Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[OzDragon]

Ok this is really my last try...ThorOdinson

What type of action is it to throw a weapon at a creature attempting to damage/kill it?

Your options for answers are these (and only these to answer something else is to evade the question and continue to waste everyone's time)

A: An Action ( Attack, withdraw, full defense, ready)
B: A Move
C: A Bonus action
D: A Reaction

Again you are confusing character and player.



Nope. Not a house rule. We can assert by logic, definition, inference, permission, and by unintended consequences (reductio ad absurdum) that corresponding the attack roll with the attack is correct.

For example, if the weapon has not been thrown then an attack has not been attempted. If an attack has been attempted we know the weapon has been thrown and the weapon is no longer in hand. If the weapon is in hand then a throw has not been made and an attack has not been attempted.



Again you are confusing player and character. Because of your confusion, you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my argument.




"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

Please stop ignoring the question and answer. Remember we are talking about game mechanics not narrative.

[Garhi]

Again you are confusing character and player.
"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

According to you, this "gives you permission" to exercise the rules for making a ranged attack, it doesn't give you permission to ignore them.

The rules for making a ranged attack state:

"When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

This very clearly says that you must throw your weapon as part of making the attack, not that you can make an attack with a weapon that has already been thrown.

[ff7hero]

New stance.

After reading "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack." for the hundredth time, I've decided I can throw a dagger to cast Fire Bolt.

[Segev]

Again you are confusing character and player.

I am not. I am asking you to clarify: Does the character have the ability to target a creature with his thrown javelin with intent to do damage?

Nope. Not a house rule. We can assert by logic, definition, inference, permission, and by unintended consequences (reductio ad absurdum) that corresponding the attack roll with the attack is correct.

We can use the same to come to the conclusions I have outlined previously, which you claimed were a house rule. Therefore, either neither of our rulings are house rules, or both of them are.

For example, if the weapon has not been thrown then an attack has not been attempted. If an attack has been attempted we know the weapon has been thrown and the weapon is no longer in hand. If the weapon is in hand then a throw has not been made and an attack has not been attempted.

And?

Again you are confusing player and character. Because of your confusion, you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my argument.

You refuse to clearly state which we're talking about. I have asked, and you refuse to answer.

If you refuse to state what the character is doing, then I cannot be "misrepresenting" your argument: you are refusing to properly characterize it. Please stop accusing me of misrepresenting your argument and confusing the two when you will not answer my questions as to which you're discussing at any particular point in time.

I literally can't tell which you're even asserting we're talking about, here. In 5e, there are certain actions to be taken. Move, Action, Bonus Action, etc., and various things you can do with them. Is the player ever taking any of them, in your division of character and player?

Please be specific. If you are not specific, I will assume you do not actually know the answer.

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

That is not in dispute. You keep accusing me of confusing player and character, however. So. Who is "you" in this sentence? Who (according to you) can throw the weapon? Who (according to you) can make a ranged attack?

[ThorOdinson]

According to you, this "gives you permission" to exercise the rules for making a ranged attack, it doesn't give you permission to ignore them.

The rules for making a ranged attack state:

"When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

This very clearly says that you must throw your weapon as part of making the attack, not that you can make an attack with a weapon that has already been thrown.

This rule says the same thing as long as you don't confuse player and character.

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

The throw is the ranged attack made by the character. The player deals with the procedure outlined in the Making an Attack at the table to sort out hit or miss and damage, etc.

We can use the same to come to the conclusions I have outlined previously, which you claimed were a house rule. Therefore, either neither of our rulings are house rules, or both of them are.

Nope. Your argument adds a rule into the mix. My argument does not.

[Segev]

Nope. Your argument adds a rule into the mix. My argument does not.

My argument adds no rules to the mix. My argument relies on logic and deduction from how the rules are laid out. Your argument relies on inventing a new rules concept called "permissions" which have some sort of "cost paid" by the character, rather than simply being actions that resolve.

Your ruling is a house rule by your definition of a house rule more than mine is. You add lots and lots of words to the rules text to justify it. I only clarify a little bit of how resolution occurs.

