Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[ThorOdinson]

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.

You are referencing something that is not what I was referring to and that is not an official rules source. JC Twitters have been officially designated as meaningless to rules questions. Only insofar as they make it into the actual Sage Advice Compendium do they officially have the weight of FAQ or Errata.

The Sage Advice Compendium is different than what you posted.

The Sage Advice Compendium is here . . . https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sag...ice-compendium. Feel free to reference the SAC as a rules source.

You might also find interesting the answers on Stack Exchange which can be found here.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...thrown-weapons

The top answer indicates that Dueling does not work with thrown weapons which supports my argument. The RAW supports my argument. So I am in accordance with RAW and Adventures League requirements.

Sithlordnergal, do you even care about RAW and Adventurer's League? You seem okay with house ruling and playing it as you personally feel it should be played. Lots of tables are okay with playing by what feels right and not by what the rules actually say.

Since I play and DM in AL, it all has to work according to RAW. Do you even care about RAW?

[sithlordnergal]

The top answer indicates that Dueling does not work with thrown weapons which supports my argument. The RAW supports my argument. So I am in accordance with RAW and Adventures League requirements.

Sithlordnergal, do you even care about RAW and Adventurer's League? You seem okay with house ruling and playing it as you personally feel it should be played. Lots of tables are okay with playing by what feels right and not by what the rules actually say.

Since I play and DM in AL, it all has to work according to RAW. Do you even care about RAW?

I certainly care about RAW, I also play mostly AL, and the top answer in that Sage Advice literally says:


Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?

Yes.

Do you need a screen shot of this? Here, have a screenshot, its from Sage Advice. Its literally on Sage Advice if you look.

Spoiler

Show

Dunno how you got "Does not work with thrown weapons" when the answer to "Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon" is "Yes".

Also, its still clearly allowed by the fact that, if they wanted to limit it to melee weapon attacks, they would have worded it as such. They would have specifically called out a melee weapon attack, just like they specifically call out melee weapon attacks for things like Divine Smite. You know what else has the same wording as Dueling? Improved Divine Smite. Sage Advice, once again, says that Improved Divine Smite works with a thrown Javelin, but Divine Smite does not.

Improved Divine Smite works with any melee weapon, whether you strike with it in melee or throw it.

[ThorOdinson]

I certainly care about RAW, I also play mostly AL, and the top answer in that Sage Advice literally says:


Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon?

Yes.

Do you need a screen shot of this? Here, have a screenshot, its from Sage Advice. Its literally on Sage Advice if you look.

Spoiler

Show

Dunno how you got "Does not work with thrown weapons" when the answer to "Does the Dueling Style apply its bonus to a thrown melee weapon" is "Yes".

Also, its still clearly allowed by the fact that, if they wanted to limit it to melee weapon attacks, they would have worded it as such. They would have specifically called out a melee weapon attack, just like they specifically call out melee weapon attacks for things like Divine Smite. You know what else has the same wording as Dueling? Improved Divine Smite. Sage Advice, once again, says that Improved Divine Smite works with a thrown Javelin, but Divine Smite does not.

If you played Adventures League then you would know JC Twitters are not rule sources and what you are referencing is not the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Only the Sage Advice Compendium can be treated as an official source rules. I am curious why you are trying to pass off Sage Advice Jeremy Crawford Twitters as the Sage Advice Compendium which is something entirely separate and an officially refereed publication that is desgnated officially as a rules source.

Check the latest Sage Advice Compendium and you will notice that JC's Twitter with regards to the Dueling fighting style has not passed muster and has not been included so it bears absolutely no weight.

But of course you already knew that. So when do you want to start debating about Rules As Written and the actual Sage Advice Compendium?

[AdAstra]

Historical precedent says yes (In the Iliad, there are several duels with javelins). For that matter, you can duel with anything should the challenged party agree.

Creator interpretation says yes.

Game balance says okay (Javelin with Dueling does the damage of a Heavy Crossbow, but with far less range). Nothing game-breaking about it.

