| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
With all the new talk of off hand/primary hand, AoO with reach and non-reach, I keep asking myself, what is the intent definition (game mechanic) of wielding.
Is wielding ...
Just holding a weapon (or occupying primary or off hand)
Threatening your adjacent (or reach) squares
Using a weapon to make an attack (attack roll)
Checking the common terms, it weird that neither wielding of threaten are listed when they come up so many times in rules definitions.
Edit for spelling as my thumbs are dyslexic
first of all, its a misspelling of the proper word wielding.
wield (wld)
tr.v. wield·ed, wield·ing, wields
1. To handle (a weapon or tool, for example) with skill and ease
It applies to holding a weapon (real or improvised) whether you are skilled in its use or not.
A poorly defined game term.
Perhaps I am being a curmudgen in my old age, but I increasingly see people trying to find the break point of rules so they can bend them as far out of shape as possible. I sincerely hope this is not your intention, but let me put it this way.
It is not poorly defined. specifically, not poorly defined in pathfinder, nor do i think in any other genre of game. Too many situations, those that continuously occur, require specific reference to what you are doing with your 'weapon' to resolve that situation. If you are not holding a weapon in flank, you are not flanking. If you are trained in unarmed attack in flank, you are flanking. If you have a dagger in your hand when you are knocked unconsious, you are not flanking. It goes on like that, when common sense addresses a new situation, it is not required to write 60 pages defining every variation possible under the sun to justify what you're after.
Address the situation with your GM, and abide by his/her ruling on the matter, is my first suggestion. Find what detail that does exist on the situation you are trying to rectify, bring it up to the GM, and follow the first sentence.
perhaps it would help if you clarified what exactly you are trying to understand about the term. The 'situation' relevant to you.
AFAIK, wielding is having the weapon ready to attack; normally, this means if you threaten with it you are wielding it (but if you have a weapon that does not threaten but can still be used, like unarmed strikes do without feat, you still wield it).
I may be wrong but that's how I've always seen it used.
It applies to holding a weapon (real or improvised) whether you are skilled in its use or not.
This is incorrect. While I do not have the exact quotes, devs have said something with the meaning of "you can hold a greatsword in one hand, but you do not wield it if you do". In addition, you wield armor spikes even if you do not hold them. But of course, it doesn't matter if you are skilled in use or not (unless it's a bastard sword held in one hand, then EWP makes the difference between wield and not wield)
In a word Shadowmage, no.
There are effects that depend on wielding, like a flaming weapon being active, that depend on a weapon being wielded. And they work when you can't make attacks with it. Other times it says you can make attacks with weapons you wield. So if the same term means different things at different times it is poorly defined.