Crazy Question On Shields

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

According to that you have to wield the weapon for it to be effective.

Define "wield."

 

[IcyCool]

Define "wield."

I don't think wield is a game-term, so hunt for the definition you like.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't think wield is a game-term, so hunt for the definition you like.

Yeah, that's the problem, I think.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It doesn't just say wield, though (or in this case wielder). It also strongly implies that you will be using the weapon the turn in which the defending property is allocated. The lends more weight to the definition of 'wield' that means you plan on skewering someone and not just holding it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't just say wield, though (or in this case wielder). It also strongly implies that you will be using the weapon the turn in which the defending property is allocated. The lends more weight to the definition of 'wield' that means you plan on skewering someone and not just holding it.

And, of course, there's the 3E Main FAQ answer on using an off-hand defending weapon.

For whatever that's worth

-Hyp.

 

[melkorspawn]

LOL!

That's where I ended up. Note that probably everyone will houserule defending anyway (due to the mention of 'sword'), so I suggest you or the DM decide on how defending works in the campaign; i.e. redesign the ability from scratch.

If one were to take the conservative, literalist interpretation of that rule, there would be no defending with maces, quarterstaves, tridents, flails, etc...

 

[Infiniti2000]

If one were to take the conservative, literalist interpretation of that rule, there would be no defending with maces, quarterstaves, tridents, flails, etc...

Exactly. That's why I said I think everyone will houserule the special ability anyway, so you might as well think about exactly how you want the ability to function and houserule the whole thing. e.g. allow it to work on any melee weapon (houserule part a) and allow the defensive bonus whenver the weapon is held (houserule, arguably, part b).

 

[Pinotage]

[mandatory nitpick]The description states no such thing. The description states that you can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. (Not that you can't bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a primary weapon.)[/nitpick]

Well, the debate from here goes, I believe that yes, you can use it in your primary hand, but then it's still an off-hand weapon and you suffer the standard penalties. It says the bash is an off-hand weapon - wether you use it in your secondary or primary hands is largely irrelevant since its an off-hand weapon and you take the penalties nonetheless. Like all these debates, it really depends on what you want to do, what you think is right, and what makes sense. I don't believe there are any examples in this world of people ever fighting with two shields.

Pinotage

 

[Nail]

That's why I said I think everyone will houserule the special ability anyway, so you might as well think about exactly how you want the ability to function and houserule the whole thing.

Yup.

The mention of "sword" is so strange/funny......imagine how many (or few!) designers skimmed over that description and said "Yup. The wording on that ability is fine......next!"

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

I dont know about you guys, but a +5 spiked shield would grant both AC and hit and damage for cheap. All in all, its the same item.