Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Scarecrow_23 05-25-05, 01:22 AM	Can I just hold a defending weapon in my off hand and continuously put all of it's enhancement bonus into defense while attacking with a weapon in my primary hand?
Rulebook 05-25-05, 01:24 AM	oh boy this is gonna be fun to watch...
primemover003 05-25-05, 01:49 AM	As Rulebook implies this is a pretty divided topic. My side in it is definitely one of you need to be wielding the weapon, not just holding it. IOW you need to be attacking with it. It's like fighting defensively or combat expertise. You have to make an attack and take the penalty to gain the benefit. That's what I see as the spirit of the rules if not the letter.
reese 05-25-05, 01:56 AM	i'd say no, just because it is too easy, but technically yes you could.
NeueRegel 05-25-05, 04:54 AM	Can I just hold a defending weapon in my off hand and continuously put all of it's enhancement bonus into defense while attacking with a weapon in my primary hand? No. In fact, as per the SRD 3.666: A Defending weapon has been revised, under the following line of reasoning: "The best defense is a good offense". To gain the benefit of a defending weapon's enchantment bonus to armor class, the weapon MUST be "wielded", ie. "an attack declared"; In fact, each and every attack with the weapon MUST actually be a sunder attempt. Happy Gaming, NeueRegel
Thorak 05-25-05, 09:30 AM	The Defending property pretty clearly gives a bonus to the wielder. The question, then, is what "wielding" means. I've pointed out in other threads that "wielding" is a term with an inherently active meaning in English; it can't mean simply "holding". It has to be actively used to be "wielded". Of course, the argument could be that you're actively using the Defending property. Which brings us to TWF. Again, I've argued in other threads that it should be read such that wielding the second weapon engages the penalties, rather than making an extra attack with the second weapon. I stand by that, but don't want to get into it, because we won't get anywhere with it because, if the debates have shown me anything, it's that the RAW is not clearly written, even enough to make one argument more likely than the other. I happen to believe there are less problems and it makes more sense if you go the wielding route, rather than the "make an attack" route, for the TWF penalties, but YMMV.
tarkin 05-25-05, 12:01 PM	1) It is clear to my mind that not taking the -2 to attack is clearly against the official rules 2) And against the spirit of the rules 3) But usually balanced, as they could have have +5 shield for less than 1/2 the cost. HOWEVER, there is one exception and that is a +5 spiked shield also enchanted as + Defender weapon. That case, which costs a minimum of 58,000 gp, provides a slight bonus of +1 to AC without any penalty. At the maximum, it costs 122,000 gp to get a +10 benefit to the shield instead of a +5 Note, in that case they are pushing the limit TWICE - not only are they claiming to wield the weapon to get the +5 AC benefit without taking the -2 penalty to hit, but (unless they have improved Shield Bash/Improved Buckler Defense), they are claiming to weild the Shield in order to get the +5 shield benefit. The most clearly abusive part of this is actually at the lower levels of weapon cost (because weapon bonuses cost double. For example getting a +4 shield (cost 16,000 gp, and then getting a +1 defender enchantment, +8,000) for a net cost of 24,000 for +5 instead of 25,000 for a +5 shield. --------------------------- Conclusions 1) I consider it to be a house rule to let them get the benefit without taking the -2 to hit. 2) So as long as you do not let them wield a shield AND a weapon (without taking the -2 to hit penalty), I do not consider this house rule to be abusive.
mvincent 05-25-05, 04:50 PM	1) It is clear to my mind that not taking the -2 to attack is clearly against the official rules I know this was thoroughly hashed out in several earlier threads. I seem to recall the eventual conclusion as being contrary to this. If fact, I even recall Thorak conceding (in disgust at WotC) this point... The search feature is down on boards, so I can't actually prove that this wasn't just a troubled dream brought on by eating a pepperoni burrito too late at night. Anyone have a link to one of those threads?
tarkin 05-25-05, 05:33 PM	I have been here a long time, and have never seen an argument that was at ALL reasonable letting you do that. You are confusing worn with use activated items. Items in hand does not by any sense of the word mean being used. The only abilities that work when merely touching your skin are those that work CONTINUOSLY. There is nothing magical about touching your hand that makes a shield grant fortification but that same shield when touching your back not work. Instead it is the act of USING the shield that activates the magic item. The same thing applies to a weapon. The prime example of this is the Flaming weapon. Wielding a flaming weapon makes you immune to the flame generated by the weapon. It has NOTHING to do with touching the blade Otherwise anyone hit by the blade would be touching it and therefore immune to the flame so it would do nothing. While some might argue that only touching the hilt works - that is NOT supported by the books. You are suddenly changing your definition from "holding the weapon" to holding it by the hilt", and that new definition FAILS entirely when discussing arrows, bows, lances, shuriken and other weapons that do not HAVE hilts. The only definition that always lets the wielder of a flaming weapon be immune but not the victim requires the weilder to have made the attack. ------------ Note, I am positive that there are many threads about this subject. It would not surprise me if in one of the many, you had poor arguments on the correct side and someone got convinced of the wrong way. That does not make them right. I have not seen a reasonable argurement ever that convinced me that merely holding a weapon grants its' power active.
mvincent 05-25-05, 06:05 PM	You are confusing worn with use activated items.I'm merely restating the results of a protracted discussion. One that included multiple clarifications by cust serv., rules examples, etc. In those discussions, it was fairly well determined (for good or bad) that 1) WotC defines "wielding" as similar to "holding" (and not even that, in the case of animated shields). i.e. shields abilities only work for their "wielder", an aligned weapon "bestows one negative level on any <opposite aligned> creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.", etc. 2) Attacking (or intending to attack) with a weapon was not required to be considered wielding it 3) TWF penalties were only incurred upon actually using the extra attack. Certainly, this is all debateable (and evidently it was debated, a lot), but the weight of evidence in those threads seemed to lie against your conclusion. I don't really have a desire to repeat all of it (nor would I be able to), but I believe that the person asking the original question should at least be aware of that.
Saxis 05-25-05, 06:12 PM	Which brings us to TWF. Again, I've argued in other threads that it should be read such that wielding the second weapon engages the penalties, rather than making an extra attack with the second weapon. I stand by that, but don't want to get into it, because we won't get anywhere with it because, if the debates have shown me anything, it's that the RAW is not clearly written, even enough to make one argument more likely than the other. I happen to believe there are less problems and it makes more sense if you go the wielding route, rather than the "make an attack" route, for the TWF penalties, but YMMV. I'd say wielding is different than holding.... Speaking of TWF, what about Two-bladed swords?? You CAN attack with only one end of them (treated as a two-handed weapon in terms of damage then). So what becomes of the other end?? Nothing, until you actually attack with it again.... you are merely holding it, gaining no benefit from it's properties.
Zaffudo 05-25-05, 08:44 PM	I don’t think you understood his point on TWF. Technically the rules don’t state that your full attack routine requires that it be made all with one weapon. This means that if I have a weapon in each hand and I have two attacks because of my BAB I can attack with one weapon with my first attack, and the other weapon with my second attack without any penalties. So I can technically wield a defending dagger and another weapon without two weapon fighting and then get the defending bonus out of it. Thorak believes this is against the spirit of the rules and that you should only get the benefit from a defending weapon in your off hand if you are TWF. I don’t know if I agree with him, but since the RAW is pretty cheesy in this case, he has firm ground to make such a claim.
Thorak 05-25-05, 09:36 PM	If fact, I even recall Thorak conceding (in disgust at WotC) this point... Slight correction; I conceded in disgust at the sloppy writing that it was impossible to figure out which was right. I didn't concede that I was wrong, just that the other guys weren't either.
chocobochicken 05-26-05, 11:16 AM	I think most people will agree that the key factor in how a defending weapon is used is based around the term "wielding." So we have to determine what is meant by this term "wielding," which is undefined in the glossary or any of the core texts. And per a response from WotC Customer Service response I received when asking the same question about Two-Weapon Defense (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=378578), you merely have to hold the weapon. You don't have to take TWF penalties, and you don't even have to be in active combat. So yes, you can wield a defending weapon in your off-hand and receive the AC bonus without attacking, and it even stacks with your primary weapon if it carries the defending bonus too (another custserve response I received). However, not everyone is happy with this ruling, and I think all of us agree that the defending property needs a rewrite. So before you attempt to use it, it's best that you ask your DM how he will rule this.
Quoriil 05-26-05, 11:50 AM	Does this mean that if you go full defensive you lose the benefits of a defending weapon?
Thorak 05-26-05, 12:25 PM	I think most people will agree that the key factor in how a defending weapon is used is based around the term "wielding." So we have to determine what is meant by this term "wielding," which is undefined in the glossary or any of the core texts. And per a response from WotC Customer Service response I received when asking the same question about Two-Weapon Defense (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=378578), you merely have to hold the weapon. You don't have to take TWF penalties, and you don't even have to be in active combat. So yes, you can wield a defending weapon in your off-hand and receive the AC bonus without attacking, and it even stacks with your primary weapon if it carries the defending bonus too (another custserve response I received). However, not everyone is happy with this ruling, and I think all of us agree that the defending property needs a rewrite. So before you attempt to use it, it's best that you ask your DM how he will rule this. Just to kibitz, the problem with this ruling is that shields are weapons. Thus, without the TWF feat, wearing a shield for the AC bonus provides massive penalties to hit. You are holding it, after all. Frankly, I don't think your using a heavy shield should make it harder to hit your opponent than them wearing full plate armor, unless you're very agile (15+ dex) and have trained in dual-weapon fighting.
chocobochicken 05-26-05, 12:48 PM	Just to kibitz, the problem with this ruling is that shields are weapons. Thus, without the TWF feat, wearing a shield for the AC bonus provides massive penalties to hit. You are holding it, after all. Umm... no. You don't take TWF penalties to attack rolls unless you're actually making attacks with both weapons. That was another debate we had about your alternative interpretation that TWF penalties apply whenever you're considered to be "wielding two weapons," as determined from using that text as one of the possible antecedents to "Fighting this way," remember? I provided another custserv response to that thread acknowledging that the TWF penalties only apply for making the extra off-hand attack rolls. So if you wear a shield, you are holding it. And if you're holding it, you can be considered to be "wielding" it. And if you're wielding two weapons, you still don't take a single penalty to your primary attack roll until you actually try bashing someone with that shield as part of a full attack. Does this mean that if you go full defensive you lose the benefits of a defending weapon? No, I don't think so. You should still be able to apply the AC bonus from your weapon.
Zyphus 05-26-05, 01:17 PM	From the SRD under Special Attacks Two-Weapon Fighting If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties.... If you wield the second weapon, you get the penalty if you attack, regardless if you attack with the second weapon or not. (Note it says CAN get one extra attack, you don't HAVE TO). However, you don't have to make ANY attacks - with either weapon. So you could use Full Defense, and use the Defending weapon on your AC. Oddly, you cannot use Expertise this way, since you have to declare an attack to use that Feat, but you can Fight Defensively, use Expertise, and use the Defending weapon which may make you harder to hit than if you had done Full Defense. While you don't have to attack with the off-hand Defending weapon, there is little reason not to except to be merciful since you're already taking the penalty (but if your DM uses critical misses and you feel unlucky you might not want to tempt fate).
chocobochicken 05-26-05, 03:06 PM	If you wield the second weapon, you get the penalty if you attack, regardless if you attack with the second weapon or not. (Note it says CAN get one extra attack, you don't HAVE TO). No. The text says you incur penalties "when you fight this way," and "this way" refers to making an extra attack with your off-hand, not wielding two weapons. Thorak and I debated this extensively on another thread, so I submitted the issue to Customer Service, and they replied: As long as you are not using the off-hand weapon to attack with you suffer no Two-Weapon fighting penalties. Simply wielding a second weapon doesn't invoke two-weapon fighting penalties. You can benefit from an off-hand defending weapon without having to take these penalties.
Thorak 05-26-05, 03:30 PM	So, chocobo, you think it's OK for me to get a +12 AC bonus from a +5 Heavy Shield of +5 Defending, while not taking any penalties to my normal attacks with my longsword? Because that's what your interpretation means. I haven't made an attack with the shield, so I retain that bonus, and I'm wielding it, so I can use the Defending bonus.
Zyphus 05-26-05, 03:44 PM	No. The text says you incur penalties "when you fight this way," and "this way" That line is under the Feat entry for Two Weapon Fighting. At no time does that feat mention "wielding" yet it does not contradict or alter the other rule in the slightest. I do not have access to your correspondence, but I can find (and even Search) the SRD. If you could kindly provide a link either to an errata put out by WotC or possibly an updated SRD I will happily stand corrected, but as a paranoid person I have learned to not trust quotes from dubious sources. One possible interpretation would be you cannot use the TWF feat unless you are making an attack. Another person may say that since you are being attacked, you are in a fight, and thus fighting even if you don't want to. At no point in the description does it say you ever have to attack with the off-hand. Source:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting Link for my previous quote: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting Having a shield donned provides the shield bonus and it is a weapon only if you use it as such (whether bashing or using spikes). But looking all this up poses a question - If I have Armor Spikes enchanted as a weapon, say +2 Defending, I am wielding them only if I am making an attack, otherwise I simply have armor donned and the spikes are attached to it. Do the Armor Spikes get to operate differently? However, mechanically they operate the same - I get a minus to attack rolls if I want more than one weapon wielded (assuming a standard PC race and all that). I would say you can carry something in your off-hand without penalty (such as torch) or wield something in your off-hand with a penalty. But Armor Spikes appear to be the only weapon you HAVE to attack with in order to be wielding.
Draco Light 05-26-05, 03:47 PM	Wouldn't you need to pay for the 'weapon' enhancement bonus on a shield to have the Defending ability do anything? Otherwise, you'd be stealing the AC bonus to get... an equal AC bonus. No gain. Also, wouldn't you still be subject to the max +10 bonus rule? That is, a +5 Shield with +5 Defending as a weapon would be a +11 item, and thus illegal? Finally (and this is the most arguable): Wouldn't a +5 shield with +5 on the attack violate the max of +5 on enhancement bonus rule? This is probably old retread ground, but it's a new argument to me!
mvincent 05-26-05, 04:04 PM	So, chocobo, you think it's OK for me to get a +12 AC bonus from a +5 Heavy Shield of +5 Defending, while not taking any penalties to my normal attacks with my longsword? Because that's what your interpretation means.I don't believe it does. Shields being used as weapons is a different issue, and addressed in the rules: "If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right." Chocobo's view likely implies that the defending feature of the shield could be used without penalty to the longsword (if desired). However, your situation seems like an unrelated jump (i.e. strawman) from what he was saying.
chocobochicken 05-26-05, 04:51 PM	That line is under the Feat entry for Two Weapon Fighting. At no time does that feat mention "wielding" yet it does not contradict or alter the other rule in the slightest. First of all, the TWF feat mentions the word "wield" as the third word in the "Normal" section. Secondly, the exact text I was referring to was from your own quote: Two-Weapon Fighting If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties.... That's what I was referring to. You receive the penalties "when you fight this way." "This way" refers to making the extra attack with your off-hand weapon, not wielding a second weapon. That's what Thorak and I debated earlier, and what custserv responded to. I do not have access to your correspondence, but I can find (and even Search) the SRD. If you could kindly provide a link either to an errata put out by WotC or possibly an updated SRD I will happily stand corrected, but as a paranoid person I have learned to not trust quotes from dubious sources. Well, that's too bad. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. No one will disagree that making attacks with two weapons imposes TWF penalties. But nowhere in the SRD, the Eratta, the FAQ, or any semi-official source that I'm aware of will you find a single example where a character receives TWF penalties outside of the context of making those attacks. So unfortunately, there's a tremendous lack of evidence to support your case, and disregarding my confirmation from Customer Service based upon personal paranoia will not prove your point. If you're unsatistified, feel free to contact them yourself. So, chocobo, you think it's OK for me to get a +12 AC bonus from a +5 Heavy Shield of +5 Defending, while not taking any penalties to my normal attacks with my longsword? If you're willing to spend the 97,157gp to do it, then yes. And if you want to spend another 98,700gp on a set of +5 fullplate armor with +5 defending armor spikes, the entire +18 AC stacks with the +12 from the shield for a total of +30. The RAW does not prohibit this from working. Do I think it should work this way? Not really, but my biggest concern is the matter of multiple defending items stacking with each other. I would rule that you can only benefit from one defending weapon at a time, but that's just my houserule. Also, wouldn't you still be subject to the max +10 bonus rule? That is, a +5 Shield with +5 Defending as a weapon would be a +11 item, and thus illegal? Finally (and this is the most arguable): Wouldn't a +5 shield with +5 on the attack violate the max of +5 on enhancement bonus rule? Those are good questions, actually. I'm not sure. My presumption is that an item which can be enchanted both ways can be enchanted up to a +10 weapon and a +10 armor separately, but you might be onto something here.
elecgraystone 05-26-05, 05:13 PM	My personal favorite is my marilith with 6 defending spiked gauntlets +5, +5 full plate w/ +5 defending spikes and an animated +5 large shield w/ +5 defending spike. Ac 79 baby! Lets toss in a ring +1 for an even 80! ;)
DonGnocci 05-26-05, 09:48 PM	[Offtopic] Well... seems like a quite strange rule to me... In a real combat you don't have to "attack" with a parry dagger... you have just to parry... that's all... So the official or "revised" ruling does not make sense to me... ATM...
