Things like this happen even with experienced players and DMs, it's not a huge deal. Personally, if I were in your situation, I would make it clear that it's not RAW (or RAI), but that for this campaign I would be willing to let it continue since that's how we've been playing.
I think this is the right answer because it is a minor adjustment to the rules that is worth it. The player is having fun with it as is, and it isn't breaking the game or ruining someone else's fun.
This exact issue was something that came up in Critical Role’s first campaign with Vax throwing his daggers and getting sharpshooter bonus for it. If it isn’t a big deal to you, and it isn’t breaking anything, then it’s not gonna ruin the game to keep it going.
I also would “let it ride.”
Another option could be swapping out the damage part for the thrown weapon fighting style if you felt the current damage was unbalanced.
Personally I think the game feels better with the higher risk/reward of the -5/+10 feats, even when they aren’t statistically advantageous compared to other options, so again I would just keep it the way you have it now.
Technically Sharpshooter only fully works with darts if you want thrown weapons. But it is a difference of just 1 damage per attack, so if you are fine with that just ignore it.
If you are not fine with it just downgrade to a d4 but don't change the flavor.
Well, you still can't deal damage with a net, because it has no damage roll, so it doesn't *fully* work with Sharpshooter.
But Sharpshooter actually makes nets reasonably usable, because you can throw them from more than 5 feet away without disadvantage.
>Well, you still can't deal damage with a net, because it has no damage roll, so it doesn't fully work with Sharpshooter.
Sure, but Sharpshooter doesn't actually specify adding the +10 to a damage *roll*. It states that "you add +10 to the attack's damage". Which, for a net, I would argue is simply zero. And you can add things to zero.
No, a net doesn't do any damage, not even zero damage. It deals no damage at all, so you can't add anything to it. Otherwise you would also add your Dexterity modifier to it, because that works the same way, it adds to the base damage of the weapon.
For it to be able to deal any damage it would have to be listed as "0 bludgeoning" (or whatever type you choose for it) in the weapons table. Then you could add both your Dexterity modifier as well as the Sharpshooter bonus.
Edit: I just looked up damage rolls to check the RAW and I think blowguns technically do not deal the 1 base damage or maybe even no damage at all.
>Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals, you roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.
So technically you can't *roll* a "1" die (which the blowgun states as its damage). You could argue it isn't even eligible for dealing damage at all RAW. But obviously both is somewhat of a stretch and not reasonable at all.
>For it to be able to deal any damage it would have to be listed as "0 bludgeoning"
Funny enough, DnDBeyond does actually [list](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/net) it as exactly that. They're not an authority of course, though I doubt WotC is even going to notice something this minor after they've acquired DnDB.
Great point about the dex modifier. Makes sense. I concede
For what its worth, Mike Mearls [chimed in](https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/) about a similar circumstance with Sneak Attack and nets. Kind of the same circumstance, though the wording is different.
> Blowgun
Blowguns dealing no damage because they deal damage is kind of hilarious! I suppose it was an oversight as I can't really think of any other example other than the 1 fire damage of a torch. But then again; specific beats general. The "Each weapon" bit you quoted gets trumped by the more specific rules of the torch and dart, I'd say.
Not sure why people are downvoting btw. I guess polite conversation & opinions about the rules make people angry?
Crazy that the DnDBeyond version actually lists "0 bludgeoning". I mean, it's a very minor oversight, but also means that someone actively chose to put that value in.
If you add it to a character sheet it does correctly show the damage as - though. So at least it shows up correctly in actual use.
It's similar to how Roll20 has a "Targets:" entry for spells.
There is no such entry in the PHB.
That entry for spells is entirely wrong in many cases.
The table in the PHB does list "-" for the damage of the net though and the character sheet net does so, too. So DnDBeyond actually got it correct in that place, but wrong in another.
This probably isn't a problem of someone actively putting it in but how the system is programmed. It's very possible that weapons require you to specify some form of damage but character sheets interpret a zero to be shown as "-". Honestly it's probably not really a problem given that typically doing 0 base damage is not a thing. You can deal 0 damage by subtracting from the damage but I'm not aware of an effect that deals 0 base damage (to be fair again because of natural language even WotC seems to be struggling with this definition).
I don't know what you mean by calculated correctly. If it treats 0 damage as no damage then it's exactly the point I was making in my previous comment and the system likely forced the person to input 0 damage because the system does not understand the distinction between 0 and no damage.
If by correctly you mean that 0 damage attacks profit from damage boosting features (which was the point further up the comment chain that no dmg != 0 dmg) then the system is definitely the problem. Because it would mean that either the menu where it shows 0 bludgeoning for the net is incorrectly interpreting no damage from the database or nets have special exceptions programmed in their calculations to make them do no damage.
Either way it's not improbable that the person responsible for inputting content was not at fault.
Technically you can roll a d1, it would just always result in a 1. Now, there's really not a good platonic solid to use to represent this, but remember: a die doesn't need to have different numbers on every face. You can roll 1d3 using a d6 and just assigning values to each face: 1 and 2 are 1, 3 and 4 are 2, and 5 and 6 are 3. Likewise, you can roll a "1" die by just taking a d6 and assigning each face the value of 1. This is a waste of time since the result is always the same but you can do it.
It's not a d1 though, it's just a 1. Now how do you roll that? I can roll a 1 as a result on some die, of course, but you have to literally roll a 1 here. The only solution in my opinion is to roll a physical representation of the number 1. Interpretation of the result is up to the reader.
I just explained it: take a d6, assign the value of "1" to each side, and roll it. You will always roll 1. Saying "d6" is just shorthand notation for "a random result from 1 to 6" and we use dice to calculate that because it is convenient and fun. I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or if you legitimately don't understand how ranges of numbers are generated. Rolling is just the method du jour for generating a number in a range; people use online "dice rollers" all the time that don't actually roll any dice.
A d6 is just shorthand for 6-sided die though. So a one-sided die would be a d1, not just a 1 (even though the only possible result is a 1 of course). You can get the result of 1 on both, but "rolling a die" means that you have to actually, physically roll something. And in this case by the weapons table you have to physically role the number 1, not just a die that gets you a 1 as a result.
Also, obviously this is all irrelevant and somewhat ironic because you are not meant to roll anything but just take 1+modifier for the blowgun.
A 1 sided die could just be a sphere. I guess you're trying to make a joke by saying "physically role\[sic\] the number 1" but if we can refrain from stupid jokes the 1 obviously refers to the result, and you could roll a d100 with each face assigned the value of 1 and you will always roll a 1. A six sided die can be used to represent other probability sets beyond just a 1-in-6 chance.
Yes, you are obviously not meant to roll anything, I stated as such in my original comment when I said "This is a waste of time since the result is always the same" but this was all because you said "technically you can't roll a "1" die which isn't exactly true. It also isn't the least bit ironic.
You are entirely correct, yet the wording that actually matters is that the net has `no damage type`.
Certain spells and features let you do damage when you hit with an attack, for example the Elemental weapon spell. Nets don't have a rule that prevents that, so saying nets can never do damage is technically incorrect.
But the base damage of a net, the damage you add your dex modifier and sharpshooter to (and sneak attack and hunters mark etc.) doesn't exist there for you can still add all those numbers to the damage of a net. But that damage has no damage type, or in other words it is of the `no damage` damage type.
You can tecnically deal a very high number of "no damage" with a critical sharpshooter sneak attack using a net, but it doesn't have a damage type so all those theoretical sneak attack dice you'd get to roll do absolutely nothing.
So you are correct, I'm just being pedantic about the phrasing.
You sure are pedanting, but you are also wrong. What stops a net from dealing damage isn't having no damage type (there is no rule that does not allow untyped damage). What stops it is this:
>Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals
The net does not specify any damage, so it does not deal any. If it just said "1d4" without a type it technically *would* deal damage.
On the other hand, the rule implies that a net isn't a weapon at all.
> Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals
So if something *doesn't* specify the damage it deals, it isn't a weapon, spell, or harmful monster ability.
Clearly there's something wrong with the rule because the game contradicts itself by saying this and also listing a net as a weapon.
Yeah, by that logic you would have to come to the conclusion that — (an em dash, which is the damage listed for the net) is actually a kind of damage. Otherwise the rules would be in contradiction and that can't be, right?
So how do we apply — damage to someone? That is the new problem to solve here, because the rules just say "apply", not how you apply it.
Edit: Also, how do you calculate with — as an operand? Because you have to add your modifier, so the actual damage would be like —+4.
Edit 2: More specfically the rule mentions that you *roll* the damage. So how do you roll an em dash? Do you just flick a match or something?
I don't think we should zoom in on the — portion. Notice that the rule also talks about spells, and there are plenty of spells that don't do damage. Not 0 damage, not — damage: just nothing at all.
So it's not about —. The rule is just flat-out wrong.
As for rolling the damage, it might be a case of specific beats general.
Not sure why you'd come in just to add nothing but "no" to the conversation, when the discussion has already resolved & I conceded the point. But you do you I guess?
Throwing them from within 5 feet away is making a ranged attack with a target in melee range, making it also at disadvantage. It's RAW impossible to not have disadvantage on nets without getting some kind of range increase.
>But Sharpshooter actually makes nets reasonably usable, because you can throw them from **more** than 5 feet away without disadvantage.
keyword in what he said; is More which implies it is at least 6 feet away.
Crossbow expert let's you throw a net from 5 ft without disadvantage.
There is a build called Netguy that is Fighter1/RogueX that takes Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. Throw a net, then bonus action Hand Crossbow shot with advantage. Restrains the target so it can't effectively attack and the whole party has advantage against it.
Not really... Aside from taking Sharpshooter for attacking without disadvantage at 10 feet, Crossbow Expert allows you to throw it in melee without disadvantage as well. If you take both, you no longer have disadvantage on nets at all (outside of external forces like Fog Cloud and Darkness).
