Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ironkid]

Hello, as the title says, I've got a coule of silly sounding rule questions, I would appreciate any help with them

1) If my character has the dueling style, a javelin and a shield (i.e. no other melee weapns); throws the javelin and hits, do I get the +2 damage from the dueling style? I guess that the instant I throw the javelin I lose the bonus, but want to make sure :elan:

2) Do Minotaurs, Aarakocra and Centaurs (among others) get automathic proficiency with their natural weapons? It must be somewhere in the rules, but I've yet to find it :elan:

Thanx for reading!

[KorvinStarmast]

I have never removed the bonus
Dueling

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

Javelins are simple melee weapons with the thrown property. As is the hand axe. And the Light Hammer.

So I retain the +2, which I believe to be RAW. The dueling style does not make an exception for when it is thrown.

I can understand where a DM might rule otherwise.


2) Do Minotaurs, Aarakocra and Centaurs (among others) get automathic proficiency with their natural weapons? Yes. I think I read something about Lizardfolk and Tabaxi that explicitly covers that in Volo's, I'll see if I can find you a ref.

[nickl_2000]

1) Yes, you do add it. Dueling fighting style requires a melee weapon (which the javelin is). It doesn't require a melee attack. The same thing can apply for daggers and handaxes.


2) Everyone is proficient with natural weapons, for most races it is just an unarmed strike (punching, kicking, etc). For certain races you get extra natural weapons that you can use and you are still proficient with.

Let me clarify this since it isn't completely correct. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes (not natural weapons). However, if you look at the races they say "which you can use to make unarmed strikes" in the specifically. So, you are still making an unarmed strike, which you are proficient with.


Minotaur
Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Under Melee Attacks in PHB chapter 9, it says (bolding mine)
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."'

[ThorOdinson]

No. If you throw the javelin it is no longer in your hand.

[Dork_Forge]

No. If you throw the javelin it is no longer in your hand.

It would probably say if it exempted thrown weapons, you just need a melee weapon in hand and no weapon in your other. For what it's worth this was also confirmed by Jeremy Crawford way back when, so probably closer to original intent.

[Segev]

Are shields “weapons” in 5e? If not, this seems way better than the “armored fighting” style that only gives +1 for armor. This is +2 and let’s you have a shield!

[ThorOdinson]

It would probably say if it exempted thrown weapons, you just need a melee weapon in hand and no weapon in your other. For what it's worth this was also confirmed by Jeremy Crawford way back when, so probably closer to original intent.
No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand. If you have thrown the weapon and are rolling damage the weapon is no longer being wielded in one hand. The thrown weapon is in fact not in your hand at that point in time.

[Aett_Thorn]

Are shields “weapons” in 5e? If not, this seems way better than the “armored fighting” style that only gives +1 for armor. This is +2 and let’s you have a shield!

But if you're using RAW weapons rules, you can only throw two javelins the first round, and then only one per round after that.

[Aett_Thorn]

No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand. If you have thrown the weapon and are rolling damage the weapon is no longer being wielded in one hand. The thrown weapon is in fact not in your hand at that point in time.

You were wielding the item in one hand, though. When you make the Attack action, it is in your hand. The throw and the attack are the same action. Dueling applies.

[ThorOdinson]

You were wielding the item in one hand, though. When you make the Attack action, it is in your hand. The throw and the attack are the same action. Dueling applies.

"Were" and "are" are two separate tenses. The rule in question checks for if the weapon is currently being wielded when damage is rolled.

[Aett_Thorn]

"Were" and "are" are two separate tenses. The rule in question checks for if the weapon is currently being wielded when damage is rolled.

Citation needed.

[Zhorn]

It does work with thrown weapon attacks and has been confirm


https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/651498920636321792
Q: Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?
A: Yes

[KorvinStarmast]

No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand. You had it in your hand. You threw it. +2 damage. This isn't that complicated. Not sure what you think wielded means. Oh, I see that Zhorn found a Crawford utterance, for what that's worth.

[ThorOdinson]

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."


Look up "wield". Wield means 'to hold and use'. You get to apply the damage boost when you are holding and using the javelin. RAW it does not work when thrown since it leaves your hand when thrown and is no longer wielded and therewith throwing removes the condition by which the rule could apply.

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.

[Tanarii]

Dueling style definitely adds the bonus to a thrown melee weapon. It is a melee weapon, it is in one hand, and you wield it. As evinced by making an attack with it.

[ThorOdinson]

Dueling style definitely adds the bonus to a thrown melee weapon. It is a melee weapon, it is in one hand, and you wield it. As evinced by making an attack with it.

When you throw it, the javelin leaves your hand.

If somehow throwing meant the javelin was still in your hand upon damage then you would be correct.

But alas you are incorrect. Throwing a javelin means you are no longer wielding it. Similarly, a dropped weapon is no longer in hand or wielded.

{Scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.
Not an official ruling as per the statement in the SAC, but that's not the same as being wrong.
A clarification by the lead rules designers is still a valid clarification, and still carries more weight in discussions on rules interactions than anything a bunch of us randos talking on the internet say.

Don't like a ruling? Cool, when you are DMing you are in no obligation to use it. Just the same as when someone else is DMing they are in no obligation to adhere to any ruling any other person is insisting on.

[ThorOdinson]

Not an official ruling as per the statement in the SAC, but that's not the same as being wrong.
A clarification by the lead rules designers is still a valid clarification, and still carries more weight in discussions on rules interactions than anything a bunch of us randos talking on the internet say.

Don't like a ruling? Cool, when you are DMing you are in no obligation to use it. Just the same as when someone else is DMing they are in no obligation to adhere to any ruling any other person is insisting on.

It takes a statement in the SAC to overrule a plainly stated rule.

Twitter statements from JC have been officially designated as having zero weight to rules discussions.

The rule literally says that while a weapon is in your hand you can add +2 damage to that weapon. When a weapon is thrown and damages an opponent, is that weapon still in your hand? Yes or no? No, the weapon is not in your hand so the rule does not apply.

So RAW is clearly on my side. Until SAC faqs it otherwise, my argument is RAW. Feel free to house rule it, but house ruling won't change how the rule is written.

[Greywander]

Here's my take: throwing the javelin is part of the attack, thus you actually are holding the javelin when the attack begins. If, say, you stabbed someone with a sword, but then dropped the sword immediately, would you not get to add the Dueling bonus? I don't think it matters that the weapon isn't held when it strikes the target, only that it's held when the attack is first initiated.

It could also be argued that, from a purely mechanical perspective, you actually are holding the javelin during the entire attack (i.e. that hand is unavailable to hold anything else), and only once the attack is completed does it become free as the javelin is no longer in your hand.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed} Supporting your argument with the same brand of logic as the peasant rail gun. The Dueling style is a purely mechanical effect, thus it should be argued from a purely mechanical perspective. Also from a purely mechanical perspective, the javelin is still in your hand until the attack is completed, as (a) you must be holding the javelin to initiate the attack, and (b) you can't do anything else with that hand until the attack is resolved. Mechanically, the hand is occupied by the javelin for the entire duration of the attack.

[ThorOdinson]

Here's my take: throwing the javelin is part of the attack, thus you actually are holding the javelin when the attack begins. If, say, you stabbed someone with a sword, but then dropped the sword immediately, would you not get to add the Dueling bonus? I don't think it matters that the weapon isn't held when it strikes the target, only that it's held when the attack is first initiated.

It could also be argued that, from a purely mechanical perspective, you actually are holding the javelin during the entire attack (i.e. that hand is unavailable to hold anything else), and only once the attack is completed does it become free as the javelin is no longer in your hand.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Supporting your argument with the same brand of logic as the peasant rail gun. The Dueling style is a purely mechanical effect, thus it should be argued from a purely mechanical perspective. Also from a purely mechanical perspective, the javelin is still in your hand until the attack is completed, as (a) you must be holding the javelin to initiate the attack, and (b) you can't do anything else with that hand until the attack is resolved. Mechanically, the hand is occupied by the javelin for the entire duration of the attack.

Throwing involves the javelin leaving the hand.

{Scrubbed}

[Greywander]

Throwing involves the javelin leaving the hand.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
You must be holding the javelin to attack with it. The same logic that you're using to deny the Dueling bonus would also prevent throwing weapons at all. The attack is resolved at the exact instant it is thrown, not after it is thrown. Otherwise, the weapon is no longer "held" and thus you can't attack with it.

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

Reading the Dueling fighting style, it says you do +2 damage with the weapon when you wield it in one hand, and no other weapon. (I was mistaken earlier, thinking it gave you +2 to AC when doing so.) The RAI are clearly meant for weapons that are wielded one-handed and not as part of TWFing to do extra damage. The RAI are fuzzy on whether "melee weapon" was really meant to refer to "weapons that are in the 'melee weapon' category" or "melee attacks with weapons," but the RAW are definitely the former. And D&D 5e has actually been pretty carefully written to maintain the distinction, so I would not ascribe RAI to being counter to the RAW wrt the exact wording of "melee weapon."

The question on the RAW comes down to whether a thrown weapon is "wielded in one hand." I'm actually having trouble finding the rules that say that a weapon that isn't two-handed requires one hand to wield. I mean, yes, it's pretty obvious, but if we're going to get 3e-style pedantic about the RAW, we should be very, very precise.

That said, I see the argument that a thrown weapon is no longer wielded in the hand that threw it when it deals its damage (and thus doesn't benefit from Dueling's +2 damage bonus) to be a bit spurious, as it could be turned about to say that if it is not wielded, then the attacker has that hand free during the attack, and thus doesn't need to wield the weapon to make an attack with it at all.

But this is 5e, not 3e, and the rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, not the most legalistically-precise means of reading them. So, while I think it nonsensical to claim the thrown weapon is not "wielded in one hand" when the attack with it is made, the real test is what the spirit of the Dueling fighting style is.

The Dueling fighting style does not specify "melee attacks," but rather "melee weapons." This is a distinction we know that 5e is careful about making, so is not accidental. We know that "thrown" is a tag explicitly applied to melee weapons to enable them to be used to make ranged attacks, and that javelins are expressly melee weapons with the thrown property. This is not an accidental choice; we have darts as an example of a ranged weapon (not a melee weapon with the thrown property) that is nonetheless "thrown" rather than being used as a projectile weapon. All of these are deliberate choices by the game designers. If Dueling was meant to be limited to melee attacks, it would have said so.

Therefore, it seems to me that the spirit of the rule here would be that melee weapons with the thrown property that satisfy the requirements of being wielded one-handed and not having any other weapons in-hand should benefit from the fighting style.

Of course, as with anything in 5e, "rulings, not rules" prevail, so the true answer is always, "Ask your DM."

[ThorOdinson]

Reading the Dueling fighting style, it says you do +2 damage with the weapon when you wield it in one hand, and no other weapon. (I was mistaken earlier, thinking it gave you +2 to AC when doing so.) The RAI are clearly meant for weapons that are wielded one-handed and not as part of TWFing to do extra damage. The RAI are fuzzy on whether "melee weapon" was really meant to refer to "weapons that are in the 'melee weapon' category" or "melee attacks with weapons," but the RAW are definitely the former. And D&D 5e has actually been pretty carefully written to maintain the distinction, so I would not ascribe RAI to being counter to the RAW wrt the exact wording of "melee weapon."

The question on the RAW comes down to whether a thrown weapon is "wielded in one hand." I'm actually having trouble finding the rules that say that a weapon that isn't two-handed requires one hand to wield. I mean, yes, it's pretty obvious, but if we're going to get 3e-style pedantic about the RAW, we should be very, very precise.

That said, I see the argument that a thrown weapon is no longer wielded in the hand that threw it when it deals its damage (and thus doesn't benefit from Dueling's +2 damage bonus) to be a bit spurious, as it could be turned about to say that if it is not wielded, then the attacker has that hand free during the attack, and thus doesn't need to wield the weapon to make an attack with it at all.

But this is 5e, not 3e, and the rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, not the most legalistically-precise means of reading them. So, while I think it nonsensical to claim the thrown weapon is not "wielded in one hand" when the attack with it is made, the real test is what the spirit of the Dueling fighting style is.

The Dueling fighting style does not specify "melee attacks," but rather "melee weapons." This is a distinction we know that 5e is careful about making, so is not accidental. We know that "thrown" is a tag explicitly applied to melee weapons to enable them to be used to make ranged attacks, and that javelins are expressly melee weapons with the thrown property. This is not an accidental choice; we have darts as an example of a ranged weapon (not a melee weapon with the thrown property) that is nonetheless "thrown" rather than being used as a projectile weapon. All of these are deliberate choices by the game designers. If Dueling was meant to be limited to melee attacks, it would have said so.

Therefore, it seems to me that the spirit of the rule here would be that melee weapons with the thrown property that satisfy the requirements of being wielded one-handed and not having any other weapons in-hand should benefit from the fighting style.

Of course, as with anything in 5e, "rulings, not rules" prevail, so the true answer is always, "Ask your DM."

The question hinges on "when . . ." more than anything. When a thrown weapon damages a target it is not wielded in a hand. Therefore the rule does not apply. RAW is exceedingly clear.

[ThorOdinson]

You must be holding the javelin to attack with it. The same logic that you're using to deny the Dueling bonus would also prevent throwing weapons at all. The attack is resolved at the exact instant it is thrown, not after it is thrown. Otherwise, the weapon is no longer "held" and thus you can't attack with it.

Also, that's not what "gaslight" means.

You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.

[stoutstien]

You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.
Welding is also not a definitive state in 5e.
The most literal reading of the rules governing combat states the attack is resolved before the weapon is thrown so duelist would apply by your own logic.

[Segev]

The question hinges on "when . . ." more than anything. When a thrown weapon damages a target it is not wielded in a hand. Therefore the rule does not apply. RAW is exceedingly clear.


You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.


Welding is also not a definitive state in 5e.
The most literal reading of the rules governing combat states the attack is resolved before the weapon is thrown so duelist would apply by your own logic.

If the javelin is not wielded in your hand when you deal damage with it, you can deal damage with it while having a hand free. This is the kind of nonsensical ruling that this reading generates.

"When you wield...you get +2 damage." You cannot deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. So the alternate ruling in line with ThorOdinson's reading would be that a javelin never deals damage, because the attacker is not wielding it when it hits the target, and you can't do damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

Likewise, a bow can't actually deal damage, because it never strikes the target. It's the arrow that strikes the target, and the arrow doesn't have a damage code.

Any ruling based on interpreting "when you wield" to disinclude the actual wielding of the weapon at the point it deals damage automatically makes a degenerate state where the weapon never deals any damage.

5e is not so persnickety in its legalistic text that having a thrown weapon leave the hand of the thrower makes it no longer wielded before the attack is even finished resolving.

[KorvinStarmast]

Segven, I think you may have intended this (see brackets for what I think was left out):

"When you wield...you get +2 damage." You cannot deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. So the alternate ruling in line with ThorOdinson's reading would be that a javelin never deals damage, {when thrown} because the attacker is not wielding it when it hits the target, and you can't do damage with a weapon you're not wielding. I mention this since you can use a jav in melee like a spear. :smallcool:

Likewise, a bow can't actually deal damage, because it never strikes the target. It's the arrow that strikes the target, and the arrow doesn't have a damage code.
Any ruling based on interpreting "when you wield" to disinclude the actual wielding of the weapon at the point it deals damage automatically makes a degenerate state where the weapon never deals any damage.
Thank you for the lovely reducto ad absurdum, have a pint on me. :smallsmile:

5e is not so persnickety in its legalistic text that having a thrown weapon leave the hand of the thrower makes it no longer wielded before the attack is even finished resolving. That's how I see it as well

[Segev]

Segve, I think you may have intended this (see brackets for what I think was left out):
I mention this since you can use a jav in melee like a spear. :smallcool:
I did indeed mean "{when thrown}" with the javelin. Sorry for any confusion; I was relying too heavily on context to make it clear.


Thank you for the lovely reducto ad absurdum, have a pint on me. :smallsmile:
That's how I see it as well

*eyes his fridge* Hm. Only 12-oz. cans. But I could use the caffeine, so... *pops open a Mountain Dew* ...thanks!


All of this said, if a DM thinks that it's ridiculous for the duelist style to apply to ranged attacks, 5e fully supports him ruling that way.

The dueling style is interesting: it means a 1d8 longsword is now a 1d8+2 weapon, and also means that wielding it two-handed per its versatile tag is a downgrade for a duelist fighting style practitioner. 1d8+2 > 1d10. In fact, in terms of average damage, it matches 1d12 (a greataxe) and is only .5 behind 2d6 (a greatsword). Not sure just how it stacks up compared to the somewhat complicated probability calculations induced by Great Weapon Fighting style, though, but I suspect re-rolling 1s and 2s, even with the chance of turning a 2 into a 1, on both dice of 2d6s will push 2d6 up in average damage just a bit more, and will also push 1d12 up above 6.5 average.

[KorvinStarmast]

The dueling style is interesting: it means a 1d8 longsword is now a 1d8+2 weapon, and also means that wielding it two-handed per its versatile tag is a downgrade for a duelist fighting style practitioner. 1d8+2 > 1d10. In fact, in terms of average damage, it matches 1d12 (a greataxe) and is only .5 behind 2d6 (a greatsword). Not sure just how it stacks up compared to the somewhat complicated probability calculations induced by Great Weapon Fighting style, though, but I suspect re-rolling 1s and 2s, even with the chance of turning a 2 into a 1, on both dice of 2d6s will push 2d6 up in average damage just a bit more, and will also push 1d12 up above 6.5 average. My orc battle master (peaked at level 7) had pole arm mastery as a feat (Chosen at level six when the errata included spears) and had already chosen his fighting style as dueling. With that modest bit of cheese where one gets a bonus action attack if needed, and a +1 Spear/18 Strength, his damage potential with spear and shield was:
2 x 1d6+5 and 1 x 1d4+5 in a round. It was kind of interesting how that adds up if you got on a bit of a hitting spree while still having the full plate/shield defense. He could add a bit more depending on whether or not he decided to use a Maneuver, or if he wanted two more 1d6+5 with an action surge.

The temptation to take protection fighting style to go all tank was one of those things where I decided that BM would give me the kind of flexibility I needed for controlling versus just trying to avoid being hit. It ended up being a good choice. When the game stopped (RL won) he also had a +1 shield.

[Greywander]

ThorOdinson, I want to apologize for getting a bit heated. We shouldn't let these kind of discussions get to us, or take it personally when someone disagrees with us. This is all just a friendly discussion about a fun game, after all.

What I suspect you're getting hung up on the distinction between the mechanical rules and the simulated fantasy world. "Realistically", the weapon leaves the hand after it is thrown and before it strikes the target. However, the mechanical rules are a mere approximation of this simulated action (and, in some cases, the mechanical rules can be wildly unrealistic). The attack itself is atomic and instantaneous. Once the attack is initiated, it is resolved immediately. You are wielding the weapon for the entire duration of the attack (which is instant), and only after the attack is resolved are you no longer wielding the thrown weapon.

It's just like with the peasant railgun. The railgun relies on first using pure mechanics to pass an object down a long line of peasants (perhaps even miles long), all in the span of 6 seconds. The rules at the time allowed this. Where the argument gets fallacious is when we switch from using a mechanics argument to a simulation argument. The object has moved X distance over a 6 second period, ergo is has Y kinetic energy, so when the last peasant drops the object, it will zip off and impact the target with the force of a small nuke. The problem here is that using either a mechanics argument or a simulation argument for the entire argument will invalidate it, which is why the switch midway through is necessary. If we're arguing from mechanics, when the last peasant drops the object, it will simply fall to the peasant's feet. If we're arguing from simulation, it would be impossible for the peasants to pass the object down the entire line in just 6 seconds, and the object never actually accelerates. Both arguments end with the object dropping next to the peasant's feet.

The thing is, the Dueling fighting style is purely mechanical. The idea is that it simulates someone who is an expert at fighting with a single weapon, but the fighting style itself has no impact on the simulation, only on the mechanics. Damage is a completely arbitrary abstraction, so a boost to damage actually represents nothing at all, except for a vague increase in competency. Since the fighting style is entirely mechanical, any discussion about whether or not to apply the bonus should also be entirely mechanical. Saying that the weapon leaves your hand when it is thrown is an argument from simulation; the way an attack is modeled mechanically, it's not until after the attack is resolved that the weapon is removed from your hand. If the weapon was removed before the attack, you would be unable to initiate the attack, and it also can't be removed during the attack because the attack resolves instantly, i.e. there's no "time" between when you throw the weapon and when it hits the target. Either you haven't attacked yet, or you've already completed your attack, there is no "during" period in which an attack is in progress. You could even make your attack and damage rolls at the same time; if you haven't rolled yet, then you haven't attacked yet, but once the dice are rolled, the attack is already completed.

It's important to remember that D&D is a terrible fantasy world simulator, so mixing simulation and mechanics arguments is going to get you in trouble more often than not. Yes, it's a bit counter intuitive to think that you're still somehow holding the thrown weapon when it strikes the target, but the mechanics model it this way because it's just easier to do so. Obviously, this isn't what "actually" happens, but as far as the rules of the game go, that is actually what happens. As with many things in 5e, you can refluff it how you like, as long as it makes sense to give the same outcome.

[Segev]

It's important to remember that D&D is a terrible fantasy world simulator, so mixing simulation and mechanics arguments is going to get you in trouble more often than not. Yes, it's a bit counter intuitive to think that you're still somehow holding the thrown weapon when it strikes the target, but the mechanics model it this way because it's just easier to do so. Obviously, this isn't what "actually" happens, but as far as the rules of the game go, that is actually what happens. As with many things in 5e, you can refluff it how you like, as long as it makes sense to give the same outcome.

I find it easiest to think of it in terms of what the character has control over, if wedding the concept of mechanical advantages he has to the simulation of what he's doing. Once he lets go of the javelin, he has no control over it. All his control is expired, and it's moving on a pre-calculated trajectory he initiated while he controlled it. Thus, if the damage being dealt in any way is connected to his actions (e.g. by his Strength score, or his proficiency bonus making it more likely to hit), it happens while he's holding it. The dueling fighting style represents greater skill at doing harm when fighting under its requirements. It, like his proficiency bonus and his strength score, applies because anything he is doing that would be represented by the dueling style is happening before he lets go of it.

As you say, there's no mechanical point where he's not wielding the javelin but the javelin is doing damage. The attack happens while he's wielding it (or he can't make the attack), and the damage step is simply part of the attack.

[Tanarii]

From a mechwnics perspective, the first question to ask should always be: does it need this boost?

The answer is definitely not. Dueling is either the best or tied for best fighting style, even restricted to melee attacks. Its only downside is you cannot easily switch to effective ranged attacks, be it via magic or bow/crossbow.

On the flip side of that is: do characters with built in limited range options (S&B characters) already lag behind, so that they need a boost on thrown attacks? Not in my experience, but then I ran games heavy on underground and densely packed wildern3ss terrains. Some others have indicated they find range to be king.

Then there's the mechanical consideration of what the rule says. IMO that shouldn't really be a point of debate: if you attack with a weapon you're clearly wielding it. Its only when you dont attack that it becomes a question of if you are wielding it

[Segev]

From a mechwnics perspective, the first question to ask should always be: does it need this boost?

The answer is definitely not. Dueling is either the best or tied for best fighting style, even restricted to melee attacks. Its only downside is you cannot easily switch to effective ranged attacks, be it via magic or bow/crossbow.

On the flip side of that is: do characters with built in limited range options (S&B characters) already lag behind, so that they need a boost on thrown attacks? Not in my experience, but then I ran games heavy on underground and densely packed wildern3ss terrains. Some others have indicated they find range to be king.

Then there's the mechanical consideration of what the rule says. IMO that shouldn't really be a point of debate: if you attack with a weapon you're clearly wielding it. Its only when you dont attack that it becomes a question of if you are wielding it

All valid points of consideration. The biggest reason, I think, that there's question here is simply that the word "dueling" suggests to us that it's supposed to be melee-only, while the mechanics all line up behind a deliberate choice to make melee weapons with the thrown property viable candidates for it.

Heck, I was surprised to learn you could use Dueling with shields. Sword-and-board with Dueling is pretty nice, I think.

I don't think there'd be any question of the mechanics as written working with thrown melee weapons if the style weren't called "dueling," but I think the notion that sword-and-board works with it is as jarring as the notion that thrown weapons work with it.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would also argue that while Dueling might not need a boost* that allows it to be used with throwing weapons, throwing weapons definitely need a boost. so having them work with dueling is better for them than it is for dueling. Unless the Devs at some point create a throwing weapon style (which they should), then there is nothing that boosts those kinds of attacks without this.



*And I don't think that this is a boost for dueling, since it's already supposed to work with them.

[stoutstien]

All valid points of consideration. The biggest reason, I think, that there's question here is simply that the word "dueling" suggests to us that it's supposed to be melee-only, while the mechanics all line up behind a deliberate choice to make melee weapons with the thrown property viable candidates for it.

Heck, I was surprised to learn you could use Dueling with shields. Sword-and-board with Dueling is pretty nice, I think.

I don't think there'd be any question of the mechanics as written working with thrown melee weapons if the style weren't called "dueling," but I think the notion that sword-and-board works with it is as jarring as the notion that thrown weapons work with it.

I think it definitely a case of using a very well known but general term for an even more general mechanical feature.
Duelist isn't any given style as much as a social agreement. As Monty Python taught us we can duel with anything including fish.

[Segev]

I think it definitely a case of using a very well known but general term for an even more general mechanical feature.
Duelist isn't any given style as much as a social agreement. As Monty Python taught us we can duel with anything including fish.

Indeed. Dueling with pistols was actually a common practice long after dueling with swords fell out of fashion.

[ThorOdinson]

I think we are losing sight of something basic here.

The rules are very persnickety about whether a hand is occupied due to spellcasting and the dueling style also cares about whether or not a weapon is being wielded in hand.

At what point is a hand free to fulfill somatic components (e.g. cast Shield or Absorb Elements) when making a ranged attack?

Is the hand free immediately upon making a ranged attack or is the hand holding the weapon and unavailable for somatic use for the entire duration of the ranged attack?

[stoutstien]

I think we are losing sight of something basic here.

The rules are very persnickety about whether a hand is occupied due to spellcasting and the dueling style also cares about whether or not a weapon is being wielded in hand.

At what point is a hand free to fulfill somatic components (e.g. cast Shield or Absorb Elements) when making a ranged attack?

Is the hand free immediately upon making a ranged attack or is the hand holding the weapon and unavailable for somatic use for the entire duration of the ranged attack?

I don't know what you are asking here. When would a player cast a spell mid attack roll resolution?

[ThorOdinson]

I don't know what you are asking here. When would a player cast a spell mid attack roll resolution?

It matters.

Opponent casts Shield in response to getting damaged by my thrown javelin. Is my hand available for Counterspelling his shield?

If a Monk tries to deflect your thrown weapon, are they prevented from doing so because the thrown weapon is still considered in hand?

[KorvinStarmast]

Then there's the mechanical consideration of what the rule says. IMO that shouldn't really be a point of debate: if you attack with a weapon you're clearly wielding it. Its only when you dont attack that it becomes a question of if you are wielding it If you weren't already wielding it you could not have thrown it (and thrown is a property of that weapon)



If a Monk tries to deflect your thrown weapon, are they prevented from doing so because the thrown weapon is still considered in hand? Sorry, once it is thrown, it is obviously not 'in hand' but that isn't the question in the first place.

I find your attempt to redefine what 'wield' means to be unsatisfactory. Go back to "if you were not already wielding a weapon with the thrown property you can't have thrown it."

Try not to overcomplicate this. That kind of thinking is for earlier editions. I lived through all of them, except 4th. That one got a pass.

[ThorOdinson]

If you weren't already wielding it you could not have thrown it (and thrown is a property of that weapon)


Sorry, once it is thrown, it is obviously not 'in hand' but that isn't the question in the first place.

I find your attempt to redefine what 'wield' means to be unsatisfactory. Go back to "if you were not already wielding a weapon with the thrown property you can't have thrown it."

Try not to overcomplicate this. That kind of thinking is for earlier editions. I lived through all of them, except 4th. That one got a pass.

The rules are very particular - some would even say overcomplicated - about hands. If a hand is wielding a weapon it is not available to Counterspell the Shield that interrupts your ranged weapon attack.

So is the hand free to Counterspell or not?

[Tanarii]

All valid points of consideration. The biggest reason, I think, that there's question here is simply that the word "dueling" suggests to us that it's supposed to be melee-only, while the mechanics all line up behind a deliberate choice to make melee weapons with the thrown property viable candidates for it.

Heck, I was surprised to learn you could use Dueling with shields. Sword-and-board with Dueling is pretty nice, I think.

I don't think there'd be any question of the mechanics as written working with thrown melee weapons if the style weren't called "dueling," but I think the notion that sword-and-board works with it is as jarring as the notion that thrown weapons work with it.Agreed. I was surprised to learn it worked with a shield for the same reason.


I would also argue that while Dueling might not need a boost* that allows it to be used with throwing weapons, throwing weapons definitely need a boost. so having them work with dueling is better for them than it is for dueling. Unless the Devs at some point create a throwing weapon style (which they should), then there is nothing that boosts those kinds of attacks without this.Right. It depends what we're looking at. Taken alone considering only fighting styles, Dueling is generally considered the most powerful fighting style even when restricted to melee attacks, mainly because it works with S&B. Taken alone, thrown weapons are generally the weakest of weapon attacks, mainly because it takes an object interaction to throw more than one.

Considered as part of the overall package of what a S&B character can do when they can't get close enough for melee, compared to say a GWM or Defensive with 2 handed weapon character ... maybe the boost to thrown weapons is needed, maybe it isn't. Those other two can easily free up a hand for a cantrip (especially EK or Waradin/Sorcadin), or switch to a Longbow by dropping weapon and using an object interaction (Some Champs and most Rangers IMX). Protection and S&B defensive get to keep using their style even if they switch up to thrown too. Only a Str GWM with no Dex and no cantrips gets hosed in that situation.


*And I don't think that this is a boost for dueling, since it's already supposed to work with them.Ya, it'd be just as fair to call it a nerf not to apply it to thrown one handed melee weapons.