The logic of whether the weapon is being wielded when you make an attack is almost irrelevant when it comes to common sense interpretation, but I would still say yes. An attack isn't made when the weapon hits/misses the target, it occurs in that blurry space between the moment the character decides to try to hit something and when that thing is/isn't hit. During that process, the weapon is being wielded, even if it leaves halfway through.

Strictly speaking in RAW, I don't think you actually need to hold melee weapons in your hands when you attack with them, same as with unarmed strikes. You could be balancing that spear on the tips of your toes, for all the game cares. The most it says on the matter is "A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon" or mechanics that require weapons to be in a hand, but the attack itself does not seem to require it.

[ThorOdinson]

Historical precedent says yes (In the Iliad, there are several duels with javelins). For that matter, you can duel with anything should the challenged party agree.

Creator interpretation says yes.

Game balance says okay (Javelin with Dueling does the damage of a Heavy Crossbow, but with far less range). Nothing game-breaking about it.

The logic of whether the weapon is being wielded when you make an attack is almost irrelevant when it comes to common sense interpretation, but I would still say yes. An attack isn't made when the weapon hits/misses the target, it occurs in that blurry space between the moment the character decides to try to hit something and when that thing is/isn't hit. During that process, the weapon is being wielded, even if it leaves halfway through.

Strictly speaking in RAW, I don't think you actually need to hold melee weapons in your hands when you attack with them, same as with unarmed strikes. You could be balancing that spear on the tips of your toes, for all the game cares. The most it says on the matter is "A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon" or mechanics that require weapons to be in a hand, but the attack itself does not seem to require it.

The Dueling fighting style disagrees with you. Its condition does not apply in the case of thrown weapons.

You can apply house rules as you like but RAW says otherwise.

If you want to jump in and duscuss RAW then start by quoting the actual Dueling fighting style rule and explain how a thrown weapon can satisfy its conditional.

[sithlordnergal]

If you played Adventures League then you would know JC Twitters are not rule sources.

Check the latest Sage Advice Compendium and you will notice that JC's Twitter with regards to the Dueling fighting style has not been included so it bears absolutely no weight.

But of course you already knew that. So when do you want to start debating about RAW?

Considering that tweet was made in 2015, and the swap to not considering those tweets to be official rulings happened around 2016-2017, that would still fall under the time period when his tweets were considered official rulings. I can remember when they added that the tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but they continued to use previous tweets before the change for official rulings.

Next, if you want to look purely at RAW, then you can compare Dueling, Divine Smite, Stunning Strike, and Improved Divine Smite. Divine Smite and Stunning Strike both require you to make a Melee Weapon Attack. You cannot use either of those abilities if you do not make a Melee Weapon Attack. Great Weapon Master also requires you to make a melee attack in order to use the =5/+10 to damage.

Dueling and Improved Divine Smite do not have that requirement, they both simply state that you make an attack with a melee weapon. Given that they both lack the "Melee Weapon Attack" requirement, that means they work with any attack made by a melee weapon. If you throw a javelin, the javelin is still a melee weapon.

[sithlordnergal]

The Dueling fighting style disagrees with you. Its condition does not apply in the case of thrown weapons.

You can apply house rules as you like but RAW says otherwise.

It does though, you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed. You are no longer wielding it after that calculation is finished. Your interpretation is incorrect. You are also the ONLY person with that particular interpretation. Therefore, logic dictates that you are reading it incorrectly.

[ThorOdinson]

Considering that tweet was made in 2015, and the swap to not considering those tweets to be official rulings happened around 2016-2017, that would still fall under the time period when his tweets were considered official rulings. I can remember when they added that the tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but they continued to use previous tweets before the change for official rulings.

Next, if you want to look purely at RAW, then you can compare Dueling, Divine Smite, Stunning Strike, and Improved Divine Smite. Divine Smite and Stunning Strike both require you to make a Melee Weapon Attack. You cannot use either of those abilities if you do not make a Melee Weapon Attack. Great Weapon Master also requires you to make a melee attack in order to use the =5/+10 to damage.