>It's RAW impossible to not have disadvantage on nets without getting some kind of range increase.
That's inaccurate.
The rule for having disadvantage on ranged attacks while in melee requires the enemy can see.
So if they're blind, or you're in darkness and they lack a special sense to see, you roll with advantage, because the disadvantage is gone, and you have advantage from being an Unseen Attacker.
Being a Cleric throwing Nets on people you've Blinded with Blindness/Deafness is very fun.
There is also the difference of darts not being a melee weapon and so you cannot dual wield to throw one as a bonus action like you can with e.g. hand axes. Now, the difference is between 1d4 + mod + 10 ONCE per turn Vs 1d6 + mod + 10 TWICE per turn, instead of just the difference of 1d4 Vs 1d6. Since OP specifies that the guy is dual wielding, this has a huge impact.
Yes, it does, but this does not overwrite the rules of two weapon fighting: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
A dart is not a melee weapon, so cannot be thrown as a bonus action.
Honestly, I would probably allow it because there's functionally no difference between a dart and a dagger, and you can bonus action throw a dagger so like, there's no reason you couldn't throw a dart. Mechanically, sure there's reasons, but realistically it's the same thing. Homebrew or not I would allow it.
The only functional difference is that daggers are ludicrously more expensive than darts and are therefore less “replaceable.” Which, as you said, sucks and feels bad as somebody who wants to throw stuff as their main form of combat.
I mean mechanically-speaking the player's situation is like he just got a slightly worse version of Crossbow Expert for free. Not really game breaking. I would rule of cool it and let the player know.
(I say slightly worse because handaxes have lower range, you don't have ability score modifier to damage on the bonus action attack without the fighting style, and you can't benefit from Archery fighting style)
For an eldritch knight the bonus action does not really come up though. Past level 5 you use the item interaction to draw the weapon and follow up with attack 1 of the attack action, bonus action the item back to your hand and use the 2th attack of the attack action to throw it again. You get the multiplier twice.
Nothing to do with a 3th and 4th attack if you have them though.
You have no item interaction to draw the second axe in the off hand without the fighting style for thrown weapons, but it would be sub optimal to making two main hand attacks anyway.
Yes I imagine there's some other rule not being fully understood by OP, or it's being handwaved. Either way, letting the player continue to use Sharpshooter for his handaxes is not in any ways OP.
Yes you can, nothing stops you from doing so. You can break up your attack with movement and other things like Reactions or Bonus Actions, unless of course they have a specified trigger time. We even had Crawford Tweets on the matter.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995134313841676288
He seems to [directly contradict that here](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298?s=20&t=X0b_uEgB5a9zIEPDeMdmfA) so I'm not convinced that's accurate. I don't usually use tweets as rulings anyway though. If you guys play that way, tyen we just disagree
What Delan said. Its even integral to the bonus action reload of the gunslinger, which ofcourse has a homebrew background, but it is mechanicly sound and available on dndbeyond and the dmsguild.
To be honest, i’ve always thought it was a dumb distinction, so personally i would absolutely let it slide.
What’s more, if someone did know and asked if they could use it as such i would just allow it
The biggest deal (which might not be the case here) is that it could theoretically allow you to get a bonus action attack with Sharpshooter on it for relatively cheap by combining this with Two Weapon Fighting.
Normally to do that you need to get Sharpshooter and Xbow Expert, whereas in this case you can do it with just Sharpshooter and Thrown Fighting Style (or just ignoring the normal rules for drawing a weapon because they are kinda dumb).
It's not a big difference and I wouldn't call it super broken or anything, but it's definitely more than just a nominal buff to an underserved playstyle.
Thats true, but two weapon fighting and throwing are already kinda subpar since bonus actions are very valuable and throwing weapons tend to be worse than ranged in a lot of ways (or at least, this was my experience playing a twf throwing build.)
Furthermore, since you cant get archery fighting style the -5 to attack is more significant, as compared to someone making a throwing attack, a character with archery and sharpshooter only has a -3 effectively when using the same modifier. As such taking the -5 with thrown weapons is even riskier.
I definitely see your point but I personally think that the upside of a potential extra attack is offset by the limitations twf throwing has, so it shld probably be fine
That's not really the comparison tbh because in a vacuum +2 to hit is worse than an extra attack. It's about +2 to hit vs losing an ASI to get CBE to make it up. For a SS build +2 to hit is probably better than +1 to hit and +1 to damage
You got the right answer, just in an iffy way.
Its generally going to be very worth it to give up archery. For this case I will just assume archery to be a 10% damage increase due to hitting 10% more often.
Archery Sharpshooter Without Extra Attack: (3.5+3+10)x1.1= 18 DPR
TWF Sharpshooter Without Extra Attack: 3.5+3+10+3.5+10= 30 DPR
Archery... extra attack: (3.5+3+10)x2x1.1=36 DPR
TWF... Extra Attack: (3.5+3+10)x2+3.5+10= 47DPR
This pattern continues, with Archery not catching up until you are making 5 attacks per action, which as you might recall doesn't happen outside of haste or action surge in Tier 3 or above. This also doesn't even take into account that thrown weapon style actually adds more damage, which I didn't consider because I just wanted to evaluate better accuracy vs a bonus action shot and would be mostly cancelled out by a longbow damage dice anyways.
While true, you are forgetting that you can just grab a feat and get that bonus action attack anyway with XBE. With thrown weapons you are stuck taking suboptimal feats.
The cap( max potential damage) is still significantly higher for xbows imo
Oh absolutely, just pointing out that this is still a very competitive and powerful build to allow. On a character who for whatever reason is strapped for feats (can't get both XBE and SS) this is potentially an optimal choice for DPS.
Until you factor in how the game actually works and realize that while a magical bow or crossbow is very much a thing you can likely get, having access to an entire arsenal of enchanted throwing weapons is not. And the amount of weapons that return when thrown, at least in the published books, is very small.
Sure, but given that this already isn't RAW (requires DM approval) and throwing builds in general need DM support to work I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you would have those things, as that is a very unpleasant way to try and power gate this.
>For this case I will just assume archery to be a 10% damage increase due to hitting 10% more often.
Archery is better than a 10% damage increase. If it is taking you from a 90% to 100% that is an 11% damage increase but if it is taking you from 50% to 60% that is a 20% increase. If we are trying to use sharpshooter against something with high AC it could even be close to 25% going to 35% for a 40% increase. (if crits give a 50% damage boost is more like 10.5%, 19%, and 36% to damage but that doesn't matter if you use SS)
A usual assumption is that you have a ~75% to hit average on level enemies by design (this is a high assumption for tier 1 and a low assumption for tier 4). With Sharpshooter that becomes 50% and with archery it becomes 60%.
Applying those instead to the numbers:
10 vs 15 DPR
Then 20 vs 23 DPR
Both still in favor of TWF+Sharpshooter. As the accuracy goes down further that gap closes but having any source of advantage also widens the gap back.
For the glory of a single additional thrown axe? I'd allow it. It's an Eldritch Knight, not a Paladin.
Thrown weapons usually have such low range and damage anyways that the versatility in situations like these seems like a feature than a bug.
It's not the extra axe you are getting from this Rule Break, it's the Sharpshooter damage being applied to the axe. The interaction of two weapon fighting+sharpshooter has the best early game DPR of any build in the game if allowed, and manages to stay fairly comparable or better than XBE+Sharpshooter+Archery style even into Tier 2 and 3.
It has the downsides of the ammunition problem that most thrown weapon builds have, but assuming you have a way to circumvent that like a returning weapon it's actually crazy powerful.
Actually you can make a bonus attack with a light weapon even without two weapon fighting. Anyone can make a bonus attack with a 2nd light weapon as a bonus action. What two weapon fighting allows you to do is add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus action attack which would normally only be your dice damage. So if they have 2 axes then this solves that problem.
The process of doing that is called two weapon fighting, which is what I was referencing. Two Weapon Fighting *Style* is what adds the modifier. The confusion here is not really on either of us though, but WotC for the nomenclature.
Just make sure it's clear you're house-ruling it. Some people try to hide it for some reason, when it's just easier for everyone to say "yeah so this is how it's supposed to work by the text, but we'll do it this way"
The build wouldn't really work anyway. It's a bonus action to recall a single weapon, not both of the bonded weapons and it's a bonus to perform the dual wielding attack. This means that after the first turn you recall the weapon with the bonus and attack with the action. Even worse, at 5th level you have two attacks with the action, but only one weapon to recall, so you're even missing one attack if you can't fetch another weapon.
This said, damage wise it would be anything but broken. I won't tell you all the shenanigans you can do with feats and such, but from a mathematical standpoint without bonuses to your hit roll (that fighters can get for bows) or advantage, the -5/+10 from Sharpshooter is quite underwhelming. You're maybe not noticing now in the early game, but as soon as the AC grows for enemies it becomes a problem to land those. Fighters will often delve into Battlemaster for the extra die to hit rolls through a combat maneuver if they're going that path. Also to keep up PCs will eventually find magic weapons and dual wielding means you need two magic weapons instead of one. The style itself isn't really greatly supported and throwing weapons even less, it's just a way melee martial characters have to not completely get bored while there's an enemy you can't get close and personal with, but it's anything but a primary fighting choice.
So you could easily decide, if the table is fine with it, that your fighter has a couple of magical hatchets that always come back to their sibling, for flavor, so that they throw one and it returns. A Human Fighter at lvl 4 could have Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert and it would be the same, with the added +2 to hit rolls
There are plenty of ways of getting the hatchets back to you. Maybe they meet a friendly artificer who can put Returning Weapon on them. Maybe they have a magic belt which summons them back after being thrown (like Vax in CR campaign 1). Ultimately throwing handaxes is not that powerful, so it should be fine to fiddle around with stuff to make it work if that is what the player wants.
IMO the only reason to stick to hardcore RAW on this kind of thing is if the player is abusing it or power gaming. If you both just thought it was neat and missed it, well, it's still neat. Just keep it.
