Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

You used a lot less text to nicely summarize that, well done. Most of the participants reached that conclusion on page 1.

Wielded in one hand. Not held, wielded.

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

Nowhere.

Since one cannot even roll the damage die for a dagger (or javelin, they both are melee weapons that have the same thrown property), one must be wielding it to even get to roll the basic damage die. When one wields a weapon with the thrown property, one may elect to make the attack without throwing it, or by throwing it; in either case one must first be wielding it before one chooses which attack form to make with it.

That's my best effort at summarizing the position I've taken and how it works at our tables.

Best wishes and happy gaming to all.

[ThorOdinson]

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.

AL differs between tables since some DMs access unofficial sources, when officially they have been instructed that anything not from official sources are house rules. The unofficial sources are actually classed as house rules from AL DMs.

I stick to the official AL guidelines and official AL rule sources since I have been officially instructed by AL to do just that. So technically I am not implementing a house rule but rather RAW.

[Zhorn]

You used a lot less text to nicely summarize that, well done. Most of the participants reached that conclusion on page 1.

heh, I like to save the big responses for the fun navel gazing questions or convoluted topics. You already hit the nail on the head on page 1, so getting into a long pick-apart of the rules wasn't needed
If this thread was in animatic form, I'd like to picture my contribution as some guy in the background holding up a sign while the main event happens centre stage.

Special props to the folks having the fortitude to stick out this discussion for so long, especially Segev and sithlordnergal, beautiful work.

I do hope ThorOdinson sticks around on these forums for a bit longer. Even though I disagree with his stance on this topic, he has turned a simple quick question thread into something I've been looking forward to reading the updates on for the past few days.

[ThorOdinson]

heh, I like to save the big responses for the fun navel gazing questions or convoluted topics. You already hit the nail on the head on page 1, so getting into a long pick-apart of the rules wasn't needed
If this thread was in animatic form, I'd like to picture my contribution as some guy in the background holding up a sign while the main event happens centre stage.

Special props to the folks having the fortitude to stick out this discussion for so long, especially Segev and sithlordnergal, beautiful work.

I do hope ThorOdinson sticks around on these forums for a bit longer. Even though I disagree with his stance on this topic, he has turned a simple quick question thread into something I've been looking forward to reading the updates on for the past few days.

I hope everyone has what they want.

If you play at an AL table that accepts unofficial Discord Server or unofficial JC Tweets then you have what you want in the form of that house rule.

If you want to continue to engage me on a Official Rules Source AL RAW argument feel free to do so. Unofficial does not work for me. But I obviously cannot force other tables to stick to official sources only.

[JackPhoenix]

I hope everyone has what they want.

If you play at an AL table that accepts unofficial Discord Server or unofficial JC Tweets then you have what you want in the form of that house rule.

If you want to continue to engage me on a Official Rules Source AL RAW argument feel free to do so. Unofficial does not work for me. But I obviously cannot force other tables to stick to official sources only.

Well, if unofficial does not work for you, why do you insist on the definition of wielding that's nowhere in RAW, and on an idea that you can stop wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll that has no support in RAW? Those are both fine houserules, but you should not pretend they are in any way "official".

[ThorOdinson]

Well, if unofficial does not work for you, why do you insist on the definition of wielding that's nowhere in RAW, and on an idea that you can stop wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll that has no support in RAW? Those are both fine houserules, but you should not pretend they are in any way "official".

My argument does not rely on a definition of "wielding". Rather it is based on taking notice of whether the conditional " in one hand" is valid or not. I take notice of that conditional because a rule instructs me to do so.

I have meticulously laid out my RAW argument. The conditions by which you can apply the Dueling fighting style rule are not present when you have permission to make damage rolls. The weapon is definitively not "in one hand" so applying the bonus violates the rule.

The discussion about "wielding" merely supports my argument. Applying the standard definition that one applies in the context of weaponry ("hold and use [tool or weapon]") reminds us that thrown weapons in flight are not wielded and neatly supports the Dueling fighting style rule in a straightforward logical read.

The PHB does not provide its own definition of "wielding". In the absence of a PHB provided definition we have english semantics to guide us. I think it appropriate to refer to the standard definition of "wield" as it relates to tools and weaponry since that is exactly the context we are emulating in game and exactly the meaning we would expect the PHB to use. If you or others use more abstract definitions that are not related to weaponry, I question the appropriateness, but I can not require you to use the standard definition.

Luckily my argument only uses the standard definition of "wield" as secondary support for a RAW argument that is otherwise unequivocally and firmly established by the conditional logic of the rule itself and a clearcut validation test of "in one hand" and a simple marching along and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

Feel free to implement the JC Tweet house rule. It is only an unofficial house rule. Plenty of AL tables accept unofficial JC tweets and the like. My standard is official only.

Officially you do not have recourse to unofficial house rules, you only have the RAW and SAC.

If you want to take issue with my RAW argument feel free to do so. You should actually present your own RAW argument so we can see how you think a RAW argument should go.

So far I am the only one who has presented an elegant and fully functioning RAW argument. Feel free to present a better one.

I welcome anyone to point out rules that I have missed or to correct me on the rules. Make sure to support what you say with rules support so we can arive at a better understanding of RAW.

[Segev]

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

(...)

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.

You've asserted elsewhere that the rules permit (and require) you to release the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll when throwing a javelin. You also are asserting that the attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon, and that you cannot change your hands and, in your words, "revisit the hit."

All the rules you've quoted, to my (possibly incorrect) recollection, only point out that you don't have the weapon in hand after the attack is done when you throw a thrown weapon. I have not seen "permission granted" to change how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll.

If you require explicit permission to change the hand-count on the weapon between attack and damage roll, such permission must be written out in the RAW somewhere. Did you quote it, and I'm just not finding it as I scroll back through the thread?

You do quote the bit about hurling or otherwise causing a projectile to fly through the air for a ranged attack. I note that that doesn't say that the weapon leaves your hand between attack roll and damage roll. It is a logical thing to infer from the fiction-layer based on what's going on, but you're relying on a very strict reading of the RAW (and a particular definition of "wield") to make your case.

Please show me where it specifies that you cannot change the hand-count on a weapon between attack and damage with a Versatile weapon, but that you do so with a thrown weapon. It simply not being in your hand after the attack is finished is insufficient, here: you need to provide a quote that states the weapon - by game mechanics - has fewer hands on it when the damage is rolled than when the attack roll is made.

[ThorOdinson]

You've asserted elsewhere that the rules permit (and require) you to release the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll when throwing a javelin. You also are asserting that the attack roll is made with either one hand or two hands on the weapon, and that you cannot change your hands and, in your words, "revisit the hit."

All the rules you've quoted, to my (possibly incorrect) recollection, only point out that you don't have the weapon in hand after the attack is done when you throw a thrown weapon. I have not seen "permission granted" to change how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll.

If you require explicit permission to change the hand-count on the weapon between attack and damage roll, such permission must be written out in the RAW somewhere. Did you quote it, and I'm just not finding it as I scroll back through the thread?

You do quote the bit about hurling or otherwise causing a projectile to fly through the air for a ranged attack. I note that that doesn't say that the weapon leaves your hand between attack roll and damage roll. It is a logical thing to infer from the fiction-layer based on what's going on, but you're relying on a very strict reading of the RAW (and a particular definition of "wield") to make your case.

Please show me where it specifies that you cannot change the hand-count on a weapon between attack and damage with a Versatile weapon, but that you do so with a thrown weapon. It simply not being in your hand after the attack is finished is insufficient, here: you need to provide a quote that states the weapon - by game mechanics - has fewer hands on it when the damage is rolled than when the attack roll is made.

You are confused about my argument. I have stated that it is actually upon committing to making a ranged attack and making an attack roll that the weapon is thrown, travels a distance, and leaves the hand.

The attack roll determines a hit or a miss and certain facts are established with that roll.

A ranged attack roll when made establishes the fact that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

In particular, a successful roll establishes that the weapon been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, has hit the target, and a damage roll is in queue.

Similarly, an unsuccessful roll establishes that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, BUT here it has missed the target, has been placed on the ground, and a damage roll is not in queue.

Whether hit or miss the player cannot take the ranged attack back. The attack roll has been rolled. The weapon cannot be still be in hand at that point in the sequence unless you deny the facts of a ranged attack hit or miss having been determined by the roll.

If the ranged attack roll did not establish that the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and left the hand then missed range attacks would still be in the hand and successful rolls to hit would not correspond with the all the facts corresponding with a hit.

Before we go onto the next part found in the Damage and Healing section and make damage rolls for successful hits I feel we should pause here and make sure we are on the same page.

I am making a straight read of the logic and rules. Because attack rolls establish facts about the game state, I allow the roll to indeed establish those facts upon the execution of the roll.

Do you agree or disagree with the state of affairs so far? If the game state is not how I describe then how would you describe the game state? What has or has not been established at this point? Are there any rules I am missing?

