Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Segev]

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

I do not. It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. If you move the transition of one-hand to zero-hands to "during the attack roll," that doesn't change that you start with one hand wielding it to determine the legality of making the attack in the first place.

All you've done is move when it becomes legally possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon. Since, during the attack roll, you're wielding the trident with two hands, it gets the versatile tag's benefit. You take your hand off of it during the attack roll, but the attack roll has already checked that it's being wielded in two hands as part of the starting condition. Thus, we still wind up with you removing a hand between the start of the attack roll and the start of the damage roll. This still results in the exploit working.

Either the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack, or it isn't. If it isn't, and this results in a condition where the number of hands wielding the weapon for the attack roll is different than the number of hands wielding it for the damage roll, the versatile exploit functions.

[ThorOdinson]

I do not. It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. If you move the transition of one-hand to zero-hands to "during the attack roll," that doesn't change that you start with one hand wielding it to determine the legality of making the attack in the first place.

All you've done is move when it becomes legally possible to change the number of hands wielding the weapon. Since, during the attack roll, you're wielding the trident with two hands, it gets the versatile tag's benefit. You take your hand off of it during the attack roll, but the attack roll has already checked that it's being wielded in two hands as part of the starting condition. Thus, we still wind up with you removing a hand between the start of the attack roll and the start of the damage roll. This still results in the exploit working.

Either the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack, or it isn't. If it isn't, and this results in a condition where the number of hands wielding the weapon for the attack roll is different than the number of hands wielding it for the damage roll, the versatile exploit functions.

This appears to be a lot of concocted rationale on your part. I am not finding confirmation for many of the assertions that you are making in the PHB.

1) It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. ##Citation?

2) the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack. ##Citation?

Can you provide citations for any of this? And if you cannot then why does it matter at all when we are supposed to be discussing RAW?

For my argument, I am not changing grips but simply making a Ranged Attack that hurls the thrown weapon as a projectile which requires that the weapon leave the hand. This isn't even a free action on my part nor is it a change of grips. It is allowing a throw for which I have permission for. When you throw an object from your hand it is no longer in your hand.

Further, I seriously question the methodological soundness of you using several houserules to deal with a very narrow issue when it is far easier simply to disallow the exploit at its source if it's a problem.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to have gone totally overboard. If I am not mistaken this "exploit" amounts to a +1 avg gain to damage while requiring the player to give up a shield and pick a subpar fighting style. The sky is not falling.

Not only are Slippery Slope arguments fallacious reasoning but this is an incredibly weak Slippery Slope argument to use to find fault in my argument, especially considering my argument isn't introducing the issue. It's just an unintended rule interaction already present in the rules between two special rules and free action grip. How is my RAW argument responsible for it? I am not introducing it.

I can't find mention of it anywhere on the internet since probably everyone chooses +2 AC from a shield instead. It is such a weak exploit that it could almost be an intended interaction for the crafty to find who can't otherwise use shields. Maybe this is an easter egg left from the devs to reward those who master the rules. If you have ever worked on massive projects like a video game for instance, you know this is exactly the sh*te that gets pulled.

Why not a direct fix of the exploit at the source? Such as . . .

Question: Can I change my grips on a versatile weapon between the attack roll and combat roll to attack with two hands and switch to one hand for the damage roll and thereby also gain the Dueling fighting bonus to damage?

Answer: No.

Instead of a bunch of house rules, why not just one?

[visitor]

It seem the crux of the issue isn't with the word "wield", but "in"


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


In the context of this fighting style and in casual D&D parlance of wielding = "using for the purpose of an attack roll", the word "in" is synonymous with "with":

When you are wielding a melee weapon with one hand and no other weapons,....

It still retains and conveys the restriction of 1h vs 2h + twf, and smooths out allowing melee weapons with the thrown tag.



