Throwing a halberd

[RosenMcStern]

12 hours ago, krzysztof said:

No, not halberd, but greatsword (sorry for mess with halberd example). Unfortunately, as pointed out by K Peterson, rules clearly allow throwing greatsword with practically the same damage as greatsword in hand-to-hand combat, but bigger base chance of success.

I managed to read the incriminated part of the rules more thoroughly. Yes, it is poorly phrased. (Jason, shame on you, you wrote one paragraph wrong in a 400+ page book - how can you live with this responsibility? You sloppy rule-fumbler...)

The anecdotal explanation: it is quite clear why the rules mention greatswords, out of all the implausible not-made-for-throwing weapons that your character might want to throw. And the name of this reason is Etienne Navarre. I could not find a clip of that specific scene on YouTube, but I think everyone remembers the moment when Rutger Hauer throws his greatsword to kill the bishop. This utterly implausible scene almost spoils what is probably the best fantasy movie ever. A dagger from the boot would have sounded more plausible - particularly because the chance of the bishop killing Navarre and Isabeau with a non-sharpened pastoral staff was rather slim, so the actual danger was feeble. But for some reason the scriptwriter and the director felt the bad guy had to be killed by the sword, not a dagger or something else.

The point - anecdotes aside - is quite clear. Whether Jason wrote it explicitly or not, those rules are for exceptional feats. As in Lady Hawke's final scene. Not for building a strategy, or a character, upon them. That your player can count on a "last chance" attempt to solve a situation with a thrown greatsword is probably acceptable - once per campaign. In that sense, it might be even fun and appropriate. That he tries to consistently use this utterly implausible stunt to overcome his foes in day-by-day confrontations... well, that has nothing to do with fun and good roleplaying.

[krzysztof]

Here it is:

His sword did not seem useful even in melee

Pay attention to the face of old man clearly disgusted by Player exploiting the rules.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by krzysztof
improved gif quality

[Atgxtg]

I don't think the "Ladyhawk Gambit" really needs to be addressed. One of the problems with the tactic, even if allowed, is that there is no guarantee that the weapon will hit and incapacitate the opponent. Thrown weapons can be parried or dodged, and the character has just thrown away his weapon and has nothing left to defend with. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

I particularly because the chance of the bishop killing Navarre and Isabeau with a non-sharpened pastoral staff was rather slim, so the actual danger was feeble

Memory fails you. The Bishop's staff had a pointed end and was quite serviceable as a spear. The chance of killing Isabeau with it was better than slim. Navarre probably would have took the Bishop apart in a fight, but the danger was significant. 

[krzysztof]

Quote

The Bishop's staff had a pointed end and was quite serviceable as a spear.

Contrary to Navarre's sword, which was rounded at the end. Nevertheless, it had good impaling features and could flight well. I guess, that the latter was the effect of flight-stabilizing side-wings. Both impaling effectiveness and side-wings (pointed! - just in case) are well visible on this photo

For comparison, the Navarre's idea implemented in a cruise missile:

 

[RosenMcStern]

Hmm, this sheds a different light on why the missile is labeled NavAir....

[krzysztof]

Haha, didn't notice.

NavAir = Navarre

[nDervish]

19 hours ago, krzysztof said:

Nevertheless, "talking sensibly" with 35-years-old nerds who spent over 20 years on gaming together is always tricky, especially when there are 2H swords within their reach.

2H swords within reach, you say?

Time to stage a practical demonstration! 

"First, throw this sword at <insert target here>.  Then hit it with the sword normally, and we'll compare the damage done each way."

[dragonewt]

Video: Skallagrim discusses "Throwing a sword - Crazy or viable technique?"

Video: What happens when GM's show their players how weapons work (battle axe, and bow enchanted with magic missile being impossible to dodge)...

 

[K Peterson]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think the "Ladyhawk Gambit" really needs to be addressed. One of the problems with the tactic, even if allowed, is that there is no guarantee that the weapon will hit and incapacitate the opponent. Thrown weapons can be parried or dodged, and the character has just thrown away his weapon and has nothing left to defend with. 

Clearly you need a greatsword-quiver to keep your arsenal, and a sturdy pack-mule/pony/horse to ferry them around for you. Draw, throw. Draw, throw. Ad Nauseam. 

[Atgxtg]

12 minutes ago, K Peterson said:

Clearly you need a greatsword-quiver to keep your arsenal, and a sturdy pack-mule/pony/horse to ferry them around for you. Draw, throw. Draw, throw. Ad Nauseam. 

LOL! I actually did something similar in a D&D 3E campaign. Since D&D has escalating hit points, after awhile it takes multiple hits to drop any sort of significant threat. With a pair of archers in the group, even at 5th level we were going through a ridiculous amount of arrows during a fight. I was wearing two 50-arrow "war quivers" and was still running out at times.

My solution was to get a pack animal and  take some blankets and put some "sleeves" in them to hold arrows. They looked something like ammo belts for a machine gun, stitched to a blanket. Then I'd roll them up in a fashion similar to how they could roll up rifles in a blanket in old Westerns. 

 

The next time we got into a big fight (not long in D&D), and we started running out of arrows, I pulled the cord on the blankets and they unrolled to reveal more arrows. There was some stunned silence and then a lot of laughter. We weren't sure what was sillier, that I made up such a device, or that, in D&D, I'd actually had a need for it.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Atgxtg