Wielding a weapon in the offhand but NOT attacking with it.


Rules Questions


I searched a lot for this topic but couldn't find it, due to the huge number of two weapon fighting threads. I apologize in advance if it's already been asked, and would meekly ask for a link to said thread if you have one. Otherwise,

I have two players that want to wield a weapon in their offhand, but not TWF.

The first player is a brawler, and wants to use a scizore in his offhand to gain the shield bonus, but not use it to attack. Obviously, the goal is to never attack with it so that he gets the shield bonus at all times but never suffers the penalty.

The second player is playing a swashbuckler type (fighter class), and will have a rapier in his mainhand and a whip in the other. He has Improved WhipMastery (or whatever feat allows him to cruise around), and wants to use his whip hand largely for locomotion, when applicable, but would also like to threaten with that whip.

My questions are as follows:

1) For the brawler, is this a legal use of the rules? Can he simply wear the weapon to get the bonus without using it?

2) For the swashbuckler, does "wielding" a weapon in the offhand trigger the TWF penalties, or does ATTACKING with it trigger the two weapon fighting penalties?

2b) For the fighter, he'd like to make attacks of opportunity with it. Would that trigger TWFing penalties?

2c) Again for the fighter, if he has 6 BAB, and thus two attacks, can he make a main-hand sword attack then trip with the whip without triggering TWFing penalties?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give. And please, I'm really only looking for RAW answers, not opinions on how I should rule it. I'm capable of adjudicating these myself and ruling on RAI, but I'd like to get a firm, if not perfect, grasp of the RAW aspect of all points *before* making a ruling.

Two-Weapon Fighting from the combat section:

Spoiler:
Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.

Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

Thanks! :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. No. bonuses on weapons are use activated, if you're not using the weapon, you don't get the bonuses. It's the same discussion we've had on defending weapons awhile back.
2. Yes, because if you're not attacking with it, you're not wielding it.
2b. probably not
2c. Probably not.


1: Yes. He can, it's pretty much the same as buying a buckler, with the caveat that you can attack with it (d10) but take a -1 to hit.

2: You only trigger TWF penalties when you get more attacks than your BAB gives you, no matter how many actual weapons you hit with. Example, with +16 BAB, you could wear a dwarven boulder helmet, hold a mace in one hand, an axe in the other, and spiked armor, and attack with all 4 in the same round once each with no TWF penalties.

2b: No, you can make attacks of opportunity with anything, but keep in mind he has to have 2 feats to threaten with the whip, otherwise he can't make AoOs with it.

2c: Yes, although if he uses the whip as his 2nd attack the trip uses his 2nd iterative attack bonus not the full one.

@ LazarX The scizore is not like a defending weapon, wearing it gives you a shield bonus. Using it to attack loses the shield bonus and gives a -1 on attacks as well.


I'm not sure about the scizore.

As far as the swashbuckler? All of that looks good, alathough those AoOs might not turn out to be much if he's using the whip for them. Of course he's not getting Improved Whip Mastery until level 6 or so, and until then he's not threatening any areas with the whip..

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TGMaxMaxer wrote:


@ LazarX The scizore is not like a defending weapon, wearing it gives you a shield bonus. Using it to attack loses the shield bonus and gives a -1 on attacks as well.

The text for that weapon contradicts itself. I hate it.


LazarX wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:


@ LazarX The scizore is not like a defending weapon, wearing it gives you a shield bonus. Using it to attack loses the shield bonus and gives a -1 on attacks as well.

The text for that weapon contradicts itself. I hate it.

How does it contradict itself? Think of it as a combined punching dagger and a buckler.

Shadow Lodge

what's the purpose of the question?
for a swashbuckler's precise strike it says " cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand," so as long as they don't make an attack with it, they can use that deed. That's the only swashbuckler ability I'm aware of that mentions off hand and it says nothing about "wielding." So they should be fine.