[KorvinStarmast]

So is the hand free to Counterspell or not? Are you assuming that whomever threw the javelin is high enough level to use Counterspell, and, is of a class that has Counterspell on their spell list?
If so, why?

[ThorOdinson]

Are you assuming that whomever threw the javelin is high enough level to use Counterspell, and, is of a class that has Counterspell on their spell list?
If so, why?

The rules apply at level 1 and level 20.

So is the hand free to Counterspell?

[KorvinStarmast]

The rules apply at level 1 and level 20.

So is the hand free to Counterspell? If the PC has not already used their reaction, it ought to be, and if the PC has the Warcaster feat this might be irrelevant.
But would I waste a level 3 spell on this?
Only reason I can think of is when the javelin in question is a javelin of lightning (and I were a paladin) which case puts the +2 from that somewhere in the noise level.

Since you aren't specifying the class, we go back to Thor arguing for the sake of arguing which has its own attractions ... some of the time.

Since you don't seem to understand why I asked, I'll leave it there.

[ThorOdinson]

If the PC has not already used their reaction, it ought to be, and if the PC has the Warcaster feat this might be irrelevant.
But would I waste a level 3 spell on this?
Only reason I can think of is when the javelin in question is a javelin of lightning (and I were a paladin) which case puts the +2 from that somewhere in the noise level.

Since you aren't specifying the class, we go back to Thor arguing for the sake of arguing which has its own attractions ... some of the time.

Since you don't seem to understand why I asked, I'll leave it there.

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a melee weapon in one hand". This means that the Dueling fighting style can not apply.

[Zhorn]

That throw weapon > Shield reaction > Counterspell reaction case is getting just a bit too niche to be practical.

If the thrown weapon attack has enough damage to be worth a 3rd level spell slot to ensure it gets through, that +2 damage is hardly worth worrying about.
If the +2 damage is a significant enough amount of damage in this situation, and the attacker has access to a 3rd level spell, they would be better off using that 3rd level spell to cause the damage directly instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a melee weapon in one hand". This means that the Dueling fighting style can not apply. Failed attempt. Reaction happens on another creatures turn, or is otherwise based on something another creature does. Since the javelin has already left one's hand before the need for a reaction to cast counterspell arises,(they had to use their reaction to cast shield) there is no problem in the D&D 5e action economy (and again, with warcaster the point is moot). That is the same action economy that allows the following whether you like it or not,
I can cast fireball,
you can cast counterspell,
and I can cast counterspell to your counterspell (we each used one reaction to do so) and the fireball goes off. (roll your dex save!)

But now neither of us can make an Opportunity attack nor cast shield (until our next turn) since our reaction has been consumed.

And that means that the mean old bugger in the corner with the javelin of lightning whose turn is coming up just might do for me. :smalleek:

[Segev]

It probably isn't free to counterspell, no. The attack isn't over yet. And it takes an action (object interaction) to free a hand for counterspelling if you're just holding a weapon in hand. Since the action taht would have freed the hand isn't yet over, it's not free.

[KorvinStarmast]

It probably isn't free to counterspell, no. The attack isn't over yet. And it takes an action (object interaction) to free a hand for counterspelling if you're just holding a weapon in hand. Since the action taht would have freed the hand isn't yet over, it's not free. See above for why I disagree.

[Greywander]

So is the hand free to Counterspell?
Not sure we have anything definitive here, but I would say yes. You can only cast Shield after getting hit by the attack, thus the attack has already been resolved and the weapon is no longer being wielded by you.

[Segev]

Not sure we have anything definitive here, but I would say yes. You can only cast Shield after getting hit by the attack, thus the attack has already been resolved and the weapon is no longer being wielded by you.

Good point.

[stoutstien]

It matters.

Opponent casts Shield in response to getting damaged by my thrown javelin. Is my hand available for Counterspelling his shield?

If a Monk tries to deflect your thrown weapon, are they prevented from doing so because the thrown weapon is still considered in hand?

In order to be hit by the javelin the attack has to be made which means it has been thrown. If it has been thrown the hand is free for reactions. The weapon is considered in hand for the actual attack roll not anything afterwards.

[rlc]

Are shields “weapons” in 5e? If not, this seems way better than the “armored fighting” style that only gives +1 for armor. This is +2 and let’s you have a shield!

Shields are not weapons, no. And your shield's would stack with the extra ac from the armored fighting style.

[ThorOdinson]

In order to be hit by the javelin the attack has to be made which means it has been thrown. If it has been thrown the hand is free for reactions. The weapon is considered in hand for the actual attack roll not anything afterwards.

Cool. So then we are in agreement that if the hand is free for Counterspell then the hand is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" which means of course that the Dueling fighting style does not apply in the case of thrown weapon.

[Mellack]

Cool. So then we are in agreement that if the hand is free for Counterspell then the hand is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" which means of course that the Dueling fighting style dies not apply in the case of thrown weapon.

Nope. You are equating the time during the attack with the time after the attack. Dueling applies during the attack. Shield (and the ensuing Counterspell) take place after the attack.

[stoutstien]

Cool. So then we are in agreement that if the hand is free for Counterspell then the hand is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" which means of course that the Dueling fighting style dies not apply in the case of thrown weapon.

This post gave me psychic damage and disadvantage on my next wisdom saving throw.

[ThorOdinson]

Nope. You are equating the time during the attack with the time after the attack. Dueling applies during the attack. Shield (and the ensuing Counterspell) take place after the attack.

Dueling applies to damage rolls which are dependent on attacks that hit.

Shield is a reaction that interrupts the resolution of whether the attack hits. Shield turns hits into misses.

Is the hand available to Counterspell or not? The hand cannot be simultaneously free to Counterspell and wielding a weapon in one hand for the subsequent damage resolution.

[Segev]

Dueling applies to damage rolls which are dependent on attacks that hit.

Shield is a reaction that interrupts the resolution of whether the attack hits. Shield turns hits into misses.

Is the hand available to Counterspell or not? The hand cannot be simultaneously free to Counterspell and wielding a weapon in one hand for the subsequent damage resolution.

You said it yourself: shield turns [already resolved] hits into misses. The attack is done. That it’s damage is changed to zero by being made a “miss” doesn’t change that the attack had hit prior to the casting of Shield.

[Greywander]

Dueling applies to damage rolls which are dependent on attacks that hit.

Shield is a reaction that interrupts the resolution of whether the attack hits. Shield turns hits into misses.

Is the hand available to Counterspell or not? The hand cannot be simultaneously free to Counterspell and wielding a weapon in one hand for the subsequent damage resolution.
Again, I think the problem here is that you are conflating the simulated fantasy world with the mechanics and rules of the game. It makes logical sense that, outside of any game rules, the Shield spell must be cast while the attack is being made in order to defend the caster against the attack. In-universe, this would be how you fluff it, but the actual mechanical rules work differently. In order to cast Shield, you have to be hit by an attack first, which means the attack is already resolved. Shield retroactively adds to your AC against the attack that just happened, potentially turning the hit into a miss. It is the result of that attack that is changed, not the attack itself.

In turn based games, "time" can be a bit of a fuzzy thing. We all know that each character doesn't just stand there and wait their turn, they're actually all acting at the same time, and things like turn order and action economy are just there to break it down into manageable gameplay elements. Actions, too, occur in a specific order, which might differ from how you choose to fluff it. Shield requires you to have been hit by an attack, therefore, according to the mechanical order of actions, the attack has already ended by the time the Shield spell begins. If the attack is still in progress, then how would you know if you were hit?

In short, from a narrative/simulation perspective, you cast Shield at the same time as the attack is happening. From a mechanical rules perspective, the Shield comes after the attack and changes its outcome. The game mechanics exist side-by-side with the fantasy world, but should not be mistaken for it. It is entirely possible, and occurs often, for something to work one way from a "realism" standpoint, but to work a different way according to the rules of the game. These are two parallel realities that exist along side each other, influencing one another in ways that don't always make sense.

[ThorOdinson]

You said it yourself: shield turns [already resolved] hits into misses. The attack is done. That it’s damage is changed to zero by being made a “miss” doesn’t change that the attack had hit prior to the casting of Shield.

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply in the case of thrown weapons.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

[JNAProductions]

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

That doesn't follow.

If at a certain time I am wielding a weapon, and at a later point I have a free hand to cast a spell, that doesn't mean the hand was retroactively empty. It just means that the spell happened later-whether later is a fraction of a second or eighteen hours is irrelevant.

[ThorOdinson]

That doesn't follow.

If at a certain time I am wielding a weapon, and at a later point I have a free hand to cast a spell, that doesn't mean the hand was retroactively empty. It just means that the spell happened later-whether later is a fraction of a second or eighteen hours is irrelevant.

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" when it comes to the damage roll. The rule is very plainly written and when the hand is free to cast Counterspell the condition for the Dueling fighting style rule to apply has not been met.

[JNAProductions]

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" when it comes to the damage roll. The rule is very plainly written and when the hand is free the condition for the Dueling fighting style rule to apply has not been met.

Shield happens after the attack has been made, mechanically.

[ThorOdinson]

Shield happens after the attack has been made, mechanically.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/117496/do-reactions-interrupt-their-triggers-or-not

"So, shield explicitly says that it takes effect before the triggering attack resolves (and before the triggering magic missile spell hits). That means it is an exception and may take effect before the triggering effect resolves. This is an exception to the general rule because it's timing is specified by its effects."

[Greywander]

ThorOdinson, I'm curious why you seem to be so set on Dueling not applying to thrown weapons. And more specifically, why you are so convinced that a thrown weapon isn't being wielded by the attacker when they make the attack. It's just... such an oddly specific thing. There are other arguments you could use to prevent Dueling from working on a thrown weapon, many more convincing than this one. So why this one? Is it something you read in the PHB, or did you just decide that this was the way it should be? Where did this idea come from?

I'm also curious how you would react if you were playing at a table where the DM allowed Dueling to work with thrown weapons. Would you take advantage of this ruling by using Dueling with thrown weapons (if relevant to your build)? Or would you try to convince the DM to change their ruling on the matter? It's something to think about, because we all have our own houserules and often find ourselves playing at a table with different houserules from our personal ones.

[stoutstien]

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/117496/do-reactions-interrupt-their-triggers-or-not

"So, shield explicitly says that it takes effect before the triggering attack resolves (and before the triggering magic missile spell hits). That means it is an exception and may take effect before the triggering effect resolves. This is an exception to the general rule because it's timing is specified by its effects."

Reread the combat section - making an attack. Duellist is applied during step 2 and shield in all it bad wording triggers after step 3 and is retroactively placed between step 2-3. Shield doesn't change any modifiers or targeting selection but it does change the resolution of the attack.

[BigRedJedi]

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply in the case of thrown weapons.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

The dueling style is not restricted to melee weapon attacks, rather to attacks made with a melee weapon that is wielded in one hand, which would include thrown attacks (as a type of ranged attack that certain, one-handed, melee weapons can make) and checks this condition at the initiation of the attack, as the attack, including the damage, is a self-contained entity. There is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW of this.

Similarly, the thrown attack requires the weapon to leave the hand of the wielder (having already been checked to verify the dueling style's precondition) and frees the hand to Counterspell. Again, there is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW.

If Shield could be cast in response to the initiation of an attack, the argument could be made that the hand would still be occupied and ineligible for Counterspell, but as Shield specifies being hit by an attack, the attacker's hand is free to Counterspell.

[ThorOdinson]

Reread the combat section - making an attack. Duellist is applied during step 2 and shield in all it bad wording triggers after step 3 and is retroactively placed between step 2-3. Shield doesn't change any modifiers or targeting selection but it does change the resolution of the attack.

Step 2 refers to modifiers to the Attack roll.

Dueling fighting style is a modifier to the damage roll.

If the hand is free to Counterspell the Shield spell that occurs prior to the triggering hit then the Dueling fighting style cannot apply to the damage roll.

[ThorOdinson]

ThorOdinson, I'm curious why you seem to be so set on Dueling not applying to thrown weapons. And more specifically, why you are so convinced that a thrown weapon isn't being wielded by the attacker when they make the attack. It's just... such an oddly specific thing. There are other arguments you could use to prevent Dueling from working on a thrown weapon, many more convincing than this one. So why this one? Is it something you read in the PHB, or did you just decide that this was the way it should be? Where did this idea come from?

I'm also curious how you would react if you were playing at a table where the DM allowed Dueling to work with thrown weapons. Would you take advantage of this ruling by using Dueling with thrown weapons (if relevant to your build)? Or would you try to convince the DM to change their ruling on the matter? It's something to think about, because we all have our own houserules and often find ourselves playing at a table with different houserules from our personal ones.

The logic of the rule is the issue. The condition for which it can apply is not present in the case of thrown weapons.


The dueling style is not restricted to melee weapon attacks, rather to attacks made with a melee weapon that is wielded in one hand, which would include thrown attacks (as a type of ranged attack that certain, one-handed, melee weapons can make) and checks this condition at the initiation of the attack, as the attack, including the damage, is a self-contained entity. There is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW of this.

Similarly, the thrown attack requires the weapon to leave the hand of the wielder (having already been checked to verify the dueling style's precondition) and frees the hand to Counterspell. Again, there is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW.

If Shield could be cast in response to the initiation of an attack, the argument could be made that the hand would still be occupied and ineligible for Counterspell, but as Shield specifies being hit by an attack, the attacker's hand is free to Counterspell.

The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be wielded in hand for damage rolls. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not wielded in hand and so the Dueling fighting style rule itself has not met the logical condition for it be able to apply. In fact the hand is free and able to perform somatic components.

[stoutstien]

Step 2 refers to modifiers to the Attack roll.

Dueling fighting style is a modifier to the damage roll.

If the hand is free to Counterspell the Shield spell that occurs prior to the triggering hit then the Dueling fighting style cannot apply to the damage roll.

When do you apply damage modifiers?

[ThorOdinson]

When do you apply damage modifiers?

Step 2 applies modifiers to the attack roll.

Step 3 is where you have permission to resolve damage rolls and are referred to a separate section for Damage. Those damage rolls happen after Shield and Counterspell are resolved. The hand is free at that point and so Dueling fighting style would not apply.

[BigRedJedi]

The logic of the rule is the issue. The condition for which it can apply is not present in the case of thrown weapons.



The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be wielded in hand for damage rolls. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not wielded in hand and so the Dueling fighting style rule itself has not met the logical condition for it be able to apply. In fact the hand is free and able to perform somatic components.

Wielded in one hand, from the rules perspective, means to make an attack with the weapon, while not using a second hand for a different weapon or employing the versatile or two-handed properties in the course of making the attack. The thrown property explicitly allows one-handed weapons to be "wielded" in making a ranged attack. The word "wield" does not require the weapon to remain physically attached to the attacker's person through the course of the attack, only that it be a melee weapon that is employed in an appropriate attack (which can be a ranged attack due to the thrown property) that does not invoke the versatile or two-handed properties, e.g. one-handed.

[ThorOdinson]

Wielded in one hand, from the rules perspective, means to make an attack with the weapon, while not using a second hand for a different weapon or employing the versatile or two-handed properties in the course of making the attack. The thrown property explicitly allows one-handed weapons to be "wielded" in making a ranged attack. The word "wield" does not require the weapon to remain physically attached to the attacker's person through the course of the attack, only that it be a melee weapon that is employed in an appropriate attack (which can be a ranged attack due to the thrown property) that does not invoke the versatile or two-handed properties, e.g. one-handed.

Do you have a PHB page reference for all these particulars that you claim are in the rules? I want to remind you that to claim RAW the rules need to be in the PHB or SAC and able to be referenced.

The Dueling fighting style modifies the damage roll and we have firmly established that in the case of thrown weapons that the weapon is no longer being wielded in hand; therefore, the Dueling fighting style does not apply it's modifier to the damage roll.

[BigRedJedi]

Do you have a PHB page reference for all these particulars that you claim are in the rules? I want to remind you that to claim RAW the rules need to be in the PHB or SAC and able to be referenced.

The Dueling fighting style modifies the damage roll and we have firmly established that in the case of thrown weapons that the weapon is no longer in hand; therefore, the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

The particulars are in the plain reading if the rules as written.

Do you have a page that mandates the weapon to remain attached to the attacker's hand to apply the dueling style?

If not, the semantic problem here boils down to the word "wielded" which can be described as either:

A.) Employed to make a valid, one-handed attack, including each step of the rules to make attacks, including the damage step. The thrown property permits a melee weapon to be "wielded" in making a ranged, one-handed attack.

B.) In the edge case of thrown weapons, once the weapon leaves the attacker's hand, it is no longer being "wielded" and ineligible for the dueling style.

Either may semantically be a valid ruling, but A.) is consistent with a plain reading of the written rules. The, as you call them, persnickety readings come when trying to shoehorn MtG-style order of effect stacking rules into the rules. Dueling style modifies the damage roll which is one component of the singular event of an attack. Things such as targeting and reactions take place at different steps in making the attack, but it still is a singular event.

Think of an attack as having tags that identify its components:

Scenario, I throw a javelin at an orc, 10 feet away, in an open field, broad daylight. My attack is:
[Melee Weapon]
[Thrown: Special condition allowing ranged attack with melee weapon]
[One-handed]
[Piercing]
[Non-magical]
[Range: 10]
[Advantage: None],
targeting Orc, with my attack bonus using [STR + prof], dealing [1d6+ STR +2] damage (this tag checks to see if the attack has the [One-handed], [Versatile], [Two-handed], or [Mainhand] tags, if only having [One-handed], the bonus damage is applied). Needless overcomplication, but illustrates how dueling checks for the validity of applying its bonus damage. The attack fulfilled the necessary metric for benefitting from the dueling fighting style.

[ThorOdinson]

The particulars are in the plain reading if the rules as written.

Do you have a page that mandates the weapon to remain attached to the attacker's hand to apply the dueling style?

If not, the semantic problem here boils down to the word "wielded" which can be described as either:

A.) Employed to make a valid, one-handed attack, including each step of the rules to make attacks, including the damage step. The thrown property permits a melee weapon to be "wielded" in making a ranged, one-handed attack.

B.) In the edge case of thrown weapons, once the weapon leaves the attacker's hand, it is no longer being "wielded" and ineligible for the dueling style.

Either may semantically be a valid ruling, but A.) is consistent with a plain reading of the written rules. The, as you call them, persnickety readings come when trying to shoehorn MtG-style order of effect stacking rules into the rules. Dueling style modifies the damage roll which is one component of the singular event of an attack. Things such as targeting and reactions take place at different steps in making the attack, but it still is a singular event.

Think of an attack as having tags that identify its components:

Scenario, I throw a javelin at an orc, 10 feet away, in an open field, broad daylight. My attack is:
[Melee Weapon]
[Thrown: Special condition allowing ranged attack with melee weapon]
[One-handed]
[Piercing]
[Non-magical]
[Range: 10]
[Advantage: None],
targeting Orc, with my attack bonus using [STR + prof], dealing [1d6+ STR +2] damage (this tag checks to see if the attack has the [One-handed], [Versatile], [Two-handed], or [Mainhand] tags, if only having [One-handed], the bonus damage is applied). Needless overcomplication, but illustrates how dueling checks for the validity of applying its bonus damage. The attack fulfilled the necessary metric for benefitting from the dueling fighting style.

Straight reading of the rule is thus . . .

The Dueling fighting style checks to see if the weapon is being wielded in hand when the damage rolls are made. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not being wielded in hand when the damage roll is made so the condition to apply the Dueling fighting style has not been met.

In order to deviate from the above straight logical application of the rules you will need permission or allowances to do so that can be referenced to PHB or SAC.

[Zhorn]

and an arrow is not part of a bow and not in contact with the bow when it hits the enemy,
so an arrow fired from a +1 longbow doesn't get the benefits of the 1d8 damage, nor the +1 bonus

[ThorOdinson]

and an arrow is not part of a bow and not in contact with the bow when it hits the enemy,
so an arrow fired from a +1 longbow doesn't get the benefits of the 1d8 damage, nor the +1 bonus

Your sarcasm isn't accomplishing anything here. Nothing of the case you describe has anything to do with the case being discussed. You have committed a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

Feel free to actually find an example where my argument does not hold.

[Zhorn]

What I am getting at is when the attack is made and when such damage bonuses are applied.
Be it throwing a weapon or firing an arrow, the attack is made and properties and bonuses of the attack are applied at the attacker's end, with the projectile then leaving the attacker and (potentially) hitting the target.
The attack was made with the bonuses, they don't just up and vanish.

[ThorOdinson]

What I am getting at is when the attack is made and when such damage bonuses are applied.
Be it throwing a weapon or firing an arrow, the attack is made and properties and bonuses of the attack are applied at the attacker's end, with the projectile then leaving the attacker and (potentially) hitting the target.
The attack was made with the bonuses, they don't just up and vanish.

Attack rolls (PHB, pg 194) and damage rolls (PHB, pg 196) are separate things.

The Dueling fighting style applies to the damage roll. The Dueling fighting styles applies its modifier to the damage roll if its conditions are met. In the case of thrown weapons, the conditions have not been met

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: warning to everyone that, if you can't engage with the discussion (and each other) courteously and in good faith, please just walk away.

[Segev]

Step 2 applies modifiers to the attack roll.

Step 3 is where you have permission to resolve damage rolls and are referred to a separate section for Damage. Those damage rolls happen after Shield and Counterspell are resolved. The hand is free at that point and so Dueling fighting style would not apply.

The reason I find this unconvincing is this: If you aren't wielding a weapon, you can't do damage with it. Therefore, if the reason you can't apply Dueling's damage bonus is that the weapon is not being wielded when the damage is dealt, then you can't deal any damage with it.

The only reason you can theoretically counterspell shield in response to your javelin attack is because shield is, mechanically, cast after the attack resolves, and thus you're counterspelling after the attack resolves, despite the resolution of shield going off or not determining whether you hit with the attack or not.

The logical problems are with shield and its resolution, not with dealing damage with javelins, with or without the Dueling style.

To repeat: if you aren't wielding the javelin when it hits, not only do you do no bonus Dueling damage, but you do no damage at all, because you can't deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding. (Barring special rules and abilities that aren't in play in typical javelin-throws, at least.)

[ThorOdinson]

The reason I find this unconvincing is this: If you aren't wielding a weapon, you can't do damage with it. Therefore, if the reason you can't apply Dueling's damage bonus is that the weapon is not being wielded when the damage is dealt, then you can't deal any damage with it.

The only reason you can theoretically counterspell shield in response to your javelin attack is because shield is, mechanically, cast after the attack resolves, and thus you're counterspelling after the attack resolves, despite the resolution of shield going off or not determining whether you hit with the attack or not.

The logical problems are with shield and its resolution, not with dealing damage with javelins, with or without the Dueling style.

To repeat: if you aren't wielding the javelin when it hits, not only do you do no bonus Dueling damage, but you do no damage at all, because you can't deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding. (Barring special rules and abilities that aren't in play in typical javelin-throws, at least.)

Weapons can be wielded, ie 'held and used', to inflict damage.

They can also be thrown as projectiles to inflict damage. When a weapon is a projectile in flight, it is obviously not being wielded (held in the hand and used).

The logic is straight forward and my argument is proved.

[sithlordnergal]

Weapons can be wielded, ie 'held and used', to inflict damage.

They can also be thrown as projectiles to inflict damage. When a weapon is a projectile in flight, it is obviously not being wielded (held in the hand and used).

The logic is straight forward and my argument is proved.

But...its not proved at all. If your weapon isn't being wielded, then it does 0 damage. You can only use a weapon that is wielded. Its no different then wielding a shield and holding a shield. You don't get the +2 to AC if you hold a shield, it has to be wielded. You can't use a weapon to attack if you aren't wielding it. If, by your logic, you stop wielding a weapon when you throw it, then the weapon deals no damage.

Therefore a Javelin is considered wielded throughout the entire attack, including when you've thrown it. The javelin's damage modifiers are also "locked in" so to speak, and will not change. As for your free hand to case Counterspell, technically this would mean that you do not have a free hand to Counterspell a Shield spell unless you have the Warcaster feat.

EDIT: Remember, the term "wield" does not mean the same thing in 5e as the Dictionary definition. It only means "Using the item", it does not mean "holding and using the item".

[ThorOdinson]

But...its not proved at all. If your weapon isn't being wielded, then it does 0 damage. You can only use a weapon that is wielded. Its no different then wielding a shield and holding a shield. You don't get the +2 to AC if you hold a shield, it has to be wielded. You can't use a weapon to attack if you aren't wielding it. If, by your logic, you stop wielding a weapon when you throw it, then the weapon deals no damage.

Therefore a Javelin is considered wielded throughout the entire attack, including when you've thrown it. The javelin's damage modifiers are also "locked in" so to speak, and will not change. As for your free hand to case Counterspell, technically this would mean that you do not have a free hand to Counterspell a Shield spell unless you have the Warcaster feat.

EDIT: Remember, the term "wield" does not mean the same thing in 5e as the Dictionary definition. It only means "Using the item", it does not mean "holding and using the item".

Can you reference any rules to support any of this? Your personal bizarre interpretation of what "wield" means is not a rules source. So please provide the page number for the definition of "wield" that you are using or indicate that you are house ruling.

Nor does the PHB talk about modifiers "locked in". Please provide quotes from the PHB to back up your claims that modifiers are "locked in" or clearly mark your argument as a house rule.

My argument, on the other hand, proceeds directly from the rules themselves.

If a character drops a weapon he can not wield it until he picks it back up and has it in hand again.

If a character has thrown a weapon he is no longer wielding it. It has become a projectile.

"When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance.[PHB, p. 195]"

Until he runs over and picks it up again or it otherwise returns to his hand by magical ability (e.g. artificer infusion) a character is not wielding a weapon that he has thrown.

[ff7hero]

Not touching the main "debate" with an 11 foot pole, but I wanted to chime in to say I find Dueling to be a weak 3rd in the ranking of Fighting Styles, far behind Defensive and Archery.

[Segev]

Can you reference any rules to support any of this? Your personal bizarre interpretation of what "wield" means is not a rules source. So please provide the page number for the definition of "wield" that you are using or indicate that you are house ruling.

Nor does the PHB talk about modifiers "locked in". Please provide quotes from the PHB to back up your claims that modifiers are "locked in" or clearly mark your argument as a house rule.

My argument, on the other hand, proceeds directly from the rules themselves.

If a character drops a weapon he can not wield it until he picks it back up and has it in hand again.

If a character has thrown a weapon he is no longer wielding it. It has become a projectile.

"When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance.[PHB, p. 195]"

Until he runs over and picks it up again or it otherwise returns to his hand by magical ability (e.g. artificer infusion) a character is not wielding a weapon that he has thrown.

Your argument does not answer the point I made. Please show me in the rules where it says that you can deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. Nowhere in what you quote does it say that the projectiles can do damage without being wielded.

[ThorOdinson]

Your argument does not answer the point I made. Please show me in the rules where it says that you can deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. Nowhere in what you quote does it say that the projectiles can do damage without being wielded.

You are getting confused. The PHB does not define wielding separably from english semantic usage "to hold and use" so we use the english meaning of the word.

I have presented a quote that clarifies ranged attacks . . .

"When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

Ranged weapon attacks are made by "hurling" or "send[ing] projectiles or "fire[ing ammunition].

In order to make a ranged atttack the weapon or ammo must be hurled, thrown, cast, or sent as a projectile.

If you drop a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

If you hurl a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

If you have +1 AC due to Two Weapon Fighting feat you lose that +1 AC the instant that you drop or throw one of those weapons. You regain that +1 AC the minute you pick that weapon back up to wield or draw another weapon to replace the one you threw away. If a monk deflects your thrown handaxe you will not have the +1 to your AC from Two Weapon Fighting feat. The condition by which you had the +1 earlier is no longer present.

In the case of melee weapons that have the thrown property the character will start the turn with that weapon wielded in one hand and upon making a ranged attack with that weapon the weapon will no longer be wielded in one hand.

If we read the rule exactly as written, the Dueling fighting style rule checks to see if its conditions ("when you are wielding a weapon in one hand and no other weapons") apply to the damage roll. If the weapon was thrown the conditions do not apply. The weapon is not being "wielded in one hand" when you make the damage roll.

Now someone could concoct a 'loosey goosey' rationale that the game mechanics somehow cast a tag of "wielded in one hand" to the entireity of an attack, whether melee or thrown, such that the Duelist fighting style checks to see retroactively if at one time the weapon (that is now in a state of having been thrown and definitively not being wielded in one hand) was at some point in the turn wielded in one hand. However, the rules would have to explicitly specify and grant such a permission for it to be RAW and there is no retroactive permission provided in the RAW. To provide such a rationale from a personal interpretation process external to the rules themselves is house ruling. The Dueling fighting style, as it relies on its own conditional logic, is itself literally worded to drop its damage bonus the instant the conditional does not apply, as when the weapon is thrown and no longer wielded in one hand. The discussion about Shield and Counterspell which insert conditional checks on the current state of casters hands before attack resolution and damage rolls remind us that the rules rely on instantaneous checks.

Lots of tables rely on 'loosey goosey' rationales and there is nothing wrong with that. And kudos to you if you want to make sense of the Dueling fighting style with your own house rule and deviate from the RAW to make the rules fit your view of how they should work. Adventures League however adheres strictly to the RAW and SAC in order to provide a stable rule base between Adventure League tables. So for me RAW is it.

Based on the RAW and SAC and only the RAW and SAC, the Dueling fighting style does not apply its damage bonus to thrown weapons. The rule is written as a conditional and the condition by which it could apply stops applying the instant in which it is thrown. A weapon cannot simultaneously be in the state of "wielded in one hand" and having been thrown. If it has been thrown it is no longer in the throwers hand and therefore cannot benefit from the Dueling fighting style as it is written.

Now if you want to find me actual rules in the PHB or SAC that allow the Dueling fightng style to apply its conditional retroactively and therewith explicit permission to make exception to the rules own conditional logic then you could make a RAW argument. At present you have a house rule. Unless you are playing on a table that adheres strictly to RAW, a house rule is fine.