[Xetheral]

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.

Your conclusion requires that the conditional "[w]hen you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" is tested at the time that damage is rolled. But the text in the PHB does not explicitly specify the timing of the test.

Because satisfying the condition gives a bonus to damage rolls, it is indeed reasonable to infer that the conditional must be satisfied at the time the damage roll is made. But from my perspective, that is not the only reasonable inference. It seems to me to also be reasonable to infer that the conditional is tested at the time the attack is made. As a third possibility, it seems reasonable to me to infer that, because explicit timing was not specified, the timing of the test was considered to not be outcome-determinative, which would imply that the unit of time "when damage is rolled" isn't meaningfully distinct from "when the attack is made".

I realize that you think that testing the conditional at the time that damage is rolled is the only reasonable inferrence from the wording of the Duelist fighting style. Can you see, however, that in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree on what inferences are reasonable?

[ThorOdinson]

Your conclusion requires that the conditional "[w]hen you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" is tested at the time that damage is rolled. But the text in the PHB does not explicitly specify the timing of the test.

Because satisfying the condition gives a bonus to damage rolls, it is indeed reasonable to infer that the conditional must be satisfied at the time the damage roll is made. But from my perspective, that is not the only reasonable inference. It seems to me to also be reasonable to infer that the conditional is tested at the time the attack is made. As a third possibility, it seems reasonable to me to infer that, because explicit timing was not specified, the timing of the test was considered to not be outcome-determinative, which would imply that the unit of time "when damage is rolled" isn't meaningfully distinct from "when the attack is made".

I realize that you think that testing the conditional at the time that damage is rolled is the only reasonable inferrence from the wording of the Duelist fighting style. Can you see, however, that in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree on what inferences are reasonable?

Let's clarify. By the logic of rule, the conditional applies the bonus whenever the conditional tests true and does not apply the bonus (ie removes the bonus) whenever the conditional tests false, but the only time the presence or absence of that bonus is relevant is when actual damage rolls are being made.

So the relevant time to check for whether its true or false is when you are making damage rolls.

[JackPhoenix]

The discussion about "wielding" merely supports my argument. Applying the standard definition that one applies in the context of weaponry ("hold and use [tool or weapon]") reminds us that thrown weapons in flight are not wielded and neatly supports the Dueling fighting style rule in a straightforward logical read.

The PHB does not provide its own definition of "wielding". In the absence of a PHB provided definition we have english semantics to guide us. I think it appropriate to refer to the standard definition of "wield" as it relates to tools and weaponry since that is exactly the context we are emulating in game and exactly the meaning we would expect the PHB to use. If you or others use more abstract definitions that are not related to weaponry, I question the appropriateness, but I can not require you to use the standard definition.

Luckily my argument only uses the standard definition of "wield" as secondary support for a RAW argument that is otherwise unequivocally and firmly established by the conditional logic of the rule itself and a clearcut validation test of "in one hand" and a simple marching along and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

Once again, you aren't using "a standard definition". You've picked one definition that supports your argument (poorly, at that), and ignore any other. What makes the one dictionary definition you've picked up "the standard one", and not any other?

If you want to take issue with my RAW argument feel free to do so. You should actually present your own RAW argument so we can see how you think a RAW argument should go.

I would, but for that, you would actually need to have RAW argument. You don't, and plenty of other people pointed that out already.

[Segev]

You are confused about my argument. I have stated that it is actually upon committing to making a ranged attack and making an attack roll that the weapon is thrown, travels a distance, and leaves the hand.

That is not supported by the rules you have quoted. I am glad you clarified that this is your point/assertion, because it helps me understand where our disconnect is. Nothing in the rules you quoted states that the number of hands with which the weapon is wielded changes between the commitment to the attack and the attack itself.

Can we agree that, in order to make a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, the weapon must be readied and in-hand?

The attack roll determines a hit or a miss and certain facts are established with that roll.

The only facts established with an attack roll are whether the attack hits or misses (and that is mildly dependent on a few possible reactions from the target).

A ranged attack roll when made establishes the fact that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

This is not in the RAW. This is your assertion. All the RAW have to say on the subject is that, when a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon is resolved, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is some distance away from him (presumably usually at least approximately the distance to the target).

The key point here being that the RAW only specify that the weapon has ceased to be in hand when the attack has finished resolving.

In particular, a successful roll establishes that the weapon been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, has hit the target, and a damage roll is in queue.

Again, you have not provided any rules support for this game-state ever existing. The RAW equally support a successful roll establishing that a damage roll is in queue and the weapon is still occupying the hand. The long discussion earlier on about whether you can cast counterspell in response to a shield spell with the hand throwing the weapon establishes this ambiguity, and while there was general agreement that, sure, that's fine, that general agreement was not based on solid RAW arguments, but rather on how people felt it reasonable to rule.

Similarly, an unsuccessful roll establishes that the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, has traveled a distance, BUT here it has missed the target, has been placed on the ground, and a damage roll is not in queue.

Sort-of, in that an unsuccessful roll establishes that there is no damage roll, and thus the attack has fully resolved (assuming there are no further mechanical ploys brought to bear to try to change it into a hit). Again, this only provides support for the notion that the weapon is no longer occupying the hand that wielded it after the attack has resolved.

Whether hit or miss the player cannot take the ranged attack back. The attack roll has been rolled. The weapon cannot be still be in hand at that point in the sequence unless you deny the facts of a ranged attack hit or miss having been determined by the roll.

Whether hit or miss, no attack can be "taken back" before it is fully resolved. There is nothing in the rules that you have quoted that supports your assertion that the weapon has left the hand during the attack roll nor between the attack roll and the damage roll. Only that the weapon has left the hand after the attack is fully resolved.

As a side note, there ARE decisions that an attacker can make after the attack roll's success or failure is resolved but before the damage roll is made. The first to come to my mind as an example is sneak attack, and whether to apply it or not. Because sneak attack can be applied only once per turn, but does not specify that it must be applied to the first hit (unlike the Zealot's necrotic/radiant damage bonus). Just "once per turn." The rules never actually say outright that you CAN make that choice between the attack roll and the damage roll, only that once per turn you can add that damage to a creature you hit with an attack (with which you have advantage). You obviously have to be able to choose to do so at that stage, but the rules don't outright grant you that permission.

Similarly, the rules don't deny it.

The number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon either can or cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll. If it can, then your argument that it might be going from one to zero between attack roll and damage roll is at least a legal possibility within the RAW. But then, so, too, is it a legal possibility to make a melee attack with a spear held in two hands, and use your free object interaction (or even a "free action" like unto dropping an item) to remove one hand from the spear after you make the attack roll, thus having wielded it in two hands when you made the attack (getting the higher Versatile-granted die type) and wielding it in one hand (and holding no other weapons) when you roll damage (getting the +2 bonus from dueling)! The RAW neither explicitly grant permission, nor deny it, for voluntarily removing a hand from the weapon, but the RAW do specify that you may take your free object interaction "during your action." If there is a granular point between attack and damage that enables you to change the number of hands wielding the weapon, then the existence of the ability to make any decisions about the attack between rolling to hit and rolling damage combined with the explicit permission to use a free-action object interaction "during your action" does grant the ability to do this.

On the other hand, if the number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll, the number of hands wielding the weapon for purposes of the entire attack is established when you make the attack roll.

Or, to borrow your phrasing: A ranged attack roll when made establishes the target of the attack, how many hands wield the weapon with which the attack is made, and how much damage the weapon will deal if it hits.

Now, any damage - such as sneak attack - which requires you to decide to apply it or not is the only thing not established before the attack roll is made regarding the damage roll. I believe your argument is that the determination of how many hands wield the weapon would be one of these things, but since the choice in how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon is made BEFORE the attack roll (unless you can in fact change how many hands wield a weapon between attack and damage), this is not a decision made after rolling and determining whether you hit or

If the ranged attack roll did not establish that the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and left the hand then missed range attacks would still be in the hand and successful rolls to hit would not correspond with the all the facts corresponding with a hit.

Because the premise you are basing this on has not been established to be supported by the RAW, this conclusion is not correct.

I also dispute the validity of part of the conclusion, even with your premises: nothing says that the rolling of the attack has to establish those things in order for missed ranged attacks to have left the hand after the attack is resolved, and I'm honestly not sure what "facts corresponding with a hit" "successful rolls to hit would not correspond" with. The RAW only specify that, after the resolution of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is at least implicitly somewhere in the vicinity of the target. (Or, if the miss was bad enough, at least somewhere away from the attacker.)

But, to reiterate, nothing in the RAW supports your assertion that the ranged attack roll establishes what you've stated it does as a game state that exists prior to the final resolution of the attack.

Before we go onto the next part found in the Damage and Healing section and make damage rolls for successful hits I feel we should pause here and make sure we are on the same page.

I am making a straight read of the logic and rules.

No, you are not, as I have stated above.