Dueling and Improved Divine Smite do not have that requirement, they both simply state that you make an attack with a melee weapon. Given that they both lack the "Melee Weapon Attack" requirement, that means they work with any attack made by a melee weapon. If you throw a javelin, the javelin is still a melee weapon.

The current Sage Advice Compendium does not include the Twitter you posted. You have indicated in your posting above that you were fully aware of the discrepancy between Twitters and the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Can you explain why you are intentionally trying to mislead the conversation with stuff that you know is not official and yet you are presenting as official? Are you aware that in a debate a referee would call foul on your tactics?

At any rate, can we now stick to official rules sources?

I am simply interested in arguing based on RAW and the SAC. Can you stick to that?

It does though, you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed. You are no longer wielding it after that calculation is finished. Your interpretation is incorrect. You are also the ONLY person with that particular interpretation. Therefore, logic dictates that you are reading it incorrectly.

The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

[Zhorn]

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

Like the fallacy fallacy, where you treat the usage of an identified fallacy as a reason to denounce someone's stance or opinion as being incorrect.

Probably more constructive to have a discussion without hurling fallacy accusations about. It can come across as aggressive and rudely dismissive.
I'm perfectly happy to walk away from a discussion with an 'agree to disagree' outcome, but I know some folks are going to more willing to engage in friendly discussion without such terms being thrown about. All it achieves is escalating the discussion from a disagreement into an argument, then people dig their heels in and no one gets anywhere.

Lots of these fun folk that have been discussing in this thread are fine and reasonable. And I have been finding their reasoning in their posts more convincing on the matter.

[Tanarii]

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.

Sure. Opinions vary about the value of defensive. Some folks think 'meh just +1 AC' and others 'wow +1 AC!'.

Archery is definitely the most powerful in conjunction with being limited to ranged attacks (which 5e makes pretty easy to deal with or you can blow a feat to work around), and far more powerful when combined with an already OP feat. OTOH, it's harder to get advantage attacking unless you're a stealth master, and even then it can be difficult.

I'll freely admit I was putting archery out of sight in my mental back pocket, and making the comparison between primary melee styles: Dueling, Defensive, GWM, Protection. Which is probably roughly the order of popularity I've seen them taken by PCs. Of course, even with a (preplague) large game of ~30 players and fairly high turnover of both players and PCs per player, that's still an anecdote.

[jaappleton]

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."


Look up "wield". Wield means 'to hold and use'. You get to apply the damage boost when you are holding and using the javelin. RAW it does not work when thrown since it leaves your hand when thrown and is no longer wielded and therewith throwing removes the condition by which the rule could apply.

JC Twitter stuff isn't a source. If something makes it into the Sage Advice Compendium then its official.

Well, for quite a long period of time, several years in fact, JC did ask people to consider his twitter ruling as an official source.

Additionally:

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Not "when you make an attack with a melee weapon".

[stoutstien]

The current Sage Advice Compendium does not include the Twitter you posted. You have indicated in your posting above that you were fully aware of the discrepancy between Twitters and the actual Sage Advice Compendium. Can you explain why you are intentionally trying to mislead the conversation with stuff that you know is not official and yet you are presenting as official? Are you aware that in a debate a referee would call foul on your tactics?

At any rate, can we now stick to official rules sources?

I am simply interested in arguing based on RAW and the SAC. Can you stick to that?



The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

Well since wield isn't a definitive state we have to look at what the word means and infer. Wield doesn't mean to simply hold as much as use effectively so throwing a weapon with a thrown range is wielding it.

[Segev]

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.

By this logic, then, you do not need to wield a ranged weapon in order to use it. The rules state that you need to hurl or fire them. So I guess your hand is free to cast spells and you never need to draw and ready a thrown weapon when you use one, since you only need to hold a weapon if you're wielding it.

[sithlordnergal]

The important thing for you to include at this point is a rules quote that supports your claim. Without actual rules support you only have a house rule.