Are you okay with your house rule or do you want to continue to sort out the RAW? Do you even play in Adventurer's League? If you want to continue debating RAW then I strongly suggest that you start providing quotes to back up what you say and adhering strictly to what is written, as I have done.

[sithlordnergal]

If you want to have Sage Advice, here ya go

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03/does-the-dueling-style-apply-to-a-thrown-melee-weapon/

Its right there, clear as day. The RAI is quite clear, and the RAW is clear as well. Dueling is meant to work with a thrown weapon. Dueling itself states that you have to wield a melee weapon in one hand. It does not have the restriction that you have to make melee weapon attack. That alone should show that its meant to work with thrown weapons being thrown, because if it was only meant to work with melee weapon attacks then it'd say so.

Consider this, Divine Smite states that you must make a melee weapon attack in order to Smite. This means you cannot smite when you throw a weapon. The simple fact that they did not include the words "Melee weapon attack" to Dueling means that you don't need to make a melee attack, just that you need to use a melee weapon.

[Zhorn]

nah, it works :smallbiggrin:
it's a melee weapon that you throw
to throw you have to wield it in your hand to make the attack
devs have confirmed it works
have fun

[ThorOdinson]

If you want to have Sage Advice, here ya go

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03/does-the-dueling-style-apply-to-a-thrown-melee-weapon/

Its right there, clear as day. The RAI is quite clear, and the RAW is clear as well. Dueling is meant to work with a thrown weapon.

You are referencing something that is not what I was referring to and that is not an official rules source. JC Twitters have been officially designated as meaningless to rules questions. Only insofar as they make it into the actual Sage Advice Compendium do they officially have the weight of FAQ or Errata.

The Sage Advice Compendium is different than what you posted.

The Sage Advice Compendium is here . . . https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/sage-advice-compendium. Feel free to reference the SAC as a rules source.

You might also find interesting the answers on Stack Exchange which can be found here.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67485/does-dueling-fighting-style-apply-to-thrown-weapons

The top answer indicates that Dueling does not work with thrown weapons which supports my argument. The RAW supports my argument. So I am in accordance with RAW and Adventures League requirements.

Sithlordnergal, do you even care about RAW and Adventurer's League? You seem okay with house ruling and playing it as you personally feel it should be played. Lots of tables are okay with playing by what feels right and not by what the rules actually say.

Since I play and DM in AL, it all has to work according to RAW. Do you even care about RAW?

[sithlordnergal]

The top answer indicates that Dueling does not work with thrown weapons which supports my argument. The RAW supports my argument. So I am in accordance with RAW and Adventures League requirements.

Sithlordnergal, do you even care about RAW and Adventurer's League? You seem okay with house ruling and playing it as you personally feel it should be played. Lots of tables are okay with playing by what feels right and not by what the rules actually say.

Since I play and DM in AL, it all has to work according to RAW. Do you even care about RAW?

I certainly care about RAW, I also play mostly AL, and the top answer in that Sage Advice literally says:


Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?

Yes.

Do you need a screen shot of this? Here, have a screenshot, its from Sage Advice. Its literally on Sage Advice if you look.

https://i.ibb.co/QX7RKDx/Screenshot.png

Dunno how you got "Does not work with thrown weapons" when the answer to "Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon" is "Yes".

Also, its still clearly allowed by the fact that, if they wanted to limit it to melee weapon attacks, they would have worded it as such. They would have specifically called out a melee weapon attack, just like they specifically call out melee weapon attacks for things like Divine Smite. You know what else has the same wording as Dueling? Improved Divine Smite. Sage Advice, once again, says that Improved Divine Smite works with a thrown Javelin, but Divine Smite does not.


Improved Divine Smite works with any melee weapon, whether you strike with it in melee or throw it.

[ThorOdinson]

I certainly care about RAW, I also play mostly AL, and the top answer in that Sage Advice literally says:


Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?

Yes.

Do you need a screen shot of this? Here, have a screenshot, its from Sage Advice. Its literally on Sage Advice if you look.

https://i.ibb.co/QX7RKDx/Screenshot.png

Dunno how you got "Does not work with thrown weapons" when the answer to "Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon" is "Yes".

Also, its still clearly allowed by the fact that, if they wanted to limit it to melee weapon attacks, they would have worded it as such. They would have specifically called out a melee weapon attack, just like they specifically call out melee weapon attacks for things like Divine Smite. You know what else has the same wording as Dueling? Improved Divine Smite. Sage Advice, once again, says that Improved Divine Smite works with a thrown Javelin, but Divine Smite does not.

If you played Adventures League then you would know JC Twitters are not rule sources and what you are referencing is not the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Only the Sage Advice Compendium can be treated as an official source rules. I am curious why you are trying to pass off Sage Advice Jeremy Crawford Twitters as the Sage Advice Compendium which is something entirely separate and an officially refereed publication that is desgnated officially as a rules source.

Check the latest Sage Advice Compendium and you will notice that JC's Twitter with regards to the Dueling fighting style has not passed muster and has not been included so it bears absolutely no weight.

But of course you already knew that. So when do you want to start debating about Rules As Written and the actual Sage Advice Compendium?

[AdAstra]

Historical precedent says yes (In the Iliad, there are several duels with javelins). For that matter, you can duel with anything should the challenged party agree.

Creator interpretation says yes.

Game balance says okay (Javelin with Dueling does the damage of a Heavy Crossbow, but with far less range). Nothing game-breaking about it.

The logic of whether the weapon is being wielded when you make an attack is almost irrelevant when it comes to common sense interpretation, but I would still say yes. An attack isn't made when the weapon hits/misses the target, it occurs in that blurry space between the moment the character decides to try to hit something and when that thing is/isn't hit. During that process, the weapon is being wielded, even if it leaves halfway through.

Strictly speaking in RAW, I don't think you actually need to hold melee weapons in your hands when you attack with them, same as with unarmed strikes. You could be balancing that spear on the tips of your toes, for all the game cares. The most it says on the matter is "A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon" or mechanics that require weapons to be in a hand, but the attack itself does not seem to require it.

[ThorOdinson]

Historical precedent says yes (In the Iliad, there are several duels with javelins). For that matter, you can duel with anything should the challenged party agree.

Creator interpretation says yes.

Game balance says okay (Javelin with Dueling does the damage of a Heavy Crossbow, but with far less range). Nothing game-breaking about it.

The logic of whether the weapon is being wielded when you make an attack is almost irrelevant when it comes to common sense interpretation, but I would still say yes. An attack isn't made when the weapon hits/misses the target, it occurs in that blurry space between the moment the character decides to try to hit something and when that thing is/isn't hit. During that process, the weapon is being wielded, even if it leaves halfway through.

Strictly speaking in RAW, I don't think you actually need to hold melee weapons in your hands when you attack with them, same as with unarmed strikes. You could be balancing that spear on the tips of your toes, for all the game cares. The most it says on the matter is "A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon" or mechanics that require weapons to be in a hand, but the attack itself does not seem to require it.

The Dueling fighting style disagrees with you. Its condition does not apply in the case of thrown weapons.

You can apply house rules as you like but RAW says otherwise.

If you want to jump in and duscuss RAW then start by quoting the actual Dueling fighting style rule and explain how a thrown weapon can satisfy its conditional.

[sithlordnergal]

If you played Adventures League then you would know JC Twitters are not rule sources.

Check the latest Sage Advice Compendium and you will notice that JC's Twitter with regards to the Dueling fighting style has not been included so it bears absolutely no weight.

But of course you already knew that. So when do you want to start debating about RAW?

Considering that tweet was made in 2015, and the swap to not considering those tweets to be official rulings happened around 2016-2017, that would still fall under the time period when his tweets were considered official rulings. I can remember when they added that the tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but they continued to use previous tweets before the change for official rulings.

Next, if you want to look purely at RAW, then you can compare Dueling, Divine Smite, Stunning Strike, and Improved Divine Smite. Divine Smite and Stunning Strike both require you to make a Melee Weapon Attack. You cannot use either of those abilities if you do not make a Melee Weapon Attack. Great Weapon Master also requires you to make a melee attack in order to use the =5/+10 to damage.

Dueling and Improved Divine Smite do not have that requirement, they both simply state that you make an attack with a melee weapon. Given that they both lack the "Melee Weapon Attack" requirement, that means they work with any attack made by a melee weapon. If you throw a javelin, the javelin is still a melee weapon.

[sithlordnergal]

The Dueling fighting style disagrees with you. Its condition does not apply in the case of thrown weapons.

You can apply house rules as you like but RAW says otherwise.

It does though, you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed. You are no longer wielding it after that calculation is finished. Your interpretation is incorrect. You are also the ONLY person with that particular interpretation. Therefore, logic dictates that you are reading it incorrectly.

[ThorOdinson]

Considering that tweet was made in 2015, and the swap to not considering those tweets to be official rulings happened around 2016-2017, that would still fall under the time period when his tweets were considered official rulings. I can remember when they added that the tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but they continued to use previous tweets before the change for official rulings.

Next, if you want to look purely at RAW, then you can compare Dueling, Divine Smite, Stunning Strike, and Improved Divine Smite. Divine Smite and Stunning Strike both require you to make a Melee Weapon Attack. You cannot use either of those abilities if you do not make a Melee Weapon Attack. Great Weapon Master also requires you to make a melee attack in order to use the =5/+10 to damage.

Dueling and Improved Divine Smite do not have that requirement, they both simply state that you make an attack with a melee weapon. Given that they both lack the "Melee Weapon Attack" requirement, that means they work with any attack made by a melee weapon. If you throw a javelin, the javelin is still a melee weapon.

The current Sage Advice Compendium does not include the Twitter you posted. You have indicated in your posting above that you were fully aware of the discrepancy between Twitters and the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Can you explain why you are intentionally trying to mislead the conversation with stuff that you know is not official and yet you are presenting as official? Are you aware that in a debate a referee would call foul on your tactics?

At any rate, can we now stick to official rules sources?

I am simply interested in arguing based on RAW and the SAC. Can you stick to that?


It does though, you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed. You are no longer wielding it after that calculation is finished. Your interpretation is incorrect. You are also the ONLY person with that particular interpretation. Therefore, logic dictates that you are reading it incorrectly.

The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

[Zhorn]

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.
Like the fallacy fallacy, where you treat the usage of an identified fallacy as a reason to denounce someone's stance or opinion as being incorrect.

Probably more constructive to have a discussion without hurling fallacy accusations about. It can come across as aggressive and rudely dismissive.
I'm perfectly happy to walk away from a discussion with an 'agree to disagree' outcome, but I know some folks are going to more willing to engage in friendly discussion without such terms being thrown about. All it achieves is escalating the discussion from a disagreement into an argument, then people dig their heels in and no one gets anywhere.

Lots of these fun folk that have been discussing in this thread are fine and reasonable. And I have been finding their reasoning in their posts more convincing on the matter.

[Tanarii]

Not touching the main "debate" with an 11 foot pole, but I wanted to chime in to say I find Dueling to be a weak 3rd in the ranking of Fighting Styles, far behind Defensive and Archery.
Sure. Opinions vary about the value of defensive. Some folks think 'meh just +1 AC' and others 'wow +1 AC!'. :smallamused:

Archery is definitely the most powerful in conjunction with being limited to ranged attacks (which 5e makes pretty easy to deal with or you can blow a feat to work around), and far more powerful when combined with an already OP feat. OTOH, it's harder to get advantage attacking unless you're a stealth master, and even then it can be difficult.

I'll freely admit I was putting archery out of sight in my mental back pocket, and making the comparison between primary melee styles: Dueling, Defensive, GWM, Protection. Which is probably roughly the order of popularity I've seen them taken by PCs. Of course, even with a (preplague) large game of ~30 players and fairly high turnover of both players and PCs per player, that's still an anecdote.

[jaappleton]

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."


Look up "wield". Wield means 'to hold and use'. You get to apply the damage boost when you are holding and using the javelin. RAW it does not work when thrown since it leaves your hand when thrown and is no longer wielded and therewith throwing removes the condition by which the rule could apply.

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.

Well, for quite a long period of time, several years in fact, JC did ask people to consider his twitter ruling as an official source.

Additionally:

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Not "when you make an attack with a melee weapon".

[stoutstien]

The current Sage Advice Compendium does not include the Twitter you posted. You have indicated in your posting above that you were fully aware of the discrepancy between Twitters and the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Can you explain why you are intentionally trying to mislead the conversation with stuff that you know is not official and yet you are presenting as official? Are you aware that in a debate a referee would call foul on your tactics?

At any rate, can we now stick to official rules sources?

I am simply interested in arguing based on RAW and the SAC. Can you stick to that?



The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

Well since wield isn't a definitive state we have to look at what the word means and infer. Wield doesn't mean to simply hold as much as use effectively so throwing a weapon with a thrown range is wielding it.

[Segev]

You are getting confused. The PHB does not define wielding separably from english semantic usage "to hold and use" so we use the english meaning of the word.

I have presented a quote that clarifies ranged attacks . . .

"When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

Ranged weapon attacks are made by "hurling" or "send[ing] projectiles or "fire[ing ammunition].

In order to make a ranged atttack the weapon or ammo must be hurled, thrown, cast, or sent as a projectile.

If you drop a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

If you hurl a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

By this logic, then, you do not need to wield a ranged weapon in order to use it. The rules state that you need to hurl or fire them. So I guess your hand is free to cast spells and you never need to draw and ready a thrown weapon when you use one, since you only need to hold a weapon if you're wielding it.

[sithlordnergal]

The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

I do have rules support now. I went to the official DnD Discord server where you can ask AL Admins things directly. I made use of this during the change to S10, and I can confirm it is an official source for AL rulings. I asked them about Dueling and Thrown Weapons. Their answer to me was linking the same exact Tweet that I posted to you. While JC's tweets may no longer be considered an official ruling, that ruling was made back when they were official rulings, and the AL people that I talked to used that tweet to give me my answer. So it is considered an official ruling in terms to what AL thinks.

Also, your argument of:


"When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance.[PHB, p. 195]"

Does not say that you are no longer wielding it. No where in that rule does it state you no longer wield a weapon as soon as you throw it. You stop wielding the weapon after it has either hit, and dealt damage to, the target, or it misses.

[ThorOdinson]

I do have rules support now. I went to the official DnD Discord server where you can ask AL Admins things directly. I made use of this during the change to S10, and I can confirm it is an official source for AL rulings. I asked them about Dueling and Thrown Weapons. Their answer to me was linking the same exact Tweet that I posted to you. While JC's tweets may no longer be considered an official ruling, that ruling was made back when they were official rulings, and the AL people that I talked to used that tweet to give me my answer. So it is considered an official ruling in terms to what AL thinks.

Proof or it didn't happen. I am not inclined to believe someone who has already resorted to making fallacious arguments. Further, as you know, AL would require proof of your assertion.

Only the SAC is officially a rules source. There is no official statement that JC Twitters prior to a certain date are official rulings. If they were they would be in the SAC. The absence of the ruling in the SAC is proof that the old JC tweet was intentionally dropped and is not official.


Also, your argument of:



Does not say that you are no longer wielding it. No where in that rule does it state you no longer wield a weapon as soon as you throw it. You stop wielding the weapon after it has either hit, and dealt damage to, the target, or it misses.

By the way that is a quote from the book, not a quote of my argument.

The Dueling fighting style, by its conditional logic, also requires that the weapon is in hand. So that's not going to help you unless your character has stretchy arms.

[stoutstien]

Conditional logic cannot be applied to questions regarding syntax. The core issue is the difference in interpretation of a single word that has no mechanical state.

[ThorOdinson]

Conditional logic cannot be applied to questions regarding syntax. The core issue is the difference in interpretation of a single word that has no mechanical state.

Thrown weapons are also not "in hand". They have been thrown. The Dueling fighting style damage bonus cannot be applied. The condition for the application of the rule has not been met.

Are you now going to suggest that thrown objects remain in your hand?

[stoutstien]

Thrown weapons are not "in hand". They have been thrown. The Dueling fighting style damage bonus cannot be applied. The condition for the application of the rule has not been met.

Are you now going to suggest that thrown objects remain in your hand?

no I'm suggesting that you are adding the "in hand" condition which does not exist. Then you're using that condition as a logic constant.
Nothing about the word wielding dictates a weapon must maintain contact with the user.

[ThorOdinson]

no I'm suggesting that you are adding the "in hand" condition which does not exist. Then you're using that condition as a logic constant.
Nothing about the word wielding dictates a weapon must maintain contact with the user.

You might want to revisit your line of thinking since you are now suggesting that a player can drop their wielded weapons on the ground and still benefit from the +1 AC from the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Similarly you are suggesting that a player can drop a wielded shield and still benefit from +2 AC.

The Dueling fighting style checks to see if the weapon is "in hand". Specifically it checks to see if it is "in one hand".

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

Are we in agreement that if you have thrown the weapon it is no longer "in one hand"?

[ff7hero]

Sure. Opinions vary about the value of defensive. Some folks think 'meh just +1 AC' and others 'wow +1 AC!'. :smallamused:


I'm in between these two extremes, but what pushes Defensive to the top of my list is consistency. Virtually every build that picks up a Fighting Style will be wearing armor, and it keeps you open to use whatever magic weapons happen to show up. Sure, nothing is stopping a Duelist from using that Flametongue Greatsword, but it's kind of a feel bad moment.



Archery is definitely the most powerful in conjunction with being limited to ranged attacks (which 5e makes pretty easy to deal with or you can blow a feat to work around), and far more powerful when combined with an already OP feat. OTOH, it's harder to get advantage attacking unless you're a stealth master, and even then it can be difficult.


My ranking of Archery is almost entirely because of it being an accuracy boost in the land of Bounded Accuracy. SS synergy is nice, but not crucial.



I'll freely admit I was putting archery out of sight in my mental back pocket, and making the comparison between primary melee styles: Dueling, Defensive, GWM, Protection. Which is probably roughly the order of popularity I've seen them taken by PCs. Of course, even with a (preplague) large game of ~30 players and fairly high turnover of both players and PCs per player, that's still an anecdote.

That all makes sense, and you're working from a larger sample size than I am at any rate. My rankings are almost entirely based on my own preference and/or theory crafting.

[Segev]

You might want to revisit your line of thinking since you are now suggesting that a player can drop their wielded weapons on the ground and still benefit from the +1 AC from the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Similarly you are suggesting that a player can drop a wielded shield and still benefit from +2 AC.

Incorrect. The action of dropping them is completed before anybody is going to be testing their AC. Therefore, they will not be benefitting from it.

On the other hand, your argument still requires that thrown weapons never deal any damage, because you are arguing that the weapon ceases to be wielded once it is thrown (but before it deals damage).

You try to get around this by arguing that they don't need to be wielded to deal damage, but by that logic, you don't need a free hand to "hurl" them, either, and can hurl them freely from your back with both hands otherwise occupied.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. The action of dropping them is completed before anybody is going to be testing their AC. Therefore, they will not be benefitting from it.

On the other hand, your argument still requires that thrown weapons never deal any damage, because you are arguing that the weapon ceases to be wielded once it is thrown (but before it deals damage).

You try to get around this by arguing that they don't need to be wielded to deal damage, but by that logic, you don't need a free hand to "hurl" them, either, and can hurl them freely from your back with both hands otherwise occupied.

I have never made the claim that a weapon with the thrown property is not wielded prior to being thrown.

The rules actually apply bonuses to attack and damage based on attacks being made (the permission to attack) not on whether or not something is wielded although in the case of handheld weapons being in hand is indirectly implicated. Keep in mind attacks often involve claws and things like unarmed strikes and spells that are not involving wielded weapons. So there is no dependency between wielded and able to do damage or aply modifiers in an attack. If the player has permission to attack then the attack itself carries damage and carries modifiers to the attack which you can see in the excerpts below.

ATTACK


When a character makes an Attack roll, the two most Common Modifiers to the Roll are an ability modifier and the character’s Proficiency Bonus. When a monster makes an Attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.

Ability Modifier: The ability modifier used for a melee weapon Attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon Attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the Finesse or Thrown property break this rule. Some Spells also require an Attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell Attack depends on the Spellcasting Ability of the spellcaster.

Proficiency Bonus: You add your Proficiency Bonus to your Attack roll when you Attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you Attack with a spell.


MELEE ATTACK



Used in hand--to--hand combat, a melee Attack allows you to Attack a foe within your reach. A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a Warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee Attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few Spells also involve making a melee Attack.

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus Attack Targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee Attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have Melee Attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.


RANGED ATTACK


When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many Spells also involve making a ranged Attack.


DAMAGE


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. Magic Weapons, Special Abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage. With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.

When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the Attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.


Ranged attacks give permission to hurl or send projectiles and attack at range. A thrown javelin involves the javelin leaving the hand of the player who is making the attack.

Not only does the Dueling fighting style require a weapon to be "wielded" it also requires the weapon to be "in one hand".

DUELING FIGHTING STYLE


When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.


My argument is that by throwing the weapon the weapon is no longer wielded nor is it in one hand when the damage roll is made. The game state at the time the damage roll is made supports my argument. The Dueling fighting style applies its bonus when the damage roll is made.

Your argument involves retroactively referring to the game state prior to the throwing because it makes sense to do it that way for you.

The problem with your argument is there is no permission in the rules to retroactively check the game state prior to the throwing. Your argument is a fine house rule and I am sure a lot of tables play it the way you choose to but it comes up short for a RAW argument.

I am not saying your argument is wrong. I am saying it is not RAW.

[Tanarii]

I'm in between these two extremes, but what pushes Defensive to the top of my list is consistency. Virtually every build that picks up a Fighting Style will be wearing armor, and it keeps you open to use whatever magic weapons happen to show up. Sure, nothing is stopping a Duelist from using that Flametongue Greatsword, but it's kind of a feel bad moment.
Defensive is my go to for EKs and Str rangers. Both are switch hitters, melee/magic and melee/ranged respectively.

[Segev]

My argument is that by throwing the weapon the weapon is no longer wielded nor is it in one hand when the damage roll is made. The game state at the time the damage roll is made supports my argument. The Dueling fighting style applies its bonus when the damage roll is made.Your argument is incorrect, because it relies on changing it from being wielded to not being wielded changing the damage it deals without changing the damage it deals.

Either it not being wielded means it doesn't deal damage, or it being wielded when everything about the attack is determined means that all the damage applies.


Your argument involves retroactively referring to the game state prior to the throwing because it makes sense to do it that way for you.Not at all. It involves stating that it was wielded when it was thrown, and everything about the trajectory of the thrown javelin comes from the throw, during which it was wielded. There's no "retroactivity" to it. The attack resolves while the weapon is wielded, OR the attack's every effect relies on it being wielded when the attack is made.

Your argument relies on somehow the javelin becoming less well-aimed after it is thrown than while it is being thrown. Which is nonsense, because the javelin's throw isn't changing after it leaves the hand. Anything relating to the throw - including how hard it is and where it aims - is done while it is in hand. No control over it is issued while it's in the air.

Alternatively, your argument relies on it ceasing to be wielded before it does damage. But you cannot deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

There's no way your argument doens't result in degenerate states. Whereas simply treating a weapon as being wielded for its entire attack not only makes sense in the granularity of combat as abstraction, it leads to no degenerate states. The closest it comes is you not being allowed to counterspell a shield in response to an attack with a javelin. Which...you couldn't do it if you were attacking in melee with it, either, so no loss there.


The problem with your argument is there is no permission in the rules to retroactively check the game state prior to the throwing. Your argument is a fine house rule and I am sure a lot of tables play it the way you choose to but it comes up short for a RAW argument.

I am not saying your argument is wrong. I am saying it is not RAW.

There is no need to do anything retroactively. You're the one introducing retroactivity with your definitions. I'm actually claiming that the javelin is wielded for the entire attack. You're the one trying to claim there's a state-change, but that state-change to not being wielded half-way through the attack makes it deal damage despite not being wielded, but not deal bonus damage because it's not wielded.

[ThorOdinson]

Your argument is incorrect, because it relies on changing it from being wielded to not being wielded changing the damage it deals without changing the damage it deals.

As quoted very extensively above in my prior post, actual damage in the rules as they are written is granted to attacks. Not all attacks involve weapons that are wielded. Permission to hurl a weapon to make a ranged attack is granted by the rules with zero mention of wielding. Can you please frame your argument in the context of quoted rules? As it is, you are making up dependencies that are simply not present in the rules. Are we discussing the rules as they are written or not? Please show me where I am wrong by quoting actual rules.


Either it not being wielded means it doesn't deal damage, or it being wielded when everything about the attack is determined means that all the damage applies.

Do you have a rules quote to support what you are saying here? None of what you are saying is in the actual rules. To participate in this argument you need to support what you say with rule quotes as I have done.


Not at all. It involves stating that it was wielded when it was thrown, and everything about the trajectory of the thrown javelin comes from the throw, during which it was wielded. There's no "retroactivity" to it. The attack resolves while the weapon is wielded, OR the attack's every effect relies on it being wielded when the attack is made.

Still no rules support here. To make a RAW argument you need to reference rules. Your personal thoughts are not a rules source.


Your argument relies on somehow the javelin becoming less well-aimed after it is thrown than while it is being thrown. Which is nonsense, because the javelin's throw isn't changing after it leaves the hand. Anything relating to the throw - including how hard it is and where it aims - is done while it is in hand. No control over it is issued while it's in the air.

More personal thoughts provided by you with no rules support. None of what you are arguing is supported by the PHB.

My argument proceeds from doing what the rules tell me to do. I cannot apply the Dueling fighting style because the weapon must be wielded in one hand when the damage roll is made. Since the weapon was hurled over a distance it is definitively not wielded anymore nor is it in one hand when it strikes the target.

So far you have provided no rules basis to counter my straight logical read of the rules. You are concocting rationale that is not present in the actual rules to counter my argument, but concocting stuff does not meet the criteria for a RAW argument.


Alternatively, your argument relies on it ceasing to be wielded before it does damage. But you cannot deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

You keep affirming something that is simply not present in the rules.

The ranged attack rules give you permission to attack and damage a target with a weapon that is hurled and not in your hand when it hits the target (see quote in my prior post above). The Dueling fighting style requires that weapon to be in one hand for it to be able to apply its damage bonus. The rules support my argument. So far you have provided no rules support for your argument.


There's no way your argument doens't result in degenerate states. Whereas simply treating a weapon as being wielded for its entire attack not only makes sense in the granularity of combat as abstraction, it leads to no degenerate states. The closest it comes is you not being allowed to counterspell a shield in response to an attack with a javelin. Which...you couldn't do it if you were attacking in melee with it, either, so no loss there.

The only degenerate states are the ones you are imagining based on principles you have concocted that are not present in the rules.

Please, please, please, quote an actual rule which proves my argument wrong. Your personal reflections are meaningless to the discussion at hand. Quote rules. Please show me rules statements that lead my argument to the degenerate states you speak of.




There is no need to do anything retroactively. You're the one introducing retroactivity with your definitions. I'm actually claiming that the javelin is wielded for the entire attack. You're the one trying to claim there's a state-change, but that state-change to not being wielded half-way through the attack makes it deal damage despite not being wielded, but not deal bonus damage because it's not wielded.

Again, you are concocting rationale that has no basis in the actual rules on the page.

Are you claiming that the javelin remains in one hand for the entireity of the attack? Remember, that is also a condition for the Dueling fighting style to apply. Once the javelin is thrown it is no longer "in one hand" so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

Can you provide a rules quote that states that the weapon is considered in one hand for the entireity of the attack despite the fact that it was thrown a distance and cannot logically still be in the one hand?

##########################

You have provided no rules support for your argument. The next time you respond can you please respond with quotations from the PHB that support your argument. As it is, your argument is obviously not RAW since you have not provided any rules support.

[Segev]

At no point have you quoted a rule that says that a weapon stops being wielded when it is thrown. Your entire argument rests on this. Your argument leads to degenerate states that mine does not.

At this point, we may as well agree to disagree, as we clearly are not willing to even agree on a premise.

I will point out that even if you did have a fiddly RAW case here, you'd still be barking up the wrong tree because 5e is not 3e, and my first post on the subject gave an extensive analysis of the kind of language used in the rules and how that language would have been written if there was clear intent by the designers that it be melee-attacks-only. As it is, the best case one can make to restrict it to melee attacks is that there is nothing clearly stating it definitely works with thrown weapons; you have to analyze the rules for weapons with the "thrown" property (and that they're melee weapons) to realize it can work with them by the RAW.

So at best, you've got a case for arguing that it's up to the DM to make a ruling on an unclear point in the rules.

I don't even agree with that, myself; I think it's pretty clear from the RAW that it does work with melee weapons with the thrown tag, and that it's probably so according to the RAI, as well, based on the choice of "attack with a melee weapon" rather than "melee attack with a weapon" in how the style is worded.

Your argument relies on a very fiddly interpretation of "wield" that has no backup in the rules other than your own assertion that the weapon ceases to be wielded before it deals damage. I do not find this persuasive.

And since this is 5e, not 3e, the design philosophy absolutely does not hinge on extremely fiddly interpretations of words.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

If a man threw a javelin at me, I would say "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin" and not "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin, who immediately stopped wielding the javelin as it traveled through the air and hit me". That's my sole contribution to this argument, I'll see myself out.

[ThorOdinson]

At no point have you quoted a rule that says that a weapon stops being wielded when it is thrown. Your entire argument rests on this. Your argument leads to degenerate states that mine does not.

At this point, we may as well agree to disagree, as we clearly are not willing to even agree on a premise.

I will point out that even if you did have a fiddly RAW case here, you'd still be barking up the wrong tree because 5e is not 3e, and my first post on the subject gave an extensive analysis of the kind of language used in the rules and how that language would have been written if there was clear intent by the designers that it be melee-attacks-only. As it is, the best case one can make to restrict it to melee attacks is that there is nothing clearly stating it definitely works with thrown weapons; you have to analyze the rules for weapons with the "thrown" property (and that they're melee weapons) to realize it can work with them by the RAW.

So at best, you've got a case for arguing that it's up to the DM to make a ruling on an unclear point in the rules.

