Spear-throwing with Tasha

[sophontteks]

I'm considering making a battlemaster fighter who focuses on throwing melee weapons, namely spears, javelins, or axes. Tashas really made this a lot more appealing with fighting initiate and thrown weapon fighting.

The big interaction I noticed is that "thrown weapon fighting" and "duelist" stack for +4 damage per attack, and quick throw adds another thrown attack which adds another d8. This more then compensates for the lower combat die and still allows for a shield.

Other maneuvers that caught my eye include pushing attack, menacing attack, and brace.

Feats are tough. I'd only be able to squeeze in one more for most the character's career...

Sharpshooter seems strong. given the short range, but not sure how bad this is. It's not like the character needs to shy from getting up close.

Shield master could also be good in combination with brace as a more frontline spear-chucker. I do like the additional utility it provides.

polearm master, apart questionable interaction with the bonus action melee attack when you throw the spear, it allows a nice, free attack when a target enters range, just as brace would.

I'm still mulling over options and would appreciate any tips or suggestions for this character idea.

[P. G. Macer]

I'm considering making a battlemaster fighter who focuses on throwing melee weapons, namely spears, javelins, or axes. Tashas really made this a lot more appealing with fighting initiate and thrown weapon fighting.

The big interaction I noticed is that "thrown weapon fighting" and "duelist" stack for +4 damage per attack, and quick throw adds another thrown attack which adds another d8. This more then compensates for the lower combat die and still allows for a shield.

Other maneuvers that caught my eye include pushing attack, menacing attack, and brace.

Feats are tough. I'd only be able to squeeze in one more for most the character's career...

Sharpshooter seems strong. given the short range, but not sure how bad this is. It's not like the character needs to shy from getting up close.

Shield master could also be good in combination with brace as a more frontline spear-chucker. I do like the additional utility it provides.

polearm master, apart questionable interaction with the bonus action melee attack when you throw the spear, it allows a nice, free attack when a target enters range, just as brace would.

I'm still mulling over options and would appreciate any tips or suggestions for this character idea.
(Emphasis added)

Just so you know, whether Thrown weapons qualify for the Dueling Fighting Style is a hotly-debated subject, having been the topic of at least one locked 50-page thread.

I don’t want to reignite that, so what I’ll say is check with your DM to see how they rule the Dueling style and thrown weapons, since that’s pretty much what it’s going to come down to.

[Damon_Tor]

Thrown Weapon Fighting will stack with Archery (for Darts) Dueling (for other thrown weapons) or Two-Weapon Fighting (while dual wielding).

[DwarfFighter]

Hotly debated? I can believe it. I can only guess at the bitterness involved in debating wether or not rules text can be applied with no consideration of the implied context. Whatever.

[Phhase]

....You make an interesting point about Duelist. The phrasing, "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," makes no mention on whether you have to make a MELEE ATTACK ROLL with it, just that you you be using such a weapon, implied to affect ALL damage roll the weapon makes, ranged or otherwise. This is actually quite intriguing, I like it.

[sophontteks]

People can debate it all they want. It is worded quite clearly and confirmed by Jeremy. It works with melee weapons. How the melee weapon was used is never mentioned.

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

For those who don't understand it. There are two types of weapons. Melee and ranged. There are also two types of attacks. Melee weapon attacks and ranged weapon attacks.

A spear amd javelin are melee weapons that have the thrown property, so they can be used to make both attacks. This is different from a dart, which is a ranged weapon that can also be thrown.

For those wanting to go dex the same thing can be done with darts, thrown fighting style, and archery fighting style. But naturally this only works on ranged weapons with the thrown property.

[PattThe]

Mhm. I used Dueling on thrown spears back before tasha's. It's helpful when your martial stats suck ass.

[ff7hero]

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

PS(A): "Spear chucker" is a derogatory term. Might be a good idea to find another phrase to describe this build.

[moonfly7]

PS(A): "Spear chucker" is a derogatory term. Might be a good idea to find another phrase to describe this build.
I have never heard it used that way before in my life, but Google does, in fact, support your claims. Guess you learn something new everyday. Although I'd argue he doesn't need to change it as its obvious what he means and no one should misinterpret it, as it's not being used in that capacity.

[PattThe]

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

PS(A): "Spear chucker" is a derogatory term. Might be a good idea to find another phrase to describe this build.

But how many monk levels can you sneak in to get a larger die for the Darts?

[sophontteks]

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

PS(A): "Spear chucker" is a derogatory term. Might be a good idea to find another phrase to describe this build.
Freaking racists ruin everything. I just thought it was a cute name for the build idea. Now I'm worried where else I said that while talking about my character concept. Crap....

Thanks for the heads up.

[sophontteks]

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

PS(A): "Spear chucker" is a derogatory term. Might be a good idea to find another phrase to describe this build.

aaanyway, aside from changing the title, both builds seem viable. I wanted to go strength and retain melee ability over having better range.

Having 30 feet of range with javelins is pretty good from a melee character's point of view. But getting into melee isn't something I need to avoid either, because duelist still works. This way I can still put my AC and HP to use for the team.

Brace works pretty well here, giving me a free attack if someone runs into me, as opposed to me running to them. This requires some shuffling in the background. Technically every round I am dropping my melee weapon, drawing javelins for all my attacks, and picking the melee weapon back up with my free action. I'd flavor that differently though.

I'm still really on the fence about feats though. Level 1 human is fighting initiate. I see a few options for levels 4 and 6 though: ASI, shield master, polearm master, piercer....

Tough choices. I'm not sure what would work best. Right now I think it'd be best to take an ASI and then shield master.

[elyktsorb]

Couldn't thrown weapon fighting work with literally any weapon you throw, as per 'improvised weapons' any weapon (or object) you throw (without the thrown property), is still a thrown weapon.

And Thrown Weapon Fighting goes out of it's way to distinguish that you can draw a weapon with the thrown property as part of an attack, but then says you get the +2 bonus when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon. Which as defined by both prior rules and this fighting style, is distinctly different from a weapon with the thrown property.

[sophontteks]

Couldn't thrown weapon fighting work with literally any weapon you throw, as per 'improvised weapons' any weapon (or object) you throw (without the thrown property), is still a thrown weapon.

And Thrown Weapon Fighting goes out of it's way to distinguish that you can draw a weapon with the thrown property as part of an attack, but then says you get the +2 bonus when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon. Which as defined by both prior rules and this fighting style, is distinctly different from a weapon with the thrown property.

You are not proficient with improvised weapons without tavern brawler though. You can't draw an improvised weapon because it lacks the thrown property. But you do gain the extra damage for throwing a weapon, even if it lacks the thrown property.

[elyktsorb]

You are not proficient with improvised weapons without tavern brawler though. You can't draw an improvised weapon because it lacks the thrown property. But you do gain the extra damage for throwing a weapon, even if it lacks the thrown property.

Acid vials now deal 2d6+2 acid damage

[JackPhoenix]

You are not proficient with improvised weapons without tavern brawler though. You can't draw an improvised weapon because it lacks the thrown property. But you do gain the extra damage for throwing a weapon, even if it lacks the thrown property.

Throwing alchemical weapon is also not an Attack action but Use an Item action, for whatever stupid reason, so you can't combine it with Extra Attack even if you hold a flask in both hands.

[ff7hero]

But how many monk levels can you sneak in to get a larger die for the Darts?

I wouldn't bother. You'll get better damage out of your levels by continuing Battle Master for more/bigger Sup Dice, faster ASI progression and more attacks. Between Dex, SS, Maneuvers and Thrown Weapon Style you're adding something like 15+1d8 damage to each attack. Your darts could hit for a flat 1 damage and you'd still be meaningfully contributing in most fights.

[DwarfFighter]

Mhm. I used Dueling on thrown spears back before tasha's. It's helpful when your martial stats suck ass.

Yeah, when you're not adept at sports it helps to cheat.

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

Throwing alchemical weapon is also not an Attack action but Use an Item action, for whatever stupid reason, so you can't combine it with Extra Attack even if you hold a flask in both hands.

Thief's Fast Hands! I'm always looking for ways to use this feature.

50gp per pop is expensive, though.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, when you're not adept at sports it helps to cheat.

-DF

Did you notice that this was answered in sage by the author of the book in one word regarding his intent.

