Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 edwin_su Jul 10, 2014 17:46:18	@JRutterbush : handaxes and ranged attacks... "my call would be count as both melee and ranged for purposes of qualifying for benefits" @JRutterbush : Wouldn't that mean that Archer Fighters could get +2 to melee attacks with a handaxe (or other thrown weapon)? @mikemearls : As written, yes, but it would be better for that ability to say +2 to ranged attacks and also capture spells, which feels right @mikemearls : technically, you could clobber someone over the head with a crossbow (improvised weapon) and get that bonus @mikemearls : in my game, I'd restrict it to ranged attacks
#2 jaelis Jul 10, 2014 18:17:44	I like that Mearls is pretty open about the rules being somewhat imprecise and provisional. Nonetheless, it would be nice to see things like that fixed so that you don't have to worry about catching things like that.
#3 Archon007 Jul 10, 2014 19:26:10	Mearls says some funny things sometimes then makes corrections later. I have to say the fighter Archery style is something that ever hit me as a confusing rule. +2 to attack rolls with ranged weapons seems incredibly clear and precise and without interpretation.    When you use a dagger, hand axe, etc in melee it is no longer a ranged weapon because by definition you are no longer attacking at range. Now you could throw a hand axe at an enemy in melee (5 feet) and receive the +2 and suffer Disadvantage.    page 44 wrote:
#4 E-Tallitnics Jul 10, 2014 20:46:51	Yep, totally agree.
#5 lawrencehoy Jul 10, 2014 21:24:33	I think the Archery fighting style shoul be limited to bows and crowwbows (possibly including blow guns and firearms as well), myself. I believe there is enough of a skill difference, between firing an ammunition weapon and simply throwing a weapon, to be their own fighting styles. I'd like to see the fighting styles be a bit more specific, even if they are giving the same machanical benefits; to provide greater customaization and individualization among characters.   That being said: I think MM is correct, and that the Archery style should be reworded to use ranged attack. However, I also agree with the interpretation that the weapon should be considered a melee weapon, when it is used for a melee attack, and a ranged weapon, when it is used for a ranged attack; a simple rule stating this would be sufficient to solve these interpretaion issues.
#6 Archon007 Jul 10, 2014 22:23:55	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #6) 2Chlorobutanal	Archon007 wrote:
#8 WhiteHarness Jul 11, 2014 4:38:42	I really wish that they hadn't made Archery Style grant a +2.  It's too good.
#9 Plaguescarred1 Jul 11, 2014 5:11:06	I will rule that thrown weapon count as ranged weapons only when attacking at distance. This should solve unintended interactions that could prove too good....
#10 mellored Jul 11, 2014 5:53:40	I don't see any balance issue, or versimilitude issue, with letting them stack.   I mean, you can stand 10' away, and attack with +2 to hit. Or you can stand 5' away, and attack with +2 to hit.     The damage bonuses from Great Weapon Fighting and / or Dualing (already did the math) arn't going to add much.  Since you could just as easily swap to a higher damage melee weapon.
(Reply to #10) Overpromises	If one were going to allow the +2 attack roll for a thrown weapon from five feet, they would also need to make the same attack with disadvantage due to being within five feet of a hostile creature if it can see them and is not incapacitated (Basic p. 73).   Edit: oops, this was already posted above and I missed it.   So in this particular case I see absolutely no balance problem.   Similarly it would be difficult if not impossible for a level 20 fighter to draw four handaxes per attack action in order to make all ranged attacks. There are more potential balance issues allowing the +2 damage in ranged than there were allowing the +2 attack roll on melee, but there is still at least some downside compared to the intended ranged weapons with the Ammunition but not Loading properties.