Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ProsecutorGodot]

You dont have permission to make a ranged attack with a weapon with the Thrown property unless you throw it.

Do you have a citation that "attack and damage rolls happen simultaneously"?

If you actually read Step 3 . . .

Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

By RAW, the damage roll occurs after the attack roll and only for hits.

None of this says the weapon has left your hand until it's been fully resolved.

On the bolded bit... to suggest otherwise would mean rolling damage would be step 4 of making an attack... Which doesn't exist. Both are required to successfully resolve an attack that has hit. They're part of the same step, distinctly not separate. If you hit, the damage happens.

[ThorOdinson]

Did that.

“ The weapon is in the characters hand.

When the attack is made, the weapon is in the characters hand (it cannot leave until is thrown, after all, if we’re interacting with the narrative layer, and it can hardly be thrown without a target being identified).

We have agreed there is no granularity in an attack. An attack is all three stages or not an attack at all.

The attack is therefore made with a weapon wielded in one hand, including (necessarily) the damage roll.

The bonus damage is added.”

In order to make a ranged attack, the character is required to throw the weapon.

If the weapon is still in hand you did not throw the weapon and therefore do not have permission to make a ranged attack.

None of this says the weapon has left your hand until it's been fully resolved.

On the bolded bit... to suggest otherwise would mean rolling damage would be step 4 of making an attack... Which doesn't exist. Both are required to successfully resolve an attack that has hit. They're part of the same step, distinctly not separate. If you hit, the damage happens.

Step 3 literally requires you to make one roll. Check the results. Then make the other roll only on hits.

If you ignore plainly stated rules and add "simultaneous" into the rules you are house ruling. If that works for you, great! House rules don't work in my situation. Only RAW and SAC.

[SpanielBear]

In order to make a ranged attack, the character is required to throw the weapon.

If the weapon is still in hand you did not throw the weapon and therefore do not have permission to make a ranged attack.

That’s a bit of a paradox then. Because the character can’t throw the weapon until I make an attack (step 1 must be satisfied, after all), but you’re saying I can’t attack until the character throws the weapon.

Congratulations! Your house rule means that attacks with thrown weapons are impossible! In fact, *all* attacks are impossible, because if a character can’t throw neither can they swing, swipe, stab or cast!

[ProsecutorGodot]

Step 3 literally requires you to make one roll. Check the results. Then make the other roll only on hits.

Yes exactly, that's all Step 3.

If you ignore plainly stated rules and add "simultaneous" into the rules you are house ruling. If that works for you, great! House rules don't work in my situation. Only RAW and SAC.

They are the same step, they always happen together, as in not separate. You resolve them at the same time. That is, by definition, events that happen simultaneously.

[ThorOdinson]

That’s a bit of a paradox then. Because the character can’t throw the weapon until I make an attack (step 1 must be satisfied, after all), but you’re saying I can’t attack until the character throws the weapon.

You are confusing character and player.

[SpanielBear]

You are confusing character and player.

No I’m not. I roll dice, character throws things. That’s been discussed before.

[ThorOdinson]

No I’m not. I roll dice, character throws things. That’s been discussed before.

And it was proven before that you confuse player and character. And you are still doing it.

The character throws the weapon to make a ranged attack. If he does not throw the weapon he does not have permission to make a ranged attack.

Provided the character throws the weapon, the player has permission to apply Steps 1 to 3 to resolve the attack.

When damage rolls are made, the character does not have the weapon "in one hand" so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

[SpanielBear]

And it was proven before that you confuse player and character. And you are still doing it.

The character throws the weapon to make a ranged attack. If he does not throw the weapon he does not have permission to make a ranged attack.

Provided the character throws the weapon, the player has permission to apply Steps 1 to 3 to resolve the attack.

When damage rolls are made, the character does not have the weapon "in one hand" so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

Who or what is the character throwing the weapon at, if it is being thrown before the attack starts and step 1, “identify target” has not been fulfilled?

If the target has been identified, the attack process is in effect and must be played out in full, or else it isn’t an attack as steps have been missed.

Or perhaps, if I am as you say confusing player and character, you could tell me: Who identifies the target? The player or the character?

[ThorOdinson]

Who or what is the character throwing the weapon at, if it is being thrown before the attack starts and step 1, “identify target” has not been fulfilled?

If the target has been identified, the attack process is in effect and must be played out in full, or else it isn’t an attack as steps have been missed.

You are confusing player and character. The character throws the weapon. The player resolves steps 1 to 3.

[SpanielBear]

You are confusing player and character. The character throws the weapon. The player resolves steps 1 to 3.

So... the character identifies a target independent of the player? Or the character throws an axe randomly and just hopes to God a goblin gets in the way?

(My position, to be clear, is that both of those are incoherent and RAW is fulfilled by the player choosing a target and starting an attack whilst the character has weapon in hand. To say otherwise invites the paradox.)

