Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Aett_Thorn]

I admire the tenacity of those in this thread, but would like put forward a theory of my own for this:

No matter what anyone says, this thread will continue as long as the answer isn't 'no dueling doesn't work with thrown weapons' or the pro camp give up the fight. The sheer amount of dodging and... otherwise precise nature of the arguments necessary thus far don't paint a picture of ThorOdinson ever agreeing the Dueling is applicable to thrown weapons, nor simply saying 'we won't agree on this, let's move on.'

I think for a while there people were just trying to get him to admit that his way of reading the rules wasn't the ONLY correct way to read them, and he couldn't even do that. I don't really understand what is driving him at this point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think for a while there people were just trying to get him to admit that his way of reading the rules wasn't the ONLY correct way to read them, and he couldn't even do that. I don't really understand what is driving him at this point.

Well, this can happen to any of us. It's my working hypothesis.

[ThorOdinson]

ThorOdinson, please answer my question rather than continuing to put words in my mouth:

Is the character attacking a creature when the character throws a javelin with the intent that the javelin’s pointy bit impact the creature with sufficient force to cause injury?

Before I can answer your question, I want to double check your use of the word 'throw'. You were evasive in our conversations before on a few points so its good to double check. I can't provide a correct answer until I know exactly what I am being asked.

In your question is the javelin still in the hand (the character has not indeed thrown) or has the character indeed thrown the javelin so that the javelin is obviously not in hand?

[Segev]

Before I can answer your question, I want to double check your use of the word 'throw'. You were evasive in our conversations before on a few points so its good to double check. I can't provide a correct answer until I know exactly what I am being asked.

In your question is the javelin still in the hand (the character has not indeed thrown) or has the character indeed thrown the javelin so that the javelin is obviously not in hand?

No, I have not been evasive. You have refused to be clear and keep trying to avoid answering it. The answer to this question literally cannot depend on whether the weapon has left the hand after the throw is complete, because the question is asking if the act of throwing the javelin at a target is an attack.

If you believe that whether the javelin has left the hand or not changes your answer, then please provide both answers. I will formulate the question two ways. Answer both versions.

• Assuming that the javelin has not left the hand after the "throw," if Bob throws a javelin with the intent and deliberate effort to cause the javelin to inflict injury upon a bandit, is Bob making an attack?
• Assuming that the javelin has left the hand after the "throw," if Bob throws a javelin with the intent and deliberate effort to cause the javelin to inflict injury upon a bandit, is Bob making an attack?

I will note that one of those is a ludicrous formulation, but since you insist there is a difference that impacts the answer, please answer both. Hopefully your answer to both will illustrate why you think the answer changes.

[ThorOdinson]

No, I have not been evasive. You have refused to be clear and keep trying to avoid answering it. The answer to this question literally cannot depend on whether the weapon has left the hand after the throw is complete, because the question is asking if the act of throwing the javelin at a target is an attack.

If you believe that whether the javelin has left the hand or not changes your answer, then please provide both answers. I will formulate the question two ways. Answer both versions.

• Assuming that the javelin has not left the hand after the "throw," if Bob throws a javelin with the intent and deliberate effort to cause the javelin to inflict injury upon a bandit, is Bob making an attack?
• Assuming that the javelin has left the hand after the "throw," if Bob throws a javelin with the intent and deliberate effort to cause the javelin to inflict injury upon a bandit, is Bob making an attack?

I will note that one of those is a ludicrous formulation, but since you insist there is a difference that impacts the answer, please answer both. Hopefully your answer to both will illustrate why you think the answer changes.

So you have a custom definition of "throw" which does not involve the thrown object indeed leaving the hand?

I am using the english word "throw".

[JNAProductions]

So you have a custom definition of "throw" which does not involve the thrown object indeed leaving the hand?

I am using the english word "throw".

If you feel the need to define throw in your answer, feel free to.

But answer the question.

[ThorOdinson]

If you feel the need to define throw in your answer, feel free to.

But answer the question.

I need to know whether I am applying a custom definition of "throw" or the english word "throw" before I can understand the question being posed.

[JNAProductions]

You’ve accused us of evading or equivocating, but refuse to answer the questions we ask of you.

Again-feel free to define throw in your answer, but answer the question. Doing anything else, given how much it has been asked, is evading.

[OzDragon]

I need to know whether I am applying a custom definition of "throw" or the english word "throw" before I can understand the question being posed.

The definition of throw has no bearing on the discussion on "mechanics" Stop trying to add narrative into it. We all (even you ) know what throw means, stop insulting us.


