Relevant snip:
Weapon Sacrifice (Ex) When damage would cause the fighter or an adjacent ally to be knocked unconscious or killed, as a swift or immediate action the fighter can instead direct the damage to a weapon from the associated weapon group that he is wielding. The original target takes no damage, but the weapon receives only half its normal hardness. The fighter can use this option a number of times per day equal to the fighter's weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. He cannot use this option with unarmed attacks.
Let's say I'm a Fighter who has Close Weapons as a specialty. I have a two-handed weapon, but I also have armor spikes, a boulder helmet, and a spiked gauntlet. Am I wielding all of these weapons?
Also: if I have my armor spikes take damage, does the armor itself take damage too, or just the spikes?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no single formal definition, mainly because of some legacy items that would break it.
The usually-in-practice definition is somewhere between "held in your hands" and "ready to make an attack as soon you get another chance to attack".
When trying to pin it down you'll probably keep running into odd cases. Is a sling wielded if it isn't loaded but otherwise in your hands? A whip, outside your turn, when it doesn't have a threatened area? An unarmed strike? A helmet on your head?
In almost every case I'd say yes. Whether an unarmed strike or natural attack is wielded is harder to say; it's definitely not an external object that you're holding at the ready. But some abilities might be intended to work with every weapon you've got ready and not intend to exclude them.
I would be hesitant about using Weapon Sacrifice casually, especially on valueless things I was wearing just to abuse it. By strict rules-reading, you could probably laugh-off a lot of attacks with all kinds of random "weapons" on your person but... you might find that your GM is starting to look at you funny while they plot acts of god against you. I think I would require someone to apply Weapon Sacrifice to whatever weapons they actually had in-hand and were currently using, since it's a desperate reaction to a deadly hit rather than some calculated act of item-use.
|
Weapon Sacrifice (Ex) When damage would cause the fighter or an adjacent ally to be knocked unconscious or killed, as a swift or immediate action the fighter can instead direct the damage to a weapon from the associated weapon group that he is wielding. The original target takes no damage, but the weapon receives only half its normal hardness. The fighter can use this option a number of times per day equal to the fighter's weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. He cannot use this option with unarmed attacks.
'Wielding' is not defined in the rules and there are a number of threads on this forum that argue how wielding fits into the game. So, you will see some table variation on this one.
My call would be that you are wielding the weapons that you used to attack with. For instance, the Weapon Sacrifice ability would normally be used as an immediate action (outside your turn), so whatever weapon you attacked with in your prior turn would be eligable to sacrifice. This ability is actually a bit annoying BECAUSE paizo has not defined the term 'wield'.
Also: if I have my armor spikes take damage, does the armor itself take damage too, or just the spikes?
Armor spikes are part of the armor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Sacrifice (Ex) When damage would cause the fighter or an adjacent ally to be knocked unconscious or killed, as a swift or immediate action the fighter can instead direct the damage to a weapon from the associated weapon group that he is wielding. The original target takes no damage, but the weapon receives only half its normal hardness. The fighter can use this option a number of times per day equal to the fighter's weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. He cannot use this option with unarmed attacks.'Wielding' is not defined in the rules and there are a number of threads on this forum that argue how wielding fits into the game. So, you will see some table variation on this one.
My call would be that you are wielding the weapons that you used to attack with. For instance, the Weapon Sacrifice ability would normally be used as an immediate action (outside your turn), so whatever weapon you attacked with in your prior turn would be eligable to sacrifice. This ability is actually a bit annoying BECAUSE paizo has not defined the term 'wield'.
With that definition, if there was a surprise round, you drew a weapon but didn't attack yet (because you lack Quickdraw), you wouldn't be wielding it. Which I would find strange.
I think that so much angst has gone into trying to lock down the "bad faith" case of using one weapon and trying to also "wield" another for abilities like this, that we get overreaching definitions of wielding that also hamper very mundane good faith cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Sacrifice (Ex) When damage would cause the fighter or an adjacent ally to be knocked unconscious or killed, as a swift or immediate action the fighter can instead direct the damage to a weapon from the associated weapon group that he is wielding. The original target takes no damage, but the weapon receives only half its normal hardness. The fighter can use this option a number of times per day equal to the fighter's weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. He cannot use this option with unarmed attacks.'Wielding' is not defined in the rules and there are a number of threads on this forum that argue how wielding fits into the game. So, you will see some table variation on this one.
My call would be that you are wielding the weapons that you used to attack with. For instance, the Weapon Sacrifice ability would normally be used as an immediate action (outside your turn), so whatever weapon you attacked with in your prior turn would be eligable to sacrifice. This ability is actually a bit annoying BECAUSE paizo has not defined the term 'wield'.
