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 wouldn't. "That weapon" is the language you glossed over there.
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.
There's room in the attack procedure to use Reactions, apply class features like Smite, etc. , so I don't know why there wouldn't be room to check for whether an item is being held or not.
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 throne 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).
A "wielder" is not necessarily one who is currently "wielding" any given weapon, so much has "wielded" or "will wield" that weapon. Thor is Mjolnir's wielder, doesn't mean the thing never leaves his hand.
That feels hair splitty, but letting a character still be considered a "wielder" on any turn when they have wielded-but-are-no-longer-wielding a weapon in flight does less to make my English-speaking brain wince than letting an unwielded axe flying through the air be considered wielded does.
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 throne 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).
A "wielder" is not necessarily one who is currently "wielding" any given weapon, so much has "wielded" or "will wield" that weapon. Thor is Mjolnir's wielder, doesn't mean the thing never leaves his hand.
That feels hair splitty, but letting a character still be considered a "wielder" on any turn when they have wielded-but-are-no-longer-wielding a weapon in flight does less to make my English-speaking brain wince than letting an unwielded axe flying through the air be considered wielded does.
So a "wielder" is not "a person who wields something"? That is so unsupported by rules and definitions of words that I don't even know how yo argue that. That is like someone claiming the sky isn't blue because to them light with a wavelength between 400 and 525 nm is green.
Firing arrows from bows must really fry your brain then huh? You attack with the bow, hit with the arrow, and the arrow does the damage of the bow. Oh, but the arrow stopped being a part of the bow as soon as it was fired because things have to be touching. I'm just going to stick with RAW, you enjoy your green skys.
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 throne 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).
A "wielder" is not necessarily one who is currently "wielding" any given weapon, so much has "wielded" or "will wield" that weapon. Thor is Mjolnir's wielder, doesn't mean the thing never leaves his hand.
That feels hair splitty, but letting a character still be considered a "wielder" on any turn when they have wielded-but-are-no-longer-wielding a weapon in flight does less to make my English-speaking brain wince than letting an unwielded axe flying through the air be considered wielded does.
So a "wielder" is not "a person who wields something"? That is so unsupported by rules and definitions of words that I don't even know how yo argue that. That is like someone claiming the sky isn't blue because to them light with a wavelength between 400 and 525 nm is green.
Firing arrows from bows must really fry your brain then huh? You attack with the bow, hit with the arrow, and the arrow does the damage of the bow. Oh, but the arrow stopped being a part of the bow as soon as it was fired because things have to be touching. I'm just going to stick with RAW, you enjoy your green skys.
You're being uncharacteristically silly. I'm a programmer. That doesn't mean that I'm programming right this moment. Agent nouns like "wielder" don't necessarily mean "at this exact moment." More often than not, they speak to general states of being or to tendencies. Thor and Mjolnir are honestly a really good example. We recognize that Thor is the wielder of Mjolnir, because that's part of his story, not because at this precise moment he's actually wielding it. These are just as much "definitions of words" as anything else; they're not niche, they're extremely common usages.
The bow bit is a non sequitur. Arrows are merely the vehicle by which bows deal their damage. In rules terms, the bow is being wielded and the bow deals the damage. It's not relevant to the conversation about thrown weapons.
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.
Colby, from D4 (the channel formerly known as D&D Optimized) made a net/dart specific build. Treantmonk made a kobold axe thrower named Chuck. I had crunched a lot to create a viable thrower prior to Tasha's. It has definitely been in the world before. I think a Soulknife would make an excellent thrower as well; psychic damage that gets to add dueling and thrown weapon fighting style (but not archery) sound like a lot of fun.
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).
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.
Colby, from D4 (the channel formerly known as D&D Optimized) made a net/dart specific build. Treantmonk made a kobold axe thrower named Chuck. I had crunched a lot to create a viable thrower prior to Tasha's. It has definitely been in the world before. I think a Soulknife would make an excellent thrower as well; psychic damage that gets to add dueling and thrown weapon fighting style (but not archery) sound like a lot of fun.
Axes would not apply to the archery fighting style though as axes are not ranged weapons.
There's room in the attack procedure to use Reactions, apply class features like Smite, etc. , so I don't know why there wouldn't be room to check for whether an item is being held or not.