Of course, you could insist that "in" was chosen for that specific reason to disallow thrown melee weapons. But as we see, that still requires a lot of contortions and a very narrow focus on one particular word choice and a equally literal and narrow interpretation of what that results in. There is no RAW for "wielding in one hand" vs "wielding with one hand"



Because I could argue that "in one hand" must mean the weapon is impaled through my hand, because that's what "in" means. But in this context, that's not as good a choice as "physically held in my hand" which is not as good a choice as "utilizing with a single hand".

[Segev]

This appears to be a lot of concocted rationale on your part. I am not finding confirmation for many of the assertions that you are making in the PHB.

1) It is clear that the weapon must be in-hand in order to make the determination that you can attack with it, as represented by the attack roll. ##Citation?

The alternative is that you can attack with a weapon you are not wielding in the number of hands the weapon specifies it requires. Is this your assertion?

2) the number of hands wielding the weapon is fixed at the start of the attack. ##Citation?

I didn't assert this was in the rules. I asserted that either this is true, or it is true that the number of hands wielding the weapon can change during the course of the attack. As a logical statement, "A or Not A" is almost a tautology. You cannot have "A and Not A" be true.

In the name of keeping this focused to a single point per your earlier requests when I left lengthier responses, and in light of the importance of these points, I will stop here and give you a chance to respond. Do I make sense, here, to you? Is there something off in my reasoning so far?

[ThorOdinson]

The alternative is that you can attack with a weapon you are not wielding in the number of hands the weapon specifies it requires. Is this your assertion?

I didn't assert this was in the rules. I asserted that either this is true, or it is true that the number of hands wielding the weapon can change during the course of the attack. As a logical statement, "A or Not A" is almost a tautology. You cannot have "A and Not A" be true.

In the name of keeping this focused to a single point per your earlier requests when I left lengthier responses, and in light of the importance of these points, I will stop here and give you a chance to respond. Do I make sense, here, to you? Is there something off in my reasoning so far?

Thank you for keeping the conversation on one point.

You are making sense and I am following your argument. I am making a statement to the effect that you are making assertions without rules support. And you may be overlooking something.

The rules actually permit free actions. Free actions do include changing grips.

And notice this rule.

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack."

Notice the underlined bit. The example indicates that you could go from 0 to 1 hands or 0 to 2 hands "as part of the same action you use to Attack". The rule could have said "before or after" to the same effect but instead chose to allow insertion of a free action into the Attack action with no restrictions.

The rules seem to directly allow the Versatile "exploit" unless I am misunderstanding or overlooking some restriction applied in the rules elsewhere.

I am going to assert that the rules permit the Versatile "exploit".

Do you agree with that assessment?

[Segev]

Thank you for keeping the conversation on one point.

You are making sense and I am following your argument. I am making a statement to the effect that you are making assertions without rules support. And you may be overlooking something.

The rules actually permit free actions. Free actions do include changing grips.

And notice this rule.

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack."

Notice the underlined bit. The example indicates that you could go from 0 to 1 hands or 0 to 2 hands "as part of the same action you use to Attack". The rule could have said "before or after" to the same effect but instead chose to allow insertion of a free action into the Attack action with no restrictions.

The rules seem to directly allow the Versatile "exploit" unless I am misunderstanding or overlooking some restriction applied in the rules elsewhere.

I am going to assert that the rules permit the Versatile "exploit".

Do you agree with that assessment?

If you rule as you do regarding thrown tridents not being valid to use dueling with, then a consistent ruling would be to permit the "Versatile exploit."

If that's how you choose to rule, you're free to do so. It is not inconsistent with the RAW.

Personally, I find ruling in a way that permits the "Versatile exploit" to be undesirable, as it seems very silly to me and counter to the RAI. I also find it not at all counter to the RAI to rule the alternative way, which is that there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution. This leave no "Versatile exploit" open, seems consistent with the RAI, to me, and creates no special problems nor inconsistencies in the rules.

Both ways of ruling are valid within the RAW. It is a matter of preference which you find superior. Technically, you don't even have to be consistent in your ruling, but at that point, you're really house ruling rather than just determining an interpretation of the RAW.