Thorak 05-26-05, 10:10 PM	Wouldn't you need to pay for the 'weapon' enhancement bonus on a shield to have the Defending ability do anything? Otherwise, you'd be stealing the AC bonus to get... an equal AC bonus. No gain. Also, wouldn't you still be subject to the max +10 bonus rule? That is, a +5 Shield with +5 Defending as a weapon would be a +11 item, and thus illegal? Finally (and this is the most arguable): Wouldn't a +5 shield with +5 on the attack violate the max of +5 on enhancement bonus rule? This is probably old retread ground, but it's a new argument to me! Shields can be enchanted as weapons separately from their shield enchantments. A +5 Shield, that is also +5 Defending, is priced the same as a +5 shield and a +6 weapon. Not a +11 item. Though you only pay the item part of the cost once. I don't believe it does. Shields being used as weapons is a different issue, and addressed in the rules: "If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right." But that's the point. I'm not using it as a weapon. Just wielding it. I would have to make a shield bash attack to lose the AC bonus. My interpretation is that wielding is using as a weapon, but chocobochicken's is that it is just "holding". That's the issue. If you're willing to spend the 97,157gp to do it, then yes. And if you want to spend another 98,700gp on a set of +5 fullplate armor with +5 defending armor spikes, the entire +18 AC stacks with the +12 from the shield for a total of +30. The RAW does not prohibit this from working. Do I think it should work this way? Not really, but my biggest concern is the matter of multiple defending items stacking with each other. I would rule that you can only benefit from one defending weapon at a time, but that's just my houserule. Don't forget my two +5 Defending gauntlets, and my two +5 Defending Blade Boots, for another easy +20 AC. My point's that a variation of Occam's Razor is handy here. If there's an interpretation that doesn't raise hairy issues with things like multiple Defending items, that's likely the "right" interpretation. And interpreting that "wield" means "use actively", and in the case of a weapon this counts as TWF the moment you wield two weapons, solves a great deal of these kinds of issues, and everything works smoothly. Just make a distinction between "wielding" and "holding", and that you can wield a shield as a defensive item, as a weapon, or both, with various restrictions based on what feats you've got. None of which, IMHO, is out there enough to qualify as a houserule; I believe the RAW supports it just as well. Those are good questions, actually. I'm not sure. My presumption is that an item which can be enchanted both ways can be enchanted up to a +10 weapon and a +10 armor separately, but you might be onto something here. In the interest of clarity, I'll cite the rules; "You could, in fact, build a shield that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC. For example, a +1 buckler with +1 shield spikes would cost 3,475gp (15 gp for the basic buckler, 150 to make it masterwork, 1,000 for the +1 bonus to AC, 10 gp for the spikes, 300 to make them masterwork, and 2,000 to make the spikes a +1 weapon)." The example clears it up completely. You price the +1 defensive +1 offensive shield as a +1 shield and a +1 weapon combined, not a +2 weapon or shield. The two are considered separate enchantments for all intents and purposes.
chocobochicken 05-26-05, 11:55 PM	My point's that a variation of Occam's Razor is handy here. If there's an interpretation that doesn't raise hairy issues with things like multiple Defending items, that's likely the "right" interpretation. And interpreting that "wield" means "use actively", and in the case of a weapon this counts as TWF the moment you wield two weapons, solves a great deal of these kinds of issues, and everything works smoothly. Just make a distinction between "wielding" and "holding", and that you can wield a shield as a defensive item, as a weapon, or both, with various restrictions based on what feats you've got. None of which, IMHO, is out there enough to qualify as a houserule; I believe the RAW supports it just as well. Congratulations. Now you're the one arguing how it should work, not how it works by RAW. The "right" interpretation is the one that doesn't cause you any inconvenience? Give the term "wielding" a specific application in the game mechanics that's completely unsupported by the writers? Reorganize two-weapon fighting penalties to apply whenever you're wielding two weapons instead of when you're specifically making attacks with them? None of this exists in the rules. I do acknowledge that the defending property is abusable, but rewriting other sensible rules is not the way to fix this. I would much prefer to rewrite the defending property. Or better yet, I just thought of an easy way for a DM to prevent this abuse from multiple defending weapons while remaining in full accordance with the RAW: Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. 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, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn. . . . FREE ACTIONS Free actions don't take any time at all, though your DM may limit the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. It's so simple I'm surprised I didn't think of this before. A DM could easily rule that allocating the bonus on a defending weapon is similar to casting a quickened spell, allowing only one such adjustment per turn. Thus, a character could only benefit from one defending weapon at a time! Yay! My houserule isn't a houserule anymore! :D
Thorak 05-27-05, 02:24 AM	Congratulations. Now you're the one arguing how it should work, not how it works by RAW. The "right" interpretation is the one that doesn't cause you any inconvenience? Give the term "wielding" a specific application in the game mechanics that's completely unsupported by the writers? Reorganize two-weapon fighting penalties to apply whenever you're wielding two weapons instead of when you're specifically making attacks with them? None of this exists in the rules. Yes, since we can't tell for sure what the RAW means, I'm discussing how I feel it should work. How is that a problem? I already clearly said that it can't be proven to work this way. I just feel it also cannot be proven that it doesn't. As for my definition of "wielding", my definition is "active use". It's a distillation of what "wielding" means. In English. In the absence of a D&D definition, we should use the standard English one. Claiming holding is wielding, without a D&D source to back that up explicitly, is like arguing that blue is yellow, in D&D. Unless you can provide a quote, those words have certain standard meanings that make them separate. As for TWF; it is in the rules. Wielding the second weapon is "fighting in this way". The sentence can easily be parsed like that. There is no way to tell which 'way' it refers to, it could be either the wielding of two weapons simultaneously, or it could be referring to making an extra attack. That's what's unclear. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Have yet to see anyone do so. Plenty that there's another possible interpretation, which I acknowledge, but none showing mine to be wrong. Not in the RAW. I do acknowledge that the defending property is abusable, but rewriting other sensible rules is not the way to fix this. I would much prefer to rewrite the defending property. Or better yet, I just thought of an easy way for a DM to prevent this abuse from multiple defending weapons while remaining in full accordance with the RAW: See, my point is that, given my interpretation, you don't need to rewrite anything. Whatsoever. At all. Everything works dandy. It's so simple I'm surprised I didn't think of this before. A DM could easily rule that allocating the bonus on a defending weapon is similar to casting a quickened spell, allowing only one such adjustment per turn. Thus, a character could only benefit from one defending weapon at a time! Yay! My houserule isn't a houserule anymore! :D "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, and the effect to AC lasts until his next round." Yep, yours is a houserule. There's already a clearly set out method of activation, right in the Defending property.
Mellowship Slinky 05-27-05, 04:33 AM	This isn't worth arguing about! For non-epic normal-humanoid characters, the maximum AC that can be gained from this is +15: +5 defending off hand weapon (either a spiked sheild or a shortsword) +5 defending armor spikes +5 defending primary weapon At a cost of 216,000gp! That's 83% of a 16th level character's wealth! 28% of a level 20 character's wealth! At those high of a level, a character willing to allocate that much of his wealth to AC had better have a high AC. Let your players carry +2 defending daggers in their off hands, let characters squeek a few thousand gp out of the character wealth by level guidelines by making a +4 sheild that is also +1 defending, watch it completely not break your game. (If you want an in game reason, if the party fighter was shopping around to have his sheild's AC bonus increased from +4 to +5 and the competing crafter offered him a better deal, wouldn't he take it? Take it and not care that it wasn't a "real" shield bonus?) Now I freely admit that a 4+ armed creatures carrying multiple defending weapons might almost be abusive, but, as I stated before, it's hardly breaking the game. If it's a PC, you're a) probably crazy for allowing the player to be a marilith and b) lucky he's tanking, instead of smacking things with 6 +2 keen flaming burst wounding scimitars each round. If it's an NPC, then it'll be an interesting encounter ("A whirling mass of blades deflects your attacks") and afterwards the party will have a great deal of fun figuring out just what they will do with 6 defending scimitars.
Thorak 05-27-05, 07:21 AM	This isn't worth arguing about! For non-epic normal-humanoid characters, the maximum AC that can be gained from this is +15: +5 defending off hand weapon (either a spiked sheild or a shortsword) +5 defending armor spikes +5 defending primary weapon 2 gauntlets on each hand, too. Bare minimum, if we get into other official weapons, I can add blade boots. At a cost of 216,000gp! That's 83% of a 16th level character's wealth! 28% of a level 20 character's wealth! At those high of a level, a character willing to allocate that much of his wealth to AC had better have a high AC. Okay then, how about if it's all +2 Defending? That's 18,000gp per, plus item cost. So, for the suite of 4 items (off-hand, armor spikes, 2 gauntlets), we're talking ~72,000gp. For a +8 AC bonus, no penalty. A Ring of Protection giving a +8 bonus, not to mention being an Epic item, would cost roughly 128,000gp, and it wouldn't stack with other Deflection bonuses, making it weaker.
kjenks 05-27-05, 08:15 AM	According to the PH, you only have TWF penalties if, during a full attack, you actually make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon. If you're not attacking with the off-hand weapon, you don't have any TWF penalties. There was an old 3e FAQ entry on this subject saying that you do need to take an attack action to use the Defending ability, kinda like Combat Expertise, but that rule did not make it in to the 3.5e update, so your DM needs to decide whether to follow the 3.5e rules as written or whether to include the old 3e FAQ in his rule set. A careful reading of the 3.5e rules for TWF shows how they work. A less careful reading often leads to incorrect conclusions, as you can see in this tread. So how can you be sure that you're reading carefully? Diagram the sentences and see how the words are used. I can't do a traditional slant diagram in this interface, but I'll try to get the main structural points across. There are many references to the parts of a sentence. Here's a good link: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/toc.html Here's a Web site about diagramming sentences with the slant diagram: http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/basicdiagrams.htm (There are many more references, with many different styles. Google for "diagram a sentence".) SRD === TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. === It's that first sentence that causes the problem, along with the pronoun "this" from the second sentence, so let's diagram that first sentence. First, the overall structure: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," -- that's a dependent clause (or a dependent adverb clause, depending on which grammar expert you ask). Notice that you can't use that clause alone as a complete sentence. It is dependent on the rest of the sentence for meaning and can not be evaluated outside of the sentence. "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." -- that's an independent clause. You can use that independent clause alone as a complete sentence, but the dependent clause indicates an additional condition which must be met for the independent clause to be true. The independent clause includes a subject and a verb. The pronoun "you" is the subject of the independent clause, and therefore the subject of the sentence. The word "can" is the verb of the independent clause, and therefore the verb of the sentence. The dependent clause also includes a subject, "you," and a verb, "wield." An independent clause can be connected to a dependent clause. The dependent clause is the subordinate idea of the sentence. It is dependent on another clause for meaning and context. It is connected to the independent clause by the subordinating conjunction "if." Here's a reminder of the basic terms of grammar I use in the diagram below: A verb may be followed by an object that completes the verb's meaning. Two kinds of objects follow verbs: direct objects and indirect objects. Verbs that take objects are known as transitive verbs. Verbs not followed by objects are called intransitive verbs. In addition to the transitive verb and the intransitive verb, there is a third kind of verb called a linking verb. The word (or phrase) which follows a linking verb is called not an object, but a subject complement. A preposition links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence. The word or phrase that the preposition introduces is called the object of the preposition. A prepositional phrase can also be an adverb phrase, functioning as an adverb. Let's try the diagram like this: "If" - subordinating conjunction "you" - subject of the dependent clause "wield" - transitive verb of the dependent clause "a second weapon" - direct object of "wield" "in" - preposition modifying "a second weapon" "your off hand," - direct object of "in", completing the prepositional phrase Notice the comma separating the dependent clause from the following independent clause. "you" - subject of the sentence "can" - verb of the sentence "get one extra attack" - the prepositional phrase, acts as an adverb modifying the verb "can" "per round with that weapon." - another prepositional phrase, modyfing the word "attack" In this sentence, one can put the independent clause first and the dependent clause second (as the sentence is stated in the PH/SRD) or one could put the independent clause first, like this: "You can get one extra attack per round with a second weapon if you wield that second weapon in your off hand." We all agree that the phrase "fight this way" in the second sentence of the TWF rule refers back to the first sentence -- but how? This is really the key to the whole discussion. Does "fight this way" refer to the dependent clause (If you wield a second weapon in your off hand) or to the entire sentence? A pronoun can replace a noun or another pronoun. You use pronouns like "he," "which," "none," and "you" to make your sentences less cumbersome and less repetitive. Grammarians classify pronouns into several types, including the personal pronoun, the demonstrative pronoun, the interrogative pronoun, the indefinite pronoun, the relative pronoun, the reflexive pronoun, and the intensive pronoun. A demonstrative pronoun points to and identifies a noun or a pronoun. "This" and "these" refer to things that are nearby either in space or in time, while "that" and "those" refer to things that are farther away in space or time. The demonstrative pronouns are "this," "that," "these," and "those." "This" and "that" are used to refer to singular nouns or noun phrases and "these" and "those" are used to refer to plural nouns and noun phrases. SRD === You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. === "You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" -- independent clause, subject "you," verb "suffer" "when you fight this way." -- dependent clause beginning with the the subordinate conjunction "when" The dependent clause modifies the subject/predicate pair of the independent clause, so all of these penalties apply "when you fight this way." Here are the individual parts: "You suffer" -- subject, verb "a –6 penalty" -- the first direct object of "suffer" "with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" -- prepositional phrase modifiying "penalty" where the preposition is "with" and the object of the preposition is "your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" "and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" -- conjunction "and" indicates that this is the second direct object of "suffer" (Incidentally, they're inconsistently mixing the words "with" and "to" as in "penalty WITH your regular attacks" and "penalty TO the attack with your off hand.") "when you fight this way." -- dependent clause beginning with the the subordinate conjunction "when" In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence -- meaning that the penalties only apply if you both "wield a second weapon in your off hand" and you take "one extra attack per round with that weapon" -- not to either clause in isolation. So that's how I break down that second sentence. You can see how the dependent clause of the second sentence refers ("this way") to the independent clause of the first sentence. Or, in plain English, you can wield two weapons with no TWF penalty. It's only when you make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon that you suffer TWF penalties.
chocobochicken 05-27-05, 08:47 AM	Yes, since we can't tell for sure what the RAW means, I'm discussing how I feel it should work. How is that a problem? I already clearly said that it can't be proven to work this way. I just feel it also cannot be proven that it doesn't. . . . As for TWF; it is in the rules. Wielding the second weapon is "fighting in this way". The sentence can easily be parsed like that. There is no way to tell which 'way' it refers to, it could be either the wielding of two weapons simultaneously, or it could be referring to making an extra attack. That's what's unclear. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Have yet to see anyone do so. Plenty that there's another possible interpretation, which I acknowledge, but none showing mine to be wrong. Not in the RAW. Mind if I bring up a quote from an old thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=392739)? Well, there you have it. WotC Custserv thinks that +25 AC from various worn-but-unused Defending weapons is OK. I've come to the conclusion that we need a complete rewrite of the primary/secondary/off-hand/TWF rules. Because the current set seems too much like they looked at 3.0, said "Hrm, this doesn't work well. Let's change this and this, and see what the Frankenrule looks like." My issues; * Inconsistent use of "wield" not consistent with what the word means in English, and no alternate D&D-specific definition given. * No way to affect off-hand penalties without fighting with two weapons. * Silly things like the +25 AC from Defending. I think it's clear what WotC wants the rule to be, and I'm conceding that battle. And turning to pointing out that the rules are written incredibly poorly, both from a basic-English-usage point of view and a mechanical-consistency point of view. You've admitted in the past that this interpretation you are proposing is not what WotC intended or supports. So why are you bringing it back up again when you already know it's wrong? I don't see any practical point in debating this again. See, my point is that, given my interpretation, you don't need to rewrite anything. Whatsoever. At all. Everything works dandy. Except that this gimps the Two-Weapon Defense tree of feats. Why would I want to waste a feat (with another feat prerequisite) to get a small +1 shield bonus to AC only on the rounds in which I've taken a full attack? You're robbing Peter to pay Paul by breaking this feat to fix your defending problem. Yep, yours is a houserule. There's already a clearly set out method of activation, right in the Defending property. Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. The defending property's method of activation is a free action. The DM, by RAW, can limit your free actions by what he determines is unreasonable. That's not DM houseruling arbitration -- that's an explicit rule in the PHB, Chapter 8, in the section on Free Actions, first paragraph (sorry, I don't have the page number on me right now). The DM can declare that taking more than one free action to allocate the bonuses for multiple defending weapons is unreasonable, and he could limit you to spending only one free action to perform this type of activation per round, much like how you can only cast one quickened spell per round. That's a perfectly RAW-abiding method for limiting the abuse of this property. Kjenks, didn't you post that exact same explanation in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=392739)? Thorak didn't agree with you that time, either.