"Do thrown weapons work with dueling style?"

Jerrmy- "Yes"

The wording clearly dictates thr weapon type, NOT the attack. There is really nothing left to argue here. Please, don't just fling insults just because you don't agree...

[DwarfFighter]

I can only assume he is talking out of his Magic Mouth, because he labeled the ability "Dueling", not "Bonus for using one handed melee weapons for melee attacks and for ranged attacks."

Sure, it's just a label, but if it is purposefully meaningless he should have made a point of calling it "Baking" or "Yellow" or something else nonsensical.

-DF

[sophontteks]

I can only assume he is talking out of his Magic Mouth, because he labeled the ability "Dueling", not "Bonus for using one handed melee weapons for melee attacks and for ranged attacks."

Sure, it's just a label, but if it is purposefully meaningless he should have made a point of calling it "Baking" or "Yellow" or something else nonsensical.

-DF
What about dueling implies melee?

[Gignere]

What about dueling implies melee?

That’s true remember AHamilton died in a duel.

[sophontteks]

That’s true remember AHamilton died in a duel.
Oh god you can't say that around me. One of my friends went threw a Alexander Hamilton musical phase that lasted 3 months.

So good, but...so much.

[ff7hero]

Oh god you can't say that around me. One of my friends went threw a Alexander Hamilton musical phase that lasted 3 months.

So good, but...so much.

I'm pretty sure one of the Ten Duel Commandments was "only stabbing at close range" wasn't it? ;)

[Yakmala]

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

Also keep in mind that Darts are finesse weapons, so you can use strength or dexterity when attacking with them.

Darts + Archery + Thrown Style + Sharpshooter + any Belt of Giant Strength is truly monstrous!

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Also keep in mind that Darts are finesse weapons, so you can use strength or dexterity when attacking with them.

Darts + Archery + Thrown Style + Sharpshooter + any Belt of Giant Strength is truly monstrous!

I agree, I even a monetary of STR monks who focus on dart throwing with this in mind.
Gave them a special ki ability to raise 1STR per 2 ki points for a minute (no cap, at level 20 it is +10 str that can get you to a max of 30).

Great combo that should always be used IMO.

[JackPhoenix]

I agree, I even a monetary of STR monks who focus on dart throwing with this in mind.
Gave them a special ki ability to raise 1STR per 2 ki points for a minute (no cap, at level 20 it is +10 str that can get you to a max of 30).

Great combo that should always be used IMO.

You can even wear armor, because darts don't work with Martial Arts anyway! Wait, what's the point of a monk, then?

[sophontteks]

I was allowed to take the Spear Mastery feat.
I'm using goading strike, Brace, and Fast Throw.

Goading strike flew under the radar, but it's really great here. There is no immunity, or size limits, and goading the opponent into attacking me gives opportunity attacks to my allies, while giving me a braced attack through spear mastery or brace maneuver.

Alternatively they get disadvantage on attacks which isn't bad either.

At level 5 a thrown spear deals 1d8+7 plus 1d8 with a maneuver and max 20 AC with plate and a shield. Seems legit.

[Yakmala]

Two suggestions to improve your spear throwing:

Either take two levels in Artificer to pick up the Returning Weapon infusion, or ask your DM to include the Spear of Backbiting in your homebrew campaign or run the party through Tomb of Horrors so you can find it.

[sophontteks]

Two suggestions to improve your spear throwing:

Either take two levels in Artificer to pick up the Returning Weapon infusion, or ask your DM to include the Spear of Backbiting in your homebrew campaign or run the party through Tomb of Horrors so you can find it.

Thank you!

DM warned me that there would be very little access to equipment, which is naturally a pretty big issue for a heavy armor spear thrower.

[SteadyAim]

It's great that your DM is cool with you applying the Dueling fighting style to your thrown spear. Our DM would not allow it when we approached him about it. Apparently, Jeremey Crawford's old Tweets aren't a source for rules anymore. I was hoping to have some fun with some returning spear action!

[sophontteks]

It's great that your DM is cool with you applying the Dueling fighting style to your thrown spear. Our DM would not allow it when we approached him about it. Apparently, Jeremey Crawford's old Tweets aren't a source for rules anymore. I was hoping to have some fun with some returning spear action!

DMs can rule as they want I suppose. Unfortunate. It's RAW. It's RAI. And the wording is crystal clear. Spears are melee weapons. There is complete intent for melee weapons to be able to be thrown.

The easiest work around is the similiar build involving archery and thrown weapons. Unless your DM believes these weapons exist in some magic void where they are not ranged nor melee weapons.

[Trafalgar]

People can debate it all they want. It is worded quite clearly and confirmed by Jeremy. It works with melee weapons. How the melee weapon was used is never mentioned.

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

For those who don't understand it. There are two types of weapons. Melee and ranged. There are also two types of attacks. Melee weapon attacks and ranged weapon attacks.


I always read it as melee attack only but you are right.

[SpanielBear]

Please, can we not have the duelling debate again? The only person who is right whichever side they fall on is the DM. Any other arguing is pointless.

Personally, for a proper thrown weapon archetype I’d like to explore options that fit better than raw damage- in particular speed and/or accuracy. Battlemaster to fluff manoeuvres as trick-shots would be my starting point I think.

[Damon_Tor]

Please, can we not have the duelling debate again? The only person who is right whichever side they fall on is the DM. Any other arguing is pointless.

I'm confused how there's even a debate. The RAW is totally clear, the devs have stated the RAI aligns with the RAW, and there are zero balance issues caused.

[Trafalgar]

I will just say that this thread makes me happy. One of my problems with 5e (and D&D in general) is that spears are so mediocre compared to other weapons. Even though, historically speaking, the spear in wider use than most other weapons on the list.

[Damon_Tor]

I will just say that this thread makes me happy. One of my problems with 5e (and D&D in general) is that spears are so mediocre compared to other weapons. Even though, historically speaking, the spear in wider use than most other weapons on the list.

To be fair, it's much faster and cheaper to make a spear than a sword. It's difficult to argue that the more common usage of the spear makes it a "better weapon" than a sword when there are so many other factors which contributed to its widespread use.

[Trafalgar]

To be fair, it's much faster and cheaper to make a spear than a sword. It's difficult to argue that the more common usage of the spear makes it a "better weapon" than a sword when there are so many other factors which contributed to its widespread use.

Here is a not so scientific video by lindybeige that seems to show that spears were often better than swords.

Short Version (https://youtu.be/uLLv8E2pWdk)

Long Version (https://youtu.be/afqhBODc_8U)

[sophontteks]

Swords were more like sidearms. They were really good at what they did and I wouldn't nessesarily put one over the other. I did watch the ladybinge video when he put it out. It was...a very strange test.

And I'm excited too! It feels like I've been waiting all my life to pull off a real spear build in d&d.

So check this out. Because I'm a ranged attacker, I'm not in the front line. But I'm also not afraid of being attacked, so I'm not in the backline either. This build is an honest to gosh second line fighter.

I sit 20 feet away from the enemy, behind my melee friends, and throw spears. I can break to defend the back line without difficulty. And I can cover the front line when nessesary.

But best of all, I can use goading shot to put the enemy in a really bad spot. If they decide to appreciate that goading shot they'll be taking reactions and a 2d8 braced reaction attack. On paper it looks like an amazing peel tool.

[Witty Username]

To be fair, it's much faster and cheaper to make a spear than a sword. It's difficult to argue that the more common usage of the spear makes it a "better weapon" than a sword when there are so many other factors which contributed to its widespread use.

I just wish d&d treated spears as reach weapons. It is weird that they don't have their one iconic use.

[JackPhoenix]

I just wish d&d treated spears as reach weapons. It is weird that they don't have their one iconic use.

The "iconic use" depends on a spear in question. Not all of them are long.

[Gignere]

I just wish d&d treated spears as reach weapons. It is weird that they don't have their one iconic use.

It’s called a pike in 5e which is just a really long spear and it does have reach.

[Trafalgar]

I just wish d&d treated spears as reach weapons. It is weird that they don't have their one iconic use.


It’s called a pike in 5e which is just a really long spear and it does have reach.

