Native English Speakers!I need your help!(once again....)

[Egres]

Try this:

You aren't armed. You aren't wielding a weapon.

However, for the purposes of all game rules, you are *treated* as though you were armed and wielding a weapon.

Does that help at all? Because personally I can't see what the problem is.

The Spectrum Rider

You can't see the problem?

Here it is: SALDAR states that, since your Unarmed attacks with the IUS feat are "armed", just like wielding a manufactured weapon, you must follow all the rules regarding the manufactured weapons!

In other words, he's affirming that if something states:

"If you attack this creature unarmed you take x damage"

you would not take any damage.

Can you see the problem now?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You can't see the problem?

Here it is: SALDAR states that, since your Unarmed attacks with the IUS feat are "armed", just like wielding a manufactured weapon, you must follow all the rules regarding the manufactured weapons!

In other words, he's affirming that if something states:

"If you attack this creature unarmed you take x damage"

you would not take any damage.

Can you see the problem now?

Ah. Yes, now it becomes clear.

 

[shilsen]

Can you see the problem now?

As Lord Pendragon said, yes - which is why you should probably state the complete problem up-front.

And just for the record, even though it is not common usage, wield does get used correctly with a lot of nouns you wouldn't expect it to. Somebody wielding his vocabulary like a scalpel, for example. Not that it matters in this case, since within the format of the game, SALDAR is clearly wrong, but it's not because of his use of the verb.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

. . .

The only other meaning of the term is referred to uses like "to wield influence, power", that has nothing to do with our issue.

Nevertheless he and another poster are insisting that you can use the term "wield" as "use actively".

Is this true?

Can we really "wield" our heads?

I don't know about "use Actively," but shilsen clearly has the right idea here. The example you give above ("wield influence, power") is not as far off as you might imagine. Wield is sort of an idiomatic word. One would never wield their own head unless the ripped it free from their neck to swing at something. Clearly, by the same token, one would not "wield" ones one fists. You can brandish your fists, at someone, I think, and if you were a skilled fighter who did so, you might be said to be "wielding considerable martial prowess," but I think what it comes down to is this:

In English, or at least in *my* English, "to wield" is equivalent to "employing as a potential intrument of harm," but may only be applied to intruments (concrete or abstract) which might be removed without harming or deforming that person or creature employing them.

As for taking damage from something attacked, a monk or other character with IUS would, in my game, be treated as using natural weapons. That means that if he punched an acid-dripping slime creature, they'll both take damage; the slime takes bludgeoning damage and the monk takes acid damage.

 

[BSF]

You can't see the problem?

Here it is: SALDAR states that, since your Unarmed attacks with the IUS feat are "armed", just like wielding a manufactured weapon, you must follow all the rules regarding the manufactured weapons!

In other words, he's affirming that if something states:

"If you attack this creature unarmed you take x damage"

you would not take any damage.

Can you see the problem now?

OK, that's assinine and if a player tried to really argue that at my table he would end up with a disinvitation to play the next time.

Of course, that might be after I had an NPC "disarm" his body and force an action & the AOO's to recover it.

 

[TDRandall]

Of course, that might be after I had an NPC "disarm" his body and force an action & the AOO's to recover it.

Doggone it, now I've got THIS scene running through my head.....

"I'm sorry, the minotaur was unarmed Mr. Gnome, so he now holds your 'weapon'. Your spirit/soul is therefore left standing in its disembodied state in front of him. He then (using his remaining standard action, presumably) flings the 'weapon' directly behind him, and you scream in silent horror as your body bounces on the floor a few times until finally dropping into the steaming, fetid crevice and the waiting lava at its bottom."

 

[niolo]

I would liken various word usages in DnD 3e and 3.5e to "terms or art." The words don't always carry the common everyday meaning we associate with it. They have specific meanings as they apply to DnD. Like many words in law.
Wield in this instance means "using a weapon." The rules say this only applies to specific effects and not likely the instance you've presented. A monk using unarmed strike against a mummy can get mummy rot from touching the target.

 

[Tyrol]

Seems like everyone has assumed the 'unarmed' monk using IUS is wearing no protective gear over the body parts he uses for combat (i.e. gloves). Provided the gear is capable of protecting the wearer from return damage/effects for striking certain enemies, the chararacter would not likely suffer that damage for attacking 'unarmed.' However, if they were not wearing anything, I could see a DM ruling that they do suffer such damage and/or effects for bodily contact.