Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Garhi]

Cool. So you prove me point. Combat is broken up into several gameplay loops that happen whenever a game eventful step happens no matter how small.

Every little mini-step in the Combat sequence of steps has to update the game or the next mini-step cannot happen. You cannot resolve a procedure of steps without establishing with every subsequent step that every prior step has been indeed performed.

Similarly, every little mini-step in the attack sequence of steps has to update the game or the next mini-step cannot happen. You cannot resolve a procedure of steps without establishing with every subsequent step that every prior step has been indeed performed.

The "game eventful" step that happens is "making an attack." The entire attack is resolved in a single gameplay loop. You don't execute a gameplay loop for the individual steps of "Declare a target" and "Determine modifiers" because the character's action hasn't been fully resolved yet.

The player declares they wish to throw their javelin at an orc.

You then proceed to follow the rules for resolving a ranged attack, all the way through rolling damage.

Once the attack is resolved, the DM narrates that the character has thrown their weapon and hit (or missed) the orc.

Throwing the weapon is a result of making a ranged attack.

[Zhorn]

Movement can be broken up between actions (PHB p190) and can be interrupted by triggering reactions (PHB p195) be it from other creatures, traps, or just the environment, but that is in no way the same as giving permission to break up attacks into their subcomponents.

TO, these mini-step recalculation are nothing more than your own house rules.

[ThorOdinson]

The "game eventful" step that happens is "making an attack." The entire attack is resolved in a single gameplay loop. You don't execute a gameplay loop for the individual steps of "Declare a target" and "Determine modifiers" because the character's action hasn't been fully resolved yet.

The player declares they wish to throw their javelin at an orc.

You then proceed to follow the rules for resolving a ranged attack, all the way through rolling damage.

Once the attack is resolved, the DM narrates that the character has thrown their weapon and hit (or missed) the orc.

Throwing the weapon is a result of making a ranged attack.

Choose a Target queries the current game state.

"Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

A game eventful event is happening. The player must pick a legal target (i.e. within range) with regards to the current game state in order to successfully perform the Choose a Target mini-step. The DM must assent to the Player's choice of target. This is a game loop. If successful the player has indeed picked a target. The game updates to reflect that a target has been picked (we need a legal target picked for step 2).

Movement can be broken up between actions (PHB p190) and can be interrupted by triggering reactions (PHB p195) be it from other creatures, traps, or just the environment, but that is in no way the same as giving permission to break up attacks into their subcomponents.

TO, these mini-step recalculation are nothing more than your own house rules.

You can't pick a target without querying the current game state and getting at least tacit approval from the DM.

You can't determine modifiers without indeed picking a target.

[Mork]

Fascinating discussion. I must say I have skipped quite a few pages of arguments but just wanted to add my 2 cents.

As qouted before making an attack consist out of 1)target determination, 2) apply moddifiers. 3) "resolve the attack": roll attack and then damage
seems to me that argument hinges on the idea if there is time between rolling attack and rolling damage.

If there is time between these points:
-then thrown weapons are not wielded at time of damage (they are not in your hands after all). So not only don't they deal dueling damage, they deal no damage. This seems weird.

So what about if there is no time between attack roll and damage roll.
-thrown weapons deal damage (yeeh).
-The shield spell is cast AFTER damage is rolled. The shield spell doesn't say it goes in between attack and damage rolls, it says it goes after the triggering attack, not the triggering attack roll. And as the attack consist out of both attack and damage rolls, it shoud go after.

But Mork, I hear you saying, that is strange now you can cast shield after you know how much damage that javelin is going to deal. Well with bardic inspiration it says explicitly that you roll before knowing succes or not, the shield spell has none of this language. So therefore I conclude from RAW that the shield spells lets you re-write history. And for a game that tries to be fun instead of as realistic as possible, I don't really mind. I'd rather have time travel shields than javelins that deal no damage :P

[ThorOdinson]

seems to me that argument hinges on the idea if there is time between rolling attack and rolling

Thanks for joining the discussion. The argument actually hinges on whether the weapon is in one hand upon impact, i.e. the "hit", not between the attack roll and the damage roll.

