Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ThorOdinson]

You said it yourself: shield turns [already resolved] hits into misses. The attack is done. That it’s damage is changed to zero by being made a “miss” doesn’t change that the attack had hit prior to the casting of Shield.

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply in the case of thrown weapons.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

[JNAProductions]

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

That doesn't follow.

If at a certain time I am wielding a weapon, and at a later point I have a free hand to cast a spell, that doesn't mean the hand was retroactively empty. It just means that the spell happened later-whether later is a fraction of a second or eighteen hours is irrelevant.

[ThorOdinson]

That doesn't follow.

If at a certain time I am wielding a weapon, and at a later point I have a free hand to cast a spell, that doesn't mean the hand was retroactively empty. It just means that the spell happened later-whether later is a fraction of a second or eighteen hours is irrelevant.

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" when it comes to the damage roll. The rule is very plainly written and when the hand is free to cast Counterspell the condition for the Dueling fighting style rule to apply has not been met.

[JNAProductions]

If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" when it comes to the damage roll. The rule is very plainly written and when the hand is free the condition for the Dueling fighting style rule to apply has not been met.

Shield happens after the attack has been made, mechanically.

[ThorOdinson]

Shield happens after the attack has been made, mechanically.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...riggers-or-not

"So, shield explicitly says that it takes effect before the triggering attack resolves (and before the triggering magic missile spell hits). That means it is an exception and may take effect before the triggering effect resolves. This is an exception to the general rule because it's timing is specified by its effects."

[Greywander]

ThorOdinson, I'm curious why you seem to be so set on Dueling not applying to thrown weapons. And more specifically, why you are so convinced that a thrown weapon isn't being wielded by the attacker when they make the attack. It's just... such an oddly specific thing. There are other arguments you could use to prevent Dueling from working on a thrown weapon, many more convincing than this one. So why this one? Is it something you read in the PHB, or did you just decide that this was the way it should be? Where did this idea come from?

I'm also curious how you would react if you were playing at a table where the DM allowed Dueling to work with thrown weapons. Would you take advantage of this ruling by using Dueling with thrown weapons (if relevant to your build)? Or would you try to convince the DM to change their ruling on the matter? It's something to think about, because we all have our own houserules and often find ourselves playing at a table with different houserules from our personal ones.

[stoutstien]

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...riggers-or-not

"So, shield explicitly says that it takes effect before the triggering attack resolves (and before the triggering magic missile spell hits). That means it is an exception and may take effect before the triggering effect resolves. This is an exception to the general rule because it's timing is specified by its effects."

Reread the combat section - making an attack. Duellist is applied during step 2 and shield in all it bad wording triggers after step 3 and is retroactively placed between step 2-3. Shield doesn't change any modifiers or targeting selection but it does change the resolution of the attack.

[BigRedJedi]

Dueling fighting style applies to damage rolls. If the hand is free to Counterspell then it is not "wielding a weapon in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply in the case of thrown weapons.

The hand is either free or not and the rules are extremely persnickety about the status of hands. You cannot have it both ways.

The dueling style is not restricted to melee weapon attacks, rather to attacks made with a melee weapon that is wielded in one hand, which would include thrown attacks (as a type of ranged attack that certain, one-handed, melee weapons can make) and checks this condition at the initiation of the attack, as the attack, including the damage, is a self-contained entity. There is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW of this.

Similarly, the thrown attack requires the weapon to leave the hand of the wielder (having already been checked to verify the dueling style's precondition) and frees the hand to Counterspell. Again, there is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW.

If Shield could be cast in response to the initiation of an attack, the argument could be made that the hand would still be occupied and ineligible for Counterspell, but as Shield specifies being hit by an attack, the attacker's hand is free to Counterspell.

[ThorOdinson]

Reread the combat section - making an attack. Duellist is applied during step 2 and shield in all it bad wording triggers after step 3 and is retroactively placed between step 2-3. Shield doesn't change any modifiers or targeting selection but it does change the resolution of the attack.

Step 2 refers to modifiers to the Attack roll.

Dueling fighting style is a modifier to the damage roll.

