Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 2465250" data-attributes="member: 5122">I said, "Where in the rules is the distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon" made?"This is not true, except under your model.  The distinction (which doesn't actually exist) is only necessary because of the way you read TWF.  (In other words, under your model, you have to create a new rule.)Under my model, if the guy with the shield doesn't want the option of attacking with it, he simply doesn't.  If he does want the option of attacking with it, he takes the TWF penalties from the beginning of his full attack action.I said, "In your model, it is impossible for a 1st-level fighter to attack, judge the effects, then quick-draw his shortsword and attack. In your model, it is impossible to do something permitted by the general rules of D&D combat."So now, under your model, a guy has to "wield" his own hand, if he wants to use that hand to later draw a shortsword.  Yet another rule you've been forced to create because you insist on reading the TWF rules incorrectly, right?Yet another rule you've been forced to create.Seriously, wouldn't it be simpler to consider the possibility that your reading of TWF is incorrect?Holy cow.Well, yeah, it's a very black-and-white argument until you start getting into all the rules you have to break or create to make it work properly.I'm simply flabbergasted that your position is that if a character wields an off-hand weapon (or his own fist, or a two-bladed sword), he must take TWF penalties, even if he has absolutely no intention of fighting two-handed.I said, "Under your model, a 1st-level fighter can't attack with his longsword, then draw -- not quick-draw and attack, just draw, as a move action -- his shortsword."So I'll ask again.  Where is this distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon" in the rules?  You're simply creating it, right?  Because in order for your TWF model to make sense, the rule has to exist, right?I said, "It is impossible to do something clearly permitted by the D&D rules."It is clearly permitted by every other aspect of the rules except those you're interpreting.  Then suddenly, under your interpretation, it no longer works.I said, "You can't wield a non-IUS fist, after all, or threaten squares with it..."Actually, it doesn't even matter if you can wield it, although the definition of "wield" suggests you can't.  It doesn't matter because even if you can wield it, it's not a weapon.  And under your model, it's "wielding a weapon" that permits the off-hand attack.  Right?Show me this rule in D&D.  Is this another rule you're creating to make your model work?</blockquote>

Verification