As long as you permit the Versatile Exploit as well as require that thrown weapons be weilded in zero hands by the time damage is dealt, you're maintaining a consistent interpretation of the RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

If you rule as you do regarding thrown tridents not being valid to use dueling with, then a consistent ruling would be to permit the "Versatile exploit."

If that's how you choose to rule, you're free to do so. It is not inconsistent with the RAW.

Personally, I find ruling in a way that permits the "Versatile exploit" to be undesirable, as it seems very silly to me and counter to the RAI. I also find it not at all counter to the RAI to rule the alternative way, which is that there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution. This leave no "Versatile exploit" open, seems consistent with the RAI, to me, and creates no special problems nor inconsistencies in the rules.

Both ways of ruling are valid within the RAW. It is a matter of preference which you find superior. Technically, you don't even have to be consistent in your ruling, but at that point, you're really house ruling rather than just determining an interpretation of the RAW.

As long as you permit the Versatile Exploit as well as require that thrown weapons be weilded in zero hands by the time damage is dealt, you're maintaining a consistent interpretation of the RAW.

Ok.

We have clarified that this is a house rule on your part. And it is a house rule that directly contradicts a rule in the book regarding free object actions. So you have chosen to stomp out a rule granted permission with a house ruled restriction.

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

When you introduce that house rule it opens up a hole for the Thrown Weapon Dueling fighting style "exploit". You have traded one exploit for another. You have taken away the ability for characters to draw a weapon as part of the Attack. You also take away capabilities that characters have to cast Counterspell in certain situations. There are consequences to your house rule. Those consequences might not be significant to you. But there are consequences.

A better house rule in my opinion would be one that specifically fixed the Versatile "exploit" while not stomping out the permission granted by the rules.

If you simply directly disallow the Versatile "exploit" then you leave the rules otherwise unperturbed.

Why not just do that? Is that not the most elegant way to address the issue?

Would you object to a more specific fix to the Versatile "exploit"?

In other words, the Versatile "exploit" can be fixed without adopting your house rule.

For example, let's say I have a character who walks around with a shield in hand and a spear in his belt to be drawn when needed. So he can react at any time with a Counterspell. He can also draw the spear as part of an attack. If he draws and throws the spear he can still Counterspell. The RAW allows him to do this.

Your house rule takes away his ability to draw the spear as part of an attack and to keep the ability to Counterspell when he throws it. This might be insignificant to you but you have taken away significant freedoms away in my opinion. You are imposing a greater cost to not having the Warcaster feat and taking away the ability of every character to draw a weapon as part of the attack.

A character can still draw a weapon as part of their move and work around that restriction so there is no real cost to the loss of that freedom; it's just a forced migration to doing it in another way. But you have increased the complexity of the rules. Players now need to remember more rules that don't work the way they say they do in the PHB.

But if you just specifically fix the Versatile "exploit" then the rules still do what they say they do.

[Segev]

Ok.

We have clarified that this is a house rule on your part. And it is a house rule that directly contradicts a rule in the book regarding free object actions.

Incorrect. We have not established that I am contradicting anything. For there to be a definite rule that free object interactions allow you to act in the middle of anything, you would have to permit that you could freely break down any action and apply any number of incompatible conditions to it by simply rotating through them, so long as you can find ways to do so without using up limited actions. This leads to very messy game-states.

My position is that you cannot break down an action. You can perform a free object interaction as part of an action - such as drawing a weapon as part of an attack with it - but you cannot wield a weapon in a different number of hands over the course of an attack because the attack is a singular event. You can perform a free object interaction simultaneously with or just before or just after, but you cannot perform it as an interruption. There is nothing in the rules as written that backs up your claim that the attack roll, as you put it, "establishes" the "state" that a weapon has changed how many hands wield it, or has moved at all. That is entirely your invention, and it is a reasonable ruling with the RAW, but it is not required nor provided by the RAW.

