Stacking Dueling and Thrown Weapon Fighting Styles?

[Yakmala]

Per Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice, dueling fighting style works with thrown melee weapons. We also have the new thrown weapon fighting style.

With the new Fighting Initiate feat, it's easy to pick up a second fighting style without having to multiclass or play a Champion.

So, with both dueling fighting style and thrown weapon fighting style, that's +4 damage per hit.

Personally, I love the idea of this. I'm picturing either some type of lumberjack character that is a pro with hatchets, or the classic fighter/rogue festooned with throwing knives.

But beyond the character flavor, do you think this combination is a worthy investment?

[Gignere]

Per Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice, dueling fighting style works with thrown melee weapons. We also have the new thrown weapon fighting style.

With the new Fighting Initiate feat, it's easy to pick up a second fighting style without having to multiclass or play a Champion.

So, with both dueling fighting style and thrown weapon fighting style, that's +4 damage per hit.

Personally, I love the idea of this. I'm picturing either some type of lumberjack character that is a pro with hatchets, or the classic fighter/rogue festooned with throwing knives.

But beyond the character flavor, do you think this combination is a worthy investment?

Unless the fighting style fixes the drawing of weapons issues it would be hard to keep doing extra attacks beyond the first round. I think by RAW you can only draw one weapon as part of the attack per round. You can draw two if you have the dual wielder feat but that would still leave you dry if you have 3 or more attacks in a round.

[nickl_2000]

Unless the fighting style fixes the drawing of weapons issues it would be hard to keep doing extra attacks beyond the first round. I think by RAW you can only draw one weapon as part of the attack per round. You can draw two if you have the dual wielder feat but that would still leave you dry if you have 3 or more attacks in a round.

I haven't seen the Tasha's version, but the UA version solved that problem.

Thrown Weapon Fighting
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon.
In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +1 bonus to the damage roll.

[Yakmala]

I haven't seen the Tasha's version, but the UA version solved that problem.

Thrown Weapon Fighting
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon.
In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +1 bonus to the damage roll.

According to the leaks I've seen, the above is correct, but the damage has been bumped to +2, making the combo of dueling and thrown weapon fighting styles a +4 damage bump.

[Darthnazrael]

I would build it as an Echo Knight/Gloomstalker, preferably using Yklwas for better damage, alongside a shield. Echo Knight would effectively extend your range, and Gloomstalker'a extra attack means an additional +4 damage from the combo.

[Starman]

Per Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice, dueling fighting style works with thrown melee weapons.

Per the Sage Advice Compendium, old JC tweets are no longer official sources of RAI. If it's not in the SAC it's not official.

[sithlordnergal]

Per the Sage Advice Compendium, old JC tweets are no longer official sources of RAI. If it's not in the SAC it's not official.

Don't go down that rabbit hole. Just...avoid it at all costs. We've gone down that rabbit hole, it was long, dark, and frustrating to say the least. The collective agreement was yes, Dueling works when you throw a Thrown Melee Weapon because its still an attack being made with a melee weapon that's being wielded in one hand.

[sithlordnergal]

Per Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice, dueling fighting style works with thrown melee weapons. We also have the new thrown weapon fighting style.

With the new Fighting Initiate feat, it's easy to pick up a second fighting style without having to multiclass or play a Champion.

So, with both dueling fighting style and thrown weapon fighting style, that's +4 damage per hit.

Personally, I love the idea of this. I'm picturing either some type of lumberjack character that is a pro with hatchets, or the classic fighter/rogue festooned with throwing knives.

But beyond the character flavor, do you think this combination is a worthy investment?

I could see this being a cool build, but that's all it'll be, a cool concept. Yes, you could get a +4 to damage with thrown weapons, but you're competing with Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, and the Archery Fighting Style. The ideal will still be some sort of Fighter/Rogue with a bow/crossbow that adds +10 to their damage. That's not to say you shouldn't play it, it's going to be a fun build regardless. Its just a Fighter that is dedicated to using a bow or crossbow will still do better in the end.

[Starman]

Don't go down that rabbit hole. Just...avoid it at all costs. We've gone down that rabbit hole, it was long, dark, and frustrating to say the least. The collective agreement was yes, Dueling works when you throw a Thrown Melee Weapon because its still an attack being made with a melee weapon that's being wielded in one hand.

The collective agreement reached in the javelin thread amounted to just an unofficial house rule in my opinion. There was one poster (Thor) on there who conclusively showed that the rules indicate that the dueling fighting style does not apply to thrown weapons.

Tables vary so if your table is cool with Dueling applying to thrown weapons then have fun with it. But please do not pretend the rules are on your side on this one.

[x3n0n]

The collective agreement reached in the javelin thread amounted to just an unofficial house rule in my opinion. There was one poster (Thor) on there who conclusively showed that the rules indicate that the dueling fighting style does not apply to thrown weapons.

Tables vary so if your table is cool with Dueling applying to thrown weapons then have fun with it. But please do not pretend the rules are on your side on this one.

That's funny; I found the evidence in the previous thread rather unpersuasive in both directions, and had decided to stick with the outdated JC tweet.

If anything, I think the existence of the new style serves as contrary evidence to my previous conclusion.

[sithlordnergal]

Either way, its still going to be less effective then a ranged build that uses Sharpshooter. Not a bad build, to be sure, and certainly viable, but it'll get out performed by a Sharpshooter/Archery build.

[Taevyr]

Personally, I'd say that it's neat, but likely not working as intended. My original reasoning that concludes Dueling works with thrown weapons is based on 2 things, and mainly the first at that.


There's no other fighting style that specifically boosts thrown weapons, so it wouldn't make sense from a design viewpoint if it didn't work

Thrown weapons technically fit the description of "melee weapon and wielded in one hand", so as long as you don't start dual-wielding them it should be fine


The fact that there's now a dedicated thrown weapon fighting style indicates, to me at least, that dueling is no longer meant to be used that way/necessary as a "repurposed" style. However, combining them still wouldn't contradict anything in the rulebook imho.

Either way, it's not at all OP, and quite flavorful: I can already imagine a greek-style javelin-and-hoplon specialist. It's up to your DM, of course, and I personally don't think it's intended that way, but it doesn't seem like it'd actually be a problem.


The collective agreement reached in the javelin thread amounted to just an unofficial house rule in my opinion. There was one poster (Thor) on there who conclusively showed that the rules indicate that the dueling fighting style does not apply to thrown weapons.

Tables vary so if your table is cool with Dueling applying to thrown weapons then have fun with it. But please do not pretend the rules are on your side on this one.

Please don't start this again. People are going to start having flashbacks to the Javelin thread war of 2020 if this keeps up.

Though it'd be something to tell kids from my rocking chair later. "There I was, watching as the opposing factions launched their endless barrage of quotations and definitions across the No Man's Thread, always in fear of Mods banning them over the top"

[Zhorn]

Calling it now, Starman is TO

[Starman]

Calling it now, Starman is TO

What does TO mean?

[Greywander]

Alternatively, could you stack it with Archery instead/in addition to? I don't have the books open at the moment, but Archery should at least work with darts (which wouldn't work with Dueling since darts aren't melee weapons).


The fact that there's now a dedicated thrown weapon fighting style indicates, to me at least, that dueling is no longer meant to be used that way/necessary as a "repurposed" style. However, combining them still wouldn't contradict anything in the rulebook imho.
But why would you think that? First of all, one can't normally get more than one fighting style anyway, unless one is a Champion or one multiclasses. Second, there are other fighting styles that can be "stacked": Defense works with any other style, Dueling and Protection can be used together, and Archery should work with ranged thrown weapons. There's no reason to think that having a fighting style that works in one situation must mean that no other fighting styles can apply to that same situation. They could make multiple fighting styles that all apply under the same conditions, and could thus be stacked. It would arguably be poor design to do so, but nothing is stopping this from happening.

[ff7hero]

I don't know the specific wording of the new FS, but Archery works with Darts and Nets, but not any other thrown weapons.

[Kane0]

Sure, why not. It wouldnt be gamebreaking considering the investment and opportunity cost.

I still hate the style on premise however.

[Yakmala]

Darts are particularly lethal, being both ranged and thrown weapons. So, they can benefit from archery fighting style, Thrown Weapon fighting style, sharpshooter and strength boosting items such as gauntlets and belts. Their drawbacks are the low base damage and lack of magical darts in the DMG.

[Greywander]

Darts are particularly lethal, being both ranged and thrown weapons. So, they can benefit from archery fighting style, Thrown Weapon fighting style, sharpshooter and strength boosting items such as gauntlets and belts. Their drawbacks are the low base damage and lack of magical darts in the DMG.
You forgot to mention that they are finesse weapons, which is why they benefit from STR-boosting items. As a ranged weapon, they use DEX by default, but finesse allows you to use your choice of STR or DEX.

