# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 > Optimization Is the Mage Armor spell too cheap?

## Kurald Galain

The spell Mage Armor was basically designed to improve a wizard's AC from "terrible" to "below average"; and in that, it functions well.

However, in the past decade of gameplay, I note that any and all shapeshifter druids, animal companions, and high-dex classes use it to very cheaply add +4 to AC, with no check penalty or max dexterity, all the time. Given that a +4 bracer of armor costs 16000 gp (AC-boosting ring or amulet is even more expensive) and a 1st-level pearl of power costs only 1000, I'd say the Mage Armor spell (or a wand thereof) is undercosted.

I'm curious what other people think of this, and how to deal with it? Making it self-only doesn't help because characters can just UMD it. I'm tempted to give it a max dex of +4 and make it block any class abilities that require you to be unarmored; that way arcane casters can still use it as intended, but everybody else it's more in line with other options.

----------


## Mordante

I think I remember that there was some theory crafting concerning AC. That certain casters could get an AC rivaling that or surpassing armour wearing classes.

----------


## AnonymousPepper

Plenty of casters pump dex - you want it for touch attacks after all - so I strongly dislike the idea of giving it, or spells like it, a max dex bonus.

Blocking class abilities that require you to be unarmored, I could see it. I wouldn't do it myself as a matter of personal preference, but I can certainly see it, it's not a bad rule. It passes the sanity test, if that's what you're after.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

Honestly, the most straightforward "fix" if you think that's a problem would be to make it Personal range. Nonwizards seem to be the problem here, so why not prevent nonwizards from gaining any advantage from it? Taking a dip in wizard seems to be an appropriate cost for +4 AC.

----------


## Biggus

> I'm curious what other people think of this, and how to deal with it? Making it self-only doesn't help because characters can just UMD it. I'm tempted to give it a max dex of +4 and make it block any class abilities that require you to be unarmored; that way arcane casters can still use it as intended, but everybody else it's more in line with other options.


I don't think it'd be excessive to move it up to a 2nd-level spell, I think it'd still see plenty of use if you did. 

I agree with AnonymousPepper that blocking class abilities is a better idea than the max dex bonus.




> I think I remember that there was some theory crafting concerning AC. That certain casters could get an AC rivaling that or surpassing armour wearing classes.


Armour is crap in 3.5, especially at higher levels. Eventually even casters who can wear armour end up better off without it in many cases.

----------


## Eurus

To be fair, it might be that Bracers of Armor (and most AC boosting items, really) are extremely overcosted?

----------


## Gnaeus

> Honestly, the most straightforward "fix" if you think that's a problem would be to make it Personal range. Nonwizards seem to be the problem here, so why not prevent nonwizards from gaining any advantage from it? Taking a dip in wizard seems to be an appropriate cost for +4 AC.


Yeah, the biggest problem with 3.PF is all those op monks. How dare they buy a wand for their wizard friend so they can have a reasonable AC. Cheaters.

Seriously, though. Whose class abilities require being unarmored? Monk. Battle Dancer. Druid may care a bit, but leather barding isn't much more expensive and dex isn't usually an issue. I suppose rogue types may want a wand during the window when their dex is 20+ but before they can afford a mithril shirt. But the shirt is about the same cost as the pearl and is enchantable and lasts all day and you can sleep in it, so ???. If you want to nerf wizard defenses, I'd point to Alter Self and Mirror Image as way, way more op than mage armor ever thought about being.

----------


## Darg

> Yeah, the biggest problem with 3.PF is all those op monks. How dare they buy a wand for their wizard friend so they can have a reasonable AC. Cheaters.
> 
> Seriously, though. Whose class abilities require being unarmored? Monk. Battle Dancer. Druid may care a bit, but leather barding isn't much more expensive and dex isn't usually an issue. I suppose rogue types may want a wand during the window when their dex is 20+ but before they can afford a mithril shirt. But the shirt is about the same cost as the pearl and is enchantable and lasts all day and you can sleep in it, so ???. If you want to nerf wizard defenses, I'd point to Alter Self and Mirror Image as way, way more op than mage armor ever thought about being.


Yeah, it's basically a requirement for monks at pretty much all levels of play (especially after the nerf to Skin of Ectoplasmic Armor which was specifically targeting monks because they thought monks are overpowered.)

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I don't think it'd be excessive to move it up to a 2nd-level spell, I think it'd still see plenty of use if you did.


I like this idea.




> Honestly, the most straightforward "fix" if you think that's a problem would be to make it Personal range.


That doesn't help though, as you can UMD a wand with a personal range spell.




