-3
\$\begingroup\$

The Dueling fighting style is defined as following (PHB p 72):

"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"

Can I assume this means we do not get the +2 bonus when wielding two-handed weapons such as a pike, glaive or halberd?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 19 '17 at 21:59
24
\$\begingroup\$

Being possessed of the Dueling fighting style doesn't preclude the use of a two-handed weapon. You can still use a two-handed weapon as you normally would.

However, when you do so you do not gain the bonus provided by Dueling as you no longer meet the prerequisite. I.e. as the weapon "requires two hands to use" (Weapon Properties, pp.146-147, at "Two-Handed") neither hand can singly be said to be wielding the weapon as the style would require.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The Q was edited since the answer was posted. The first part of the question - "Does the Dueling Preclude Use of Two-Handed Weapons?" was deleted, so the first paragraph is no longer relevant. \$\endgroup\$ – enkryptor Feb 2 at 22:26
8
\$\begingroup\$

Can I assume this means we do not get the +2 bonus when wielding two-handed weapons such as a pike, glaive or halberd?

Correct, because the character is now holding a melee weapon with two hands (ergo, in two hands). The character doesn't get a pass on this just because there is only one weapon entity. This is different from wielding a sword in one hand and a shield in another because only one of those counts as a weapon.

This also means that when they use the versatile feature of a battleaxe (changing a d8 to a d10), they lose the benefits of the dueling style because they're now gripping the weapon with two hands.

\$\endgroup\$
-7
\$\begingroup\$

Much of the discussion here depends if you interpret "in one hand" as meaning 'in at least one hand' or 'in only one hand.'

Without clarification I would assume the charitable interpretation of 'in at least one hand' meaning that two handed weapons would get the +2 damage modifier. Just like weapon and shield, and one-handed weapon and empty hand (or rose, bottle, book in other hand).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site! Please take the tour when you get the chance. Can you explain why you would assume that interpretation? \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Feb 2 at 2:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ You can't wield a weapon with no hands (generally speaking), so if they meant it the way you interpret it, there'd be no need to mention hands at all. Seems like a solid argument against your interpretation to me. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Feb 2 at 2:48
-10
\$\begingroup\$

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…

When you wield a 2 handed weapon you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" — because in the second hand you have the same weapon.

So in my view, if you allow players to hold shield in left hand and use Dueling, then using a versatile longsword or a two handed sword should be allowed too — it's the rules as written.

Is it rules as intended? Well, I think for shield-wielders there is Protection. Dueling is for duelists with the other hand free. (Or holding a rose, a candle, a bottle of rum — make it fun, not statistics!)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site. Take the tour. This isn't a traditional forum, and, while I understand your frustration, if this answer could be rephrased so that it answers the question rather than addressing other answers, the answer would be a great deal more effective. Further, keeping things civil and nice is site policy, so dialing down the answer's rhetoric just a bit might make it more appealing. No matter what though, thank you for participating and trying to help strangers. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Sep 16 '17 at 19:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi, please do tone this answer down soon or it will be removed. Hey I Can Chan is correct to call out that opening as not very civil. Please see our behaviour standards and be respectful to your fellow site users -- you can express the point constructively without deriding others and ought to do so. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 18 '17 at 8:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I gave this a quick edit to demonstrate the difference we're looking for. Cheers! \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 18 '17 at 21:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't think this clearly answers the question as yes or no. \$\endgroup\$ – bvstuart Feb 4 at 14:35

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.