My formulation is more granular, but just as much within the RAW. It is incompatible with your interpretation, but the RAW can be ruled in a few different ways.

So no, we have not "clarified that this is a house rule on [my] part." It is a ruling, just as valid as yours, and also one which leads to fewer strange game states and exploits than does yours, in my opinion. (Which is why I prefer it.)

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect. We have not established that I am contradicting anything. For there to be a definite rule that free object interactions allow you to act in the middle of anything, you would have to permit that you could freely break down any action and apply any number of incompatible conditions to it by simply rotating through them, so long as you can find ways to do so without using up limited actions. This leads to very messy game-states.

My position is that you cannot break down an action. You can perform a free object interaction as part of an action - such as drawing a weapon as part of an attack with it - but you cannot wield a weapon in a different number of hands over the course of an attack because the attack is a singular event. You can perform a free object interaction simultaneously with or just before or just after, but you cannot perform it as an interruption. There is nothing in the rules as written that backs up your claim that the attack roll, as you put it, "establishes" the "state" that a weapon has changed how many hands wield it, or has moved at all. That is entirely your invention, and it is a reasonable ruling with the RAW, but it is not required nor provided by the RAW.

My formulation is more granular, but just as much within the RAW. It is incompatible with your interpretation, but the RAW can be ruled in a few different ways.

So no, we have not "clarified that this is a house rule on [my] part." It is a ruling, just as valid as yours, and also one which leads to fewer strange game states and exploits than does yours, in my opinion. (Which is why I prefer it.)

For reference this is your house rule that modifies the Attack rules by adding these additional requirements to the text in the PHB:

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

The above house rule impacts this rule also (brackets and strike through represent changes):

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action [but you cannot take free actions that involve changing your grip in the attack action]. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack."

The state of affairs . .

Your argument
You have a house rule that changes how an Attack resolves and when certain free object interactions are permitted.
Your house rule shuts down the Versatile "exploit"
Your house rule enables a Dueling style "exploit" for Thrown weapons.
Both those changes feel very natural to you.
You are okay with the unintended consequences (Counterspell shut off in niche cases; Players can only draw their weapons as part of a Move).

My argument
I have the RAW with no house rules.
The Attack rules and free action rules follow the PHB.
There is a Versatile "exploit" I permit.
There is no Dueling fighting style "exploit" for Thrown weapons.
Counterspell works in the niche cases described prior.
No changes to free action rules.


There is no qualitative difference between our arguments. Both are equally valid.

My argument is only more valid in the specific and narrow context of the Official Sources Only standard that affects me and any who choose to adhere to that standard. Playing according to that standard is not better or worse than other standards to play by.

Is that a decent summary?

[Zhorn]

ThorOdinson, this whole things has been explained in excruciating detail.
The flaws in your reasoning have been laid out.
The reliance on a singular specific definition of a word with multiple common usages, coming from outside the written text of the rule books.
The reference to the devs giving their RAI clarification.
The absurdities of attempting to apply consistency with your interpretation.
The referencing to AL rulings being shown to be the opposite of your claim.

Despite claiming you have a RAW case, you do not.
Segev is not the one houseruling changes.

You've dug your heels in too deep on this.
You're so intent on YOU being right and everyone else being wrong that you cannot even consider there's a possibility you've misinterpreted something.

Mistakes happen, it's okay.

[Segev]

Your argument
You have a house rule that changes how an Attack resolves and when certain free object interactions are permitted.

Incorrect.
I'm not responding to the rest, because you continue to be incorrect about this point, and as long as you continue to base your argument for why I'm house ruling on the premise that I'm house ruling, you have no reasonable argument.

You have an interpretation of the RAW that is technically valid but which leads to weird and undesirable game-states. I have an interpretation of the RAW which is valid and leads to no undesirable game-states.

I acknowledge that "undesirable" is a subjective adjective, and thus am willing to grant that you may find game-states I am fine with "undesirable," and may not find problem with game-states that I consider "undesirable."

