Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[OzDragon]

No snarkiness intended.



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

I'm going to try this one last time since you have ignored it twice.

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

[ThorOdinson]

I'm going to try this one last time since you have ignored it twice.

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

Your conclusion is not valid. You need to read the rule again.

[JNAProductions]

Explain your reasoning.

Explain how your way is the ONLY possible correct reading.

[ThorOdinson]

Explain your reasoning.

Explain how your way is the ONLY possible correct reading.

So far he has stated that if you make an attack with a melee weapon then the Dueling fighting style applies. Do you agree with his statement?

[JNAProductions]

So far he has stated that if you make an attack with a melee weapon then the Dueling fighting style applies. Do you agree with his statement?

If it’s wielded in one hand.

Per your own admission, the weapon is considered wielded in one hand until the attack is complete.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguing RAW is pointless. Because even when looking at black-letter text, two people can interpret it completely differently and both insist that they're right.

[OzDragon]

So far he has stated that if you make an attack with a melee weapon then the Dueling fighting style applies. Do you agree with his statement?

I'm so done with this. You sir have been given numerous reasons and logical reasons for this to work with thrown weapons. I feel now you are arguing just to argue.

[JNAProductions]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguing RAW is pointless. Because even when looking at black-letter text, two people can interpret it completely differently and both insist that they're right.

To be fair, TO’s reading is technically accurate.

It leads to wonkiness, but is not inaccurate.

But, because English and the 5E books are not super technical and precise, it can be read multiple ways.

[ThorOdinson]

If it’s wielded in one hand.

Per your own admission, the weapon is considered wielded in one hand until the attack is complete.

I have never stated or admitted that. In fact . . .

the weapon is considered wielded in one hand until the attack is complete.

I am once again indicating here (and I have indicated in the past) that the above statement is a house rule on your part. That rule is not in the PHB. I don't allow house rules.

But feel free to prove me wrong by finding support for your house rule in the PHB.

If you can find support in the PHB that players are to follow this house rule you have made. . .

the weapon is considered wielded in one hand until the attack is complete.

If you have rules support for the above house rule then please share it. We can then treat your argument as RAW.

[Valmark]

I have never stated or admitted that. In fact . . .

I am once again indicating here (and I have indicated in the past) that the above statement is a house rule on your part. That rule is not in the PHB. I don't allow house rules.

But feel free to prove me wrong by finding support for your house rule in the PHB.

It's a ruling, not an house rule. Same as yours.

[Zhorn]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguing RAW is pointless. Because even when looking at black-letter text, two people can interpret it completely differently and both insist that they're right.

Now if only there was some form of tie breaker we could call on?
Like a, authority who had worked on said feature and could clarify what interpretation aligns with what they were trying to convey with the written text...

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...360257?lang=en
The Dueling fighting style works with a thrown melee weapon. The feature doesn't limit itself to melee attacks.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...890432?lang=en
The Dueling fighting style works with a versatile weapon only when you attack with it using one hand.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...12995108372480
"does the duelling fighting style work with sword and shield?"
It sure does!

Sure would be nice if we had access to such a person...

[OzDragon]

To be fair, TO’s reading is technically accurate.

It leads to wonkiness, but is not inaccurate.

But, because English and the 5E books are not super technical and precise, it can be read multiple ways.

It's actually not accurate. There is an attack action. That action includes stating an attack is happening, rolling to see if it hits and applying damage.

Then there is Thors idea that the the attack, flight time, the hit and the damage are all separate instance items. This is inaccurate.

Ill get more specific in my wording here. If you attack with a one handed melee weapon that is in one hand. It does not matter if its a melee or ranged attack it applies the dueling fighting style.

[ThorOdinson]

It's a ruling, not an house rule. Same as yours.

My ruling does not rely on rules I make up.

When you make up a rule its called "house ruling".