[ThorOdinson]

So... the character identifies a target independent of the player?

The rules don't ask the character to identify the target. The rules ask the player to identify the target.

The rules are clear and straightforward. As long as you don't try to force weapons that have been thrown somehow back into their hands in order to get a damage bonus you don't qualify for, everything works out fine.

[SpanielBear]

The rules don't ask the character to identify the target. The rules ask the player to identify the target.

(Removed my statement, it was unhelpful. I should allow you to respond to my previous point now it is expanded, apologies.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

The rules don't ask the character to identify the target. The rules ask the player to identify the target.

Glad we've identified that PC's know they're in a game world and have no agency of their own.

Suggesting that the character can't identify their target before they throw the weapon, which you claim must happen before an attack is initiated, makes no sense. It making no sense here suggests that this probably isn't how the order of events occurs.

The rules are clear and straightforward. As long as you don't try to force weapons that have been thrown somehow back into their hands in order to get a damage bonus you don't qualify for, everything works out fine.

You still haven't put forth a compelling argument that the weapon leaves their hands before step 3.

[SpanielBear]

The rules don't ask the character to identify the target. The rules ask the player to identify the target.

The rules are clear and straightforward. As long as you don't try to force weapons that have been thrown somehow back into their hands in order to get a damage bonus you don't qualify for, everything works out fine.

The rules are clear and straightforward, but you are insisting that a weapon be forced out of a characters hand before an attack is made. Why is it leaving their hand if not as part of an attack on an identified target? Which implies, as has long been suggested, that the rules can lead to both interpretations.

[ThorOdinson]

The rules are clear and straightforward, but you are insisting that a weapon be forced out of a characters hand before an attack is made. Why is it leaving their hand if not as part of an attack on an identified target? Which implies, as has long been suggested, that the rules can lead to both interpretations.

You are not allowed to ignore rules.

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

If the weapon is still in one hand the character did not throw it and therefore did not have permission to make a ranged attack.

[SpanielBear]

You are not allowed to ignore rules.

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

If the weapon is still in one hand the character did not throw it and therefore did not have permission to make a ranged attack.

How does a fictional character do anything without the players involvement? It cannot be the case that the player waits for the character to satisfy a condition- the character can *only* act on the intentions of a player.

I put it to you that the rules for thrown state “you can throw the weapon”, not “you must”. I also put it to you that the rules for thrown can be satisfied as part of and by completion of the attack action- but so too can the damage roll.

(“You can” is an if-then statement. It is not an if-and-only-if-then statement)

[ThorOdinson]

How does a fictional character do anything without the players involvement? It cannot be the case that the player waits for the character to satisfy a condition- the character can *only* act on the intentions of a player.

I put it to you that the rules for thrown state “you can throw the weapon”, not “you must”. I also put it to you that the rules for thrown can be satisfied as part of and by completion of the attack action- but so too can the damage roll.

(“You can” is an if-then statement. It is not an if-and-only-if-then statement)

The "can" is a permission to throw a weapon to make a ranged attack that is provided by the Thrown rule. You do not otherwise have that permission. Logically then you must satisfy the condition for the permission or you don't get the permission.

For you to have a RAW argument you must follow the rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The "can" is a permission to throw a weapon to make a ranged attack that is provided by the Thrown rule. You do not otherwise have that permission. Logically then you must satisfy the condition for the permission or you don't get the permission.

For you to have a RAW argument you must follow the rules.

So what you're suggesting, by your logic, is that it doesn't matter what direction I throw the weapon in, it can suddenly find a target in any direction since I must throw it (no defined distance or direction) before I can choose a target, which would define a distance and direction?

Because that doesn't seem logical to me.

[SpanielBear]

The "can" is a permission to throw a weapon to make a ranged attack that is provided by the Thrown rule. You do not otherwise have that permission. Logically then you must satisfy the condition for the permission or you don't get the permission.

For you to have a RAW argument you must follow the rules.

Au contraire.

“Can” by any English definition is open. “You can run” does not mean “you cannot walk”.

“You can throw the weapon” simply means that is one way in which a ranged attack can be made. It is only inclusive. “You can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack” does not as a statement exclude any other methods by which a ranged attack might be made.

Now, it is true that the rulebook doesn’t suggest any other means by which a ranged attack is made. However-

A) that does not matter. It is not a rule that *must* be fulfilled, as if it was that would have to be made explicit.

B) rule 0- the ultimate arbiter is the DM. So while the rulebook doesn’t specify any alternative way in which a thrown ranged attack might be made, it is explicit that any DM can, by RAW, make ruling that does allow for that. And the mere fact that that is possible means the thrown rule cannot be presented as a rule that excludes an attack action unless the conditions are met.

To put it another way-

Let “Throw rule”= A

Let “Attack rule” = B

“If A then B” is true

However,

“If not A then not B” does not necessarily follow.

