Does this work by RAW?

[Christew]

Welcome to D&D, where the last several editions have made a semantic pedantic distinction between wielding and holding multiple places in the written rules.

Part of the ongoing problem with ill-defined verbiage in this game.

To clarify, I am referring specifically to the situation under discussion. One could certainly hold a great sword in such a way as to not be wielding it -- momentarily taking one hand off the grip mid-attack routine is not such a way.

[Tanarii]

Part of the ongoing problem with ill-defined verbiage in this game.

To clarify, I am referring specifically to the situation under discussion. One could certainly hold a great sword in such a way as to not be wielding it -- momentarily taking one hand off the grip mid-attack routine is not such a way.

Well yes that's the rub. Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined. Largely because the illusionary contention that your attacks doesn't represent a single swing of the sword, despite being treated in that way at multiple levels.

[Christew]

Well yes that's the rub. Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined. Largely because the illusionary contention that your attacks doesn't represent a single swing of the sword, despite being treated in that way at multiple levels.

Yes. That's part of why it is so frustrating. It is an eminently solvable problem and the fact that it has persisted across the editions is pretty silly.

Unless the devs have always intended to leave things deliberately unclear in order to facilitate unending discussion of divergent interpretations of what could have been clearly defined terminology on internet message boards (or zine columns back in the day, I guess).

[Tanarii]

Yes. That's part of why it is so frustrating. It is an eminently solvable problem and the fact that it has persisted across the editions is pretty silly.

Unless the devs have always intended to leave things deliberately unclear in order to facilitate unending discussion of divergent interpretations of what could have been clearly defined terminology on internet message boards (or zine columns back in the day, I guess).

Its almost like they haven't participated in the almost twenty years of forums debates about it.

I'm pretty sure the entire idea of being in a RAW forum debates makes devs shudder

[ThePolarBear]

Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined.

I personally go with what i explained. I mean, TWF requires "holding", after all.
Which has its own problems when approached with a pure "RAW" perspective, even if i believe we might reach an easy understanding of what fantasy trope the rules are meant to facilitate.