If a thaumaturge has a weapon implement in one hand, and a single one-handed weapon in the other, can they benefit from Implement’s Empowerment with the latter?
The way I see it, there are two possible interpretations:
1) It works, because they have a single one-handed weapon and the empowering implement. All conditions are met.
2) It doesn't work, because they have two one-handed weapons, not a single one. One of the conditions has been violated.
What do you think and why?
|
I think the "single one-handed weapon" part means that they cannot dual wield. A significant part of my reasoning is "that just seems too good to be true"
However, I do think that RAW they CAN take Spirit Warrior and use sword/fist. Which is much more powerful than dual wielding and I would NOT allow it at a table I was GMing whether or not it is RAW.
Hasn't this been sufficiently discussed before?
Hasn't this been sufficiently discussed before?
No.
Damned if you necro a thread, damned if you create a new thread.
Just can't please everyone I guess.
The answer was no before, it's still no now. Nothing has changed.
If they can’t have a weapon in the other hand, wouldn’t that mean they couldn’t wear a gauntlet? Even if it was one they never struck with, unruned and all.
Actually wouldn’t that also be the case for a gauntlet on the same hand as the weapon, which can’t even strike in the first place? You are holding it, and it’s a weapon.
Somebody should tell all those thaums multiclassing into champion and sentinel for heavy armor that their builds are illegal (as nearly all heavy armors have gauntlets built into the armor).
Somebody should tell all those thaums multiclassing into champion and sentinel for heavy armor that their builds are illegal (as nearly all heavy armors have gauntlets as part of the armor).
I mean if that's how you want to run things, have at it buddy.
I would rather just interpret the rules in a way that allow my players more options (such as heavy armor thaums AND dual-wielding weapon thaums).
|
I mean then why are you asking, it's not like you need us to tell you what to do. Interpret or adjust the rules as you see fit for your table.
That aside I really don't think it's going to be a problem either way you rule it. A thaum probably doesn't want to duel wield anyway, and being able to chose between which weapon your strike with is not enough of an upgrade to do anything.
However, reading it as "holding a weapon, including a gauntlet, in their other hand disables the implement" seems like a pretty silly conclusion. The game normally explicitly calls out when you need a free hand.
Edit: NVM, implement's empowerment does contain this language. I am the silly one who confused the reaction for implement's empowerment. I do think the gauntlet thing is splitting hairs though, as technically correct as it is.
Actually wouldn’t that also be the case for a gauntlet on the same hand as the weapon, which can’t even strike in the first place? You are holding it, and it’s a weapon.The free hand trait covers this.
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.EDIT: My bad, I see now what you mean.. if you are holding your weapon in the same hand as you have a gauntlet then they are technically holding a weapon and the gauntlet. But no I think thats kinda silly, when we have items like the buckler which arent held to begin with.
You're not holding something that doesn't take up your hand. That's the point of the free hand trait.
I mean, are you holding mittens when you're wearing them? Because that's effectively what a gauntlet is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll repeat what I said on reddit:
The answer is 2. It doesn't work. If you're wielding two weapons, you are by definition not wielding "a single one-handed weapon." The word single matters quite a lot there.
It doesn't make sense for it to be 1 because the word single serves no purpose in this sentence otherwise. You can't wield two weapons in one hand so that condition can never ben broken if it's only looking at one hand at a time. This includes free weapons, because they're not "wielded" while the hand is occupied with something else.
Thaumaturge can't dual-wield if you want to use Implements Empowerment.
Some people's attempts to rules lawyer around this by claiming "logic" while just ignoring what "wielding a single weapon" means aside.
Actually wouldn’t that also be the case for a gauntlet on the same hand as the weapon, which can’t even strike in the first place? You are holding it, and it’s a weapon.The free hand trait covers this.
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.EDIT: My bad, I see now what you mean.. if you are holding your weapon in the same hand as you have a gauntlet then they are technically holding a weapon and the gauntlet. But no I think thats kinda silly, when we have items like the buckler which arent held to begin with.You're not holding something that doesn't take up your hand. That's the point of the free hand trait.
I mean, are you holding mittens when you're wearing them? Because that's effectively what a gauntlet is.
The free hand trait says you can hold other stuff too, doesn’t say you’re not holding it. It’s still on your hand. Besides if you did interpret it that way then whether thaum could use implement’s empowerment depends on whether it’s holding an additional item in it’s off hand hand (in addition to the gauntlet). Pull out your bell implement, you’re fine. Put it away, no damage.
If a thaumaturge has a weapon implement in one hand, and a single one-handed weapon in the other, can they benefit from Implement’s Empowerment with the latter?
They can in they use another implement as an improvised weapon. A scepter, for instance, can make a mighty fine club. Take Weapon Improviser Dedication and you get rid of the -2 to hit and make sure you're getting at least 1d6 base damage, or 1d4 for agile. Most implements can be large enough to justify a decent amount of damage dealt.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it like this. The thaumaturge class got loaded up with a lot of stuff to hold in your hands that get in the way of holding a 2H weapon, dual wielding, or sword and shield. Like, you're holding chalices, amulets, lanterns and all that. As a result, you're a bit behind other martials who can devote their hands fully to weapons and shields.
Implement's Empowerment is a compensation for that. It gives a one-handed weapon about the same damage as a two-handed weapon. But if you could actually find a way to hold implements and also fully use your hands for weaponry like other martials, you don't need this compensation anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you are wielding a single weapon and an implement (which just so happens to be a weapon)I'll repeat what I said on reddit:
The answer is 2. It doesn't work. If you're wielding two weapons, you are by definition not wielding "a single one-handed weapon." The word single matters quite a lot there.
It doesn't make sense for it to be 1 because the word single serves no purpose in this sentence otherwise. You can't wield two weapons in one hand so that condition can never ben broken if it's only looking at one hand at a time. This includes free weapons, because they're not "wielded" while the hand is occupied with something else.
Thaumaturge can't dual-wield if you want to use Implements Empowerment.
Some people's attempts to rules lawyer around this by claiming "logic" while just ignoring what "wielding a single weapon" means aside.
A weapon being an implement doesn't stop it from also being a weapon. So if you're holding a weapon implement and another weapon, you're holding two weapons. That is not "a single one-handed weapon."
The free hand trait says you can hold other stuff too, doesn’t say you’re not holding it. It’s still on your hand. Besides if you did interpret it that way then whether thaum could use implement’s empowerment depends on whether it’s holding an additional item in it’s off hand hand (in addition to the gauntlet). Pull out your bell implement, you’re fine. Put it away, no damage.
So I repeat: are you holding mittens that you're wearing while out shoveling snow? That's not how English works. You're not holding gauntlets when something else is in that hand, you're wearing them.
And yes: Implements Empowerment requires you to be holding an implement. It says that flat out. So if you're holding a weapon that isn't an implement and there isn't an implement in your other hand, you don't get Implements Empowerment.