In history, Pikes were 15-20 feet long and only really effective in large numbers of well trained pikemen in a tight formation with their flanks protected. If I was to redesign the pike for 5e, I would give it "Super Reach" in distances of 10-15 feet but have disadvantage on all attacks <5 feet and give the wielder half movement.

One bit of weapon design that I think 5e got right is Halberds (1d10 with reach) vs Great Swords (2d6). Neither is really better than the other. I think a Halberd is better against a mob of Orcs but a Great Sword is better against a single opponent with lots of hp. A lot depends on the character build. I think you could do something similar with spear vs sword. Making spear (1d6/1d8 with reach) and Long Sword (1d8/1d10) isn't game breaking as a start.

The real problem that all the feats, sage advice, etc are based on the existing weapon stats and I am sure that there are all sorts of feat combos that would make this an unfair change.

By the Way, Happy Holidays Everyone!

[ff7hero]

Here is a not so scientific video by lindybeige that seems to show that spears were often better than swords.

Short Version (https://youtu.be/uLLv8E2pWdk)

Long Version (https://youtu.be/afqhBODc_8U)

I really enjoyed this video, but I think it highlights the main benefit of spears without explicitly identifying it.

He mentioned that all the participants had extensive sword training, but little to no spear training. Yet the spear users still ended up on top most of the time. Tangentially, I also feel he gimped the shield and spear style by not giving them a spear with a shorter haft.

[sophontteks]

Without tashas, spears are still pretty good as a 1d6 thrown weapon. They are the only polearm that works with polearm master and offers a shield. Polearm master represents its reach well, where you get a free attack if they enter range.

Polearm master vs. spear mastery is tough. Polearm master is such good action economy. It's just plain good. Spear mastery is basically an ASI specific to spears that adds some fluff.

It really depends on being able to make that brace work. I think I can with goading attack. I'm expecting to be fighting demons and other large monsters mostly.

[JackPhoenix]

I really enjoyed this video, but I think it highlights the main benefit of spears without explicitly identifying it.

He mentioned that all the participants had extensive sword training, but little to no spear training. Yet the spear users still ended up on top most of the time. Tangentially, I also feel he gimped the shield and spear style by not giving them a spear with a shorter haft.

It's also only "who touches the opponent first", which means better reach is obviously an advantage, but touching the enemy is not the same as actually hitting in a way that would kill or disable the enemy, especially if the enemy wears armor.

[Gignere]

I really enjoyed this video, but I think it highlights the main benefit of spears without explicitly identifying it.

He mentioned that all the participants had extensive sword training, but little to no spear training. Yet the spear users still ended up on top most of the time. Tangentially, I also feel he gimped the shield and spear style by not giving them a spear with a shorter haft.

This was against unarmored or simulated unarmored foes, with plate armor I think the results would be very different.

[sophontteks]

It's also only "who touches the opponent first", which means better reach is obviously an advantage, but touching the enemy is not the same as actually hitting in a way that would kill or disable the enemy, especially if the enemy wears armor.

Yeah, but I think this is more about training. The guys in the video didnt know how to use a spear. I think fighting as a group with spear and shield would require quite a lot of training to be effective.

One of the most iconic spear users were ancient greeks, and their use of both spears and heavy armor suggests that armor doesn't render the spear so ineffective that it loses favor.

Strangely, armor and shields lost favor under Alexander after he doubled down on the spear, effectively making them pikes. They used lighter shields and less armor. If armor counterrd spears surely this would have been reversed.

I have no idea how they could hold such long spears in one hand and deliver a lethal blow, but these soldiers fought just about everyone to great effect.

But if we are talking late medieval armor, which seems to be the time period of dnd. Plate was so effective even shields were obsolete.

[DwarfFighter]

What about dueling implies melee?

Everything.

Unless you include firearms. Which you should never do in DnD.

[sandmote]

Here is a not so scientific video by lindybeige that seems to show that spears were often better than swords. For this bit, I think the swordsmen would actually have a better chance if everyone involved were familiar with spears. I think it is generally easier to counter something when you're familiar with its weaknesses.


One of the most iconic spear users were ancient greeks, and their use of both spears and heavy armor suggests that armor doesn't render the spear so ineffective that it loses favor. The Greek tactic was to stall the enemy, rather than be particularly lethal themselves. Thermopylae and the Sacred Band of Thebes were more the exception; typically even the spartiates broke and ran before taking significant casualties.

The advantage of the spear user is the ability to keep the enemy far enough away that you aren't in their reach. This is kind of where dual wielding axes did come up; you use one of your weapons to rip away your enemies' spear and get too close for them to thirst. See 2:04 in the short version of the video for something slightly similar.


Strangely, armor and shields lost favor under Alexander after he doubled down on the spear, effectively making them pikes. They used lighter shields and less armor. If armor counterrd spears surely this would have been reversed. Alexander's dad, actually. And during his reign the Macedonians were poorer than the Greeks; the reduction in armor meant a larger percentage of men could afford their own gear. And his battles against the Greeks wouldn't have been so decisive with the companion cavalry, which had just as heavy armor as their Greek counterparts.


I have no idea how they could hold such long spears in one hand and deliver a lethal blow, but these soldiers fought just about everyone to great effect. The Greek spears were fairly short, and the Macedonian spears were two handed.

Okay, actually on topic:

Because I'm a ranged attacker, I'm not in the front line. But I'm also not afraid of being attacked, so I'm not in the backline either. This build is an honest to gosh second line fighter.

I sit 20 feet away from the enemy, behind my melee friends, and throw spears. I can break to defend the back line without difficulty. And I can cover the front line when nessesary. I break characters into four categories based on where they stand/walk in a fight, and this is basically the textbook definition of one of them. I'm very happy to hear there's now a version of this that doesn't need three turns (by RAW, anyway) to go from having a bow to wielding a melee weapon and shield.


Everything.

Unless you include firearms.
Or bows.

[SpanielBear]

Everything.

Unless you include firearms. Which you should never do in DnD.

Again, not interested in playing out the duelling question in terms of rules.

But I do think it’s worth referring to duels in antiquity, from many sources including the Iliad and Irish folklore, that explicitly refer to the throwing of spears.

Still comes down to the DM in the end though. Whatever they say will trump any Internet argument, no matter how long and winding the thread may be.

[sophontteks]

Eh, the 5 meter spears must have been lethal in order to function. If the spears were not a threat, then the enemy would literally push them aside and slaughter them with swords.

And Alexander did fight, and hold back armored soldiers. This suggests that armor does not negate the threat of spears enough for them to lose favor to alternative weapons.

I'm highly sceptical that alexander's hoplites had less armor dur to finances. If these troops were not superior to the shorter spears, Alexander wouldn't have used them. He would have went right back to Greek soldiers. But he didn't.

Alexander did not have money problems, he was a logistic genious, and his armies were the dominant force of the time. Alexander's hoplites were superior at their role of being the anchor relative to their peers at this time period.

[sophontteks]

Everything.

Unless you include firearms. Which you should never do in DnD.
Where are you getting this idea from that duels strictly involve melee that strictly can not be thrown?

Its not from any definition of dueling that's for sure.
And it's not from pop culture with the prevelance of pistol duels.

Is there anything to substantiate your claim?

[sandmote]

Eh, the 5 meter spears must have been lethal in order to function. If the spears were not a threat, then the enemy would literally push them aside and slaughter them with swords. I'm not saying the spears couldn't kill, I'm saying that wasn't their primary function. The primary function was to pin their opponents in place for the cavalry to kill.

The advantage of the spear formations is that you'd need to push aside over a dozen spears before your sword can reach anyone. So a man in a phalanx (of any sort) can stab at the enemy over and over against from outside the enemy's reach. So the fact his weapon needs more stabs before he kills anyone stops mattering.

This is why spear walls kept reappearing and crushing everything in front of them.


Alexander's hoplites were superior at their role of being the anchor relative to their peers at this time period.
Alexander's hoplites did not serve as the anchor of the army. You're confusing the hoplites with the pezhetairoi.

Hoplites:

Have only one hand open to wield a spear
Use spears granting minimal cover from arrows
Have no reach advantage over enemy hoplites
Need heavy armor to avoid harm from enemy hoplites
Are therefore more expensive than their hefty shields imply by themselves.


