by RAW they can deflect, attack, and keep the weapon in their hand... as their reaction has to finish before we can return to the wielder's turn and continue with anything else they're doing, this is when the 'immediately after kicks in, upon completion of the monk's reaction.
Some reactions interrupt a turn and then you complete them before moving on with the original turn.
Featherfall spell.
Shield spell.
And AoO's (attacks of opportunity...are all examples of reactions that usually conclude before returning to the turn that the reaction interrupted.
Again in cases where simply holding or wielding a magic weapon will not prevent it from returning to the original wielder, the weapon will return to the original wielder once the monk's reaction is complete. Then the magic of the weapon would cause it to appear in the wielder's hand. If the magic requires attunement then the property of returning is probably magical and would only work for the original wielder.
In this case the monk's reaction still works the same, he gets to catch & attack, but the weapon would not return to the monk's hand since he is not attuned to it. After the monk's reaction is complete the weapon would return to the original wielder's hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Knowing this (going a little off topic here), how would you rule in a situation where a Monk tries to use Deflect Missiles against an Arcane Archer's Arcane Shot? 2 examples of Arcane Shots below:
Bursting Arrow
You imbue your arrow with force energy drawn from the school of evocation. The energy detonates after your attack. Immediately after the arrow hits the creature, the target and all other creatures within 10 feet of it take 2d6 force damage each.
Shadow Arrow
You weave illusion magic into your arrow, causing it to occlude your foe’s vision with shadows. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 psychic damage, and it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be unable to see anything farther than 5 feet away until the start of your next turn.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
That settles it for me. I said differently earlier, but it looks like the monk is intended to be able to catch it.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Knowing this (going a little off topic here), how would you rule in a situation where a Monk tries to use Deflect Missiles against an Arcane Archer's Arcane Shot? 2 examples of Arcane Shots below:
Bursting Arrow
You imbue your arrow with force energy drawn from the school of evocation. The energy detonates after your attack. Immediately after the arrow hits the creature, the target and all other creatures within 10 feet of it take 2d6 force damage each.
Shadow Arrow
You weave illusion magic into your arrow, causing it to occlude your foe’s vision with shadows. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 psychic damage, and it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be unable to see anything farther than 5 feet away until the start of your next turn.
I would say he can catch it if he reduces its normal damage to nil, but then the effect would go off before he could throw it back
And for that matter, the Dwarven Thrower ruling does not say anything about the monk's ability to throw it on catching it, merely to catch it.
Its a grey area, but the monks ability specifically calls the reduction of damage to 0, catching the weapon, and throwing it as an attack as all occuring in the same reaction. If you want to interrupt the reaction for a separate ability that's your call, but it seems arbitrary and unfair to the monk that they only get to use 2/3rds of the fastest standard type of action in the game.
To me, I've never thought that an effect occurring after an attack (like a returning weapon) only occurs after the hit, and not also after the damage. the two should be one and the same as they are occurring in direct causation with one another. Unless an ability specifically inserts itself in between the two, (like the shield spell), I don't see that separation occurring. Saying otherwise (at least to me) is basically saying the weapon teleports at the precise moment of contact, which would be prior to any actual damage being transferred as the weapon would not have penetrated, cut, or smashed into the body yet, and so no damage would ultimately be done.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Knowing this (going a little off topic here), how would you rule in a situation where a Monk tries to use Deflect Missiles against an Arcane Archer's Arcane Shot? 2 examples of Arcane Shots below:
Bursting Arrow
You imbue your arrow with force energy drawn from the school of evocation. The energy detonates after your attack. Immediately after the arrow hits the creature, the target and all other creatures within 10 feet of it take 2d6 force damage each.
Shadow Arrow
You weave illusion magic into your arrow, causing it to occlude your foe’s vision with shadows. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 psychic damage, and it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be unable to see anything farther than 5 feet away until the start of your next turn.
I would say he can catch it if he reduces its normal damage to nil, but then the effect would go off before he could throw it back
And for that matter, the Dwarven Thrower ruling does not say anything about the monk's ability to throw it on catching it, merely to catch it.
If he is catching an arrow, I would assume he is catching by the shaft. Because of this, the magic wouldn't take affect as it did not pierce him, so he could redirect the entire attack to a new target.
I think the big issue here is that the Monk is both hit and not hit: hit in that the attack beat his AC, but not hit in that he caught the projectile before it could pierce him.