[ff7hero]

Calling it now, Starman is TO

Nah, the posting schedule is pretty different.

[Starman]

The fact that there's now a dedicated thrown weapon fighting style indicates, to me at least, that dueling is no longer meant to be used that way/necessary as a "repurposed" style. However, combining them still wouldn't contradict anything in the rulebook imho.

The definition of Ranged Attacks in the rulebook directly prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style to thrown weapons.

I am going to follow the rulebook and affirm that the Thrown fighting style and the Dueling fighting style cannot be combined.

[Aett_Thorn]

The definition of Ranged Attacks in the rulebook directly prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style to thrown weapons.

I am going to follow the rulebook and affirm that the Thrown fighting style and the Dueling fighting style cannot be combined.

I know that this is just opening this can of worms yet again, and that this is probably TO under a different alias, but the ranged attack rules say nothing that prevents the dueling fighting style from working with thrown weapons.

[Starman]

I know that this is just opening this can of worms yet again, and that this is probably TO under a different alias, but the ranged attack rules say nothing that prevents the dueling fighting style from working with thrown weapons.

Can someone elighten me as to what TO refers to?

Ranged Attacks are defined by the rulebook as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance or something along those lines. The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in your hand when damage rolls are made. The Ranged Attacks definition directly prevents the Dueling fighting style from being applied.

[Taevyr]

But why would you think that? First of all, one can't normally get more than one fighting style anyway, unless one is a Champion or one multiclasses. Second, there are other fighting styles that can be "stacked": Defense works with any other style, Dueling and Protection can be used together, and Archery should work with ranged thrown weapons. There's no reason to think that having a fighting style that works in one situation must mean that no other fighting styles can apply to that same situation. They could make multiple fighting styles that all apply under the same conditions, and could thus be stacked. It would arguably be poor design to do so, but nothing is stopping this from happening.

Let me preface this by saying I have no illusions about this being my personal inclinations on the matter: It's the way I feel it's intended, which may very well be wrong.

Put shortly: yes, styles such as defense, protection and mariner can be used in conjunction with others, but they don't relate to using specific types of weapons (or specifically using two weapons simultaneously). Personally, I feel that archery style, GWF, dueling, TWF, and Thrown weapon fighting are all intended as the go-to style for PC's wanting to emphasize their mastery over that specific weapon category/combat style. As such, I'm personally inclined to say that they shouldn't overlap.

EDIT: that's also why I allowed dueling to work with thrown weapons before Thrown Style was a thing: in my view, proper design for the fighting styles requiring a specific form of weapon usage means each of those has a single style associated with it, and those styles don't overlap with each other. As such, Dueling was used to fill the niche now filled by Thrown, especially since there was nothing in the rules forbidding it to be used that way.

[ff7hero]

Let me preface this by saying I have no illusions about this being my personal inclinations on the matter: It's the way I feel it's intended, which may very well be wrong.

Put shortly: yes, styles such as defense, protection and mariner can be used in conjunction with others, but they don't relate to using specific types of weapons (or specifically using two weapons simultaneously). Personally, I feel that archery style, GWF, dueling, TWF, and Thrown weapon fighting are all intended as the go-to style for PC's wanting to emphasize their mastery over that specific weapon category/combat style. As such, I'm personally inclined to say that they shouldn't overlap.

EDIT: that's also why I allowed dueling to work with thrown weapons before Thrown Style was a thing: in my view, proper design for the fighting styles requiring a specific form of weapon usage means each of those has a single style associated with it, and those styles don't overlap with each other. As such, Dueling was used to fill the niche now filled by Thrown, especially since there was nothing in the rules forbidding it to be used that way.

Will you be banning the use of Archery and Thrown Weapons Style together with Darts?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Can someone elighten me as to what TO refers to?

Ranged Attacks are defined by the rulebook as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance or something along those lines. The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in your hand when damage rolls are made. The Ranged Attacks definition directly prevents the Dueling fighting style from being applied.

Define where in RAW it says the weapon has left your hand before you rolled damage.

[Taevyr]

Will you be banning the use of Archery and Thrown Weapons Style together with Darts?

In the theoretical whiteroom: Following my interpretation of the intent of the styles, I would. Darts are primarily thrown weapons, even if they're put under ranged in the rules. I do agree that the case for letting them benefit from both is definitely stronger than it is for dueling/thrown in my opinion, and there's still nothing in the rules opposing it.

In practice: any player of mine that wants to play a dedicated darts PC badly enough to dedicate two fighting styles to it deserves a bit of a bump, and I'd probably allow it so long as it doesn't result in any outrageous cheese.

EDIT: and now that i'm thinking about it, a sharpshooter darter could make for some great shenanigans in describing the attacks.

[Starman]

Define where in RAW it says the weapon has left your hand before you rolled damage.

I already showed you in the rulebook. You can't ignore definitions in the rulebook. Ranged Attacks are defined as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance.

The burden is actually on you to explain how the ranged attack could possibly still be in a hand when damage rolls are made. The definition of Ranged Attacks makes it impossible for the ranged attack to still be in your hand.

[Segev]

I would build it as an Echo Knight/Gloomstalker, preferably using Yklwas for better damage, alongside a shield. Echo Knight would effectively extend your range, and Gloomstalker'a extra attack means an additional +4 damage from the combo.

Does an echo Knight expend ammo and thrown weapons when his echo throws or fires them?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I already showed you in the rulebook. You can't ignore definitions in the rulebook. Ranged Attacks are defined as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance.

The burden is actually on you to explain how the ranged attack could possibly still be in a hand when damage rolls are made. The definition of Ranged Attacks makes it impossible for the ranged attack to still be in your hand.

I don't see how a ranged attack being a projectile states any timing on when it leaves your hand. It certainly doesn't have any specificity on whether that's before or after damage is calculated.

The burden of proof doesn't suddenly become mine, you're the one proving a claim here. You made the claim and your supporting evidence is lacking. Where does it say anywhere that you roll damage after the weapon has left your hand?


Does an echo Knight expend ammo and thrown weapons when his echo throws or fires them?
It says that you make the attack and that it can originate from your space or the echoes, so defying common sense all signs point to "yes", it's your attack so it would use your resources.

[Starman]

I don't see how a ranged attack being a projectile states any timing on when it leaves your hand. It certainly doesn't have any specificity on whether that's before or after damage is calculated.

The burden of proof doesn't suddenly become mine, you're the one proving a claim here. You made the claim and your supporting evidence is lacking. Where does it say anywhere that you roll damage after the weapon has left your hand?

The burden of proof is on you since you are the one trying to get a bonus that goes directly against definitions in the rulebook. You need to first show how the ranged attack is still in one hand when damage rolls are made or you do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus. You do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus for free. You have to prove you get it.

By definition a ranged attack cannot still be in one hand for the attack since ranged attacks are projectiles that are sent to strike a foe from a distance. If the weapon is still in your hand when damage rolls are made then you have not sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance and you have not made a ranged attack. That is how definitions apply.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The burden of proof is on you since you are the one trying to get a bonus that goes directly against definitions in the rulebook. You need to first show how the ranged attack is still in one hand when damage rolls are made or you do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus. You do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus for free. You have to prove you get it.

By definition a ranged attack cannot still be in one hand for the attack since ranged attacks are projectiles that are sent to strike a foe from a distance. If the ranged attack is still in your hand when damage rolls are made then you have not made a ranged attack.

I'm not seeing any definition that says ranged attacks cannot benefit from dueling, all I'm seeing is that you need to be wielding a melee weapon with one hand and no other weapons, which grants you a bonus to damage rolls.

You claim it leaves your hand before damage is rolled, there is no evidence to support this, meanwhile holding a Javelin in one hand with an empty hand or shield qualifies you for dueling and there's nothing that says that qualification ends if you decide that the attack you're making is using the thrown property.

It's also very clear, if they wanted for it to not affect thrown weapons, they could have easily worded it to say "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls when making a melee attack with that weapon"

So we've made clear that the wording does not exclude ranged attacks and there is no wording to suggest when the weapon actually leaves your hands. There's an interpretation that says "no" and an interpretation that says "yes" and there's more evidence for the latter as well as it being supported in part by one of the designers and public opinion.

I can respect a claim that you might not want to allow it to work, but to suggest the rules actively don't allow it to is completely wrong.

[Starman]

I'm not seeing any definition that says ranged attacks cannot benefit from dueling, all I'm seeing is that you need to be wielding a melee weapon with one hand and no other weapons, which grants you a bonus to damage rolls.

You claim it leaves your hand before damage is rolled, there is no evidence to support this, meanwhile holding a Javelin in one hand with an empty hand or shield qualifies you for dueling and there's nothing that says that qualification ends if you decide that the attack you're making is using the thrown property.