Thorak 05-27-05, 12:07 PM	In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence -- meaning that the penalties only apply if you both "wield a second weapon in your off hand" and you take "one extra attack per round with that weapon" -- not to either clause in isolation. No, it "must" not. Let's use an example, using the same clause structure. "If I play sports, I can become stronger. Working out in this way is quite beneficial...." "This way" refers, in this case, to playing sports, not becoming stronger. The sentence structure is the same for the PHB text and this, so if I can interpret this sentence so that "getting stronger" isn't a way of working out, I can interpret the PHB text such that "fighting in this way" doesn't involve the extra attack. The RAW is not as grammatically clear as you think. You certainly can interpret it that way. But I don't think it must be interpreted that way, since I see no grammatical flaw with my alternative. You've admitted in the past that this interpretation you are proposing is not what WotC intended or supports. So why are you bringing it back up again when you already know it's wrong? I don't see any practical point in debating this again. I know that Wizards custserv disagrees. I don't know what the designers actually intended. Nobody but they do. Besides, this really, really needs a conclusive FAQ entry, which deals with all the sundry issues, one way or the other. I'll keep posting about it and making a ruckus until they write one up. Except that this gimps the Two-Weapon Defense tree of feats. Why would I want to waste a feat (with another feat prerequisite) to get a small +1 shield bonus to AC only on the rounds in which I've taken a full attack? You're robbing Peter to pay Paul by breaking this feat to fix your defending problem. No, I'm not. The entire point of my interpretation is that you don't have to attack to be TWFing. Just wield the off-hand weapon, take the penalties, and Bob's your uncle, even if you don't make any attacks at all. Because, again, in the interpretation I'm proposing, it's the wielding, not the extra attack, that causes the penalties. Note that the TWD text only says you need wield the second weapon, not attack with it. Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. The defending property's method of activation is a free action. The DM, by RAW, can limit your free actions by what he determines is unreasonable. That's not DM houseruling arbitration -- that's an explicit rule in the PHB, Chapter 8, in the section on Free Actions, first paragraph (sorry, I don't have the page number on me right now). The DM can declare that taking more than one free action to allocate the bonuses for multiple defending weapons is unreasonable, and he could limit you to spending only one free action to perform this type of activation per round, much like how you can only cast one quickened spell per round. That's a perfectly RAW-abiding method for limiting the abuse of this property. It's RAW-abiding the same way Rule 0 is, using which I could say that all humans have blue fur and fifteen tails. Sure, a DM could rule that in their own campaign, but there's no straight restriction listed.
chocobochicken 05-27-05, 01:50 PM	I know that Wizards custserv disagrees. I don't know what the designers actually intended. Nobody but they do. Besides, this really, really needs a conclusive FAQ entry, which deals with all the sundry issues, one way or the other. I'll keep posting about it and making a ruckus until they write one up. You know, I honestly kept hoping you were smarter than this. With the absence of a "wielding" term definition in the rules or glossary, the complete lack of example situations bestowing TWF penalties outside of extra attacks, the strict focus on the extra attacks that are made in two-weapon fighting, and popular opinion and a custserv ruling set against you, what do you really hope to prove? You can be 99% sure the designers never intended what you're suggesting because there's no corroborating evidence beyond your "possible interpretation" of a single sentence. There's no FAQ entry for this because it shouldn't be that hard to understand. The sentence in the TWF/Combat section of the SRD contains a possible confusion of antecedents for "this way." One option is "wielding two weapons," the other is "get one extra attack." We can determine which one was meant by examing the context. Note that the text never again returns to the concept of "wielding two weapons," but the extra attacks are the highlight of the section, going into detail about attack roll penalties for both weapons and how both are affected by feats. Basic reading comprehension tells us this is where the penalties apply, and the WotC designers should not be responsible for spoon-feeding every interpetation in the PHB to people just because they have the reading skills of a rock. They shouldn't have to explain this anymore than they should have to explain my sig quote. I'm sure the fact that you want to interpret the sentence in this alternative fashion probably has an influence in why you're so stuck on the idea. But threatening to raise a ruckus about this topic on the forums until the developers themselves bend to your wishes and address the issue -- knowing full well that the developers don't browse through every post on these boards anyway? That's just acting childish.
Thorak 05-27-05, 05:55 PM	You know, I honestly kept hoping you were smarter than this. With the absence of a "wielding" term definition in the rules or glossary, the complete lack of example situations bestowing TWF penalties outside of extra attacks, the strict focus on the extra attacks that are made in two-weapon fighting, and popular opinion and a custserv ruling set against you, what do you really hope to prove? You can be 99% sure the designers never intended what you're suggesting because there's no corroborating evidence beyond your "possible interpretation" of a single sentence. Why, exactly, are you insulting my intelligence? There's a lack of examples of TWF without the extra attacks because, typically, that's how it's used; you do it for that benefit. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of the benefit, though. "Popular opinion" is a fallacious thing to base a logical conclusion on. And custserv is, frankly, often blatantly wrong. For what it's worth, there's just as little corroborating evidence for your claims, too. Find me anything in the RAW that states directly that it's taking the extra attack that provokes the penalty. As it stands, the examples don't contradict either possibility. There's no FAQ entry for this because it shouldn't be that hard to understand. The sentence in the TWF/Combat section of the SRD contains a possible confusion of antecedents for "this way." One option is "wielding two weapons," the other is "get one extra attack." We can determine which one was meant by examing the context. Note that the text never again returns to the concept of "wielding two weapons," but the extra attacks are the highlight of the section, going into detail about attack roll penalties for both weapons and how both are affected by feats. Basic reading comprehension tells us this is where the penalties apply, and the WotC designers should not be responsible for spoon-feeding every interpetation in the PHB to people just because they have the reading skills of a rock. They shouldn't have to explain this anymore than they should have to explain my sig quote. Right. It should be dead simple. The penalties apply to both weapons. Not the extra attack. So what makes you so ******* certain that it's talking about what happens with the extra attack? And if you want to talk about "reading comprehension", explain to me how the mechanic of getting an extra attack is a 'way' of fighting. I can easily understand how wielding two weapons is. The extra attack, frankly, seems to be the mechanical benefit of the "way". Compare to, say, the Spinning Halberd feat, where you get granted an extra attack as a benefit of the feat. That attack is not the feat, though. Much like, IMHO, the extra attack is not TWF, it's the wielding. My argument sums up to; if you're using two weapons, you're two-weapon fighting. How is that difficult, complicated, or against any of the rules? I'm sure the fact that you want to interpret the sentence in this alternative fashion probably has an influence in why you're so stuck on the idea. But threatening to raise a ruckus about this topic on the forums until the developers themselves bend to your wishes and address the issue -- knowing full well that the developers don't browse through every post on these boards anyway? That's just acting childish. Ahh. Insults. Yet more wonderful argument technique. I've seen responses added to the FAQ shortly after we had a huge debate on the forums. The dev team might not read every post, but I'm sure they read some of them. And I'm not requiring that they "bend to my wishes". I just want the issue solved, one way or the other, with a decent set of good rules. Is that too much to ask of a system I'm paying for? Disagree with me? Fine. I could care less. But if you're going to accuse me of being childish and stupid, at least be able to provide freaking evidence that I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're calling me names because you can't prove me wrong. Which, frankly, is a heck of a lot more childish than anything I've done.
DragonsArt 05-27-05, 08:35 PM	If weilding means "attacking" with the weapon, two-weapon defense and other feats would only happen when the person makes a full attack, since that would be the only time they're technically "wielding" the weapon. Likewise, that would mean the defending dagger could only be used when attacking. So, if you have it in your hand and you have to move, then you wouldn't get the benefit? Somehow, that doesn't seem right. Plus, wielding has already been demonstrated as having a "definition" within the description of other magic weapon enchanments... under Holy and other alignment type weapons... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. Look at the sentences.... it says if they try to wield it, they gain a negative level as long as it's in their hand and the negative level goes away when it is no longer wielded. Ok... let's apply ATTACKING to wielding.... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to attack with it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer used to attack. Doesn't really make sense that way. They have to attack, yet the penalty remains while it's in their hand... meaning even if they're not attacking, it's still persists.... and the next line says it disappears when they stop attacking... Nope... attacking in place of wielding doesn't work. Now, let's try it with HOLD... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to hold it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer held. Ahhh... and now the meaning becomes clear. In the case of wielding a magic weapon, the obvious intent if that the weapon is in the user's hand.
Thorak 05-27-05, 09:06 PM	Dragonsart; there's a third option. Wielding, in plain English, means (roughly) "to actively use". If you wield a broom, you're probably sweeping with it, you can't be just carrying it down the hall. Similarly, for weapons, it means actively using as a weapon. This could mean attacking, but IMHO not necessarily, considering there are other active uses, like two-weapon defense, which don't require attacking, only one type of use. It's not just "hold" or "attack".
DragonsArt 05-28-05, 01:32 AM	Dragonsart; there's a third option. Wielding, in plain English, means (roughly) "to actively use". If you wield a broom, you're probably sweeping with it, you can't be just carrying it down the hall. Similarly, for weapons, it means actively using as a weapon. This could mean attacking, but IMHO not necessarily, considering there are other active uses, like two-weapon defense, which don't require attacking, only one type of use. It's not just "hold" or "attack". Actually... here's the webster's definition of wield: Main Entry: wield Pronunciation: 'wE(&)ld Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English welden to control, from Old English wieldan; akin to Old High German waltan to rule, Latin valEre to be strong, be worth 1 chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : MANAGE 2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom> 3 a : to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b : have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials -- G. W. Bonham> - wield·er noun So, the definition (#2) says to handle (as a tool). Using your example, the definition doesn't imply that the person is actually SWEEPING, only that the broom is in their hand - perhaps ready. It says "to handle". Handle doesn't neccessary mean to actively SWEEP. So, let's look at what HANDLE actually means... since wield means "to handle", in this case... the verb form. Main Entry: handle Function: verb Inflected Form(s): han·dled; han·dling /'han(d)-li[ng], 'han-d&l-i[ng]/ transitive senses 1 a : to try or examine (as by touching, feeling, or moving) with the hand <handle silk to judge its weight> b : to manage with the hands <handle a horse> 2 a : to deal with in writing or speaking or in the plastic arts b : to have overall responsibility for supervising or directing : MANAGE <a lawyer handles all my affairs> c : to train and act as second for (a boxer) d : to put up with : STAND <can't handle the heat> 3 : to act on or perform a required function with regard to <handle the day's mail> 4 : to engage in the buying, selling, or distributing of (a commodity) intransitive senses : to act, behave, or feel in a certain way when handled or directed <a car that handles well> - han·dle·able /-d&l-&-b&l/ adjective It seems there is nothing really mentioned about using the object being handled. Simply eaxmining, touching or moving. This actually FURTHER supports the definition in the rules, that you only need to have it in your hand. Regardless, it is completely irrelevenant to the discussion. We aren't discussing a term paper and the correct use of a word. Instead, we're talking GAME TERMINOLOGY, which may or may not have some relation to english language definitions. Trying to apply real life rules, physics or even definitions to a game (especially d20) is an exercise in confusion or duality. Instead, we MUST look at how the game defines the term. And as I showed, the game appears to define wield as holding, based on other examples.
Thorak 05-28-05, 12:32 PM	Actually... here's the webster's definition of wield: So, the definition (#2) says to handle (as a tool). Using your example, the definition doesn't imply that the person is actually SWEEPING, only that the broom is in their hand - perhaps ready. It says "to handle". Handle doesn't neccessary mean to actively SWEEP. No, it says "to handle especially effectively.[/quote] So let's look at what "effective" means; Main Entry: 1ef·fec·tive Pronunciation: i-'fek-tiv, e-, E- Function: adjective 1 a : producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect b : IMPRESSIVE, STRIKING <a gold lamé fabric studded with effective ... precious stones -- Stanley Marcus> 2 : ready for service or action <effective manpower> 3 : ACTUAL <the need to increase effective demand for goods> 4 : being in effect : OPERATIVE <the tax becomes effective next year> 5 of a rate of interest : equal to the rate of simple interest that yields the same amount when the interest is paid once at the end of the interest period as a quoted rate of interest does when calculated at compound interest over the same period -- compare NOMINAL 4 Here, it's clear that it's definition #1; "producing a[n] . . . effect". None of the others can be made into the adverb "effectively". So yes, you're handling it to [i]produce an effect. Hence my insistence, and shortening, to it being "active use". And distinct from merely "holding". As for the game definition; kindly cite me a definition for 'wield' from the books. I haven't found one. They might use the word incorrectly, but that just means they say something they didn't intend and should Errata it. If they said an Illithid was yellow, thinking yellow meant purple, then it's still yellow.
DragonsArt 05-28-05, 01:32 PM	No, it says "to handle especially effectively. So let's look at what "effective" means; IF you take the first definition of effectively. A far more apt definition would seem to be the 2nd entry. 02 : ready for service or action <effective manpower> Seems like you overlooked a definition that is more appliciable. Here, it's clear that it's definition #1; "producing a[n] . . . effect". None of the others can be made into the adverb "effectively". So yes, you're handling it to [i]produce an effect. Hence my insistence, and shortening, to it being "active use". And distinct from merely "holding". That's ONE way to read it. Not the correct way, in this case, but it IS one way. Look at the example sentences in your own example. Doesn't make sense in the context of handle. Notice definition two is ready for service, which seems MUCH more likely to be the definition that would be applicable. Otherwise, by your definition, wielding a gun means you are actively shooting it. No... SHOOTING a gun, means you are shooting it. Likewise, wielding an iron means you are actually IRONING something. Wielding a baton? Wielding a pot? Nope... we're starting to bastardize the definition. The definition implies only that you are holding it, ready for use... not that you are ACTUALLY USING it. In the case of the wield description, HANDLE is the verb. It is the primary action. Effectively is the adverb, defining how the action is being performed. OTherwise, the definition becomes TWO verbs As for the game definition; kindly cite me a definition for 'wield' from the books. I haven't found one. I did quote it! You must have missed it. You can go look at my earlier post. The term wield, as used in the magic weapons descriptions is defined further down in the description of another power. They might use the word incorrectly, but that just means they say something they didn't intend and should Errata it. If they said an Illithid was yellow, thinking yellow meant purple, then it's still yellow. Yellow = Purple? Wow... that's a pretty big stretch... I would have expected YOU, of all people, to provide more logic and less sarcasm. Notice in the glossary, the define GAME TERMS. They didn't define EVERY game term, simply the most commonly used ones... things like square meaning 5 ft x 5ft, and stable meaning the person is no longer loosing hit points after reaching -1 or less. Obviously, some words CAN have other meanings - game terminology. Usually, those are defined explicitedly... or by example. In this case, within the weapon powers it defines it... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. As I pointed out, ATTACK makes no sense when substituted, whereas holding DOES make sense and in fact it mentions specifically "as long as the weapon is in hand." You have to admit... you're argument is a far stretch in light of that and in light of the fact. Unless you can argue away that it really means: It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to attack with it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer used to attack.