Do you have a rules quote that supports your statement that "you are still considered to be wielding the weapon while the attack and damage is being computed"? I scanned the PHB and it looks like you have concocted that bit. Care to comment?

I want to remind you that stuff that you concoct is not considered RAW.

If your objective is a nice house rule then go for it, say whatever you want, but a RAW argument is strict and stringent, and you are required to back your claims with quotes, as I have done.

Oh, and I also want to point out that Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy. I recommend bookmarking a listing of logical fallacies. Your arguments so far seem to be plagued with them.

I do have rules support now. I went to the official DnD Discord server where you can ask AL Admins things directly. I made use of this during the change to S10, and I can confirm it is an official source for AL rulings. I asked them about Dueling and Thrown Weapons. Their answer to me was linking the same exact Tweet that I posted to you. While JC's tweets may no longer be considered an official ruling, that ruling was made back when they were official rulings, and the AL people that I talked to used that tweet to give me my answer. So it is considered an official ruling in terms to what AL thinks.

Also, your argument of:

"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]"

Does not say that you are no longer wielding it. No where in that rule does it state you no longer wield a weapon as soon as you throw it. You stop wielding the weapon after it has either hit, and dealt damage to, the target, or it misses.

[ThorOdinson]

I do have rules support now. I went to the official DnD Discord server where you can ask AL Admins things directly. I made use of this during the change to S10, and I can confirm it is an official source for AL rulings. I asked them about Dueling and Thrown Weapons. Their answer to me was linking the same exact Tweet that I posted to you. While JC's tweets may no longer be considered an official ruling, that ruling was made back when they were official rulings, and the AL people that I talked to used that tweet to give me my answer. So it is considered an official ruling in terms to what AL thinks.

Proof or it didn't happen. I am not inclined to believe someone who has already resorted to making fallacious arguments. Further, as you know, AL would require proof of your assertion.

Only the SAC is officially a rules source. There is no official statement that JC Twitters prior to a certain date are official rulings. If they were they would be in the SAC. The absence of the ruling in the SAC is proof that the old JC tweet was intentionally dropped and is not official.

Also, your argument of:



Does not say that you are no longer wielding it. No where in that rule does it state you no longer wield a weapon as soon as you throw it. You stop wielding the weapon after it has either hit, and dealt damage to, the target, or it misses.

By the way that is a quote from the book, not a quote of my argument.

The Dueling fighting style, by its conditional logic, also requires that the weapon is in hand. So that's not going to help you unless your character has stretchy arms.

[stoutstien]

Conditional logic cannot be applied to questions regarding syntax. The core issue is the difference in interpretation of a single word that has no mechanical state.

[ThorOdinson]

Conditional logic cannot be applied to questions regarding syntax. The core issue is the difference in interpretation of a single word that has no mechanical state.

Thrown weapons are also not "in hand". They have been thrown. The Dueling fighting style damage bonus cannot be applied. The condition for the application of the rule has not been met.

Are you now going to suggest that thrown objects remain in your hand?

[stoutstien]

Thrown weapons are not "in hand". They have been thrown. The Dueling fighting style damage bonus cannot be applied. The condition for the application of the rule has not been met.

Are you now going to suggest that thrown objects remain in your hand?

no I'm suggesting that you are adding the "in hand" condition which does not exist. Then you're using that condition as a logic constant.
Nothing about the word wielding dictates a weapon must maintain contact with the user.

[ThorOdinson]

no I'm suggesting that you are adding the "in hand" condition which does not exist. Then you're using that condition as a logic constant.
Nothing about the word wielding dictates a weapon must maintain contact with the user.

You might want to revisit your line of thinking since you are now suggesting that a player can drop their wielded weapons on the ground and still benefit from the +1 AC from the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Similarly you are suggesting that a player can drop a wielded shield and still benefit from +2 AC.

The Dueling fighting style checks to see if the weapon is "in hand". Specifically it checks to see if it is "in one hand".

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

Are we in agreement that if you have thrown the weapon it is no longer "in one hand"?