If the hand is free to Counterspell the Shield spell that occurs prior to the triggering hit then the Dueling fighting style cannot apply to the damage roll.

[ThorOdinson]

ThorOdinson, I'm curious why you seem to be so set on Dueling not applying to thrown weapons. And more specifically, why you are so convinced that a thrown weapon isn't being wielded by the attacker when they make the attack. It's just... such an oddly specific thing. There are other arguments you could use to prevent Dueling from working on a thrown weapon, many more convincing than this one. So why this one? Is it something you read in the PHB, or did you just decide that this was the way it should be? Where did this idea come from?

I'm also curious how you would react if you were playing at a table where the DM allowed Dueling to work with thrown weapons. Would you take advantage of this ruling by using Dueling with thrown weapons (if relevant to your build)? Or would you try to convince the DM to change their ruling on the matter? It's something to think about, because we all have our own houserules and often find ourselves playing at a table with different houserules from our personal ones.

The logic of the rule is the issue. The condition for which it can apply is not present in the case of thrown weapons.

The dueling style is not restricted to melee weapon attacks, rather to attacks made with a melee weapon that is wielded in one hand, which would include thrown attacks (as a type of ranged attack that certain, one-handed, melee weapons can make) and checks this condition at the initiation of the attack, as the attack, including the damage, is a self-contained entity. There is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW of this.

Similarly, the thrown attack requires the weapon to leave the hand of the wielder (having already been checked to verify the dueling style's precondition) and frees the hand to Counterspell. Again, there is no incongruity with either the logic or the RAW.

If Shield could be cast in response to the initiation of an attack, the argument could be made that the hand would still be occupied and ineligible for Counterspell, but as Shield specifies being hit by an attack, the attacker's hand is free to Counterspell.

The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be wielded in hand for damage rolls. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not wielded in hand and so the Dueling fighting style rule itself has not met the logical condition for it be able to apply. In fact the hand is free and able to perform somatic components.

[stoutstien]

Step 2 refers to modifiers to the Attack roll.

Dueling fighting style is a modifier to the damage roll.

If the hand is free to Counterspell the Shield spell that occurs prior to the triggering hit then the Dueling fighting style cannot apply to the damage roll.

When do you apply damage modifiers?

[ThorOdinson]

When do you apply damage modifiers?

Step 2 applies modifiers to the attack roll.

Step 3 is where you have permission to resolve damage rolls and are referred to a separate section for Damage. Those damage rolls happen after Shield and Counterspell are resolved. The hand is free at that point and so Dueling fighting style would not apply.

[BigRedJedi]

The logic of the rule is the issue. The condition for which it can apply is not present in the case of thrown weapons.



The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be wielded in hand for damage rolls. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not wielded in hand and so the Dueling fighting style rule itself has not met the logical condition for it be able to apply. In fact the hand is free and able to perform somatic components.

Wielded in one hand, from the rules perspective, means to make an attack with the weapon, while not using a second hand for a different weapon or employing the versatile or two-handed properties in the course of making the attack. The thrown property explicitly allows one-handed weapons to be "wielded" in making a ranged attack. The word "wield" does not require the weapon to remain physically attached to the attacker's person through the course of the attack, only that it be a melee weapon that is employed in an appropriate attack (which can be a ranged attack due to the thrown property) that does not invoke the versatile or two-handed properties, e.g. one-handed.

[ThorOdinson]

Wielded in one hand, from the rules perspective, means to make an attack with the weapon, while not using a second hand for a different weapon or employing the versatile or two-handed properties in the course of making the attack. The thrown property explicitly allows one-handed weapons to be "wielded" in making a ranged attack. The word "wield" does not require the weapon to remain physically attached to the attacker's person through the course of the attack, only that it be a melee weapon that is employed in an appropriate attack (which can be a ranged attack due to the thrown property) that does not invoke the versatile or two-handed properties, e.g. one-handed.

Do you have a PHB page reference for all these particulars that you claim are in the rules? I want to remind you that to claim RAW the rules need to be in the PHB or SAC and able to be referenced.