For the brawler I'm a little iffy on the scizore. They are trying to get around the rules that say they lose their bonus ac when using a shield and the non-prof penalty to attack. RAW it seems to work, but it doesn't quite feel right in the spirit of things. I'd treat it like they were wielding a shield and say they lose their brawler ac bonus if they are benefiting from a scizore's shield bonus.


Brogue The Rogue wrote:

My questions are as follows:

1) For the brawler, is this a legal use of the rules? Can he simply wear the weapon to get the bonus without using it?

2) For the swashbuckler, does "wielding" a weapon in the offhand trigger the TWF penalties, or does ATTACKING with it trigger the two weapon fighting penalties?

2b) For the fighter, he'd like to make attacks of opportunity with it. Would that trigger TWFing penalties?

2c) Again for the fighter, if he has 6 BAB, and thus two attacks, can he make a main-hand sword attack then trip with the whip without triggering TWFing penalties?

1) yes, legal. Wielding it is enough (ready to use). In fact attacking with it makes you lose the bonus to AC so it seems the intended use is as a pseudo-shield.

2) No. Attacking and gaining a the extra off hand attack does that.
2b) no.
2c) As long as it's only using a single weapon at once, no penalties. So a trip with the +6 attack and an attack with the +1 attack doesn't have anything to do with two weapon fighting as you didn't takr the off hand attack.

To clear things up, you don't have an off hand unless you are gaining an extra attack. A single attack roll is always with a main hand, no matter which hand it's in. (players are ambidextrous) It's ONLY when you gain that "one extra attack per round" that an offhand appears.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brogue The Rogue wrote:
1) For the brawler, is this a legal use of the rules? Can he simply wear the weapon to get the bonus without using it?

Yes.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2) For the swashbuckler, does "wielding" a weapon in the offhand trigger the TWF penalties, or does ATTACKING with it trigger the two weapon fighting penalties?

He wouldn't get the TWF penalties unless he specifically uses the TWF rules to attack more than he'd normally be able to. It's perfectly legal to make his full attack with the rapier and make AoOs with the whip.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2b) For the fighter, he'd like to make attacks of opportunity with it. Would that trigger TWFing penalties?

No.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2c) Again for the fighter, if he has 6 BAB, and thus two attacks, can he make a main-hand sword attack then trip with the whip without triggering TWFing penalties?

Yes.

I want to say there was a recent FAQ that explained all of this, but I'm having a hard time tracking it down. I kind of wish the search tool worked better with the FAQs. :-/

Edit: Ah, found it. Here you go.


Except the scizore is in the close weapons group, which brawlers get bonuses with.

So, penalizing them for using a weapon they are given is kind of a dick move as well.


Thanks for the quick responses, everyone!

TGMaxMaxer wrote:
1: Yes. He can, it's pretty much the same as buying a buckler, with the caveat that you can attack with it (d10) but take a -1 to hit.

Fair enough. It's abusive, but it's the answer, so I can't fault anyone for that, heh.

Quote:
2: You only trigger TWF penalties when you get more attacks than your BAB gives you, no matter how many actual weapons you hit with. Example, with +16 BAB, you could wear a dwarven boulder helmet, hold a mace in one hand, an axe in the other, and spiked armor, and attack with all 4 in the same round once each with no TWF penalties.

This is where I'm uncertain. The TWF text seems to imply that the penalties trigger when WIELDING two weapons, not when attacking with them. What am I missing?

Quote:
2b: No, you can make attacks of opportunity with anything, but keep in mind he has to have 2 feats to threaten with the whip, otherwise he can't make AoOs with it.

I'm fairly certain he DOES have those feats, but let's say for clarification's sake that he doesn't. Can he trigger an AOO by threatening with his rapier, then take it with his whip?

His goal in this is to trip/disarm at range. Essentially have the option of either weapon at any point.


Edit: Kudaku, that FAQ cleared it up for me. I guess I shouldn't have taken so l ong to read all the posts. THanks!

