Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ironkid]

Hello, as the title says, I've got a coule of silly sounding rule questions, I would appreciate any help with them

1) If my character has the dueling style, a javelin and a shield (i.e. no other melee weapns); throws the javelin and hits, do I get the +2 damage from the dueling style? I guess that the instant I throw the javelin I lose the bonus, but want to make sure

2) Do Minotaurs, Aarakocra and Centaurs (among others) get automathic proficiency with their natural weapons? It must be somewhere in the rules, but I've yet to find it

Thanx for reading!

[KorvinStarmast]

I have never removed the bonus
Dueling

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.

Javelins are simple melee weapons with the thrown property. As is the hand axe. And the Light Hammer.

So I retain the +2, which I believe to be RAW. The dueling style does not make an exception for when it is thrown.

I can understand where a DM might rule otherwise.

2) Do Minotaurs, Aarakocra and Centaurs (among others) get automathic proficiency with their natural weapons?

Yes. I think I read something about Lizardfolk and Tabaxi that explicitly covers that in Volo's, I'll see if I can find you a ref.

[nickl_2000]

1) Yes, you do add it. Dueling fighting style requires a melee weapon (which the javelin is). It doesn't require a melee attack. The same thing can apply for daggers and handaxes.


2) Everyone is proficient with natural weapons, for most races it is just an unarmed strike (punching, kicking, etc). For certain races you get extra natural weapons that you can use and you are still proficient with.

Let me clarify this since it isn't completely correct. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes (not natural weapons). However, if you look at the races they say "which you can use to make unarmed strikes" in the specifically. So, you are still making an unarmed strike, which you are proficient with.


Minotaur
Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Under Melee Attacks in PHB chapter 9, it says (bolding mine)
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."'

[ThorOdinson]

No. If you throw the javelin it is no longer in your hand.

[Dork_Forge]

No. If you throw the javelin it is no longer in your hand.

It would probably say if it exempted thrown weapons, you just need a melee weapon in hand and no weapon in your other. For what it's worth this was also confirmed by Jeremy Crawford way back when, so probably closer to original intent.

[Segev]

Are shields “weapons” in 5e? If not, this seems way better than the “armored fighting” style that only gives +1 for armor. This is +2 and let’s you have a shield!

[ThorOdinson]

It would probably say if it exempted thrown weapons, you just need a melee weapon in hand and no weapon in your other. For what it's worth this was also confirmed by Jeremy Crawford way back when, so probably closer to original intent.

No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand. If you have thrown the weapon and are rolling damage the weapon is no longer being wielded in one hand. The thrown weapon is in fact not in your hand at that point in time.

[Aett_Thorn]

Are shields “weapons” in 5e? If not, this seems way better than the “armored fighting” style that only gives +1 for armor. This is +2 and let’s you have a shield!

But if you're using RAW weapons rules, you can only throw two javelins the first round, and then only one per round after that.

[Aett_Thorn]

No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand. If you have thrown the weapon and are rolling damage the weapon is no longer being wielded in one hand. The thrown weapon is in fact not in your hand at that point in time.

You were wielding the item in one hand, though. When you make the Attack action, it is in your hand. The throw and the attack are the same action. Dueling applies.

[ThorOdinson]

You were wielding the item in one hand, though. When you make the Attack action, it is in your hand. The throw and the attack are the same action. Dueling applies.

"Were" and "are" are two separate tenses. The rule in question checks for if the weapon is currently being wielded when damage is rolled.

[Aett_Thorn]

"Were" and "are" are two separate tenses. The rule in question checks for if the weapon is currently being wielded when damage is rolled.

Citation needed.

[Zhorn]

It does work with thrown weapon attacks and has been confirm

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/651498920636321792
Q: Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?
A: Yes

[KorvinStarmast]

No. The rule says the weapon needs to be wielded in one hand.

You had it in your hand. You threw it. +2 damage. This isn't that complicated. Not sure what you think wielded means. Oh, I see that Zhorn found a Crawford utterance, for what that's worth.

[ThorOdinson]

"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."


Look up "wield". Wield means 'to hold and use'. You get to apply the damage boost when you are holding and using the javelin. RAW it does not work when thrown since it leaves your hand when thrown and is no longer wielded and therewith throwing removes the condition by which the rule could apply.

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.

[Tanarii]

Dueling style definitely adds the bonus to a thrown melee weapon. It is a melee weapon, it is in one hand, and you wield it. As evinced by making an attack with it.