> I suppose rogue types may want a wand during the window when their dex is 20+ but before they can afford a mithril shirt.


The mithril shirt has a max dex of +6 though, and so does leather barding. It's not exactly hard for any dex-based frontliner to have 24+ dex.

----------


## Thunder999

Honestly AC boosting items like Bracers of Armor are a bit overpriced.   

+4 AC really isn't a lot, sure the no max dex cap is certainly a thing, but you need 26 dex before mage armour outdoes a +1 Mithral Chain Shirt.

3.5 has more of an issue than pathfinder thanks to the way Wildshape/Polymorph work and the Monk's Belt, which make being an unarmoured character with a huge pile of Natural Armour and/or ccrazy high dex (enough to keep up with expected AC without items, since you're literally using monster stats that are intended not to need a WBL) and then you can casually add wis-to-AC on top.   
But I don't think the +4 from mage armour is really the issue there.

----------


## Zancloufer

Not sure what the issue here really is?  Sure +4 Armour bonus is nice but maybe people are missing the opportunity cost?  At low (1-4) levels every level 1 spell slot matters and it's duration isn't that long, probably not lasting through all the fights that day.  Wands and pearls are expensive at the low levels where you might want to recast it and by the time a ~1k GP item is trivial your Mage armour lasts 8+ hours and level 1 spells aren't as useful anymore.

As a 2nd level spell it might never get used IMHO.  Just too many good 2nd level spells that don't fall off as hard as level 1 spells do.  I don't see +4 AC for 1 un-armoured party member being popular compared to stuff like Fog Cloud, Web, Glitterdust etc.

Also a level 1 wand might eventually be "cheap" but it also has CL 1 at a time where Dispel Magic comes online. . .

----------


## RandomPeasant

I genuinely cannot imagine looking at the list of 1st level spells and going "the problem here is that _mage armor_ is too good". Yes, you can cast it on a Druid who's in Wild Shape. But, really, you're telling me that the free chain shirt is a bigger deal there than the hours/level duration _polymorph_ effect?




> Yeah, the biggest problem with 3.PF is all those op monks. How dare they buy a wand for their wizard friend so they can have a reasonable AC. Cheaters.


I would say that the broader issue here is not even "who is the spell targeting" but "isn't this what you said you wanted". The thing people _want_ Wizards to do, when conversations about Wizards come up, is cast spells that support their team. You're supposed to be buffing your allies, or debuffing your enemies, or otherwise doing things that support other characters in achieving victory. Don't ask Wizards to do all that and then complain when it's effective for them to do it. Maybe _mage armor_ is somehow somewhere above your ideal power curve. But there are going to be options that are like that unless you do a whole lot more work than anyone has been willing to do. Wouldn't you rather they be options the Wizard casts on someone else?

----------


## Ramza00

At low levels the duration is too short and it is competing against other spell slots per day since they are a limited resource.

At higher levels of play the spell does not provide enough AC bonus.  Even a +4 for a low price is only changing the die roles of 4 possibilities of the d20.  If you are investing in AC in general you want to impact more than those 4 possibilities of the d20 even if it costs more resources overall.  Spells like greater mage armor for a +6, the +8 one whose name I am forgetting, psionic mage armor as inertial armor, etc, etc.

The two best case scenario is a monster who used to hit on a roll of a 15 to 19, and an automatic hit on a nat20, now only hits on a 19 and the automatic nat20.  A 6 out of 20 to a 2 out of 20. (2/3rds reduction)

That and a monster who only hits on a 16 to 20 now hits only on the nat20, a 5 out of 20 to a 1 out of 20 (80% reduction.)

The spell is fine.

----------


## Darg

> Honestly AC boosting items like Bracers of Armor are a bit overpriced.   
> 
> +4 AC really isn't a lot, sure the no max dex cap is certainly a thing, but you need 26 dex before mage armour outdoes a +1 Mithral Chain Shirt.
> 
> 3.5 has more of an issue than pathfinder thanks to the way Wildshape/Polymorph work and the Monk's Belt, which make being an unarmoured character with a huge pile of Natural Armour and/or ccrazy high dex (enough to keep up with expected AC without items, since you're literally using monster stats that are intended not to need a WBL) and then you can casually add wis-to-AC on top.   
> But I don't think the +4 from mage armour is really the issue there.


You can't use a Wilding clasp on a belt so you'd have to have a custom belt made for the form you want. And you're not likely to have a monk's belt until levels 10+ unless you specifically save up for it at the cost of other essentials.

