say I have a character who is an unarmed fighter. However, he has abilities related to the weapon he wields (looking at you bladed scarf dancer magus and staff magus) do I actually have to use the weapon to attack? after all, unarmed strikes can be made with any part of the body so any weapon I hold isn't in the way (Monk unarmed strike description says I can strike even with my hands full).
considering the staff magus, he uses the staff as a shield so I would think that I simply have to have the staff in hand (while kicking and punching things in the face with magic)
as for the scarf dancer, you basically wear it at all times so it's always on hand flowing awesomely behind me in the wind as I explosion punch things.
|
It's a move action to draw a weapon (or faster with some abilities), if that's what you're asking.
Wearing your scarf is not wielding your scarf. You'd still need the appropriate action to draw it.
Only a few weapons off the top of my head are always wielded, such as Unarmed Strikes, Gauntlets, Armor Spikes, and probably a few others.
Mmmm, technically speaking you need to have made an attack with a weapon in the last round to be considered "Wielding" it.
|
You have it ready to make an attack without taking any other action (such that, for example, you could make an attack of opportunity with it). Wearing a scarf is not wielding it, nor is holding a staff in one hand, certain specific abilities excepted.
Some items, such as defending weapons, grant their abilities when you use them or just before you use them. This is a stricter requirement than wielding the weapon, although the former suggests the latter is probably still true, unless you've changed your grip so that you're no longer ready to attack.
Mmmm, technically speaking you need to have made an attack with a weapon in the last round to be considered "Wielding" it.
I'm not sure I agree with this. If you have a one-handed weapon in each hand, and last round you attacked with the weapon in the right hand (but not the left) and are then disarmed of the right hand weapon, you're saying you no longer threaten with the weapon in the left hand? Because in order to threaten with it you have to be wielding it...
Mmmm, technically speaking you need to have made an attack with a weapon in the last round to be considered "Wielding" it.I'm not sure I agree with this. If you have a one-handed weapon in each hand, and last round you attacked with the weapon in the right hand (but not the left) and are then disarmed of the right hand weapon, you're saying you no longer threaten with the weapon in the left hand? Because in order to threaten with it you have to be wielding it...
You don't have to wield a weapon to threaten with it, you just have to be armed (holding a weapon).
I'm referring to this FAQ when I say you have to attack to wield a weapon: "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."
|
|
A defending weapon doesn't operate by wielding it.
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...
That FAQ doesn't define "wielding", but "before using", which is a different and higher criterion.
Mmmm, technically speaking you need to have made an attack with a weapon in the last round to be considered "Wielding" it.I'm not sure I agree with this. If you have a one-handed weapon in each hand, and last round you attacked with the weapon in the right hand (but not the left) and are then disarmed of the right hand weapon, you're saying you no longer threaten with the weapon in the left hand? Because in order to threaten with it you have to be wielding it...You don't have to wield a weapon to threaten with it, you just have to be armed (holding a weapon).
I'm referring to this FAQ when I say you have to attack to wield a weapon: "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."
I think that FAQ confused the issue in some cases. Over here SKR says that you're wielding a weapon if you can potentially make an attack with it (including an AoO). So that seems like it would indicate that if you aren't wielding it, you can't make an AoO with it.
To me, SKR's statement and the FAQ (which I think also came from Sean?) contradict. If you have to make an attack with a defending weapon to gain its benefit, then that's different from being able to make an attack with the weapon.
Frankly I think the Defending property needs to be errata'd so that it no longer says that wielding it triggers the ability, but that attacking with it does. Then 'wield' can go back to what SKR implies it was intended to be - holding a weapon in such a way as to be able to make an effective attack with it.
that ruling saddens me. it makes little sense logicly, but I suppose it makes perfect sense balance wise (I think). however, not all hope is lost as the things I am worried about special abilities rather than a magic weapon property. that being said, the scarf magus should be ok I guess. flinging a scarf around is still cool. however, for the staff magus, I really wanted to unarmed strike for flavor purposes. I don't want to have to hit things with a stick and i don't want to forgo said stick because I need AC wherever i can get my grubby little mits on it (I'm unarmored).
another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.
I think that FAQ confused the issue in some cases. Over here SKR says that you're wielding a weapon if you can potentially make an attack with it (including an AoO). So that seems like it would indicate that if you aren't wielding it, you can't make an AoO with it.To me, SKR's statement and the FAQ (which I think also came from Sean?) contradict. If you have to make an attack with a defending weapon to gain its benefit, then that's different from being able to make an attack with the weapon.