The primary game-state your interpretation leads to with which I have issue is the Versatile exploit. It doesn't make much narrative sense to me.

If there are game-states you find undesirable that you believe my interpretation leads to, I am willing to discuss them if you like.

I am not, however, willing to keep saying "nuh-uh/uh-huh!" over whether my ruling and interpretation is a "house rule" or not. You have no citations that support your assertion that I am house ruling any more than you are. I find both rulings to be within the technical bounds of the RAW (and yours to actually be a little more specious, but that's likely my bias talking, and I will not hold that up as fact). Unless and until you can demonstrate that my rulings are in violation of the RAW, I will summarily reject any of your claims that I am house ruling.

I am, however, willing to discuss game-states and whether they are desirable or not, if you find game-states that my ruling leads to which you believe to be undesirable.

[ThorOdinson]

Incorrect.
I'm not responding to the rest, because you continue to be incorrect about this point, and as long as you continue to base your argument for why I'm house ruling on the premise that I'm house ruling, you have no reasonable argument.

You have an interpretation of the RAW that is technically valid but which leads to weird and undesirable game-states. I have an interpretation of the RAW which is valid and leads to no undesirable game-states.

I acknowledge that "undesirable" is a subjective adjective, and thus am willing to grant that you may find game-states I am fine with "undesirable," and may not find problem with game-states that I consider "undesirable."

The primary game-state your interpretation leads to with which I have issue is the Versatile exploit. It doesn't make much narrative sense to me.

If there are game-states you find undesirable that you believe my interpretation leads to, I am willing to discuss them if you like.

I am not, however, willing to keep saying "nuh-uh/uh-huh!" over whether my ruling and interpretation is a "house rule" or not. You have no citations that support your assertion that I am house ruling any more than you are. I find both rulings to be within the technical bounds of the RAW (and yours to actually be a little more specious, but that's likely my bias talking, and I will not hold that up as fact). Unless and until you can demonstrate that my rulings are in violation of the RAW, I will summarily reject any of your claims that I am house ruling.

I am, however, willing to discuss game-states and whether they are desirable or not, if you find game-states that my ruling leads to which you believe to be undesirable.

I am unable to find this rule in the PHB . . .

"there is no opportunity to change how many hands are wielding a weapon between the start and end of the attack; if they change as part of making the attack, it happens in the final resolution."

The above rule, that imposes additional restrictions on the Attack action, is nowhere to be found in the actual PHB and is one that you have made up. If you want to claim that you did not make up the rule then provide a citation for the above rule as I cannot find it in the PHB. The presence or absence of the above rule in the actual PHB is what determines if it is a house rule or not.

When you make up rules that are not in the rules, it is called house ruling. You made up your house rule to shut down the Versatile "exploit" that is otherwise permitted by the rules.

There is nothing wrong with house ruling. House ruling is only an issue for those who play according to a standard of 'no house ruling'. I play according to a standard of 'no house ruling'.

[JNAProductions]

You have permission to make an attack with a certain number of hands.
You do not have permission to change the number of hands used during an attack-at least, not explicit permission. You can INFER some permission, but it leads to wonky scenarios, as outlined above.

[ThorOdinson]

You have permission to make an attack with a certain number of hands.
You do not have permission to change the number of hands used during an attack-at least, not explicit permission. You can INFER some permission, but it leads to wonky scenarios, as outlined above.

Can you provide citations for your assertions?

Here is a rule in the PHB that directly contradicts you

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

So the rules in the PHB grant explicit permission to make free object interactions "as part of the same action you use to attack" and places no restriction on that permission.

The rules even call out the specific example of drawing a weapon as part of same action you use to Attack. We know the rules are 100% okay with going from 0 to 1 or 2 hands as part of the same action you use to Attack.

[JNAProductions]

They let you draw your weapon. Unless you want to claim you can make an attack with an undrawn weapon, that would have to happen at the start of the attack.

