Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[stoutstien]

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.

You do realize words that have multiple definitions don't have a hierarchy of placement when trying to determine syntax and context. Especially since dnd doesn't reference a certain word source and each giving reference book can alter the order of different uses of words. some are simply ordered by diachronic while others are by frequency of use. Both are highly subjective systems.

[AdAstra]

I do find it interesting that despite specifically calling out an appeal to popularity as fallacious, Thor is choosing to use the popularity of a Stack Exchange response as evidence. A Stack exchange response that specifically outlines that its interpretation is not author intent nor set in stone. Stack exchange votes are basically reddit upvotes in terms of validity. Potentially useful for determining popularity/agreement among people who choose to respond, not much else, and highly subject to weird influences due to the nature of the voting (ie, some people vote down things they don’t agree with, others might vote up even responses they disagree with if logically sound, plenty of people don’t respond at all, etc.). Definitely not a useful measure for determining what’s “correct”.

Also, while words definitely mean things, they can mean a variety of things depending on context. To wield a javelin doesn’t strictly require that you hold it the whole time, and the nature of attack declaration and resolution is already pretty abstract. People who do it any one way have plenty of standing to do so, a lot less so to claim that anyone else is doing it wrong. The only time I could see someone as interpreting Dueling “wrong” is if they were applying its effects inconsistently or to things that don’t even slightly fit the requirements, like spells or unarmed strikes.

[Mr Adventurer]

Look up the definition of 'wield'.

Look it up where, in the dictionary?

Could you frame your argument in terms of the Rules As Written?

[Segev]

Let's just put it this way: your assassin doesn't get to say he merely brandished a weapon and had nothing to do with the murder when he throws a knife at somebody and kills him on the grounds that he wasn't wielding the knife when the victim was hit by it.

The assassin wielded the knife to kill the victim.

[Valmark]

Let's just put it this way: your assassin doesn't get to say he merely brandished a weapon and had nothing to do with the murder when he throws a knife at somebody and kills him on the grounds that he wasn't wielding the knife when the victim was hit by it.

The assassin wielded the knife to kill the victim.

If your knife is a sentient magic item does it count as the real murderer?

[Segev]

If your knife is a sentient magic item does it count as the real murderer?

Still mildly joking, but also actually accurate: sentient magic weapons can force Ego checks to take over their wielders' actions, so this is actually quite possible!

[ThorOdinson]

You do realize words that have multiple definitions don't have a hierarchy of placement when trying to determine syntax and context. Especially since dnd doesn't reference a certain word source and each giving reference book can alter the order of different uses of words. some are simply ordered by diachronic while others are by frequency of use. Both are highly subjective systems.

The context in the case of the Dueling fighting style is weapons. That is the first definition, "to hold and use (a tool or weapon)". Other uses are historically derived from that (refer to Linguistics or the study of Semantics) as metaphorically extended. E.g. He wielded power [as a blacksmith wields a hammer].

As I pointed out earlier, the counter argument has been to appeal to a more abstract definition of wield in order to deviate from the standard definition. The counter argument has then tried to claim that treating a thrown weapon as not wielded breaks damage allocation. Technically, the counter argument is mixing meanings, trying to appeal to a more abstract meaning when it suits them and then switching to a more standard and concrete meaning when it suits them.

When meanings get slippery in a discussion you look at the rules themselves and see how the rules use "wield". I have shown that the PHB meaning of 'wield' corresponds to "hold and use (weapon or tool)" and grants thrown attacks the ability to attack and do damage without requiring to be wielded, which corresponds exactly to the standard definition and how english speakers expect "wield" to be used in the context of weaponry. The counter argument failed to support its claims with rules while I was able to support my argument with rule support. Moreover, I pointed out that the Dueling fighting style also requires the weapon to be "in one hand" so that even when someone forces a more abstract use of "wield" into the debate the counter argument still fails to meet the rather concrete requirement of "in one hand" and my argument wins out because it corresponds to RAW.

