Does sniping while hidden deal sneak attack damage?

[billd91]

<snip>

“Held” and “Wield”. Sometimes the PHB uses held to mean wielded and sometimes it uses held to mean well, held.

<snip>

Does it? I'm not at all sure it does in any meaningful way. Sure, there are obvious cases like two-handed weapons being toted along with one hand and, therefore, being unusable until the grip is changed to two-hands, but I'm not sure it does with respect to much else that isn't also reasonably obvious.

 

[irdeggman]

Does it? I'm not at all sure it does in any meaningful way. Sure, there are obvious cases like two-handed weapons being toted along with one hand and, therefore, being unusable until the grip is changed to two-hands, but I'm not sure it does with respect to much else that isn't also reasonably obvious.

Are you saying that WotC means "held" is the same as "wield"?

I just want to understand where you are coming from.

If so, then WotC is using the word "hold" incorrectly (the point I was trying to make).

 

[Mistwell]

At the point where people are arguing (in English) that it's dangerous to use English to figure out what the rules mean...I think the debate has gone somewhere bad.

 

[irdeggman]

At the point where people are arguing (in English) that it's dangerous to use English to figure out what the rules mean...I think the debate has gone somewhere bad.

Or that the rules that WotC do not follow the language usage rules correctly - which has been demonstrated adequately.

 

[billd91]

At the point where people are arguing (in English) that it's dangerous to use English to figure out what the rules mean...I think the debate has gone somewhere bad.

Welcome to the Rules forum!
But ultimately I agree.

 

[billd91]

Are you saying that WotC means "held" is the same as "wield"?

I just want to understand where you are coming from.

If so, then WotC is using the word "hold" incorrectly (the point I was trying to make).

What I'm saying is that if you're fussing about a difference between the two words in the D&D rules you're doing too much work for insignificant return.
If you're wielding something, you're quite obviously holding it. And if you're holding something, there's no point in making a distinction between holding it and wielding it except in obvious circumstances.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

AMEN and Halleluah!!!

....er....I mean....ahem....

Praise be to the Black Lord in all his Tyrannical Glory!!!!

....yeah...that's it!

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

You know you're on the internet too much when you get confused as to which alter ego you are currently portraying on which boards!!!!

the previous post was made under a decidedly darker version of myself...that posts on Umbrasa the Gravelands...called theBlackLord...

...my apologies for the confusion...what I menat to say was...

JUSTICE TO THE WRONGED, MERCY TO THE WOUNDED, AND DEATH TO THE WICKED

MAY THE TRIAD BE VICTORIOUS...

....there....I promise, after that disaster...no more religious epithets....

 

[hong]

This is a dangerous path to follow since the D&D rules do not follow the conventions of English languages and they (WotC) routinely use terms impropoerly.

It is a perfectly reasonable path to follow unless one is a computer.

PS. "improperly"

 

[irdeggman]

What I'm saying is that if you're fussing about a difference between the two words in the D&D rules you're doing too much work for insignificant return.

Say like stating "hidden" and "invisible"

If you're wielding something, you're quite obviously holding it. And if you're holding something, there's no point in making a distinction between holding it and wielding it except in obvious circumstances.

Except when it comes up frequently when wizards try to make making AoO while "holding" a great sword, or when "holding" a shield, etc.