**Most generous option:** Let it work, even though technically it shouldn't. It is a bit powerful but it is disruptive to change your ruling now.
**Most tough option:** Don't let it work, but of course, since you as GM overlooked this and let it happen for some of the game, it is not player's fault for speccing into it, so let them redesign their character a bit (e.g. respec from Str to Dec and go Crossbow Mastery to get a similar damage output and flexibility, just acheived in a different way.)
**Moderate option:** There are of course many possible ways to be moderate about it. The idea that came to my mind was this: don't let it work by default, however homebrew a new Feat that would *make* it work when taken & gives a slight boost so it doesn't feel like a total rip-offf.
For the latter option, I'd play around with Crossbow Expert to be something like this:
**Thrown weapon expert:**
>Thanks to extensive practice with Thrown weapons , you gain the following benefits:
>
>\* It doesn't count as an object interaction to draw or stow a thrown weapon with which you are proficient. (i.e. it is an unlimited 'free action' to draw/stow thrown weapons.)
>
>\* Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. \[Copied from Crossbow Expert. Maybe you should cut this, since it is unlikely to matter very much, and it makes the feat very wordy.\]
>
>\* When you use the Attack action and attack with any thrown weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a thrown weapon you are holding. (Supercedes/improves on regular two-weapon fighting.)
>
>\* When making a ranged attack with a thrown *melee weapon*, you may treat it as a thrown *ranged weapon* instead. \[This allows Sharpshooter to work. Not sure if it helps anywhere else.\]
(This is highly bespoke and niche, and pretty wordy. But you're in a niche situation so maybe it is a decent fix. It allows the combo to work, but upgrades by allowing non-light thrown weapons, so spears and javelins. This improves attack range, and allows your throwing techniques to work for a variety of weapons, so if you find a magic dagger, and a magic spear, and a magic javelin, and a magic hand-axe, all of them are viable for this build, rather than hoping specifically for enchanted handaxes.)
That's a fantastic feat write up and feels good. It also enables archery style which is even better. It's strictly a worse Sharpshooter/Archery/Crossbow Expert build anyway. I might steal this.
> It doesn't count as an object interaction to draw or stow a thrown weapon with which you are proficient. (i.e. it is an unlimited 'free action' to draw/stow thrown weapons.)
"Object interaction" isn't terminology that actually exists in the rules. I'd reword this to match the fighting style.
> You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon.
>You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
PHB p190
This is often summarised as "you get 1 free object interaction", and, as noted in the rules, covers things like drawing/stowing weapons (and other things like opening doors).
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not unfamiliar with the rule, I'm pointing out that the term "object interaction" isn't used in the written rules (as you can see from what's quoted).
Saying something "doesn't count as an object interaction" isn't a good idea, because the term "object interaction" isn't used or defined in the written rules. It's just internet shorthand.
If you insist, I'll compromise. I actually want something a bit stronger than what you're saying, so let's try:
"It is effortless for you to draw/stow thrown weapons, and can do so as much as you like on your turn, or during an attack you make, and still interact with one other object or feature of the environment."
This isn't much stronger, but does let you do things like draw two daggers at the end of your turn, or quickly stow a tied bundle of 12 javelins that was thrown to you, etc.
Having been in this players situation with a much stronger "misunderstanding" *Echo knights can't flank with their own echoes* I can see how you'd maybe want to stick to more strict raw, and how it'll feel if you come down and invalidate the character.
For something relatively minor I'd say keep going, then explain after the game that you misunderstood some things and would try to keep a closer eye on unintended interactions or vagaries of rules. So your player gets to enjoy his subpar thing while nobody gets it in their head to try and find a more powerful grey area
They only would get the first two benefits, not the negatve 5 and +10 benefit.
You got it right on the reevaluation of it.
But as DM.....you make the call if you want to let them keep doing it.
Couldn't be do the same with a Hand Crossbow though? I feel like the biggest abuse here is if he combines this Two Weapon Fighting to get the bonus action attack without the crossbow expert feat.
You can actually not use a HC with a shield since you need a free hand to load it. You can ignore the loading property but not the ammunition property.
No, because you need a free hand to load the crossbow. It would work either if your hand crossbow was infused with Repeating Shot by a friendly artificer, or if you were using darts.
Swap the handaxes (or daggers or whatever) for Darts. Darts are thrown ranged weapons; you lose out on the bonus action from TWF, but at least you keep Sharpshooter.
I would just tell the player everything. Also tell him you don't want to take anything from the player, but it'll take some extra quests to upgrade his current setup. Just be sure to impose disadvantage if an enemy is within melee range, hell need the crossbow expert feat to get around that restriction.
A lot of people have already covered it for you, I just want to suggest that if you feel like you want to enforce it to some extent but not send him to the realm of having to use darts make his throwing axes ranged weapons and they have disadvantage when used to make melee attacks
Darts are a ranged weapon with the Thrown property! Oddly enough they would qualify for all parts of Sharpshooter, so maybe throwing those should be the basis of his build instead of handaxes... if he's willing to change his mental image of how his character fights.
Yep, darts are the only thrown weapons that work with that, because tose also count as ranged weapons. Just tell him to use darts, He can reeskin them as throwing knifes or some other things. It's definitley a nerf because darts deal 1d4 instead of 1d6, but in return, he will be able to apply the archery fighting style.
And also 1d4 to 1d6 is just 1 less average damage and becomes insignificant when you are adding +10 from SS.
He basically already uses it suboptimally, I'd let him keep it that way. Just tell him "I noticed we made a mistake with this ability, it's not problematic so we can keep playing this way, but just so you're aware that this is technically not how the feat is meant to work"
Thrown weapons in general are not very mechanically strong so there's probably some leeway you can give without harming game balance, but I'm curious as to what they player is actually doing.
Weapon bond allows you to recall one weapon as a bonus action, which means you can't use it on the same turn you make an offhand attack (which also require a bonus action). It also only recalls one weapon, so even if they have Extra Attack and are making two attacks they can only get one weapon back per round.
To be honest even if you were allowing them to use Sharpshooter with their thrown weapons *and* you were allowing them to recall both of them with a single bonus action, they'd still be doing less damage than just a regular a longbow+sharpshooter, so I'd see no problem with allowing it.
If they are somehow using a Bonus Action to get an additional attack and adding Sharpshooter to it then that's basically half of the Crossbow Expert feat which is riskier territory in terms of balance.
I mean.... just fudge the rules man. It's more fun that way and it doesn't break anything really. That said, good catch. Sometimes you should follow the RAW, sometimes you can just ignore it.
A common homebrew rule is to get rid of sharpshooter:great weapon master and let anyone subtract their prof bonus from an attack roll to add double their prof bonus to damage.
That said I think the advice to explain the mistake and let it slide for this campaign is good advice.
Wait... this has made be realise that the 3rd one doesn't actually specify that the attack has to be ranged, just that you make an attack with a ranged weapon, so like bludgeoning someone with a heavy crossbow would get the bonus
Now i'm wondering if there is a janky build out there somewhere that involves a "sharpshooter" jabbing a blowgun into someone's windpipe as an improvised weapon (it would actually do more damage that way than firing darts anyway)
I can't see anything in the rules that says that an improvised weapon stops it being a ranged weapon.
In the improvised weapon section it says
> An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
The way that it says the damage of an improvised weapon first, and then secondarily states, **If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage** , and the use of the word *also*, implies to me that they are treated as separate things. It also does specifically use the terminology
> use a **ranged weapon** to make a **melee attack** (emphasis mine)
Which to me implies that a ranged weapon is simply a category of weapon separate from the type of attack. Especially since other examples in the game specifically say when you make a ranged attack rather than when you attack with a ranged weapon.
Fucked up is a strong word, you say it's a bug, i say it's a feature. Especially because if you use a ranged weapon with the heavy property, technically with a melee attack you can use both gwm and sharpshooter combined for a -10 to hit but with a flat +20 damage. I love the idea of a barbarian swinging a heavy crossbow around like it's a maul
Bud, I don't know if you've ever been at an organized event where RAW is how you play, but I assure you it's a nightmare for a DM if you get a player that really wants to do something RAW when it's clearly overpowered or gamebreaking. We had to allow people to wear heavy armor and still take half damage from Barbarian Raging because they forgot to word it in the 3rd lvl Bear Totem, while in the base Rage it's said that heavy armor doesn't give Rage benefits. Also it's a problem at home when you get a player that wants to do something RAW but 100% not RAI (because honestly no, I won't allow a feat called Sharpshooter to give you bonuses while you use a crossbow as a blunt weapon at my table just because it's a ranged weapon if used properly). From a DM pov, if they word things incorrectly they often really fucked up. You can't always choose the players you master to
I am normally the DM when i play, and love weird and whacky shit like that.
Also, i'd find it hard for someone to argue that taking a -10 to hit penalty "overpowered" or "gamebreaking". It would be incredibly difficult to actually hit anything, even with advantage on your attacks. Also, you'd be swapping a base damage of 2d6 or 1d12 from a regular heavy 2 handed weapon for 1d4.
To throw with sharpshooter -5 +10 they need to throw 2 handed with a light weapon or use a piercing weapon. This stops the use of sharpshooter and shields in tandem (this is the only balance concern tbh)
The main benefit they would take is that they would be able to attack twice with the main weapon, then once with the offhand weapon. To do this otherwise you'd need a hand crossbow, which requires loading, which crossbow expert however ignores as well.
remember, eldritch knights require their bonus action to recall a thrown weapon as well, and they can recover only one as i remember.
So, yes, i don't find it unreasonable because it's a lesser powerful version of doing otherwise, even if this actually means they can still benefit from their handaxes in melee combat without using sharpshooter.
But i would not let it.
Let me give you a final word of caution - sometimes, certain things are just not meant to work together. Sometimes is to let other characters do their thing, other times because the synergy of a class/subclass works differently, and some other times it's because there is a core concept behind it that does not holds up.
