Can we get an official definition for "wielding"?


Rules Questions

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

phantom1592 wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Then at the very least, a little bit of clarifications on the more important examples. The Called property is one that I can see as not needing explanation as it's rather intuitive to figure out that it means who "owns" the sword rather than who has it currently wielded.

Considering how many of the weapons are 'claimed' by the adventurers... I could see 'owns' being a VERY fluid concept. Why is it that when I pick it up out of a dragons pile... it's now 'mine'... but when he disarms me and picks it up... it's STILL mine ;)

Scavion wrote:


Rather I'm curious as to how they'll rule on weapons that are worn. Armor Spikes, Spiked Shields, Spiked Gauntlets. Stuff like the Dueling property could be put on Armor Spikes and essentially always function. Very much a stat stick everyone is afraid of for some reason despite their limited use. A Courageous Spiked Gauntlet while actually using another weapon is fairly pointless since gold will limit your ability to use Courageous effectively.

Honestly, I think the best result would be to not allow certain things on certain items. Armor spikes... spiked Gauntlets... These really aren't 'melee' weapons... they are armor, and should be treated as such. They may get some damage ratings and stuff, but I wouldn't allow someone to 'only' enchant the spikes on an armor... They would have to enchant the whole armor. And only with properties that are appropriate for Armor.

'piecemeal' armor is very tricky thing in this game... even when they DID focus on it in Ultimate Combat.

The common way to wear armor... is Breastplate over chainmail over padding, with the rest of the platemail surrounding the limbs and back...

Yet it gets tricky if you find a Breastplate +2 and want to incorporate it into your existing half-plate or whatever you have...

Same general principal with wanting to enchant JUST your gauntlets.

Too bad the book disagrees with you. These subjects are listed in weapon tables, and not the armor tables.

(To be fair, shield and armor spikes are listed as Extras in the Armor tables, but they aren't necessarily items in their own right, since they only cite additional gold/weight increments. Sure, one could assume that the added increments and weight can be in their own little subject, but the "+" before each subject symbolizes they are assumed to be add-ons to existing items.)

I'll also point out that if they are armor, then why don't they grant an Armor Bonus to AC? Because they aren't armor. They're add-ons to armor (not the case for Spiked Gauntlets, which is an item in its own right, and not listed in the Armor table period), but they otherwise share no characteristics assumed to go with armor. Where's the Armor Check Penalty? What about a Maximum Dexterity Bonus or Arcane Spell Failure?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Too bad the book disagrees with you. These subjects are subjects are listed in weapon tables, and not the armor tables.

Agreed. People have been treating them like weapons so long, I don't anticipate a change. However, if they want a quick and logical way to do it... That would be the better route then retconning and Errating a dozen usages of 'wield'.

It isn't the standard swords and maces that are causing all the trouble... it's all the corner cases. That's where the clarification should focus.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


(To be fair, shield and armor spikes are listed as Extras in the Armor tables, but they aren't necessarily items in their own right, since they only cite additional gold/weight increments. Sure, one could assume that the added increments and weight can be in their own little subject, but the "+" before each subject symbolizes they are assumed to be add-ons to existing items.)

I'll also point out that if they are armor, then why don't they grant an Armor Bonus to AC? Because they aren't armor. They're add-ons to armor (not the case for Spiked Gauntlets, which is an item in its own right, and not listed in the Armor table period), but they otherwise share no characteristics assumed to go with armor. Where's the Armor Check Penalty? What about a Maximum Dexterity Bonus or Arcane Spell Failure?

They do grant AC and Armor check penalty. It's in the description of the items.

Gauntlets:

This metal glove lets you deal lethal
damage rather than nonlethal damage
with unarmed strikes. A strike with
a gauntlet is otherwise considered
an unarmed attack. The cost and
weight given are for a single gauntlet.
Medium and heavy armors (except
breastplates) come with gauntlets.

Your opponent cannot use a disarm
action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Or even the separate armors themselves,

A complete suit of full plate (or platemail,
as it is often called) includes gauntlets,
heavy leather boots, a visored helmet,
and a thick layer of padding that is worn
underneath the armor

Half-plate armor includes
gauntlets and a helm.

They don't get a SEPARATE stat block for armor... because if your wearing a silk shirt, and gauntlets... apparently it doesn't weigh you down that much... But it is a PART of all the Medium and Heavy armor out there.

Same with Armor spikes... Chain mail has a penalty, Chain mail with spikes... also has a penalty. But it isnt' enough of a difference to justify a whole new set of stats.

A better question is where in the book does it mention the penalties for NOT wearing all your armor... if you forget your gauntlets and helmet what penalty is there? There SHOULD be one... you're leaving something unguarded.