The only question I have remaining now is if you can make a whip attack on an AOO when you threaten with the sword in your mainhand, and not with the whip.


Check the CRB FAQ on this very sight about the options for attacking with multiple weapons without TWF. It spells it out clearly.

It is a grey area in the rules so far as the threaten with the sword and attack with the whip. Most people won't let you take AoO's with a weapon that doesn't threaten, but it isn't spelled out. However, remember that a whip attack provokes if they threaten you, so without those feats he gets hit back anytime he attacks with a whip against an adjacent target.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brogue The Rogue wrote:

This is where I'm uncertain. The TWF text seems to imply that the penalties trigger when WIELDING two weapons, not when attacking with them. What am I missing?

That wielding means attacking.


Brogue The Rogue wrote:
The only question I have remaining now is if you can make a whip attack on an AOO when you threaten with the sword in your mainhand, and not with the whip.

This is kind of a gray zone - the rules text for AoOs implies (imo strongly) that you need to make the attack with the weapon you threaten with, but never actually states so outright. For what it's worth I wouldn't allow a character to make AoOs with a weapon he does not threaten with at my table.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
Edit: Kudaku, that FAQ cleared it up for me. I guess I shouldn't have taken so l ong to read all the posts. THanks!

Happy to help! :)


LazarX wrote:
Brogue The Rogue wrote:

This is where I'm uncertain. The TWF text seems to imply that the penalties trigger when WIELDING two weapons, not when attacking with them. What am I missing?

That wielding means attacking.

OK, so, where does it say this? Because if that's true, then doesn't it mean you must attack with a shield to wield it and thus gain its AC bonus? And a slew of other strange goings-on...


That whole can of worms is caused by some extrapolations from the devs not wanting to errata the defending weapon property.

They said for that weapon to give you an AC bonus you have to make an attack with it, while the text only said wielding, which has caused a bunch of other corner cases to make no sense.

Scarab Sages

LazarX wrote:
Brogue The Rogue wrote:

This is where I'm uncertain. The TWF text seems to imply that the penalties trigger when WIELDING two weapons, not when attacking with them. What am I missing?

That wielding means attacking.

Not true. You can attack with two weapons (and therefore be weilding, by your definition) and not be TWF.

it helps to quote the rules:

PRD wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

As indicated by the bolded text, the penalties occur "when you fight this way", "this way" meaning gaining the extra attack from the off hand weapon. The penalties quite clearly come from the extra attack, not the wielding.

Wielding is treated separately from attacking in the text here. (eg if you wield...you can get one extra attack). To universally treat wielding as attacking, you could not attack with two different weapons and NOT get an extra attack, but the FAQs on two weapon fighting clearly state you can.

I would highly suggest that the original expectation, that wielding =/= attacking would be a general rule, and the defending property is a specific rule overriding the general rule.


Ahhhhhhhh, burkoJames, thanks SO much for that emphasis. I had not even noticed that final clause until you posted it! You are right; that does indeed fully clarify the issue to me.


Shields are my go-to example for why holding two weapons doesn't automatically mean you are TWF...

Weilding a Shield in the off hands means at any given time you 'can' TWF, and take the penalties associatied with it... but the rest of the time your just holding the shield.

I also hate that ruling about needing to wield/attack with a weapon to get the defending going on... for pretty much the same reason. Parrying daggers were totally a thing and were basically a buckler. A little blocking shield that you 'may' attack with. the Rapier is the main stabbing weapon. Having the rules say otherwise goes against the spirit of parrying weapons...

Scarab Sages

I will however slightly change my opinion. a bit more research has indicated to me that various Pazio writers may have used the word weird inconsistently. the key seems to focus on abilities that may have been intended to be 'use activated' like the defending property, that only used wielded as their trigger. do to the inconsistent use, paizo is unlikely to actually define wielding.

I still believe my opinion is correct, but clearly wielding has to be handled case by case and requires far heavier use of RAI then a Society player will ever want to hear.