Frankly I think the Defending property needs to be errata'd so that it no longer says that wielding it triggers the ability, but that attacking with it does. Then 'wield' can go back to what SKR implies it was intended to be - holding a weapon in such a way as to be able to make an effective attack with it.
I think the developers concern here is Balance rather than logic. they nerfed the defending property to prevent people from using it for AC only as a loophole. However, their fear here may be unwarranted. just so long as a specific type of AC bonus is specified, the whole "same type enhancements don't stack" rule should prevent broken game mechanics.
I think the developers concern here is Balance rather than logic. they nerfed the defending property to prevent people from using it for AC only as a loophole. However, their fear here may be unwarranted. just so long as a specific type of AC bonus is specified, the whole "same type enhancements don't stack" rule should prevent broken game mechanics.
Generally speaking, you probably wouldn't see most martial characters bothering with a defending weapon, because they'll have magical armor that grants them an enhancement bonus to AC (and the two wouldn't stack since they're the same type).
The loophole was for casters who put defending on a dagger that they then never actually used for anything other than to up their AC (a "stat stick" in WoW terms). And for them, since they wouldn't normally be wearing armor anyway, it would always boost their AC since their primary AC sources would be Mage Armor (an inherent armor bonus rather than an enhancement) and Shield (deflection).
If they made defending a deflection bonus instead then it might actually be worth it for some martials and it would close the loophole for casters who regularly use Shield anyway.
|
|
another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.
Anybody can fight with two weapons, including an unarmed strike. You just take massive penalties if you don't have the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal understanding with a greatsword is:
Attacking or unsing: make an attack
Wielding a weapon: able to attack without using a free or other action to switch grip or draw it.(Greatsword in both hands)
Holding a weapon: not able to attack without switching grip. (greatsword in one hand)
Defending weapon property needs using a weapon and an AOO needs wielding a weapon.
Generally speaking, you probably wouldn't see most martial characters bothering with a defending weapon, because they'll have magical armor that grants them an enhancement bonus to AC (and the two wouldn't stack since they're the same type).
I have assumed that the defending engancement grants an untyped bonus to AC.
I have assumed that the defending engancement grants an untyped bonus to AC.Generally speaking, you probably wouldn't see most martial characters bothering with a defending weapon, because they'll have magical armor that grants them an enhancement bonus to AC (and the two wouldn't stack since they're the same type).
You are correct. I missed the "that stacks with all others". So even if it is as I read it originally (you're transferring an enhancement bonus to attack\damage to be an enhancement bonus to AC) it'd still stack.
So apologies, it may not be untyped but it would definitely still be useful to martial characters. And martials could have used the same exploit as casters - toss it on, say, your gauntlet, and have a 'stat glove' with which you never attack.
In short, I see why they changed it to only function on an attack. I still think that errata'ing it so that it used "attack with" or "use" rather than "wield" would avoid confusion, since the SKR quote I posted earlier indicates that "wield" means doesn't require you to attack with a weapon, only that you're holding it you could potentially attack with it.
so we have determined then that the problem with defending weapon is that the bonus stacks with all others. however, what about special abilities?
------------------------------
staff magus: Quarterstaff Defense (Ex): At 7th level, while wielding a quarterstaff, the staff magus gains a shield bonus to his Armor Class equal to the enhancement bonus of the quarterstaff, including any enhancement bonus on that staff from his arcane pool class feature. At 13th level, this bonus increases by +3. This ability replaces the medium armor and heavy armor class abilities.
duelist: Canny Defense (Ex): When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
--------------------------------
for these classes, the "must attack" thing seriously hurts. for one, if you are attacked without being able to attack (enemy goes first or ranged attack) you would not get your bonus. for another, if you want the bonuses but want to tweak the flavor a bit (such as a staff magus fighting with unarmed strikes) this prevents it completely and forces you into a specific weapon.
I see no reason to block this if A: the enhancement doesn't stack, and B: the ability replaces armor because the class can't wear it.
It this a PFS character? If not you can just use common sense and work this out with the DM.
Most DMs, I believe, would let a wizard holding a quarterstaff get the benefit of it even when casting spells. Ditto with the duelist.
@Brightshadow: I do not believe the FAQ would apply in those situations. Note that the FAQ explicitly says that the reason why you have to use the defending weapon is because it's a magic item, and you only get the benefit of a magic item when you're using it.