Pezhetairoi:

Drop the heavy shield for a longer (two handed) spear
Have spears that take up a high percentage of the area overhead, intercepting arrows
Have a reach advantage over hoplites
Can therefore spare the cost on armor
Are therefore less expensive


Because every army has finance problems, this means that not only do pezhetairoi withstand hoplites effectively, but you can also afford to bring more pezhetairoi onto a battlefield than you would hoplites.

This is why Phillip and Alexander reduced the more flexible hoplites to guarding the weak flank and still steamrolled everyone they fought.



Anyway, playing a peltast in 5e D&D sounds fun.

[Trafalgar]

What about dueling implies melee?


Everything.

Unless you include firearms. Which you should never do in DnD.

I think we are getting hung up on the word "Dueling". "One-Handed weapon weapon style" is much more accurate though it doesn't roll off you tongue as well.

Dueling is actually the wrong word to use. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duel) it means a "combat between two persons specifically". It was Alexander Hamilton vs Aaron Burr, not Hamilton vs Burr and his 5 friends. You could have duels with halberds, heavy crossbows, duel wielded daggers, etc as long as it is 1v1. So it is strange that Crawford and company chose "Dueling" to describe a combat style that involves melee weapons in one hand against any number of opponents. Pistols at ten paces is dueling. There are historical examples of duels occurring with Rapier and Dagger. But attacking 3 opponents in a single round is definitely NOT dueling.

But it would be a pretty sucky fighting style that only gave you a bonus when fighting against one opponent.
.

[JackPhoenix]

I think we are getting hung up on the word "Dueling". "One-Handed weapon weapon style" is much more accurate though it doesn't roll off you tongue as well.

Dueling is actually the wrong word to use. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duel) it means a "combat between two persons specifically". It was Alexander Hamilton vs Aaron Burr, not Hamilton vs Burr and his 5 friends. You could have duels with halberds, heavy crossbows, duel wielded daggers, etc as long as it is 1v1. So it is strange that Crawford and company chose "Dueling" to describe a combat style that involves melee weapons in one hand against any number of opponents. Pistols at ten paces is dueling. There are historical examples of duels occurring with Rapier and Dagger. But attacking 3 opponents in a single round is definitely NOT dueling.

But it would be a pretty sucky fighting style that only gave you a bonus when fighting against one opponent.
.

It's not like Archery FS is limited to bows either....

[Trafalgar]

Without tashas, spears are still pretty good as a 1d6 thrown weapon. They are the only polearm that works with polearm master and offers a shield.

You are forgetting the quarterstaff. Though why someone would use a shield with a quarterstaff is beyond me. It is much better to dual wield quarterstaffs in 5e.

{dives for cover}

[Witty Username]

Does archery style work with thrown weapons?
Also would this build take PAM for emergencies?

[Zhorn]

Does archery style work with thrown weapons?
Only if they are also classed as Ranged Weapons; ie Darts.

[Quietus]

The unfortunate thing is that the thrown style/dueling style stacking is so controversial, and the archery style/throwing style is kind of unnecessary. Taking both just gets you the same average damage as if you'd used a longbow, just with a smaller damage die to crit with, in exchange for a higher damage floor. And costs you a feat for the privilege.

[ff7hero]

The unfortunate thing is that the thrown style/dueling style stacking is so controversial, and the archery style/throwing style is kind of unnecessary. Taking both just gets you the same average damage as if you'd used a longbow, just with a smaller damage die to crit with, in exchange for a higher damage floor. And costs you a feat for the privilege.

Getting to use a shield with your "short range longbow" is nice. As is having a higher floor on damage.

[Zhorn]

And some builds are more about the fun of the theme and imagery than it is about optimisation.

[Quietus]

Getting to use a shield with your "short range longbow" is nice. As is having a higher floor on damage.

That's actually a great point. That extra 2 AC (plus maybe magic mods) isn't nothing.


And some builds are more about the fun of the theme and imagery than it is about optimisation.

No! 100% perfect optimization forever for everyone! :smalltongue: Honestly though, a valid point.

[Trafalgar]

Does the Spear Mastery (UA) Feat give you reach on a reaction or opportunity attack? The wording is "As a bonus action on your turn, you can increase your reach with a spear by 5 feet for the rest of your turn."

Lets say I have a character with both the Spear Mastery and Polearm Master feats. I use my bonus action to turn on Spear Mastery Reach. An enemy comes within 10' after I have taken all my actions. Can I use the PAM opportunity attack before the enemy closes within 5'? Or does this not happen because the reach ended when my turn did?

It creates an interesting decision point with this build when an enemy is approaching from more than 20': Do I use my bonus action to set the spear to receive a charge and do 2d8 damage or do I use my bonus action to increase my reach and stop the enemy before they are in range?

[Valmark]

Does the Spear Mastery (UA) Feat give you reach on a reaction or opportunity attack? The wording is "As a bonus action on your turn, you can increase your reach with a spear by 5 feet for the rest of your turn."

Lets say I have a character with both the Spear Mastery and Polearm Master feats. I use my bonus action to turn on Spear Mastery Reach. An enemy comes within 10' after I have taken all my actions. Can I use the PAM opportunity attack before the enemy closes within 5'? Or does this not happen because the reach ended when my turn did?

It creates an interesting decision point with this build when an enemy is approaching from more than 20': Do I use my bonus action to set the spear to receive a charge and do 2d8 damage or do I use my bonus action to increase my reach and stop the enemy before they are in range?

It only works on your turn so the enemy wouldn't trigger the reaction standing 10 feet away (assuming they moved on their turn, which is the likely scenario).

[sophontteks]

Does archery style work with thrown weapons?
Also would this build take PAM for emergencies?
Archery works with ranged weapons.
Dueling works with melee weapons.
Neither stipulate a form of attack.

I think PAM and spear mastery have too much overlap to take them both. PAM is strictly better for melee. But I think I can make spear mastery work for me. PAM is a great alternative, since spear mastery is an old UA.



The unfortunate thing is that the thrown style/dueling style stacking is so controversial, and the archery style/throwing style is kind of unnecessary. Taking both just gets you the same average damage as if you'd used a longbow, just with a smaller damage die to crit with, in exchange for a higher damage floor. And costs you a feat for the privilege.

Everything is controversial in a forum. But personal grudges aside, it's settled.

The feat tax is pretty big. But longbows lose the shield too. 20 AC is a good deal better then 18 AC. For bow vs. dart this seems fair.

For spears and javelins, it's a very versatile strength build. Sharpshooter and GWM are hard to compete with. But it's nice not having to use precision strike maneuver to compensate too. On paper it doesnt seem so bad, but I guess I'll have to see.

[SteadyAim]

Everything is controversial in a forum. But personal grudges aside, it's settled.

I haven't found this to be true at all. I have tried to get 3 DMs to allow me to do this and each of them has turned it down based on their view of the RAW and RAI.

[ff7hero]

I haven't found this to be true at all. I have tried to get 3 DMs to allow me to do this and each of them has turned it down based on their view of the RAW and RAI.

If we're throwing around anecdotal evidence I've had many more than 3 DMs allow this when asked. More telling, I personally haven't seen a DM rule against it.

[SteadyAim]

If we're throwing around anecdotal evidence I've had many more than 3 DMs allow this when asked. More telling, I personally haven't seen a DM rule against it.

The problem is these DMs are all very knowledgable about the rules and they have a very solid argument for their view of the RAW and RAI on this issue. I really enjoy their approach to the rules overall so my disagreement on this issue is definitely one I can live with.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Diametrically opposed, anecdotal stories, strikes me as very compelling evidence that the question on Fighting Style stacking is not settled.

Indeed, it would imply, the safest course, would be to assume, that not all tables will allow Dueling and Thrown Weapon Fighting to stack.

(Speaking, for myself, I have no issue with the Fighting Styles being combined.)

[Valmark]

Diametrically opposed, anecdotal stories, strikes me as very compelling evidence that the question on Fighting Style stacking is not settled.

Indeed, it would imply, the safest course, would be to assume, that not all tables will allow Dueling and Thrown Weapon Fighting to stack.

(Speaking, for myself, I have no issue with the Fighting Styles being combined.)

Isn't it settled because OP knows at their table it works? I think someone said that in the earlier pages.

That's really all that's needed.

