Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Mellack]

The Dueling fighting style requires "in one hand".

"In".

Yes, and we are stating that for the length of the attack, it is considered in that hand. You are free to rule otherwise.

[Valmark]

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". 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.

I'm claiming that I'm wielding it all throughout the attack. According to you if somebody were to attack me by throwing their weapon I wouldn't be able to say that "They attacked me wielding a [insert weapon here]" which would otherwise be a correct explanation of the event (I think Segev made a similar example?).

"Standard dictionary definition" but if you search for the meaning of "Wield" you also find "to use effectively" with no mention of holding it. So your definition is no more valid then anybody else's, unless you can prove that the dictionary you use is for some reason better then the one others use.

[JNAProductions]

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.

I am wrong.

Well, since we're allowed to take any part of a sentence away from its full part, ThorOdinson has already admitted they're wrong. :P

[ThorOdinson]

Yes, and we are stating that for the length of the attack, it is considered in that hand. You are free to rule otherwise.

You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.

[JNAProductions]

You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.

wielding a melee weapon in one hand

If I throw a knife at you and cause injury, could you say "JNAProductions wielded a knife against me," truthfully?

[Valmark]

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.

Given the fact that we have a statement that says the opposite of what you are saying I assume the writers wanted a perfectly valid reading of the rule according to a dictionary different from yours.

You have no rule permission to consider it "in one hand" and are willfully violating rules.

Nothing says that I cannot either.

[ThorOdinson]

If I throw a knife at you and cause injury, could you say "JNAProductions wielded a knife against me," truthfully?

It's a good thing that the Dueling fighting style is specific and explicit enough in its wording that your question is not relevant to the matter at hand.

[JNAProductions]

It's a good thing that the Dueling fighting style is specific and explicit enough in its wording that your question is not relevant to the matter at 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.

That's the text of the Fighting Style.

It does not say "Held in one hand at the moment of damage," as you are arguing it does. It merely says you must be "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons."

So, could you answer my question about whether or not you could say that a person who threw a knife at someone was wielding it?

[ThorOdinson]

That's the text of the Fighting Style.

It does not say "Held in one hand at the moment of damage," as you are arguing it does. It merely says you must be "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons."

So, could you answer my question about whether or not you could say that a person who threw a knife at someone was wielding it?

"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."

When you have permission to make a damage roll, the weapon that has been thrown is definitively not "in one hand". Therefore the condition of the rule has not been met and you do not get to apply the bonus to the damage roll.

[JNAProductions]

"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."

When you have permission to make a damage roll, the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". Therefore the condition of the rule has not been met and you do not get to apply tge bonus to the damage roll.

So you're saying you can do damage with a weapon you aren't wielding.

By that logic, nothing stops me from using a Longbow with a Shield-I don't need to wield it to do damage with it, after all.

[ThorOdinson]

So you're saying you can do damage with a weapon you aren't wielding.

By that logic, nothing stops me from using a Longbow with a Shield-I don't need to wield it to do damage with it, after all.

Longbows have the Two Handed property "this weapon requires two hands to use" which is synonymous with the standard definition of "wield" related to weaponry "to hold and use" except adding the additional requirement of two hands to use. So that is not an issue.

Note the Thrown property.

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

Permission is granted there as well to make a thrown attack.

However, all this is besides the point. The Dueling fighting style requires the weapon to be "in one hand" when the damage roll is applied, and you have yet to show a rule that permits you to supersede that rule.

[Segev]

Again, the dispute here hinges on one thing: Did you wield a thrown weapon in one hand when you threw it?

[ThorOdinson]

Again, the dispute here hinges on one thing: Did you wield a thrown weapon in one hand when you threw it?

Not exactly. It hinges on whether the weapon is "in one hand" when the damage roll is made. We can definitively say that in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when you go to make a damage roll and try to apply the Dueling fighting style rule. Therefore you cannot apply the damage bonus.

[Segev]

Not exactly. It hinges on whether the weapon is "in one hand" when the damage roll is made. We can definitively say that in the case of thrown weapons, the weapon is not "in one hand" when you go to make a damage roll and try to apply the Dueling fighting style rule. Therefore you cannot apply the damage bonus.

