Yep. So knives, starknife... I'm not sure if there are that many more that have all 3 reqs actually.
Dagger, starknife, and filcher's fork are the only three that I see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. So knives, starknife... I'm not sure if there are that many more that have all 3 reqs actually.Dagger, starknife, and filcher's fork are the only three that I see.
Halfling thief rogue with ranger multiclass, expert of slinging his returning filcher's fork at enemies from a dozen yards. That sounds like it'll be my next character. :)
Rogue!Hawke approves of this.
... I'm still working on a Transmuter, but for builds intended for rival adventuring parties, I'm totally going to use the Returning Daggers as a stealth build.
_______
So, a Thrown Weapon still counts as Melee, then? I'm not 100% sure on that reading, but it says thrown adds strength JUST LIKE in melee... which means not at all for a Thief Rogue? I'm a little dubious, but this seems reasonable.
When a fight breaks out, you prefer swift, lightweight weapons, and you strike where it hurts. When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
THROWN
TRAITYou can throw this weapon as a ranged attack. A thrown weapon adds your Strength modifier to damage just like a melee weapon does. When this trait appears on a melee weapon, it also includes the range increment. Ranged weapons with this trait use the range increment specified in the weapon’s Range entry.
So the argument is that thrown says it adds Strength to damage, and thief says you can use Dex to damage instead of strength "When you attack with a finesse melee weapon". So the question becomes whether the attack with the melee weapon has to be a melee attack, or whether the thrown weapon is still counted as a melee weapon for the damage modification.
I would be inclined to say it does not count as a melee weapon for the thrown strike, despite my really wanting to make a filcher's fork throwing build. I can't think of any of the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some feats or abilities which just would not make sense if a thrown weapon still counted as a melee weapon. I think common sense would say it's supposed to be counted as a ranged weapon for this Strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think common sense would say it's supposed to be counted as a ranged weapon for this Strike.
On the other hand, the book seems to go to lengths to emphasize that that's not the case.
The rogue feat felling shot works with "ranged and thrown weapons" and the rules on ranged attacks keep them separate too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark made some posts on his discord that seemed to indicate this was not intended. So they aren't supposed to get Dex to damage.
Mark made some posts on his discord that seemed to indicate this was not intended. So they aren't supposed to get Dex to damage.
And now I am sad.
Mark made some posts on his discord that seemed to indicate this was not intended. So they aren't supposed to get Dex to damage.
That makes sense, dex to damage seems to be something they threw out when they made the transition to 2nd edition to make dex a bit less of an overwhelmingly superior ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark made some posts on his discord that seemed to indicate this was not intended. So they aren't supposed to get Dex to damage.That makes sense, dex to damage seems to be something they threw out when they made the transition to 2nd edition to make dex a bit less of an overwhelmingly superior ability.
I mean while I don’t disagree Dex was too powerful, Rogue thieves being about to make iconic melee thrown weapons viable (they really still need to take quick draw) would have been balanced still I think.
It’s effectively a level 2 Class Feat to be about on par with a standard melee in terms of attacks, has a range increment fairly limiting that still requires certain circumstances for SA, and the weapon damage dice are 1d4 (plus they have a decent bulk and limited number of throws).
It may be unintended but it makes a knife thrower viable without being op IMO so I hope they leave it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reported in the "typos/mistakes/etc" thread to improve the chances of being officially made clear one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the pregenerated rogue Paizo made they add Str to the thrown dagger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean my biggest reason why it should remain would be that it's an unnecessary tax of ability scores on the Rogue.
Like I have players currently playing a thief that has thrown weapons she likes to use (mainly darts). She has 10 Str. She could never afford even 14 Str, let alone the 18 to get a reasonably comparable damage on a thrown attack.
And the damage difference for just going with something else isn't really worth it.
The biggest reason against would be that it furthers the distance of Scoundrel to the other two.
You can't just turn it into a new racket either, since that's not really viable theme on it's own and there's no reason a Thief shouldn't be able to throw weapons effectively.
If you make it a Class Feat, that's a double tax on a thrown build, which is pretty hefty considering it's not much better than just using a Shortbow or heck, investing a Class Feat for a better ranged weapon.
Ultimately I think Scoundrel can be salvaged with new Skill Feats and Class Feats to support feinting. If they roll back the change to Thief, it's just going to mean printing more support for thrown weapon thieves later, so why not just leave it since it doesn't hurt anything?
We're talking thrown melee weapons specifically with finesse/agile, that's a pretty tiny scope of weapons.
