Can we get an official definition for "wielding"?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd WANT an 'official' ruling. Most of these can be determined with common sense or RAI... I don't believe they had a definition for 'wield' in mind when they WROTE all these descriptions... so trying to clarify it NOW is only going to cause more trouble then it's worth.


Possibly, but at the least some sort of general guideline would be nice.

"An item is wielded when it is used for its intended purpose (weapons when they've recently been used to attack, magic rods when they've been used to cast a spell) to reap the benefits."

Or, of course, the other way "an item is wielded when it's held in hand, ready to use (not strapped to a pack, in a sheathe, etc.)."


Rynjin wrote:

Possibly, but at the least some sort of general guideline would be nice.

"An item is wielded when it is used for its intended purpose (weapons when they've recently been used to attack, magic rods when they've been used to cast a spell) to reap the benefits."

Or, of course, the other way "an item is wielded when it's held in hand, ready to use (not strapped to a pack, in a sheathe, etc.)."

Held in hand or ready to use =)


Skeld wrote:

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.

Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.


Rynjin wrote:

Possibly, but at the least some sort of general guideline would be nice.

"An item is wielded when it is used for its intended purpose (weapons when they've recently been used to attack, magic rods when they've been used to cast a spell) to reap the benefits."

Or, of course, the other way "an item is wielded when it's held in hand, ready to use (not strapped to a pack, in a sheathe, etc.)."

I think one of my concerns is that 'in hand, able to attack with'... means you'll start getting hit with Two Weapon penalties anytime you have something in your hand you 'could' hit with...

Which, is KIND of important since you only threaten or take AoOs when 'armed'....

and HONESTLY... just because I CAN shield bash all day long... does NOT mean I want it claimed I'm 'wielding' a weapon and thus suffering two weapon fighting... even though I have never bashed with it yet...

It's a complicated thing that only gets MORE complicated the more you look at it...

I'm still in favor of the player declaring he's wielding if he wants to be wielding... Most are pretty simple concepts.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there's a surprise round, and I move towards the enemy while drawing a weapon. Am I then wielding that weapon? I haven't used it to attack yet.

If I make an attack with a sword, then drop the sword and draw a mace. Am I wielding the mace?

If I hold a staff with two hands, then take one hand off to cast a spell, then grasp the staff with both hands again. Am I wielding the staff?

If I cast a touch spell but don't deliver the touch attack (I'm holding the charge), and I now wielding a spell or weapon in my hand?

If I'm holding a charge, is my hand "free"? If not, can I still do the touch attack with my other hand the next round?

===

I think the issue of what "wield" means bumps into the issue of what a "free hand" means. They're not the same question, but they are related.

I also fear that even the writers weren't all on the same page about this, so there will be contradictory uses scattered throughout the material.


I don't think they will decide on one definition. For me having the weapon in a ready to use position is good enough, but for enhancements such as courageous or the ones that adds to AC, actually using the weapon would be required.

I think that for those they should have said the weapon must be used instead of using the word "wield" in any form.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Phosphorus wrote:

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 just means that a particular subset of wielding is needed to activate certain magic weapon properties, not that that particular subset is the definition of wielding.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
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.

Translation: it is always on.

Doubling the effect of a Flawed Pale Green Prism with a +1 corageus spiked gauntlet worth 8.000. a bargain.

PSRD20 wrote:


Flawed Pale Green Prism: This stone grants a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks. Price: 28,000 gp.

Yes, I know, there are effects that give an even better return, but the existence of a "too good to be true effect" don't justify the existence of another.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although I'd like clarity on this, there cannot be a single answer, because there are several different legitimate meanings and the writers employ this word to mean whatever they want it to mean at the time. It's "obvious" to them what they mean when they write it.

This is why the wizard's Bonded Object wording got changed, because requiring a weapon to be 'wielded' in order to cast a spell without penalty makes no sense because both casting a spell and making a weapon attack take a standard action.

So when a non-weapon requires you to be 'wielding' it then 'attack' doesn't make sense. In fact, most of these actually do make sense in context.

Having said that, there are some things (like Courageous) where what is 'obvious'...isn't so obvious after all, because different people see different interpretations as 'obvious' and therefore everyone who disagrees is 'obviously' trying to cheese the system or twist the rules....!

