You can get an allying weapon and choose to give your fists a +1-5 bonus as a free action every round.
You can get an allying weapon and choose to give your fists a +1-5 bonus as a free action every round.
You would still have to wield the allying weapon that round, still, that could be a decent use of your last iterative or off-hand.
You would still have to wield the allying weapon that round, still, that could be a decent use of your last iterative or off-hand.
Wield or use?
The fist of a monk must be masterwork, the increment of the damage is the obvious evidence that are so and at the level 4 with the talent bonus "ki reserve" the fists are considered magical weapons.
This is not the case.
Ki Pool (Su): "At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
They are magic only for purposes of overcoming damage reduction. Not for any other purpose.
Wield or use?
Allying: "An allying weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to one weapon being used by an ally of the wielder. The wielder must have line of sight to the intended ally. As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus. The bonus to the ally's weapon lasts until the allying weapon's wielder's next turn. The enhancement bonus from the allying weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus on the ally's weapon (if any)."
From the Defending weapon property FAQ: "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."
Wield or use?Allying: "An allying weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to one weapon being used by an ally of the wielder. The wielder must have line of sight to the intended ally. As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus. The bonus to the ally's weapon lasts until the allying weapon's wielder's next turn. The enhancement bonus from the allying weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus on the ally's weapon (if any)."
From the Defending weapon property FAQ: "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."
I already knew of that FAQ, but you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.
you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.
I meant wield, since that's what the property states.
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.
(...)
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
Incidentally, SKR's quote makes bonded weapons for wizards even more useless:
- A wizard with a bonded weapon must wield the weapon to reliably cast spells. Previously, this was ruled as holding it in a combat-ready configuration, so you couldn't use a two-handed bond for spells with S or M components. It's about to get worse.
- A creature must try to hit people with a weapon in order to wield it, per SKR's quote.
- A wizard (in most cases) cannot cast a spell if he's trying to hit people with the weapon. They only get the one standard action. Sure, they could use a quickened spell, but how are they going to live long enough to get there?
- Therefore, a wizard with a bonded weapon--even a dagger--cannot reliably cast spells.
Interesting. Wield always struck me as holding with the ability to use. Especially here:you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.I meant wield, since that's what the property states.
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.
(...)
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.and here:
However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.
The first seems redundant, "If you hold and attack with a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." The second seems non-nonsensical, as it appears I would not threaten with a reach weapon unless I attacked with it that turn...
Incidentally, SKR's quote makes bonded weapons for wizards even more useless
Six posts down:
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.'" :)
And sure enough:
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand..."
Incidentally, SKR's quote makes bonded weapons for wizards even more uselessSix posts down:
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.'" :)And sure enough:
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand..."
Ah. That's good, I guess. Never read the text since that change.
That said, the sentence right before that still says "wielded":
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.
But it's pretty clear from the partial fix and from SKR's post that RAI, at least is for the weapon to simply be carried in hand.
It doesn't make the original quote about "wielding" any less strange to me, though. Hooray, house rules!
Interesting. Wield always struck me as holding with the ability to use. Especially here:you mentioned that you must wield the weapon, I was asking if you meant use.I meant wield, since that's what the property states.
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.
(...)
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.and here:However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.The first seems redundant, "If you hold and attack with a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." The second seems non-nonsensical, as it appears I would not threaten with a reach weapon unless I attacked with it that turn...
"That just raises more questions!"