing them work well ever so often.
I have decided that the best way to deal with thrown weapons is to include the following custom feat:
Weapon Throwing
- Requirement: Dex 13.
- Requirement: Str 10.
- Requirement: Proficiency with weapon thrown.
Choose a hand-held light melee weapon from the following list: dagger, hand-axe, one handed hammer or short sword (I may include other weapons). With that type of weapon you gain the following benefits:
- Increase the range increment by 50%
- Gain the "quickdraw" feat for that weapon type
- Gain the "point blank" feat for that weapon type
This feat can be chosen more than once, but applies to a different weapon type each time it is chosen.
A rogue can use throw weapons efficiently in the right situation.
Recently one of my players was capable to get a group of 4 relatively low level drow flat footed within 30'.
Between the surprise round and the initiative he had won he was capable to kill all of them with throw weapon+sneak attack (the little fact that he has several +1 returning dagger looted from a bunch of enemies helped). If he had to move from a target to another he could have dropped 2 at most.A bow would have worked as well as the returning daggers, but as the PC are having a protracted fight several groups of drow amid the ruins of a elven city using up all the ammunitions in minor encounters will not be the best choice.
Very situational, but the daggers are part of the rogue/assassin stereotype, much more than the bow, so there is some satisfaction seeing them work well ever so often.
I'm guessing he had one dagger per attack plus the Quick Draw feat? Otherwise, that wouldn't work as the daggers don't come back for nearly a full round.
|
|
A rogue can use throw weapons efficiently in the right situation.
Recently one of my players was capable to get a group of 4 relatively low level drow flat footed within 30'.
Between the surprise round and the initiative he had won he was capable to kill all of them with throw weapon+sneak attack (the little fact that he has several +1 returning dagger looted from a bunch of enemies helped). If he had to move from a target to another he could have dropped 2 at most.A bow would have worked as well as the returning daggers, but as the PC are having a protracted fight several groups of drow amid the ruins of a elven city using up all the ammunitions in minor encounters will not be the best choice.
Very situational, but the daggers are part of the rogue/assassin stereotype, much more than the bow, so there is some satisfaction seeing them work well ever so often.
I'm guessing he had one dagger per attack plus the Quick Draw feat? Otherwise, that wouldn't work as the daggers don't come back for nearly a full round.
Yes to both.
Most of the "real word" advantages of the throw weapons have little or now game mechanics supporting them:
- ease of concealing for some of them; (one of the few difference supported by game mechanics)
- several of them suffer less from adverse weather effects while used (a bowstring [made with natural fibres] will lose tension if used wet, to give an example of negative effects); (no different effect foe missile and throw weapons)
- if you keep a bow (or a crossbow) always strung (I hope this is the right term) after a time the bowstring degrade and even the bow will suffer, a throw weapon can be kept always ready for use with very limited negative effects; (no effect)
- you can use them together with a shield (like the Roman pilum was used). (supported by game mechanics)
I know someone would probably hate me for saying this, but the bow is not famous for his pinpoint accuracy, especially at very short range.
You fire it with a arced trajectory and a very short range you need to aim to a lower point than the one you wish to hit.
For "ranged" sneak attacks (i.e. 30') a crossbow or several of the throw weapons should work better.
This thread has given me the idea of a houserule about limiting somewhat the bow when used for sneak attacks.
Far Shot wasn't broken in 3.5 and didn't need fixing.
I allow Far Shot (v3.5) into my games, alongside Cleave (v3.5).
Old cleave at least could come back as a feat or barbarian power under another name ("rampage" or something similar, say).
- if you keep a bow (or a crossbow) always strung (I hope this is the right term) after a time the bowstring degrade and even the bow will suffer, a throw weapon can be kept always ready for use with very limited negative effects; (no effect)
This is the place I think could best use a mechanical change to bring throwing weapons a little more into parity. If it took a standard action to string a shortbow, and a fullround action to string a longbow, with some penalty to keeping it strung all day long, then throwing weapons would be the "ready to hand" weapons and bows would be the more powerful but slower-to-ready ones.
|
|
This is the place I think could best use a mechanical change to bring throwing weapons a little more into parity. If it took a standard action to string a shortbow, and a fullround action to string a longbow, with some penalty to keeping it strung all day long, then throwing weapons would be the "ready to hand" weapons and bows would be the more powerful but slower-to-ready ones.
- if you keep a bow (or a crossbow) always strung (I hope this is the right term) after a time the bowstring degrade and even the bow will suffer, a throw weapon can be kept always ready for use with very limited negative effects; (no effect)
From what I know stringing a bow is reasonably fast (even if a bow made for a strength above yours will be a hard to strung [look the story of Ulysses, the real test for Phenelope suitors was stringing the bow, not firing it]).
I think a move action to strung a bow should be right for game balance.
The problem will be the crossbow. It is usually harder to strung than a bow and it is already less efficient than a bow in game terms.