[Elastoid]

I can only assume he is talking out of his Magic Mouth, because he labeled the ability "Dueling", not "Bonus for using one handed melee weapons for melee attacks and for ranged attacks."

Sure, it's just a label, but if it is purposefully meaningless he should have made a point of calling it "Baking" or "Yellow" or something else nonsensical.

-DF

Let's pretend that we grant that "Dueling" means "melee." Your point is really only "I wish this ability had a different name."

Your argument is exactly the same as saying you can't use Great Weapon Fighting unless you're wielding a heavy weapon. Sure, it says "a melee weapon that you are wielding in two hands," but it also says "Great Weapon Fighting" and spears aren't Great Weapons. In both cases, your entire argument is based on the name of the ability, not the text of the ability, which you actively ignore.

Your argument isn't rules-based, it's that the name of the ability created a picture in your head that's different from the one in someone else's head (and also different from the rules as written). If it makes you feel better, you can change the name of the fighting style?

This touches on a much larger point, though. It's fine for DMs to houserule as they see fit, but it's important that the DM knows when he's doing so. If you want to say, "At my table, Dueling doesn't apply to thrown weapon attacks," that's all well and good. You're as free to do that as you are to say "At my table, halflings and gnomes aren't able to be Barbarians." It's fine, so long as you know you're making a house rule. DMs get to enforce rules as they choose in their games, but things go badly if they misinterpret rules and then insist on calling others wrong. For example, if a DM were to refer to correct and valid rule interpretations as "cheating," that would be unhelpful to the interpersonal dynamic, and would serve to misinform anyone who trusted the DM as an authority.


Yeah, when you're not adept at sports it helps to cheat.

-DF

This attitude is harmful. I hope you try to avoid it.

[SteadyAim]

This touches on a much larger point, though. It's fine for DMs to houserule as they see fit, but it's important that the DM knows when he's doing so. If you want to say, "At my table, Dueling doesn't apply to thrown weapon attacks," that's all well and good. You're as free to do that as you are to say "At my table, halflings and gnomes aren't able to be Barbarians." It's fine, so long as you know you're making a house rule. DMs get to enforce rules as they choose in their games, but things go badly if they misinterpret rules and then insist on calling others wrong. For example, if a DM were to refer to correct and valid rule interpretations as "cheating," that would be unhelpful to the interpersonal dynamic, and would serve to misinform anyone who trusted the DM as an authority.

The problem is that a DM that rules against Dueling applying to thrown weapons is following the rules and interpreting them correctly. I have 3 DMs that have disallowed me being able to apply Dueling to thrown weapons. Each of them had well articulated RAW arguments that I could not find fault with to support their ruling.

[iTreeby]

The problem is that a DM that rules against Dueling applying to thrown weapons is following the rules and interpreting them correctly. I have 3 DMs that have disallowed me being able to apply Dueling to thrown weapons. Each of them had well articulated RAW arguments that I could not find fault with to support their ruling.

You can't say your DM's reached the "correct" conclusion. It's ambiguous. There are other DM's that reach a different conclusion in example: There isn't a rule that says you can only use one fighting style per turn. The defense fighting style is used with every other fighting style frequently. If you can use one fighting style with a weapon and you can use another style with the same weapon, you can use both styles with the weapon.

[Elastoid]

The problem is that a DM that rules against Dueling applying to thrown weapons is following the rules and interpreting them correctly. I have 3 DMs that have disallowed me being able to apply Dueling to thrown weapons. Each of them had well articulated RAW arguments that I could not find fault with to support their ruling.

They're not, though. The RAW interpretation is fairly clear.

Dueling (PHB 72): 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.

What's a melee weapon? Any weapon from the list of "Simple Melee Weapons" or "Martial Melee Weapons" on PHB 149. Does throwing the weapon make it into a ranged weapon? Of course not -- then you could apply Sharpshooter with it. But the thrown property doesn't mean that.

Thrown (PHB 147): 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 hand axe, 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.

The bolded part makes it abundantly clear that when you throw a melee weapon, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon. This does not make it a ranged weapon attack (for purposes of Sharpshooter, for instance) and it's not a melee weapon attack (for purposes of Green Flame Blade or Sweeping Attack), but the Dueling fighting style does not require a melee weapon attack. It requires a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapon.

Even if the DMs you met articulated their RAW arguments so well that you couldn't find fault with it, the rules as written doesn't actually support them. Once you understand the differences between a "melee attack," a "melee weapon attack," and an "attack with a melee weapon," it becomes fairly clear that Dueling can apply to thrown melee weapons, and Archery and Sharpshooter can't.

And again, as was linked on the first page, Jeremy Crawford confirmed this.

Incidentally, the bolded part also means that no, you can't use your strength modifier with a dart. A dart is not a melee weapon, so you would not "use the same ability modifier... that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon." You would use Dexterity, as you do for any ranged weapon (PHB 194). Yes, it says the "thrown" property breaks this rule, but again, the thrown property specifies that it only does so with melee weapons, which does not include the dart.


You can't say your DM's reached the "correct" conclusion. It's ambiguous. There are other DM's that reach a different conclusion in example: There isn't a rule that says you can only use one fighting style per turn. The defense fighting style is used with every other fighting style frequently. If you can use one fighting style with a weapon and you can use another style with the same weapon, you can use both styles with the weapon.

I agree with everything you said except "it's ambiguous." The rules as written may seem confusing because of the specificity of their wording (melee attack vs melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon), but the language is consistent and careful reading makes the answer clear. An interpretation that doesn't allow Dueling is either a "common mistake" or a "house rule."

[SteadyAim]

They're not, though. The RAW interpretation is fairly clear.

Dueling (PHB 72): 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.

What's a melee weapon? Any weapon from the list of "Simple Melee Weapons" or "Martial Melee Weapons" on PHB 149. Does throwing the weapon make it into a ranged weapon? Of course not -- then you could apply Sharpshooter with it. But the thrown property doesn't mean that.

Thrown (PHB 147): 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 hand axe, 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.

The bolded part makes it abundantly clear that when you throw a melee weapon, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon. This does not make it a ranged weapon attack (for purposes of Sharpshooter, for instance) and it's not a melee weapon attack (for purposes of Green Flame Blade or Sweeping Attack), but the Dueling fighting style does not require a melee weapon attack. It requires a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapon.

Even if the DMs you met articulated their RAW arguments so well that you couldn't find fault with it, the rules as written doesn't actually support them. Once you understand the differences between a "melee attack," a "melee weapon attack," and an "attack with a melee weapon," it becomes fairly clear that Dueling can apply to thrown melee weapons, and Archery and Sharpshooter can't.

And again, as was linked on the first page, Jeremy Crawford confirmed this.



I don't want to ignite a rules debate but the DMs in question had very solid RAW arguments. For them the key question was "is the weapon in question in your hand when it hits and damages the target?" and they were able to directly point to the rules and prove that you cannot apply the Dueling fighting style. Plus, they were quick to point out that Jeremy Crawford has made official statements to the effect that his old Tweets cannot be considered RAI and that only the Sage Advice Compendium can be used for RAI.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Isn't it settled because OP knows at their table it works? I think someone said that in the earlier pages.

That's really all that's needed.

👍 I agree with this.
Let us acknowledge, however, that it did not stop with the poster saying:
"This is the rule at my table, but others may rule differently."

Instead, they stated: "All tables should rule as I do".

They went from a federal system of D&D rulings, where all tables have their own (and slightly different rulings), to advocating for a centralized system, where all tables must use this exact ruling.

To use an analogy, they are essentially stating something equivalent to:
"All regions in Switzerland must speak Italian".

Such a position, would cause no small amount of consternation.

[Elastoid]

I don't want to ignite a rules debate but the DMs in question had very solid RAW arguments. For them the key question was "is the weapon in question in your hand when it hits and damages the target?" and they were able to directly point to the rules and prove that you cannot apply the Dueling fighting style. Plus, they were quick to point out that Jeremy Crawford has made official statements to the effect that his old Tweets cannot be considered RAI and that only the Sage Advice Compendium can be used for RAI.

For me the key question isn't "is the weapon in your hand when it hits and damages the target," but "does it need to be?" My answer is no -- their answer is clearly "yes," which is an insane interpretation for a lot of reasons.

1) The feat is not magically triggered upon hitting the enemy -- logically, it would depend how you throw it, and the conditions that apply to you at the time.

