It has been established by JC that bonus damage from Dueling applies to thrown melee weapons. If a character has the Dueling Fighting Style and the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style, do they get a total of +4 to damage?
I am inclined to say yes because it is bonus from two separate sources but I wanted to see what the Forums have to say about it.
The Duelling Fighting Style says: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
As soon as you are doing a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, you are not wielding it in anymore when doing damage.
The Duelling Fighting Style says: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
As soon as you are doing a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, you are not wielding it in anymore when doing damage.
Not really relevant to the question though, but thanks
It is relevant, because "it has been established by JC" is not the same as saying "it is true that...". JC is often wrong about many things; this is one of them. It was an understandable houserule when he made it, because throwing was so bad and so unsupported that few were likely to complain about having a fighting style able to apply to thrown weapons. But now that there is a thrown weapon fighting style, its more clear than ever before that dueling isn't.
Yes, they do. And if you are not wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I'm not sure what you are doing. Is the weapon attacking by itself while you just twiddle your thumbs? Is it ok if you tie a long piece of string to the weapon and keep holding it after you throw?
Everyone's fine with Thrown Weapon stacking with Archery, even though those two names sound mutually exclusive as well.
Yes, they do. And if you are not wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I'm not sure what you are doing. Is the weapon attacking by itself while you just twiddle your thumbs? Is it ok if you tie a long piece of string to the weapon and keep holding it after you throw?
Everyone's fine with Thrown Weapon stacking with Archery, even though those two names sound mutually exclusive as well.
Probably just me, but I would differentiate here for Archery only for "ranged weapons being fired", throwing weapons and one or two handed melee weapons, depending on the feat.
Everyone's fine with Thrown Weapon stacking with Archery, even though those two names sound mutually exclusive as well.
Can someone give me an example of a ranged weapon that people throw besides a dart and a net? Because I really don't see anyone focusing on those two weapons just for the purpose of stacking archery and thrown weapon bonuses.
Yes, they do. And if you are not wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I'm not sure what you are doing. Is the weapon attacking by itself while you just twiddle your thumbs? Is it ok if you tie a long piece of string to the weapon and keep holding it after you throw?
Everyone's fine with Thrown Weapon stacking with Archery, even though those two names sound mutually exclusive as well.
Those two fighting styles (Archery and Thrown Weapon Fighting) can also only be applied to a singular weapon: the dart.
It's also worth noting that Crawford's only word on the subject was in 2015. And despite showing up on the Sage Advice website, it wasn't added to the compendium. A lot can change in five and a half years, and I don't think a DM is wrong for saying that Dueling and Throwin Weapon Fighting cannot both apply to a thrown handaxe or similar melee weapon.
By the rules, throwing a handaxe (for instance) without wielding a second weapon at the time satisfies all criteria to benefit from a +4 damage bonus if the attacker has both the thrown weapon fighting and dueling fighting styles.
Instead of arguing about in abstract, here's the actual wording of the two fighting styles:
Dueling
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Thrown Weapon Fighting You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
As has come up in a million threads, "wielding" is an undefined but commonly used term in 5E. Certainly you're "wielding" a handaxe when you throw it... but then it flies through the air, not in your hand, and strikes an enemy. Are you "wielding it in one hand" when it's 30 feet away and striking an enemy? I mean, no, obviously not... but was Dueling intended to apply a damage bonus at the time you make the attack, before it strikes an enemy? Maybe, we don't get any detailed "phase" analysis in 5E as to whether making an attack and dealing damage are a single phase or two granular steps...
But Thrown Weapon Fighting is worded so differently, it doesn't use "wielding" at all. If Thrown Weapon Fighting is the example of a feature written to encompass what's happening when you make an attack and deal damage with a thrown weapon, then Dueling really doesn't check any of the same boxes. It doesn't talk about "when you hit", it talk about "when you are wielding." Thrown Weapon Fighting qualifies you for a damage bonus when you hit, explicitly. Dueling checks for a damage bonus when you're at the damage dealing phase (if indeed it exists), with a prerequisite that stopped being true the moment that axe left your hand.