It's also very clear, if they wanted for it to not affect thrown weapons, they could have easily worded it to say "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls when making a melee attack with that weapon"

So we've made clear that the wording does not exclude ranged attacks and there is no wording to suggest when the weapon actually leaves your hands. There's an interpretation that says "no" and an interpretation that says "yes" and there's more evidence for the latter as well as it being supported in part by one of the designers and public opinion.

I can respect a claim that you might not want to allow it to work, but to suggest the rules actively don't allow it to is completely wrong.

You have yet to prove that the weapon that you made a ranged attack with and that, by definition, you have sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance is still somehow in your hand when damage rolls are made.

You do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus unless you can show in the rulebook how you can even justify getting the bonus. The burden of proof is on you here.

How is the weapon still in your hand if by definition it has been sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance?

You do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus until you can successfully resolve this logical impossibility that is imposed by definitions in the rulebook.

[JackPhoenix]

I already showed you in the rulebook. You can't ignore definitions in the rulebook. Ranged Attacks are defined as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance.

The burden is actually on you to explain how the ranged attack could possibly still be in a hand when damage rolls are made.

Sure: It's not an uncommon practice to roll the attack and damage dice at the same time to speed things up. It's even suggested in the DMG. Does that mean that the player's rolling practice make the in-game event happen differently, which again influence how mechanics are resolved?

But, of course, the flow of the game is 1) the player describes what he wants to do -> 2) the GM decides what, if any, checks are needed to resolve the action -> 3) the GM narrates the result. The rolls... both attack, damage and otherwise, if needed..... are made in step 2, which happens purely between the players, not in the game world, but the weapon doesn't leave the character's hand until step 3, when the in-fiction action is described.


The definition of Ranged Attacks makes it impossible for the ranged attack to still be in your hand.

Well, sure, because the character never had "ranged attack" in his hand. "Ranged attack" is a mechanical term, not an in-fiction object. And even if it was, you'd still be wrong, because any weapon with ammunition quality stays in your hand after the attack is resolved, and the damage dice depends on the weapon, not the projectile.

[Starman]

Sure: It's not an uncommon practice to roll the attack and damage dice at the same time to speed things up. It's even suggested in the DMG. Does that mean that the player's rolling practice make the in-game event happen differently, which again influence how mechanics are resolved?

But, of course, the flow of the game is 1) the player describes what he wants to do -> 2) the GM decides what, if any, checks are needed to resolve the action -> 3) the GM narrates the result. The rolls... both attack, damage and otherwise, if needed..... are made in step 2, but the weapon doesn't leave the character's hand until step 3, when the in-fiction action is described.



Well, sure, because the character never had "ranged attack" in his hand. "Ranged attack" is a mechanical term, not an in-fiction object. And even if it was, you'd still be wrong, because any weapon with ammunition quality stays in your hand after the attack is resolved, and the damage dice depends on the weapon, not the projectile.

You are ignoring definitions in the rulebook and the rules for Combat. The ranged attack in question is made by sending a spear, javelin, or knife as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance. You commit to making a ranged attack while in Combat and following the rules for Combat you elect the Attack action and choose Ranged Attack. In order for the weapon to remain in hand you need to choose Melee Attack. When you choose Ranged Attack the weapon by definition is sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

You cannot ignore definitions in the rulebook.

[JackPhoenix]

You are ignoring definitions in the rulebook and the rules for Combat. The ranged attack in question is made by sending a spear, javelin, or knife as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance. You commit to making a ranged attack while in Combat and following the rules for Combat you elect the Attack action and choose Ranged Attack. In order for the weapon to remain in hand you need to choose Melee Attack.

You cannot ignore definitions in the rulebook.

But I don't need the weapon to remain in my hand. I only need to wield it, which I do when I decide to attack with it. I don't care what happens with it afterwards.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Define where in RAW it says the weapon has left your hand before you rolled damage.

I have a preposterous, DC 30 challenge for you:

Define, in natural language, how a creature can make a ranged weapon attack with a thrown dagger, hit with the dagger, and still have the dagger in their hand, when the dagger's blade hits? 😀

Reading this:
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....
.....Should not leave one with the impression that it was intended to
enhance attacks with thrown daggers.

Having Dueling apply to Thrown weapons before was a technical glitch in the rules, that could allow Thrown weapons to get a bit of justice.

Now, Thrown weapons, have a direct remedy, in the form of their very own Fighting Style, the technical glitch is no longer, justly, needed.

At no point, will you ever see one fencer, throw their blade at their armed opponent.
It would be a death sentence, in a duel.

Kensei's might be tempted to take the Thrown Fighting style Feat.

[Starman]

But I don't need the weapon to remain in my hand. I only need to wield it, which I do when I decide to attack with it. I don't care what happens with it afterwards.

The Dueling fighting style cares. You don't get that bonus for free. So how do you get it? How is the spear still in your hand when by definition you have sent it as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance when you chose Ranged Attack as your choice for the Attack action?

The burden of proof is on you here.

[Thunderous Mojo]

But I don't need the weapon to remain in my hand. I only need to wield it, which I do when I decide to attack with it. I don't care what happens with it afterwards.

A pitcher in baseball throws the ball, and the batter wields the bat.
What transpires when:
A pitcher in baseball wields the ball, and the batter throws the bat?

JackPhoenix, your argument does not rely on natural language.

[ProsecutorGodot]

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....
.....Should not leave one with the impression that it was intended to
enhance attacks with thrown daggers.
It doesn't say anywhere there that it has to be a melee attack with a melee weapon.

Now, Thrown weapons, have a direct remedy, in the form of their very own Fighting Style, the technical glitch is no longer, justly, needed.
Unless they print an errata to clearly disqualify thrown weapons, I'm not considering the new fighting style to be the "correct" option, but an "additional" one.

Dueling is still better in cases where you plan not to throw the weapon often, or at all. Thrown Weapon Fighting has a bullet point to allow a build that focuses primarily on throwing things thanks to being able to draw more weapons, and also works on the ranged weapon thrown weapons.

They're very similar, but still fill different roles. It's not actually a bad thing for them to overlap in rare circumstances.

At no point, will you ever see one fencer, throw their blade at their other opponent.
It would be a death sentence, in a duel.
If you're basing your reasoning off the name of the feature, I'd recommend avoiding that because it seems to have created some bias in expectations.

Would you also suggest that "Archery" shouldn't apply to Dart's or Sling's because neither involves the use of traditional bows, which define the sport/skill of Archery? That "Great" Weapon Fighting shouldn't apply to Longswords being wielding in 2 hands because they aren't a "great"sword?

It goes without saying, this is hyperbole, but my point is that the name of the feature shouldn't define its effect in a case where it's actual effect isn't that restrictive.

[Starman]

It doesn't say anywhere there that it has to be a melee attack with a melee weapon.

Unless they print an errata to clearly disqualify thrown weapons, I'm not considering the new fighting style to be the "correct" option, but an "additional" one.

Dueling is still better in cases where you plan not to throw the weapon often, or at all. Thrown Weapon Fighting has a bullet point to allow a build that focuses primarily on throwing things thanks to being able to draw more weapons, and also works on the ranged weapon thrown weapons.

They're very similar, but still fill different roles. It's not actually a bad thing for them to overlap in rare circumstances.

If you're basing your reasoning off the name of the feature, I'd recommend avoiding that because it seems to have created some bias in expectations.

Would you also suggest that "Archery" shouldn't apply to Dart's or Sling's because neither involves the use of traditional bows, which define the sport/skill of Archery? That "Great" Weapon Fighting shouldn't apply to Longswords being wielding in 2 hands because they aren't a "great"sword?

It goes without saying, this is hyperbole, but my point is that the name of the feature shouldn't define its effect in a case where it's actual effect isn't that restrictive.

ProsecutorGodot, you have yet to prove that you get the Dueling fighting style bonus. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you send a weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance and it somehow remains in your hand.

Until you can actually prove you get the bonus there is nothing more to discuss. You cannot ignore definitions in the rulebook that prevent the Dueling fighting style from applying.

[JackPhoenix]

The Dueling fighting style cares. You don't get that bonus for free. So how do you get it? How is the spear still in your hand when by definition you have sent it as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance when you chose Ranged Attack as your choice for the Attack action?

The burden of proof is on you here.

Dueling fighting style doesn't care either. Exactly as I've said: It cares if I wield the weapon. I wield the weapon when I make the attack. The spear isn't in my hand after I've thrown it, but by that point, the attack was already resolved mechanically, including both attack and damage rolls.


I say my character wants to throw his spear, which he holds in one hand while his other hand is empty, at the enemy
the GM tells me to make an attack roll (let's say I'm not making both rolls at the same time), declare that I hit when he sees the result, and tells me to make a damage roll. Because I'm wielding a weapon in one hand, and no other weapon, I get +2 to damage roll thanks to Dueling FS. I get whatever total, doesn't really matter
the GM narrates how my character throws his weapon hits the enemy and kills it (or not). The character held the weapon at the start of the narration, and it left his hand in the process, but that doesn't matter, because all the mechanical resolution already happened before the action was described



A pitcher in baseball throws the ball, and the batter wields the bat.
What transpires when:
A pitcher in baseball wields the ball, and the batter throws the bat?

