Wield?


Rules Questions


What is the definition for game terms for "Wield"? Such as to wield a weapon.


Wield

Definition #2, I think.


I think the context is going to be important here.

I dont think a universal definition will be particularly useful at accounting for all the rules implications implied by taking a real world definition and 'fixing' it for mechanics purposes, when we're talking about a relatively broad concept like wielding items.


There is no official in game definition. The most rational definition would be "hold it in your hands in a way in which you are able to use it", for instance carrying a sword in a free hand.
In the case of magic items the FAQ specifies that you must actively use them to gain their benefits (for example, you must attack with a defending sword to gain the AC bonus for that round).


KrispyXIV wrote:

I think the context is going to be important here.

I dont think a universal definition will be particularly useful at accounting for all the rules implications implied by taking a real world definition and 'fixing' it for mechanics purposes, when we're talking about a relatively broad concept like wielding items.

What does a weapon need to be to be wielded?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, try not to get too picky about terms like that. There's a general meaning, but not nearly as precise as in, say, 4E or Magic: the Gathering.

For instance, I can carry a sword around with the same arm with which I'm using a buckler and not be "wielding" or "using" said weapon (merely carrying it) until I actually make an attack, at which point I suddenly lose my shield bonus to AC.

However, TWF rules state that you can get an extra attack each round on the condition that you're "wielding" a second weapon - but that's a state that doesn't require you to have already made an attack.

So if I have a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other, with a buckler on the dagger arm, then I'm "wielding" the dagger for purposes of TWF (thus granting me the option of getting an extra attack when I full-attack), but I'm not "wielding" or "using" the dagger for purposes of losing my shield bonus to AC until I actually do attack with it.

So basically, "wield" means whatever makes the most sense in context; it is not 100% concretely defined.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

I think the context is going to be important here.

I dont think a universal definition will be particularly useful at accounting for all the rules implications implied by taking a real world definition and 'fixing' it for mechanics purposes, when we're talking about a relatively broad concept like wielding items.

What does a weapon need to be to be wielded?

I would say 'if you are currently able to make attacks with it or use it at any given point' you're wielding it. Thats not official.

Can we get more context? Why is it important that a weapon be wielded?

Because there's no official rules for it... but luckily, there are a diminishing number of reasons we may need to know this.


This enhancement, or more likely the errata associated with it might shed some light. Probably not, but it's the second thing I thought of when I read this thread title, after thinking "Oh boy, time to cast Resist Energy (Fire)."


It really is as useless a question as "what does wield mean" (no offense intended) without specific context of why it matters.


Moglun wrote:
It really is as useless a question as "what does wield mean" (no offense intended) without specific context of why it matters.

Raging debate in a 19 page thread that was locked.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In that case, nobody answer. If it took 19 pages for them to get down to the point where they're arguing about definitions, the topic must be more radioactive than a cell phone user's earlobe.


Cheapy wrote:
Moglun wrote:
It really is as useless a question as "what does wield mean" (no offense intended) without specific context of why it matters.
Raging debate in a 19 page thread that was locked.

As I said, luckily there are now fewer reasons to worry about what wielding is defined as.

I'm wondering how many more are out there... we could be lucky and it may not matter?


Cheapy wrote:


Raging debate in a 19 page thread that was locked.

Yeah, I was in that one. The horror... But that debate was resolved with a glorious FAQ.

Link in case you hadn't seen it yet: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf


Jiggy wrote:


For instance, I can carry a sword around with the same arm with which I'm using a buckler and not be "wielding" or "using" said weapon (merely carrying it) until I actually make an attack, at which point I suddenly lose my shield bonus to AC.

Buckler isn't a good example. You can wield a weapon with the buckler hand with no loss of AC, it's only when you use a weapon in that hand that you lose the buckler's AC.

Wield and use are not the same, nor are wield and carry. (A greatsword in one hand is being carried, not wielded. A greatsword in two hands with a buckler is being wielded, but not used. And a greatsword slicing through the air at someone is being used, while the buckler is just getting in the way.)


Moglun wrote:

There is no official in game definition. The most rational definition would be "hold it in your hands in a way in which you are able to use it", for instance carrying a sword in a free hand.

In the case of magic items the FAQ specifies that you must actively use them to gain their benefits (for example, you must attack with a defending sword to gain the AC bonus for that round).

You know I actually agree with this definition, I was just wondering if there was any official ruling.


I think that whatever meaning we find for wield it should fit logically with all instances of the word.

One example is Disarm:

Quote:
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands)

This quote seems to marry the words carry and wield.

Two-Weapon Defense also uses wield in a way that would indicate that you don't have to attack or intend to attack to be wielding.

Contributor

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 16 people marked this as a favorite.

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You probably can't wear a sword.

The key word here being "probably".

;)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You probably can't wear a sword.

Okay I can't wear a sword. But I can have a sharp suit right?

I know I can be decked out in 9's.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
The key word here being "probably".

He says what everyone's thinking. Only I was envisioning impalement... likewise, wielding zombies or golems can be interpreted in a few different ways. All about context... probably.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?

PRD wrote:

Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object. A familiar is a magical pet that enhances the wizard's skills and senses and can aid him in magic, while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed. Rules for bonded items are given below, while rules for familiars are at the end of this section.

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You probably can't wear a sword.

The key word here being "probably".

;)

I've also heard somewhere of broken cavalry blades being used as splints during the civil war :)

Contributor

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?

It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?
It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

No AoO's for the wizard as a I charge in if he has a reach weapon. :)


I think that´s still OK, because after casting the wizard can just switch grips to again wield the weapon.
If you READIED A CHARGE vs. him WHILE HE WAS CASTING, he wouldn´t threaten with the 2-handed weapon.


Quandary wrote:

I think that´s still OK, because after casting the wizard can just switch grips to again wield the weapon.

If you READIED A CHARGE vs. him WHILE HE WAS CASTING, he wouldn´t threaten with the 2-handed weapon.

Darn it. Stop using logic and stuff. I want my easy charge.


OK... maybe from now, I will use spoilers and say ´warning: logic below´ :-)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?
It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

THANK YOU FOR THIS!!!


Moglun wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


Raging debate in a 19 page thread that was locked.

Yeah, I was in that one. The horror... But that debate was resolved with a glorious FAQ.

Link in case you hadn't seen it yet: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf

Bless you for providing the link.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?
It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

Thank you!

THW for wizards! Yay!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What is the definition for game terms for "Wield"? Such as to wield a weapon.

Now do you want to tell us why you've made yet another of countless threads on this topic? As in the specific context where this question has importance?


We've had this come up in game. A member of our group likes to use the Cestus, and he came upon the Menacing enchantment. He wondered if he could put all-damage enchantments on his weapons, and keep Menacing on his Cestuses -- that way he benefited from all the enchantments as cheaply as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What is the definition for game terms for "Wield"? Such as to wield a weapon.
Now do you want to tell us why you've made yet another of countless threads on this topic? As in the specific context where this question has importance?

Actually getting an answer and letting wizards us a two handed weapon as their bonded item I think are two VERY good reasons.

Read the entire thread :{P

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

wraithstrike wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I think that´s still OK, because after casting the wizard can just switch grips to again wield the weapon.

If you READIED A CHARGE vs. him WHILE HE WAS CASTING, he wouldn´t threaten with the 2-handed weapon.
Darn it. Stop using logic and stuff. I want my easy charge.

Just remember that you generally can't ready a charge.

Grand Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?
It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

Thanks.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wield? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.