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.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.
IIRC you can trip with a weapon. As for the defending property that needs errata not an FAQ. Now according to the ruling you can't make AoO's either until you attack if wielding means you have to attack with a weapon. If it does not mean you have to attack with a weapon then what purpose does the word "wield" even serve?
IIRC you can trip with a weapon. As for the defending property that needs errata not an FAQ. Now according to the ruling you can't make AoO's either until you attack if wielding means you have to attack with a weapon. If it does not mean you have to attack with a weapon then what purpose does the word "wield" even serve?
Crossposted from a different thread.
No, you can make a trip attack with any weapon. You cannot make a trip attack with a weapon unless it has the trip property.
My take:
When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt.
Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you.
But basically... when you trip a foe you don't use a weapon. If you want to use a weapon, you have to use one that lists "trip" under its Special category.
Sorry if my response wasn't the one you were looking or hoping for. Fortunately, you can run your game however you want if the rules don't work for you. But as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear.You can't trip with a weapon unless that weapon has the word "trip" listed under its special.
As for the defending property that needs errata not an FAQ. Now according to the ruling you can't make AoO's either until you attack if wielding means you have to attack with a weapon. If it does not mean you have to attack with a weapon then what purpose does the word "wield" even serve?
On the rest of this, I agree 100%. As I said earlier, I'm houseruling it in my own games. Wielding a weapon in my games mean you threaten or can make a melee attack with it without needing to take any other actions (since you don't threaten with a whip, but you could have a defending whip). Simple as that. If you were given an immediate standard action, could your character make an attack with the weapon, without any other actions on his part (no putting hand back on weapon, etc). If so, it's wielded.
IIRC you can trip with a weapon. As for the defending property that needs errata not an FAQ. Now according to the ruling you can't make AoO's either until you attack if wielding means you have to attack with a weapon. If it does not mean you have to attack with a weapon then what purpose does the word "wield" even serve?Crossposted from a different thread.
No, you can make a trip attack with any weapon. You cannot make a trip attack with a weapon unless it has the trip property.
SKR says differently-FAQ
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.
This seems to be saying you can trip with any weapon, but you can't add the bonuses. I think if you could not trip with any weapon Sean would have just flat out said so instead of saying you can, but it won't help.
PS:I did not know you had to have the trip property to get the benefits of any bonuses the weapon had though. Now the trip property has value to me.
This seems to be saying you can trip with any weapon, but you can't add the bonuses. I think if you could not trip with any weapon Sean would have just flat out said so instead of saying you can, but it won't help.PS:I did not know you had to have the trip property to get the benefits of any bonuses the weapon had though. Now the trip property has value to me.
Ok, well, that's answered then officially instead of in the forums. However, it doesn't really change what I posted above. Unless the weapon has the trip property, you can't get the defending benefit because you can't use the bonuses of the weapon unless it has trip.
EDIT :
Really, all that does is allow you to make trips at range with a reach weapon. Actually, that's about what I usually do anyway (makes sense you can stick your polearm between someone's feet). But you don't get any enhancement for it.
James,
Just because you and I disagree with the FAQ answer does not make it wrong. Sean has the power to make and clarify rules. These are used in offical play. If you want to House Rule it - be happy.
I would expect the house rule for my game to include any attack action (eg trip), as well as taking a "fighting defensively" stance.
If you dont like it for Community play (Cannot remember what its called at the moment), then just declare an attack against a possibly invisible npc in a square next to you and roll to hit them.
But the wording of the ability doesn't support his 'FAQ' one iota.-James
I have to agree with you here. Plus, the assumption that a weapon is used solely in attacking rather than defending runs up against even common conceptions of armed combat.
It also leads to unnecessary complications in play. Suppose Defender Player decides to shift +2 of his +3 defending short sword's bonus to AC. He's got a long sword in his primary hand and the short sword in his off hand. Now suppose he attacks with his long sword first in the round for which he intends to make a full attack and provokes either an AoO or a triggered action in which he is the target. He gets the bonus to his AC and the guy attacking him misses by 1. Now suppose that his long sword attack takes out his melee opponent, preventing him from getting an attack in with the short sword. By the FAQ, he shouldn't have gotten the AC bonus because he didn't attack with the short sword, however, since the bonus was togged first, he should have. It was just the circumstances and how they played out that prevented him from attacking with the short sword.