Thorak 05-28-05, 03:44 PM	IF you take the first definition of effectively. A far more apt definition would seem to be the 2nd entry. Seems like you overlooked a definition that is more appliciable. I believe, from the example of "effective manpower", they aren't referring to an object that's ready for service or action, but something more theoretical. You can't really wield manpower, after all, not in the sense we're talking about. In any case, that definition works with my interpretation, too. Take a sword, and hold it by the tip of the blade. Are you holding it "ready for service or action"? Nope. But you've got it in your hand. "Holding" covers all kinds of things "wielding" cannot. Otherwise, by your definition, wielding a gun means you are actively shooting it. No... SHOOTING a gun, means you are shooting it. Likewise, wielding an iron means you are actually IRONING something. Wielding a baton? Wielding a pot? Nope... we're starting to bastardize the definition. The definition implies only that you are holding it, ready for use... not that you are ACTUALLY USING it. In the case of the wield description, HANDLE is the verb. It is the primary action. Effectively is the adverb, defining how the action is being performed. OTherwise, the definition becomes TWO verbs Right. But if you'll note, I haven't been arguing that there is no difference between wielding and attacking. I've insisted there must be, in fact. I've been arguing that there's a difference between wielding and holding. You have to hold to wield, obviously, but you don't wield everything you hold. See the sword held by the tip example. Or a pistol you're twirling around your finger. Or a broom you've got draped across your shoulders. I could go on. If you're ready to attack with the item, then yes, you're wielding it. That's what I've been saying. I did quote it! You must have missed it. You can go look at my earlier post. The term wield, as used in the magic weapons descriptions is defined further down in the description of another power. You mean the bit about "bestowing one negative level"? That didn't define the term, you replaced "wield" with what you wanted it to mean, and then because the sentence could make sense that way, you insisted you were correct. I could quote it and replace it as such, and be incorrect for the same reason; "It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to glue it to their thumb. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer glued to their thumb." But replacing it is irrelevant, because the appropriate word is "wield". If they meant "hold", they'd have said "hold". The two aren't synonyms. Yellow = Purple? Wow... that's a pretty big stretch... I would have expected YOU, of all people, to provide more logic and less sarcasm. It's not sarcasm, it's reductio ad absurdum, an entirely valid and logical form of argument, one I happen to be fond of. I take your assumptions, show you can draw ridiculous conclusions with them, which means the assumptions are flawed. Notice in the glossary, the define GAME TERMS. They didn't define EVERY game term, simply the most commonly used ones... things like square meaning 5 ft x 5ft, and stable meaning the person is no longer loosing hit points after reaching -1 or less. Obviously, some words CAN have other meanings - game terminology. Usually, those are defined explicitedly... or by example. In this case, within the weapon powers it defines it...[/quote] Right. Except the weapon powers don't define it. They just use it. As I pointed out, ATTACK makes no sense when substituted, whereas holding DOES make sense and in fact it mentions specifically "as long as the weapon is in hand." You have to admit... you're argument is a far stretch in light of that and in light of the fact. Unless you can argue away that it really means: I've never once said that wielding is attacking with, so you can drop that straw man. And, frankly, something being "in hand" doesn't have to be wielded. If the game designers thought it did, they obviously misunderstood what "wield" means. Unless you're seriously suggesting that when I hold my greatsword in one hand by the tip of the blade, I'm wielding that greatsword.
aelryinth 05-28-05, 04:56 PM	Just to chime in and not do the be-all and end-all... I've asked Skip, Monte and SKR about the spikes/shield and spikes/armor thing...they did all agree reluctantly that such things are considered seperate enchantments. Ergo, the most valuable magic items you can get pre-Epic are Shields and Armor enchanted to +10/+10! Note there is NO reduction of 50% or 75% or anything...the weapon additions are not secondary enchantments. I believe a +5 shield with +5 Defending Spikes is actually cheaper then a shield enchanted to +10, but what do I know? On a second note... I believe that Defending is only supposed to be open to items that you are either attacking with, or actively using defensively, i.e. with a feat. Since you aren't attacking with armor spikes, blade boots or clawed gauntlets, the bonuses wouldn't apply if you had the dagger in your off hand and wanted the Defender bonus. You could make an excuse about doing it with Unarmed attacks or something, but I'd just sort of look at you funny if you did. The old Off Hand Parry was a great excuse not to attack...you were actively parrying with the dagger. Shields are always actively defending, so yes, the bonus would probably always apply. There's a lot of abuse open because of the wording. I'd just advise talking with your DM and players to see just what they intend to do/will allow, and not get cheesy. ===Aelryinth
DragonsArt 05-28-05, 05:06 PM	I believe, from the example of "effective manpower", they aren't referring to an object that's ready for service or action, but something more theoretical. You can't really wield manpower, after all, not in the sense we're talking about. So then, we agree that you do not have to actually attack with a weapon in the off-hand to gain the benefit of a dagger of defense or the feat two-weapon defense! In any case, that definition works with my interpretation, too. Take a sword, and hold it by the tip of the blade. Are you holding it "ready for service or action"? Nope. But you've got it in your hand. Well, you make a convincing argument. I agree, that you must actually hold the sword (or whatever weapon) by the handle... not by the tip of the blade. So, we've established that as long as you are holding the weapon by it's handle (or whatever place you would hold it if you wanted to attack), then you gain the bonuses. "Holding" covers all kinds of things "wielding" cannot. So, in game terms, according to your argument above, you are saying it's not enough to hold it... wield means to hold it in a way that you COULD attack, if you wanted to. Right. But if you'll note, I haven't been arguing that there is no difference between wielding and attacking. I've insisted there must be, in fact. I've been arguing that there's a difference between wielding and holding. You have to hold to wield, obviously, but you don't wield everything you hold. See the sword held by the tip example. Or a pistol you're twirling around your finger. Or a broom you've got draped across your shoulders. I could go on. Agreed. I think you are right, in order to be considered wielding a weapon, you must hold it in a way that if you wanted to, you could attack with it... which is usually by the handle, but will vary with weapon type. If you're ready to attack with the item, then yes, you're wielding it. That's what I've been saying. In which case, I am agreeing with you. Whether or not you may the attack is irrelevant. The fact that you are holding the weapon and COULD make an attack, makes you "wielding" the weapon. You mean the bit about "bestowing one negative level"? That didn't define the term, you replaced "wield" with what you wanted it to mean, and then because the sentence could make sense that way, you insisted you were correct. Nope. I replaced it with it's DEFINITION. I believe you can look further in the post and find the definition. Others were trying to say wielding meant attack, so I put that in... to show the statement didn't make sense. But since we're essentially arguing the same point, it doesn't matter. I could quote it and replace it as such, and be incorrect for the same reason; "It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to glue it to their thumb. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer glued to their thumb." But that would be idiotic, which I know you aren't. You know very well, I took the word from the DEFINITION. Unless you can find "glued to their thumb" in the definition, you minds as well say "tapped to their tongue" for all the relevance. But replacing it is irrelevant, because the appropriate word is "wield". If they meant "hold", they'd have said "hold". The two aren't synonyms. So... you're saying... the definition of the word is irrelevant. Interesting. I expected more logic from you. It's not sarcasm, it's reductio ad absurdum, an entirely valid and logical form of argument, one I happen to be fond of. I take your assumptions, show you can draw ridiculous conclusions with them, which means the assumptions are flawed. Yes... unfortunately... it backfires when the argument you're trying to invalidate is releveant, and yours isn't. It's like me arguing that birds have feathers and you saying "the moon is made of cheese". Obviously, some words CAN have other meanings - game terminology. Usually, those are defined explicitedly... or by example. In this case, within the weapon powers it defines it... Right. Except the weapon powers don't define it. They just use it. [/QUOTE] If you don't look to the rules to define the terms they use, many things become muddled. Because the negative level example helps to clarify how the developers use wield, you ignore it at the peril of muddying the waters of the word's definition. I've never once said that wielding is attacking with, so you can drop that straw man. Some arguments weren't directed at you, but others who proponent the idea. And, frankly, something being "in hand" doesn't have to be wielded. If the game designers thought it did, they obviously misunderstood what "wield" means. Unless you're seriously suggesting that when I hold my greatsword in one hand by the tip of the blade, I'm wielding that greatsword. We are agreeing in that point. Although, consider this - is a throwing dagger held by the tip, wielded, since it is ready to be thrown?
Eidrog 05-28-05, 08:03 PM	DM's CALL! :bounce: Although this is quite the compelling argument. :) I'm in the camp that says yes, in game terms by just holding it you get the benefits. This is assuming that the wielder in an RP sense is using the blade to parry and block incoming attacks. The magical shield ability Focused (Complete Adventurer page 127) makes your character more focused at blocking attacks, I'd argue the Defending magical weapon ability makes your character more adept at swiping away and blocking attacks. He doesn't necessarily have to attack with the weapon. - Eidrog We are agreeing in that point. Although, consider this - is a throwing dagger held by the tip, wielded, since it is ready to be thrown?Interesting thought. . . But I would say - NO! You would have to wield the weapon as a regular knife to benefit from the Defending AC bonus. I can't imagine someone parrying a blow holding a knife like that - he would most likely loose the knife and slash open his fingers in the process. You could allow this if you imagined the AC bonus granted by the defending property was a deflection bonus - but it's not - and it would look ridiculous anyway. :)
Thorak 05-28-05, 10:11 PM	So then, we agree that you do not have to actually attack with a weapon in the off-hand to gain the benefit of a dagger of defense or the feat two-weapon defense! I suppose. I just said you need to wield it, which IMHO means taking the TWF penalties. Well, you make a convincing argument. I agree, that you must actually hold the sword (or whatever weapon) by the handle... not by the tip of the blade. So, we've established that as long as you are holding the weapon by it's handle (or whatever place you would hold it if you wanted to attack), then you gain the bonuses. No, that's baseless assumption on your part. If it's not 'holding', then it must be something more specific. Which, to recite the definition, is "to handle especially effectively". Which to me, translates as active use. Which may or may not include attacking. So, in game terms, according to your argument above, you are saying it's not enough to hold it... wield means to hold it in a way that you COULD attack, if you wanted to. Exactly. Handling it especially effectively. Agreed. I think you are right, in order to be considered wielding a weapon, you must hold it in a way that if you wanted to, you could attack with it... which is usually by the handle, but will vary with weapon type. Agreed. The distinction I draw is that you can then hold it in ways that aren't conducive to attacking, and thus not take TWF penalties just to hold it in your hand. But that would be idiotic, which I know you aren't. You know very well, I took the word from the DEFINITION. Unless you can find "glued to their thumb" in the definition, you minds as well say "tapped to their tongue" for all the relevance. It mentions "in their hand". Claiming that this therefore means anything in your hand is wielded is called Affirming the Consequent, and is a logical fallacy. "If (wielded) then (gain negative level). (gain negative level), therefore (wielded)." Replacing them with letters; If A then B, B, therefore A. Affirming the consequent, and a logical fallacy. We are agreeing in that point. Although, consider this - is a throwing dagger held by the tip, wielded, since it is ready to be thrown? Depends on how you're holding it. If you're deliberately not handling it especially effectively, you're not wielding it, even if you're handling it. That's my point.
Eidrog 05-28-05, 11:00 PM	Depends on how you're holding it. If you're deliberately not handling it especially effectively, you're not wielding it, even if you're handling it. That's my point.While I agree with this, this seems kinda like a moot point. Wouldn't it just be assumed that any character handling a weapon is wielding it to the best of his ability? Particularly in a combat situation when he'll be using the defense ability of his weapon? - Eidrog EDIT* Hmmm, I suppose I get your point. . . What if a character was attacked from behind by a poisoned dart and was nonchalantly holding his weapon. . . Or what if a character was attacked from an unexpected direction in the heat of combat? I suppose I'd rule that if he was nonchalantly holding his sword, he wouldn't get the benefit, but chances are if he's only holding onto his sword he's not making a conscious effort each round to use the defending ability of the sword. . . and if he is. . . then good lord is he ever a tense and paranoid character! An attack coming from an unexpected direction in the heat of combat would probably get the AC bonus. This is when it wouldn't be unnatural for the character to tense up a bit, and the defending ability of his sword helps him deflect blows that might otherwise catch him completely off-guard. :)
DragonsArt 05-28-05, 11:32 PM	I suppose. I just said you need to wield it, which IMHO means taking the TWF penalties. Please quote the SRD or other source that says, to wield 2 weapons, you must take the TWF penalties. If you can't, you need to drop the line of reasoning. Unfortunately, the SRD contradicts you. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Notice, it says that you can take an extra attack IF you are wielding a weapon in your off hand. Note, wielding the weapon in the off hand is a prerequisite to being able to make the extra attack. Now, note the second part. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) I think most people agree that you only incur the penalties IF you actually take the attack. However, the fact is... you must be wielding the weapon first, before you can choose whether to make the attack. It's obvious that wielding does not mean attacking. It's also obvious, the TWF penalties do not occur unless you make an off hand attack. No, that's baseless assumption on your part. If it's not 'holding', then it must be something more specific. Which, to recite the definition, is "to handle especially effectively". Which to me, translates as active use. Which may or may not include attacking. Not baseless, as I have proven above. You simply didn't take into consideration other portions of the rules. Exactly. Handling it especially effectively. Again... HANDLING is the main action. Effectively is an adverb, a descriptor. Much like saying he ran fast, the main action is "ran." Agreed. The distinction I draw is that you can then hold it in ways that aren't conducive to attacking, and thus not take TWF penalties just to hold it in your hand. Unfortunately, your destinction is not inline with the rest of the rules... especially for TWF. It mentions "in their hand". Claiming that this therefore means anything in your hand is wielded is called Affirming the Consequent, and is a logical fallacy. It CAN be a fallacy. As it happens, I'm right. :) "If (wielded) then (gain negative level). (gain negative level), therefore (wielded)." Actually, this isn't really Affirming the Consequent. Because there was more to the sentence. The fact that it specifically mentions "long as the weapon is in hand", is what trumps your argument that it is AtC. Notice the language in the description again: It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. Notice that it doesn't say.... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is wielded and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. In fact... if we break it down... Wielded = negative level Not wielded = no negative level In Hand = negative level not in hand = no negative level I know you're going to say that, logically we can't infer the last one... however, that's where common sense jumps in. If something must be in your hand to be wielded, then if it's not in your hand, it can't be wielded and therefore it can't bestow a negative level. Depends on how you're holding it. If you're deliberately not handling it especially effectively, you're not wielding it, even if you're handling it. That's my point. Again, we are agreeing that you must wield it effectively... meaning, by the handle or whatever passes for a place to hold it. Obviously, the rules state you can WIELD a weapon in your off hand without making an off hand attack. It's also obvious that you only incur the penalties WHEN and IF you choose to make an off hand attack.