JackPhoenix, your argument does not rely on natural language.

The batter propably gets disqualified or something? I don't know the rules of the baseball. What does that have to do with anything? Just because the pitcher wields the ball (which he does, even though it's not the term usually used) doesn't mean the batter can't wield the bat at the same time.


ProsecutorGodot, you have yet to prove that you get the Dueling fighting style bonus. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you send a weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance and it somehow remains in your hand.

Until you can actually prove you get the bonus there is nothing more to discuss. You cannot ignore definitions in the rulebook that prevent the Dueling fighting style from applying.

Likewise. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why does it matter if the weapon remains in your hand.

[Starman]

Dueling fighting style doesn't care either. Exactly as I've said: It cares if I wield the weapon. I wield the weapon when I make the attack. The spear isn't in my hand after I've thrown it, but by that point, the attack was already resolved mechanically, including both attack and damage rolls.


I say my character wants to throw his spear, which he holds in one hand while his other hand is empty, at the enemy
the GM tells me to make an attack roll (let's say I'm not making both rolls at the same time), declare that I hit when he sees the result, and tells me to make a damage roll. Because I'm wielding a weapon in one hand, and no other weapon, I get +2 to damage roll thanks to Dueling FS. I get whatever total, doesn't really matter
the GM narrates how my character throws his weapon hits the enemy and kills it (or not). The character held the weapon at the start of the narration, and it left his hand in the process, but that doesn't matter, because all the mechanical resolution already happened before the action was described


Wow! You are attempting to skip altogether the rules for Combat. That is not allowed.

Your character is in Combat and those rules are in effect. Refer to the section on Combat (Chapter 9 in the rulebook). You have a list of actions you are allowed to take. You need to start with the Attack action and you must elect Ranged Attack. At this point, you must acknowledge the definition for Ranged Attacks and that the weapon has been sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the weapon you made the ranged attack with is somehow still in your hand. So far you are ignoring definitions in the rulebook and the entire chapter on Combat. You have failed to meet the burden of proof with your argument.

[Yakmala]

You cannot ignore definitions in the rulebook.

Very well, here are some definitions from the rulebook...

Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.

So, we have established above that we can use strength when making an attack roll and damage roll with a thrown weapon such as a javelin and handaxe. The thrown melee weapon becoming a projectile after it leaves my hand does not in any way diminish the damage bonus from my strength.

Now, let's look at the Dueling fighting style...

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.

No mention of it having to be a melee attack to work. Of course, that's not proof, unless we can find other instances of them calling out such restrictions in the PHB. Which, of course, they do. For example...

Sweepíng Attack. When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to damage another creature with the same attack.

Or...

Lungíng Attack. When you make a melee weapon attack on your turn, you can expend one superiority die to increase your reach for that attack by 5 feet.

And there are many other examples, both of abilities that specifically call out that they must be melee attacks and others that do not specify, such as Trip Attack, Goading Attack, etc.

In other words, if the rules had intended for Dueling to be limited to melee weapon attacks, it would have said so, as it does in many other instances throughout the PHB. But it does not, so there is no reason to assume, as written, that Dueling does not work with a thrown melee weapon.

[Starman]

Very well, here are some definitions from the rulebook...

Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.

So, we have established above that we can use strength when making an attack roll and damage roll with a thrown weapon such as a javelin and handaxe. The thrown melee weapon becoming a projectile after it leaves my hand does not in any way diminish the damage bonus from my strength.

Now, let's look at the Dueling fighting style...

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.

No mention of it having to be a melee attack to work. Of course, that's not proof, unless we can find other instances of them calling out such restrictions in the PHB. Which, of course, they do. For example...

Sweepíng Attack. When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to damage another creature with the same attack.

Or...

Lungíng Attack. When you make a melee weapon attack on your turn, you can expend one superiority die to increase your reach for that attack by 5 feet.

And there are many other examples, both of abilities that specifically call out that they must be melee attacks and others that do not specify, such as Trip Attack, Goading Attack, etc.

In other words, if the rules had intended for Dueling to be limited to melee weapon attacks, it would have said so, as it does in many other instances throughout the PHB. But it does not, so there is no reason to assume, as written, that Dueling does not work with a thrown melee weapon.

You have yet to prove that the weapon you have made a ranged attack with and that you have, by definition, sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance is somehow still in your hand.

The burden of proof is on you here. You need to first prove that you get the Dueling fighting style bonus. So far you have not.

[JackPhoenix]

Wow! You are attempting to skip altogether the rules for Combat. That is not allowed.

Then it's good that all the rules for combat happen in 2nd step, isn't it? I've skipped the uneccessary parts, of course, because it should be obvious they all applied there.


The burden of proof is on you to prove that the weapon you made the ranged attack with is somehow still in your hand. So far you are ignoring definitions in the rulebook and the entire chapter on Combat. You have failed to meet the burden of proof with your argument.

Nah. The weapon left the character's hand when he threw it. That means... well, nothing. At that point, the mechanical resolution already happened.

[Starman]

Then it's good that all the rules for combat happen in 2nd step, isn't it? I've skipped the uneccessary parts, of course, because it should be obvious they all applied there.



Nah. The weapon left the character's hand when he threw it. That means... well, nothing. At that point, the mechanical resolution already happened.

You are still ignoring the rules for Combat. Open up the book and step through what you want to do.

And while you are at it can you cite the section on "mechanical resolution" you are referring to? I am not finding it in the rulebook.

You are required to take the Attack action. You are required to choose Ranged Attack when you choose the Attack action. At that point you have sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance. The Dueling fighting style cannot apply. The definition of Ranged Attacks prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

If you ignore rulebook definitions and skip mandatory Combat rules in the rulebook your argument is invalid and your burden of proof has not been met.

[JackPhoenix]

You are still ignoring the rules for Combat. Open up the book and step through what you want to do.

No, I'm not. I've skipped them in the post, because there's was no point on going through everything. Everyone who's played the game knows what the rules involve.


And while you are at it can you cite the section on "mechanical resolution" you are referring to? I am not finding it in the rulebook.

Well, I *can*, but it's a big part of the Combat chapter in the PHB, and I don't see a reason to copy the text (let's be honest, I would not be typing it by hand, I'd just copy it from the SRD) in my post. It's rather long, and pointless, and you're already looking at it anyway, or so you claim.


You are required to take the Attack action.

Well, I'm not *required* to take the Attack action, but yes, it would be appropriate, unless the GM has any reason to say otherwise. However...


You are required to choose Ranged Attack when you choose the Attack action.

No, I'm not. I'm not "required" to "choose" ranged attack at any point. I've chosen a target within range, the GM determines any relevants modifiers, and the attack gets resolved. If you have any doubt about that, look for 'Making an attack' header in the Combat chapter.


At that point you have sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

No, at that point, I've talked to the GM and maybe read some text from the book and my character sheet, if I've wanted and/or needed to. I've also propably rolled some dice, depending on what the GM asked from me. My CHARACTER, on the other hand, the one who's actually holding the weapon in fiction, didn't do anything yet. He's essentially frozen in time at the moment of his decision to throw his spear at the enemy, as is the whole fictional world he's in, while the players resolve the non-fictional mechanics of the game they are playing. Once that's done and the GM gets to the narration of the action, the fictional world resumes the flow of time, and *then and only then* does the CHARACTER "sends the weapon to strike a foe at a distance".


The Dueling fighting style cannot apply. The definition of Ranged Attacks prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

There's nothing in either Dueling FS's description or the description of what's a Ranged Attack that says they are mutually exclusive. If you make claims not based on the text in the rulebook, your argument is invalid.

[Yakmala]

If you ignore rulebook definitions and skip mandatory Combat rules in the rulebook your argument is invalid and your burden of proof has not been met.

You keep claiming others on this thread are ignoring the rules of combat in the rulebook.

Unlike you, I've posted actual rules from the PHB word for word to prove my points. All you have done is made wild claims about what the rules in the book are.

So please, word for word, post the block of text in the PHB that you believe specifically spells out why dueling does not work with thrown weapons. If you do not, I'll assume you are incapable of backing up your statements.

[ff7hero]

Nah, the posting schedule is pretty different.

I'm significantly less confident in this assessment given recent developments.

As to the topic at hand, let's point out the simple structure for making an attack (PHB 193-194).

[Starman]

Then it's good that all the rules for combat happen in 2nd step, isn't it? I've skipped the uneccessary parts, of course, because it should be obvious they all applied there.



Nah. The weapon left the character's hand when he threw it. That means... well, nothing. At that point, the mechanical resolution already happened.