I am happy to discuss this further but as stated before I will be asking you to support your argument with rules quotes as I have done.

[Segev]

To wield a weapon is to "hold and use?" Okay, you held and used it when you threw it. You wielded it. One-handed. With no other weapons in hand. You get the bonus damage. It doesn't matter that it leaves your hand as part of throwing it; you wielded it when everything you contribute to the damage was determined. At no point is some agent other than you controlling the way the javelin is wielded. Javelins can't, as a general rule, do damage by themselves. They require a wielder.

You have a case for making a ruling as you like it, but that's all you've got: a case for a ruling. You don't have the RAW on your side without a tortured reading of it, and the RAI as best can be gleaned from the precise word choices used and how they're used in other parts of the game suggest javelins are, in fact, intended to work with the dueling style. The RAW nowhere suggest that you cease to be wielding the weapon during an attack's resolution, period.

At best, then, you've got room to claim a ruling of the dueling style not working is a ruling rather than a house rule. I disagree, as I find your case spurious and unconvincing, but I do understand where you're coming from. You definitely do not have an unambiguous and clear reading of the RAW and discernible RAI on your side.

I am happy to discuss this further but as stated before I will be asking you to support your argument with rules quotes as I have done.

Your rules and quotes do not support your position. That's the problem. You may as well have quoted a rule saying that the origin of a cube lies on its face and therefore spheres are squares for all your quotes demonstrate your point.

For your quotes to prove your point, we already have to agree with your conclusion. Your argument is circular. I don't agree with your premise that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon, and to come to the conclusion that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon by the rules you quoted, you have to accept that premise.

This is why I'm not quoting rules back at you: your quoted rules do not support your point without the unspoken assumption that your conclusion is true.

The logical argument you've presented is:

Given A & B, prove C.
Proof: A&B, therefore C.

This doesn't prove C. However, to you, it seems it does, because you have an unspoken "Given: C" that you're not acknowledging, but are implicitly assuming is part of A & B.

[ThorOdinson]

To wield a weapon is to "hold and use?" Okay, you held and used it when you threw it. You wielded it. One-handed. With no other weapons in hand. You get the bonus damage. It doesn't matter that it leaves your hand as part of throwing it; you wielded it when everything you contribute to the damage was determined. At no point is some agent other than you controlling the way the javelin is wielded. Javelins can't, as a general rule, do damage by themselves. They require a wielder.

You have a case for making a ruling as you like it, but that's all you've got: a case for a ruling. You don't have the RAW on your side without a tortured reading of it, and the RAI as best can be gleaned from the precise word choices used and how they're used in other parts of the game suggest javelins are, in fact, intended to work with the dueling style. The RAW nowhere suggest that you cease to be wielding the weapon during an attack's resolution, period.

At best, then, you've got room to claim a ruling of the dueling style not working is a ruling rather than a house rule. I disagree, as I find your case spurious and unconvincing, but I do understand where you're coming from. You definitely do not have an unambiguous and clear reading of the RAW and discernible RAI on your side.

Once again you are relying on concocted rationale rather than supporting your statements with reference to actual rules.

The Duelist fighting style is very concrete in its condition, requiring that the weapon is "wielded in one hand" when damage rolls are made. A thrown weapon is definitively not "wielded in one hand" when it strikes the target. Further, I quoted nearly the entire section on Attack and Damage to show that ranged attacks are granted permission to attack and damage without any dependency on wielding. I have also pointed out that this is consistent with the meaning for "wield" that the PHB is using which not surprisingly is the meaning associated with combat and weapons "to hold and use (as a tool or weapon)." What you refer to as a "tortured reading" is, to the contrary, the standard reading of "wield" that is firmly supported by the rules.

I asked you before to point to rules that support your argument. Are you now going to consult the rules and back up what you say or continue to try to present you concocted rationale as having rule support when it clearly does not?