Because attack rolls establish facts about the game state, I allow the roll to indeed establish those facts upon the execution of the roll.

The only fact the attack roll itself establishes is the highest AC the target can have and still be damaged by the attack. The choice to MAKE the attack establishes the weapon used, the attack bonus for the attack roll, the target of the attack, how many hands are wielding the weapon, what damage dice and bonuses (save for things like sneak attack) will be applied if the attack hits, and that (in the case of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon) the weapon will no longer be in-hand after the attack resolves. Making the attack roll only determines whether it hits or not, and does not establish any of the preceding facts. The damage can be modified after determining the success of the attack roll with certain abilities - like sneak attack - which can be but are not necessarily applied to a successful hit.

The point in question remains whether "the number of hands wielding the weapon" can be different after the attack roll than it was before the attack roll. If it can, then you've got room to rule that the number of hands perforce changes between the attack roll and the damage roll if the number of hands must be different after the attack resolves...but even then, you're only making a ruling, because an equally-valid ruling is that it does not unless the attacker chooses to make the change then. The only rules-required change is that the number of hands wielding the thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the thrown-weapon attack is finished resolving. If it can, then it is also perfectly legal to voluntarily change the number of hands wielding the weapon from 2 to 1 with an attack roll in between; it may require an object interaction if the DM does not rule that the number of hands is not automatically changed at that stage.

On the other hand, if "the number of hands wielding the weapon" is established when you choose to attack and make all relevant decisions about the attack (what weapon, what stat bonus to use, how many hands to wield it with, etc.), then that number cannot change during the game state between the attack roll and the damage roll. You still have a thrown weapon out-of-hand after the attack is resolved, per the RAW, but you cannot voluntarily nor involuntarily change the decision about how many hands you're wielding it with after you make the attack roll but before you roll damage. Thus, no Versatile higher-damage-die + Dueling bonus damage, under this ruling.

Do you agree or disagree with the state of affairs so far? If the game state is not how I describe then how would you describe the game state? What has or has not been established at this point? Are there any rules I am missing?

I believe I have answered this above. To summarize: the attack roll doesn't establish much beyond whether the attack hits or misses. Many of the facts of the attack are established before the attack roll is made, when the attacker's player decides to commit to making an attack. One of those decisions is how many hands he's using to wield the weapon (because this can matter both for whether he can make the attack at all, and for the damage die type on Versatile weapons). There is room to make decisions between the attack roll and the damage roll, because deciding to apply your once-per-turn sneak attack damage happens there (as does the decision of the target to use a Reaction to cast shield).

There is nothing in the RAW that requires that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon must change between the attack roll and the damage roll. The RAW only require that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the attack has resolved. There is room to rule that this change happens between the attack roll and the damage roll, but if you determine this, you've also perforce implicitly ruled that the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll. Since your free object interaction can happen "during your action" without specified limit as to when during the action it can happen, if the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll, there is nothing stopping the attacker from using his free object interaction to remove a hand from the weapon between the attack roll and damage roll.

Thus, it is possible, within the RAW, to rule as you do that a thrown weapon is wielded in zero hands by the time the damage roll is made, but to do so, you must also rule that a Versatile weapon can be wielded in two hands when the attack roll is made, but one hand when the damage roll is made, and get the bigger die type and the Dueling bonus damage. In fact, the latter trick does not even require that the former be allowed, while the former DOES require that the latter be allowed. (Again, the RAW only compel the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon to be zero after the attack resolves. So if you permit the number of hands to change between attack roll and damage roll, that doesn't REQUIRE them to by itself, so you could permit the player to choose to change the number of hands then, or later, after the damage roll. Obviously you wouldn't rule that way given how you've been arguing, but I feel the need to point this out for completeness's sake.)

Thus, it is possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll on the grounds that this decision is made when you commit to the attack; all the RAW for a ranged attack with a thrown weapon requires is that the thrown weapon be out of the attacker's hand(s) after the attack resolves.

It is also possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon CAN change between the attack roll and the damage roll, which leaves room to then rule that that is the point at which the number of hands changes to zero when making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. If you do make this ruling, however, it is also required, if you are to rule consistently, to permit the number of hands to change voluntarily from 2 to 1 between attack roll and damage roll when making melee attacks with versatile weapons, thus getting the higher die type and the Dueling bonus.

[Xetheral]

Let's clarify. By the logic of rule, the conditional applies the bonus whenever the conditional tests true and does not apply the bonus (ie removes the bonus) whenever the conditional tests false, but the only time the presence or absence of that bonus is relevant is when actual damage rolls are being made.

So the relevant time to check for whether its true or false is when you are making damage rolls.

So, your argument isn't that the conditional should be checked at the time damage is rolled, your argument is that the conditional should be checked continuously?

First, that seems to me like a less reasonable inferrence from the text than the idea that the conditional should be checked when damage is rolled. I would suggest that a "when x, do y" linguistic construction almost never refers to a continuously checked conditional outside of control systems engineering or certain types of programming.

Second, even if, for sake of argument, I were to agree that a continuously checked conditional is a reasonable inference from the text of Dueling, the text still does not explicitly pick between them. Having four reasonable inferrences on when the conditional should be checked (rather than than the three I identified) simply makes the question I asked in my previous post more relevant.

I'd note you didn't actually answer that question. To reiterate, can you can see how, in the absence of an explicit statement in the text on when the condition is to be tested, that there is room for other people to disagree with you on what inferences are reasonable?

[ThorOdinson]

That is not supported by the rules you have quoted. I am glad you clarified that this is your point/assertion, because it helps me understand where our disconnect is. Nothing in the rules you quoted states that the number of hands with which the weapon is wielded changes between the commitment to the attack and the attack itself.

Can we agree that, in order to make a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, the weapon must be readied and in-hand?

The only facts established with an attack roll are whether the attack hits or misses (and that is mildly dependent on a few possible reactions from the target).

This is not in the RAW. This is your assertion. All the RAW have to say on the subject is that, when a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon is resolved, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is some distance away from him (presumably usually at least approximately the distance to the target).

The key point here being that the RAW only specify that the weapon has ceased to be in hand when the attack has finished resolving.

Again, you have not provided any rules support for this game-state ever existing. The RAW equally support a successful roll establishing that a damage roll is in queue and the weapon is still occupying the hand. The long discussion earlier on about whether you can cast counterspell in response to a shield spell with the hand throwing the weapon establishes this ambiguity, and while there was general agreement that, sure, that's fine, that general agreement was not based on solid RAW arguments, but rather on how people felt it reasonable to rule.

Sort-of, in that an unsuccessful roll establishes that there is no damage roll, and thus the attack has fully resolved (assuming there are no further mechanical ploys brought to bear to try to change it into a hit). Again, this only provides support for the notion that the weapon is no longer occupying the hand that wielded it after the attack has resolved.

Whether hit or miss, no attack can be "taken back" before it is fully resolved. There is nothing in the rules that you have quoted that supports your assertion that the weapon has left the hand during the attack roll nor between the attack roll and the damage roll. Only that the weapon has left the hand after the attack is fully resolved.

As a side note, there ARE decisions that an attacker can make after the attack roll's success or failure is resolved but before the damage roll is made. The first to come to my mind as an example is sneak attack, and whether to apply it or not. Because sneak attack can be applied only once per turn, but does not specify that it must be applied to the first hit (unlike the Zealot's necrotic/radiant damage bonus). Just "once per turn." The rules never actually say outright that you CAN make that choice between the attack roll and the damage roll, only that once per turn you can add that damage to a creature you hit with an attack (with which you have advantage). You obviously have to be able to choose to do so at that stage, but the rules don't outright grant you that permission.

Similarly, the rules don't deny it.

The number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon either can or cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll. If it can, then your argument that it might be going from one to zero between attack roll and damage roll is at least a legal possibility within the RAW. But then, so, too, is it a legal possibility to make a melee attack with a spear held in two hands, and use your free object interaction (or even a "free action" like unto dropping an item) to remove one hand from the spear after you make the attack roll, thus having wielded it in two hands when you made the attack (getting the higher Versatile-granted die type) and wielding it in one hand (and holding no other weapons) when you roll damage (getting the +2 bonus from dueling)! The RAW neither explicitly grant permission, nor deny it, for voluntarily removing a hand from the weapon, but the RAW do specify that you may take your free object interaction "during your action." If there is a granular point between attack and damage that enables you to change the number of hands wielding the weapon, then the existence of the ability to make any decisions about the attack between rolling to hit and rolling damage combined with the explicit permission to use a free-action object interaction "during your action" does grant the ability to do this.

On the other hand, if the number of hands with which you are wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll, the number of hands wielding the weapon for purposes of the entire attack is established when you make the attack roll.

Or, to borrow your phrasing: A ranged attack roll when made establishes the target of the attack, how many hands wield the weapon with which the attack is made, and how much damage the weapon will deal if it hits.