I don't even agree with that, myself; I think it's pretty clear from the RAW that it does work with melee weapons with the thrown tag, and that it's probably so according to the RAI, as well, based on the choice of "attack with a melee weapon" rather than "melee attack with a weapon" in how the style is worded.

Your argument relies on a very fiddly interpretation of "wield" that has no backup in the rules other than your own assertion that the weapon ceases to be wielded before it deals damage. I do not find this persuasive.

And since this is 5e, not 3e, the design philosophy absolutely does not hinge on extremely fiddly interpretations of words.

Interesting. I was hoping you would take up the challenge and find some rules support for your argument, but I guess you want to disengage at this point from further debate. So some closing comments . . .

The english meaning of the word "wield" means "to hold and use (a tool or weapon)" and is consistent with the way the PHB uses the word to discuss the use of melee weapons and shields and such things as dual wielding, etc. The PHB also uses wield in more abstract sense, ie 'wield power', which is consistent with second dictionary meaning. The PHB uses wield in the senses we would expect which is good because the PHB does not provide a separate game specific meaning of the term.

When a character drops a weapon it is no longer wielded.

When a character drops a shield it is no longer wielded.

Ranged attacks are granted permission to attack and damage a target while making no mention of being wielded. They are hurled and sent as projectiles. To say that they are wielded after they are thrown breaks with english semantics and is also inserting a concocted distinction that the rules do not make. It is also something my argument does not rely on and this is important to recognize. The Dueling fighting style requires that a weapon be not only "wielded" but also "in one hand". There is absolutely no doubt that a thrown weapon is no longer "in one hand" when it is thrown and strikes a target.

The straight and logical read of the Duelist fighting style rule is that it does not apply in the case of thrown weapons. A weapon that is thrown is not "wielded" and, even if you want to argue that point about no longer being wielded, a thrown weapon is definitely not still "in one hand". So you really have your work cut out for you to try to somehow argue against my straightforward read of the rules as they are written. A weapon that has been thrown is obviously not still "wielded in one hand".

You have been trying to tear down my argument over the use of "wield" when the rules themselves make no indication that a thrown weapon is somehow still wielded after it is thrown (which would break english semantics of 'hold and use (a tool or weapon)'. The ranged attack rules grant a thrown weapon the ability to hit and damage targets making no mention of being wielded. So nothing degenerate at all happens to consider a weapon that is thrown as not wielded once it leaves the hand. You have failed to support your claims that my argument produces degenerate cases.

Further, I want to point out that my argument is consistent in its reading of the Duelist fighting style and how it doesn't apply to the case of thrown weapons with the top answer provided on Stack Exchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67485/does-dueling-fighting-style-apply-to-thrown-weapons). Not only is my argument RAW but it is standard and the highest approved by Stack Exchanges metric.

If you continue to think there are degenerate cases then by all means point them out to me, but you need to support what you say with rules support. Obviously any personal concocted rationale that you have made up and that is not grounded in the actual rules does not figure into a rules debate.

I dont disagree with your argument as a house rule. Personal concocted rationale is fine for house rules. So we can agree to disagree. But if you want to present your argument as RAW then I will expect you to provide the rules support for your argument that you have neglected to provide so far.

[ThorOdinson]

If a man threw a javelin at me, I would say "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin" and not "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin, who immediately stopped wielding the javelin as it traveled through the air and hit me". That's my sole contribution to this argument, I'll see myself out.

A person who has a knife in hand ready to use it is wielding that knife.

If a person throws a knife at you and it strikes you handle first on the chest landing on the floor, who is wielding that knife? No one.

If you pick the knife up from the ground who is wielding it? You are.

If you catch a knife that is thrown at you (you ninja you), you are wielding it the moment you catch it and can put it to use. While it is in flight before you catch it no one is wielding it. A knife that is in flight is subject to physical forces and no longer under the control of the thrower.

When you throw a knife you indeed no longer wield it. This is why in a real life self defense situation it is usually a bad idea to throw a knife at an attacker unless you are really good at it. When you throw it, you give up your weapon (you no longer are wielding a weapon and have disarmed yourself) and can often arm your opponent (you have just given your opponent a weapon he can wield should your thrown attack fail to end the fight).

Look up the definition of 'wield'. You will not be surprised by how I am using it. My use of the word is the standard meaning. Wield means "to hold and use" when talking about tools and weapons.

[Valmark]

Further, I want to point out that my argument is consistent in its reading of the Duelist fighting style and how it doesn't apply to the case of thrown weapons with the top answer provided on Stack Exchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67485/does-dueling-fighting-style-apply-to-thrown-weapons). Not only is my argument RAW but it is standard and the highest approved by Stack Exchanges metric.


Since when Stack Exchanges metric matters to this forum?

Plus, while I agree with Thor (not that I'd stop a player that wants to combo those if it's fun to them) I should point out that the top reply of SE says that 'wielding is a fairly neboulous term and is open to interpretation' then proceeds to saying that Crawford contradicts them and they are the authority on the matter.

If anything, that post says 'up to the DM' (which is always true anyway).

[stoutstien]

A person who has a knife in hand ready to use it is wielding that knife.

If a person throws a knife at you and it strikes you handle first on the chest landing on the floor, who is wielding that knife? No one.

If you pick the knife up from the ground who is wielding it? You are.

If you catch a knife that is thrown at you (you ninja you), you are wielding it the moment you catch it and can put it to use. While it is in flight before you catch it no one is wielding it. A knife that is in flight is subject to physical forces and no longer under the control of the thrower.

When you throw a knife you indeed no longer wield it. This is why in a real life self defense situation it is usually a bad idea to throw a knife at an attacker unless you are really good at it. When you throw it, you give up your weapon (you no longer are wielding a weapon and have disarmed yourself) and can often arm your opponent (you have just given your opponent a weapon he can wield should your thrown attack fail to end the fight).

Look up the definition of 'wield'. You will not be surprised by how I am using it. My use of the word is the standard meaning. Wield means "to hold and use" when talking about tools and weapons.

You do realize words that have multiple definitions don't have a hierarchy of placement when trying to determine syntax and context. Especially since dnd doesn't reference a certain word source and each giving reference book can alter the order of different uses of words. some are simply ordered by diachronic while others are by frequency of use. Both are highly subjective systems.

[AdAstra]

I do find it interesting that despite specifically calling out an appeal to popularity as fallacious, Thor is choosing to use the popularity of a Stack Exchange response as evidence. A Stack exchange response that specifically outlines that its interpretation is not author intent nor set in stone. Stack exchange votes are basically reddit upvotes in terms of validity. Potentially useful for determining popularity/agreement among people who choose to respond, not much else, and highly subject to weird influences due to the nature of the voting (ie, some people vote down things they don’t agree with, others might vote up even responses they disagree with if logically sound, plenty of people don’t respond at all, etc.). Definitely not a useful measure for determining what’s “correct”.

Also, while words definitely mean things, they can mean a variety of things depending on context. To wield a javelin doesn’t strictly require that you hold it the whole time, and the nature of attack declaration and resolution is already pretty abstract. People who do it any one way have plenty of standing to do so, a lot less so to claim that anyone else is doing it wrong. The only time I could see someone as interpreting Dueling “wrong” is if they were applying its effects inconsistently or to things that don’t even slightly fit the requirements, like spells or unarmed strikes.

[Mr Adventurer]

Look up the definition of 'wield'.

Look it up where, in the dictionary?

Could you frame your argument in terms of the Rules As Written?

[Segev]

Let's just put it this way: your assassin doesn't get to say he merely brandished a weapon and had nothing to do with the murder when he throws a knife at somebody and kills him on the grounds that he wasn't wielding the knife when the victim was hit by it.

The assassin wielded the knife to kill the victim.

[Valmark]

Let's just put it this way: your assassin doesn't get to say he merely brandished a weapon and had nothing to do with the murder when he throws a knife at somebody and kills him on the grounds that he wasn't wielding the knife when the victim was hit by it.

The assassin wielded the knife to kill the victim.

If your knife is a sentient magic item does it count as the real murderer?

[Segev]

If your knife is a sentient magic item does it count as the real murderer?

Still mildly joking, but also actually accurate: sentient magic weapons can force Ego checks to take over their wielders' actions, so this is actually quite possible!

[ThorOdinson]

You do realize words that have multiple definitions don't have a hierarchy of placement when trying to determine syntax and context. Especially since dnd doesn't reference a certain word source and each giving reference book can alter the order of different uses of words. some are simply ordered by diachronic while others are by frequency of use. Both are highly subjective systems.

The context in the case of the Dueling fighting style is weapons. That is the first definition, "to hold and use (a tool or weapon)". Other uses are historically derived from that (refer to Linguistics or the study of Semantics) as metaphorically extended. E.g. He wielded power [as a blacksmith wields a hammer].

As I pointed out earlier, the counter argument has been to appeal to a more abstract definition of wield in order to deviate from the standard definition. The counter argument has then tried to claim that treating a thrown weapon as not wielded breaks damage allocation. Technically, the counter argument is mixing meanings, trying to appeal to a more abstract meaning when it suits them and then switching to a more standard and concrete meaning when it suits them.

When meanings get slippery in a discussion you look at the rules themselves and see how the rules use "wield". I have shown that the PHB meaning of 'wield' corresponds to "hold and use (weapon or tool)" and grants thrown attacks the ability to attack and do damage without requiring to be wielded, which corresponds exactly to the standard definition and how english speakers expect "wield" to be used in the context of weaponry. The counter argument failed to support its claims with rules while I was able to support my argument with rule support. Moreover, I pointed out that the Dueling fighting style also requires the weapon to be "in one hand" so that even when someone forces a more abstract use of "wield" into the debate the counter argument still fails to meet the rather concrete requirement of "in one hand" and my argument wins out because it corresponds to RAW.

I am happy to discuss this further but as stated before I will be asking you to support your argument with rules quotes as I have done.

[Segev]

To wield a weapon is to "hold and use?" Okay, you held and used it when you threw it. You wielded it. One-handed. With no other weapons in hand. You get the bonus damage. It doesn't matter that it leaves your hand as part of throwing it; you wielded it when everything you contribute to the damage was determined. At no point is some agent other than you controlling the way the javelin is wielded. Javelins can't, as a general rule, do damage by themselves. They require a wielder.

You have a case for making a ruling as you like it, but that's all you've got: a case for a ruling. You don't have the RAW on your side without a tortured reading of it, and the RAI as best can be gleaned from the precise word choices used and how they're used in other parts of the game suggest javelins are, in fact, intended to work with the dueling style. The RAW nowhere suggest that you cease to be wielding the weapon during an attack's resolution, period.

At best, then, you've got room to claim a ruling of the dueling style not working is a ruling rather than a house rule. I disagree, as I find your case spurious and unconvincing, but I do understand where you're coming from. You definitely do not have an unambiguous and clear reading of the RAW and discernible RAI on your side.


I am happy to discuss this further but as stated before I will be asking you to support your argument with rules quotes as I have done.Your rules and quotes do not support your position. That's the problem. You may as well have quoted a rule saying that the origin of a cube lies on its face and therefore spheres are squares for all your quotes demonstrate your point.

For your quotes to prove your point, we already have to agree with your conclusion. Your argument is circular. I don't agree with your premise that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon, and to come to the conclusion that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon by the rules you quoted, you have to accept that premise.

This is why I'm not quoting rules back at you: your quoted rules do not support your point without the unspoken assumption that your conclusion is true.

The logical argument you've presented is:

Given A & B, prove C.
Proof: A&B, therefore C.

This doesn't prove C. However, to you, it seems it does, because you have an unspoken "Given: C" that you're not acknowledging, but are implicitly assuming is part of A & B.

[ThorOdinson]

To wield a weapon is to "hold and use?" Okay, you held and used it when you threw it. You wielded it. One-handed. With no other weapons in hand. You get the bonus damage. It doesn't matter that it leaves your hand as part of throwing it; you wielded it when everything you contribute to the damage was determined. At no point is some agent other than you controlling the way the javelin is wielded. Javelins can't, as a general rule, do damage by themselves. They require a wielder.

You have a case for making a ruling as you like it, but that's all you've got: a case for a ruling. You don't have the RAW on your side without a tortured reading of it, and the RAI as best can be gleaned from the precise word choices used and how they're used in other parts of the game suggest javelins are, in fact, intended to work with the dueling style. The RAW nowhere suggest that you cease to be wielding the weapon during an attack's resolution, period.

At best, then, you've got room to claim a ruling of the dueling style not working is a ruling rather than a house rule. I disagree, as I find your case spurious and unconvincing, but I do understand where you're coming from. You definitely do not have an unambiguous and clear reading of the RAW and discernible RAI on your side.

Once again you are relying on concocted rationale rather than supporting your statements with reference to actual rules.

The Duelist fighting style is very concrete in its condition, requiring that the weapon is "wielded in one hand" when damage rolls are made. A thrown weapon is definitively not "wielded in one hand" when it strikes the target. Further, I quoted nearly the entire section on Attack and Damage to show that ranged attacks are granted permission to attack and damage without any dependency on wielding. I have also pointed out that this is consistent with the meaning for "wield" that the PHB is using which not surprisingly is the meaning associated with combat and weapons "to hold and use (as a tool or weapon)." What you refer to as a "tortured reading" is, to the contrary, the standard reading of "wield" that is firmly supported by the rules.

I asked you before to point to rules that support your argument. Are you now going to consult the rules and back up what you say or continue to try to present you concocted rationale as having rule support when it clearly does not?

I meticulously backed up my argument with rules support. I can claim a RAW argument. At present you have a house rule based on your personal thoughts. I am required to resolve any issues in the actual rules that arise from my argument, but I am not required to resolve any concocted rationale you come up with that is not supported by the rules.

If you want to discuss RAW then start backing your argument up with rule support as I have done.

[ThorOdinson]

Your rules and quotes do not support your position. That's the problem. You may as well have quoted a rule saying that the origin of a cube lies on its face and therefore spheres are squares for all your quotes demonstrate your point.

For your quotes to prove your point, we already have to agree with your conclusion. Your argument is circular. I don't agree with your premise that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon, and to come to the conclusion that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon by the rules you quoted, you have to accept that premise.

This is why I'm not quoting rules back at you: your quoted rules do not support your point without the unspoken assumption that your conclusion is true.

The logical argument you've presented is:

Given A & B, prove C.
Proof: A&B, therefore C.

This doesn't prove C. However, to you, it seems it does, because you have an unspoken "Given: C" that you're not acknowledging, but are implicitly assuming is part of A & B.

You are completely mischaracterizing my argument as circular.

My argument is that the conditions required to apply the Duelist figting style are not present and therefore the rule cannot be applied.

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a 2+ bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

The rule requires that the weapon be "wielded in one hand".

In the case we are discussing the weapon has been thrown some distance (lets say 30 feet) and strikes a target.

The act of throwing requires the weapon to leave one's hand.

When you commit to throwing the weapon, hit or miss, the weapon has been thrown and is no longer in your hand.

If the weapon is still in your hand then you have not thrown it.

The weapon has traveled 30 feet and so cannot plausibly still be in your hand by any stretch of the imagination.

So we must conclude that upon striking the target the weapon is definitively not "wielded in one hand" when a hit is made and damage rolls are being made.

[Since the counter argument has fixated on the definition of "wielded" we can even be more specific and simply assert that upon striking the target the weapon is definitively not "in one hand" when a hit is made and damage rolls are being made.]

The game state is weapon is not in your hand.

The condition "wielded in one hand" has not been met.

Therefore we do not have permission to apply the Duelist fighting style rule.

You need a rule statement in the PHB to circumvent this game state.

You need some permission in the rules to retroactively use a prior game state.

So please present the rule that gives you permission.

[Zhorn]

The insistence of 'wield' is not from an in-RAW definition of the term.
The attack roll is made from the weapon being wielded.
The thrown property does not define any exclusion from being wielded.
The changing of states mid-attack is your own self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.


https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/743317924459360257
The Dueling fighting style works with a thrown melee weapon. The feature doesn't limit itself to melee attacks.

[Segev]

You are completely mischaracterizing my argument as circular.

My argument is that the conditions required to apply the Duelist figting style are not present and therefore the rule cannot be applied.

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a 2+ bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

The rule requires that the weapon be "wielded in one hand".

In the case we are discussing the weapon has been thrown some distance (lets say 30 feet) and strikes a target.

The act of throwing requires the weapon to leave one's hand.This is the point you are asserting that is in dispute. Specifically:


The insistence of 'wield' is not from an in-RAW definition of the term.
The attack roll is made from the weapon being wielded.
The thrown property does not define any exclusion from being wielded.
The changing of states mid-attack is your own self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.(emphasis added)

There is no definition of "wield" that says "you deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding."

The circular nature of your argument is that you're asserting that the state changes mid-attack, rather than the attack being resolved as a granular object, and then quoting rules and interpreting them with that assumption, in order to prove the assertion that the state changes mid-attack.

If that's not what you're doing, I apologize for not understanding your argument.

But you wield the javelin when you make the attack. Therefore, you get the bonus damage.

[ThorOdinson]

This is the point you are asserting that is in dispute. Specifically:

(emphasis added)

There is no definition of "wield" that says "you deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding."

Not needed.

First, there is no definition of "wield" in the PHB.

If you think that is not the case then provide the page reference where "wield" has been defined.

You would have to present a rule statement that says "only attacks with weapons that are wielded when they hit can deal damage" or " weapons that have been thrown or sent as projectiles and are no longer wielded are still considered wielded for the purposes of applying damage" or something to that effect.

I have shown that the rules give permission to attack and deal damage for thrown weapons . Those rules make no mention and indicate no dependency on being "wielded". Do I need to provide that reference again?

In the absence of a definition from the PHB, the dictionary provides the standard definition " hold and use (a tool or weapon)" that works for the context of combat.

The dictionary definition reminds us that in real life a weapon that has been thrown and is in flight is no longer wielded. And a thrown weapon can definitely deal damage. When I follow the rules it plays out more or less according to real world sense of "wield".

Second, you really don't topple my argument by disrupting the definition or application of "wield" that I am using. My discussion of "wield" is not critical to my argument. In order to topple my argument you must ultimately be able to demonstrate that a weapon that is thrown from a distance and strikes the target is somehow still "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style will not apply its damage bonus to a weapon that is not "in one hand". You have your work cut out for you.


The circular nature of your argument is that you're asserting that the state changes mid-attack, rather than the attack being resolved as a granular object, and then quoting rules and interpreting them with that assumption, in order to prove the assertion that the state changes mid-attack.



The game state changes when I make the attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

But lets get back to working out what happens . . .

Throwing involves the weapon leaving your hand.

If I make a throwing motion but do not release the weapon so as to have the weapon remain in my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

I don't have permission to make the attack roll until I have already committed to making a ranged attack.

No matter the outcome of the attack roll the weapon leaves my hand.

Do you dispute the fact that the weapon leaves the hand when the ranged attack is performed (i.e. the roll to attack is made)?


If that's not what you're doing, I apologize for not understanding your argument.

But you wield the javelin when you make the attack. Therefore, you get the bonus damage.

Incorrect. I only get the bonus damage if I satisfy the Dueling fighting style rule because that is the rule that governs the application of that bonus.

The Dueling fighting style does not apply to attack rolls. The rule applies to damage rolls. I only consult the rule for attacks that hit.

Before I make the attack I am wielding the weapon and the weapon is in my one hand.

The rules give me permission to make a ranged attack and deal damage.

When I commit to the ranged attack and throw the weapon, the weapon leaves my hand.

If the weapon does not leave my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

By virtue of making the attack the weapon has left my hand.

For attacks where the roll misses, the attack sequence ends here. I have not received permission to apply damage. The weapon is on the ground and not in my hand.

For attacks where the roll hits, the attack sequence continues. The attack roll results in a hit. The weapon has been thrown. The weapon has traveled a distance. I now have permission to make a damage roll. I proceed to that section of the rules.

When I have permission to make a damage roll after a successful hit, the Dueling fighting style, by virtue of its conditional logic, instructs me to check to see if its conditional can be applied.

The weapon needs to be "in one hand" in order for me to apply the damage bonus. Otherwise I am violating the rule.

#########

So please answer some questions about the game state when the damage rolls are being made.

The weapon has been thrown. Yes or no?

The thrown weapon has left my hand. Yes or no?

The weapon has traveled a distance. Yes or no?

The weapon that has been thrown and that hits the target is not in my hand. Yes or no?

[Mellack]

Why are you so attached to wield being defined as "to hold and use"?

Meriam-Websters defines it as "to handle especially effectively", and Dictionary.com similarly has it as "to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively." That is ignoring the more general term of just using something, such as power or good looks. The requirement of holding is not part of the term to wield.

[ThorOdinson]

Why are you so attached to wield being defined as "to hold and use"?

Meriam-Websters defines it as "to handle especially effectively", and Dictionary.com similarly has it as "to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively." That is ignoring the more general term of just using something, such as power or good looks. The requirement of holding is not part of the term to wield.

As stated before, whatever definition of "wield" you use is not really the issue here and should not be fixated on . The Dueling fighting style itself explicitly specifies "wielded in one hand" as a requirement to remove any doubt that we are indeed talking about holding a weapon in one hand.

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

So if it helps just sort out whether or not the weapon is "in one hand". If the weapon is not in one hand when damage rolls are made then the Dueling fighting style rule does not apply by its own logic. The rule is written specifically enough to enforce the definition of "wield" which corresponds to its intended context (weapons, tools).

Obviously, in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when it strikes the target and so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

[Valmark]

Not needed.

First, there is no definition of "wield" in the PHB.

If you think that is not the case then provide the page reference where "wield" has been defined.

You would have to present a rule statement that says "only attacks with weapons that are wielded when they hit can deal damage" or " weapons that have been thrown or sent as projectiles and are no longer wielded are still considered wielded for the purposes of applying damage" or something to that effect.

I have shown that the rules give permission to attack and deal damage for thrown weapons . Those rules make no mention and indicate no dependency on being "wielded". Do I need to provide that reference again?

In the absence of a definition from the PHB, the dictionary provides the standard definition " hold and use (a tool or weapon)" that works for the context of combat.

The dictionary definition reminds us that in real life a weapon that has been thrown and is in flight is no longer wielded. And a thrown weapon can definitely deal damage. When I follow the rules it plays out more or less according to real world sense of "wield".

Second, you really don't topple my argument by disrupting the definition or application of "wield" that I am using. My discussion of "wield" is not critical to my argument. In order to topple my argument you must ultimately be able to demonstrate that a weapon that is thrown from a distance and strikes the target is somehow still "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style will not apply its damage bonus to a weapon that is not "in one hand". You have your work cut out for you.

The game state changes when I make the attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

But lets get back to working out what happens . . .

Throwing involves the weapon leaving your hand.

If I make a throwing motion but do not release the weapon so as to have the weapon remain in my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

I don't have permission to make the attack roll until I have already committed to making a ranged attack.

No matter the outcome of the attack roll the weapon leaves my hand.

Do you dispute the fact that the weapon leaves the hand when the ranged attack is performed (i.e. the roll to attack is made)?



Incorrect. I only get the bonus damage if I satisfy the Dueling fighting style rule because that is the rule that governs the application of that bonus.

The Dueling fighting style does not apply to attack rolls. The rule applies to damage rolls. I only consult the rule for attacks that hit.

Before I make the attack I am wielding the weapon and the weapon is in my one hand.

The rules give me permission to make a ranged attack and deal damage.

When I commit to the ranged attack and throw the weapon, the weapon leaves my hand.

If the weapon does not leave my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

By virtue of making the attack the weapon has left my hand.

For attacks where the roll misses, the attack sequence ends here. I have not received permission to apply damage. The weapon is on the ground and not in my hand.

For attacks where the roll hits, the attack sequence continues. The attack roll results in a hit. The weapon has been thrown. The weapon has traveled a distance. I now have permission to make a damage roll. I proceed to that section of the rules.

When I have permission to make a damage roll after a successful hit, the Dueling fighting style, by virtue of its conditional logic, instructs me to check to see if its conditional can be applied.

The weapon needs to be "in one hand" in order for me to apply the damage bonus. Otherwise I am violating the rule.

#########

So please answer some questions about the game state when the damage rolls are being made.

The weapon has been thrown. Yes or no?

The thrown weapon has left my hand. Yes or no?

The weapon has traveled a distance. Yes or no?

The weapon that has been thrown and that hits the target is not in my hand. Yes or no?

If there is no definition of wield then nothing says you aren't wielding a weapon when you throw it.

Multiple dictionaries give multiple definitions- what's in common between them is that you are using whatever you are wielding, not that you have it in your hand. Can you say that your dictionary has more proof then anybody else's?

You can even wield abstract things- that isn't possible if wielding only means 'to hold and use'. If I try to seduce somebody am I holding my words or beauty oe whatever in my hand?

"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.

I'm not going to say that your interpretation is wrong (in fact, I read it that way too)- but it isn't the only reading, with the other being not only RAI but also more widely applicable. Widely applicable meaning that it holds true for more dictionaries- assuming I'm quoting the same one you do, together with 'to hold and use' there is "Have and be able to use (power or influence)" which is consistent with not needing to hold something to wield it. And again, another dictionary says "use it effectively" which has no ambiguity whatsoever.

[ThorOdinson]

If there is no definition of wield then nothing says you aren't wielding a weapon when you throw it.

Multiple dictionaries give multiple definitions- what's in common between them is that you are using whatever you are wielding, not that you have it in your hand. Can you say that your dictionary has more proof then anybody else's?

You can even wield abstract things- that isn't possible if wielding only means 'to hold and use'. If I try to seduce somebody am I holding my words or beauty oe whatever in my hand?

"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.

I'm not going to say that your interpretation is wrong (in fact, I read it that way too)- but it isn't the only reading, with the other being not only RAI but also more widely applicable. Widely applicable meaning that it holds true for more dictionaries- assuming I'm quoting the same one you do, together with 'to hold and use' there is "Have and be able to use (power or influence)" which is consistent with not needing to hold something to wield it. And again, another dictionary says "use it effectively" which has no ambiguity whatsoever.

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

[JNAProductions]

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

[Segev]

As stated before, whatever definition of "wield" you use is not really the issue here and should not be fixated on . The Dueling fighting style itself explicitly specifies "wielded in one hand" as a requirement to remove any doubt that we are indeed talking about holding a weapon in one hand.

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

So if it helps just sort out whether or not the weapon is "in one hand". If the weapon is not in one hand when damage rolls are made then the Dueling fighting style rule does not apply by its own logic. The rule is written specifically enough to enforce the definition of "wield" which corresponds to its intended context (weapons, tools).

Obviously, in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when it strikes the target and so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.


"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.


You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?


Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

This more or less sums up my responses to your positions, ThorOdinson.

Wielding a weapon in one hand doesn't require it to be held, but "used effectively." (This doesn't even require "skillfully," just "effectively." If you're somehow dealing damage with it, that's "effective.") Throwing it with one hand is "wielding it in one hand." You deal damage when you throw it, so you deal damage when you wield it.

[ThorOdinson]

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

I will go ahead and repeat myself . . .

The game state changes when I make the thrown attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

The Dueling fighting style is a rule that applies to damage rolls. When I go to make the damage roll, the weapon has been thrown and is not "in one hand" so I cannot apply the Dueling fighting style bonus without directly violating the rule.

What rule allows you to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

[JNAProductions]

Can you deal damage with a weapon that you're not wielding?

[Valmark]

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

I am not. I'm wielding (to use effectively) the weapon in my hand, never pretended otherwise. Surely I'm not wielding it with two hands or no hands, am I?

[ThorOdinson]

Can you deal damage with a weapon that you're not wielding?

Where in the rules does it say you cannot?

Stated more directly, when it comes to making the damage rolls for the weapon, the thrown weapon is not "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be "in one hand". Applying the bonus is a direct violation of the rule.

[ThorOdinson]

I am not. I'm wielding (to use effectively) the weapon in my hand, never pretended otherwise. Surely I'm not wielding it with two hands or no hands, am I?

When you have thrown the weapon and are making damage rolls after you have hit the target and have been given permission to make damage rolls, is the weapon "in one hand"?

[JNAProductions]

Where in the rules does it say you cannot?

Permission-based system. You cannot do [ACTION] unless you have permission to.

Additionally, the system assumes you're playing people and can do basic people things, like, say, make a sandwich, pull a lever, wield tools, etc.

[ThorOdinson]

Permission-based system. You cannot do [ACTION] unless you have permission to.

Additionally, the system assumes you're playing people and can do basic people things, like, say, make a sandwich, pull a lever, wield tools, etc.

As already stated in the thread, the rules for ranged attack make no mention of "wield". Those are the rules that grant permission for me to make an attack with a thrown weapon. So I have permission and follow the rules.





Ranged Attacks

When you make a ranged Attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many Spells also involve making a ranged Attack.

Range

You can make Ranged Attacks only against Targets within a specified range.
If a ranged Attack, such as one made with a spell, has a single range, you can’t Attack a target beyond this range.

Some Ranged Attacks, such as those made with a Longbow or a Shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your Attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can’t Attack a target beyond the long range.

I have meticulously justified my permission. Start showing rules that say otherwise.

This is a case of you imagining something in the rules that is not there. Open up the PHB and show me in the rules where I am wrong.

[Valmark]

When you have thrown the weapon and are making damage rolls after you have hit the target and have been given permission to make damage rolls, is the weapon "in one hand"?
I'm still wielding it with one hand, yes.

As already stated in the thread, the rules for ranged attack make no mention of "wield". Those are the rules that grant permission for me to make an attack with a thrown weapon. So I have permission and follow the rules.

I have meticulously justified my permission. Start showing rules that say otherwise.

This is a case of you imagining something in the rules that is not there. Open up the PHB and show me in the rules where I am wrong.

Rules for melee attacks don't mention wielding either, do they?

[ThorOdinson]

I'm still wielding it with one hand, yes.

You are claiming here that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still in your hand. You are willfully making a false statement.



Rules for melee attacks don't mention wielding either, do they?
Indeed they do not.

And "wield" is not defined by the PHB.

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded" after it leaves your hand. This is an issue you are inventing because you are using some other meaning of "wield" than the standard english meaning for weaponry and tools. You might consider simply sticking to the standard english semantics so as not to invent issues. It appears to me that the writers of the PHB assume that you are not trying to undermine the standard english semantic usage by forcing a more abstract meaning of "wield" into the rules, although I cannot attest to their thoughts on the matter since I do not have telepathy.