2) It's inconsistent with other rules. Consider the rule for Tripping Attack -- when you hit with an attack, you can attempt to trip them. This applies to ranged attacks, meaning you can throw an axe, and after it hits them, you can then decide to use Tripping Attack. At no point do they say "but was the axe in your hand at the time that you decided to trip the person?"

3) Consider also the Warlock's Pact of the Blade boon. It says you're proficient with the pact weapon "while you wield it." Would they argue that if the Warlock threw his pact weapon, he would not get his proficiency bonus, because after he threw the weapon, he was no longer "wielding" it, and therefore not proficient?

It's true that some parts of the PHB and Fighting Styles in particular have some areas where they could have been worded better (there's no definition for "engaged in two-weapon fighting," for example -- it implies that two-weapon fighting is a state that can be active or inactive, which is not reflected anywhere else), but there's no specific rule for the word "wield." Rules as written, all the conditions for Dueling apply when you make your attack, at which point you would resolve the attack -- creating separate conditions for the time a ranged weapon leaves a character's hand (or bow) is just making things up -- which is, by definition, a house rule.

Also, Crawford never said his tweets don't reflect RAI. In fact, he said the opposite on twitter: "That's the purpose of my official rulings: a window into what we intended."

He also said in Sage Advice:

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
...
RAI. ...“rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. ... When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

It takes an impressive level of presumption to say "I know more about what the D&D team meant than the lead designer," so insofar as there could ever be a source on the subject of RAI, it would have to be Jeremy Crawford himself.

So essentially, the rule about "Your table, your rules" still applies, and if DMs want to make the rule that way, they're welcome to. But they're creating a house rule.

And that's all I'll say on the matter here, because apparently this subject has a contentious history.

[SteadyAim]

For me the key question isn't "is the weapon in your hand when it hits and damages the target," but "does it need to be?" My answer is no -- their answer is clearly "yes," which is an insane interpretation for a lot of reasons.

1) The feat is not magically triggered upon hitting the enemy -- logically, it would depend how you throw it, and the conditions that apply to you at the time.

2) It's inconsistent with other rules. Consider the rule for Tripping Attack -- when you hit with an attack, you can attempt to trip them. This applies to ranged attacks, meaning you can throw an axe, and after it hits them, you can then decide to use Tripping Attack. At no point do they say "but was the axe in your hand at the time that you decided to trip the person?"

3) Consider also the Warlock's Pact of the Blade boon. It says you're proficient with the pact weapon "while you wield it." Would they argue that if the Warlock threw his pact weapon, he would not get his proficiency bonus, because after he threw the weapon, he was no longer "wielding" it, and therefore not proficient?

It's true that some parts of the PHB and Fighting Styles in particular have some areas where they could have been worded better (there's no definition for "engaged in two-weapon fighting," for example -- it implies that two-weapon fighting is a state that can be active or inactive, which is not reflected anywhere else), but there's no specific rule for the word "wield." Rules as written, all the conditions for Dueling apply when you make your attack, at which point you would resolve the attack -- creating separate conditions for the time a ranged weapon leaves a character's hand (or bow) is just making things up -- which is, by definition, a house rule.

Also, Crawford never said his tweets don't reflect RAI. In fact, he said the opposite on twitter: "That's the purpose of my official rulings: a window into what we intended."

He also said in Sage Advice:

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
...
RAI. ...“rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. ... When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

It takes an impressive level of presumption to say "I know more about what the D&D team meant than the lead designer," so insofar as there could ever be a source on the subject of RAI, it would have to be Jeremy Crawford himself.

So essentially, the rule about "Your table, your rules" still applies, and if DMs want to make the rule that way, they're welcome to. But they're creating a house rule.

And that's all I'll say on the matter here, because apparently this subject has a contentious history.

For my DMs, the actual rule as stated for the Dueling Fighting Style requires the weapon to be "in one hand" for its bonus to apply.

Here are a few links so that you can update your understanding about JC Tweets and RAI.

JC Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248)

Stack Exchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/140221/with-the-2019-sage-advice-compendium-release-are-jeremy-crawfords-tweets-consi)

[Elastoid]

I have, in fact, read those. I haven't posted enough to be allowed to post links, but in that stack exchange link, scroll down to the link where it says "And, of course, it is always worth noting that Crawford's rulings, whether official or not, are not RAW."

It clarifies that his tweets are "To figure out RAI." And links to the tweet I quoted, where he says as much.

So saying


Jeremy Crawford has made official statements to the effect that his old Tweets cannot be considered RAI and that only the Sage Advice Compendium can be used for RAI.

is objectively wrong. He's said they aren't RAW, as only the official rulebooks constitute RAW.

[SteadyAim]

I have, in fact, read those. I haven't posted enough to be allowed to post links, but in that stack exchange link, scroll down to the link where it says "And, of course, it is always worth noting that Crawford's rulings, whether official or not, are not RAW."

It clarifies that his tweets are "To figure out RAI." And links to the tweet I quoted, where he says as much.

So saying



is objectively wrong. He's said they aren't RAW, as only the official rulebooks constitute RAW.

For official rulings you can only refer to the Sage Advice Compendium which has been specifically edited by JC himself to be deemed official rulings. JC's Tweets are no longer official rulings (and JC himself has stated this). Any old tweets that are not represented in the current Sage Advice Compendium are unofficial rulings, ie house rules.

[Elastoid]

Remember earlier, when I said I'd read that? You're just quoting from it now.

The Sage Advice contains rulings on the interpretations of rules as written. For example, "Does using College of Valor’s Combat Inspiration add to the damage of an attack count as a damage die for purposes of critical hits? Yes." The question was, literally, "What does this rule mean?"

You stated that Crawford's tweets wouldn't be a source on rules as intended. There will never be an "official ruling" on rules as intended. That's not what RAI is about. He makes that very clear in the sage advice compendium, which I already quoted for you. RAI is for people who care what was meant by the people who wrote the rules. If they want to change the wording of rules, they do so in errata. If they want to clarify the wording of the rules, and how they should be officially interpreted (for example, in AL) they do so in the Sage Advice Compendium. If they want to explain what they intended, that won't come in an official ruling.

Which is why Crawford tweeted, "Official rules are in rulebooks. On Twitter and in Sage Advice, I give rulings and clarifications." When someone referred to his tweets as "a window into authorial intent," Crawford replied: "That's the purpose of my official rulings: a window into what we intended."

So feel free to back up your claim -- that Jeremy Crawford has officially stated that his tweets cannot be considered RAI, and that only the Sage Advice Compendium could be used for RAI. Show me any statement by Jeremy Crawford to that effect. But remember that "official rulings" and "RAI" are two different things.

[SteadyAim]

Remember earlier, when I said I'd read that? You're just quoting from it now.

The Sage Advice contains rulings on the interpretations of rules as written. For example, "Does using College of Valor’s Combat Inspiration add to the damage of an attack count as a damage die for purposes of critical hits? Yes." The question was, literally, "What does this rule mean?"

You stated that Crawford's tweets wouldn't be a source on rules as intended. There will never be an "official ruling" on rules as intended. That's not what RAI is about. He makes that very clear in the sage advice compendium, which I already quoted for you. RAI is for people who care what was meant by the people who wrote the rules. If they want to change the wording of rules, they do so in errata. If they want to clarify the wording of the rules, and how they should be officially interpreted (for example, in AL) they do so in the Sage Advice Compendium. If they want to explain what they intended, that won't come in an official ruling.

Which is why Crawford tweeted, "Official rules are in rulebooks. On Twitter and in Sage Advice, I give rulings and clarifications." When someone referred to his tweets as "a window into authorial intent," Crawford replied: "That's the purpose of my official rulings: a window into what we intended."

So feel free to back up your claim -- that Jeremy Crawford has officially stated that his tweets cannot be considered RAI, and that only the Sage Advice Compendium could be used for RAI. Show me any statement by Jeremy Crawford to that effect. But remember that "official rulings" and "RAI" are two different things.

If you use an old tweet that did not make it into current Sage Advice Compendium then it is only at best an unofficial ruling, ie a house rule. Obviously, you are free to house rule as you like in your games. My DMs stick to official sources and official rules only.