Those are also instantaneous, abstract, game-level decisions. My point still stands: the rules deliberately hand-wave all of the narrative steps involved in performing an attack into one instantaneous abstract process, and there's no one-to-one correspondence between the game steps of an attack and the narrative.
At the game level Shield occurs when you confirm a hit because wasting slots feels bad. In the narrative the decision to cast the spell obviously happens before you were hit because you can't turn back time. So does the hit or miss step of an attack happen when you make contact, or does it happen when it's too late for the enemy to change the outcome?
What about the damage roll? Does it happen when the weapon makes contact? Or maybe both the attack and damage rolls happen first and then my character does the action in the narrative in a way that reflects the results of both rolls. After all, the rules also say creatures don't suffer a life-threatening injury until their HP falls to 0, so if the target hits 0 HP that could also change the narrative of the attack. If that's the case, is the damage roll from a thrown hand axe happening before it leaves my hand?
What about Sneak Attack? At the game level you declare it after the hit is confirmed because wasting it would feel bad. Does that imply the Rogue doesn't know if they're launching a Sneak Attack until they've already plunged their dagger in their target's back? Or is the decision to Sneak Attack retroactive in the narrative like the decision to cast Shield?
Or how about Loading? A heavy crossbow takes several seconds to load. If the attack can accommodate all of that time loss, why don't I get a free shot if I go into battle with a pre-loaded crossbow? Actually shooting it only takes a fraction of a second. Where's the time that I gained from pre-loading going? Is my character now deciding to load the crossbow after each shot instead of before?
These are obviously rhetorical questions. My point is the rules don't account for the narrative events during an attack, just like the combat rules don't imply creatures are actually waiting their turn. So how can anyone pretend to know exactly at which point in the attack steps the weapon left your hand? That really strikes me as a post-hoc justification because the ruling rubbed them the wrong way.
The Fighting Style names aren't accurate anyways. You can use Dueling against multiple enemies and with weapons that'd never be used in a duel, and ironically it doesn't work with two-weapon fighting which was actually used in duels and usually didn't make sense outside of a 1v1 setting. It's obvious the game designers just wanted an offensive fighting style for each handedness and support for thrown weapons was split between the one-handed and dual-wielding styles.
The way I see it and the way all the groups that I am part of play it, is the "wielding one weapon" requirement was met at the time of the attack. The question I asked did not require clarification on this aspect as it is a settled matter in our games.
The ONLY thing that I wanted clarification on was whether two Fighting Styles could stack. I was fairly certain that they do. The two damage bonuses come from separate sources so I felt confident that they should stack. For those that actually answered the question, thank you.
Hmm... if we want to be language-lawyery, why don't we look at when you make a weapon damage roll? (Damage Rolls, PHB pg.196)
When attacking with a weapon...
Thus, the damage roll for a weapon is part of an attack with that weapon. So, let's look back at the attack section, then. (Making an Attack, PHB pg.193)
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
The damage roll is part of the same step as the attack roll, with no phases in between. In particular, determining modifiers is part of the step before this, which means that for the purpose of game rules, there is no change in condition or situation between the time the attack roll is made and the time the damage roll is made, unless explicitly specified by another rule. Put simply, from the moment the attack begins, there is no time for a weapon to transition from "wielded" to "not wielded" until after it is resolved, because resolution is a single step, and thus it must be considered to be wielded during damage resolution of a thrown attack.
Conclusion by omission isn't enough if we want to be as strictly RAW as possible, however; after all, the logic is explicitly "there is no point in the written description where the weapon can become unwielded mid-attack," and explicitly depends on the claim that absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence. We can be more specific than this, though it takes more work.
In this case, Dueling style tells us that a damage bonus is applied while you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand, and no other weapon; this is stated as a passive effect that is constantly active when applicable, and not a bonus you choose whether or not to apply. In comparison, Sneak Attack and Divine Smite are optional decisions made when an attack hits specifically, and specified as something "you can" do. From this, we can conclude that Dueling style is a mandatory effect and not conditional on whether an attack hits or misses, which in turn means that determination of whether the weapon is considered to be a weapon you are wielding will be made in step 2, before the attack is resolved. Or, more simply, Dueling depends on a property that can be determined before the attack is made, while Sneak Attack and Smite can only be determined after the result of the attack roll is known, and thus Dueling would fall into step 2 while the others would not. And this, by extension, means that determination of whether the weapon counts as wielded is made before the weapon leaves your hand, as attack resolution occurs after modifier determination. And thus, if the weapon is in hand at the moment of attack declaration, it is considered to be wielded for the entirety of the attack.