That's an excellent analysis of the situation, burkoJames. Thank you for your input. I will take that and figure out something that works for my group. :)

And thank you all for the input. Very helpful and enlightening. :)

Liberty's Edge

"Wielding" in the rules generally (but not aways [some writer have used it differently]) mean "actively use".

You actively use a shield wearing it and using it to gain an AC bonus (and with the scizore you do exactly that when using it for the AC bonus), with a weapon it mean attacking or having attacked with it during your round.

Sometime wield has been used as "having the items in hand, ready to be used", but that usually happen for thing that are reactive, like taking a AoO.
You must read the rules in context.
having several developers and freelance contributors mean that sometime people use the same word in different ways.

Using the scizore for the Ac bonus isn't exploitative. It is a better weapon that a small shield, but the net effect is very similar.
You get a shield bonus to your AC. You can attack with the item but you lose the AC bonus.

Dark Archive

I'm honestly really confused how having a scizore in your offhand and using it for a shield bonus is exploitative at all. Like, that's what it does. If you attack with it, you lose the AC bonus, which means that it's completely intended for you to be able to just hold onto it and never attack with it if you don't want to.


The only way I could see people thinking it was exploitative was if they thought that magical enhancements to the scizore's AC also added to attack/damage or vice versa. However, the rules on that are clear that they are treated as two separate enchantments that have to be paid for separately.

Magic Items - Armor wrote:

Shields: Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

You could of course get the Shield Master feat, but then you are spending a whole bunch of feats to do so, and feats are worth far more than money.


scizore wrote:
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore.

Think of the scizore as a klar; it's a shield if you don't attack with it, it's a weapon if you do attack with it. You gain the shield bonus when not using it to make attacks, you lose the shield bonus when you make attacks. If you have trouble thinking of it that way then try this: It's exactly the same as if you had a buckler strapped to an arm wielding a dagger.

2) You take TWF penalties if you TWF as a full round action. The penalties only apply to the attacks made during that full round action. There is a TWF fighter archetype which works differently, not sure if this is what your player is using.

2b) You do not take TWF penalties except during the full attack action (TWF Fighter archetype is the exception).

2c) Correct. He is not TWF (gaining an additional attack action), he is making his normal iterative attacks with two weapons (see the TWF FAQ).


Trekkie90909 wrote:
scizore wrote:
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore.
Think of the scizore as a klar; it's a shield if you don't attack with it, it's a weapon if you do attack with it. You gain the shield bonus when not using it to make attacks, you lose the shield bonus when you make attacks. If you have trouble thinking of it that way then try this: It's exactly the same as if you had a buckler strapped to an arm wielding a dagger.

The difference between a Klar and Scizore is that the Scizore does not count as any type of shield, so it's a workaround for monks/brawlers to get a shield bonus without losing class features. (However this also means its shield bonus can never be increased by adding a magical enhancement bonus.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Archaeik wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
scizore wrote:
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore.
Think of the scizore as a klar; it's a shield if you don't attack with it, it's a weapon if you do attack with it. You gain the shield bonus when not using it to make attacks, you lose the shield bonus when you make attacks. If you have trouble thinking of it that way then try this: It's exactly the same as if you had a buckler strapped to an arm wielding a dagger.
The difference between a Klar and Scizore is that the Scizore does not count as any type of shield, so it's a workaround for monks/brawlers to get a shield bonus without losing class features. (However this also means its shield bonus can never be increased by adding a magical enhancement bonus.)

You can't increase it's shield bonus, but you can put Defending on it, and trade that shield bonus for the bonus that enchantment gives you.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

That whole can of worms is caused by some extrapolations from the devs not wanting to errata the defending weapon property.

They said for that weapon to give you an AC bonus you have to make an attack with it, while the text only said wielding, which has caused a bunch of other corner cases to make no sense.

Re-read the section about "use-activated".