For me, if merely having the weapon in hand sends a magical surge of self-belief, confidence and courage through your body, then this magical energy is still pervading you when you belt a foe with the other weapon you're holding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Skeld wrote:

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.

Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

While we're at it maybe we should ask them to include a definition of the word "is" in the rules. Don't stop until the CRB is 1200 pages.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

The short one could be using an assumption by SKR that you have just attacked and therefor wielding.

He may have given the long answer if the thread said "I'll never attack, am I still counted as wielding?"

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually don't want them to rule on this. It's one of those common sense things that answering it may end up creating more problems than it solves, like the mounted combat FAQ. A GM can simply rule when a character is wielding a weapon as situations may vary. Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?

Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.

Beat me to it! Common sense tells me you generally cannot wield two weapons with the same hand unless it's a one-handed double weapon or it involves a very special case. The former case is unheard of in Pathfinder while the latter case is best left to GM fiat on a case by case basis.


Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.

Odd, Common Sense tells me that you could spike Gauntlet someone while holding something in those hands.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

That's a fine idea, but they aren't going to add anything to the CRB that breaks pagination.

Cyrad wrote:
I actually don't want them to rule on this. It's one of those common sense things that answering it may end up creating more problems than it solves, like the mounted combat FAQ. A GM can simply rule when a character is wielding a weapon as situations may vary. Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

I'm 99% with you on this. I'm against the continued codification of minutia, believing instead that this kind of stuff should be left to the GM. The game works much better when there's wiggle room. However, there is a non-trivial segment of the population that is unable to function well unless they have a printed rule somewhere to point at. The hardline pro-RAW, anti-houserule stance of PFS fuels much of the "rules angst."

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

That's a fine idea, but they aren't going to add anything to the CRB that breaks pagination.

Cyrad wrote:
I actually don't want them to rule on this. It's one of those common sense things that answering it may end up creating more problems than it solves, like the mounted combat FAQ. A GM can simply rule when a character is wielding a weapon as situations may vary. Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

I'm 99% with you on this. I'm against the continued codification of minutia, believing instead that this kind of stuff should be left to the GM. The game works much better when there's wiggle room. However, there is a non-trivial segment of the population that is unable to function well unless they have a printed rule somewhere to point at. The hardline pro-RAW, anti-houserule stance of PFS fuels much of the "rules angst."

-Skeld

The development team agrees with you.

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:
Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Scavion wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.
Odd, Common Sense tells me that you could spike Gauntlet someone while holding something in those hands.

Both rules, common sense, and general consensus of the community tell me that wielding a weapon differs from merely holding it. Despite some members of the community arguing the exact definition of "wielding," it's very clear by the rules that there's a difference between wielding and holding -- many content like Dervish Dance and the Guarding Blade property make that distinction. So you can wield the spiked gauntlet as long as you're not wielding the object that hand holds and vice versa. But you cannot wield both.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cyrad wrote:
Both rules, common sense, and general consensus of the community tell me that wielding a weapon differs from merely holding it.

That part isn't in debate.

The only thing that makes this a debate is the people who want to qualify for wielding while never intending to use or make use of the item. Their entire plan is to "wield" it while wielding another item either in the same place (Greatsword while wearing Spiked Gauntlets) or other place (reach weapon while wearing boot blades and getting boot blade "wield" benefit like Courageous.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level (Core Rulebook 562) on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.

This makes it sound a lot like "having the weapon in hand" is what is meant by "wielded" in this case. Or should we take this to mean that a Lawful creature only suffers from a negative level while actively trying to hit things with the sword?

Quote:
This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon. When the wielder of a benevolent weapon uses the aid another action to grant an ally a bonus on attack rolls, he increases the aid another bonus by the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

You can't really be trying to hit anything in a round you use the Aid Another action (AoOs aside). I suppose this doesn't rule out "used recently", i.e., within the last round or so.

Quote:
A called weapon can be teleported to the wielder's hand as a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, even if the weapon is in the possession of another creature.[b]

By RAW, the Called property cannot work, since you cannot possibly be wielding (and be the wielder of) a weapon you are not holding. Based on this, I'd say "wield" means something more like "own".