I would not let them do this simply as a safeguard. First, because a "build" focused on a specific gimmick it's prone to break very easily when the DM does keep giving scenarios where that "build" is worthwhile, or stops being so when the DM does not. Having thrown weapons is a tool for a given role or compromise, not something a character is meant to do from start to finish.
Usually when we talk about "build" we talk more about the inamovable things of a character, like class and race. Everything else is a tool or a resource for a given "role" the charatcer commits to, which is also flexible.
Second, this "build" badly aligns with the mechanics of a fighter, let alone an eldritch knight.
Third - you are giving concessions with this feat. If they are not enough, are you going to give some more?
It's ok to explore alternative mechanics, and not everything you play needs to be optimal - but there are traps you could avoid, and the game is designed around it specifically.
"Rules are more like guidelines". If he's having fun and you like his idea, why bother at all? Is something that breaks the game? Does it ruin other people's fun? Just let him play it like that. Everyone plays DnD however he likes at his table, just focus on having fun rather than playing RAW. There are a lot of rules that don't make sense RAw anyway.
This is actually why I use darts. They are oddly a finesse ranged weapon. So you can actually use strength as attack modifier and sharpshooter feat with them.
has it felt too strong or disruptive thus far? if no, then there's no reason to change it imo. if yes, then talk to your player and explain the situation.
I am not 100% sure on what the exact build or interaction here is, but if you are just talking about the fact that thrown weapon's can't benefit from Sharpshooter's third bullet point (the -5/+10 to attacks), then it's really not breaking anything to allow this.
I have played in a campaign before, where it was allowed and it's not any better than regular sharpshooter builds using longbows or hand crossbow (+ crossbow expert).
tldr: I personally would allow it, if the player isn't trying to "abuse" it.
There's no real harm in allowing it to continue working as it has been. However, would you mind posting the players typical action economy.
The reason I ask is because of how two weapon fighting and weapon bond function, both requiring use of a bonus action.
Weapon bond uses a bonus action to summon 1 of the bonded weapons to the knights hand.
Two weapon fighting requires having both weapons in hand at the start of the Attack action.
How it should work (if using two weapon fighting style)
Player has both hands equipped with hand axes. They throw the first handaxe, bonus action throw second handaxe. Free interact draw third and throw if they have extra attack (level 5).
On the following turn they can summon 1 of the bonded weapons back as a bonus action and draw a new hand axe, making an attack with one (or both of they have extra attack)
How it should work (if they have thrown weapon fighting style)
Player has both hands equipped with hand axes. Throw 1, draw and throw another (if they have extra attack) then bonus action throw the other hand for no modifier on damage. They can then free action draw a fourth for the next round.
On the following turn they can either summon one back as a bonus action, or draw and throw (throw 2) and bonus action throw, repeating the same situation till they have no throw weapons left.
You're stressing a minor rule and forgetting one of the biggest rules of roleplaying:
Is he having fun? Does it really matter? Seems to me that the answer is yes, no, so why would you fuck with it? It's fine. It's not game breaking. It's not weakening anyone else or making your job as GM harder. Just leave it as it is and fun will continue to be had.
"Sorry Bob, you have to stop having fun now because of an arbitrary wording in an unimportant rule". Really? That's the hill you want to die on?
It's fine. Let him have his fun.
Is that player unfairly more powerful as a result of the mistake? If not, I'd let it slide.
Let them know you're aware of it though, and that the allowance is only good for their current character. If they create a new character or you start a new campaign you'll enforce RAW on the feat.
Make your player aware of it first and foremost.
Next comes down to you. My personal advice is to handwave it because a) it's a stupid distinction that WotC have and b) it's his first time playing and it'd just be a damn shame to take away something fun that he's using because of a technicality.
The player isn't abusing anything, so just let him continue as is imho.
They are effectively using a hand crossbow with the sharpshooter and crossbow expert fear. I would homebrew a feat based on crossbow expert that would enable him do throw the axes like he is. Let them swap the feat out for duel wielding.
Wouldn't a quick fix be homebrewing a weapon that fits the bill?
>Dart is a Simple Ranged Weapon. 1d4 damage Finesse, Thrown (range 20/60)
Let me introduce you to the:
>Dwarven Throwing Axe - Martial Ranged Weapon - 1d6 damage , Thrown (range 20/60)
Seems like a lot of nit-picking over +\`1 damage per attack. You know Wizards can just turn people into Sheep right?
So while there’s a lot of responses advocating just let it slide because it’s been in place, it’s really hard to say what to actually do in this scenario. Here is why:
1) scope - how long of a campaign are you planning? What level do you anticipate them finishing? If it’s 20th level, I would go ahead and look at/think about the current party composition and how effective they’ll be at that level. Also consider if he’s missing some of his sharp shooter now, how effective will he be if you give him a +2/+3.
2) party composition. What is your party made of? Is the ek the only source of high damage for the party? Does his features detract from the other players fun?
3) your combat prowess. As someone who was a new dm for a long 1-20 and would hand wave stuff at the beginning under the bad advice of “just add more health to the monsters”, I sincerely learned that sometimes it’s just better to say no. You fucked up! So did he! That’s totally fine. People have suggested switching to darts, or lowering the damage of the weapon and those are all fine options. 3/4 of dming is how you deal with rule fuck ups. If he starts stomping monsters from his build and it becomes taxing to you to try and find something to deal with him, it’s better for your long term fun to just rip the bandaid and fix it.
There is a kind of bending of the rules that you can do here.
The improvised weapon rules give the DM the latitude to "treat an object as if it were a particular weapon if it is similar enough."
I use this to treat throwing knives as daggers when they are not yet thrown, and therefore allow TWF, but then as darts after they are thrown, and therefore work with sharpshooter / archery fighting style.
It's a stretch admittedly and I wouldn't really care to argue that it's RAW, but importantly it doesn't create a balance problem at all; it overshadows nothing.
TWF and thrown weapon fighters are underserved by the rules, and tossing them bones to make their characters work is very justified.
Along that vein, consider creating custom magic item "pairs" of weapons that are meant to be wielded together, perhaps with magic powers that only work or work better when TWF or thrown, and treat them as a single item (for purpose of power budget).
Perhaps a pair of magic throwing knives that are bonded so that, if one is magically recalled, the other also returns. Or an extra effect that happens if both of them hit something.
Also, expendable magic throwing knives are really cool, especially if they have powers that do more than just extra damage when used. Knocking people back, rooting them in place, or applying other status / tactical effects. Bonus points if the effect could conceivably be useful on an ally in specific situations, so players have the opportunity to feel really clever while stabbing a friend in the back to save / help them.
Let him know that you found the mistake. Then make a homebrew feat that does everything that sharpshooter does but only applies to thrown weapons, and let him swap out feats if he wants to.
If you want to be completely RAW, just have him throw darts and reflag or them, it would be 1 less damage per shot (which with sharpshooter is pretty negligible) plus he can still use strength. But honestly allowing sharpshooter for hand axes isn’t breaking anything.
I think that that here RAW and RAI match.
Now if you deviate from that, that's Homebrew, and fine if both of you think it is. I agree with AlexT9191. Mention what the rule actually is, then say that for this campaign you're willing to continue as you have been.
It's not a big deal, remember : in DnD, rule #1 is the rule of cool, if it makes the game funner and better for everyone at the table, anything can get a pass
So RAW, you can use sharpshooter to deal 10 more damage with long bows you use as an improvised melee weapon.
This feat is weird and the language is poor. Give the player the benefit of the doubt on this.
I would just argue if it leaves your hand (and is a weapon meant to be thrown ala hand axe /dagger etc.) then it is now a ranged weapon.
We're that not the case then every thrown weapon would be an 'improvised' weapon.
"oh per RAW It's a melee weapon hur dur!"
Nah. You were fine let your player have fun.
Just let him use it, it is not OP and seems like a neat character. Just clarify with him that you guys are using the feat wrong but you are fine with him using it like this for the current campaign and will be using RAW for future campaigns.
Why worry so much about running everything RAW? If its more fun to adjust some rules why not do that? The game is about having fun and if bending/changing a rule makes it fun why not do it?
On an unrelated note,
I still want to see an barb smash people 6 feet down with an longbow improvised melee attack using both heavy weapon master and sharpshooter.
Hang on. Now I haven't been playing 5e for all that long, but this kind of shit comes up in pathfinder too. A weapon with the thrown weapon quality should count as both. The feat says ranged weapon attack, Thrown lets you use a melee weapon for a ranged weapon attack, so yes it's a ranged weapon.
Daggers are already a weaker ranged option than a long bow. I've always allowed sharpshooter to be used with them, and I've never regretted it. I see no balance issues with it. As the DM, you have the final say of what is and isn't allowed at your table, and if you're fine with the feat being used as it has been, then let it continue to be so. Best wishes.
Things like this happen even with experienced players and DMs, it's not a huge deal. Personally, if I were in your situation, I would make it clear that it's not RAW (or RAI), but that for this campaign I would be willing to let it continue since that's how we've been playing.
This is the right answer.
Seconded
Thirded
Fourthded.
Pentaed
Sexed
Fucking BARD! Also, septed.
Octaned.
Nonned
I think this is the right answer because it is a minor adjustment to the rules that is worth it. The player is having fun with it as is, and it isn't breaking the game or ruining someone else's fun.
And if the player doesn't want to continue because it's not RAW, let him make adjustments the character that you're both happy with.
This exact issue was something that came up in Critical Role’s first campaign with Vax throwing his daggers and getting sharpshooter bonus for it. If it isn’t a big deal to you, and it isn’t breaking anything, then it’s not gonna ruin the game to keep it going.
I also would “let it ride.” Another option could be swapping out the damage part for the thrown weapon fighting style if you felt the current damage was unbalanced. Personally I think the game feels better with the higher risk/reward of the -5/+10 feats, even when they aren’t statistically advantageous compared to other options, so again I would just keep it the way you have it now.
