Vampiric Touch, Spellstoring, and thrown weapon...

[Caliban]

Ahh the much belittled the study of meanings. I can see how you would not want to bring that into this.
[/B]

In most online arguements bringing semantics into it has done more to remove meaning than to create meaning. Mainly because the people who use semantics usually insist on using an uncommon definition of the word in question.

So yeah, any time you start using anything other than the most commonly used english definition of the word to support your position, or the specific definition used by the 3.5 ruleset, then I think it's semantics and really don't give it much weight.

The game designers generally use common english, except where they specifically redefined a word for 3.5. They aren't technical writers or english majors.

It is not under your active control but it is still acting according to the forces you imparted to it and is thus still acting under your direction.

It's not under your active control, therefor you aren't wielding it. Wielding it means direct controle, not some vague "influence".

I thought that people were asserting that to wield something meant to handle (i.e. use one's hands to control or utilize) it. IMO as longer as object is acting under you direction you should be considered to be wileding it. And if a thrown weapon is not acting under the direction of the character who threw it then who's direction is it acting under?

Can you influence the direction the dagger is going after it has left your hand?

No, you cannot. Therefore you are no longer controlling it, and no longer wielding it.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

For what it's worth (ie not much)

My question:

The Wounding magical enchantment is found on the Melee Weapon Enchantment table in the DMG. Could a character make a Bow of Wounding, or are the Melee Weapon Enchantments strickly for the Melee Weapons and the Ranged Weapon Enchantments strickly for the Ranged Weapons?

WotC Cust Serv answer:

Melee weapons enhancements are only good for Melee weapons.

My other question (i should have been more specific to the question at hand in this thread):

What happens with Melee Weapons that can be used as ranged weapons? Can I use the Defending ability (for example) when I throw my dagger at an enemy?

Their answer:

You could not use certain abilities of a melee weapon when throwing it, the DM should decide what makes sense and what does not, (defending would not)

AR

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Also, I must say that I find it funny that some discussions on the Rules forum sometimes deviate towards the semantics of semantics (or "meta-semantics", if you will).

AR

 

[FrankTrollman]

That WotC Custserv answer contradicts a Sage Answer on Keen.

And since Keen Bows and/or Arrows appear in books such as MotW and the Epic Level Handbook - as well as published adventures and WotC website material - I think that the Sage Answer is a lot more likely to be correct than your custserv answer.

The Keen enhancement also does not appear on the ranged weapons table, and Keen Bows and Arrows get made all the time.

I don't think those are sufficient to say you are still wielding it after it has left your hand.

But when you roll damage with a thrown weapon (which is done after you hit, which is turn after it has left your hand) you add the strength bonus of the "wielder". Not the "former wielder", and not the "thrower". That's on page 113 of the PHB - I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

-Frank

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

That WotC Custserv answer contradicts a Sage Answer on Keen.

And since Keen Bows and/or Arrows appear in books such as MotW and the Epic Level Handbook - as well as published adventures and WotC website material - I think that the Sage Answer is a lot more likely to be correct than your custserv answer.

The Keen enhancement also does not appear on the ranged weapons table, and Keen Bows and Arrows get made all the time.

And you're positive that they weren't simply temporary keen items made with the spell? Oh well, like I said, custserv answers aren't worth much, and, to my detriment, concord with my point of view.

AR

 

[Caliban]

But when you roll damage with a thrown weapon (which is done after you hit, which is turn after it has left your hand) you add the strength bonus of the "wielder". Not the "former wielder", and not the "thrower". That's on page 113 of the PHB - I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

-Frank

You know Frank, you have been pretty consistently rude and condescending in all your responses, and I'm getting pretty tired of it. Please feel free not to respond to anything I post unless you can manage to act in a more mature fashion. Otherwise I don't really care what your opinion on the subject is.

In any case, I've read the same passage, even referred to it myself, so you really don't need to keep quoting the page number like it adds any extra weight to your words.

As I said, I don't think it's sufficient. In the context in which it is used, wielder refers to the person who threw the weapon, even if you aren't currently wielding it. You were wielding at the moment you threw it, and that's all that's needed to get your strength bonus to damage.

The writers don't always use precise meanings and timings when they explain simple things. It would help if they did, but they don't. Acting as if they do is pointless, and leads to nonsensical results. A measure of common sense has to be used.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Caliban, as long as you continue to insist that words in the present tense could just as easily refer to the past tense it is futile to even begin to discuss timing with you.

The only evidence you have put forward that things work the way you say they do is that you want them to work that way. So long as you say "the words aren't precise and therefore can mean exactly what I say they do regardless of their literal meanings" - a discussion of what the rules say is doomed to failure.

We've gone over what the rules say. You are wrong. You claim that the rules can - if you take present tense words and transmogrify them into past tense words - be construed to vaguely allow your point of view.

That's true. But the words in question are not in the past tense. They are in the present tense. So any possible question of what the rules say must accept that fact. That I am condescending to you is simply an extension of the fact that I find your possition insulting to my intelligence. How am I supposed to look at a word in the present tense and accept an interpretation of it as past tense as equally valid?

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you are demanding that words mean what they patently do not mean in order to make your case? Worse, how come when we attempt to bring the discussion back to what words actually mean you disrespectfully dismiss this as "semantics"?

If you don't respect our language and our intelligence - we can't respect you.

-Frank

 

[Camarath]

It's not 'at the same time' - it's after, because you have to actually deal the damage for the spell to be able to be cast. That is explicit in the description of spell storing.

Since Frank has told us that you stop wielding the dagger when the damage is dealt, and the casting of the spell happens on a new (albeit free) action, it's very clear that you can't command the dagger to cast the spell because by the time you take your immediate free action, you are no longer the wielder.

J

The ability does not say "Immediately after the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires" or "Any time after the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires". It says "Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires". At what time is the weapon casting the spell according to this statement? It appears to me that the time specified by the statement is "Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it". I do not see where you are getting the implication that the weapon casts the spell after it successfully damages a creature rather than as it damages the creature. I do not believe that immediately implies after.

 

[Camarath]

So yeah, any time you start using anything other than the most commonly used english definition of the word to support your position, or the specific definition used by the 3.5 ruleset, then I think it's semantics and really don't give it much weight.

What is the definition of wield you believe to be used in the rules? Personally I believe "the most commonly used english definition of the word" wield is to use but others have asserted that this is not the definition used in the rules.

It's not under your active control, therefor you aren't wielding it. Wielding it means direct controle, not some vague "influence".

Can you influence the direction the dagger is going after it has left your hand?

No, you cannot. Therefore you are no longer controlling it, and no longer wielding it.

Would you please provide rule support for revaluating your bonuses, penalities, and conditions in the middle of an attack action. I do not think you can interrupt your attack action between the attack and damage roll to revaluating the conditions as you are suggesting.

 

[Caliban]

What is the definition of wield you believe to be used in the rules?
[/b]

Direct control of the weapon.

Personally I believe "the most commonly used english definition of the word" wield is to use but others have asserted that this is not the definition used in the rules.

I'd agree with that, but we seem to disagree what "to use" means. To me, it means being in active control of the weapon. After you throw it, you still influence it, but you are no longer actively controlling it. Therefore you are no longer using or wielding it.

Would you please provide rule support for revaluating your bonuses, penalities, and conditions in the middle of an attack action. I do not think you can interrupt your attack action between the attack and damage roll to revaluating the conditions as you are suggesting.

*sigh*

What bonuses and penalties do you think I'm re-evaluating exactly?