Off-hand weapons. Meaningless?

[IanB]

On the flipside, would you contend that the rogue with a dagger in his offhand doesn't get a +1 at all?

Rangers don't have special rules saying they can wield weapons in both hands, just that they can ignore the offhand requirement, are you saying rangers can't use the two weapon fighting powers at all?

It's clear that the wielded bonus only applies to the weapon you are actually attacking with in your examples.

Why is it clear for the rogue weapon talent that it applies only when using that weapon, but not clear for the rogue powers? They're worded exactly the same way. "You must be wielding a [whatever]".

 

[DLichen]

Right, maybe by raw it works that way and rangers have a whole list of powers they can't use.

Maybe rogues get better at their mainhand weapon for having a dagger in their offhand, or hit harder when they have a shuriken to threaten with.

Or they actually get worse with daggers when they switch hands when nobody else has this problem in 4e anymore.

I don't know, maybe those interpretations all sound silly when there is a simple alternative to go by.

On page 270:
"Simply wielding a weapon in each hand doesn’t allow
you to make two attacks in a round. If you hold two
melee weapons, you can use either one to make a
melee attack."

It's clear you wield the weapon in your offhand.

 

[silentounce]

"Two-Blade Fighting Style: Because of your focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon."

This seems to imply that anyone can "wield" an off-hand weapon simply by holding it in their off hand. So, by RAW, they would gain the benefit of wielding it even when attacking with their main weapon. Yes, this isn't what was intended. I don't have the search function but I know others have posted statements from WotC people that clarify what they mean by "wield" and that rogues don't get the +1 unless they actually attack with the dagger.

 

[IanB]

Right, maybe by raw it works that way and rangers have a whole list of powers they can't use.

Maybe rogues get better at their mainhand weapon for having a dagger in their offhand, or hit harder when they have a shuriken to threaten with.

Or they actually get worse with daggers when they switch hands when nobody else has this problem in 4e anymore.

I don't know, maybe those interpretations all sound silly when there is a simple alternative to go by.

I don't see how you're offering a simple alternative. You're telling me "wield" means one thing when I read it in the rogue weapon talent section, but when I turn the page it means something else when I read their powers.

It seems pretty clear to me that in all cases where they use the word 'wield', they mean you have to use that specific weapon to do whatever it is they're talking about.

Which ranger powers are inconsistent with that reading? The ranger two-blade fighting style specifically says the extra one-hand weapon is wielded 'as if it were an off-hand weapon' so powers specifying an off hand attack can still be used with said one-hand weapon.

 

[DLichen]

I don't see how you're offering a simple alternative. You're telling me "wield" means one thing when I read it in the rogue weapon talent section, but when I turn the page it means something else when I read their powers.

It seems pretty clear to me that in all cases where they use the word 'wield', they mean you have to use that specific weapon to do whatever it is they're talking about.

Which ranger powers are inconsistent with that reading? The ranger two-blade fighting style specifically says the extra one-hand weapon is wielded 'as if it were an off-hand weapon' so powers specifying an off hand attack can still be used with said one-hand weapon.

Right, so if they attack with the lightblade in their offhand, they can use that lightblade to trigger lightblade req powers. This is true no matter what.

If they attack with the broadsword in their mainhand, they can't. This is contendable at this point.

The other interpretation is that as long as you're holding a lightblade in your offhand, you can use any of the rogue's lightblade only powers using the broadsword in their mainhand.

Or that wielding two weapons just doesn't work and there's superfluous rules language everywhere.

Wield is poorly defined in the book, true, but it's almost certain the design is intended to allow you to use lightblade powers as long as you're attacking with a lightblade, whichever hand be damned since the offhand weapon counts as being wielded.

EDIT: Actually, this time I think we're just arguing about different things

 

[Cirex]

I don't quite understand here, you can attack with either weapon in a turn. Even a basic melee attack is a power, so it's quite clear you can use powers with either hand.

If you're two-weapon fighting, you can use your powers with either of your two weapons.

That's only correct if the rogue power specifies "must be wielding a light blade" and you are wielding two light blades. Then you can use any of those two weapons, like, in example, a flaming dagger or a lifedrinker dagger.

