Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ThorOdinson]

ThorOdinson, your Deles rice reading of the rules can be used to reach the conclusion that a short sword deals 1d6 damage, because it says it does, and if one ignores the rest of the rules for attacking, one need not roll to hit to deal -d6 damage with a short sword.

You are ignoring most of the rules for attacking and quoting a small portion of them as if the rest were not there. This is a house rule, because you are removing rules from the text to achieve your interpretation.

I am not ignoring context and you still have to follow the surrounding rules. But the rule definitively associates the attack roll with the attack. And if I have a question as to when exactly what you are doing counts exactly as the attack well the rule tells me the attack roll. So per RAW an attack roll counts as an attack.

Interestingly, this works out exactly as you would expect.

Attacks are semantically speaking attempts at striking a target. An attack roll is exactly and precisely that attempt.

[Segev]

I am not ignoring context and you still have to follow the surrounding rules. But the rule definitively associates the attack roll with the attack. And if I have a question as to when exactly what you are doing counts exactly as the attack well the rule tells me the attack roll. So per RAW an attack roll counts as an attack.

Interestingly, this works out exactly as you would expect.

Attacks are semantically speaking attempts at striking a target. An attack roll is exactly and precisely that attempt.

But if you are attacking, you must follow the full procedure.

If you do not, you are not finishing the attack. Or you are house ruling parts of the attack not to be parts of the attack.

[ThorOdinson]

But if you are attacking, you must follow the full procedure.

If you do not, you are not finishing the attack. Or you are house ruling parts of the attack not to be parts of the attack.

Sure. As already stated I follow the procedure as applicable and everything runs as it normally would. Should I ever need to know the exact moment that counts as precisely the attack then I have a rule that provides the answer.

The attack roll counts as the attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

The attack roll represents the attack.

Nope. The attack roll resolves the decision to attack, since the outcome is uncertain. That's why we roll dice: to resolve an action whose outcome is uncertain. The attack is what the character is doing, the roll is what the player does to see if it is a success or failure. See also the game Risk.

To say that we have 23 pages of someone overcomplicating things might be an understatement, but there are many accomplices.

We may have a new record for hair splitting, though, so perhaps there's a silver lining to this cloud. Also, a few of the posters in this thread ought to be commended for sheer endurance, regardless of which side they have taken.

Gritty unrealism, you might say.

It's starting to turn into a Monty Python skit.

No it isn't.

[ThorOdinson]

Nope. The attack roll resolves the decision to attack, since the outcome is uncertain. That's why we roll dice: to resolve an action whose outcome is uncertain. The attack is what the character is doing, the roll is what the player does to see if it is a success or failure. See also the game Risk.

Sounds like you have a question about if an attack roll counts as an attack. We have a rule for that.

"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."

[KorvinStarmast]

It's starting to turn into a Monty Python skit.

Sounds like you have a question about if an attack roll counts as an attack. We have a rule for that.

"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."

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger: "Who's this we, Kimo Sabe?"

I have no lack of understanding on when to roll the dice. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

[Segev]

The rule is not, "You are only making an attack in the exact moment you roll an attack roll." The rule is that, if you have any question about whether an action is an attack or not, you can tell that it is an attack by the fact that you make an attack roll as part of it.

[ThorOdinson]

The rule is not, "You are only making an attack in the exact moment you roll an attack roll." The rule is that, if you have any question about whether an action is an attack or not, you can tell that it is an attack by the fact that you make an attack roll as part of it.

Yup. But if we need to sort out what exactly counts as an attack and what doesn't we can with the rule. "Step 1: Pick a Target" is a prepatory step for an eventual attack (that specifically occurs in Step 3) but Step 1 in isolation is not an attack (since Step 1 features no attack roll).

When we consider Steps 1 to 3 collectively together we can call that making an attack, since an attack roll occurs in Step 3. But Step 1 in isolation is not an attack. Neither is step 2 in isolation an attack. Once again, this works exactly as we would expect.