The only issue then becomes whether introducing a feat that offers the Thrown trait to weapons without it, but then this will inevitably require the stripping of traits anyways so Throw Anything could simply be "If you choose to throw a weapon and that weapon does not already possess the Thrown trait, it loses all other traits for the purposes of attacks."
I suppose a level 1 Rogue Feat could solve the problem as well, but again, seems like a heavy tax to get +4 to damage (at most) with a weapon that already does on average less damage than a crossbow (and since they both effectively have a reload of "1" until the Rogue gets Quickdraw as a Level 2 Class Feat, I'd argue it's preference at best).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warriors as well as monsters do less damage at range. Lower die types, Propulsive, even Volley make ranged damage inferior because attacking at range is such an advantage. Except Rogues would be doing the same amount as damage as they do in melee (which is significant) if they could do Dex to damage w/ thrown weapons.
So I side w/ Mark & Merisiel who agree that there's no Dex to damage w/ thrown. And there's the PF2 mantra that if you see a loophole, it's either not a loophole or you should close it. RAW explicitly isn't king according to RAW. (PF2's RAW is humble that way.)
I do think we need more clarity on what the traits of a thrown weapon are when thrown. I'm thinking it loses the melee trait & gains the ranged trait. As it is now, I'm wary of using ranged feats w/ thrown weapons (at least in PFS) even when they sync so naturally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking it loses the melee trait & gains the ranged trait.
I just don't see anything in the rules that supports this. They constantly call out ranged and thrown weapons as being separate. The only real exception being a mention of "ranged thrown weapons", which specifically refers to stuff like the javelin.
You'd certainly be making ranged attacks, but there's nothing that really suggests that they become ranged weapons either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except Rogues would be doing the same amount as damage as they do in melee (which is significant) if they could do Dex to damage w/ thrown weapons.
Not really. Since they effectvly have Reload 1, you need to spend a feat/action/rune.
Not to mention the extra difficulty of getting flat footed at range.
Thus I would allow it.
I'm thinking it loses the melee trait & gains the ranged trait.I just don't see anything in the rules that supports this. They constantly call out ranged and thrown weapons as being separate. The only real exception being a mention of "ranged thrown weapons", which specifically refers to stuff like the javelin.
You'd certainly be making ranged attacks, but there's nothing that really suggests that they become ranged weapons either.
While I agree the rules are silent on this (hence my dilemma & avoidance of use in PFS), I think that striking at range is enough evidence that it's then a ranged weapon. That's the sort of thing Paizo might've taken for granted because it's so obvious. Or it might be a deliberate choice for balance issues I don't yet comprehend.
In the same vein, I think melee feats (et al) wouldn't apply when thrown, i.e. a Wounding Rune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warriors as well as monsters do less damage at range. Lower die types, Propulsive, even Volley make ranged damage inferior because attacking at range is such an advantage. Except Rogues would be doing the same amount as damage as they do in melee (which is significant) if they could do Dex to damage w/ thrown weapons.
Except Thrown weapons already do that for Strength. I don't see what your point is.
Are you arguing that there should be no Str to damage at all? because your argument applies to that as well.
All this does is frees up a Rogue from having to invest in Str, that should not have to invest in Str. It applies to a specific racket of Rogue.
And it applies not to ALL ranged weapons, but specifically to ranged weapons with lower damage die that have specific traits on them and only for Thief Rogues.
There is not "side with Mark", Mark simply implied it wasn't necessarily intended. It is, however, RAW.
You can argue for them to change it, but this is not a case of "interpret this", that is what the rules state.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree the rules are silent on this
I disagree. The rules aren't silent. The rules go out of their way to keep ranged and thrown weapons as separate categories, with the exception of weapons that are both like the javelin.
Yes, this means that a number of feats don't work with thrown weapons when they'd make sense to, but that's no weirder than the dozens of 'melee weapon' feats being incompatible with unarmed strikes and we know that's on purpose. In that respect I don't think it's necessarily a loophole and is even consistent with their other design choices in the book (even if I agree that it's janky).
I also think you're overselling the power of this hypothetical thrown weapon thief a bit. You do slightly more damage than a shortbow rogue, but with one sixth the range and you do slightly less damage than a dedicated melee rogue who would have picked a better weapon than the dagger. The flexibility is great, but there are clear and significant tradeoffs being made here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think you're overselling the power of this hypothetical thrown weapon thief a bit. You do slightly more damage than a shortbow rogue
IF you spend a level 2 Class Feat on Quick Draw. Otherwise it's objectively worse (not to mention costly and more cumbersome).
Plus the range increment is much worse for thrown melee weapons than a Shortbow.