[ThorOdinson]

Au contraire.

“Can” by any English definition is open. “You can run” does not mean “you cannot walk”.

“You can throw the weapon” simply means that is one way in which a ranged attack can be made. It is only inclusive. “You can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack” does not as a statement exclude any other methods by which a ranged attack might be made.

Now, it is true that the rulebook doesn’t suggest any other means by which a ranged attack is made. However-

A) that does not matter. It is not a rule that *must* be fulfilled, as if it was that would have to be made explicit.

B) rule 0- the ultimate arbiter is the DM. So while the rulebook doesn’t specify any alternative way in which a thrown ranged attack might be made, it is explicit that any DM can, by RAW, make ruling that does allow for that. And the mere fact that that is possible means the thrown rule cannot be presented as a rule that excludes an attack action unless the conditions are met.

To put it another way-

Let “Throw rule”= A

Let “Attack rule” = B

“If A then B” is true

However,

“If not A then not B” does not necessarily follow.

If you have no other means to get the permission then you have to get the permission in the only way it is provided or you don't get the permission.

If DM fiat / house rule is okay for your needs, Great! That won't work for me. I require a RAW argument for my situation.

[SpanielBear]

So what you're suggesting, by your logic, is that it doesn't matter what direction I throw the weapon in, it can suddenly find a target in any direction since I must throw it (no defined distance or direction) before I can choose a target, which would define a distance and direction?

Because that doesn't seem logical to me.

I know what you’re saying, but they’re going to tell you you’re confusing player and character because you’re saying “I”.

I know, I know...

[SpanielBear]

If you have no other means to get the permission then you have to get the permission in the only way it is provided or you don't get the permission.

If DM fiat / house rule is okay for your needs, Great! That won't work for me. I require a RAW argument for my situation.

I do have other means. DM Fiat is RAW.

“Hey DM, can I make a ranged attack with my thrown weapon by doing X?” “sure” is not houseruling, as no rules are being changed or ignored.

[ThorOdinson]

I do have other means. DM Fiat is RAW.

“Hey DM, can I make a ranged attack with my thrown weapon by doing X?” “sure” is not houseruling, as no rules are being changed or ignored.

If you can get the DM to give you permission by DM fiat, great! That does not work for my situation. Everything has to be RAW and SAC.

[SpanielBear]

If you can get the DM to give you permission by DM fiat, great! That does not work for my situation. Everything has to be RAW and SAC.

How is DM permission not RAW?

“Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting” (phb, pg 7)

To put it another way, the rules are open, so whether you have permission or not can *only* rely on the DM.

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

By the strict reading of that rule, without making any assumptions about intent, it only tells you one thing about a weapon that has the “thrown” property- that it can be thrown to make a ranged attack. It doesn’t exclude anything else. It certainly doesn’t say it *must* be thrown to make a ranged attack. Ergo, any other formulation that could be imagined (whatever that might be) is not prevented by this rule.

However, “an attack has a simple structure”. This *is* exclusive- anything that does not have this structure is not an attack. So suggesting that a damage roll -step 3- is outside of an attack- that *is* a house rule by your definition.

One final point (promise):-

“ If you have no other means to get the permission then you have to get the permission in the only way it is provided or you don't get the permission.”

Where does it say that?

[Azuresun]

I think we've achieved perpetual motion.

[ThorOdinson]

I think we've achieved perpetual motion.

Fine by me. If the counter argument is relying on DM fiat then we can safely say their argument has jumped the shark. I am happily penciling in "victory" at this point.

[SpanielBear]

Fine by me. If the counter argument is relying on DM fiat then we can safely say their argument has jumped the shark. I am happily penciling in "victory" at this point.

Rest easy on your laurels, Don Quixote. The windmills lie in ruins.

In all seriousness, I am impressed by your dedication.

(I *do* have a citation for DM ruling though...)

[Valmark]

Fine by me. If the counter argument is relying on DM fiat then we can safely say their argument has jumped the shark. I am happily penciling in "victory" at this point.

You do realize you've never brought RAW quotes that support your argument so it's the same as relying on DM fiat like Spaniel says?

[ThorOdinson]

You do realize you've never brought RAW quotes that support your argument so it's the same as relying on DM fiat like Spaniel says?

Nope. I meticulously documented my statements with quotes from the PHB. If you feel otherwise please consult the thread.

[SpanielBear]

Nope. I meticulously documented my statements with quotes from the PHB. If you feel otherwise please consult the thread.

So sorry, I thought you said you had won, we still going?

Because if we are- you kinda *do* still need to show how the rule for Throw excludes any other reading than yours. You rely on “permission”, and a (house?)rule that in the absence of other instruction you must rely on assumed permission, not DM ruling.

DM ruling is RAW- pg 7 phb

Where are the rules regarding permissions, please?