[OzDragon]

Yup. But if we need to sort out what exactly counts as an attack and what doesn't we can with the rule. "Step 1: Pick a Target" is a prepatory step for an eventual attack (that specifically occurs in Step 3) but Step 1 in isolation is not an attack (since Step 1 features no attack roll).

When we consider Steps 1 to 3 collectively together we can call that making an attack, since an attack roll occurs in Step 3. But Step 1 in isolation is not an attack. Neither is step 2 in isolation an attack. Once again, this works exactly as we would expect.

No, they are all part of the same action.

[SpanielBear]

No, they are all part of the same action.

And this is made explicit on page 194 of the phb-

“An attack has a simple structure”

[ThorOdinson]

And this is made explicit on page 194 of the phb-

“An attack has a simple structure”

Does Step 1 in isolation count as an attack?

"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."

Step 1 in isolation does not count as an attack.

[SpanielBear]

Does Step 1 in isolation count as an attack?

"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."

Step 1 in isolation does not count as an attack.

I agree, step 1 in isolation does not count as an attack.

Why should step 1 in isolation count as an attack?

“An attack has a simple structure”

All three steps are then listed.

To turn the question back on itself- can you make an attack without step 1?

[ThorOdinson]

I agree, step 1 in isolation does not count as an attack.

Why should step 1 in isolation count as an attack?

“An attack has a simple structure”

All three steps are then listed.

"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."

[SpanielBear]

"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."

Ooooh, dear oh dear.

Where is your permission to make an attack roll?

[ThorOdinson]

Ooooh, dear oh dear.

Where is your permission to make an attack roll?

Permission is not an issue. I am not trying to skip permission or rules. I am just identifying what exactly counts as an attack when that kind of granularity or specificity is required.

So if you present all 3 steps to me collectively we can count that as an attack. Step 3 has an attack roll.

If you ask me when exactly in that 3 step process the attack specifically occurs, the rule will zero in on the attack roll as what definitively counts as an attack.

[SpanielBear]

Permission is not an issue. I am not trying to skip permission or rules. I am just identifying what exactly counts as an attack when that kind of granularity or specificity is required.

So if you present all 3 steps to me collectively we can count that as an attack. Step 3 has an attack roll.

If you ask me when exactly in that 3 step process the attack specifically occurs, the rule will zero in on the attack roll as what definitively counts as an attack.

Nope, I do not ask you where in that chain the attack occurs.

The chain is the attack. This can be shown in two ways.

A) an attack cannot occur without all steps in the chain being met,

And

B) the chain is defined by the RAW as the simple structure of an attack. (Phb pg. 194)

So, an attack by a thrown weapon is an attack with a one handed weapon. Following all the steps of an attack (as no step can be excluded, as you yourself have shown), it satisfies all the conditions to meet the requirements of duellist. Therefore, the bonus damage granted by duellist applies. Q.E.D.

[ThorOdinson]

Nope, I do not ask you where in that chain the attack occurs.

The chain is the attack. This can be shown in two ways.

A) an attack cannot occur without all steps in the chain being met,

And

B) the chain is defined by the RAW as the simple structure of an attack. (Phb pg. 194)

So, an attack by a thrown weapon is an attack with a one handed weapon. Following all the steps of an attack (as no step can be excluded, as you yourself have shown), it satisfies all the conditions to meet the requirements of duellist. Therefore, the bonus damage granted by duellist applies. Q.E.D.

The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be in one hand when the damage roll is made.

[SpanielBear]

The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be in one hand.

To be wielded in one hand, actually. And I believe that line of argument has already been addressed.

Ad nauseum.

[ThorOdinson]

To be wielded in one hand, actually. And I believe that line of argument has already been addressed.

Ad nauseum.

Yup. And like all the others you have failed to prove with RAW that the weapon is "in one hand", so it does not get the Dueling fighting style bonus.