If the thrown weapon is still somehow "in one hand" at the moment it impacts the orc 30 feet way then something really really wierd has happened. Either the weapon has stretched or your arm has stretched.

[Mork]

Thanks for joining the discussion. The argument actually hinges on whether the weapon is in one hand upon impact, i.e. the "hit", not between the attack roll and the damage roll.
.

I would argue there is no time point between rolling attack, hit, and damage. You "make an attack" eventually you "resolve the attack". When you start resolving the attack you have a javelin in hand. You roll attack and damage. You are done resolving the attack. You are done you have no javelin in hand anymore. But there is no extra (in game) time between these two states.
Therefore I would also say you are not casting shield after the "hit" you cast shield after you have "resolved your attack".

[Zhorn]

Allow TO to explain their own argument, read enough of them and you'll start to see the pile up of contradictions and weird edge cases over time.
But for the views of other posters avoid the retellings by TO as they have a habit of intentionally misquoting.

An attack made from any number of hands treats the weapon as wielded for that attack entire resolution process, not updating with multiple house ruled mini steps along the way that are not detailed in RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Out of curiosity, what happens when you throw a net and apply the Dueling fighting style? Does the net do 2 damage?

I would argue there is no time point between rolling attack, hit, and damage. You "make an attack" eventually you "resolve the attack". When you start resolving the attack you have a javelin in hand. You roll attack and damage. You are done resolving the attack. You are done you have no javelin in hand anymore. But there is no extra (in game) time between these two states.
Therefore I would also say you are not casting shield after the "hit" you cast shield after you have "resolved your attack".

The attack sequence must be done in order or it completely fall aparts and cannot be done. You cannot do Step 2 without having indeed performed Step 1 and you cannot do Step 3 without having indeed done Step 2. If you do all Steps at the same time you would have to be doing them without knowing the outcome of the prior Step. But you cannot. You need to have the outcome of the prior step before you can perform the current step.

To put this in logical terms . . .

A series of events in which one event leads to another must involve some passage of time however infinitismal or one event can't lead to another. The quantity of time passed must simply be some number greater than zero.

Allow TO to explain their own argument, read enough of them and you'll start to see the pile up of contradictions and weird edge cases over time.
But for the views of other posters avoid the retellings by TO as they have a habit of intentionally misquoting.

An attack made from any number of hands treats the weapon as wielded for that attack entire resolution process, not updating with multiple house ruled mini steps along the way that are not detailed in RAW.

Not a house rule.

My argument simply asserts that the rules of the game do what they say they do. A rule that makes changes to any aspect of the game indeed makes those changes to the game.

[Mork]

Out of curiosity, what happens when you throw a net and apply the Dueling fighting style? Does the net do 2 damage?

Nets don't have damage rolls associated with them, so the "you gain a +2 bonus to Damage Rolls with that weapon." does not apply.

The attack sequence must be done in order or it completely fall aparts and cannot be done. You cannot do Step 2 without having indeed performed Step 1 and you cannot do Step 3 without having indeed done Step 2. If you do all Steps at the same time you would have to be doing them without knowing the outcome of the prior Step. But you cannot. You need to have the outcome of the prior step before you can perform the current step.

To put this in logical terms . . .

A series of events in which one event leads to another must involve some passage of time however infinitismal or one event can't lead to another. The quantity of time passed must simply be some number greater than zero.

I completly disagree. This a game, it has an abstract sence of time. A sequence can happen just fine without there being "in game time in which things can happen" the state of things don't change in between. The sequence is un-interruptable. You don't cast shield mid way the sequence, you cast shield after the sequence has been performed. And then retroactifly make it not hit and not deal damage. (since the spell says "after the triggering "attack"" and not "after the triggering attack roll/hit").