No, I'm not. I've skipped them in the post, because there's was no point on going through everything. Everyone who's played the game knows what the rules involve.



Well, I *can*, but it's a big part of the Combat chapter in the PHB, and I don't see a reason to copy the text (let's be honest, I would not be typing it by hand, I'd just copy it from the SRD) in my post. It's rather long, and pointless, and you're already looking at it anyway, or so you claim.



Well, I'm not *required* to take the Attack action, but yes, it would be appropriate, unless the GM has any reason to say otherwise. However...



No, I'm not. I'm not "required" to "choose" ranged attack at any point. I've chosen a target within range, the GM determines any relevants modifiers, and the attack gets resolved. If you have any doubt about that, look for 'Making an attack' header in the Combat chapter.



No, at that point, I've talked to the GM and maybe read some text from the book and my character sheet, if I've wanted and/or needed to. I've also propably rolled some dice, depending on what the GM asked from me. My CHARACTER, on the other hand, the one who's actually holding the weapon in fiction, didn't do anything yet. He's essentially frozen in time at the moment of his decision to throw his spear at the enemy, as is the whole fictional world he's in, while the players resolve the non-fictional mechanics of the game they are playing. Once that's done and the GM gets to the narration of the action, the fictional world resumes the flow of time, and *then and only then* does the CHARACTER "sends the weapon to strike a foe at a distance".



There's nothing in either Dueling FS's description or the description of what's a Ranged Attack that says they are mutually exclusive. If you make claims not based on the text in the rulebook, your argument is invalid.

There is no section on "mechanical resolution". That is something you made up that is not in the rulebook. You are not allowed to make up rules.

You need to follow the rules on Combat while your character is in Combat.

You need to adhere to definitions that are provided by the rulebook.

So far you have made up some rules, ignored the Combat rules, and ignored definitions in the rulebook that prevent the Dueling fighting style applying. Until you address these problems you have not satisfied your burden of proof. You dont get the Dueling fighting style just because you want it or just because you feel you should have it. You need to justify how you get the Dueling fighting style for a weapon that has been sent as a projectile to strike a target and is no longer in your hand.

Until you satisfy your burden of proof there is nothing really to discuss.


You keep claiming others on this thread are ignoring the rules of combat in the rulebook.

Unlike you, I've posted actual rules from the PHB word for word to prove my points. All you have done is made wild claims about what the rules in the book are.

So please, word for word, post the block of text in the PHB that you believe specifically spells out why dueling does not work with thrown weapons. If you do not, I'll assume you are incapable of backing up your statements.

My argument is straightforward. The definition of Ranged Attacks prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm significantly less confident in this assessment given recent developments.

Posting schedule doesn't mean much. Mine depends on what day of the week it is, and what shift I currently work, which people wouldn't be able to reliably infer anyway, because I don't post every day, or even at the same time even if I work the same shift. And if I've had to stay home due to quarantine, my posting schedule would be different too.


There is no section on "mechanical resolution". That is something you made up that is not in the rulebook. You are not allowed to make up rules.

OK, I thought it should be obvious, but apparently not: "Mechanical resolution" is following the game mechanics described in the Combat (and any other, if appropriate) chapter to resolve the action of the fictional character in the game. See? It isn't so hard.


You need to follow the rules on Combat while your character is in Combat.

You need to adhere to definitions that are provided by the rulebook.

Fun fact: No, I don't. I have to do what the GM asks me to do, and the GM is free to ignore, change or create any rules he wants, so the rules I'm following may or may not be the ones provided by the book. So says the book.


So far you have made up some rules, ignored the Combat rules, and ignored definitions in the rulebook that prevent the Dueling fighting style applying. Until you address these problems you have not satisfied your burden of proof.

So far, you've made up some rules, ignored the Combat rules (and the Introduction to the book, and the Class chapter), and ignored the text in the rulebook that doesn't prevent the Dueling fighting style from applying. Until you address these problems, I'm not required to bear the burden of any proof.


You dont get the Dueling fighting style just because you want it or just because you feel you should have it. You need to justify how you get the Dueling fighting style for a weapon that has been sent as a projectile to strike a target and is no longer in your hand.

I do, however, get the Dueling fighting style just because nothing in the rules stops me from applying it. You need to justify how you get the weapon to leave my character's hand and be sent as a projectile to strike a target before you use the game mechanics.... including Dueling FS... to resolve what happens.


Until you satisfy your burden of proof there is nothing really to discuss.

Well, I can't do that, because the burden of proof is not on me, and I can't bear the burden of proof for your wrongful claims.

[Yakmala]

One additional point that might help clarify this. Once again, here's the exact text of the fighting style:

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

And here is the dictionary definition of wield:

Wield: to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Wielding a weapon is using it effectively. This definition does not require that you are maintaining a grip on the weapon, just that you are actively using it in an effective manner. Throwing the melee weapon, in cases where the weapon is designed to be thrown, meets this definition.

[Starman]

I'm significantly less confident in this assessment given recent developments.

As to the topic at hand, let's point out the simple structure for making an attack (PHB 193-194).


Posting schedule doesn't mean much. Mine depends on what day of the week it is, and what shift I currently work, which people wouldn't be able to reliably infer anyway, because I don't post every day, or even at the same time even if I work the same shift. And if I've had to stay home due to quarantine, my posting schedule would be different too.

Can you enlighten me as to what exactly is being discussed here? I am not following here.

[Yakmala]

My argument is straightforward. The definition of Ranged Attacks prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

So that's a no on pointing out any actual text from the PHB that backs up your beliefs? I suspected as much. Right, I think we're done here.

[Starman]

One additional point that might help clarify this. Once again, here's the exact text of the fighting style:

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

And here is the dictionary definition of wield:

Wield: to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Wielding a weapon is using it effectively. This definition does not require that you are maintaining a grip on the weapon, just that you are actively using it in an effective manner. Throwing the melee weapon, in cases where the weapon is designed to be thrown, meets this definition.

Your points are not relevant. The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in hand when you make damage rolls and so far you have failed to demonstrate that. When you take the Attack action you must select the Ranged Attack option. At that point you have sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance and the weapon is no longer in hand. The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be in hand.

As it stands, the Dueling fighting style does not apply in the case of thrown weapons as the definition of Ranged Attacks prevents it from applying.

You have failed to satisfy your burden of proof. You do not get the bonus until you can prove you get it. So far you have not done so.


So that's a no on pointing out any actual text from the PHB that backs up your beliefs? I suspected as much. Right, I think we're done here.

Ranged Attacks page 195 in the Players Handbook.

Are you going to address your burden of proof or not?

[Kane0]

Wait wait wait, didnt we just have a 50 pager on this?

[JackPhoenix]

The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in hand when you make damage rolls and so far you have failed to demonstrate that.

Where? I don't see "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon if it's in your hand when you make damage rolls", or whatever you claim the ability says. My 1st printing PHB says "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." on pages 72, 84 and 91, and the SRD (which should include the latest errata) says the same, so the rules didn't change since the game was first released.

[Starman]

Where? I don't see "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon if it's in your hand when you make damage rolls", or whatever you claim the ability says. My 1st printing PHB says "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." on pages 72, 84 and 91, and the SRD (which should include the latest errata) says the same, so the rules didn't change since the game was first released.

The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be in hand when damage rolls are made. And you keep ignoring this requirement of the rule.

You have yet to explain how the weapon is still somehow in your hand when you have sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

The definition of Ranged Attack prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

When are you going to address this failure in your argument? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the weapon is somehow still in hand when by definition the weapon has been sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

[JackPhoenix]

You have yet to explain how the weapon is still somehow in your hand when you have sent the weapon as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance.

I don't. I've never made such claim. You, however....


The definition of Ranged Attack prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

Have yet to explain how it does that. When are you going to address this failure in your argument? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why would the weapon need to stay in your hand to apply Dueling FS. Until you do so, we have nothing more to discuss.

Edit:
The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be in hand when damage rolls are made. And you keep ignoring this requirement of the rule.

It literally doesn't. I've provided the quote from the PHB. You keep adding requirement to the Dueling FS that isn't there.

[Starman]

I don't. I've never made such claim. You, however....



Have yet to explain how it does that. When are you going to address this failure in your argument? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why would the weapon need to stay in your hand to apply Dueling FS. Until you do so, we have nothing more to discuss.

The Dueling fighting style only applies to weapons that are in hand when damage rolls are made. You continue to ignore this. You have failed to explain how a weapon that has been sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance is still in hand.

Your argument has failed to meet the burden of proof. You do not get the Dueling fighting style bonus for thrown weapons.

[JackPhoenix]

The Dueling fighting style only applies to weapons that are in hand when damage rolls are made. You continue to ignore this.

You keep claiming this, yet the Dueling FS's description says nothing like that.