Figuring out if a statement is a house rule or not is simple. Read the rules. Do the rules actually say that or are you providing the rule from elsewhere (by making it up)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, TO’s reading is technically accurate.

It leads to wonkiness, but is not inaccurate.

But, because English and the 5E books are not super technical and precise, it can be read multiple ways.

That's the problem. "RAW" is not a uniquely defined thing, not even for simple rules. It's an interpretation that's smuggled itself into having memetic "favored reading" status. Except it doesn't solve the problem it's designed for, facilitating communication. Instead it just becomes another source of arguments ("my RAW is more RAW than your RAW").

The only rules that matter are the ones that tables decide on for their own play. Those may start from the text. Or not. Up to them.

Honestly, the kind of discussion I find useful only takes the text as a starting point.

Q: What should I do in <situation>
A1: Here's what the default text is: <quote>. I've decided to read it as meaning <X>. I like this reading because <PDQ>.
A2: I prefer to read it as <Y> because <P'D'Q'>
R3: But what about <interaction A>?
etc.

Or maybe:
A1: There isn't a default setting for this. Things I've considered when I encountered that issue were <XYZ>. If you prefer <P>, then <X> might be the way to go. If you prefer <Q>, try <Y>. I recommend against <Z>, it failed in <A way> when I tried it.

No one claiming that theirs is the "correct" reading, only that they prefer their reading. And then giving reasons for why they prefer that reading. That last part's the important part. Once you get away from the "correct/incorrect" mentality that RAW-focused thinking emphasizes, you (generic) can start actually deciding what's best for your particular game.

This paradigm shift does strip people of their most cherished right, the right to tell other people that they're wrong on the internet. Which is why it's a pipe dream.

[JNAProductions]

My ruling does not rely on rules I make up.

When you make up a rule its called "house ruling".

Figuring out if a statement is a house rule or not is simple. Read the rules. Do the rules actually say that or are you providing the rule from elsewhere (by making it up)?

Then surely you can find a rule that explicitly states Dueling doesn't apply to thrown javelins, right?
Or anything, really, that proves without a doubt that you're right and we're wrong.

[ThorOdinson]

Now if only there was some form of tie breaker we could call on?
Like a, authority who had worked on said feature and could clarify what interpretation aligns with what they were trying to convey with the written text...



Sure would be nice if we had access to such a person...

If those work for you. Great!

The JC Tweets do not work for me. JC Tweets have been officially declared as unofficial house rules. The Sage Advice Compendium represents the official FAQ.

So the official sources are the PHB and the SAC. Your table situation may be different

Then surely you can find a rule that explicitly states Dueling doesn't apply to thrown javelins, right?
Or anything, really, that proves without a doubt that you're right and we're wrong.

How do you define "wield"?

[ThorOdinson]

Duplicate. Please remove.

[Garhi]

My ruling does not rely on rules I make up.

When you make up a rule its called "house ruling".

Figuring out if a statement is a house rule or not is simple. Read the rules. Do the rules actually say that or are you providing the rule from elsewhere (by making it up)?

Can you cite a rule that states your weapon transitions from being "wielded in one hand" to being "wielded in no hands" when you throw it as part of an attack?

[JNAProductions]

How do you define "wield"?

Your argument doesn't rely on any definition of wield, according to yourself.

So it should be irrelevant.

[ThorOdinson]

Your argument doesn't rely on any definition of wield, according to yourself.

So it should be irrelevant.

Does the Dueling fighting style mention the word "wield"?

Can you cite a rule that states your weapon transitions from being "wielded in one hand" to being "wielded in no hands" when you throw it as part of an attack?

Please answer a question so we are on the same page.

What happens when you draw a weapon?

Does the weapon go from being in no hands to being wielded in one (or two hands)?

[OzDragon]

Does the Dueling fighting style mention the word "wield"?

Does the dueling fighting style mention the words Melee Attack?

I think we should define what you think the attack action entails.

[Segev]

If you have rules support for the above house rule then please share it. We can then treat your argument as RAW.