If the attack sequence would be interruptable this would lead to states, where someone readies an attack in case someone "hits". The readied action takes place, you kill the monster. Now the monster has "hit" but is dead before it can deal damage?

[Valmark]

Out of curiosity, what happens when you throw a net and apply the Dueling fighting style? Does the net do 2 damage?

The attack sequence must be done in order or it completely fall aparts and cannot be done. You cannot do Step 2 without having indeed performed Step 1 and you cannot do Step 3 without having indeed done Step 2. If you do all Steps at the same time you would have to be doing them without knowing the outcome of the prior Step. But you cannot. You need to have the outcome of the prior step before you can perform the current step.

To put this in logical terms . . .

A series of events in which one event leads to another must involve some passage of time however infinitismal or one event can't lead to another. The quantity of time passed must simply be some number greater than zero.

Not a house rule.

My argument simply asserts that the rules of the game do what they say they do. A rule that makes changes to any aspect of the game indeed makes those changes to the game.

A net is a ranged weapon, so Dueling doesn't apply. I hope we agree on at least that.

Yes and no- what you said about the events' time seems correct, but this is D&D. I was already hit before I casted Shield. You can't really apply that logic to it.

And yes, it's house ruled until you can provide RAW quotes regarding the change of hands which you failed multiple times to give.

[Garhi]

Choose a Target queries the current game state.

"Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

A game eventful event is happening. The player must pick a legal target (i.e. within range) with regards to the current game state in order to successfully perform the Choose a Target mini-step. The DM must assent to the Player's choice of target. This is a game loop. If successful the player has indeed picked a target. The game updates to reflect that a target has been picked (we need a legal target picked for step 2).



You can't pick a target without querying the current game state and getting at least tacit approval from the DM.

You can't determine modifiers without indeed picking a target.

This is how the gameplay loop works for an attack.

1. The DM describes the environment: "There's an orc 30 feet away."
2. The player describes what they want to do: "I want to throw my javelin at the orc."
At this point in time, the player has expressed their desire to make a ranged attack, so the DM consults the rules on how to resolve that "game eventful" action. The rules are very clear, you resolve it like this:
2a. Determine a target, this is a bit redundant as the player already expressed they wanted to throw the weapon at the orc, but sometimes it's necessary to clarify precisely which orc.
2b. Determine modifiers, does the orc in question have cover, is there advantage/disadvantage at play, etc.
2c. Resolve the attack, make an attack roll and, if necessary, a damage roll.
3. The DM narrates the results of the character's action: "You throw your weapon and successfully hit the orc, dealing a glancing blow (low damage roll)."

Step 2a does indeed query the game state, the player has to know what the target options are and pick one within range of the chosen attack method. This does not represent a gameplay loop, it represents a sub-step of "resolving an action."
Step 2b does indeed require Step 2a to first be completed, but again, doesn't qualify as a gameplay loop because the character's action hasn't been completed, and thus step 3 has not been reached. The action in question is "make a ranged attack."
Step 2c of course requires Step 2b to be completed, because you can't tell if an attack hit or not without knowing the modifier(s) to add. But again, we're still within the same gameplay loop because we're still in the process of resolving a single "game eventful" action.

Steps 2a, 2b, and 2c are all part of "resolving" the "game eventful" action of "making an attack." The mechanical resolution of the attack occurs wholly between the 2 world state updates of DM narration within a single gameplay loop.

To put it another way, the rules for "making an attack" represent a subroutine. It's a separate, wholly contained structure of its own. When you reach Step 2 of the gameplay loop and the player wants to attack, you kick off this subroutine. Once the subroutine is fully complete, you return to the main gameplay loop and proceed as normal.