By my definitions of rulings vs. house rules, neither of our rulings are house rules, because both are simply ruling on the correct resolution order for the situation. However, your ruling requires a lot more specific, fiddly rules bits to be added in to the resolution steps than mine. Thus, if adding text not present is "house rules," both are "house rules" because "house rules" are essential to resolving it, and your house rule is more of one than mine due to how much extra text and requirement you must add to it to fill it out.

This rule says the same thing as long as you don't confuse player and character.

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

The throw is the ranged attack made by the character. The player deals with the procedure outlined in the Making an Attack at the table to sort out hit or miss and damage, etc.

Okay. So, the character is making a ranged attack by throwing a javelin at his target. Do we agree on this? If I am still, as you have said before, confusing the player and the character, please tell me where, specifically, I am wrong, and which entity (player or character) is doing each part of what I wrote.

[OzDragon]

This rule says the same thing as long as you don't confuse player and character.

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

The throw is the ranged attack made by the character. The player deals with the procedure outlined in the Making an Attack at the table to sort out hit or miss and damage, etc.

Why do you refuse to answer my question?

[ThorOdinson]

Okay. So, the character is making a ranged attack by throwing a javelin at his target. Do we agree on this? If I am still, as you have said before, confusing the player and the character, please tell me where, specifically, I am wrong, and which entity (player or character) is doing each part of what I wrote.

What you are saying is correct but its not the complete picture. What you can also say is that if the character is indeed throwing the weapon to make a ranged attack (cost to throw the weapon has been paid and the character will now have to recover the weapon) then the player now has permission to use the Making an Attack rules to resolve the attack.

[Segev]

What you are saying is correct but its not the complete picture. What you can also say is that if the character is indeed throwing the weapon to make a ranged attack (cost to throw the weapon has been paid and the character will now have to recover the weapon) then the player now has permission to use the Making an Attack rules to resolve the attack.

The character throws his weapon with the intent to do damage to a creature. Has the character attacked his target?

[ThorOdinson]

My argument adds no rules to the mix. My argument relies on logic and deduction from how the rules are laid out. Your argument relies on inventing a new rules concept called "permissions" which have some sort of "cost paid" by the character, rather than simply being actions that resolve.

Your ruling is a house rule by your definition of a house rule more than mine is. You add lots and lots of words to the rules text to justify it. I only clarify a little bit of how resolution occurs.

By my definitions of rulings vs. house rules, neither of our rulings are house rules, because both are simply ruling on the correct resolution order for the situation. However, your ruling requires a lot more specific, fiddly rules bits to be added in to the resolution steps than mine. Thus, if adding text not present is "house rules," both are "house rules" because "house rules" are essential to resolving it, and your house rule is more of one than mine due to how much extra text and requirement you must add to it to fill it out.

Permissions and costs are just a way to clarify the discussion by examining the logic.

In simpler terms, you can't do something in a game unless the rules say you can.

So when we zero in on talking about "permissions" we are looking for "can" statements where the rules tell us we "can" do something.

In addition to logic, semantics is also something I use in my RAW argument. Logic and semantics are not house rules as they are tied directly to the language of the rules themselves.

A house rule is adding a rule to the mix like "you are instructed to ignore logic, semantics, permissions, and game state even if you are asked by a rule to check the game state until you get to my personal preferred step x [so I getz to keep the Dueling fighting style bonus when I throw the javelin]".

[Garhi]

This rule says the same thing as long as you don't confuse player and character.

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack."

The throw is the ranged attack made by the character. The player deals with the procedure outlined in the Making an Attack at the table to sort out hit or miss and damage, etc.

"Make a ranged attack" is something a character does, not a player.

The rule under ranged attacks:
"When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

Is likewise referring to a character action.

Again, this all comes down to your insistence on reading "can X to Y" as "can X to then Y" That's not the only way to read the rule. Given the context of the other rules in the book, I'd even go so far as to say it's an incorrect way of reading the rule.

As I demonstrated in a previous post, the instance of "throw the weapon" and the instance of "make a ranged attack" in the thrown weapon property are referring to a singular event. If you consider them to be separate events, then you are in violation of the rule under ranged attacks because you can't throw a weapon twice.