Thorak 05-29-05, 12:48 AM	Please quote the SRD or other source that says, to wield 2 weapons, you must take the TWF penalties. If you can't, you need to drop the line of reasoning. Unfortunately, the SRD contradicts you. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer [penalties] when you fight this way." My argument is that this sentence is referring to the way (wielding a second weapon in your off hand), the benefit of fighting that way (get one extra attack with that weapon), and the penalties of fighting that way. So no, the SRD doesn't contradict me. The sentence most certainly can say exactly what I claim it does. Here's an example with the same sentence structure, that may make my point clearer; "If you sweep and vacuum the floor, you can clean it. You get tired when working in this way." Here, clearly, the "way" you are working is sweeping and vacuuming, not just generally cleaning the floor. That's the result of the work. And the TWF wording is the same, grammatically. Notice, it says that you can take an extra attack IF you are wielding a weapon in your off hand. Note, wielding the weapon in the off hand is a prerequisite to being able to make the extra attack. Now, note the second part. I think most people agree that you only incur the penalties IF you actually take the attack. However, the fact is... you must be wielding the weapon first, before you can choose whether to make the attack. It's obvious that wielding does not mean attacking. It's also obvious, the TWF penalties do not occur unless you make an off hand attack. The former is obvious. And I've acknowledged that this is a valid grammatical interpretation. Just as grammatically valid as my own, but no more. However, it also raises in-game issues, like the Defending weapons one we're discussing, which don't arise under my own interpretation. The reason I claim to be "right" is that, given a choice between two interpretations, where one causes all kinds of issues and the other does not, I'll take the one that works. And "wielding" cannot possibly be just having something in-hand. Because that is not what "wield" means, in English, and there is no separate D&D definition. Well, it could possibly be, but that would mean the designers don't know what "wield" means. I prefer to think they're not idiots, both in not understanding what a plain English word means, and in not making a system which has all kinds of flaws. Especially when interpreting it as I do, just as validly by the rules of grammar, solves both problems. Not baseless, as I have proven above. You simply didn't take into consideration other portions of the rules. Again, you didn't show anything of the sort. Inserting the word you want it to mean and showing that it doesn't become gibberish doesn't make you right. Again... HANDLING is the main action. Effectively is an adverb, a descriptor. Much like saying he ran fast, the main action is "ran." And my point is that you are claiming that it applies even if he's running slowly. Unfortunately, your destinction is not inline with the rest of the rules... especially for TWF. Really? Prove it. You haven't. It CAN be a fallacy. As it happens, I'm right. :) It is always a fallacy. It is the basis of your argument. Ergo, your argument doesn't hold up. Any more than me saying "If my car is stolen, it won't be in my driveway. My car isn't in my driveway, so it must have been stolen." Plenty of other reasons it could be. Actually, this isn't really Affirming the Consequent. Because there was more to the sentence. The fact that it specifically mentions "long as the weapon is in hand", is what trumps your argument that it is AtC. Notice the language in the description again: Notice that it doesn't say.... It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is wielded and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. In fact... if we break it down... Wielded = negative level Not wielded = no negative level In Hand = negative level not in hand = no negative level I know you're going to say that, logically we can't infer the last one... however, that's where common sense jumps in. If something must be in your hand to be wielded, then if it's not in your hand, it can't be wielded and therefore it can't bestow a negative level. Right. But it might be able to be in your hand and not be wielded. It's AtC to claim that because it's B, it must be A. When it might be C. Again, we are agreeing that you must wield it effectively... meaning, by the handle or whatever passes for a place to hold it. Obviously, the rules state you can WIELD a weapon in your off hand without making an off hand attack. It's also obvious that you only incur the penalties WHEN and IF you choose to make an off hand attack. No, that is not obvious. Kindly cite me anywhere it says that, besides the TWF text, which I've shown can just as easily be read as saying that the "way" is wielding two weapons, rather than taking an extra attack with the off-hand. In fact, given the typical treatment in D&D, it seems likelier to me that it's the former. The "way" being wielding two weapons, the extra attack being the benefit. Kind of like a feat; taking a feat is the way you get the benefit. Or casting a spell, that's the way you get the effect.
Eidrog 05-29-05, 02:08 AM	Yes! Ignored for the second time! :D - Thanks guys. Ok, I see the full scope of what's being argued here. Hmmm. . . Although I can see where Thorak's coming from, I would probably argue till I'm blue in the face the same way DragonsArt is. I see the logic behind both arguements, but his way is how I'd argue it myself. (so long as the character in queston makes no off-hand attacks.) It's an area of gray. . . and a game like D&D can't help but have some areas of gray. . . If the rules labourously dove deep into each nook and cranny the books would surely be three times as thick as they are. Really it comes down to a DM's call. . . And it shouldn't be completely unexpected that two DM's handle the same problem in different ways.
kjenks 05-29-05, 08:32 AM	Especially when interpreting it as I do, just as validly by the rules of grammar, solves both problems. A sentence fragment. Proving that your. Grammar skills. Are rusty.
DragonsArt 05-29-05, 09:50 AM	I think I've proven my argument well enough. You're obviously stuck in one interpretation - the wrong one, and no manner of logic or examples is going to dissaude you. Even you admit that my interpretation is as valid as yours. The difference is, my argument validates itself in multiple examples, where yours doesn't. So, I feel no need to continue trying to convince someone the earth is round, since they've already made up their mind it's flat.
elecgraystone 05-29-05, 10:37 AM	I think I've proven my argument well enough. You're obviously stuck in one interpretation - the wrong one, and no manner of logic or examples is going to dissaude you. Even you admit that my interpretation is as valid as yours. The difference is, my argument validates itself in multiple examples, where yours doesn't. So, I feel no need to continue trying to convince someone the earth is round, since they've already made up their mind it's flat. I agree with you 100% If it was like Thorak said, then everyone with medium and heavy armor (except breast plate) would take TWF minuses because they are wielding 2 gauntlets ALL the time! Gauntlets are weapons first which is why the custserv said that monks can't flurry with them because they are not monk weapons! Double weapons would also always have the minus! My wizard hits with his staff and always takes a -6? (no TWF) No different than having a dagger in both hands and only attacking with one! Same with shield and weapon. Since shield IS a martial weapon and it doesn't matter if you are useing a TWF extra attack, you have the minuses all the time too! So everyone in Thorak's world takes TWF minuses unless you- #1 do not use a shield #2 do not use med or heavy armor (except breatsplate) #3 do not weild ANY double weapon, including staff. Leaving you with a single one or 2-handed weapon and light armor. I know I'D never play in THAT world.
Thorak 05-29-05, 03:08 PM	A sentence fragment. Proving that your. Grammar skills. Are rusty. Something you keep insisting, but can't actually prove. Look back at the sweeping example. Same sentence structure. Has to be read the way I read the TWF lines to make sense. Good grammar. Shows that it's perfectly possible to read it my way by the rules of grammar. I think I've proven my argument well enough. You're obviously stuck in one interpretation - the wrong one, and no manner of logic or examples is going to dissaude you. Even you admit that my interpretation is as valid as yours. The difference is, my argument validates itself in multiple examples, where yours doesn't. I find it amusing that you are the one using fallacious logic, yet you claim no "logic" will convince me. If you used logic, I might. As for examples, perhaps you missed my point that there are no problems with my interpretation, and plenty with yours. You've got one wording which you have to use fallacious logic to bend into saying what you wish it said. That's it. I agree with you 100% If it was like Thorak said, then everyone with medium and heavy armor (except breast plate) would take TWF minuses because they are wielding 2 gauntlets ALL the time! Gauntlets are weapons first which is why the custserv said that monks can't flurry with them because they are not monk weapons! Perhaps you missed my point that you can deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it, to use the Websters definition. If you're going to make an argument, at least try one I didn't defuse in my first comments. Double weapons would also always have the minus! My wizard hits with his staff and always takes a -6? (no TWF) Did you miss how you can wield them as a two-handed weapon? No different than having a dagger in both hands and only attacking with one! Same with shield and weapon. Since shield IS a martial weapon and it doesn't matter if you are useing a TWF extra attack, you have the minuses all the time too! Again, you obviously haven't read my posts. Since I pointed out the "wielding is holding" argument, which I've been arguing against, is the one that brings up all these problems. So everyone in Thorak's world takes TWF minuses unless you- #1 do not use a shield #2 do not use med or heavy armor (except breatsplate) #3 do not weild ANY double weapon, including staff. Leaving you with a single one or 2-handed weapon and light armor. I know I'D never play in THAT world. Try reading my posts. You'll find that the stance you think I'm holding is actually one of the ones I've argued strongly against. I would bet that in most of my posts, I've said "holding isn't wielding", or some variation. Considering that's what you claim my argument is, you obviously haven't read my posts.
Tsuul 05-29-05, 03:29 PM	Please quote the SRD or other source that says, to wield 2 weapons, you must take the TWF penalties. Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon. The rules on general TWF use, general shield use and defending weapons have not changed since 3.0. The above quote should solve both the OP's question and the TWF debate on penalties and weilding.
kjenks 05-29-05, 06:28 PM	The rules on general TWF use, general shield use and defending weapons have not changed since 3.0. The above quote should solve both the OP's question and the TWF debate on penalties and weilding. That would make some sense, but there are two problems with that approach: 1) That old 3e FAQ entry was in conflict with the 3e rules, for reasons we've already discussed. 2) The 3.5e rules update had plenty of time and opportunity to incorporate the rule changes from the old 3e FAQ into the new 3.5e rules -- and it does, for some old FAQ entries. But the 3.5e rules did not include any changes which would support this old 3e FAQ entry. So we have to conclude that either they didn't want to include this new rule in 3.5e or they were incompetent or unable to do it.
Tsuul 05-29-05, 07:06 PM	1) That old 3e FAQ entry was in conflict with the 3e rules, for reasons we've already discussed.Specify, please. Which conflicts in TWF, weilding, defending are you talking about in this FAQ entry? 2) The 3.5e rules update had plenty of time and opportunity to incorporate the rule changes from the old 3e FAQ into the new 3.5e rules -- and it does, for some old FAQ entries. But the 3.5e rules did not include any changes which would support this old 3e FAQ entry. The quick turnout and revision of 3.0 into 3.5 left little time for drastic rules changes and even less for rule clarifications. The FAQ is not supposed to create or change the rules, it is to interpret them and to clarify them as the authors and rule designers see them. Since the rules on TWF, shield use, and defending weapons have not changed from 3.0 to 3.5 as you have pointed out, this 3.0 interpretation of those rules should be respected.
kjenks 05-29-05, 09:04 PM	Specify, please. Which conflicts in TWF, weilding, defending are you talking about in this FAQ entry? Refering back to the old SRD, http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html If a normal character (i.e. a character without the multiattack and/or multidexterity feats) wields a second weapon (fights two handed), that character can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and the character suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with the first hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a other hand. A character can reduce these stiff penalties in three ways: * If a character's second weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. * The Ambidexterity feat reduces the penalty against the second weapon by 4. * The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces both penalties by 2. Just as with the 3.5e description of TWF, simply wielding a second weapon is not sufficient to impose the "very hard" attack penalties. The wielder must also make his one extra attack per round with that second weapon to get the penalties. The old 3e Defending ability description: Defending A defender weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his or her AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his or her turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until the wielder’s next turn. Caster Level: 8th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Market Price: +1 bonus. For comparison, here's the 3.5e Defending ability description: Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. 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, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. Pretty similar, eh? And here's the old 3e FAQ entry: Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon. As you can see, there's nothing in the old 3e Defending ability description that required the wielder to actually make an attack. The 3e FAQ made that up -- "clarified" it, if you will, or just plain made up a new rule, as I see it. The quick turnout and revision of 3.0 into 3.5 left little time for drastic rules changes and even less for rule clarifications. The FAQ is not supposed to create or change the rules, it is to interpret them and to clarify them as the authors and rule designers see them. Since the rules on TWF, shield use, and defending weapons have not changed from 3.0 to 3.5 as you have pointed out, this 3.0 interpretation of those rules should be respected. Er, rule changes and clarifications were the whole purpose for 3.5e. (Aside from making money for WotC, that is.) Since the rules on TWF and defending weapons did not change much from 3e to 3.5e, we are left to puzzle over why this rule change in the FAQ was not incorporated into 3.5e. Why did they not change the description of the Defending ability to incorporate the rule change from the old 3e FAQ? I don't know. I can't read minds; I can only read what's written in the RAW. I'm sure you've noticed that the FAQ contains quite a few rule changes, so regardless of the original intent of introducing new rules or rule changes in the FAQ vs. the Errata, the FAQ does indeed create and change the rules. It also clarifies them (and sometimes confuses them). But the FAQ is not written by all of the original authors or rule designers. It's written by one guy (first Skip Williams and now Andy Collins) presumably with some consultation with others in WotC R&D. There can't be a whole lot of testing and consultation on the Sage Advice items which become FAQ entries because they get so many things wrong. I could list a dozen FAQ rule changes, but I suspect you can, too. (I suspect that some of us fans take this game way more seriously than some of the people for whom this is just a job.)
Thorak 05-29-05, 10:20 PM	Just as with the 3.5e description of TWF, simply wielding a second weapon is not sufficient to impose the "very hard" attack penalties. The wielder must also make his one extra attack per round with that second weapon to get the penalties. You keep claiming this, and keep failing to back it up. It could mean that. Or, it might mean that it is indeed the wielding that imposes the penalties. There is no way, based on the sentence structure, to determine otherwise. And if you bring context into it, IMHO the weight of the evidence swings it toward wielding causing. For instance, the 3.0 FAQ entry, that if you use wielding as causing the penalties you don't run into any issues with the way the game runs while you do if you rule that it's either holding or attacking. And that "wielding" has a meaning which, in English, cannot be adequately covered by either holding or attacking. Your argument only works if you assume that A> the designers didn't notice all kinds of potential issues with their wording and B> that they don't know what "wield" means in English. I prefer to believe they're not that bad at their jobs. I'm sure you've noticed that the FAQ contains quite a few rule changes, so regardless of the original intent of introducing new rules or rule changes in the FAQ vs. the Errata, the FAQ does indeed create and change the rules. It also clarifies them (and sometimes confuses them). But the FAQ is not written by all of the original authors or rule designers. It's written by one guy (first Skip Williams and now Andy Collins) presumably with some consultation with others in WotC R&D. The issue is that the FAQ does not have the authority to change the rules. Create them, sure, but it can't contradict a primary source and be correct in doing so. The Errata is very clear that only the Errata can do so. And the FAQ is not Errata.
Tsuul 05-29-05, 10:27 PM	Just as with the 3.5e description of TWF, simply wielding a second weapon is not sufficient to impose the "very hard" attack penalties.They are. Weilding means using in some manner more strenous the holding. If you are holding two weapons, then don't take the penalties. 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, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn. Sounds like a use activated item. The FAQ clarifies this use to be....attacking with it. Note the abundant use of the word "weild" in the defending description. If you are just holding it in your hand, you are not using it. Typicaly the way to trigger a "use activated" weapon is to attack with it. Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield ... Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory. Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. ... If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use activation is not an action at all. Use activation doesn’t mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such from drinking a potion or swinging a sword. Underlining done to draw the eye, nothing more. The FAQs have been known to create rules in the past, but this is not one of those times. For the defending weapon you MUST be attacking with it to gain its bonus. It is a use activated item, activated by its typical use (attacking). Does the defending FAQ necessarily end the debate for TWF and penalties, no. I was premature there. But it should end the debate on defending weapons and use activation.
kjenks 05-29-05, 11:04 PM	You keep claiming this, and keep failing to back it up. What, do you want me to diagram the 3e sentences for you, too? You give it a try. You might learn something about grammar.
Thorak 05-30-05, 02:01 AM	What, do you want me to diagram the 3e sentences for you, too? You give it a try. You might learn something about grammar. I don't need to learn any more. You keep claiming the sentence can only mean one thing, when it can mean two. As I have shown, more than once. That you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make you right. Disagree? Prove me wrong. I have yet to see you pull out anything that held up to a modicum of grammatical analysis. Just because you said so doesn't make you right. And, just to reiterate my grammatical point; "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer [penalties] when you fight this way." There are two clauses here in the first sentence. The second sentence, referring to the first, could be referring to either. You have to use context to establish which one it refers to. For instance, I could say, and be perfectly accurate grammatically; "If you play with a stick, you can put your eye out. You suffer penalties when you play this way." Here, obviously, the "way" you're playing is "with a stick". Putting out your eye is a possible effect of that play. This is clearer, because the verb in the second sentence agrees with the one in the first. The issue with the PHB sentences is that the verb in the second doesn't match the one in either of the two clauses. So we can't tell automatically which it refers to. So we use context. It's talking about a "way" of fighting. Is "can get one extra attack with that weapon" a "way" of fighting? Not to me. That looks a whole lot more like the conditional benefit of something. How about "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand?" Yep, that's fighting with two weapons, since "wielding" means "handling especially effectively". And fighting with two weapons is, indeed, something that could be described as a "way" of fighting. That latter bit just explains my argument a bit further. The important bit is that there is absolutely no grammatical reason the sentence can't be intended to say what I'm claiming. Nor do I see any other evidence suggesting otherwise. And since the alternative is to claim that "wield" means either "hold" or "attack", which it clearly doesn't, I'll stick with using what the word actually means. As for the "have to make the attack to be TWFing", what happens if you make your first attack, and drop the enemy? Are you TWFing or not? You took the penalties, because you assumed you would be, but circumstances changed. Or is it that you don't take the penalties until you actually make the extra attack you claim causes the penalties? All of this seems to have a heck of a lot less support in the RAW than what I'm talking about.
kjenks 05-30-05, 09:01 AM	I don't need to learn any more. Then you've already lost.