Is throwing a weapon at an enemy to damage it an attack(as it pertains to actions in the PHB)?

Yes or no

[ThorOdinson]

You’ve accused us of evading or equivocating, but refuse to answer the questions we ask of you.

Again-feel free to define throw in your answer, but answer the question. Doing anything else, given how much it has been asked, is evading.

I cannot answer a question unless the terms have been defined.

I need to know whether throw means that the object leaves the hand as it does in english or throw has some custom definition applied to it.

I am entirely unable to provide an answer to the question until the meaning of "throw" has been determined.

[OzDragon]

I cannot answer a question unless the terms have been defined.

I need to know whether throw means that the object leaves the hand as it does in english or throw has some custom definition applied to it.

I am entirely unable to provide an answer to the question until the meaning of "throw" has been determined.

So, if someone were to ask you, "What did you eat for dinner?" do you go.

"Well please define "eat" and "dinner" and specify what time you mean when you ask."

I bet you don't.

[Segev]

So you have a custom definition of "throw" which does not involve the thrown object indeed leaving the hand?

I am using the english word "throw".

In the post you quoted in this, I gave you both definitions of "throw" you posited, and asked you to answer the question first assuming one was the case, and second assuming the other.

You have what you asked for. If you continue to refuse to answer the question, I will only be able to conclude that your poorly-formed syllogisms are the best you can do to articulate your argument, which means that your argument is logically invalid.

To prove me wrong, you must answer the question and thus demonstrate that you can, in fact, clarify your meaning.

Re-read the post you quoted in this message. "Throw" is defined by assumption at the start of each version of the question. Please answer both, under the given assumption for each.

[Garhi]

I cannot answer a question unless the terms have been defined.

I need to know whether throw means that the object leaves the hand as it does in english or throw has some custom definition applied to it.

I am entirely unable to provide an answer to the question until the meaning of "throw" has been determined.

If your ability to answer the question relies on the definition of a specific term, you can provide the definition you are using as part of your answer. It's really not that hard.

[ThorOdinson]

I cannot answer the question.

I need people to admit that they are using a custom definition of "throw" or agree to the english meaning of "throw".

So which is it?

[SpanielBear]

I cannot answer the question.

I need people to admit that they are using a custom definition of "throw" or agree to the english meaning of "throw".

So which is it?

Your phrase “English meaning of throw” is ambiguous.

One can throw a javelin. Or one can throw a football match. One can also throw a hissy fit.

These are all English meanings.

[Segev]

I cannot answer the question.

I need people to admit that they are using a custom definition of "throw" or agree to the english meaning of "throw".

So which is it?

Please define "throw" as you are using it.

[ThorOdinson]

Please define "throw" as you are using it.

I am using the english word "throw" which requires that the object that is thrown leaves the hand and travels a distance.

If you are not using that exact meaning of throw, you need to indicate what exact meaning of throw you are using at this point in time.

[Segev]

Using the following definition of the word "throw," please answer the question that comes immediately thereafter.

I am using the english word "throw" which requires that the object that is thrown leaves the hand and travels a distance.

If a character throws a melee weapon with the thrown tag at a creature with the intent of causing injury to that creature, is the character making an attack?

[Mellack]

Post your own definition of throw and answer the question.

You failure to answer suggests that your basic concept is faulty.

[ThorOdinson]

Using the following definition of the word "throw," please answer the question that comes immediately thereafter.



If a character throws a melee weapon with the thrown tag at a creature with the intent of causing injury to that creature, is the character making an attack?

Are we agreed that that exact meaning of throw is the definition we will use going forward in this discussion and there will be no further equivocation about "throw". For a "throw" to indeed be considered a "throw", the object that the character throws must leave the hand and travel a distance, correct?

[Segev]

Are we agreed that that exact meaning of throw is the definition we will use going forward in this discussion and there will be no further equivocation about "throw". For a "throw" to indeed be considered a "throw", the object that the character throws must leave the hand and travel a distance, correct?

I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the question as indication that your logic is invalid, based on your inability to clarify the syllogisms you use when asked about them.

To prove me wrong, all you have to do is answer the question, using the definition of "throw" you yourself gave, which I specified I would accept as the basis for your answer to that question.

[ThorOdinson]

I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the question as indication that your logic is invalid, based on your inability to clarify the syllogisms you use when asked about them.

To prove me wrong, all you have to do is answer the question, using the definition of "throw" you yourself gave, which I specified I would accept as the basis for your answer to that question.