If you just go with the assumption that all the PC needs to do is wield the short sword properly (i.e. not holding it in some foolish way in which it cannot be effectively used), then none of this is a problem.
I'm going to have to conclude that the FAQ entry is ill-considered.
I'm going to have to conclude that the FAQ entry is ill-considered.
It certainly seems that way to me as well.
James,
Just because you and I disagree with the FAQ answer does not make it wrong. Sean has the power to make and clarify rules. These are used in offical play.Rule books are where rules are made.
Errata is where rules are changed.
A FAQ is Frequently Asked Questions where explanations are given where things are unclear.
The ability can certainly be clarified, and in fact could stand to be rewritten. But what SKR has said does not mesh with the rules as written one bit.
If he wishes to 'use his power' then he should do so in the form of errata rather than via a FAQ. Errata is altering rules while the FAQ is explaining them.
Now in the past WotC has shamelessly ignored what the distinction is, but I have higher hopes and demands for Paizo as they are a better company.
One does not have to attack with a weapon in the prior round in order to wielding it until their next turn. That is clear by the rules. Simple expositions on AOOs will demonstrate this.
The wording on the Defending property does not require attacks, only wielding.
Thus if SKR wishes this to be the rule, he should be putting out errata on the wording of the ability. That is only proper, and as you say within his purview. And as I said, I have no problem with that.. I just want them to fully rewrite it when they do so as it needs it. It's constantly been asked whether you could have multiple defending weapons stack and why you shouldn't (balance-wise).
-James
I totally agree with but one caveat: the defending property doesn't use the word "wielding" anywhere in it's text. However, it does use the word "using"--that to me means attacking with it.
|
I totally agree with but one caveat: the defending property doesn't use the word "wielding" anywhere in it's text. However, it does use the word "using"--that to me means attacking with it.
You could also be "using" a weapon to defend yourself via parrying, however. In the total defense action, for example, you explicitly don't attack in favor of improving your AC; I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that a defending weapon would help protect you when taking total defense.
I totally agree with but one caveat: the defending property doesn't use the word "wielding" anywhere in it's text. However, it does use the word "using"--that to me means attacking with it.You could also be "using" a weapon to defend yourself via parrying, however. In the total defense action, for example, you explicitly don't attack in favor of improving your AC; I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that a defending weapon would help protect you when taking total defense.
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
I agree with James. The ability is really badly written. It does work RAI exactly like I thought it would, but RAW it is really ambiguous, and I think errata would have been better.
I agree with James. The ability is really badly written. It does work RAI exactly like I thought it would, but RAW it is really ambiguous, and I think errata would have been better.
Oh, this will be added to the errata. I just wanted everyone to have an answer *now*, instead of not having a public answer until the next Core Rulebook reprint.
Oh, this will be added to the errata. I just wanted everyone to have an answer *now*, instead of not having a public answer until the next Core Rulebook reprint.
Again, thanks sean... I don't know how you can do it.. soon there will be a cry to define "use" "wield" "grip" and "carry".
This is PF not the PF Dictionary folks!
Oh, this will be added to the errata. I just wanted everyone to have an answer *now*, instead of not having a public answer until the next Core Rulebook reprint.
Again, thanks sean... I don't know how you can do it.. soon there will be a cry to define "use" "wield" "grip" and "carry".
This is PF not the PF Dictionary folks!
The rules use the word Wield, Use, Carry, and Grip throughout them, but it's very fuzzy on which means what (see this current FAQ issue). I think at the very least a firm definition of 'Wield' would be a good thing for Paizo to make solid, considering that holding a weapon in your hand, at the ready to attack, is apparently not considered wielding it anymore (per Sean's FAQ entry on Defending property). I'm fine with using common sense until common sense doesn't match the FAQ/Errata, at which point in time the game needs to have the term explicitly defined.