Quote:
As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the activating character it is not considered armed with the weapon. [b]The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items. While dancing, the weapon shares the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the activating character everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the activating character has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved, the weapon can't dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

By RAW, unless "wield" means something akin to "own", I fail to see how Dancing weapons are supposed to work. They're considered wielded for the purposes of maneuvers and effects that target items, but not explicitly for the purposes of determining whether or not the user benefits from the Dancing property itself. I concede this may be a simple oversight and not representative of any real intent.

Quote:
A huntsman weapon helps its wielder locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the wielder gains an enhancement bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It also deals +1d6 points of damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.

Again, "owns" or "holds" seems appropriate here. "Own" (possibly also having proficiency in) remains the only interpretation that seems to apply universally.

Quote:
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A melee weapon crafted with this ability gains a range increment of 10 feet and can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use.

This suggest ownership, not proficiency, is sufficient to be considered a "wielder". Otherwise, the bit about proficiency would be redundant.

Based on all of this, I'd propose something along the lines of the following:

You are considered to be the wielder of a weapon you own if you would have theoretically been capable of making an attack with it at the beginning of the current turn, had the weapon been in hand as a result of actions you could have taken during the previous turn and had there been an opponent within reach.

Examples:

Bob owns a +1 Called Ominous Greatsword and is interrogating Joe. The greatsword rests on a table across the room from Joe, and is not held by Bob. Since Bob could have called the weapon to his hand during the last turn, and because Bob could have attacked an enemy with his sword at the beginning of the current turn had one been adjacent to him (note: Joe is not within Bob's reach), Bob gains a +1 bonus to intimidate checks against Joe. Note: were the weapon not Called and were it far enough away that Joe couldn't have retrieved it and returned within a single round, he wouldn't have been considered to be wielding it.

Joe has a +1 Courageous longsword in its sheathe. He is suddenly attacked by Oscar and they begin a grapple. Because Joe could have unsheathed the sword during the last round and because Joe could theoretically attack Oscar using it if it were in hand, Joe benefits from Courageous.

You are considered to be the owner of a weapon which was at one point of time in your possession so long as either (a) no other creature has taken possession of the weapon or (b) any creature which has received possession of the weapon willingly acknowledges your continued ownership.

Examples:

Joe finds a masterwork shortsword lying on the ground. He picks it up, and is then surprised by Bob. Since the shortsword is in Joe's possession and no other creature has since taken ownership of the shortsword, Joe is considered the owner.

Joe drops the masterwork shortsword and runs away, Bob close on his heels. Joe remains the owner of the shortsword since nobody has claimed ownership.

Joe loses Bob, and on his way back home, Bob finds the shortsword. He picks it up and takes it with him, becoming the new owner (Joe is no longer the owner since (a) another creature has taken possession and (b) the creature does not willingly recognize continued ownership belonging to Joe).

Bob shows the sword to Jane, his trusted friend, and lets her hold it for a moment (the sword, that is). Joe crashes through the door with wild eyes. Bob is the owner of the shortsword iff Jane willingly intends to return the sword to Bob, or would do so if she were aware of the situation. Otherwise, if Jane is in league with Joe, she is unwilling and considered the owner.

(Maybe Paizo should hire some lawyers to interpret RAW? I find myself wanting to refer to parties and use "herein" a lot).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.

I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.

Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.

That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."


Ruggs wrote:

Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.

I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.

Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.

That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may not be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."

FWIW, I absolutely agree with this. Still, I think there is value in threads like this since they let people share perspectives so that GMs/groups unsure how to adjudicate can get some ideas/pointers and avoid making potentially disruptive house rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

aegrisomnia wrote:
Still, I think there is value in threads like this since they let people share perspectives

There is value, but often this leads to the awkward RAW interpretations and there is this culture of "only the awkward way is valid" with little or no acceptance of the fact there are multiple ways to read most rules, multiple RAW interpretations, and even more if RAI deviates from all RAW interpretations. Each table may use a different RAW/RAI and this causes issues when we have forums where people assert the only way is this awkward RAW. Players then go to tables and feel cheated when the GM doesn't agree with the awkward RAW.


wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think they will decide on one definition. For me having the weapon in a ready to use position is good enough, but for enhancements such as courageous or the ones that adds to AC, actually using the weapon would be required.