The Dueling fighting style modifies the damage roll and we have firmly established that in the case of thrown weapons that the weapon is no longer being wielded in hand; therefore, the Dueling fighting style does not apply it's modifier to the damage roll.

[BigRedJedi]

Do you have a PHB page reference for all these particulars that you claim are in the rules? I want to remind you that to claim RAW the rules need to be in the PHB or SAC and able to be referenced.

The Dueling fighting style modifies the damage roll and we have firmly established that in the case of thrown weapons that the weapon is no longer in hand; therefore, the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

The particulars are in the plain reading if the rules as written.

Do you have a page that mandates the weapon to remain attached to the attacker's hand to apply the dueling style?

If not, the semantic problem here boils down to the word "wielded" which can be described as either:

A.) Employed to make a valid, one-handed attack, including each step of the rules to make attacks, including the damage step. The thrown property permits a melee weapon to be "wielded" in making a ranged, one-handed attack.

B.) In the edge case of thrown weapons, once the weapon leaves the attacker's hand, it is no longer being "wielded" and ineligible for the dueling style.

Either may semantically be a valid ruling, but A.) is consistent with a plain reading of the written rules. The, as you call them, persnickety readings come when trying to shoehorn MtG-style order of effect stacking rules into the rules. Dueling style modifies the damage roll which is one component of the singular event of an attack. Things such as targeting and reactions take place at different steps in making the attack, but it still is a singular event.

Think of an attack as having tags that identify its components:

Scenario, I throw a javelin at an orc, 10 feet away, in an open field, broad daylight. My attack is:
[Melee Weapon]
[Thrown: Special condition allowing ranged attack with melee weapon]
[One-handed]
[Piercing]
[Non-magical]
[Range: 10]
[Advantage: None],
targeting Orc, with my attack bonus using [STR + prof], dealing [1d6+ STR +2] damage (this tag checks to see if the attack has the [One-handed], [Versatile], [Two-handed], or [Mainhand] tags, if only having [One-handed], the bonus damage is applied). Needless overcomplication, but illustrates how dueling checks for the validity of applying its bonus damage. The attack fulfilled the necessary metric for benefitting from the dueling fighting style.

[ThorOdinson]

The particulars are in the plain reading if the rules as written.

Do you have a page that mandates the weapon to remain attached to the attacker's hand to apply the dueling style?

If not, the semantic problem here boils down to the word "wielded" which can be described as either:

A.) Employed to make a valid, one-handed attack, including each step of the rules to make attacks, including the damage step. The thrown property permits a melee weapon to be "wielded" in making a ranged, one-handed attack.

B.) In the edge case of thrown weapons, once the weapon leaves the attacker's hand, it is no longer being "wielded" and ineligible for the dueling style.

Either may semantically be a valid ruling, but A.) is consistent with a plain reading of the written rules. The, as you call them, persnickety readings come when trying to shoehorn MtG-style order of effect stacking rules into the rules. Dueling style modifies the damage roll which is one component of the singular event of an attack. Things such as targeting and reactions take place at different steps in making the attack, but it still is a singular event.

Think of an attack as having tags that identify its components:

Scenario, I throw a javelin at an orc, 10 feet away, in an open field, broad daylight. My attack is:
[Melee Weapon]
[Thrown: Special condition allowing ranged attack with melee weapon]
[One-handed]
[Piercing]
[Non-magical]
[Range: 10]
[Advantage: None],
targeting Orc, with my attack bonus using [STR + prof], dealing [1d6+ STR +2] damage (this tag checks to see if the attack has the [One-handed], [Versatile], [Two-handed], or [Mainhand] tags, if only having [One-handed], the bonus damage is applied). Needless overcomplication, but illustrates how dueling checks for the validity of applying its bonus damage. The attack fulfilled the necessary metric for benefitting from the dueling fighting style.

Straight reading of the rule is thus . . .

The Dueling fighting style checks to see if the weapon is being wielded in hand when the damage rolls are made. In the case of thrown weapons the weapon is not being wielded in hand when the damage roll is made so the condition to apply the Dueling fighting style has not been met.

