| 55 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As-is there are quite a large number of abilities that require the user to be wielding the item (usually a weapon) in question.
Problem: Wielding is not defined in the rules.
Therefore, there are several interpretations, and they're all technically correct.
One group of people says "a weapon must be currently in use (have attacked recently, for example)" to be wielded.
A different group says "a weapon must simply be held in a position that it CAN be used" to be wielded.
A third acknowledges that the definition is nebulous, but has a general definition of "held with INTENT to use".
The dictionary definition of wield (which I will spoiler below) supports all 3 of these definitions.
1.) to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it
2.) to have and use (power, influence, etc.)
3.) to have at one's command or disposal
As this has a not insignificant impact on the rules, and there have been various queries on a few different matters that converge on this one issue, I'd say it counts as a "Frequently Asked Question", even though technically they were all tangential to the main question asked.
So, to put it clearly and succinctly for the PDT: What constitutes "wielding" in the Pathfinder ruleset?
A different group says "a weapon must simply be held in a position that it CAN be used" to be wielded.
This is the one I've always gone with, but an official answer would definitely be a good thing.
FAQ'd
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See SKR opinion here.
For those unable to follow the link:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
Pretty good question, I've seen a lot of rule debates come up over this.
See SKR opinion here.
For those unable to follow the link:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
Apparently this stuff doesn't matter.
Apparently this stuff doesn't matter.See SKR opinion here.
For those unable to follow the link:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
Well, this creates some inconsistencies that probably need be addressed. For instance, a gunslinger or swashbuckler with quickdraw would always be considered wielding a weapon, since as soon as initiative is rolled they may draw their weapon. Seems more like a band aid answer than a fix.
Well, this creates some inconsistencies that probably need be addressed. For instance, a gunslinger or swashbuckler with quickdraw would always be considered wielding a weapon, since as soon as initiative is rolled they may draw their weapon. Seems more like a band aid answer than a fix.Apparently this stuff doesn't matter.See SKR opinion here.
For those unable to follow the link:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
Great now everyone has Iaijutsu.
So if you have catch of guard or similar ability you are wielding anything you are holding.
I don't think it's a problem at all. Especially since it makes sense considering the feat is called Catch off guard. But there was the "Do you threaten" argument that had to do with improvised weapons and it devolved into the "Wielding or not wielding" argument.
So if you have catch of guard or similar ability you are wielding anything you are holding.No you aren't. you're not wielding until you're wielding. Catch off guard and like tricks only changes the circumstances in how you get to that state.
See?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to propose a new book for Paizo to release at GenCon 2015: Ultimate Definition.
It would contain every* game term contained in the Pathfinder lexicon, in alphabetical order. There would no longer be a need for questions like this. It could even include the gaming definition of the word "is."
-Skeld
* - At least until the September 2015 books are released.
The worst part is I'd actually buy that book and it would be law in my games.
I'd like to propose a new book for Paizo to release at GenCon 2015: Ultimate Definition.
It would contain every* game term contained in the Pathfinder lexicon, in alphabetical order. There would no longer be a need for questions like this. It could even include the gaming definition of the word "is."
-Skeld
* - At least until the September 2015 books are released.
I'm not sure the sarcasm is warranted. There are 3 different, all correct, all applicable in context, and conflicting definitions of the word "wield".
You seem to be implying that asking the question is splitting hairs and focusing on minutiae in some way, but it's a fairly important (and overall easy) question for the PDT to answer.
The most prominent example recently is the Courageous property.
Do you need to be actively using the weapon it's on to reap the benefits? Or is having a +1 Courageous Gauntlet (or a Courageous Amulet of Mighty Fists, or a +1 Courageous Kukri in your off-hand, unused, while you fight with a Longsword, etc.) while you wield your Greatsword and have nothing to do with the gauntlet enough?
Essentially, does "wielding" allow certain weapon properties to be Stat Sticks?
SKR's definition implies that this is so, and it is a valid interpretation...but only one of 3 valid interpretations.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we not FAQ every little issue that comes up? No wonder we never get any answers to our questions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we not FAQ every little issue that comes up? No wonder we never get any answers to our questions.On the contrary, I think we need a FAQ to define the term "battle".
The problem is Robert, is that every time a property comes out, that's as good as this one, you get the munchkins looking for a corner interpretation to magnify it beyond it's intended scope.
I expect the number of FAQ requests to multiply exponentially like plague during an epidemic.