But what of "wield", then? It's not actually defined anywhere ingame, so the above might actually be incorrect, and "wielded" status might be able to change mid-step, right? As the term "wield" has no game definition, we must instead look to its real-world definition to resolve this particular conundrum.
Merriam-Webster: 2: to handle (something, such as a tool) especially effectively
Cambridge (1): to hold a weapon or tool and look as if you are going to use it:
Cambridge (2): to have or use power, authority, or influence, or to hold and use a weapon:
Dictionary.com: 2: to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
It's interesting to note that the term is ambiguous as to whether it requires the object to actually be held; rather, the key component is that it is handled or used. Going strictly by real-world definitions, a weapon used for an attack is by definition wielded by the person attacking with that weapon, even if the attack involves the attack leaving your hand. After all, "using" a javelin or other throwing weapon means throwing it, right? In this case, as the wielder, you are aiming and providing the force behind the attack. The javelin does not choose where to go and whether it wants to attack after leaving your hand; its trajectory and impact are wholly dependent on your actions, which you took while holding the javelin. The javelin is still subject to the effect of being "wielded" by you until it comes to a rest, in other words, because it lacks the ability to negate the physics of your throw; the javelin does not fall straight down to the ground your hand leaves it, because the act of attacking while you were wielding it imbued it with the kinetic energy to function as an attack.
We can go further than this, and consult historical references, too: One of the Hindu pantheon has the title "Chakra-dhāri", which means "chakram-wielder". The chakram is a throwing weapon, not a melee weapon; thus, wielding the chakram means throwing it. It is not considered to be unwielded after leaving the hand.
But, of course, neither of these provides a strict, RAW answer to what "wielding" means, right? We should scour the book and see if there's any connection we can make, before relying on actual definitions. And... while the term isn't explicitly defined anywhere, there is one thing that draws a connection between "wield" and weapon attacks: Size rules and relevant weapon properties.
Size rules: (Racial Traits, PHB pg.17)
Members of a few races are Small (between 2 and 4 feet tall), which means that certain rules of the game affect them differently. The most important of these rules is that Small characters have trouble wielding heavy weapons, as explained in chapter 5.
And the only size-dependent weapon property: (Weapon Properties, PHB pg.147. In chapter 5.)
Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.
If we put these two together, we can finally define "wield" in game terms, as relevant to this question: A Small creature has trouble wielding heavy weapons, as modeled by disadvantage on attack rolls. Thus, a "wielded" weapon is one used to make an attack... or at the very least, attacking with a weapon means that you are wielding that weapon.
...It is at this point that I should also point out that, strictly as written, the Dueling style is technically entirely non-functional if dependent solely on RAW, on account of the term "wield" never being given an official definition as a game term. We can logically infer that a weapon in hand is wielded by you, but at no point is it explicitly confirmed that being in hand is required for the weapon to count as "wielded". Thus, we must observe better judgment here, and use logic when determining whether any given weapon is wielded or not. I would personally suggest that the litmus test we use is whether or not a weapon is either in hand or being used by you to make an attack; if it is, you're wielding it.
So, in short, it takes a lot of effort, but we can scrounge together enough connections to provide a purely RAW answer here.
If you attack with a weapon, you are wielding that weapon. The Dueling style depends on whether you are wielding the weapon, not on whether it is in your grasp at the exact moment of rolling damage. The game does not provide a means for a weapon to be considered "wielded" when an attack's attack roll is made but "not wielded" when that attack's damage roll is made. Therefore, the weapon is still wielded until the end of attack resolution, and by extension is still wielded during damage calculation. (Note that this is an implied rather than stated definition, and that no actual definition is provided.)
For me, the decider is how you hold the weapon. Holding an axe or dagger to throw is very different to holding it to stab. I mean, to throw a dagger you hold it by its pointy end!
For me, the decider is how you hold the weapon. Holding an axe or dagger to throw is very different to holding it to stab. I mean, to throw a dagger you hold it by its pointy end!
There is no distinction in the rules for how a weapon is wielded. It either is or isn't.