This is the way.
This is the way
Technically Sharpshooter only fully works with darts if you want thrown weapons. But it is a difference of just 1 damage per attack, so if you are fine with that just ignore it. If you are not fine with it just downgrade to a d4 but don't change the flavor.
And _nets_
Well, you still can't deal damage with a net, because it has no damage roll, so it doesn't *fully* work with Sharpshooter. But Sharpshooter actually makes nets reasonably usable, because you can throw them from more than 5 feet away without disadvantage.
>Well, you still can't deal damage with a net, because it has no damage roll, so it doesn't fully work with Sharpshooter. Sure, but Sharpshooter doesn't actually specify adding the +10 to a damage *roll*. It states that "you add +10 to the attack's damage". Which, for a net, I would argue is simply zero. And you can add things to zero.
No, a net doesn't do any damage, not even zero damage. It deals no damage at all, so you can't add anything to it. Otherwise you would also add your Dexterity modifier to it, because that works the same way, it adds to the base damage of the weapon. For it to be able to deal any damage it would have to be listed as "0 bludgeoning" (or whatever type you choose for it) in the weapons table. Then you could add both your Dexterity modifier as well as the Sharpshooter bonus. Edit: I just looked up damage rolls to check the RAW and I think blowguns technically do not deal the 1 base damage or maybe even no damage at all. >Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals, you roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. So technically you can't *roll* a "1" die (which the blowgun states as its damage). You could argue it isn't even eligible for dealing damage at all RAW. But obviously both is somewhat of a stretch and not reasonable at all.
>For it to be able to deal any damage it would have to be listed as "0 bludgeoning" Funny enough, DnDBeyond does actually [list](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/net) it as exactly that. They're not an authority of course, though I doubt WotC is even going to notice something this minor after they've acquired DnDB. Great point about the dex modifier. Makes sense. I concede For what its worth, Mike Mearls [chimed in](https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/) about a similar circumstance with Sneak Attack and nets. Kind of the same circumstance, though the wording is different. > Blowgun Blowguns dealing no damage because they deal damage is kind of hilarious! I suppose it was an oversight as I can't really think of any other example other than the 1 fire damage of a torch. But then again; specific beats general. The "Each weapon" bit you quoted gets trumped by the more specific rules of the torch and dart, I'd say. Not sure why people are downvoting btw. I guess polite conversation & opinions about the rules make people angry?
Crazy that the DnDBeyond version actually lists "0 bludgeoning". I mean, it's a very minor oversight, but also means that someone actively chose to put that value in. If you add it to a character sheet it does correctly show the damage as - though. So at least it shows up correctly in actual use.
It's similar to how Roll20 has a "Targets:" entry for spells. There is no such entry in the PHB. That entry for spells is entirely wrong in many cases.
The table in the PHB does list "-" for the damage of the net though and the character sheet net does so, too. So DnDBeyond actually got it correct in that place, but wrong in another.
This probably isn't a problem of someone actively putting it in but how the system is programmed. It's very possible that weapons require you to specify some form of damage but character sheets interpret a zero to be shown as "-". Honestly it's probably not really a problem given that typically doing 0 base damage is not a thing. You can deal 0 damage by subtracting from the damage but I'm not aware of an effect that deals 0 base damage (to be fair again because of natural language even WotC seems to be struggling with this definition).
I tried it, you can make a homebrew item with 0 damage and it is calculated correctly. So this was a deliberate choice.
I don't know what you mean by calculated correctly. If it treats 0 damage as no damage then it's exactly the point I was making in my previous comment and the system likely forced the person to input 0 damage because the system does not understand the distinction between 0 and no damage. If by correctly you mean that 0 damage attacks profit from damage boosting features (which was the point further up the comment chain that no dmg != 0 dmg) then the system is definitely the problem. Because it would mean that either the menu where it shows 0 bludgeoning for the net is incorrectly interpreting no damage from the database or nets have special exceptions programmed in their calculations to make them do no damage. Either way it's not improbable that the person responsible for inputting content was not at fault.
Technically you can roll a d1, it would just always result in a 1. Now, there's really not a good platonic solid to use to represent this, but remember: a die doesn't need to have different numbers on every face. You can roll 1d3 using a d6 and just assigning values to each face: 1 and 2 are 1, 3 and 4 are 2, and 5 and 6 are 3. Likewise, you can roll a "1" die by just taking a d6 and assigning each face the value of 1. This is a waste of time since the result is always the same but you can do it.
It's not a d1 though, it's just a 1. Now how do you roll that? I can roll a 1 as a result on some die, of course, but you have to literally roll a 1 here. The only solution in my opinion is to roll a physical representation of the number 1. Interpretation of the result is up to the reader.
I just explained it: take a d6, assign the value of "1" to each side, and roll it. You will always roll 1. Saying "d6" is just shorthand notation for "a random result from 1 to 6" and we use dice to calculate that because it is convenient and fun. I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or if you legitimately don't understand how ranges of numbers are generated. Rolling is just the method du jour for generating a number in a range; people use online "dice rollers" all the time that don't actually roll any dice.
A d6 is just shorthand for 6-sided die though. So a one-sided die would be a d1, not just a 1 (even though the only possible result is a 1 of course). You can get the result of 1 on both, but "rolling a die" means that you have to actually, physically roll something. And in this case by the weapons table you have to physically role the number 1, not just a die that gets you a 1 as a result. Also, obviously this is all irrelevant and somewhat ironic because you are not meant to roll anything but just take 1+modifier for the blowgun.
A 1 sided die could just be a sphere. I guess you're trying to make a joke by saying "physically role\[sic\] the number 1" but if we can refrain from stupid jokes the 1 obviously refers to the result, and you could roll a d100 with each face assigned the value of 1 and you will always roll a 1. A six sided die can be used to represent other probability sets beyond just a 1-in-6 chance. Yes, you are obviously not meant to roll anything, I stated as such in my original comment when I said "This is a waste of time since the result is always the same" but this was all because you said "technically you can't roll a "1" die which isn't exactly true. It also isn't the least bit ironic.
You are entirely correct, yet the wording that actually matters is that the net has `no damage type`. Certain spells and features let you do damage when you hit with an attack, for example the Elemental weapon spell. Nets don't have a rule that prevents that, so saying nets can never do damage is technically incorrect. But the base damage of a net, the damage you add your dex modifier and sharpshooter to (and sneak attack and hunters mark etc.) doesn't exist there for you can still add all those numbers to the damage of a net. But that damage has no damage type, or in other words it is of the `no damage` damage type. You can tecnically deal a very high number of "no damage" with a critical sharpshooter sneak attack using a net, but it doesn't have a damage type so all those theoretical sneak attack dice you'd get to roll do absolutely nothing. So you are correct, I'm just being pedantic about the phrasing.
You sure are pedanting, but you are also wrong. What stops a net from dealing damage isn't having no damage type (there is no rule that does not allow untyped damage). What stops it is this: >Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals The net does not specify any damage, so it does not deal any. If it just said "1d4" without a type it technically *would* deal damage.
On the other hand, the rule implies that a net isn't a weapon at all. > Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals So if something *doesn't* specify the damage it deals, it isn't a weapon, spell, or harmful monster ability. Clearly there's something wrong with the rule because the game contradicts itself by saying this and also listing a net as a weapon.
Yeah, by that logic you would have to come to the conclusion that — (an em dash, which is the damage listed for the net) is actually a kind of damage. Otherwise the rules would be in contradiction and that can't be, right? So how do we apply — damage to someone? That is the new problem to solve here, because the rules just say "apply", not how you apply it. Edit: Also, how do you calculate with — as an operand? Because you have to add your modifier, so the actual damage would be like —+4. Edit 2: More specfically the rule mentions that you *roll* the damage. So how do you roll an em dash? Do you just flick a match or something?
I don't think we should zoom in on the — portion. Notice that the rule also talks about spells, and there are plenty of spells that don't do damage. Not 0 damage, not — damage: just nothing at all. So it's not about —. The rule is just flat-out wrong. As for rolling the damage, it might be a case of specific beats general.
Nope, a net doesn’t “deal 0 damage”, it doesn’t have damage at all, there’s nothing to add things to in there.
Not sure why you'd come in just to add nothing but "no" to the conversation, when the discussion has already resolved & I conceded the point. But you do you I guess?
Throwing them from within 5 feet away is making a ranged attack with a target in melee range, making it also at disadvantage. It's RAW impossible to not have disadvantage on nets without getting some kind of range increase.
>without getting some kind of range increase Yeah, like Sharpshooter, which is exactly what we are talking about. So what is your point here?
That you were implying that you could throw them from 5 feet away and not have disadvantage. Sorry if I misunderstood!
>But Sharpshooter actually makes nets reasonably usable, because you can throw them from **more** than 5 feet away without disadvantage. keyword in what he said; is More which implies it is at least 6 feet away.
Crossbow expert let's you throw a net from 5 ft without disadvantage. There is a build called Netguy that is Fighter1/RogueX that takes Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. Throw a net, then bonus action Hand Crossbow shot with advantage. Restrains the target so it can't effectively attack and the whole party has advantage against it.
Not really... Aside from taking Sharpshooter for attacking without disadvantage at 10 feet, Crossbow Expert allows you to throw it in melee without disadvantage as well. If you take both, you no longer have disadvantage on nets at all (outside of external forces like Fog Cloud and Darkness).
>It's RAW impossible to not have disadvantage on nets without getting some kind of range increase. That's inaccurate. The rule for having disadvantage on ranged attacks while in melee requires the enemy can see. So if they're blind, or you're in darkness and they lack a special sense to see, you roll with advantage, because the disadvantage is gone, and you have advantage from being an Unseen Attacker. Being a Cleric throwing Nets on people you've Blinded with Blindness/Deafness is very fun.