Then that is a problem with the enchantment, not the term "wielding".
SKR's definition is good enough for me.
SKR's definition is good enough for me.Same.
This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.
It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.
There is a thread on that property already.
You really shouldn't make assumptions, it kinda makes you look like an ass sometimes.
You asked for an example.
I gave you one.
Don't ask me for something if you don't want it, especially if you are then going to use said example in an attempt to imply some ulterior motive, especially when I'm one of the people who has no problem with said weapon property.
Almost every weapon property in the books has some kind of "wielded" wording in it, from Courageous on down to Unholy (do you gain a Negative level just by having it in hand if you're Good, or do you have to actively try and use the weapon in battle?), and some Feats (like Orc Weapon Expertise, which can grant a shield bonus for "wielding" a weapon, or a +3 to Concentration checks to cast, can you hold an Orc weapon in one hand and gain that benefit while only using another weapon?) do as well.
It's come up enough times, especially when creatures with 4 arms try wielding two 2H weapons, that the definition of hands and wielding is a valid one for me. Not saying I don't agree with SKR's old response, just that I'd like to see what the official stance is.
|
|
You seem to be implying that asking the question is splitting hairs and focusing on minutiae in some way, but it's a fairly important (and overall easy) question for the PDT to answer.
I disagree that it's important. In fact, I like to think the PDT has much better things to do with their time.
-Skeld
|
|
You really shouldn't make assumptions, it kinda makes you look like an ass sometimes.
You asked for an example.
I gave you one.
Don't ask me for something if you don't want it, especially if you are then going to use said example in an attempt to imply some ulterior motive, especially when I'm one of the people who has no problem with said weapon property.
Almost every weapon property in the books has some kind of "wielded" wording in it, from Courageous on down to Unholy (do you gain a Negative level just by having it in hand if you're Good, or do you have to actively try and use the weapon in battle?), and some Feats (like Orc Weapon Expertise, which can grant a shield bonus for "wielding" a weapon, or a +3 to Concentration checks to cast, can you hold an Orc weapon in one hand and gain that benefit while only using another weapon?) do as well.
Perhaps. I am not without fault. Let's refrain from name-calling though.
The connection between the two current conversations left me suspicious.
I likely would not have been so suspicious, had it been any other example.
I will refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. My apologies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be implying that asking the question is splitting hairs and focusing on minutiae in some way, but it's a fairly important (and overall easy) question for the PDT to answer.I disagree that it's important. In fact, I like to think the PDT has much better things to do with their time.
-Skeld
It does come up pretty often though. I would say it's a "Frequently Asked Question."
The fact the question could be answered in no less than 1 sentence doesn't mean it's not a good question.
SKR's definition is good enough for me.Same.
This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.
It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.
There is a thread on that property already.
In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).
I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.
The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.
Hell, here's some easy examples I can pull up by searching the word "wield" in conjunction with magic items.
Do you merely need to hold it to gain its benefits? Actively use it in combat? Have it where it can at least be used to make attacks?
It cannot wield weapons. So, can it hold a weapon at all? If it is indeed the case that merely holding a weapon is enough to be considered wielding it, would that not therefore mean you cannot pick up/carry any item that can potentially be wielded with the Belt?
Or is it an oversight?
For it to remake you as a dwarf, must you merely hold it for an extended period, or actually use it in battle? Much like Unholy/Holy/Axiomatic/Anarchic, this is unclear.
When you cast Shield Other on someone, do you need to hold the weapon for someone to gain the benefit, or actively use it? What happens if you're not wielding it one round but are wielding it another? Does the Shield Other effect cut out and then come back on later? Does it end prematurely? Does it never end?
It took me less than 5 minutes to come up with these.
Perhaps. I am not without fault. Let's refrain from name-calling though.
The connection between the two current conversations left me suspicious.
I likely would not have been so suspicious, had it been any other example.
I will refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. My apologies.
Sorry, that post just frustrated me a bit. It was the first example that came to mind because it was at the forefront of my mind at the time.
|
|
SKR's definition is good enough for me.Same.
This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.
It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.
There is a thread on that property already.
In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).
I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.
The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.
I was not the first to mention it, and it had all the usual traits of a thread, that was secretly about another thread. I already said I jumped to conclusions, on what I saw, to be suspicious. I have tried to contribute in a meaningful manner, but was under the impression that my efforts would be for naught, if I was not discussing the underlying topic.
So, I believe this removes all the confusion, and we can move on.
Right?