[Draconi Redfir]

Lets just say that when you throw a Javelin, the hand that was holding the Javelin magically severs from your wrist and continues to cling to the Javelin up until the point of impact and damage rolls. Once the Javelin has come to a complete rest, the hand then magically dissipates and re-appears on your wrist and call it a day.

i mean, it's not like you can reach into your bag of holding to grab something while the Javelin is mid-flight right?

[Segev]

Your prediction mischaracterizes my argument.

You must provide evidence for this.

So let's go forward a bit.

No. You have claimed I am mischaracterizing your argument. I will not "go forward" until you clearly explain how I am wrong about your argument.

Let's extend the statements you have accepted.

2a) The rules of the game do what they say they do. A rule that is successfully performed by the player (i.e. "you the player") and that makes changes to any aspect of the game indeed makes those changes to the game, i.e. the current state of the game, unless a rule specifies otherwise, i.e. to apply those changes to some other state than the current state.

2b) The rules of the game do what they say they do. A rule that is successfully performed by the character (i.e. the character controlled by "you the player") and that makes changes to any aspect of the game indeed makes those changes to the game, i.e. the current state of the game, unless a rule specifies otherwise, i.e. to apply those changes to some other state than the current state.

Do you agree to these statements without prevarication?

No.

This will not work with you demanding we accept your statements "without prevarication" when you will not even directly answer a simple question.

Further, no, I do not agree that each little thing the player does updates the game state. In fact, I have flat out said the opposite: the game state updates where the rules say it does. Specifically, for attacks, the game state updates when the attack is resolved. So no, I will not agree to something I have never agreed to with or without prevarication.

Will you, without prevarication, provide evidence that I am mischaracterizing your argument? It should be absolutely trivial to provide evidence that I am mischaracterizing your argument. All you have to do is say, "This specific thing or these specific things are not part of it, and my argument is actually this."

[ProsecutorGodot]

i mean, it's not like you can reach into your bag of holding to grab something while the Javelin is mid-flight right?

Probably a bad example, taking an item from a bag of holding is an action, it's unlikely that you're able to do this and throw a javelin regardless of how many free hands you have.

[KorvinStarmast]

So from a mechanical perspective, all the mechanical bits happen in step 2 as part of an atomic operation that includes all the pieces from whatever source. And this only depends on the game state at T = t. So the attack is fully resolved, including success, failure, and potential damage before the javelin actually leaves the character's hand in-universe. That's not only the cleanest, most simple reading of the text, it's the one that resolves all causality issues.

And it makes the game run far more smoothely at the table.

To put it another way, the rules for "making an attack" represent a subroutine. It's a separate, wholly contained structure of its own. When you reach Step 2 of the gameplay loop and the player wants to attack, you kick off this subroutine. Once the subroutine is fully complete, you return to the main gameplay loop and proceed as normal.

Your last sentence evoked a vivid memory of taking a BASIC programming class in the 1970's and our teacher getting on us about first flow charting, and them writing down (each on their own first) the subroutines that fit into the larger program being written. (By the way, nice post, I was able to follow your reasoning chain easily).

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it makes the game run far more smoothely at the table.

And that, for me, is one of the most important things a rule-set (or the interpretations thereof) can do (or fail at doing). Janky rules/interpretations that break the flow of the game are worse than just making things up and saying RAW can go hang.

[ThorOdinson]

You must provide evidence for this.

No. You have claimed I am mischaracterizing your argument. I will not "go forward" until you clearly explain how I am wrong about your argument.


No.

This will not work with you demanding we accept your statements "without prevarication" when you will not even directly answer a simple question.

Further, no, I do not agree that each little thing the player does updates the game state. In fact, I have flat out said the opposite: the game state updates where the rules say it does. Specifically, for attacks, the game state updates when the attack is resolved. So no, I will not agree to something I have never agreed to with or without prevarication.

Will you, without prevarication, provide evidence that I am mischaracterizing your argument? It should be absolutely trivial to provide evidence that I am mischaracterizing your argument. All you have to do is say, "This specific thing or these specific things are not part of it, and my argument is actually this."