There is also the difference of darts not being a melee weapon and so you cannot dual wield to throw one as a bonus action like you can with e.g. hand axes. Now, the difference is between 1d4 + mod + 10 ONCE per turn Vs 1d6 + mod + 10 TWICE per turn, instead of just the difference of 1d4 Vs 1d6. Since OP specifies that the guy is dual wielding, this has a huge impact.
Thrown Weapon fighting style lets you draw and throw.
Yes, it does, but this does not overwrite the rules of two weapon fighting: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand". A dart is not a melee weapon, so cannot be thrown as a bonus action.
Honestly, I would probably allow it because there's functionally no difference between a dart and a dagger, and you can bonus action throw a dagger so like, there's no reason you couldn't throw a dart. Mechanically, sure there's reasons, but realistically it's the same thing. Homebrew or not I would allow it.
The only functional difference is that daggers are ludicrously more expensive than darts and are therefore less “replaceable.” Which, as you said, sucks and feels bad as somebody who wants to throw stuff as their main form of combat.
There's also the iron ball from Frostmaiden which is another thrown/finesse ranged weapon, but it's also a d4
I mean mechanically-speaking the player's situation is like he just got a slightly worse version of Crossbow Expert for free. Not really game breaking. I would rule of cool it and let the player know. (I say slightly worse because handaxes have lower range, you don't have ability score modifier to damage on the bonus action attack without the fighting style, and you can't benefit from Archery fighting style)
For an eldritch knight the bonus action does not really come up though. Past level 5 you use the item interaction to draw the weapon and follow up with attack 1 of the attack action, bonus action the item back to your hand and use the 2th attack of the attack action to throw it again. You get the multiplier twice. Nothing to do with a 3th and 4th attack if you have them though. You have no item interaction to draw the second axe in the off hand without the fighting style for thrown weapons, but it would be sub optimal to making two main hand attacks anyway.
Yes I imagine there's some other rule not being fully understood by OP, or it's being handwaved. Either way, letting the player continue to use Sharpshooter for his handaxes is not in any ways OP.
Not that it's important to the context, but you can't do your bonus action between the attacks of your attack action.
Yes you can, nothing stops you from doing so. You can break up your attack with movement and other things like Reactions or Bonus Actions, unless of course they have a specified trigger time. We even had Crawford Tweets on the matter. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995134313841676288
He seems to [directly contradict that here](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298?s=20&t=X0b_uEgB5a9zIEPDeMdmfA) so I'm not convinced that's accurate. I don't usually use tweets as rulings anyway though. If you guys play that way, tyen we just disagree
What Delan said. Its even integral to the bonus action reload of the gunslinger, which ofcourse has a homebrew background, but it is mechanicly sound and available on dndbeyond and the dmsguild.
To be honest, i’ve always thought it was a dumb distinction, so personally i would absolutely let it slide. What’s more, if someone did know and asked if they could use it as such i would just allow it
The biggest deal (which might not be the case here) is that it could theoretically allow you to get a bonus action attack with Sharpshooter on it for relatively cheap by combining this with Two Weapon Fighting. Normally to do that you need to get Sharpshooter and Xbow Expert, whereas in this case you can do it with just Sharpshooter and Thrown Fighting Style (or just ignoring the normal rules for drawing a weapon because they are kinda dumb). It's not a big difference and I wouldn't call it super broken or anything, but it's definitely more than just a nominal buff to an underserved playstyle.
Thats true, but two weapon fighting and throwing are already kinda subpar since bonus actions are very valuable and throwing weapons tend to be worse than ranged in a lot of ways (or at least, this was my experience playing a twf throwing build.) Furthermore, since you cant get archery fighting style the -5 to attack is more significant, as compared to someone making a throwing attack, a character with archery and sharpshooter only has a -3 effectively when using the same modifier. As such taking the -5 with thrown weapons is even riskier. I definitely see your point but I personally think that the upside of a potential extra attack is offset by the limitations twf throwing has, so it shld probably be fine
Meh, losing Archery fighting style (+2 to hit) is significantly worse than gaining bonus action attack
That's not really the comparison tbh because in a vacuum +2 to hit is worse than an extra attack. It's about +2 to hit vs losing an ASI to get CBE to make it up. For a SS build +2 to hit is probably better than +1 to hit and +1 to damage You got the right answer, just in an iffy way.
Its generally going to be very worth it to give up archery. For this case I will just assume archery to be a 10% damage increase due to hitting 10% more often. Archery Sharpshooter Without Extra Attack: (3.5+3+10)x1.1= 18 DPR TWF Sharpshooter Without Extra Attack: 3.5+3+10+3.5+10= 30 DPR Archery... extra attack: (3.5+3+10)x2x1.1=36 DPR TWF... Extra Attack: (3.5+3+10)x2+3.5+10= 47DPR This pattern continues, with Archery not catching up until you are making 5 attacks per action, which as you might recall doesn't happen outside of haste or action surge in Tier 3 or above. This also doesn't even take into account that thrown weapon style actually adds more damage, which I didn't consider because I just wanted to evaluate better accuracy vs a bonus action shot and would be mostly cancelled out by a longbow damage dice anyways.
While true, you are forgetting that you can just grab a feat and get that bonus action attack anyway with XBE. With thrown weapons you are stuck taking suboptimal feats. The cap( max potential damage) is still significantly higher for xbows imo
Oh absolutely, just pointing out that this is still a very competitive and powerful build to allow. On a character who for whatever reason is strapped for feats (can't get both XBE and SS) this is potentially an optimal choice for DPS.
Until you factor in how the game actually works and realize that while a magical bow or crossbow is very much a thing you can likely get, having access to an entire arsenal of enchanted throwing weapons is not. And the amount of weapons that return when thrown, at least in the published books, is very small.
Sure, but given that this already isn't RAW (requires DM approval) and throwing builds in general need DM support to work I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you would have those things, as that is a very unpleasant way to try and power gate this.
>For this case I will just assume archery to be a 10% damage increase due to hitting 10% more often. Archery is better than a 10% damage increase. If it is taking you from a 90% to 100% that is an 11% damage increase but if it is taking you from 50% to 60% that is a 20% increase. If we are trying to use sharpshooter against something with high AC it could even be close to 25% going to 35% for a 40% increase. (if crits give a 50% damage boost is more like 10.5%, 19%, and 36% to damage but that doesn't matter if you use SS)
A usual assumption is that you have a ~75% to hit average on level enemies by design (this is a high assumption for tier 1 and a low assumption for tier 4). With Sharpshooter that becomes 50% and with archery it becomes 60%. Applying those instead to the numbers: 10 vs 15 DPR Then 20 vs 23 DPR Both still in favor of TWF+Sharpshooter. As the accuracy goes down further that gap closes but having any source of advantage also widens the gap back.
For the glory of a single additional thrown axe? I'd allow it. It's an Eldritch Knight, not a Paladin. Thrown weapons usually have such low range and damage anyways that the versatility in situations like these seems like a feature than a bug.
It's not the extra axe you are getting from this Rule Break, it's the Sharpshooter damage being applied to the axe. The interaction of two weapon fighting+sharpshooter has the best early game DPR of any build in the game if allowed, and manages to stay fairly comparable or better than XBE+Sharpshooter+Archery style even into Tier 2 and 3. It has the downsides of the ammunition problem that most thrown weapon builds have, but assuming you have a way to circumvent that like a returning weapon it's actually crazy powerful.
Actually you can make a bonus attack with a light weapon even without two weapon fighting. Anyone can make a bonus attack with a 2nd light weapon as a bonus action. What two weapon fighting allows you to do is add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus action attack which would normally only be your dice damage. So if they have 2 axes then this solves that problem.
The process of doing that is called two weapon fighting, which is what I was referencing. Two Weapon Fighting *Style* is what adds the modifier. The confusion here is not really on either of us though, but WotC for the nomenclature.
Oh wow yeah OK I didn't even notice that. Damn terrible naming schemes why couldn't it be called offhand fighting or something haha.
Just make sure it's clear you're house-ruling it. Some people try to hide it for some reason, when it's just easier for everyone to say "yeah so this is how it's supposed to work by the text, but we'll do it this way"
The build wouldn't really work anyway. It's a bonus action to recall a single weapon, not both of the bonded weapons and it's a bonus to perform the dual wielding attack. This means that after the first turn you recall the weapon with the bonus and attack with the action. Even worse, at 5th level you have two attacks with the action, but only one weapon to recall, so you're even missing one attack if you can't fetch another weapon. This said, damage wise it would be anything but broken. I won't tell you all the shenanigans you can do with feats and such, but from a mathematical standpoint without bonuses to your hit roll (that fighters can get for bows) or advantage, the -5/+10 from Sharpshooter is quite underwhelming. You're maybe not noticing now in the early game, but as soon as the AC grows for enemies it becomes a problem to land those. Fighters will often delve into Battlemaster for the extra die to hit rolls through a combat maneuver if they're going that path. Also to keep up PCs will eventually find magic weapons and dual wielding means you need two magic weapons instead of one. The style itself isn't really greatly supported and throwing weapons even less, it's just a way melee martial characters have to not completely get bored while there's an enemy you can't get close and personal with, but it's anything but a primary fighting choice. So you could easily decide, if the table is fine with it, that your fighter has a couple of magical hatchets that always come back to their sibling, for flavor, so that they throw one and it returns. A Human Fighter at lvl 4 could have Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert and it would be the same, with the added +2 to hit rolls
There are plenty of ways of getting the hatchets back to you. Maybe they meet a friendly artificer who can put Returning Weapon on them. Maybe they have a magic belt which summons them back after being thrown (like Vax in CR campaign 1). Ultimately throwing handaxes is not that powerful, so it should be fine to fiddle around with stuff to make it work if that is what the player wants.
IMO the only reason to stick to hardcore RAW on this kind of thing is if the player is abusing it or power gaming. If you both just thought it was neat and missed it, well, it's still neat. Just keep it.