I meticulously backed up my argument with rules support. I can claim a RAW argument. At present you have a house rule based on your personal thoughts. I am required to resolve any issues in the actual rules that arise from my argument, but I am not required to resolve any concocted rationale you come up with that is not supported by the rules.

If you want to discuss RAW then start backing your argument up with rule support as I have done.

[ThorOdinson]

Your rules and quotes do not support your position. That's the problem. You may as well have quoted a rule saying that the origin of a cube lies on its face and therefore spheres are squares for all your quotes demonstrate your point.

For your quotes to prove your point, we already have to agree with your conclusion. Your argument is circular. I don't agree with your premise that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon, and to come to the conclusion that you cease to wield a weapon in the time between the attack roll and the damage roll if it's a thrown weapon by the rules you quoted, you have to accept that premise.

This is why I'm not quoting rules back at you: your quoted rules do not support your point without the unspoken assumption that your conclusion is true.

The logical argument you've presented is:

Given A & B, prove C.
Proof: A&B, therefore C.

This doesn't prove C. However, to you, it seems it does, because you have an unspoken "Given: C" that you're not acknowledging, but are implicitly assuming is part of A & B.

You are completely mischaracterizing my argument as circular.

My argument is that the conditions required to apply the Duelist figting style are not present and therefore the rule cannot be applied.

"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."

The rule requires that the weapon be "wielded in one hand".

In the case we are discussing the weapon has been thrown some distance (lets say 30 feet) and strikes a target.

The act of throwing requires the weapon to leave one's hand.

When you commit to throwing the weapon, hit or miss, the weapon has been thrown and is no longer in your hand.

If the weapon is still in your hand then you have not thrown it.

The weapon has traveled 30 feet and so cannot plausibly still be in your hand by any stretch of the imagination.

So we must conclude that upon striking the target the weapon is definitively not "wielded in one hand" when a hit is made and damage rolls are being made.

[Since the counter argument has fixated on the definition of "wielded" we can even be more specific and simply assert that upon striking the target the weapon is definitively not "in one hand" when a hit is made and damage rolls are being made.]

The game state is weapon is not in your hand.

The condition "wielded in one hand" has not been met.

Therefore we do not have permission to apply the Duelist fighting style rule.

You need a rule statement in the PHB to circumvent this game state.

You need some permission in the rules to retroactively use a prior game state.

So please present the rule that gives you permission.

[Zhorn]

The insistence of 'wield' is not from an in-RAW definition of the term.
The attack roll is made from the weapon being wielded.
The thrown property does not define any exclusion from being wielded.
The changing of states mid-attack is your own self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/743317924459360257
The Dueling fighting style works with a thrown melee weapon. The feature doesn't limit itself to melee attacks.

[Segev]

You are completely mischaracterizing my argument as circular.

My argument is that the conditions required to apply the Duelist figting style are not present and therefore the rule cannot be applied.

"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."

The rule requires that the weapon be "wielded in one hand".

In the case we are discussing the weapon has been thrown some distance (lets say 30 feet) and strikes a target.

The act of throwing requires the weapon to leave one's hand.

This is the point you are asserting that is in dispute. Specifically:

The insistence of 'wield' is not from an in-RAW definition of the term.
The attack roll is made from the weapon being wielded.
The thrown property does not define any exclusion from being wielded.
The changing of states mid-attack is your own self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.

(emphasis added)

There is no definition of "wield" that says "you deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding."

The circular nature of your argument is that you're asserting that the state changes mid-attack, rather than the attack being resolved as a granular object, and then quoting rules and interpreting them with that assumption, in order to prove the assertion that the state changes mid-attack.

If that's not what you're doing, I apologize for not understanding your argument.

But you wield the javelin when you make the attack. Therefore, you get the bonus damage.

[ThorOdinson]

This is the point you are asserting that is in dispute. Specifically:

(emphasis added)

There is no definition of "wield" that says "you deal damage with a weapon you are not wielding."