As for 'its in the weapons section'... So are shields. I'm a firm believer that anything players may want to bash someone with, deserves a listing in the weapon sections. Shields, gauntlets, torches, chairs, rocks... by all means toss them in there. ;)


Just because purchasing certain equipment gives you extra goodies (the gauntlets) doesn't mean you automatically have to equip them. It's like the mail scam advertisements that tell you all this "double the offer" and "order now and we'll throw in X, a 30 gold value, yours free," just because I get the main product doesn't mean I must accept or even use the "free gifts" that come with it.

They don't get a stat block for armor because they aren't classified as armor. They are commonly worn with armor, but they aren't armor themselves. It's as I've said, where's the ACP, MDB, ASF, AC, etc. if they are armor? Even the Haramaki/Silken Sash gives a +1 AC, surely the metallic gauntlets are more formidable than something you wrap around your waist...

Or perhaps, just perhaps...the RAW says they aren't armor and they're actually classified as weapons according to the tables? [sarcasm]*gasp!*[/sarcasm]

Armor Spikes and Shield Spikes are attached to the armor/shield. What do you think they are, make-up or clothing that you can just take on or off? They're spikes, metal tips melded/welded into a suit of steel plates or bolted into a hunk of wood; good luck trying to take them off without a super-powerful cutting tool, especially if it's masterwork and/or magically enhanced. And that's not even factoring in you could potentially damage/destroy the item with your clumsiness.

And yes, Shields and Spiked Shields are in the weapons section because Shields can be used as both a weapon (for bashing only, though, except magic shields) and a protective item. Gauntlets can't. They don't provide AC. They don't have ACP. They don't have MDB. The list goes on. Oh, and they aren't on the Armor table like Shields are.

If you're going to throw in items that aren't in the weapon table(s), they're at-best improvised weapons. At worst, good luck trying to realistically use them.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just because purchasing certain equipment gives you extra goodies (the gauntlets) doesn't mean you automatically have to equip them. It's like the mail scam advertisements that tell you all this "double the offer" and "order now and we'll throw in X, a 30 gold value, yours free," just because I get the main product doesn't mean I must accept or even use the "free gifts" that come with it.

Yeah... can't say I would ever agree with this assessment. It sounds like a typical fluff vs. mechanics debate.... But if the only difference between one type of armor and another is the 'extra goodies'... then I fully expect someone to be USING those extra goodies to get the better stats.

If someone only wants to have the weight of the breastplate from his +2 Full Plate... I'm not going to give him the full bonus of wearing a full suit of armor.

Every piece of armor has a name... Greaves, breastplate, Pauldrons, and even Gauntlets and helmets.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


They don't get a stat block for armor because they aren't classified as armor. They are commonly worn with armor, but they aren't armor themselves. It's as I've said, where's the ACP, MDB, ASF, AC, etc. if they are armor? Even the Haramaki/Silken Sash gives a +1 AC, surely the metallic gauntlets are more formidable than something you wrap around your waist...

The Haramaki is NOT a silken sash.

Quote:


Haramaki: Also called a belly-warmer, a haramaki is a
simple silken sash lined with chainmail or articulated metal
plates and tied about the stomach to protect it.

It is lined with Chainmail and wrapped around your vulnerable innards... I think that warrants more than a metal glove...

However if you're looking for something more specific, go to the piecemeal section of Ultimate Combat.

Quote:

A plate arm armor

piece typically consists of pairs of pauldrons, gardbraces,
rerebraces, vambraces, and gauntlets along with bits of
chainmail and padded armor, while a chain lamellar arm
armor piece consists of two chain sleeves, gauntlets, and
perhaps pairs of pauldrons and couters. Both protect the
arms, though they have a different number of specific
parts and types of overall components.

They aren't even using 'includes' anymore... they use 'consists'. And honestly 'just' using an 'arm piece' for a suit of armor really doesn't give you any better then a +1 either... (on the record, I was NOT happy with the way the piecemeal armor rules turned out... Haven't found a better way... but I was disappointed with that.)

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Or perhaps, just perhaps...the RAW says they aren't armor and they're actually classified as weapons according to the tables? [sarcasm]*gasp!*[/sarcasm]

Armor Spikes and Shield Spikes are attached to the armor/shield. What do you think they are, make-up or clothing that you can just take on or off? They're spikes, metal tips melded/welded into a suit of steel plates or bolted into a hunk of wood; good luck trying to take them off without a super-powerful cutting tool, especially if it's masterwork and/or magically enhanced. And that's not even factoring in you could potentially damage/destroy the item with your clumsiness.

Now I'm confused... I said they are armor... you said they were not... I said they were considered a portion of the armor.. you say they are part of the armor...

It may be serious lack of sleep happening here, but how is this different? The spikes are attached. If you don't have armor... you don't have spikes. Once attached... they don't come off. They're not getting disarmed.. they arent' getting pickpocked.. It's pretty much armor.