Because if you missed with the Bursting Arrow and it hit the ground at your targets feet, it does not detonate and damage those around it per RAW. I would argue in the same way that if the arrowhead does not pierce the target, it would not detonate. So it could be used against the Monk's target.
So, going back to the original question, since SAC would allow a Monk to catch a Dwarven Thrower before it returns, it stands to reason that a Monk could catch a Returning Weapon as well. Now, since a Returning Weapon does not require attunement (unlike a Dwarven Thrower), who would the weapon return to?
Who is considered the wielder? Is it the last person to make an attack with the weapon? If so, it would be the Monk who the Returning Weapon returns to.
The monk is hit, but the hit deals no damage. If it considered the attack not to be a hit, there would be no damage roll and the feature would have said so (as per the "effects do what they say they do" principle).
Regarding who wields the weapon, I believe there are 2 wielders of the weapon during the single Attack action: The 1st thrower is the wielder of the first attack and the Monk is the wielder of the second attack. However, seeing as the Reaction is resolved first as per the ruling in SAC, I'd say that the weapon is firmly in the hand of the Monk as the rest of the Attack action resolves.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Oh great, RAI goes against RAW again.
That surprises you?!? Crap like that is why I say SAC is useless and Crawford doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
To be fair, SaC got pruned and what's left now is a lot better than it was. Before, it was 25% was just like the answer above with no explanation attached to the call. 25% was a detailed explanation that went on tangents that never actually answered the question.
I still like the idea of following logical progression. The weapons is thrown and wants to return as long as an attack is made with it. This requirement is fulfilled before anything the Monk attempts to do with the weapon. I feel the weapon would try to complete it's last order and that it's movement would apply disadvantage to anything that would try to supersede this function, and that would apply until the weapon returned to the original thrower.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Oh great, RAI goes against RAW again.
Eh. I read it as they "can" catch the weapon - as in "you can certainly try". So that doesn't mean they'll always be able to - it just means it's a possibility. At least - that's how I'm deciding to ignore RAI and follow RAW.
If a character hits a monk with a dwarven thrower and the monk uses Deflect Missiles, does the hammer return to the attacker first, or can the monk catch it? The monk can catch it.
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on. This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Oh great, RAI goes against RAW again.
Eh. I read it as they "can" catch the weapon - as in "you can certainly try". So that doesn't mean they'll always be able to - it just means it's a possibility. At least - that's how I'm deciding to ignore RAI and follow RAW.
This particular SAC answer illustrates my issue with a lot of Crawford’s responses, which is that he very literally answers a question and refuses to provide the information people are actually interested in.
The question asks if the hammer returns first, not if it returns at all. Perhaps the monk can catch it, but then it still returns to the attacker’s hand. Or perhaps the monk gets to keep it. That’s the actually important information and Crawford just ignores it. One could certainly argue that the question is asked under the assumption that the hammer will return regardless, and since Crawford doesn’t contradict it, his answer must also be taken in that context. But it still just feels like an incomplete answer.
I still like the idea of following logical progression. The weapons is thrown and wants to return as long as an attack is made with it. This requirement is fulfilled before anything the Monk attempts to do with the weapon. I feel the weapon would try to complete it's last order and that it's movement would apply disadvantage to anything that would try to supersede this function, and that would apply until the weapon returned to the original thrower.
That seems wrong to me. The Monks reaction affects the damage the weapon does and the weapon really shouldn't be returning before it has done any damage, that that fails the logic progression IMO.
I do think that the weapon should finish its ongoing "return to thrower" phase before it can start a new one though so I wouldn't have it return to the Monk.
If the weapon is mundane, such as a boomerang, the monk will catch it and make an attack and get the weapon back in his hand... maybe, not sure if boomerangs return on a miss, hit, or both.
But if the weapon requires attunement to return it will never return to monk because he doesn't gain attunement from catching it and making an attack... but he still gets to catch it and make an attack as his defect missiles reaction says he can do that, once his reaction is complete then it would return to the owner's hand, not the monk's hand.
Just like when you ready an action to attack and the trigger goes off, your held action completes before you return to whoever's turn it was when your reaction went off.
Same for the monk's defect missiles reaction, it completely finishes before going back to the attuned owner's turn.
The monk can catch the weapon, spend a ki point, make an attack roll, roll for damage, and then the weapon return's to the attuned owner's hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
If the weapon is mundane, such as a boomerang, the monk will catch it and make an attack and get the weapon back in his hand... maybe, not sure if boomerangs return on a miss, hit, or both.
