"To wield or not to wield" - That is here the question

[Gruftzwerg]

As a followup thread from: This Thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652743-Is-the-Mage-Armor-spell-too-cheap&p=25689658#post25689658)

The original thread derailed into the question: When or how do you "wield" a weapon in 3.5 or not?

The reason was the "Defending" special ability for weapons which can provide AC bonuses and how much it is stackable.


We have 2 contrary opinions so far:

1) You "wield" any normal weapon you hold in your hands, and any other "worn" weapon you have (e.g. Armor Spikes, Spiked Gauntlets, ...) all at the same time.

2) You sole wield those weapon that you have designated for "use". Which means, you designate it at mainhand or offhand weapon, or you designate both hands for 2h use.
While you could cycle trough more weapons by changing the designation during your turn as often as you want (and actiions allow it), you can normally only designate 2 weapons. (Unless we are talking about the exception of Natural Weapons or mutiarmed creatures. Those are handled different). Switching to a weapon that is readied (like Spiked Armor) is a non-action. Thus the DM is free to allow it outside of your turn, to allow quick changes for AoO. If he doesn't allow it, your last designation at the end of your turn counts. The DM has the right to make this decision freely, since by the rules the DM may decide which actions can be taken outside of your turn.

__________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Disagree.


Disagree.


You really didn't read what I answered you. You asked this two or three times and I every time answered you. My answer didn't change.


No I don't. Of course we "rely on the English language for the English rules, if a word is undefined" we have no other option. But it isn't RAW, it at best is RAI because we forced to guess what authors had in mind.
As always you sole disagree without telling us why. Would you be so kind to explain the argument behind your decision here? That would help the discussion.

For you RAW doesn't seem to exist at all: Because every sentence in the 3.5 rules make use of words that have no specific 3.5 definition. And because we have to guess their general definition in the English language its not RAW. Sorry, I don't buy that. RAW exists. Otherwise so many people wouldn't differentiate between RAW and RAI for over 20 years now. If you don't believe in it, better stop bothering with RAW discussions. Because you won't convince the entire forum that RAW doesn't exist.

And I'm not guessing here. I have shown that there is a clear difference between passive wearing/holding something and the active wield/use of something. That is not guessing, but simple logic imho. Wielding and using something needs more mental effort than just holding or wearing something.

______________________________________________


The second, fifth, sixth, and eighth uses in this case do not specify to hold, and instead use the term handle, or the terms employ and use.
Though in english the word handle the root word is hand, many definitions can mean to use or employ with skill and do not specify holding.
As said, imho there is a fundamental difference between "wielding/using/handling" something and just "holding/wearing something". The former needs your active mental attention to some degree, while the latter is done more passively. I hope that you can see the difference.






The rules compendium update doesn't break a thing. In fact it makes more sense. Yes you would be able to use a swift action wand with a standard action wand without the feat. But with the feat you would then be able to use two standard action, or two full round action wands that you would not be able to otherwise.
I posted it to show that you already could wield and even use 2 wands without Double Wand Wilder.
Since you are implying that just "holding" something automatically qualifies as "wielding", the DWW would do nothing in your interpretation, and even worsen your charge consumption for the secondary wand.
But with my interpretation of "wield" the feat does what it does. It allows you to use those wands, because "wield" implies "intend to use" and not just "holding/wearing" something. Try to see the difference.
"Holding" doesn't need the intend to "use actions" in 3.5 for it.
"Wielding" is the preparing step for using it. This is also true if you sole designate it for an AoO at the end of your turn (or even outside of your turn if the DM allows it). You show your intent to use the weapon for AoO by designating it. The remaining question is just when the DM allows for designation: sole your turn or on the fly at any time?




The first assumption skips over disarms reading of the defender wielding thier weapon(s) regardless of if they have attacked.

With regards to the example of using two daggers and twf using those during an attack, and having armour spikes I would disagree with your example, because if an enemy provoked an AoO I would be able to use any weapon I have available and ready to use, in this case either dagger or the armour spikes to make the attack. And this is the case because I am wielding the armour spikes.
In these cases main hand and off hand are not the only ways to wield something.

In the instance of a necklace of natural weapons only a single magic item is granting this effect (albeit to multiple natural attacks) so under the rules it should dictate that uses and bonuses granted come from a single source, the necklace. Much like manufactured weapons we would need more than one source for more effects to stack.


You have yet to disprove a defender of a disarm attempt and when the weapon in question is not being wielded, and AoO rules disprove your reading of twf and needing to attack to be wielded initially.

I am positing that the ability to make an attack without need to draw or prepare/activate is the state of something being wielded regardless of if you do make an attack with it(specific magic items excluded).
As said multiple times now: "By the rules, the DM has the duty to determine which "non-actions" can be taken outside of your turn and which not."

That is his duty, but nothing forces him into any decision. If you ask me, yes I allow it too, but RAW just allows me to do it. It doesn't force me to rule it that way. Any DM is free to disallow you to re-designate your weapons outside of your turn if he wishes by RAW.

Regarding the "necklace of natural weapons":
You are talking about the "spell stacking rules". This is an item and has nothing to do with those rules. The effect is not an SLA or in any other way representing a spell.

[pabelfly]

Switching to a weapon that is readied (like Spiked Armor) is a non-action. Thus the DM is free to allow it outside of your turn, to allow quick changes for AoO.

Reading feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, the penalties that you incur to your attacks from these continue after your turn is over and ends with your next turn, ie, also apply to attacks of opportunity. I would infer that you can't switch between weapons during this either. If you don't have time to change your offensive or defensive penalties to suit circumstances between rounds, you don't have time to change weapons either.

