Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Thank_Dog Sep 25, 2014 3:36:11	Do you think that the Dueling damage bonus applies to Unarmed attacks & thrown weapons?
#2 1eejit Sep 25, 2014 3:43:38	It shouldn't work with unarmed as you aren't "wielding a melee weapon in one hand". Unarmed counts as a weapon, but you aren't wielding it in a hand.
#3 deldalton Sep 25, 2014 4:29:27	1eejit wrote:
#4 1eejit Sep 25, 2014 4:36:43	No, your hands become weapons, but you aren't wielding them. Unless your monk cuts off someone's hands and holds them in his own hands to hit people with.
(Reply to #4) deldalton	1eejit wrote:
#6 Thank_Dog Sep 25, 2014 4:46:22	deldalton wrote:
#7 mrpopstar Sep 25, 2014 4:46:29	Thank_Dog wrote:
#8 Cooperjera Sep 25, 2014 4:46:30	Another way to look at it.  If you consider that you have two fists or feet that act as weapons then you are wielding a weapon in each hand.  Therefore, the fighting style would not apply.  If you were a one armed monk with martial arts then I could see the fighting style applying.  However, no foot work or head butts would be allowed.
#9 Ard3 Sep 25, 2014 5:04:26	Cooperjera wrote:
#10 Timborama Sep 25, 2014 5:29:38	Since we have Unarmed (mostly) solved, let's move on to part 2, Throwing Weapon Boogaloo:   The wording of Dueling style makes them a tricky case, and I hate to say it but "Up to the DM/table" seems to be the best answer. Why? Because in the PHB it 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."   I lean on the side of "no" because you are not wielding the weapon AFTER you throw it (and you must be wielding it to gain the damage with that weapon). But! I could easily also see a DM ruling that the benefit "activates" with the attack, and doesn't "deactivate" before you deal damage. I disagree, but think it's fair enough and not unfounded.
#11 deldalton Sep 25, 2014 5:34:27	mrpopstar wrote:
#12 Plaguescarred1 Sep 25, 2014 5:48:36	Thank_Dog wrote:
#13 Timborama Sep 25, 2014 7:01:25	Plaguescarred wrote:
#14 Plaguescarred1 Sep 25, 2014 7:18:07	Timborama wrote:
#15 Timborama Sep 25, 2014 8:18:31	Plaguescarred wrote:
#16 Jamwes Sep 25, 2014 8:19:45	If this was a computer program, when would the check be to see if you wield a weapon? At the time you decide to attack? At each step along the way? I think the intention is you check to see what weapons you wield at the moment you declair the attack action. Until the action is completed, you are considered to be wielding any weapon that you were wielding at the begining of the action.
#17 mrpopstar Sep 25, 2014 20:29:30	Plaguescarred wrote:
#18 Ganymede425 Sep 25, 2014 20:46:43	1eejit wrote:
(Reply to #12) Undrhil	Plaguescarred wrote:
#20 Plaguescarred1 Sep 26, 2014 2:47:03	Undrhil wrote:
#21 1eejit Sep 26, 2014 2:46:39	The balance problem is that allowing Duelling damage to work on Unarmed Strikes is that a one-level multiclass dip for the fighting style is effectively required for any Monk who cares at all about optimisation. Which is a Bad Thing imo.
#22 Timborama Sep 26, 2014 6:38:25	1eejit wrote:
(Reply to #22) 1eejit	Timborama wrote:
#24 RCanine Sep 26, 2014 9:34:43	I had a similar discussion of this in my moon druid guide because the same situation applies there. In that context I ruled that the fighting style features require melee weapon attacks with weapons that you are holding in your hands, and that Unarmed Strike, Claw and Bite count was melee weapons attacks, but since there is no weapon, the specific wording of the fighting styles does not apply. I see this as pretty well balanced. A monk can still wield a weapon to get +2 damage with the weapon, just not his bonus action attacks.   Remember that if you give the dueling bonus to every one of the monk's attacks, he gets more bonus damage than the fighter does--e.g. at level 3 the monk will get up to +6 damage (by spending 1 ki) but the fighter will only get +4 (by spending action surge). When your interpretation allows a multiclass character to make better use of a feature than the class it's designed for, that's your indicator that you're probably interpreting it incorrectly.
(Reply to #22) Coredump00	Timborama wrote:
(Reply to #2) FrogReaver	1eejit wrote:
#27 RCanine Sep 26, 2014 13:20:19	FrogReaver wrote:
#28 Veleria Sep 26, 2014 13:30:06	I believe you are when you are using it to attack.In a similar manner to reach weapons providing reach only when attacking, in a similar manner I interpret unarmed strike to be weilded during the action of attacking.
#29 Inaubryyn Sep 26, 2014 23:38:59	I think the operative phrase is, "when you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons..." The thing is with monks, they have other weapons. If you are falling on the side of they wield their own hands, then doesn't that mean they are wielding multiple weapons?    You can wield a sword, or an axe, or a dagger, or a pick in one hand and have no other weapons. But, you if one of your hands is a weapon, then so is the other as well as your knees, feet, head, etc.   Let's take another scenario. The fighter takes the Dueling Style. They have chosen to wield a hand axe. So, they get the +2 to damage, right? Right. But, if I go along with those of you who say that a monk's unarmed strikes count as a wielded weapon, by that logic wouldn't the fighter's unarmed strike also count negating the +2 to damage?   The fighter's unarmed strike does damage just like the monk's just to a lesser extent. Therefore, if unarmed strike IS a wielded weapon, then no character can receive the benefits of the Dueling Style.   While "wielding" is a much nicer word, you could probably replace it with "holding" and that would clear things up even more.