In order to deviate from the above straight logical application of the rules you will need permission or allowances to do so that can be referenced to PHB or SAC.

[Zhorn]

and an arrow is not part of a bow and not in contact with the bow when it hits the enemy,
so an arrow fired from a +1 longbow doesn't get the benefits of the 1d8 damage, nor the +1 bonus

[ThorOdinson]

and an arrow is not part of a bow and not in contact with the bow when it hits the enemy,
so an arrow fired from a +1 longbow doesn't get the benefits of the 1d8 damage, nor the +1 bonus

Your sarcasm isn't accomplishing anything here. Nothing of the case you describe has anything to do with the case being discussed. You have committed a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

Feel free to actually find an example where my argument does not hold.

[Zhorn]

What I am getting at is when the attack is made and when such damage bonuses are applied.
Be it throwing a weapon or firing an arrow, the attack is made and properties and bonuses of the attack are applied at the attacker's end, with the projectile then leaving the attacker and (potentially) hitting the target.
The attack was made with the bonuses, they don't just up and vanish.

[ThorOdinson]

What I am getting at is when the attack is made and when such damage bonuses are applied.
Be it throwing a weapon or firing an arrow, the attack is made and properties and bonuses of the attack are applied at the attacker's end, with the projectile then leaving the attacker and (potentially) hitting the target.
The attack was made with the bonuses, they don't just up and vanish.

Attack rolls (PHB, pg 194) and damage rolls (PHB, pg 196) are separate things.

The Dueling fighting style applies to the damage roll. The Dueling fighting styles applies its modifier to the damage roll if its conditions are met. In the case of thrown weapons, the conditions have not been met

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: warning to everyone that, if you can't engage with the discussion (and each other) courteously and in good faith, please just walk away.

[Segev]

Step 2 applies modifiers to the attack roll.

Step 3 is where you have permission to resolve damage rolls and are referred to a separate section for Damage. Those damage rolls happen after Shield and Counterspell are resolved. The hand is free at that point and so Dueling fighting style would not apply.

The reason I find this unconvincing is this: If you aren't wielding a weapon, you can't do damage with it. Therefore, if the reason you can't apply Dueling's damage bonus is that the weapon is not being wielded when the damage is dealt, then you can't deal any damage with it.

The only reason you can theoretically counterspell shield in response to your javelin attack is because shield is, mechanically, cast after the attack resolves, and thus you're counterspelling after the attack resolves, despite the resolution of shield going off or not determining whether you hit with the attack or not.

The logical problems are with shield and its resolution, not with dealing damage with javelins, with or without the Dueling style.

To repeat: if you aren't wielding the javelin when it hits, not only do you do no bonus Dueling damage, but you do no damage at all, because you can't deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding. (Barring special rules and abilities that aren't in play in typical javelin-throws, at least.)

[ThorOdinson]

The reason I find this unconvincing is this: If you aren't wielding a weapon, you can't do damage with it. Therefore, if the reason you can't apply Dueling's damage bonus is that the weapon is not being wielded when the damage is dealt, then you can't deal any damage with it.

The only reason you can theoretically counterspell shield in response to your javelin attack is because shield is, mechanically, cast after the attack resolves, and thus you're counterspelling after the attack resolves, despite the resolution of shield going off or not determining whether you hit with the attack or not.

The logical problems are with shield and its resolution, not with dealing damage with javelins, with or without the Dueling style.

To repeat: if you aren't wielding the javelin when it hits, not only do you do no bonus Dueling damage, but you do no damage at all, because you can't deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding. (Barring special rules and abilities that aren't in play in typical javelin-throws, at least.)

Weapons can be wielded, ie 'held and used', to inflict damage.

They can also be thrown as projectiles to inflict damage. When a weapon is a projectile in flight, it is obviously not being wielded (held in the hand and used).

The logic is straight forward and my argument is proved.

[sithlordnergal]

Weapons can be wielded, ie 'held and used', to inflict damage.