Brogue The Rogue wrote:
1) For the brawler, is this a legal use of the rules? Can he simply wear the weapon to get the bonus without using it?

Absolutely. The Scizore writeup even makes special note of the difference between simply wielding the weapon and actually attacking with it (which is the only time you get the penalty).

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2) For the swashbuckler, does "wielding" a weapon in the offhand trigger the TWF penalties, or does ATTACKING with it trigger the two weapon fighting penalties?

Neither. The only time you take two weapon penalties is when you use those two weapons for MORE ATTACKS IN ONE ROUND than you would get wielding only one weapon. THAT is when your two weapon fighting.

Say that Character has a BAB of +11. He could make three attacks with the Rapier or three with the whip or three with the rapier and whip in any combination and not be two weapon fighting. The moment he declares 4 or more attacks in the round he is two weapon fighting and has to obey those rules with both weapons and take the appropriate penalties.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2b) For the fighter, he'd like to make attacks of opportunity with it. Would that trigger TWFing penalties?

No. You can make an attack of opportunity with any weapon you have readied and they never take TWFing penlaties, even if you have TWF in the round.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:
2c) Again for the fighter, if he has 6 BAB, and thus two attacks, can he make a main-hand sword attack then trip with the whip without triggering TWFing penalties?

Correct. He is not gaining any extra attacks and thus is fine. He would be figuring out his to hit bonus for each weapon seperately if they have different feats and/or bonuses that affect them and in your example he would still take the -5 on his whip attack for his second iterative attack in the round, as normal.


SlimGauge wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

That whole can of worms is caused by some extrapolations from the devs not wanting to errata the defending weapon property.

They said for that weapon to give you an AC bonus you have to make an attack with it, while the text only said wielding, which has caused a bunch of other corner cases to make no sense.

Re-read the section about "use-activated".

The issue with things like Defending and Allying is that their abilities are activated BEFORE they are used as pointed out in their rules. "the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon". Therefor it's not a true use-activated but requires a wielder only. Using the "use-activated" trigger/prerequisite means that it takes a future action to activate the ability and that future action isn't guarantied to happen. Having to attack with them is truly a poor solution to how to use them. As such, I agree with TGMaxMaxer. Better to errata/FAQ defending to not stack with other defending weapons than require an action that hasn't happened yet.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Thank you for explaining your reasoning.

I disagree. Choosing how the enhancement will be allocated when the weapon is activated by use is not activating the ability.

Suppose I have a select-fire gun. Before I use it, I choose (by setting the selector switch) to fire a single shot per trigger pull, a group of three shots per trigger pull, or as many shots as I hold down the trigger for (full-auto). The gun does not fire until I pull the trigger ('use' it). Setting the selector switch is not using (firing) the gun.


SlimGauge wrote:

Thank you for explaining your reasoning.

I disagree. Choosing how the enhancement will be allocated when the weapon is activated by use is not activating the ability.

Suppose I have a select-fire gun. Before I use it, I choose (by setting the selector switch) to fire a single shot per trigger pull, a group of three shots per trigger pull, or as many shots as I hold down the trigger for (full-auto). The gun does not fire until I pull the trigger ('use' it). Setting the selector switch is not using (firing) the gun.

1) I add 2 to my AC with a defending weapon.

2) I move to attack, drawing two AoO
3) Foe 1 misses me by 1
4) Foe 2 disarms me
5) I now can't fulfill defending's future attack requirement so I retroactively lose my AC bonus
6) Time rewinds and I get hit by the first Foe
7) The first foe knocks me down below 0
8) as I never got disarmed, I retroactively regain my AC and stand up unharmed
9) Jump to 4)

Here is a time loop where I NEVER get to 'use' the weapon. I give my ally a bonus to their enchantment bonus and then charge a foe. I trigger a pit trap and fall in. I never get to use the weapon. it's pretty clear the action require happens before use. In your example, changing the selector doesn't FORCE you to fire (pull trigger) because you changed it. The Defending FAQ does just that though. So it's not really equivalent.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Your "time-loop" is not due to the fact that "Defending" is use-activated, it's due to the AoO rules stating that the AoO is resolved prior to the action that provokes it.