Note the part I have underlined.

According to you, there needs to be specific allowance for the "game state updates". This is an incredibly problematic thing for you to assert since there is absolutely no rules at all for "game state updates".

So the player controls a character to move his character 30 feet. I am not seeing any "game state updates" instructions in the rules to update the game state. So according to you the game comes to a complete halt.

In your desire to keep the Dueling fighting style bonus on your thrown weapon you have made up some "game state updates" requirement that does not exist anywhere at all in the rules and flat out breaks the rules everywhere except for the attack sequence.

So from a mechanical perspective, all the mechanical bits happen in step 2 as part of an atomic operation that includes all the pieces from whatever source. And this only depends on the game state at T = t. So the attack is fully resolved, including success, failure, and potential damage before the javelin actually leaves the character's hand in-universe. That's not only the cleanest, most simple reading of the text, it's the one that resolves all causality issues.

Can you provide a citation for "mechanical", "atomic operation", "game state T", "game state t"? This is an elaborate and convoluted house rule you have here. Can you clarify whether you are being ironic when you state that this is the "cleanest, most simple reading of the text" when my argument is simply that the javelin is not "in one hand" when it hits the target?

There are no causality issues with my argument. What specific causality issues are you talking about? Describe them fully.

Lets just say that when you throw a Javelin, the hand that was holding the Javelin magically severs from your wrist and continues to cling to the Javelin up until the point of impact and damage rolls. Once the Javelin has come to a complete rest, the hand then magically dissipates and re-appears on your wrist and call it a day.

i mean, it's not like you can reach into your bag of holding to grab something while the Javelin is mid-flight right?

A character can use their reaction and now free hand for Somatic component to Counterspell the target's Shield.

What is the game state when the character goes to Counterspell?

[Gale]

Wow, it's hard to stop thinking about this thread.

A thought I keep having is, if the Dueling style was never intended to be used with a ranged attack, specifically throwing, then why doesn't it explicitly say so? The phrase "melee weapon attack" is used quite frequently in the book to specify that an effect doesn't work with ranged attacks; the Paladin's smite spells are a great example of this. However, the Dueling style for some reason chooses not to use this language.

If I were writing out the rules for the Dueling fighting style and I only wanted it to work with melee weapon attacks then I would write it like this, "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls to melee attacks made with that weapon."

Unfortunately, the Dueling fighting style does not contain such language. Which leaves me to conclude one of two things:

• Dueling is not intended to be compatible with ranged attacks. This intention is not well-stated, however; and the rule is poorly written.
• Dueling is intended to also work with ranged attacks, specifically, any melee weapon thrown with one hand.

From my perspective, interpreting that Dueling doesn't apply to thrown weapon attacks requires a strict, pedantic, and literal reading of not only the rule itself but the operation of the game as a whole. It requires such a specific interpretation of how D&D works; and I think that goes against the spirit of the game. D&D is an abstraction and the rules are there to guide your hand. As the JC quote goes, "D&D is not a physics engine." Things should be easy to figure out without having to carefully reread rules and analyze the abstraction of combat to a granular degree.

Communication is a two-way street. It is equally as much a responsibility of the rules writer to make things clear for the reader as much as it is our responsibility to interpret things correctly. When they are writing the rules they can't forget that this is going to be read by hundreds of thousands of people and therefore their language must be as clear and concise as possible. This must be done to minimize the number of people who misinterpret things and ensure the game runs as smoothly as possible between any group of players regardless of their previous experience and background with the system. The number of disputes and arguments needs to be kept to a minimum at all times.

Therefore, if you are tasked at writing the language for Dueling and your intent is for it to not work with on thrown weapon attacks, but you choose not to include the words "melee attacks" in your writing then you are doing a huge disservice to your players who will inevitably misinterpret it.