That's not what it hinges on, because the point in dispute is whether "in one hand when the damage roll is made" is the right interpretation.

What the rule says is that you do +2 damage when you wield a melee weapon in one hand (etc.). The dispute is over whether there is a breakdown of the damage roll being granularly separated from the wielding of the weapon, and whether you wield the weapon in one hand when you throw it.

The claim you're making is that the damage is rolled when you are no longer wielding the weapon in one hand.

The counterclaim is that when you attack with a javelin thrown from one hand, you're wielding it with one hand, and thus the attack gets the bonus damage.

It's a question of whether the attack breaks down into such granular parts that you can do damage when you are no longer wielding it, or that you can change how many hands you're using to wield it between making the attack roll and making the damage roll.

Let's examine Versatile for a moment. Versatile weapons do a larger die type of damage when "used with two hands to make a melee attack." Can you use a Versatile weapon in two hands to make an attack, and then release it with one hand as it closes in for damage in order to get Dueling's damage bonus as well?

[ThorOdinson]

That's not what it hinges on, because the point in dispute is whether "in one hand when the damage roll is made" is the right interpretation.

What the rule says is that you do +2 damage when you wield a melee weapon in one hand (etc.). The dispute is over whether there is a breakdown of the damage roll being granularly separated from the wielding of the weapon, and whether you wield the weapon in one hand when you throw it.

The claim you're making is that the damage is rolled when you are no longer wielding the weapon in one hand.

The counterclaim is that when you attack with a javelin thrown from one hand, you're wielding it with one hand, and thus the attack gets the bonus damage.

It's a question of whether the attack breaks down into such granular parts that you can do damage when you are no longer wielding it, or that you can change how many hands you're using to wield it between making the attack roll and making the damage roll.

Let's examine Versatile for a moment. Versatile weapons do a larger die type of damage when "used with two hands to make a melee attack." Can you use a Versatile weapon in two hands to make an attack, and then release it with one hand as it closes in for damage in order to get Dueling's damage bonus as well?

An attack is a sequence of steps.

I will go ahead and repeat myself . . . A third time.

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 refers to damage rolls.

"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."

You only have permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls. If the attack has hit the target it is no longer "in one hand" and so the Dueling fighting style cannot apply.

[JNAProductions]

Segev makes an excellent point-you only need to be using two hands when you make the attack for a Versatile weapon to use the higher damage die.

So, per your process, you can wield it in two hands when you start the attack, then lift a hand during damage for a total of 1d10+2 damage, before any other abilities come in to play. Making a Longsword outdamage a Greatsword.

[ThorOdinson]

Segev makes an excellent point-you only need to be using two hands when you make the attack for a Versatile weapon to use the higher damage die.

So, per your process, you can wield it in two hands when you start the attack, then lift a hand during damage for a total of 1d10+2 damage, before any other abilities come in to play. Making a Longsword outdamage a Greatsword.

Not relevant.

Game states that change in the course of adhering to the rules are permitted by the rules. I did not choose to have the weapon no longer be "in one hand" when it was thrown. The rules require it. When I go to make damage roll, the weapon is unequivocally no longer "in one hand". You need permission to apply the Defensive fighting style before the attack roll (retroactive to the damage roll) to accomplish what you are arguing is happening. But you do not have that permission. If you can find it in the PHB please post it.

Your case involves getting permission for a free action change of grip to be inserted in the Attack sequence when no such allowance is allowed. So ask your DM for permission. The rules in the PHB do not have that allowance

[Mellack]

That exact same action, releasing one hand, is also required to throw a weapon. Either the attack action allows it or it does not. There would appear to be no mechanical difference between the longsword and the javelin example.

[Rusvul]

As far as I can tell, the core of the disagreement is whether there is a mechanical distinction between the instant you throw a spear and the instant it hits. You could rule that the order of operations is as follows:
1) You throw a spear (it leaves your hand) and you make an attack roll.
2) You roll damage, and since the spear is not in your hand, you are no longer "wielding it in one hand" and you do not add Dueling damage.