[loky1109]

As always you sole disagree without telling us why. Would you be so kind to explain the argument behind your decision here? That would help the discussion.
No, I wouldn't. I don't want repeat and repeat. I said all my arguments more than once and they still here. Well, there (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652743-Is-the-Mage-Armor-spell-too-cheap).


For you RAW doesn't seem to exist at all
It many cases it's true.


Because every sentence in the 3.5 rules make use of words that have no specific 3.5 definition.
You still don't understand difference between word and term. We are have nothing to talk about if we don't share base.


And I'm not guessing here.
That is not guessing, but simple logic imho.
That exactly is guessing.


I have shown that there is a clear difference between passive wearing/holding something and the active wield/use of something.
You didn't convince me.


As said, imho there is a fundamental difference between "wielding/using/handling" something and just "holding/wearing something".
By your logic you nobody can be disarmed on the surprise round or before his first initiative.


If you don't have time to change your offensive or defensive penalties to suit circumstances between rounds, you don't have time to change weapons either.
If you are disarmed during your turn you can't draw another weapon to continue your attacks and can't attack without weapon, yeah. Same logic.

[Gruftzwerg]

Reading feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, the penalties that you incur to your attacks from these continue after your turn is over and ends with your next turn, ie, also apply to attacks of opportunity. I would infer that you can't switch between weapons during this either. If you don't have time to change your offensive or defensive penalties to suit circumstances between rounds, you don't have time to change weapons either.
Imho I don't see any reason to deny a weapon switch during your own turn. That would be a houserule. Because it's RAW to make a full-round action and e.g. drop a weapon and draw another via quick draw.
The Power Attack penalty stays fixed until the start of your turn and remains uneffected. The dmg bonus of the new weapon is according to the new weapon (e.g. light weapon = no dmg bonus from PS, but still the penalty).




No, I wouldn't. I don't want repeat and repeat. I said all my arguments more than once and they still here. Well, there (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652743-Is-the-Mage-Armor-spell-too-cheap).

Sorry, but that is the sole thing that I remember. That you keep saying that you already answered it. And if you are to lazy to point to that post of yours, I am to lazy to search 4 pages for your answer.
Posting the entire thread as your answer ain't helpful here.



It many cases it's true.
You can argue that RAW is not precise enough, but you can't argue that RAW doesn't exist. RAW is just the literal reading of the rules. People may still have different opinions of what RAW says, but that doesn't change "Rules As Written" still exist. Or do your 3.5 have blanko pages, compared to mine? You still are mixing RAW and RAI together here. You can argue that RAI doesn't exist because RAW doesn't always provide any indicators what their intention was. And FAQ and sage advice don't cover all topics regarding RAI.
But you can't argue that the "rules as written" exist...




You still don't understand difference between word and term. We are have nothing to talk about if we don't share base.

I agree that I don't agree with your interpretation of the word "term". A term of the English language sole becomes a 3.5 specific term, if it has a 3.5 specific definition. Sine we lack a definition of "wield" in 3.5, it is not a "specific 3.5 term", but sole a term of the English language.
Assuming that "wield" has any special meaning in 3.5 without prove of a definition is a RAI assumption and not RAW. Because you assume things not presented by the "Rules As Written". That is not RAW but RAI. Try to see the difference and that your argumentation has left RAW long ago by making that assumption.
Unless you start giving RAW arguments, it will sole affect my RAI point of view.


That exactly is guessing.
Excuse me, but I have to genuinely ask if you wanna troll me here. You assume 3.5 specific meanings without proving any rule text as prove and while I provide logical arguments for my interpretation. Logic ain't guessing. Assuming things not presented in the rule text is guessing. So stop guessing (RAI) and start to talks about RAW if you wanna chance my RAW point of view.



You didn't convince me.
As long as you can't provide a logical counterargument, I book it as point for me.



By your logic you nobody can be disarmed on the surprise round or before his first initiative.

Dunno where you did pull that from? It depends on the situation:

a) You are in town using your quarterstaff as walking stick. You don't show the intent to immediately put it to use. As such you use the disarm rules for items.

b) You are in the wilderness and say that you hold your quarterstaff ready for combat (not using it as a walking stick).

Note that in most cities it is against the law to run around with drawn weapons. While you may have quarterstaff as walking stick, handling it like a weapon you are about to attack with might cause problems. Just think about a baseball bat nowadays. Holding and carrying it around might be legal. But running around "wielding" it (looking ready for an attack), might cause problems in some countries.





If you are disarmed during your turn you can't draw another weapon to continue your attacks and can't attack without weapon, yeah. Same logic.
Why would that be the case if you have the actions for it? Can you point me to any rule that supports this? What stop the disarmed person to draw another weapon in his turn (as long as he has the actions for it)? Or to make his remaining attacks with Unarmed Strikes?

[pabelfly]

Imho I don't see any reason to deny a weapon switch during your own turn. That would be a houserule. Because it's RAW to make a full-round action and e.g. drop a weapon and draw another via quick draw.
The Power Attack penalty stays fixed until the start of your turn and remains uneffected. The dmg bonus of the new weapon is according to the new weapon (e.g. light weapon = no dmg bonus from PS, but still the penalty).

You could do it in your own turn, yes. Could you do it between turns? I think not.


Why would that be the case if you have the actions for it? Can you point me to any rule that supports this? What stop the disarmed person to draw another weapon in his turn (as long as he has the actions for it)? Or to make his remaining attacks with Unarmed Strikes?

Turn Order
You - attack with a weapon
Monster - disarms weapon

Now the claim is that, you, the player, can't draw another weapon until your next turn. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

[loky1109]

And if you are to lazy to point to that post of yours, I am to lazy to search 4 pages for your answer.
It isn't about lazy/not lazy. It's about pointless. You don't ready change your mind about this topic. I don't too.


