So, the actual dictionary definition of 'wielding,' and the one that seems to be common to most of the rules text, is essentially "holding with the ability to use." However, I'm pretty sure I've seen it written in the CRB that it literally means 'attacking with,' and if I remember correctly, they changed the wording of Arcane Bond because it made no sense that a Wizard had to be 'attacking with' his bonded weapon to be able to cast a spell without a concentration check. It seems like a pretty basic concept to be sloppily defined...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define 'Wielding"
Wielding: A term that has caused more rule confusion then any other.
"wielding" is used differently in many different places, and is best left up to the GM to rule on a case by case basis.
The best definition I have come up with is essentially: "ready to use" in the case of most items, or threatening for weapons. You are either carrying it as weight, or using it for whatever reason.
Define 'Wielding"
Wielding: A term that has caused more rule confusion then any other.
"wielding" is used differently in many different places, and is best left up to the GM to rule on a case by case basis.
That's not really a definition is it?
I think its been used to define a shield in your off-hand, and even if your using unarmed strikes actively and passively, so I'm not particular sure myself.
As a concrete example/application, the question came up again for me with a 'Whirling Spear' True Primitive Barbarian character concept:
1.Attach trophy fetishes to a furious, courageous longspear.
2.Take Dragon Style & Ferocity.
3.Take the Greater Brawler rage power.
4.Use the longspear for reach benefits, while you
5.Beat things into a pulp with a string of Dragon Style unarmed strikes that get a(nother) big bonus to damage because you are 'wielding' your fetish spear.
I guess the logical response to the objection that the spear isn't being 'wielded' is to point out that if that's really the case, then any morale bonus from a courageous weapon - saving throws, rage, whatever - only applies for as long as a character is actually attacking with that weapon.
Conceptually, as a morale bonus, I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea that 'wielding' but not attacking with his Spear of Shrunken Heads would be enough to empower all of his attacks.
|
BadBird, per the FAQs, the only strikes which would benefit from the bonuses are spear attacks, even if you had that setup. It is explained pretty well in the FAQs that you can hold as many weapons as you want to (and have hands/limbs/tails to). But the bonuses for styles/feats/etc... only apply to the weapon during the attack with that weapon. In this way, you can't "wield" weapons that give you feats and then use that feat on another weapon you are also "wielding". You can also hold several weapons and during a full round attack swing with each one (as long as you have the BAB to do so) changing it up, without suffering a TWF penalty.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qp0
its on the list of FAQs.
That's definitely true for anything that references a specific weapon or class of weapon. The issue in question here though is that a True Primitive's fetishes provide morale bonuses that aren't tied to a weapon like a feat would be:
"At 3rd level, a true primitive can attach a trophy fetish to one of the traditional true primitive weapons listed above. When wielding that weapon, the true primitive gains a +1 morale bonus on damage rolls."
So if you are 'wielding' your fetish weapon you gain a morale bonus to all damage rolls, like if you had cast the Heroism spell you would get a morale bonus to all attack rolls, or if you are wielding a courageous weapon, you gain a bonus to any morale bonus. In conceptual terms, the weapon doesn't get any more deadly because there are fetishes on it; the Barbarian gets more deadly. This is why the question comes down to "what is wielding?"
|
Noted here:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough
That works for me.
Wielding can mean anything from holding the object to actively attacking with it. It's a term with NO set definition. Myself, I always go with the quote BBT quoted but it's one of those things you have to talk with the DM about and make sure you're on the same page.
In the context of the true primitive quote above, it's pretty clear that:
A) it is not written with your specific multiclass chain in mind, and
B) the intent is you gain damage bonuses when actually using the weapon in combat.
Yes, there is wiggle room for someone who wants to find a loophole, but come on. Players who really look for this level of loophole had better bring all of their additional resources for me to read before the game (wasting game time). They'd also better have all their paperwork filled out perfectly, since if it's fair game to squeeze the rules, it's fair game for the GM to meticulously enforce every last one as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the magic on weapons is "use activated" (bolding is mine).
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
.
For most purposes, to wield is to have ready for immediate use. For many weapon properties such as defending (which are use activated), it means to actively use.
The arguments arise about when it is the first case and when it is the second case.
In the case of the True Primitive above, I would likely rule that the second case applies to the spear.
When it's vague like that I usually let it favor the player. In this case it's easy to sunder the fetish (hardness 5, 1 hit point) so if it gets out of hand foes that understand what it is can take the correct measures to 'fix' the problem...
|
|
"At 3rd level, a true primitive can attach a trophy fetish to one of the traditional true primitive weapons listed above. When wielding that weapon, the true primitive gains a +1 morale bonus on damage rolls."