Alternately, you could make the case that it all resolves simultaneously, and that there is not a meaningful mechanical distinction between the instant you throw the spear and the instant it hits the target and deals damage. "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand" can be parsed--as a full sentence, rather than piecemeal--to mean "when you make an attack using a weapon you're holding in one hand," and that also strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of RAW.

While attacks are carried out in steps, and certain mechanics can explicitly come between two of those steps, I don't believe there is any rules text in the PHB that states when modifiers like Dueling are applied (when the attack is initiated vs when damage is rolled). There also isn't any rules text defining the term "wielding in one hand," so to insist that there's only one possible interpretation is a little narrow. We're working beyond the scope of explicitly-defined game terms here, and frankly, I don't think 5e is granular enough for there to be a conclusive and objective RAW answer to questions like this.

Regardless of the exact interpretation of RAW, though, RAI is pretty clear (courtesy of the JC tweet). While you don't have an ironclad RAW case that the Dueling damage bonus definitely applies when you throw a spear, I can't see any reason to disallow it given the ambiguity and the clear designer intent. There may not be conclusive RAW available, but there is an obvious ruling to be made--and that is, ultimately, what matters.

[ThorOdinson]

That exact same action, releasing one hand, is also required to throw a weapon. Either the attack action allows it or it does not. There would appear to be no mechanical difference between the longsword and the javelin example.

This is not the same case at all. As stated already, the player is required by the rules to let go of the weapon. Permission has already been granted by the Ranged Attack rules and the player has no choice in the matter. There is no way the thrown weapon can end up in one hand except by an artificer invocation (returning weapon).

In the case of the longsword, you are trying to do something illegal. You are trying to do a free action at the same time as a Attack action. The rules do not allow this.

[ThorOdinson]

As far as I can tell, the core of the disagreement is whether there is a mechanical distinction between the instant you throw a spear and the instant it hits. You could rule that the order of operations is as follows:
1) You throw a spear (it leaves your hand) and you make an attack roll.
2) You roll damage, and since the spear is not in your hand, you are no longer "wielding it in one hand" and you do not add Dueling damage.

Alternately, you could make the case that it all resolves simultaneously, and that there is not a meaningful mechanical distinction between the instant you throw the spear and the instant it hits the target and deals damage. "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand" can be parsed--as a full sentence, rather than piecemeal--to mean "when you make an attack using a weapon you're holding in one hand," and that also strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of RAW.

While attacks are carried out in steps, and certain mechanics can explicitly come between two of those steps, I don't believe there is any rules text in the PHB that states when modifiers like Dueling are applied (when the attack is initiated vs when damage is rolled). There also isn't any rules text defining the term "wielding in one hand," so to insist that there's only one possible interpretation is a little narrow. We're working beyond the scope of explicitly-defined game terms here, and frankly, I don't think 5e is granular enough for there to be a conclusive and objective RAW answer to questions like this.

Regardless of the exact interpretation of RAW, though, RAI is pretty clear (courtesy of the JC tweet). While you don't have an ironclad RAW case that the Dueling damage bonus definitely applies when you throw a spear, I can't see any reason to disallow it given the ambiguity and the clear designer intent. There may not be conclusive RAW available, but there is an obvious ruling to be made--and that is, ultimately, what matters.

Please read the entireity of the rule in question. The Dueling fighting style rule itself applies a conditional directly to the damage roll so your analysis is in error. When the damage roll is made the thrown weapon is definitively not "in one hand" and so cannot be applied. Please read the rule again and adjust your comment accordingly. I value your input.

With regards to the second point, in AL the only official rules sources are the published books and the Sage Advice Compendium. The ruling you are referring to is not in the SAC but in an old tweet. JC tweets are designated as having no weight in AL. If the JC ruling were actually in the SAC I would happily allow it in AL play. You are free to follow that old unofficial tweet on your tables, but AL is according to RAW and SAC only.

People who disagree with the RAW argument are also free to e-mail the SAC to get them to include it in the next update.

