As a proud min/maxer, could you please share the math for me on the 2d6+1d4 + THIRTY SIX? Thanks.
I think the OP was a Oathbreaker Paladin 7 Swords Bard 3 with dueling fighting style that somehow got 20 STR and 20 CHA and also had the Polearm Master feat. So you get 2 attacks from a staff or spear dealing 1d6 + 12 (STR mod, CHA mod and +2 from dueling) x2 (Extra Attack). Then you round things off with your Bonus Action attack from Polearm Master doing another 1d4 + 12, resulting in 2d6 + 1d4 + 36.
The bard isn't doing a whole lot for him in this math, it'd be easier to pull this together with a single level of Hexblade so you can make it a bit more SAD, then you'd just need the 20 Cha.
I never said the build was good lol, was just replying to a question.
What rule definition exist for wielding? A character having two weapons in ihands should not gain +2 damage.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What rule definition exist for wielding? A character having two weapons in ihands should not gain +2 damage.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
What would be the point of holding one weapon and wielding another, anyways?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What rule definition exist for wielding? A character having two weapons in ihands should not gain +2 damage.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
A greatsword isn't "no other weapon" when you're wielding a shortsword also. What rule definition exist for wielding vs holding? Even the Two-Handed property doesn't refer to wielding whatsoever in its description...
Sage Advice doesn't list another weapon as pairing when Dueling to further support this notion;
Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield? Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spellcasting focus, or a free hand.
What rule definition exist for wielding? A character having two weapons in ihands should not gain +2 damage.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
What would be the point of holding one weapon and wielding another, anyways?
It is an important distinction because anything can wielded as a weapon.
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
Anything at all can be wielded as a weapon. Even a weapon.
But dueling style only cares that you wield just a single weapon only, and only in one hand. So long as you don't "wield" a 2nd one, you're free to hold or carry whatever you want. Even weapons. Unwielded, of course.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What rule definition exist for wielding? A character having two weapons in ihands should not gain +2 damage.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
A greatsword isn't "no other weapon" when you're wielding a shortsword also. What rule definition exist for wielding vs holding? Even the Two-Handed property doesn't refer to wielding whatsoever in its description...
Sage Advice doesn't list another weapon as pairing when Dueling to further support this notion;
Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield? Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spellcasting focus, or a free hand.
The greatsword isn't being wielded. You're free to hold it.
I suspect due to your question you may not know what wielded means? It means to hold and use.
Essentially, the difference is if you're trying to fight with it or not. Obviously you're not fighting with the greatsword in this example. I think you would agree? Since you can't fight with it in one hand. So it is only held. Not wielded.
Again, just extrapolate from here. You can wield or not wield anything you want. You can wield your shield as a weapon. You can wield spellcasting focus as a weapon. And, if you do, you'd be not get the dueling style bonus damage for your shortsword attacks while you do so.
Similarly you can simply hold a weapon and not wield it. Nothing forces you to fight with a held weapon. Even if this isn't something that comes up often, you don't have to wield a weapon you're holding. Just picture a guy holding his longsword, still sheathed, at the midpoint, just carrying it. This dude is NOT wielding it. Hes holding only. He would absolutely get the dueling style bonus on his wielded shortsword attacks he's making in the other hand.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You always only hold and use use 1 wielded weapon at a time when you attack with it, having another weapon in hand is never held and used while you're using another one (even two-weapon fighting isn't simultaneous) so according to your take, you could always hold another weapon in hand. Yet Sage Advice doesn't list weapon as usual pairing.
You always only hold and use use 1 wielded weapon at a time when you attack with it, having another weapon in hand is never held and used while you're using another one (even two-weapon fighting isn't simultaneous)
No.
Mid-attack isn't what we're talking about. Because "wield" and "attack" are not synonyms.
Wield is to "hold" and "use". Ie. To be fighting with.
You can absolutely hold something, and not be fighting with it. We both know this is true.
so according to your take,
Really?
you could always hold another weapon in hand.
Yes you can always hold another weapon in hand. You just can't wield a second one while getting the dueling bonus.
Yet Sage Advice doesn't list weapon as usual pairing.
You seem to be ignoring that a shield wielded as a weapon would disqualify the use of dueling style for the shortsword attacks. Same for a spellcasting focus. Even a staff. You smack someone with your staff? No dueling bonus to your shortsword attacks.
Because you're not wielding just one weapon, but two.