They can also be thrown as projectiles to inflict damage. When a weapon is a projectile in flight, it is obviously not being wielded (held in the hand and used).

The logic is straight forward and my argument is proved.

But...its not proved at all. If your weapon isn't being wielded, then it does 0 damage. You can only use a weapon that is wielded. Its no different then wielding a shield and holding a shield. You don't get the +2 to AC if you hold a shield, it has to be wielded. You can't use a weapon to attack if you aren't wielding it. If, by your logic, you stop wielding a weapon when you throw it, then the weapon deals no damage.

Therefore a Javelin is considered wielded throughout the entire attack, including when you've thrown it. The javelin's damage modifiers are also "locked in" so to speak, and will not change. As for your free hand to case Counterspell, technically this would mean that you do not have a free hand to Counterspell a Shield spell unless you have the Warcaster feat.

EDIT: Remember, the term "wield" does not mean the same thing in 5e as the Dictionary definition. It only means "Using the item", it does not mean "holding and using the item".

[ThorOdinson]

But...its not proved at all. If your weapon isn't being wielded, then it does 0 damage. You can only use a weapon that is wielded. Its no different then wielding a shield and holding a shield. You don't get the +2 to AC if you hold a shield, it has to be wielded. You can't use a weapon to attack if you aren't wielding it. If, by your logic, you stop wielding a weapon when you throw it, then the weapon deals no damage.

Therefore a Javelin is considered wielded throughout the entire attack, including when you've thrown it. The javelin's damage modifiers are also "locked in" so to speak, and will not change. As for your free hand to case Counterspell, technically this would mean that you do not have a free hand to Counterspell a Shield spell unless you have the Warcaster feat.

EDIT: Remember, the term "wield" does not mean the same thing in 5e as the Dictionary definition. It only means "Using the item", it does not mean "holding and using the item".

Can you reference any rules to support any of this? Your personal bizarre interpretation of what "wield" means is not a rules source. So please provide the page number for the definition of "wield" that you are using or indicate that you are house ruling.

Nor does the PHB talk about modifiers "locked in". Please provide quotes from the PHB to back up your claims that modifiers are "locked in" or clearly mark your argument as a house rule.

My argument, on the other hand, proceeds directly from the rules themselves.

If a character drops a weapon he can not wield it until he picks it back up and has it in hand again.

If a character has thrown a weapon he is no longer wielding it. It has become a projectile.

"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.[PHB, p. 195]"

Until he runs over and picks it up again or it otherwise returns to his hand by magical ability (e.g. artificer infusion) a character is not wielding a weapon that he has thrown.

[ff7hero]

Not touching the main "debate" with an 11 foot pole, but I wanted to chime in to say I find Dueling to be a weak 3rd in the ranking of Fighting Styles, far behind Defensive and Archery.

[Segev]

Can you reference any rules to support any of this? Your personal bizarre interpretation of what "wield" means is not a rules source. So please provide the page number for the definition of "wield" that you are using or indicate that you are house ruling.

Nor does the PHB talk about modifiers "locked in". Please provide quotes from the PHB to back up your claims that modifiers are "locked in" or clearly mark your argument as a house rule.

My argument, on the other hand, proceeds directly from the rules themselves.

If a character drops a weapon he can not wield it until he picks it back up and has it in hand again.

If a character has thrown a weapon he is no longer wielding it. It has become a projectile.

"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.[PHB, p. 195]"

Until he runs over and picks it up again or it otherwise returns to his hand by magical ability (e.g. artificer infusion) a character is not wielding a weapon that he has thrown.

Your argument does not answer the point I made. Please show me in the rules where it says that you can deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. Nowhere in what you quote does it say that the projectiles can do damage without being wielded.

[ThorOdinson]

Your argument does not answer the point I made. Please show me in the rules where it says that you can deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding. Nowhere in what you quote does it say that the projectiles can do damage without being wielded.

You are getting confused. The PHB does not define wielding separably from english semantic usage "to hold and use" so we use the english meaning of the word.

I have presented a quote that clarifies 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."

Ranged weapon attacks are made by "hurling" or "send[ing] projectiles or "fire[ing ammunition].