Agreed on the overpriced nature of bracers. I like to see +1-4 at more reasonable cost. A 5 uses per day command word item is only ~1800 gp. 2-3 of these will cover an entire adventuring day ad infinitum while bracers of armor +4 costs 16,000. A single greater mage armor command word item with 3 charges covers most of a day at only ~16,200gp. Basically the same cost for but for +2 AC. That's not even counting any limitation cost discounts. Personally, I just make the +2 the base cost and change the cost progression to modifier -1. This also works well with Harness of Armor which should be the goal of any enterprising unarmored combatant.

----------


## Prime32

> Honestly AC boosting items like Bracers of Armor are a bit overpriced.   
> 
> +4 AC really isn't a lot, sure the no max dex cap is certainly a thing, but you need 26 dex before mage armour outdoes a +1 Mithral Chain Shirt.
> 
> 3.5 has more of an issue than pathfinder thanks to the way Wildshape/Polymorph work and the Monk's Belt, which make being an unarmoured character with a huge pile of Natural Armour and/or ccrazy high dex (enough to keep up with expected AC without items, since you're literally using monster stats that are intended not to need a WBL) and then you can casually add wis-to-AC on top.   
> But I don't think the +4 from mage armour is really the issue there.


IIRC the cheapest way to do it is a kalashtar-specific item that's basically a slotless _bracers of armor +2_ except it stacks with itself up to five times.

Why pay 64,000gp for _bracers of armor +8_, when you could pay 40,000gp for a +10 bonus and get an extra item slot on top?

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> I'm curious what other people think of this, and how to deal with it? Making it self-only doesn't help because characters can just UMD it.



Sure, Mage Armor is good and not weak "for its lvl", but is it really a problem?
Imho you should consider yourself lucky since your teammates are gentle enough to not abuse a wand of Alter Self (2nd lvl, not that much more expensive) or Polymorph with UMD. ;)

and the comprehension with the Bracers of Armor is a bit unfair.
First the bracer is a permanent effect. Second, you don't need to spend any daily resources for it. Dispell Magic only suppresses it temporary. Finally, IIRC the bracers face a price penalty due to not being a normal slot intended for AC bonuses (which explains the high price).
So, there are some nice things about the bracers, it's just not the price tag^^.

----------


## Gnaeus

> The mithril shirt has a max dex of +6 though, and so does leather barding. It's not exactly hard for any dex-based frontliner to have 24+ dex.


The barding is for an AC or wildshaped druid, which rarely have huge dex. 

Its true that 24 dex isn't terribly hard. But its also far from certain that a 24 dex rogue will be excited about trading his mithril shirt for a pearl of power or a wand. Its dispellable. Doesn't last all day. And most important doesn't stack with other armor, where the mithril shirt can be enchanted, magic vestmented, etc. By the time you hit 28 dex you are probably at the point where celestial armor is a better deal, or just bracers. And again, is "rogues are OP" a problem at your table? 




> I would say that the broader issue here is not even "who is the spell targeting" but "isn't this what you said you wanted". The thing people _want_ Wizards to do, when conversations about Wizards come up, is cast spells that support their team. You're supposed to be buffing your allies, or debuffing your enemies, or otherwise doing things that support other characters in achieving victory. Don't ask Wizards to do all that and then complain when it's effective for them to do it. Maybe _mage armor_ is somehow somewhere above your ideal power curve. But there are going to be options that are like that unless you do a whole lot more work than anyone has been willing to do. Wouldn't you rather they be options the Wizard casts on someone else?


I think that is also true. But when the statement about "losing class abilities that require you to be unarmored" is brought up, thats Monk, Battle Dancer and...... But your point about wizards having buffs worth casting is also very valid.

----------


## Maat Mons

If I were making house rules, Id go in the other direction.  Give everyone who would benefit from Mage Armor an even easier way to boost AC.  
Eliminate the concept of arcane spell failure.  If spell failure must be a thing, make it apply to spells of all types, but only when wearing armor youre not proficient with.  I think thats how 5e does it.Give Monks a built-in Mage Armor effect.  Id go for 4 + 1/3rd Monk level.  Or maybe +1/3rd character level.  Id probably also delay Wis to AC until level 2 and make it apply when wearing light armor or no armor.Maybe eliminate max Dex from light armor.  Maybe medium armor halves your Dex bonus to AC, and heavy armor doesn't allow any Dex bonus.  Im less sure about this one, but high-level characters being disincentivized from wearing armor is dumb.

----------


## Darg

It's really funny when you realize that casters get a better tower shield and up to plate armor as class features without spell failure (the latter even reduces enemy AB by 4 too) and you realize that wearing armor isn't what it's cracked up to be.

