Hold weapon --> wield weapon

[Tarpeius]

It is possible to hold a weapon without wielding it. If I'd like a character to be able to switch to a different weapon while already having drawn it (say, to fall back to swinging a shield after having been disarmed), what type of action is it to switch to wielding that merely-held weapon? My best guess it that it's a free/non-action, but I can't find any RAW on the topic.

[Windquake]

Tarpeius wrote:

It is possible to hold a weapon without wielding it. If I'd like a character to be able to switch to a different weapon while already having drawn it (say, to fall back to swinging a shield after having been disarmed), what type of action is it to switch to wielding that merely-held weapon? My best guess it that it's a free/non-action, but I can't find any RAW on the topic.

You won't find anything in RAW about this, but I would assume that Pathfinder assumes that Held=Wield.

After all, in reality, holding a sword by the hilt and wielding a sword is the name mechanically. The only difference would be the intent. You wield a weapon when you are practicing or fighting or expecting a fight. You hold a weapon when you aren't, but it is still in your hand.

So, I would say they are more or less the same thing.

[Nicos]

Not sure what is the OP intention.

But you wield a weapon when you can attack with it. So you can hold a greatsword with one hand but you are not wielding it.

[Nefreet]

Manipulating an object in Pathfinder is a move action.

Switching grip on something already in hand is a free action.

So, you could be holding a one-handed sword in a non-threatening manner during one round, and free action regrip it next round to attack with.

[Tarpeius]

Windquake wrote:

You won't find anything in RAW about this, but I would assume that Pathfinder assumes that Held=Wield.

I don't think it does assume that. A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

[Nefreet]

It's just like the new FAQ on reach weapons lays out.

You can either attack at reach, or free action regrip and attack adjacent, with the butt end of the weapon (as an improvised weapon).

But if you're threatening at reach, you can't use an AoO against someone adjacent, even though you are still holding the weapon.

[Nicos]

Tarpeius wrote:

Windquake wrote:

You won't find anything in RAW about this, but I would assume that Pathfinder assumes that Held=Wield.

I don't think it does assume that. A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

You can totally be wielding the shield without suffering the TWF penalty.

That penalty only comes if you make the off-hand attack.

So, you can use attack with a long sword, use the other hand to wield a shield for the AC bonus and if you do not TWF there is no penalty associated to it. Furthermore, if you get disarmed you can start shieldbashing right away.

[Imbicatus]

Tarpeius wrote:

A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

This is incorrect. Both the shield and torch are weapons and are considered wielded when in hand. You do not take two weapon fighting penalties for having them in hand because the only time two weapon fighting penalties apply is during a full attack action when you attack with two weapons and gain an extra attack from your off hand weapon.

[Jiggy]

Imbicatus wrote:

Tarpeius wrote:

A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

This is incorrect. Both the shield and torch are weapons and are considered wielded when in hand. You do not take two weapon fighting penalties for having them in hand because the only time two weapon fighting penalties apply is during a full attack action when you attack with two weapons and gain an extra attack from your off hand weapon.

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

[Gwen Smith]

Tarpeius wrote:

It is possible to hold a weapon without wielding it. If I'd like a character to be able to switch to a different weapon while already having drawn it (say, to fall back to swinging a shield after having been disarmed), what type of action is it to switch to wielding that merely-held weapon? My best guess it that it's a free/non-action, but I can't find any RAW on the topic.

It is possible. You can hold a weapon in each hand and attack without penalty as long as you are not trying to take an extra attack with it.

It takes no action to decide to use the weapon in your other hand; you just have to declare before each attack which weapon you want to use. So you can use your sword for your attack on your turn and the ax in your other hand for any attack of opportunity off your turn, as long you just say, "I'm hitting him with my sword."

Side note:
You can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you can't wield it in one hand. There's an FAQ that says it's a free action to add/remove a hand from a two-handed weapon, so you'll see a lot of spell casters wielding long spears, then drop one hand from the spear (switching to just "holding" the weapon) so they can cast spells, and put their hand back on their weapon (back to "wielding") at the end of their turn so they still threaten and can take attacks of opportunity.

[Jiggy]

All in all, the difference between holding and wielding is not very precisely defined. Near as I can tell, the only time you're holding something without wielding it is if you're holding it in such a way that you can't wield it (such as holding a two-handed weapon in one hand). Otherwise, it seems to me that if you're holding a wieldable item in a wieldable manner, then you're also wielding it, automatically.

[Saldiven]

Not everything needs an in-game rules definition when the dictionary definition suffices. Otherwise, literally every single word in every rulebook would need a glossary entry to define it's game meaning.

The dictionary (dot com) definition of "wield" is "to hold and use [a weapon or tool]."

That definition will function perfectly well when applied to game terms, will it not? If you are holding and using, it's being wielded, if you are not holding or holding but not using, then it isn't being wielded.

[Just a Guess]

As per the faq about the defending weapon enchantment you only wield a weapon if you attack with it.
All hail to the faqs

[Claxon]

Actually, there are definitely times when you must wield (as in attack) a weapon to get a magical bonus but holding does not count.

The defending property is such an example.

