Rogue Weapon Talent Use/Abuse?

[HP Dreadnought]

This is ridiculous.

There is not even any ambiguity in the rules here.

As others have pointed out, wield means "to use." Wield does NOT mean 'to hold'. If you actually know what the word means, there is no question at all. If you don't then I suggest you look up words you don't know, its how you learn.

If you must use something to gain an ability, YOU MUST USE IT!! Not simply hold it in an off hand while you use something else.

The ONLY situation I can see coming up is if you are USING the item in question, at the same time as you are USING another item. But the only case this would be an issue is with ranger TWF AFAIK, and I don't think there are any problems that crop up with that.

Normal TWF you are not USING both weapons. You attack with one or the other. If you want the bonus from a power, you have to attack with the weapon that grants the power. . . i.e. 'wield' it.

 

[Mengu]

Normal TWF you are not USING both weapons.

1. The condition is wielding, not using.
2. Where does the +1 damage for TWF come from then, if you're not wielding two weapons?

 

[Mort_Q]

I'm comfortable with the "rain of dice" rebuttal, myself.

This. Though I must admit I hate finding loose d4s with my feet.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

It is interesting how the common usage of "wield" has become "hold" rather than "use" in RPG circles, even though it's incorrect.

I blame the CRPGs that won't let you put a weapon in your offhand unless you have some kind of "dual wield" ability. I guess those games could have offered the option to hold something in your hand but not actually do anything with it, and then things might be clearer, but hey it's no biggie.

I mean, I don't know how to fight with a sword, so I can't even really wield one, but I can hold one and fake it.

 

[Andur]

1. The condition is wielding, not using.
2. Where does the +1 damage for TWF come from then, if you're not wielding two weapons?

1. I suggest you look up the definition of wielding since you don't care for the ones in this thread.

I can walk around all day with a gun in my hand, but I'm not wielding it until I pistol whip somebody or pull the trigger. That however doesn't mean I'm not in possession of a gun, though it is not concealed...

2. I suggest you actually read the feat TWF, I'll assume you don't have the book so here is the important part:

TWF, Prereq: Dex 13
Benefit: While HOLDING a melee weapon in each hand...

Hope that clears up your misinformation or relieves you of your ignorance.

 

[Mengu]

It is interesting how the common usage of "wield" has become "hold" rather than "use" in RPG circles, even though it's incorrect.

TWF doesn't give a bonus just for holding a weapon, you had bloody well be doing something with it to stab, slash, parry, etc. Wouldn't that be called wielding the dagger in your off hand? And if you are wielding it, why shouldn't it give you a +1 attack bonus?

 

[Mengu]

Hope that clears up your misinformation or relieves you of your ignorance.

Ok, I didn't notice it said HOLD. A limp arm with a dagger dangling at the end is not exactly the picture in my head when I imagine someone fighting with a dagger in their off hand.

 

[SableWyvern]

It is interesting how the common usage of "wield" has become "hold" rather than "use" in RPG circles, even though it's incorrect.

I blame the CRPGs that won't let you put a weapon in your offhand unless you have some kind of "dual wield" ability. I guess those games could have offered the option to hold something in your hand but not actually do anything with it, and then things might be clearer, but hey it's no biggie.

I mean, I don't know how to fight with a sword, so I can't even really wield one, but I can hold one and fake it.

Really?

According to my Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictonary, published in 1966, to wield is,

To handle, as a weapon or instrument, especially with full command and effect.

Now, I don't know that Readers Digest is known for its great authority, but I can assure you in any case that the 1966 edition was not influenced by any RPG.

If you see someone walking down the street with a knife in hand, it's perfectly acceptable to say, "He was wielding a knife." All the more so if he was brandishing it, and more again if he was stabbing someone. But in all three situations, "wield" is perfectly acceptable.

Once again, let me make it clear that I'm quite convinced that when the D&D rules say "wield", they are referring to using that wepaon to attack and deal damage. But that is not the only possible use of "wield", and is a far more precise usage than is often seen. Any argument that is grounded in some notion that the word "wield" can only correctly be used to mean to attack or use with skill is objectively and provably false.

I can walk around all day with a gun in my hand, but I'm not wielding it until I pistol whip somebody or pull the trigger.

It is perfectly acceptable to refer to someone carrying a weapon in hand as "wielding a weapon".

 

[Mengu]

Just one other thing. If the rules said "When you attack with a dagger you gain a +1 bonus to your attack roll," there would be no doubt what the intent was. And I think that is the way they would have worded it, if it was what they meant. By saying "wield" rather than "attack" I think two weapon fighting is precisely the exception the rules are trying to cover.

 

[Kaffis]

Ok, I didn't notice it said HOLD. A limp arm with a dagger dangling at the end is not exactly the picture in my head when I imagine someone fighting with a dagger in their off hand.

Flavorwise, surely a TW Fighter isn't holding the dagger limply. But with regards to the mechanical rules, no attack rolls are being made (or rather, are required to be made -- TWF rangers obviously can) with the dagger, so it is clearer to use the word hold for this rule.