Now, if you are wielding a dagger and a bastard sword, you can not use rogue powers that specify that you must be wielding a light blade with that bastard sword.

If you are using a dagger in your left hand and a bastard sword in your right hand, in order to use Torturous Strike (example), you must attack with your dagger. Using such power with the bastard sword is illegal.

It was clarified somewhere, by Wizards, that wield = use.

 

[IanB]

Right, so if they attack with the lightblade in their offhand, they can use that lightblade to trigger lightblade req powers. This is true no matter what.

If they attack with the broadsword in their mainhand, they can't. This is contendable at this point.

The other interpretation is that as long as you're holding a lightblade in your offhand, you can use any of the rogue's lightblade only powers using the broadsword in their mainhand.

Or that wielding two weapons just doesn't work and there's superfluous rules language everywhere.

Wield is poorly defined in the book, true, but it's almost certain the design is intended to allow you to use lightblade powers as long as you're attacking with a lightblade, whichever hand be damned since the offhand weapon counts as being wielded.

EDIT: Actually, this time I think we're just arguing about different things

Yeah, I agree about being able to use a power with your off hand weapon, even if it isn't a 'you must use 2 weapons' power. I was objecting to the use-a-rogue-power-with-broadsword interpretation, I don't think that one holds water.

 

[Chocobo]

I started out thinking that IanB's interpretation is correct, but I think I'm coming around to Dlichen's interpretation.

Let me see if I can explain why... in a roundabout way:

Two-Weapon Fighting

Heroic Tier
PreRequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.

When I read this I see that it does not refer to wielding the offhand weapon. Therefore, by RAW, you should still get the TWF bonus even if you are not capable of wielding the weapon you are holding in your offhand. For instance, if you are using a light shield, you can hold a weapon in your off-hand, but not attack with it. If you do so, and you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, then by RAW you should get the +1 damage bonus.

Two-Weapon Defense

Heroic Tier
PreRequisite: Dex 13, Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex.

By RAW, again, you can hold a melee weapon in your offhand and gain a bonus from it even if you are incapable of wielding it.

Two-Weapon Flurry

Epic Tier
PreRequisite: Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).

Now... this one is trickier... I can interpret it as a case of exception based design, however. The specific (this feat) overrides the general (you can't attack with a weapon you are merely holding and not wielding). So yeah, again by RAW this feat will allow you to attack with a weapon you are holding in your shield hand. Probably...



Those interpretations, however, are undoubtedly counter to the intent. TWD is intended to be a replacement for a shield, not an additional benefit for shield users. I think they probably meant to say "wielding", not "holding".

But here's the really sticky bit with that interpretation. If the TWF feat said "wielding" instead, then by RAW DLichen would unarguably be correct. If you had the TWF feat and you attacked with your main hand, then you would be wielding both weapons as part of that attack. This might even be the intent, because - let's face it - that +1 damage is coming from the fact that you are also poking them with your dagger in addition to the sword. And letting Rogues use their powers with longswords seems to be far less stupid than letting all of the above nonsense work.

 

[DLichen]

That's only correct if the rogue power specifies "must be wielding a light blade" and you are wielding two light blades. Then you can use any of those two weapons, like, in example, a flaming dagger or a lifedrinker dagger.

Now, if you are wielding a dagger and a bastard sword, you can not use rogue powers that specify that you must be wielding a light blade with that bastard sword.

If you are using a dagger in your left hand and a bastard sword in your right hand, in order to use Torturous Strike (example), you must attack with your dagger. Using such power with the bastard sword is illegal.

It was clarified somewhere, by Wizards, that wield = use.

Yes, that was what I was arguing for, that a rogue bugbear with a broadsword and dagger can apply his rogue powers with the dagger. Your original post implied that he can't.

I have no idea where the whole broadsword for rogue powers just because you have a dagger in your offhand interpretation came from.

 

[Dan'L]

Those interpretations, however, are undoubtedly counter to the intent. TWD is intended to be a replacement for a shield, not an additional benefit for shield users. I think they probably meant to say "wielding", not "holding".

Well, this one at least should be easy. TWD provides a +1 shield bonus. A light shield provides a +1 shield bonus. Typed bonuses don't stack.

-Dan'L