If anything, you're correct in that you (or your ally) shouldn't get the bonus UNTIL such time as your attack actually "goes off".

Grand Lodge

Easiest way to determine two-weapon fighting:

Are you using a second weapon to gain an extra attack?

No? Not two-weapon fighting. No penalties.

Yes? You're two-weapon fighting. Take penalties.

Note: You only take penalties, during the full attack action, to two weapon fight. Not at any other time. So, AoOs are made without penalties.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Easiest way to determine two-weapon fighting:

Are you using a second weapon to gain an extra attack?

No? Not two-weapon fighting. No penalties.

Yes? You're two-weapon fighting. Take penalties.

Note: You only take penalties, during the full attack action, to two weapon fight. Not at any other time. So, AoOs are made without penalties.

And extra attacks from natural weapons are unaffected by TWF penalties completely as they are neither primary hand nor off-hand weapons.


SlimGauge wrote:

Your "time-loop" is not due to the fact that "Defending" is use-activated, it's due to the AoO rules stating that the AoO is resolved prior to the action that provokes it.

If anything, you're correct in that you (or your ally) shouldn't get the bonus UNTIL such time as your attack actually "goes off".

Read the entry for Defending and the FAQ on it. Between the two you get the time warp effect. You apply the bonus at the start of your turn, but lose it if you do not attack with the weapon.

Defending
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn. This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Defending FAQ
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

Scarab Sages

thorin001 wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:

Your "time-loop" is not due to the fact that "Defending" is use-activated, it's due to the AoO rules stating that the AoO is resolved prior to the action that provokes it.

If anything, you're correct in that you (or your ally) shouldn't get the bonus UNTIL such time as your attack actually "goes off".

Read the entry for Defending and the FAQ on it. Between the two you get the time warp effect. You apply the bonus at the start of your turn, but lose it if you do not attack with the weapon.

Defending
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn. This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Defending FAQ
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

I think changing the bolded wording to "Immediately before using the weapon" solves that conundrum. It also would have prevented the need for that FAQ from all but the most pedantic. But instead of a minor narrowly tailored errata, we got a vague FAQ that posits more questions then it answers. Anyhow, I certainly will make that change official in all of my games.

Grand Lodge

Of course, now, with the Defending FAQ, you have PCs attacking the darkness, to protect themselves.


burkoJames wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:

Your "time-loop" is not due to the fact that "Defending" is use-activated, it's due to the AoO rules stating that the AoO is resolved prior to the action that provokes it.

If anything, you're correct in that you (or your ally) shouldn't get the bonus UNTIL such time as your attack actually "goes off".

Read the entry for Defending and the FAQ on it. Between the two you get the time warp effect. You apply the bonus at the start of your turn, but lose it if you do not attack with the weapon.

Defending
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn. This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Defending FAQ
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

I think changing the bolded wording to "Immediately before using the weapon" solves that conundrum. It also would have prevented the need for that FAQ from all but the most pedantic. But instead of a minor narrowly tailored errata, we got a vague FAQ that posits more questions then it answers. Anyhow,...

Ignoring the FAQ and using the CRB rules also eliminates the problem.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Of course, now, with the Defending FAQ, you have PCs attacking the darkness, to protect themselves.

That was there with fighting defensively too.

Grand Lodge

thorin001 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Of course, now, with the Defending FAQ, you have PCs attacking the darkness, to protect themselves.
That was there with fighting defensively too.

A lot of crazy shadow-boxing adventurers!


Brogue The Rogue wrote:
This is where I'm uncertain. The TWF text seems to imply that the penalties trigger when WIELDING two weapons, not when attacking with them. What am I missing?

Stealth errata in the FAQ.

_
glass.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wielding a weapon in the offhand but NOT attacking with it. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.