That said, I'd give up the wisdom to AC bonus until level 6 (fixes the monk belt issue) if they got a +4 straight up armor bonus while unarmored. It'd also be nice if flurry, speed and the wisdom bonus worked with light armor (evasion and all the other features work with armor...). It would allow for more build variations and styles of play.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> That said, I'd give up the wisdom to AC bonus until level 6 (fixes the monk belt issue) if they got a +4 straight up armor bonus while unarmored. It'd also be nice if flurry, speed and the wisdom bonus worked with light armor (evasion and all the other features work with armor...). It would allow for more build variations and styles of play.


Dipping 2 lvls into Swordsage may be expensive for a gish, but it would give you at least  "light armor + wis bonus"

----------


## Thunder999

> If I were making house rules, Id go in the other direction.  Give everyone who would benefit from Mage Armor an even easier way to boost AC.  
> Eliminate the concept of arcane spell failure.  If spell failure must be a thing, make it apply to spells of all types, but only when wearing armor youre not proficient with.  I think thats how 5e does it.Give Monks a built-in Mage Armor effect.  Id go for 4 + 1/3rd Monk level.  Or maybe +1/3rd character level.  Id probably also delay Wis to AC until level 2 and make it apply when wearing light armor or no armor.Maybe eliminate max Dex from light armor.  Maybe medium armor halves your Dex bonus to AC, and heavy armor doesn't allow any Dex bonus.  Im less sure about this one, but high-level characters being disincentivized from wearing armor is dumb.


The Wis-to-AC is meant to be a monk's armour, it just works out that without either great rolls or a generous point buy the actual monk can't afford enough wisdom to matter.  And of course the classes that can take advantage of it are the ones that need the least help.  
Your idea could be a good alternative.  
The best solution to Monk's Belts is just to get rid of them (or at least the effect for non-monks).   

I don't think your armour changes would work, that would just make heavy and medium armour even worse than they already are.   

Maybe something like Medium and heavy armour getting more than 1 AC per +1 enhancement to make up for low dex without them just being absurd at low level.

----------


## Elkad

Dispel more often.

----------


## Darg

> The Wis-to-AC is meant to be a monk's armour, it just works out that without either great rolls or a generous point buy the actual monk can't afford enough wisdom to matter.  And of course the classes that can take advantage of it are the ones that need the least help.  
> Your idea could be a good alternative.  
> The best solution to Monk's Belts is just to get rid of them (or at least the effect for non-monks).   
> 
> I don't think your armour changes would work, that would just make heavy and medium armour even worse than they already are.   
> 
> Maybe something like Medium and heavy armour getting more than 1 AC per +1 enhancement to make up for low dex without them just being absurd at low level.


Wis to AC isn't actually much of a difference early game. Your average score between dex and wis is likely +3-4 and you can wear leather armor with no penalty early on. And later it competes with a mithral breastplate + mithral heavy shield at only a loss of FoB, speed (doesn't stack with other enhancement effects), and AC. You get to still benefit from everything else but have upwards of +17 AC from armor which would require a wisdom score of 34 and level 20.

----------


## RandomPeasant

> Eliminate the concept of arcane spell failure.  If spell failure must be a thing, make it apply to spells of all types, but only when wearing armor youre not proficient with.  I think thats how 5e does it.


I think this mostly serves to put Warmage-types even further behind Wizards, which seems unnecessary.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

No.  :Small Confused:

----------


## lylsyly

> I think this mostly serves to put Warmage-types even further behind Wizards, which seems unnecessary.


At our table we ignore ASF only for non metallic armor. Give a wizard an advantage over warmages and beguilers.? Sure, but unless your trying to sadly play a blaster wisard so what? Any wizard focusing on BFC, Buffs, Debuffs ... is going to be head over heals beyond aither of the two classes anyway ....

----------


## RexDart

> I don't think it'd be excessive to move it up to a 2nd-level spell, I think it'd still see plenty of use if you did.


Probably, but there would also be a non-zero number of wizards and sorcerers who die before they're able to cast it.

----------


## Biggus

> Probably, but there would also be a non-zero number of wizards and sorcerers who die before they're able to cast it.


This is true, but they still get Shield at 1st level if they really want some AC, and making casters a bit more fragile at low levels isn't entirely a bad thing IMO.

----------


## JNAProductions

> This is true, but they still get Shield at 1st level if they really want some AC, and making casters a bit more fragile at low levels isn't entirely a bad thing IMO.


I dont think casters need durability nerfs. Not at level one, at least.

----------


## Velaryon

> To be fair, it might be that Bracers of Armor (and most AC boosting items, really) are extremely overcosted?


It's absolutely this. Especially when you consider that at high levels, unless a character is *super* invested into AC, monsters' attack bonuses are so high that making attack rolls at all is basically a formality to make sure they didn't roll a 1 and auto-miss.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> It's absolutely this. Especially when you consider that at high levels, unless a character is *super* invested into AC, monsters' attack bonuses are so high that making attack rolls at all is basically a formality to make sure they didn't roll a 1 and auto-miss.


*Magic Item Body Slot Affinity*
Protection: Amulet, brooch, medallion,necklace, periapt, scarab




> Wondrous items that dont match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity.


This is the reason many AC boosting items are so overpriced imho. Bracers of Armor or a Ring of Protection have to face the "cost 50% more"-rule here.

Finally, since BAB has a linear progress over the levels, you have to make up your mind regarding AC investment. Either you commit yourself to "constantly" investing into AC or you don't. As such, this should be one of your initial decisions when creating a character: 
"Do I wanna commit myself to constant AC improvement/investment or not?"

While keeping in mind that misschances remain a constant value/effect over all lvls.
"Or do I want it all?" (AC + misschances)


Also keep in mind that while misschances remain at a fixed value, sole (extreme) AC investment can make you reliably "unhittable".
Everything has his pros and cons. And since boosting your AC can make you unhitable (for your current lvl), it shouldn't be to easy/cheap to obtain the needed amount for that.

edit: imho the underlying question here is "Is AC optimization to cheesy for your table/DM?"

----------


## Kurald Galain

> edit: imho the underlying question here is "Is AC optimization to cheesy for your table/DM?"


Well spotted. For me the underlying issue is that AC optimization, I wouldn't outright call it "cheese" but it does make the game less fun (imho) if PCs are unhittable or near-unhittable. It's like playing a video game in god mode.

And it strikes me that at mid levels, AC optimization is too easy (at high levels it's admittedly not so easy). And it also strikes me that pretty much all the "unhittable" builds at mid level use Mage Armor.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Well spotted. For me the underlying issue is that AC optimization, I wouldn't outright call it "cheese" but it does make the game less fun (imho) if PCs are unhittable or near-unhittable. It's like playing a video game in god mode.


I can understand what you mean. And to some extend I can see the need to deny AC optimization for "certain" campaigns. 

But on the other hand, combat optimization is already the least profitable optimization option. And normally people go for damage optimization to one-shot the enemies. So in the end, going for AC is really the least problem a DM can face regarding optimization. A well played full caster ("played" at Tier 1-2 lvl) will make the entire combat irrelevant. Just teleport can cancel multiple fights. So unless you are mostly playing lvl 1-6 campaigns, you should try to get used to the strategic elements on the higher lvls.
Players will always have some kind of ability that will polarize combat or encounters overall.





> And it strikes me that at mid levels, AC optimization is too easy (at high levels it's admittedly not so easy). And it also strikes me that pretty much all the "unhittable" builds at mid level use Mage Armor.


As long as you know what you do, AC optimization can be easy at any lvl for both sides, players and DM. It's easy to invest enough resources to get a nice AC score, but it is also easy for a DM to counter such builds (crowd control or mind control spells; touch attachs; just ignoring the high AC PC and going for the squishies...and more..). If you sole play low levels with lil magic gear I get why you are upset. But at later levels, you shouldn't be afraid of a player who want to play (and shine) as a punching-bag. The caster are those who you should be afraid of (because of divination, teleportation and whatsoever makes the live as DM more of a pain..^^)

The final question is maybe "How much you wanna explore Optimization as part of the game at your table?". This doesn't need to be set into stone. You can play a low optimized campaign and the next can be a high optimized campaign. I would suggest to discuss this topic at your table from time to time (or for each new campaign).

----------


## Darg

> This is the reason many AC boosting items are so overpriced imho. Bracers of Armor or a Ring of Protection have to face the "cost 50% more"-rule here.


Well then the Harness of Armor is double penalized for no reason as the base price is 1500 instead of 666 as it apparently should.

Bracers of armor follow the armor enhancement formula which is just fine. The problem though is that AC through other effects are simply too cheap in comparison even when taking into account the fact that it's a permanent magic item. Sliding the scale by one solves this issue and in my opinion makes it an actual competitive alternative. My biggest issue with bracers of armor is that they bypass the +5 armor enhancement limit, making them superior to armor for AC on top of being unarmored and all the benefits that entails. It's only as balanced as unoptimized a character is.

I would also argue that the amulet of natural armor is also over priced considering the value if the slot and the fast progression of the base spell barkskin. I usually just cut the base price in half to follow the armor enhancement formula instead of the weapon formula. It's also unfortunate that once again a monk is disadvantaged because this slot also contains the bonus to wisdom.

On the other hand I think the ring of protection is appropriately priced considering the value of deflection bonus and it being more rare in universal form while also only taking one of 2 slots.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Well then the Harness of Armor is double penalized for no reason as the base price is 1500 instead of 666 as it apparently should.
> 
> Bracers of armor follow the armor enhancement formula which is just fine. The problem though is that AC through other effects are simply too cheap in comparison even when taking into account the fact that it's a permanent magic item. Sliding the scale by one solves this issue and in my opinion makes it an actual competitive alternative.


The problem is see here is that AC optimization shouldn't be to cheap, since you can get effectively unhitable for your lvl. Just my humble opinion on balance.





> My biggest issue with bracers of armor is that they bypass the +5 armor enhancement limit, making them superior to armor for AC on top of being unarmored and all the benefits that entails. It's only as balanced as unoptimized a character is.


Wait wait wait... Sry, but you got it somehow wrong here.

Bracers of Armor give you an "*armor bonus*" just like real armor, not an enhancement bonus to AC.

Further, while we have a specific exception that the bracer may have special armor enhancements, this ain't true for the normal "enhancement bonus to AC". IIRC by RAW you can't get an enhancement bonus to AC on the bracers. You have to invest into the Magic Vestment spell to get that. 





> I would also argue that the amulet of natural armor is also over priced considering the value if the slot and the fast progression of the base spell barkskin. I usually just cut the base price in half to follow the armor enhancement formula instead of the weapon formula. It's also unfortunate that once again a monk is disadvantaged because this slot also contains the bonus to wisdom.


It's sole the pricing that is tied to the armor enhancement bonus table. 
But the bracers effectively replace real armor. Thus giving you weightless armor that doesn't count as "armored", has no penalty to skills and no arcane spell failure chance.
Thinking of all that, imho the price is kinda OKish for me. I mean, you get to wear effectively up to heavy armor without even the required 3 feats for it (light, medium and heavy armor).
Imho all these hidden bonuses do play a heavy role in justifying the pricetag.

----------


## Darg

> The problem is see here is that AC optimization shouldn't be to cheap, since you can get effectively unhitable for your lvl. Just my humble opinion on balance.


Sliding the scale by one is basically a +1 bonus at the same cost. Getting several defending weapons is extremely cheap along with some GMW castings = super cheap and protected from area dispel.




> Wait wait wait... Sry, but you got it somehow wrong here.
> 
> Bracers of Armor give you an "*armor bonus*" just like real armor, not an enhancement bonus to AC.
> 
> Further, while we have a specific exception that the bracer may have special armor enhancements, this ain't true for the normal "enhancement bonus to AC". IIRC by RAW you can't get an enhancement bonus to AC on the bracers. You have to invest into the Magic Vestment spell to get that.


You can't combine bracers with magic vestment. The enhancement bonus improves the armor bonus of the item, it does not improve your general armor bonus. Meaning a leather armor +1 does not make mage armor +5 AC. This means bracers progress as a +0 AC armor with enhancement bonuses (not enhancement but like enhancement). And magic vestment can't target your bracers or the harness of armor as they aren't regular clothing.




> It's sole the pricing that is tied to the armor enhancement bonus table. 
> But the bracers effectively replace real armor. Thus giving you weightless armor that doesn't count as "armored", has no penalty to skills and no arcane spell failure chance.
> Thinking of all that, imho the price is kinda OKish for me. I mean, you get to wear effectively up to heavy armor without even the required 3 feats for it (light, medium and heavy armor).
> Imho all these hidden bonuses do play a heavy role in justifying the pricetag.


The price tag for higher bonuses are justified, but the lower levels of bonus are not. Which is what makes it so uncommon to purchase before the +4 bonus. Not to mention, unlike enhancements you have to purchase/make brand new ones every time you want to upgrade while you sell the last pair at 50%. For a noncrafter this means they'll likely be short on wealth for a while.

All I do is move the cost down one level to make it an attractive option at lower levels compared to keeping track of consumable/per day items.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Sliding the scale by one is basically a +1 bonus at the same cost. Getting several defending weapons is extremely cheap along with some GMW castings = super cheap and protected from area dispel.


Several defending weapons?



> A defender weapon allows the *wielder* to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the *wielder* chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.


You can sole "wield" 2 weapons, one mainhand and one offhand. No matter the amount of weapons you have "equipped". Even if you have dual daggers and armor spikes, a "normal" character can only "wield" two of those at the same time. The third one is sole "equipped" (even if you hold the dagger in your hand). 
If you wanna have more, you best option is to have multiple natural weapons (and a very expensive Necklace to enhance all natural weapons), since you can line up any amount of natural weapons as secondary attack (and thus wield em at the same time).
So it's not as simple as you make it look to have several defending weapons. Since a normal character most likely doesn't want his main weapon to be a defending weapon (because he wants to actually hit stuff with his iterative attacks). A normal character basically goes down to a single defending weapon. And for that, he has to make use of TWF (including the penalties), even if he doesn't attack with it, since he "wields" it as offhand weapon..







> The price tag for higher bonuses are justified, but the lower levels of bonus are not. Which is what makes it so uncommon to purchase before the +4 bonus. Not to mention, unlike enhancements you have to purchase/make brand new ones every time you want to upgrade while you sell the last pair at 50%. For a noncrafter this means they'll likely be short on wealth for a while.


Is the "item upgrade"-rule "enhancement bonus" specific?
And ain't that an optional rule and thus already DM fiat to begin with? (which also means that you could talk your DM into allowing the upgrade for non enhancement items, if we already talk about DM fiat).

----------


## Darg

Quickdraw works and yet doesn't allow you to explicitly wield multiple weapons in a round, why wouldn't armor spikes and spiked gauntlets work in the same kind of fashion? All weapons are ready to be used which is common parlance and the assumption the rules make when talking about wielded weapons. If the requirement is that the weapons have to be used in order to be considered wielded, then it creates some major holes. Like when does wielding start and when does it end? Is it just a declaration that the character will be using these weapons and only these weapons during a round and cannot change up at any point even though a situation could be disadvantageous or advantageous later on?

It just doesn't make mechanical or grammatical sense to limit it to only weapons you have in hand and plan on using in an uncertain future. Is defending crazy? Yes, yes it is. Is it RAW? Yes, yes it is. By RAW, nothing actually says you only use one type of weapon for every attack. If I can make 3 main hand attacks with a full attack, I can use my fist, my sword, and my spiked armor for one of those attacks each if I wanted.

As for the enhancement upgrades, the DMG only mentions it for armor and weapon upgrades and is RAW. To allow it for wondrous items is much more sketch and is not a stated core rule.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Quickdraw works and yet doesn't allow you to explicitly wield multiple weapons in a round, why wouldn't armor spikes and spiked gauntlets work in the same kind of fashion? All weapons are ready to be used which is common parlance and the assumption the rules make when talking about wielded weapons. If the requirement is that the weapons have to be used in order to be considered wielded, then it creates some major holes. Like when does wielding start and when does it end? Is it just a declaration that the character will be using these weapons and only these weapons during a round and cannot change up at any point even though a situation could be disadvantageous or advantageous later on?


mainhand & offhand rule = the weapons you wield and thus may profit from enhancements that rely on that (like defending)

mainhand & offhand rule != the weapons you have readied
mainhand & offhand rule != the weapons you have equipped

Wielding, readied and equipped are different statutes an item can have on a character. But a normal character can sole wield 2 items at a time. You can switch those items within the limitation of actions needed for that (note that some interactions don't need an action, see below).

Example:
You have a dagger in each hand and Armor Spikes. You can wield either both you daggers or one of your daggers with your armor spikes (mainhand / offhand). You could also attack with both daggers and switch at the end of your turn to your armor spikes as offhand weapon (as a non action). But if you switch to your armor spikes , you are sole wielding a single dagger. So if all 3 weapons would had "defending" on them, you could always profit only from 2. 
The most effective use imho would be for a TWF to switch a single weapon to a defending one. This way you have a mainweapon as mainhand for AoO left and can profit at least from a single defending weapon.





> It just doesn't make mechanical or grammatical sense to limit it to only weapons you have in hand and plan on using in an uncertain future.


It's not about what you have in your hand. The mainhand & offhand rule ain't sole limited to your hands (remind you of the Armor Spikes^^). As said, you can switch what your mainhand and offhand is within your turn. But with the designation of what your mainhand and offhand is, you determine what you are wielding for that moment. In the specific case of defending, at the start of your turn you could first assign a dagger and (defending) armor spikes to mainhand & offhand to set the value for defending (needs to be done at the start of your turn..). After that you could switch to double daggers as non-action to make a full attack and switch back to dagger + spikes at the end of the turn (to profit from the defending armor spikes).