There may be other features out there that rely on "wielding" a weapon that I wouldn't want to break for thrown weapons, so if you can think of one that would force me to rethink this position, I'd be willing. But just looking at Dueling, I don't see any flags in its wording that make it absurd to hold that you aren't "wielding in one hand" an axe that is 30 feet away flying through the air.
The entire argument for Duelist applying to thrown weapons seems to be "a tweet JC made six years ago that never made it into the SAC." Am I missing anything?
The entire argument for Duelist applying to thrown weapons seems to be "a tweet JC made six years ago that never made it into the SAC." Am I missing anything?
No, you're not missing anything. And it was a bad ruling; even by his standards.
Dueling requires you to be wielding a weapon in your hand. You might be wielding a weapon when you throw it, but it's no longer in your hand once it's been thrown.
They're really not compatible. And it's, quite frankly, silly that people keep insisting that they are.
JC has doubled down on that ruling multiple times, so its not just a single tweet. At the end of the day, there is a bit of language interpretation involved. I don't think its unreasonable for a DM to rule that it wouldn't work, but I'm honestly surprised at the visceral reaction in this thread. Its clearly supposed to work RAI, as evidenced by the designer's repeated insistence that it works.
The visceral reaction on my part is, one of the core design tenants of 5E was to move away from "feat tax": feats that provide static damage, AC, or or to-hit modifiers like the old "Weapon Focus" or "Dodge" type stuff from prior editions. Of course, they immediately undercut that with Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter... but still, stacking static modifiers is a huge part of character optimization, so its good that it's hard to do with feats and usually requires a greater commitment with class builds.
Fighting Styles aren't Feats... except they kind of are now, with the introduction of Fighting Initiate. I wouldn't say that FI quite become a mandatory feat, because a lot of weapon-focused characters will already pick up the one fighting style they want to use with a class.... but it's close, why WOULDN'T you want to take a feat for a static +2 damage on all your attacks, or +1 AC, or Blindsight, etc?
I don't think thrown weapon fighting is a very popular character build, even now. But oerlapping multiple fighting styles to throw 1d4+4+5 daggers before any other spell- or feature-based modifier is the type of temptation that 5E was supposed to be avoiding from its very core, so its frustrating to see its lead designer throwing around sloppy language that invites it.
JC has doubled down on that ruling multiple times, so its not just a single tweet. At the end of the day, there is a bit of language interpretation involved. I don't think its unreasonable for a DM to rule that it wouldn't work, but I'm honestly surprised at the visceral reaction in this thread. Its clearly supposed to work RAI, as evidenced by the designer's repeated insistence that it works.
I'm going to ask for some citations. Because...no. Aside from his one-word answer in October 2015 to Dan Dillon, I've only found one other instance from June 2016. That was five years ago.
Crawford is technically correct that the Dueling fighting style doesn't expressly require it to be made with a melee attack. And if we default to natural language, a weapon that has been thrown is not being wielded in one hand because it's no longer in any hand.
It occurs to me that if you go by Jounichi's interpretation (which I think is entirely reasonable even though I disagree with it) and you had a handaxe in each hand and threw one, you would still qualify for the dueling fighting style because you were wielding one melee weapon in one hand while you threw the other one.
No, you're not missing anything. And it was a bad ruling; even by his standards.
Dueling requires you to be wielding a weapon in your hand. You might be wielding a weapon when you throw it, but it's no longer in your hand once it's been thrown.
You're working at a level of detail that's completely irrelevant to the rules. Attacks are instantaneous processes. You declare it, roll dice, and skip ahead to the consequences. There's no room in the attack procedure where micro-actions like letting go of your thrown axe would fit in and affect the outcome.
