Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Garhi]

I think the entire problem here is that TO is treating Dueling as having two separate conditionals. Both that the weapon be "wielded" and that the weapon be "in one hand." Everyone else is parsing it as a single conditional, where "in one hand" is merely qualifying the conditional of being "wielded" (in one hand as opposed to in two hands.) The latter is, IMO, the more natural language reading of the two.

If you treat "in one hand" as it's own unique conditional, then TO's ruling can be seen as correct based on the narrative layer of the game. After you throw a weapon it's not physically "in one hand" anymore, and therefore dueling fails. The problem here is that you're using the narrative layer as reasoning to change something on the mechanical layer.

If you treat "wielded in one hand" as a single conditional, then dueling applies based on the accepted definition of wield. The weapon continues to be "wielded in one hand" until damage is dealt, even if narratively it has physically left your hand.

[ThorOdinson]

I think the entire problem here is that TO is treating Dueling as having two separate conditionals. Both that the weapon be "wielded" and that the weapon be "in one hand." Everyone else is parsing it as a single conditional, where "in one hand" is merely qualifying the conditional of being "wielded" (in one hand as opposed to in two hands.) The latter is, IMO, the more natural language reading of the two.

If you treat "in one hand" as it's own unique conditional, then TO's ruling can be seen as correct based on the narrative layer of the game. After you throw a weapon it's not physically "in one hand" anymore, and therefore dueling fails. The problem here is that you're using the narrative layer as reasoning to change something on the mechanical layer.

If you treat "wielded in one hand" as a single conditional, then dueling applies based on the accepted definition of wield. The weapon continues to be "wielded in one hand" until damage is dealt, even if narratively it has physically left your hand.

First, present your definition of "wield".

Can a weapon be "wielded" and not be in any hand?

The definition asserted by Segev is that a weapon can be "wielded" and not be in any hand.

[OzDragon]

First, present your definition of "wield".

Can a weapon be "wielded" and not be in any hand?

The definition asserted by Segev is that a weapon can be "wielded" and not be in any hand.

No there is no "your" definition of wield. To wield is to use....In this specific case you wielded/used it to throw it at someone/something.

[ThorOdinson]

No there is no "your" definition of wield. To wield is to use....In this specific case you wielded/used it to throw it at someone/something.

What is the definition of "wield" that you are using?

[OzDragon]

What is the definition of "wield" that you are using?

since you need specifics here...

wield
to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively. (dictionary.com)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wield

[ThorOdinson]

since you need specifics here...

wield
to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively. (dictionary.com)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wield

So in the case of a thrown weapon that strikes and damages a target while the weapon is not in a hand, do you think the definition of "wield" still applies?

[Garhi]

So in the case of a thrown weapon that strikes and damages a target while the weapon is not in a hand, do you think the definition of "wield" still applies?

Yes, even though it has physically left your hand, you're still the one that is "using it effectively." It's certainly not flying through the air of its own will, its your skillful wielding of it that is causing that behavior.

[OzDragon]

Yes, even though it has physically left your hand, you're still the one that is "using it effectively." It's certainly not flying through the air of its own will, its your skillful wielding of it that is causing that behavior.

I was going to reply but they said it first.

[Segev]

A thrown weapon is wielded in the hand(s) it is wielded in to allow the attack to be made. After the attack is resolved, the thrown weapon is no longer wielded, in or out of any hand, barring additional rules (such as the Returning property) changing that.

You make the attack roll, roll damage (if you hit), and then apply damage and note the changed state of the thrown weapon from "ready" to "not ready," which includes it no longer being wielded by the hand(s) that threw it.

Nothing in this is house rules. If you wish to claim it is, you must cite something from the RAW which directly contradicts something I have said here.

[ThorOdinson]

Yes, even though it has physically left your hand, you're still the one that is "using it effectively." It's certainly not flying through the air of its own will, its your skillful wielding of it that is causing that behavior.

Okay, so we are in agreement that when a weapon is thrown and strikes a target and deals damage while not in one hand or any hand, the thrown weapon is still "wielded", correct?

[OzDragon]

Okay, so we are in agreement that when a weapon is thrown and strikes a target and deals damage while not in one hand or any hand, the thrown weapon is still "wielded", correct?

Wait, what?! Haven't you on numerous occasions in this thread stated the exact opposite and used that as your main point of contention as to why Dueling weapons style does not work with weapons that are thrown.?

I feel at this point you are trolling.

Or, are you asking a question that we all agree at this point in the conversation that this is how it works? If it's the latter I'm sorry.

[ThorOdinson]

Wait, what?! Haven't you on numerous occasions in this thread stated the exact opposite and used that as your main point of contention as to why Dueling weapons style does not work with weapons that are thrown.?

I feel at this point you are trolling.

Or, are you asking a question. If it's the latter I'm sorry.

You are mistaken. In the past, I have been very clear that my argument does not rely on a particular definition of "wield".

At this point I just want to have it be very clear how you are defining "wield".