You seem very intense... I'll say again, that I don't think they would ever go change the system here... I'm merely offering a suggestion of what "I" would do to clear up the confusion. If Armor Spikes and Gauntlets while holding other weapons are a problem... then stop letting them be enchanted with something that needs to be 'wielded'

Frankly, I've never had this come up in a game I've played in and the amount of rules lawyering going on for this baffles me a bit.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And yes, Shields and Spiked Shields are in the weapons section because Shields can be used as both a weapon (for bashing only, though, except magic shields) and a protective item. Gauntlets can't. They don't provide AC. They don't have ACP. They don't have MDB. The list goes on. Oh, and they aren't on the Armor table like Shields are.

Gauntlets are Armor, Weapons, and even Slotted items for your hands. Many things fall into many catagories. It's the problem with the 400 page rule books and overzealous micromanaging.

As I Think I've shown in the piecemeal section, they actually do have AC and ACP... But the other problem with this many rule books... you have to go to strange places to find them.

MOST of the time it just isn't worth it. Why do the Gauntlets not have their own Armor section? Same reason the Greaves, Pauldrons, Vambraces, and codpieces don't... They're a part of the whole.

They DID address it... but they waited 3-4 books and put it in 'variant rules,' because most people aren't going to worry about that.


Komoda wrote:

I never understood why people get so upset when someone wants clarification/FAQ of something. If you're not interested in that line of questioning, walk away.

I understand debating different positions to every part of the game. I don't get debating the ability to debate positions.

I happen to agree that this needs a FAQ. But what is the point of arguing that it doesn't?

I understand arguing that you know what wielding is as the game defines it. But some of you go so far beyond that.

He MUST be trying to cheat/abuse/ruin the game if he is looking for an answer. How dare he try to understand something that interests him enough to spend time thinking about it and discussing it with others.

Let the guy ask his question. Debate what you feel is the answer. But don't debate his ability to ask the question.

I figure its one of two reasons.

1) I think it's because people would rather FAQ people answer OTHER questions.

/shrug

I've seen a lot of threads where people criticize the company for not being timely on FAQ type stuff... and I imagine there are a LOT of threads out there with FAQ buttons. They are busy people and working hard... and with only a limited amount of time in a day. Some people would rather them work on the 'other' FAQs then the ones they feel are pretty simplistic.

or....

2) They are afraid of the ruling. Every time you get the bosses involved... things change, and not always for the better. I have seen a few Erratas show up recently that started off a firestorm. /Cough Crane Wing /Cough...

Personally I HATE the clarification above about 'Defending'. I think it's a TERRIBLE ruling. I would have rather NO ruling for that OR crane Wing, then the ones we got.

I would absolutely HATE a ruling stating that 'wielding' means I have to swing it every 6 seconds... but some people seem to advocate that. Some things should still be left to the DM.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Then at the very least, a little bit of clarifications on the more important examples. The Called property is one that I can see as not needing explanation as it's rather intuitive to figure out that it means who "owns" the sword rather than who has it currently wielded.

Considering how many of the weapons are 'claimed' by the adventurers... I could see 'owns' being a VERY fluid concept. Why is it that when I pick it up out of a dragons pile... it's now 'mine'... but when he disarms me and picks it up... it's STILL mine ;)

You don't know how often the damned NPC drink our potions , use our scroll and waste charges from our wands.

"What is mine is mine and what is your is mine too." is the motto of most adventurers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Too bad the book disagrees with you. These subjects are subjects are listed in weapon tables, and not the armor tables.

Agreed. People have been treating them like weapons so long, I don't anticipate a change. However, if they want a quick and logical way to do it... That would be the better route then retconning and Errating a dozen usages of 'wield'.

It isn't the standard swords and maces that are causing all the trouble... it's all the corner cases. That's where the clarification should focus.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


(To be fair, shield and armor spikes are listed as Extras in the Armor tables, but they aren't necessarily items in their own right, since they only cite additional gold/weight increments. Sure, one could assume that the added increments and weight can be in their own little subject, but the "+" before each subject symbolizes they are assumed to be add-ons to existing items.)

I'll also point out that if they are armor, then why don't they grant an Armor Bonus to AC? Because they aren't armor. They're add-ons to armor (not the case for Spiked Gauntlets, which is an item in its own right, and not listed in the Armor table period), but they otherwise share no characteristics assumed to go with armor. Where's the Armor Check Penalty? What about a Maximum Dexterity Bonus or Arcane Spell Failure?

They do grant AC and Armor check penalty. It's in the description of the items.

Gauntlets:

This metal glove lets you deal lethal
damage rather than nonlethal damage
with unarmed strikes. A strike with
a gauntlet is otherwise considered
an unarmed attack. The cost and
weight given are for a single gauntlet.
Medium and heavy armors (except
breastplates) come with gauntlets.

Your opponent cannot use a disarm
action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Or even the separate armors themselves,

A complete suit of full plate (or platemail,
as it is often called) includes gauntlets,
heavy leather boots, a...

First the Pathfinder breastplate isn't the same thing of the torso section of a full or half plate. Historically the name was used specific armors that where used alone or of that section of a full/half plate.