[Gale]

Dear God, this again? Can a mod please lock this thread. We don't need another 50 pages of pedantic arguing. I won't go as far as to say Starman is ThorOdinson in disguise but I'm getting stress flashbacks reading their posts.

If you want my honest opinion, I think Dueling wasn't intended to work when you throw a melee weapon, but due to how poorly the Fighting Style was written how it was intended to function is ultimately ambiguous. Jeremy Crawford said on Twitter that it does indeed work with Thrown Weapons, but I believe this was a result of him rereading this rule critically, and realizing that it doesn't say anything that explicitly and unambiguously forbids the damage bonus from applying. He also realized that throwing weapons in 5th Edition generally isn't the best strategy and there was essentially no support for it within the game system beyond a couple of magic items. So, he decided to rule that Thrown Weapons do work with Dueling, even though it was likely not the original intent, as it seemed like it was the most fair ruling he could make at the time. If he wanted to do anything else it likely would have required an errata, which he obviously couldn't do over Twitter.

I think now that the Throwing Fighting Style does exist it's best that we disregard Jeremy's previous ruling, especially because it's unofficial anyways. It's pretty silly to let both of them stack, even if it's ultimately harmless. I'm having a hard time imagining this was the intent of the game designers. A Fighter 1/Ranger 2 having an extra +4 to damage on his javelin throws definitely feels like too much, but I suppose your mileage may vary.

Regardless, I do need to clarify that nothing explicitly says beyond any reasonable doubt that Dueling isn't supposed to work with Thrown Weapons. But again, that's largely due to how poorly the rule is written altogether. Even the name, "Dueling" is bad. When people hear "Dueling" they immediately start thinking of fencing, and then use that to try and justify that the shields shouldn't work even though they definitely are supposed to. That's why they had to go back and clarify it in Sage Advice. You can use the same logic to try and denounce throwing weapons too, but the language is ambiguous at best and trying to act like it has a definite meaning is disingenuous.

If the game designers wanted Dueling to only work with Melee Weapon Attacks then they could have just said, "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls to melee attacks made with that weapon." But they didn't.

The term "melee attack" or "melee weapon attack" are clear, defined terms that get used all the time when the game designers need to explicitly state that a mechanic only works with a melee attack. When you see these terms used there is absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not a mechanic works when you throw your weapon. These terms are used so often within the rule books that it's absolutely preposterous to assert that the game designers simply forgot they existed or randomly chose use far more ambiguous wording to get their points across, and that none of the editors caught it.

The absence of these words immediately suggests that Dueling is supposed to work when you throw your weapon. It doesn't confirm it, but to dismiss the absence of these words as "irrelevant" is foolish. Language is a two-way street; it's just as much a responsibility of the writer to explain things well as it is the reader to understand. A writer can't set precedent for the reader then suddenly abandon it and expect them to still follow along. They can't get mad at them when they suddenly don't get it.

Rules are meant to be simple and not open to interpretation. If you have a game played by millions of people globally, and the player base can't reach a consensus about the meaning of what should be relatively simple rule then the writers have failed, not the readers.

I'm only stating all this to say that it's completely unreasonable to try and act like there is a clear, definite interpretation of what "Dueling" is and isn't supposed to apply to. There simply isn't. To claim that there is one with any degree of confidence only serves to imply everyone else is stupid for not understanding. All we can do is used our best judgement given the context we have and decide for ourselves what works best for our table, even if it ends up being a "house rule."

[Battlebooze]

Wait wait wait, didnt we just have a 50 pager on this?


{Scrubbed}

[Aett_Thorn]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[ff7hero]

I'm only stating all this to say that it's completely unreasonable to try and act like there is a clear, definite interpretation of what "Dueling" is and isn't supposed to apply to. There simply isn't. To claim that there is one with any degree of confidence only serves to imply everyone else is stupid for not understanding.

I respectfully disagree. I think the wording of the dueling fighting style and the simple structure of an Attack do clearly indicate that Dueling should apply to (not otherwise invalidated) damage rolls of thrown weapons.

I have never, and will never, imply that anyone is stupid for thinking otherwise (in this or any other debate). It took a lot of reading and cross referencing to reach the conclusion I've reached, and certain arguments from the other side have seemed persuasive.

Like, I'm legitimately bothered by this. If you don't like the thread, no one is forcing you to read it. No need to come in and start attributing implications which don't exist to arguments you don't (or do, it's not totally clear) agree with.

[Taevyr]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This is clearly beyond simple thread necromancy though, so what should we call it? Thread Possession? Thread Bodysurfing?

EDIT: So, just in case, I'm recruiting people to go and find the Javelin thread's phylactery. PM me if you're interested in coming

[Sol0botmate]

Using Darts, Archery style, Dueling and Thrown weapon you could achieve a very strong DPR vs higher AC.

+2 to Hit, 20 STR and +4 to all damage should out-DPR Sharpshooter at AC 20+. I say should because I need to calculate this so I will do that when I get home. +4 vs +10 but without -5 to hit, especially with Precision Strikes could lead to very stable and high DPR.

It's interesting theory-build at least.

[Zhorn]

Using Darts, Archery style, Dueling and Thrown weapon you could achieve a very strong DPR vs higher AC.
It wouldn't get to that level of stacking, being as Darts are classed under Ranged Weapons on the equipment table of the PHB, disqualifying them from Dueling Fighting Style,
just as Daggers being Melee Weapons don't qualify for the Archery Fighting Style, which requires a Ranged Weapon to qualify.

Either case will make for interesting builds still, and I look forwards to seeing how they perform. I don't think they'll be the top of the meta, but a competitive thrower build will be fun to see.

[ff7hero]

It wouldn't get to that level of stacking, being as Darts are classed under Ranged Weapons on the equipment table of the PHB, disqualifying them from Dueling Fighting Style,
just as Daggers being Melee Weapons don't qualify for the Archery Fighting Style, which requires a Ranged Weapon to qualify.

Either case will make for interesting builds still, and I look forwards to seeing how they perform. I don't think they'll be the top of the meta, but a competitive thrower build will be fun to see.

I just built a dart throwing Goblin Battle Master that I'm super excited to play. He has Archery Fighting Style and Sharpshooter, but the DM has already house ruled the "quick draw" part of Thrown Weapon Style onto all thrown weapons. Not sure if I'll bother picking up the FS when Tasha's drops (no UA). I honestly feel like Defense would be the better pick if I find myself with a second choice. Studded+Shield will only get me so far.

Digression, but I reflavored them as throwing knives because darts are kinda lame.

[Thunderous Mojo]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not familiar with this, oft mentioned, 50 page thread that was penned on this website. It must have been a fierce and traumatic experience, based off the comments in this thread.

I presume, that not reliving that experience is the intent behind your post.
I am not a moderator, nor do I think we need to call one, however, as an
independently minded, very human poster in this thread, your statement reads like a text book cause of trying to classify any opinion that does not agree with your own as de-facto illegitimate.

Back on topic...the Original Poster seemed inclined to accept that Duelist and the Thrown Weapon style would stack together, so I have no problem continuing the discussion with that assumption.

The overall takeaway though, should be, stacking Duelist and Thrown is not going to be a position that is universally adopted at all tables.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm not familiar with this, oft mentioned, 50 page thread that was penned on this website. It must have been a fierce and traumatic experience, based off the comments in this thread.

I presume, that not reliving that experience is the intent behind your post.
I am not a moderator, nor do I think we need to call one, however, as an
independently minded, very human poster in this thread, your statement reads like a text book cause of trying to classify any opinion that does not agree with your own as de-facto illegitimate.

Back on topic...the Original Poster seemed inclined to accept that Duelist and the Thrown Weapon style would stack together, so I have no problem continuing the discussion with that assumption.

The overall takeaway though, should be, stacking Duelist and Thrown is not going to be a position that is universally adopted at all tables.

No, what I’m saying is that you should probably go find that thread, and read through all of the arguments for an against before we have to rehash all of the same arguments here.

The real outcome of that other thread is that the rules are slightly ambiguous, therefore DMs are can choose to either allow it or not allow it. However, it seems clear that the designed intent was to allow it to work. And the rules seem to support that take MORE than the other side, based on newer rules and items.

[Zhorn]

it's here if you want it;
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620007-Quick-questions-javelins-with-dueling-style-and-natural-weapon-proficiency

we don't need this thread turning into another one of these.

[Composer99]

I'm not familiar with this, oft mentioned, 50 page thread that was penned on this website. It must have been a fierce and traumatic experience, based off the comments in this thread.

I presume, that not reliving that experience is the intent behind your post.
I am not a moderator, nor do I think we need to call one, however, as an
independently minded, very human poster in this thread, your statement reads like a text book cause of trying to classify any opinion that does not agree with your own as de-facto illegitimate.

Back on topic...the Original Poster seemed inclined to accept that Duelist and the Thrown Weapon style would stack together, so I have no problem continuing the discussion with that assumption.