But if the weapon requires attunement to return it will never return to monk because he doesn't gain attunement from catching it and making an attack... but he still gets to catch it and make an attack as his defect missiles reaction says he can do that, once his reaction is complete then it would return to the owner's hand, not the monk's hand.
Just like when you ready an action to attack and the trigger goes off, your held action completes before you return to whoever's turn it was when your reaction went off.
Same for the monk's defect missiles reaction, it completely finishes before going back to the attuned owner's turn.
The monk can catch the weapon, spend a ki point, make an attack roll, roll for damage, and then the weapon return's to the attuned owner's hand.
It has been mentioned a few times now: returning weapon doesn't require attunement apparently (surprised me too). It's magical ability is simply to return to the hand of the person that threw it. If the monk throws it that effect now wants to occur.
The default rule for multiple effects that want to occur at the same time (returning vs catching or returning vs returning) is the player whose turn it is decides the order (this has also been said a few times already, yet the discussion continues).
If the weapon is mundane, such as a boomerang, the monk will catch it and make an attack and get the weapon back in his hand... maybe, not sure if boomerangs return on a miss, hit, or both.
But if the weapon requires attunement to return it will never return to monk because he doesn't gain attunement from catching it and making an attack... but he still gets to catch it and make an attack as his defect missiles reaction says he can do that, once his reaction is complete then it would return to the owner's hand, not the monk's hand.
Just like when you ready an action to attack and the trigger goes off, your held action completes before you return to whoever's turn it was when your reaction went off.
Same for the monk's defect missiles reaction, it completely finishes before going back to the attuned owner's turn.
The monk can catch the weapon, spend a ki point, make an attack roll, roll for damage, and then the weapon return's to the attuned owner's hand.
It has been mentioned a few times now: returning weapon doesn't require attunement apparently (surprised me too). It's magical ability is simply to return to the hand of the person that threw it. If the monk throws it that effect now wants to occur.
The default rule for multiple effects that want to occur at the same time (returning vs catching or returning vs returning) is the player whose turn it is decides the order (this has also been said a few times already, yet the discussion continues).
Even if the person whose turn it is decides the order, this does not necessarily mean though that the ownership changes (or that any deemed ownership changes affect the earlier tosses).
Even if the person whose turn it is decides the order, this does not necessarily mean though that the ownership changes (or that any deemed ownership changes affect the earlier tosses).
Possession is nine tenths of ownership.
But in a world where magic exists, that 10th 10th could be the 10th that matters.
That was a joke anyway. Ownership only matters when it says it does (and no examples come to mind). Returning weapon on cares about who is wielding it, not an owner. If the monk wields it once to make an attack with their reaction, the weapon's effect will activate for the monk. Period.
RAW isn't going to settle it. Simply put, none of the abilities explicitly say they countermand the "returning" enchantment. (though an admittedly strong case for RAI to have the monk be the new owner of a magic dagger)
The path of least resistance that I'd likely use (mostly because it's the most fun) would be to resolve in reverse order and completely.
Thus: 1. artificer throws dagger at monk 2. monk catches (if they roll high enough) 3. resolve monk's throw, which returns the dagger to the monk's hand (they met conditions for returning enchantment) 4. finish resolve artificer's throw, which returns the dagger to the artificer
Again, RAW, artificer met requirements for this to happen; nothing specifically says it's negated...it's merely been delayed by the complete resolution of the attack. Weird, but allows everyone to shine.
Even if the person whose turn it is decides the order, this does not necessarily mean though that the ownership changes (or that any deemed ownership changes affect the earlier tosses).
Possession is nine tenths of ownership.
But in a world where magic exists, that 10th 10th could be the 10th that matters.
That was a joke anyway. Ownership only matters when it says it does (and no examples come to mind). Returning weapon on cares about who is wielding it, not an owner. If the monk wields it once to make an attack with their reaction, the weapon's effect will activate for the monk. Period.
But is that the right interpretation or a cheesy rules lawyer literal interpretation? The original thrower was the wielder when they threw, so there is the argument they are the wielder for that throw. If the monk catches it and throws it, they would be the wielder for their throw. But if the monk catches it and simply tries to put it in their pack were they ever really wielding it? They had possession just the same either way.... If it stuck in the enemy's body somehow, would the enemy become the wielder?