RAW is just the literal reading of the rules.
You can't read things that don't exist.


Or do your 3.5 have blanko pages, compared to mine?
Yes, that page where should be definition of term "wield".


You still are mixing RAW and RAI together here.
You do this. Your idea about using colloquial definition as terms is distinctly RAI.


Assuming that "wield" has any special meaning in 3.5 without prove of a definition is a RAI assumption and not RAW.
Assuming that "wield" has any special meaning in 3.5 is YOUR point. You based on it all your argumentation. If no special meaning exists, no issues exist. Making decision about limitation on number of wielding weapons REQUIRES special meaning. And you use one of colloquial definitions as special.


Because you assume things not presented by the "Rules As Written". That is not RAW but RAI.
I assume that RAW isn't full. I don't interpret them and I clearly don't say that this incompleteness is somebody Intention. I opposite say we can't know what was Intention, because we have nothing Written.
You assume that wield means "to hold a weapon with the intent to use it." It is thing not presented by the "Rules As Written". That is not RAW but RAI.


Try to see the difference and that your argumentation has left RAW long ago by making that assumption.
"RAW are incomplete" isn't assumption. I have examples. I'm sure you have examples, too.


Logic ain't guessing.
Logic works with some input data and you guess about what data to input. Inputting "to hold a weapon with the intent to use it" as definition of wield is guessing.


Assuming things not presented in the rule text is guessing.
Really? Do you want to say somewhere in rules is definition of "wield"? Or do you want to say you don't need some definition of "wield" to make decision about topic? Or do you want to say somewhere in rules written that we should use general definition if we have no specials?


So stop guessing (RAI) and start to talks about RAW if you wanna chance my RAW point of view.
There is no RAW about topic.


Note that in most cities it is against the law to run around with drawn weapons. While you may have quarterstaff as walking stick, handling it like a weapon you are about to attack with might cause problems.
What did I just read? Do you really think "quarterstaff as walking stick" and "quarterstaff as a weapon" have different look?


Why would that be the case if you have the actions for it? Can you point me to any rule that supports this?
Yes, there isn't rules that supports this. It was sarcasm.
You said:

If you don't have time to change your offensive or defensive penalties to suit circumstances between rounds, you don't have time to change weapons either.
I clearly "don't have time to change your offensive or defensive penalties" during my own turn and this in no way prevents me from changing weapon. This your point is pointless.

[ciopo]

doesn't 1# imply that a stack of +1 defending shurikens results in some handy +50AC at the low price of 4000gp ?

I don't think we can assign meaning to "wield" since it's not defined in rules terms.. BUT , defending as a property says : "As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon" (emphasis mine) , which I feels neatly solves (or just sidesteps) this specific problem of a stack of 50 defending shurikens. you need to be using the weapon to get it the benefit, be it as enhancement bonus to attack/damage or untyped bonus to armor.

is "using the weapon" similarly undefined? I mean I can picture the shurikens swirling around yourself "defending" you, but that's post-hoc justification for that cheap +50AC.

BUT! , if we also classify increasing the AC with defending as "using" the weapon at hand (ha), then I would say the shuriken get consumed?... except not because ammunitions get destroyed as a conseguence of hitting/not hitting


Anyway, if we can correlate that using a weapon=making an attack with it(or something else), then we can use that "making an attack/something else" as the discrete flag for defending/not defending with it, too?


that's problematic too however. Putting aside shuriken shenanigans, let's consider a giant octopus kensai that chooses to make his tentacles "+5 defending"

Now, it is clear that all 8 tentacles are active weaponry, and so said octopus can potentially get himself a variable amount of extra AC, up to 40


Where's the discrete unit?

[loky1109]

First of all.

wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC
Second. Between "start of turn" and "using of weapon" you can be attacked. Is your point you don't receive defending bonus against these attacks?

[Menzath]

Original thread derailed into the question: When or how do you "wield" a weapon in 3.5 or not?

We really did derail the other thread hard didn't we? This is just such an interesting argument of ambiguity that I couldn't help it.




As said, imho there is a fundamental difference between "wielding/using/handling" something and just "holding/wearing something". The former needs your active mental attention to some degree, while the latter is done more passively. I hope that you can see the difference.

For the definition of handle that means "to employ with skill" imho that sounds like needing a high degree of mental attention to me. So I would say the definition still matches with the action that I have outlined.




I posted it to show that you already could wield and even use 2 wands without Double Wand Wilder.
Since you are implying that just "holding" something automatically qualifies as "wielding", the DWW would do nothing in your interpretation, and even worsen your charge consumption for the secondary wand.
But with my interpretation of "wield" the feat does what it does. It allows you to use those wands, because "wield" implies "intend to use" and not just "holding/wearing" something. Try to see the difference.
"Holding" doesn't need the intend to "use actions" in 3.5 for it.
"Wielding" is the preparing step for using it. This is also true if you sole designate it for an AoO at the end of your turn (or even outside of your turn if the DM allows it). You show your intent to use the weapon for AoO by designating it. The remaining question is just when the DM allows for designation: sole your turn or on the fly at any time?

It would worsen using two swift action wands, or a swift and a standard, yes. But as previously outlined it would allow usage of a standard and full action wands, or any combination thereof and be an overall benefit.




As said multiple times now: "By the rules, the DM has the duty to determine which "non-actions" can be taken outside of your turn and which not."

That is his duty, but nothing forces him into any decision. If you ask me, yes I allow it too, but RAW just allows me to do it. It doesn't force me to rule it that way. Any DM is free to disallow you to re-designate your weapons outside of your turn if he wishes by RAW.

