|
Please move discussion regarding Defending Weapons from PF Rules, Changed and/or Misplayed here. If there are other relevant threads, please post them for inclusion.
copypasta of my quote in the thread:
It seems to be the idea that Defender is nothing more then another source of AC. Slap it on a gauntlet, throw it all into AC, and profit.
That's not how it's designed.
You are supposed to be wielding the weapon in combat on your turn. This requires an attack action, the same as defensive fighting. If you aren't wielding it on your turn, you don't get the bonus, because you aren't using the weapon to defend yourself...you're casting a spell or shooting a bow.
You'd still get the penalty if you were allowed AoO's, because you've taken them away, but no bonus. You aren't parrying anything with the weapon...you're doing something else.
It's consistent with Defensive Fighting, and should be played as such. If you think it is just an optional AC source priced the same as a Deflection bonus, well, okay, that's your right, too.
===Aelryinth
This. Why on a weapon otherwise?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe you have to be wielding a defending weapon to be able to use it (that is, have it in hand in the proper manner, or otherwise in its proper place ready to use).
I do not believe you need to attack with a defending weapon in order to gain the benefit. If you have it at the ready (that is, if you threaten your space and/or the surrounding area), than you can benefit from its defending property regardless of whether or not you attack with it (or even if you attack with a different weapon).
If you defend with a defending weapon and attack with another, you do NOT take TWF penalties.
At least, that's my interpretation.
EDIT: I also don't believe multiple defending weapons stack with themselves (they count as being the same source).
I do believe you have to be wielding a defending weapon to be able to use it (that is, have it in hand in the proper manner, or in its proper place).
I do not believe you need to attack with a defending weapon in order to gain the benefit. If you have it at the ready (that is, if you threaten your space and/or the surrounding area), than you can benefit from its defending property regardless of whether or not you attack with it (or even if you attack with a different weapon).
If you defend with a defending weapon and attack with another, you do NOT take TWF penalties.
At least, that's my interpretation.
EDIT: I also don't believe multiple defending weapons stack with themselves (they count as being the same source).
+1. Sometimes the favorite button just does not cut it. :)
|
You are supposed to be wielding the weapon in combat on your turn. This requires an attack action, the same as defensive fighting. If you aren't wielding it on your turn, you don't get the bonus, because you aren't using the weapon to defend yourself...you're casting a spell or shooting a bow.
I'm unclear where you're getting the impression that wielding means that you must take an attack action. This keeps being claimed, but I've yet to read a source from the book on that.
Anyone holding the weapon is "wielding" it. Unless the rules place a different meaning upon the word, which would be fine. I know of know such definition given in the pathfinder rules. I certainly don't know of any rule saying that in order for someone to be considered wielding an item they need to take a specific action with that item. And this interpretation, as pointed out by others, is inconsistent with other rules that arise within the game. For example, are you claiming that if a character doesn't attack, and does nothing during their turn but stand in their square (or perhaps take a move action), they are not wielding a weapon and therefore do not threaten?
You are supposed to be wielding the weapon in combat on your turn. This requires an attack action, the same as defensive fighting. If you aren't wielding it on your turn, you don't get the bonus, because you aren't using the weapon to defend yourself...you're casting a spell or shooting a bow.
I'm unclear where you're getting the impression that wielding means that you must take an attack action. This keeps being claimed, but I've yet to read a source from the book on that.
Anyone holding the weapon is "wielding" it. Unless the rules place a different meaning upon the word, which would be fine. I know of know such definition given in the pathfinder rules. I certainly don't know of any rule saying that in order for someone to be considered wielding an item they need to take a specific action with that item. And this interpretation, as pointed out by others, is inconsistent with other rules that arise within the game. For example, are you claiming that if a character doesn't attack, and does nothing during their turn but stand in their square (or perhaps take a move action), they are not wielding a weapon and therefore do not threaten?
Holding and wielding do have different definitions. For instance, you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, but if you do you are not wielding it and cannot attack that turn.
Wielding a weapon does not require that you attack with it, but attacking with a weapon (or threatening with it) requires that you wield it. Essentially, it equates to holding it in a way so that you would be able to attack with it.
|
|
Omelite is correct that the normal definition of "wield" is more than just holding. (And I was imprecise in claiming otherwise). It requires power over the item and the ability to use. But it remains that this is far from "having attacked" with the item. So unless this is somewhere in the book, the natural definition of the word doesn't mean what Aelryinth wants it to mean.
The pathfinder rules on 'wielding' are not 'holding'. Wielding translates to 'active employment'.