In order to make a ranged atttack the weapon or ammo must be hurled, thrown, cast, or sent as a projectile.

If you drop a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

If you hurl a weapon it is no longer being wielded in one hand.

If you have +1 AC due to Two Weapon Fighting feat you lose that +1 AC the instant that you drop or throw one of those weapons. You regain that +1 AC the minute you pick that weapon back up to wield or draw another weapon to replace the one you threw away. If a monk deflects your thrown handaxe you will not have the +1 to your AC from Two Weapon Fighting feat. The condition by which you had the +1 earlier is no longer present.

In the case of melee weapons that have the thrown property the character will start the turn with that weapon wielded in one hand and upon making a ranged attack with that weapon the weapon will no longer be wielded in one hand.

If we read the rule exactly as written, the Dueling fighting style rule checks to see if its conditions ("when you are wielding a weapon in one hand and no other weapons") apply to the damage roll. If the weapon was thrown the conditions do not apply. The weapon is not being "wielded in one hand" when you make the damage roll.

Now someone could concoct a 'loosey goosey' rationale that the game mechanics somehow cast a tag of "wielded in one hand" to the entireity of an attack, whether melee or thrown, such that the Duelist fighting style checks to see retroactively if at one time the weapon (that is now in a state of having been thrown and definitively not being wielded in one hand) was at some point in the turn wielded in one hand. However, the rules would have to explicitly specify and grant such a permission for it to be RAW and there is no retroactive permission provided in the RAW. To provide such a rationale from a personal interpretation process external to the rules themselves is house ruling. The Dueling fighting style, as it relies on its own conditional logic, is itself literally worded to drop its damage bonus the instant the conditional does not apply, as when the weapon is thrown and no longer wielded in one hand. The discussion about Shield and Counterspell which insert conditional checks on the current state of casters hands before attack resolution and damage rolls remind us that the rules rely on instantaneous checks.

Lots of tables rely on 'loosey goosey' rationales and there is nothing wrong with that. And kudos to you if you want to make sense of the Dueling fighting style with your own house rule and deviate from the RAW to make the rules fit your view of how they should work. Adventures League however adheres strictly to the RAW and SAC in order to provide a stable rule base between Adventure League tables. So for me RAW is it.

Based on the RAW and SAC and only the RAW and SAC, the Dueling fighting style does not apply its damage bonus to thrown weapons. The rule is written as a conditional and the condition by which it could apply stops applying the instant in which it is thrown. A weapon cannot simultaneously be in the state of "wielded in one hand" and having been thrown. If it has been thrown it is no longer in the throwers hand and therefore cannot benefit from the Dueling fighting style as it is written.

Now if you want to find me actual rules in the PHB or SAC that allow the Dueling fightng style to apply its conditional retroactively and therewith explicit permission to make exception to the rules own conditional logic then you could make a RAW argument. At present you have a house rule. Unless you are playing on a table that adheres strictly to RAW, a house rule is fine.

Are you okay with your house rule or do you want to continue to sort out the RAW? Do you even play in Adventurer's League? If you want to continue debating RAW then I strongly suggest that you start providing quotes to back up what you say and adhering strictly to what is written, as I have done.

[sithlordnergal]

If you want to have Sage Advice, here ya go

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03...-melee-weapon/

Its right there, clear as day. The RAI is quite clear, and the RAW is clear as well. Dueling is meant to work with a thrown weapon. Dueling itself states that you have to wield a melee weapon in one hand. It does not have the restriction that you have to make melee weapon attack. That alone should show that its meant to work with thrown weapons being thrown, because if it was only meant to work with melee weapon attacks then it'd say so.

Consider this, Divine Smite states that you must make a melee weapon attack in order to Smite. This means you cannot smite when you throw a weapon. The simple fact that they did not include the words "Melee weapon attack" to Dueling means that you don't need to make a melee attack, just that you need to use a melee weapon.

[Zhorn]

nah, it works
it's a melee weapon that you throw
to throw you have to wield it in your hand to make the attack
devs have confirmed it works
have fun