[ThorOdinson]

"Make a ranged attack" is something a character does, not a player.

The rule under ranged attacks:
"When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

Is likewise referring to a character action.

Again, this all comes down to your insistence on reading "can X to Y" as "can X to then Y" That's not the only way to read the rule. Given the context of the other rules in the book, I'd even go so far as to say it's an incorrect way of reading the rule.

This is just recognizing the logic of the rule.

"Can" is a permission in a situation where you dont have permission otherwise (as in a game with rules that you must follow). "Can do X to do Y" makes X a cost or requirement for Y.

As I demonstrated in a previous post, the instance of "throw the weapon" and the instance of "make a ranged attack" in the thrown weapon property are referring to a singular event. If you consider them to be separate events, then you are in violation of the rule under ranged attacks because you can't throw a weapon twice.

I am not considering them separate events. The throw of the weapon by the character is the ranged attack. The player then has permission to apply the Making an Attack rules to sort out what happens.

Or are you saying that the character is now picking up a die and making an attack roll while in combat?

[OzDragon]

This is just recognizing the logic of the rule.

"Can" is a permission in a situation where you dont have permission otherwise (as in a game with rules that you must follow). "Can do X to do Y" makes X a cost or requirement for Y.



I am not considering them separate events. The throw of the weapon by the character is the ranged attack. The player then has permission to apply the Making an Attack rules to sort out what happens.

Or are you saying that the character is now picking up a die and making an attack roll while in combat?

OK now we are getting somewhere, except for is not then its when. When the character throws a weapon(declares attack) the player applies the attack rules.

[Garhi]

I am not considering them separate events. The throw of the weapon by the character is the ranged attack. The player then has permission to apply the Making an Attack rules to sort out what happens.

Or are you saying that the character is now picking up a die and making an attack roll while in combat?

No, I'm saying that the weapon isn't thrown and the attack isn't made until Step 3 of the "Making an attack" rules when you "Resolve the attack."

Taking the "Attack" action is what "gives you permission" to use the "Making an attack" rules.

The thrown property merely exists to identify weapons that "can be thrown [by a character] to make a ranged attack [by a character]."

[Segev]

I am not considering them separate events. The throw of the weapon by the character is the ranged attack. The player then has permission to apply the Making an Attack rules to sort out what happens.

The player "now has permission" (by your word choice) to use the game mechanics to resolve the ranged attack that the character has made. Is this accurate?

Or are you saying that the character is now picking up a die and making an attack roll while in combat?

Nobody has suggested this; please do not act like we have in any way even intimated it. It is insulting.

[ThorOdinson]

No, I'm saying that the weapon isn't thrown and the attack isn't made until Step 3 of the "Making an attack" rules when you "Resolve the attack."

Taking the "Attack" action is what "gives you permission" to use the "Making an attack" rules.

The thrown property merely exists to identify weapons that "can be thrown [by a character] to make a ranged attack [by a character]."

Again you are confusing player and character. The Making an Attack section is a procedure the player follows to resolve what happens for his character. And to make a ranged attack (in this case a ranged Attack) the player must have permission from the Thrown rules.

I agree that player Step 3 corresponds with the character "throw the weapon [weapon leaves hand and travels a distance] to make a ranged attack".

The player "now has permission" (by your word choice) to use the game mechanics to resolve the ranged attack that the character has made. Is this accurate?

More specifically, the player is always attending to permissions in the game mechanics.

The character is doing stuff in game and maintaining a game state that can be referenced by the player while the player marches through instructions where he has permission.

[ThorOdinson]

Duplicate post

[Garhi]

Again you are confusing player and character. The Making an Attack section is a procedure the player follows to resolve what happens for his character. And to make a ranged attack (in this case a ranged Attack) the player must have permission from the Thrown rules.

I agree that player Step 3 corresponds with the character "throw the weapon [weapon leaves hand and travels a distance] to make a ranged attack".

Ok, so throwing the weapon occurs during step 3 of the "making an attack" rules: "Resolve the attack."