Thus, if you're not dealing with a magic item, I don't believe the FAQ applies at all; class abilities that don't define an action required to activate them simply are, and there's nothing you need to 'use' in order to gain those benefits.
That's primarily why I think that defining 'wielding' based on that FAQ is invalid, since in all apparent other cases wielding is defined not as 'attacking with a weapon' but as 'holding a weapon so that you could potentially attack with it'.
That's primarily why I think that defining 'wielding' based on that FAQ is invalid, since in all apparent other cases wielding is defined not as 'attacking with a weapon' but as 'holding a weapon so that you could potentially attack with it'.
I'd think that your use of "since in all apparent other cases wielding is defined not as 'attacking with a weapon' but as 'holding a weapon so that you could potentially attack with it'" is not all that valid, as you've only mentioned the one other post.
that aside. Simply wearing a scarf would not give you the bonuses.
simply having it ready? ... I'd have a problem with that. as has become apparent, its not explicitly mentioned anywhere. However I think that the idea behind those "bonus to defenses when wield a weapon" abilities are not based on magic, but the idea of parrying. I wouldn't think youd be able to help defend yourself with your scarf if your making jump kicks at someone.
So I'd rule No on your original post, simply because the rules are either missing or ambivilant, and the fluff seems to suggest otherwise.
My advice, FAQ it, this is the rules forum, and they seem to be lacking. Otherwise, let the relevant GM be the judge.
Even if the Defending property didn't exist, there are similar situations. Take, for example, the Ominous property. It says that, when wielding it, you get a bonus to Intimidate checks equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus while wielding it. It still requires an answer to "what constitutes wielding". Does that still require making an attack with it, or can you simply hold an Ominous Dagger as a "stat stick" and get a bonus to Intimidate checks? If it requires attacking, well, Intimidate is a standard action by default so you'd need a way to make attacks via move, free, or swift actions to even utilize the property.
So really then what's needed is a clear, non-contradictory definition of the game term 'wield'.
The problem is that applying the meaning of 'wield' as defined by the FAQ on the defending property could cause some pretty major alterations in game mechanics at numerous tables.
For instance, I don't know that I've run across a GM who allows a Staff Magus to get his AC bonus only on rounds where he attacks with his staff, yet that's the proper interpretation if we apply the same definition of 'wield'. As another example, the capstone ability for the Fighter class states that you can't be disarmed of the weapon you choose for Weapon Mastery as long as you're wielding it; again by that definition that would mean if you had the weapon ready to attack with it but hadn't actually attacked with it yet that round, you could be disarmed because you aren't actually wielding it.
|
another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.Anybody can fight with two weapons, including an unarmed strike. You just take massive penalties if you don't have the feat.
You only take massive penalties if you try to take an extra attack with the second weapon. If you have iterative attacks you can make them with different weapons without penalty.
So really then what's needed is a clear, non-contradictory definition of the game term 'wield'.
that would solve the entirety of the problem yes. although if that was that easy, this thread would not exist.
|
|
You only take massive penalties if you try to take an extra attack with the second weapon. If you have iterative attacks you can make them with different weapons without penalty.another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.Anybody can fight with two weapons, including an unarmed strike. You just take massive penalties if you don't have the feat.
Well aware. If you read the post I quoted they were talking about "two weapon fighting", which is specific.
|
I think there is a good deal of confusion in this thread.
To the OP: state clearly what you are trying to do, without mixing several different things in one question (scarf+staff magus + duelist + maybe arcane bond item all in a single question don't work, make 3 or 4 clear and separate different questions and you will get clearer answers).
That said, a citation about wielding:
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.
And the change in the arcane bond text that has resolved the problem of "wielding" a arcane bond weapon:
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand.
i hope that that helped.
I think there is a good deal of confusion in this thread.
To the OP: state clearly what you are trying to do, without mixing several different things in one question (scarf+staff magus + duelist + maybe arcane bond item all in a single question don't work, make 3 or 4 clear and separate different questions and you will get clearer answers).
That said, a citation about wielding:
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.
And the change in the arcane bond text that has resolved the problem of "wielding" a arcane bond weapon:
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand.i hope that that helped.