[Valmark]

This is not the same case at all. As stated already, the player is required by the rules to let go of the weapon. Permission has already been granted by the rules and the player has no choice in the matter. There is no way the thrown weapon can end up in hand except by an artificer invocation (returning weapon).

In the case of the longsword, you are trying to do something illegal. You are trying to do a free action at the same time as a Attack action. The rules do not allow this.

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action."

EDIT: And AL is on what basis proof of validity?

[sithlordnergal]

With regards to the second point, in AL the only official rules sources are the published books and the Sage Advice Compendium. The ruling you are referring to is not in the SAC but in an old tweet. JC tweets are designated as having no weight in AL. If the JC ruling were actually in the SAC I would happily allow it in AL play. You are free to follow that old unofficial tweet on your tables, but AL is according to RAW and SAC only.

People who disagree with the RAW argument are also free to e-mail the SAC to get them to include it in the next update.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this debate, been taking care of several things. Here's that source for ya Thor, direct from not one, but two separate AL servers. One of which is the actual official DnD Discord server run by WotC.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

And just in case you don't think its an actual WotC run server, here ya go!

Spoiler

Show

There wasn't even a discussion, literally everyone essentially said "Yes, Dueling is applied because you are still considered to be wielding it when you throw it". One person also mentioned how technically the attack is instantaneous, and 5e doesn't count for the time between throwing it and hitting the target. Meaning technically, by RAW, there is no point in time when the Javelin is in the air. It just goes from your hands and then its either on the ground or piercing the target.


EDIT: I get that the Tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but previous rulings from before the change tend to be upheld by AL because they were official rulings at the time they were written. I doubt they'll be added to the SAC because they are already considered official rulings and don't really need to be added since they're used in the SA website itself, which is where you go to find the official rulings. Now, you can homebrew that it doesn't work if you like, but AL disagrees with you.

[JackPhoenix]

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

No, that's not "standard dictionary definition". That's specific dictionary's definition. Provide quote saying the one specific dictionary you've picked out is the one definitive resource that has to be used for terms not defined in PHB. In fact, if I use google, the dictionary using your definition isn't even the first result that shows up for me... it's 5th.

[ThorOdinson]

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action."

The attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon. You cannot change your hands and revisit the hit.

You also commit to a Ranged Attack when you make the attack roll. Hit or miss the weapon has been thrown and leaves your hand and you have absolutely no choice in the matter. If the weapon has not left your hand you have not thrown it and it has not traveled a distance to strike the target. You only get permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls.

If you can prove with rules that a missed Ranged Attack can end up with a thrown weapon that remains in hand ready for your next attack then you might have a case for further inquiry on this point. Obviously anyone who misses the attack roll of a thrown weapon would quite likely elect to keep the javelin or spear in hand instead of on the ground somewhere. The weapon leaving your hand is a direct consequence and cost imposed of electing to throw. So can you prove that a missed thrown attack can remain in your hand? Free artificer invocation sounds like fun. So show me the rule permission.

Whatever the outcome of the attack roll, the thrown weapon leaves the hand. So before damage rolls are made the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". And since the Dueling fighting style has a conditional that is checked at the damage roll there is no room for interpretation here. Its all RAW.

[sithlordnergal]

The attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon. You cannot change your hands and revisit the hit.

You also commit to a Ranged Attack when you make the attack roll. Hit or miss the weapon has been thrown and leaves your hand and you have absolutely no choice in the matter. If the weapon has not left your hand you have not thrown it and it has not traveled a distance to strike the target. You only get permission to make damage rolls after successful attack rolls.

If you can prove with rules that a missed Ranged Attack can end up with a thrown weapon that remains in hand ready for your next attack then you might have a case for further inquiry on this point. Obviously anyone who misses the attack roll of a thrown weapon would quite likely elect to keep the javelin or spear in hand instead of on the ground somewhere. The weapon leaving your hand is a direct consequence and cost imposed of electing to throw. So can you prove that a missed thrown attack can remain in your hand? Free artificer invocation sounds like fun. So show me the rule permission.

