Does a character with canny defense (from duelist or kensai) lose their bonus to ac any time they aren't attacking with their melee weapon?
a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon.
I thought wielding meant appropriately holding and ready to make attacks with the weapon, but user "Derklord" brought up this FAQ about the Defending magic property and said you only count as wielding a weapon if you're making attacks with it.
I'm of the belief that the Defending property FAQ only pertains to the defending property/magic item properties and doesnt set precedent for the definition of wielding. (It may also just be expanding on how the Defending property's "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." functions.)
There seem to be many threads on the definition of wielding that share my view but most are quite dated now and I really dont want to risk ending up with a character who's AC dramatically drops every time enemies are just out of melee reach.
So what is the definition of wielding, and does a character with canny defense have to change their AC every time they cant or dont attack with their melee weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always just used the actual definition of the word, itself...
verb
hold and use (a weapon or tool).
"a masked raider wielding a handgun"
have and be able to use (power or influence).
"faction leaders wielded enormous influence within the party"
I also make it a deliberate point to ignore most, if not all, errata/FAQ's like the plague... because, honestly, if Paizo has a different definition of "wield", I just don't give a $#!+...
My character Variel, a multiclass Kensai Magus, received Canny Defense every time he had his rapier in his hand... regardless of whether he threatened anyone or attacked anyone or made menacing gestures with the rapier, itself... was he holding it? Yes. He meets the actual definition of wielding, so let's move on. Lol.
|
A precise definition of wielding doesn't exist.
That FAQ is the best thing you get, and some comments by Sean K. Reynold when he was a developer.
The most common interpretation of the therm is "actively use".
If you are casting a standard action or longer spell (and not using spell combat), you are not wielding the weapon.
Spellstrike can change that, but only from the moment in which you use the weapon to strike.
If you are throwing ranged weapons you aren't wielding your melee weapon (unless you are using two-weapon combat or multiple attacks to mix throwing and melee).
Most GM will allow you to add the bonus to AC when moving to enter melee, but technically you aren't wielding your melee weapon until you reach strike range.
that faq only talk about the fact that you need to use a magic item to activate it's powers and since a defending weapon is a weapon ( an item used for attack) it's magical powers won't work unless one attack with it.
that has nothing to do with wielding a weapon for canny defense which is nether a magic item nor say anything about the need to attack. (in fact it talk about defense)
@Diego Rossi: What. What? Does this mean all the effects like weapon shift and countless other abilities dont work unless you're attacking with weapons as you're using them/on the same turn you're using them? Wouldnt that mean you'd need a means of swift action attacking just to coincide standard action wild shaping with weapon shift?? (Not to dwell on weapon shift, it was the first thing to come to mind as I recently played a druid and im beginning to re-question everything about pathfinder rules due to interpretations like this.)
Extending the defending magic property FAQ as a general rule interpretation creates so so many weird interactions... It turns abilities and sententences from so many sources that make sense into swiss cheese.
That can't actually be right.
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.
If that FAQ is the only thing to go off of, does that mean that nonmagical items are exempt because it specifically calls out magic items?
Applying the defending property FAQ to other aspects of the rules (i mean the faq answer doesnt even mention wielding) seems like going out of your way to complicate things.
Funnily enough when searching the same FAQ page for "wield" the answers to other questions seem to contradict that "only when attacking" reading too.
For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action...
How can a wizard attack to count as wielding and cast a standard action spell at the same time?
you could even start the round wielding only one weapon,
how can you start your round wielding if you havnt even attacked yet?
Those are just from the same FAQ page if i had the patience im sure i could find many much better instances where "wielding" doesn't make sense to mean "only when attacking with it"... How is the defending property FAQ, something that solely concerns the usage of a single magic item special property being stretched across other elements of the rules and overriding common sense?
/Rant
I'm glad some people are posting against stretching the FAQ across definitions like wielding, because otherwise I'd swear I'd be going mad...
that faq only talk about the fact that you need to use a magic item to activate it's powers and since a defending weapon is a weapon ( an item used for attack) it's magical powers won't work unless one attack with it.
that has nothing to do with wielding a weapon for canny defense which is nether a magic item nor say anything about the need to attack. (in fact it talk about defense)
That is exactly what i thought when I read the FAQ too and thought that would be obvious, which is why im now so confused that people are using the FAQ as justification to make rulings on other things like the definition of wielding even though doing so adds complications and causes issues with other rules...
I decided to post on the rules forum for clarifications and now i'm just more confused.
|
|
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
But he gave different replies at other times.
VoodistMonk cited:
verb
hold and use (a weapon or tool).
But then in his interpretation, he changed it to: "hold (a weapon or tool)", removing the "and use" part as it was irrelevant.
Generally, you need to read it in the contest. For sure if you attack with some other weapon and only hold your kensai weapon in your hand you aren't wielding it.