That was quoted earlier in the thread as well. There are problems that stem from that, though:
In another thread that I quoted, SKR gave a rather different definition of 'wield': If you can potentially make an attack with a weapon, you are 'wielding' it. That's semantically different from 'trying to use a weapon'. Trying to use a weapon aligns with the defending FAQ - i.e., that you've actually tried to attack with the weapon; being able to potentially use a weapon just means that you can attack with it, not that you have.
The OP brought up the Staff Magus's Quarterstaff Defense ability, which grants a bonus to AC when the Magus is wielding his staff. Now I'm asking an honest question here: Would you only grant the Magus that AC bonus if he had made an attack with it during that round? That's not generally how I've applied such abilities.
Would you only grant the Magus that AC bonus if he had made an attack with it during that round? That's not generally how I've applied such abilities.As a GM (not a rules forum lawyer) I'd probably let it slide. Its not prone to nearly as much abuse as defending or anything that expects you to actually take a penalty to receive a bonus.
I certainly would not want to take it away because you cast a spell, then closed with the enemy. That said I feel you should be making a token effort to use your iconic item it at least occasionally. If you go through encounter after encounter and don't use it ever then I'd start to find it mildly annoying and feel you are going might be overboard to game the system. And if you are a player who is far above the curve in terms of power in respect to the rest of players I'd have no problem tell you to use it or lose it.
Oh, I agree that it should be your primary weapon, if for no other reason than flavor. And if you didn't have your staff readied to make an attack, but instead had it slung on your back, I wouldn't grant you the AC bonus. Same thing with the scarf - wearing =/= wielding for that item.
Strictly applying the concept of "you must be trying to attack with it", though, means that you'd only get the AC bonus on a round where you actually swung the weapon. In that scenario, if you go at the top of the round and don't close to an enemy but otherwise have your staff ready, then a foe could move adjacent to you and attack you without you gaining the AC bonus from Quarterstaff Defense.
You only take massive penalties if you try to take an extra attack with the second weapon. If you have iterative attacks you can make them with different weapons without penalty.another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.Anybody can fight with two weapons, including an unarmed strike. You just take massive penalties if you don't have the feat.
with this ruling,we can at least declare that at least one attack can be with the special weapon in question. in that instance, the weapon is wielded for sure no matter what the definition of wielding may be.This being said, the question remains as to weather one can preform a "stat stick".
a good point is being made however. I personally feel that the special weapon should be in hand. If so, the staff magus is fine. Even if he never attacks with it, the point is that he is using it as a shield. the same applies to worn weapons. they are always at the ready to use for parrying.
In short, the abilities still make sense logically. the question is do they make sense mechanically (AKA: are it te broked)? I don't think so for the (SU) and (EX) abilities at least.
I can see the ruling on the defending weapon coming from the problem of "stacks with anything" feature. Really, the ruling needs to be changed such that the defending property no longer stacks (and instead becomes a shield bonus because that is, for all intensive purposes, how you are actually using it)and drop the whole "have to make an attack" thing. if you think about it, what happens if your in a situation where you have the weapon but can't attack (enemy is flying, teleporting etc.) you wouldn't get the AC? that seems silly to me.
all this being said, I doubt that my GM would mind. However, for the benefit of all PFS players and those with ... unpleasant...GMs, a clear definition of Wielded is needed from the higher ups.
|
|
Well aware. If you read the post I quoted they were talking about "two weapon fighting", which is specific.You only take massive penalties if you try to take an extra attack with the second weapon. If you have iterative attacks you can make them with different weapons without penalty.another question arises then. if making a full attack, can one use unarmed strikes and just one attack with the scarf or staff, or does one need two weapon fighting. rather not waste an attack on my secondary weapon, but if it gets me my AC bonus, so be it.Anybody can fight with two weapons, including an unarmed strike. You just take massive penalties if you don't have the feat.
I did read it, I just didn't think it was clear enough whether the OP meant to ask about two weapon fighting or fighting with two weapons (and from his post above it looks like it was the latter), and your post did not clearly explain the distinction. Just trying to make sure there was no misunderstanding.
The problem with that definition, Kazaan, is that we're not just dealing with 'wielding' in regards to defending weapons. It's used all over the place. The OP mentioned Quarterstaff Defense for the Staff Magus: The definition you propose still means you only get the bonus to AC if you've attacked with the weapon or if you're doing total defense. I could be wrong but I don't believe that's how it was intended to work; I've always assumed that Quarterstaff Defense, or Canny Defense (from the Duelist PrC and elsewhere) worked as long as you had a melee weapon in-hand ready to attack.
