Torag's Patient Strikes reads "Whenever you wield a warhammer, add your Wisdom bonus to the total number of attacks of opportunity that you can make per round."
Do these extra AoOs have to be made with that warhammer?
For example, if I'm wielding a warhammer in my main hand and a dagger in my off hand (or have Improved Unarmed Strike), could I make the AoO with the dagger or unarmed strike?
Nothing in the plain text of the feat suggests I couldn't, but it seems to go against the spirit of what Torag would intend and the word "wield."
Whenever you wield a warhammer, add your Wisdom bonus to the total number of attacks of opportunity that you can make per round. These additional attacks of opportunity don’t stack with those granted by Combat Reflexes, but this benefit counts as Combat Reflexes for the purpose of satisfying feat prerequisites and prestige class requirements. In addition, you can make attacks of opportunity while you’re flat-footed.
so it's all there. Notice Divine Fighting using Wis is substituting for Combat Reflexes with Dex in a non-stacking way.
Just remember that RAW is written in conversational descriptive english for the most part and not technical writing, so there's room for interpretation. It has the Open Road icon so it is PFS approved (no obvious issues).
I'd say the first attack has to be with the warhammer thus you are wielding it without question. The rest could be another weapon but the intent(when you wield a warhammer...) is that it be with the warhammer AND divine things are both themed and judge moral/ethical intent. As it's not just about rule lawyering RAW, your Home GM will put on his LG Torag hat and see what he thinks about your rule interpretation, just remember circumstances are also considered. Personally I can't see punishing a servant who acts in good faith for a few well placed and needed dagger attacks but deities are tricky things. At worst you'll have to get a regular(cheaper) atonement which is embarrassing if your PC is clergy.
Two weapon fighting involves penalties to both weapons so it's not ideal.
The number of regular attacks scale with BAB so you have to work within that number.
I agree with your general analysis, though as a Lawful god Torag would appreciate leaving no stone unturned in search of RAW-legal fighting techniques.
This particular one started with an effort to make a Panther/Cloak and Dagger Style user. I realized I was getting Vital Strike and needed more AoOs, so Torag's fighting style seemed like a natural fit, but Cloak and Dagger doesn't work with warhammers and I was high-Wis anyhow for Panther Style.
So the idea would be to use the warhammer for my attacks, and Improved Unarmed Strike for my AoOs. Never actually using two-weapon fighting.
at this point my suggestion is to transition to the Advice forum where posters can help with your build and feat choices.
State your general desires, then race, ability scores, and what levels up to 5 you are thinking about with key equipment and feats.
Then come back here and post a link to your advice thread.
advice:
notice my hedge in my post, "...for a few well placed and needed dagger attacks..." this says I don't think it works all the time.
so there are a couple of common issues;
> deity weapon not that great statistic wise. It can be a thematic trap for 3/4 & 1/2 BAB classes.
> mfg weapons have easy enhancements and materials to overcome common DR issues. IUS & Natural attacks suffer on this topic.
> one big weapon does better than two smaller weapons, compounded by 3/4 BAB. Precision damage never keeps pace and requires battlefield control/tactics.
> dwarves get (easier) access to some good weapons.
There are always two layers to Divine stuff, RAW and then moral/ethical/alignment adjudication.
"Insert the usual rant on the use and misuse of wield."
While the use in the rules isn't totally coherent, wielding normally means "actively use", not simply "hold in one of your hands". If you don't use the Warhammer for the AoO you aren't wielding it.
As the feat requires you to wield a Warhammer to benefit from it, you are forced to make the AoO with it.
"Insert the usual rant on the use and misuse of wield."
While the use in the rules isn't totally coherent, wielding normally means "actively use", not simply "hold in one of your hands". If you don't use the Warhammer for the AoO you aren't wielding it.
As the feat requires you to wield a Warhammer to benefit from it, you are forced to make the AoO with it.
That is one interpretation I was thinking of. I've read a few of the threads on here endlessly debating "wield," but the ones I found were quite old and clear on the point that 1E does not actually define the term. I was hoping there was a newer consensus.
Lacking a specific game definition of the two words, you fall back on the English definition of the words.
wield: to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
hold: to have or keep in the hand; keep fast; grasp: She held the purse in her right hand. He held the child's hand in his.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.
I think the second must be taken in the contest of "you need to hold a 2-handed sword in two hands to wield it.", but it shows how even the Devs didn't have a clear definition of the term.
It is one of the reasons why they wrote a second edition. Sadly, I don't like it much. I would have greatly preferred a rewrite and streamlining of the first edition.