It's pearl clutching over nothing tbh.
Well, you can also grab returning at 3 or so. Expensive early on but it doesn't suck like PF1 returning does.
I think perhaps dex-to-damage for throwing weapons (but not crossbows etc.) would just be another rogue racket - something flashier than the thief.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly we're getting into people close reading the wording of citricking's mention of the fact that I said something, so here is what I said. It was in response to talking about the same question with Rage and Raging Thrower (it has identical language and the reading that ranged attacks with some thrown weapons and not others are melee weapon attacks would make the feat do nothing):
We have Rage on the list to look at for clarity updates, I can add the thief ability as well. Are there any other that are ambiguous and seem to work with thrown melee weapons if you read them a particular way?
and then I said
Javelins for instance are clearly ranged
since they don't have a melee usage.
It would be weird for thrown daggers to work differently than thrown javelins
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, sure, it would be "weird", but have you ever seen a goblin intimidate a hill giant? That's pretty weird as well, yes surprisingly effective :-P. Thanks for providing the context of this, BTW :).Honestly we're getting into people close reading the wording of citricking's mention of the fact that I said something, so here is what I said. It was in response to talking about the same question with Rage and Raging Thrower (it has identical language and the reading that ranged attacks with some thrown weapons and not others are melee weapon attacks would make the feat do nothing):
We have Rage on the list to look at for clarity updates, I can add the thief ability as well. Are there any other that are ambiguous and seem to work with thrown melee weapons if you read them a particular way?and then I said
Javelins for instance are clearly ranged
since they don't have a melee usage.
It would be weird for thrown daggers to work differently than thrown javelins
That's a different kind of weird, though, in a way that "it's a fantasy setting" doesn't explain. Leaning into this rules ambiguity and clarifying that it works just the way the unclear wording leaves open as a possibility would mean that, for instance, if we had a throwing knife that was better for throwing, longer range, etc, but useless in melee, so we listed it in ranged like the javelin, a rogue would not be able to gain the benefit on a throwing knife.
So it's not like a goblin intimidating a hill giant, that's just a standard cool fantasy thing that could happen in a world of magic. To have the world be affected by where a weapon is printed on the weapon table is more like if we printed "A goblin can indeed intimidate hill giants. In fact, they can intimidate any monster from aeons to yetis" and then that meant goblins could not intimidate zebras, zools, or other monsters that came after yeti in the alphabet. That's weird, even in a fantasy world, that the rules of the world were based on the letter of the alphabet (in this example).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mistake or not, I've seen several good reasons to leave it as is, and no good reasons to change it.
Until I see official errata, thief rogues at my table are getting their Dex mods to damage. Thrown weapon builds just don't stack up otherwise.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until I see official errata, thief rogues at my table are getting their Dex mods to damage. Thrown weapon builds just don't stack up otherwise.
Honestly feel free to run it the way that works for you and your table regardless, and that goes for ambiguous and unambiguous rules alike!
Mistake or not, I've seen several good reasons to leave it as is, and no good reasons to change it.
Until I see official errata, thief rogues at my table are getting their Dex mods to damage. Thrown weapon builds just don't stack up otherwise.
Well, more specifically, Strength dumping thrown builds don't stack up otherwise. I think someone with good Strength and Dexterity can have an effective thrown build, it just will not likely revolve around daggers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To... is more like if we printed "A goblin can indeed intimidate hill giants. In fact, they can intimidate any monster from aeons to yetis" and then that meant goblins could not intimidate zebras, zools, or other monsters that came after yeti in the alphabet.
I have a new favorite houserule.
I guess thrown weapon Rogues with Thief racket will just have to suffer from MAD along with their sub optimal and Class Feat taxed preference.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leaning into this rules ambiguity and clarifying that it works just the way the unclear wording leaves open as a possibility would mean that, for instance, if we had a throwing knife that was better for throwing, longer range, etc, but useless in melee, so we listed it in ranged like the javelin, a rogue would not be able to gain the benefit on a throwing knife.
While true, I don't think that's any weirder than, say, our same rogue here getting dex to damage while wearing gauntlets but not if they take those gauntlets off (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warriors as well as monsters do less damage at range. Lower die types, Propulsive, even Volley make ranged damage inferior because attacking at range is such an advantage. Except Rogues would be doing the same amount as damage as they do in melee (which is significant) if they could do Dex to damage w/ thrown weapons.
Except Thrown weapons already do that for Strength. I don't see what your point is.
Are you arguing that there should be no Str to damage at all? because your argument applies to that as well.
