Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[OzDragon]

Let's close out with a nice short summary:

The insistence of 'wield' meaning 'in hand' 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-sequence is TO self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.
The Attack action sequence is run from start to finish without state changing interruptions to the process.
Multiple people from all walks are reading it as being compatible.
Multiple Adventure League discord groups have pointed to the devs for their official stance.
The lead rules designer has established that the intent is for it to be compatible.



It should also be pointed out that a DM choosing to either allow or disallow the Dueling Fighting Style from applying to thrown weapons can do so while being RAW compliant, but that in no way is the same as the statement that one ruling is the only possible ruling.
Had this thread been about TO attempting to reach a mutual understanding instead of not debating in good faith, this whole thing would have peacefully closed out with a single digit page count.

To everyone that stuck it out to the end, I hope you enjoyed the ride.

Nice summary well said!

[Valmark]

Let's close out with a nice short summary:

The insistence of 'wield' meaning 'in hand' 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-sequence is TO self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.
The Attack action sequence is run from start to finish without state changing interruptions to the process.
Multiple people from all walks are reading it as being compatible.
Multiple Adventure League discord groups have pointed to the devs for their official stance.
The lead rules designer has established that the intent is for it to be compatible.



It should also be pointed out that a DM choosing to either allow or disallow the Dueling Fighting Style from applying to thrown weapons can do so while being RAW compliant, but that in no way is the same as the statement that one ruling is the only possible ruling.
Had this thread been about TO attempting to reach a mutual understanding instead of not debating in good faith, this whole thing would have peacefully closed out with a single digit page count.

To everyone that stuck it out to the end, I hope you enjoyed the ride.

I'm legitimately happy about the ultimate ending. It was an experience.

[ThorOdinson]

This whole argument is based on the false premise that “in one hand” means “physically held in one hand”.

In the context of the rule, it’s meaning is “with one hand” (vs with 2 hands). You have constructed an amazingly tortured justification of a literal, but incorrect, reading.

How am I sure it is incorrect? I can point to 50 pages of reasons.

Nope "in one hand" is "in one hand". If the weapon has been sent as a projectile to hit someone at a distance then it most assuredly is no longer "in one hand". The 50 pages are comprised of people trying to unsuccessfully argue with house rules around this straightforward and well-formed RAW argument.

[OzDragon]

Nope "in one hand" is "in one hand". If the weapon has been sent as a projectile to hit someone at a distance then it most assuredly is no longer "in one hand". The 50 pages are comprised of people trying to unsuccessfully argue with house rules around this straightforward and well-formed RAW argument.

Lets put it one of 3 ways,

You are right and everyone else is wrong.

Everyone else is right and you are wrong.

There is room for interpretation of the rules and no one is right or wrong.

I'm opting for the last one.

[ThorOdinson]

Let's close out with a nice short summary:

The insistence of 'wield' meaning 'in hand' 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-sequence is TO self inserted interpretation, not a RAW defined function.
The Attack action sequence is run from start to finish without state changing interruptions to the process.
Multiple people from all walks are reading it as being compatible.
Multiple Adventure League discord groups have pointed to the devs for their official stance.
The lead rules designer has established that the intent is for it to be compatible.

Nice house rule. And nice strawman depiction of my argument.

Defeating a strawman of my argument is not the same as defeating my actual argument.

My argument has proved by RAW that the Dueling fighting style cannot apply its bonus to thrown weapons. The DEFINITION of ranged attacks requires that the weapon is sent as a projectile to strike a foe at a distance and the Shield spell establishes that the hit of the Attack roll is the same as an attack hit. Therefore the weapon cannot be in one hand when it comes to rolling damage so the Dueling fighting style does not apply.

Also . . . FYI

The current Sage Advice Compendium states . . .

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.

This is what Jeremy Crawford has to say on the matter. . .

As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say.

Since Jeremy Crawford is the managing editor of the SAC, he has intentionally ommitted his old Twitter from the current SAC.

It should also be pointed out that a DM choosing to either allow or disallow the Dueling Fighting Style from applying to thrown weapons can do so while being RAW compliant, but that in no way is the same as the statement that one ruling is the only possible ruling.
Had this thread been about TO attempting to reach a mutual understanding instead of not debating in good faith, this whole thing would have peacefully closed out with a single digit page count.

To everyone that stuck it out to the end, I hope you enjoyed the ride.

Nice Ad Hominem.

If any of you can present an actual RAW argument, please do so.

Thanks to Valmark, my RAW argument is the only valid one. All others have been invalidated.

[langal]

Why do you all care so much about someone else's opinion? If you think she's wrong, who cares about how she runs her game?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why do you all care so much about someone else's opinion? If you think she's wrong, who cares about how she runs her game?

The issue being, and likely ending this way, is that they insist their opinion is correct.

[ThorOdinson]

The issue being, and likely ending this way, is that they insist their opinion is correct.

My opinion has nothing to do with it and your opinion has nothing to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that I was the only one able to present a valid RAW argument.

Feel free to present an actual valid RAW alternative to my argument. It is not my fault that the rest of you have failed to present any valid alternative RAW arguments.

[Taevyr]

Come on folks, 30 more posts and we can get this thread locked for hitting 50 pages! We can do it!

Aww, C'mon, no "Dueling w/ javelins II - definition boogaloo"? There's so much potential for amusement! We might even see someone being driven insane by troll logic RIGHT HERE ON THE FORUM.

[Aett_Thorn]

Aww, C'mon, no "Dueling w/ javelins II - definition boogaloo"? There's so much potential for amusement! We might even see someone being driven insane by troll logic RIGHT HERE ON THE FORUM.

Nah, the next thread will be based on Tridents, and most of the arguments will be made about why on earth a character is using a trident and not a spear in the first place.

[Taevyr]

Nah, the next thread will be based on Tridents, and most of the arguments will be made about why on earth a character is using a trident and not a spear in the first place.

I'd agree that there's not really a reason for using a trident on earth .

Underwater though? Can't get more thematic than that.

[Valmark]

Thanks to Valmark, my RAW argument is the only valid one. All others have been invalidated.

*coff coff* the only RAW argument that doesn't work with Shield or any other turn-a-hit-into-a-miss reaction *coff coff*

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread closed.