The armor that sere made to stand alone generally don't have the right shape to add other section of armor and transform the breatplate into a full plate unless you do major modification to the armor.

Second: there are rules for not donning completely an armor.

PRD wrote:

Getting Into and Out of Armor

The time required to don armor depends on its type; see Table: Donning Armor.

Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.

Don Hastily: This column tells how long it takes to put the armor on in a hurry. The armor check penalty and armor bonus for hastily donned armor are each 1 point worse than normal.

Remove: This column tells how long it takes to get the armor off. Removing a shield from the arm and dropping it is only a move action.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

Personally I HATE the clarification above about 'Defending'. I think it's a TERRIBLE ruling. I would have rather NO ruling for that OR crane Wing, then the ones we got.

I instead think that the rule for defending is very logic, it work thematically well (when you are using your parring dagger together with a rapier you are fighting with two weapons, not a weapon and a shield, so you suffer the 2 weapon penalties) and that people trying to get a +X bonus to AC for holding a dagger in their hand are trying to game the system.

Now both opinions are out in this thread. Happy?

Sovereign Court

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.


Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.

Actually it is more like this:

With every 50 dollar order (full plate) you get a 10 dollar gift certificate (+9 AC).
Failure to order 50 dollars (not wearing the full ensemble) nets you no gift certificate (the +9 AC).


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.

Actually it is more like this:

With every 50 dollar order (full plate) you get a 10 dollar gift certificate (+9 AC).
Failure to order 50 dollars (not wearing the full ensemble) nets you no gift certificate (the +9 AC).

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.

Actually it is more like this:

With every 50 dollar order (full plate) you get a 10 dollar gift certificate (+9 AC).
Failure to order 50 dollars (not wearing the full ensemble) nets you no gift certificate (the +9 AC).

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.

I believe the person who first brought up the issue of the no gauntlets and no helmet was wondering why there was no reduction in AC and stating that perhaps there should be. Not insisting that one does exist.

Me? I was pointing out the absurdity of your analogy (use a poor one and it will get turned around and used against you).
I have no horse in this race since I refuse to play PFS for the very reason this thread exists (arguing minutia seems to be the order of the day at every single PFS game I have had the "pleasure" of witnessing).
IMO this issue is one of the many reasons why the GM exists in the first place.


This most recent discussion is incredibly pointless. Gauntlets are are weapons. Says so in the book. You don't need to be wearing armor to use them as a weapon. Joe Naked is capable of using a gauntlet as a weapon. Why is this so hard?


Just to point something out: the actual point of gauntlets on armor isn't even relevant in D&D games. Its to protect your hands not from someone hacking at your hands but from the sliding of weapons usually in parry maneuvers and so you can grab the blade to do certain maneuvers. Since d&d basically equates to hacking at eachother till someone hits 0, I'm not sure it matters. Would I take away 1/9 of someones armor for not wearing gauntlets? Probably not. If you rolled a 1 on attack though and confirmed with a 4 (or on a crit againstt you) I might have you take damage and drop your sword from a hand injury and not being properly protected.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

Why?

I've been pretty level-headed and shown more than once where they describe guantlets as armor from the actual books and you've been downright dismissive. If you're only going by the d20pfrd site... it would be here.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/piecemeal-armor

but I imagine you'll ignore that too.

As for your analogy, I think it would be more like: If you buy a car, it includes four wheels and a steering wheel.

Sure you CAN have one without those items... but then you don't really have a Car do you...

Which is irrelevant since 'Arm armor' doesn't include... it CONSISTS.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.

This is a weird case... I THINK 'slotted' items only matter for 'magical' gear. However... Gauntlets DO use the hand slot.

Quote:


Hands: This slot consists of gauntlets, gloves, and other
items that can worn on the hands.

So while I think in the videogame mentality of 'item slots' it MAY be legal to wear mundane gauntlets and gloves of arrow snatching... I think it's pretty poor Roleplaying to do it. Sames wearing 2 hats, 3 pairs of boots or anything else that doesn't make sense.


A thin glove and gauntlets makes perfect sense.

Boots and rubber boots also.

And don't leave out arming cap, chain coif, and steel helm


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(It gets cold in Golarion. People dress in layers.)


phantom1592 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

Why?

I've been pretty level-headed and shown more than once where they describe guantlets as armor from the actual books and you've been downright dismissive. If you're only going by the d20pfrd site... it would be here.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/piecemeal-armor

but I imagine you'll ignore that too.

As for your analogy, I think it would be more like: If you buy a car, it includes four wheels and a steering wheel.

Sure you CAN have one without those items... but then you don't really have a Car do you...

Which is irrelevant since 'Arm armor' doesn't include... it CONSISTS.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.

This is a weird case... I THINK 'slotted' items only matter for 'magical' gear. However... Gauntlets DO use the hand slot.