I agree that the wording in much of the Core Rulebook could be clearer.
I agree that the wording in much of the Core Rulebook could be clearer.
I'd pony up some $$$ for a fine-toothed comb revision of the Core :)
*btw the above post was full of sarcasm, as I think we all know the rules can be a bit hard to follow at times (or we wouldn't be here, in the Rules forum no less)
It also leads to unnecessary complications in play. Suppose Defender Player decides to shift +2 of his +3 defending short sword's bonus to AC. He's got a long sword in his primary hand and the short sword in his off hand. Now suppose he attacks with his long sword first in the round for which he intends to make a full attack and provokes either an AoO or a triggered action in which he is the target. He gets the bonus to his AC and the guy attacking him misses by 1. Now suppose that his long sword attack takes out his melee opponent, preventing him from getting an attack in with the short sword. By the FAQ, he shouldn't have gotten the AC bonus because he didn't attack with the short sword, however, since the bonus was togged first, he should have. It was just the circumstances and how they played out that prevented him from attacking with the short sword.
If you just go with the assumption that all the PC needs to do is wield the short sword properly (i.e. not holding it in some foolish way in which it cannot be effectively used), then none of this is a problem.
You're scenario brings quandaries to my head. Does my primary attack while two-weapon fighting take no penalties on the first attack since I'm not "wielding" my off hand weapon until I attack with it? should I then retroactively apply a penalty causing the history of my actions to change, possibly changing the outcome of the attack roll? If wielding is defined by action and not declaration of intended action, how can I declare actions without certainty of conformation?
Suggested alterations to the form of the defending property will open a much larger can of worms than expected.
You're scenario brings quandaries to my head. Does my primary attack while two-weapon fighting take no penalties on the first attack since I'm not "wielding" my off hand weapon until I attack with it? should I then retroactively apply a penalty causing the history of my actions to change, possibly changing the outcome of the attack roll? If wielding is defined by action and not declaration of intended action, how can I declare actions without certainty of conformation?
Suggested alterations to the form of the defending property will open a much larger can of worms than expected.
I actually had this discussion a few months ago!
Two Weapon Fighting is actually a full round action, so you'd need to "declare" your intent to TWF (at take the penalty at that time of declaring the full round action). If you don't declare TWF at the begining of your Full Attack, then you won't be TWF. This penalty stays even if you decide not to attack with the offhanded weapon. Why? Because of the problems that arise when you do as you suggest :).
@Bill Dunn
By the letter of the rule you have to make an Attack Roll with the weapon that has the Defending property. Why not just swing with the Defending weapon first and make sure you get the bonus to activate? Seems like you're trying to "game the system" by attacking with your higher DPR weapon (longsword) then crying foul when you can't use your offhanded weapon (shortsword). You could have attacked with that one first if you wanted - so I have little sympathy for you in this situation.
Two Weapon Fighting is actually a full round action, so you'd need to "declare" your intent to TWF (at take the penalty at that time of declaring the full round action). If you don't declare TWF at the begining of your Full Attack, then you won't be TWF. This penalty stays even if you decide not to attack with the offhanded weapon. Why? Because of the problems that arise when you do as you suggest :).
...But an attack action can "become" a full attack action after the first attack if you choose. A full attack need not be declared at the start of your turn.
By the letter of the rule you have to make an Attack Roll with the weapon that has the Defending property. Why not just swing with the Defending weapon first and make sure you get the bonus to activate? Seems like you're trying to "game the system" by attacking with your higher DPR weapon (longsword) then crying foul when you can't use your offhanded weapon (shortsword). You could have attacked with that one first if you wanted - so I have little sympathy for you in this situation.
You mean: by the "as yet to be revised" letter of the rule. There is no rule or statement that requires him to attack with a defending weapon as primary, which means this circumstance can still occur. To do it the way you suggest does avoid the problem, but your doing just that: avoiding it. It's still a problem and can still occur in game, therefor it needs to be discussed. (this is just a question out to the universe, but I thought the penalties reduce if you fight with a "light weapon in your off hand" not primary?)