[Mellack]

You are claiming here that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still in your hand. You are willfully making a false statement.



Indeed they do not.

And "wield" is not defined by the PHB.

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded" after it leaves your hand. This is an issue you are inventing because you are using some other meaning of "wield" than the standard english meaning for weaponry and tools. You might consider simply sticking to the standard english semantics so as not to invent issues.

No, people are claiming that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still wielded by one hand. As has been pointed out, the word wield has no requirement that it be in a hand. It just means to use something.

[ThorOdinson]

No, people are claiming that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still wielded by one hand. As has been pointed out, the word wield has no requirement that it be in a hand. It just means to use something.

The Dueling fighting style requires "in one hand".

"In".

[Mellack]

The Dueling fighting style requires "in one hand".

"In".

Yes, and we are stating that for the length of the attack, it is considered in that hand. You are free to rule otherwise.

[Valmark]

You are claiming here that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still in your hand. You are willfully making a false statement.

Indeed they do not.

And "wield" is not defined by the PHB.

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded". This is an issue you are inventing because you are using some other meaning of "wield" than the standard english meaning for weaponry and tools. You might consider simply sticking to the standard english semantics so as not to invent issues.

I'm claiming that I'm wielding it all throughout the attack. According to you if somebody were to attack me by throwing their weapon I wouldn't be able to say that "They attacked me wielding a [insert weapon here]" which would otherwise be a correct explanation of the event (I think Segev made a similar example?).

"Standard dictionary definition" but if you search for the meaning of "Wield" you also find "to use effectively" with no mention of holding it. So your definition is no more valid then anybody else's, unless you can prove that the dictionary you use is for some reason better then the one others use.

[JNAProductions]

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other Weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to Damage Rolls with that weapon.


I am wrong.

Well, since we're allowed to take any part of a sentence away from its full part, ThorOdinson has already admitted they're wrong. :P

[ThorOdinson]

Yes, and we are stating that for the length of the attack, it is considered in that hand. You are free to rule otherwise.

You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.

[JNAProductions]

You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.


wielding a melee weapon in one hand

If I throw a knife at you and cause injury, could you say "JNAProductions wielded a knife against me," truthfully?

[Valmark]

It appears to me that the writers of the PHB assume that you are not trying to undermine the standard english semantic usage by forcing a more abstract meaning of "wield" into the rules, although I cannot attest to their thoughts on the matter since I do not have telepathy.

Given the fact that we have a statement that says the opposite of what you are saying I assume the writers wanted a perfectly valid reading of the rule according to a dictionary different from yours.


You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.

Nothing says that I cannot either.

[ThorOdinson]

If I throw a knife at you and cause injury, could you say "JNAProductions wielded a knife against me," truthfully?

It's a good thing that the Dueling fighting style is specific and explicit enough in its wording that your question is not relevant to the matter at hand.

[JNAProductions]

It's a good thing that the Dueling fighting style is specific and explicit enough in its wording that your question is not relevant to the matter at hand.


When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other Weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to Damage Rolls with that weapon.

That's the text of the Fighting Style.

It does not say "Held in one hand at the moment of damage," as you are arguing it does. It merely says you must be "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons."

So, could you answer my question about whether or not you could say that a person who threw a knife at someone was wielding it?

[ThorOdinson]

That's the text of the Fighting Style.

It does not say "Held in one hand at the moment of damage," as you are arguing it does. It merely says you must be "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons."

So, could you answer my question about whether or not you could say that a person who threw a knife at someone was wielding it?

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

When you have permission to make a damage roll, the weapon that has been thrown is definitively not "in one hand". Therefore the condition of the rule has not been met and you do not get to apply the bonus to the damage roll.

[JNAProductions]

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

When you have permission to make a damage roll, the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". Therefore the condition of the rule has not been met and you do not get to apply tge bonus to the damage roll.

So you're saying you can do damage with a weapon you aren't wielding.

By that logic, nothing stops me from using a Longbow with a Shield-I don't need to wield it to do damage with it, after all.

[ThorOdinson]

So you're saying you can do damage with a weapon you aren't wielding.

By that logic, nothing stops me from using a Longbow with a Shield-I don't need to wield it to do damage with it, after all.

Longbows have the Two Handed property "this weapon requires two hands to use" which is synonymous with the standard definition of "wield" related to weaponry "to hold and use" except adding the additional requirement of two hands to use. So that is not an issue.

Note the Thrown property.

"Thrown. If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

Permission is granted there as well to make a thrown attack.

However, all this is besides the point. The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be "in one hand" when the damage roll is applied, and you have yet to show a rule that permits you to supersede that rule.

[Segev]

Again, the dispute here hinges on one thing: Did you wield a thrown weapon in one hand when you threw it?

[ThorOdinson]

Again, the dispute here hinges on one thing: Did you wield a thrown weapon in one hand when you threw it?

Not exactly. It hinges on whether the weapon is "in one hand" when the damage roll is made. We can definitively say that in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when you go to make a damage roll and try to apply the Dueling fighting style rule. Therefore you cannot apply the damage bonus.

[Segev]

Not exactly. It hinges on whether the weapon is "in one hand" when the damage roll is made. We can definitively say that in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when you go to make a damage roll and try to apply the Dueling fighting style rule. Therefore you cannot apply the damage bonus.

That's not what it hinges on, because the point in dispute is whether "in one hand when the damage roll is made" is the right interpretation.

What the rule says is that you do +2 damage when you wield a melee weapon in one hand (etc.). The dispute is over whether there is a breakdown of the damage roll being granularly separated from the wielding of the weapon, and whether you wield the weapon in one hand when you throw it.

The claim you're making is that the damage is rolled when you are no longer wielding the weapon in one hand.

The counterclaim is that when you attack with a javelin thrown from one hand, you're wielding it with one hand, and thus the attack gets the bonus damage.

It's a question of whether the attack breaks down into such granular parts that you can do damage when you are no longer wielding it, or that you can change how many hands you're using to wield it between making the attack roll and making the damage roll.

Let's examine Versatile for a moment. Versatile weapons do a larger die type of damage when "used with two hands to make a melee attack." Can you use a Versatile weapon in two hands to make an attack, and then release it with one hand as it closes in for damage in order to get Dueling's damage bonus as well?

[ThorOdinson]

That's not what it hinges on, because the point in dispute is whether "in one hand when the damage roll is made" is the right interpretation.

What the rule says is that you do +2 damage when you wield a melee weapon in one hand (etc.). The dispute is over whether there is a breakdown of the damage roll being granularly separated from the wielding of the weapon, and whether you wield the weapon in one hand when you throw it.

The claim you're making is that the damage is rolled when you are no longer wielding the weapon in one hand.

The counterclaim is that when you attack with a javelin thrown from one hand, you're wielding it with one hand, and thus the attack gets the bonus damage.

It's a question of whether the attack breaks down into such granular parts that you can do damage when you are no longer wielding it, or that you can change how many hands you're using to wield it between making the attack roll and making the damage roll.

Let's examine Versatile for a moment. Versatile weapons do a larger die type of damage when "used with two hands to make a melee attack." Can you use a Versatile weapon in two hands to make an attack, and then release it with one hand as it closes in for damage in order to get Dueling's damage bonus as well?

An attack is a sequence of steps.

I will go ahead and repeat myself . . . A third time.

The game state changes when I make the thrown attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

The Dueling fighting style refers to damage rolls.

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

You only have permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls. If the attack has hit the target it is no longer "in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

[JNAProductions]

Segev makes an excellent point-you only need to be using two hands when you make the attack for a Versatile weapon to use the higher damage die.

So, per your process, you can wield it in two hands when you start the attack, then lift a hand during damage for a total of 1d10+2 damage, before any other abilities come in to play. Making a Longsword outdamage a Greatsword.

[ThorOdinson]

Segev makes an excellent point-you only need to be using two hands when you make the attack for a Versatile weapon to use the higher damage die.

So, per your process, you can wield it in two hands when you start the attack, then lift a hand during damage for a total of 1d10+2 damage, before any other abilities come in to play. Making a Longsword outdamage a Greatsword.

Not relevant.

Game states that change in the course of adhering to the rules are permitted by the rules. I did not choose to have the weapon no longer be "in one hand" when it was thrown. The rules require it. When I go to make damage roll, the weapon is unequivocally no longer "in one hand". You need permission to apply the Defensive fighting style before the attack roll (retroactive to the damage roll) to accomplish what you are arguing is happening. But you do not have that permission. If you can find it in the PHB please post it.

Your case involves getting permission for a free action change of grip to be inserted in the Attack sequence when no such allowance is allowed. So ask your DM for permission. The rules in the PHB do not have that allowance

[Mellack]

That exact same action, releasing one hand, is also required to throw a weapon. Either the attack action allows it or it does not. There would appear to be no mechanical difference between the longsword and the javelin example.

[Rusvul]

As far as I can tell, the core of the disagreement is whether there is a mechanical distinction between the instant you throw a spear and the instant it hits. You could rule that the order of operations is as follows:
1) You throw a spear (it leaves your hand) and you make an attack roll.
2) You roll damage, and since the spear is not in your hand, you are no longer "wielding it in one hand" and you do not add Dueling damage.

Alternately, you could make the case that it all resolves simultaneously, and that there is not a meaningful mechanical distinction between the instant you throw the spear and the instant it hits the target and deals damage. "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand" can be parsed--as a full sentence, rather than piecemeal--to mean "when you make an attack using a weapon you're holding in one hand," and that also strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of RAW.

While attacks are carried out in steps, and certain mechanics can explicitly come between two of those steps, I don't believe there is any rules text in the PHB that states when modifiers like Dueling are applied (when the attack is initiated vs when damage is rolled). There also isn't any rules text defining the term "wielding in one hand," so to insist that there's only one possible interpretation is a little narrow. We're working beyond the scope of explicitly-defined game terms here, and frankly, I don't think 5e is granular enough for there to be a conclusive and objective RAW answer to questions like this.

Regardless of the exact interpretation of RAW, though, RAI is pretty clear (courtesy of the JC tweet). While you don't have an ironclad RAW case that the Dueling damage bonus definitely applies when you throw a spear, I can't see any reason to disallow it given the ambiguity and the clear designer intent. There may not be conclusive RAW available, but there is an obvious ruling to be made--and that is, ultimately, what matters.

[ThorOdinson]

That exact same action, releasing one hand, is also required to throw a weapon. Either the attack action allows it or it does not. There would appear to be no mechanical difference between the longsword and the javelin example.

This is not the same case at all. As stated already, the player is required by the rules to let go of the weapon. Permission has already been granted by the Ranged Attack rules and the player has no choice in the matter. There is no way the thrown weapon can end up in one hand except by an artificer invocation (returning weapon).

In the case of the longsword, you are trying to do something illegal. You are trying to do a free action at the same time as a Attack action. The rules do not allow this.

[ThorOdinson]

As far as I can tell, the core of the disagreement is whether there is a mechanical distinction between the instant you throw a spear and the instant it hits. You could rule that the order of operations is as follows:
1) You throw a spear (it leaves your hand) and you make an attack roll.
2) You roll damage, and since the spear is not in your hand, you are no longer "wielding it in one hand" and you do not add Dueling damage.

Alternately, you could make the case that it all resolves simultaneously, and that there is not a meaningful mechanical distinction between the instant you throw the spear and the instant it hits the target and deals damage. "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand" can be parsed--as a full sentence, rather than piecemeal--to mean "when you make an attack using a weapon you're holding in one hand," and that also strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of RAW.

While attacks are carried out in steps, and certain mechanics can explicitly come between two of those steps, I don't believe there is any rules text in the PHB that states when modifiers like Dueling are applied (when the attack is initiated vs when damage is rolled). There also isn't any rules text defining the term "wielding in one hand," so to insist that there's only one possible interpretation is a little narrow. We're working beyond the scope of explicitly-defined game terms here, and frankly, I don't think 5e is granular enough for there to be a conclusive and objective RAW answer to questions like this.

Regardless of the exact interpretation of RAW, though, RAI is pretty clear (courtesy of the JC tweet). While you don't have an ironclad RAW case that the Dueling damage bonus definitely applies when you throw a spear, I can't see any reason to disallow it given the ambiguity and the clear designer intent. There may not be conclusive RAW available, but there is an obvious ruling to be made--and that is, ultimately, what matters.

Please read the entireity of the rule in question. The Dueling fighting style rule itself applies a conditional directly to the damage roll so your analysis is in error. When the damage roll is made the thrown weapon is definitively not "in one hand" and so cannot be applied. Please read the rule again and adjust your comment accordingly. I value your input.

With regards to the second point, in AL the only official rules sources are the published books and the Sage Advice Compendium. The ruling you are referring to is not in the SAC but in an old tweet. JC tweets are designated as having no weight in AL. If the JC ruling were actually in the SAC I would happily allow it in AL play. You are free to follow that old unofficial tweet on your tables, but AL is according to RAW and SAC only.

People who disagree with the RAW argument are also free to e-mail the SAC to get them to include it in the next update.

[Valmark]

This is not the same case at all. As stated already, the player is required by the rules to let go of the weapon. Permission has already been granted by the rules and the player has no choice in the matter. There is no way the thrown weapon can end up in hand except by an artificer invocation (returning weapon).

In the case of the longsword, you are trying to do something illegal. You are trying to do a free action at the same time as a Attack action. The rules do not allow this.

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action."

EDIT: And AL is on what basis proof of validity?

[sithlordnergal]

With regards to the second point, in AL the only official rules sources are the published books and the Sage Advice Compendium. The ruling you are referring to is not in the SAC but in an old tweet. JC tweets are designated as having no weight in AL. If the JC ruling were actually in the SAC I would happily allow it in AL play. You are free to follow that old unofficial tweet on your tables, but AL is according to RAW and SAC only.

People who disagree with the RAW argument are also free to e-mail the SAC to get them to include it in the next update.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this debate, been taking care of several things. Here's that source for ya Thor, direct from not one, but two separate AL servers. One of which is the actual official DnD Discord server run by WotC.

https://i.ibb.co/bQT4XMV/Discord2.png

https://i.ibb.co/vCFkjhk/Discord1.png

And just in case you don't think its an actual WotC run server, here ya go!

https://i.ibb.co/p4g2xqP/Discord3.png

There wasn't even a discussion, literally everyone essentially said "Yes, Dueling is applied because you are still considered to be wielding it when you throw it". One person also mentioned how technically the attack is instantaneous, and 5e doesn't count for the time between throwing it and hitting the target. Meaning technically, by RAW, there is no point in time when the Javelin is in the air. It just goes from your hands and then its either on the ground or piercing the target.


EDIT: I get that the Tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but previous rulings from before the change tend to be upheld by AL because they were official rulings at the time they were written. I doubt they'll be added to the SAC because they are already considered official rulings and don't really need to be added since they're used in the SA website itself, which is where you go to find the official rulings. Now, you can homebrew that it doesn't work if you like, but AL disagrees with you.

[JackPhoenix]

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded" after it leaves your hand

No, that's not "standard dictionary definition". That's specific dictionary's definition. Provide quote saying the one specific dictionary you've picked out is the one definitive resource that has to be used for terms not defined in PHB. In fact, if I use google, the dictionary using your definition isn't even the first result that shows up for me... it's 5th.

[ThorOdinson]

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action."

The attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon. You cannot change your hands and revisit the hit.

You also commit to a Ranged Attack when you make the attack roll. Hit or miss the weapon has been thrown and leaves your hand and you have absolutely no choice in the matter. If the weapon has not left your hand you have not thrown it and it has not traveled a distance to strike the target. You only get permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls.

If you can prove with rules that a missed Ranged Attack can end up with a thrown weapon that remains in hand ready for your next attack then you might have a case for further inquiry on this point. Obviously anyone who misses the attack roll of a thrown weapon would quite likely elect to keep the javelin or spear in hand instead of on the ground somewhere. The weapon leaving your hand is a direct consequence and cost imposed of electing to throw. So can you prove that a missed thrown attack can remain in your hand? Free artificer invocation sounds like fun. So show me the rule permission.

Whatever the outcome of the attack roll, the thrown weapon leaves the hand. So before damage rolls are made the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". And since the Dueling fighting style has a conditional that is checked at the damage roll there is no room for interpretation here. Its all RAW.

[sithlordnergal]

The attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon. You cannot change your hands and revisit the hit.

You also commit to a Ranged Attack when you make the attack roll. Hit or miss the weapon has been thrown and leaves your hand and you have absolutely no choice in the matter. If the weapon has not left your hand you have not thrown it and it has not traveled a distance to strike the target. You only get permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls.

If you can prove with rules that a missed Ranged Attack can end up with a thrown weapon that remains in hand ready for your next attack then you might have a case for further inquiry on this point. Obviously anyone who misses the attack roll of a thrown weapon would quite likely elect to keep the javelin or spear in hand instead of on the ground somewhere. The weapon leaving your hand is a direct consequence and cost imposed of electing to throw. So can you prove that a missed thrown attack can remain in your hand? Free artificer invocation sounds like fun. So show me the rule permission.

Whatever the outcome of the attack roll, the thrown weapon leaves the hand. So before damage rolls are made the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". And since the Dueling fighting style has a conditional that is checked at the damage roll there is no room for interpretation here. Its all RAW.

But here's the thing, Dueling doesn't care if you make a "Ranged Attack" or a "Melee Attack", it just cares if the attack is made with a Melee Weapon. Throwing a Melee Weapon does not suddenly make it a Ranged Weapon, it remains a Melee Weapon. Also, as I pointed out in one post above the one you quoted, AL agrees with us. 5e does not account for the time that the Javelin is in the air, the attack is done instantaneously, and you are considered to be wielding the Javelin up until the attack ends. Once the attack has been resolved, either with damage or by missing, the javelin is no longer in your hand. But until it is fully resolved, you are still wielding it.

EDIT: 5e doesn't actually have any rules regarding it, so you really can't prove that the Javelin ever left a person's hands in the first place if you just look at RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this debate, been taking care of several things. Here's that source for ya Thor, direct from not one, but two separate AL servers. One of which is the actual official DnD Discord server run by WotC.

https://i.ibb.co/bQT4XMV/Discord2.png

https://i.ibb.co/vCFkjhk/Discord1.png

And just in case you don't think its an actual WotC run server, here ya go!

https://i.ibb.co/p4g2xqP/Discord3.png

There wasn't even a discussion, literally everyone essentially said "Yes, Dueling is applied because you are still considered to be wielding it when you throw it". One person also mentioned how technically the attack is instantaneous, and 5e doesn't count for the time between throwing it and hitting the target. Meaning technically, by RAW, there is no point in time when the Javelin is in the air. It just goes from your hands and then its either on the ground or piercing the target.


EDIT: I get that the Tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but previous rulings from before the change tend to be upheld by AL because they were official rulings at the time they were written. I doubt they'll be added to the SAC because they are already considered official rulings and don't really need to be added since they're used in the SA website itself, which is where you go to find the official rulings. Now, you can homebrew that it doesn't work if you like, but AL disagrees with you.

Thank you for doing this. But, it still does not suffice, the AL Discord server is not an official rules source. You have presented the equivalent of an on-the-spot judges ruling to advise a single DM on how to play. AL requires official printed releases. Do you have e-mail contact info for the Discord server? This needs to be officially published and released before it has the weight of rules in the PHB.

[Valmark]

Thank you for doing this. But, it still does not suffice, the AL Discord server is not an official rules source. You have presented the equivalent of an on-the-spot judges ruling. AL requires official printed releases. Do you have e-mail contact info for the Discord server?

"AL agrees with me"

"Look at this and you'll see that it doesn't"

"Then AL doesn't matter"

Yeeeah I don't think there is too much of a point arguing further.

[ThorOdinson]

"AL agrees with me"

"Look at this and you'll see that it doesn't"

"Then AL doesn't matter"

Yeeeah I don't think there is too much of a point arguing further.

No. The issue is that AL officially recognizes printed rules and the SAC. The Discord server is not an official rules source for AL (I checked). A DM who elects to use the Discord Server is accessing an unofficial source.

Feel free to take issue with the hard line I draw in the sand with regards to official versus unofficial sources. I can firmly say that I am adhering to the officially approved AL rules.

[sithlordnergal]

No. The issue is that AL officially recognizes printed rules and the SAC. The Discord server is not an official rules source for AL (I checked). A DM who elects to use the Discord Server is accessing an unofficial source.

Feel free to take issue with the hard line I draw in the sand with regards to official versus unofficial sources. I can firmly say that I am adhering to the officially approved AL rules.

It may be an unofficial rule source, but its also a space where those knowledgeable of the rules can be found. Its also a reliable source. And seeing as AL literally uses those old tweets that happened before the change, then those old tweets that happened before the change can be considered an official rule source. Otherwise they would not be referenced during rule disputes, and your answer would either be "No" or "There is no ruling for this, it is up to your DM".

EDIT: ITs fine if you say Dueling doesn't work like that at your table, but that is your homebrew ruling. It is not a ruling that follows purely what AL says, since those in AL say it does work.

[KorvinStarmast]

The insistence of 'wield' is not from an in-RAW definition of the term.
The attack roll is made from the weapon being wielded.
The thrown property does not define any exclusion from being wielded.
The changing of states mid-attack is your own self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function. You used a lot less text to nicely summarize that, well done. :smallsmile: Most of the participants reached that conclusion on page 1.

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack? Nowhere.

Since one cannot even roll the damage die for a dagger (or javelin, they both are melee weapons that have the same thrown property), one must be wielding it to even get to roll the basic damage die. When one wields a weapon with the thrown property, one may elect to make the attack without throwing it, or by throwing it; in either case one must first be wielding it before one chooses which attack form to make with it.

That's my best effort at summarizing the position I've taken and how it works at our tables.

Best wishes and happy gaming to all.

[ThorOdinson]

It may be an unofficial rule source, but its also a space where those knowledgeable of the rules can be found. Its also a reliable source. And seeing as AL literally uses those old tweets that happened before the change, then those old tweets that happened before the change can be considered an official rule source. Otherwise they would not be referenced during rule disputes, and your answer would either be "No" or "There is no ruling for this, it is up to your DM".

EDIT: ITs fine if you say Dueling doesn't work like that at your table, but that is your homebrew ruling. It is not a ruling that follows purely what AL says, since those in AL say it does work.

AL differs between tables since some DMs access unofficial sources, when officially they have been instructed that anything not from official sources are house rules. The unofficial sources are actually classed as house rules from AL DMs.

I stick to the official AL guidelines and official AL rule sources since I have been officially instructed by AL to do just that. So technically I am not implementing a house rule but rather RAW.

[Zhorn]

You used a lot less text to nicely summarize that, well done. :smallsmile: Most of the participants reached that conclusion on page 1.
heh, I like to save the big responses for the fun navel gazing questions or convoluted topics. You already hit the nail on the head on page 1, so getting into a long pick-apart of the rules wasn't needed :smallbiggrin:
If this thread was in animatic form, I'd like to picture my contribution as some guy in the background holding up a sign while the main event happens centre stage.

Special props to the folks having the fortitude to stick out this discussion for so long, especially Segev and sithlordnergal, beautiful work.

I do hope ThorOdinson sticks around on these forums for a bit longer. Even though I disagree with his stance on this topic, he has turned a simple quick question thread into something I've been looking forward to reading the updates on for the past few days.

[ThorOdinson]

heh, I like to save the big responses for the fun navel gazing questions or convoluted topics. You already hit the nail on the head on page 1, so getting into a long pick-apart of the rules wasn't needed :smallbiggrin:
If this thread was in animatic form, I'd like to picture my contribution as some guy in the background holding up a sign while the main event happens centre stage.

Special props to the folks having the fortitude to stick out this discussion for so long, especially Segev and sithlordnergal, beautiful work.

I do hope ThorOdinson sticks around on these forums for a bit longer. Even though I disagree with his stance on this topic, he has turned a simple quick question thread into something I've been looking forward to reading the updates on for the past few days.

I hope everyone has what they want.

If you play at an AL table that accepts unofficial Discord Server or unofficial JC Tweets then you have what you want in the form of that house rule.

If you want to continue to engage me on a Official Rules Source AL RAW argument feel free to do so. Unofficial does not work for me. But I obviously cannot force other tables to stick to official sources only.

[JackPhoenix]

I hope everyone has what they want.

If you play at an AL table that accepts unofficial Discord Server or unofficial JC Tweets then you have what you want in the form of that house rule.

If you want to continue to engage me on a Official Rules Source AL RAW argument feel free to do so. Unofficial does not work for me. But I obviously cannot force other tables to stick to official sources only.

Well, if unofficial does not work for you, why do you insist on the definition of wielding that's nowhere in RAW, and on an idea that you can stop wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll that has no support in RAW? Those are both fine houserules, but you should not pretend they are in any way "official".

[ThorOdinson]

Well, if unofficial does not work for you, why do you insist on the definition of wielding that's nowhere in RAW, and on an idea that you can stop wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll that has no support in RAW? Those are both fine houserules, but you should not pretend they are in any way "official".

My argument does not rely on a definition of "wielding". Rather it is based on taking notice of whether the conditional " in one hand" is valid or not. I take notice of that conditional because a rule instructs me to do so.

I have meticulously laid out my RAW argument. The conditions by which you can apply the Dueling fighting style rule are not present when you have permission to make damage rolls. The weapon is definitively not "in one hand" so applying the bonus violates the rule.

The discussion about "wielding" merely supports my argument. Applying the standard definition that one applies in the context of weaponry ("hold and use [tool or weapon]") reminds us that thrown weapons in flight are not wielded and neatly supports the Dueling fighting style rule in a straightforward logical read.

The PHB does not provide its own definition of "wielding". In the absence of a PHB provided definition we have english semantics to guide us. I think it appropriate to refer to the standard definition of "wield" as it relates to tools and weaponry since that is exactly the context we are emulating in game and exactly the meaning we would expect the PHB to use. If you or others use more abstract definitions that are not related to weaponry, I question the appropriateness, but I can not require you to use the standard definition.

Luckily my argument only uses the standard definition of "wield" as secondary support for a RAW argument that is otherwise unequivocally and firmly established by the conditional logic of the rule itself and a clearcut validation test of "in one hand" and a simple marching along and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

Feel free to implement the JC Tweet house rule. It is only an unofficial house rule. Plenty of AL tables accept unofficial JC tweets and the like. My standard is official only.

Officially you do not have recourse to unofficial house rules, you only have the RAW and SAC.

If you want to take issue with my RAW argument feel free to do so. You should actually present your own RAW argument so we can see how you think a RAW argument should go.

So far I am the only one who has presented an elegant and fully functioning RAW argument. Feel free to present a better one.

I welcome anyone to point out rules that I have missed or to correct me on the rules. Make sure to support what you say with rules support so we can arive at a better understanding of RAW.

[Segev]

The attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon. You cannot change your hands and revisit the hit.

(...)

Whatever the outcome of the attack roll, the thrown weapon leaves the hand. So before damage rolls are made the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". And since the Dueling fighting style has a conditional that is checked at the damage roll there is no room for interpretation here. Its all RAW.

You've asserted elsewhere that the rules permit (and require) you to release the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll when throwing a javelin. You also are asserting that the attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon, and that you cannot change your hands and, in your words, "revisit the hit."

All the rules you've quoted, to my (possibly incorrect) recollection, only point out that you don't have the weapon in hand after the attack is done when you throw a thrown weapon. I have not seen "permission granted" to change how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll.

If you require explicit permission to change the hand-count on the weapon between attack and damage roll, such permission must be written out in the RAW somewhere. Did you quote it, and I'm just not finding it as I scroll back through the thread?

You do quote the bit about hurling or otherwise causing a projectile to fly through the air for a ranged attack. I note that that doesn't say that the weapon leaves your hand between attack roll and damage roll. It is a logical thing to infer from the fiction-layer based on what's going on, but you're relying on a very strict reading of the RAW (and a particular definition of "wield") to make your case.

Please show me where it specifies that you cannot change the hand-count on a weapon between attack and damage with a Versatile weapon, but that you do so with a thrown weapon. It simply not being in your hand after the attack is finished is insufficient, here: you need to provide a quote that states the weapon - by game mechanics - has fewer hands on it when the damage is rolled than when the attack roll is made.

[ThorOdinson]

You've asserted elsewhere that the rules permit (and require) you to release the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll when throwing a javelin. You also are asserting that the attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon, and that you cannot change your hands and, in your words, "revisit the hit."

All the rules you've quoted, to my (possibly incorrect) recollection, only point out that you don't have the weapon in hand after the attack is done when you throw a thrown weapon. I have not seen "permission granted" to change how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll.

If you require explicit permission to change the hand-count on the weapon between attack and damage roll, such permission must be written out in the RAW somewhere. Did you quote it, and I'm just not finding it as I scroll back through the thread?

You do quote the bit about hurling or otherwise causing a projectile to fly through the air for a ranged attack. I note that that doesn't say that the weapon leaves your hand between attack roll and damage roll. It is a logical thing to infer from the fiction-layer based on what's going on, but you're relying on a very strict reading of the RAW (and a particular definition of "wield") to make your case.

Please show me where it specifies that you cannot change the hand-count on a weapon between attack and damage with a Versatile weapon, but that you do so with a thrown weapon. It simply not being in your hand after the attack is finished is insufficient, here: you need to provide a quote that states the weapon - by game mechanics - has fewer hands on it when the damage is rolled than when the attack roll is made.

You are confused about my argument. I have stated that it is actually upon committing to making a ranged attack and making an attack roll that the weapon is thrown, travels a distance, and leaves the hand.

The attack roll determines a hit or a miss and certain facts are established with that roll.

A ranged attack roll when made establishes the fact that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

In particular, a successful roll establishes that the weapon been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, has hit the target, and a damage roll is in queue.

Similarly, an unsuccessful roll establishes that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, BUT here it has missed the target, has been placed on the ground, and a damage roll is not in queue.