[ff7hero]

Sure. Opinions vary about the value of defensive. Some folks think 'meh just +1 AC' and others 'wow +1 AC!'.

I'm in between these two extremes, but what pushes Defensive to the top of my list is consistency. Virtually every build that picks up a Fighting Style will be wearing armor, and it keeps you open to use whatever magic weapons happen to show up. Sure, nothing is stopping a Duelist from using that Flametongue Greatsword, but it's kind of a feel bad moment.

Archery is definitely the most powerful in conjunction with being limited to ranged attacks (which 5e makes pretty easy to deal with or you can blow a feat to work around), and far more powerful when combined with an already OP feat. OTOH, it's harder to get advantage attacking unless you're a stealth master, and even then it can be difficult.

My ranking of Archery is almost entirely because of it being an accuracy boost in the land of Bounded Accuracy. SS synergy is nice, but not crucial.

I'll freely admit I was putting archery out of sight in my mental back pocket, and making the comparison between primary melee styles: Dueling, Defensive, GWM, Protection. Which is probably roughly the order of popularity I've seen them taken by PCs. Of course, even with a (preplague) large game of ~30 players and fairly high turnover of both players and PCs per player, that's still an anecdote.

That all makes sense, and you're working from a larger sample size than I am at any rate. My rankings are almost entirely based on my own preference and/or theory crafting.

[Segev]

You might want to revisit your line of thinking since you are now suggesting that a player can drop their wielded weapons on the ground and still benefit from the +1 AC from the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Similarly you are suggesting that a player can drop a wielded shield and still benefit from +2 AC.

Incorrect. The action of dropping them is completed before anybody is going to be testing their AC. Therefore, they will not be benefitting from it.

On the other hand, your argument still requires that thrown weapons never deal any damage, because you are arguing that the weapon ceases to be wielded once it is thrown (but before it deals damage).

You try to get around this by arguing that they don't need to be wielded to deal damage, but by that logic, you don't need a free hand to "hurl" them, either, and can hurl them freely from your back with both hands otherwise occupied.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. The action of dropping them is completed before anybody is going to be testing their AC. Therefore, they will not be benefitting from it.

On the other hand, your argument still requires that thrown weapons never deal any damage, because you are arguing that the weapon ceases to be wielded once it is thrown (but before it deals damage).

You try to get around this by arguing that they don't need to be wielded to deal damage, but by that logic, you don't need a free hand to "hurl" them, either, and can hurl them freely from your back with both hands otherwise occupied.

I have never made the claim that a weapon with the thrown property is not wielded prior to being thrown.

The rules actually apply bonuses to attack and damage based on attacks being made (the permission to attack) not on whether or not something is wielded although in the case of handheld weapons being in hand is indirectly implicated. Keep in mind attacks often involve claws and things like unarmed strikes and spells that are not involving wielded weapons. So there is no dependency between wielded and able to do damage or aply modifiers in an attack. If the player has permission to attack then the attack itself carries damage and carries modifiers to the attack which you can see in the excerpts below.

ATTACK

When a character makes an Attack roll, the two most Common Modifiers to the Roll are an ability modifier and the character’s Proficiency Bonus. When a monster makes an Attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.

Ability Modifier: The ability modifier used for a melee weapon Attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon Attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the Finesse or Thrown property break this rule. Some Spells also require an Attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell Attack depends on the Spellcasting Ability of the spellcaster.

Proficiency Bonus: You add your Proficiency Bonus to your Attack roll when you Attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you Attack with a spell.

MELEE ATTACK

Used in hand--to--hand combat, a melee Attack allows you to Attack a foe within your reach. A melee Attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a Warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee Attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few Spells also involve making a melee Attack.

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus Attack Targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee Attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have Melee Attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

RANGED ATTACK

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. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many Spells also involve making a ranged Attack.

DAMAGE

Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic Weapons, Special Abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage. With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.

When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the Attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.