I think that for those they should have said the weapon must be used instead of using the word "wield" in any form.

This is ultimately the issue. There's a fundamental problem with language in that words can and do have slightly different meanings depending on context. There's confusion about what "wield" means because it has been used somewhat differently within the rules in different contexts. Clarifying the definition for one context will necessarily complicate that word's use in a different context. At this point, there likely is no good way to align all of the different uses of the word throughout the various rule books. It would have to boil down to a list: When used in [this] context, such as for these abilities, it means [this]; when used in [that] context, such as for these abilities, it means [that].

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

fretgod99 wrote:
When used in [this] context, such as for these abilities, it means [this]; when used in [that] context, such as for these abilities, it means [that].

I think this is true in this case. For example, the called property is likely using the term Wield after the weapon is in hand. So it doesn't refer to a weapon owned, but to a weapon owned that is called to be in a wielding position.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As stated many times, the rules are written in plain english, not legal speak. However, every so often (like every other day) someone tries to read it like it's legal speak, and then complains it isn't clear, demanding an FAQ.

If I were a Pazio developer, and I saw people asking for an FAQ on what exactly does "wielding" mean, I'd shake my head and throw up my hands in frustration.

The example of Scepter of Heaven, which is supposed to be confusing, seems blatantly obvious. It acts as a morningstar, so it has to be wielded as a weapon. OMG, what does "wielded" mean. Really? Have we fallen so far that we have to actually ask these questions? If you had to just be wearing it, then they would have said wearing it. Nobody is wielding a ring of protection, after all.

If Paizo were to write the rules in legal speak, it would 1) be so incredibly long nobody would really know the rules accept for a select few and 2) would probably just be more confusing. The last thing anyone should want are for the rules to become more legal speak.

I'd like Paizo to focus on truly confusing things, like they did with charging while mounted, rather than junk like "what does wielding mean?" When games devolve into such nonsense, where there is a debate about common words, I would tell the player (or DM) that perhaps an RPG isn't for them, and suggest they play something like Candyland.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to pass by this FAQ... It seems like it'd take way too much work for the dev team to fix, when a GM can adjudicate this case by case and do it a lot faster.


Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
As stated many times, the rules are written in plain english, not legal speak. However, every so often (like every other day) someone tries to read it like it's legal speak, and then complains it isn't clear, demanding an FAQ.

"Plain English" isn't so plain when you have a good enough grasp of the language to acknowledge that one word can have multiple contradictory meanings, all used commonly.

Moondragon Starshadow wrote:

The example of Scepter of Heaven, which is supposed to be confusing, seems blatantly obvious. It acts as a morningstar, so it has to be wielded as a weapon.

At which point you are incapable of benefiting from its effects (a bonus to Caster Level Checks to cast Dispel Magic on evil effects). Unless the intent was "When casting a Quickened Dispel Magic against an evil effect you gain a +2 bonus on Caster Level checks"...?

Oh, and how are you casting Bless Weapon or Spear of Purity from the rod (a Standard action), and attacking (a Standard Action)?

It's doubtful that their intent was "If the wielder has Amazing Initiative (mythic Adventures) he may cast Bless Weapon or Spear of Purity if he has attacked in that round" (doubly so since Amazing Initiative doesn't let you cast a spell, so...).

Hence the confusion.

I would prefer if people who disagree used some modicum of critical thinking before they jump in trying to call me an idiot (which the majority of this thread has).


In my defense, I presented a workable test to determine wielding in those circumstances and never rely on personal insults regardless of what is going on. (Though I suspect I'm not included above, I still feel compelled to note this.)

I think the "pretend there's someone next to you (or wherever you like I guess) and if you could smack that person with a weapon you count as wielding it" (easier test name pending), works quite well and matches up with the intent for the most part. Since while I think yes a wrong aligned person should take a negative level penalty for being able to knife someone (which will usually be just holding under this test), a person using monkey belt to hold the weapon wouldn't, which makes sense to me and is internally consistent.


