Define: the Wield Condition


Rules Questions


I can't seem to find what it means to Wield and item with in the core rules book. I find references to the word Wield or Wielding a lot but nothing defining it for the game mechanics.

What I do know is that if an item is cursed you are considered to wield it if you hold it, wear it, use it in a hand or hands, or have contact with it.

If an item is magical you can be considered to wield if if it is on your person or in you hands.

So my question is what does the word Wield mean in game mechanics?

Option 1: You have the item, object or weapon in your hand
Option 2: You have the item, object or weapon on you person
Option 3: All of the Above
Option 4: None of the Above
Option 5: "Something I have not thought of"

Keep in mind that certain class features state you only get X bonus while wielding X item. Wielding something has a big game impact.


I remember when this subject was under the topic of "Give a Druid a Steel Shield"

I am also fairly sure that it was answered in a round about way by dredging through 400 posts.

Essentially if you gain an armor bonus or if you do anything in combat other than drop the weapon you are wielding the weapon/armor/shield.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

mcgreeno wrote:

I can't seem to find what it means to Wield and item with in the core rules book. I find references to the word Wield or Wielding a lot but nothing defining it for the game mechanics.

What I do know is that if an item is cursed you are considered to wield it if you hold it, wear it, use it in a hand or hands, or have contact with it.

If an item is magical you can be considered to wield if if it is on your person or in you hands.

So my question is what does the word Wield mean in game mechanics?

Option 1: You have the item, object or weapon in your hand
Option 2: You have the item, object or weapon on you person
Option 3: All of the Above
Option 4: None of the Above
Option 5: "Something I have not thought of"

Keep in mind that certain class features state you only get X bonus while wielding X item. Wielding something has a big game impact.

Why isn't the dictionary definition good enough? Not everything needs to be defined as a game mechanic. Unless you're being sarcastic here.


There is always the english language definition of wielding.

To handle as a tool especially effectively.

The key words are "to handle" a weapon has to be in one of your hands.


[QUOTE"Ryric"]
Why isn't the dictionary definition good enough? Not everything needs to be defined as a game mechanic. Unless you're being sarcastic here.

Well unfortunately in gaming the dictionary is often a useless tool! Wielding something causes an effect.

Example: Bladebound Magus only gets the Alertness Feat while wielding his blade.

Now alertness modifies sense motive & perception!

So the only time he has those bonuses is when he has his blade in his hands and the sword is unsheaved? or he gets them as long as his sword is in his hand (hand resting upon the hilt of the blade while it is sheaved at his side) or does it mean he has those bonuses on in combat situations?

Depending on the GM is set the definition. But when a system using a condition such as wield so heavily it must be defined. Unattended Object is defined. To wield is used as a trigger for a lot of effects so it should be clearly defined in the system somewhere.

Are you wielding clothes by wearing them? Are you wielding a amulet by wearing it, do different items have the condition upon their individual situation?

I'm I just looking for a solid RAW point of view..lol


I believe it goes all the way from "a wizard can wield but staff in one hand, so he can be iconic, but he can't attack"
to "you must activly use it, it case from those protective weapons (that cheesy players put on everything from their gauntlets to their toenails)"

so it means what the rules intend it to mean in that specific aspect.

Dark Archive

Lets look at it this way.

the Defending enhancement for weapons states:

Quote:

Defending: 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.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

So, they have to wield it to get the bonus.

the Devs have said in a FAQ

Quote:

Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. 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.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), 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), the defending weapon property has no effect.

—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11

Not sure if this helps or hinders in the long run, but it does give one view of it.


I would generally say a character need to handle it in his hand(s), holding a sword in your (off)hand ready to be used counts in my book even if not actively attacking with it at the moment.

Something like armor spikes I wouldn't usually count as wielding since they are not actively handled, a character actively attacking with them is different though, for game balance only I'd avoid adding defender properties on armor spikes that do not take a hand slot.


Wield: To hold or equip with the intent to use, as appropriate for the item.

I honestly don't see how this is a difficult concept. Holding a sword by it's blade, or armor in your hand isn't wielding it. It's holding it.


