Quote Originally Posted by ThorOdinson View Post
By your own assertion "wielding" doesn't mean "hold in hand" so when you throw a dart and it hits a target and delivers its damage it is "wielded" while the dart is not in one hand.
That is not what I said. I said that it makes no semantic sense to claim that it ceases to be wielded mid-throw. I also said that there is nothing in the RAW that says that the number of hands wielding it changes between the attack roll and the damage roll. You've yet to provide citations from the RAW which prove me wrong, here. Since I am asserting a negative ("There is nothing in the RAW that...") I cannot cite rules that call it out. However, proving my negative assertion incorrect is as simple as citing rules that do, in fact, say what I claim the rules are silent on.

Quote Originally Posted by ThorOdinson View Post
If it is in the mechanics then you should be able to provide a citation to show that it is indeed in the mechanics. What is so hard about providing a citation showing the mechanic you claim is present?
Neither JNAProductions nor I (nor any other poster in here) has asserted that your interpretation of the RAW - that it can change the number of hands in which it is wielded between the attack roll and damage roll - is a house rule. It is a valid, if questionable to us, way to rule the RAW work.

We are also claiming that a valid interpretation of the RAW - and therefore non-house-rule-ruling - is that the weapon is wielded in the number of hands it is wielded in from start to finish of the attack, changing state only when the attack is resolved.

You have asserted that that is a house rule. In order to justify that assertion, it is you who must provide a citation that supports your claim. Please show me in the RAW where it says that the number of hands in which a thrown weapon is wielded changes specifically between the attack roll and the damage roll.