...But an attack action can "become" a full attack action after the first attack if you choose. A full attack need not be declared at the start of your turn.
This is what I thought too, but you have to look at the rules in a closer manner. In actuality, only a Full Attack can become an attack - let's go down the rules rabbit hole together. Ok!
The following is a subheading of Full-Round Actions
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
The following is a subsection of Full-Round Action - Full Attack
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
This provision is not listed under Standard Action or Attack, but only Full Attack. So you see, you have to declare this beforehand. Therefore, you have to declare to TWF even if you don't, which is also an extension of the Full Round Action rules. I know I was once a non-believer as well.
@the defending property - IMO if this FAQ sticks, i have no problem enforcing the fact you need to attack with the weapon. Every player should have access to the up to date FAQ and rules before they apply enchants or fiddle with game mechanics. If you forget, then you forget.
@TWF Penalties, yes just the offhand controls the penalties, but if you hit with a longsword you do 1d8, vs 1d6 from the shortsword. You might not have killed the enemy with the damage from a shortsword. Not to mention you only add 1/2 your STR bonus when hitting with the "offhand" unless you have Double Slice.
This makes you putting defending on your offhanded weapon matter because with the new FAQ you have to attack with it. Rather than hold it for looks like a pseudo shield.
|
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.
First of all TOTALLY NOT FREE!!! If you are spending the gold to enchant a weapon which btw is more expensive than enchanting armor... Secondly If you have a gauntlet equipped it allows you to attack whether to make AoO or just attack with it at all times- That said you are always considered armed thus the weapon is ALWAYS considered as being wielded whether you are casting a spell or using a bow.
In another sense lets think of a gauntlet being a part of armor instead of a weapon... If you arent considered wielding it as a weapon does that mean that its effectively not protecting you if u shoot an arrow or cast a spell?? That doesnt make sense now does it?? It is always being weld not just being held in the hand... you are always considered armed and dangerous when you are wearing (wielding) it
Wow. I was expecting enlightenment from this thread and got only incoherence. Not even an "official" ruling can put an end to it?
For one thing, SKR almost appears to contradict himself:
Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
...you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash)...
Obviously shields are typically always used "correctly", i.e. strapped to one's arm. However, what he seems to be trying to say is that because defending is a weapon property, it only applies to items that are used as weapons, i.e. to attack. This is a quite reasonable explanation, even if it could be better worded.
This does mean, though, that a magic defending shield weapon can potentially confer a double AC bonus, provided that the full cost for the item was paid:
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
Addendum:
Sorry, that was actually the d20 SRD. I assume that shield crafting works in much the same way, as the PRD mentions: "An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
In any case, I forgot to mention that the double AC bonus would require Improved Shield Bash, which is arguably a small price to pay compared to the price of the shield itself.
Sorry to drag this up again, but I realized that I made a mistake:
Although the defending AC bonus is completely untyped and explicitly stackable, I forgot that performing a shield bash negates the shield bonus. Therefore, paying for both armor and weapon enhancements on a single shield can be said to be of little benefit.
Turning a sword-and-board fighter into a board-and-board fighter, on the other hand...
Oh, this will be added to the errata. I just wanted everyone to have an answer *now*, instead of not having a public answer until the next Core Rulebook reprint.
Sorry for the terrible Necro but... where is this supposed Errata? I cant find it. Also the link to the FAQ doesn't seem to work.
EDIT: I found a non broken link to the FAQ Here
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Oh, this will be added to the errata. I just wanted everyone to have an answer *now*, instead of not having a public answer until the next Core Rulebook reprint.
Sorry for the terrible Necro but... where is this supposed Errata? I cant find it. Also the link to the FAQ doesn't seem to work.
EDIT: I found a non broken link to the FAQ Here
Sean is no longer on the design time nor still employed by Paizo.
I assume newer printings of Core had any change based on this, but even if there is no change. We know how this works.
Most GM's would be fine with any PC (give them the AC all the time) if they put it on the weapon they planned to use to attack and likewise not be fine with a PC who put it on a shield or a weapon like armor spikes they never used to attack. That sort of behavior is why we have these types of FAQ/errata.