No IF. Read the FAQs. Wielding in this case would be "making an attack with" it. Period. And pretty clearly explained in the FAQs. Especially since it points out the pronoun "that" weapon, meaning ONLY "that" weapon.
Noted here:
That works for me.
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough
Oh, never saw that, that's great. Really how it should be, at least according to both the dictionary and how a lot of basic rules text is written. Leave it to the Troll to know.
In the context of the true primitive quote above, it's pretty clear that:
A) it is not written with your specific multiclass chain in mind, and
B) the intent is you gain damage bonuses when actually using the weapon in combat.Yes, there is wiggle room for someone who wants to find a loophole, but come on.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw a friendly "come on..." back at ya there man. I didn't set out to hunt down some "loophole," I just took the concept as I read it - that a True Primitive feels a special kind of rage-y-ness while hugging his fetish that makes him generally bonk stuff a little harder - under the sincere belief that if they intended it to only work with that weapon, they would have simply written "... the true primitive gains a +1 morale bonus to damage rolls with that weapon." After all, they could easily anticipate a Barbarian getting the bonus with a bite attack, and I try to give the people who write the rules the benefit of the doubt that they have some idea what they're doing.
If a GM told me that investing in 3 feats plus 2 rage powers (he's not actually multi-class monk, though going that road with a Flurry-of-Blows Savage Barbarian is another, arguably better option), and a generally poor archetype choice to run a primarily unarmed strike Barbarian who gets a couple extra points of damage per punch was bad-form munchkinism, I'd just laugh and take something easily optimized instead. I really just did like the concept for a Primitive who goes berserk stabbing and bashing with all parts of the juju-spear.
"At 3rd level, a true primitive can attach a trophy fetish to one of the traditional true primitive weapons listed above. When wielding that weapon, the true primitive gains a +1 morale bonus on damage rolls."No IF. Read the FAQs. Wielding in this case would be "making an attack with" it. Period. And pretty clearly explained in the FAQs. Especially since it points out the pronoun "that" weapon, meaning ONLY "that" weapon.
Well there's no doubt that ONLY "that" weapon gives you a bonus to damage rolls while you are "wielding" it... we'll just agree to disagree? Though if you want to quote which specific FAQ ruling you're talking about I could always come around. Anyhow I only brought the whole thing up to point out the problems with defining 'wielding'...
|
FWIW, my opinion from reading the quoted description is that the effects only apply when attacking with the specified version. Generally speaking, unless otherwise specified, class/archetype descriptions are written from the standpoint of single-class characters, not multiclassed characters.
So, ask yourself one question: if your character was single-classed, would there be any debate as to whether or not the benefit would apply to something other than the fetish weapon? Once you have that answer, it doesn't change just because you multiclass into something else.
As I read fetish weapon, it goes like this:
While wielding a weapon decorated with trophies from slain enemies, the True Primitive feels psyched for battle (morale). Because he feels psyched for battle, he hits things a little harder (morale bonus to damage rolls).
Considering that the game defines a morale bonus like this - "A morale bonus represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination" - it seems a bit odd to me to have a morale bonus that's restricted to a single weapon. To each their own I guess.
You're wielding a weapon when you're capable of making attacks with it. It's subject to GM fiat simply because it relies heavily on the circumstances.
OH LAWDY. This again? Am I wielding though if I'm prone?
Yes, but here's where your mind is blown. Does the fetish weapon you're wielding give you a +1 to damage on the magic missile you cast defensively from the floor?
See, here's the problem...
Two-Weapon Defense
When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
If wielding means "attacking with", then this feat is almost completely useless. Why? Because it would only apply if someone had readied an attack against you for when you attack. 'Cuz that shield bonus wouldn't apply as soon as your attacks are over. Y'know, when it's the bad guy's turn? So, yeah, useless.
There are other examples of similar, but it really comes down to common sense interpretation of RAI. I expect that "wielding" means what SKR said, if you can make attacks with it, you're wielding it.
That said, this little nuggest of goodness should state you only get the +1 to damage with the weapon in question. Otherwise every caster should carry one just 'cuz.
Since two-weapon defense is a feat that the wielder has, it can be activated by the "ready and able to be used" variety of wielding. It's not a magic weapon property that has to be use activated by the ACTIVELY wielding variety (such as a defending weapon).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Use the longspear ... while you Beat things into a pulp with a string of Dragon Style unarmed strikes
Expect table variance, because there are a number of back and forth dev comments on when and how you are considered wielding and since most of the rules use of "wield" were not all written by the same people nor with consistent language.
You wouldn't be able to gain any passive benefit from the longspear at all in any game I'm GM if you are not attacking with the longspear.
I'll happily do so asserting it is RAW.
