Legolas trick (Discussion from General)

[Primitive Screwhead]

Damn search engines...

Draw a Weapon

Y'know, you are right. There is nothing in the books/SRD that I can find that actually defines 'wield' as a game term. There should be. The closest I get is a FAQ answer that states "A character can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held like that."

Hm. I get the impression that most of the D&D writers don't usually make a distinction between the two.

And I often get the impression that WOTC writers need to work on improving the preciseness of thier writing, there are better phrases for each of those instances

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules say "for use with a ranged weapon". You seem to have interpreted that as specifically "as part of a ranged attack" but I do not believe that was the writer's intent, nor do I think it can even be taken literally in regard to shuriken because they are not actually being used with a ranged weapon (they are being used as a ranged weapon).

I understand your POV.

I do not agree with it based on the sentence:

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Not "for holding". Not "for dropping". Not for any other use.

This to me means that this only occurs when you are using the ranged weapon.

To me, this is explicit.

If it said:

Drawing ammunition (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

I would have agreed with you long ago. The middle part of the sentence cannot be ignored. You are infering that it has no meaning whereas the meaning appears clear.

Drawing ammunition when using it with a ranged weapon is a free action, otherwise it is not. Just like getting out material components when casting a spell is a free action, but only for casting a spell.

 

[Darklone]

...
This debates revolves around the distinction between the states of 'held' and 'weilded'.

Darklone, you asked about using the Bow as an improvised weapon... but basically its the same gambit. You still need to 'ready' the improvised weapon, whether it be the bow or an arrow.

I think it's worth mentioning again that I don't consider to take this discussion too serious in regard of how I'm gaming

If you need to "ready" the weapon as a move action as you say, then why is it allowed to cast a spell and "ready" a greatsword in both hands afterwards for AoOs as a free action?

 

[mvincent]

This to me means that this only occurs when you are using the ranged weapon.

To me, this is explicit.

I understand that is how you view it. Can you understand that is not how I (nor many other posters) read it? Like many rules passages, it is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I'm merely saying that you are wrong in saying that a differing interpretation is wrong.

Back on track:
My reason for reading it differently is that it says "for use with a ranged weapon" rather than "when using with a ranged weapon". It denotes intent (something which can't actually be verified) rather than concurrent use. As such, reading further mechanics into it seems unwarranted. It seems more like the writer was classifying the type of ammo used (as needless as that seems) rather than insisting that it must be used immediately (something that might not even be possible if your action is interrupted).

But even if you incorporate requiring "intent to use" into your game mechanics, there is no reason to believe that an arrow held in your hand between rounds isn't intended for use with your bow. The fact that D&D gives specific information on using it as an improvised weapon seems to indicate the possibility of using it for an emergency AoO (despite having intended it for use in your bow).

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand that is how you view it. Can you understand that is not how I (nor many other posters) read it? Like many rules passages, it is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I'm merely saying that you are wrong in saying that a differing interpretation is wrong.

I've already said "I understand your POV".

Back on track:
My reason for reading it differently is that it says "for use with a ranged weapon" rather than "when using with a ranged weapon". It denotes intent (something which can't actually be verified) rather than concurrent use. As such, reading further mechanics into it seems unwarranted.

Your entire argument boils does to "the designers said "for use with" instead of "when using", hence, the designers did not mean "when using"". But if you look at the other sentence on the topic, the designers did state "When using a bow". Practically, the exact words you just wrote here.

But, the words "when using" has a different meaning when the designer writes them and when you write them???


And yes, it does denote intent with a ranged weapon. My intent is to pull out the arrow and shoot it. However, firing a bow in melee results in an AoO. My enemy AoOs me and knocks me unconscious. My INTENT was to shoot the bow, I just never got a chance to do it.


I think you are splitting hairs on the semantics of the wording on this one. The language of the designers is not always precise, but in this case, the intent appears clear (and even the OP has come to realize this).

Both quotes "using a bow" and "for use with a ranged weapon" discuss use and they discuss use with the actual ranged weapon. They do not explicitly discuss intent of use (although you are interpreting those "use/using" phrases to mean that), but they allow for intent of use (as per the AoO example).

You appear to be claiming that intent of use and concurrent use are two different things that the designers explicitly meant in these sentences. Quite frankly, I have written gaming material and authors are totally blindsided and amazed by how much meaning people try to shoehorn into their words.

WotC: "I meant ammo used with a weapon. How is that unclear?"

 

[mvincent]

You appear to be claiming that intent of use and concurrent use are two different things that the designers explicitly meant in these sentences

Actually, I was of the opinion that the designers didn't really mean anything (of mechanical consequence) by the sentences (and that if they had, it would likely have been phrased differently and/or more explicitly).

authors are totally blindsided and amazed by how much meaning people try to shoehorn into their words.

Agreed. That's what I had thought you were trying to do.

WotC: "I meant ammo... the type meant for a ranged weapon. How is that unclear?"

 

[Fifth Element]

WotC: "I meant ammo... the type meant for a ranged weapon. How is that unclear?"

I think the problem with this interpretation is that it loses all meaning if it's interpreted that way. If "for use with ranged weapon" is simply defining the type of ammo, then it has no meaning. What type of ammo is not for use with a ranged weapon?

 

[mvincent]

What type of ammo is not for use with a ranged weapon?

That's exactly what I was saying above. However, in context I honestly believe that the writer didn't really mean anything mechanically by it (rather than meaning something more than what he put). As mentioned, sometimes "authors are totally blindsided and amazed by how much meaning people try to shoehorn into their words."

 

[molonel]

I'd let a ranger in my games draw an arrow to stab somebody as a free action because it's cool. If he had cleave, and killed an orc, and then the orc after him, then so much the better.

 

[KarinsDad]

WotC: "I meant ammo... the type meant for a ranged weapon. How is that unclear?"

I could buy into this argument with the exception of that pesky "When using a bow" phrase.

That's pretty explicit as to when this occurs.