-2
\$\begingroup\$

The Dueling fighting style states that:

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 know that the versatile property doesn't disqualify it as it's not two-handed, but what about the "in one hand" part of the feat? Would you be able to wield a versatile weapon with two hands and still gain the benefits from Dueling?

\$\endgroup\$
22
\$\begingroup\$

When you are wielding a versatile weapon with two hands, you are not wielding it with one hand.

The text of Dueling states that it applies when you are wielding a melee weapon with one hand. Therefore, it does not apply when you are wielding it with two hands.

This is also confirmed by a tweet by rules designer Jeremy Crawford from April 2018 (though those are no longer official):

planning on making a Samurai Fighter. Does the Dueling fighting style work for versatile weapons like a longsword?

The Dueling fighting style works with a versatile weapon only when you attack with it using one hand.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Of note, that if a feat or feature is added in the future that lets you wield a two-handed weapon in one hand (a la Titan's Grip form WoW), you could use Dueling with it. Probably not likely to happen outside of homebrew, but an interesting side effect of the wording. \$\endgroup\$ – cpcodes Nov 6 '19 at 0:35
10
\$\begingroup\$

No

As you quoted,

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.

This means that you have to be wielding the weapon in one hand. If you are wielding the weapon in both hands, you are not wielding it in one hand, and do not gain the +2 to damage.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
-7
\$\begingroup\$

RAW: It would work

The statement is:

when you are wielding in one hand and no other weapon

It doesn't say; "in just one hand". Different statements. If you are wielding in two you are wielding in one, but not only in that one. If I ask you when you are wielding that weapon in two hands: What are you wielding in your left hand? Your answer would be: a sword. If you weren't wielding in one hand you wouldn't be in two, that would be impossible. You wield in one AND in the other, both hands are wielding.

Example:

If a carriage is being pulled by 2 horses, horse "A" and horse "B", by themselves they would not be able to pull, but together they are. The horse "A" is in fact pulling the carriage, as the horse "B" is. If horse "A" is pulling, the carriage is being pulled by horse "A", once horse "A" is 1 horse, the carriage is being pulled by one horse. Using the same logic to "Hands" and "Wielding" my point above is proved.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Comments are for suggesting improvements or requesting clarification on an answer. Not for arguing about its accuracy. I have cleaned up the comments and would like to remind everyone that comments other than the intended use can be flagged and No Longer Needed or a custom flag for moderator removal. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Sep 4 at 5:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I know you are new around here so I will also let you know that we have a policy to not signal edits in text. It's better to have each version of your answer to appear as the single best version of the answer. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Sep 4 at 5:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.