PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] When are you considered wielding a weapon?



feyanor
2010-08-08, 07:39 AM
Ok, basicially read the title .

When is a character considered to be wielding a specific weapon(for example for the purpose of iajutsu master ac bonus, pls no discussion on this prC or OA)?
Some possible answers I thought off.

1. He is holding it.
2. He is holding it and has attacked in the same round.
3. He is holding it and has attacked since drawing it.
4. He is carrying it with him in a rdy postion(sheathed on the belt...) and is not flatfooted therefore able to actually attack in a short time. This point as it stands seems unlikely, but gets grey when the character has quickdraw or any other way of drawing as a free action, since he could technically attack in the same move as drawing, which would make it the same situation as point 1.

Thanks for your thoughts.

P.S. Yes I posted the same query on brilliant gameologists, but there are ppl not posting on both forums :p.

dextercorvia
2010-08-08, 07:43 AM
It's not just holding it. There is an item in MIC called (IIRC) Spare Hand. It can hold objects, including weapons, but is not able to wield them unless you spend a (3rd level?) infusion on it.

Aroka
2010-08-08, 07:45 AM
1., with common sense (e.g. it must be in your hand, not between your teeth or gripped with your toes).

Exceptions like dextercorvia describes are exceptions.

Arctura42
2010-08-08, 07:49 AM
...but what about Zoro? And his tri-wielded katanas?

feyanor
2010-08-08, 07:50 AM
Hmm what about point 4 then?
Considering the way japanesse fighting styles work, someone skilled in them having a sheathed katana on his hip, could be as deadly as someone else allready holding it...
And common sense is allways a nice thing to have, but in my experience it never carries weight in rules discussions :p.

And arctura has a point there... It is a game of heroes and exeptional ppl so weirder ideas happen.

Aroka
2010-08-08, 07:51 AM
...but what about Zoro? And his tri-wielded katanas?

I guess he sucks majorly unless he's a rogue, and if he is one, he's sucking up a pointless -2 penalty to all attacks for a pitiful +2 to average damage by not just wielding three short swords.


Hmm what about point 4 then?
Considering the way japanesse fighting styles work, someone skilled in them having a sheathed katana on his hip, could be as deadly as someone else allready holding it...
And common sense is allways a nice thing to have, but in my experience it never carries weight in rules discussions :p.

Unless you get more specific about situations, it's hard to get your point and answer your question in a useful way.

Someone who's carrying a sheathed weapon and has Quick Draw isn't wielding that weapon until she takes a free action (only on her turn) and uses Quick Draw to draw the weapon. Then it's 1. and she's wielding it.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 07:52 AM
...but what about Zoro? And his tri-wielded katanas?

To Wield: handle effectively; "The burglar wielded an axe"; "The young violinist didn't manage her bow very well"

So, basically, it is holding it with the conscious effort of using it in combat.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-08-08, 08:01 AM
To put it simply, if you could use that weapon to make an AoO, you are wielding it.

Forget about conditions that would cause you to be unable to make AoOs for this. As long as you threaten any space with the weapon, you are wielding it. For example, just by wearing armor spikes you threaten adjacent squares and can use them to make AoOs into those squares, even if you've been attacking with a different weapon such as a reach weapon. If the weapon is sheathed, you are not wielding it because you do not threaten any squares with it. Even with quick-draw, you aren't wielding it until you've drawn it. Even if you could somehow draw it as an immediate action, you would not be wielding it until you've drawn it, though you could draw it in response to an attack and thus be considered wielding it when that attack is resolved.

Aroka
2010-08-08, 08:04 AM
To put it simply, if you could use that weapon to make an AoO, you are wielding it.

D'oh, I didn't even think of armor spikes.

However, isn't this a circular definition? When are you threatening squares with a weapon? When you're wielding it. Well, when are you wielding a weapon? When you're threatening squares with it!

feyanor
2010-08-08, 08:11 AM
Thanks =).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 08:19 AM
D'oh, I didn't even think of armor spikes.

However, isn't this a circular definition? When are you threatening squares with a weapon? When you're wielding it. Well, when are you wielding a weapon? When you're threatening squares with it!

Correct. Wielding a weapon is an active effort to use it. There's no written rule on what consists "an active effort to use it".

For example, you can hold(but not wield) a spear while wielding a short sword. You only threaten and attack with the sword.
If you want to wield the spear and just hold the sword, you only threaten and attack with the spear.
If you want to wield both, you enter twf mode, threatening and attacking with both.
The rules also don't specify a fixed offhand, so your offhand is just the hand you're not devoting most of your attention to.