Resolve the attack states:

You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise...

Would you say the game state update that actually throws the weapon occurs:

A) Before the attack roll
B) After the attack roll but before the damage roll
C) After the damage roll

I would argue that option A is nonsensical because you can't attack with a weapon that's not in your hand.

Option B is a potentially valid option, but there's nothing in the rules that directly states this is when it happens, or that you're even allowed to insert a game state update between the attack and damage rolls. By your definition, this option is a "house rule."

Option C is an equally valid option, and one that doesn't break up the linked action of "On a hit, you roll damage." By your definition, this would likely also be called a "house rule."

If you believe there are other valid answers to when the game state update occurs, please share them.

[ThorOdinson]

I would argue that option A is nonsensical because you can't attack with a weapon that's not in your hand.

Nope. You are the one making a nonsensical statement at this point. You are precisely making an attack with a weapon that is not in your hand (you throw the weapon, remember?)

If you are making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, you cannot make the attack unless it is thrown, leaves the hand, and travels the distance to be able to hit the target.

You are confusing the wind up to the throw with the actual throw.

[Segev]

More specifically, the player is always attending to permissions in the game mechanics.

The character is doing stuff in game and maintaining a game state that can be referenced by the player while the player marches through instructions where he has permission.

That does not answer my question.

I asked, when the character throws a melee weapon with the thrown tag at a creature with the intent to have said weapon do said creature harm, does the player perform the mechanical steps necessary to resolve the attack action the character has taken?

[gloryblaze]

First off, this thread is fascinating. To establish my position early for the actual reasonable folks in here, before I dive into the muck:

1. As a DM, I would allow Dueling to apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

2. I understand RAI to be that Dueling is intended to apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

3. After reading TO and Segev's discourse in this thread, I have been convinced that a strictly RAW reading does indeed allow for a DM to decide that Dueling does not apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

3a. I believe that under this RAW reading, a character can take the Attack action to make a melee weapon attack with a Versatile melee weapon wielded in two hands, then use their free object interaction during that action (specifically, after the attack is made but before damage is rolled) to change their grip to wield the weapon in one hand, thus gaining the benefits of the Dueling fighting style.

4. I believe that an equally valid strictly RAW reading, based in no small part on the wording of "Returning Weapon", allows for a DM to decide that Dueling does apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

4a. I agree with Segev and JNAP that this second RAW reading leads to fewer undesirable game states.

Now, time to dive in with needless nit-pickery that (as a law student) I can confidently say would get me laughed out of court :P

Again you are confusing player and character. The Making an Attack section is a procedure the player follows to resolve what happens for his character. And to make a ranged attack (in this case a ranged Attack) the player must have permission from the Thrown rules.

I agree that player Step 3 corresponds with the character "throw the weapon [weapon leaves hand and travels a distance] to make a ranged attack".



More specifically, the player is always attending to permissions in the game mechanics.

The character is doing stuff in game and maintaining a game state that can be referenced by the player while the player marches through instructions where he has permission.

Based on my reading of your post, your position is that a "ranged attack" is something that a character does in the fictional layer of the game while a "ranged Attack" is something a player does in the real world. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I posit that there is no such thing as a ranged Attack (or an Attack at all, for that matter). I ask that you provide a RAW citation that such a thing exists.

Furthermore, I justify my position with the following facts:

1. There is such a thing as the Attack action.

Citation for 1.: "Attack The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists." PHB 192.

2. When the Attack action is taken, one or more attacks are made. These can be melee or ranged attacks.

Citation for 2.: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack... Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one at⁠tack with this action." PHB 192.

3. An "attack" (note the capitalization) is a game mechanical term, as opposed to a plain English description of something that occurs within the fiction of the game. It is something done by a player, not a character.

Citation for 3.: "Making an Attack 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 the following structure... 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." PHB 193-4.

