Wielded vs. Held in Hand


Homebrew and House Rules

Dark Archive

I was recently made aware of this post by Sean K Reynolds.

Given an number of threads concerning how many hands you hold your weapon with and when and how often you can change how many hands you hold your weapon with, I'd like to make a suggestion.

Treat the terms of wielding and held in hand as synonymous. As long as it's not put away, it counts as being wielded regardless of how many hands you have on it. As long as a weapon is in hand, it counts for use as an arcane bond, and you threaten squares within its reach. Naturally, unless you have the ability to put 2 hands on a 2 handed weapon, then you can't actually attack with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is this a rules question?

If so, I missed it.

Dark Archive

Oops. I probably should have posted this under Suggestions. Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will move it? :)

Grand Lodge

Well I always said the whole wielded thing was stupid anyways. The arcane bond rule should have been held in hand to begin with...but alas, the RAW is what it is. In anycase, about your suggestion, I do not like the threaten aspect. I don't think you should be able to threaten with a greatsword in one hand. You may threaten with if the spell you cast is a touch spell...but not because of the greatsword you have in one hand.

Dark Archive

It's a tricky issue. On the one hand (pun intended), use of a 2 handed weapon would potentially prevent a character from making AoOs and filling the role of flank buddy. On the other hand, if our other hand is empty, why should it make a difference? A wizard and his staff (a classic if not quintessential and defining element of the genre) really shouldn't be denied these minor tactical advantages just because of what they look like in the source material which inspired their class.

"You wouldn't part an old man from his... walking-stick?"


Dust Raven, there is a big difference between held in hand and 'ready for combat use'. While there is another thread that rages as to what type of action it takes to ready a 'weapon for combat use' when it is already in your hand I think the general consensus seems to be it should take at least an action. Most actions cannot be taken on the enemy's turn and thus you cannot suddenly ready a weapon for combat use when the enemy does something to provoke an AoO from you.

Personally, I think it should be a free action. But like most free actions, you cannot use it on the enemies turn.

- Gauss

Dark Archive

Gauss wrote:
Personally, I think it should be a free action. But like most free actions, you cannot use it on the enemies turn.

Personally, I think this is an area in which the rules are lacking. Nobody knows what it should be, because the rules don't come close to addressing it. I'd like them to.

I'd also like them to address it my way, but I'd be happy having them address it at all.


There are many things the rules do not address. My favorite is that there is nothing that states that a dead person cannot act.

I argue RAW just like everyone but when it comes to my own games RAW takes a back seat to whatever my table's consensus on how a rule should work is. It works for my group.

Honestly, there are only a few glaring things I think needs work and 'what action does it take to regrip' is not one of them.

- Gauss

P.S. If I wanted a system that covers every little contingency I would play Rolemaster. As it is, I play a wargame that many consider just as bad: Starfleet Battles.

Dark Archive

Gauss wrote:
There are many things the rules do not address. My favorite is that there is nothing that states that a dead person cannot act.

Heh, I never noticed that before. My favorite is that paralyzed creatures provoke AoOs from using a spell-like ability, but not from doing nothing.

Quote:

I argue RAW just like everyone but when it comes to my own games RAW takes a back seat to whatever my table's consensus on how a rule should work is. It works for my group.

Honestly, there are only a few glaring things I think needs work and 'what action does it take to regrip' is not one of them.

I run tables for PFS, so I'm required to adhere to RAW. Knowing whether or not a certain character's build works the same as my table as it does as any other is important to me. I expect it will not be as important to others not in this situation.


I understand the need to do that at PFS. Frankly PFS causes problems in itself. What I really don't like is whenever a PFS specific rule is asked in the PFS forum it gets bumped into the Rules Forum. PFS needs its own rules forum.

BTW, I was gearing up to play PFS but I have instead found multiple private games to satisfy my needs. (I have games I GM in or play in 3 days a week.)

- Gauss

Dark Archive

Gauss, I'm opting to reply to you via PM rather than continue in this thread. Easier that way since we're drifting a bit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

I understand the need to do that at PFS. Frankly PFS causes problems in itself. What I really don't like is whenever a PFS specific rule is asked in the PFS forum it gets bumped into the Rules Forum. PFS needs its own rules forum.

- Gauss

I run PFS tables on a regular basis, the only problems that arise are from extreme corner issues. Just as they would in a home game. The painful fact of the matter is that you WILL get table variation in PFS in these areas because RAW by itself can not ever be complete. The more mechanics built into a system, the more corner cases will arise. This is usually not a major issue.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Wielded vs. Held in Hand All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.