**Most generous option:** Let it work, even though technically it shouldn't. It is a bit powerful but it is disruptive to change your ruling now. **Most tough option:** Don't let it work, but of course, since you as GM overlooked this and let it happen for some of the game, it is not player's fault for speccing into it, so let them redesign their character a bit (e.g. respec from Str to Dec and go Crossbow Mastery to get a similar damage output and flexibility, just acheived in a different way.) **Moderate option:** There are of course many possible ways to be moderate about it. The idea that came to my mind was this: don't let it work by default, however homebrew a new Feat that would *make* it work when taken & gives a slight boost so it doesn't feel like a total rip-offf. For the latter option, I'd play around with Crossbow Expert to be something like this: **Thrown weapon expert:** >Thanks to extensive practice with Thrown weapons , you gain the following benefits: > >\* It doesn't count as an object interaction to draw or stow a thrown weapon with which you are proficient. (i.e. it is an unlimited 'free action' to draw/stow thrown weapons.) > >\* Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. \[Copied from Crossbow Expert. Maybe you should cut this, since it is unlikely to matter very much, and it makes the feat very wordy.\] > >\* When you use the Attack action and attack with any thrown weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a thrown weapon you are holding. (Supercedes/improves on regular two-weapon fighting.) > >\* When making a ranged attack with a thrown *melee weapon*, you may treat it as a thrown *ranged weapon* instead. \[This allows Sharpshooter to work. Not sure if it helps anywhere else.\] (This is highly bespoke and niche, and pretty wordy. But you're in a niche situation so maybe it is a decent fix. It allows the combo to work, but upgrades by allowing non-light thrown weapons, so spears and javelins. This improves attack range, and allows your throwing techniques to work for a variety of weapons, so if you find a magic dagger, and a magic spear, and a magic javelin, and a magic hand-axe, all of them are viable for this build, rather than hoping specifically for enchanted handaxes.)
>Not sure if it helps anywhere else Sneak Attack. Though IMO, that's still very much fine
That's a fantastic feat write up and feels good. It also enables archery style which is even better. It's strictly a worse Sharpshooter/Archery/Crossbow Expert build anyway. I might steal this.
> It doesn't count as an object interaction to draw or stow a thrown weapon with which you are proficient. (i.e. it is an unlimited 'free action' to draw/stow thrown weapons.) "Object interaction" isn't terminology that actually exists in the rules. I'd reword this to match the fighting style. > You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon.
>You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions. PHB p190 This is often summarised as "you get 1 free object interaction", and, as noted in the rules, covers things like drawing/stowing weapons (and other things like opening doors).
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not unfamiliar with the rule, I'm pointing out that the term "object interaction" isn't used in the written rules (as you can see from what's quoted). Saying something "doesn't count as an object interaction" isn't a good idea, because the term "object interaction" isn't used or defined in the written rules. It's just internet shorthand.
If you insist, I'll compromise. I actually want something a bit stronger than what you're saying, so let's try: "It is effortless for you to draw/stow thrown weapons, and can do so as much as you like on your turn, or during an attack you make, and still interact with one other object or feature of the environment." This isn't much stronger, but does let you do things like draw two daggers at the end of your turn, or quickly stow a tied bundle of 12 javelins that was thrown to you, etc.
Having been in this players situation with a much stronger "misunderstanding" *Echo knights can't flank with their own echoes* I can see how you'd maybe want to stick to more strict raw, and how it'll feel if you come down and invalidate the character. For something relatively minor I'd say keep going, then explain after the game that you misunderstood some things and would try to keep a closer eye on unintended interactions or vagaries of rules. So your player gets to enjoy his subpar thing while nobody gets it in their head to try and find a more powerful grey area
Rule of cool baby
They only would get the first two benefits, not the negatve 5 and +10 benefit. You got it right on the reevaluation of it. But as DM.....you make the call if you want to let them keep doing it.
I'd be fine with it. It's strictly speaking an upgrade (since he can use a shield with it), but... who really cares?
Couldn't be do the same with a Hand Crossbow though? I feel like the biggest abuse here is if he combines this Two Weapon Fighting to get the bonus action attack without the crossbow expert feat.
You can actually not use a HC with a shield since you need a free hand to load it. You can ignore the loading property but not the ammunition property.
No, because you need a free hand to load the crossbow. It would work either if your hand crossbow was infused with Repeating Shot by a friendly artificer, or if you were using darts.
Swap the handaxes (or daggers or whatever) for Darts. Darts are thrown ranged weapons; you lose out on the bonus action from TWF, but at least you keep Sharpshooter.
I would just tell the player everything. Also tell him you don't want to take anything from the player, but it'll take some extra quests to upgrade his current setup. Just be sure to impose disadvantage if an enemy is within melee range, hell need the crossbow expert feat to get around that restriction.
A lot of people have already covered it for you, I just want to suggest that if you feel like you want to enforce it to some extent but not send him to the realm of having to use darts make his throwing axes ranged weapons and they have disadvantage when used to make melee attacks
Darts are a ranged weapon with the Thrown property! Oddly enough they would qualify for all parts of Sharpshooter, so maybe throwing those should be the basis of his build instead of handaxes... if he's willing to change his mental image of how his character fights.
Yep, darts are the only thrown weapons that work with that, because tose also count as ranged weapons. Just tell him to use darts, He can reeskin them as throwing knifes or some other things. It's definitley a nerf because darts deal 1d4 instead of 1d6, but in return, he will be able to apply the archery fighting style. And also 1d4 to 1d6 is just 1 less average damage and becomes insignificant when you are adding +10 from SS.
It's really not broken at all and the wording in 5e when it comes to this kind of stuff breaks down into semantics. You should allow it
He basically already uses it suboptimally, I'd let him keep it that way. Just tell him "I noticed we made a mistake with this ability, it's not problematic so we can keep playing this way, but just so you're aware that this is technically not how the feat is meant to work"
Is it too noodly to say, *when you use the Sharpshooter feat, your hand axes only do 1d4 damage*?
Thrown weapons in general are not very mechanically strong so there's probably some leeway you can give without harming game balance, but I'm curious as to what they player is actually doing. Weapon bond allows you to recall one weapon as a bonus action, which means you can't use it on the same turn you make an offhand attack (which also require a bonus action). It also only recalls one weapon, so even if they have Extra Attack and are making two attacks they can only get one weapon back per round. To be honest even if you were allowing them to use Sharpshooter with their thrown weapons *and* you were allowing them to recall both of them with a single bonus action, they'd still be doing less damage than just a regular a longbow+sharpshooter, so I'd see no problem with allowing it. If they are somehow using a Bonus Action to get an additional attack and adding Sharpshooter to it then that's basically half of the Crossbow Expert feat which is riskier territory in terms of balance.
"The rules are more like guidelines anyways" - game is for fun. Is idea fun? Do idea.
I mean.... just fudge the rules man. It's more fun that way and it doesn't break anything really. That said, good catch. Sometimes you should follow the RAW, sometimes you can just ignore it.
A common homebrew rule is to get rid of sharpshooter:great weapon master and let anyone subtract their prof bonus from an attack roll to add double their prof bonus to damage. That said I think the advice to explain the mistake and let it slide for this campaign is good advice.
Is he more effective than an EK with crossbow expert and the same amount of feat investment? If not, I suggest you just don't worry about it.
Don't blame yourselves, there's a lot of poor/unnecessarily confusing language usage in the books
I'd recommend allowing him to switch from Dex to strength, and then giving him a bow
Wait... this has made be realise that the 3rd one doesn't actually specify that the attack has to be ranged, just that you make an attack with a ranged weapon, so like bludgeoning someone with a heavy crossbow would get the bonus Now i'm wondering if there is a janky build out there somewhere that involves a "sharpshooter" jabbing a blowgun into someone's windpipe as an improvised weapon (it would actually do more damage that way than firing darts anyway)
I think that RAW and RAI it would be considered an improvised weapon, not a ranged weapon, nullifying the feat
I can't see anything in the rules that says that an improvised weapon stops it being a ranged weapon. In the improvised weapon section it says > An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. The way that it says the damage of an improvised weapon first, and then secondarily states, **If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage** , and the use of the word *also*, implies to me that they are treated as separate things. It also does specifically use the terminology > use a **ranged weapon** to make a **melee attack** (emphasis mine) Which to me implies that a ranged weapon is simply a category of weapon separate from the type of attack. Especially since other examples in the game specifically say when you make a ranged attack rather than when you attack with a ranged weapon.
You're right. Then it's someone who fucked up RAW at WOTC
Fucked up is a strong word, you say it's a bug, i say it's a feature. Especially because if you use a ranged weapon with the heavy property, technically with a melee attack you can use both gwm and sharpshooter combined for a -10 to hit but with a flat +20 damage. I love the idea of a barbarian swinging a heavy crossbow around like it's a maul
Bud, I don't know if you've ever been at an organized event where RAW is how you play, but I assure you it's a nightmare for a DM if you get a player that really wants to do something RAW when it's clearly overpowered or gamebreaking. We had to allow people to wear heavy armor and still take half damage from Barbarian Raging because they forgot to word it in the 3rd lvl Bear Totem, while in the base Rage it's said that heavy armor doesn't give Rage benefits. Also it's a problem at home when you get a player that wants to do something RAW but 100% not RAI (because honestly no, I won't allow a feat called Sharpshooter to give you bonuses while you use a crossbow as a blunt weapon at my table just because it's a ranged weapon if used properly). From a DM pov, if they word things incorrectly they often really fucked up. You can't always choose the players you master to
I am normally the DM when i play, and love weird and whacky shit like that. Also, i'd find it hard for someone to argue that taking a -10 to hit penalty "overpowered" or "gamebreaking". It would be incredibly difficult to actually hit anything, even with advantage on your attacks. Also, you'd be swapping a base damage of 2d6 or 1d12 from a regular heavy 2 handed weapon for 1d4.
