Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mvincent" data-source="post: 2461955" data-attributes="member: 27034">As Hyp explained, the wield issue is subject to interpretion. Check with your DM and/or use what works best for your group.I personally chose the &quot;wield doesn't require TWF'ing interpretation based on a recent (7/29/05) FAQ addition reading:“A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach”This seems to imply that the writers view &quot;wearing&quot; or holding as synonymous with &quot;wielding&quot;. This corresponds with several other instances from the core rules where they do the same thing. Most of the text for shield enhancements refer to a “wielder”, are there are several sentences like this &quot;The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.&quot;However, Hyp's reference to the defending weapon answer in the 3.0 was an excellent counter-point (prompting me to review it more). However, this example seemed to refer more to weapon expertise than to a wielding definition. Also, the 3.0 FAQ later gives an example (p.40) of a combatant switching between weapons in the same round without any mention of TWF penalties, so ymmv.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mvincent, post: 2461955, member: 27034"] As Hyp explained, the wield issue is subject to interpretion. Check with your DM and/or use what works best for your group. I personally chose the "wield doesn't require TWF'ing interpretation based on a recent (7/29/05) FAQ addition reading: [I]“A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach”[/I]This seems to imply that the writers view "wearing" or holding as synonymous with "wielding". This corresponds with several other instances from the core rules where they do the same thing. Most of the text for shield enhancements refer to a “wielder”, are there are several sentences like this [I]"The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded."[/I] However, Hyp's reference to the defending weapon answer in the 3.0 was an excellent counter-point (prompting me to review it more). However, this example seemed to refer more to weapon expertise than to a wielding definition. Also, the 3.0 FAQ later gives an example (p.40) of a combatant switching between weapons in the same round without any mention of TWF penalties, so ymmv. [/QUOTE]

Verification