In response to this question: Are you still two-weapon fighting if you've thrown one of your two weapons and are no longer holding it?

A comment I made was responded to by the OP with:

Actually, I knew the answer to the question but thought it an ambiguous enough scenario that it'd be helpful to the community. I knew I'd get answers pretty quick too so I didn't bother writing my own. ;)

Meanwhile, the quoted rules he put in his question included:

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Is the OP asking us to re-word the rules he posted so that some hypothetical person who doesn't understand them suddenly does? How can we be sure our re-wording won't confuse someone who otherwise would have understood the rules?

I've been told here before to not ask hypothetical questions - ask questions about a problem you have, not one you are trying to invent.

So which is it?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Excellent question \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 15:02

2 Answers 2


I'm of two minds about this one. (Disclosure: I answered it.)

  1. On the one hand, all of the rules required to interpret it are included on the same page, even in the same named section: "Two-Weapon Fighting", PHB p.195. That's usually my litmus test for making this a "read the book to me" question and getting my downvote.

  2. On the other hand, the act of throwing a weapon does put you in a state of no longer meeting the prerequisites for TWF. I could see someone being concerned that the RAW require melee-then-throw while disallowing throw-then-either, as the first would "break" TWF.


  1. On someone else's hand, OP has now commented that he had no particular question about it and asked it prospectively, which isn't great. I've also been told--and agree it's good policy--to ask about actual problems/confusion, not just hypothetical. OP struggled with this at one point, as he mentions in another answer, so it's a real--if, perhaps, small--problem to ask about.


I don't think it rises to the level of flagging for deletion. It's not horrible, offensive, duplicate. One might argue it's off-topic because OP didn't really have that problem, but that's a bridge too far for me.

Vote your conscience, though--this may be one question where the score appropriately hovers somewhere low.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Although I broadly agree with this answer, how does this position relate to the prospect of generating questions in order to farm rep. I mean, there's plenty of Savage Worlds stuff that can be ambiguous/unclear that I know the answers to. Does that mean I can go ahead and ask all those questions even though I know the answer (not that I would) \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 16:05
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Personally I'm all for it if it's something that actually confused you at some point. If you had a problem with it--because it's ambiguous/unclear--and you now know the answer I'd say go ahead and "share your knowledge Q&A-style" (as the prompt says). Just one man's opinion, though... perhaps worth its own meta to harvest community wisdom on "how much self-answering is proper?" \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 16:09
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It may not be clear in the question, but the TWF thing was something that gave me a brief moment of doubt, which I think qualifies it as "something that actually confused you at some point." My litmus test for such things is, "if it gave me pause for thought then it might give someone else pause for thought." \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 17:18

I asked the question because I thought it ambiguous enough that it could use a definitive answer, in the event that anyone else comes along with the same question -- i.e., "how am I benefiting from two weapon fighting if I'm only holding one weapon after I throw my other weapon?"

One of the features of this site is that you can ask a question and answer it yourself as part of your initial post. While I didn't answer it myself, I had intended to (I didn't have the time to also write up the answer). I also knew it would be answered fairly quickly, as it's a fairly straightforward question, and the answer I received was along the lines of what I expected.

I will point out that it's not entirely hypothetical -- while I was fairly certain of the rule, and said so in the comments, I still couldn't be 100% certain I was reading it right. It's probably not a great question considering it's explained within the rules. My thought process was that if it gave me pause for consideration, then it might come up again when it gives someone else pause for consideration, and if that makes it a valuable question to at least one other person then it has served its purpose.

It's fine if it's not an excellent question for this format but I don't think its off topic or generally a bad question, either.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I would suggest, in future, that you post a self-answer at the same time; this allows for the honest chance of being downvoted for a wrong interpretation, or instead upvoted if you did get it right. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17995
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 19:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TuggyNE I'm sure there's guidance somewhere else on meta specifically not to post a self answer at the same time as the question in order to give others a chance of answering first \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 22:44
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Wibbs: Really? I'm tolerably certain that's just not the case. In fact, so far is it from being the case that if memory serves, SE added the ability to do just that (which was originally not possible) after enough experience in self-answered questions. If you could dig up some meta post to the contrary, here or on the mother, I'd like to see that. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17995
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 22:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmmm...maybe I'm thinking about advice not to tick your self-answer straight away as the right one... \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Mar 18, 2016 at 23:13
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Wibbs and TuggyNE, you're probably talking about this post. The gist is that, as a way of avoiding accidentally writing a poor question when focused on setting up one's intended self-answer, it can be helpful to consider not self-answering for a bit so the question has a chance to (im)prove itself. It's a situational bit of advice. In general it's fine to self-answer right away. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 19, 2016 at 6:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .