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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6691368" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure.  But this is an approach to rules interpretation that might be called 'the natural language' method.  I got it the joke the first time.But I'd argue its not the mode of rules interpretation that 3e encourages.3e tends to treat 'held' as an explicit property of weapons somewhat distinct from the fictional positioning.  It becomes a held weapon if it has the weapon property, has the held property, and is occupying your 'held in hand' slot.   This is an almost programmatic approach to the rules.  If you hold your own hand, it doesn't become a 'held weapon' because while that state can exist in the fictional positioning, it's doesn't actually correspond to any special game state.  The attack remains an unarmed attack (or natural weapon if you have a natural weapon), because the property of being 'held' while derived from the fictional position that the weapon is held, is not actually dependent on it.   'Held' is just a property intended to simulate a particular situation, but which is withholdable and indeed still withheld even if the fictional positioning implies that the holding in the generic sense is taking place.   The two-handed unarmed attack to the kidneys is just as it were, color.  You can offer that proposition, but the proper simulation of that proposition isn't as a held weapon and we don't use fortune as if it were.To see why that is the case, if holding your hand could count as employing a held weapon, then your held hand could now be sundered or disarmed, and rendering your PC in natural language well, "disarmed".  Clearly that's not the intention.  Just grabbing your head isn't intended to make you vulnerable to a decapitation called shot.</blockquote>

Verification