Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 729761" data-attributes="member: 3146">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunder?Your premise is true but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from it. By the logic of the FAQ (which I agree with BTW), a glaive or greatsword held in one hand (perhaps because the character is drinking a potion or casting a spell (which provoke an AoOs) ) would be a held object rather than a wielded weapon. I don't think that their status as held objects would eliminate their immunity to sundering with a less enhanced weapon, however.To a similar example, a halfling thief is stealing a +5 Keen Chaotic, Unholy greatsword. The halfling is strong enough to pick it up but cannot wield a large weapon. Consequently it's a held object. As the halfling tries to escape, the guardian of the sword, a paladin wielding a sunblade (+4 vs. evil) charges him. Under your interpretation, the paladin should be able to destroy the +5 keen chaotic unholy greatsword because it is a held object even though he couldn't sunder it if the thief were a human (who could wield it).That strikes me, quite frankly, as a ludicrous assertation.I think it is more logical to conclude that the bow IS still a weapon (and is therefore immune to being broken by a less enhanced weapon) even though it is not BEING WIELDED as a weapon. That interpretation doesn't lead to the silly situation with the greatsword described above.</blockquote>