Quote:


Hands: This slot consists of gauntlets, gloves, and other
items that can worn on the hands.
So while I think in the videogame mentality of 'item slots' it MAY be legal to wear mundane gauntlets and gloves of arrow snatching... I think it's pretty poor Roleplaying to do it. Sames wearing 2 hats, 3 pairs of boots or anything else that doesn't make sense.

Armor Derail:
I'm dismissive of the Piecemeal rules for 3 reasons.

1. It's a variant rule. It's about as credible a rule as Hero Points or Called Shots. Unless the game you're playing includes that variant rule, then that doesn't apply. I'll also point out that because it's a variant rule, that means it's different from the otherwise standard rule. Which is that Gauntlets aren't armor, nor is armor required to wear of Gauntlets to function.

2. There is no rule that requires you to wear a pair of Gauntlets, an item that is classified separate from Full Plate as well as any other medium/heavy armor by the book, in order to benefit from Full Plate. You're saying that it should, but you've cited no rules to back that claim; since you can't prove the positive, then it is the negative. Saying otherwise delves into houserules, in which case the argument then means nothing.

3. Requiring gauntlets to be worn on a character because of the equipment they wear is unnecessarily restrictive for the character and his available choices, an intent that the Devs did not want equipment involving multiple bodily limbs (or singular bodily limbs multiple times over) to follow. Want proof? Take a good look at the Armor/Body/Chest slots; by your ridiculous logic, if you wear any item that applies to one of those 3 slots, it would cover all of those slots. Fortunately for us, that is not the case.

I think a better example regarding the car would be side mirrors in terms of the gauntlets. You can definitely drive a car without side mirrors, and when you're a professional driver, you don't really need them. The same concept applies to a character who is proficient in Full Plate. After all, RAW, a gauntlet does nothing in terms of defensive benefits, and the piecemeal rules, while it can be argued, are variant rules that aren't a part of the original game.

A fair enough claim in terms of the Wondrous Item regard, but the intent is quite obvious. Because it simply cites examples of subject matter that would go into it, doesn't mean that all forms of that subject matter have to go into it. After all, you're ignoring one very important question with that: is it a Wondrous Item? If a +X Base Price Gauntlet is a Wondrous Item, then you have a point.

Also by this logic, then all other weapons which are wielded on the hands take up the Hands slot, meaning you can't wear Gauntlets, which are supposedly required to wear Full Plate, which means Full Plate also takes up the Hands Slot (in addition to the Armor, Chest, and Body slots), equating to "Wielding Weapons means you can't wear Full Plate Armor." Looks like your interpretation breaks the intent and RAW of the game. Pretty badly too, I might add.

If you want to discuss the validity of Gauntlets/Spiked Gauntlets being armor, then please make another thread; that topic doesn't really have any business here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
I would say that is one of the benefits of natural weapons, unarmed strikes and the types of weapons that are generally difficult or impossible to disarm. These types generally have disadvantages compared to heavier weapons. Most weapons would still require the "Draw Weapon" move action to threaten, even if they are not being pulled from a scabbard.

This bolded part makes no sense. You're throwing an unneeded tax on people who don't have the Quick Draw feat for no rules reason. A shield worn for protection, which can also be used to bash faces in, is constantly equipped; once combat starts, the character wearing the shield can immediately go and bash faces in until combat ends. There's no drawing required.

The same is said for a Spiked Gauntlet. It's worn on the hands. Unless...

I think if you re-read my post you will see that I am AGREEING with you. Weapons that can not be disarmed don't need to be readied with a move action in my view. As I said, most other weapons would require a move action to switch from carrying to wielding/threatening. Think of it this way, when you are strolling through town with your longspear, or greataxe or whatever, are you holding it ready to stab every local who passes by, or do you have it tip-to-the-sky, resting on your shoulder? I would think that residents and especially authorities would not approve of people walking around with their weapons "threatening" as per the game term the local populace.

If you are in a dungeon or the Evilwood, or Banditroad or whatever then you walk around ready to kill, and it isn't an issue.

NOTE: Armor Spikes are listed on the weapons table as a light weapon.
If we look up light weapons, we find out, "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." Unless someone can point me to another rule, I would say that it couldn't possibly be more obvious that they require a hand to attack with.

NOTE 2: Attacking with gauntlets while holding another weapon in the same hand. While I could bring up the real world physics of why this won't work, I would simply say that the game doesn't allow you to use two weapons of any kind in the same hand, whether it be two daggers two gauntlets, or whatever.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just weighing in. This may be much too late for the conversation based on where it's gone.

"Wield" has not been used as a consistent game term at the level of detail that people want a clarification to cover. If such a clarification comes as an FAQ, it would spin off more problems than it would solve, such as has happened with the mounted charging FAQ.

What is appropriate is a blog that is covering the general case and an appeal to common sense related to intentions and play style.