Also, there are a lot of techniques used in knife throwing and a number of them require you to hold the knife by the handle.
I'm gonna go with "I believe they were intended to be mutually-exclusive, but it's not the end of the world if they aren't." It's not as bad as the shenanigans I've seen some people do trying to combine Dueling with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Dueling does not ever apply to ranged weapons like the Dart, even if you are making a melee attack with it
Archery does not ever apply to melee weapons like the Dagger or Handaxe, even if you are making a ranged attack with it
Thrown Weapon Fighting does not care about what type of weapon is being used, only that the weapon has the Thrown property, and that you are making a ranged attack with it
To me, it reads like the intent of adding damage to Thrown Weapon Fighting was to simply fill a void from Dueling & Archery, not to overlap with them.
There are 9 basic weapons that carry the Thrown property; 7 of them are melee weapons, 2 of them are ranged weapons, and 1 of those ranged weapons isn't supposed to be dealing any damage at all (Net). There's also the Boomerang which, quite oddly, doesn't carry the Thrown property... it is just a straight up ranged weapon that would not benefit from Thrown Weapon Fighting at all despite being a weapon which must be... thrown.
That's a pretty big disparity suggesting that none of these styles should ever stack. Rather, it seems like: "Oh, you have a character concept? Okay, there's a fighting style for that!"
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I'm gonna go with "I believe they were intended to be mutually-exclusive, but it's not the end of the world if they aren't." It's not as bad as the shenanigans I've seen some people do trying to combine Dueling with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Dueling does not ever apply to ranged weapons like the Dart, even if you are making a melee attack with it
Archery does not ever apply to melee weapons like the Dagger or Handaxe, even if you are making a ranged attack with it
Thrown Weapon Fighting does not care about what type of weapon is being used, only that the weapon has the Thrown property, and that you are making a ranged attack with it
To me, it reads like the intent of adding damage to Thrown Weapon Fighting was to simply fill a void from Dueling & Archery, not to overlap with them.
There are 9 basic weapons that carry the Thrown property; 7 of them are melee weapons, 2 of them are ranged weapons, and 1 of those ranged weapons isn't supposed to be dealing any damage at all (Net). There's also the Boomerang which, quite oddly, doesn't carry the [wprop]Thrown[/item] property... it is just a straight up ranged weapon that would not benefit from Thrown Weapon Fighting at all despite being a weapon which must be... thrown.
That's a pretty big disparity suggesting that none of these styles should ever stack. Rather, it seems like: "Oh, you have a character concept? Okay, there's a fighting style for that!"
Great example of how the whole weapon rules/interactions of 5e seems less than thought out....
They obviously intended most people NOT to go into the granularity of the interactions this much but here we are! Overall it works because of the slop that is the natural language system.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
Doesn't the Thrown Fighting Style accomplish that entirely on its own? Consider exactly how much each style offers:
Dueling gives +2 damage when attacking with a singular melee weapon
Archery gives +2 damage when attacking with any ranged weapon
Thrown gives +2 damage when attacking with a Thrown weapon and allows for drawing a thrown weapon without using object interaction
It also works with Two-Weapon Fighting without any shenanigans required
The style is doing a lot of heavy lifting all on its own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
Doesn't the Thrown Fighting Style accomplish that entirely on its own? Consider exactly how much each style offers:
Dueling gives +2 damage when attacking with a singular melee weapon
Archery gives +2 damage when attacking with any ranged weapon
Thrown gives +2 damage when attacking with a Thrown weapon and allows for drawing a thrown weapon without using object interaction
It also works with Two-Weapon Fighting without any shenanigans required
The style is doing a lot of heavy lifting all on its own.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
Doesn't the Thrown Fighting Style accomplish that entirely on its own? Consider exactly how much each style offers:
Dueling gives +2 damage when attacking with a singular melee weapon
Archery gives +2 damage when attacking with any ranged weapon
Thrown gives +2 damage when attacking with a Thrown weapon and allows for drawing a thrown weapon without using object interaction
It also works with Two-Weapon Fighting without any shenanigans required
The style is doing a lot of heavy lifting all on its own.