It's up to the dm to determine how often you can "switch off" your weapons. My group's solution was: once per round, as a free action, applies until you change it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-08-08, 08:31 AM
However, isn't this a circular definition? When are you threatening squares with a weapon?
No.

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares)

If you are capable of making an attack with the weapon into a square, then you threaten that square. For most characters, capability to attack a certain square has four basic requirements:
The weapon is ready (i.e. unsheathed and properly carried by the user)
The weapon can reach into the target square.
The user is not flat-footed
The user is not otherwise prevented from taking an Attack or Full Attack action

If you meet those requirements, then you threaten the target square and can be said to be wielding the weapon.

Aroka
2010-08-08, 08:45 AM
If you want to wield both, you enter twf mode, threatening and attacking with both.

I was under the impression you could wield both without using TWF? You don't take extra attacks, but instead alternate your iteratives between the weapons (say, the BAB +6 with the spear and the BAB +1 with the sword).

Shhalahr: Right, but you're not defining the wielding through the threatening there, you're defining the threatening through the wielding and giving wielding a separate sensible definition ("unsheathed and properly carried by the user").

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 08:51 AM
I was under the impression you could wield both without using TWF? You don't take extra attacks, but instead alternate your iteratives between the weapons (say, the BAB +6 with the spear and the BAB +1 with the sword).

Shhalahr: Right, but you're not defining the wielding through the threatening there, you're defining the threatening through the wielding and giving wielding a separate sensible definition ("unsheathed and properly carried by the user").

That's certainly possible too, but I wasn't sure of the wording. It is something my group does regularly. Guisarme + spiked gauntlets = out of reach your ass!

lesser_minion
2010-08-08, 08:57 AM
I was under the impression you could wield both without using TWF? You don't take extra attacks, but instead alternate your iteratives between the weapons (say, the BAB +6 with the spear and the BAB +1 with the sword).

Shhalahr: Right, but you're not defining the wielding through the threatening there, you're defining the threatening through the wielding and giving wielding a separate sensible definition ("unsheathed and properly carried by the user").

My impression was that the rules are unclear on the point, but that according to FAQ, you cannot wield two weapons without taking two-weapon fighting penalties.

Consensus on the boards is that it's perfectly reasonable to rule it the other way, however, and that it doesn't create an imbalance (at least, not for defending weapons).

Aroka
2010-08-08, 09:01 AM
It seems to me that the TWF penalties are taken in exchange for getting extra attacks; if you don't take (or intend to take) the extra attacks, you don't take the penalties for them. (This is why I allow all-unarmed-strike TWF.)

JaronK
2010-08-08, 09:03 AM
Factoring in Armor Spikes, Mouthpick Weapons, Dancing Weapons, and Eager/Warning Weapons, I would say that wielding a weapon means you are controlling it in such a way that you could theoretically attack with it without changing how you're controlling it. Thus, armor spikes are always wielded if you're wearing the armor, hand weapons are usually wielded when held with a sufficient number of hands (but if for some reason you couldn't use the weapon, for example it's a huge sword and you're small, you're not wielding it), and Gnomish Quickrazors are only wielded while you're attacking with them (since they are sheathed otherwise).

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-08-08, 09:05 AM
It seems to me that the TWF penalties are taken in exchange for getting extra attacks; if you don't take (or intend to take) the extra attacks, you don't take the penalties for them. (This is why I allow all-unarmed-strike TWF.)

As I said, it's reasonable to rule that. FAQs are generally poorly-regarded, after all.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 09:08 AM
My impression was that the rules are unclear on the point, but that according to FAQ, you cannot wield two weapons without taking two-weapon fighting penalties.

Consensus on the boards is that it's perfectly reasonable to rule it the other way, however, and that it doesn't create an imbalance (at least, not for defending weapons).

No, not really. here's the TWF quote from RC:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack.

Emphasis on "you can", not "you must".

----

Example: If you have quick draw you can attack with your greatsword, then draw and throw a javelin, and attack with your greatsword for the rest of your iterative attacks.

lesser_minion
2010-08-08, 09:19 AM
No, not really. here's the TWF quote from RC:

Emphasis on "you can", not "you must".

Yes, the extra attack is optional. The unclear part is whether "fighting in this way..." refers to wielding two weapons, or to claiming the additional attack.

I personally go with the second interpretation, and I suspect most DMs do the same. At the same time, my understanding is that WotC think of that as a houserule.