[ThorOdinson]

Dueling style definitely adds the bonus to a thrown melee weapon. It is a melee weapon, it is in one hand, and you wield it. As evinced by making an attack with it.

When you throw it, the javelin leaves your hand.

If somehow throwing meant the javelin was still in your hand upon damage then you would be correct.

But alas you are incorrect. Throwing a javelin means you are no longer wielding it. Similarly, a dropped weapon is no longer in hand or wielded.

{Scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.

Not an official ruling as per the statement in the SAC, but that's not the same as being wrong.
A clarification by the lead rules designers is still a valid clarification, and still carries more weight in discussions on rules interactions than anything a bunch of us randos talking on the internet say.

Don't like a ruling? Cool, when you are DMing you are in no obligation to use it. Just the same as when someone else is DMing they are in no obligation to adhere to any ruling any other person is insisting on.

[ThorOdinson]

Not an official ruling as per the statement in the SAC, but that's not the same as being wrong.
A clarification by the lead rules designers is still a valid clarification, and still carries more weight in discussions on rules interactions than anything a bunch of us randos talking on the internet say.

Don't like a ruling? Cool, when you are DMing you are in no obligation to use it. Just the same as when someone else is DMing they are in no obligation to adhere to any ruling any other person is insisting on.

It takes a statement in the SAC to overrule a plainly stated rule.

Twitter statements from JC have been officially designated as having zero weight to rules discussions.

The rule literally says that while a weapon is in your hand you can add +2 damage to that weapon. When a weapon is thrown and damages an opponent, is that weapon still in your hand? Yes or no? No, the weapon is not in your hand so the rule does not apply.

So RAW is clearly on my side. Until SAC faqs it otherwise, my argument is RAW. Feel free to house rule it, but house ruling won't change how the rule is written.

[Greywander]

Here's my take: throwing the javelin is part of the attack, thus you actually are holding the javelin when the attack begins. If, say, you stabbed someone with a sword, but then dropped the sword immediately, would you not get to add the Dueling bonus? I don't think it matters that the weapon isn't held when it strikes the target, only that it's held when the attack is first initiated.

It could also be argued that, from a purely mechanical perspective, you actually are holding the javelin during the entire attack (i.e. that hand is unavailable to hold anything else), and only once the attack is completed does it become free as the javelin is no longer in your hand.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed} Supporting your argument with the same brand of logic as the peasant rail gun. The Dueling style is a purely mechanical effect, thus it should be argued from a purely mechanical perspective. Also from a purely mechanical perspective, the javelin is still in your hand until the attack is completed, as (a) you must be holding the javelin to initiate the attack, and (b) you can't do anything else with that hand until the attack is resolved. Mechanically, the hand is occupied by the javelin for the entire duration of the attack.

[ThorOdinson]

Here's my take: throwing the javelin is part of the attack, thus you actually are holding the javelin when the attack begins. If, say, you stabbed someone with a sword, but then dropped the sword immediately, would you not get to add the Dueling bonus? I don't think it matters that the weapon isn't held when it strikes the target, only that it's held when the attack is first initiated.

It could also be argued that, from a purely mechanical perspective, you actually are holding the javelin during the entire attack (i.e. that hand is unavailable to hold anything else), and only once the attack is completed does it become free as the javelin is no longer in your hand.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Supporting your argument with the same brand of logic as the peasant rail gun. The Dueling style is a purely mechanical effect, thus it should be argued from a purely mechanical perspective. Also from a purely mechanical perspective, the javelin is still in your hand until the attack is completed, as (a) you must be holding the javelin to initiate the attack, and (b) you can't do anything else with that hand until the attack is resolved. Mechanically, the hand is occupied by the javelin for the entire duration of the attack.

Throwing involves the javelin leaving the hand.

{Scrubbed}

[Greywander]

Throwing involves the javelin leaving the hand.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You must be holding the javelin to attack with it. The same logic that you're using to deny the Dueling bonus would also prevent throwing weapons at all. The attack is resolved at the exact instant it is thrown, not after it is thrown. Otherwise, the weapon is no longer "held" and thus you can't attack with it.