A strict definition of wielding doesn't matter to most games. It is pervasive in some rules conversations and for the mythical perfect PFS table. In both cases, it involves corner cases and optimization builds. For normal play: a fixed definition isn't needed. For rules discussions, it's largely theory that can't be fixed to a degree of uniformity at this juncture.

For PFS, table variation does exist. It is a myth that all tables will play all rules exactly the same. Given that fact, selecting a grey area build that relies on a preferred interpretation is a recipe for disappointment. Expect table variation. If you wouldn't want to play with the least favorable ruling at the frequency it might come up, don't use it.

If you've been blindsided or god bad advice about a questionable build, reconsider how you select your options for PFS.


Fergie wrote:


NOTE: Armor Spikes are listed on the weapons table as a light weapon.
If we look up light weapons, we find out, "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." Unless someone can point me to another rule, I would say that it couldn't possibly be more obvious that they require a hand to attack with.

NOTE 2: Attacking with gauntlets while holding another weapon in the same hand. While I could bring up the real world physics of why this won't work, I would simply say that the game doesn't allow you to use two weapons of any kind in the same hand, whether it be two daggers two gauntlets, or whatever.

So you believe Armor Spikes require a hand to use? I am fairly certain the designer intent is that they don't require a hand to use because otherwise....well that is very silly isn't it?

And I can make a video for you if you'd like to see me punch someone while holding a dagger in that hand. Real world physics is not a favorable argument for you.


Punching someone while you have a dagger in your hand is not only possible (how can someone with working hands think it isn't?), it's more effective than simply smacking somebody. More weight = more hurt.


Scavion wrote:
Fergie wrote:


NOTE: Armor Spikes are listed on the weapons table as a light weapon.
If we look up light weapons, we find out, "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." Unless someone can point me to another rule, I would say that it couldn't possibly be more obvious that they require a hand to attack with.

NOTE 2: Attacking with gauntlets while holding another weapon in the same hand. While I could bring up the real world physics of why this won't work, I would simply say that the game doesn't allow you to use two weapons of any kind in the same hand, whether it be two daggers two gauntlets, or whatever.

So you believe Armor Spikes require a hand to use?

Answer: Unless they are no longer a light weapon, or don't follow the rules for light weapons. If you can point me to such text, please do.

And I can make a video for you if you'd like to see me punch someone while holding a dagger in that hand. Real world physics is not a favorable argument for you.

Question:So you believe Armor Spikes require a hand to use?

Answer: Unless they are no longer a light weapon, or don't follow the rules for light weapons.

While I agree that some weapons are better then others for such a tactic, I would use a video of you punching someone (with lethal force) while holding a two bladed sword or halbred against a hostile opponent in plate mail to prove my point.


@ Fergie: Scavion has a point, as Armor Spikes essentially follow the same methodology behind Shield Spikes. They're attached to the Armor. Unless you have the entire suit of armor in your hand, then the Armor Spikes aren't in your hand meaning you can't make attacks with them at all.

Of course, that's assuming you want to be ignorant about the RAI and the realism aspect of Armor Spikes.

Silver Crusade

Fergie wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Fergie wrote:


NOTE: Armor Spikes are listed on the weapons table as a light weapon.
If we look up light weapons, we find out, "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." Unless someone can point me to another rule, I would say that it couldn't possibly be more obvious that they require a hand to attack with.

NOTE 2: Attacking with gauntlets while holding another weapon in the same hand. While I could bring up the real world physics of why this won't work, I would simply say that the game doesn't allow you to use two weapons of any kind in the same hand, whether it be two daggers two gauntlets, or whatever.

So you believe Armor Spikes require a hand to use?

Answer: Unless they are no longer a light weapon, or don't follow the rules for light weapons. If you can point me to such text, please do.

And I can make a video for you if you'd like to see me punch someone while holding a dagger in that hand. Real world physics is not a favorable argument for you.

Question:So you believe Armor Spikes require a hand to use?

Answer: Unless they are no longer a light weapon, or don't follow the rules for light weapons.

While I agree that some weapons are better then others for such a tactic, I would use a video of you punching someone (with lethal force) while holding a two bladed sword or halbred against a hostile opponent in plate mail to prove my point.

Boot blades, dwarven boulder helmets, these are light weapons. Do you require a hand to attack with them?


Howie23 wrote:

Just weighing in. This may be much too late for the conversation based on where it's gone.

"Wield" has not been used as a consistent game term at the level of detail that people want a clarification to cover. If such a clarification comes as an FAQ, it would spin off more problems than it would solve, such as has happened with the mounted charging FAQ.

What is appropriate is a blog that is covering the general case and an appeal to common sense related to intentions and play style.

This would be just fine with me. A FAQ thread is just the closest thing you can request to something like that.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Boot blades, dwarven boulder helmets, these are light weapons. Do you require a hand to attack with them?

I think the default ruling is that you can only use one weapon per limb, and that unless otherwise stated humans are generally considered to only be able to use their two arms to make weapon attacks.