Happler wrote:

Lets look at it this way.

the Defending enhancement for weapons states:

Quote:

Defending: 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.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

So, they have to wield it to get the bonus.

the Devs have said in a FAQ

Quote:

Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. 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.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), 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), the defending weapon property has no effect.

—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11

Not sure if this helps or hinders in the long run, but it does give one view of it.

You know what it does, So in the example of a Blade-bound Magus he can only get the benefit of Alertness when he is actively using the blade in combat. That really limits the use of that power drastically, as you are rarely every going to make a perception check in combat. However a sense motive does help vs some maneuvers, right?


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

That answer of Sean's is specific to a defending weapon.

My ruling would be that your Magus gets the benefit whenever he is holding his weapon in such a way that it could be used for its intended purpose immediately without recourse to any sort of action to prepare for use. The weapons intended use is for making attacks. If you're holding it in such a way that you could make an attack with it without having to spend even so much as as free action to prepare (sorry, Quickdraw feat) you're wielding it and get the benefit, even if you couldn't actually make such an attack because you're flatfooted, etc.


mcgreeno wrote:


Well unfortunately in gaming the dictionary is often a useless tool! Wielding something causes an effect.

It's still wielding. Wielding as in wielding. "Hold and use (a weapon or tool)."

There doesn't need to be a game definition because the linguistic definition already does a good job.

I mean, we're not complaining that the game doesn't define "feet". Does it mean the American unit of measurement (equal to 30.48cm) or is it the one of the many older deifinitions, which ranged from 25 to 34,773 cm. Or is it the traditional foot (which makes sense in a medieval-based fantasy setting), which is literally a foot (i.e. the thing at the end of your leg) long?

If we require the game to define every word it uses, the books will triple in size. At least.

I'm not prepared to pay for oversized books. I don't think many people would be.

I think all in all, it will be cheaper for those who really need all those definitions to seek professional help about their OCD ;-P

mcgreeno wrote:


Example: Bladebound Magus only gets the Alertness Feat while wielding his blade.

Now alertness modifies sense motive & perception!

So the only time he has those bonuses is when he has his blade in his hands and the sword is unsheaved? or he gets them as long as his sword is in his hand (hand resting upon the hilt of the blade while it is sheaved at his side) or does it mean he has those bonuses on in combat situations?

You have to wield it. You don't wield it when it's in a sheath. Hold and use it.

mcgreeno wrote:


Depending on the GM is set the definition.

It's no different from a killion other things.

mcgreeno wrote:
But when a system using a condition such as wield so heavily it must be defined.

Heavily? I can't remember any instance beside this where it is even used.

mcgreeno wrote:


Are you wielding clothes by wearing them?

Ask yourself: Have you ever heard anyone say something "I wield the dress like a master"? Pinky, Malkavians or the Animaniacs do not count.

mcgreeno wrote:
Are you wielding a amulet by wearing it

Usually, you don't wield an amulet at all.


Ok i will try to explain it as best as i can.
First there is holding a weapon (or item but let's stick with weapon for now), example you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand (but not weild it) but you can't do pretty much anything else with that weapon.
Second there is a weilding a weapon that gets you a few benefits like being able to use said weapon for making AoO, for example you have to weild a two handed weapon in two hands.
Third there is using* a weapon for something (usually for attacking), example you attack someone with your greatsword, this "state" is required to get the benefit of a defending weapon as per Sean's FAQ entry.

If it helps you imagine it this way:
Holding is a subset of weilding and weilding is subset of using.

*also reffered as actively using the weapon

Hope i helped.

Dark Archive

on a related topic, i always think it odd that most people dismiss it as a freebie to begin a turn wielding a 2hw, take both a move and standard action like move & cast or retrieve & drink potion and they just let them as a free action go bak to wielding the weapon with both hands for threatning for flanks & aoo. shouldn't going from holding 1h to 2h be a move action using the manipulate item example of move actions? though even as anal as i am, i would house rule an alternative of a swift action to do so if you have a bab+1 or free action with quick draw.