You can wield a weapon, spend an attack action and attack nothing...that's defensive fighting for an AC bonus against a Foe attacking you at range.
Ditto total defense.
You cannot actively wield a weapon if you are shooting a missile weapon or casting a spell..you are just holding it. Being able to take an AoO is not the same thing.
If you think otherwise, then Defender is just another way for a non-weapon user to scounge up some AC for free. May as well let them fight defensively or in total defense all the time, too.
There are more then a few other feats that employ the 'wield' language, and its patently clear they don't mean 'holding onto.'
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly,
This came up with the Magus. James Jacobs (or was it Jason Buhlman) responded that a Magus couldn't use a two-handed weapon for his bonded weapon because if he just took one hand off it, he was no longer wielding it, just holding it, because he could not attack with a two-handed weapon while just holding it with one hand. For it to be wielded, he had to have both hands on it and be able to make an attack with it. Note, not attack with it, just be able to attack with it. Therefore, a Magus could only use a one-handed weapon as his bonded weapon.
This, to me, indicates that a weapon is wielded if it is capable of being used in an attack. Not that it is used in an attack, only that it is capable of being used. Therefore, a defending dagger in your off-hand and a normal sword in your primary hand is fine, if you take two-weapon-fighting penalties on the sword if you make an attack with it, whether you make an attack with the dagger or not. That leaves the dagger 'readied' to take an AoO. By the same token, if you have a gauntlet on one hand, and are casting a spell, then that gauntlet, once the spell casting is done, is 'readied' for an AoO, so it's fine for defending to be on it.
Simple definition :
Wielded = Can be used in an AoO.
Held = In hand, but can't be used in an AoO.
That doesn't work because now you have a weapon readied and are casting a spell with no penalty. How are you going to take a TWF penalty on your spellcasting?
It only works if you subsume the Attack action as part of wielding as a qualifier.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The pathfinder rules on 'wielding' are not 'holding'. Wielding translates to 'active employment'.
You can wield a weapon, spend an attack action and attack nothing...that's defensive fighting for an AC bonus against a Foe attacking you at range.
Ditto total defense.
You cannot actively wield a weapon if you are shooting a missile weapon or casting a spell..you are just holding it. Being able to take an AoO is not the same thing.
If you think otherwise, then Defender is just another way for a non-weapon user to scounge up some AC for free. May as well let them fight defensively or in total defense all the time, too.
==Aelryinth
You keep claiming this, but I haven't seen a source for your claim. The word "wield" means something. If it has a different meaning than the standard definition of the word, then the rules need to point that out. It's fine if it does, I just haven't seen anywhere in the rules that change the meaning of the word.
And by "for free" you, of course, mean "for the price of a magical weapon and giving up whatever magic item slot the weapon takes up." Fighting Defensively and Total Defense requires a Standard Action. So yes, non-weapon users are absolutely allowed to fight defensively "all the time"...if they're willing to spend a standard action on doing so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't work because now you have a weapon readied and are casting a spell with no penalty. How are you going to take a TWF penalty on your spellcasting?
It only works if you subsume the Attack action as part of wielding as a qualifier.
==Aelryinth
You don't have to take a TWF penalty on casting. I specified if you were using two weapons, one with and one without defending, but only wanted to attack with the one that didn't have defending, but wanted the defending bonus.
Let me put it like this, if the wizard has a longsword (elf), and casts a spell, then someone runs past him, he get's an attack of opportunity. He does not lose his AoO because he cast a spell, he doesn't have to take TWF penalties on his AoO. The weapon, being one-handed, is wielded in his primary hand. He used his empty off-hand to make gestures for the spell he cast.
If the longsword were a +3 defending longsword, he could add all +3 to his AC as a free action at the beginning of his turn. During the AoO, he'd not get the +3 enhancement to attack/damage with the longsword, because he allocated it to defense. The longsword is wielded in his primary hand, it's available for AoO, because if it wasn't wielded he couldn't make AoO with it.
You are conflating two different things and trying to say because one is an apple, the orange can't have a peal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only works if you subsume the Attack action as part of wielding as a qualifier.
==Aelryinth
So, an evil character could lug around a Sword with the Holy weapon quality on it all day long, swinging it to and fro, and not lose a level (because he didn't attack someone with it and therefore wasn't wielding it)?!?
"It bestows one permanent negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded". - Core Rulebook p.470
|
That's because it doesn't. Wielding something just means in a generic sense that you have the item out and it is ready to be used. Not that it is actually being used. That's why AoO's work the way they do.
Two examples.