I could not find boot blades in the PRD, and dwarven boulder helm seem like it was more intended for bull rushing then threatening out to 5' while remaining in your square. It is an odd item in a racial source book, and not something I would hold up as defining the general intent of the weapon rules.

But yeah, if you want to threaten out to 5', then you probably need those armor spikes on an arm. While you might be able to get away with holding an item in hand while using the spikes to attack, you would not be able to "wield" both with the same limb at the same time.

Perhaps it makes more sense if you think of armor spikes as something like the armor worn by "The Shredder" from the old mutant ninja comics:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071019204734/tmnt/images/e/ec/Shredder _volume1.gif

Silver Crusade

In 3rd ed (where armour spikes first appeared in D&D) there was a FAQ regarding TWFing with a THW and armour spikes. It was okay, because (as the FAQ said) attacks with armour spikes could be with shoulder, knee, whatever was covered by the armour; including (but explicitly not limited to) hands.

This is the only time I know of where they officially described how armour spikes were used in combat.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In 3rd ed (where armour spikes first appeared in D&D) there was a FAQ regarding TWFing with a THW and armour spikes. It was okay, because (as the FAQ said) attacks with armour spikes could be with shoulder, knee, whatever was covered by the armour; including (but explicitly not limited to) hands.

This is the only time I know of where they officially described how armour spikes were used in combat.

I've always been a fan of Pathfinders verison of 'unarmed' fighting with a base damage.

MUCH better then calling out 'punch' or 'kick'. I had a martial artist who had to come up with charts for his punch/kick/headbutt/ shoulder/elbow/knee....

It got way too complicated.

I would figure it would be the same principle here. put them on your shoulders or knees or wherever you want. the damage is the damage.

Sovereign Court

Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.

True.

But arguing from common sense - if the maker of the armor intended you to use the gauntlets, presumably they're required to get 100% of the armor's benefit. If you don't wear the whole armor, you're not getting the whole protection.

If I sold armor I'd put it in the warranty; we can't be held responsible for armor failure if you don't use the armor as intended.

===

I disagree that something is not armor (or something else) because it's (also) listed in the weapon tables. Gauntlets are part of armor, they can be used as weapons as well. Shields are part of [shields and armor]; they can be used as weapons as well. Fists can be used to make unarmed strikes; fists are also still body parts.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.

But arguing from common sense - if the maker of the armor intended you to use the gauntlets, presumably they're required to get 100% of the armor's benefit. If you don't wear the whole armor, you're not getting the whole protection.

If I sold armor I'd put it in the warranty; we can't be held responsible for armor failure if you don't use the armor as intended.

===

I disagree that something is not armor (or something else) because it's (also) listed in the weapon tables. Gauntlets are part of armor, they can be used as weapons as well. Shields are part of [shields and armor]; they can be used as weapons as well. Fists can be used to make unarmed strikes; fists are also still body parts.

You have no proof of the bolded parts. Gauntlets aren't listed in the armor table, so how can they possibly be armor? Do they grant an Armor or Shield Bonus to AC? Do they incur an Armor Check Penalty or potentially limit your Maximum Dexterity Bonus? They're metal gauntlets; I have trouble with fine motions wearing thick cloth gloves, surely metal gauntlets would incur a fairly hefty Arcane Spell Failure, right?

No. They don't, and there is no statblock in regards to them, meaning they can't possibly be armor.

There are so many things that gauntlets come with that aren't otherwise intended to go with them. I order a set of hide armor, but because of this clause, which you claim requires that all medium and heavy armors (bar breastplate) need gauntlets to be worn, which you also claim takes up the Hands slot.

Gauntlets wrote:
Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

So I order some leather-type armor, but because I don't wear the gauntlets that come with them, they do nothing? What kind of stupid @*#^&%^ &$^%@*#& logic is that?

So not only do all medium and heavy armors (bar breastplate) take up the Armor slot, they also take up the Hand Wondrous Item slot too? Let's extend your logic further with the Full Plate:

Full Plate wrote:
This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor.

So with the bolded parts apparently being required to be worn to receive the armor's benefits, Full Plate actually takes up the Armor, Hands, Feet, Head, Headband, and Chest/Body slots, not just the Armor slot like the Devs intended Armor to only take up. If that's how armor is supposed to be ran, then quite frankly the Caster/Martial disparity just got so big you might as well throw every non-armor wearing character out of the game.

I'd never play a martial or armor-wearing character at your game with those ridiculous rules. I'd be better off being naked with 20+ base Dexterity and Bracers of Armor +8 if I was going to be the party tank, since medium and heavy armor absolutely gimps you, and light armor doesn't do crap for AC anyway. At least Monks just got a lot better, though...

Lantern Lodge

Saying that light weapons require the use of a hand means half of the beastiary is currently breaking the rules. In an awkward place, but weapon finesse has the following line:

"Natural weapons are considered light weapons."