As far as i know there is no "re-designate" action for using weapons avaiable(such as already drawn or activated). Using the previous example of two daggers and armor spikes, if I instead were to attack with a single dagger, and an enemy later provoked and AoO, I would still be able to use either hands dagger, or the armor spikes for the AoO.




Regarding the "necklace of natural weapons":
You are talking about the "spell stacking rules". This is an item and has nothing to do with those rules. The effect is not an SLA or in any other way representing a spell.

Per rules compendium pg.87 items stack just as spells do.




a) You are in town using your quarterstaff as walking stick. You don't show the intent to immediately put it to use. As such you use the disarm rules for items.

b) You are in the wilderness and say that you hold your quarterstaff ready for combat (not using it as a walking stick).

Note that in most cities it is against the law to run around with drawn weapons. While you may have quarterstaff as walking stick, handling it like a weapon you are about to attack with might cause problems. Just think about a baseball bat nowadays. Holding and carrying it around might be legal. But running around "wielding" it (looking ready for an attack), might cause problems in some countries.

Situation A and B I find very interesting.

A for example, is neat because when you hold a weapon there isn't a rules distinction I could find to say that you aren't wielding it except for whether you are in combat or not. And even more interesting is if you aren't in combat disarm rules would treat it as an object, but since it is a weapon and not a worn object the rules tell you to treat it as a weapon. Wacky.

Rules wise, B is the exact same as A if you are not in combat. The DM might give modifiers for being wary, but other than that there is no rules distinction between the two.

As for city laws, that can vary depending on many circumstances. In most cases average sized bludgeoning weapons that cannot be sheathed or bagged are either taken away or simply accepted as self defense.
If you walk around holding them people might look at you sideways or some guards might stop you. But people have done exactly that in the past and in dramas. Pretending to be old or disabled (bluff/disguise) and using a weapon as a crutch.

[Rynjin]

There simply is no definitive answer to this, in either 3.5 or Pathfinder. The word wield was used in several different, mutually exclusive contexts throughout various books and items.

There is genuinely no point in arguing the strict RAW definition of "wield" anymore. Even the devs weren't able to settle on a single one lol.

[Gruftzwerg]

You could do it in your own turn, yes. Could you do it between turns? I think not.

It depends if the DM counts the new re-designation as "not an action" or not:

Not an Action

Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else.
Imho switching between drawn weapon in your hands and worn weapons like armor spikes are fitting to be considered "Not an Action". The switch would then be part of an AoO action as example.
But as said, since these non-actions aren't well defined, it's up to your DM what he sees as "not an action" and where he requires at least a free action.
Imho anything that doesn't require any movement should be considered a non-action (like the mentioned switch to armor spikes), while changing grip should require a "free action". The latter would forbid 2h weapon user to change grip outside of his turn to cast swift spells. If the wielder of 2h weapon wants to cast spells, he needs a free action to take a hand off the weapon (just "holding" it) and needs to decide at the end of his turn if he want to use his 2h weapon (for AoO) or be able to cast a(n immediate action) spell.



Turn Order
You - attack with a weapon
Monster - disarms weapon

Now the claim is that, you, the player, can't draw another weapon until your next turn. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
If it's "your turn", I don't see any rules that would prevent you from using the "draw a weapon" action (if you have the actions left; e.g. Quick Draw as solution).
If you get disarmed in opponents turn, you could at best ask for a "not an action" weapon switch ( IF your DM allows it)





You can't read things that don't exist.

RAW means "Rules as Written", and that does always exist. As said, you can argue that RAW doesn't have a clear single interpretation. But you can't argue that the "Rules as Written" don't exist. RAW can even be dysfunctional (I'm looking at "healing by drowning" here), but it will always exist, since the "rules are written" in your rule book.




You do this. Your idea about using colloquial definition as terms is distinctly RAI.
It's not. Defaulting to the English language in absence of a specific 3.5 definition is the fundamental to read "Rules As Written". Every sentence in 3.5 contains terms of the English language as "may; if; do; not; wield"...
By your definition of RAW you couldn't read a single sentence in the rule books, because all contain undefined terms of the English language.
But that is not the definition of RAW. RAW relies everywhere on common English definitions where no "specific definition" was set for 3.5
Your definition of RAW makes a reading of the rules impossible, because of undefined words. Thus your definition is totally dysfunctional and has nothing to do with how "RAW" is commonly depicted as a concept.


Assuming that "wield" has any special meaning in 3.5 is YOUR point. You based on it all your argumentation. If no special meaning exists, no issues exist. Making decision about limitation on number of wielding weapons REQUIRES special meaning. And you use one of colloquial definitions as special.
Where did I do that? Twisting my argument won't help you here.
In the absence of a 3.5 specific definition I did what RAW dictates: Fall back to the general English definition of words to be able to read English text. How else would you read English text if you wouldn't use the general definitions in the English language unless the text has made a specific definition for a specific word?
Using the English language for English Rules As Written is mandatory.



I assume that RAW isn't full. I don't interpret them and I clearly don't say that this incompleteness is somebody Intention. I opposite say we can't know what was Intention, because we have nothing Written.
You assume that wield means "to hold a weapon with the intent to use it." It is thing not presented by the "Rules As Written". That is not RAW but RAI.

"RAW are incomplete" isn't assumption. I have examples. I'm sure you have examples, too.

I agree that RAW is not the holy grail that soles all problems. RAW has it's problems yeah, but I don't see the problems you are describing here.
You are basically denying that you use the English language to read and understand the English rules. And that is logically broken for me. I don't buy that.