With that definition, if there was a surprise round, you drew a weapon but didn't attack yet (because you lack Quickdraw), you wouldn't be wielding it. Which I would find strange.
I think that so much angst has gone into trying to lock down the "bad faith" case of using one weapon and trying to also "wield" another for abilities like this, that we get overreaching definitions of wielding that also hamper very mundane good faith cases.
Or say you charge on the first round, draw an AoO and take a take a blow that would activate the feat. Since you haven't attacked yet and there WAS no last round you the feat doesn't activate with that 'wield'.
My two cents, the default wield should be 'able to attack with if given the opportunity'. So to the OP, "I have a two-handed weapon, but I also have armor spikes, a boulder helmet, and a spiked gauntlet" would mean you are wielding the two-handed weapon, armor spikes and the boulder helmet. The spiked gauntlet and the two-handed weapon can't be wielded at the same time as per the 'hands' FAQ so it's one or the other. Either you are holding the two handed weapon or you've removed the hand with the gauntlet and don't have enough hands for the two handed weapon.
|
|
I don't know if the "hands" FAQ really applies here. That FAQ answers the question what you can do using two-weapon fighting, and forwards the idea that using a weapon two-handed is not compatible with 2WF. You don't get an off-hand if you're twohanding something.
But it doesn't stop you from making a full-BAB attack with the greatsword and then an iterative with the armor spikes. And butting someone with the boulder helmet as an AoO afterwards.
---
If you went to the police and said "I saw someone wielding a sword", they don't immediately conclude that someone was actually stabbed. I think "wielding" should be taken to mean "holding ready to use".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a question of whether you can be "holding ready to use" a two-handed weapon and a spiked gauntlet on one of the hands holding the two-handed weapon at the same time. I think it's generally ruled that you only threaten with one or the other when it's not your turn, so that same logic would seem to apply here. It really has to do with hands as appendages and not hands of effort. You can threaten with a two-handed sword and armor spikes or a boulder helmet at the same time, so it makes sense you could use one of those for the ability.
It's a neat ability. I might actually pick it up for my bodyguard build fighter. Maybe at 9th or 10th with AWT feat (so I can take Weapon Training with both heavy blades for longsword and close for shield).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a neat ability, but it's got three limits already baked in:
- swift/immediate, so only once per turn. If an enemy has another attack to make against you, you're SOL.
- uses per day, which really won't be all that high.
- with a weapon from the right weapon group. Meaning that if you want to be holding a second sacrificial weapon, you're already looking at the smaller weapons, while the people who might get the best use out of this are 2H-wielding guys whose AC is already lacking a shield. Those guys are the ones betting on lasting just long enough to kill the enemy first.
So I don't see the need to restrict "wielding" overmuch to try to contain this one.
I'll go one further. I've been trying to think of any case except the Defending enchantment where a different definition of wielding is actually used. Is it really just Defending that's screwing up a universal definition of wielding?
We have mechanics for drawing, dropping and sheathing weapons. And for donning and taking off armor (spiked or otherwise). But we have no definition of wielding, no "begin wielding" action or "cease wielding" action. So except for the Defending enchantment, I'm strongly inclined to treat it as just a handy term for "stuff you actually have in sufficient hands to be able to use it, or which you are otherwise wearing ready for use".
It's a neat ability, but it's got three limits already baked in:
- swift/immediate, so only once per turn. If an enemy has another attack to make against you, you're SOL.
- uses per day, which really won't be all that high.
- with a weapon from the right weapon group. Meaning that if you want to be holding a second sacrificial weapon, you're already looking at the smaller weapons, while the people who might get the best use out of this are 2H-wielding guys whose AC is already lacking a shield. Those guys are the ones betting on lasting just long enough to kill the enemy first.
That's kind of my take on this. I assume this is an ability a two-handed weapon type of fighter takes after getting two weapon groups (one for fighting with, one to sacrifice in a fight), meaning this would come online later. Then again, this might be used on a TWF Close Weapons build? But it's hard to imagine it being "abused" frequently with those limitations.
I'm considering its benefits on an Aid Another Halfling Drill Sergeant. Note that you can use it to protect an adjacent ally - one more way to make my friends seem glorious.
|
|
I'm considering its benefits on an Aid Another Halfling Drill Sergeant. Note that you can use it to protect an adjacent ally - one more way to make my friends seem glorious.