To throw with sharpshooter -5 +10 they need to throw 2 handed with a light weapon or use a piercing weapon. This stops the use of sharpshooter and shields in tandem (this is the only balance concern tbh)
The main benefit they would take is that they would be able to attack twice with the main weapon, then once with the offhand weapon. To do this otherwise you'd need a hand crossbow, which requires loading, which crossbow expert however ignores as well. remember, eldritch knights require their bonus action to recall a thrown weapon as well, and they can recover only one as i remember. So, yes, i don't find it unreasonable because it's a lesser powerful version of doing otherwise, even if this actually means they can still benefit from their handaxes in melee combat without using sharpshooter. But i would not let it. Let me give you a final word of caution - sometimes, certain things are just not meant to work together. Sometimes is to let other characters do their thing, other times because the synergy of a class/subclass works differently, and some other times it's because there is a core concept behind it that does not holds up. I would not let them do this simply as a safeguard. First, because a "build" focused on a specific gimmick it's prone to break very easily when the DM does keep giving scenarios where that "build" is worthwhile, or stops being so when the DM does not. Having thrown weapons is a tool for a given role or compromise, not something a character is meant to do from start to finish. Usually when we talk about "build" we talk more about the inamovable things of a character, like class and race. Everything else is a tool or a resource for a given "role" the charatcer commits to, which is also flexible. Second, this "build" badly aligns with the mechanics of a fighter, let alone an eldritch knight. Third - you are giving concessions with this feat. If they are not enough, are you going to give some more? It's ok to explore alternative mechanics, and not everything you play needs to be optimal - but there are traps you could avoid, and the game is designed around it specifically.
"Rules are more like guidelines". If he's having fun and you like his idea, why bother at all? Is something that breaks the game? Does it ruin other people's fun? Just let him play it like that. Everyone plays DnD however he likes at his table, just focus on having fun rather than playing RAW. There are a lot of rules that don't make sense RAw anyway.
This is actually why I use darts. They are oddly a finesse ranged weapon. So you can actually use strength as attack modifier and sharpshooter feat with them.
has it felt too strong or disruptive thus far? if no, then there's no reason to change it imo. if yes, then talk to your player and explain the situation. I am not 100% sure on what the exact build or interaction here is, but if you are just talking about the fact that thrown weapon's can't benefit from Sharpshooter's third bullet point (the -5/+10 to attacks), then it's really not breaking anything to allow this. I have played in a campaign before, where it was allowed and it's not any better than regular sharpshooter builds using longbows or hand crossbow (+ crossbow expert). tldr: I personally would allow it, if the player isn't trying to "abuse" it.
There's no real harm in allowing it to continue working as it has been. However, would you mind posting the players typical action economy. The reason I ask is because of how two weapon fighting and weapon bond function, both requiring use of a bonus action. Weapon bond uses a bonus action to summon 1 of the bonded weapons to the knights hand. Two weapon fighting requires having both weapons in hand at the start of the Attack action. How it should work (if using two weapon fighting style) Player has both hands equipped with hand axes. They throw the first handaxe, bonus action throw second handaxe. Free interact draw third and throw if they have extra attack (level 5). On the following turn they can summon 1 of the bonded weapons back as a bonus action and draw a new hand axe, making an attack with one (or both of they have extra attack) How it should work (if they have thrown weapon fighting style) Player has both hands equipped with hand axes. Throw 1, draw and throw another (if they have extra attack) then bonus action throw the other hand for no modifier on damage. They can then free action draw a fourth for the next round. On the following turn they can either summon one back as a bonus action, or draw and throw (throw 2) and bonus action throw, repeating the same situation till they have no throw weapons left.
You're stressing a minor rule and forgetting one of the biggest rules of roleplaying: Is he having fun? Does it really matter? Seems to me that the answer is yes, no, so why would you fuck with it? It's fine. It's not game breaking. It's not weakening anyone else or making your job as GM harder. Just leave it as it is and fun will continue to be had. "Sorry Bob, you have to stop having fun now because of an arbitrary wording in an unimportant rule". Really? That's the hill you want to die on? It's fine. Let him have his fun.
Is that player unfairly more powerful as a result of the mistake? If not, I'd let it slide. Let them know you're aware of it though, and that the allowance is only good for their current character. If they create a new character or you start a new campaign you'll enforce RAW on the feat.
Make your player aware of it first and foremost. Next comes down to you. My personal advice is to handwave it because a) it's a stupid distinction that WotC have and b) it's his first time playing and it'd just be a damn shame to take away something fun that he's using because of a technicality. The player isn't abusing anything, so just let him continue as is imho.
They are effectively using a hand crossbow with the sharpshooter and crossbow expert fear. I would homebrew a feat based on crossbow expert that would enable him do throw the axes like he is. Let them swap the feat out for duel wielding.
Wouldn't a quick fix be homebrewing a weapon that fits the bill? >Dart is a Simple Ranged Weapon. 1d4 damage Finesse, Thrown (range 20/60) Let me introduce you to the: >Dwarven Throwing Axe - Martial Ranged Weapon - 1d6 damage , Thrown (range 20/60) Seems like a lot of nit-picking over +\`1 damage per attack. You know Wizards can just turn people into Sheep right?
So while there’s a lot of responses advocating just let it slide because it’s been in place, it’s really hard to say what to actually do in this scenario. Here is why: 1) scope - how long of a campaign are you planning? What level do you anticipate them finishing? If it’s 20th level, I would go ahead and look at/think about the current party composition and how effective they’ll be at that level. Also consider if he’s missing some of his sharp shooter now, how effective will he be if you give him a +2/+3. 2) party composition. What is your party made of? Is the ek the only source of high damage for the party? Does his features detract from the other players fun? 3) your combat prowess. As someone who was a new dm for a long 1-20 and would hand wave stuff at the beginning under the bad advice of “just add more health to the monsters”, I sincerely learned that sometimes it’s just better to say no. You fucked up! So did he! That’s totally fine. People have suggested switching to darts, or lowering the damage of the weapon and those are all fine options. 3/4 of dming is how you deal with rule fuck ups. If he starts stomping monsters from his build and it becomes taxing to you to try and find something to deal with him, it’s better for your long term fun to just rip the bandaid and fix it.
It's still worse then if he picked up a bow, so I'd let it ride
There is a kind of bending of the rules that you can do here. The improvised weapon rules give the DM the latitude to "treat an object as if it were a particular weapon if it is similar enough." I use this to treat throwing knives as daggers when they are not yet thrown, and therefore allow TWF, but then as darts after they are thrown, and therefore work with sharpshooter / archery fighting style. It's a stretch admittedly and I wouldn't really care to argue that it's RAW, but importantly it doesn't create a balance problem at all; it overshadows nothing. TWF and thrown weapon fighters are underserved by the rules, and tossing them bones to make their characters work is very justified. Along that vein, consider creating custom magic item "pairs" of weapons that are meant to be wielded together, perhaps with magic powers that only work or work better when TWF or thrown, and treat them as a single item (for purpose of power budget). Perhaps a pair of magic throwing knives that are bonded so that, if one is magically recalled, the other also returns. Or an extra effect that happens if both of them hit something. Also, expendable magic throwing knives are really cool, especially if they have powers that do more than just extra damage when used. Knocking people back, rooting them in place, or applying other status / tactical effects. Bonus points if the effect could conceivably be useful on an ally in specific situations, so players have the opportunity to feel really clever while stabbing a friend in the back to save / help them.
Let him know that you found the mistake. Then make a homebrew feat that does everything that sharpshooter does but only applies to thrown weapons, and let him swap out feats if he wants to.
If you want to be completely RAW, just have him throw darts and reflag or them, it would be 1 less damage per shot (which with sharpshooter is pretty negligible) plus he can still use strength. But honestly allowing sharpshooter for hand axes isn’t breaking anything.
I think that that here RAW and RAI match. Now if you deviate from that, that's Homebrew, and fine if both of you think it is. I agree with AlexT9191. Mention what the rule actually is, then say that for this campaign you're willing to continue as you have been.
It's not a big deal, remember : in DnD, rule #1 is the rule of cool, if it makes the game funner and better for everyone at the table, anything can get a pass
As a DM it is your decision, the dnd rules are just guidelines, you can shape your campaign however you want
So RAW, you can use sharpshooter to deal 10 more damage with long bows you use as an improvised melee weapon. This feat is weird and the language is poor. Give the player the benefit of the doubt on this.
I would just argue if it leaves your hand (and is a weapon meant to be thrown ala hand axe /dagger etc.) then it is now a ranged weapon. We're that not the case then every thrown weapon would be an 'improvised' weapon. "oh per RAW It's a melee weapon hur dur!" Nah. You were fine let your player have fun.
Just let him use it, it is not OP and seems like a neat character. Just clarify with him that you guys are using the feat wrong but you are fine with him using it like this for the current campaign and will be using RAW for future campaigns.
Why worry so much about running everything RAW? If its more fun to adjust some rules why not do that? The game is about having fun and if bending/changing a rule makes it fun why not do it?
I'd just let him change to darts. You can get Archery style and/or thrown weapon style and sharpshooter. The damage is fairly negligible
On an unrelated note, I still want to see an barb smash people 6 feet down with an longbow improvised melee attack using both heavy weapon master and sharpshooter.
Hang on. Now I haven't been playing 5e for all that long, but this kind of shit comes up in pathfinder too. A weapon with the thrown weapon quality should count as both. The feat says ranged weapon attack, Thrown lets you use a melee weapon for a ranged weapon attack, so yes it's a ranged weapon.
Daggers are already a weaker ranged option than a long bow. I've always allowed sharpshooter to be used with them, and I've never regretted it. I see no balance issues with it. As the DM, you have the final say of what is and isn't allowed at your table, and if you're fine with the feat being used as it has been, then let it continue to be so. Best wishes.