Logic works with some input data and you guess about what data to input. Inputting "to hold a weapon with the intent to use it" as definition of wield is guessing.
If I would sole make that assumption without providing any kind of evidence, you would be right. But I have provided evidence that all definitions of the word "wield" need you to be mentally prepared for use. If you wanna argue against that, you would need to provide prove for that. But I don't see any evidence that would prove that just mere "holding" a weapon qualifies as "wield". That is your responsibility to provide evidence for that argument.
We now even have a quote where the "designation" is the required effort to "wield" a weapon.


This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat.

The designation is the measure of the effort needed to wield a weapon. Still wanna complain that "wielding" doesn't need "designation"?



Really? Do you want to say somewhere in rules is definition of "wield"? Or do you want to say you don't need some definition of "wield" to make decision about topic? Or do you want to say somewhere in rules written that we should use general definition if we have no specials?
RAW consists of "terms/words with specific 3.5 definitions" + "terms/words of the English language". The combination of those two together (!) is RAW. Not sole defined 3.5 terms, cause you couldn't even a single sentence with sole "3.5 defined terms". You need to rely on regular English words to have a complete sentence.






What did I just read? Do you really think "quarterstaff as walking stick" and "quarterstaff as a weapon" have different look?
Using it as a walking stick is not a combat ready stance. If you hold it up and "wield" it, you ain't using it as a walking stick. These two actions exclude each other. If you have "Quick Draw" you could quickly react as soon as it is your turn. But that still doesn't make you combat ready on a possible enemies turn/attack. (remind you of the surprise round here).





doesn't 1# imply that a stack of +1 defending shurikens results in some handy +50AC at the low price of 4000gp ?

I don't think we can assign meaning to "wield" since it's not defined in rules terms.. BUT , defending as a property says : "As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon" (emphasis mine) , which I feels neatly solves (or just sidesteps) this specific problem of a stack of 50 defending shurikens. you need to be using the weapon to get it the benefit, be it as enhancement bonus to attack/damage or untyped bonus to armor.
I think the Shurikens have been already ruled out (since as loky pointed out, only swords are legal targets for defending).

And imho just because we have to fall back to the base definition of the English language doesn't mean that we can't make sense of it. Imho we have enough indicators that "wielding" means more than just holding/wearing something and that 3.5 implies on multiple occasions that you need to designate a weapon to wield it.



is "using the weapon" similarly undefined? I mean I can picture the shurikens swirling around yourself "defending" you, but that's post-hoc justification for that cheap +50AC.
"to use" another undefined term that already was heavily debated for Vow of Poverty. So for sanity's sake, lets not talk about the ways to (mis-)use stuff like "using your weapon as weight for your hand". Lets pls try to "use" the words "use" in a sane way...^^ Using a weapon should mean to use it for its commonly accepted purpose.




First of all.

Nice catch that defending only applies to swords.^^



We really did derail the other thread hard didn't we? This is just such an interesting argument of ambiguity that I couldn't help it.
Yeah kinda..^^
But these are the discussions that helps the forum to evolve. It's hard to predict if we will get to an agreement here. But unless we try we won't know. And imho we have enough productive discussions to look back to, to be encouraged for more^^




For the definition of handle that means "to employ with skill" imho that sounds like needing a high degree of mental attention to me. So I would say the definition still matches with the action that I have outlined.

and how would you differentiate between just "holding/wearing" a weapon and "to employ with skill" in the 3.5 rules?
Everything presented to far lead me to believe that it is the designation of a weapon that qualifies for that:
"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."




It would worsen using two swift action wands, or a swift and a standard, yes. But as previously outlined it would allow usage of a standard and full action wands, or any combination thereof and be an overall benefit.

Sorry but no. Under your interpretation you sole "wield" but not "use" the wands. You have to make up your mind if "wield" mean "immediate use" or not. You can't switch your interpretation of "wield" as you see it fit.
If you wanna have any benefit from DWW, you need to interpret "wield" as "immediate use". Otherwise you create a dysfunctional feat that sole allows you to "hold" 2 wands (wow...I thought I could do that without DWW..^^).




As far as i know there is no "re-designate" action for using weapons avaiable(such as already drawn or activated). Using the previous example of two daggers and armor spikes, if I instead were to attack with a single dagger, and an enemy later provoked and AoO, I would still be able to use either hands dagger, or the armor spikes for the AoO.
Because it is not it's own action.
- drawing a weapon is an action
- dropping a weapon is an action
- designating weapons to "hand" is part of an action

And as said before: If you DM allows out of turn "not an action" weapon switches, you can do that. But you have no right to demand that from your DM. He can always argue that at his table "non-action" weapon switches sole can be made on your turn. This is due to the lack of a precise definition what is and what is not a "not an action". The DM sets what belongs into that category and what not.





Per rules compendium pg.87 items stack just as spells do.
Nice catch. But as said, Loky already solved the "stacking problem"..^^ Only swords are legal targets for "defending".
And aptitude weapon doesn't help here either, since it only works with feats and not with weapon special abilities.




Situation A and B I find very interesting.

A for example, is neat because when you hold a weapon there isn't a rules distinction I could find to say that you aren't wielding it except for whether you are in combat or not. And even more interesting is if you aren't in combat disarm rules would treat it as an object, but since it is a weapon and not a worn object the rules tell you to treat it as a weapon. Wacky.

Rules wise, B is the exact same as A if you are not in combat. The DM might give modifiers for being wary, but other than that there is no rules distinction between the two.

As for city laws, that can vary depending on many circumstances. In most cases average sized bludgeoning weapons that cannot be sheathed or bagged are either taken away or simply accepted as self defense.
If you walk around holding them people might look at you sideways or some guards might stop you. But people have done exactly that in the past and in dramas. Pretending to be old or disabled (bluff/disguise) and using a weapon as a crutch.
The Disarm rules are poorly worded in the first place. It never gives you the specific permission needed to "use an item instead of a weapon for the disarm roll".