Further warranting for 3: In order for the phrase "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" to be read properly, the pronoun "you" in both clauses must refer to the same person. Therefore, the player (who is making the attack roll) is the one "making an attack" (again: "attack" lowercase), not the character. If you want to argue that this phrase can or should be read "if you [the player] are making an attack roll, you [the character] are making an attack", then I have a legal writing professor who'd love to tell you exactly why you're wrong :P

Even more warranting for 3: If we use "attack" as a plain English word describing the fictional layer rather than a player-facing, crunchy, mechanical layer word, we create undesirable game outcomes, such as a wizard/warlock multiclass character being allowed to add Hex damage to the damage roll of a Magic Missile spell, because within the fictional layer, a character who causes a dart of magical force to strike a foe could accurately be described in plain English as hitting that foe with an attack.

4. Now that we have established that "attack" is a game term describing something a player does (3) and that one subcategory of "attacks" is "ranged attacks" (2), we can say with confidence that a "ranged attack" is something a player does, not a character. Therefore, TO's premise that a "ranged attack" is something that a character does in the fictional layer of the game while a "ranged Attack" is something a player does in the real world is, at best, backwards, since we know that what he describes as a "ranged Attack" is in fact referred to in the rules as a "ranged attack."

5. Rather than being backwards, TO's premise is in fact false. while "the Attack action" and "attack" and "ranged attack" are all terms used by the DnD 5e RAW, the term "Attack" by itself (and its implied subcategories ranged Attack, melee Attack, spell Attack, weapon Attack, etc.) are never once used in the DnD 5e RAW. Here, I am asserting a negative, so I cannot provide a citation, but I welcome anyone to provide citations proving me wrong.

6. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "ranged Attack" under the DnD 5e RAW and TO's use of the term is a house rule, under his definition of house rules.

Spoiler: Ladies and gentlemen...

Show

[Zhorn]

@gloryblaze
That was beautiful

Spoiler: A round of applause

Show

[Garhi]

Nope. You are the one making a nonsensical statement at this point. You are precisely making an attack with a weapon that is not in your hand (you throw the weapon, remember?)

If you are making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, you cannot make the attack unless it is thrown, leaves the hand, and travels the distance to be able to hit the target.

You are confusing the wind up to the throw with the actual throw.

Ok, so you're claiming that the game state update occurs prior to making the attack roll.

What information are you using to update the game state? After this game state update, where is the weapon?

[ThorOdinson]

First off, this thread is fascinating. To establish my position early for the actual reasonable folks in here, before I dive into the muck:

1. As a DM, I would allow Dueling to apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

2. I understand RAI to be that Dueling is intended to apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

3. After reading TO and Segev's discourse in this thread, I have been convinced that a strictly RAW reading does indeed allow for a DM to decide that Dueling does not apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

3a. I believe that under this RAW reading, a character can take the Attack action to make a melee weapon attack with a Versatile melee weapon wielded in two hands, then use their free object interaction during that action (specifically, after the attack is made but before damage is rolled) to change their grip to wield the weapon in one hand, thus gaining the benefits of the Dueling fighting style.

4. I believe that an equally valid strictly RAW reading, based in no small part on the wording of "Returning Weapon", allows for a DM to decide that Dueling does apply to the damage roll of a thrown 1-handed melee weapon.

4a. I agree with Segev and JNAP that this second RAW reading leads to fewer undesirable game states.

Now, time to dive in with needless nit-pickery that (as a law student) I can confidently say would get me laughed out of court :P




Based on my reading of your post, your position is that a "ranged attack" is something that a character does in the fictional layer of the game while a "ranged Attack" is something a player does in the real world. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I posit that there is no such thing as a ranged Attack (or an Attack at all, for that matter). I ask that you provide a RAW citation that such a thing exists.

Furthermore, I justify my position with the following facts:

1. There is such a thing as the Attack action.

Citation for 1.: "Attack The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists." PHB 192.

2. When the Attack action is taken, one or more attacks are made. These can be melee or ranged attacks.

Citation for 2.: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack... Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one at⁠tack with this action." PHB 192.

3. An "attack" (note the capitalization) is a game mechanical term, as opposed to a plain English description of something that occurs within the fiction of the game. It is something done by a player, not a character.

Citation for 3.: "Making an Attack 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 the following structure... 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." PHB 193-4.