Thorak 05-30-05, 09:45 AM	Then you've already lost. Ad hominem attacks? Try making an actual point. I've laid down the gauntlet. I'll make it dead clear. You can't prove me wrong. You keep insulting me and avoiding the issue because, I believe, you know that. So you'd rather make snide comments and hope everyone doesn't notice that your argument is garbage and you don't have a leg to stand on.
elecgraystone 05-30-05, 01:16 PM	Perhaps you missed my point that you can deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it, to use the Websters definition. I didn't miss it, it doesn't make sense! If I use a double weapon,I can attack someone with an AOO with either end, even if I just used it as a plain old 2-handed weapon. (one end didn't disappear!) IE, I'm weilding it even I don't attack with it. If I have 3 attacks from BAB, I can attack with either end for any of the attacks and as long as I don't take an extra attack for TWF and I get no minuses. SO all I have to do is hold my 2 weapons and say "I not weilding this one, I'm just HOLDING it", and I don't get minuses, but if I say I'm weilding it and only take one attack I get minuses? Just how do you handle a gauntlet or shield that you couldn't make an AOO? Other than NOT having it? A shield that you get an ac bonus from can always be used for a bash meaning you are always weilding it which means that, for you, I always take TWF minuses! (excluding bucklers and tower shields) If not, then a fighter that's disarmed on the enemy turn can't make his AOO with his shield? Same with his gauntlet! SO what kind of action is it to change it from "deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it" to wielding? Free action? I know it can't be as long as drawing a weapon from a sheath! (move action) You already have it at hand. So I attack TWF, then use a free action to no longer wield it, make AOO with no minuses, then next round free action to wield it, TWF, then not wield? Do you see how this doesn't make any sense? It's clear to me that the TWF minuses only come into play when using the extra attack. See SRD under balor. " Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +33 melee (2d6+8/19?20) Full Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19?20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +31 melee (1d10+7)" Note that his longsword attack(+33) isn't reduced by TWF minuses and his full attack with a longsword AND whip is (+31/+26/+21/+16) So a balor with 2 weapons in hand only takes minuses when taking the extre TWF attacks, but PC's take them all the time?
Thorak 05-30-05, 04:28 PM	I didn't miss it, it doesn't make sense! If I use a double weapon,I can attack someone with an AOO with either end, even if I just used it as a plain old 2-handed weapon. (one end didn't disappear!) IE, I'm weilding it even I don't attack with it. If I have 3 attacks from BAB, I can attack with either end for any of the attacks and as long as I don't take an extra attack for TWF and I get no minuses. I disagree, fundamentally. There is no suggestion that you threaten with any weapon you have, even if it's not wielded, nor is there any suggestion you can use multiple weapons without using the two-weapon fighting rules. SO all I have to do is hold my 2 weapons and say "I not weilding this one, I'm just HOLDING it", and I don't get minuses, but if I say I'm weilding it and only take one attack I get minuses? Just how do you handle a gauntlet or shield that you couldn't make an AOO? Other than NOT having it? A shield that you get an ac bonus from can always be used for a bash meaning you are always weilding it which means that, for you, I always take TWF minuses! (excluding bucklers and tower shields) If not, then a fighter that's disarmed on the enemy turn can't make his AOO with his shield? Same with his gauntlet! I treat it the exact same way I would a sheathed dagger, if the character has quickdraw. It might be a free action to draw it, but you ain't drawing it on your opponent's turn. If you didn't wield it on your turn, tough noogies. Where's the problem? SO what kind of action is it to change it from "deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it" to wielding? Free action? I know it can't be as long as drawing a weapon from a sheath! (move action) You already have it at hand. So I attack TWF, then use a free action to no longer wield it, make AOO with no minuses, then next round free action to wield it, TWF, then not wield? Do you see how this doesn't make any sense? You're the one not making any sense. If you attack with TWF, the penalties apply until the beginning of your next turn. Even if you throw your off-hand weapon at the guy, and are then wielding only one weapon. Says that pretty clearly in the PHB. It's clear to me that the TWF minuses only come into play when using the extra attack. See SRD under balor. " Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +33 melee (2d6+8/19?20) Full Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19?20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +31 melee (1d10+7)" Note that his longsword attack(+33) isn't reduced by TWF minuses and his full attack with a longsword AND whip is (+31/+26/+21/+16) So a balor with 2 weapons in hand only takes minuses when taking the extre TWF attacks, but PC's take them all the time? No, he's smart enough to just hold his whip, rather than wielding it, if he's only going to use his sword. In fact, if anything this example bolsters my argument, since the balor's got them both in hand, but only takes penalties when he chooses to wield them both; it can't be holding that causes the penalties. I admit it might be just attacking that causes it, grammatically, but then we run into issues, like the one here with Defending weapons. For instance, if you have to attack to be wielding, then if you use TWF to wield your off-hand Defending dagger, devote it all to your AC, make your first attack with your primary and kill the opponent, what happens to your AC? You haven't attacked with the off-hand weapon, and now can't, even though people are still shooting at you. Do you lose the AC all of a sudden? Or is it, maybe, that wielding is what's important, not attacking?
vivijen 05-30-05, 07:17 PM	With Defending i see it as this!!! If you are wielding, which means to hold not to attack, you may use the bonus if in fact you declared it at the beginning of your turn which it does say!!! so yeah that is my 3 cents hehe
kjenks 05-30-05, 10:25 PM	Ad hominem attacks? Try making an actual point. I've laid down the gauntlet. I'll make it dead clear. You can't prove me wrong. You keep insulting me and avoiding the issue because, I believe, you know that. So you'd rather make snide comments and hope everyone doesn't notice that your argument is garbage and you don't have a leg to stand on. I've already proven that your opinon is incorrect. This is not the same as proving you wrong. In my opinion, there are no wrong people, only wrong opinions (and wrong actions). Try this one on for size: You're wielding a longsword in your primary hand. You attack the monster (a standard action). Your weapon seems to inflict no damage, so you drop the longsword (a free action) and you draw your cold iron shortsword in your off hand (a move action). Do you think that you don't threaten any squares with the shorsword? Do you think that you should take TWF penalties on the attack with the longsword? If you happen to get an AoO with the shortsword, do you think that you should take TWF penalties on that AoO? Which rule would validate that opinion?
Thorak 05-30-05, 11:54 PM	I've already proven that your opinon is incorrect. This is not the same as proving you wrong. In my opinion, there are no wrong people, only wrong opinions (and wrong actions). No, you didn't. You claimed the second sentence, talking about a "way" of fighting, must refer to both clauses and cannot refer to just one or the other. I showed, conclusively, that it most certainly can, by the rules of grammar. So no, you haven't proven anything. To repeat my basic point in very simple terms, the first sentence is a conditional sentence. An if-then type structure. If A, then B. So, if I were to say "If I'm ugly, I will frighten children. Looking like this is a pain...", The second sentence, obviously, is referring to ugliness. Not the effect of the ugliness, the frightening of children. You can read the TWF clause the exact same way, and you end up with my interpretation. Perfectly valid by the rules of English, perfectly consistent with the rest of the rules of the system. Try this one on for size: You're wielding a longsword in your primary hand. You attack the monster (a standard action). Your weapon seems to inflict no damage, so you drop the longsword (a free action) and you draw your cold iron shortsword in your off hand (a move action). Do you think that you don't threaten any squares with the shorsword? No, that would be stupid. You're wielding it. Do you think that you should take TWF penalties on the attack with the longsword? No, because at no time did you wield a second weapon in your off hand. If you happen to get an AoO with the shortsword, do you think that you should take TWF penalties on that AoO? No, because again, you were never wielding a second weapon in your off hand. Which rule would validate that opinion? The PHB rules. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you take the penalties. At no point in this example were you wielding a second weapon in your off hand. You changed primary weapons. You could have drawn the shortsword with your primary hand, too, and the situation would be no different. What my position boils down to is "are you fighting with two weapons?" If the answer is "yes", you take the TWF penalties. If not, you don't. Easy. And "fighting" could be defending, or just ready to attack. If you're, say, wielding a longsword and holding a whip coiled up in your off hand with no intent to use it as a weapon, then you're not TWFing, because you're not wielding two weapons. You're wielding one, and holding on to another. You don't take TWF penalties there for the same reason you wouldn't if the whip were, say, a bag.
kjenks 05-31-05, 08:39 AM	No, you didn't. You claimed the second sentence, talking about a "way" of fighting, must refer to both clauses and cannot refer to just one or the other. I showed, conclusively, that it most certainly can, by the rules of grammar. You showed conclusively (and repeatedly) that you do not understand the rules of grammar the same way I do. In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence not to either clause in isolation. Can you show how the demonstrative pronoun of the second sentence specifies the dependent clause of the first sentence?
Thorak 05-31-05, 11:11 AM	You showed conclusively (and repeatedly) that you do not understand the rules of grammar the same way I do. In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence not to either clause in isolation. Can you show how the demonstrative pronoun of the second sentence specifies the dependent clause of the first sentence? I can't show that it specifies it, but I don't need to. As you said, it is referring to a "way" of fighting. Is wielding a second weapon in your off hand a way of fighting? Yes. Wield means "to handle especially effectively", and in this case, means fighting with (as distinct from attacking with, which is a specific action within the larger context of fighting) That's all I need to show. That the dependent clause is, alone, a "way" of fighting. As such, it can easily be the target of the second sentence. I never once claimed that you couldn't interpret it the other way too. Just that the rules seem to work better under this interpretation than the other. I don't have to prove that it has to be interpreted the way I suggest; I never claimed that. You claimed it had to be interpreted your way. Which is not true. Because wielding two weapons is indeed a "way" of fighting, and there's nothing keeping a sentence from referring to a dependent clause with a demonstrative pronoun.
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 11:14 AM	OK Thorak . You still have not told me how you can NOT be weilding a shield? When can you be "holding" a shield and NOT be ready to attack OR defend with it? ALso found something in the games rules section under AOO on the web site. "Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons: Weapons such as the spiked gauntlet or armor spikes are ready for use whenever you have a free hand, and you don't need to drop them to use your hand for something else." So, if you are right, you ALWAYS have TWF minuses whenever you are wearing 2 spiked gauntlets or use a weapon and have spiked armor? WOTC say you HAVE to wield these! And I have to disagree with you that the PHB said that if you wield 2 weapons you take minuses. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a ?6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a ?10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way." You get a -10 on your attack with your off hand attack ONLY when you make an offhand attack. If you do not take an offhand attack it invalidates the second sentence! if you fight, taking the extra attack you CAN take from wielding two weapons , you take these minuses. Look at 2 weapon defence. You get the +1 shield bonus when you wield a double weapon. NOT when you use a double weapon for TWF. Note also that "(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)" for TWF. Now if a spiked gauntlet is always "wielded" as per games rules section under AOO, then I can't see why an unarmed strike isn't also. From the rules on AOO it states that a monk using a reach weapon still threatens 5' because of his "armed" unarmed attacks. Nowhere does it say he takes TWF minuses! SO, in your world, ANY fighting is 2 weapon fighting because you can make an unarmed attack with any part of your body! And tell me how you can decide to "not effectively use" your body?
chocobochicken 05-31-05, 12:27 PM	Disagree? Prove me wrong. Have yet to see anyone do so. . . . Disagree with me? Fine. I could care less. But if you're going to accuse me of being childish and stupid, at least be able to provide freaking evidence that I'm wrong. . . . Really? Prove it. You haven't. . . . Something you keep insisting, but can't actually prove. . . . You keep claiming this, and keep failing to back it up. . . . Disagree? Prove me wrong. . . . You can't prove me wrong. . . . So no, you haven't proven anything. I may not be an actual lawyer, but it seems to me we've already provided at least the following evidence: The absence of "wielding" as a distinctly defined game mechanic. The absence of examples in which two-weapon fighting penalties are incurred beyond the action of making extra attacks. The absence of additional evidence to support your proposed interpretation. Numerous examples demonstrating the act of making extra attacks as the sole focus of two-weapon fighting penalties. Testimonies indicating the "extra attack" ruling is the most commonly accepted interpretation among the public. A statement from the publisher's Customer Service department confirming the established interpretation. A record of your own admission that the publisher's intentions of this text contradicts your interpretation. I would think most U.S. court juries, in cases where lives hang in the balance, would find this amount of corroborating evidence substantial enough to make their decision. So what causes you to believe your unsupported claim for a possible interpretation of a game rule deserves more? As far as I'm concerned, our case was proved beyond reasonable doubt when Customer Service provided their confirmation, and I'm not the only one that thinks the case is closed: I think I've proven my argument well enough. You're obviously stuck in one interpretation - the wrong one, and no manner of logic or examples is going to dissaude you. Even you admit that my interpretation is as valid as yours. The difference is, my argument validates itself in multiple examples, where yours doesn't. I agree with you 100% Do you disagree? Then it's your responsibility to follow a proper appeals process to overturn the established decision by submitting the question to the Sage or the development team. Otherwise, attempting to rationalize all evidence away, denouncing public belief, dismissing the statement from Customer Service, retracting your own admission, and claiming repeatedly that "we can't prove you wrong" just seems like a bad case of denial. If you truly want to be shown more respect than I gave you in my last post, then please demonstrate a little integrity and acknowledge the weight of our evidence. Meanwhile, I do not intend to carry on as if the subject is still debatable unless there is a very significant turn of events. The defense rests.
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 12:40 PM	I'll have to agree with chocobochicken . The fact that EVERYONE takes TWF minuses with Thorak should be enouph to show that it doesn't work that way. Monk can use TWF, always has 2 weapons wielded.(if not more) Always at a -6 attack(monk has no off hand)? EVERYONE has unarmed attacks that are ALWAYS wielded, so because I can kick as as off attack, I'm at -6 all the time? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :noway: :noway: :banghead: :banghead: :nonono: :uh-huh: :looloo: :OMG!
Thorak 05-31-05, 01:41 PM	OK Thorak . You still have not told me how you can NOT be weilding a shield? When can you be "holding" a shield and NOT be ready to attack OR defend with it? Shields, I admit, are an issue. And, IMHO, because the designers screwed up. You don't need to wield a shield to get it's AC bonus, only wear it. You retain the bonus, after all, even if you are unconscious. Yet, magical shields constantly refer to the "wielder". That may just be a shorthand, though; I see nothing requiring shields to be wielded. In fact, look at shields in the PHB, in the Equipment section. Don't see them say "wield" once. In short, you hold it, exactly the same way you can hold a rutabaga and not wield it as a weapon. ALso found something in the games rules section under AOO on the web site. "Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons: Weapons such as the spiked gauntlet or armor spikes are ready for use whenever you have a free hand, and you don't need to drop them to use your hand for something else." So, if you are right, you ALWAYS have TWF minuses whenever you are wearing 2 spiked gauntlets or use a weapon and have spiked armor? WOTC say you HAVE to wield these! No, they say they're ready for use. That does not have the same meaning as "wielded". And I have to disagree with you that the PHB said that if you wield 2 weapons you take minuses. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a ?6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a ?10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way." You get a -10 on your attack with your off hand attack ONLY when you make an offhand attack. If you do not take an offhand attack it invalidates the second sentence! if you fight, taking the extra attack you CAN take from wielding two weapons , you take these minuses. Look at 2 weapon defence. You get the +1 shield bonus when you wield a double weapon. NOT when you use a double weapon for TWF. That's irrelevant. Part of my point is that, to benefit from TWD, you need to take the TWF penalties. Because you're fighting with two weapons, albeit defensively. Note also that "(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)" for TWF. Yes, that covers it's "handedness". Nothing to do with what we're talking about. Now if a spiked gauntlet is always "wielded" as per games rules section under AOO, then I can't see why an unarmed strike isn't also. See above. "Ready for use" is not synonymous with "wielded". From the rules on AOO it states that a monk using a reach weapon still threatens 5' because of his "armed" unarmed attacks. Nowhere does it say he takes TWF minuses! Except the TWF rules, as I'm suggesting. It says his unarmed strikes are ready for use, meaning he can wield them regardless of his hands being used up. It does not say they're always wielded. Really, can you always be handling your body "especially effectively"? SO, in your world, ANY fighting is 2 weapon fighting because you can make an unarmed attack with any part of your body! And tell me how you can decide to "not effectively use" your body? Easy. Don't walk around thinking you're in the middle of a fight 24/7. I may not be an actual lawyer, but it seems to me we've already provided at least the following evidence: * The absence of "wielding" as a distinctly defined game mechanic. Works both ways. * The absence of examples in which two-weapon fighting penalties are incurred beyond the action of making extra attacks. Turn it around on you, the absence of examples where someone is benefiting from TWD or a Defending off-hand weapon or some such without taking TWF penalties. * The absence of additional evidence to support your proposed interpretation. Again, works both ways. You have nothing either. * Numerous examples demonstrating the act of making extra attacks as the sole focus of two-weapon fighting penalties. No, numerous examples which happen to only refer to making extra attacks while using TWF penalties. Just because they haven't explicitly covered the other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. * Testimonies indicating the "extra attack" ruling is the most commonly accepted interpretation among the public. Appealing to popular opinion doesn't make you right. At one time, slavery was seen as "right" in the USA. Doesn't mean it was. This is a logical fallacy. * A statement from the publisher's Customer Service department confirming the established interpretation. A department which has often been wrong in the past. * A record of your own admission that the publisher's intentions of this text contradicts your interpretation. Your legalese is fogging my brain. Do you mean I admitted that the publisher's intent was different from my interpretation? I believe I've said several times nobody knows their intent but themselves. Do you mean they officially cleared it up in the FAQ? Cite it. I would think most U.S. court juries, in cases where lives hang in the balance, would find this amount of corroborating evidence substantial enough to make their decision. So what causes you to believe your unsupported claim for a possible interpretation of a game rule deserves more? As far as I'm concerned, our case was proved beyond reasonable doubt when Customer Service provided their confirmation, and I'm not the only one that thinks the case is closed Most US court juries, working on the "reasonable doubt" clause, wouldn't convict based on the evidence. This doesn't mean they are declaring the subject 100% didn't do it. Just that there's reasonable doubt. Which I admit. The only functional difference between the "attacking causes penalties" and my "wielding causes penalties" arguments are cases where the dual-weapon-wielder doesn't make the attack. There's little evidence of these cases, because the only time they're an issue typically is during a full attack, where you'll likely want as many attacks as possible. So, really, it's only for passive feats and weapon bonuses, like TWD and Defending, that this is an issue. And I stand by my claim that if you're fighting, and using two weapons, then you're two-weapon fighting. That seems pretty obvious, to me. Just remember, there's just as big a dearth of evidence supporting your argument as there is mine. I'm not claiming my argument is right because the books say so. I would be demonstrably wrong if I did claim that. You guys make the same claim, which is why I'm demonstrating that you are wrong. In claiming that the evidence supports your case and not my own. Referring to the US court system is irrelevant, because presented with this case, they'd either decide based on other issues like how well it meshes with the rest of the system (in which case, IMHO my interpretation is the better), or they'd just toss the case out and refuse to issue a verdict.