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

Reading the Dueling fighting style, it says you do +2 damage with the weapon when you wield it in one hand, and no other weapon. (I was mistaken earlier, thinking it gave you +2 to AC when doing so.) The RAI are clearly meant for weapons that are wielded one-handed and not as part of TWFing to do extra damage. The RAI are fuzzy on whether "melee weapon" was really meant to refer to "weapons that are in the 'melee weapon' category" or "melee attacks with weapons," but the RAW are definitely the former. And D&D 5e has actually been pretty carefully written to maintain the distinction, so I would not ascribe RAI to being counter to the RAW wrt the exact wording of "melee weapon."

The question on the RAW comes down to whether a thrown weapon is "wielded in one hand." I'm actually having trouble finding the rules that say that a weapon that isn't two-handed requires one hand to wield. I mean, yes, it's pretty obvious, but if we're going to get 3e-style pedantic about the RAW, we should be very, very precise.

That said, I see the argument that a thrown weapon is no longer wielded in the hand that threw it when it deals its damage (and thus doesn't benefit from Dueling's +2 damage bonus) to be a bit spurious, as it could be turned about to say that if it is not wielded, then the attacker has that hand free during the attack, and thus doesn't need to wield the weapon to make an attack with it at all.

But this is 5e, not 3e, and the rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, not the most legalistically-precise means of reading them. So, while I think it nonsensical to claim the thrown weapon is not "wielded in one hand" when the attack with it is made, the real test is what the spirit of the Dueling fighting style is.

The Dueling fighting style does not specify "melee attacks," but rather "melee weapons." This is a distinction we know that 5e is careful about making, so is not accidental. We know that "thrown" is a tag explicitly applied to melee weapons to enable them to be used to make ranged attacks, and that javelins are expressly melee weapons with the thrown property. This is not an accidental choice; we have darts as an example of a ranged weapon (not a melee weapon with the thrown property) that is nonetheless "thrown" rather than being used as a projectile weapon. All of these are deliberate choices by the game designers. If Dueling was meant to be limited to melee attacks, it would have said so.

Therefore, it seems to me that the spirit of the rule here would be that melee weapons with the thrown property that satisfy the requirements of being wielded one-handed and not having any other weapons in-hand should benefit from the fighting style.

Of course, as with anything in 5e, "rulings, not rules" prevail, so the true answer is always, "Ask your DM."

[ThorOdinson]

Reading the Dueling fighting style, it says you do +2 damage with the weapon when you wield it in one hand, and no other weapon. (I was mistaken earlier, thinking it gave you +2 to AC when doing so.) The RAI are clearly meant for weapons that are wielded one-handed and not as part of TWFing to do extra damage. The RAI are fuzzy on whether "melee weapon" was really meant to refer to "weapons that are in the 'melee weapon' category" or "melee attacks with weapons," but the RAW are definitely the former. And D&D 5e has actually been pretty carefully written to maintain the distinction, so I would not ascribe RAI to being counter to the RAW wrt the exact wording of "melee weapon."

The question on the RAW comes down to whether a thrown weapon is "wielded in one hand." I'm actually having trouble finding the rules that say that a weapon that isn't two-handed requires one hand to wield. I mean, yes, it's pretty obvious, but if we're going to get 3e-style pedantic about the RAW, we should be very, very precise.

That said, I see the argument that a thrown weapon is no longer wielded in the hand that threw it when it deals its damage (and thus doesn't benefit from Dueling's +2 damage bonus) to be a bit spurious, as it could be turned about to say that if it is not wielded, then the attacker has that hand free during the attack, and thus doesn't need to wield the weapon to make an attack with it at all.

But this is 5e, not 3e, and the rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, not the most legalistically-precise means of reading them. So, while I think it nonsensical to claim the thrown weapon is not "wielded in one hand" when the attack with it is made, the real test is what the spirit of the Dueling fighting style is.

The Dueling fighting style does not specify "melee attacks," but rather "melee weapons." This is a distinction we know that 5e is careful about making, so is not accidental. We know that "thrown" is a tag explicitly applied to melee weapons to enable them to be used to make ranged attacks, and that javelins are expressly melee weapons with the thrown property. This is not an accidental choice; we have darts as an example of a ranged weapon (not a melee weapon with the thrown property) that is nonetheless "thrown" rather than being used as a projectile weapon. All of these are deliberate choices by the game designers. If Dueling was meant to be limited to melee attacks, it would have said so.

Therefore, it seems to me that the spirit of the rule here would be that melee weapons with the thrown property that satisfy the requirements of being wielded one-handed and not having any other weapons in-hand should benefit from the fighting style.