If you are casting a spell and you are a wizard with that staff as your spell focus, you are wielding it even if you can't use it in combat, as you are using it to cast the spell.
You (or your GM) must look what is the ability that gives you the benefit you receive for wielding an item and decide if you are using it or not.
If instead of doing that you are trying to squeeze the benefit in every situation, regardless of the logic of the ability, you are simply trying to cheese the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, if we have to ignore all of the dazzling stupidity with ability interactions this dumb reading causes, and bringing it back down to the matter at hand:
"If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."
Doesnt trying to threaten and get attacks of opportunity with it count as trying to hit people with it? Why does it have to be attacking with it on your turn?
I cant see anything in what he said state that. So wouldnt canny defense work even if you spend your standard action doing something else, provided you'd try to hit something that might run past you with the weapon, for example?
Near as I can tell, threatening to attack the area around you is a correct, intended use of a weapon as a weapon.
Not to mention what you quoted there pertains to holding the weapon in a manner not meant for combat, "just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it." so it doesnt justify trying to warp the Defending magic item FAQ into a definition of wielding at all.
Claiming the definition of wielding is anything other than "held in your hands and able to make attacks with it" causes so many different feats and abilities to become unusable and clunky that it isn't worth considering. Especially when the only thing you have to base that interpretation on pertains exclusively to a specific magic item property's FAQ that not once mentions the term "wielding".
That FAQ serves only to nerf the effectiveness and usefulness of the defending weapon enchantment... it doesn’t affect other parts of the rules... you honestly can’t even use it as a blanket ruling on weapon enchantments either... for example, the stalking enchantment would be completely unusable if you have to make an attack to be considered wielding the weapon... since you must spend a standard action to study a target while wielding the weapon to direct the enchantments effects... but according to that FAQ your not wielding it if you aren’t attacking with it...
Or better yet Dueling (UE)... must be wielding the weapon to get the +4 initiative bonus... so does that mean you only get +4 to initiative if you roll an attack before initiative is rolled? What about a Defiant weapon? It requires wielding and doesn’t do anything until your panicked, stunned, unconscious, or dying... obviously can’t attack in those conditions so no longer qualified as wielding, guess the enchantment does nothing...
This is a case of the FAQ overstepping in an attempt to nerf something specifically...
All that said... you are fine to just have your weapon wielded in hand to get the benefit of canny defense... so long as you can threaten with your weapon you are wielding it... the real difference (in game terms) between wielding and holding is the ability to threaten and make attacks... if the weapon is just “held” then you can’t properly attack with it (improper grip, carrying the weapon by the blade, etc...) if the weapon is “wielded” on the otherhand you are capable of properly striking with the weapon at any moment...
Example... most two-handed weapons are held in one hand but wielded in two.
Wow there are some really good points there and I'm very glad to have people more level-headed and coherent than me come here to make them. Thank you.
Yeah, the basic intention of the FAQ with defending weapons was to prevent someone from holding a stat stick to get a bonus to AC without taking a meaningful penalty to attack rolls.
Without that FAQ you could have had something like weapon spikes with an enhancement bonus and defending, along with a shield (with enhancement) and something like a nodachi with the shield brace feat.
It is kind of expensive, since you have to pay for the enhancement bonus and defending on your stat stick weapon, but there are ways to overcome that too.
But you can end up with a character having more AC than they should by stacking armor, shields, and defending and not really "paying" for it with decreased attack rolls.
Bob the builder is using a hammer.
He has it out of his tool-belt, holding it in his hand.
Bob the builder is WIELDING a hammer.
This is correct regardless if whether or not Bob the builder is actively hitting a nail at this exact moment.
Bob the builder might be bending down to pick up more nails... he is still wielding a hammer. He might be walking from hammering nails right here to right over there to hammer more nails... he is still wielding a hammer. He might even pull out a pencil with his other hand and sign something... he is STILL wielding a hammer.
|
|
"If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."Doesnt trying to threaten and get attacks of opportunity with it count as trying to hit people with it? Why does it have to be attacking with it on your turn?
I cant see anything in what he said state that. So wouldnt canny defense work even if you spend your standard action doing something else, provided you'd try to hit something that might run past you with the weapon, for example?
Near as I can tell, threatening to attack the area around you is a correct, intended use of a weapon as a weapon.
Not to mention what you quoted there pertains to holding the weapon in a manner not meant for combat, "just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it." so it doesnt justify trying to warp the Defending magic item FAQ into a definition of wielding at all.
Claiming the definition of wielding is anything other than "held in your hands and able to make attacks with it" causes so many different feats and abilities to become unusable and clunky that it isn't worth considering. Especially when the only thing you have to base that interpretation on pertains exclusively to a specific magic item property's FAQ that not once mentions the term "wielding".