Whether hit or miss the player cannot take the ranged attack back. The attack roll has been rolled. The weapon cannot be still be in hand at that point in the sequence unless you deny the facts of a ranged attack hit or miss having been determined by the roll.

If the ranged attack roll did not establish that the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and left the hand then missed range attacks would still be in the hand and successful rolls to hit would not correspond with the all the facts corresponding with a hit.

Before we go onto the next part found in the Damage and Healing section and make damage rolls for successful hits I feel we should pause here and make sure we are on the same page.

I am making a straight read of the logic and rules. Because attack rolls establish facts about the game state, I allow the roll to indeed establish those facts upon the execution of the roll.

Do you agree or disagree with the state of affairs so far? If the game state is not how I describe then how would you describe the game state? What has or has not been established at this point? Are there any rules I am missing?

[Xetheral]

However, all this is besides the point. The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be "in one hand" when the damage roll is applied, and you have yet to show a rule that permits you to supersede that rule.

Your conclusion requires that the conditional "[w]hen you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" is tested at the time that damage is rolled. But the text in the PHB does not explicitly specify the timing of the test.

Because satisfying the condition gives a bonus to damage rolls, it is indeed reasonable to infer that the conditional must be satisfied at the time the damage roll is made. But from my perspective, that is not the only reasonable inference. It seems to me to also be reasonable to infer that the conditional is tested at the time the attack is made. As a third possibility, it seems reasonable to me to infer that, because explicit timing was not specified, the timing of the test was considered to not be outcome-determinative, which would imply that the unit of time "when damage is rolled" isn't meaningfully distinct from "when the attack is made".

I realize that you think that testing the conditional at the time that damage is rolled is the only reasonable inferrence from the wording of the Duelist fighting style. Can you see, however, that in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree on what inferences are reasonable?

[ThorOdinson]

Your conclusion requires that the conditional "[w]hen you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" is tested at the time that damage is rolled. But the text in the PHB does not explicitly specify the timing of the test.

Because satisfying the condition gives a bonus to damage rolls, it is indeed reasonable to infer that the conditional must be satisfied at the time the damage roll is made. But from my perspective, that is not the only reasonable inference. It seems to me to also be reasonable to infer that the conditional is tested at the time the attack is made. As a third possibility, it seems reasonable to me to infer that, because explicit timing was not specified, the timing of the test was considered to not be outcome-determinative, which would imply that the unit of time "when damage is rolled" isn't meaningfully distinct from "when the attack is made".

I realize that you think that testing the conditional at the time that damage is rolled is the only reasonable inferrence from the wording of the Duelist fighting style. Can you see, however, that in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree on what inferences are reasonable?

Let's clarify. By the logic of rule, the conditional applies the bonus whenever the conditional tests true and does not apply the bonus (ie removes the bonus) whenever the conditional tests false, but the only time the presence or absence of that bonus is relevant is when actual damage rolls are being made.

So the relevant time to check for whether its true or false is when you are making damage rolls.

[JackPhoenix]

The discussion about "wielding" merely supports my argument. Applying the standard definition that one applies in the context of weaponry ("hold and use [tool or weapon]") reminds us that thrown weapons in flight are not wielded and neatly supports the Dueling fighting style rule in a straightforward logical read.

The PHB does not provide its own definition of "wielding". In the absence of a PHB provided definition we have english semantics to guide us. I think it appropriate to refer to the standard definition of "wield" as it relates to tools and weaponry since that is exactly the context we are emulating in game and exactly the meaning we would expect the PHB to use. If you or others use more abstract definitions that are not related to weaponry, I question the appropriateness, but I can not require you to use the standard definition.

Luckily my argument only uses the standard definition of "wield" as secondary support for a RAW argument that is otherwise unequivocally and firmly established by the conditional logic of the rule itself and a clearcut validation test of "in one hand" and a simple marching along and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

Once again, you aren't using "a standard definition". You've picked one definition that supports your argument (poorly, at that), and ignore any other. What makes the one dictionary definition you've picked up "the standard one", and not any other?


If you want to take issue with my RAW argument feel free to do so. You should actually present your own RAW argument so we can see how you think a RAW argument should go.

I would, but for that, you would actually need to have RAW argument. You don't, and plenty of other people pointed that out already.

[Segev]

You are confused about my argument. I have stated that it is actually upon committing to making a ranged attack and making an attack roll that the weapon is thrown, travels a distance, and leaves the hand.That is not supported by the rules you have quoted. I am glad you clarified that this is your point/assertion, because it helps me understand where our disconnect is. Nothing in the rules you quoted states that the number of hands with which the weapon is wielded changes between the commitment to the attack and the attack itself.

Can we agree that, in order to make a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, the weapon must be readied and in-hand?


The attack roll determines a hit or a miss and certain facts are established with that roll. The only facts established with an attack roll are whether the attack hits or misses (and that is mildly dependent on a few possible reactions from the target).


A ranged attack roll when made establishes the fact that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.This is not in the RAW. This is your assertion. All the RAW have to say on the subject is that, when a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon is resolved, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is some distance away from him (presumably usually at least approximately the distance to the target).

The key point here being that the RAW only specify that the weapon has ceased to be in hand when the attack has finished resolving.


In particular, a successful roll establishes that the weapon been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, has hit the target, and a damage roll is in queue.Again, you have not provided any rules support for this game-state ever existing. The RAW equally support a successful roll establishing that a damage roll is in queue and the weapon is still occupying the hand. The long discussion earlier on about whether you can cast counterspell in response to a shield spell with the hand throwing the weapon establishes this ambiguity, and while there was general agreement that, sure, that's fine, that general agreement was not based on solid RAW arguments, but rather on how people felt it reasonable to rule.


Similarly, an unsuccessful roll establishes that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, BUT here it has missed the target, has been placed on the ground, and a damage roll is not in queue.Sort-of, in that an unsuccessful roll establishes that there is no damage roll, and thus the attack has fully resolved (assuming there are no further mechanical ploys brought to bear to try to change it into a hit). Again, this only provides support for the notion that the weapon is no longer occupying the hand that wielded it after the attack has resolved.


Whether hit or miss the player cannot take the ranged attack back. The attack roll has been rolled. The weapon cannot be still be in hand at that point in the sequence unless you deny the facts of a ranged attack hit or miss having been determined by the roll.Whether hit or miss, no attack can be "taken back" before it is fully resolved. There is nothing in the rules that you have quoted that supports your assertion that the weapon has left the hand during the attack roll nor between the attack roll and the damage roll. Only that the weapon has left the hand after the attack is fully resolved.

As a side note, there ARE decisions that an attacker can make after the attack roll's success or failure is resolved but before the damage roll is made. The first to come to my mind as an example is sneak attack, and whether to apply it or not. Because sneak attack can be applied only once per turn, but does not specify that it must be applied to the first hit (unlike the Zealot's necrotic/radiant damage bonus). Just "once per turn." The rules never actually say outright that you CAN make that choice between the attack roll and the damage roll, only that once per turn you can add that damage to a creature you hit with an attack (with which you have advantage). You obviously have to be able to choose to do so at that stage, but the rules don't outright grant you that permission.

Similarly, the rules don't deny it.

The number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon either can or cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll. If it can, then your argument that it might be going from one to zero between attack roll and damage roll is at least a legal possibility within the RAW. But then, so, too, is it a legal possibility to make a melee attack with a spear held in two hands, and use your free object interaction (or even a "free action" like unto dropping an item) to remove one hand from the spear after you make the attack roll, thus having wielded it in two hands when you made the attack (getting the higher Versatile-granted die type) and wielding it in one hand (and holding no other weapons) when you roll damage (getting the +2 bonus from dueling)! The RAW neither explicitly grant permission, nor deny it, for voluntarily removing a hand from the weapon, but the RAW do specify that you may take your free object interaction "during your action." If there is a granular point between attack and damage that enables you to change the number of hands wielding the weapon, then the existence of the ability to make any decisions about the attack between rolling to hit and rolling damage combined with the explicit permission to use a free-action object interaction "during your action" does grant the ability to do this.

On the other hand, if the number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll, the number of hands wielding the weapon for purposes of the entire attack is established when you make the attack roll.

Or, to borrow your phrasing: A ranged attack roll when made establishes the target of the attack, how many hands wield the weapon with which the attack is made, and how much damage the weapon will deal if it hits.

Now, any damage - such as sneak attack - which requires you to decide to apply it or not is the only thing not established before the attack roll is made regarding the damage roll. I believe your argument is that the determination of how many hands wield the weapon would be one of these things, but since the choice in how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon is made BEFORE the attack roll (unless you can in fact change how many hands wield a weapon between attack and damage), this is not a decision made after rolling and determining whether you hit or


If the ranged attack roll did not establish that the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and left the hand then missed range attacks would still be in the hand and successful rolls to hit would not correspond with the all the facts corresponding with a hit.Because the premise you are basing this on has not been established to be supported by the RAW, this conclusion is not correct.

I also dispute the validity of part of the conclusion, even with your premises: nothing says that the rolling of the attack has to establish those things in order for missed ranged attacks to have left the hand after the attack is resolved, and I'm honestly not sure what "facts corresponding with a hit" "successful rolls to hit would not correspond" with. The RAW only specify that, after the resolution of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is at least implicitly somewhere in the vicinity of the target. (Or, if the miss was bad enough, at least somewhere away from the attacker.)

But, to reiterate, nothing in the RAW supports your assertion that the ranged attack roll establishes what you've stated it does as a game state that exists prior to the final resolution of the attack.


Before we go onto the next part found in the Damage and Healing section and make damage rolls for successful hits I feel we should pause here and make sure we are on the same page.

I am making a straight read of the logic and rules.No, you are not, as I have stated above.


Because attack rolls establish facts about the game state, I allow the roll to indeed establish those facts upon the execution of the roll.The only fact the attack roll itself establishes is the highest AC the target can have and still be damaged by the attack. The choice to MAKE the attack establishes the weapon used, the attack bonus for the attack roll, the target of the attack, how many hands are wielding the weapon, what damage dice and bonuses (save for things like sneak attack) will be applied if the attack hits, and that (in the case of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon) the weapon will no longer be in-hand after the attack resolves. Making the attack roll only determines whether it hits or not, and does not establish any of the preceding facts. The damage can be modified after determining the success of the attack roll with certain abilities - like sneak attack - which can be but are not necessarily applied to a successful hit.

The point in question remains whether "the number of hands wielding the weapon" can be different after the attack roll than it was before the attack roll. If it can, then you've got room to rule that the number of hands perforce changes between the attack roll and the damage roll if the number of hands must be different after the attack resolves...but even then, you're only making a ruling, because an equally-valid ruling is that it does not unless the attacker chooses to make the change then. The only rules-required change is that the number of hands wielding the thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the thrown-weapon attack is finished resolving. If it can, then it is also perfectly legal to voluntarily change the number of hands wielding the weapon from 2 to 1 with an attack roll in between; it may require an object interaction if the DM does not rule that the number of hands is not automatically changed at that stage.

On the other hand, if "the number of hands wielding the weapon" is established when you choose to attack and make all relevant decisions about the attack (what weapon, what stat bonus to use, how many hands to wield it with, etc.), then that number cannot change during the game state between the attack roll and the damage roll. You still have a thrown weapon out-of-hand after the attack is resolved, per the RAW, but you cannot voluntarily nor involuntarily change the decision about how many hands you're wielding it with after you make the attack roll but before you roll damage. Thus, no Versatile higher-damage-die + Dueling bonus damage, under this ruling.


Do you agree or disagree with the state of affairs so far? If the game state is not how I describe then how would you describe the game state? What has or has not been established at this point? Are there any rules I am missing?
I believe I have answered this above. To summarize: the attack roll doesn't establish much beyond whether the attack hits or misses. Many of the facts of the attack are established before the attack roll is made, when the attacker's player decides to commit to making an attack. One of those decisions is how many hands he's using to wield the weapon (because this can matter both for whether he can make the attack at all, and for the damage die type on Versatile weapons). There is room to make decisions between the attack roll and the damage roll, because deciding to apply your once-per-turn sneak attack damage happens there (as does the decision of the target to use a Reaction to cast shield).

There is nothing in the RAW that requires that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon must change between the attack roll and the damage roll. The RAW only require that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the attack has resolved. There is room to rule that this change happens between the attack roll and the damage roll, but if you determine this, you've also perforce implicitly ruled that the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll. Since your free object interaction can happen "during your action" without specified limit as to when during the action it can happen, if the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll, there is nothing stopping the attacker from using his free object interaction to remove a hand from the weapon between the attack roll and damage roll.

Thus, it is possible, within the RAW, to rule as you do that a thrown weapon is wielded in zero hands by the time the damage roll is made, but to do so, you must also rule that a Versatile weapon can be wielded in two hands when the attack roll is made, but one hand when the damage roll is made, and get the bigger die type and the Dueling bonus damage. In fact, the latter trick does not even require that the former be allowed, while the former DOES require that the latter be allowed. (Again, the RAW only compel the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon to be zero after the attack resolves. So if you permit the number of hands to change between attack roll and damage roll, that doesn't REQUIRE them to by itself, so you could permit the player to choose to change the number of hands then, or later, after the damage roll. Obviously you wouldn't rule that way given how you've been arguing, but I feel the need to point this out for completeness's sake.)

Thus, it is possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll on the grounds that this decision is made when you commit to the attack; all the RAW for a ranged attack with a thrown weapon requires is that the thrown weapon be out of the attacker's hand(s) after the attack resolves.

It is also possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon CAN change between the attack roll and the damage roll, which leaves room to then rule that that is the point at which the number of hands changes to zero when making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. If you do make this ruling, however, it is also required, if you are to rule consistently, to permit the number of hands to change voluntarily from 2 to 1 between attack roll and damage roll when making melee attacks with versatile weapons, thus getting the higher die type and the Dueling bonus.

[Xetheral]

Let's clarify. By the logic of rule, the conditional applies the bonus whenever the conditional tests true and does not apply the bonus (ie removes the bonus) whenever the conditional tests false, but the only time the presence or absence of that bonus is relevant is when actual damage rolls are being made.

So the relevant time to check for whether its true or false is when you are making damage rolls.

So, your argument isn't that the conditional should be checked at the time damage is rolled, your argument is that the conditional should be checked continuously?

First, that seems to me like a less reasonable inferrence from the text than the idea that the conditional should be checked when damage is rolled. I would suggest that a "when x, do y" linguistic construction almost never refers to a continuously checked conditional outside of control systems engineering or certain types of programming.

Second, even if, for sake of argument, I were to agree that a continuously checked conditional is a reasonable inference from the text of Dueling, the text still does not explicitly pick between them. Having four reasonable inferrences on when the conditional should be checked (rather than than the three I identified) simply makes the question I asked in my previous post more relevant.

I'd note you didn't actually answer that question. To reiterate, can you can see how, in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree with you on what inferences are reasonable?

[ThorOdinson]

That is not supported by the rules you have quoted. I am glad you clarified that this is your point/assertion, because it helps me understand where our disconnect is. Nothing in the rules you quoted states that the number of hands with which the weapon is wielded changes between the commitment to the attack and the attack itself.

Can we agree that, in order to make a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, the weapon must be readied and in-hand?

The only facts established with an attack roll are whether the attack hits or misses (and that is mildly dependent on a few possible reactions from the target).

This is not in the RAW. This is your assertion. All the RAW have to say on the subject is that, when a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon is resolved, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is some distance away from him (presumably usually at least approximately the distance to the target).

The key point here being that the RAW only specify that the weapon has ceased to be in hand when the attack has finished resolving.

Again, you have not provided any rules support for this game-state ever existing. The RAW equally support a successful roll establishing that a damage roll is in queue and the weapon is still occupying the hand. The long discussion earlier on about whether you can cast counterspell in response to a shield spell with the hand throwing the weapon establishes this ambiguity, and while there was general agreement that, sure, that's fine, that general agreement was not based on solid RAW arguments, but rather on how people felt it reasonable to rule.

Sort-of, in that an unsuccessful roll establishes that there is no damage roll, and thus the attack has fully resolved (assuming there are no further mechanical ploys brought to bear to try to change it into a hit). Again, this only provides support for the notion that the weapon is no longer occupying the hand that wielded it after the attack has resolved.

Whether hit or miss, no attack can be "taken back" before it is fully resolved. There is nothing in the rules that you have quoted that supports your assertion that the weapon has left the hand during the attack roll nor between the attack roll and the damage roll. Only that the weapon has left the hand after the attack is fully resolved.

As a side note, there ARE decisions that an attacker can make after the attack roll's success or failure is resolved but before the damage roll is made. The first to come to my mind as an example is sneak attack, and whether to apply it or not. Because sneak attack can be applied only once per turn, but does not specify that it must be applied to the first hit (unlike the Zealot's necrotic/radiant damage bonus). Just "once per turn." The rules never actually say outright that you CAN make that choice between the attack roll and the damage roll, only that once per turn you can add that damage to a creature you hit with an attack (with which you have advantage). You obviously have to be able to choose to do so at that stage, but the rules don't outright grant you that permission.

Similarly, the rules don't deny it.

The number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon either can or cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll. If it can, then your argument that it might be going from one to zero between attack roll and damage roll is at least a legal possibility within the RAW. But then, so, too, is it a legal possibility to make a melee attack with a spear held in two hands, and use your free object interaction (or even a "free action" like unto dropping an item) to remove one hand from the spear after you make the attack roll, thus having wielded it in two hands when you made the attack (getting the higher Versatile-granted die type) and wielding it in one hand (and holding no other weapons) when you roll damage (getting the +2 bonus from dueling)! The RAW neither explicitly grant permission, nor deny it, for voluntarily removing a hand from the weapon, but the RAW do specify that you may take your free object interaction "during your action." If there is a granular point between attack and damage that enables you to change the number of hands wielding the weapon, then the existence of the ability to make any decisions about the attack between rolling to hit and rolling damage combined with the explicit permission to use a free-action object interaction "during your action" does grant the ability to do this.

On the other hand, if the number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll, the number of hands wielding the weapon for purposes of the entire attack is established when you make the attack roll.

Or, to borrow your phrasing: A ranged attack roll when made establishes the target of the attack, how many hands wield the weapon with which the attack is made, and how much damage the weapon will deal if it hits.

Now, any damage - such as sneak attack - which requires you to decide to apply it or not is the only thing not established before the attack roll is made regarding the damage roll. I believe your argument is that the determination of how many hands wield the weapon would be one of these things, but since the choice in how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon is made BEFORE the attack roll (unless you can in fact change how many hands wield a weapon between attack and damage), this is not a decision made after rolling and determining whether you hit or

Because the premise you are basing this on has not been established to be supported by the RAW, this conclusion is not correct.

I also dispute the validity of part of the conclusion, even with your premises: nothing says that the rolling of the attack has to establish those things in order for missed ranged attacks to have left the hand after the attack is resolved, and I'm honestly not sure what "facts corresponding with a hit" "successful rolls to hit would not correspond" with. The RAW only specify that, after the resolution of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is at least implicitly somewhere in the vicinity of the target. (Or, if the miss was bad enough, at least somewhere away from the attacker.)

But, to reiterate, nothing in the RAW supports your assertion that the ranged attack roll establishes what you've stated it does as a game state that exists prior to the final resolution of the attack.

No, you are not, as I have stated above.

The only fact the attack roll itself establishes is the highest AC the target can have and still be damaged by the attack. The choice to MAKE the attack establishes the weapon used, the attack bonus for the attack roll, the target of the attack, how many hands are wielding the weapon, what damage dice and bonuses (save for things like sneak attack) will be applied if the attack hits, and that (in the case of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon) the weapon will no longer be in-hand after the attack resolves. Making the attack roll only determines whether it hits or not, and does not establish any of the preceding facts. The damage can be modified after determining the success of the attack roll with certain abilities - like sneak attack - which can be but are not necessarily applied to a successful hit.

The point in question remains whether "the number of hands wielding the weapon" can be different after the attack roll than it was before the attack roll. If it can, then you've got room to rule that the number of hands perforce changes between the attack roll and the damage roll if the number of hands must be different after the attack resolves...but even then, you're only making a ruling, because an equally-valid ruling is that it does not unless the attacker chooses to make the change then. The only rules-required change is that the number of hands wielding the thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the thrown-weapon attack is finished resolving. If it can, then it is also perfectly legal to voluntarily change the number of hands wielding the weapon from 2 to 1 with an attack roll in between; it may require an object interaction if the DM does not rule that the number of hands is not automatically changed at that stage.

On the other hand, if "the number of hands wielding the weapon" is established when you choose to attack and make all relevant decisions about the attack (what weapon, what stat bonus to use, how many hands to wield it with, etc.), then that number cannot change during the game state between the attack roll and the damage roll. You still have a thrown weapon out-of-hand after the attack is resolved, per the RAW, but you cannot voluntarily nor involuntarily change the decision about how many hands you're wielding it with after you make the attack roll but before you roll damage. Thus, no Versatile higher-damage-die + Dueling bonus damage, under this ruling.


I believe I have answered this above. To summarize: the attack roll doesn't establish much beyond whether the attack hits or misses. Many of the facts of the attack are established before the attack roll is made, when the attacker's player decides to commit to making an attack. One of those decisions is how many hands he's using to wield the weapon (because this can matter both for whether he can make the attack at all, and for the damage die type on Versatile weapons). There is room to make decisions between the attack roll and the damage roll, because deciding to apply your once-per-turn sneak attack damage happens there (as does the decision of the target to use a Reaction to cast shield).

There is nothing in the RAW that requires that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon must change between the attack roll and the damage roll. The RAW only require that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the attack has resolved. There is room to rule that this change happens between the attack roll and the damage roll, but if you determine this, you've also perforce implicitly ruled that the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll. Since your free object interaction can happen "during your action" without specified limit as to when during the action it can happen, if the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll, there is nothing stopping the attacker from using his free object interaction to remove a hand from the weapon between the attack roll and damage roll.

Thus, it is possible, within the RAW, to rule as you do that a thrown weapon is wielded in zero hands by the time the damage roll is made, but to do so, you must also rule that a Versatile weapon can be wielded in two hands when the attack roll is made, but one hand when the damage roll is made, and get the bigger die type and the Dueling bonus damage. In fact, the latter trick does not even require that the former be allowed, while the former DOES require that the latter be allowed. (Again, the RAW only compel the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon to be zero after the attack resolves. So if you permit the number of hands to change between attack roll and damage roll, that doesn't REQUIRE them to by itself, so you could permit the player to choose to change the number of hands then, or later, after the damage roll. Obviously you wouldn't rule that way given how you've been arguing, but I feel the need to point this out for completeness's sake.)

Thus, it is possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll on the grounds that this decision is made when you commit to the attack; all the RAW for a ranged attack with a thrown weapon requires is that the thrown weapon be out of the attacker's hand(s) after the attack resolves.

It is also possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon CAN change between the attack roll and the damage roll, which leaves room to then rule that that is the point at which the number of hands changes to zero when making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. If you do make this ruling, however, it is also required, if you are to rule consistently, to permit the number of hands to change voluntarily from 2 to 1 between attack roll and damage roll when making melee attacks with versatile weapons, thus getting the higher die type and the Dueling bonus.

Your response reads unneccesarily like a EULA from Apple which makes it problematic for the thread and continued discussion. So please be succinct so I can respond to points without further bloat. I have been succinct.

I have a shield in one hand and a trident in the other.

I make a ranged attack, throwing my weapon, against an opponent 30 feet away and the attack roll hits. Damage rolls have not been made.

The opponent casts Shield in reaction to my successful hit and I attempt to react with Counterspell. I do not have the Warcaster feat so I absolutely require a free hand to cast Counterspell.

What is the complete picture of the game state at this juncture? Where is the trident located? Is my hand free for Somatic components?

[Zhorn]

-a work of art-This is beautiful

And that response...
Man, I am enjoying reading this thread far more than should be possible considering the topic. This has been an experience :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Your response reads unneccesarily like a EULA from Apple which makes it problematic for the thread and continued discussion. So please be succinct so I can respond to points without further bloat. I have been succinct.I have not found you so, in general, and my attempts to be so, you have complained have been insufficient. I shall, however, attempt to respond to this post with greater pith. (This is not a strong suit of mine, so apologies in advance if I fail.)


I have a shield in one hand and a trident in the other.

I make a ranged attack, throwing my weapon, against an opponent 30 feet away and the attack roll hits. Damage rolls have not been made.

The opponent casts Shield in reaction to my successful hit and I attempt to react with Counterspell. I do not have the Warcaster feat so I absolutely require a free hand to cast Counterspell.

What is the complete picture of the game state at this juncture? Where is the trident located? Is my hand free for Somatic components?

Two possible rulings:

Ruling Option 1: It is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll

If you rule that you can change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then you either automatically do so at this stage (as you suggest) or you may choose to do so at this stage (probably requiring your free object interaction). Under this condition, you can have the hand free to counterspell, and if you DO (whether required, as you say, or voluntarily) reduce the hands wielding the trident to zero, you would not get the Dueling bonus.

In addition, if you rule as above, that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then when making a melee attack with a trident, you could make the attack roll with two hands wielding it to get 1d8 (rather than 1d6) as the damage die, and then, between the attack roll and the damage roll, remove one hand (because, remember, you've ruled that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon between attack roll and damage roll) and deal damage while wielding it with only one hand, getting +2 damage for the dueling style.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to rule this way and also rule that it is a choice, rather than a requirement, to remove a hand between the attack and damage roll. You obviously, given your arguments, would require the reduction of number of wielding hands to zero with thrown weapons at this point.

Interestingly, you could also be wielding this trident in a melee attack against a wizard who casts shield and reduce the number of hands you're wielding the trident with to zero in order to free up a hand to counterspell the shield. It might arguably take your object interaction to do so, but you would still deal damage with it since your argument is that you do not need any hands wielding the weapon to deal damage, only to make the attack roll.

Ruling Option 2: The number of hands wielding a weapon is set when you make the decision at the start of the attack, and cannot change until the attack resolves

If you rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon is a decision made when you make the attack (possibly before, requiring an object interaction to alter), then when you throw the trident, your hand remains occupied until the attack resolves. Your hand remains occupied - possibly representing that there's just not time to go from "throwing motion" to "spellcasting gestures" in the timing required - until the attack resolves.

This ruling prevents you from changing the number of hands wielding a weapon during the attack. It is, as stated, determined when you commit to the attack as one of the variables that goes into determining whether you can make it at all and possibly what kind of damage die it deals. You would count as wielding the trident with one hand for the entirety of the attack, thrown or melee, and you'd get the dueling bonus, but you couldn't counterspell. You also would not have the ability to get 1d8+2 (plus your stat mod and other damage bonuses) by wielding it in two hands when you roll your attack roll, and reducing that to one hand between attack roll and damage roll.



You can choose which ruling you like better; the game is silent on it. However, do be aware of the consequences of each ruling. Personally, I think the first one leads to more nonsensical shenanigans while the second one is a clean model with no weird corner case flaws. (I do not see a problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your thrown trident while holding a shield," just as I see no problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your melee attack with a trident while holding a shield.")



Is this succinct enough? Or do I need to try to pack it down a bit further?

[ThorOdinson]

I have not found you so, in general, and my attempts to be so, you have complained have been insufficient. I shall, however, attempt to respond to this post with greater pith. (This is not a strong suit of mine, so apologies in advance if I fail.)



Two possible rulings:

Ruling Option 1: It is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll

If you rule that you can change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then you either automatically do so at this stage (as you suggest) or you may choose to do so at this stage (probably requiring your free object interaction). Under this condition, you can have the hand free to counterspell, and if you DO (whether required, as you say, or voluntarily) reduce the hands wielding the trident to zero, you would not get the Dueling bonus.

In addition, if you rule as above, that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then when making a melee attack with a trident, you could make the attack roll with two hands wielding it to get 1d8 (rather than 1d6) as the damage die, and then, between the attack roll and the damage roll, remove one hand (because, remember, you've ruled that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon between attack roll and damage roll) and deal damage while wielding it with only one hand, getting +2 damage for the dueling style.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to rule this way and also rule that it is a choice, rather than a requirement, to remove a hand between the attack and damage roll. You obviously, given your arguments, would require the reduction of number of wielding hands to zero with thrown weapons at this point.

Interestingly, you could also be wielding this trident in a melee attack against a wizard who casts shield and reduce the number of hands you're wielding the trident with to zero in order to free up a hand to counterspell the shield. It might arguably take your object interaction to do so, but you would still deal damage with it since your argument is that you do not need any hands wielding the weapon to deal damage, only to make the attack roll.

Ruling Option 2: The number of hands wielding a weapon is set when you make the decision at the start of the attack, and cannot change until the attack resolves

If you rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon is a decision made when you make the attack (possibly before, requiring an object interaction to alter), then when you throw the trident, your hand remains occupied until the attack resolves. Your hand remains occupied - possibly representing that there's just not time to go from "throwing motion" to "spellcasting gestures" in the timing required - until the attack resolves.

This ruling prevents you from changing the number of hands wielding a weapon during the attack. It is, as stated, determined when you commit to the attack as one of the variables that goes into determining whether you can make it at all and possibly what kind of damage die it deals. You would count as wielding the trident with one hand for the entirety of the attack, thrown or melee, and you'd get the dueling bonus, but you couldn't counterspell. You also would not have the ability to get 1d8+2 (plus your stat mod and other damage bonuses) by wielding it in two hands when you roll your attack roll, and reducing that to one hand between attack roll and damage roll.



You can choose which ruling you like better; the game is silent on it. However, do be aware of the consequences of each ruling. Personally, I think the first one leads to more nonsensical shenanigans while the second one is a clean model with no weird corner case flaws. (I do not see a problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your thrown trident while holding a shield," just as I see no problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your melee attack with a trident while holding a shield.")



Is this succinct enough? Or do I need to try to pack it down a bit further?

Please provide a succinct and direct answer to the scenario representing your view.

Where is the trident located? (E.g. Is it located in the hand. Is it in flight between us threatening to hit the opponent? Is it adjacent to and hitting the opponent so that Shield can actually react at this juncture.)


Is my hand free to counterspell? (E.g. Is it stil gripping the Trident? Is it free of the Trident but caught up in the motion of the thow? Is it entirely free of the Trident and able to Counterspell?)