Whatever the outcome of the attack roll, the thrown weapon leaves the hand. So before damage rolls are made the weapon is definitively not "in one hand". And since the Dueling fighting style has a conditional that is checked at the damage roll there is no room for interpretation here. Its all RAW.

But here's the thing, Dueling doesn't care if you make a "Ranged Attack" or a "Melee Attack", it just cares if the attack is made with a Melee Weapon. Throwing a Melee Weapon does not suddenly make it a Ranged Weapon, it remains a Melee Weapon. Also, as I pointed out in one post above the one you quoted, AL agrees with us. 5e does not account for the time that the Javelin is in the air, the attack is done instantaneously, and you are considered to be wielding the Javelin up until the attack ends. Once the attack has been resolved, either with damage or by missing, the javelin is no longer in your hand. But until it is fully resolved, you are still wielding it.

EDIT: 5e doesn't actually have any rules regarding it, so you really can't prove that the Javelin ever left a person's hands in the first place if you just look at RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this debate, been taking care of several things. Here's that source for ya Thor, direct from not one, but two separate AL servers. One of which is the actual official DnD Discord server run by WotC.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

And just in case you don't think its an actual WotC run server, here ya go!

Spoiler

Show

There wasn't even a discussion, literally everyone essentially said "Yes, Dueling is applied because you are still considered to be wielding it when you throw it". One person also mentioned how technically the attack is instantaneous, and 5e doesn't count for the time between throwing it and hitting the target. Meaning technically, by RAW, there is no point in time when the Javelin is in the air. It just goes from your hands and then its either on the ground or piercing the target.


EDIT: I get that the Tweets are no longer considered official rulings, but previous rulings from before the change tend to be upheld by AL because they were official rulings at the time they were written. I doubt they'll be added to the SAC because they are already considered official rulings and don't really need to be added since they're used in the SA website itself, which is where you go to find the official rulings. Now, you can homebrew that it doesn't work if you like, but AL disagrees with you.

Thank you for doing this. But, it still does not suffice, the AL Discord server is not an official rules source. You have presented the equivalent of an on-the-spot judges ruling to advise a single DM on how to play. AL requires official printed releases. Do you have e-mail contact info for the Discord server? This needs to be officially published and released before it has the weight of rules in the PHB.

[Valmark]

Thank you for doing this. But, it still does not suffice, the AL Discord server is not an official rules source. You have presented the equivalent of an on-the-spot judges ruling. AL requires official printed releases. Do you have e-mail contact info for the Discord server?

"AL agrees with me"

"Look at this and you'll see that it doesn't"

"Then AL doesn't matter"

Yeeeah I don't think there is too much of a point arguing further.

[ThorOdinson]

"AL agrees with me"

"Look at this and you'll see that it doesn't"

"Then AL doesn't matter"

Yeeeah I don't think there is too much of a point arguing further.

No. The issue is that AL officially recognizes printed rules and the SAC. The Discord server is not an official rules source for AL (I checked). A DM who elects to use the Discord Server is accessing an unofficial source.

Feel free to take issue with the hard line I draw in the sand with regards to official versus unofficial sources. I can firmly say that I am adhering to the officially approved AL rules.

[sithlordnergal]

No. The issue is that AL officially recognizes printed rules and the SAC. The Discord server is not an official rules source for AL (I checked). A DM who elects to use the Discord Server is accessing an unofficial source.

Feel free to take issue with the hard line I draw in the sand with regards to official versus unofficial sources. I can firmly say that I am adhering to the officially approved AL rules.

It may be an unofficial rule source, but its also a space where those knowledgeable of the rules can be found. Its also a reliable source. And seeing as AL literally uses those old tweets that happened before the change, then those old tweets that happened before the change can be considered an official rule source. Otherwise they would not be referenced during rule disputes, and your answer would either be "No" or "There is no ruling for this, it is up to your DM".

EDIT: ITs fine if you say Dueling doesn't work like that at your table, but that is your homebrew ruling. It is not a ruling that follows purely what AL says, since those in AL say it does work.