Quote:
"pretend there's someone next to you (or wherever you like I guess) and if you could smack that person with a weapon you count as wielding it"

I think that's a really good general criterion, actually. Based on some of my observations, I might broaden/simplify it as follows:

If you could hypothetically hit somebody with it in the near future (within one round? details TBD), you're wielding it.

I hesitate to even require it being held in the hands, since that seems to break the Called weapon ability... unless the intent there is for a specific rule to override the general one, in which case the intent could have been communicated much more clearly.

Note also: even if you require it to be held, this might allow for the sort of "shenanigans" some people might want to prevent by requiring you to attack with a weapon to get its benefit. I'm coming around to the idea that this not needing to attack is the intent and it's not particularly OP; if players are abusing it in your games, just banhammer stuff.

(Aside: I also assume/hope Rynjin doesn't see my contributions here as being confrontational - far from it, I'd love a FAQ answer for this question but am doubtful as to whether that will happen.)


No, I like this side discussion, and I encourage back and forth and whatnot that's here. Everyone's been pretty civil about the whole thing, bar a few.

I agree that Anzyr has a solid rule of thumb, but it seems like there are still some corner cases left out of that one (as Aegris mentioned, Called and Dancing) that it would be nice to clarify.


I have a question, does anyone think it was ever intended for any weapons to be used as "stat sticks?"

Basically, the whole wielding thing isnt an issue in any of the following circumstances. 1) You have a normal weapon 2) You are TWF and actively trying to use both or 3) you only have 1 weapon.

I think for all of the above, the definition of wielding as "you have the weapon in hand your ready to use it and you threaten with it" works fine as a definition and does not cause any wierd game issues.

The problem is both the AMF and Gauntlets create the possibility of the "stat stick".

So for my second question, a brief example. We have a PC wielding a reach weapon, and spiked gauntlets both are magical. The gauntlets have a bonus on them with a 'wielded' requirement. Does anyone actually think he qualifies for 'wielding the gauntlets' while he has both hands on his two handed weapon and is attacking it. Ie he doesnt threaten with them, cant Aoo and at this point are serving soley as gloves.

Stuff to avoid derailing:

The above example is obviously from the other thread and i used it becase its a good example. To be honest My main issue with the more liberal reading on curagous is it contributes to the 'ill use my magic weapon as a wonderous item' issue. The problem is Wonderous items use different pricing than magic weapons. My main issue with curageous is when compared to the wonderous item rules and this "stat stick" issue you basically get a super buff for cheap on something you may never use in a single combat as a weapon.

I want to stress, this issue is actually seperate from whether curageous does what some think it does. And i'll conceed that last line was assembled poorly and it looks like the weapon deas raw what they say it does.

However, i think its alot more powerful using the 'stat stick' model than as your main and sole weapon.

Anyhow, im Actualy not super up to date on weapon enchantments to be aware of which can be used to create this problem. Most are straight forward and clearly applied on the attack or damage and the ones seen as having an issue like defender were fixed to avoid the stat stick issue.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*giggle* not-lawyers and not-linguists arguing semantics *giggle*


Regarding the "stat stick", I always figured that was one intended use of a weapon, especially with the whole gear slot system from Ultimate Equipment.


Quote:
I have a question, does anyone think it was ever intended for any weapons to be used as "stat sticks?"

Why not? There's such a thing as a ceremonial sword, worn and "wielded" for its "effects" but never intended for actual combat. In fact, if wearing a pair of boots can give me magical powers, why can't wearing a sword slung across my back do the same?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

aegrisomnia wrote:
why can't wearing a sword slung across my back do the same?

Because that isn't the norm and the abilities are not written with that in mind.

Grand Lodge

aegrisomnia wrote:
quotes and examples of different wield uses:
Quote:
An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level (Core Rulebook 562) on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.

This makes it sound a lot like "having the weapon in hand" is what is meant by "wielded" in this case. Or should we take this to mean that a Lawful creature only suffers from a negative level while actively trying to hit things with the sword?

Quote:
This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon. When the wielder of a benevolent weapon uses the aid another action to grant an ally a bonus on attack rolls, he increases the aid another bonus by the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

You can't really be trying to hit anything in a round you use the Aid Another action (AoOs aside). I suppose this doesn't rule out "used recently", i.e., within the last round or so.

