trip, whip and twf

[Jeff Wilder]

Therefore you can be holding a weapon in a hand without wielding it.

Only because:

In no way is he 'wielding' that weapon as the light shield description clearly states that you can't.

Actually the description says you can "carry" objects, but not "use" weapons so carried. You're carrying the weapon in your shield hand; you're not wielding it anymore than you're wielding a weapon you "carry" in a scabbard on your belt.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Only if the creature is a size category larger than the weapon.

Prove it. Show me the rule.

If you look at the 3E PHB

We're not talking about 3E. Weapon sizing and classifications changed vastly between 3E and 3.5. Show me the rule in 3.5 or just admit that you can't.

I have already quoted the SRD, showing that a double-weapon can be wielded in one hand. There are no limitations stated.

The SRD does say, "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." So the wizard is clearly wielding the quarterstaff, and holding the quarterstaff, even though while he is casting a spell he cannot use the quarterstaff effectively.

I've shown you the rules. Can you, or can you not, show me rules that makes a distinction -- a distinction required by your TWF model -- that there's a difference in D&D combat between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon"? Or will you admit that the distinction doesn't exist ... that if a fighter draws a shortword, he is both holding it and wielding it?

You don't somehow become prohibited from wielding a second weapon you've drawn just because you already made an attack. You may -- or may not -- be able to attack with that weapon, but you are wielding it. Any claim otherwise is simply absurd, and an invented rule.

 

[Legildur]

A creature can clearly wield a double-weapon (e.g., a quarterstaff) with one hand.

I disagree (barring Hypersmurfs clarification that a creature of larger size can do so).

From the 3.5E SRD (my emphasis bolded):

Double Weapons
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Two-Handed
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

There are NO melee double weapons that I can see in the core rules that are not two-handed.

If you can find one in the core rules that is not two-handed then I might be prepared to accept your statement that, for example, a medium-sized quartestaff can be wielded one handed by a medium-sized creature. Otherwise Hypersmurf is correct in that only a creature of a larger size can wield it in one hand (except possibly barring Monkeygrip and related feats, but I'm not really across those).

Also:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons
A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

I think that last sentence sums it up nicely. A medium-sized creature cannot wield a medium-sized quarterstaff (a two-handed weapon for a medium-sized creature) in one-hand as its designation would be changed too far.

 

[glass]

Wow - I've just spent two pages arguing without making a single post!

Sorry about that. I somehow got sucked into arguing about your position rather than my own.


glass.

 

[glass]

I disagree (barring Hypersmurfs clarification that a creature of larger size can do so).
-snip-
There are NO melee double weapons that I can see in the core rules that are not two-handed.

I think JW is making a distinction between 'wield' and 'use effectively', but no distinction between 'wield' and 'hold', whereas the rest of us are making a distinction between 'wield' and 'hold'.

I suppose it comes down to the definition of wield, which (I'm assuming) is not in the glossary, so there probably isn't a definitive answer.

In any case, it seems like we would rule the same way for different reasons in most cases, the only real points of contention being:

1. Whether you can threaten with two weapons at one without taking TWF penalties.
2. Whether you can use TWD without taking TWF penalties.

In both cases, Jeff would rule yes, the rest of us (I think :\) would rule no. Does that look like a fair summary to everyone?



glass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Show me the rule in 3.5 or just admit that you can't.

You've quoted it yourself! Two hands are required to use a two-handed weapon! The line about wielding a double weapon in one hand only applies if you are somehow able to wield the weapon in one hand.

Even ignoring your misconception about double weapons, switch 'quarterstaff' for 'spear' in the example.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think JW is making a distinction between 'wield' and 'use effectively', but no distinction between 'wield' and 'hold', whereas the rest of us are making a distinction between 'wield' and 'hold'.

My argument actually boils down to the fact that since these terms are not game-defined, interpreting a rule in such a way that requires you to have game-definitions for these terms is absurd.

Here's the language, one more time:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

Hypersmurf's Model -- "Fight this way" refers to, and only to, the clause "if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand."

On the face of the language, this is a reasonable way to read the rule. The problem is, as Hypersmurf himself has admitted, it requires rules distinctions between terms like "wield," "use" and "hold." The problem is that these are terms that the game rules constantly use interchangeably and very confusingly. It leads to things like a fighter having drawn a shortsword under the rules, and being armed with the shortsword under the rules, but somehow not wielding that shortsword, but only holding the shortsword.

Surely I can't be the only person reading this who finds it bizarre?

On the other hand, if you simply read the language in a second reasonable way, you get:

Jeff's Model -- The first sentence can just as easily -- and just as reasonably -- be read to mean, "You can get one extra attack per round with a weapon in your off-hand." With that meaning in mind, the entire first sentence becomes the antecedent for "fight this way." You're "fighting this way" whenever you want to be able to get an extra attack with a second weapon.