All this does is frees up a Rogue from having to invest in Str, that should not have to invest in Str. It applies to a specific racket of Rogue.
And it applies not to ALL ranged weapons, but specifically to ranged weapons with lower damage die that have specific traits on them and only for Thief Rogues.
There is not "side with Mark", Mark simply implied it wasn't necessarily intended. It is, however, RAW.
You can argue for them to change it, but this is not a case of "interpret this", that is what the rules state.
The point is that thrown weapons are inferior to melee weapons for warriors (because having range is that good). And that's before & separate from considering needing two stats to be competitive.
There are those arguing it's mechanically balanced for Rogues to do equal damage using either melee or thrown. I disagree. That sort of balance is not inherent in the system. PF2 balances so ranged attacks do less.I empathize with those saying that Rogues will often lose Sneak Attack damage, although I think PF2 is generous in how easy it is to make foes flat-footed, even at range. (Assuming one builds for that.)
Everything written gets interpreted, even RAW. That's how writing works. (See: theology for vicious examples of conflicts re: RAW)
Setting aside balance, when a melee weapon is used for a ranged strike, should it keep its melee properties, i.e. Wounding or Disrupting?
Apparently you believe so because rules don't say to subtract them.
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a melee attack.
This is akin to a longsword having a Weapon Rune that only works with slashing weapons, i.e. Vorpal. The longsword is a slashing weapon, yet it's also Versatile-Piercing. When it does piercing damage, should it still apply its rune that only works w/ slashing weapons?
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a slashing attack.
|
Everything written gets interpreted, even RAW. That's how writing works. (See: theology for vicious examples of conflicts re: RAW)
Strongly agree. Well said!
Setting aside balance, when a melee weapon is used for a ranged strike, should it keep its melee properties, i.e. Wounding or Disrupting?
Apparently you believe so because rules don't say to subtract them.
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a melee attack.
Wait, you believe that a Disrupting dagger should become a mundane dagger if it's thrown? Now THAT'S weird, imo.
This is akin to a longsword having a Weapon Rune that only works with slashing weapons, i.e. Vorpal. The longsword is a slashing weapon, yet it's also Versatile-Piercing. When it does piercing damage, should it still apply its rune that only works w/ slashing weapons?
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a slashing attack.
Vorpal is a special case, since it explicitly says that it only works when you deal slashing damage. Other weapon property runes don't say that they only work when you make a melee attack. So i don't think that's a very good analogy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that thrown weapons are inferior to melee weapons for warriors (because having range is that good). And that's before & separate from considering needing two stats to be competitive.
They already are inferior in damage dice and this "range" you keep toting as an insurmountable barrier of value is 10ft for all the melee weapons with the tag I can see, the same range as a reach weapon.
Now they can go outside that range with penalties, but those penalties matter.
Two stats to be competitive for someone that already stacks STR is good, forcing a character that's designed to avoid Str taxes pay those taxes anyways for something demonstrably weaker without it, is silly.
There are those arguing it's mechanically balanced for Rogues to do equal damage using either melee or thrown. I disagree. That sort of balance is not inherent in the system. PF2 balances so ranged attacks do less.
Gonna need more than pearl clutching to back that up. The math says otherwise.
Even if you progress the Rogue to max level with maxed Dexterity, we're talking 7 total damage on the attack, which is dwarfed considerably by striking runes and SA.
Setting aside balance, when a melee weapon is used for a ranged strike, should it keep its melee properties, i.e. Wounding or Disrupting?
What reason would you have to withhold them?
All melee weapons that can be thrown cost bulk, cannot be retrieved without a returning rune as well, and generally still require further investment just to be viable.
I see no explicit problem with either Disrupting or Wounding on a thrown melee weapon.
This is akin to a longsword having a Weapon Rune that only works with slashing weapons, i.e. Vorpal. The longsword is a slashing weapon, yet it's also Versatile-Piercing. When it does piercing damage, should it still apply its rune that only works w/ slashing weapons?
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a slashing attack.
Vorpal:
Frequency You roll a natural 20 on a Strike with the weapon, critically succeed, and deal slashing damage. The target must have a head;
So no, I don't think that, because Vorpal explicitly says you must deal slashing damage.
Melee weapons that are thrown are different from Darts and Javelins. Treating them the same as Darts and Javelins in other contexts "for consistency" makes no sense, because they're not the same anyways. They can be used to make melee attacks.
Doesn't seem to matter anyway, the jury is already out.
But let me be clear:
I have seen no reason to remove the "melee" attribute to any melee weapon with the thrown attribute, and had hoped it was intended to give melee thrown weapons a reasonable benefit (because they have low range and little incentive to be used that way outside of a "last ditch" throw to finish someone).