Now, any damage - such as sneak attack - which requires you to decide to apply it or not is the only thing not established before the attack roll is made regarding the damage roll. I believe your argument is that the determination of how many hands wield the weapon would be one of these things, but since the choice in how many hands with which you're wielding the weapon is made BEFORE the attack roll (unless you can in fact change how many hands wield a weapon between attack and damage), this is not a decision made after rolling and determining whether you hit or

Because the premise you are basing this on has not been established to be supported by the RAW, this conclusion is not correct.

I also dispute the validity of part of the conclusion, even with your premises: nothing says that the rolling of the attack has to establish those things in order for missed ranged attacks to have left the hand after the attack is resolved, and I'm honestly not sure what "facts corresponding with a hit" "successful rolls to hit would not correspond" with. The RAW only specify that, after the resolution of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon is no longer in the attacker's hand and is at least implicitly somewhere in the vicinity of the target. (Or, if the miss was bad enough, at least somewhere away from the attacker.)

But, to reiterate, nothing in the RAW supports your assertion that the ranged attack roll establishes what you've stated it does as a game state that exists prior to the final resolution of the attack.

No, you are not, as I have stated above.

The only fact the attack roll itself establishes is the highest AC the target can have and still be damaged by the attack. The choice to MAKE the attack establishes the weapon used, the attack bonus for the attack roll, the target of the attack, how many hands are wielding the weapon, what damage dice and bonuses (save for things like sneak attack) will be applied if the attack hits, and that (in the case of a ranged attack with a thrown weapon) the weapon will no longer be in-hand after the attack resolves. Making the attack roll only determines whether it hits or not, and does not establish any of the preceding facts. The damage can be modified after determining the success of the attack roll with certain abilities - like sneak attack - which can be but are not necessarily applied to a successful hit.

The point in question remains whether "the number of hands wielding the weapon" can be different after the attack roll than it was before the attack roll. If it can, then you've got room to rule that the number of hands perforce changes between the attack roll and the damage roll if the number of hands must be different after the attack resolves...but even then, you're only making a ruling, because an equally-valid ruling is that it does not unless the attacker chooses to make the change then. The only rules-required change is that the number of hands wielding the thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the thrown-weapon attack is finished resolving. If it can, then it is also perfectly legal to voluntarily change the number of hands wielding the weapon from 2 to 1 with an attack roll in between; it may require an object interaction if the DM does not rule that the number of hands is not automatically changed at that stage.

On the other hand, if "the number of hands wielding the weapon" is established when you choose to attack and make all relevant decisions about the attack (what weapon, what stat bonus to use, how many hands to wield it with, etc.), then that number cannot change during the game state between the attack roll and the damage roll. You still have a thrown weapon out-of-hand after the attack is resolved, per the RAW, but you cannot voluntarily nor involuntarily change the decision about how many hands you're wielding it with after you make the attack roll but before you roll damage. Thus, no Versatile higher-damage-die + Dueling bonus damage, under this ruling.


I believe I have answered this above. To summarize: the attack roll doesn't establish much beyond whether the attack hits or misses. Many of the facts of the attack are established before the attack roll is made, when the attacker's player decides to commit to making an attack. One of those decisions is how many hands he's using to wield the weapon (because this can matter both for whether he can make the attack at all, and for the damage die type on Versatile weapons). There is room to make decisions between the attack roll and the damage roll, because deciding to apply your once-per-turn sneak attack damage happens there (as does the decision of the target to use a Reaction to cast shield).

There is nothing in the RAW that requires that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon must change between the attack roll and the damage roll. The RAW only require that the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon has dropped to zero after the attack has resolved. There is room to rule that this change happens between the attack roll and the damage roll, but if you determine this, you've also perforce implicitly ruled that the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll. Since your free object interaction can happen "during your action" without specified limit as to when during the action it can happen, if the number of hands wielding a weapon can change between the attack roll and the damage roll, there is nothing stopping the attacker from using his free object interaction to remove a hand from the weapon between the attack roll and damage roll.

Thus, it is possible, within the RAW, to rule as you do that a thrown weapon is wielded in zero hands by the time the damage roll is made, but to do so, you must also rule that a Versatile weapon can be wielded in two hands when the attack roll is made, but one hand when the damage roll is made, and get the bigger die type and the Dueling bonus damage. In fact, the latter trick does not even require that the former be allowed, while the former DOES require that the latter be allowed. (Again, the RAW only compel the number of hands wielding a thrown weapon to be zero after the attack resolves. So if you permit the number of hands to change between attack roll and damage roll, that doesn't REQUIRE them to by itself, so you could permit the player to choose to change the number of hands then, or later, after the damage roll. Obviously you wouldn't rule that way given how you've been arguing, but I feel the need to point this out for completeness's sake.)

Thus, it is possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon cannot change between the attack roll and the damage roll on the grounds that this decision is made when you commit to the attack; all the RAW for a ranged attack with a thrown weapon requires is that the thrown weapon be out of the attacker's hand(s) after the attack resolves.

It is also possible within the RAW to rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon CAN change between the attack roll and the damage roll, which leaves room to then rule that that is the point at which the number of hands changes to zero when making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. If you do make this ruling, however, it is also required, if you are to rule consistently, to permit the number of hands to change voluntarily from 2 to 1 between attack roll and damage roll when making melee attacks with versatile weapons, thus getting the higher die type and the Dueling bonus.

Your response reads unneccesarily like a EULA from Apple which makes it problematic for the thread and continued discussion. So please be succinct so I can respond to points without further bloat. I have been succinct.

I have a shield in one hand and a trident in the other.

I make a ranged attack, throwing my weapon, against an opponent 30 feet away and the attack roll hits. Damage rolls have not been made.

The opponent casts Shield in reaction to my successful hit and I attempt to react with Counterspell. I do not have the Warcaster feat so I absolutely require a free hand to cast Counterspell.

What is the complete picture of the game state at this juncture? Where is the trident located? Is my hand free for Somatic components?

[Zhorn]

-a work of art-

This is beautiful

And that response...
Man, I am enjoying reading this thread far more than should be possible considering the topic. This has been an experience

[Segev]

Your response reads unneccesarily like a EULA from Apple which makes it problematic for the thread and continued discussion. So please be succinct so I can respond to points without further bloat. I have been succinct.

I have not found you so, in general, and my attempts to be so, you have complained have been insufficient. I shall, however, attempt to respond to this post with greater pith. (This is not a strong suit of mine, so apologies in advance if I fail.)

I have a shield in one hand and a trident in the other.

I make a ranged attack, throwing my weapon, against an opponent 30 feet away and the attack roll hits. Damage rolls have not been made.

The opponent casts Shield in reaction to my successful hit and I attempt to react with Counterspell. I do not have the Warcaster feat so I absolutely require a free hand to cast Counterspell.

What is the complete picture of the game state at this juncture? Where is the trident located? Is my hand free for Somatic components?

Two possible rulings:

Ruling Option 1: It is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll

If you rule that you can change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then you either automatically do so at this stage (as you suggest) or you may choose to do so at this stage (probably requiring your free object interaction). Under this condition, you can have the hand free to counterspell, and if you DO (whether required, as you say, or voluntarily) reduce the hands wielding the trident to zero, you would not get the Dueling bonus.

In addition, if you rule as above, that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then when making a melee attack with a trident, you could make the attack roll with two hands wielding it to get 1d8 (rather than 1d6) as the damage die, and then, between the attack roll and the damage roll, remove one hand (because, remember, you've ruled that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon between attack roll and damage roll) and deal damage while wielding it with only one hand, getting +2 damage for the dueling style.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to rule this way and also rule that it is a choice, rather than a requirement, to remove a hand between the attack and damage roll. You obviously, given your arguments, would require the reduction of number of wielding hands to zero with thrown weapons at this point.

Interestingly, you could also be wielding this trident in a melee attack against a wizard who casts shield and reduce the number of hands you're wielding the trident with to zero in order to free up a hand to counterspell the shield. It might arguably take your object interaction to do so, but you would still deal damage with it since your argument is that you do not need any hands wielding the weapon to deal damage, only to make the attack roll.

Ruling Option 2: The number of hands wielding a weapon is set when you make the decision at the start of the attack, and cannot change until the attack resolves

If you rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon is a decision made when you make the attack (possibly before, requiring an object interaction to alter), then when you throw the trident, your hand remains occupied until the attack resolves. Your hand remains occupied - possibly representing that there's just not time to go from "throwing motion" to "spellcasting gestures" in the timing required - until the attack resolves.

This ruling prevents you from changing the number of hands wielding a weapon during the attack. It is, as stated, determined when you commit to the attack as one of the variables that goes into determining whether you can make it at all and possibly what kind of damage die it deals. You would count as wielding the trident with one hand for the entirety of the attack, thrown or melee, and you'd get the dueling bonus, but you couldn't counterspell. You also would not have the ability to get 1d8+2 (plus your stat mod and other damage bonuses) by wielding it in two hands when you roll your attack roll, and reducing that to one hand between attack roll and damage roll.