Again, really focus on this example and you'll see:
A guy picks up a fully sheathed greatsword with on hand and carries it, then a fight breaks out and he draws and wields his shortsword in his other hand. Would he get his dueling style bonus for fighting this way? Yes. Why? Because he wields one weapon only, and in one hand only. That's it. He can hold whatever he wants in the other hand so long as it isn't being wielded as a weapon.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Mid-attack isn't what we're talking about. Because "wield" and "attack" are not synonyms.
Wield is to "hold" and "use". Ie. To be fighting with.
You can absolutely hold something, and not be fighting with it.
You try to make a distinction between using and attacking, the benefit of +2 damage only work when attacking so how you're holding or wielding something when not attacking isn't relevant here.
You seem to be ignoring that a shield wielded as a weapon would disqualify the use of dueling style. Same for a spellcasting focus.
I don't think so, Dueling works when wielding a shield and a weapon, Sage Advice never exclude this possibility. Same for spellcasting focus.
If the DM want to treat a shield as a weapon when attacking with one as an improvised weapon, it may not get +2 damage since another weapon is also being wielded, but attacking with a shortsword while wielding a shield will get +2 damage because there's no other weapon at the time of attacking, since a shield is not a weapon except when making an improvise weapon attack with one.
Mid-attack isn't what we're talking about. Because "wield" and "attack" are not synonyms.
Wield is to "hold" and "use". Ie. To be fighting with.
You can absolutely hold something, and not be fighting with it.
You try to make a distinction between using and attacking, the benefit of +2 damage only work when attacking so how you're holding or wielding something when not attacking isn't relevant here.
You seem to be ignoring that a shield wielded as a weapon would disqualify the use of dueling style. Same for a spellcasting focus.
I don't think so, Dueling works when wielding a shield and a weapon, Sage Advice never exclude this possibility. Same for spellcasting focus.
If the DM want to treat a shield as a weapon when attacking with one as an improvised weapon, it may not get +2 damage since another weapon is also being wielded, but attacking with a shortsword while wielding a shield will get +2 damage because there's no other weapon at the time of attacking, since a shield is not a weapon except when making an improvise weapon attack with one.
Wield just doesn't mean what you seem to suggest it does. Wield, and hold, are not the same word, and are not used interchangeably. Wield implies additional context of using it. Not just holding, but actively using it.
This means you can hold something without wielding it.
This is necessarily true of a greatsword held in one hand, for example. You're not wielding a greatsword if you are holding in only one hand. You can't. The rules forbid it.
Now, if your opinion is that a dueling style fighter could attack with his shield as an improvised weapon, and get the +2 bonus, then draw and extra attack with his shortword and also get the +2 bonus, then we have such a different understanding of how the basic rules work that we will never reach a concensus.
Dueling style benefits you if you're wielding only one weapon. So this notion that you can use it while wielding another weapon is just false. As is the notion your hand needs to not be holding anything.
You can hold whatever you want as long as you're not wielding a 2nd weapon. Its what the ability says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Such a shame. You'd think that since lances were over 9 feet long and are classified as polearms when it comes to real life history they'd be polearms in this medieval + magic battle simulator.
I guess that I'll have to homebrew a armour and weapons list that isn't as bad as the current one (see the fact that trident is just a more expensive martial version of the simple spear with 0 advantages over it)(see also repeat weapons that have the same properties and damage just flavored with a different name) (See no variation of shield and see padded armour being practically useless because it barely offers any protection and gives stealth disadvantage)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
I never said the build was good lol, was just replying to a question.
He absolutely could if he only wields one of them.
Edit: To be clear, holding and wielding are not the same and the game doesn't treat them the same. A clear example would be if you are holding a greatsword in one hand and and are wielding a shortsword in the other. You would absolutely get the +2 damage frombthe fighting style because you're not only just not wielding that greatsword, but you're even incapable of wielding it with one hand.
You're holding two weapons. You're wielding one weapon.
Now extrapolate from here and you'll arive at the answer.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What would be the point of holding one weapon and wielding another, anyways?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
A greatsword isn't "no other weapon" when you're wielding a shortsword also. What rule definition exist for wielding vs holding? Even the Two-Handed property doesn't refer to wielding whatsoever in its description...
Sage Advice doesn't list another weapon as pairing when Dueling to further support this notion;
It is an important distinction because anything can wielded as a weapon.
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
Anything at all can be wielded as a weapon. Even a weapon.
But dueling style only cares that you wield just a single weapon only, and only in one hand. So long as you don't "wield" a 2nd one, you're free to hold or carry whatever you want. Even weapons. Unwielded, of course.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The greatsword isn't being wielded. You're free to hold it.