I'm not gonna clutch pearls over a non-issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaning into this rules ambiguity and clarifying that it works just the way the unclear wording leaves open as a possibility would mean that, for instance, if we had a throwing knife that was better for throwing, longer range, etc, but useless in melee, so we listed it in ranged like the javelin, a rogue would not be able to gain the benefit on a throwing knife.While true, I don't think that's any weirder than, say, our same rogue here getting dex to damage while wearing gauntlets but not if they take those gauntlets off (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
Excellent point. I've also been confused that Wizards become experts at using clubs but somehow can't figure out how maces work. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly we're getting into people close reading the wording of citricking's mention of the fact that I said something, so here is what I said. It was in response to talking about the same question with Rage and Raging Thrower (it has identical language and the reading that ranged attacks with some thrown weapons and not others are melee weapon attacks would make the feat do nothing):
We have Rage on the list to look at for clarity updates, I can add the thief ability as well. Are there any other that are ambiguous and seem to work with thrown melee weapons if you read them a particular way?and then I said
Javelins for instance are clearly ranged
since they don't have a melee usage.
It would be weird for thrown daggers to work differently than thrown javelins
Given how often debates regarding the status of thrown weapons came up in PF1, I was a little surprised that this issue wasn't definitively resolved in PF2. I would have expected something in the thrown weapons description like "When thrown, these weapons are considered ranged weapons, not melee weapons, for all rules."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leaning into this rules ambiguity and clarifying that it works just the way the unclear wording leaves open as a possibility would mean that, for instance, if we had a throwing knife that was better for throwing, longer range, etc, but useless in melee, so we listed it in ranged like the javelin, a rogue would not be able to gain the benefit on a throwing knife.While true, I don't think that's any weirder than, say, our same rogue here getting dex to damage while wearing gauntlets but not if they take those gauntlets off (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
That isn't true though, you should look at the rules before you say something like that. Gauntlets aren't finesse melee weapons so they don't get Dex to damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't true though, you should look at the rules before you say something like that. Gauntlets aren't finesse melee weapons so they don't get Dex to damage.
Yeah you're right, my mistake I was looking at the wrong entry. Though the example holds for any of the other dozen or so options that require melee weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't true though, you should look at the rules before you say something like that. Gauntlets aren't finesse melee weapons so they don't get Dex to damage.Leaning into this rules ambiguity and clarifying that it works just the way the unclear wording leaves open as a possibility would mean that, for instance, if we had a throwing knife that was better for throwing, longer range, etc, but useless in melee, so we listed it in ranged like the javelin, a rogue would not be able to gain the benefit on a throwing knife.While true, I don't think that's any weirder than, say, our same rogue here getting dex to damage while wearing gauntlets but not if they take those gauntlets off (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
Good catch. I just assumed that gauntlets were finesse. It seems a little weird that they aren't.
...
There are no pearls, that's you injecting emotional weight into what I view as an impersonal issue.
There is no rules jury, only the judges at Paizo who have said little.There is the two of us, and we have different approaches both to reading the rules as well as discussing them it seems. I let your tone slide the first time out of charity. Now I see you can only read my words as aggressively as you phrase your own. This only hinders your delivery of the good points you make. Not that I'm swayed, but I can see you're at least consistent in your legalism. Not my cup of tea, but drink up if it makes your games more fun.
Cheers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no rules jury, only the judges at Paizo who have said little.
Mark basically just confirmed it’s an error, thus them being the jury and them having already brought it to their attention and decided.
And pearl clutching refers to making a big deal about absolutely nothing “oh Lordy! Won’t someone think of the children!” So when you blow up a matter that’s trivial as if it crumbles the fabric of the game, when it 100% doesn’t and your way actually creates weird instances of weapons losing magic mid throw, I call it pearl clutching.
Peace
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marks contribution aside I believe this is covered in the book RAW. Bolded parts are what I would consider key to the discussion.
Thief Racket pg.180
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
Thrown Weapon Property pg.283
Thrown: You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack. A thrown weapon adds your Strength modifier to damage just like a melee weapon does. When this trait appears on a melee weapon, it also includes the range increment.
Calling out "just like a" is stating that it isn't a melee weapon when thrown. (Obtuse but not ambiguous imo)
I share this in case someone would like some rules (if poorly worded) to direct players to before the official and hopefully better worded errata comes out.
(There is further evidence for RaI in the damage roll and range section which call out thrown weapons as weapon subtypes)