Ranged attacks give permission to hurl or send projectiles and attack at range. A thrown javelin involves the javelin leaving the hand of the player who is making the attack.

Not only does the Dueling fighting style require a weapon to be "wielded" it also requires the weapon to be "in one hand".

DUELING FIGHTING STYLE

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

My argument is that by throwing the weapon the weapon is no longer wielded nor is it in one hand when the damage roll is made. The game state at the time the damage roll is made supports my argument. The Dueling fighting style applies its bonus when the damage roll is made.

Your argument involves retroactively referring to the game state prior to the throwing because it makes sense to do it that way for you.

The problem with your argument is there is no permission in the rules to retroactively check the game state prior to the throwing. Your argument is a fine house rule and I am sure a lot of tables play it the way you choose to but it comes up short for a RAW argument.

I am not saying your argument is wrong. I am saying it is not RAW.

[Tanarii]

I'm in between these two extremes, but what pushes Defensive to the top of my list is consistency. Virtually every build that picks up a Fighting Style will be wearing armor, and it keeps you open to use whatever magic weapons happen to show up. Sure, nothing is stopping a Duelist from using that Flametongue Greatsword, but it's kind of a feel bad moment.

Defensive is my go to for EKs and Str rangers. Both are switch hitters, melee/magic and melee/ranged respectively.

[Segev]

My argument is that by throwing the weapon the weapon is no longer wielded nor is it in one hand when the damage roll is made. The game state at the time the damage roll is made supports my argument. The Dueling fighting style applies its bonus when the damage roll is made.

Your argument is incorrect, because it relies on changing it from being wielded to not being wielded changing the damage it deals without changing the damage it deals.

Either it not being wielded means it doesn't deal damage, or it being wielded when everything about the attack is determined means that all the damage applies.

Your argument involves retroactively referring to the game state prior to the throwing because it makes sense to do it that way for you.

Not at all. It involves stating that it was wielded when it was thrown, and everything about the trajectory of the thrown javelin comes from the throw, during which it was wielded. There's no "retroactivity" to it. The attack resolves while the weapon is wielded, OR the attack's every effect relies on it being wielded when the attack is made.

Your argument relies on somehow the javelin becoming less well-aimed after it is thrown than while it is being thrown. Which is nonsense, because the javelin's throw isn't changing after it leaves the hand. Anything relating to the throw - including how hard it is and where it aims - is done while it is in hand. No control over it is issued while it's in the air.

Alternatively, your argument relies on it ceasing to be wielded before it does damage. But you cannot deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

There's no way your argument doens't result in degenerate states. Whereas simply treating a weapon as being wielded for its entire attack not only makes sense in the granularity of combat as abstraction, it leads to no degenerate states. The closest it comes is you not being allowed to counterspell a shield in response to an attack with a javelin. Which...you couldn't do it if you were attacking in melee with it, either, so no loss there.

The problem with your argument is there is no permission in the rules to retroactively check the game state prior to the throwing. Your argument is a fine house rule and I am sure a lot of tables play it the way you choose to but it comes up short for a RAW argument.

I am not saying your argument is wrong. I am saying it is not RAW.

There is no need to do anything retroactively. You're the one introducing retroactivity with your definitions. I'm actually claiming that the javelin is wielded for the entire attack. You're the one trying to claim there's a state-change, but that state-change to not being wielded half-way through the attack makes it deal damage despite not being wielded, but not deal bonus damage because it's not wielded.

[ThorOdinson]

Your argument is incorrect, because it relies on changing it from being wielded to not being wielded changing the damage it deals without changing the damage it deals.

As quoted very extensively above in my prior post, actual damage in the rules as they are written is granted to attacks. Not all attacks involve weapons that are wielded. Permission to hurl a weapon to make a ranged attack is granted by the rules with zero mention of wielding. Can you please frame your argument in the context of quoted rules? As it is, you are making up dependencies that are simply not present in the rules. Are we discussing the rules as they are written or not? Please show me where I am wrong by quoting actual rules.

