Let me first say I know (or think I know) how this rule is supposed to work, and will assume you do as well. But let me walk you down a path of reading and logic that shows how the text is confusing and should probably be changed.
OK, first let us look at the rules for equipment use:
Source Player Core pg. 235 "Equipment"
"Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, holding it, or simply to have it."
OK cool, so if you hold and item in your hand(s), you are wielding it. There's a few exceptions (say if it needs two hands and you use one) but they aren't relevant to this discussion.
Now let us look at the rules for 4/6 hands from the ancestries that have them:
Source Player Core pg. 54 "Kasatha"
"You have four arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to four hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action action, which is a single action. You can wield items only with your active hands."
Source Player Core pg. 70 "Skittermander"
"You have six arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to six hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action, which is a single action. You can wield items only with your active hands."
OK, so I'm playing a skittermander and have a big gun in my active hands. I want to have a med patch in one of my other hands... but you are "wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively", so if I hold that med patch in any hand, I'm wielding it. The rules above say I can wield items only with my active hands. So I guess I can't hold that med patch in any non-active hand, ever....
Clearly this conclusion contradicts the intent, but it follows from the text because the meaning of "can wield items only with your active hands" is ambiguous. Does it mean that I can't do things that would result in wielding? To me that is the logical conclusion, but it clearly (or maybe not so clearly if that is the only source you have) is also NOT what the game intends.
I suggest these sections be changed as follows:
Source Player Core pg. 235 "Equipment"
"Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively and those hands are your active hands. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, holding it, or simply to have it."
Source Player Core pg. 54 "Kasatha"
"You have four arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to four hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action action, which is a single action. You wield items only with your active hands."
Source Player Core pg. 70 "Skittermander"
"You have six arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to six hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action, which is a single action. You wield items only with your active hands."
You're overthinking it.
As always, specific rules override general rules...
Equipment rule is a general rule talking about when you're wielding something
The rules for the Kasatha & Skittermanda are specific rules for that ancestry which say when you're holding something and when you're wielding something.Also, there's nothing in the equipment rule that says you're not holding something that you're wielding.
Yes, the problem is the specific rule was written to say when you "can wield" something, not when you "are wielding" it. So it is only logical the then ask "ok, what would cause me to wield things, and how do I avoid wielding them?" Which would lead you to concluding you can do something like hold a laser rifle with one hand, but not hold a laser pistol. Which is stupid... but I'd rather not have rules that depend on "that's stupid, ignore it" as a mechanic.
There indeed is nothing that say you are not holding something you are wielding. Or the other way around. That is the exact crux of the problem.
Yeah, even tho I do agree that your version of the text is more airtight legalese, I think the existing text is clear enough that I didn't have a problem understanding it.
I got really confused when you started saying things like " The rules above say I can wield items only with my active hands. So I guess I can't hold that med patch in any non-active hand, ever". It feels like you came to entirely the opposite conclusion of what that was supposed to mean.
It does come to the opposite conclusion of the INTENDED meaning. We "know" from art and playtesting and SF1 that these races are meant to hold items in their inactive hands.
Unfortunately, the language of the written rules does not actually implement that intention, or at least can lead you to the wrong conclusion without any grammatic or logical contradiction.
There are some ways to hold items without wielding them (any item that requires two hands to use, but is held in one hand) and following the (consistent but "incorrect") reading, you WOULD be able to do that, you just wouldn't be able to hold things in a way that allows use (which is the definition of "wield" the rules gives).
At first I thought this was going to be a parallel/duplicate of this thread discussing if you can use items or free-hand abilities with your non-active hands as long as the items don't require being wielded.
But it isn't. I hadn't considered the idea that a wielded item held in a non-active hand would be a rules violation and an unacceptable state for a character to be in.