Xanthia 05-31-05, 02:24 PM	Can I just hold a defending weapon in my off hand and continuously put all of it's enhancement bonus into defense while attacking with a weapon in my primary hand?As long as you incur all the penalties for TWF (regardless wether you use it to attack). Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy a shield?!
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 02:26 PM	Just one thought Thorak. You say "Ready for use" is not synonymous with "wielded". However you say "Perhaps you missed my point that you can deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it, to use the Websters definition." How can it be ready for use but not handled effectively? How can I attack with a weapon I'm not wielding? It states that spiked armor is ready for use and can be used for AOO at 5' with reach weapons. You can't make an attack AOO with a weapon that's not wielded, can you? Are you saying that somehow you can change it from not effective to ready to wielded in the interrupt action of an AOO? I am truely amazed and awed at your ability to use opposing and exclusive arguments to support your idea. The blatant disregard for logic boggles the mind. I'm humbled by the audacity it takes to ignore everything that disproves your argument. :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 02:47 PM	As long as you incur all the penalties for TWF (regardless wether you use it to attack). Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy a shield?! TWF penalties should only happen when you take the extra attack. You don't have to attack to wield. #1 for TWF is wielding 2 weapons #2 for TWF is ATTACKING with 2 weapons. Again, you would always take TWF penalties with spiked armor if wielding 2 weapons was all you needed to take TWF penalties. ANd everybody has unarmed attacks that can be used in TWF. Taking the minuses because you could attack doesn't make sense(you can always make a TWF extra unarmed attack!) You would always have TWF minuses and that doesn't make sense! PS: some people can't use shields!
kjenks 05-31-05, 03:15 PM	Because wielding two weapons is indeed a "way" of fighting, and there's nothing keeping a sentence from referring to a dependent clause with a demonstrative pronoun. There is just one thing preventing the second sentence from using its demonstrative pronoun to refer to the dependent clause of the first sentence: the way definite demonstrative pronouns work. A Google search finds many helpful pages about demonstrative pronouns. I like this one: http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/speech/1_2f.htm See how the ambiguity is resolved in the Renaissance example -- a parallel with the TWF rule, where the writer wishes to point to the idea of the preceding sentence. If (as you claim) the writer of the TWF rule wanted to point to the DEPENDENT CLAUSE of the preceding sentence, he would have needed something like this: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you WIELD THAT SECOND WEAPON. See how I specifically indicated the dependent clause of the first sentence by the phrase WIELD THAT SECOND WEAPON? But that's not what the actual rule says. It talks about a way of fighting. Which way of fighting, the entire preceding sentence or the dependent clause of the preceding sentence? The writer does not specifically indicate the dependent clause, so he must mean the "way of fighting" described by the subject ("you") and verb ("can") of the preceding sentence along with prepositional phrase ("get one extra attack"). The dependent clause of the first sentence is just icing on the cake. Do you see how demonstrative pronouns work?
chocobochicken 05-31-05, 03:18 PM	Much of what you say "works both ways" does not in fact work both ways, and I'm not going to repeat myself explaining why. Individually, each piece of presented evidence may pose a question or two that could give someone doubt. Combined together, on the other hand, they present a pretty clear picture of WotC's intentions of the rules, erasing such doubt. WotC never intended the TWF penalties to apply outside of making the extra attacks. You're simply not putting the pieces together. Think of it this way: Sure, it's possible that the robbery suspect matches the physical description by mere coincidence, had a plastic grocery bag with the store's name on it from a previous purchase, was using the gun to shoot pop cans off a fence in the backyard, just withdrew $400 in cash from the ATM machine and lost the receipt, was too drunk to remember where he was at the time of the robbery, and last week decided to repaint his vehicle (which would otherwise match the description of the getaway car) just for fun. Each one of these pieces of evidence is questionable, but put together there's just no reasonable doubt that all these coincidences happened simultaneously. Similarly, I find it extremely unlikely that the WotC developers invented penalties for wielding multiple weapons and then completely forgot to elaborate on the subject of wielding over the course of five years and two product editions. :rolleyes: Your legalese is fogging my brain. Do you mean I admitted that the publisher's intent was different from my interpretation? I believe I've said several times nobody knows their intent but themselves. Do you mean they officially cleared it up in the FAQ? Cite it. I was referring back to my previous post where I quoted a post of yours from the older thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=392739) in which we debated this. After I posted the custserv response, you posted the following: I think it's clear what WotC wants the rule to be, and I'm conceding that battle. And turning to pointing out that the rules are written incredibly poorly, both from a basic-English-usage point of view and a mechanical-consistency point of view. Instead, you took up the battle once again, retracting this statement and repeatedly implying that WotC might possibly see it your way after all. Why?
Tsuul 05-31-05, 03:38 PM	WotC never intended the TWF penalties to apply outside of making the extra attacks.They apply when you take your first swing at a foe with your primary weapon during a full attack [when you intend to TWF]. I consider that "outside of making extra attacks".
Thorak 05-31-05, 03:52 PM	Just one thought Thorak. You say "Ready for use" is not synonymous with "wielded". However you say "Perhaps you missed my point that you can deliberately not handle the weapon so effectively that you're wielding it, to use the Websters definition." How can it be ready for use but not handled effectively? The same way a kitchen knife, lying on the counter, is ready for use but not wielded in my hand. How can I attack with a weapon I'm not wielding? You can't, and I never said anything suggesting otherwise. It states that spiked armor is ready for use and can be used for AOO at 5' with reach weapons. You can't make an attack AOO with a weapon that's not wielded, can you? Are you saying that somehow you can change it from not effective to ready to wielded in the interrupt action of an AOO? No, what the line is saying is that it's ready to be used, in other words, ready to be wielded, even if both hands are using a reach weapon. So if you choose to wield both, you then threaten with both. Like any other weapons. I am truely amazed and awed at your ability to use opposing and exclusive arguments to support your idea. The blatant disregard for logic boggles the mind. I'm humbled by the audacity it takes to ignore everything that disproves your argument. Coming from someone who obviously doesn't understand what I'm saying, since you keep claiming I've said things I haven't, that says a lot. If (as you claim) the writer of the TWF rule wanted to point to the DEPENDENT CLAUSE of the preceding sentence, he would have needed something like this: He does include something like that. He says "this way". Wielding a second weapon is a way of fighting. The other clause is irrelevant, because that isn't a way of fighting. It's the conditional benefit of the way of fighting. I already said this, and shouldn't have had to repeat it. Much of what you say "works both ways" does not in fact work both ways, and I'm not going to repeat myself explaining why. Individually, each piece of presented evidence may pose a question or two that could give someone doubt. Combined together, on the other hand, they present a pretty clear picture of WotC's intentions of the rules, erasing such doubt. WotC never intended the TWF penalties to apply outside of making the extra attacks. You're simply not putting the pieces together. I can say the exact same for you. From where I stand, my interpretation is more consistent with absolutely every published work by WotC I have seen. There's been some Custserv responses that differed, but that's it Instead, you took up the battle once again, retracting this statement and repeatedly implying that WotC might possibly see it your way after all. Why? IIRC, that response was my reaction to a Custserv answer. Custserv can't change the rules, or even answer significant debates, that's not their job. And, for what it's worth, I reviewed the 3.5 FAQ, and found nothing of help to either side. So, I went to the 3.0 FAQ, which still applies in some cases as 3.5 is an update, not a separate rewrite; A second weapon gives you one extra attack each round at your best attack bonus. You make your normal number of attacks with your primary hand and one attack with your other hand. When you use an extra weapon, however, all the attacks you make take a penalty. When you use the weapon. Not necessarily attack with it. And, of course, this entire response; Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon. The important bit, here, being the last line. Given that Defending is nearly word-for-word the same in both, and the bits in TWF that changed don't include the bit we're discussing, I see a good background for what I'm claiming. It was true in 3.0, and nothing has changed that would make it any different in 3.5.
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 03:54 PM	They apply when you take your first swing at a foe with your primary weapon during a full attack [when you intend to TWF]. I consider that "outside of making extra attacks". The minus is because of an extra attack so how can it be "outside"? I also get a -5 with a natural attack if I make them with a weapon attack. I only get a -5 with a weapon attack, it's a normal attack by itself. SO if I bite, then hit with weapon, the minus comes before the extra attack. Same can be said of rapid shot. Rapid shot minuses only take place when you use it. The first attack is also at a minus. You don't take rapid shot minuses when only taking one shot do you? You can't look at the first part of the round, you have to look at the WHOLE round. Let's say I make an AOO with my second weapon, but during my round I only made primary attacks. Should they have been made at a minus? No, they take effect from that point on. The instant I declared an extra attack from my second weapon, not before.
elecgraystone 05-31-05, 04:12 PM	No, what the line is saying is that it's ready to be used, in other words, ready to be wielded, even if both hands are using a reach weapon. So if you choose to wield both, you then threaten with both. Like any other weapons. . And if this was the case, then why say it? The spiked armor section in the equipment already states that it can be used as a primary or secondary weapon. It restates this in the FAQ. The section I quoted was stating how you could let one hand off a reach weapon and draw another weapon to make AOO. There was no action related with the armored spikes. No move action (draw weapon) or free action (quick draw). You can take an AOO anytime with armor spikes because they are always ready. I'm still not seeing a difference between ready and wielding.
chocobochicken 05-31-05, 04:50 PM	I can say the exact same for you. From where I stand, my interpretation is more consistent with absolutely every published work by WotC I have seen. There's been some Custserv responses that differed, but that's it How? A good summary presentation of this kind of evidence would be substantial to your claim; I don't know how I would have missed it. And, for what it's worth, I reviewed the 3.5 FAQ, and found nothing of help to either side. So, I went to the 3.0 FAQ, which still applies in some cases as 3.5 is an update, not a separate rewrite; Quote: Originally Posted by 3.0 FAQ A second weapon gives you one extra attack each round at your best attack bonus. You make your normal number of attacks with your primary hand and one attack with your other hand. When you use an extra weapon, however, all the attacks you make take a penalty. When you use the weapon. Not necessarily attack with it. Interpreting things out of context again? It's blatantly obvious that this FAQ answer is responding to the specific situation where a character is making attacks with both weapons. The penalties apply when you use the weapon to attack. And, of course, this entire response; Quote: Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon. The important bit, here, being the last line. The important bit, here, being the line I put in red for you. The assumption is that you have to take the attack to use it. The significant option here, like Skip's ruling of the Expertise feat, is that you can take the attack action and choose to forfeit your attack rolls (as if you deliberately missed). So the reason you're taking TWF penalties is not because you're wielding two weapons, but because you're treated as if you were making attacks with both weapons. What's questionable about this ruling is the lack of evidence in the rules supporting the notion that you have to attack with the weapon to claim the bonus. If the defending property was ever rewritten to support this, it would change how I look at defending weapons dramatically, eliminating many of the proposed problems.
Thorak 05-31-05, 04:53 PM	And if this was the case, then why say it? The spiked armor section in the equipment already states that it can be used as a primary or secondary weapon. It restates this in the FAQ. The section I quoted was stating how you could let one hand off a reach weapon and draw another weapon to make AOO. There was no action related with the armored spikes. No move action (draw weapon) or free action (quick draw). You can take an AOO anytime with armor spikes because they are always ready. I'm still not seeing a difference between ready and wielding. It needed to be said because most weapons require the use of an actual hand or two. It's talking about ones which don't. Thus, you don't need to use an action to "ready" them by drawing them; they're already drawn. That's what it is saying. If you don't understand the difference between "ready to use" and "wielded", a dictionary is your new best friend.
Tsuul 06-01-05, 01:06 AM	The minus is because of an extra attack so how can it be "outside"?There seems to be a lack of definition for "outside of an extra attack". Combat is abstract. It is 6 seconds for everyone at the same time. You make your AoOs in the same 6 seconds that you make your primary attacks. While you TWF you take penalties to all your attacks. You TWF the whole 6 seconds if you declare TWF. You can't look at the first part of the round, you have to look at the WHOLE round.Exactly No, they take effect from that point on. The instant I declared an extra attack from my second weapon, not before.Primary attack(no penalty), primary attack(no penalty), quickdraw secondary weapon, declare TWF, primary attack(penalty), extra attack(penalty). Oh yea, this should be legal. What's questionable about this ruling is the lack of evidence in the rules supporting the notion that you have to attack with the weapon to claim the bonus. If the defending property was ever rewritten to support this, it would change how I look at defending weapons dramatically, eliminating many of the proposed problems.It's not questionable when you realize that the defending weapon is a use activated weapon. Just like it takes an action to turn on an energy weapon, the defending weapon takes a free action to "turn on" and declare what your going to "set" it to do. You still have to "use" the item to actualy gain any benefit from it. Exactly like energy weapons or any other "use activated items". The downside to the defending weapon is you have to set it each round, unlike an energy weapon.
Thorak 06-01-05, 02:06 AM	How? A good summary presentation of this kind of evidence would be substantial to your claim; I don't know how I would have missed it. I'm not going to list everything. I'll just point out that, to prove my argument wrong, you need to find one of two things in the RAW. Proof that my interpretation of the two sentences in TWF is grammatically flawed, which I believe I've shown conclusively it is not, taken on its own at least. Or a statement that it is attacking with a weapon which invokes the TWF penalties, beyond those same two sentences I've shown could be interpreted either way. I'm not saying all the evidence says I'm right. I'm saying none of the evidence says I'm wrong. Subtle difference.
chocobochicken 06-01-05, 09:47 AM	It's not questionable when you realize that the defending weapon is a use activated weapon. Just like it takes an action to turn on an energy weapon, the defending weapon takes a free action to "turn on" and declare what your going to "set" it to do. You still have to "use" the item to actualy gain any benefit from it. Exactly like energy weapons or any other "use activated items". The downside to the defending weapon is you have to set it each round, unlike an energy weapon. The word use does not necessitate that I make attack rolls with it. If this were the case, Holy Avengers would only bestow spell resistance to paladins when attacking, Luck Blades would only grant the +1 bonus to saves when attacking, and a Trident of Warning would only scan for aquatic predators when attacking something. To benefit from a defending weapon, I simply need to be wielding it, and if I'm wielding it, I'm using it. Now, I'm not saying Skip's ruling is unfair or unfeasible. I'm just saying it's unsupported. Either way, I've been pushing for a rewrite of the defending property to clarify the limitations and restrictions, and if such a rewrite ruled that you had to make attacks to receive the bonus, I would accept it. I'll just point out that, to prove my argument wrong, you need to find one of two things in the RAW. Proof that my interpretation of the two sentences in TWF is grammatically flawed, which I believe I've shown conclusively it is not, taken on its own at least. Or a statement that it is attacking with a weapon which invokes the TWF penalties, beyond those same two sentences I've shown could be interpreted either way. No, I do not. Your request is as silly as my sig quote. You've blown a simple misunderstanding completely out of proportion and into a legalistic crusade. You've turned a blind eye to overwhelming evidence against you and then refused to provide your own, merely saying "we can't prove you wrong." Well, you're wrong. You've been proven wrong. And now you're wrong about not being wrong. The context surrounding those statements provides sufficient evidence to recognize the correct interpretation, and the custserv confirmation should be more than enough. We do not need an additional PHB ruling to exclusively contradict your misinterpretation, no more than we need one to tell me the extra legs for defending against trip attacks need to be mine. Similarly, we don't need clarification to inform me that I don't get new skill points everytime I purchase a construction tool used to determine if a surface is horizontal (or "gain a level"). Such extreme specifics worthy of congress are not required, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I would want to play this game if they were.