1.) Two characters are locked inbetween the action of a Disarm. Character A has a Greatsword and a spiked Guantlet an Character B is unarmed and attempting to Disarm the Greatsword. Neither new that Character B's buddy, Character C who is Invisible, Readied an Action to Attack and Move as soon as Character B Hit. SO Character C interupts A and B in the middle of the Disarm, attacks A, and draws an AoO from moving. Character A, who has been oth wielding and threatening with the SPiked Gauntlet this entire time can take the AoO against Character C, even though his Greatsword is still in limbo land from the still attempted Disarm from Character B.
2.) An evil charcter can't just hold a Holy Avenger and not "wield" it to avoid the Neg Level, and soak up the good arua and "hey I'm holding a Holy Avenger, so I can't be evil, right. . .".
Why on a weapon otherwise?
Because it takes from your attack roll to add to AC. And for pricing.
EDIT: I also don't believe multiple defending weapons stack with themselves (they count as being the same source).
Except the weapon specifically says it stacks with all other sources. This is a specific rule tha overrides the generic ones. However, I can see this both ways, and as I mentioned, this is generaly a terrible idea from a financial point of view. t's generally 2 to 3 times the cost for AC bumbs, which are not that great at higher levels anyway.
EDIT: I also don't believe multiple defending weapons stack with themselves (they count as being the same source).Except the weapon specifically says it stacks with all other sources. This is a specific rule tha overrides the generic ones. However, I can see this both ways, and as I mentioned, this is generaly a terrible idea from a financial point of view. t's generally 2 to 3 times the cost for AC bumbs, which are not that great at higher levels anyway.
The source of the ability here is the Defending Property not the weapon itself. If you look at things with that way you'll quickly see that two instances of the Defending Property do not stack with themselves.
All *other* sources.
Why on a weapon otherwise?Because it takes from your attack roll to add to AC. And for pricing.
I see the pricing, but the penalty on attack rolls kicks in if you well.. you know.. attack.
I could be wrong, but IMHO is intended.
I see the pricing, but the penalty on attack rolls kicks in if you well.. you know.. attack.
I could be wrong, but IMHO is intended.
I agree. This is like people defensively attacking the darkness to gain the dodge AC while still getting their AoO.
You have to be wielding it during your turn, and that means out and ready to hit things with.
AoO's are not an example.
The 'wield' argument came in with the staff and greatsword for the magus...just 'holding onto' a 2h weapon is not 'wielding' it. If it's not being wielded during YOUR turn, you don't get the bonus from it. AoO's are a completely seperate argument.
So, it's not free AC. You actually have to take an attack action to get the AC bonus.
Otherwise, it's just free AC for someone who is never going to actually use a weapon.
==Aelryinth
"A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
I don't see why one couldn't just stand there, delaying their actions or just not acting period, and still allocate the defending bonus. Tactically, it is a poor decision, but it is still allowed. Aelryinth, you make it seem like that is impossible. Can you cite examples/rules supporting the your posts?
So, an evil character could lug around a Sword with the Holy weapon quality on it all day long, swinging it to and fro, and not lose a level (because he didn't attack someone with it and therefore wasn't wielding it)?!?
Carry, yes. As in sheathed, in a backpack, bag of holding, etc... Weapon drawn, no.
That is, mechanically, the only difference between carried and wielded. Unless you want to bring weapon proficiencies in on this as well, but those don't matter in this case due to improvised weapon penalties.
If I am holding an object in my hand, how am I not wielding it? It could be a book, a stapler, a +1 Flaming Sword, or a grapefruit; illregardless, I am wielding it. Even an encumbering box of grapefruits could be considered a wielded object. Can you attack with it? Yes. Effectively, probably not.
Barring class features, feats, or other specific effects; posture, stance, and weapon/hand placement are as irrelevant as the color of the object.
Player: Is it a stick?
DM: Yes.
Player: Cool. Can I hit something with it?
DM: Yes.
Player: Cool. If I hold it at my side or over my head is there a difference?
DM: No, it is still a stick and you can still hit things with it.
-Kurocyn
The pathfinder rules on 'wielding' are not 'holding'. Wielding translates to 'active employment'.
You can wield a weapon, spend an attack action and attack nothing...that's defensive fighting for an AC bonus against a Foe attacking you at range.
Ditto total defense.
You cannot actively wield a weapon if you are shooting a missile weapon or casting a spell..you are just holding it. Being able to take an AoO is not the same thing.
If you think otherwise, then Defender is just another way for a non-weapon user to scounge up some AC for free. May as well let them fight defensively or in total defense all the time, too.
There are more then a few other feats that employ the 'wield' language, and its patently clear they don't mean 'holding onto.'