Of course, as with anything in 5e, "rulings, not rules" prevail, so the true answer is always, "Ask your DM."

The question hinges on "when . . ." more than anything. When a thrown weapon damages a target it is not wielded in a hand. Therefore the rule does not apply. RAW is exceedingly clear.

[ThorOdinson]

You must be holding the javelin to attack with it. The same logic that you're using to deny the Dueling bonus would also prevent throwing weapons at all. The attack is resolved at the exact instant it is thrown, not after it is thrown. Otherwise, the weapon is no longer "held" and thus you can't attack with it.

Also, that's not what "gaslight" means.

You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.

[stoutstien]

You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.

Welding is also not a definitive state in 5e.
The most literal reading of the rules governing combat states the attack is resolved before the weapon is thrown so duelist would apply by your own logic.

[Segev]

The question hinges on "when . . ." more than anything. When a thrown weapon damages a target it is not wielded in a hand. Therefore the rule does not apply. RAW is exceedingly clear.

You throw a javelin 30 feet striking a target. The javelin is no longer in your hand. The rule does not apply for damage rolls.

Welding is also not a definitive state in 5e.
The most literal reading of the rules governing combat states the attack is resolved before the weapon is thrown so duelist would apply by your own logic.

If the javelin is not wielded in your hand when you deal damage with it, you can deal damage with it while having a hand free. This is the kind of nonsensical ruling that this reading generates.

"When you wield...you get +2 damage." You cannot deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. So the alternate ruling in line with ThorOdinson's reading would be that a javelin never deals damage, because the attacker is not wielding it when it hits the target, and you can't do damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

Likewise, a bow can't actually deal damage, because it never strikes the target. It's the arrow that strikes the target, and the arrow doesn't have a damage code.

Any ruling based on interpreting "when you wield" to disinclude the actual wielding of the weapon at the point it deals damage automatically makes a degenerate state where the weapon never deals any damage.

5e is not so persnickety in its legalistic text that having a thrown weapon leave the hand of the thrower makes it no longer wielded before the attack is even finished resolving.

[KorvinStarmast]

Segven, I think you may have intended this (see brackets for what I think was left out):

"When you wield...you get +2 damage." You cannot deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. So the alternate ruling in line with ThorOdinson's reading would be that a javelin never deals damage, {when thrown} because the attacker is not wielding it when it hits the target, and you can't do damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

I mention this since you can use a jav in melee like a spear.

Likewise, a bow can't actually deal damage, because it never strikes the target. It's the arrow that strikes the target, and the arrow doesn't have a damage code.
Any ruling based on interpreting "when you wield" to disinclude the actual wielding of the weapon at the point it deals damage automatically makes a degenerate state where the weapon never deals any damage.

Thank you for the lovely reducto ad absurdum, have a pint on me.

5e is not so persnickety in its legalistic text that having a thrown weapon leave the hand of the thrower makes it no longer wielded before the attack is even finished resolving.

That's how I see it as well

[Segev]

Segve, I think you may have intended this (see brackets for what I think was left out):
I mention this since you can use a jav in melee like a spear.

I did indeed mean "{when thrown}" with the javelin. Sorry for any confusion; I was relying too heavily on context to make it clear.

Thank you for the lovely reducto ad absurdum, have a pint on me.
That's how I see it as well

*eyes his fridge* Hm. Only 12-oz. cans. But I could use the caffeine, so... *pops open a Mountain Dew* ...thanks!


All of this said, if a DM thinks that it's ridiculous for the duelist style to apply to ranged attacks, 5e fully supports him ruling that way.

The dueling style is interesting: it means a 1d8 longsword is now a 1d8+2 weapon, and also means that wielding it two-handed per its versatile tag is a downgrade for a duelist fighting style practitioner. 1d8+2 > 1d10. In fact, in terms of average damage, it matches 1d12 (a greataxe) and is only .5 behind 2d6 (a greatsword). Not sure just how it stacks up compared to the somewhat complicated probability calculations induced by Great Weapon Fighting style, though, but I suspect re-rolling 1s and 2s, even with the chance of turning a 2 into a 1, on both dice of 2d6s will push 2d6 up in average damage just a bit more, and will also push 1d12 up above 6.5 average.