Tsuul 06-01-05, 12:57 PM	The word use does not necessitate that I make attack rolls with it. If this were the case, Holy Avengers would only bestow spell resistance to paladins when attacking, Luck Blades would only grant the +1 bonus to saves when attacking, and a Trident of Warning would only scan for aquatic predators when attacking something. To benefit from a defending weapon, I simply need to be wielding it, and if I'm wielding it, I'm using it.Use activation is described as using the item in its typical manner, swinging a sword is the typical manner a sword is used. Holy avengers bestow abilities upon their weilders. There is no specific means of weilding mentioned so the default should be used. Attacking. Luck blades bestow upon their possessor, so no use there. Simply having the weapon on your hip is enough. Tridents of Warning speaks of a weilder but then describes the method of weilding for the power, which is not its typical use. That overrides the default. "Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanitory." A perfect example of Use Activation items given are enhancement bonus weapons which only provide attack/damage bonuses when using the weapon. All this can be read in the DMG pg213
Thorak 06-01-05, 01:52 PM	No, I do not. Your request is as silly as my sig quote. You've blown a simple misunderstanding completely out of proportion and into a legalistic crusade. You've turned a blind eye to overwhelming evidence against you and then refused to provide your own, merely saying "we can't prove you wrong." What "overwhelming evidence"? I asked you to provide even a single piece of evidence from the RAW that backs your case and not my own. Just one. If there's an overwhelming amount of evidence, it shouldn't be that hard, should it? Well, you're wrong. You've been proven wrong. And now you're wrong about not being wrong. The context surrounding those statements provides sufficient evidence to recognize the correct interpretation, and the custserv confirmation should be more than enough. We do not need an additional PHB ruling to exclusively contradict your misinterpretation, no more than we need one to tell me the extra legs for defending against trip attacks need to be mine. Similarly, we don't need clarification to inform me that I don't get new skill points everytime I purchase a construction tool used to determine if a surface is horizontal (or "gain a level"). Such extreme specifics worthy of congress are not required, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I would want to play this game if they were. This is hardly like any of those cases. And again, kindly provide even one piece of evidence, even circumstantial, that shows that my interpretation is wrong, by the RAW. And yes, I'm ignoring Custserv, because they've been utterly and completely wrong before. Just one piece of evidence that proves I'm wrong. All that's been presented here is either outside the RAW, or irrelevant to what we're talking about. And I'll repeat my posting of the 3.0 FAQ; you retain the AC bonuses from the Defending weapon even if you don't attack with it. But you do take the TWF penalties. Sure, it adds a restriction that it has to be during an Attack or Full Attack, but so what? The point is that wielding the weapon causes the TWF penalties, because you must wield it to gain the benefit, and getting the benefit enforces the penalties. The 3.0 FAQ explicitly says that it's not attacking with the weapon that causes the TWF penalties. I don't know how much clearer you want it. From where I stand, that's the only evidence that actually makes a distinction. And it agrees with me. So where do you come off saying I'm wrong?
kjenks 06-01-05, 03:29 PM	I asked you to provide even a single piece of evidence from the RAW that backs your case and not my own. Just one. You've ignored or distorted everything we've shown you, so I don't think facts will convince you. You've said, "I don't need to learn any more." That's a clear indication to me that you are not open to new ideas, no matter wear, how well or how often they are presented. You've said, "I disagree, fundamentally." It's impossible to convince a fundamentalist of anything different -- that's part of the nature of fundamentalism, the belief that one's beliefs are infallible and accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by any other evidence. Fundamentalism is characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture. You may not have actually meant all of that, but you said the word. So if you really want the evidence, look back at this thread. The evidence is there, quoted and analyzed, with page references and SRD quotes. But if you'll just ignore what we tell you, if you don't want to learn anything new, and if you disagree fundamentally, don't bother asking for more.
Thorak 06-01-05, 04:13 PM	You've ignored or distorted everything we've shown you, so I don't think facts will convince you. You've said, "I don't need to learn any more." That's a clear indication to me that you are not open to new ideas, no matter wear, how well or how often they are presented. About grammar. I don't know everything there is to know. I'm not a moron. You've said, "I disagree, fundamentally." It's impossible to convince a fundamentalist of anything different -- that's part of the nature of fundamentalism, the belief that one's beliefs are infallible and accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by any other evidence. Fundamentalism is characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture. You may not have actually meant all of that, but you said the word. You do realize that "fundamentalism" is a specific type of movement, based on the theory that the fundamentals of a belief system are the most important tenets? Claiming I'm a fundamentalist because I disagree fundamentally with something is like claiming I'm a communist because I live in a community. The words have the same roots, but vastly different meanings. So if you really want the evidence, look back at this thread. The evidence is there, quoted and analyzed, with page references and SRD quotes. But if you'll just ignore what we tell you, if you don't want to learn anything new, and if you disagree fundamentally, don't bother asking for more. Way to misquote and take things out of context. I stand by my request. One piece of evidence from the books, FAQ, or Errata which states that attacking with the off-hand weapon is what causes the TWF penalties. There hasn't been any presented yet, and I've already presented a piece of evidence that does state that wielding causes the penalties. Every single piece of evidence that has been provided thus far besides that one could support either argument. That's the point. And if you've got nothing but trying to imply I'm an ignorant fundie by taking my quotes out of context and claiming a word I used means something it quite obviously doesn't, then I'm going to assume you can't provide any evidence to support your case, and instead of admitting that I might have a point, you're resorting to schoolyard tactics and trying to call me a poopyhead.
kjenks 06-01-05, 04:31 PM	Way to misquote and take things out of context. [...] I stand by [...] the books, FAQ, or Errata which states attacking with the off-hand weapon is what causes the TWF penalties. At last, something we can agree on.
chocobochicken 06-01-05, 05:13 PM	As kjenks stated, you've ignored, twisted, or unjustly discredited the multiple quotes and examples we've provided, both in this thread and the older one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=392739). And with all due respect, I asked you for evidence supporting your claim first, and you refused to provide it, turning back to me the same question I've already answered repeatedly. Only now do you finally post a single quote which, as you say, states that wielding causes the penalties, despite the fact that the word "wielding" is never mentioned once in the quote and you're treated as having made the attacks anyway. The bottom line is that your argument does not carry enough weight to merit the situation as debatable. No one will argue that making the extra off-hand attacks incurs TWF penalties -- that fact is blatantly obvious to everyone. Your interpretation, however, is remarkably more obscure, extending the application of the penalties above and beyond what has been commonly accepted for over five years. If the developers really intended a penalty for wielding two weapons, forgot to elaborate on how wielding is applied in the game, never bothered to provide examples where these penalties apply outside the norm, refused to clarify it in the 3.5 update, and gave custserv the wrong information, then it's your responsibility to provide evidence convincing enough to weigh against all these coincidences. As you have not done so, your claim just seems silly -- and more importantly, not worth discussing. I get the feeling that kjenks and I are done with this subject. You've done nothing to keep me interested in it any longer.
Thorak 06-01-05, 07:55 PM	At last, something we can agree on. Thank you for admitting you don't have a point, and will instead rely on disinformation and deliberate obfuscation to avoid saying so right out. As kjenks stated, you've ignored, twisted, or unjustly discredited the multiple quotes and examples we've provided, both in this thread and the older one. And with all due respect, I asked you for evidence supporting your claim first, and you refused to provide it, turning back to me the same question I've already answered repeatedly. Only now do you finally post a single quote which, as you say, states that wielding causes the penalties, despite the fact that the word "wielding" is never mentioned once in the quote and you're treated as having made the attacks anyway. I emphasize the latter, and will now emphasize parts of the quote in question; "Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon." Yep, I count two uses of "wield", and that it explicitly says you don't have to attack with the weapon. Did you even bother reading it, or did you just ignore it because you've decided you must be right and therefore all evidence I could present should be ignored? The bottom line is that your argument does not carry enough weight to merit the situation as debatable. It carries just as much weight as your own. No one will argue that making the extra off-hand attacks incurs TWF penalties -- that fact is blatantly obvious to everyone. Of course, because even under my interpretation, you need to wield it to make those attacks. That's why all the 'evidence' you've presented doesn't support your case; they discuss situations where those attacks are being made, in which case there is no functional difference between your interpretation and my own. Your interpretation, however, is remarkably more obscure, extending the application of the penalties above and beyond what has been commonly accepted for over five years. "Commonly accepted" by who? I've seen plenty of people agree with me over the years I've been debating this. And, like I said, popular opinion isn't necessarily correct. If the developers really intended a penalty for wielding two weapons, forgot to elaborate on how wielding is applied in the game, never bothered to provide examples where these penalties apply outside the norm, refused to clarify it in the 3.5 update, and gave custserv the wrong information, then it's your responsibility to provide evidence convincing enough to weigh against all these coincidences. As you have not done so, your claim just seems silly -- and more importantly, not worth discussing. Now you're being disingenious. I have laid down the gauntlet, and having provided a piece of evidence that does explicitly support my claim that making the attacks is not what causes the penalties, I have asked for even one piece of evidence that supports your claim. And all I get from you and kjenks is misquotes, disinformation, and veiled insults. Try some actual evidence. I'm not even asking for a lot. Just one piece. This is the third time I have asked. If you can't provide any, then admit as much, rather than trying to avoid the issue by insulting me and ignoring my evidence. I have provided evidence, which you acknowledge supports my claim that wielding and not attacking causes the penalties. So, to my count, that puts us at Thorak - 1, kjenks/chocobochicken - 0. Stop claiming you've won when you're down a point.
chocobochicken 06-02-05, 09:41 AM	Thorak, I kindly ask that as you read this post, you interpret it as constructive criticism rather than a flame or insult, as this is my honest intent. To be perfectly straightforward, you have a serious problem of refusing to acknowledge when your opponent in an argument has a valid point, as confirmed by multiple posters: You've ignored or distorted everything we've shown you, so I don't think facts will convince you. As kjenks stated, you've ignored, twisted, or unjustly discredited the multiple quotes and examples we've provided, both in this thread and the older one. I'm humbled by the audacity it takes to ignore everything that disproves your argument. You're obviously stuck in one interpretation - the wrong one, and no manner of logic or examples is going to dissaude you. It's no coincidence that multiple posters have given up trying to convince you. In past threads, you've openly admitted to having a bit of a stubborn and arrogant streak in your posting methods, and these traits have dominated your posting in this thread as of late. Instead of sound reasoning, you've employed a good amount of rationalization to counter our arguments. Instead of making reasonable replies, all you've managed to do is wear us down. Unfortunately, I've been finding it more difficult to give you proper respect, and my patience is now all but exhausted to the point where I dread the idea of opening this thread to see what new posts have transpired. If this is how the thread affects me, then I refuse to continue participating; I can find more beneficial things to do with my time. If ever there was a time to second-guess yourself, that time is now. A great many of us are absolutely certain that simply wielding two weapons does not invoke TWF penalties, even despite your best arguments. Perhaps there are things we are able to see that you cannot from behind the passionate support you give your own side of the debate. If you took the time to reread through this thread and consider the reasoning behind our points before dismissing them, perhaps you might also recognize the futility of your own argument. Even if you're not completely convinced, you should at least be unable to claim we have not provided you with even one piece of solid evidence to contradict you -- a claim that seems pretentious from my perspective. Do what you will, but I will no longer be responding to this thread, and I leave to you and to all other readers a record of why. It is my hope that I might be able to continue engaging in constructive discussions with you on other topics on these boards. Best wishes, chocobochicken
Thorak 06-02-05, 10:21 AM	Thorak, I kindly ask that as you read this post, you interpret it as constructive criticism rather than a flame or insult, as this is my honest intent. To be perfectly straightforward, you have a serious problem of refusing to acknowledge when your opponent in an argument has a valid point, as confirmed by multiple posters: I have a problem admitting my opponents have a valid point?! if the debates have shown me anything, it's that the RAW is not clearly written, even enough to make one argument more likely than the other. I didn't concede that I was wrong, just that the other guys weren't either. Plenty that there's another possible interpretation, which I acknowledge, but none showing mine to be wrong. You certainly can interpret it that way. But I don't think it must be interpreted that way, since I see no grammatical flaw with my alternative. It could mean that. Or, it might mean that it is indeed the wielding that imposes the penalties. There is no way, based on the sentence structure, to determine otherwise. That was all just in the first two pages, and each in a separate post. That's 5 times, at the least, that I admitted my opponents have a valid point. This is what I mean when I say you and kjenks are using disinformation to try and make your point. You make accusations about me and my arguments that simply do not hold up under scrutiny. However, I have asked three times now, and will add a fourth. Even one piece of evidence that explicitly states that attacking provokes the TWF penalties. You demanded I provide evidence. I did. You acknowledged it supports my point. So, I have provided supporting evidence. And my "opponents" have refused to provide, or been unable to find, any supporting evidence for their view. And yes, I discount everything that's been posted. Want me to review? Then I shall. If I forget anything, feel free to add it. I'll run through it in order, since I'm reviewing the thread as I go. First, kjenks' grammar breakdown. This was incorrect, because while he correctly stated that a demonstrative pronoun like 'this' points to something close-by, it does not have to refer to the immediately preceding concept. Especially when qualified, as it is when it's specified to be a "way" of "fighting". The second clause in the preceding sentence isn't a "way" of fighting, but the first clause is, and thus it is a valid grammatical target of "this" in this case. Next, you cited the lack of examples of TWF penalties outside of off-hand attacks being made. My source from the 3.0 FAQ shows this to be, in retrospect, invalid, since I've provided one such example. Then, you expanded on kjenks' point regarding "this"'s antecedent, claiming basic reading comprehension meant it had to refer to "get one extra attack". I find this baffling, because "this" was qualified as a way of fighting, and I don't see how "get one extra attack" is a way of fighting. It's like claiming that, after saying; "If I have a broom, I can sweep with it. Tools like this are nice." that sweeping is nice, rather than the broom. Dragonsart made a point regarding the Webster definition of "wield", but only used half of it, neglecting to consider what "especially effectively" modified the definition to be and trying to claim it was synonymous with "handle" elecgraystone, I don't know where to begin, he kept making short snappers of comments, but almost every one either said something I never claimed, or was off-base some other way. Like, for instance, claiming that my argument said that holding was wielding, when I'd spent a great deal of my posts arguing the exact opposite. I'll make an aside here to give Tsuul due credit; he piped up with the 3.0 FAQ entry I later offered as well, though I missed some of the implications the first time round. Also, since you like citing popular support, Tsuul was on my side, and eidrog admitted I had good points he couldn't see a refutation for. It's hardly just me. At this point, we pretty much devolved into pettiness. I won't claim I wasn't just as big a part of that as any other. However, those were the relevant points, distilled. And frankly, I don't see anything conclusive. Except the 3.0 FAQ entry, which sides with me and Tsuul. All the examples in the text only cover those situations where someone is making the attacks. This doesn't mean there can't be other situations, just that they aren't assumed to be the standard use; obviously, since the point of TWF is generally to get the extra attack, you'll be using it for that. My point is that there may be other times you'll want to as well. As such, those examples only describe one possibility, they don't at any point invalidate others. I've admitted your argument has merit as far as the way the rules are written, but I feel my argument has just as much, and given the 3.0 FAQ and that this Defending issue would then be resolved, I feel my argument is the stronger based on the surrounding evidence. Now, I have reviewed the evidence, I have pointed out that there's corroborating evidence for my case that I have provided, and I ask that you either corroborate your own, or "acknowledge that your opponent's argument has a valid point, as confirmed by multiple posters." You asked it of me. It's only fair that you follow suit.