You can choose which ruling you like better; the game is silent on it. However, do be aware of the consequences of each ruling. Personally, I think the first one leads to more nonsensical shenanigans while the second one is a clean model with no weird corner case flaws. (I do not see a problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your thrown trident while holding a shield," just as I see no problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your melee attack with a trident while holding a shield.")



Is this succinct enough? Or do I need to try to pack it down a bit further?

[ThorOdinson]

I have not found you so, in general, and my attempts to be so, you have complained have been insufficient. I shall, however, attempt to respond to this post with greater pith. (This is not a strong suit of mine, so apologies in advance if I fail.)



Two possible rulings:

Ruling Option 1: It is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll

If you rule that you can change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then you either automatically do so at this stage (as you suggest) or you may choose to do so at this stage (probably requiring your free object interaction). Under this condition, you can have the hand free to counterspell, and if you DO (whether required, as you say, or voluntarily) reduce the hands wielding the trident to zero, you would not get the Dueling bonus.

In addition, if you rule as above, that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll, then when making a melee attack with a trident, you could make the attack roll with two hands wielding it to get 1d8 (rather than 1d6) as the damage die, and then, between the attack roll and the damage roll, remove one hand (because, remember, you've ruled that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon between attack roll and damage roll) and deal damage while wielding it with only one hand, getting +2 damage for the dueling style.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to rule this way and also rule that it is a choice, rather than a requirement, to remove a hand between the attack and damage roll. You obviously, given your arguments, would require the reduction of number of wielding hands to zero with thrown weapons at this point.

Interestingly, you could also be wielding this trident in a melee attack against a wizard who casts shield and reduce the number of hands you're wielding the trident with to zero in order to free up a hand to counterspell the shield. It might arguably take your object interaction to do so, but you would still deal damage with it since your argument is that you do not need any hands wielding the weapon to deal damage, only to make the attack roll.

Ruling Option 2: The number of hands wielding a weapon is set when you make the decision at the start of the attack, and cannot change until the attack resolves

If you rule that the number of hands wielding a weapon is a decision made when you make the attack (possibly before, requiring an object interaction to alter), then when you throw the trident, your hand remains occupied until the attack resolves. Your hand remains occupied - possibly representing that there's just not time to go from "throwing motion" to "spellcasting gestures" in the timing required - until the attack resolves.

This ruling prevents you from changing the number of hands wielding a weapon during the attack. It is, as stated, determined when you commit to the attack as one of the variables that goes into determining whether you can make it at all and possibly what kind of damage die it deals. You would count as wielding the trident with one hand for the entirety of the attack, thrown or melee, and you'd get the dueling bonus, but you couldn't counterspell. You also would not have the ability to get 1d8+2 (plus your stat mod and other damage bonuses) by wielding it in two hands when you roll your attack roll, and reducing that to one hand between attack roll and damage roll.



You can choose which ruling you like better; the game is silent on it. However, do be aware of the consequences of each ruling. Personally, I think the first one leads to more nonsensical shenanigans while the second one is a clean model with no weird corner case flaws. (I do not see a problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your thrown trident while holding a shield," just as I see no problem with "you have no hand free to counterspell shield against your melee attack with a trident while holding a shield.")



Is this succinct enough? Or do I need to try to pack it down a bit further?

Please provide a succinct and direct answer to the scenario representing your view.

Where is the trident located? (E.g. Is it located in the hand. Is it in flight between us threatening to hit the opponent? Is it adjacent to and hitting the opponent so that Shield can actually react at this juncture.)


Is my hand free to counterspell? (E.g. Is it stil gripping the Trident? Is it free of the Trident but caught up in the motion of the thow? Is it entirely free of the Trident and able to Counterspell?)

Commit to defining your view on this scenario.


Incidentally, I want to point out that you continue to mischaracterize my view. But I will get to the that, once you commit to a direct answer of your view.

[JNAProductions]

So you don’t have an answer, then, TO?

Because the bolded bits are pretty succinct, and one apparently matches your view-but then also leads to being able to make Versatile weapons 1d10+2 with Dueling.

[ThorOdinson]

So you don’t have an answer, then, TO?

Because the bolded bits are pretty succinct, and one apparently matches your view-but then also leads to being able to make Versatile weapons 1d10+2 with Dueling.

I have no idea where Segev thinks the Trident is located at this juncture or how he would describe the state of the thrower's hands because he hasn't answered my questions and provided his view.

The Ranged Attack describes the hurling of weapons and the sending of a projectile. So where along the path of a thrown projectile are we at this juncture?

JNAP, feel free to provide a singular answer to the question representing your view as well. What is your view on the scenario?

Remember, the weapon was thrown, a hit has been rolled, and Shield was legally cast (Shield reacts to the fact of hits).

[Mellack]

I have no idea where Segev thinks the Trident is located at this juncture or how he would describe the state of the thrower's hands because he hasn't answered my questions and provided his view.

The Ranged Attack describes the hurling of weapons and the sending of a projectile. So where along the path of a thrown projectile are we at this juncture?

JNAP, feel free to provide a singular answer to the question representing your view as well. What is your view on the scenario?

Remember, the weapon was thrown, a hit has been rolled, and Shield was legally cast (Shield reacts to the fact of hits).

Why does where Sergev thinks the trident is at matter? Their whole discussion was about how the statements of your claims worked. I did not see where they were taking any stance on where the trident is, just asking for you to apply your own to it. It seems as if you cannot answer about the application of your claims to the situation of the trident.

[ThorOdinson]

Why does where Sergev thinks the trident is at matter? Their whole discussion was about how the statements of your claims worked. I did not see where they were taking any stance on where the trident is, just asking for you to apply your own to it. It seems as if you cannot answer about the application of your claims to the situation of the trident.

It's a fair question and the scenario is a good way to get a deeper look at the issues involved in the larger discussion.

We have set aside the question of Dueling fighting style for the moment and are seeking to understand the game state in the scenario presented.

I am confused as to why you cannot simply provide an answer to the question presented.

Can you provide a direct answer to the question?

Where is the trident located when Shield is cast in reaction to a successful hit and I want to Counterspell in reaction to Shield? Is my hand free to fulfill somatic components?

I eagerly await your response.

[Segev]

Please provide a succinct and direct answer to the scenario representing your view.

Where is the trident located? (E.g. Is it located in the hand. Is it in flight between us threatening to hit the opponent? Is it adjacent to and hitting the opponent so that Shield can actually react at this juncture.)


Is my hand free to counterspell? (E.g. Is it stil gripping the Trident? Is it free of the Trident but caught up in the motion of the thow? Is it entirely free of the Trident and able to Counterspell?)

Commit to defining your view on this scenario.


Incidentally, I want to point out that you continue to mischaracterize my view. But I will get to the that, once you commit to a direct answer of your view.

It's a fair question and the scenario is a good way to get a deeper look at the issues involved in the larger discussion.

We have set aside the question of Dueling fighting style for the moment and are seeking to understand the game state in the scenario presented.

I am confused as to why you cannot simply provide an answer to the question presented.

Can you provide a direct answer to the question?

Where is the trident located when Shield is cast in reaction to a successful hit and I want to Counterspell in reaction to Shield? Is my hand free to fulfill somatic components?

I eagerly await your response.

There is a divide between gameplay and story. There's even a term for it: Gameplay/story segregation.

In the fiction, what happens is the trident leaves the hand throwing it, flies towards the spellcaster, and, as the spellcaster realizes he's about to be hit and cannot dodge, he swiftly conjures a shield that (hopefully) blocks the attack (as he knows that it adds 5 to his AC, mechanically, and knows whether +5 to AC would change the hit to a miss).

Mechanically, what happens is that the determination of how many hands are wielding the trident is made along with other parameters relevant to resolving the attack, the attack roll is made, the attack is determined to hit the spellcaster's AC (presumably by less than 5), and the spellcaster decides to use a reaction to cast shield.

The way I would rule it, the fiction has the hand that threw the trident be too out of position to suddenly whip back and properly cast counterspell, and in the mechanics, the hand is still wielding the trident throughout this process, until such time as the attack fully resolves, at which point the hand is no longer wielding it, based on the fact that the number of hands wielding the trident cannot (by my ruling) change in the mechanical steps between the attack roll and the damage roll.


I believe that this ruling is satisfactory for modeling in mechanics the fiction in question, even though the model does not handle a moment-by-moment physics problem of the arc the trident travels nor the precise wounds it inflicts should it hit, nor even exactly where the trident lands if it misses.

I also believe that the alternative ruling - that the trident is wielded by zero hands after the attack roll but before and during the damage roll - opens up doors to far more undesirable mechanical shenanigans which, whether they make sense in the fiction or not, are definitely not using the rules as intended as evidenced by the way they have been presented.