Further warranting for 3: In order for the phrase "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" to be read properly, the pronoun "you" in both clauses must refer to the same person. Therefore, the player (who is making the attack roll) is the one "making an attack" (again: "attack" lowercase), not the character. If you want to argue that this phrase can or should be read "if you [the player] are making an attack roll, you [the character] are making an attack", then I have a legal writing professor who'd love to tell you exactly why you're wrong :P

Even more warranting for 3: If we use "attack" as a plain English word describing the fictional layer rather than a player-facing, crunchy, mechanical layer word, we create undesirable game outcomes, such as a wizard/warlock multiclass character being allowed to add Hex damage to the damage roll of a Magic Missile spell, because within the fictional layer, a character who causes a dart of magical force to strike a foe could accurately be described in plain English as hitting that foe with an attack.

4. Now that we have established that "attack" is a game term describing something a player does (3) and that one subcategory of "attacks" is "ranged attacks" (2), we can say with confidence that a "ranged attack" is something a player does, not a character. Therefore, TO's premise that a "ranged attack" is something that a character does in the fictional layer of the game while a "ranged Attack" is something a player does in the real world is, at best, backwards, since we know that what he describes as a "ranged Attack" is in fact referred to in the rules as a "ranged attack."

5. Rather than being backwards, TO's premise is in fact false. while "the Attack action" and "attack" and "ranged attack" are all terms used by the DnD 5e RAW, the term "Attack" by itself (and its implied subcategories ranged Attack, melee Attack, spell Attack, weapon Attack, etc.) are never once used in the DnD 5e RAW. Here, I am asserting a negative, so I cannot provide a citation, but I welcome anyone to provide citations proving me wrong.

6. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "ranged Attack" under the DnD 5e RAW and TO's use of the term is a house rule, under his definition of house rules.

Spoiler: Ladies and gentlemen...

Show

Thanks for joining the thread. It looks like you have a lot to contribute. Thanks for generating a lot of points to think about. But I can only address one or two of your points at a time.

I will address right off one of your bigger points. My use of "ranged Attack" is an artifact that stems from copying and pasting from roll20 where that mistake in capitalization is made. I have no problem with dropping that use. My argument does not rely on it just as it does not rely on a particular definition of "wield". And I have already dropped my use of the phrasing to reflect that in my current argument. So you are correct that an earlier version had an introduced artifact from my sourcing Roll20 and were my argument to require it I would indeed be house ruling, but my RAW argument runs fine without it. I do not require that house rule.

One of my actual premises is that the rules sometime addresses the character in the game world and sometimes addresses the player in real life. The character is a "container" for game state statements. My character is dead. My character has 200 gp. My character has a weapon in his hand. Etc. The player on the other hand is the follower of the rules and who the rules most often addresses.

I don't think you can assign all uses of "attack" strictly to player so I think we should pause and zero in on that issue.

Funnily, one of the key rules in this discussion touches on this issue . . .

"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack"

"You" refers to the character. Obviously the player isn't interacting with any actual weapon.

The latter part makes sense from the perspective of the character. Characters can make attacks. However, the rule is simultaneously referring to the game rules and is giving permission to the player to use those rules in the case of weapons with the Thrown property. What are your thoughts here?

For another example . . .

Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it.

"Your" and "you" and "attack" refers to the character here and not the player. This seemingly disproves your claim that "attack" refers ONLY to player. What are your thoughts here?

With regards to your 3a argument. My argument does not rely on changing hands between the attack roll and damage roll. You have come to that conclusion not by reading my argument but by buying into the strawman generated by Segev and JNAP. My argument does not have anything to do with the Versatile exploit. My argument merely asserts that in the case of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon the weapon is not in hand and so does not get the Dueling fighting style. And we can start a discussion about semantics, logic, permissions, inferences, etc. if you want to explore that further.