[edit]
This is assuming that we're looking for a unified definition of 'wielding'. Personally I think that's the least-confusing way to go about it; having one definition of 'wield' for magic items, and another for everything else, is clunky and confusing.
Generally speaking, you probably wouldn't see most martial characters bothering with a defending weapon, because they'll have magical armor that grants them an enhancement bonus to AC (and the two wouldn't stack since they're the same type).
Magical armor's enhancement bonus enhances the armor's ARMOR bonus to AC. Magical shield's enhancement bonus enhances the shield's SHIELD bonus to AC. A defending weapon's enhancement bonus gets CONVERTED into "a bonus that stacks with all others" (an untyped bonus) to AC.
These all stack.An enhancement bonus does not add to AC directly, rather it enhances (makes better) an existing bonus from some other source.
These all stack.
Reference Defending Weapon property.
Reference Armor Enhancement Bonus
Edit: I before E, etc.
Generally speaking, you probably wouldn't see most martial characters bothering with a defending weapon, because they'll have magical armor that grants them an enhancement bonus to AC (and the two wouldn't stack since they're the same type).Magical armor's enhancement bonus enhances the armor's ARMOR bonus to AC. Magical shield's enhancement bonus enhances the shield's SHIELD bonus to AC. A defending weapon's enhancement bonus gets CONVERTED into "a bonus that stacks with all others" (an untyped bonus) to AC.
These all stack.An enhancement bonus does not add to AC directly, rather it enhances (makes better) an existing bonus from some other source.
These all stack.Reference Defending Weapon property.
Reference Armor Enhancement BonusEdit: I before E, etc.
I was corrected and noted the correction earlier in the thread. Actually, the primary reason Defending would stack is because it explicitly says that it stacks with everything else.
I don't think it would be out of line to require Quarterstaff Defense or Canny Defense to be actively employing their weapon to defend with it, as opposed to just having it hang limp at their side. And, by the definition I offered, it wouldn't just need to be attacking; you could take the Total-Defense or just burn a Move action to "ready" your weapon and, viola, you're "wielding" it and qualify for the AC bonus.
So then each round, every foe that goes before the Magus\Duelist gets to hit them against their lowered AC? Or are you assuming that if they attacked\'readied their weapon' the previous round that the bonus to AC remains until the start of their next turn?
Personally, I think that's more confusing than necessary. Errata the enhancements to state that they trigger when you use the weapon rather than wield it, and leave wield to mean what SKR said that it meant in the post I quoted - that you're wielding the weapon if you could potentially make an attack with the weapon.
The definition that you suggest would - at least at all the tables I play at regularly - require a fairly major shift in how mechanics are handled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between rounds has always been considered fluid. Just because your initiative roll total is 5 doesn't mean that everyone "resets" between your turn and the next character to act who had the highest initiative total. To illustrate, if you make an attack with your Defending weapon using the current explanation in the FAQ, it doesn't imply that you only get the AC bonus until the last person for the current round acts but then you lose it once init order "loops around"; it presumes that it lasts until the beginning of your next turn. Rounds and turns are constructs that we use to better understand what's happening but the time itself is fluid and seamless.
I understand that. By the FAQ, Defending lasts from the time that you took an attack with the weapon until the initiative 'tick' immediately before your next turn starts.
I've never played it that way for class abilities that are related to weapons. The tables at which I've played have always assumed that a class ability that requires you to wield a weapon means that the class ability provides its benefit as long as you have the weapon ready to make an attack with it - effectively, that you threaten with the weapon.
I grasp the logic behind the Defending weapon ruling: It's a magic item, and you gain the benefit of a magic item by actively using it.
I've never assumed that rationale applied to class abilities. I wouldn't grant a Quarterstaff Magus his AC bonus from Quarterstaff Defense if he had it slung on his back - but I've always granted it as long as he had the staff out and ready to attack, even if he hadn't attacked with it yet.
|
'Wield' is not a defined game term. It is used like normal, everyday, descriptive 'fluff' language. And that means that 'wield' means different things in different contexts.
* 'wield' = used to execute an attack
* 'wield' = held in such a way that it could be used to attack without needing to change grip or be drawn
* 'wield' = held (like Arcane Bond; the staff doesn't need to be held in the two hands you'd need to execute an attack with it)
It should be obvious which meaning is correct given the context, but we all know how things that are 'obvious' are....well...not.