Quote:
A called weapon can be teleported to the wielder's hand as a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, even if the weapon is in the possession of another creature.[b]

By RAW, the Called property cannot work, since you cannot possibly be wielding (and be the wielder of) a weapon you are not holding. Based on this, I'd say "wield" means something more like "own".

Quote:
As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the activating character it is not considered armed with the weapon. [b]The weapon is considered wielded or[/b][/b]
...

Spoilered to save room.

While reading this thread and this quote in particular I thought, what if they just tagged the different types of wielding with certain letters. Such as (h) for the held form, (o) for the owned form, and (u) for the used form. I am not sure on where the best placement would be for each tagging but it seems it may be the simplest solution with possibly the least amount of work. (Though I could be missing something and be completely off base.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
I have a question, does anyone think it was ever intended for any weapons to be used as "stat sticks?"
Why not? There's such a thing as a ceremonial sword, worn and "wielded" for its "effects" but never intended for actual combat. In fact, if wearing a pair of boots can give me magical powers, why can't wearing a sword slung across my back do the same?

The Sword of Station, isn't really a stat stick. It's essentially a slotless wondrous item that gives you bonus on sense motive, casts discern lies and happens to take the shape of a blunt improvised sword because that's the traditional shape of a court implement in the country it comes from. It does not boost stats, saves, or any other kind of bonus that's akin to what we're talking about.


I'd like to expand a bit more on the 'Courageous Spiked Gauntlet' subject, noting that the criteria of a Spiked Gauntlet is a lot less restrictive than any of the standard weapons. A Spiked Gauntlet has the appearance and function of both a weapon and a slot-item, in that it is both worn and wielded at the same time, meaning effects that only require carrying/holding the weapon are constantly active, even if the hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped helps wield another weapon (another factor that other traditional weapons, bar the standard Gauntlet, cannot otherwise follow).

With that in mind, a Spiked Gauntlet doesn't exactly follow the given rules of other weapons; even while equipped (which only requires wearing it on your hand), you can use other weapons with the same hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped, and its attacks are made using Unarmed Strikes.

I do question how applying the hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped means the property effects of the Spiked Gauntlet cease function, even though you're using the hand which has the Spiked Gauntlet to make attacks with another weapon.


@James, LazarX

My point was that the distinction drawn between weapons and slotless magical items in-game is the unusual one: in real life, no such distinction really makes sense, so it's not really so unnatural to think that maybe "stat sticks" aren't so far out there as a concept.

Quote:

Guarding Blade

...
This +1 dancing short sword automatically rises up to defend a fallen or sleeping wielder. To activate the sword, the wielder must fall unconscious or die while wielding the weapon or holding it in her hand. Thereafter, should any creature other than an ally of the wielder attempt to touch or strike him with a melee attack, the sword attacks that creature for up to 4 rounds. After 4 rounds, the weapon drops in the wielder's square. Unless the guarding blade is an intelligent item, it lacks the wits to make decisions about which is the best opponent to attack, and when confronted by multiple opponents attacking the wielder, it tends to select a random target each round.

So much for needing to be able to attack with a weapon to be its "wielder".


aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
I have a question, does anyone think it was ever intended for any weapons to be used as "stat sticks?"
Why not? There's such a thing as a ceremonial sword, worn and "wielded" for its "effects" but never intended for actual combat. In fact, if wearing a pair of boots can give me magical powers, why can't wearing a sword slung across my back do the same?

The problem is items intended to be used as wonderous items follow a different set of pricing rules than weapons. Wonderous items follow sets of logic that can mostly be followed.

The weapon forumula follows different rules.

You csn make a sword that gives bonuses when worn or owked but that would be different math than making it a +2 sword.

Really though this is seperate from the wielding issue other thqn to say an item intendes as a stat stick will likely be priced as a wonderous item.


^ Meh, I'd rather say this suggests that wearing the sword on the back isn't intended to confer the benefit; it in no way suggests a "stat stick" occupying a "wield" spot should be priced as a wondrous item.

As an aside, I don't recall seeing a distinction made between pricing of custom magic weapons and custom wondrous items. Do you infer that the formulas should be different based on standard items?


Another point against the 'used it this round' mentality.