If they had meant "for the purposes of this feat", they would have said that. But nope, they are light weapons (please place a big fat period here). So you now have claws, talons (foot attacks), gore (head attacks), bite (a different attack that can be used in conjuction with a gore attack, implying yet another limb), tentatcle, wing, tail slap, sting (a pircing form of tail slap), and the famous open ended option for any nightmarish monster you might have spawn: the Other attack.

Essentially, the point being that light weapons are not associated with "hands".


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Saying that light weapons require the use of a hand means half of the beastiary is currently breaking the rules. In an awkward place, but weapon finesse has the following line:

"Natural weapons are considered light weapons."

If they had meant "for the purposes of this feat", they would have said that. But nope, they are light weapons (please place a big fat period here). So you now have claws, talons (foot attacks), gore (head attacks), bite (a different attack that can be used in conjuction with a gore attack, implying yet another limb), tentatcle, wing, tail slap, sting (a pircing form of tail slap), and the famous open ended option for any nightmarish monster you might have spawn: the Other attack.

Essentially, the point being that light weapons are not associated with "hands".

Is it more likely half the bestiery is wrong, or that you are reading something intended for a specific feat, and applying it far to broadly?

When making rules decisions it is important to consider the intent of the rules, not just the words out of context.

The default assumption of the core rule book (especially the equipment section) is that it is gear for the core races presented in the first chapter. Yes, you can wield a sword in a claw or tentacle, and the core rule book could have used limb or arm, but humanoids use hands, so that was the choice they made.

Look up natural attack in the bestiary, and they are quite well defined:
"Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."

I bolded the part about one-weapon-per-limb being the default assumption.

EDIT: Also, from that same section:
"Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."

Again, the assumption is that if you are humanoid, you make attacks with your hands.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

The common way to wear armor... is Breastplate over chainmail over padding, with the rest of the platemail surrounding the limbs and back...

Yet it gets tricky if you find a Breastplate +2 and want to incorporate it into your existing half-plate or whatever you have...

Same general principal with wanting to enchant JUST your gauntlets.

The "common way" was still that these various elements were built as a set. You didn't start with breastplate and piece work it up into a suit of platemail. Nor did you have platemail and throw away pieces of it down to breastplate, it was still made a single suit of armor. Armor,shields, and weaponry are built the way they are in D20 for one simple reason... to reduce complexity. If you want to go the way of detail, the piecework rules are there for you to use... and all the bookkeeping that goes with them.


Off hands are not hands.

Yeah, makes no sense, but it is true. There was a thread with over 1K posts about it.

Off hand weapons don't necessarily need hands and Off hand attacks that don't need hands need hands.

Yeah, makes less sense. But true anyway.

But really, that has nothing to do with "wielding," which could really use some FAQ love.

I don't care if each instance has to be different if each instance is defined.


Komoda wrote:

Off hands are not hands.

Yeah, makes no sense, but it is true. There was a thread with over 1K posts about it.

Off hand weapons don't necessarily need hands and Off hand attacks that don't need hands need hands.

Yeah, makes less sense. But true anyway.

But really, that has nothing to do with "wielding," which could really use some FAQ love.

I don't care if each instance has to be different if each instance is defined.

Please post a link to the bolded part, so the "Armor Spikes Need Hands" goobers can go complain about it there (and fight the uphill battle they want to fight).

I'll recommend a similar suggestion for the "Gauntlets are Armor" clowns: I'm fine with discussing it, but it doesn't really have a place here. Please make a different thread regarding that subject matter so as not to clutter this thread.

Back on topic...

At this point, a "case-by-case" ruling is the only fitting method here, since wield is obviously flavorful in several entries, whereas in other entries it has a specific, "requiremental" definition.


I think it's time we all washed our metaphorical hands of this mess.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The problem is that "wield" is used as just a word and not a game term. To go back and define it as a game term now (after 5 years of PFRPG) would require clarifying each and every use of "wield" found in the rules. That's a lot of work and potentially a huge change to the text of the rules and I'm not sure that the additional clarification is worth the trouble.

Also, I like that not everything has an explicit definition. As a GM, it gives me some flexibility in how I adjudicate some questions that come up in play. I like having flexibility.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Defining the term "wield" as a game term, would be nice, but utterly horrible, at the same time.

There is so much in Pathfinder, that use the term in a different way.

The toe is rotten, but let's not cut off the whole leg.


Still, someone mentioned a blog post helping to clarify matters without the potential game breakage of an official FAQ/Errata.

That'd work for me too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Still, someone mentioned a blog post helping to clarify matters without the potential game breakage of an official FAQ/Errata.

That'd work for me too.

That, and getting the writers to use it in a consistent way.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Still, someone mentioned a blog post helping to clarify matters without the potential game breakage of an official FAQ/Errata.

That'd work for me too.

That, and getting the writers to use it in a consistent way.

Or not use 'wield' at all, when there are plenty of unambiguous alternatives!

151 to 194 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.