[SpanielBear]

Yup. And like all the others you have failed to prove with RAW that the weapon is "in one hand", so it does not get the Dueling fighting style bonus

Stage 3 of an attack includes the damage roll (phb pg 195)

We have already shown an attack cannot be made without satisfying all stages.

Therefore, an attack with a thrown weapon is an attack with a weapon wielded in one hand.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yup. And like all the others you have failed to prove with RAW that the weapon is "in one hand", so it does not get the Dueling fighting style bonus.

Technically, you've failed to prove any RAW that says the weapon leaves your hand before a damage roll is made. We could be generous and say neither interpretation is any more valid at this point, 23 pages later.

Personally, I'd say you've got more work to do to prove your case, I'm not convinced.

[ThorOdinson]

Stage 3 of an attack includes the damage roll (phb pg 195)

We have already shown an attack cannot be made without satisfying all stages.

Therefore, an attack with a thrown weapon is an attack with a weapon wielded in one hand.

You are leaving out where you actually prove the weapon is "in one hand".

Technically, you've failed to prove any RAW that says the weapon leaves your hand before a damage roll is made. We could be generous and say neither interpretation is any more valid at this point, 23 pages later.

Personally, I'd say you've got more work to do to prove your case, I'm not convinced.

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

If the weapon is still in one hand you did not throw it and therefore did not have permission to make a ranged attack.

[ThorOdinson]

Duplicate post

[SpanielBear]

You are leaving out where you actually prove the weapon is "in one hand".

The weapon is in the characters hand.

When the attack is made, the weapon is in the characters hand (it cannot leave until is thrown, after all, if we’re interacting with the narrative layer, and it can hardly be thrown without a target being identified).

We have agreed there is no granularity in an attack. An attack is all three stages or not an attack at all.

The attack is therefore made with a weapon wielded in one hand, including (necessarily) the damage roll.

The bonus damage is added.

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

If the weapon is still in one hand you did not throw it and therefore did not have permission to make a ranged attack.

Where does it say that it's left your hand before damage is rolled? The attack and damage rolls happen simultaneously as far as mechanics are concerned.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but simply quoting this doesn't prove your case.

[SpanielBear]

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

If the weapon is still in one hand you did not throw it and therefore did not have permission to make a ranged attack.

You are confusing the player and the character.

This is fun, isn’t it?

[ThorOdinson]

Where does it say that it's left your hand before damage is rolled? The attack and damage rolls happen simultaneously as far as mechanics are concerned.

You dont have permission to make a ranged attack with a weapon with the Thrown property unless you throw it.

Do you have a citation that "attack and damage rolls happen simultaneously"?

If you actually read Step 3 . . .

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.

By RAW, the damage roll occurs after the attack roll and only for hits.

[SpanielBear]

Do you have a citation that "attack and damage rolls happen simultaneously"?

Ooh, ooh, I do! It’s pg. 194, “an attack has a simple structure.” It’s all the attack.

[ThorOdinson]

You are confusing the player and the character.

This is fun, isn’t it?

Nope. I am not confusing player and character. You are.

And please don't skip what you need to attend to.

You need to prove by RAW that the weapon is "in one hand".

[SpanielBear]

Nope. I am not confusing player and character. You are.

And please don't skip what you need to attend to.

You need to prove by RAW that the weapon is "in one hand".

Did that.

“ The weapon is in the characters hand.

When the attack is made, the weapon is in the characters hand (it cannot leave until is thrown, after all, if we’re interacting with the narrative layer, and it can hardly be thrown without a target being identified).

We have agreed there is no granularity in an attack. An attack is all three stages or not an attack at all.

The attack is therefore made with a weapon wielded in one hand, including (necessarily) the damage roll.

The bonus damage is added.”

And you are kind of confusing player and character because you see, I don’t throw a weapon. I roll dice. The *character* wields the weapon and throws it (which is probably for the best; my aim is terrible!).