Notably, that says nothing about there being anything between the attack roll and the damage roll.

Edit: You can reasonably claim that you're following RAW (though not RAI), but you can't reasonably claim your reading is the ONLY correct reading.

[ThorOdinson]

They let you draw your weapon. Unless you want to claim you can make an attack with an undrawn weapon, that would have to happen at the start of the attack.

Notably, that says nothing about there being anything between the attack roll and the damage roll.

Edit: You can reasonably claim that you're following RAW (though not RAI), but you can't reasonably claim your reading is the ONLY correct reading.

The actual rules provide no restriction on changing your hands or interrupting in the middle of the action to perform a free item interaction. You can infer based on Theatre of the Mind logic in reference to how a human could plausibly make a melee attack. Are we allowing inferences based on the logic of how attacks are performed to count as RAW?

On your second point, feel free to provide an alternative RAW argument to the one I have presented for duscussion.

Segev presented an argument with a house rule that doesn't meet the criteria for a RAW argument. His argument is fine if house rules are allowed. In my case, house rules are not allowed.

[JNAProductions]

Feel free to provide an alternative RAW argument to the one I have presented.

Segev presented an argument with a house rule that doesn't meet the criteria for a RAW argument. His argument is okay if house rules are allowed. In my case, house rules are not allowed.

So because you can draw a weapon as part of the action you use to attack, you can switch hands between the attack and damage rolls?

The if->then chain fails. That's just basic logic and English. You have permission to change hands during the Attack Action, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can change hands during an attack itself.

Or are you equating the Attack Action to be the exact same thing as an attack?

[ThorOdinson]

So because you can draw a weapon as part of the action you use to attack, you can switch hands between the attack and damage rolls?

I am pointing out that the rules are entirely silent on when you can switch hands. But definitely the rules indicate you can. The rules allow you to switch hands as part of an item interaction "as part of the same action you use to attack" with no restriction on when that item interaction occurs.

If you make an inference that a draw occurs at the start of the attack you are making that inference based on relating the attack to a real world attack in a Theatre of Mind context. This is fine to do. Rules have semantics and logic and frames of reference that are a component of the meaning.

Do you agree that you are making inferences here?

[Segev]

If you make an inference that a draw occurs at the start of the attack you are making that inference based on relating the attack to a real world attack in a Theatre of Mind context. This is fine to do. Rules have semantics and logic and frames of reference that are a component of the meaning.

Do you agree that you are making inferences here?

I can agree that there are inferences being made, but not for the reasons you seem to be stating. A draw that happens as part of an attack action MUST happen before the attack, because otherwise you cannot make the attack with that weapon.

[ThorOdinson]

I can agree that there are inferences being made, but not for the reasons you seem to be stating. A draw that happens as part of an attack action MUST happen before the attack, because otherwise you cannot make the attack with that weapon.

The inference is made based on relating the game action to the knowledge of real world actions of making an attack with a sword. We know and can infer that weapons are drawn before an attack because we draw from shared knowledge about weapons. This is just an extension of semantics, frames of reference, and logic. The PHB leaves a lot of terms undefined and so semantics, logic, and frames of reference fill in some gaps. A bizarre universe where cause and effect and sequencing did not happen would allow drawing to occur after the attack. But such a bizarre universe is not being emulated by the PHB. The PHB references the normal universe of cause and effect, sequencing, etc.

Also, note that no where in the rules does it say you have to be holding a weapon ready to use it to make a melee attack with it. The inference is made based on corresponding game action with the real world semantic domain of weapon fighting in which we know weapons are obviously held in hands and used.

We can advance inferences that are unequivocal, ie inferences that MUST be true. Inferences can't be made when there is equivocation as to what is logically required. For example, there are plenty of examples in real world fighting of attack techniques which involve the changing of grips in the making of an attack. So we can't really infer based on the real world semantic domain of weaponry that grip changes are definitely not allowed in the rules because there are real world examples of attacks which are made with a change in grips. The Versatile "exploit" may be an emulation of real weapon attacks that change grips in the execution of the attack. We just can't make inferences one way or another on the legality of grip changing by looking at the real world semantic domain of weaponry.