[Valmark]

If you use an old tweet that did not make it into current Sage Advice Compendium then it is only at best an unofficial ruling, ie a house rule. Obviously, you are free to house rule as you like in your games. My DMs stick to official sources and official rules only.

An unofficial ruling is not an house rule.

The text is open ended- the fact that your DMs presented well articulated arguments for not allowing it doesn't make them correct and the others wrong (and us doing the same doesn't make us correct and your DMs wrong of course).

It's honestly pretty simple- either a DM decided it's not in one hand for the damage roll and thus Dueling doesn't apply or they decide you're wielding it in one hand for the attack and Dueling applies.
Personally it's such a situational (less with Tasha) thing that I see no reason to veto it.

[SteadyAim]

An unofficial ruling is not an house rule.

The text is open ended- the fact that your DMs presented well articulated arguments for not allowing it doesn't make them correct and the others wrong (and us doing the same doesn't make us correct and your DMs wrong of course).

It's honestly pretty simple- either a DM decided it's not in one hand for the damage roll and thus Dueling doesn't apply or they decide you're wielding it in one hand for the attack and Dueling applies.
Personally it's such a situational (less with Tasha) thing that I see no reason to veto it.

Valmark, how do you think it applies in the case of Shillelagh?

If you cast Shillelagh on a light club with the thrown property will it be a Shillelagh when you throw it and it strikes the target?

[Elastoid]

Valmark, how do you think it applies in the case of Shillelagh?

If you cast Shillelagh on a light club with the thrown property will it be a Shillelagh when you throw it and it strikes the target?

First you have to have a light club with the thrown property, which means you're already living in the land of homebrew.

[Valmark]

Valmark, how do you think it applies in the case of Shillelagh?

If you cast Shillelagh on a light club with the thrown property will it be a Shillelagh when you throw it and it strikes the target?

Not actually relevant since Shillelagh has a different wording.

[SteadyAim]

First you have to have a light club with the thrown property, which means you're already living in the land of homebrew.

Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Tavern Brawler allows you to add your proficiency bonus. So with Tavern Brawler and Shillelagh, is the club a Shillelagh when it strikes the target?

OMG DAREDEVIL BUILD


Not actually relevant since Shillelagh has a different wording.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the weapon is in your hand when its thrown and strikes a target (so Dueling and Shillelagh applies).

Or it is not in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target (so Dueling and Shillelagh do not apply).

So what is your pick?

[Valmark]

Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Tavern Brawler allows you to add your proficiency bonus. So with Tavern Brawler and Shillelagh, is the club a Shillelagh when it strikes the target?

OMG DAREDEVIL BUILD



You can't have it both ways.

Either the weapon is in your hand when its thrown and strikes a target (so Dueling and Shillelagh applies).

Or it is not in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target (so Dueling and Shillelagh do not apply).

So what is your pick?

Again, they use different words. It's like asking me if you can push a door opened by pulling. You're drawing an analogy where there isn't.

[SteadyAim]

Again, they use different words. It's like asking me if you can push a door opened by pulling. You're drawing an analogy where there isn't.

All you need to do is provide a clear answer to the following question.

Is the weapon in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target?

[Zhorn]

{Scrubbed}

[Elastoid]

Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Tavern Brawler allows you to add your proficiency bonus. So with Tavern Brawler and Shillelagh, is the club a Shillelagh when it strikes the target?


Not even close. Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon, but that changes its damage die to a d4, whether you're proficient or not (PHB 148). Being proficient doesn't change that at all. It also doesn't grant the weapon the thrown property, meaning it's still a ranged attack (uses DEX, not STR).

[Valmark]

All you need to do is provide a clear answer to the following question.

Is the weapon in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target?
Again, two different things.

Shillelagh requires a melee attack.
Dueling requires a melee weapon.

[SteadyAim]

Not even close. Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon, but that changes its damage die to a d4, whether you're proficient or not (PHB 148). Being proficient doesn't change that at all. It also doesn't grant the weapon the thrown property, meaning it's still a ranged attack (uses DEX, not STR).

Is the club a Shillelagh (and therefore magical) when it is thrown and strikes the target?

[Elastoid]

Is the club a Shillelagh (and therefore magical) when it is thrown and strikes the target?

You've created a false dichotomy. Like I stated before, Dueling doesn't state that the weapon has to be in your hand at the moment damage is applied. Shillelagh specifically states that the spell ends when it leaves your hand. One is a magical effect, one is not.

As for whether a thrown Shillelagh would qualify as a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming resistance, that seems like it's heavily open to DM interpretation. Even supposing attacks are essentially instantaneous (which from a rules standpoint, you have a strong argument for), would an improvised weapon that happens to be magical count? For example, Sending Stones are definitely magical. If I throw one as an improvised weapon, it does 1d4 damage -- does that damage count as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance? A thrown Shillelagh would be similar.

I see the similarity between the two situations from your perspective, I just don't think the comparison is perfect (you could very well answer differently in the two cases). As I said, Dueling has no stated requirement that the weapon be in your hand for the full duration of the attack. However, I think a strong rules-based argument could be made that attacks are essentially instantaneous effects (Battle Master maneuvers are strong supporting evidence), so by that interpretation I'd be okay with an interpretation wherein making the attack simultaneously causes damage and ends the spell. And in that context, then yes, it might deal damage -- provided you believe that throwing anything magical would deal damage in this way. Against an enemy that's immune to nonmagical weapon attacks, a thrown Shillelagh would do as much damage as a thrown Potion of Healing.

Refocusing on the character build:

Putting aside the rules debate, I'm a big fan of Darts + Archery + Sharpshooter. Superiority Dice and Sharpshooter make the damage dice pretty irrelevant. If I were building it, I'd go Variant Human or Custom Lineage to start with Sharpshooter. Start with Archery and grab Fighting Initiate for Thrown Style at 4, right before you get Extra Attack.

The problem I have with this is it's just a worse Crossbow fighter. You've got Archery and Sharpshooter, now you can go either darts with Thrown Weapon Style (d4+12+DEX, two attacks at level 5, plus off-hand bonus action that doesn't include DEX) or hand crossbow with Crossbow Expert (d6+10+DEX, two attacks at level 5, plus bonus action attack that includes DEX). With a DEX bonus of 3 the average damage is even, bump it to 4 and Crossbow Expert wins. Plus it has double the range. Plus you don't have disadvantage if someone closes on you. Plus 20 crossbow bolts weighs 1.5 pounds instead of the 5 pounds that 20 darts weigh, plus darts aren't ammunition so there's no guarantee you can spend a minute getting half of them back after each combat.

It's not terrible, it's just... having played a Crossbow Expert already, I'm not sure I want to go back and play the same character, but worse, with different flavor.

[SteadyAim]

As I said, Dueling has no stated requirement that the weapon be in your hand for the full duration of the attack.

Nope. Dueling requires "in one hand". Read the rule.

[SpanielBear]

Is the club a Shillelagh (and therefore magical) when it is thrown and strikes the target?

I knew it. Hi Thor.

Let’s not do this again.

[SteadyAim]

I knew it. Hi Thor.

Let’s not do this again.

Oh I get it.

You think I am ThorOdinson who was banned for a thread on this topic. I read a good chunk of that thread. I am not ThorOdinson.

[Valmark]

You've created a false dichotomy. Like I stated before, Dueling doesn't state that the weapon has to be in your hand at the moment damage is applied. Shillelagh specifically states that the spell ends when it leaves your hand. One is a magical effect, one is not.

As for whether a thrown Shillelagh would qualify as a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming resistance, that seems like it's heavily open to DM interpretation. Even supposing attacks are essentially instantaneous (which from a rules standpoint, you have a strong argument for), would an improvised weapon that happens to be magical count? For example, Sending Stones are definitely magical. If I throw one as an improvised weapon, it does 1d4 damage -- does that damage count as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance? A thrown Shillelagh would be similar.

I see the similarity between the two situations from your perspective, I just don't think the comparison is perfect (you could very well answer differently in the two cases). As I said, Dueling has no stated requirement that the weapon be in your hand for the full duration of the attack. However, I think a strong rules-based argument could be made that attacks are essentially instantaneous effects (Battle Master maneuvers are strong supporting evidence), so by that interpretation I'd be okay with an interpretation wherein making the attack simultaneously causes damage and ends the spell. And in that context, then yes, it might deal damage -- provided you believe that throwing anything magical would deal damage in this way. Against an enemy that's immune to nonmagical weapon attacks, a thrown Shillelagh would do as much damage as a thrown Potion of Healing.