In essence, I think any common sense reading of the rule concludes Dueling is supposed to work on thrown weapon attacks. If it wasn't, it would have plainly said so, and not expected players to interpret its language so carefully and literally. It shouldn't be a word puzzle, nor something that can be debated over 30+ pages.

You are free to continue arguing that Dueling doesn't apply to thrown weapon attacks as written. But I believe its a fight against common sense and the spirit of simplicity that is at the core of 5th edition. At best, it is a defense of a poorly written rule, and trying to definitively interpret its meaning in this way simply isn't worth your time. This isn't going to be a landmark case that decides the future of how this rule is applied at all tables. Our arguments here aren't going to be the foundation for a new update to Sage Advice where they finally explain how Dueling is supposed to work.

We should simply agree to disagree.

[ThorOdinson]

You are free to continue arguing that Dueling doesn't apply to thrown weapon attacks as written. But I believe its a fight against common sense and the spirit of simplicity that is at the core of 5th edition.

Common sense and simplicity don't help your argument at all.

Common sense and simplicity support my argument. Quite simply, the javelin is not "in one hand" when it hits the target. Straight read of the Dueling fighting style indicates that the bonus does not apply.

You have to concoct a wierd rationale and house rules involving T and t and dT and atomic operations and apply made up restrictions to updates in the action sequence but not apply those made up restrictions to updates elsewhere in the game to justify the Dueling fight style. How is anything you are proposing not Byzantine and against common sense?

[KorvinStarmast]

You have to concoct a wierd rationale and house rules

You don't actually have to concoct anything. Go back to page 1 and see the simple reasoning chain.

Or, choose not to.

[Garhi]

Common sense and simplicity don't help your argument at all.

Common sense and simplicity support my argument. Quite simply, the javelin is not "in one hand" when it hits the target. Straight read of the Dueling fighting style indicates that the bonus does not apply.

You have to concoct a wierd rationale and house rules involving T and t and dT and atomic operations and apply made up restrictions to updates in the action sequence but not apply those made up restrictions to updates elsewhere in the game to justify the Dueling fight style. How is anything you are proposing not Byzantine and against common sense?

Yes, the javelin is no longer in your hand when it hits the target. That's not when the damage roll occurs though according to the rules. The damage roll has already occurred before the javelin leaves the character's hand.

The javelin being thrown and hitting the orc are events that unfold in the narrative, because they pertain directly to an in-world character taking an in-world action.

The narrative is only updated when the DM narrates. The DM is instructed to narrate at two points within the core gameplay loop: before character actions to provide the information necessary to interact with the mechanical subsystems of the game, and then after that interaction is complete, updating the narrative with the information gained from said interaction.

At no point do the rules state that you should update the narrative while you're in the process of interacting with a mechanical subsystem, only when you're finished and have fully resolved the action and determined the results.

As is very clearly outlined in the core gameplay loop on page 6, the in-character action is resolved mechanically before it actually takes place in the narrative.

[ThorOdinson]

You don't actually have to concoct anything. Go back to page 1 and see the simple reasoning chain.

Or, choose not to.

Where exactly is this simple reasoning chain? Use copy paste to point the thread to exactly what you mean.

Feel free to present a simple reasoning chain that has the javelin in "one hand" when it hits the target.

Is your simple reasoning that your arm or javelin stretches? Are you attacking faster than the speed of light such that particle superposition allows you to be simultaneously holding a weapon "in one hand" and hitting the target 30 feet away?

My argument presents a simple reasoning chain.

Your counter argument has evolved into a Byzantine set of made up restrictions that breaks the rules.

[JNAProductions]

TO, do you want to find a way to enhance your games, or do you want to win?

[ThorOdinson]

Yes, the javelin is no longer in your hand when it hits the target. That's not when the damage roll occurs though according to the rules. The damage roll has already occurred before the javelin leaves the character's hand.

Nope. The damage roll occurs after the attack roll determines a "hit" and not before.

