Rogue: Wielding dagger, offhanding shuriken? No penalties?

[TheGlow]

Rogue weapon talent:
-when you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size.
-when you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

Ahh it's things like this that I used to aggravate the high hells outta my DM.
Just like how in Magic:TG I insisted my 0 damaging Hypnotic specter should still make you lose a card.

 

[Xect]

From that perspective shuriken win out over bows and slings, which both require putting away or dropping your regular melee weapon, and which must be put away or dropped when you're done wielding them.

You're right. I missed the part about needing two hands to load a projectile weapon.

 

[Cadfan]

You're right. I missed the part about needing two hands to load a projectile weapon.

From a DM perspective, though, I might give a character who decided to specialize in shuriken some sort of extra bonus, if they also promised to give something else up. Like... lets say a character wanted to be the absolute best shuriken specialist ever, and he asks me how. I might let him play a ranger who has Weapon Proficiency: Shuriken and Quickdraw for free, since Shuriken are inferior to longbows. In exchange, they'd have to promise never to use longbows.

That... actually would be a pretty cool character.

 

[JohnSnow]

Hello, Mr. Ambiguously Defined Wield. We meet again.

tongue-in-cheek reference to the many threads of multiple pages debating what wield meant in the two-weapon fighting description in 3.5

It's not ambiguously defined in the slightest.

In the English language, "wield" means "to handle or use a weapon or tool."

Here's a partial list of synonyms: brandish, swing, employ, use.

In other words, those bonuses only apply when the item in question is being "used." And, with a weapon, unless you're attacking with it you're not, by definition, using it.

Any other meaning someone tries to infer is a deliberate misinterpretation of the English language with the intent to gain an advantage. As such, in my opinion, it's even worse than rules-lawyering.

My two cents on THAT subject.

 

[Family]

Max picks up two knives. He could strike with either just as well as he could with one alone. He is weilding both knives.

That said the design intent is otherwise and I wouldn't allow it unless his heart was REALLY set on it, it was laid out as quite fun, or the group supported it.

 

[SlagMortar]

It's not ambiguously defined in the slightest.

In this particular rule, I agree that the intent is rather obvious. However, in a combat system as abstract as D&D, wield is ambiguous. I don't have the books, but does the two-weapon defense feat say something like "when you wield two weapons, you gain a +1 bonus AC"? If so, do you gain the bonus
- during an attack that uses both weapons, and thus only useful against an interrupt counter attack?
- during the entire round following an attack with both weapons?
- anytime you are holding two weapons even if you only attack with one of them?
I would prefer the last one because it requires much less bookkeeping. Then the writer could use a different word when he means something different. Since I don't have the books, I can only hope wield is not used as often and as ambiguously as in 3.5. This rule on daggers could be easily re-written to say "An attack with a dagger receives a +1 bonus to hit."

Any other meaning someone tries to infer is a deliberate misinterpretation of the English language with the intent to gain an advantage. As such, in my opinion, it's even worse than rules-lawyering.

I agree intentional misinterpretation is bad, and that Family's example falls in the realm of intentional misinterpretation. However, there are times where wield is ambiguous and multiple interpretations are reasonable. I would prefer wield be given a specific meaning in game terms or not be used.

 

[Harr]

It just seems like a needless handicap compared to bows or slings, particularly considering that it's a superior weapon.

I don't object to having to spend a minor action when you want to switch from your regular weapon to shuriken. But it seems pointless to punish someone this harshly for choosing shuriken as their regular weapon.

I think shurikens are meant to be used in lots of 5 (from the weapon entry in the PHB), so maybe characters are supposed to hold them in that spiky-knuckle-thing anime ninja girls are always doing (although that would technically only hold 4 but whatever )

Anyway, I don't think it's horrible to say you can grab 5 with a minor action and then grab 5 more with another.