+2 from Thrown Weapon Fighting is nice. +2 from Dueling is nice. Both together is better and still not a op as Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. 1d4+9 twice per round vs 1d8+15 or 2d6+18 twice a round.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
Doesn't the Thrown Fighting Style accomplish that entirely on its own? Consider exactly how much each style offers:
Dueling gives +2 damage when attacking with a singular melee weapon
Archery gives +2 damage when attacking with any ranged weapon
Thrown gives +2 damage when attacking with a Thrown weapon and allows for drawing a thrown weapon without using object interaction
It also works with Two-Weapon Fighting without any shenanigans required
The style is doing a lot of heavy lifting all on its own.
*archery gives +2 to attack roll not damage.
And doesn't apply to Daggers since they are Melee Weapons whether they are thrown or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No you wouldn't. "That weapon" is the language you glossed over there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There's room in the attack procedure to use Reactions, apply class features like Smite, etc. , so I don't know why there wouldn't be room to check for whether an item is being held or not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A "wielder" is not necessarily one who is currently "wielding" any given weapon, so much has "wielded" or "will wield" that weapon. Thor is Mjolnir's wielder, doesn't mean the thing never leaves his hand.
That feels hair splitty, but letting a character still be considered a "wielder" on any turn when they have wielded-but-are-no-longer-wielding a weapon in flight does less to make my English-speaking brain wince than letting an unwielded axe flying through the air be considered wielded does.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So a "wielder" is not "a person who wields something"? That is so unsupported by rules and definitions of words that I don't even know how yo argue that. That is like someone claiming the sky isn't blue because to them light with a wavelength between 400 and 525 nm is green.
Firing arrows from bows must really fry your brain then huh? You attack with the bow, hit with the arrow, and the arrow does the damage of the bow. Oh, but the arrow stopped being a part of the bow as soon as it was fired because things have to be touching. I'm just going to stick with RAW, you enjoy your green skys.
You're being uncharacteristically silly. I'm a programmer. That doesn't mean that I'm programming right this moment. Agent nouns like "wielder" don't necessarily mean "at this exact moment." More often than not, they speak to general states of being or to tendencies. Thor and Mjolnir are honestly a really good example. We recognize that Thor is the wielder of Mjolnir, because that's part of his story, not because at this precise moment he's actually wielding it. These are just as much "definitions of words" as anything else; they're not niche, they're extremely common usages.
The bow bit is a non sequitur. Arrows are merely the vehicle by which bows deal their damage. In rules terms, the bow is being wielded and the bow deals the damage. It's not relevant to the conversation about thrown weapons.
Colby, from D4 (the channel formerly known as D&D Optimized) made a net/dart specific build. Treantmonk made a kobold axe thrower named Chuck. I had crunched a lot to create a viable thrower prior to Tasha's. It has definitely been in the world before. I think a Soulknife would make an excellent thrower as well; psychic damage that gets to add dueling and thrown weapon fighting style (but not archery) sound like a lot of fun.
Thank you for answering my question.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Axes would not apply to the archery fighting style though as axes are not ranged weapons.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Those are also instantaneous, abstract, game-level decisions. My point still stands: the rules deliberately hand-wave all of the narrative steps involved in performing an attack into one instantaneous abstract process, and there's no one-to-one correspondence between the game steps of an attack and the narrative.
At the game level Shield occurs when you confirm a hit because wasting slots feels bad. In the narrative the decision to cast the spell obviously happens before you were hit because you can't turn back time. So does the hit or miss step of an attack happen when you make contact, or does it happen when it's too late for the enemy to change the outcome?
What about the damage roll? Does it happen when the weapon makes contact? Or maybe both the attack and damage rolls happen first and then my character does the action in the narrative in a way that reflects the results of both rolls. After all, the rules also say creatures don't suffer a life-threatening injury until their HP falls to 0, so if the target hits 0 HP that could also change the narrative of the attack. If that's the case, is the damage roll from a thrown hand axe happening before it leaves my hand?
What about Sneak Attack? At the game level you declare it after the hit is confirmed because wasting it would feel bad. Does that imply the Rogue doesn't know if they're launching a Sneak Attack until they've already plunged their dagger in their target's back? Or is the decision to Sneak Attack retroactive in the narrative like the decision to cast Shield?
Or how about Loading? A heavy crossbow takes several seconds to load. If the attack can accommodate all of that time loss, why don't I get a free shot if I go into battle with a pre-loaded crossbow? Actually shooting it only takes a fraction of a second. Where's the time that I gained from pre-loading going? Is my character now deciding to load the crossbow after each shot instead of before?