If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a –4 penalty on the roll.
This is not a "real permission to use the item as a weapon for the disarm roll", but just "a penalty applied to the disarm roll". Thus a full RAW reading makes it dysfunctional. The defender of an item is never given permission to use it like a weapon for the disarm rules.
Imho you need to apply common sense here to have functional Disarm rules in the first place.
So, if the disarm rules can make use of items as if they where weapons, I don't find it to stretched to allow weapons to count as items if they aren't currently "used as weapon" (but merely "hold" as an item). (This is RAI and not RAW)
RAW is dysfunctional here.







There simply is no definitive answer to this, in either 3.5 or Pathfinder. The word wield was used in several different, mutually exclusive contexts throughout various books and items.

There is genuinely no point in arguing the strict RAW definition of "wield" anymore. Even the devs weren't able to settle on a single one lol.
Do you have any quotes that would imply a contradicting use of the word "wield"?
Or any dev talk about it? I would appreciate any kind of RAI indicators here.

[Mordante]

IMHO wielding a weapon means you have it in your hand with the intend to use it.

I would rule that when you want to use a "Defending" weapon it must be the weapon which you actually use in a fight.

[loky1109]

I did what RAW dictates: Fall back to the general English definition of words to be able to read English text.
I ask quote. Where in RAW is that?


Every sentence in 3.5 contains terms of the English language as "may; if; do; not; wield"...
Again. Word != Term.


You are basically denying that you use the English language to read and understand the English rules. And that is logically broken for me. I don't buy that.
Of course I can use English language to read and understand the English rules, but if there is some term without specific definition I can't base on it some interpretations and argue it's RAW. It's like reasonable doubt principle.
You argue it's undoubtedly what authors mean, but we have about two page long (60 posts each) proof of opposite.


If I would sole make that assumption without providing any kind of evidence, you would be right.
Your main mistake is you think you could use colloquial definition for term and call it RAW.


But I have provided evidence that all definitions of the word "wield" need you to be mentally prepared for use.
It doesn't matter. Even if we somehow have single colloquial definition and we still can't afford to use this definition as specific. Because specific definition answers certain purposes it was intended for. When colloquial definition doesn't.
No colloquial definitions of "wield" are intended to solve D&D 3.5 RAW issues.


RAW consists of "terms/words with specific 3.5 definitions" + "terms/words of the English language".
Wrong. I fixed.


Using it as a walking stick is not a combat ready stance. If you hold it up and "wield" it, you ain't using it as a walking stick. These two actions exclude each other.
It was a long ago, but I practiced HEMA. Including staffs. I wasn't very good at this, but I good enough to understand you said nonsense here.


If you have "Quick Draw" you could quickly react as soon as it is your turn. But that still doesn't make you combat ready on a possible enemies turn/attack. (remind you of the surprise round here).
Quick Draw? Wat? Do you really want to apply Quick Draw to weapon what already is in your hands?

[Rynjin]

Do you have any quotes that would imply a contradicting use of the word "wield"?
Or any dev talk about it? I would appreciate any kind of RAI indicators here.

For Pathfinder yes, 3.5 no; I'm not invested enough in 3.5 to do that kind of digging.

Here's a thread I made like 9 years ago on the subject. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qwgx&page=1?Can-we-get-an-official-definition-for-wielding)

(Basically every argument people are currently in the midst of in this thread is already hashed out there if you guys just want to fast forward to the part where nobody comes away happy lmao.)

The most "official" response comes from a Sean K Reynolds comment: (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzln?What-does-it-mean-to-wield-a-weapon#14)


If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.

Edit: Snrk. I had actually forgotten that this is a reversal of SKR's PREVIOUS opinion on the matter, which is completely different.


Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

[b]If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

I was not kidding when I said every sub-thread of this argument has been covered already lol.

I also asked Mark Seifter directly (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Questions-Here#43) a few months later, and got the cosmic shrug I imparted on you in my last post.


Unofficially, there's just so many examples that do weird things either way that it leads me to suspect that there were a bunch of ability writers who held each view, all while thinking that everyone held the same view and using "wield" to mean their own view. This leads me in my home games to define it on a case-by-case basis. Does it let you trade out something that only matters if you use it but important if you use it for something extremely good? Then it probably means use. Does it give you a passive benefit that would be useless if it only worked when you used it? Then it probably means hold in hand.

Unfortunately, this is a messy way to do it when it comes to a FAQ, so I don't suspect it will be FAQed that way, but I think in your own games that it leads to the most harmonious results.

[Darg]

Giving up your enhancement bonus for an equivalent bonus to AC. How many people use combat expertise, really? If you have to actually attack with the weapon it's been turned into a more expensive, weaker, and possibly detrimental shield. The only way to make it actually valuable is if you can switch weapons to stack bonuses. The problem is that gruftzwerg says this shouldn't be possible. What we are left with is something that requires a feat to have any use. Literally does what combat expertise or using a shield does, but worse.

[Gruftzwerg]

I ask quote. Where in RAW is that?


Again. Word != Term.


Of course I can use English language to read and understand the English rules, but if there is some term without specific definition I can't base on it some interpretations and argue it's RAW. It's like reasonable doubt principle.
You argue it's undoubtedly what authors mean, but we have about two page long (60 posts each) proof of opposite.


Your main mistake is you think you could use colloquial definition for term and call it RAW.