Also, I am not convinced 3a works by RAW. So we should revisit that, perhaps in another thread. First, the discussion has discovered that Step 2 only Determines Modifiers for the attack roll, so if somehow you switch hands between attack roll and damage roll it doesn't effectively do anything. You can't "lock in" 1d8 damage at the attack roll and then switch hands unless you do so by house rule. The damage roll simply references the current state and requires a singular choice from the player so if you elect to hit instead with a single hand then you get 1d6 damage, not 1d8 damage, along with the Dueling buff. So poof the exploit vanishes as it is based on a house rule regarding "locked in". At any rate, the issue has no bearing on my argument. Ranged attacks involving thrown weapons simply aren't in hand.

Further, I would ask you to go into far greater detail on point 4 and describe in detail the RAW argument put forth by Segev et al as you see it. The Returning Weapon rule actually supports my argument as the Returning Weapon explicitly recognizes the weapon is not in hand (the weapon is returned to the hand by the rule) and disproves his claim that the weapon is still in one hand (he uses a house rule to keep it considered in hand).

Thanks for joining the discussion. Let me know if I have satisfied your problem with Attack. If I have then please point out the next item you want me to attend to. And please keep the discussion to a few points at a time. Also please clean up your understanding of my argument, removing any strawmen you may have inherited. I am sure you are learning in law school that defeating a strawman of an argument is not defeating the actual argument. What professors do you have? I may have met them at a conference or something.

Spoiler: You pat yourself on the back prematurely. I am looking forward to this . . .

Show

Ok, so you're claiming that the game state update occurs prior to making the attack roll.

What information are you using to update the game state? After this game state update, where is the weapon?

The character 'throws his weapon to make a ranged attack.'

Throw requires the weapon to leave the character's hand.

The weapon is in transit on its way to the target and not in any hand when you make the attack roll.

With regards to the Returning Weapon rule the weapon is in no hand so the Returning Weapon rule can return the weapon to the character's hand.

Returning Weapon

Item: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder’s hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.

So definitively according to the Returning Weapon rule the weapon is not in any hand.

If the weapon were somehow in the hand after the attack roll, as Segev claims, you get a free returning weapon. That is a pretty big unintended consequence if we accept his argument.

Similarly, the Monk Missile Deflect rule describes that the weapon is in flight and not in any hand, perfectly descriptive of the game state.

Deflect Missiles

Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.

If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

The Deflect Missiles rule can even be used to clarify the RAI. The writer of that rule certainly agrees with my RAW argument if you take note of the underlined text. That means that another unintended consequence of Segev's argument is that he breaks the Deflect Missiles rule.

[Segev]

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

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

I’ll repeat my second question that you have yet to answer, as well. Please be sure to answer it rather than giving some vague statement about what players are “always doing:”

Assuming the answer to the previous question is “yes,” is the player performing the mechanical actions required to simulate the attack?


If the answer to the first question is “no,” feel free to disregard the second question for now, but please be very clear and specific about what the character is doing if he is not attacking in the first question’s case.

[OzDragon]

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

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

I’ll repeat my second question that you have yet to answer, as well. Please be sure to answer it rather than giving some vague statement about what players are “always doing:”

Assuming the answer to the previous question is “yes,” is the player performing the mechanical actions required to simulate the attack?


If the answer to the first question is “no,” feel free to disregard the second question for now, but please be very clear and specific about what the character is doing if he is not attacking in the first question’s case.

He will not answer that question, as we have both asked him repeatedly what action it is. To answer that question invalidates all of his arguments and makes it clear that you can use dueling with thrown weapons.

[gloryblaze]

Thanks for joining the discussion. Let me know if I have satisfied your problem with Attack. If I have then please point out the next item you want me to attend to. And please keep the discussion to a few points at a time. Also please clean up your understanding of my argument, removing any strawmen you may have inherited. I am sure you are learning in law school that defeating a strawman of an argument is not defeating the actual argument. What professors do you have? I may have met them at a conference or something.

First of all, I’m not planning to reveal any information that could elucidate precise details about my IRL location to strangers on the internet—I’m sure you understand :)

Second, you seem to be misunderstanding my post, as you have replied substantially to the portions above my quotation of your post. Alas, that portion was not directed at you, and I neither expected nor desired a reply from you on it. I am also not particularly interested in discussing it further with you, since Segev and co. are already doing a great job.