These are obviously rhetorical questions. My point is the rules don't account for the narrative events during an attack, just like the combat rules don't imply creatures are actually waiting their turn. So how can anyone pretend to know exactly at which point in the attack steps the weapon left your hand? That really strikes me as a post-hoc justification because the ruling rubbed them the wrong way.
The Fighting Style names aren't accurate anyways. You can use Dueling against multiple enemies and with weapons that'd never be used in a duel, and ironically it doesn't work with two-weapon fighting which was actually used in duels and usually didn't make sense outside of a 1v1 setting. It's obvious the game designers just wanted an offensive fighting style for each handedness and support for thrown weapons was split between the one-handed and dual-wielding styles.
The way I see it and the way all the groups that I am part of play it, is the "wielding one weapon" requirement was met at the time of the attack. The question I asked did not require clarification on this aspect as it is a settled matter in our games.
The ONLY thing that I wanted clarification on was whether two Fighting Styles could stack. I was fairly certain that they do. The two damage bonuses come from separate sources so I felt confident that they should stack. For those that actually answered the question, thank you.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Hmm... if we want to be language-lawyery, why don't we look at when you make a weapon damage roll? (Damage Rolls, PHB pg.196)
Thus, the damage roll for a weapon is part of an attack with that weapon. So, let's look back at the attack section, then. (Making an Attack, PHB pg.193)
The damage roll is part of the same step as the attack roll, with no phases in between. In particular, determining modifiers is part of the step before this, which means that for the purpose of game rules, there is no change in condition or situation between the time the attack roll is made and the time the damage roll is made, unless explicitly specified by another rule. Put simply, from the moment the attack begins, there is no time for a weapon to transition from "wielded" to "not wielded" until after it is resolved, because resolution is a single step, and thus it must be considered to be wielded during damage resolution of a thrown attack.
Conclusion by omission isn't enough if we want to be as strictly RAW as possible, however; after all, the logic is explicitly "there is no point in the written description where the weapon can become unwielded mid-attack," and explicitly depends on the claim that absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence. We can be more specific than this, though it takes more work.
In this case, Dueling style tells us that a damage bonus is applied while you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand, and no other weapon; this is stated as a passive effect that is constantly active when applicable, and not a bonus you choose whether or not to apply. In comparison, Sneak Attack and Divine Smite are optional decisions made when an attack hits specifically, and specified as something "you can" do. From this, we can conclude that Dueling style is a mandatory effect and not conditional on whether an attack hits or misses, which in turn means that determination of whether the weapon is considered to be a weapon you are wielding will be made in step 2, before the attack is resolved. Or, more simply, Dueling depends on a property that can be determined before the attack is made, while Sneak Attack and Smite can only be determined after the result of the attack roll is known, and thus Dueling would fall into step 2 while the others would not. And this, by extension, means that determination of whether the weapon counts as wielded is made before the weapon leaves your hand, as attack resolution occurs after modifier determination. And thus, if the weapon is in hand at the moment of attack declaration, it is considered to be wielded for the entirety of the attack.
But what of "wield", then? It's not actually defined anywhere ingame, so the above might actually be incorrect, and "wielded" status might be able to change mid-step, right? As the term "wield" has no game definition, we must instead look to its real-world definition to resolve this particular conundrum.
It's interesting to note that the term is ambiguous as to whether it requires the object to actually be held; rather, the key component is that it is handled or used. Going strictly by real-world definitions, a weapon used for an attack is by definition wielded by the person attacking with that weapon, even if the attack involves the attack leaving your hand. After all, "using" a javelin or other throwing weapon means throwing it, right? In this case, as the wielder, you are aiming and providing the force behind the attack. The javelin does not choose where to go and whether it wants to attack after leaving your hand; its trajectory and impact are wholly dependent on your actions, which you took while holding the javelin. The javelin is still subject to the effect of being "wielded" by you until it comes to a rest, in other words, because it lacks the ability to negate the physics of your throw; the javelin does not fall straight down to the ground your hand leaves it, because the act of attacking while you were wielding it imbued it with the kinetic energy to function as an attack.