[ThorOdinson]

There is a divide between gameplay and story. There's even a term for it: Gameplay/story segregation.

In the fiction, what happens is the trident leaves the hand throwing it, flies towards the spellcaster, and, as the spellcaster realizes he's about to be hit and cannot dodge, he swiftly conjures a shield that (hopefully) blocks the attack (as he knows that it adds 5 to his AC, mechanically, and knows whether +5 to AC would change the hit to a miss).

Mechanically, what happens is that the determination of how many hands are wielding the trident is made along with other parameters relevant to resolving the attack, the attack roll is made, the attack is determined to hit the spellcaster's AC (presumably by less than 5), and the spellcaster decides to use a reaction to cast shield.

The way I would rule it, the fiction has the hand that threw the trident be too out of position to suddenly whip back and properly cast counterspell, and in the mechanics, the hand is still wielding the trident throughout this process, until such time as the attack fully resolves, at which point the hand is no longer wielding it, based on the fact that the number of hands wielding the trident cannot (by my ruling) change in the mechanical steps between the attack roll and the damage roll.


I believe that this ruling is satisfactory for modeling in mechanics the fiction in question, even though the model does not handle a moment-by-moment physics problem of the arc the trident travels nor the precise wounds it inflicts should it hit, nor even exactly where the trident lands if it misses.

I also believe that the alternative ruling - that the trident is wielded by zero hands after the attack roll but before and during the damage roll - opens up doors to far more undesirable mechanical shenanigans which, whether they make sense in the fiction or not, are definitely not using the rules as intended as evidenced by the way they have been presented.

So what you have said is that the the trident is simultaneously in the hand of the thrower and striking the opponent 30 feet away, correct?

This is a logically implausible game state. It causes issues when things happen like Shield and Counterspell where you must houserule yourself out of a complete mess you have invented. And you are working under the assumption, no where stated in the rules, that the attack and damage is resolved simultaneously (And lets set aside the contradiction with an Action allowing a free action interjection and even a series of spell reactions to interject). You are resorting to quantum mechanics here when you suggest that the Trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile in order to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is no where defined in the rules, in order to preserve a +2 bonus that you logically do not have. I hope you are not claiming that your argument is anywhere close to resembling a RAW argument. If you are, several citations are due, sir.

This is an interesting departure between our arguments.

My argument is that the hit roll when made establishes facts about the game state because indeed a successful attack roll establishes facts and I do not have permission to delay or ignore that recognition.

So my view is pretty straightforward. I march along recognizing the facts as they present themselves as logically required. A successful attack means the weapon has been thrown, the weapon has left the hand, the weapon is adjacent to the target so as to positionally be able to strike the target. Resolving Shield and Counterspell is easy for me. The throwers hand is free to perform the somatic requirements for Counterspell.

My solution is logically plausible. I am not forcing the rules to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is nowhere defined in the rules. The Dueling fighting style checks the facts established by the attack roll and returns 'false'. A successful attack roll establishes the trident is no longer "in one hand".

Once again I will point out that my argument does not involve the capacity for hands to switch up how they were wielding the thrown weapon after the attack roll for the ranged attack since my argument recognizes the facts established by the attack roll (the weapon has been thrown, traveled a distance, and has left the hand). You keep trying to put words in my mouth on that issue. That is an issue you have with your argument. I do not have that issue.

Thank you though for finally providing a direct answer.

Another interesting scenario presents itself.

A player is wielding the magical weapon Wave and throws the weapon from 30 feet away at a target from in a 10 foot radius anti-magic field. If I understand your argument, attack and damage magical bonuses would be maintained and applied and the target even loses half their hit points. I may be misunderstanding you. Could you explain who you resolve that one?

[Segev]

So what you have said is that the the trident is simultaneously in the hand of the thrower and striking the opponent 30 feet away, correct?

Incorrect. I said that the trident has not ceased to be wielded, for mechanical purposes, by the hand that wielded it at the start of the attack resolution, until the end of the attack resolution. This is the mechanical layer.

The fiction layer, of course, has the trident flying through the air, very much not held in hand. However, it also has the hand still following through on the throw, as anybody who's ever been taught how to throw something will tell you is important.

This is a logically implausible game state.

It is not logically implausible. The game state, mechanically, is that the trident is wielded in one hand, targeted a creature in range, and the attack roll has been made (and presumably hit by a margin of less than 5, since we're discussing the creature casting shield in response). This is a perfectly coherent game state.

It causes issues when things happen like Shield and Counterspell where you must houserule yourself out of a complete mess you have invented.

Please state the issues with shield and counterspell you believe I must houserule myself out of. I believe I have addressed it just fine: in the game state, the wielder of the trident is still wielding the trident and thus lacks a free hand to cast counterspell. In the fiction, the wielder of the trident is still following through on the throw, hand extended, and is unable to cease doing so in time to jerk the hand that he's using to perform the throw into a somatic gesture for a spell. At least, without the Warcaster feat.

And you are working under the assumption, no where stated in the rules, that the attack and damage is resolved simultaneously

Please show me where I am making that assumption. I have stated that there is a decision state between the two at a minimum to permit the determination of whether you use Sneak Attack or not once you've hit. (It is feasible you'd prefer to wait for the next attack, hoping it might be a crit, for example. Not sure it's a good idea, but it's feasible.)

(And lets set aside the contradiction with an Action allowing a free action interjection and even a series of spell reactions to interject).

I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate on what it is we're setting aside, please? You're the one who brought counterspelling a shield spell into this, explicitly placing it between the attack roll and the damage roll.

You are resorting to quantum mechanics here when you suggest that the Trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile in order to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is no where defined in the rules, in order to preserve a +2 bonus that you logically do not have. I hope you are not claiming that your argument is anywhere close to resembling a RAW argument. If you are, several citations are due, sir.

I have in no way resorted to "quantum mechanics," nor stated "the trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile." I have made a very clear distinction between the game mechanical model and the fictional world it is modeling.

I cannot even begin to provide citations to prove my point when you have not successfully repeated back to me what I laid out. You have instead given a nonsensical argument that you've attributed to me, which I hope my analysis above helps you to see is not what I said at all. I would appreciate it if you would re-read my last post and try again to repeat back to me what my argument is in your own words. I have no interest in defending a straw man that does not represent what I said.

This is an interesting departure between our arguments.

My argument is that the hit roll when made establishes facts about the game state because indeed a successful attack roll establishes facts and I do not have permission to delay that recognition.

Indeed it does. The facts that a to-hit roll establishes are, primarily, that the target has been hit, and any decisions the attacker or defender makes in response to a successful attack must be made, followed (probably) by damage being rolled. The only decisions I would rule to allow are those required by their nature to occur here, mostly governed either by Reactions (such as casting shield) or by effects (such as Sneak Attack) which specify they MAY be, but do not have to be, used upon the event that the target is hit by an attack.

You assert, if I understand your argument and ruling correctly (and please do correct me if I am not properly restating your position), that it also establishes that a thrown weapon has had the number of hands wielding it change, and that it has traveled a particular distance. I counter that the only thing the rules require is that, after the attack is fully resolved, these be the case. Nothing in the rules specifies that these things are established after the attack roll, but before the damage roll.

This is the key point of disagreement: you are trying to mix the fiction layer with the mechanical model in a way that makes sense to you, which is more or less fine, but you are then asserting without citation that this is what the RAW say. It is not. Normally, I would shrug and say that, if that's the model that makes sense to you, go with it, but if you follow your ruling consistently, you lead to odd states such as a melee attack with the same trident allowing you to do its two-handed damage AND apply Dueling's damage bonus because you can change the number of hands on the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll.

So my view is pretty straightforward. A successful attack means the weapon has been thrown, the weapon has left the hand, the weapon is adjacent to the target so as to positionally be able to strike the target.

I understand your argument. I just disagree that it is the best ruling to avoid undesired game effects.

Resolving Shield and Counterspell is easy for me.

It is also easy for me. I do not see the problem, here.

My solutuon is logically plausible.

It is logically plausible, and also logically leads to being able to attack with a versatile weapon for its higher damage type, and then apply dueling's +2 bonus to it.

I am not forcing the rules to safeguard a sense of "wielding" that is nowhere defined in the rules.

You are, however, attempting to force the rules to safeguard against a rather weak "exploit" of getting +2 damage on a ranged weapon attack while opening the door to getting that same +2 damage on a versatile weapon that is using its higher die type, and you are hinging it on a definition of "wielding" that is not particularly strongly sourced compared to other definitions of it that do not support your claim even if we accept your ruling and model.

Once again I will point out that my argument does not involve the capacity for hands to switch up how they were wielding the thrown weapon after the attack roll since my argument recognizes the facts established by the attack roll (the weapon has been thrown and has left the hand). You keep trying to put words in my mouth on that issue.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are claiming that it is required by the "facts established by the attack roll" that the number of hands wielding the weapon changes after the attack roll but before the damage roll. This means that you require it to be possible for this to happen. If it is not possible for this to happen, then it doesn't matter that it is "required" by your model; it cannot happen and just proves your model wrong.