I suspect due to your question you may not know what wielded means? It means to hold and use.
Essentially, the difference is if you're trying to fight with it or not. Obviously you're not fighting with the greatsword in this example. I think you would agree? Since you can't fight with it in one hand. So it is only held. Not wielded.
Again, just extrapolate from here. You can wield or not wield anything you want. You can wield your shield as a weapon. You can wield spellcasting focus as a weapon. And, if you do, you'd be not get the dueling style bonus damage for your shortsword attacks while you do so.
Similarly you can simply hold a weapon and not wield it. Nothing forces you to fight with a held weapon. Even if this isn't something that comes up often, you don't have to wield a weapon you're holding. Just picture a guy holding his longsword, still sheathed, at the midpoint, just carrying it. This dude is NOT wielding it. Hes holding only. He would absolutely get the dueling style bonus on his wielded shortsword attacks he's making in the other hand.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You always only hold and use use 1 wielded weapon at a time when you attack with it, having another weapon in hand is never held and used while you're using another one (even two-weapon fighting isn't simultaneous) so according to your take, you could always hold another weapon in hand. Yet Sage Advice doesn't list weapon as usual pairing.
No.
Mid-attack isn't what we're talking about. Because "wield" and "attack" are not synonyms.
Wield is to "hold" and "use". Ie. To be fighting with.
You can absolutely hold something, and not be fighting with it. We both know this is true.
Really?
Yes you can always hold another weapon in hand. You just can't wield a second one while getting the dueling bonus.
You seem to be ignoring that a shield wielded as a weapon would disqualify the use of dueling style for the shortsword attacks. Same for a spellcasting focus. Even a staff. You smack someone with your staff? No dueling bonus to your shortsword attacks.
Because you're not wielding just one weapon, but two.
Again, really focus on this example and you'll see:
A guy picks up a fully sheathed greatsword with on hand and carries it, then a fight breaks out and he draws and wields his shortsword in his other hand. Would he get his dueling style bonus for fighting this way? Yes. Why? Because he wields one weapon only, and in one hand only. That's it. He can hold whatever he wants in the other hand so long as it isn't being wielded as a weapon.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You try to make a distinction between using and attacking, the benefit of +2 damage only work when attacking so how you're holding or wielding something when not attacking isn't relevant here.
I don't think so, Dueling works when wielding a shield and a weapon, Sage Advice never exclude this possibility. Same for spellcasting focus.
If the DM want to treat a shield as a weapon when attacking with one as an improvised weapon, it may not get +2 damage since another weapon is also being wielded, but attacking with a shortsword while wielding a shield will get +2 damage because there's no other weapon at the time of attacking, since a shield is not a weapon except when making an improvise weapon attack with one.
Wield just doesn't mean what you seem to suggest it does. Wield, and hold, are not the same word, and are not used interchangeably. Wield implies additional context of using it. Not just holding, but actively using it.
This means you can hold something without wielding it.
This is necessarily true of a greatsword held in one hand, for example. You're not wielding a greatsword if you are holding in only one hand. You can't. The rules forbid it.
Now, if your opinion is that a dueling style fighter could attack with his shield as an improvised weapon, and get the +2 bonus, then draw and extra attack with his shortword and also get the +2 bonus, then we have such a different understanding of how the basic rules work that we will never reach a concensus.
Dueling style benefits you if you're wielding only one weapon. So this notion that you can use it while wielding another weapon is just false. As is the notion your hand needs to not be holding anything.
You can hold whatever you want as long as you're not wielding a 2nd weapon. Its what the ability says.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This whole debate could be resolved if Plague looks up what wield means then thread over discussion finished, cool idea stated.
Note: Couldn't you also do this mounted with a lance and be able to get GWM as well?
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
When a mounted character wields a lance in one hand and no other weapon;
Dueling: Yes
Polearm Master: No
Great Weapon Master 1st benefit: Yes
Great Weapon Master 2nd benefit: No
Such a shame. You'd think that since lances were over 9 feet long and are classified as polearms when it comes to real life history they'd be polearms in this medieval + magic battle simulator.
I guess that I'll have to homebrew a armour and weapons list that isn't as bad as the current one (see the fact that trident is just a more expensive martial version of the simple spear with 0 advantages over it)(see also repeat weapons that have the same properties and damage just flavored with a different name) (See no variation of shield and see padded armour being practically useless because it barely offers any protection and gives stealth disadvantage)
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"