The thing is... They aren't actually similar examples at all.

Shillelagh explicitely doesn't work with ranged attacks, so it has nothing to do with Dueling.

Keep in mind (this is in general, not just a reply to your post) that throwing a melee weapon doesn't mean making a melee attack regardless of the Thrown property.

[SteadyAim]

And so things are...


... as they have been in the past ...


... history repeats itself over again

And SpanielBear, I'm sure being such long time acquaintances are familiar enough to call them by their codename Obi-Wan.

Sorry to disappoint you but again I am not ThorOdinson.

[Elastoid]

The thing is... They aren't actually similar examples at all.

Shillelagh explicitely doesn't work with ranged attacks, so it has nothing to do with Dueling.

Keep in mind (this is in general, not just a reply to your post) that throwing a melee weapon doesn't mean making a melee attack regardless of the Thrown property.

I kept this in mind, which is why I argued that throwing a Shillelagh would just be an improvised weapon, using your DEX modifier and doing d4 damage. The d8 property and the ability to use your spellcasting modifier would be completely null in this, however, it'd still be magical at the moment you throw it, just not when it leaves your hand.

So at the core of that question is, "do the rules account for the amount of time in between a thrown object's leaving the thrower's hand and striking the target?" I don't know that RAW, there's such a distinction. Like I said, RAW there's actually an argument against it.

I compared a thrown Shillelagh to a thrown Sending Stone (as the Sending Stone is magical, but not a magical weapon). Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that such a projectile counts as magical. Then, throwing a Shillelagh, one of two things happens:

1) You make a ranged attack roll throwing the Shillelagh as an improvised weapon AND THEN the Shillelagh spell ends and the club becomes nonmagical AND THEN the club strikes the target and you roll damage,

or

2) You make a ranged attack roll throwing the Shillelagh as an improvised weapon, the club strikes the target and you roll damage, AND THEN the Shillelagh spell ends.

The answer for which of these scenarios is correct lies in the much deeper question of whether an attack is instantaneous. An argument can be made that it is, and all the things that affect it go down at once. Consider:

A Battle Master and a Bard are doing battle an enemy College of Lore Bard. The Battle Master has been given a Bardic Inspiration die. He shoots his crossbow at the College of Lore Bard, and rolls a 19, better than the enemy's 16 AC. But the College of Lore bard uses Cutting Words, bringing the Battle Master's roll down to a 14. The Battle Master uses his Bardic Inspiration die, bringing the roll back up to a 21. It hits -- the Battle Master then uses Trip Attack, doing a total of 17 damage and forcing his enemy (who failed his Strength save) to fall prone.

Now, this is perfectly legitimate, according to the rules. However, put in the same context as before, it means either:

1) The Battle Master made the ranged attack roll, AND THEN the opposing bard chose to discourage him, AND THEN the Battle Master decided to feel encouraged, AND THEN the attack hit, AND THEN the Battle Master decided to try to trip the enemy, AND THEN the enemy took 17 damage and fell down.

or

2) The Battle Master felt inspired, despite his opponent heckling him, and tried to trip his opponent with an attack that hit for 17 damage, which caused his opponent to fall prone.

In other words, are these effects all understood to be happening one after the other, independently, or is the attack considered to be instantaneous?

Now, obviously this is an extreme example, but to argue that the Shillelagh spell ends before it hits and does damage, while it seems logical, requires an effect to trigger (or, perhaps, to wear off) in the space of time between an attack roll and a damage roll. A strong case could be made that the rules account for no such space of time.

[JackPhoenix]

Incidentally, the bolded part also means that no, you can't use your strength modifier with a dart. A dart is not a melee weapon, so you would not "use the same ability modifier... that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon." You would use Dexterity, as you do for any ranged weapon (PHB 194). Yes, it says the "thrown" property breaks this rule, but again, the thrown property specifies that it only does so with melee weapons, which does not include the dart.

Finesse property, however, allows you to use Str or Dex, no matter if the weapon is melee or ranged. It never was the thrown property that allowed you to do that with a dart.


Any weapon can be thrown as an improvised weapon. Tavern Brawler allows you to add your proficiency bonus. So with Tavern Brawler and Shillelagh, is the club a Shillelagh when it strikes the target?

Throwing an object doesn't magically turn it into a weapon with thrown property.


The problem I have with this is it's just a worse Crossbow fighter. You've got Archery and Sharpshooter, now you can go either darts with Thrown Weapon Style (d4+12+DEX, two attacks at level 5, plus off-hand bonus action that doesn't include DEX) or hand crossbow with Crossbow Expert (d6+10+DEX, two attacks at level 5, plus bonus action attack that includes DEX). With a DEX bonus of 3 the average damage is even, bump it to 4 and Crossbow Expert wins. Plus it has double the range. Plus you don't have disadvantage if someone closes on you. Plus 20 crossbow bolts weighs 1.5 pounds instead of the 5 pounds that 20 darts weigh, plus darts aren't ammunition so there's no guarantee you can spend a minute getting half of them back after each combat.

Unlike crossbow expert, you can use shield with darts, which has a value of its own. You won't get the bonus action, as darts don't qualify for TWF (ranged, not melee weapon). The fact darts aren't ammunition is to your advantage: You can get all of them after combat, instead of only half.

[SteadyAim]

Throwing an object doesn't magically turn it into a weapon with thrown property.


The pertinent question for you to answer is if a thrown weapon (whether thrown via the Thrown property or thrown via Improvised Range Weapon) is in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target or if it is not in your hand when it is thrown and strikes the target.

What is your answer to this question?

I am starting to wholeheartedly agree with my DMs.

[Elastoid]

Finesse property, however, allows you to use Str or Dex, no matter if the weapon is melee or ranged. It never was the thrown property that allowed you to do that with a dart.
Oh hey, that's interesting. Did not realize that.


Unlike crossbow expert, you can use shield with darts, which has a value of its own. You won't get the bonus action, as darts don't qualify for TWF (ranged, not melee weapon). The fact darts aren't ammunition is to your advantage: You can get all of them after combat, instead of only half.

Should have realized that. That makes the darts just much worse.

[SteadyAim]

Unlike crossbow expert, you can use shield with darts, which has a value of its own. You won't get the bonus action, as darts don't qualify for TWF (ranged, not melee weapon). The fact darts aren't ammunition is to your advantage: You can get all of them after combat, instead of only half.

If you pick up Tavern Brawler then your darts DO qualify for TWF.

[Elastoid]

If you pick up Tavern Brawler then your darts DO qualify for TWF.

Tavern Brawler just says you're proficient with improvised weapons. On what page is the rule that mentions proficiency when it comes to two-weapon fighting?

[JackPhoenix]

If you pick up Tavern Brawler then your darts DO qualify for TWF.

Tavern Brawler doesn't magically turn dart into a melee weapon either.

[PattThe]

Now here's the REAL question:

You're playing a tasha's thrower in a Gestalt game. What class do you take alongside your primary class? Monk for free dart damage die increases? More martial for additional fighting styles? Spellcaster for support tools? Warlock for invocation memes?

[Segev]

It’s largely irrelevant whether Shillelagh ends before damage is dealt because, as has been noted, the weapons are not thrown weapons and you’re not making a melee attack. This improvised attack does the default improvised weapon damage; at best, this would allow you to overcome immunity to nonmagical weapons. I’d probably rule of cool it to working as a DM, at least for that much. If the party is resorting to throwing melee weapons, they’re pretty desperate.

[rlc]

(Emphasis added)

Just so you know, whether Thrown weapons qualify for the Dueling Fighting Style is a hotly-debated subject, having been the topic of at least one locked 50-page thread.

I don’t want to reignite that, so what I’ll say is check with your DM to see how they rule the Dueling style and thrown weapons, since that’s pretty much what it’s going to come down to.

Then again, there was also a dude who said that bugbears don’t get extra reach from reach weapons because of some weird logic, so people will argue anything

[rlc]

And, yeah, shillelagh and dueling are two different cases, so using them as evidence for each other doesn’t fly.