Third, thanks for acknowledging that Attacks do not exist in 5e! I am glad that you are willing to drop it from your argument moving foreword, as that at least means you’re being consistent in your oddly broad definition of “house rule” and your insistence that you do not use them.

Now, I know that three is the optimal number of points to make before people start losing attention, so I hope this last point doesn’t cause your eyes to glaze over and your brain to zone out, but feel free to ignore it for now and maybe come back to it later if it does (that’s a great thing about a medium like a forum—there’s a built in record of everything that’s been said!)

So here goes, number four: I find it incredibly amusing that you seem to be insinuating some sort of legal education or experience. Now, I’m going to break from my point 1 a little bit here and reveal that I am in fact going to law school in America, and I am not particularly informed on other legal systems, so forgive me if the following does not apply to the legal system you claim to be familiar with. But the reason I find your claim so amusing is because of your insistence on pointing out fallacies and what not.

In the US legal system, your goal is not to write a mathematical proof the way a logician might. Instead, it’s to convince 12 ordinary folks that you’re right (in a jury trial) or to convince 1 or more legal scholars that you’re right (in a bench trial or when you’re writing motions to a judge or appealing a case or whatnot). If you knew this, you would therefore know that logical fallacies can be and are used regularly and successfully as a part of US litigation strategy. Appeals to emotion can be particularly effective. Many of the rules of evidence regulate when and how you can appeal to emotion (for instance, Rule 403 states that relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice), but even under that rule, you can introduce evidence that has a probative value outweighed by its tendency to inflame the passions of the jury, so long as either a) that probative value is not substantially outweighed or b) the prejudice you are attempting to introduce is not unfair prejudice. After all, all evidence is prejudicial.

And while a lawyer can make an objection under 403, if you knew the federal rules of evidence, you would know that “Objection! Straw man!” is not a recognized objection in the US.

You might also recognize that the Argumento Ad Populum fallacy, which you have specifically denounced earlier in this thread, is precisely how we decide many of the most important facts in this country. Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? Well, 12 of her peers said no, so no.

[KorvinStarmast]

You might also recognize that the Argumento Ad Populum fallacy, which you have specifically denounced earlier in this thread, is precisely how we decide many of the most important facts in this country. Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? Well, 12 of her peers said no, so no.

Nor did she drive away in a Bronco.
(PS, thanks for joining the thread and Welcome to the Madhouse! )

[Garhi]

The weapon is in transit on its way to the target and not in any hand when you make the attack roll.

You are introducing a "flight time" mechanic that does not exist in the rules.

With regards to the Returning Weapon rule the weapon is in no hand so the Returning Weapon rule can return the weapon to the character's hand.

The returning weapon returns to the wielder's hand "immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack." With the way you've been using "make a ranged attack," that would mean that the weapon is also returned to the wielder's hand prior to making the attack roll.

So definitively according to the Returning Weapon rule the weapon is not in any hand.

If the weapon were somehow in the hand after the attack roll, as Segev claims, you get a free returning weapon. That is a pretty big unintended consequence if we accept his argument.

The weapon is not in hand after the attack resolves, it is then returned to the wielder's hand immediately. Your argument is that the weapon is not in hand before the attack resolves, correct?

Similarly, the Monk Missile Deflect rule describes that the weapon is in flight and not in any hand, perfectly descriptive of the game state.

The Deflect Missiles rule can even be used to clarify the RAI. The writer of that rule certainly agrees with my RAW argument if you take note of the underlined text. That means that another unintended consequence of Segev's argument is that he breaks the Deflect Missiles rule.

Deflect Missiles

Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.

If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

Deflect missiles explicitly must happen after the attack is otherwise resolved, because otherwise you don't know if the attack hit, and you certainly don't know the damage until the damage roll has been completed. Segev's reading that the weapon is moved out of your hand as the last stage of resolving the attack doesn't break deflect missiles, narratively or mechanically. Keep in mind that reactions, such as deflect missiles, occur after the trigger finishes. Rolling damage and the weapon leaving the hand is part of "finishing" the trigger "hit by a ranged weapon attack."

[Dork_Forge]

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

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