Catching it an able to throw it is wielding even if they choose not to throw. Sticking in the body is not wielding.
Whether or not returning weapon is able to escape the grasp of its current wielder in order to return to a previous one is up to DM.
If the dagger is infused with Returning weapon - wouldn't it be attuned to the owner?
If attuned, it should return to the original owner as there wouldn't be enough time in that attack to re-attune it to the Monk due to the brief interaction that a Monk using Deflect Missiles would have with it.
Otherwise - the monk IS returning it, so its fulfilling the requirement...:P
Yes quoting myself. As a DM if faced with this situation and no attunement is required as mention in the thread - and I agree why not?
If the monk catches and throws back, the dagger would simply just flip to arrive back in the original owner's hand -> no disadvantage for Monk throw back, just wouldn't succeed, same round still following return to sender rule.If the monk does not catch it, no issue, still returns back to the original owner after doing damage.
I personally don't read a lot of Sage Advice as just advice. I tend to review RAW, take players comments into consideration - possibly going with a good argument, but ultimately our game so whatever makes it most fun.
While a monk may catch a Dwarven Thrower or a Returning Weapon, i don't see anything that would prevent the magic properties of these weapons to operate after and return immediatly to you.
This works and is by far the simplest answer. I rule they can deflect, but they can't stop it from returning.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
by RAW they can deflect, attack, and keep the weapon in their hand... as their reaction has to finish before we can return to the wielder's turn and continue with anything else they're doing, this is when the 'immediately after kicks in, upon completion of the monk's reaction.
Some reactions interrupt a turn and then you complete them before moving on with the original turn.
Featherfall spell.
Shield spell.
And AoO's (attacks of opportunity...are all examples of reactions that usually conclude before returning to the turn that the reaction interrupted.
Again in cases where simply holding or wielding a magic weapon will not prevent it from returning to the original wielder, the weapon will return to the original wielder once the monk's reaction is complete. Then the magic of the weapon would cause it to appear in the wielder's hand. If the magic requires attunement then the property of returning is probably magical and would only work for the original wielder.
In this case the monk's reaction still works the same, he gets to catch & attack, but the weapon would not return to the monk's hand since he is not attuned to it. After the monk's reaction is complete the weapon would return to the original wielder's hand.
Found this in the Sage Advice Compendium:
So following RAW, the monk can catch the weapon, irrespective of whose turn it is thrown on.
This ruling suggests that, at the point in time where the attack is resolved, the monk's ability has priority as the attack is resolved within his reaction.
Knowing this (going a little off topic here), how would you rule in a situation where a Monk tries to use Deflect Missiles against an Arcane Archer's Arcane Shot? 2 examples of Arcane Shots below:
That settles it for me. I said differently earlier, but it looks like the monk is intended to be able to catch it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Its a grey area, but the monks ability specifically calls the reduction of damage to 0, catching the weapon, and throwing it as an attack as all occuring in the same reaction. If you want to interrupt the reaction for a separate ability that's your call, but it seems arbitrary and unfair to the monk that they only get to use 2/3rds of the fastest standard type of action in the game.
To me, I've never thought that an effect occurring after an attack (like a returning weapon) only occurs after the hit, and not also after the damage. the two should be one and the same as they are occurring in direct causation with one another. Unless an ability specifically inserts itself in between the two, (like the shield spell), I don't see that separation occurring. Saying otherwise (at least to me) is basically saying the weapon teleports at the precise moment of contact, which would be prior to any actual damage being transferred as the weapon would not have penetrated, cut, or smashed into the body yet, and so no damage would ultimately be done.
The monk is hit, but the hit deals no damage. If it considered the attack not to be a hit, there would be no damage roll and the feature would have said so (as per the "effects do what they say they do" principle).
Regarding who wields the weapon, I believe there are 2 wielders of the weapon during the single Attack action: The 1st thrower is the wielder of the first attack and the Monk is the wielder of the second attack. However, seeing as the Reaction is resolved first as per the ruling in SAC, I'd say that the weapon is firmly in the hand of the Monk as the rest of the Attack action resolves.
Oh great, RAI goes against RAW again.
That surprises you?!? Crap like that is why I say SAC is useless and Crawford doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To be fair, SaC got pruned and what's left now is a lot better than it was. Before, it was 25% was just like the answer above with no explanation attached to the call. 25% was a detailed explanation that went on tangents that never actually answered the question.