The javelin being thrown and hitting the orc are events that unfold in the narrative, because they pertain directly to an in-world character taking an in-world action.

Nope. Characters don't take actions by themselves. The player and the character he controls ultimately refer to the same you the player. You the player follows rules to control the character to do things like "move". You are presenting a false dichotomy here.

The narrative is only updated when the DM narrates. The DM is instructed to narrate at two points within the core gameplay loop: before character actions to provide the information necessary to interact with the mechanical subsystems of the game, and then after that interaction is complete, updating the narrative with the information gained from said interaction.

This is a convuluted house rule. Where is "core gameplay loop" defined? Where is "mechanical subsystems" defined? Nothing of what you describe has anything to do with anything in the PHB.

At no point do the rules state that you should update the narrative while you're in the process of interacting with a mechanical subsystem, only when you're finished and have fully resolved the action and determined the results.

Where are these rules for "interacting with a mechanical subsystem"? I can find no reference. How exactly do we know when we are allowed to update in your Byzantine interpretation? According to your house rule (that is trying to masquerade as an interpretation), when a player moves, the game comes to a complete grinding halt since there is absolutely no permission in the move rules to update the game state. You have broken the game everywhere except the attack sequence in order to protect the Dueling fighting style bonus. Breaking the game is a huge problem for your house rule.

As is very clearly outlined in the core gameplay loop on page 6, the in-character action is resolved mechanically before it actually takes place in the narrative.

Where is the definition for "Core gameplay loop"? Where is "the clear outline"? Where is "mechanical" defined?

You are referencing Byzantine concepts that you have concocted to force a "basic pattern" into a "core gameplay loop" that is entirely a made up construct of your own design. This is an elaborate concoction developed by you that is a house rule.

[Segev]

Note the part I have underlined.

According to you, there needs to be specific allowance for the "game state updates". This is an incredibly problematic thing for you to assert since there is absolutely no rules at all for "game state updates".

The word "resolve" tells you to resolve any changes caused by the action you just performed.

Where is the definition for "Core gameplay loop"? Where is "the clear outline"? Where is "mechanical" defined?

It has been literally quoted at you at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

[Garhi]

Nope. The damage roll occurs after the attack roll determines a "hit" and not before.

Correct, the damage roll occurs after a hit is determined, but both of those steps happen before the javelin leaves your character's hand.

Nope. Characters don't take actions by themselves. The player and the character he controls ultimately refer to the same you the player. You the player follows rules to control the character to do things like "move". You are presenting a false dichotomy here.

You the player present what you wish your character to do. The DM determines how to mechanically resolve that action. Once resolved, the DM narrates the results. Strictly speaking, it's the DM's narration that actually moves the character.

This is a convuluted house rule. Where is "core gameplay loop" defined? Where is "mechanical subsystems" defined? Nothing of what you describe has anything to do with anything in the PHB.

"Core gameplay loop" is a term used to refer to the loop of instructions that drives the game forward. Without a core loop, the game doesn't go anywhere. D&D 5e's core loop is explicitly and plainly laid out on page 6 of the PHB.

Combat, for instance, is a system that exists to interface with the core loop. You access the system from within the context of the core loop, thus it is a "subsystem." The combat rules exist and interact with the abstract layer of the game where things like armor class, attack rolls, and hit points live. These things represent elements of the narrative, but they are not themselves the narrative. These things are commonly referred to as "mechanics." Thus, combat is an example of a "mechanical subsystem."

Where are these rules for "interacting with a mechanical subsystem"? I can find no reference. How exactly do we know when we are allowed to update in your Byzantine interpretation? According to your house rule (that is trying to masquerade as an interpretation), when a player moves, the game comes to a complete grinding halt since there is absolutely no permission in the move rules to update the game state. You have broken the game everywhere except the attack sequence in order to protect the Dueling fighting style bonus. Breaking the game is a huge problem for your house rule.