And after considering it, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to come to. So I am invoking the Ambiguous Rules rule. Even if someone does want to rules lawyer that a Kasatha can't hold a knife in an inactive hand while wielding a 2-hand rifle in their active hands, that is a ruling with problematic repercussions. There is a perfectly good and more intuitive alternative ruling available to use - use that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the problem is the specific rule was written to say when you "can wield" something, not when you "are wielding" it. So it is only logical the then ask "ok, what would cause me to wield things, and how do I avoid wielding them?" Which would lead you to concluding you can do something like hold a laser rifle with one hand, but not hold a laser pistol. Which is stupid... but I'd rather not have rules that depend on "that's stupid, ignore it" as a mechanic.
Disagree. The reason you can't wield things with your offhands is because of the special mechanics of extra arms. That turns a pistol you would normally be wielding into a pistol you're not actually wielding despite holding it correctly.
The idea that it takes away your ability to hold items isn't something I can find easily and it sort of feels like forcing very specific interpretations of the rules to reach there more than anything else.
|
"Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, holding it, or simply to have it."
Okay, so allow me to rules lawyer this for you in such a way as to follow intent. The two bolded sentences are the crux here. The second one is the true qualifier - When wielding, you are ready to use it. If it's in your non-active hands, you are not ready to use it, therefore you are not wielding it, merely holding it. "you're not just carrying it around" all but explicitly states that things can just be carried around. It is an implicit reading of that clause.
The first sentence seems to contradict this, but even so can be read in a way to support it. "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it" looks like a standalone statement that says "wielding" and "holding" are the same thing. However, the sentence continues with the qualifier, "in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." If an item is being held in a non-active hand, it is not being held in the number of hands needed to be used effectively (because you cannot effectively use it), therefore it is not being wielded, it is only being held.
Spelled out a bit differently,
Wielding = Holding IF item can be used
Wielding ≠ Holding IF item cannot be used
If you activate the hand holding something, then whatever you are holding, if you can now use it effectively, becomes wielded, not just held. Otherwise, anything in your non-active hands is "just being carried around."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks with weapons and raising shields are currently the only actions requiring wielding (in active hands). All other item activations require held (in active or inactive hands).
The only difference between active and inactive hands is that the former can wield, and the only things that need to be wielded (so far) are weapons and shields.
You don’t need an active hand to climb or grapple, either. Those say an “empty” hand, not an active one, and wielding as part of a climb or grapple is a nonsequitor.
I'd rather not have rules that depend on "that's stupid, ignore it" as a mechanic.That's kind of been the core ruling since day 1 though
Indeed. Though that particular bit of rules nonsense was fixed in errata... in the 3rd printing of the CRB.
So there is at least always hope that anything that we point out on here will eventually get fixed.
At first I thought this was going to be a parallel/duplicate of this thread discussing if you can use items or free-hand abilities with your non-active hands as long as the items don't require being wielded.
But it isn't. I hadn't considered the idea that a wielded item held in a non-active hand would be a rules violation and an unacceptable state for a character to be in.
And after considering it, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to come to.
Yes, that is exactly my conclusion as well. My point isn't that it is a reasonable conclusion - my point is that it the rules shouldn't potentially lead you to such a conclusion. Because on my first read, it IS the conclusion I reached. Sort of - I concluded you couldn't use the stuff you held in non-active hands, then later realized that train of logic actually meant you couldn't hold most stuff at all. Which as you say, is not reasonable.
For what it is worth, the latest 4 armed race, the Shobhad, actually has a different "Four armed" rule text than the Kasatha. At least they do as posted on Nethys. And it uses the language I proposed. So... eratta applied?
Four-Armed (Shobhad)
You have four arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to four hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action. Unless otherwise indicated, you wield items only with your active hands. For more information on playing characters with more than two hands, see Hands.
Four-Armed (Kastaha)
You have four arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to four hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action action, which is a single action. You can wield items only with your active hands.
The Shobhad text implies (to me) there may be specific rules that allow wielding with non-active hands.
The Kasatha text doesn't allow for wielding in non-active hands (unless you apply the standard "specific overrides general" rule)
Maybe, but if the only difference is you can't wield, why not just make the hands you want to allow wielding with active? We already have rules that allow you to have more then two active hands (temporarily). That seems to cover the use case of "wielding with more than 2 hands" just fine.