This model does not require a TWF to make bizarre distinctions between "wielding," "holding," "using," "armed," and so on. All the TWF has to do is "fight this way" -- he pays the penalties, and at any point in the round he can take an extra attack with a second weapon.

As a reminder, this is exactly as Wizards Customer Service said to handle things, for whatever that's worth, and I purposefully structured the question to make it difficult to arrive at that conclusion without understanding the rules.

I suppose it comes down to the definition of wield, which (I'm assuming) is not in the glossary, so there probably isn't a definitive answer.

No, it's not. The only disitnction made is between "armed" and "unarmed."

So, given that, why not accept the reasonable reading that doesn't require the creation of rules and distinctions -- "wielding," "holding," "using" -- that don't exist? What is the investment in the creation of those distinctions?

[*]Whether you can threaten with two weapons at one without taking TWF penalties.

You cannot. In order to threaten, you have to be able to make an attack. If you haven't accepted the TWF penalties, you cannot make an attack with the off-hand weapon. But you are still wielding that weapon.

[*]Whether you can use TWD without taking TWF penalties.

There is nothing in the description of TWD that says anything about suffering TWF penalties. All that is required is that you be wielding two weapons (or a double weapon) ... you do not have to be fighting with both.

Note that even under Hypersmurf's definition it's possible to wield a double-weapon and not be TWF, since a double-weapon can be used perfectly well to make a single attack. And all that is required to gain TWD is that you be wielding the double-weapon.

Again, why the insistence upon a reading that has so many bizarre consequences, when an equally reasonable parsing of the language comes up with something that suffers none of those bizarre consequences? What am I missing?

 

[Legildur]

<snip> Surely I can't be the only person reading this who finds it bizarre?

On the other hand, if you simply read the language in a second reasonable way, you get:

Jeff's Model -- <snip> As a reminder, this is exactly as Wizards Customer Service said to handle things, for whatever that's worth, and I purposefully structured the question to make it difficult to arrive at that conclusion without understanding the rules.

<snip>

Again, why the insistence upon a reading that has so many bizarre consequences, when an equally reasonable parsing of the language comes up with something that suffers none of those bizarre consequences? What am I missing?

<shrug> I dunno Jeff, but it seems to me that your definition of 'reasonable' isn't shared by many of the rest of us. That's not to say that I can't see how you arrived at your interpretation of the rules, but just that I interpret them differently. At least if there are more EnWorlders out there that share your view, they are declining to chime in. And almost on a matter of principle, I would take the opposite position to that taken by WotC's Customer Service (regardless of how well intentioned they are).

I find it equally bizarre that a creature could wield/hold/use/carry a weapon in it's off-hand and choose to use it in a way that suffered no penalties that otherwise would normally have to be incurred to wield/use/hold/carry a second weapon.

I also noted with some curiosity that you didn't respond to my quotes below that I believe settle the rules discussion you and Hype had about the wielding of a double weapon in one-hand? That is, unless you are a size large than the weapon, it can't be done (barring some FR feat or the like).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

At least if there are more EnWorlders out there that share your view, they are declining to chime in.

True enough.

And almost on a matter of principle, I would take the opposite position to that taken by WotC's Customer Service (regardless of how well intentioned they are).

Well, that's a shame. IME they've gotten much better at their jobs.

I find it equally bizarre that a creature could wield/hold/use/carry a weapon in it's off-hand and choose to use it in a way that suffered no penalties that otherwise would normally have to be incurred to wield/use/hold/carry a second weapon.

Where is it that you believe my model has that result?

I also noted with some curiosity that you didn't respond to my quotes below that I believe settle the rules discussion you and Hype had

I didn't respond to it because I had already addressed the point, using the same quotes. And your latter quote, about size-changing, just doesn't apply. There's no size-changing going on.

 

[Vurt]

Head... Hurt...

I'm sure I've missed 95% of what just transpired, and I hope I haven't overlooked anything important, but...

It seems to me that, as a DM, I can avoid all this mess if I ask my players to declare their intent at the start of their turn. Feats such as Two-weapon Defence then only come into play while the character is actually fighting with two weapons, which is to say, after they have declared they are doing so. And since fighting with two weapons is a full round action, bonuses and penalties carry over to the start of their next turn, apply to AoO, etc., as you would expect.

If there is no intent to fight with two weapons, then the player isn't allowed to do so mid-turn. So no quickdrawing a shortsword and using it in the off hand, unless it's to take place in a regular iterative attack.

Like poker, you ante up, and only then do you get to play.

Cheers,
Vurt