If no specific definition is given and you want a "Rules As Written" interpretation, you can sole use the default meaning of the "word" (if "word" pleases you more) in the used language. Assuming a special "non-written rule" that defines "wield" is not "Rules As Written".
Full Stop. Here you left to talk about RAW and make assumptions that are not presented by the Rules As Written.
And using the definitions of the "language used in the rules" is the most basic thing you do while reading the rules. This is part of reading RAW.
If no specific definition is WRITTEN > you use regular English definitions.
The rule you are looking for is that 3.5 defines keywords. "Defining" means that it gets a 3.5 specific meaning. If this "specific" scenario ain't given (not a defined word), you fall back to general language. Because the is what the "specific definitions" alter: the English language. To what else would you fall back if the specifics aren't met if not to the general?

Stop interpreting a specific definition of "wield" that is not presented by rule text if you wanna argue about Rules As Written.



It was a long ago, but I practiced HEMA. Including staffs. I wasn't very good at this, but I good enough to understand you said nonsense here.
You are undervaluing your own "practice in HEMA" here. Would a untrained person be able to do the same?
Note that in 3.5 anybody can use simple weapons and thus a quarterstaff. But not everybody has Quick Draw.
I assume that you basically learned to "Quick Draw" with your staff. One of the basic techniques for most weapon using martial arts.
Or are you telling me that anybody without special training can attack from "walking stick" position as fast as from an actual wielding stance? Imho without special training the one with the proper stance should be faster and more precise with his attack. Assuming both are at the same level and untrained in staff use.



Quick Draw? Wat? Do you really want to apply Quick Draw to weapon what already is in your hands?
If it is not in a position/state ready to attack/defend, you need to draw it into that position/state.
You can hold you sword sheeted and would still need to draw it. Same with a "walking stick" that needs to drawn into position. And the ability to Quick Draw would help you here. As said above, imho you aren't giving your HEMA training the credit that it has most probably thought you to Quick Draw the staff from a harmless locking position. Imho that is the most basic thing you learn as weapon user. How to properly draw your weapon. Remind you that even 3.5 reflects this by improving the general drawing time as soon as you hit +1 BAB from a move action to a free action.
So your HEMA training either did give you +1 BAB or maybe even Quick Draw.


For Pathfinder yes, 3.5 no; I'm not invested enough in 3.5 to do that kind of digging.

Here's a thread I made like 9 years ago on the subject. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qwgx&page=1?Can-we-get-an-official-definition-for-wielding)

(Basically every argument people are currently in the midst of in this thread is already hashed out there if you guys just want to fast forward to the part where nobody comes away happy lmao.)

The most "official" response comes from a Sean K Reynolds comment: (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzln?What-does-it-mean-to-wield-a-weapon#14)



Edit: Snrk. I had actually forgotten that this is a reversal of SKR's PREVIOUS opinion on the matter, which is completely different.



I was not kidding when I said every sub-thread of this argument has been covered already lol.

I also asked Mark Seifter directly (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Questions-Here#43) a few months later, and got the cosmic shrug I imparted on you in my last post.
Imho proves my RAW point of view. By RAW the most original intend was that "wield" mean "intention for immediate use".


If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.


While the PF author said that some (PF?) designers didn't seem to get that and have written wonky rules, it still doesn't affect what is RAW. Sure, for actual table play it's RAW that is less important, and "balance" and "intentions" become much more valuable. But that is RAI and not RAW (what I have been arguing here about).


Giving up your enhancement bonus for an equivalent bonus to AC. How many people use combat expertise, really? If you have to actually attack with the weapon it's been turned into a more expensive, weaker, and possibly detrimental shield. The only way to make it actually valuable is if you can switch weapons to stack bonuses. The problem is that gruftzwerg says this shouldn't be possible. What we are left with is something that requires a feat to have any use. Literally does what combat expertise or using a shield does, but worse.
I sole said that RAW doesn't support this.
How you wanna rule this at you table is your decision, and I don't wanna change that here with my arguments.

I'm sole reflecting my RAW point of view here.
From the way you talk in this quote, I assume you are on the "we don't have enough AC boost option"-side of 3.5 players (nothing wrong with that, if that is your impression).
But just recently I was in a discussion about "if AC optimization is to OP?" or "does it break the fun to much?".
I hope that you see that not everybody is asking for more AC boosts in the game. As such it is important to start with a RAW explanation of the rules. From there anybody can argument if RAW needs to be altered for his own table. Giving play-advice for others is nice, but it should be tagged as such. Otherwise people (all the silent readers in the forum^^) might get the wrong impression.

[Darg]

I sole said that RAW doesn't support this.
How you wanna rule this at you table is your decision, and I don't wanna change that here with my arguments.

I'm sole reflecting my RAW point of view here.
From the way you talk in this quote, I assume you are on the "we don't have enough AC boost option"-side of 3.5 players (nothing wrong with that, if that is your impression).
But just recently I was in a discussion about "if AC optimization is to OP?" or "does it break the fun to much?".
I hope that you see that not everybody is asking for more AC boosts in the game. As such it is important to start with a RAW explanation of the rules. From there anybody can argument if RAW needs to be altered for his own table. Giving play-advice for others is nice, but it should be tagged as such. Otherwise people (all the silent readers in the forum^^) might get the wrong impression.

My statement was weighing the benefit of a defending weapon using your restrictive rules. If you have to attack with the weapon to benefit from the ability then it has two outcomes: an extra expensive and tedious combat expertise equivalent (much, MUCH cheaper to simply get the feat on an item) or an off-hand weapon that double tanks your ability to hit something for a mediocre universal AC bonus which requires taking TWF just to mitigate only some of the -hit.