So we are in agreement that when a weapon is thrown and strikes a target and deals damage while not in one hand or any hand, the thrown weapon is still "wielded", correct?

[JNAProductions]

Interesting. I was hoping you would take up the challenge and find some rules support for your argument, but I guess you want to disengage at this point from further debate. So some closing comments . . .

The english meaning of the word "wield" means "to hold and use (a tool or weapon)" and is consistent with the way the PHB uses the word to discuss the use of melee weapons and shields and such things as dual wielding, etc. The PHB also uses wield in more abstract sense, ie 'wield power', which is consistent with second dictionary meaning. The PHB uses wield in the senses we would expect which is good because the PHB does not provide a separate game specific meaning of the term.

When a character drops a weapon it is no longer wielded.

When a character drops a shield it is no longer wielded.

Ranged attacks are granted permission to attack and damage a target while making no mention of being wielded. They are hurled and sent as projectiles. To say that they are wielded after they are thrown breaks with english semantics and is also inserting a concocted distinction that the rules do not make. It is also something my argument does not rely on and this is important to recognize. The Dueling fighting style requires that a weapon be not only "wielded" but also "in one hand". There is absolutely no doubt that a thrown weapon is no longer "in one hand" when it is thrown and strikes a target.

The straight and logical read of the Duelist fighting style rule is that it does not apply in the case of thrown weapons. A weapon that is thrown is not "wielded" and, even if you want to argue that point about no longer being wielded, a thrown weapon is definitely not still "in one hand". So you really have your work cut out for you to try to somehow argue against my straightforward read of the rules as they are written. A weapon that has been thrown is obviously not still "wielded in one hand".

You have been trying to tear down my argument over the use of "wield" when the rules themselves make no indication that a thrown weapon is somehow still wielded after it is thrown (which would break english semantics of 'hold and use (a tool or weapon)'. The ranged attack rules grant a thrown weapon the ability to hit and damage targets making no mention of being wielded. So nothing degenerate at all happens to consider a weapon that is thrown as not wielded once it leaves the hand. You have failed to support your claims that my argument produces degenerate cases.

Further, I want to point out that my argument is consistent in its reading of the Duelist fighting style and how it doesn't apply to the case of thrown weapons with the top answer provided on Stack Exchange. Not only is my argument RAW but it is standard and the highest approved by Stack Exchanges metric.

If you continue to think there are degenerate cases then by all means point them out to me, but you need to support what you say with rules support. Obviously any personal concocted rationale that you have made up and that is not grounded in the actual rules does not figure into a rules debate.

I dont disagree with your argument as a house rule. Personal concocted rationale is fine for house rules. So we can agree to disagree. But if you want to present your argument as RAW then I will expect you to provide the rules support for your argument that you have neglected to provide so far.

No. That's incorrect. You have very explicitly argued against that definition being used, in this post and many others in this thread.

We have brains.

[Garhi]

Okay, so we are in agreement that when a weapon is thrown and strikes a target and deals damage while not in one hand or any hand, the thrown weapon is still "wielded", correct?

Close. It is still wielded by the hand that initially threw it. It does not magically become wielded by zero hands.

I understand exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to agree that the weapon remains "wielded" but is no longer "wielded in one hand." Nobody here is trying to say that your hyper literal fixation on the word in is wrong, just that it's not the only valid interpretation of RAW.

[Zhorn]

What's happening is they are trying to trap you with responding agreement to a very specific wording. It's why they say

You are getting confused about the state of the current argument. We have accepted Segev's inferred definition of "wield". As you know, I have indicated several times that my argument does not depend on a paricular definition of "wield".

and only 2 posts later go back to

First, present your definition of "wield".

to which they'll follow up with a slightly twisted interpretation including an intentional faulty mischaracterizing the counterargument, feigning agreement

Okay, so we are in agreement that when a weapon is thrown and strikes a target and deals damage while not in one hand or any hand, the thrown weapon is still "wielded", correct?

which is intended to lock you into supporting something you didn't say for the intension of discrediting you or espousing how what you say is supporting them all along.

[ThorOdinson]

No. That's incorrect. You have very explicitly argued against that definition being used, in this post and many others in this thread.

We have brains.

Please take note of all my posts and the contexts in which they are made. I will quote myself from earlier in this thtead.

My argument does not rely on a definition of "wielding". Rather it is based on taking notice of whether the conditional " in one hand" is valid or not. I take notice of that conditional because a rule instructs me to do so.

I have meticulously laid out my RAW argument. The conditions by which you can apply the Dueling fighting style rule are not present when you have permission to make damage rolls. The weapon is definitively not "in one hand" so applying the bonus violates the rule.

The discussion about "wielding" merely supports my argument. Applying the standard definition that one applies in the context of weaponry ("hold and use [tool or weapon]") reminds us that thrown weapons in flight are not wielded and neatly supports the Dueling fighting style rule in a straightforward logical read.