Accepting your model, I conclude that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon after the attack roll but before the damage roll. If it is possible, then anything that permits that to occur which does not require an action unavailable to the attacker can be used to change that number of hands. Therefore, as long as your free object interaction remains free, you can remove one hand from the weapon as part of your attack action, and you may choose to do so between the attack roll (which had 2 hands wielding the weapon, triggering Versatile's larger die type) and the damage roll (now made with only one hand wielding the weapon, and no other weapons wielded, granting the +2 damage from Dueling).

For you to say you are required to change the number of hands wielding the trident from 1 to 0 between the attack roll and the damage roll, but that you are not saying it is possible to change the number of hands between the attack roll and the damage roll, you create a paradox. A contradiction in the rules.

What you are actually saying is, "Because of how I envision it working, you are forced to release the trident and thus go from 1 hand wielding it as you roll the attack to 0 hands wielding it between the attack and damage roll and during the damage roll. However, I rule oppositely when discussing melee attacks because I assert that it is the act of throwing it that grants permission as well as creates the requirement, but there is no other permission granted to change the number of hands between attack roll and damage roll."

Does that sound right to you, or am I misunderstanding your claim?

You are, as a DM, of course free to rule like that if you like. However, you are absolutely inventing the "requirement grants permission that is otherwise not there" along with the requirement that the attack roll determine the trident's position and number of hands wielding it.

If you wish to assert that this requirement exists unambiguously in the RAW, you must provide citations. Further, if you wish to assert that the RAW denies permission to change number of hands wielding a weapon between attack and damage rolls EXCEPT in the case of thrown weapons, you must provide citations.


I apologize that I have none of the citations you requested, but until you can properly demonstrate that you understand my position and point out specific points you do not believe to be in the RAW, I cannot be sure that anything I would cite would address your concerns. I hope that I have adequately provided specific requests for the parts of your argument as I perceive it that I do not believe are supported by the RAW, and invite you to cite the RAW to prove that they are, in fact, so supported despite my belief otherwise.

[JNAProductions]

I'd also like to point out that, in this case, it ain't RAI (since we have a tweet from a developer stating they'd apply Dueling to a thrown weapon, if it was thrown from one hand), nor Rules As Commonly Applied (as evidenced by the majority of people here supporting Dueling working with thrown weapons) nor Rules As Commonly Applied In AL (since one of the other posters generously decided to go to some AL Discord servers and they agreed with the dev tweet).

There's no inherent superiority to RAW, even when it is on your side. This isn't a wargame where people are directly competing-it's a TTRPG, where everyone is playing together. It's good common ground to discuss on forums like this, but actually hewing to the RAW over RAF is to the detriment of a game. Moreover, 5E was not designed to be read like a computer-it's meant to read in common parlance. So, while a certain reading of RAW can result in Dueling not applying to a one-handed thrown weapon, the common interpretation (even to those not familiar with D&D) would generally be that, if you threw a weapon that was wielded in one hand, you'd get the Dueling bonus.

[Segev]

I'd also like to point out that, in this case, it ain't RAI (since we have a tweet from a developer stating they'd apply Dueling to a thrown weapon, if it was thrown from one hand), nor Rules As Commonly Applied (as evidenced by the majority of people here supporting Dueling working with thrown weapons) nor Rules As Commonly Applied In AL (since one of the other posters generously decided to go to some AL Discord servers and they agreed with the dev tweet).

There's no inherent superiority to RAW, even when it is on your side. This isn't a wargame where people are directly competing-it's a TTRPG, where everyone is playing together. It's good common ground to discuss on forums like this, but actually hewing to the RAW over RAF is to the detriment of a game. Moreover, 5E was not designed to be read like a computer-it's meant to read in common parlance. So, while a certain reading of RAW can result in Dueling not applying to a one-handed thrown weapon, the common interpretation (even to those not familiar with D&D) would generally be that, if you threw a weapon that was wielded in one hand, you'd get the Dueling bonus.

This is actually the strongest point, given 5e's design paradigm. At this point, I am just trying to discuss the logic because I enjoy logic. "Ask your DM" is by far the best response even in 3e, but in 5e, it's practically required.

[JNAProductions]

This is actually the strongest point, given 5e's design paradigm. At this point, I am just trying to discuss the logic because I enjoy logic. "Ask your DM" is by far the best response even in 3e, but in 5e, it's practically required.

Yeah-by all means, try to reason with TO. It's fun to watch, and it's nice to see you being so civil given the circumstance.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. I said that the trident has not ceased to be wielded, for mechanical purposes, by the hand that wielded it at the start of the attack resolution, until the end of the attack resolution. This is the mechanical layer.

The fiction layer, of course, has the trident flying through the air, very much not held in hand. However, it also has the hand still following through on the throw, as anybody who's ever been taught how to throw something will tell you is important.

It is not logically implausible. The game state, mechanically, is that the trident is wielded in one hand, targeted a creature in range, and the attack roll has been made (and presumably hit by a margin of less than 5, since we're discussing the creature casting shield in response). This is a perfectly coherent game state.

Please state the issues with shield and counterspell you believe I must houserule myself out of. I believe I have addressed it just fine: in the game state, the wielder of the trident is still wielding the trident and thus lacks a free hand to cast counterspell. In the fiction, the wielder of the trident is still following through on the throw, hand extended, and is unable to cease doing so in time to jerk the hand that he's using to perform the throw into a somatic gesture for a spell. At least, without the Warcaster feat.

Please show me where I am making that assumption. I have stated that there is a decision state between the two at a minimum to permit the determination of whether you use Sneak Attack or not once you've hit. (It is feasible you'd prefer to wait for the next attack, hoping it might be a crit, for example. Not sure it's a good idea, but it's feasible.)

I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate on what it is we're setting aside, please? You're the one who brought counterspelling a shield spell into this, explicitly placing it between the attack roll and the damage roll.

I have in no way resorted to "quantum mechanics," nor stated "the trident is essentially no where and everywhere along the path of the projectile." I have made a very clear distinction between the game mechanical model and the fictional world it is modeling.

I cannot even begin to provide citations to prove my point when you have not successfully repeated back to me what I laid out. You have instead given a nonsensical argument that you've attributed to me, which I hope my analysis above helps you to see is not what I said at all. I would appreciate it if you would re-read my last post and try again to repeat back to me what my argument is in your own words. I have no interest in defending a straw man that does not represent what I said.

Indeed it does. The facts that a to-hit roll establishes are, primarily, that the target has been hit, and any decisions the attacker or defender makes in response to a successful attack must be made, followed (probably) by damage being rolled. The only decisions I would rule to allow are those required by their nature to occur here, mostly governed either by Reactions (such as casting shield) or by effects (such as Sneak Attack) which specify they MAY be, but do not have to be, used upon the event that the target is hit by an attack.

You assert, if I understand your argument and ruling correctly (and please do correct me if I am not properly restating your position), that it also establishes that a thrown weapon has had the number of hands wielding it change, and that it has traveled a particular distance. I counter that the only thing the rules require is that, after the attack is fully resolved, these be the case. Nothing in the rules specifies that these things are established after the attack roll, but before the damage roll.

This is the key point of disagreement: you are trying to mix the fiction layer with the mechanical model in a way that makes sense to you, which is more or less fine, but you are then asserting without citation that this is what the RAW say. It is not. Normally, I would shrug and say that, if that's the model that makes sense to you, go with it, but if you follow your ruling consistently, you lead to odd states such as a melee attack with the same trident allowing you to do its two-handed damage AND apply Dueling's damage bonus because you can change the number of hands on the trident between the attack roll and the damage roll.

I understand your argument. I just disagree that it is the best ruling to avoid undesired game effects.

It is also easy for me. I do not see the problem, here.

It is logically plausible, and also logically leads to being able to attack with a versatile weapon for its higher damage type, and then apply dueling's +2 bonus to it.

You are, however, attempting to force the rules to safeguard against a rather weak "exploit" of getting +2 damage on a ranged weapon attack while opening the door to getting that same +2 damage on a versatile weapon that is using its higher die type, and you are hinging it on a definition of "wielding" that is not particularly strongly sourced compared to other definitions of it that do not support your claim even if we accept your ruling and model.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are claiming that it is required by the "facts established by the attack roll" that the number of hands wielding the weapon changes after the attack roll but before the damage roll. This means that you require it to be possible for this to happen. If it is not possible for this to happen, then it doesn't matter that it is "required" by your model; it cannot happen and just proves your model wrong.

Accepting your model, I conclude that it is possible to change the number of hands wielding a weapon after the attack roll but before the damage roll. If it is possible, then anything that permits that to occur which does not require an action unavailable to the attacker can be used to change that number of hands. Therefore, as long as your free object interaction remains free, you can remove one hand from the weapon as part of your attack action, and you may choose to do so between the attack roll (which had 2 hands wielding the weapon, triggering Versatile's larger die type) and the damage roll (now made with only one hand wielding the weapon, and no other weapons wielded, granting the +2 damage from Dueling).