Wield isn't well defined in this game, and gets used in a lot of different ways. You usually need the context of the entire ability to decide how it should function, unfortunately.

If you are wielding a weapon you are certainly holding it.

But holding a weapon isn't necessarily wielding it.

[Jiggy]

Oh right, forgot about defending. That kinda mucks things up.

[SlimGauge]

Just a Guess wrote:

As per the faq about the defending weapon enchantment you only wield a weapon if you attack with it.

All hail to the faqs

Because the "defending" property is USE ACTIVATED. You must actively use the weapon for the property to function. If it helps, think about it like this: actively wielding (required for use activated magic to function) vs passively wielding (required to threaten with that weapon).

edit:live links, tenses

[burkoJames]

A good example of where held != wield is when you have a spear and spiked gauntlets. while wielding the spear, you are still holding the gauntlet. After (free action) taking a hand off the spear (which you are still holding) you can be wielding the guantlet. In both cases you are holding two weapons while wielding only one.

[Tarpeius]

Jiggy wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Tarpeius wrote:

A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

This is incorrect. Both the shield and torch are weapons and are considered wielded when in hand. You do not take two weapon fighting penalties for having them in hand because the only time two weapon fighting penalties apply is during a full attack action when you attack with two weapons and gain an extra attack from your off hand weapon.

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

Are you sure? How is this reconciled with one of the Shielded Fighter's class features?

Quote:

Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.

It would seem odd to grant an archetype the ability to do something that anyone with multiple attacks per round can already do.

[Nicos]

It is not the first time nor the last time that an archetype give you something that you can already do.

[Calth]

Tarpeius wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Tarpeius wrote:

A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

This is incorrect. Both the shield and torch are weapons and are considered wielded when in hand. You do not take two weapon fighting penalties for having them in hand because the only time two weapon fighting penalties apply is during a full attack action when you attack with two weapons and gain an extra attack from your off hand weapon.

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

Are you sure? How is this reconciled with one of the Shielded Fighter's class features?

Quote:

Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.

It would seem odd to grant an archetype the ability to do something that anyone with multiple attacks per round can already do.

Because the part of the ability you didn't bold is the actual benefit.

[Kchaka]

Recently, my character was holding 2 dwarven waraxes, one on each hand, and wanted to draw a throwing axe to throw it. I used one hand to hold the 2 waraxes at once (or you could say I tucked one axe under the other arm) leaving one arm/hand free to draw and throw the throwing axes. While holding 2 waraxes with the same hand/arm, I was unable to wield any of the two, which includes making AoO with the wareaxes. At the end of each turn, after throwing the throwing axes, I would switch grips and hold the other waraxe again, ending my turns with a waraxe on each hand again.

[LazarX]

Tarpeius wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Tarpeius wrote:

A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

This is incorrect. Both the shield and torch are weapons and are considered wielded when in hand. You do not take two weapon fighting penalties for having them in hand because the only time two weapon fighting penalties apply is during a full attack action when you attack with two weapons and gain an extra attack from your off hand weapon.

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

Are you sure? How is this reconciled with one of the Shielded Fighter's class features?

Quote:

Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.

It would seem odd to grant an archetype the ability to do something that anyone with multiple attacks per round can already do.

Having multiple attacks doesn't give you a scaling damage bonus with shield bash.

[Kchaka]

Yo, can we do this? If you are TWFing with 2 weapons, can you temporarelly hold the 2 weapons with the same hand, unabeling you to use that arm to attack, while you use your free arm to draw a ranged weapon and throw it with it, and after the attack can change grips as a free action and regrab your weapons back, one on each hand?

I think you can, after all you can do this with a 2h weapon and it's the same thing, right? If you decide to let go one hand of the 2h weapon to draw and throw throwing knives, at the end of your turn you can still change grips and hold your 2h weapon with 2 hands.

So, it's the same thing for 2 weapons or a 2h weapon? As long as you are holding 2 weapons with one hand or a 2h weapon with one hand, you can't use those weapons, but changing these grips is basically a free action on your turn?

[theillway]

Jiggy wrote:

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

Bumping for this. Anybody know if you can alternate your iterative attacks between main and off-hand?

[born_of_fire]

theillway wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

To expand on what's already been pointed out, you could have a BAB of +6/+1, make your first attack with the sword, and make the second attack with the shield/torch/whatever, clearly wielding both, but STILL not take any TWF penalties.

Bumping for this. Anybody know if you can alternate your iterative attacks between main and off-hand?

Most definitely. TWF penalties only apply when you are making attacks over and above those you are granted by your BAB. You can use any weapon you wield to make attacks at no penalty as long as you do not make extra attacks because you are wielding more than one weapon.

Fetched the FAQ for you FAQ

(Only because someone fetched it for me just a few minutes ago hehe)

Edit: Oh for god's sake, looks like your own for the FAQ because computors be hard and I suck. Sorry.

[Kazaan]

The line, "you may alternate attacks..." serves the purpose of saying you don't need to be using TWF rules to benefit from the class ability. Whether you are making off-hand attacks using TWF, or making all your attacks via iteratives, you still get the ability bonus to applicable weapon(s).