Commit to defining your view on this scenario.


Incidentally, I want to point out that you continue to mischaracterize my view. But I will get to the that, once you commit to a direct answer of your view.

[JNAProductions]

So you don’t have an answer, then, TO?

Because the bolded bits are pretty succinct, and one apparently matches your view-but then also leads to being able to make Versatile weapons 1d10+2 with Dueling.

[ThorOdinson]

So you don’t have an answer, then, TO?

Because the bolded bits are pretty succinct, and one apparently matches your view-but then also leads to being able to make Versatile weapons 1d10+2 with Dueling.

I have no idea where Segev thinks the Trident is located at this juncture or how he would describe the state of the thrower's hands because he hasn't answered my questions and provided his view.

The Ranged Attack describes the hurling of weapons and the sending of a projectile. So where along the path of a thrown projectile are we at this juncture?

JNAP, feel free to provide a singular answer to the question representing your view as well. What is your view on the scenario?

Remember, the weapon was thrown, a hit has been rolled, and Shield was legally cast (Shield reacts to the fact of hits).

[Mellack]

I have no idea where Segev thinks the Trident is located at this juncture or how he would describe the state of the thrower's hands because he hasn't answered my questions and provided his view.

The Ranged Attack describes the hurling of weapons and the sending of a projectile. So where along the path of a thrown projectile are we at this juncture?

JNAP, feel free to provide a singular answer to the question representing your view as well. What is your view on the scenario?

Remember, the weapon was thrown, a hit has been rolled, and Shield was legally cast (Shield reacts to the fact of hits).

Why does where Sergev thinks the trident is at matter? Their whole discussion was about how the statements of your claims worked. I did not see where they were taking any stance on where the trident is, just asking for you to apply your own to it. It seems as if you cannot answer about the application of your claims to the situation of the trident.

[ThorOdinson]

Why does where Sergev thinks the trident is at matter? Their whole discussion was about how the statements of your claims worked. I did not see where they were taking any stance on where the trident is, just asking for you to apply your own to it. It seems as if you cannot answer about the application of your claims to the situation of the trident.

It's a fair question and the scenario is a good way to get a deeper look at the issues involved in the larger discussion.

We have set aside the question of Dueling fighting style for the moment and are seeking to understand the game state in the scenario presented.

I am confused as to why you cannot simply provide an answer to the question presented.

Can you provide a direct answer to the question?

Where is the trident located when Shield is cast in reaction to a successful hit and I want to Counterspell in reaction to Shield? Is my hand free to fulfill somatic components?

I eagerly await your response.

[Segev]

Please provide a succinct and direct answer to the scenario representing your view.

Where is the trident located? (E.g. Is it located in the hand. Is it in flight between us threatening to hit the opponent? Is it adjacent to and hitting the opponent so that Shield can actually react at this juncture.)


Is my hand free to counterspell? (E.g. Is it stil gripping the Trident? Is it free of the Trident but caught up in the motion of the thow? Is it entirely free of the Trident and able to Counterspell?)

Commit to defining your view on this scenario.


Incidentally, I want to point out that you continue to mischaracterize my view. But I will get to the that, once you commit to a direct answer of your view.


It's a fair question and the scenario is a good way to get a deeper look at the issues involved in the larger discussion.

We have set aside the question of Dueling fighting style for the moment and are seeking to understand the game state in the scenario presented.

I am confused as to why you cannot simply provide an answer to the question presented.

Can you provide a direct answer to the question?

Where is the trident located when Shield is cast in reaction to a successful hit and I want to Counterspell in reaction to Shield? Is my hand free to fulfill somatic components?

I eagerly await your response.
There is a divide between gameplay and story. There's even a term for it: Gameplay/story segregation.

In the fiction, what happens is the trident leaves the hand throwing it, flies towards the spellcaster, and, as the spellcaster realizes he's about to be hit and cannot dodge, he swiftly conjures a shield that (hopefully) blocks the attack (as he knows that it adds 5 to his AC, mechanically, and knows whether +5 to AC would change the hit to a miss).

Mechanically, what happens is that the determination of how many hands are wielding the trident is made along with other parameters relevant to resolving the attack, the attack roll is made, the attack is determined to hit the spellcaster's AC (presumably by less than 5), and the spellcaster decides to use a reaction to cast shield.

The way I would rule it, the fiction has the hand that threw the trident be too out of position to suddenly whip back and properly cast counterspell, and in the mechanics, the hand is still wielding the trident throughout this process, until such time as the attack fully resolves, at which point the hand is no longer wielding it, based on the fact that the number of hands wielding the trident cannot (by my ruling) change in the mechanical steps between the attack roll and the damage roll.


I believe that this ruling is satisfactory for modeling in mechanics the fiction in question, even though the model does not handle a moment-by-moment physics problem of the arc the trident travels nor the precise wounds it inflicts should it hit, nor even exactly where the trident lands if it misses.

I also believe that the alternative ruling - that the trident is wielded by zero hands after the attack roll but before and during the damage roll - opens up doors to far more undesirable mechanical shenanigans which, whether they make sense in the fiction or not, are definitely not using the rules as intended as evidenced by the way they have been presented.

[ThorOdinson]

There is a divide between gameplay and story. There's even a term for it: Gameplay/story segregation.

In the fiction, what happens is the trident leaves the hand throwing it, flies towards the spellcaster, and, as the spellcaster realizes he's about to be hit and cannot dodge, he swiftly conjures a shield that (hopefully) blocks the attack (as he knows that it adds 5 to his AC, mechanically, and knows whether +5 to AC would change the hit to a miss).

Mechanically, what happens is that the determination of how many hands are wielding the trident is made along with other parameters relevant to resolving the attack, the attack roll is made, the attack is determined to hit the spellcaster's AC (presumably by less than 5), and the spellcaster decides to use a reaction to cast shield.

The way I would rule it, the fiction has the hand that threw the trident be too out of position to suddenly whip back and properly cast counterspell, and in the mechanics, the hand is still wielding the trident throughout this process, until such time as the attack fully resolves, at which point the hand is no longer wielding it, based on the fact that the number of hands wielding the trident cannot (by my ruling) change in the mechanical steps between the attack roll and the damage roll.


I believe that this ruling is satisfactory for modeling in mechanics the fiction in question, even though the model does not handle a moment-by-moment physics problem of the arc the trident travels nor the precise wounds it inflicts should it hit, nor even exactly where the trident lands if it misses.

I also believe that the alternative ruling - that the trident is wielded by zero hands after the attack roll but before and during the damage roll - opens up doors to far more undesirable mechanical shenanigans which, whether they make sense in the fiction or not, are definitely not using the rules as intended as evidenced by the way they have been presented.

So what you have said is that the the trident is simultaneously in the hand of the thrower and striking the opponent 30 feet away, correct?

This is a logically implausible game state. It causes issues when things happen like Shield and Counterspell where you must houserule yourself out of a complete mess you have invented. And you are working under the assumption, no where stated in the rules, that the attack and damage is resolved simultaneously (And lets set aside the contradiction with an Action allowing a free action interjection and even a series of spell reactions to interject). You are resorting to quantum mechanics here when you suggest that the Trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile in order to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is no where defined in the rules, in order to preserve a +2 bonus that you logically do not have. I hope you are not claiming that your argument is anywhere close to resembling a RAW argument. If you are, several citations are due, sir.

This is an interesting departure between our arguments.

My argument is that the hit roll when made establishes facts about the game state because indeed a successful attack roll establishes facts and I do not have permission to delay or ignore that recognition.

So my view is pretty straightforward. I march along recognizing the facts as they present themselves as logically required. A successful attack means the weapon has been thrown, the weapon has left the hand, the weapon is adjacent to the target so as to positionally be able to strike the target. Resolving Shield and Counterspell is easy for me. The throwers hand is free to perform the somatic requirements for Counterspell.

My solution is logically plausible. I am not forcing the rules to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is nowhere defined in the rules. The Dueling fighting style checks the facts established by the attack roll and returns 'false'. A successful attack roll establishes the trident is no longer "in one hand".

Once again I will point out that my argument does not involve the capacity for hands to switch up how they were wielding the thrown weapon after the attack roll for the ranged attack since my argument recognizes the facts established by the attack roll (the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and has left the hand). You keep trying to put words in my mouth on that issue. That is an issue you have with your argument. I do not have that issue.

Thank you though for finally providing a direct answer.

Another interesting scenario presents itself.

A player is wielding the magical weapon Wave and throws the weapon from 30 feet away at a target from in a 10 foot radius anti-magic field. If I understand your argument, attack and damage magical bonuses would be maintained and applied and the target even loses half their hit points. I may be misunderstanding you. Could you explain who you resolve that one?

[Segev]

So what you have said is that the the trident is simultaneously in the hand of the thrower and striking the opponent 30 feet away, correct?Incorrect. I said that the trident has not ceased to be wielded, for mechanical purposes, by the hand that wielded it at the start of the attack resolution, until the end of the attack resolution. This is the mechanical layer.

The fiction layer, of course, has the trident flying through the air, very much not held in hand. However, it also has the hand still following through on the throw, as anybody who's ever been taught how to throw something will tell you is important.


This is a logically implausible game state.It is not logically implausible. The game state, mechanically, is that the trident is wielded in one hand, targeted a creature in range, and the attack roll has been made (and presumably hit by a margin of less than 5, since we're discussing the creature casting shield in response). This is a perfectly coherent game state.


It causes issues when things happen like Shield and Counterspell where you must houserule yourself out of a complete mess you have invented.Please state the issues with shield and counterspell you believe I must houserule myself out of. I believe I have addressed it just fine: in the game state, the wielder of the trident is still wielding the trident and thus lacks a free hand to cast counterspell. In the fiction, the wielder of the trident is still following through on the throw, hand extended, and is unable to cease doing so in time to jerk the hand that he's using to perform the throw into a somatic gesture for a spell. At least, without the Warcaster feat.


And you are working under the assumption, no where stated in the rules, that the attack and damage is resolved simultaneouslyPlease show me where I am making that assumption. I have stated that there is a decision state between the two at a minimum to permit the determination of whether you use Sneak Attack or not once you've hit. (It is feasible you'd prefer to wait for the next attack, hoping it might be a crit, for example. Not sure it's a good idea, but it's feasible.)


(And lets set aside the contradiction with an Action allowing a free action interjection and even a series of spell reactions to interject).I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate on what it is we're setting aside, please? You're the one who brought counterspelling a shield spell into this, explicitly placing it between the attack roll and the damage roll.


You are resorting to quantum mechanics here when you suggest that the Trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile in order to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is no where defined in the rules, in order to preserve a +2 bonus that you logically do not have. I hope you are not claiming that your argument is anywhere close to resembling a RAW argument. If you are, several citations are due, sir.I have in no way resorted to "quantum mechanics," nor stated "the trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile." I have made a very clear distinction between the game mechanical model and the fictional world it is modeling.

I cannot even begin to provide citations to prove my point when you have not successfully repeated back to me what I laid out. You have instead given a nonsensical argument that you've attributed to me, which I hope my analysis above helps you to see is not what I said at all. I would appreciate it if you would re-read my last post and try again to repeat back to me what my argument is in your own words. I have no interest in defending a straw man that does not represent what I said.


This is an interesting departure between our arguments.

My argument is that the hit roll when made establishes facts about the game state because indeed a successful attack roll establishes facts and I do not have permission to delay that recognition.Indeed it does. The facts that a to-hit roll establishes are, primarily, that the target has been hit, and any decisions the attacker or defender makes in response to a successful attack must be made, followed (probably) by damage being rolled. The only decisions I would rule to allow are those required by their nature to occur here, mostly governed either by Reactions (such as casting shield) or by effects (such as Sneak Attack) which specify they MAY be, but do not have to be, used upon the event that the target is hit by an attack.

You assert, if I understand your argument and ruling correctly (and please do correct me if I am not properly restating your position), that it also establishes that a thrown weapon has had the number of hands wielding it change, and that it has traveled a particular distance. I counter that the only thing the rules require is that, after the attack is fully resolved, these be the case. Nothing in the rules specifies that these things are established after the attack roll, but before the damage roll.

This is the key point of disagreement: you are trying to mix the fiction layer with the mechanical model in a way that makes sense to you, which is more or less fine, but you are then asserting without citation that this is what the RAW say. It is not. Normally, I would shrug and say that, if that's the model that makes sense to you, go with it, but if you follow your ruling consistently, you lead to odd states such as a melee attack with the same trident allowing you to do its two-handed damage AND apply Dueling's damage bonus because you can change the number of hands on the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll.


So my view is pretty straightforward. A successful attack means the weapon has been thrown, the weapon has left the hand, the weapon is adjacent to the target so as to positionally be able to strike the target.I understand your argument. I just disagree that it is the best ruling to avoid undesired game effects.


Resolving Shield and Counterspell is easy for me.It is also easy for me. I do not see the problem, here.


My solutuon is logically plausible.It is logically plausible, and also logically leads to being able to attack with a versatile weapon for its higher damage type, and then apply dueling's +2 bonus to it.


I am not forcing the rules to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is nowhere defined in the rules.You are, however, attempting to force the rules to safeguard against a rather weak "exploit" of getting +2 damage on a ranged weapon attack while opening the door to getting that same +2 damage on a versatile weapon that is using its higher die type, and you are hinging it on a definition of "wielding" that is not particularly strongly sourced compared to other definitions of it that do not support your claim even if we accept your ruling and model.


Once again I will point out that my argument does not involve the capacity for hands to switch up how they were wielding the thrown weapon after the attack roll since my argument recognizes the facts established by the attack roll (the weapon has been thrown and has left the hand). You keep trying to put words in my mouth on that issue.I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are claiming that it is required by the "facts established by the attack roll" that the number of hands wielding the weapon changes after the attack roll but before the damage roll. This means that you require it to be possible for this to happen. If it is not possible for this to happen, then it doesn't matter that it is "required" by your model; it cannot happen and just proves your model wrong.

Accepting your model, I conclude that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon after the attack roll but before the damage roll. If it is possible, then anything that permits that to occur which does not require an action unavailable to the attacker can be used to change that number of hands. Therefore, as long as your free object interaction remains free, you can remove one hand from the weapon as part of your attack action, and you may choose to do so between the attack roll (which had 2 hands wielding the weapon, triggering Versatile's larger die type) and the damage roll (now made with only one hand wielding the weapon, and no other weapons wielded, granting the +2 damage from Dueling).

For you to say you are required to change the number of hands wielding the trident from 1 to 0 between the attack roll and the damage roll, but that you are not saying it is possible to change the number of hands between the attack roll and the damage roll, you create a paradox. A contradiction in the rules.

What you are actually saying is, "Because of how I envision it working, you are forced to release the trident and thus go from 1 hand wielding it as you roll the attack to 0 hands wielding it between the attack and damage roll and during the damage roll. However, I rule oppositely when discussing melee attacks because I assert that it is the act of throwing it that grants permission as well as creates the requirement, but there is no other permission granted to change the number of hands between attack roll and damage roll."

Does that sound right to you, or am I misunderstanding your claim?

You are, as a DM, of course free to rule like that if you like. However, you are absolutely inventing the "requirement grants permission that is otherwise not there" along with the requirement that the attack roll determine the trident's position and number of hands wielding it.

If you wish to assert that this requirement exists unambiguously in the RAW, you must provide citations. Further, if you wish to assert that the RAW denies permission to change number of hands wielding a weapon between attack and damage rolls EXCEPT in the case of thrown weapons, you must provide citations.


I apologize that I have none of the citations you requested, but until you can properly demonstrate that you understand my position and point out specific points you do not believe to be in the RAW, I cannot be sure that anything I would cite would address your concerns. I hope that I have adequately provided specific requests for the parts of your argument as I perceive it that I do not believe are supported by the RAW, and invite you to cite the RAW to prove that they are, in fact, so supported despite my belief otherwise.

[JNAProductions]

I'd also like to point out that, in this case, it ain't RAI (since we have a tweet from a developer stating they'd apply Dueling to a thrown weapon, if it was thrown from one hand), nor Rules As Commonly Applied (as evidenced by the majority of people here supporting Dueling working with thrown weapons) nor Rules As Commonly Applied In AL (since one of the other posters generously decided to go to some AL Discord servers and they agreed with the dev tweet).

There's no inherent superiority to RAW, even when it is on your side. This isn't a wargame where people are directly competing-it's a TTRPG, where everyone is playing together. It's good common ground to discuss on forums like this, but actually hewing to the RAW over RAF is to the detriment of a game. Moreover, 5E was not designed to be read like a computer-it's meant to read in common parlance. So, while a certain reading of RAW can result in Dueling not applying to a one-handed thrown weapon, the common interpretation (even to those not familiar with D&D) would generally be that, if you threw a weapon that was wielded in one hand, you'd get the Dueling bonus.

[Segev]

I'd also like to point out that, in this case, it ain't RAI (since we have a tweet from a developer stating they'd apply Dueling to a thrown weapon, if it was thrown from one hand), nor Rules As Commonly Applied (as evidenced by the majority of people here supporting Dueling working with thrown weapons) nor Rules As Commonly Applied In AL (since one of the other posters generously decided to go to some AL Discord servers and they agreed with the dev tweet).

There's no inherent superiority to RAW, even when it is on your side. This isn't a wargame where people are directly competing-it's a TTRPG, where everyone is playing together. It's good common ground to discuss on forums like this, but actually hewing to the RAW over RAF is to the detriment of a game. Moreover, 5E was not designed to be read like a computer-it's meant to read in common parlance. So, while a certain reading of RAW can result in Dueling not applying to a one-handed thrown weapon, the common interpretation (even to those not familiar with D&D) would generally be that, if you threw a weapon that was wielded in one hand, you'd get the Dueling bonus.

This is actually the strongest point, given 5e's design paradigm. At this point, I am just trying to discuss the logic because I enjoy logic. "Ask your DM" is by far the best response even in 3e, but in 5e, it's practically required.

[JNAProductions]

This is actually the strongest point, given 5e's design paradigm. At this point, I am just trying to discuss the logic because I enjoy logic. "Ask your DM" is by far the best response even in 3e, but in 5e, it's practically required.

Yeah-by all means, try to reason with TO. It's fun to watch, and it's nice to see you being so civil given the circumstance.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. I said that the trident has not ceased to be wielded, for mechanical purposes, by the hand that wielded it at the start of the attack resolution, until the end of the attack resolution. This is the mechanical layer.

The fiction layer, of course, has the trident flying through the air, very much not held in hand. However, it also has the hand still following through on the throw, as anybody who's ever been taught how to throw something will tell you is important.

It is not logically implausible. The game state, mechanically, is that the trident is wielded in one hand, targeted a creature in range, and the attack roll has been made (and presumably hit by a margin of less than 5, since we're discussing the creature casting shield in response). This is a perfectly coherent game state.

Please state the issues with shield and counterspell you believe I must houserule myself out of. I believe I have addressed it just fine: in the game state, the wielder of the trident is still wielding the trident and thus lacks a free hand to cast counterspell. In the fiction, the wielder of the trident is still following through on the throw, hand extended, and is unable to cease doing so in time to jerk the hand that he's using to perform the throw into a somatic gesture for a spell. At least, without the Warcaster feat.

Please show me where I am making that assumption. I have stated that there is a decision state between the two at a minimum to permit the determination of whether you use Sneak Attack or not once you've hit. (It is feasible you'd prefer to wait for the next attack, hoping it might be a crit, for example. Not sure it's a good idea, but it's feasible.)

I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate on what it is we're setting aside, please? You're the one who brought counterspelling a shield spell into this, explicitly placing it between the attack roll and the damage roll.

I have in no way resorted to "quantum mechanics," nor stated "the trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile." I have made a very clear distinction between the game mechanical model and the fictional world it is modeling.

I cannot even begin to provide citations to prove my point when you have not successfully repeated back to me what I laid out. You have instead given a nonsensical argument that you've attributed to me, which I hope my analysis above helps you to see is not what I said at all. I would appreciate it if you would re-read my last post and try again to repeat back to me what my argument is in your own words. I have no interest in defending a straw man that does not represent what I said.

Indeed it does. The facts that a to-hit roll establishes are, primarily, that the target has been hit, and any decisions the attacker or defender makes in response to a successful attack must be made, followed (probably) by damage being rolled. The only decisions I would rule to allow are those required by their nature to occur here, mostly governed either by Reactions (such as casting shield) or by effects (such as Sneak Attack) which specify they MAY be, but do not have to be, used upon the event that the target is hit by an attack.

You assert, if I understand your argument and ruling correctly (and please do correct me if I am not properly restating your position), that it also establishes that a thrown weapon has had the number of hands wielding it change, and that it has traveled a particular distance. I counter that the only thing the rules require is that, after the attack is fully resolved, these be the case. Nothing in the rules specifies that these things are established after the attack roll, but before the damage roll.

This is the key point of disagreement: you are trying to mix the fiction layer with the mechanical model in a way that makes sense to you, which is more or less fine, but you are then asserting without citation that this is what the RAW say. It is not. Normally, I would shrug and say that, if that's the model that makes sense to you, go with it, but if you follow your ruling consistently, you lead to odd states such as a melee attack with the same trident allowing you to do its two-handed damage AND apply Dueling's damage bonus because you can change the number of hands on the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll.

I understand your argument. I just disagree that it is the best ruling to avoid undesired game effects.

It is also easy for me. I do not see the problem, here.

It is logically plausible, and also logically leads to being able to attack with a versatile weapon for its higher damage type, and then apply dueling's +2 bonus to it.

You are, however, attempting to force the rules to safeguard against a rather weak "exploit" of getting +2 damage on a ranged weapon attack while opening the door to getting that same +2 damage on a versatile weapon that is using its higher die type, and you are hinging it on a definition of "wielding" that is not particularly strongly sourced compared to other definitions of it that do not support your claim even if we accept your ruling and model.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are claiming that it is required by the "facts established by the attack roll" that the number of hands wielding the weapon changes after the attack roll but before the damage roll. This means that you require it to be possible for this to happen. If it is not possible for this to happen, then it doesn't matter that it is "required" by your model; it cannot happen and just proves your model wrong.

Accepting your model, I conclude that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon after the attack roll but before the damage roll. If it is possible, then anything that permits that to occur which does not require an action unavailable to the attacker can be used to change that number of hands. Therefore, as long as your free object interaction remains free, you can remove one hand from the weapon as part of your attack action, and you may choose to do so between the attack roll (which had 2 hands wielding the weapon, triggering Versatile's larger die type) and the damage roll (now made with only one hand wielding the weapon, and no other weapons wielded, granting the +2 damage from Dueling).

For you to say you are required to change the number of hands wielding the trident from 1 to 0 between the attack roll and the damage roll, but that you are not saying it is possible to change the number of hands between the attack roll and the damage roll, you create a paradox. A contradiction in the rules.

What you are actually saying is, "Because of how I envision it working, you are forced to release the trident and thus go from 1 hand wielding it as you roll the attack to 0 hands wielding it between the attack and damage roll and during the damage roll. However, I rule oppositely when discussing melee attacks because I assert that it is the act of throwing it that grants permission as well as creates the requirement, but there is no other permission granted to change the number of hands between attack roll and damage roll."

Does that sound right to you, or am I misunderstanding your claim?

You are, as a DM, of course free to rule like that if you like. However, you are absolutely inventing the "requirement grants permission that is otherwise not there" along with the requirement that the attack roll determine the trident's position and number of hands wielding it.

If you wish to assert that this requirement exists unambiguously in the RAW, you must provide citations. Further, if you wish to assert that the RAW denies permission to change number of hands wielding a weapon between attack and damage rolls EXCEPT in the case of thrown weapons, you must provide citations.


I apologize that I have none of the citations you requested, but until you can properly demonstrate that you understand my position and point out specific points you do not believe to be in the RAW, I cannot be sure that anything I would cite would address your concerns. I hope that I have adequately provided specific requests for the parts of your argument as I perceive it that I do not believe are supported by the RAW, and invite you to cite the RAW to prove that they are, in fact, so supported despite my belief otherwise.

We need to keep back and forth answers briefer. So let's address one manageable point at a time. Please keep responses of manageable length.

Lets first address the words you keep putting in my mouth.

Once again I must point out that you are mischaracterising my argument.

In my argument it is impossible to switch up how the weapon is wielded as you claim I am allowing.

The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.

I have made my choices.

The attack roll has not been made.

My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.

Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

Hits mean positionally locating the trident so a hit is possible and proceeding to damge roll unless some other stuff needs to resolve.

Misses means locating the trident on the ground somewhere.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.

The attack roll is completed. Are you with me so far?


You are now claiming that I am trying to change how the weapon is wielded between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, correct?

I have been very clear that in this stretch of time between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, no changes to how the weapon being wielded are being proposed by me. The ship has already sailed irrevocably on that point, the weapon has already been thrown, the weapon is no longer in hand, and the weapon has already traveled a distance upon the rolling of the attack roll.

So my argument is precisely that I cannot change the manner in which I wield the weapon between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll. In fact, the weapon is already no longer in hand according to my argument.

You have been putting words in my mouth. Can you see that now? Or shall I continue.

Hopefully there has been a misunderstanding of timing here that has now been sorted out.

We need to be on the same page as this. Once we are, I want to then address any concerns you have about my understanding of yours.

Are we on the same page?

[Segev]

We need to keep back and forth answers briefer. So let's address one manageable point at a time. Please keep responses of manageable length.

Lets first address the words you keep putting in my mouth.

Once again I must point out that you are mischaracterising my argument.

In my argument it is impossible to switch up how the weapon is wielded as you claim I am allowing.

The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.

I have made my choices.

The attack roll has not been made.

My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.

Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

Hits mean positionally locating the trident so a hit is possible and proceeding to damge roll unless some other stuff needs to resolve.

Misses means locating the trident on the ground somewhere.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.

The attack roll is completed. Are you with me so far?


You are now claiming that I am trying to change how the weapon is wielded between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, correct?

I have been very clear that in this stretch of time between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, no changes to how the weapon being wielded are being proposed by me. The ship has already sailed irrevocably on that point, the weapon has already been thrown, the weapon is no longer in hand, and the weapon has already traveled a distance upon the rolling of the attack roll.

So my argument is precisely that I cannot change the manner in which I wield the weapon between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll. In fact, the weapon is already no longer in hand according to my argument.

You have been putting words in my mouth. Can you see that now? Or shall I continue.

Hopefully there has been a misunderstanding of timing here that has now been sorted out.

We need to be on the same page as this. Once we are, I want to then address any concerns you have about my understanding of yours.

Are we on the same page?
I disagree with a claim you are making about your own assertion.

Let me try to simplify my response by using snippets, here:


The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.
Here, you are declaring that the turn - and the attack - starts with the weapon wielded in one hand. Am I wrong?


Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.
Is the weapon still wielded by one hand, or is now wielded in zero hands (or not wielded at all)?

We are, I believe we can agree, between the attack roll and the damage roll at this point.

You started, prior to the attack roll, with the trident wielded in one hand. After the attack roll, at the point we've reached now, you're asserting that the weapon is wielded in zero hands (or is not wielded at all), and thus will not be wielded in one hand when the damage is rolled.

Have I misstated any of your point so far?

If I have not, then this is where you are establishing that it is possible to change how many hands are wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll. You have gone from one hand before the attack roll to zero hands after the attack roll, and we have not yet rolled damage.

I do not believe I am putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating the consequence of your words. If you believe I have misstated your case, please explain specifically what I have said that is not your position.


My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.This is not in the RAW, but is fine and doesn't change anything.

[ThorOdinson]

I disagree with a claim you are making about your own assertion.

Let me try to simplify my response by using snippets, here:


Here, you are declaring that the turn - and the attack - starts with the weapon wielded in one hand. Am I wrong?



Is the weapon still wielded by one hand, or is now wielded in zero hands (or not wielded at all)?

We are, I believe we can agree, between the attack roll and the damage roll at this point.

You started, prior to the attack roll, with the trident wielded in one hand. After the attack roll, at the point we've reached now, you're asserting that the weapon is wielded in zero hands (or is not wielded at all), and thus will not be wielded in one hand when the damage is rolled.

Have I misstated any of your point so far?

If I have not, then this is where you are establishing that it is possible to change how many hands are wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll. You have gone from one hand before the attack roll to zero hands after the attack roll, and we have not yet rolled damage.

I do not believe I am putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating the consequence of your words. If you believe I have misstated your case, please explain specifically what I have said that is not your position.

This is not in the RAW, but is fine and doesn't change anything.

It is good that we are slowing things down to a single point at a time. We can zero in on issues of understanding.

You are not using the phrase "between the attack roll and damage roll" correctly. This is why I started adding "between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll".

In my argument a change of how the weapon interacts with hands happens entirely within the context of the attack roll. No change can happen in hands between a completed attack roll and the damage roll. I cannot change my grip on the weapon after a completed attack roll and before the damage roll to munchkin more damage. That is how you are describing the versatile weapon issue, correct? Make your attack roll with two hands then switch to one for the damage roll and the Dueling fighting style bonus. My argument precludes that from ever happening.

The turn starts with the character with the weapon in one hand.

The player elects to make a thrown attack designating a target and sorts out his modifiers. At this stage nothing has happened yet.

What transpires in some fashion at this point is some commitment to indeed attack and establish the fact of an attack having happened. I equate this for simplicity with the attack roll since that represents committing to determining the outcome of your choices by a random generator, but in actual game play at the table we are looking at maybe some back and forth rethinking targets and decision paralysis.

However, any jumbled decision making collapses to some moment when the player commits and makes an attack roll as an event of game binding power where he or she cannot take anything back since doing it over and backtracking would be cheating. At some point, the player must stick to his decisions and make the attack roll and the game recognizes something official has transpired.

So the player commits to his decisions and makes a roll (or some facsimile).

It is precisely here where I argue changes in the game state transpire. If the player is making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon then the weapon goes from being held in hand prior to the attack action to being thrown, leaving the hand, and being sent as a projectile in flight per the Ranged Attack rule when the attack roll is made. Hits and misses have different consequences we have already discussed

So with the attack roll completed the thrown weapon is not in any hand.