Also, keep in mind it is known RAI and quasi arguable RAW that the only bonus you gain from Courageous are bonuses to saves (or more limited depending on GM interpretation) to saves vs fear. Google for threads instead of making this thread 1000+ post by discussing Courageous here. So expect table variance on gaining morale rage bonus boost with Courageous weapons.
Wielding - A word often asked for a definition on the paizo boards that will NEVER be clearly defined.
Seriously, I was part of another thread on this forum several months ago and we were able to find 4 or 6 different ways the word "wielding" had been used, and there was 2 or 3 different ways just in the core rules. This or a similar thread pop up almost monthly, still no answer.
Paizo will never define it because whichever definition they pick it will create problems with other source materials. The easiest way to deal with it for them at this point is to ignore it and let GM's handle it, otherwise that faqs alone would be several pages and take a lot of man hours, or it'd leave gaps. Better to ignore it, and unlike my normal distaste at the normal Paizo ignoring an issue policy, its probably the right call here.
So the answer is:
Non-PFS: Ask Your GM - there is no RAW only RAI.
PFS: Expect table variation.
|
|
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
That is pretty much the stated FAQ for the question you are asking. NO. All the weapon's you are "wielding" don't add their superpowers to each other in a "super power pool" and get all the bonuses. They EACH attack with THEIR OWN (ie. "that weapons'") abilities. Hope you can come around after trying to rules monger about this... if it were a magic +5 longsword, the mace wouldn't get a +5 to hit from it just because you were "wielding" a +5 weapon in one hand. It is based on the weapon you ATTACK WITH... not the one "wielded" in another limb's clutches. You can wield (hold) as many weapons as you have hands, but "wielding" in this case means attack. period.
Again, because that +N is USE activated.
I can hold 10 swords at once, but not wield 10 swords at once.
I can hold and wield 1 sword in each hand.
Wield is broken. It has to mean different things at different times. In a perfect gaming world it wouldn't be that way. But that is how it works out in this world.
The game doesn't define words found in dictionaries.
The game does not define: while, playing, the, describes, events, that, occur, in, game, world, take, describing, what, their, do, unlike, however.....etc.
Paizo assumes players have at least a rudimentary grasp of grammar when playing the game.
That is not fair. It is really confusing as it is a state that does matter and that should be ruled differently based on the rule it applies too.
The game clearly defines things against norms. You can fight with two weapons without two-weapon fighting.
*picks a random page in a random book to list words not defined*
selection, can, be, applied, find, a, store, or, your, most, hated, section, extensive, specific, these, after, time, again, starting, settle, why, with, for, when, have, capable, cutting, last, through, an, assortment,
Words in dictionaries are not defined in Pathfinder game books.
As I read fetish weapon, it goes like this:
While wielding a weapon decorated with trophies from slain enemies, the True Primitive feels psyched for battle (morale). Because he feels psyched for battle, he hits things a little harder (morale bonus to damage rolls).
Considering that the game defines a morale bonus like this - "A morale bonus represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination" - it seems a bit odd to me to have a morale bonus that's restricted to a single weapon. To each their own I guess.
FWIW I would allow this based on the argument here. It is not game breaking, and the bonus very easily could have been described as applying only to the weapon with the fetish. I can still see why a GM might balk at the idea, though, and if someone came up with something truly ridiculous based on the same premise, I'd tell them to stop being an ass. Which is why I play home games, and also why this provides no real help for organized play.
Also, I really don't see the point of posts like this:
There's usually an agenda behind questions like this. What's yours?
Why bother popping into the thread to say that? It is pretty clear what the OP's "agenda" is here after the first five posts, and you have not actually helped to resolve the rules question, except to i,ply your disapproval.
Words in dictionaries are not defined in Pathfinder game books.
"Grapple" would like a word with you. And that word is grapple!
But seriously, "wielding" was not added to the glossary, although perhaps it should have been... So we are left with the word used more generally, and not always consistently. If you are unsure, ask you GM, or find that FAQ thread give it a click. Hopefully the developers will address your specific issue like in the case of defending weapons, but until then, ask the GM.
*picks a random page in a random book to list words not defined*
selection, can, be, applied, find, a, store, or, your, most, hated, section, extensive, specific, these, after, time, again, starting, settle, why, with, for, when, have, capable, cutting, last, through, an, assortment,Words in dictionaries are not defined in Pathfinder game books.
Uh, OK. I thought you were trying to make a point that "wielding" was easy to understand whereas everyone here seems to agree that the meaning changes and that Paizo cannot rule on one meaning due to poor, inconsistent uses of the word.
But it looks as if you were actually just making a statement about words that are not defined by Paizo.