Not needed.

First, there is no definition of "wield" in the PHB.

If you think that is not the case then provide the page reference where "wield" has been defined.

You would have to present a rule statement that says "only attacks with weapons that are wielded when they hit can deal damage" or " weapons that have been thrown or sent as projectiles and are no longer wielded are still considered wielded for the purposes of applying damage" or something to that effect.

I have shown that the rules give permission to attack and deal damage for thrown weapons . Those rules make no mention and indicate no dependency on being "wielded". Do I need to provide that reference again?

In the absence of a definition from the PHB, the dictionary provides the standard definition " hold and use (a tool or weapon)" that works for the context of combat.

The dictionary definition reminds us that in real life a weapon that has been thrown and is in flight is no longer wielded. And a thrown weapon can definitely deal damage. When I follow the rules it plays out more or less according to real world sense of "wield".

Second, you really don't topple my argument by disrupting the definition or application of "wield" that I am using. My discussion of "wield" is not critical to my argument. In order to topple my argument you must ultimately be able to demonstrate that a weapon that is thrown from a distance and strikes the target is somehow still "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style will not apply its damage bonus to a weapon that is not "in one hand". You have your work cut out for you.

The circular nature of your argument is that you're asserting that the state changes mid-attack, rather than the attack being resolved as a granular object, and then quoting rules and interpreting them with that assumption, in order to prove the assertion that the state changes mid-attack.

The game state changes when I make the attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

But lets get back to working out what happens . . .

Throwing involves the weapon leaving your hand.

If I make a throwing motion but do not release the weapon so as to have the weapon remain in my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

I don't have permission to make the attack roll until I have already committed to making a ranged attack.

No matter the outcome of the attack roll the weapon leaves my hand.

Do you dispute the fact that the weapon leaves the hand when the ranged attack is performed (i.e. the roll to attack is made)?

If that's not what you're doing, I apologize for not understanding your argument.

But you wield the javelin when you make the attack. Therefore, you get the bonus damage.

Incorrect. I only get the bonus damage if I satisfy the Dueling fighting style rule because that is the rule that governs the application of that bonus.

The Dueling fighting style does not apply to attack rolls. The rule applies to damage rolls. I only consult the rule for attacks that hit.

Before I make the attack I am wielding the weapon and the weapon is in my one hand.

The rules give me permission to make a ranged attack and deal damage.

When I commit to the ranged attack and throw the weapon, the weapon leaves my hand.

If the weapon does not leave my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

By virtue of making the attack the weapon has left my hand.

For attacks where the roll misses, the attack sequence ends here. I have not received permission to apply damage. The weapon is on the ground and not in my hand.

For attacks where the roll hits, the attack sequence continues. The attack roll results in a hit. The weapon has been thrown. The weapon has traveled a distance. I now have permission to make a damage roll. I proceed to that section of the rules.

When I have permission to make a damage roll after a successful hit, the Dueling fighting style, by virtue of its conditional logic, instructs me to check to see if its conditional can be applied.

The weapon needs to be "in one hand" in order for me to apply the damage bonus. Otherwise I am violating the rule.

#########

So please answer some questions about the game state when the damage rolls are being made.

The weapon has been thrown. Yes or no?

The thrown weapon has left my hand. Yes or no?

The weapon has traveled a distance. Yes or no?

The weapon that has been thrown and that hits the target is not in my hand. Yes or no?

[Mellack]

Why are you so attached to wield being defined as "to hold and use"?

Meriam-Websters defines it as "to handle especially effectively", and Dictionary.com similarly has it as "to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively." That is ignoring the more general term of just using something, such as power or good looks. The requirement of holding is not part of the term to wield.

[ThorOdinson]

Why are you so attached to wield being defined as "to hold and use"?

Meriam-Websters defines it as "to handle especially effectively", and Dictionary.com similarly has it as "to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively." That is ignoring the more general term of just using something, such as power or good looks. The requirement of holding is not part of the term to wield.