To pull the versatile weapon trick you describe in the context of my argument I would have to have the thrown weapon still in hand after the completed attack roll, but the weapon is in no hand. It has already left the hand, traveled a distance and in the cases of misses is on the ground or in the cases of hits positioned adjacent to the target, striking the target, with some damage to sort out with a damage roll. I cannot pull the trick you describe. The weapon is completely out of my hands.

Do you agree with me here that I cannot pull the versatile exploit in my argument?

[Segev]

Do you agree with me here that I cannot pull the versatile exploit in my argument?

I do not. It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. If you move the transition of one-hand to zero-hands to "during the attack roll," that doesn't change that you start with one hand wielding it to determine the legality of making the attack in the first place.

All you've done is move when it becomes legally possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon. Since, during the attack roll, you're wielding the trident with two hands, it gets the versatile tag's benefit. You take your hand off of it during the attack roll, but the attack roll has already checked that it's being wielded in two hands as part of the starting condition. Thus, we still wind up with you removing a hand between the start of the attack roll and the start of the damage roll. This still results in the exploit working.

Either the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack, or it isn't. If it isn't, and this results in a condition where the number of hands wielding the weapon for the attack roll is different than the number of hands wielding it for the damage roll, the versatile exploit functions.

[ThorOdinson]

I do not. It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. If you move the transition of one-hand to zero-hands to "during the attack roll," that doesn't change that you start with one hand wielding it to determine the legality of making the attack in the first place.

All you've done is move when it becomes legally possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon. Since, during the attack roll, you're wielding the trident with two hands, it gets the versatile tag's benefit. You take your hand off of it during the attack roll, but the attack roll has already checked that it's being wielded in two hands as part of the starting condition. Thus, we still wind up with you removing a hand between the start of the attack roll and the start of the damage roll. This still results in the exploit working.

Either the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack, or it isn't. If it isn't, and this results in a condition where the number of hands wielding the weapon for the attack roll is different than the number of hands wielding it for the damage roll, the versatile exploit functions.

This appears to be a lot of concocted rationale on your part. I am not finding confirmation for many of the assertions that you are making in the PHB.

1) It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. ##Citation?

2) the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack. ##Citation?

Can you provide citations for any of this? And if you cannot then why does it matter at all when we are supposed to be discussing RAW?

For my argument, I am not changing grips but simply making a Ranged Attack that hurls the thrown weapon as a projectile which requires that the weapon leave the hand. This isn't even a free action on my part nor is it a change of grips. It is allowing a throw for which I have permission for. When you throw an object from your hand it is no longer in your hand.

Further, I seriously question the methodological soundness of you using several houserules to deal with a very narrow issue when it is far easier simply to disallow the exploit at its source if it's a problem.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to have gone totally overboard. If I am not mistaken this "exploit" amounts to a +1 avg gain to damage while requiring the player to give up a shield and pick a subpar fighting style. The sky is not falling.

Not only are Slippery Slope arguments fallacious reasoning but this is an incredibly weak Slippery Slope argument to use to find fault in my argument, especially considering my argument isn't introducing the issue. It's just an unintended rule interaction already present in the rules between two special rules and free action grip. How is my RAW argument responsible for it? I am not introducing it.

I can't find mention of it anywhere on the internet since probably everyone chooses +2 AC from a shield instead. It is such a weak exploit that it could almost be an intended interaction for the crafty to find who can't otherwise use shields. Maybe this is an easter egg left from the devs to reward those who master the rules. If you have ever worked on massive projects like a video game for instance, you know this is exactly the sh*te that gets pulled.

Why not a direct fix of the exploit at the source? Such as . . .

Question: Can I change my grips on a versatile weapon between the attack roll and combat roll to attack with two hands and switch to one hand for the damage roll and thereby also gain the Dueling fighting bonus to damage?

Answer: No.

Instead of a bunch of house rules, why not just one?

[visitor]

It seem the crux of the issue isn't with the word "wield", but "in"


Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon IN one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to to damage rolls with that weapon.


In the context of this fighting style and in casual D&D parlance of wielding = "using for the purpose of an attack roll", the word "in" is synonymous with "with":

When you are wielding a melee weapon with one hand and no other weapons,....

It still retains and conveys the restriction of 1h vs 2h + twf, and smooths out allowing melee weapons with the thrown tag.



Of course, you could insist that "in" was chosen for that specific reason to disallow thrown melee weapons. But as we see, that still requires a lot of contortions and a very narrow focus on one particular word choice and a equally literal and narrow interpretation of what that results in. There is no RAW for "wielding in one hand" vs "wielding with one hand"



Because I could argue that "in one hand" must mean the weapon is impaled through my hand, because that's what "in" means. But in this context, that's not as good a choice as "physically held in my hand" which is not as good a choice as "utilizing with a single hand".

[Segev]

This appears to be a lot of concocted rationale on your part. I am not finding confirmation for many of the assertions that you are making in the PHB.

1) It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. ##Citation?The alternative is that you can attack with a weapon you are not wielding in the number of hands the weapon specifies it requires. Is this your assertion?


2) the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack. ##Citation?I didn't assert this was in the rules. I asserted that either this is true, or it is true that the number of hands wielding the weapon can change during the course of the attack. As a logical statement, "A or Not A" is almost a tautology. You cannot have "A and Not A" be true.

In the name of keeping this focused to a single point per your earlier requests when I left lengthier responses, and in light of the importance of these points, I will stop here and give you a chance to respond. Do I make sense, here, to you? Is there something off in my reasoning so far?

[ThorOdinson]

The alternative is that you can attack with a weapon you are not wielding in the number of hands the weapon specifies it requires. Is this your assertion?

I didn't assert this was in the rules. I asserted that either this is true, or it is true that the number of hands wielding the weapon can change during the course of the attack. As a logical statement, "A or Not A" is almost a tautology. You cannot have "A and Not A" be true.

In the name of keeping this focused to a single point per your earlier requests when I left lengthier responses, and in light of the importance of these points, I will stop here and give you a chance to respond. Do I make sense, here, to you? Is there something off in my reasoning so far?

Thank you for keeping the conversation on one point.

You are making sense and I am following your argument. I am making a statement to the effect that you are making assertions without rules support. And you may be overlooking something.

The rules actually permit free actions. Free actions do include changing grips.

And notice this rule.

"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."

Notice the underlined bit. The example indicates that you could go from 0 to 1 hands or 0 to 2 hands "as part of the same action you use to Attack". The rule could have said "before or after" to the same effect but instead chose to allow insertion of a free action into the Attack action with no restrictions.

The rules seem to directly allow the Versatile "exploit" unless I am misunderstanding or overlooking some restriction applied in the rules elsewhere.

I am going to assert that the rules permit the Versatile "exploit".

Do you agree with that assessment?

[Segev]

Thank you for keeping the conversation on one point.

You are making sense and I am following your argument. I am making a statement to the effect that you are making assertions without rules support. And you may be overlooking something.

The rules actually permit free actions. Free actions do include changing grips.

And notice this rule.

"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."

Notice the underlined bit. The example indicates that you could go from 0 to 1 hands or 0 to 2 hands "as part of the same action you use to Attack". The rule could have said "before or after" to the same effect but instead chose to allow insertion of a free action into the Attack action with no restrictions.

The rules seem to directly allow the Versatile "exploit" unless I am misunderstanding or overlooking some restriction applied in the rules elsewhere.

I am going to assert that the rules permit the Versatile "exploit".

Do you agree with that assessment?

If you rule as you do regarding thrown tridents not being valid to use dueling with, then a consistent ruling would be to permit the "Versatile exploit."

If that's how you choose to rule, you're free to do so. It is not inconsistent with the RAW.

Personally, I find ruling in a way that permits the "Versatile exploit" to be undesirable, as it seems very silly to me and counter to the RAI. I also find it not at all counter to the RAI to rule the alternative way, which is that there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution. This leave no "Versatile exploit" open, seems consistent with the RAI, to me, and creates no special problems nor inconsistencies in the rules.

Both ways of ruling are valid within the RAW. It is a matter of preference which you find superior. Technically, you don't even have to be consistent in your ruling, but at that point, you're really house ruling rather than just determining an interpretation of the RAW.

As long as you permit the Versatile Exploit as well as require that thrown weapons be weilded in zero hands by the time damage is dealt, you're maintaining a consistent interpretation of the RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

If you rule as you do regarding thrown tridents not being valid to use dueling with, then a consistent ruling would be to permit the "Versatile exploit."

If that's how you choose to rule, you're free to do so. It is not inconsistent with the RAW.

Personally, I find ruling in a way that permits the "Versatile exploit" to be undesirable, as it seems very silly to me and counter to the RAI. I also find it not at all counter to the RAI to rule the alternative way, which is that there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution. This leave no "Versatile exploit" open, seems consistent with the RAI, to me, and creates no special problems nor inconsistencies in the rules.

Both ways of ruling are valid within the RAW. It is a matter of preference which you find superior. Technically, you don't even have to be consistent in your ruling, but at that point, you're really house ruling rather than just determining an interpretation of the RAW.

As long as you permit the Versatile Exploit as well as require that thrown weapons be weilded in zero hands by the time damage is dealt, you're maintaining a consistent interpretation of the RAW.

Ok.

We have clarified that this is a house rule on your part. And it is a house rule that directly contradicts a rule in the book regarding free object actions. So you have chosen to stomp out a rule granted permission with a house ruled restriction.

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

When you introduce that house rule it opens up a hole for the Thrown Weapon Dueling fighting style "exploit". You have traded one exploit for another. You have taken away the ability for characters to draw a weapon as part of the Attack. You also take away capabilities that characters have to cast Counterspell in certain situations. There are consequences to your house rule. Those consequences might not be significant to you. But there are consequences.

A better house rule in my opinion would be one that specifically fixed the Versatile "exploit" while not stomping out the permission granted by the rules.

If you simply directly disallow the Versatile "exploit" then you leave the rules otherwise unperturbed.

Why not just do that? Is that not the most elegant way to address the issue?

Would you object to a more specific fix to the Versatile "exploit"?

In other words, the Versatile "exploit" can be fixed without adopting your house rule.

For example, let's say I have a character who walks around with a shield in hand and a spear in his belt to be drawn when needed. So he can react at any time with a Counterspell. He can also draw the spear as part of an attack. If he draws and throws the spear he can still Counterspell. The RAW allows him to do this.

Your house rule takes away his ability to draw the spear as part of an attack and to keep the ability to Counterspell when he throws it. This might be insignificant to you but you have taken away significant freedoms away in my opinion. You are imposing a greater cost to not having the Warcaster feat and taking away the ability of every character to draw a weapon as part of the attack.

A character can still draw a weapon as part of their move and work around that restriction so there is no real cost to the loss of that freedom; it's just a forced migration to doing it in another way. But you have increased the complexity of the rules. Players now need to remember more rules that don't work the way they say they do in the PHB.

But if you just specifically fix the Versatile "exploit" then the rules still do what they say they do.

[Segev]

Ok.

We have clarified that this is a house rule on your part. And it is a house rule that directly contradicts a rule in the book regarding free object actions.

Incorrect. We have not established that I am contradicting anything. For there to be a definite rule that free object interactions allow you to act in the middle of anything, you would have to permit that you could freely break down any action and apply any number of incompatible conditions to it by simply rotating through them, so long as you can find ways to do so without using up limited actions. This leads to very messy game-states.

My position is that you cannot break down an action. You can perform a free object interaction as part of an action - such as drawing a weapon as part of an attack with it - but you cannot wield a weapon in a different number of hands over the course of an attack because the attack is a singular event. You can perform a free object interaction simultaneously with or just before or just after, but you cannot perform it as an interruption. There is nothing in the rules as written that backs up your claim that the attack roll, as you put it, "establishes" the "state" that a weapon has changed how many hands wield it, or has moved at all. That is entirely your invention, and it is a reasonable ruling with the RAW, but it is not required nor provided by the RAW.

My formulation is more granular, but just as much within the RAW. It is incompatible with your interpretation, but the RAW can be ruled in a few different ways.

So no, we have not "clarified that this is a house rule on [my] part." It is a ruling, just as valid as yours, and also one which leads to fewer strange game states and exploits than does yours, in my opinion. (Which is why I prefer it.)

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. We have not established that I am contradicting anything. For there to be a definite rule that free object interactions allow you to act in the middle of anything, you would have to permit that you could freely break down any action and apply any number of incompatible conditions to it by simply rotating through them, so long as you can find ways to do so without using up limited actions. This leads to very messy game-states.

My position is that you cannot break down an action. You can perform a free object interaction as part of an action - such as drawing a weapon as part of an attack with it - but you cannot wield a weapon in a different number of hands over the course of an attack because the attack is a singular event. You can perform a free object interaction simultaneously with or just before or just after, but you cannot perform it as an interruption. There is nothing in the rules as written that backs up your claim that the attack roll, as you put it, "establishes" the "state" that a weapon has changed how many hands wield it, or has moved at all. That is entirely your invention, and it is a reasonable ruling with the RAW, but it is not required nor provided by the RAW.

My formulation is more granular, but just as much within the RAW. It is incompatible with your interpretation, but the RAW can be ruled in a few different ways.

So no, we have not "clarified that this is a house rule on [my] part." It is a ruling, just as valid as yours, and also one which leads to fewer strange game states and exploits than does yours, in my opinion. (Which is why I prefer it.)



For reference this is your house rule that modifies the Attack rules by adding these additional requirements to the text in the PHB:

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

The above house rule impacts this rule also (brackets and strike through represent changes):

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action [but you cannot take free actions that involve changing your grip in the attack 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."

The state of affairs . .

Your argument
You have a house rule that changes how an Attack resolves and when certain free object interactions are permitted.
Your house rule shuts down the Versatile "exploit"
Your house rule enables a Dueling style "exploit" for Thrown weapons.
Both those changes feel very natural to you.
You are okay with the unintended consequences (Counterspell shut off in niche cases; Players can only draw their weapons as part of a Move).

My argument
I have the RAW with no house rules.
The Attack rules and free action rules follow the PHB.
There is a Versatile "exploit" I permit.
There is no Dueling fighting style "exploit" for Thrown weapons.
Counterspell works in the niche cases described prior.
No changes to free action rules.


There is no qualitative difference between our arguments. Both are equally valid.

My argument is only more valid in the specific and narrow context of the Official Sources Only standard that affects me and any who choose to adhere to that standard. Playing according to that standard is not better or worse than other standards to play by.

Is that a decent summary?

[Zhorn]

ThorOdinson, this whole things has been explained in excruciating detail.
The flaws in your reasoning have been laid out.
The reliance on a singular specific definition of a word with multiple common usages, coming from outside the written text of the rule books.
The reference to the devs giving their RAI clarification.
The absurdities of attempting to apply consistency with your interpretation.
The referencing to AL rulings being shown to be the opposite of your claim.

Despite claiming you have a RAW case, you do not.
Segev is not the one houseruling changes.

You've dug your heels in too deep on this.
You're so intent on YOU being right and everyone else being wrong that you cannot even consider there's a possibility you've misinterpreted something.

Mistakes happen, it's okay.

[Segev]

Your argument
You have a house rule that changes how an Attack resolves and when certain free object interactions are permitted.Incorrect.
I'm not responding to the rest, because you continue to be incorrect about this point, and as long as you continue to base your argument for why I'm house ruling on the premise that I'm house ruling, you have no reasonable argument.

You have an interpretation of the RAW that is technically valid but which leads to weird and undesirable game-states. I have an interpretation of the RAW which is valid and leads to no undesirable game-states.

I acknowledge that "undesirable" is a subjective adjective, and thus am willing to grant that you may find game-states I am fine with "undesirable," and may not find problem with game-states that I consider "undesirable."

The primary game-state your interpretation leads to with which I have issue is the Versatile exploit. It doesn't make much narrative sense to me.

If there are game-states you find undesirable that you believe my interpretation leads to, I am willing to discuss them if you like.

I am not, however, willing to keep saying "nuh-uh/uh-huh!" over whether my ruling and interpretation is a "house rule" or not. You have no citations that support your assertion that I am house ruling any more than you are. I find both rulings to be within the technical bounds of the RAW (and yours to actually be a little more specious, but that's likely my bias talking, and I will not hold that up as fact). Unless and until you can demonstrate that my rulings are in violation of the RAW, I will summarily reject any of your claims that I am house ruling.

I am, however, willing to discuss game-states and whether they are desirable or not, if you find game-states that my ruling leads to which you believe to be undesirable.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect.
I'm not responding to the rest, because you continue to be incorrect about this point, and as long as you continue to base your argument for why I'm house ruling on the premise that I'm house ruling, you have no reasonable argument.

You have an interpretation of the RAW that is technically valid but which leads to weird and undesirable game-states. I have an interpretation of the RAW which is valid and leads to no undesirable game-states.

I acknowledge that "undesirable" is a subjective adjective, and thus am willing to grant that you may find game-states I am fine with "undesirable," and may not find problem with game-states that I consider "undesirable."

The primary game-state your interpretation leads to with which I have issue is the Versatile exploit. It doesn't make much narrative sense to me.

If there are game-states you find undesirable that you believe my interpretation leads to, I am willing to discuss them if you like.

I am not, however, willing to keep saying "nuh-uh/uh-huh!" over whether my ruling and interpretation is a "house rule" or not. You have no citations that support your assertion that I am house ruling any more than you are. I find both rulings to be within the technical bounds of the RAW (and yours to actually be a little more specious, but that's likely my bias talking, and I will not hold that up as fact). Unless and until you can demonstrate that my rulings are in violation of the RAW, I will summarily reject any of your claims that I am house ruling.

I am, however, willing to discuss game-states and whether they are desirable or not, if you find game-states that my ruling leads to which you believe to be undesirable.


I am unable to find this rule in the PHB . . .

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

The above rule, that imposes additional restrictions on the Attack action, is nowhere to be found in the actual PHB and is one that you have made up. If you want to claim that you did not make up the rule then provide a citation for the above rule as I cannot find it in the PHB. The presence or absence of the above rule in the actual PHB is what determines if it is a house rule or not.

When you make up rules that are not in the rules, it is called house ruling. You made up your house rule to shut down the Versatile "exploit" that is otherwise permitted by the rules.

There is nothing wrong with house ruling. House ruling is only an issue for those who play according to a standard of 'no house ruling'. I play according to a standard of 'no house ruling'.

[JNAProductions]

You have permission to make an attack with a certain number of hands.
You do not have permission to change the number of hands used during an attack-at least, not explicit permission. You can INFER some permission, but it leads to wonky scenarios, as outlined above.

[ThorOdinson]

You have permission to make an attack with a certain number of hands.
You do not have permission to change the number of hands used during an attack-at least, not explicit permission. You can INFER some permission, but it leads to wonky scenarios, as outlined above.

Can you provide citations for your assertions?

Here is a rule in the PHB that directly contradicts you

"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."

So the rules in the PHB grant explicit permission to make free object interactions "as part of the same action you use to attack" and places no restriction on that permission.

The rules even call out the specific example of drawing a weapon as part of same action you use to Attack. We know the rules are 100% okay with going from 0 to 1 or 2 hands as part of the same action you use to Attack.

[JNAProductions]

They let you draw your weapon. Unless you want to claim you can make an attack with an undrawn weapon, that would have to happen at the start of the attack.

Notably, that says nothing about there being anything between the attack roll and the damage roll.

Edit: You can reasonably claim that you're following RAW (though not RAI), but you can't reasonably claim your reading is the ONLY correct reading.

[ThorOdinson]

They let you draw your weapon. Unless you want to claim you can make an attack with an undrawn weapon, that would have to happen at the start of the attack.

Notably, that says nothing about there being anything between the attack roll and the damage roll.

Edit: You can reasonably claim that you're following RAW (though not RAI), but you can't reasonably claim your reading is the ONLY correct reading.

The actual rules provide no restriction on changing your hands or interrupting in the middle of the action to perform a free item interaction. You can infer based on Theatre of the Mind logic in reference to how a human could plausibly make a melee attack. Are we allowing inferences based on the logic of how attacks are performed to count as RAW?

On your second point, feel free to provide an alternative RAW argument to the one I have presented for duscussion.

Segev presented an argument with a house rule that doesn't meet the criteria for a RAW argument. His argument is fine if house rules are allowed. In my case, house rules are not allowed.

[JNAProductions]

Feel free to provide an alternative RAW argument to the one I have presented.

Segev presented an argument with a house rule that doesn't meet the criteria for a RAW argument. His argument is okay if house rules are allowed. In my case, house rules are not allowed.

So because you can draw a weapon as part of the action you use to attack, you can switch hands between the attack and damage rolls?

The if->then chain fails. That's just basic logic and English. You have permission to change hands during the Attack Action, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can change hands during an attack itself.

Or are you equating the Attack Action to be the exact same thing as an attack?

[ThorOdinson]

So because you can draw a weapon as part of the action you use to attack, you can switch hands between the attack and damage rolls?

I am pointing out that the rules are entirely silent on when you can switch hands. But definitely the rules indicate you can. The rules allow you to switch hands as part of an item interaction "as part of the same action you use to attack" with no restriction on when that item interaction occurs.

If you make an inference that a draw occurs at the start of the attack you are making that inference based on relating the attack to a real world attack in a Theatre of Mind context. This is fine to do. Rules have semantics and logic and frames of reference that are a component of the meaning.

Do you agree that you are making inferences here?

[Segev]

If you make an inference that a draw occurs at the start of the attack you are making that inference based on relating the attack to a real world attack in a Theatre of Mind context. This is fine to do. Rules have semantics and logic and frames of reference that are a component of the meaning.

Do you agree that you are making inferences here?

I can agree that there are inferences being made, but not for the reasons you seem to be stating. A draw that happens as part of an attack action MUST happen before the attack, because otherwise you cannot make the attack with that weapon.

[ThorOdinson]

I can agree that there are inferences being made, but not for the reasons you seem to be stating. A draw that happens as part of an attack action MUST happen before the attack, because otherwise you cannot make the attack with that weapon.

The inference is made based on relating the game action to the knowledge of real world actions of making an attack with a sword. We know and can infer that weapons are drawn before an attack because we draw from shared knowledge about weapons. This is just an extension of semantics, frames of reference, and logic. The PHB leaves a lot of terms undefined and so semantics, logic, and frames of reference fill in some gaps. A bizarre universe where cause and effect and sequencing did not happen would allow drawing to occur after the attack. But such a bizarre universe is not being emulated by the PHB. The PHB references the normal universe of cause and effect, sequencing, etc.

Also, note that no where in the rules does it say you have to be holding a weapon ready to use it to make a melee attack with it. The inference is made based on corresponding game action with the real world semantic domain of weapon fighting in which we know weapons are obviously held in hands and used.

We can advance inferences that are unequivocal, ie inferences that MUST be true. Inferences can't be made when there is equivocation as to what is logically required. For example, there are plenty of examples in real world fighting of attack techniques which involve the changing of grips in the making of an attack. So we can't really infer based on the real world semantic domain of weaponry that grip changes are definitely not allowed in the rules because there are real world examples of attacks which are made with a change in grips. The Versatile "exploit" may be an emulation of real weapon attacks that change grips in the execution of the attack. We just can't make inferences one way or another on the legality of grip changing by looking at the real world semantic domain of weaponry.

So, we can make inferences, so long as they are semantically/logically required without equivocation, correct?

[Segev]

I’m away from book right now, but before I go looking in the PHB for what I expect to be there, I want to make sure I understood you correctly: are you asserting that there are no rules requiring that a weapon be wielded, ready and in-hand, or anything similar before it can be used in a weapon attack?

[ThorOdinson]

I’m away from book right now, but before I go looking in the PHB for what I expect to be there, I want to make sure I understood you correctly: are you asserting that there are no rules requiring that a weapon be wielded, ready and in-hand, or anything similar before it can be used in a weapon attack?

I have used the search function and tracked down every usage of wield in the PHB. When you do that you will notice that wield is not defined by the PHB. You will also notice that the PHB uses wield in rules discussions about weapons and also more abstract uses (e.g. 'wield power') when not making rules statements.

When you check the various contexts that wield is used to make rules statements you notice statements like these . . .

"A lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted"

Even though "wield" is not directly defined by the PHB, I think it can be inferred from the various rule statement which feature "wield", that "wield" means "held [in one or two hands] ready to use [as in the case of a weapon]". And since that definition of "wield" we arrive at by making inferences from rules statements featuring "wield" corresponds with the standard and expected semantics of wield as it relates to weaponry, we seem to be well-supported by english semantics.

Do you agree that "wield" is not directly defined by the rules?

Do you agree that we can still infer its meaning from the context of its word usage in the PHB and ground its meaning in the standard definition that relates to weaponry?

I have asserted a meaning of "wield" by making an inference from its usage in the PHB. Do you agree with the meaning I have asserted ("held [in one or two hands] ready to use [as in the case of a weapon]")? Do you have an alternative?

Hopefully we can settle on a meaning of "wield" that can be asserted without equivocation. If there is legitimate equivocation, we cannot infer a meaning of "wield".

[ThorOdinson]

This does not answer the question I asked: Are you asserting that a weapon need not be wielded in order to make an attack with it?


Do we have an agreed upon definition of "wield" meaning "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)"?

If our definitions are not agreed upon, I cannot answer your question directly.

Remember "wield a dart" is different than "throw a dart". "Wield a dart" involves funnily/oddly using a dart as a melee weapon.

I think we can assert that "wield" means "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon or tool)". That way we represent also the meaning of "wield a shield".

[Segev]

Do we have an agreed upon definition of "wield" meaning "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)"?

If our definitions are not agreed upon, I cannot answer your question directly.

Remember "wield a dart" is different than "throw a dart". "Wield a dart" involves funnily/oddly using a dart as a melee weapon.

I think we can assert that "wield" means "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon or tool)". That way we represent also the meaning of "wield a shield".

If I understand your distinction about “wielding a dart” correctly, you are stating that you do not wield weapons when you throw them. Is this accurate?

[Valmark]

Sorry to interrupt, but why would "wield a dart" imply using it as a melee weapon?

[ThorOdinson]

If I understand your distinction about “wielding a dart” correctly, you are stating that you do not wield weapons when you throw them. Is this accurate?

I think the matter is up for discussion, do you want dig deeper on this?

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?

[ThorOdinson]

Sorry to interrupt, but why would "wield a dart" imply using it as a melee weapon?

Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time,

[Segev]

I think the matter is up for discussion, do you want dig deeper on this?

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?

Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.

[Mr Adventurer]

Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time,

Irrelevant; we don't exist in that period of history. There's already been discussion of current (dictionary) definitions in this thread.

[ThorOdinson]

Irrelevant; we don't exist in that period of history. There's already been discussion of current (dictionary) definitions in this thread.

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

Operation: Valkyrie!

The rules are clearly in my favor.

[Valmark]

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

We can- but going from that to meaning that wield is strictly melee is a leap in logic, like saying that [My cat is white] thus [cats are white]. The definition you used several times (to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)) makes no distintion between swords and bows for example. Nor the other one that has been adopted (to use effectively).

Besides, the first usage of a word doesn't preclude a wider meaning. I can say "This tastes sweet" and tell a person "You're sweet" and unless I have a rather worrying diet those will mean different things while still being a correct usage of a word.

[Mr Adventurer]

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

That is a non-sequitur reply to my post, no.


The rules are clearly in my favor.

Please stop repeating yourself, it will lead to a better discussion.

[Zhorn]

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?
Only in so far as there are two consecutive is's in that sentence.
Wielding a dart to make an thrown range attack makes perfect sense.

Dirrecting to it's usage in the basic rules available free online
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf

Weapons
For each weapon your character wields, calculate the modifier you use when you attack with the weapon and the damage you deal when you hit.
When you make an attack with a weapon, you roll a d20 and add your proficiency bonus (but only if you are proficient with the weapon) and the appropriate ability modifier.
For attacks with melee weapons, use your Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls. A weapon that has the finesse property, such as a rapier, can use your Dexterity modifier instead.
For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. A melee weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your Strength modifier instead.
If you are making an attack with a weapon, you are wielding it. Simple.


Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time
And 'bun', where we get the word 'bunny', in old English originally meant squirrel.
So I guess that means we can never use 'bun' to mean a bread or cake in modern context any more?
Let's not be silly. Language shifts and changes, and 'wield' works perfectly well in modern context.


Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.
^ perfect example.

[ThorOdinson]

Only in so far as there are two consecutive is's in that sentence.
Wielding a dart to make an thrown range attack makes perfect sense.

Dirrecting to it's usage in the basic rules available free online
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf

If you are making an attack with a weapon, you are wielding it. Simple.


And 'bun', where we get the word 'bunny', in old English originally meant squirrel.
So I guess that means we can never use 'bun' to mean a bread or cake in modern context any more?
Let's not be silly. Language shifts and changes, and 'wield' works perfectly well in modern context.


^ perfect example.

Cool. So no consensus on what "wield" means. : )

[Valmark]

Cool. So no consensus on what "wield" means. : )

I mean, that's half of the argument in the first place isn't it? You not agreeing with everybody (or nearly everybody) else's definition of wielding?

[Zhorn]

Here's a thingy

Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.

If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

[Valmark]

Here's a thingy


If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

It also confirms that 'wielding' isn't restricted to melee weapons which seemed up to debate.

[Aett_Thorn]

Here's a thingy


If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

Also means that under Thor’s interpretation this weapon would deal no damage, since it returns after the attack and not the damage. Would only do damage if the damage was a part of the attack, and not a discrete event.

[ThorOdinson]

Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.

Let me get this straight. Even in the case of darts where you throw them and they travel a distance and strike a target when the dart is not in your hand, the dart is still considered "wielded" by you?

[JNAProductions]

Here's a thingy


Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.

If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

It seems this may have been missed. Under your ruling, TO, a Returning Weapon never deals damage when thrown, since it returns after the attack. With a discrete attack roll and damage roll, it returns before it deals damage.

Like I've said before-your reading of RAW may be technically accurate, but is not RAI, and as Segev pointed out, leads to some very odd interactions. Interactions that I, for one, and Segev, for two, find undesirable.