As to my input in the discussion...
I don't think there is really any one right answer to this, and is dependant upon the situation; it is probably for this same reason that there is no truly official statement from the PDT via FAQ/Errata/Whatever: Because it's not one that can be band-aided or solved within singular subject matter.
Let's take weapons and their magic properties as primary examples of conflicting meanings in the term "wield." We have the Defending property. This property requires that the bearer makes attacks in order to receive its benefits. This had to be clarified in a FAQ to get this intent across, as many people believed it did not have to meet this pre-requisite to receive its benefits, meaning for this specific weapon property, the definition of wield had to be altered to accommodate this. There are also similar properties, such as the Allying and Guardian properties, which use almost the exact same language as the Defending property.
We then also have other properties, such as the Called property which does designate a Wielder, but its effects cannot be usable unless it is in hand and able to make attacks with it. Although the intent of the ability is clear, going by the assumed game terms of wielding, the Called property would not be able to function, meaning for the purposes of this property, the term wield either is changed or is simply flavor text; I'd like to think it is the latter, since that is the most conservative interpretation to keep in-line with the intent of the property.
And that is one of many problems: Sometimes the terms "wielder" or "wielding" gets confused with being a flavorful explanation V.S. being a game term in-between properties and abilities. When does the term "wield" and its related words follow the terms assumed in the game? When does it just simply seem to be a specific synonym for 'use' or 'held'?
SKR's definition is good enough for me.Same.
This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.
It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.
There is a thread on that property already.
In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).
I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.
The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.
I was not the first to mention it, and it had all the usual traits of a thread, that was secretly about another thread. I already said I jumped to conclusions, on what I saw, to be suspicious. I have tried to contribute in a meaningful manner, but was under the impression that my efforts would be for naught, if I was not discussing the underlying topic.
So, I believe this removes all the confusion, and we can move on.
Right?
Perhaps. Though my point still extends to the rest of the peanut gallery.
|
|
I find the Defending FAQ to be, flawed, at best.
Many weapons have abilities that require no attack, or are not possible to use, if used to attack, in the same round.
Also, not all magic items, that are also weapons, are even designed to have their abilities function at the same time as being used as a weapon.
Look at the many Staves, that also happen to be weapons.
Must they all be used as weapons, before they can be used as Staves?
What of the many magical Rods, that also happen to be weapons?
Hell, here's some easy examples I can pull up by searching the word "wield" in conjunction with magic items.
Do you merely need to hold it to gain its benefits? Actively use it in combat? Have it where it can at least be used to make attacks?
It cannot wield weapons. So, can it hold a weapon at all? If it is indeed the case that merely holding a weapon is enough to be considered wielding it, would that not therefore mean you cannot pick up/carry any item that can potentially be wielded with the Belt?
Or is it an oversight?
For it to remake you as a dwarf, must you merely hold it for an extended period, or actually use it in battle? Much like Unholy/Holy/Axiomatic/Anarchic, this is unclear.
When you cast Shield Other on someone, do you need to hold the weapon for someone to gain the benefit, or actively use it? What happens if you're not wielding it one round but are wielding it another? Does the Shield Other effect cut out and then come back on later? Does it end prematurely? Does it never end?
It took me less than 5 minutes to come up with these.
Sorry, that post just frustrated me a bit. It was the first example that came to mind because it was at the forefront of my mind at the time.
Perhaps. I am not without fault. Let's refrain from name-calling though.
The connection between the two current conversations left me suspicious.
I likely would not have been so suspicious, had it been any other example.
I will refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. My apologies.
I think the "If you could use this to smack someone you are wielding it" (even if someone isn't next to you at a particular moment to smack) is the intent judging from SKR's quote up thread. Thus, the answers to those issues as far as I can tell is assume there's a nonexistent person that could be attacked with the weapon while you are holding and if you could attack the nonexistent person with the weapon, you are "wielding" it:
1. Scepter of Heaven. You have to be holding it and able to attack a nonexistent person it. Thus, for the most part simply having it in hand will do. (Though not "holding" it with say the next item.
2. Monkey belt can hold weapons. It is not able to attack a nonexistent person with the weapon though and thus cannot "wield" one. So it lacks the capability of coordinating attacks with things it's holding in other words.