We can go further than this, and consult historical references, too: One of the Hindu pantheon has the title "Chakra-dhāri", which means "chakram-wielder". The chakram is a throwing weapon, not a melee weapon; thus, wielding the chakram means throwing it. It is not considered to be unwielded after leaving the hand.
But, of course, neither of these provides a strict, RAW answer to what "wielding" means, right? We should scour the book and see if there's any connection we can make, before relying on actual definitions. And... while the term isn't explicitly defined anywhere, there is one thing that draws a connection between "wield" and weapon attacks: Size rules and relevant weapon properties.
Size rules: (Racial Traits, PHB pg.17)
And the only size-dependent weapon property: (Weapon Properties, PHB pg.147. In chapter 5.)
If we put these two together, we can finally define "wield" in game terms, as relevant to this question: A Small creature has trouble wielding heavy weapons, as modeled by disadvantage on attack rolls. Thus, a "wielded" weapon is one used to make an attack... or at the very least, attacking with a weapon means that you are wielding that weapon.
...It is at this point that I should also point out that, strictly as written, the Dueling style is technically entirely non-functional if dependent solely on RAW, on account of the term "wield" never being given an official definition as a game term. We can logically infer that a weapon in hand is wielded by you, but at no point is it explicitly confirmed that being in hand is required for the weapon to count as "wielded". Thus, we must observe better judgment here, and use logic when determining whether any given weapon is wielded or not. I would personally suggest that the litmus test we use is whether or not a weapon is either in hand or being used by you to make an attack; if it is, you're wielding it.
So, in short, it takes a lot of effort, but we can scrounge together enough connections to provide a purely RAW answer here.
If you attack with a weapon, you are wielding that weapon. The Dueling style depends on whether you are wielding the weapon, not on whether it is in your grasp at the exact moment of rolling damage. The game does not provide a means for a weapon to be considered "wielded" when an attack's attack roll is made but "not wielded" when that attack's damage roll is made. Therefore, the weapon is still wielded until the end of attack resolution, and by extension is still wielded during damage calculation. (Note that this is an implied rather than stated definition, and that no actual definition is provided.)
I rule "no", they do not both apply.
For me, the decider is how you hold the weapon. Holding an axe or dagger to throw is very different to holding it to stab. I mean, to throw a dagger you hold it by its pointy end!
There is no distinction in the rules for how a weapon is wielded. It either is or isn't.
Also, there are a lot of techniques used in knife throwing and a number of them require you to hold the knife by the handle.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
I'm gonna go with "I believe they were intended to be mutually-exclusive, but it's not the end of the world if they aren't." It's not as bad as the shenanigans I've seen some people do trying to combine Dueling with Two-Weapon Fighting.
To me, it reads like the intent of adding damage to Thrown Weapon Fighting was to simply fill a void from Dueling & Archery, not to overlap with them.
There are 9 basic weapons that carry the Thrown property; 7 of them are melee weapons, 2 of them are ranged weapons, and 1 of those ranged weapons isn't supposed to be dealing any damage at all (Net). There's also the Boomerang which, quite oddly, doesn't carry the Thrown property... it is just a straight up ranged weapon that would not benefit from Thrown Weapon Fighting at all despite being a weapon which must be... thrown.
That's a pretty big disparity suggesting that none of these styles should ever stack. Rather, it seems like: "Oh, you have a character concept? Okay, there's a fighting style for that!"
[edit] fixed tags
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Great example of how the whole weapon rules/interactions of 5e seems less than thought out....
They obviously intended most people NOT to go into the granularity of the interactions this much but here we are! Overall it works because of the slop that is the natural language system.
We decided that we would go with these two stacking granting a total of +4 Damage. It is still less damage than the Ranger with Sharpshooter or Barbarian with Great Weapon Master but it doesn't have the Attack penalty. Makes the character feel more like a deadly knife throwing specialist.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Doesn't the Thrown Fighting Style accomplish that entirely on its own? Consider exactly how much each style offers:
The style is doing a lot of heavy lifting all on its own.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
*archery gives +2 to attack roll not damage.
+2 from Thrown Weapon Fighting is nice. +2 from Dueling is nice. Both together is better and still not a op as Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. 1d4+9 twice per round vs 1d8+15 or 2d6+18 twice a round.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
And doesn't apply to Daggers since they are Melee Weapons whether they are thrown or not.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master