Seriously, the game's designers don't expect you to perform mental gymnastics to execute the most common action in the game.
For anyone trying to argue that you stop wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I would like to point out the wording of artificer's returning weapon infusion:
Returning Weapon
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder’s hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.
If you rule that you are no longer wielding thrown weapons for the purposes of dueling, then you are also ruling that returning weapons don't return.
And to answer the question of this thread: yes, fighting styles with different names can stack (but rarely do).
Bonus: a reason to specialize in thrown and archer with darts might be because you are small, and 1d4+2 dart is greater than 1d6 shortbow (and uses one less hand in case you want the be able to go melee or use a shield or focus).
It has been established by JC that bonus damage from Dueling applies to thrown melee weapons. If a character has the Dueling Fighting Style and the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style, do they get a total of +4 to damage?
I am inclined to say yes because it is bonus from two separate sources but I wanted to see what the Forums have to say about it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'd over-rule JC with duelling.
The Duelling Fighting Style says: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
As soon as you are doing a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, you are not wielding it in anymore when doing damage.
Yep. The two features have different names, so they stack.
Not really relevant to the question though, but thanks
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It is relevant, because "it has been established by JC" is not the same as saying "it is true that...". JC is often wrong about many things; this is one of them. It was an understandable houserule when he made it, because throwing was so bad and so unsupported that few were likely to complain about having a fighting style able to apply to thrown weapons. But now that there is a thrown weapon fighting style, its more clear than ever before that dueling isn't.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No worries then. I will change the question so that you understand it better.
Do Fighting Styles stack?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yes, they do. And if you are not wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I'm not sure what you are doing. Is the weapon attacking by itself while you just twiddle your thumbs? Is it ok if you tie a long piece of string to the weapon and keep holding it after you throw?
Everyone's fine with Thrown Weapon stacking with Archery, even though those two names sound mutually exclusive as well.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Probably just me, but I would differentiate here for Archery only for "ranged weapons being fired", throwing weapons and one or two handed melee weapons, depending on the feat.
Can someone give me an example of a ranged weapon that people throw besides a dart and a net? Because I really don't see anyone focusing on those two weapons just for the purpose of stacking archery and thrown weapon bonuses.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Those two fighting styles (Archery and Thrown Weapon Fighting) can also only be applied to a singular weapon: the dart.
It's also worth noting that Crawford's only word on the subject was in 2015. And despite showing up on the Sage Advice website, it wasn't added to the compendium. A lot can change in five and a half years, and I don't think a DM is wrong for saying that Dueling and Throwin Weapon Fighting cannot both apply to a thrown handaxe or similar melee weapon.
By the rules, throwing a handaxe (for instance) without wielding a second weapon at the time satisfies all criteria to benefit from a +4 damage bonus if the attacker has both the thrown weapon fighting and dueling fighting styles.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Instead of arguing about in abstract, here's the actual wording of the two fighting styles:
As has come up in a million threads, "wielding" is an undefined but commonly used term in 5E. Certainly you're "wielding" a handaxe when you throw it... but then it flies through the air, not in your hand, and strikes an enemy. Are you "wielding it in one hand" when it's 30 feet away and striking an enemy? I mean, no, obviously not... but was Dueling intended to apply a damage bonus at the time you make the attack, before it strikes an enemy? Maybe, we don't get any detailed "phase" analysis in 5E as to whether making an attack and dealing damage are a single phase or two granular steps...
But Thrown Weapon Fighting is worded so differently, it doesn't use "wielding" at all. If Thrown Weapon Fighting is the example of a feature written to encompass what's happening when you make an attack and deal damage with a thrown weapon, then Dueling really doesn't check any of the same boxes. It doesn't talk about "when you hit", it talk about "when you are wielding." Thrown Weapon Fighting qualifies you for a damage bonus when you hit, explicitly. Dueling checks for a damage bonus when you're at the damage dealing phase (if indeed it exists), with a prerequisite that stopped being true the moment that axe left your hand.