So, we can make inferences, so long as they are semantically/logically required without equivocation, correct?

[Segev]

I’m away from book right now, but before I go looking in the PHB for what I expect to be there, I want to make sure I understood you correctly: are you asserting that there are no rules requiring that a weapon be wielded, ready and in-hand, or anything similar before it can be used in a weapon attack?

[ThorOdinson]

I’m away from book right now, but before I go looking in the PHB for what I expect to be there, I want to make sure I understood you correctly: are you asserting that there are no rules requiring that a weapon be wielded, ready and in-hand, or anything similar before it can be used in a weapon attack?

I have used the search function and tracked down every usage of wield in the PHB. When you do that you will notice that wield is not defined by the PHB. You will also notice that the PHB uses wield in rules discussions about weapons and also more abstract uses (e.g. 'wield power') when not making rules statements.

When you check the various contexts that wield is used to make rules statements you notice statements like these . . .

"A lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted"

Even though "wield" is not directly defined by the PHB, I think it can be inferred from the various rule statement which feature "wield", that "wield" means "held [in one or two hands] ready to use [as in the case of a weapon]". And since that definition of "wield" we arrive at by making inferences from rules statements featuring "wield" corresponds with the standard and expected semantics of wield as it relates to weaponry, we seem to be well-supported by english semantics.

Do you agree that "wield" is not directly defined by the rules?

Do you agree that we can still infer its meaning from the context of its word usage in the PHB and ground its meaning in the standard definition that relates to weaponry?

I have asserted a meaning of "wield" by making an inference from its usage in the PHB. Do you agree with the meaning I have asserted ("held [in one or two hands] ready to use [as in the case of a weapon]")? Do you have an alternative?

Hopefully we can settle on a meaning of "wield" that can be asserted without equivocation. If there is legitimate equivocation, we cannot infer a meaning of "wield".

[ThorOdinson]

This does not answer the question I asked: Are you asserting that a weapon need not be wielded in order to make an attack with it?

Do we have an agreed upon definition of "wield" meaning "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)"?

If our definitions are not agreed upon, I cannot answer your question directly.

Remember "wield a dart" is different than "throw a dart". "Wield a dart" involves funnily/oddly using a dart as a melee weapon.

I think we can assert that "wield" means "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon or tool)". That way we represent also the meaning of "wield a shield".

[Segev]

Do we have an agreed upon definition of "wield" meaning "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)"?

If our definitions are not agreed upon, I cannot answer your question directly.

Remember "wield a dart" is different than "throw a dart". "Wield a dart" involves funnily/oddly using a dart as a melee weapon.

I think we can assert that "wield" means "to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon or tool)". That way we represent also the meaning of "wield a shield".

If I understand your distinction about “wielding a dart” correctly, you are stating that you do not wield weapons when you throw them. Is this accurate?

[Valmark]

Sorry to interrupt, but why would "wield a dart" imply using it as a melee weapon?

[ThorOdinson]

If I understand your distinction about “wielding a dart” correctly, you are stating that you do not wield weapons when you throw them. Is this accurate?

I think the matter is up for discussion, do you want dig deeper on this?

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?

[ThorOdinson]

Sorry to interrupt, but why would "wield a dart" imply using it as a melee weapon?

Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time,

[Segev]

I think the matter is up for discussion, do you want dig deeper on this?

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?

Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.

[Mr Adventurer]

Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time,

Irrelevant; we don't exist in that period of history. There's already been discussion of current (dictionary) definitions in this thread.

[ThorOdinson]

Irrelevant; we don't exist in that period of history. There's already been discussion of current (dictionary) definitions in this thread.

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

Operation: Valkyrie!

The rules are clearly in my favor.