Either it not being wielded means it doesn't deal damage, or it being wielded when everything about the attack is determined means that all the damage applies.

Do you have a rules quote to support what you are saying here? None of what you are saying is in the actual rules. To participate in this argument you need to support what you say with rule quotes as I have done.

Not at all. It involves stating that it was wielded when it was thrown, and everything about the trajectory of the thrown javelin comes from the throw, during which it was wielded. There's no "retroactivity" to it. The attack resolves while the weapon is wielded, OR the attack's every effect relies on it being wielded when the attack is made.

Still no rules support here. To make a RAW argument you need to reference rules. Your personal thoughts are not a rules source.

Your argument relies on somehow the javelin becoming less well-aimed after it is thrown than while it is being thrown. Which is nonsense, because the javelin's throw isn't changing after it leaves the hand. Anything relating to the throw - including how hard it is and where it aims - is done while it is in hand. No control over it is issued while it's in the air.

More personal thoughts provided by you with no rules support. None of what you are arguing is supported by the PHB.

My argument proceeds from doing what the rules tell me to do. I cannot apply the Dueling fighting style because the weapon must be wielded in one hand when the damage roll is made. Since the weapon was hurled over a distance it is definitively not wielded anymore nor is it in one hand when it strikes the target.

So far you have provided no rules basis to counter my straight logical read of the rules. You are concocting rationale that is not present in the actual rules to counter my argument, but concocting stuff does not meet the criteria for a RAW argument.

Alternatively, your argument relies on it ceasing to be wielded before it does damage. But you cannot deal damage with a weapon you're not wielding.

You keep affirming something that is simply not present in the rules.

The ranged attack rules give you permission to attack and damage a target with a weapon that is hurled and not in your hand when it hits the target (see quote in my prior post above). The Dueling fighting style requires that weapon to be in one hand for it to be able to apply its damage bonus. The rules support my argument. So far you have provided no rules support for your argument.

There's no way your argument doens't result in degenerate states. Whereas simply treating a weapon as being wielded for its entire attack not only makes sense in the granularity of combat as abstraction, it leads to no degenerate states. The closest it comes is you not being allowed to counterspell a shield in response to an attack with a javelin. Which...you couldn't do it if you were attacking in melee with it, either, so no loss there.

The only degenerate states are the ones you are imagining based on principles you have concocted that are not present in the rules.

Please, please, please, quote an actual rule which proves my argument wrong. Your personal reflections are meaningless to the discussion at hand. Quote rules. Please show me rules statements that lead my argument to the degenerate states you speak of.

There is no need to do anything retroactively. You're the one introducing retroactivity with your definitions. I'm actually claiming that the javelin is wielded for the entire attack. You're the one trying to claim there's a state-change, but that state-change to not being wielded half-way through the attack makes it deal damage despite not being wielded, but not deal bonus damage because it's not wielded.

Again, you are concocting rationale that has no basis in the actual rules on the page.

Are you claiming that the javelin remains in one hand for the entireity of the attack? Remember, that is also a condition for the Dueling fighting style to apply. Once the javelin is thrown it is no longer "in one hand" so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

Can you provide a rules quote that states that the weapon is considered in one hand for the entireity of the attack despite the fact that it was thrown a distance and cannot logically still be in the one hand?

##########################

You have provided no rules support for your argument. The next time you respond can you please respond with quotations from the PHB that support your argument. As it is, your argument is obviously not RAW since you have not provided any rules support.

[Segev]

At no point have you quoted a rule that says that a weapon stops being wielded when it is thrown. Your entire argument rests on this. Your argument leads to degenerate states that mine does not.

At this point, we may as well agree to disagree, as we clearly are not willing to even agree on a premise.

I will point out that even if you did have a fiddly RAW case here, you'd still be barking up the wrong tree because 5e is not 3e, and my first post on the subject gave an extensive analysis of the kind of language used in the rules and how that language would have been written if there was clear intent by the designers that it be melee-attacks-only. As it is, the best case one can make to restrict it to melee attacks is that there is nothing clearly stating it definitely works with thrown weapons; you have to analyze the rules for weapons with the "thrown" property (and that they're melee weapons) to realize it can work with them by the RAW.