As stated before, whatever definition of "wield" you use is not really the issue here and should not be fixated on . The Dueling fighting style itself explicitly specifies "wielded in one hand" as a requirement to remove any doubt that we are indeed talking about holding a weapon 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."

So if it helps just sort out whether or not the weapon is "in one hand". If the weapon is not in one hand when damage rolls are made then the Dueling fighting style rule does not apply by its own logic. The rule is written specifically enough to enforce the definition of "wield" which corresponds to its intended context (weapons, tools).

Obviously, in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when it strikes the target and so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

[Valmark]

Not needed.

First, there is no definition of "wield" in the PHB.

If you think that is not the case then provide the page reference where "wield" has been defined.

You would have to present a rule statement that says "only attacks with weapons that are wielded when they hit can deal damage" or " weapons that have been thrown or sent as projectiles and are no longer wielded are still considered wielded for the purposes of applying damage" or something to that effect.

I have shown that the rules give permission to attack and deal damage for thrown weapons . Those rules make no mention and indicate no dependency on being "wielded". Do I need to provide that reference again?

In the absence of a definition from the PHB, the dictionary provides the standard definition " hold and use (a tool or weapon)" that works for the context of combat.

The dictionary definition reminds us that in real life a weapon that has been thrown and is in flight is no longer wielded. And a thrown weapon can definitely deal damage. When I follow the rules it plays out more or less according to real world sense of "wield".

Second, you really don't topple my argument by disrupting the definition or application of "wield" that I am using. My discussion of "wield" is not critical to my argument. In order to topple my argument you must ultimately be able to demonstrate that a weapon that is thrown from a distance and strikes the target is somehow still "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style will not apply its damage bonus to a weapon that is not "in one hand". You have your work cut out for you.

The game state changes when I make the attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

But lets get back to working out what happens . . .

Throwing involves the weapon leaving your hand.

If I make a throwing motion but do not release the weapon so as to have the weapon remain in my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

I don't have permission to make the attack roll until I have already committed to making a ranged attack.

No matter the outcome of the attack roll the weapon leaves my hand.

Do you dispute the fact that the weapon leaves the hand when the ranged attack is performed (i.e. the roll to attack is made)?



Incorrect. I only get the bonus damage if I satisfy the Dueling fighting style rule because that is the rule that governs the application of that bonus.

The Dueling fighting style does not apply to attack rolls. The rule applies to damage rolls. I only consult the rule for attacks that hit.

Before I make the attack I am wielding the weapon and the weapon is in my one hand.

The rules give me permission to make a ranged attack and deal damage.

When I commit to the ranged attack and throw the weapon, the weapon leaves my hand.

If the weapon does not leave my hand I have not thrown the weapon.

By virtue of making the attack the weapon has left my hand.

For attacks where the roll misses, the attack sequence ends here. I have not received permission to apply damage. The weapon is on the ground and not in my hand.

For attacks where the roll hits, the attack sequence continues. The attack roll results in a hit. The weapon has been thrown. The weapon has traveled a distance. I now have permission to make a damage roll. I proceed to that section of the rules.

When I have permission to make a damage roll after a successful hit, the Dueling fighting style, by virtue of its conditional logic, instructs me to check to see if its conditional can be applied.

The weapon needs to be "in one hand" in order for me to apply the damage bonus. Otherwise I am violating the rule.

#########

So please answer some questions about the game state when the damage rolls are being made.

The weapon has been thrown. Yes or no?

The thrown weapon has left my hand. Yes or no?

The weapon has traveled a distance. Yes or no?

The weapon that has been thrown and that hits the target is not in my hand. Yes or no?

If there is no definition of wield then nothing says you aren't wielding a weapon when you throw it.

Multiple dictionaries give multiple definitions- what's in common between them is that you are using whatever you are wielding, not that you have it in your hand. Can you say that your dictionary has more proof then anybody else's?