The burden of proof is on you. You assert that what you quoted is a house rule. Please provide citation that demonstrates that this ruling - which you term a "house rule" - is contradicted by the RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Does the dueling fighting style mention the words Melee Attack?

I think we should define what you think the attack action entails.

I consult the rules in the PHB. What are you consulting?

[JNAProductions]

TO, we've been answering your questions and replying to your points. You owe us the same courtesy.

[ThorOdinson]

The burden of proof is on you. You assert that what you quoted is a house rule. Please provide citation that demonstrates that this ruling - which you term a "house rule" - is contradicted by the RAW.

You have that backwards. I have quoted numerous times the entireity of the rules at stake. The house rule that you are making up is no where to be found in the actual rules.

Until you can find rules justifying your house rule you have made it up.

So provide a citation from the PHB or the SAC and prove me wrong.

[OzDragon]

I consult the rules in the PHB. What are you consulting?

Ok then lets start there.

Making an Attack(pg193 PHB)

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, Spells, Special Abilities, and other Effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your Attack roll.
Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an Attack, the rule is simple: if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack.

All of this is the "Attack Action" Hitting a target and damaging the target are all rolled in they are not separate.

[Segev]

You have that backwards. I have quoted numerous times the entireity of the rules at stake. The house rule that you are making up is no where to be found in the actual rules.

You have yet to demonstrate thta the rules you quoted make my ruling illegal under them. For my ruling to be a "house rule," I would have to be house ruling away the RAW that are in the way of it.

Otherwise, your ruling is equally a "house rule," because you cannot show in the RAW you have quoted anything that specifies that the number of hands wielding the thrown melee weapon when damage is rolled is any different than it was when the attack started.

You only have your "house rule" that you think aligns with the way things should be, not any rule you've quoted that says otherwise.

Until you can find rules justifying your house rule you have made it up.

So provide a citation from the PHB or the SAC and prove me wrong.

Unless you can provide me a citation that says that the thrown weapon has no hands wielding it when the damage roll is made, you have just made it up and are house ruling.

[ThorOdinson]

You have yet to demonstrate thta the rules you quoted make my ruling illegal under them. For my ruling to be a "house rule," I would have to be house ruling away the RAW that are in the way of it.

Otherwise, your ruling is equally a "house rule," because you cannot show in the RAW you have quoted anything that specifies that the number of hands wielding the thrown melee weapon when damage is rolled is any different than it was when the attack started.

You only have your "house rule" that you think aligns with the way things should be, not any rule you've quoted that says otherwise.

Unless you can provide me a citation that says that the thrown weapon has no hands wielding it when the damage roll is made, you have just made it up and are house ruling.

Again you are simply not understanding what a house rule is. If you add a rule that you made up to the rules then you are house ruling. It doesnt matter if it contradicts existing rules or not. House rule refers to rules that you make up. If you haven't made that rule up then you can prove you did not make it up by finding it in the PHB. So can you?

As you know "wield" is not defined by the rules. So we have english semantics to sort out the RAW with regards to rules that mention "wield".

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

[ff7hero]

Please answer a question so we are on the same page.

What happens when you draw a weapon?

I use some kind of marking tool (pen, paint, etc) to create an image of a weapon on some kind of surface (paper, a wall etc). There now that's been totally cleared up.

[Valmark]

Again you are simply not understanding what a house rule is. If you add a rule that you made up to the rules then you are house ruling. It doesnt matter if it contradicts existing rules or not. House rule refers to rules that you make up. If you haven't made that rule up then you can prove you did not make it up by finding it in the PHB. So can you?

As you know "wield" is not defined by the rules. So we have english semantics to sort out the RAW with regards to rules that mention "wield".

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

What would Segev's house rule be? That the hands on the weapon don't change?

In what way is yours not an house rule too then? Nothing says that the hands on the thrown weapon do change during the attack.