The overall takeaway though, should be, stacking Duelist and Thrown is not going to be a position that is universally adopted at all tables.

Acquiring the relevant contextual information, whether via enquiring about the history of the javelin thread - or, if you are styling yourself as independent-minded, reading enough of the thread for yourself, seems more productive.

Refusing to become informed about said context and imputing ill intent to others on account of that refusal is a pretty bad look.

[Yakmala]

it's here if you want it;
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620007-Quick-questions-javelins-with-dueling-style-and-natural-weapon-proficiency

we don't need this thread turning into another one of these.

Hi, originator of this thread speaking.

The intent of this thread was never to debate if dueling fighting style worked with thrown weapons. I took that to be self evident, based on Crawford's input and the fact that there are literally dozens of instances in the PHB where, when an ability is intended to work only with melee attacks, it specifically says so, something that is not so stated for dueling. Never read through the linked thread above.

The intent of the thread was to ponder if the combination of dueling + thrown weapon fighting styles, something a lot easier to get with the introduction of the Fighting Initiate feat, was a worthwhile combo. We got a bunch of good opinions on that before the thread got derailed, so thanks to everyone who weighed in on that.

Based on the feedback, it seems that the combo is not particularly broken, especially when you consider the cost of two feats, and you are still likely to do better with Sharpshooter. Of course, if you can somehow get your hands on a Dwarven Thrower or Spear of Backbiting, that could change things, but those aren't particularly common.

[ff7hero]

Never read through the linked thread above.


As a lover of word play and survivor of the previous thread, I'm tickled by how this phrase is either a statement or advice depending on the tense of "read."

[Gale]

I respectfully disagree. I think the wording of the dueling fighting style and the simple structure of an Attack do clearly indicate that Dueling should apply to (not otherwise invalidated) damage rolls of thrown weapons.

I have never, and will never, imply that anyone is stupid for thinking otherwise (in this or any other debate). It took a lot of reading and cross referencing to reach the conclusion I've reached, and certain arguments from the other side have seemed persuasive.

Like, I'm legitimately bothered by this. If you don't like the thread, no one is forcing you to read it. No need to come in and start attributing implications which don't exist to arguments you don't (or do, it's not totally clear) agree with.

I do apologize, most of what I was saying wasn't aimed at anyone but Starman themselves, which I believe is most likely ThorOdinson in disguise, whom was an individual who was rather prolific in his belief that Dueling does not work when you throw your weapon. His argument insisted that the rules said plain as day that it doesn't work, and very much said that it is the most common sense interpretation of the rule. He gave off the vibe that anyone else's interpretation was wrong and a house rule at best, which was frustrating to me because I don't think the text implies that at all, and if that was the intent then it was phrased exceedingly poorly.

Personally, my stance is that if you're simply reading the PHB alone without any outside information then yes, Dueling should most likely apply on thrown weapon attacks. That belief mostly stems from the fact that rules are usually written with an exceeding amount of both simplicity and specificity to the extent that no one could misinterpret them. If you're arguing that Dueling should not apply to thrown weapon attacks because "it's not in your hand when damage is rolled" then you have to argue that your interpretation of how the game works on a whole, down to a granular and temporal level, is correct. But players should never be required to think that deeply about a rule to comprehend what it means. Which is why I said before, if the game designers aren't going to use established terms that explicitly restrict an ability from working on thrown weapon attacks when they have the opportunity to then you can comfortably assume that they did not intend for those restrictions to exist.

That being said, I do think that the Throwing Fighting Style calls into question whether or not this interpretation is correct. Having both Dueling and Throwing stack is kind of silly, but in retrospect it really doesn't break anything. You can't use Two-Weapon Fighting with both Fighting Styles, nor can you use feats like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, etc. so your overall damage isn't actually that impressive. I'm struggling to think of a build that would genuinely get a lot of value from the combination of both. So much so in fact that I kind of want to retract my statement from earlier and say that Dueling and Throwing probably should stack. But again, your mileage may vary.

Regardless, my apologies again. I was a bit rough in my wording earlier. I do think we can confidently draw conclusions from the text, but we should be careful when we assert our interpretations are correct and do our bests not to imply that differing opinions are wholly wrong.

[ff7hero]

I do apologize, most of what I was saying wasn't aimed at anyone but Starman themselves, which I believe is most likely ThorOdinson in disguise, whom was an individual who was rather prolific in his belief that Dueling does not work when you throw your weapon. His argument insisted that the rules said plain as day that it doesn't work, and very much said that it is the most common sense interpretation of the rule. He gave off the vibe that anyone else's interpretation was wrong and a house rule at best, which was frustrating to me because I don't think the text implies that at all, and if that was the intent then it was phrased exceedingly poorly.

Personally, my stance is that if you're simply reading the PHB alone without any outside information then yes, Dueling should most likely apply on thrown weapon attacks. That belief mostly stems from the fact that rules are usually written with an exceeding amount of both simplicity and specificity to the extent that no one could misinterpret them. If you're arguing that Dueling should not apply to thrown weapon attacks because "it's not in your hand when damage is rolled" then you have to argue that your interpretation of how the game works on a whole, down to a granular and temporal level, is correct. But players should never be required to think that deeply about a rule to comprehend what it means. Which is why I said before, if the game designers aren't going to use established terms that explicitly restrict an ability from working on thrown weapon attacks when they have the opportunity to then you can comfortably assume that they did not intend for those restrictions to exist.

That being said, I do think that the Throwing Fighting Style calls into question whether or not this interpretation is correct. Having both Dueling and Throwing stack is kind of silly, but in retrospect it really doesn't break anything. You can't use Two-Weapon Fighting with both Fighting Styles, nor can you use feats like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, etc. so your overall damage isn't actually that impressive. I'm struggling to think of a build that would genuinely get a lot of value from the combination of both. So much so in fact that I kind of want to retract my statement from earlier and say that Dueling and Throwing probably should stack. But again, your mileage may vary.

Regardless, my apologies again. I was a bit rough in my wording earlier. I do think we can confidently draw conclusions from the text, but we should be careful when we assert our interpretations are correct and do our bests not to imply that differing opinions are wholly wrong.

Perfectly understandable. I totally agree. Glad we had this talk. :)

[Taevyr]

Hi, originator of this thread speaking.

The intent of this thread was never to debate if dueling fighting style worked with thrown weapons. I took that to be self evident, based on Crawford's input and the fact that there are literally dozens of instances in the PHB where, when an ability is intended to work only with melee attacks, it specifically says so, something that is not so stated for dueling. Never read through the linked thread above.

The intent of the thread was to ponder if the combination of dueling + thrown weapon fighting styles, something a lot easier to get with the introduction of the Fighting Initiate feat, was a worthwhile combo. We got a bunch of good opinions on that before the thread got derailed, so thanks to everyone who weighed in on that.

Ah, then I must've misread your intent a bit. Probably a similar reason as some other posters here: we've had a few threads on rule interpretation and dueling/thrown recently, so I assumed this was also meant, in part, as discussion of rule interpretation. Sorry for that.


Based on the feedback, it seems that the combo is not particularly broken, especially when you consider the cost of two feats, and you are still likely to do better with Sharpshooter.

Certainly, and as the combination likely won't cause any mechanical oddities either, it shouldn't be a problem. Hope you have fun with it; I can imagine quite a few nice character concepts that could make use of the combination.


As a lover of word play and survivor of the previous thread, I'm tickled by how this phrase is either a statement or advice depending on the tense of "read."

lol, nice catch

[Starman]

Tables vary so if your table is cool with Dueling applying to thrown weapons then have fun with it. But please do not pretend the rules are on your side on this one.

The definition of Ranged Attacks in the rulebook directly prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style to thrown weapons. Ranged Attacks are defined by the rulebook as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance. The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in your hand when damage rolls are made.

[Kane0]

The definition of Ranged Attacks in the rulebook directly prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style to thrown weapons. Ranged Attacks are defined by the rulebook as projectiles that are sent to strike a foe at a distance. The Dueling fighting style requires that the weapon is in your hand when damage rolls are made.

I would say it comes down to how you interpret the word ‘wield’, which is the word used by the style. When damage rolls are made isn’t discussed by Dueling.

[Starman]

I would say it comes down to how you interpret the word ‘wield’, which is the word used by the style. When damage rolls are made isn’t discussed by Dueling.

Are you making a ranged attack or not?

[SpanielBear]

Are you making a ranged attack or not?

You ARE Thor Odinson, and I claim my five pounds!

[Starman]

You ARE Thor Odinson, and I claim my five pounds!

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not Thor.

[sithlordnergal]

Are you making a ranged attack or not?

I promised myself I wouldn't rejoin the conversation about this...but here I am.

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if you're making a Ranged attack. No where in the text does it claim you have to make a melee attack. Point out the spot in Dueling that states you must make a Melee Attack in order to get the damage.