==Aelryinth
Once again I ask do you believe someone has to make an attack before they can make an attack of opportunity? The rules do say a weapon must be wielded. I quoted the supporting text in the other thread in case you missed it.
I think the intent was for the user to intend to use a weapon, but what happens when someone simply changes their mind?
edit after reading your response in the other thread:
How are they not an example. Either wield means already used the weapon or it means holding with intent to use.
Now if someone is holding a weapon with no intent to use it I think that is against RAI and it is gaming the system.
|
|
You have to be wielding it during your turn, and that means out and ready to hit things with.
...
Otherwise, it's just free AC for someone who is never going to actually use a weapon.
It is clear that you personally object to this and do not want it to be possible, but I've still yet to see a definition of "wield" in the rules anywhere that says that you must actually attack with a weapon to be considered "wielding" it.
Seriously, where are you pulling this from? In lieu of that, where has a developer stated that defending weapons are not intended to be able to give AC bonuses when you're not actually attacking?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
My emphasis. And while I'm aware that the bolded part doesn't necessarily mean that you really HAVE to use the weapon (just as "look left and right before crossing the road" doesn't force me to actually cross after looking left and right) to get the defending effect I think it still gives a glimpse into what the developers intended.
No "weapon shaped rosary of AC" in my games, anyway. *shrug*
If you look up the definition of wield (on the net)
"to handle and use ( a weapon or tool)" Collins English
"To handle (a weapon or tool, for example) with skill and ease" The American Heritage® Dictionary
"to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively" Dictionary.com
It would indicate that wield doesn't mean just "hold in your hand" but something more active. Surely in order to get the Defence bonus the weapon must move to defend the character; who therefore must be the one moving it? For example: who would agree to using Two Weapon Defence bonus because you are holding two weapons but then only attacking with one, to avoid the Two Weapon Fighting penalties?
I confess that I'm hard-pressed to really understand the controversy here. If you've got a weapon in hand, ready to use, you're wielding it. That's most cases in which the weapon is one-handed (or less if you're talking unarmed attacks) unless, I suppose, you're holding your sword by the blade, hammer by the head, or some other such nonsense because of specific things going on.
If you've got a two-handed weapon involved and you take one hand off it to cast a spell, scratch your nuts, or rest a polearm on your shoulder, then you've got a case for holding it rather than wielding it. But to assume an attack action needs to be taken to be wielding a weapon? Not implied by the rules at all.
If you've got a defending weapon out and in hand, capable of taking a poke at anybody, you can take a free action at the start of your turn to allocate the enhancement bonus into AC bonus for the duration of the round. Simple as that.
|
|
The dictionary is not a Pathfinder rule book. If you're going to say that a word has a specific meaning with regard to game mechanics, it needs to be defined in a rule book somewhere.
Surely in order to get the Defence bonus the weapon must move to defend the character; who therefore must be the one moving it?
That sounds reasonable for a character who is actively defending themselves with a weapon. But, let's say that you have a magical enchantment on a weapon that causes it to magically move to protect you as long as you're holding it. Why would you still need to concentrate on manipulating that weapon? It's magic. That's the entire point.
Wield = threaten.
IMO, it is not about intending to attack or any such nonsense. If a mage threatens with his defending weapon, he can get the AC from it.
@minneyar The dictionary might not be an official PFRPG rule book but it is probably used to define more words used in the rule books than are explicitly explained.
On the "why would you still need to concentrate, isn't it doing it all itself" point; then wouldn't that weapon have the dancing quality rather than the defender quality?
@Prawn I'm not sure if I agree that wield necessarily means threaten.
@Bill Dunn I thought the point people were trying to make was that all you had to do was have it in hand and you don't actually have to be ready to use it or even capable of using it without massive penalties i.e. a weapon you aren't proficient with in your off hand.
At least that is what I am disagreeing with.
@Bill Dunn I thought the point people were trying to make was that all you had to do was have it in hand and you don't actually have to be ready to use it or even capable of using it without massive penalties i.e. a weapon you aren't proficient with in your off hand.
At least that is what I am disagreeing with.
Why should massive penalties matter? Would it be cheesy? Potentially. But having a weapon you don't know how to use in your off-hand to get a maximum of +5 to your AC when you can get a +3-4 shield or buckler substantially cheaper seems like a bad idea to me. It's an inefficiency that would seem to fly in the face of optimization.
|
|
The dictionary might not be an official PFRPG rule book but it is probably used to define more words used in the rule books than are explicitly explained.