There may be other features out there that rely on "wielding" a weapon that I wouldn't want to break for thrown weapons, so if you can think of one that would force me to rethink this position, I'd be willing. But just looking at Dueling, I don't see any flags in its wording that make it absurd to hold that you aren't "wielding in one hand" an axe that is 30 feet away flying through the air.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The entire argument for Duelist applying to thrown weapons seems to be "a tweet JC made six years ago that never made it into the SAC." Am I missing anything?
No, you're not missing anything. And it was a bad ruling; even by his standards.
Dueling requires you to be wielding a weapon in your hand. You might be wielding a weapon when you throw it, but it's no longer in your hand once it's been thrown.
They're really not compatible. And it's, quite frankly, silly that people keep insisting that they are.
JC has doubled down on that ruling multiple times, so its not just a single tweet. At the end of the day, there is a bit of language interpretation involved. I don't think its unreasonable for a DM to rule that it wouldn't work, but I'm honestly surprised at the visceral reaction in this thread. Its clearly supposed to work RAI, as evidenced by the designer's repeated insistence that it works.
The visceral reaction on my part is, one of the core design tenants of 5E was to move away from "feat tax": feats that provide static damage, AC, or or to-hit modifiers like the old "Weapon Focus" or "Dodge" type stuff from prior editions. Of course, they immediately undercut that with Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter... but still, stacking static modifiers is a huge part of character optimization, so its good that it's hard to do with feats and usually requires a greater commitment with class builds.
Fighting Styles aren't Feats... except they kind of are now, with the introduction of Fighting Initiate. I wouldn't say that FI quite become a mandatory feat, because a lot of weapon-focused characters will already pick up the one fighting style they want to use with a class.... but it's close, why WOULDN'T you want to take a feat for a static +2 damage on all your attacks, or +1 AC, or Blindsight, etc?
I don't think thrown weapon fighting is a very popular character build, even now. But oerlapping multiple fighting styles to throw 1d4+4+5 daggers before any other spell- or feature-based modifier is the type of temptation that 5E was supposed to be avoiding from its very core, so its frustrating to see its lead designer throwing around sloppy language that invites it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm going to ask for some citations. Because...no. Aside from his one-word answer in October 2015 to Dan Dillon, I've only found one other instance from June 2016. That was five years ago.
Crawford's word also isn't absolute. He's openly admitted that he allows things in his home games that the rules prohibit. And this is something that, still, hasn't made its way into the Sage Advice Compendium.
Crawford is technically correct that the Dueling fighting style doesn't expressly require it to be made with a melee attack. And if we default to natural language, a weapon that has been thrown is not being wielded in one hand because it's no longer in any hand.
It occurs to me that if you go by Jounichi's interpretation (which I think is entirely reasonable even though I disagree with it) and you had a handaxe in each hand and threw one, you would still qualify for the dueling fighting style because you were wielding one melee weapon in one hand while you threw the other one.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You're working at a level of detail that's completely irrelevant to the rules. Attacks are instantaneous processes. You declare it, roll dice, and skip ahead to the consequences. There's no room in the attack procedure where micro-actions like letting go of your thrown axe would fit in and affect the outcome.
Seriously, the game's designers don't expect you to perform mental gymnastics to execute the most common action in the game.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
For anyone trying to argue that you stop wielding a thrown weapon when you attack with it, I would like to point out the wording of artificer's returning weapon infusion:
If you rule that you are no longer wielding thrown weapons for the purposes of dueling, then you are also ruling that returning weapons don't return.
And to answer the question of this thread: yes, fighting styles with different names can stack (but rarely do).
Bonus: a reason to specialize in thrown and archer with darts might be because you are small, and 1d4+2 dart is greater than 1d6 shortbow (and uses one less hand in case you want the be able to go melee or use a shield or focus).