So at best, you've got a case for arguing that it's up to the DM to make a ruling on an unclear point in the rules.

I don't even agree with that, myself; I think it's pretty clear from the RAW that it does work with melee weapons with the thrown tag, and that it's probably so according to the RAI, as well, based on the choice of "attack with a melee weapon" rather than "melee attack with a weapon" in how the style is worded.

Your argument relies on a very fiddly interpretation of "wield" that has no backup in the rules other than your own assertion that the weapon ceases to be wielded before it deals damage. I do not find this persuasive.

And since this is 5e, not 3e, the design philosophy absolutely does not hinge on extremely fiddly interpretations of words.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

If a man threw a javelin at me, I would say "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin" and not "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin, who immediately stopped wielding the javelin as it traveled through the air and hit me". That's my sole contribution to this argument, I'll see myself out.

[ThorOdinson]

At no point have you quoted a rule that says that a weapon stops being wielded when it is thrown. Your entire argument rests on this. Your argument leads to degenerate states that mine does not.

At this point, we may as well agree to disagree, as we clearly are not willing to even agree on a premise.

I will point out that even if you did have a fiddly RAW case here, you'd still be barking up the wrong tree because 5e is not 3e, and my first post on the subject gave an extensive analysis of the kind of language used in the rules and how that language would have been written if there was clear intent by the designers that it be melee-attacks-only. As it is, the best case one can make to restrict it to melee attacks is that there is nothing clearly stating it definitely works with thrown weapons; you have to analyze the rules for weapons with the "thrown" property (and that they're melee weapons) to realize it can work with them by the RAW.

So at best, you've got a case for arguing that it's up to the DM to make a ruling on an unclear point in the rules.

I don't even agree with that, myself; I think it's pretty clear from the RAW that it does work with melee weapons with the thrown tag, and that it's probably so according to the RAI, as well, based on the choice of "attack with a melee weapon" rather than "melee attack with a weapon" in how the style is worded.

Your argument relies on a very fiddly interpretation of "wield" that has no backup in the rules other than your own assertion that the weapon ceases to be wielded before it deals damage. I do not find this persuasive.

And since this is 5e, not 3e, the design philosophy absolutely does not hinge on extremely fiddly interpretations of words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ThorOdinson]

If a man threw a javelin at me, I would say "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin" and not "I was attacked by a man wielding a javelin, who immediately stopped wielding the javelin as it traveled through the air and hit me". That's my sole contribution to this argument, I'll see myself out.

A person who has a knife in hand ready to use it is wielding that knife.

If a person throws a knife at you and it strikes you handle first on the chest landing on the floor, who is wielding that knife? No one.

If you pick the knife up from the ground who is wielding it? You are.

If you catch a knife that is thrown at you (you ninja you), you are wielding it the moment you catch it and can put it to use. While it is in flight before you catch it no one is wielding it. A knife that is in flight is subject to physical forces and no longer under the control of the thrower.

When you throw a knife you indeed no longer wield it. This is why in a real life self defense situation it is usually a bad idea to throw a knife at an attacker unless you are really good at it. When you throw it, you give up your weapon (you no longer are wielding a weapon and have disarmed yourself) and can often arm your opponent (you have just given your opponent a weapon he can wield should your thrown attack fail to end the fight).

Look up the definition of 'wield'. You will not be surprised by how I am using it. My use of the word is the standard meaning. Wield means "to hold and use" when talking about tools and weapons.

[Valmark]

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

Since when Stack Exchanges metric matters to this forum?

Plus, while I agree with Thor (not that I'd stop a player that wants to combo those if it's fun to them) I should point out that the top reply of SE says that 'wielding is a fairly neboulous term and is open to interpretation' then proceeds to saying that Crawford contradicts them and they are the authority on the matter.

If anything, that post says 'up to the DM' (which is always true anyway).