(emphasis mine)

The DM decides how to resolve actions. That is, they decide which mechanical subsystem in the book to use to resolve what it is the player wants to do. Sometimes that means the combat rules, sometimes it means "using ability scores," sometimes there's no mechanical interaction needed, the players chosen action is allowed to happen without incident. The narrative is updated in Step 1 and 3 of the core loop, when the DM narrates the state of the game.

As to movement, I already provided you with a step by step example of how movement interacts with the core loop. The game most certainly does not "come to a complete grinding halt."

Where is the definition for "Core gameplay loop"? Where is "the clear outline"? Where is "mechanical" defined?

You are referencing Byzantine concepts that you have concocted to force a "basic pattern" into a "core gameplay loop" that is entirely a made up construct of your own design. This is an elaborate concoction developed by you that is a house rule.

From the PHB page 6, as has been quoted numerous times already:

How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

(emphasis mine)

This is literally a perfect example of a core gameplay loop. It's a set of instructions that drive the game forward.

"Resolution" of the action the player wishes to do, that is, utilizing the rules and mechanics of the game to determine the outcome, explicitly happens during step 2 of the loop.

The "results" of the action, such as throwing a javelin 30 feet to hit an orc as the outcome of making a ranged attack, explicitly happen during step 3.

[ThorOdinson]

The word "resolve" tells you to resolve any changes caused by the action you just performed.

It has been literally quoted at you at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

I suggest you use the search function for "resolve" and "core gameplay", "clear outline", "mechanical subsystem".

Your argument breaks the rules. The move rules don't have "resolve" in them. Game comes to a screeching halt.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, ThorOdinson. You claim that a player stating an action is coincident with them actually taking that action. What about when a player states an action that's illegal (by mechanics and by fiction)? Like (after having cast spiritual weapon, a bonus action spell), they claim to cast cure wounds? They said it, so the game has to update state, right? Before the action gets resolved? But they can't cast that spell. It's an illegal action. Somehow they've both cast and not cast the spell?

Or what about when a player states an action in a way that assumes the conclusion--"I kill him with my javelin"? If stating the action is taking the action, if game state updates as soon as it's said...then the enemy is dead, right? Because you can't resolve any damage yet, by your conclusion. But he said it, so it must update to that position.

Which is not only absurd, but contrary to the basic flow of the game.

Nothing can happen in the fictional layer of the game without the DM narrating it. Time is on pause until the DM narrates the next part. All the action-declaration/resolution step is doing is deciding what the DM will narrate. Not updating the game state (because that's abject nonsense completely unsupported by anything like rules, logic, or sanity), just negotiating in player-time what will happen at the next time-step. That's not only the sanest reading of the text, it's the only one that avoids absurdity.

[Tesla Dragon]

This thread has been endlessly entertaining, and honestly pretty informative, such as on how RAW can be interpreted in multiple ways, and excellent descriptions of how parts of the key gameplay are layed out mechanically and how that ultimately affects the rolls players make.

This thread has also, 100% shot to death the sacred cow that "RAW is the only way" for me and left it in a highway ditch.

I am also excited to see the next evolution in the disassembly and examination of the rules in the coming days, as currently it looks like as though the discussion is spiraling towards a Zeno's Paradox.

[Segev]

I suggest you use the search function for "resolve" and "core gameplay", "clear outline", "mechanical subsystem".

Your argument breaks the rules. The move rules don't have "resolve" in them. Game comes to a screeching halt.

There is no need for a resolution step there, because it isn't a multi-step process.

There is no point in the attack rules that instruct you to update anything prior to resolution.

There is no point in the middle of ANY rule that instructs update. Resolution happens at the end of any mechanical process.

Your reading actually halts the game entirely, because there is no indication of what updates at each of the points I bolded you claiming character state updates. You invent into those places things that happen.

And by "invent," I mean the same thing you do when you say "house rule."