Raymond Lambert wrote:
on a related topic, i always think it odd that most people dismiss it as a freebie to begin a turn wielding a 2hw, take both a move and standard action like move & cast or retrieve & drink potion and they just let them as a free action go bak to wielding the weapon with both hands for threatning for flanks & aoo. shouldn't going from holding 1h to 2h be a move action using the manipulate item example of move actions? though even as anal as i am, i would house rule an alternative of a swift action to do so if you have a bab+1 or free action with quick draw.

Yes, its an actual action (letting go and then putting your hand back on) but I don't see the need to penalize the player for it. Whenever the player is doing this it's actually combined with a separate action, suck as retrieving/drinking a potion or casting a spell. Chalking it up to a free action is the mechanical equivalent of combining the actions. You'll see examples of this when players with BAB 1 pull a weapon during a move action, or archers draw arrows during an attack.

The only reason to do this is to discourage potion use, keep spellcasters out of melee, and reduce the combat presence of several maeuvers. It might be reasonable to instead say that if you let go of your weapon during your turn you don't threaten your area until the start of your next turn.


I glanced at this thread and thought it was about the 'weird' condition.

I am disappointed. :(


Raymond Lambert wrote:
on a related topic, i always think it odd that most people dismiss it as a freebie to begin a turn wielding a 2hw, take both a move and standard action like move & cast or retrieve & drink potion and they just let them as a free action go bak to wielding the weapon with both hands for threatning for flanks & aoo. shouldn't going from holding 1h to 2h be a move action using the manipulate item example of move actions? though even as anal as i am, i would house rule an alternative of a swift action to do so if you have a bab+1 or free action with quick draw.

First of all James Jacobs has answered on that some time ago and said that it's a free action (can't find the post right now). And it makes sense too, becuase if it wasn't a free action then you can't have clerics and druids with light shields and weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They really should slap a label on this hobby. "You Int score must be a 12+ to play this game."


In terms of game mechanics (since when dealing with mechanics, system definition often trumps dictionary definition), I would say "wield" refers to the item in question being in a position to be used for its intended purpose. So if a Magus is holding his blade, but just letting it hang along his side with the tip near the ground, he is not "wielding" his blade, simply holding it. Should he have his blade in a ready position out in front of him, I would term that "wielding", and he gets his benefits.

For the druid and the steel shield, he/she is only wielding it if it is properly strapped to their arm, otherwise they are simply holding it.


ryric wrote:
mcgreeno wrote:

I can't seem to find what it means to Wield and item with in the core rules book. I find references to the word Wield or Wielding a lot but nothing defining it for the game mechanics.

What I do know is that if an item is cursed you are considered to wield it if you hold it, wear it, use it in a hand or hands, or have contact with it.

If an item is magical you can be considered to wield if if it is on your person or in you hands.

So my question is what does the word Wield mean in game mechanics?

Option 1: You have the item, object or weapon in your hand
Option 2: You have the item, object or weapon on you person
Option 3: All of the Above
Option 4: None of the Above
Option 5: "Something I have not thought of"

Keep in mind that certain class features state you only get X bonus while wielding X item. Wielding something has a big game impact.

Why isn't the dictionary definition good enough? Not everything needs to be defined as a game mechanic.

Yes, most stuff does because game definition and dictionary definition are rarely the same exact thing.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Wield: To hold or equip with the intent to use, as appropriate for the item.

I honestly don't see how this is a difficult concept. Holding a sword by it's blade, or armor in your hand isn't wielding it. It's holding it.

Unless you're a Monk of the Open Hand or otherwise wielding the weapons in nonstandard ways as improvised weapons.

Dark Archive

that sounds familiar, think james said somthing like it was a free action to swap a weapon from attack hand to light shield hand and another free action to swap them back after casting. it does not make sense to me. though the somewhat open hand of a light shield i would think was enough to cast a standard action spell and still wield the shield, somthing he apparently doesn't agree with for him to explain with the doulble switching hands technique.

as far as i know, drawing a potion is it's own move action and not a weapon like object to draw while moveing.

i think it is fair to cast and then simultaneously move while gripping your 2hw with both hands but not move, then cast and free action grab with both hands to wield a 2hw.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Define: the Wield Condition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.