I'm not saying whether AC optimization is too OP because becoming only hit-able on a 20 isn't all that hard by level 20 using CR appropriate monsters/npcs. The only difference is how you get there. Not to mention there are ways to reach equivalent or even better ways to not be hit.

[Rynjin]

Imho proves my RAW point of view. By RAW the most original intend was that "wield" mean "intention for immediate use".

By RAW the word wield is used in three mutually exclusive different ways throughout various rulebooks. That was the point of the reading material I provided for you.

There is no RAW. Attempting to reconcile this is an effort in futility.

Give up. Embrace the case-by-case rulings you'll need to occasionally make at the table.

[Gruftzwerg]

My statement was weighing the benefit of a defending weapon using your restrictive rules. If you have to attack with the weapon to benefit from the ability then it has two outcomes: an extra expensive and tedious combat expertise equivalent (much, MUCH cheaper to simply get the feat on an item) or an off-hand weapon that double tanks your ability to hit something for a mediocre universal AC bonus which requires taking TWF just to mitigate only some of the -hit.

I'm not saying whether AC optimization is too OP because becoming only hit-able on a 20 isn't all that hard by level 20 using CR appropriate monsters/npcs. The only difference is how you get there. Not to mention there are ways to reach equivalent or even better ways to not be hit.

I know where you are getting at. But that is still imho the base design philosophy behind (early?) 3.5.
You have compared it to Combat Expertise. Yeah, many consider a CE build bad and not competitive.
But that is just the nature of most fighting games that "turtle tactics" are less favored (this might not be true for late 3.5 anymore).
But if you should like CE, then Defending is your most beloved special ability for a weapon.
I know the value ain't that great. But as many things in 3.5, it can still shine in the right (TO) environment imho.
As example, there are many "touch attack with weapon" builds out there. For those it could be an interesting option if they still have a high BAB, to trade everything possible into AC. (I know, still a weak combo..^^)



By RAW the word wield is used in three mutually exclusive different ways throughout various rulebooks. That was the point of the reading material I provided for you.

There is no RAW. Attempting to reconcile this is an effort in futility.

Give up. Embrace the case-by-case rulings you'll need to occasionally make at the table.

I agree that RAW maybe imperfect on this topic. And I appreciate your contribution to the topic. So pls don't get me wrong.

But I have to disagree that there is no RAW on this. The point is, it doesn't matter if RAW creates the expected/intended results or not. It is still there. Nobody forces you to like RAW or to play RAW.

We have now collected multiple English definitions of "wield" and even a "PF author(?)" admitting that its original intend was:


If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

Imho both the general interpretation of "wield" (English language) and the RAI (your own quote) support my claims what "wield" should mean for "RAW".
I'm not saying that this is a good "play advice"! Just that we have a RAW interpretation that is functional (even if it may break your imagination).

As said, everybody/every DM should decide for himself what is the best solution for his table and the actual situation. And for that it is good to know that maybe not every author has fully grasped how "wield" was intended to be used in the rules.

[loky1109]

If no specific definition is given and you want a "Rules As Written" interpretation, you can sole use the default meaning of the "word" (if "word" pleases you more) in the used language.
No, you should face it - there is no definition. Default meaning can't help.


Here you left to talk about RAW and make assumptions that are not presented by the Rules As Written.
You are talking about you now. There are no definitions of "wield" in RAW, but you make assumption that you can use general English definition. It isn't RAW. At all.


And using the definitions of the "language used in the rules" is the most basic thing you do while reading the rules.
Not using "the definitions of the "language used in the rules"" is the most basic thing you do while reading text that includes special terms.


To what else would you fall back if the specifics aren't met if not to the general?
To NOTHING! Rules are just not full.


Stop interpreting a specific definition of "wield" that is not presented by rule text if you wanna argue about Rules As Written.
That's what I saying. Stop interpreting a specific definition of "wield" that is not presented by rule text and face it - there is no RAW about "wield". At all.


Would a untrained person be able to do the same?
Yes. Clearly yes.


If it is not in a position/state ready to attack/defend, you need to draw it into that position/state.
You can hold you sword sheeted and would still need to draw it. Same with a "walking stick" that needs to drawn into position.
Proof it. With the rules!

[Gruftzwerg]

No, you should face it - there is no definition. Default meaning can't help.


You are talking about you now. There are no definitions of "wield" in RAW, but you make assumption that you can use general English definition. It isn't RAW. At all.


Not using "the definitions of the "language used in the rules"" is the most basic thing you do while reading text that includes special terms.


To NOTHING! Rules are just not full.


That's what I saying. Stop interpreting a specific definition of "wield" that is not presented by rule text and face it - there is no RAW about "wield". At all.


Yes. Clearly yes.


Proof it. With the rules!

I say it a last time: You can't read any rules (not sole 3.5) without relying on the language it is written in. Rules As Written thus also requires the use of that language. How else are you reading anything? Even the defined words rely on undefined words in the 3.5 specific definitions.
For you any words like "use", "you", "wield", "may", "if" make a rule interpretation impossible, since those aren't defined by RAW as you say.
If that is the case, you can't read even a single rule, because it always boils down to undefined words in the end.

As such, you impression of RAW reading is impossible and thus dysfunctional.
Any rules and even laws rely on undefined words of the used language to some degree, if no specific definition is given.

According to you, I'm unable to read Power Attack RAW:

On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Because 90% of the words used are not defined by RAW and I have to rely on the English language.
How do you interpet "On", the very first word, without relying on the English language? Especially "on" can be used in many different ways. You would even have to assume/guess in which way "on" is used here.
The text is full of words where you need to rely on the English language to read the Rules As Written.
Dunno if you can convince the others with that, but my point of view remains unchanged.
Sorry, but I don't buy that.