I was debating whether to necro the Martial Arts Handbook - handwraps thread but decided against it as I'm guessing this is a little niche...
Example Scenario:
+1 Menacing Handwraps on a character with two claws and an Amulet of Mighty Fists +2
(assume the character is flanking)
Notes:
- The Handwraps do not work on Natural Attacks, only Unarmed Attacks.
- The Menacing ability does not require you to make an attack, just wield it.
Hand wraps keep your hands free for use with anything else (manipulation, holding items, wielding items). However, as soon as one hand is holding or wielding an item, it is no longer free to do an unarmed strike
- The Handwraps specifically say "A character can’t benefit from both handwraps and other items that provide enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities (such as an amulet of mighty fists) on the same attack."
So...
1. Does this mean a clawed hand that isn't currently making a claw attack would trigger Menacing?
2. The claw that is currently making an attack would only benefit from the Amulet and not the Handwraps - but, although it would not itself be Menacing, would it benefit from the effect of Menacing that the other non-attacking claw is triggering?
3. Effectively, can I swipe with a claw while shaking my fist Menacingly, and then swap hands between attacks to maintain the benefit?
|
While I don't think there has been an official ruling on Menacing, there was a clarification on the Defending enchant that you actually need to attack with the weapon to get the bonus to your AC: This ruling was made to avoid players stacking the enchant on weapons that don't actually occupy their hands (armor spikes, gauntlets, shield spikes, etc.) and getting a 'free' AC bonus every round.
Personally, I think the same principle should probably be applied to Menacing: The enchant only works if you actually attacked with the enchanted weapon this round, which means you'd need to make at least one unarmed attack. Otherwise, every set of magical armor should have armor spikes with this enchant...
This is one of those things that your GM will have to decide how it actually works: As written, it's a bit of a "no brainer" buff for any group that even occasionally flanks...
Oh crikey.
So I have read up on many, many, many threads on it and I can see why there was much confusion.
The long and the short of it seems to be that wielding requires you to actively use the weapon, not just hold it threateningly.
SKR has also posted specifically in response to the Menacing ability too.
Menacing says "wielder," so that says to me "the character with the wielding weapon is trying to attack with it on his turn, not merely holding it while making other attacks."
Thanks for your help Taja!
I'm with Taja, I think RAI is that you only profit form it if you attack with it.
For RAW, the issue is that that wield is a game term, but one that's not defined.
If you go with the general English meaning of the word ("hold and use"), you don't wield handwraps.
How the game uses it is roughly "have a weapon ready to use", but that leaves some uncertainty: The rules on natural attacks (CRB pg. 182) basically say you can't attack with a limb twice as both a manufacuted attack/unarmed strike, and a natural attack, but it doesn't say whether that limitation is only for a full attack, or for a round. The latter would clearly prevent manacing handwraps, but the former would leave it unclear.
There are weapon enchantments that have to work on turns where you don't actually attack with them - Dazzling Radiance is a prime example, it requires spending a full-round action on a feat. Between that and the defendign FAQ, there doesn't actually seem to be a consistent rule on what counts as wielding.
A compromise rule could be that you don't need to attack with a weapon to wield it, but if you attack, only weapons you attack with are considered being wielded. I think this captures the intend best.