No. My argument is that you are using "throw" in a custom way by house rule. This is actually the point where you concede that you are using house ruled definitions or agree to the english meaning of throw as I have laid out.

Are you conceding that you are using a custom definition or are you agreeing to use the english meaning of the word exactly as I have laid out from this point forward with no further equivocation?

[Segev]

No. My argument is that you are using "throw" in a custom way by house rule. This is actually the point where you concede that you are using house ruled definitions or agree to the english meaning of throw as I have laid out.

Are you conceding that you are using a custom definition or are you agreeing to use the english meaning of the word exactly as I have laid out?

I make no concessions. I have not used a definition of "Throw" out of alignment with the one you've given. I reserve the right to analyze your definition further later on, but I sense from what you're saying here that you will never answer the question, because you're hinging your entire purported argument on the straw man that I am not using a valid definition of "throw." Heck, what "non-English definition of throw" do you think I'm using?

Because you will never answer the question, I must conclude that you cannot validate your logic, because answering the question is an important step to validating your logic. Therefore, your logic is invalid, and your argument is wrong.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer the question. I have let you use the definition of "throw" you gave, and have posted no disagreement with it. I have given you more chances to answer the question than is, frankly, reasonable.

Why are you unwilling or unable to answer the question? Is throwing a weapon at somebody an attack, or isn't it?

[ThorOdinson]

I make no concessions. I have not used a definition of "Throw" out of alignment with the one you've given. I reserve the right to analyze your definition further later on, but I sense from what you're saying here that you will never answer the question, because you're hinging your entire purported argument on the straw man that I am not using a valid definition of "throw." Heck, what "non-English definition of throw" do you think I'm using?

Because you will never answer the question, I must conclude that you cannot validate your logic, because answering the question is an important step to validating your logic. Therefore, your logic is invalid, and your argument is wrong.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer the question. I have let you use the definition of "throw" you gave, and have posted no disagreement with it. I have given you more chances to answer the question than is, frankly, reasonable.

Why are you unwilling or unable to answer the question? Is throwing a weapon at somebody an attack, or isn't it?

Sure, provided we are using the english meaning of throw exactly as I have laid out with no equivocation then throwing a weapon at somebody is indeed an attack. If its plainly asked in this way intent to attack is implied.

[Segev]

Sure, provided we are using the english meaning of throw exactly as I have laid out with no equivocation then throwing a weapon at somebody is indeed an attack. If its plainly asked in this way intent to attack is implied.

Is that a "yes" or a "no?"

Is throwing a weapon at a creature an attack?

Yes or no, please.

If you need to qualify it, please feel free, but "intent to attack is implied" doesn't tell me whether it IS an attack or not.

[ThorOdinson]

Is that a "yes" or a "no?"

Is throwing a weapon at a creature an attack?

Yes or no, please.

If you need to qualify it, please feel free, but "intent to attack is implied" doesn't tell me whether it IS an attack or not.

Are there any extenuating circumstances I should be aware of?

[Segev]

Are there any extenuating circumstances I should be aware of?

None that I know of.

Ja'av Lynn, half-orc Champion exptraordinaire, wants to kill an owl that keeps flying by and annoying her, so she throws a javelin at it, let's say.

Is Ja'av Lynn attacking the owl when she throws a javelin at it?

[ThorOdinson]

None that I know of.

Ja'av Lynn, half-orc Champion exptraordinaire, wants to kill an owl that keeps flying by and annoying her, so she throws a javelin at it, let's say.

Is Ja'av Lynn attacking the owl when she throws a javelin at it?

Sure, the common english understanding of attack has been met. So this statement in complete isolation of other statements and any extenuating circumstances means "attack". Yes.

But of course, with regards to its context in the PHB and the discussion at hand we have to deal with attack in the context of two levels of meaning as something a character does and a procedure a player resolves.

[Segev]

Sure, the common english understanding of attack has been met. So this statement in complete isolation of other statements and any extenuating circumstances means "attack". Yes.

But of course, with regards to its context in the PHB and the discussion at hand we have to deal with attack in the context of two levels of meaning as something a character does and a procedure a player resolves.

Please clearly define what occurs on these two layers according to your formulation and understanding of the RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Please clearly define what occurs on these two layers according to your formulation and understanding of the RAW.

The character throws the weapon to make a ranged attack.

The character throws the weapon (the weapon leaves the hand and travels a distance at a target). The character attacks by common english understanding of the word which defines the state of affairs. Player applies rules in Making an Attack to resolve what happens with regards to the game procedure for making a ranged attack.