You can even wield abstract things- that isn't possible if wielding only means 'to hold and use'. If I try to seduce somebody am I holding my words or beauty oe whatever in my hand?

"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.

I'm not going to say that your interpretation is wrong (in fact, I read it that way too)- but it isn't the only reading, with the other being not only RAI but also more widely applicable. Widely applicable meaning that it holds true for more dictionaries- assuming I'm quoting the same one you do, together with 'to hold and use' there is "Have and be able to use (power or influence)" which is consistent with not needing to hold something to wield it. And again, another dictionary says "use it effectively" which has no ambiguity whatsoever.

[ThorOdinson]

If there is no definition of wield then nothing says you aren't wielding a weapon when you throw it.

Multiple dictionaries give multiple definitions- what's in common between them is that you are using whatever you are wielding, not that you have it in your hand. Can you say that your dictionary has more proof then anybody else's?

You can even wield abstract things- that isn't possible if wielding only means 'to hold and use'. If I try to seduce somebody am I holding my words or beauty oe whatever in my hand?

"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.

I'm not going to say that your interpretation is wrong (in fact, I read it that way too)- but it isn't the only reading, with the other being not only RAI but also more widely applicable. Widely applicable meaning that it holds true for more dictionaries- assuming I'm quoting the same one you do, together with 'to hold and use' there is "Have and be able to use (power or influence)" which is consistent with not needing to hold something to wield it. And again, another dictionary says "use it effectively" which has no ambiguity whatsoever.

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

[JNAProductions]

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

[Segev]

As stated before, whatever definition of "wield" you use is not really the issue here and should not be fixated on . The Dueling fighting style itself explicitly specifies "wielded in one hand" as a requirement to remove any doubt that we are indeed talking about holding a weapon 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."

So if it helps just sort out whether or not the weapon is "in one hand". If the weapon is not in one hand when damage rolls are made then the Dueling fighting style rule does not apply by its own logic. The rule is written specifically enough to enforce the definition of "wield" which corresponds to its intended context (weapons, tools).

Obviously, in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when it strikes the target and so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

"Wield in one hand" can easily also mean that you use only one hand to "use it effectively" (dictionary definition) and that reading makes Dueling work with, say, a javelin thrown.

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

This more or less sums up my responses to your positions, ThorOdinson.

Wielding a weapon in one hand doesn't require it to be held, but "used effectively." (This doesn't even require "skillfully," just "effectively." If you're somehow dealing damage with it, that's "effective.") Throwing it with one hand is "wielding it in one hand." You deal damage when you throw it, so you deal damage when you wield it.

[ThorOdinson]

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

Where does the game give you permission to change the status of a wielded weapon mid-attack?

I will go ahead and repeat myself . . .

The game state changes when I make the thrown attack, not mid-attack.

But even if the game state changes mid-attack that would not be an issue. An attack is resolved in a sequence of steps so an attack is not a singular step as you claim. For instance, I first resolve attack rolls and then resolve damage rolls. Damage rolls are only applied to hits. You are inventing an issue here. There is no rule forbidding a change in game state. If in the course of adhering to the rules some game state change happens so be it; I have done so with permission from the rules. I only need to satisfy rule requirements, not the requirements some random individual on a forum concocts out of the blue with no rules support.

The Dueling fighting style is a rule that applies to damage rolls. When I go to make the damage roll, the weapon has been thrown and is not "in one hand" so I cannot apply the Dueling fighting style bonus without directly violating the rule.

What rule allows you to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

[JNAProductions]

Can you deal damage with a weapon that you're not wielding?

[Valmark]

You are not attending to the fact that the Dueling fighting style also requires that the weapon be "in one hand" when damage rolls are made. Ignoring that fact is a clear and unequivocal violation of that rule. What rule in the PHB gives you permission to ignore the Dueling fighting style rule?