3. Axe of the Dwarfish Lords merely requires being held to double one's darkvision, and thus would work even if you could not make an attack against a nonexistent person with it. The skill bonus are acquired from merely owning it, which I believe means you don't need the item on you at all, you merely need to be considered the owner (so leaving it in your Handy Haversack should do the trick). The reshaping requires wielding. Again, if you are holding it and could strike a nonexistent person with it, you are wielding it. Thus in most cases, when its drawn and held, a person is racking up "wield" time.
4. Whispering Blade again requires wield, so we have to consider if you could attack poor nonexistent person again. If you can you are good to cast Shield Other. (So having your Monkey Belt merely "hold" it would not allow you to use Shield Other, even if it could hold it next to a targets skin.)
Maybe I'm just crazy, but this all seems pretty straightforward if you assume there is a nonexistent person that could be attacked by you. Simple "If said person was there could you stab them" test seems to solve any confusion.
Obviously, Allying/Defending/etc. have special language that requires use and thus require no additional clarification.
As to Courageous, if you could use that weapon on the nonexistent person, you are "wielding it in battle". So if you assumed that a person was next to a +4 Courageous Spiked Gauntlet wearer, if the wearer could use that spiked gauntlet to attack that person (even if they choose not to do so), the wearer of it is wielding it in battle.
It could be clearer, but with the above test it seems fairly straightforward RAW and RAI.
From Ultimate Equipment, in the section about activating magic weapons:
"Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it."
This text is contradicted in many many ways and examples.
|
As-is there are quite a large number of abilities that require the user to be wielding the item (usually a weapon) in question.
Problem: Wielding is not defined in the rules.
Therefore, there are several interpretations, and they're all technically correct.
One group of people says "a weapon must be currently in use (have attacked recently, for example)" to be wielded.
A different group says "a weapon must simply be held in a position that it CAN be used" to be wielded.
A third acknowledges that the definition is nebulous, but has a general definition of "held with INTENT to use".
The dictionary definition of wield (which I will spoiler below) supports all 3 of these definitions.
** spoiler omitted **
As this has a not insignificant impact on the rules, and there have been various queries on a few different matters that converge on this one issue, I'd say it counts as a "Frequently Asked Question", even though technically they were all tangential to the main question asked.
So, to put it clearly and succinctly for the PDT: What constitutes "wielding" in the Pathfinder ruleset?
FAQed, but I think there is a major problem here: the term hasn't been used in a constant way throughout the rules, so it sometimes mean a thing, sometime something different.
So giving out a FAQ isn't simple at all unless Paizo, at the same time, check every product they made and correct the term use to what is appropriate.
SKR in this post speak of a different word, but the problem is the same, I think:
It says "bonus," not "modifier," so it never drops below +0.
(I've done my best to hammer the writers into saying "bonus" when they mean "it's always going to be +0 or better," or when using "modifier" has the possibility of making no sense, such as "you can use this a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier," which would mean you could have negative uses per day. So trust whether it says "bonus" or "modifier" to mean exactly that. :))
writers using wield as a synonymous of wear, hold in hand or other uses of the term.
As you well know that is a problem with the courages ability.|
|
See SKR opinion here.
For those unable to follow the link:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
A different take by SKR:
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.
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.
[b]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 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.
"Actively trying to use" is different from "Holding it in your hand, ready to use". As SKR put it a few row below the first phrase: "If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."
Just for the record, your post is dated "Jul 25, 2013, 10:18 PM", so SKR can have changed his opinion in the meantime, or the developers had a meeting and decided for some specific meaning of the term.
|
|
SKR's definition is good enough for me.Same.
This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.
It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.
There is a thread on that property already.
You really shouldn't make assumptions, it kinda makes you look like an ass sometimes.
You asked for an example.
I gave you one.
Don't ask me for something if you don't want it, especially if you are then going to use said example in an attempt to imply some ulterior motive, especially when I'm one of the people who has no problem with said weapon property.
Almost every weapon property in the books has some kind of "wielded" wording in it, from Courageous on down to Unholy (do you gain a Negative level just by having it in hand if you're Good, or do you have to actively try and use the weapon in battle?), and some Feats (like Orc Weapon Expertise, which can grant a shield bonus for "wielding" a weapon, or a +3 to Concentration checks to cast, can you hold an Orc weapon in one hand and gain that benefit while only using another weapon?) do as well.
Going from memory, I think there was some problem with some magus ability, some amulet of mighty fist (with the "fun" posts about having to wield your foot in your hand to use the ability), the defending ability (that require you to wield the weapon and has been FAQed as that meaning "actively use to attack"). And those are only a few examples.
another few examples:
I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.