I'm looking at it for something similar. I have a Bodyguard, Saving Shield, possibly eventually In Harm's Way build. So this would just be another option to help. Though it does start to overwhelm my swift/immediate actions. It would be especially good if I can use Armor Spikes or a Boulder Helmet with it. Even if not, if it's not a huge crit or something, a +1 shield has 12 hardness (halved to 6 for ability) and 20 hit points. So it could absorb up to a 25 point attack without being destroyed. That could easily be the last of a full attack hitting someone at 1 hit point and killing them. I'm not sure if special abilities add to harness and hit points of magic items, or only the enhancement bonus. If so, it'll be more like a +2 or +3 equivalent shield by the time I have the ability, so as much as 8 hardness and 40 hit points.
Or I could just stick with In Harm's Way and take the hit myself. The only problem with that is that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks or spells, and I have to have already used Bodyguard on the character.
I think it's a question of whether you can be "holding ready to use" a two-handed weapon and a spiked gauntlet on one of the hands holding the two-handed weapon at the same time. I think it's generally ruled that you only threaten with one or the other when it's not your turn, so that same logic would seem to apply here. It really has to do with hands as appendages and not hands of effort. You can threaten with a two-handed sword and armor spikes or a boulder helmet at the same time, so it makes sense you could use one of those for the ability.
Correct. One of the old combo's was a two handed weapon + gauntlet and it was ruled you couldn't wield them both at the same time because of 'hands' even though you could use a free action to remove an actual hand from the two handed weapon. So IMO one or the other, either because of 'hands' or that it requires an action to switch from wielding one or the other.
Now a thorn bracer would be possible. Or barbazu beard... Or sea knives/blade boots... Or a tail weapon... Add a spike to a shield and you have 2 more weapons [shield and shield spike]. You can tape a LOT of weapons on an adventurer. ;)
The definition of wielding to the design team varies by ability and is whatever makes the shenanigans at hand not work. For weapon sacrifice, if you have a main weapon that you use to do actual damage, and you are holding it, that's what has to be sacrificed.
So if I have two weapon fighting and hit with 6 different weapons through AoO and normal round attacks which is my 'main weapon'? After answering that, why would the answer change is I missed one of those attacks or didn't attack with one of the weapons? Why is the shield in my off hand not wielded when I could use it in an AoO? If I'm disarmed, am I unable to use the ability because I've lost my 'main' weapon?
The ability doesn't happen during your attack so why on earth would your attacking or not with the weapon have anything to do with your actively blocking during a foes attack? You're clearly seeing 'shenanigans" I'm not. Even in situations where there is an actual case of shenanigans [defending], I find the 'currently attacking with' wield silly and problematic. It would seem like shenanigans for a DM to not allow me to block with an adamantine weapon I got to block with because I was 'only' holding it ready and didn't attack with it last round. :(
I've been trying to think of any case except the Defending enchantment where a different definition of wielding is actually used. Is it really just Defending that's screwing up a universal definition of wielding?
It's because the Defending property is "use activated". The text of Defending states "wielder" because wielding is prerequisite for using the weapon in the intended way, but goes on to say "before using the weapon". So for the Defending property to function, the weapon must be both wielded and USED as a weapon. Simply being wielded is not enough. Using the weapon in some unintended way is not enough.
But unlike Defending, a flat bonus to your AC which can be cheesed to impossible levels and needed to be dealt with, this is a class ability that, as someone pointed out previously:
- swift/immediate, so only once per turn. If an enemy has another attack to make against you, you're SOL.
- uses per day, which really won't be all that high.
- with a weapon from the right weapon group. Meaning that if you want to be holding a second sacrificial weapon, you're already looking at the smaller weapons, while the people who might get the best use out of this are 2H-wielding guys whose AC is already lacking a shield. Those guys are the ones betting on lasting just long enough to kill the enemy first.
And you take this in place of a Weapon Training, mand while your bonuses with previous weapon groups increase, your number of uses with one of those weapon groups is determined by the weapon group's present bonus.
Here's a hypothetical: if I'm trying to avoid sacrificing my two-handed axe and want to sacrifice my helmet, thorn bracers, or armor spikes instead, but I DO want to focus on murdering with that axe, my axe will be in my first weapon group. On a standard Fighter, my second weapon group (which will be Close weapons) comes online at level 9, and the third one (when you get this ability) comes at level 13.
At level 13, is sacrificing a throwaway weapon 1/turn, 2/day to save someone's life from a single damaging attack or spell really a gamebreaker? It's certainly not a gamebreaker in the veins of Defending, which needed that nerf... Especially if the enemy just swings a second time and your ally is downed regardless.
(Then again, I always felt that the Crane maneuver which acted like Deflect Arrows for melee attacks was fine as it is, but because of PFS it got nerfed.)