On the "why would you still need to concentrate, isn't it doing it all itself" point; then wouldn't that weapon have the dancing quality rather than the defender quality?
Most of the words you would use the dictionary to define do not have subtly different game mechanics than other words that have been established by a rule book.
Also, it wouldn't have the dancing ability because that's a completely different ability. The "dancing" enchantment is offensive and does not require that you hold the weapon at all. Out of curiosity, how would you describe how a defending weapon makes it harder to hit a character without using any game mechanics? Within the game world, how does a "+1 Defending Dagger" make it harder to hit a character than a "+1 Dagger"? How about +1 Defending Armor Spikes?
Ah! Optimisation!
I think that if you have to trade attack bonus for defence bonus then it just has to be your primary weapon, if it isn't how can you make the trade?
@ThePureGamer Well Met!
Now if the wizard at any time winds up where he is holding something in that hand which would mean that he could not make an attack with the gauntlet then the wizard would not get the AC bonus for as long as that was the case.
Period.
-James
Except you're still wielding the gauntlet and is capable of making attacks with it. Holding something in the same hand, to my knowledge, doesn't bar you from attacking with the gauntlet instead. If you're using a greatsword, you can still decide to forgo attacking with the sword to slam someone with your gauntlet instead.
At least, I've seen nothing that suggests otherwise.
FAQ answer.Link.
Yay, I'm right. SKR is Da Bomb. O ye of little faith.
==Aelryinth
*shrug*
Another house rule then. I find it odd that any other property, once activated, works just by the weapon being wielded and ready to attack (such as flaming, etc), but defending you have to attack with it.
In my own games, the weapon must wielded and available for attack, be it a part of an attack action of AoO.
EDIT : Cross posted
Um, so I get the bonus if I make an AoO, but not otherwise?
Seems a little weird to me. Why would an opponent opening himself up, allow me to increase my AC? Me thinks there's a slight disconnect there.
If you don't attack (or use the attack action), no AC bonus. Not during your turn, not during AoO's. AoO's are not an attack on your turn.
It's not supposed to be free AC. It's supposed to be AC for guys using melee attacks who trade off hitting for AC...not an AC bonus for archers and mages who will never use the weapon, but want the AC.
===Aelryinth
If you don't attack (or use the attack action), no AC bonus. Not during your turn, not during AoO's. AoO's are not an attack on your turn.
It's not supposed to be free AC. It's supposed to be AC for guys using melee attacks who trade off hitting for AC...not an AC bonus for archers and mages who will never use the weapon, but want the AC.
===Aelryinth
Except that is not what SKR ruled.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Therefore, you don't gain it from using an attack action, you actually have to make an attack roll with it. Ergo, fighting defensively does you nothing. Nor does a combat maneuver, since a combat maneuver is not at attack roll, it's a combat maneuver check.
This ruling basically guts the ability for anyone who isn't actively engaged in melee combat. It also means that if you use any ability, such as intimidating glare, etc, you lose your defending ability as well. A magus that casts a spell without making an attack with the weapon loses it too, even if he's making a touch attack with the spell.
Therefore, you don't gain it from using an attack action, you actually have to make an attack roll with it. Ergo, fighting defensively does you nothing. Nor does a combat maneuver, since a combat maneuver is not at attack roll, it's a combat maneuver check.
Slippin' mdt.. slippin..
PRD - Combat - Combat Maneuvers:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.
Therefore, you don't gain it from using an attack action, you actually have to make an attack roll with it. Ergo, fighting defensively does you nothing. Nor does a combat maneuver, since a combat maneuver is not at attack roll, it's a combat maneuver check.Slippin' mdt.. slippin..
PRD - Combat - Combat Maneuvers:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.
Ok, stand corrected on that, but all that means is you can only get the AC benefit if the weapon has an appropriate combat manuever rider. You can't trip with a short sword, for example, so a defending short sword still can't give you AC benefits if you trip, because you didn't make an attack roll with the weapon.
Ok, stand corrected on that, but all that means is you can only get the AC benefit if the weapon has an appropriate combat manuever rider. You can't trip with a short sword, for example, so a defending short sword still can't give you AC benefits if you trip, because you didn't make an attack roll with the weapon.
Hmm... I didn't think about that, but you are correct... so disarm/sunder and occasionally trip?
Ok, stand corrected on that, but all that means is you can only get the AC benefit if the weapon has an appropriate combat manuever rider. You can't trip with a short sword, for example, so a defending short sword still can't give you AC benefits if you trip, because you didn't make an attack roll with the weapon.Hmm... I didn't think about that, but you are correct... so disarm/sunder and occasionally trip?
I believe so.