They have repeatedly told us that combat is 'abstract' and there is more going on in a combat round then 'Stab'. Just because you didn't attack with the sword in THIS 6 seconds... doesn't mean that you didn't use it to block an attack or Parry another blade. It doesn't mean that if someone charges you from across the room your flat food or 'unarmed'... Your still wielding a weapon in combat, regardless of whether you stabbed in THIS six seconds or not...

Honestly, this game is complicated enough with all the stat stacking and adjustable bonuses through a combat. For EVERYONE involved, I would not want a weapons bonus to be fluid from round to round based on what was going at the time.

I find myself constantly forgetting the haste bonuses and bless/prayer as it is...

I really don't see where having gauntlets or a swords bonus REALLY makes a big enough difference to be so antagonistic about it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

First, you have to have a mask with a black visor, as if you look at the light, it will blind you.

So, you wield when you burn two metal pieces and melt the metals with flux and let it cool, forming a bond between the two pieces...

uh, wait a minute... I may have misread this...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:

@James, LazarX

My point was that the distinction drawn between weapons and slotless magical items in-game is the unusual one: in real life, no such distinction really makes sense, so it's not really so unnatural to think that maybe "stat sticks" aren't so far out there as a concept.

Quote:

Guarding Blade

...
This +1 dancing short sword automatically rises up to defend a fallen or sleeping wielder. To activate the sword, the wielder must fall unconscious or die while wielding the weapon or holding it in her hand. Thereafter, should any creature other than an ally of the wielder attempt to touch or strike him with a melee attack, the sword attacks that creature for up to 4 rounds. After 4 rounds, the weapon drops in the wielder's square. Unless the guarding blade is an intelligent item, it lacks the wits to make decisions about which is the best opponent to attack, and when confronted by multiple opponents attacking the wielder, it tends to select a random target each round.

So much for needing to be able to attack with a weapon to be its "wielder".

Actually if you READ the text that's EXACTLY what it says. The guarding blade's function is activated ONLY if the wielder had been using the blade in combat before they fell.


^ It says nothing of the sort. It says that if wielded (undefined: see this thread) or held in hand, it becomes activated; the text then describes the *corpse* as the wielder. It's right there, man. The guy is dead. He's not holding or attacking with anything. And yet, he is the wielder for the purposes of the sword knowing whom to defend. Maybe you can argue they meant "former wielder", but arguing that the words aren't what they are is a harder argument. No reason to get upset or defensive; this is simply and clearly stating that a dead body can be considered the wielder of weapon.

Besides, I'm not even sure that's any more problematic than the Called weapon ability. Another guy can be fighting with it, for crying out loud, and you're the wielder if you call it back to your hand. Explain that one if wielding = using as a weapon.

I think the answer must be that "wield" is not intended to be a well-defined game term, and may very well mean different things for different abilities. Otherwise, I don't see there being a definition that doesn't break certain of these abilities.


I propose that weapons are generally carried but not wielded in most travel or social situations. You don't threaten adjacent squares even if you have the weapon in your hands. It takes the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action to make it attack-ready, at which point you are officially "wielding" the weapon. You can generally only wield a single weapon per hand or a two handed or double weapon in both hands at any given time.

I suspect some of the items/abilities might need a little text change if "wielding" was to become an official term. Some things, like the defending weapon property, were intended to work when attacking rather then held or even wielded.


Fergie wrote:

I propose that weapons are generally carried but not wielded in most travel or social situations. You don't threaten adjacent squares even if you have the weapon in your hands. It takes the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action to make it attack-ready, at which point you are officially "wielding" the weapon. You can generally only wield a single weapon per hand or a two handed or double weapon in both hands at any given time.

I suspect some of the items/abilities might need a little text change if "wielding" was to become an official term. Some things, like the defending weapon property, were intended to work when attacking rather then held or even wielded.

You are right on some terms in some circumstances, but not all weapons follow the general rule of having to be drawn to be usable. What about a shield you can bash with, or a spiked gauntlet? They're worn on the hand(s), meaning they're effectively constantly drawn. By that point, the only thing holding the bearer back is being flat-footed to an otherwise present danger he is unaware of, and even that is counteracted by taking Combat Reflexes.

51 to 100 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can we get an official definition for "wielding"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.