5e does not account for the time a weapon, spell, or ammunition is "in the air" so to speak. On a purely mechanical level it does not care if the weapon has left your hand or not, just that it is a Melee Weapon being wielded in one hand. Dueling does work with a thrown Melee weapon.

The forum, JC's Tweets, and AL Admins all agree that it works. Accept that fact and move on. You can homebrew it if you dislike it, but know that a strict reading of RAW makes it work.

[Starman]

I promised myself I wouldn't rejoin the conversation about this...but here I am.

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if you're making a Ranged attack. No where in the text does it claim you have to make a melee attack. Point out the spot in Dueling that states you must make a Melee Attack in order to get the damage.

5e does not account for the time a weapon, spell, or ammunition is "in the air" so to speak. On a purely mechanical level it does not care if the weapon has left your hand or not, just that it is a Melee Weapon being wielded in one hand. Dueling does work with a thrown Melee weapon.

The forum, JC's Tweets, and AL Admins all agree that it works. Accept that fact and move on. You can homebrew it if you dislike it, but know that a strict reading of RAW makes it work.

If it is a ranged attack then by definition the weapon has been sent as a projectile to strike a target at a distance. Therefore the weapon is not in hand and the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

[Aett_Thorn]

If it is a ranged attack then by definition the weapon has been sent as a projectile to strike a target at a distance. Therefore the weapon is not in hand and the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

Okay, let’s assume for the moment that you are not ThorOdinson in disguise. Then please answer the following questions for me based on your reading of the rules:

1) what type of action does the character take to send the projectile, since it happens before the Attack action in your reading?

2) does a character making a ranged attack with the bow fire the arrow/bolt from the bow before making the attack in a similar manner to throwing a javelin before the attack?

3) does an artificer using a returning weapon deal any damage at all if they recall their weapon after a hit?

[sithlordnergal]

If it is a ranged attack then by definition the weapon has been sent as a projectile to strike a target at a distance. Therefore the weapon is not in hand and the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

Here's the thing, 5e doesn't concern itself if you threw the weapon. As long as it was in your hand, and it is a melee weapon, it has Dueling applied to it.

[Kane0]

Are you making a ranged attack or not?

“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.”

The style doesn’t care if it is a [melee weapon attack] or [ranged weapon attack], only that the weapon itself is a [melee weapon]. You can make a [ranged weapon attack] using a [melee weapon], specifically one with the Thrown property.

Like I said, it comes down to one’s understanding of ‘wield’.

Edit: I agree that the style is poorly worded, but as it is written I believe it to be compatible with Thrown weapons. Given the fact that up until know there hasn’t been a style for thrown weapons, when put together they still aren’t OP and I still personally object to the implementation of the Tasha’s thrown style I’m perfectly happy continuing to allow Dueling to work with thrown weapons.

And I hope that offers more insight than a Crawford post :P

[JackPhoenix]

“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.”

The style doesn’t care if it is a [melee weapon attack] or [ranged weapon attack], only that the weapon itself is a [melee weapon]. You can make a [ranged weapon attack] using a [melee weapon], specifically one with the Thrown property.

Like I said, it comes down to one’s understanding of ‘wield’.

Edit: I agree that the style is poorly worded, but as it is written I believe it to be compatible with Thrown weapons. Given the fact that up until know there hasn’t been a style for thrown weapons, when put together they still aren’t OP and I still personally object to the implementation of the Tasha’s thrown style I’m perfectly happy continuing to allow Dueling to work with thrown weapons.

And I hope that offers more insight than a Crawford post :P

He thinks you stop wielding the javelin between making the attack roll and making the damage roll, based on his reading of what he calls "definition" of ranged attacks. He fails to understand, or willfuly ignores, that both the attack and damage roll are made during the same step when you're making an attack.

[Kane0]

He thinks you stop wielding the javelin between making the attack roll and making the damage roll, based on his reading of what he calls "definition" of ranged attacks.

I would say that is a valid reading of 'wield', though not the one I choose to use at my table.
Wield can literally mean 'to hold' so if you throw your weapon you're no longer holding it.
Wield can also mean 'be in control of' or 'have and be able to use' and this may or may not apply to a weapon you have thrown depending on how pedantic you want to be about it.



He fails to understand, or willfuly ignores, that both the attack and damage roll are made during the same step when you're making an attack.
Attack and damage can be rolled at the same time, but the damage roll is always considered after the attack roll even if they are categorized in the same section within the book. That again can come down to how the table handles it.

The argumentation might be flawed and abrasive but I do think I see a valid perspective here, especially in the case of English as a second language or coming from the context of parsing casual language spliced with game terms (or the reverse, lawyerspeak interspersed with plain).

Sidenote, I really feel for Pex right about now...

[Willie the Duck]

The argumentation might be flawed and abrasive but I do think I see a valid perspective here, especially in the case of English as a second language or coming from the context of parsing casual language spliced with game terms (or the reverse, lawyerspeak interspersed with plain).

Of course it is a possible interpretation. So long as one does not declare one's own position the clear one and only legitimate interpretation, there shouldn't be a problem (outside of abrasiveness).


Sidenote, I really feel for Pex right about now...
?

[Starman]

He thinks you stop wielding the javelin between making the attack roll and making the damage roll, based on his reading of what he calls "definition" of ranged attacks. He fails to understand, or willfuly ignores, that both the attack and damage roll are made during the same step when you're making an attack.

Nope.

The player needs to follow the Combat rules.

The player must choose the Attack action and then select Ranged Attack which defines the attack as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance. At that point, the rules for the 'Attack action' directly refer the player to the "'Making an Attack' section for rules that govern attack". Before any of the steps are taken for the attack sequence and before either the attack roll or the damage roll, the weapon attack has already been defined as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance and therefore cannot be in hand. That is how the Combat rules work. Open up the rulebook to see.

The definition of Ranged Attack prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style bonus.

[Aett_Thorn]

Nope.

The player needs to follow the Combat rules.

The player must choose the Attack action and then select Ranged Attack which defines the attack as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance. At that point, the rules for the 'Attack action' directly refer the player to the "'Making an Attack' section for rules that govern attack". Before any of the steps are taken for the attack sequence and before either the attack roll or the damage roll, the weapon attack has already been defined as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance and therefore cannot be in hand. That is how the Combat rules work. Open up the rulebook to see.

The definition of Ranged Attack prevents the application of the Dueling fighting style bonus.

What part of the Ranger Attack rules prevent it from working? Be specific. Also, if you could answer my last round of questions, that would be great.

[Kane0]

The player must choose the Attack action and then select Ranged Attack which defines the attack as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance. At that point, the rules for the 'Attack action' directly refer the player to the "'Making an Attack' section for rules that govern attack". Before any of the steps are taken for the attack sequence and before either the attack roll or the damage roll, the weapon attack has already been defined as a projectile sent to strike a foe at a distance and therefore cannot be in hand. That is how the Combat rules work. Open up the rulebook to see.


You're looking at the definition of a different context. The one we're talking about is within Weapons and Weapon Properties, pages 146 and 147.

[Starman]

What part of the Ranger Attack rules prevent it from working? Be specific. Also, if you could answer my last round of questions, that would be great.

Ranged Attacks are defined as weapons/attacks sent as projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. You are required to pick Ranged Attack in the Attack action. After you pick Ranged Attack you can then proceed to the Making An Attack section. You have sent a projectile to strike a foe at a distance when you implement the Making an Attack rules. The weapon cannot still be in hand unless you wilfully ignore the definition of Ranged Attacks. Willfully ignoring rules is breaking the rules.

The burden of proof is on those who want to claim the Dueling fighting style for thrown weapons since the definition of Ranged Attacks prevents the Dueling fighting style from applying.

The burden of proof is on you here. You need to demonstrate how a spear that has been sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance is still somehow in your hand. Good luck. The rules do not support you. You could try to make a Rules as Fun argument. Many DMs could be on board for just letting the Dueling and Thrown fighting styles work together because its fun. But do not pretend the rules support you.

[Hytheter]

How about we all just agree to disagree before we end up talking about it for 50 pages again. Some of the arguments are already getting repetitive and it's clear that neither side will budge.

[Starman]

How about we all just agree to disagree before we end up talking about it for 50 pages again. Some of the arguments are already getting repetitive and it's clear that neither side will budge.

I have fully supported my argument with complete rulebook support.

Those who oppose my argument have failed to provide a rebuttal with rulebook support.

I don't take issue with people who want to make a Rules as Fun argument. I do take issue with people who pretend to have rules support when they clearly do not.

[ff7hero]

After you pick Ranged Attack you can then proceed to the Making An Attack section. You have sent a projectile to strike a foe at a distance when you implement the Making an Attack rules.

So your character must throw his weapon before a target is declared?

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Again? Seriously? Closed for review.