I still like the idea of following logical progression. The weapons is thrown and wants to return as long as an attack is made with it. This requirement is fulfilled before anything the Monk attempts to do with the weapon. I feel the weapon would try to complete it's last order and that it's movement would apply disadvantage to anything that would try to supersede this function, and that would apply until the weapon returned to the original thrower.
Eh. I read it as they "can" catch the weapon - as in "you can certainly try". So that doesn't mean they'll always be able to - it just means it's a possibility. At least - that's how I'm deciding to ignore RAI and follow RAW.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
This particular SAC answer illustrates my issue with a lot of Crawford’s responses, which is that he very literally answers a question and refuses to provide the information people are actually interested in.
The question asks if the hammer returns first, not if it returns at all. Perhaps the monk can catch it, but then it still returns to the attacker’s hand. Or perhaps the monk gets to keep it. That’s the actually important information and Crawford just ignores it. One could certainly argue that the question is asked under the assumption that the hammer will return regardless, and since Crawford doesn’t contradict it, his answer must also be taken in that context. But it still just feels like an incomplete answer.
That seems wrong to me. The Monks reaction affects the damage the weapon does and the weapon really shouldn't be returning before it has done any damage, that that fails the logic progression IMO.
I do think that the weapon should finish its ongoing "return to thrower" phase before it can start a new one though so I wouldn't have it return to the Monk.
If the weapon is mundane, such as a boomerang, the monk will catch it and make an attack and get the weapon back in his hand... maybe, not sure if boomerangs return on a miss, hit, or both.
But if the weapon requires attunement to return it will never return to monk because he doesn't gain attunement from catching it and making an attack... but he still gets to catch it and make an attack as his defect missiles reaction says he can do that, once his reaction is complete then it would return to the owner's hand, not the monk's hand.
Just like when you ready an action to attack and the trigger goes off, your held action completes before you return to whoever's turn it was when your reaction went off.
Same for the monk's defect missiles reaction, it completely finishes before going back to the attuned owner's turn.
The monk can catch the weapon, spend a ki point, make an attack roll, roll for damage, and then the weapon return's to the attuned owner's hand.
It has been mentioned a few times now: returning weapon doesn't require attunement apparently (surprised me too). It's magical ability is simply to return to the hand of the person that threw it. If the monk throws it that effect now wants to occur.
The default rule for multiple effects that want to occur at the same time (returning vs catching or returning vs returning) is the player whose turn it is decides the order (this has also been said a few times already, yet the discussion continues).
Possession is nine tenths of ownership.
That was a joke anyway. Ownership only matters when it says it does (and no examples come to mind). Returning weapon on cares about who is wielding it, not an owner. If the monk wields it once to make an attack with their reaction, the weapon's effect will activate for the monk. Period.
This is fascinating!
RAW isn't going to settle it. Simply put, none of the abilities explicitly say they countermand the "returning" enchantment. (though an admittedly strong case for RAI to have the monk be the new owner of a magic dagger)
The path of least resistance that I'd likely use (mostly because it's the most fun) would be to resolve in reverse order and completely.
Thus:
1. artificer throws dagger at monk
2. monk catches (if they roll high enough)
3. resolve monk's throw, which returns the dagger to the monk's hand (they met conditions for returning enchantment)
4. finish resolve artificer's throw, which returns the dagger to the artificer
Again, RAW, artificer met requirements for this to happen; nothing specifically says it's negated...it's merely been delayed by the complete resolution of the attack. Weird, but allows everyone to shine.
Catching it an able to throw it is wielding even if they choose not to throw. Sticking in the body is not wielding.
Whether or not returning weapon is able to escape the grasp of its current wielder in order to return to a previous one is up to DM.
Yes quoting myself. As a DM if faced with this situation and no attunement is required as mention in the thread - and I agree why not?
If the monk catches and throws back, the dagger would simply just flip to arrive back in the original owner's hand -> no disadvantage for Monk throw back, just wouldn't succeed, same round still following return to sender rule. If the monk does not catch it, no issue, still returns back to the original owner after doing damage.
I personally don't read a lot of Sage Advice as just advice. I tend to review RAW, take players comments into consideration - possibly going with a good argument, but ultimately our game so whatever makes it most fun.
While a monk may catch a Dwarven Thrower or a Returning Weapon, i don't see anything that would prevent the magic properties of these weapons to operate after and return immediatly to you.