I am not. I'm wielding (to use effectively) the weapon in my hand, never pretended otherwise. Surely I'm not wielding it with two hands or no hands, am I?

[ThorOdinson]

Can you deal damage with a weapon that you're not wielding?

Where in the rules does it say you cannot?

Stated more directly, when it comes to making the damage rolls for the weapon, the thrown weapon is not "in one hand". The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be "in one hand". Applying the bonus is a direct violation of the rule.

[ThorOdinson]

I am not. I'm wielding (to use effectively) the weapon in my hand, never pretended otherwise. Surely I'm not wielding it with two hands or no hands, am I?

When you have thrown the weapon and are making damage rolls after you have hit the target and have been given permission to make damage rolls, is the weapon "in one hand"?

[JNAProductions]

Where in the rules does it say you cannot?

Permission-based system. You cannot do [ACTION] unless you have permission to.

Additionally, the system assumes you're playing people and can do basic people things, like, say, make a sandwich, pull a lever, wield tools, etc.

[ThorOdinson]

Permission-based system. You cannot do [ACTION] unless you have permission to.

Additionally, the system assumes you're playing people and can do basic people things, like, say, make a sandwich, pull a lever, wield tools, etc.

As already stated in the thread, the rules for ranged attack make no mention of "wield". Those are the rules that grant permission for me to make an attack with a thrown weapon. So I have permission and follow the rules.

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

Range

You can make Ranged Attacks only against Targets within a specified range.
If a ranged Attack, such as one made with a spell, has a single range, you can’t Attack a target beyond this range.

Some Ranged Attacks, such as those made with a Longbow or a Shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your Attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can’t Attack a target beyond the long range.

I have meticulously justified my permission. Start showing rules that say otherwise.

This is a case of you imagining something in the rules that is not there. Open up the PHB and show me in the rules where I am wrong.

[Valmark]

When you have thrown the weapon and are making damage rolls after you have hit the target and have been given permission to make damage rolls, is the weapon "in one hand"?

I'm still wielding it with one hand, yes.

As already stated in the thread, the rules for ranged attack make no mention of "wield". Those are the rules that grant permission for me to make an attack with a thrown weapon. So I have permission and follow the rules.

I have meticulously justified my permission. Start showing rules that say otherwise.

This is a case of you imagining something in the rules that is not there. Open up the PHB and show me in the rules where I am wrong.

Rules for melee attacks don't mention wielding either, do they?

[ThorOdinson]

I'm still wielding it with one hand, yes.

You are claiming here that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still in your hand. You are willfully making a false statement.

Rules for melee attacks don't mention wielding either, do they?

Indeed they do not.

And "wield" is not defined by the PHB.

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded" after it leaves your hand. This is an issue you are inventing because you are using some other meaning of "wield" than the standard english meaning for weaponry and tools. You might consider simply sticking to the standard english semantics so as not to invent issues. It appears to me that the writers of the PHB assume that you are not trying to undermine the standard english semantic usage by forcing a more abstract meaning of "wield" into the rules, although I cannot attest to their thoughts on the matter since I do not have telepathy.

[Mellack]

You are claiming here that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still in your hand. You are willfully making a false statement.



Indeed they do not.

And "wield" is not defined by the PHB.

The standard dictionary definition of the PHB that relates to the context of weaponry is "to hold and use [a tool or weapon]" so it is not an english semantic issue that a thrown weapon is not technically "wielded" after it leaves your hand. This is an issue you are inventing because you are using some other meaning of "wield" than the standard english meaning for weaponry and tools. You might consider simply sticking to the standard english semantics so as not to invent issues.

No, people are claiming that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still wielded by one hand. As has been pointed out, the word wield has no requirement that it be in a hand. It just means to use something.

[ThorOdinson]

No, people are claiming that a thrown weapon that has struck a target at a distance is still wielded by one hand. As has been pointed out, the word wield has no requirement that it be in a hand. It just means to use something.

The Dueling fighting style requires "in one hand".

"In".