[KorvinStarmast]

The dueling style is interesting: it means a 1d8 longsword is now a 1d8+2 weapon, and also means that wielding it two-handed per its versatile tag is a downgrade for a duelist fighting style practitioner. 1d8+2 > 1d10. In fact, in terms of average damage, it matches 1d12 (a greataxe) and is only .5 behind 2d6 (a greatsword). Not sure just how it stacks up compared to the somewhat complicated probability calculations induced by Great Weapon Fighting style, though, but I suspect re-rolling 1s and 2s, even with the chance of turning a 2 into a 1, on both dice of 2d6s will push 2d6 up in average damage just a bit more, and will also push 1d12 up above 6.5 average.

My orc battle master (peaked at level 7) had pole arm mastery as a feat (Chosen at level six when the errata included spears) and had already chosen his fighting style as dueling. With that modest bit of cheese where one gets a bonus action attack if needed, and a +1 Spear/18 Strength, his damage potential with spear and shield was:
2 x 1d6+5 and 1 x 1d4+5 in a round. It was kind of interesting how that adds up if you got on a bit of a hitting spree while still having the full plate/shield defense. He could add a bit more depending on whether or not he decided to use a Maneuver, or if he wanted two more 1d6+5 with an action surge.

The temptation to take protection fighting style to go all tank was one of those things where I decided that BM would give me the kind of flexibility I needed for controlling versus just trying to avoid being hit. It ended up being a good choice. When the game stopped (RL won) he also had a +1 shield.

[Greywander]

ThorOdinson, I want to apologize for getting a bit heated. We shouldn't let these kind of discussions get to us, or take it personally when someone disagrees with us. This is all just a friendly discussion about a fun game, after all.

What I suspect you're getting hung up on the distinction between the mechanical rules and the simulated fantasy world. "Realistically", the weapon leaves the hand after it is thrown and before it strikes the target. However, the mechanical rules are a mere approximation of this simulated action (and, in some cases, the mechanical rules can be wildly unrealistic). The attack itself is atomic and instantaneous. Once the attack is initiated, it is resolved immediately. You are wielding the weapon for the entire duration of the attack (which is instant), and only after the attack is resolved are you no longer wielding the thrown weapon.

It's just like with the peasant railgun. The railgun relies on first using pure mechanics to pass an object down a long line of peasants (perhaps even miles long), all in the span of 6 seconds. The rules at the time allowed this. Where the argument gets fallacious is when we switch from using a mechanics argument to a simulation argument. The object has moved X distance over a 6 second period, ergo is has Y kinetic energy, so when the last peasant drops the object, it will zip off and impact the target with the force of a small nuke. The problem here is that using either a mechanics argument or a simulation argument for the entire argument will invalidate it, which is why the switch midway through is necessary. If we're arguing from mechanics, when the last peasant drops the object, it will simply fall to the peasant's feet. If we're arguing from simulation, it would be impossible for the peasants to pass the object down the entire line in just 6 seconds, and the object never actually accelerates. Both arguments end with the object dropping next to the peasant's feet.

The thing is, the Dueling fighting style is purely mechanical. The idea is that it simulates someone who is an expert at fighting with a single weapon, but the fighting style itself has no impact on the simulation, only on the mechanics. Damage is a completely arbitrary abstraction, so a boost to damage actually represents nothing at all, except for a vague increase in competency. Since the fighting style is entirely mechanical, any discussion about whether or not to apply the bonus should also be entirely mechanical. Saying that the weapon leaves your hand when it is thrown is an argument from simulation; the way an attack is modeled mechanically, it's not until after the attack is resolved that the weapon is removed from your hand. If the weapon was removed before the attack, you would be unable to initiate the attack, and it also can't be removed during the attack because the attack resolves instantly, i.e. there's no "time" between when you throw the weapon and when it hits the target. Either you haven't attacked yet, or you've already completed your attack, there is no "during" period in which an attack is in progress. You could even make your attack and damage rolls at the same time; if you haven't rolled yet, then you haven't attacked yet, but once the dice are rolled, the attack is already completed.

It's important to remember that D&D is a terrible fantasy world simulator, so mixing simulation and mechanics arguments is going to get you in trouble more often than not. Yes, it's a bit counter intuitive to think that you're still somehow holding the thrown weapon when it strikes the target, but the mechanics model it this way because it's just easier to do so. Obviously, this isn't what "actually" happens, but as far as the rules of the game go, that is actually what happens. As with many things in 5e, you can refluff it how you like, as long as it makes sense to give the same outcome.