It certainly doesn't help to take how 'wield' is defined in one situation (like the Defending property) and transfer that definition to a situation where it isn't appropriate (Arcane Bond).
I'm afraid that all we can do is to actually use our thinky bits instead of having the answer spoon-fed to us. : /
Isn't the Defending Weapon property activation the only place where the difference between wield = "ready to be used to make an attack" and wield = "actually used to make an attack" is relevant, or are there others ?
Isn't the Defending Weapon property activation the only place where the difference between wield = "ready to be used to make an attack" and wield = "actually used to make an attack" is relevant, or are there others ?
There are a couple of other examples, but as far as I'm aware they all relate to magic weapons. And like I said, that actually makes sense to me. I guess I'm just a stickler for grammar. For new players I think it could be confusing.
I'd prefer to just see the magic items be changed so that they grant their benefits on use (rather than wielding - although I do like Kazaan's suggestion of allowing them to activate on total defense as well, or perhaps even just note that if you don't attack you have to use a move action).
|
|
That was quoted earlier in the thread as well. There are problems that stem from that, though:
In another thread that I quoted, SKR gave a rather different definition of 'wield': If you can potentially make an attack with a weapon, you are 'wielding' it. That's semantically different from 'trying to use a weapon'. Trying to use a weapon aligns with the defending FAQ - i.e., that you've actually tried to attack with the weapon; being able to potentially use a weapon just means that you can attack with it, not that you have.
The OP brought up the Staff Magus's Quarterstaff Defense ability, which grants a bonus to AC when the Magus is wielding his staff. Now I'm asking an honest question here: Would you only grant the Magus that AC bonus if he had made an attack with it during that round? That's not generally how I've applied such abilities.
It is a magus ability, a class that can cast spells and use a staff in combat (thanks to the Quarterstaff Master and spellcombat abilities).
So yes, I would allow him to use the staff for getting a bonus to AC only when he is using it in combat. I.e. wielding it.There is a interesting question about using a magical staff to cast a spell. I think that that too count as wielding the staff, so in that instance the staff would still give the AC benefit.
So yes, I would allow him to sue the staff for getting a bonus to AC only when he is using it in combat. I.e. wielding it.
Sorry, let me try to be more clear in what I'm asking:
If the Magus had the weapon ready and could make AoOs with it - i.e., they threaten with it, but they have not yet actually attacked with it in that round - would you grant him his AC bonus? Or would you only grant his AC bonus if he had attacked with the weapon in that round?
A combatant can actively defend himself with a weapon even if he has not made an attack with it yet. To me abilities like Quarterstaff Defense and Canny Defense indicate that you're trained in defending yourself with a weapon, and so to me it doesn't really make sense that you can only use that ability if you've attacked with it in the round; as long as you have the weapon drawn and readied, you could actively defend yourself with it.
|
|
The problem with that definition, Kazaan, is that we're not just dealing with 'wielding' in regards to defending weapons. It's used all over the place. The OP mentioned Quarterstaff Defense for the Staff Magus: The definition you propose still means you only get the bonus to AC if you've attacked with the weapon or if you're doing total defense. I could be wrong but I don't believe that's how it was intended to work; I've always assumed that Quarterstaff Defense, or Canny Defense (from the Duelist PrC and elsewhere) worked as long as you had a melee weapon in-hand ready to attack.
[edit]
This is assuming that we're looking for a unified definition of 'wielding'. Personally I think that's the least-confusing way to go about it; having one definition of 'wield' for magic items, and another for everything else, is clunky and confusing.
I can agree with that. Authors have used wielding in different ways in the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the best solution was if the "you wield when you have the weapon ready to strike, gripping it as a weapon" comment from SKR was made the official ruling, and just with a FAQ clarifying that since defending doesn't mention "wielding" but rather "using", defending doesn't work unless you actually attack with it.
In that case, the staff magus would get the bonus as long as she's properly holding the weapon ready to strike, whether she strikes or not. Likewise, the ominous dagger actually functions without you having to shove it into the table 10 times during the minute it takes to use intimidate.
This is the interpretation we use, and it works very well. As far as I know, defending is the only thing in the game that can really be abused through "wielding" (though again, it never mentions it). So for me, the weapon property that should be considered as an exceptional case, and potential ramifications from it should not force a sweeping ruling that severely changes how other things function (such as the ominous dagger).
^^ This ^^