The PHB does not provide its own definition of "wielding". In the absence of a PHB provided definition we have english semantics to guide us. I think it appropriate to refer to the standard definition of "wield" as it relates to tools and weaponry since that is exactly the context we are emulating in game and exactly the meaning we would expect the PHB to use. If you or others use more abstract definitions that are not related to weaponry, I question the appropriateness, but I can not require you to use the standard definition.

Luckily my argument only uses the standard definition of "wield" as secondary support for a RAW argument that is otherwise unequivocally and firmly established by the conditional logic of the rule itself and a clearcut validation test of "in one hand" and a simple marching along and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

Feel free to implement the JC Tweet house rule. It is only an unofficial house rule. Plenty of AL tables accept unofficial JC tweets and the like. My standard is official only.

Officially you do not have recourse to unofficial house rules, you only have the RAW and SAC.

If you want to take issue with my RAW argument feel free to do so. You should actually present your own RAW argument so we can see how you think a RAW argument should go.

So far I am the only one who has presented an elegant and fully functioning RAW argument. Feel free to present a better one.

I welcome anyone to point out rules that I have missed or to correct me on the rules. Make sure to support what you say with rules support so we can arive at a better understanding of RAW.

Close. It is still wielded by the hand that initially threw it. It does not magically become wielded by zero hands.

I understand exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to agree that the weapon remains "wielded" but is no longer "wielded in one hand." Nobody here is trying to say that your hyper literal fixation on the word in is wrong, just that it's not the only valid interpretation of RAW.

Are we in agreement that when a thrown weapon hits and damages a target while not in one hand (or any hand) that that thrown weapon is still "wielded"?

[JNAProductions]

A thrown weapon is wielded in the hand(s) it is wielded in to allow the attack to be made. After the attack is resolved, the thrown weapon is no longer wielded, in or out of any hand, barring additional rules (such as the Returning property) changing that.

You make the attack roll, roll damage (if you hit), and then apply damage and note the changed state of the thrown weapon from "ready" to "not ready," which includes it no longer being wielded by the hand(s) that threw it.

Nothing in this is house rules. If you wish to claim it is, you must cite something from the RAW which directly contradicts something I have said here.

Oh, you also missed this!

Can you provide any RAW that makes Segev and the rest of ourselves interpretation invalid?

Because, again-you have a technically correct reading of RAW. But not the ONLY correct one.

[ThorOdinson]

Oh, you also missed this!

Can you provide any RAW that makes Segev and the rest of ourselves interpretation invalid?

Because, again-you have a technically correct reading of RAW. But not the ONLY correct one.

How are you defining "wield"?

[OzDragon]

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.

Does it specify melee or ranged? No

Did you make an attack with a melee weapon?(which by RAW is different than making a melee attack)

If the answer to the second question is yes then it gets the benefit of the fighting style

Let me post this again.

[OzDragon]

How are you defining "wield"?

The definition has been posted before. It does not need to be defined again until it fits your "theory".

[Valmark]

What's happening is they are trying to trap you with responding agreement to a very specific wording. It's why they say

and only 2 posts later go back to

to which they'll follow up with a slightly twisted interpretation including an intentional faulty mischaracterizing the counterargument, feigning agreement

which is intended to lock you into supporting something you didn't say for the intension of discrediting you or espousing how what you say is supporting them all along.

Oh. I was getting more and more confused by the endless repetition of the same question, that's what it was then.

[ThorOdinson]

The definition has been posted before. It does not need to be defined again until it fits your "theory".

Can you post the Dueling fighting style rule?

What's happening is they are trying to trap you with responding agreement to a very specific wording. It's why they say

and only 2 posts later go back to

to which they'll follow up with a slightly twisted interpretation including an intentional faulty mischaracterizing the counterargument, feigning agreement

which is intended to lock you into supporting something you didn't say for the intension of discrediting you or espousing how what you say is supporting them all along.

My line of questioning has been entirely honest and straightforward. If you think I have been twisting or mischaracterizing then prove so.

[OzDragon]

Can you post the Dueling fighting style rule?

Scroll up good sir.

[JNAProductions]

Can you do us the same courtesy of responding to us that we gave you?

[ThorOdinson]

Scroll up good sir.

Have you posted the rule before? Feel free to quote yourself if so.

[OzDragon]

Have you posted the rule before? Feel free to quote yourself if so.

I just did on the page # 349

[JNAProductions]

Have you posted the rule before? Feel free to quote yourself if so.

Why would they have to post it again? It’s been posted. It’s been read.

[ThorOdinson]

I just did on the page # 349

Allow me to assist you.

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.

The above is the Dueling fighting style rule, correct?

[OzDragon]

Allow me to assist you.




The above is the Dueling fighting style rule, correct?

Why don't you just quote my post that is on this page(I even gave you the post number) instead of getting snarky with the "allow me to assist you" thing ?

[ThorOdinson]

Why don't you just quote my post that is on this page instead of getting snarky with the "allow me to assist you thing" ?

No snarkiness intended.

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.

Are we in agreement that the above quote is the Dueling fighting style rule?