For you to say you are required to change the number of hands wielding the trident from 1 to 0 between the attack roll and the damage roll, but that you are not saying it is possible to change the number of hands between the attack roll and the damage roll, you create a paradox. A contradiction in the rules.

What you are actually saying is, "Because of how I envision it working, you are forced to release the trident and thus go from 1 hand wielding it as you roll the attack to 0 hands wielding it between the attack and damage roll and during the damage roll. However, I rule oppositely when discussing melee attacks because I assert that it is the act of throwing it that grants permission as well as creates the requirement, but there is no other permission granted to change the number of hands between attack roll and damage roll."

Does that sound right to you, or am I misunderstanding your claim?

You are, as a DM, of course free to rule like that if you like. However, you are absolutely inventing the "requirement grants permission that is otherwise not there" along with the requirement that the attack roll determine the trident's position and number of hands wielding it.

If you wish to assert that this requirement exists unambiguously in the RAW, you must provide citations. Further, if you wish to assert that the RAW denies permission to change number of hands wielding a weapon between attack and damage rolls EXCEPT in the case of thrown weapons, you must provide citations.


I apologize that I have none of the citations you requested, but until you can properly demonstrate that you understand my position and point out specific points you do not believe to be in the RAW, I cannot be sure that anything I would cite would address your concerns. I hope that I have adequately provided specific requests for the parts of your argument as I perceive it that I do not believe are supported by the RAW, and invite you to cite the RAW to prove that they are, in fact, so supported despite my belief otherwise.

We need to keep back and forth answers briefer. So let's address one manageable point at a time. Please keep responses of manageable length.

Lets first address the words you keep putting in my mouth.

Once again I must point out that you are mischaracterising my argument.

In my argument it is impossible to switch up how the weapon is wielded as you claim I am allowing.

The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.

I have made my choices.

The attack roll has not been made.

My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.

Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

Hits mean positionally locating the trident so a hit is possible and proceeding to damge roll unless some other stuff needs to resolve.

Misses means locating the trident on the ground somewhere.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.

The attack roll is completed. Are you with me so far?


You are now claiming that I am trying to change how the weapon is wielded between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, correct?

I have been very clear that in this stretch of time between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, no changes to how the weapon being wielded are being proposed by me. The ship has already sailed irrevocably on that point, the weapon has already been thrown, the weapon is no longer in hand, and the weapon has already traveled a distance upon the rolling of the attack roll.

So my argument is precisely that I cannot change the manner in which I wield the weapon between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll. In fact, the weapon is already no longer in hand according to my argument.

You have been putting words in my mouth. Can you see that now? Or shall I continue.

Hopefully there has been a misunderstanding of timing here that has now been sorted out.

We need to be on the same page as this. Once we are, I want to then address any concerns you have about my understanding of yours.

Are we on the same page?

[Segev]

We need to keep back and forth answers briefer. So let's address one manageable point at a time. Please keep responses of manageable length.

Lets first address the words you keep putting in my mouth.

Once again I must point out that you are mischaracterising my argument.

In my argument it is impossible to switch up how the weapon is wielded as you claim I am allowing.

The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.

I have made my choices.

The attack roll has not been made.

My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.

Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

Hits mean positionally locating the trident so a hit is possible and proceeding to damge roll unless some other stuff needs to resolve.

Misses means locating the trident on the ground somewhere.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.

The attack roll is completed. Are you with me so far?


You are now claiming that I am trying to change how the weapon is wielded between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, correct?

I have been very clear that in this stretch of time between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll, no changes to how the weapon being wielded are being proposed by me. The ship has already sailed irrevocably on that point, the weapon has already been thrown, the weapon is no longer in hand, and the weapon has already traveled a distance upon the rolling of the attack roll.

So my argument is precisely that I cannot change the manner in which I wield the weapon between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll. In fact, the weapon is already no longer in hand according to my argument.

You have been putting words in my mouth. Can you see that now? Or shall I continue.

Hopefully there has been a misunderstanding of timing here that has now been sorted out.

We need to be on the same page as this. Once we are, I want to then address any concerns you have about my understanding of yours.

Are we on the same page?

I disagree with a claim you are making about your own assertion.

Let me try to simplify my response by using snippets, here:

The turn starts with the weapon wielded in hand.

I elect to make a ranged attack. At that point I have elected to throw the weapon, have it travel a distance, and attempt to strike a target.

Here, you are declaring that the turn - and the attack - starts with the weapon wielded in one hand. Am I wrong?

Hit or miss, once the attack roll is comitted to and is tumbling on the table, the weapon has been thrown, has left the hand, and has traveled a distance.

We have now resolved the attack roll. The weapon has alrrady been thrown, is already no longer in my hand, and has already traveled a distance.

Is the weapon still wielded by one hand, or is now wielded in zero hands (or not wielded at all)?

We are, I believe we can agree, between the attack roll and the damage roll at this point.

You started, prior to the attack roll, with the trident wielded in one hand. After the attack roll, at the point we've reached now, you're asserting that the weapon is wielded in zero hands (or is not wielded at all), and thus will not be wielded in one hand when the damage is rolled.

Have I misstated any of your point so far?

If I have not, then this is where you are establishing that it is possible to change how many hands are wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll. You have gone from one hand before the attack roll to zero hands after the attack roll, and we have not yet rolled damage.

I do not believe I am putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating the consequence of your words. If you believe I have misstated your case, please explain specifically what I have said that is not your position.

My argument is that the attack roll when made then cements the game state in the act of rolling.

This is not in the RAW, but is fine and doesn't change anything.

[ThorOdinson]

I disagree with a claim you are making about your own assertion.

Let me try to simplify my response by using snippets, here:


Here, you are declaring that the turn - and the attack - starts with the weapon wielded in one hand. Am I wrong?



Is the weapon still wielded by one hand, or is now wielded in zero hands (or not wielded at all)?

We are, I believe we can agree, between the attack roll and the damage roll at this point.

You started, prior to the attack roll, with the trident wielded in one hand. After the attack roll, at the point we've reached now, you're asserting that the weapon is wielded in zero hands (or is not wielded at all), and thus will not be wielded in one hand when the damage is rolled.

Have I misstated any of your point so far?

If I have not, then this is where you are establishing that it is possible to change how many hands are wielding the weapon between the attack roll and the damage roll. You have gone from one hand before the attack roll to zero hands after the attack roll, and we have not yet rolled damage.

I do not believe I am putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating the consequence of your words. If you believe I have misstated your case, please explain specifically what I have said that is not your position.

This is not in the RAW, but is fine and doesn't change anything.

It is good that we are slowing things down to a single point at a time. We can zero in on issues of understanding.

You are not using the phrase "between the attack roll and damage roll" correctly. This is why I started adding "between the completed attack roll and the pending damage roll".

In my argument a change of how the weapon interacts with hands happens entirely within the context of the attack roll. No change can happen in hands between a completed attack roll and the damage roll. I cannot change my grip on the weapon after a completed attack roll and before the damage roll to munchkin more damage. That is how you are describing the versatile weapon issue, correct? Make your attack roll with two hands then switch to one for the damage roll and the Dueling fighting style bonus. My argument precludes that from ever happening.

The turn starts with the character with the weapon in one hand.

The player elects to make a thrown attack designating a target and sorts out his modifiers. At this stage nothing has happened yet.

What transpires in some fashion at this point is some commitment to indeed attack and establish the fact of an attack having happened. I equate this for simplicity with the attack roll since that represents committing to determining the outcome of your choices by a random generator, but in actual game play at the table we are looking at maybe some back and forth rethinking targets and decision paralysis.

However, any jumbled decision making collapses to some moment when the player commits and makes an attack roll as an event of game binding power where he or she cannot take anything back since doing it over and backtracking would be cheating. At some point, the player must stick to his decisions and make the attack roll and the game recognizes something official has transpired.

So the player commits to his decisions and makes a roll (or some facsimile).

It is precisely here where I argue changes in the game state transpire. If the player is making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon then the weapon goes from being held in hand prior to the attack action to being thrown, leaving the hand, and being sent as a projectile in flight per the Ranged Attack rule when the attack roll is made. Hits and misses have different consequences we have already discussed

So with the attack roll completed the thrown weapon is not in any hand.

To pull the versatile weapon trick you describe in the context of my argument I would have to have the thrown weapon still in hand after the completed attack roll, but the weapon is in no hand. It has already left the hand, traveled a distance and in the cases of misses is on the ground or in the cases of hits positioned adjacent to the target, striking the target, with some damage to sort out with a damage roll. I cannot pull the trick you describe. The weapon is completely out of my hands.

Do you agree with me here that I cannot pull the versatile exploit in my argument?