> As for the enhancement upgrades, the DMG only mentions it for armor and weapon upgrades and is RAW. To allow it for wondrous items is much more sketch and is not a stated core rule.


Thx for the answer. I'll try to look it up.

edit: to put it another way..
To wield a weapon, you need to make active use of it. And active use relies on the mainhand offhand rule. If something is not declared as mainhand or offhand, you are not wielding it. It's equipped and maybe even readied or held, but not wielded.

----------


## Drelua

Do you have a source on how you're saying wielding works? I'm not sure where to find a definition for that. But if, say, a monk picks up a reach weapon, they can still attack adjacent squares with unarmed strikes, right? Even if they were TWFing with 2 kusarigama, (coulda sworn those were double weapons) they could still take AoOs with unarmed strikes, right? I was also under the impression you could make your iteratives each with a different weapon if you wanted to, not sure where that came from though, might've just been something an old DM said.

To your 2 daggers and armor spikes example, does that mean that if someone with TWF (and improved and greater) started a full attack, and someone had a readied action to disarm them after they had attacked with both daggers, if that disarm succeeded then they wouldn't be able to make the rest of their attacks even if they had armor spikes, or a gauntlet? What if they had quick draw and another dagger? They might also want to use their gauntlet to attack a skeleton because of DR, which I'd certainly allow. Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying right, but if I am, I would need a citation to believe that.

----------


## Darg

> mainhand & offhand rule = the weapons you wield and thus may profit from enhancements that rely on that (like defending)
> 
> mainhand & offhand rule != the weapons you have readied
> mainhand & offhand rule != the weapons you have equipped
> 
> Wielding, readied and equipped are different statutes an item can have on a character. But a normal character can sole wield 2 items at a time. You can switch those items within the limitation of actions needed for that (note that some interactions don't need an action, see below).
> 
> Example:
> You have a dagger in each hand and Armor Spikes. You can wield either both you daggers or one of your daggers with your armor spikes (mainhand / offhand). You could also attack with both daggers and switch at the end of your turn to your armor spikes as offhand weapon (as a non action). But if you switch to your armor spikes , you are sole wielding a single dagger. So if all 3 weapons would had "defending" on them, you could always profit only from 2. 
> ...


There is no main hand/off-hand rule. You have the two weapon fighting special attack, that's it. If you aren't using the special attack then those rules do not apply. Your interpretation is just confusing things. I can use any number of weapons to attack with as long as I have the attacks to use. How else would a character get a full attack with thrown weapons? They are each different weapons used for separate attacks. I have wielded them all. Of course I am no longer wielding them because they are thrown, but using the same example for weapons that aren't thrown they would still be wielded and ready for use on something like an AoO or other such possible use throughout a turn. Nothing in the rules say that you must declare which weapons are wielded or not wielded. To wield something is to hold and use something. Just because I don't choose to attack with a weapon in my off-hand does not mean I am no longer wielding it.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Do you have a source on how you're saying wielding works? I'm not sure where to find a definition for that. But if, say, a monk picks up a reach weapon, they can still attack adjacent squares with unarmed strikes, right? Even if they were TWFing with 2 kusarigama, (coulda sworn those were double weapons) they could still take AoOs with unarmed strikes, right? I was also under the impression you could make your iteratives each with a different weapon if you wanted to, not sure where that came from though, might've just been something an old DM said.


Wielding / Holding / Readied / Equipped
These have no specific 3.5 definition IIRC. Thus we need to fall back to general English definition. And each of this words describes a distinct status of an item.
If you wear armor spikes, you have em equipped and readied at all the time. But only if you designate it as mainhand or offhand you are effectively wielding it.
Just because you "hold" a weapon, doesn't always mean you use it actively for combat. It is readied for combat and thus you don't need an action to draw it. But you still need to assign it as either mainhand or offhand to actively wield it.
*Wielding is more than just holding or readied. It's the active use of a weapon.* Thus it requires you to designate the weapon to either your mainhand or offhand.



If you want to use AoO with your unarmed strike, it has to be designated as mainhand or offhand attack at the end of your turn. Even if you have attacked with both kusarigame, you can switch as a non-action (since you don't need to move to do the change/switch). 
You can switch weapons during a full attack as long as your actions allow it and you ain't use the same weapon multiple times for for multiple limbs (you can't use the same sword first in your mainhand and then in your offhand in the same turn, that doesn't work). E.g. drop a weapon, quick draw a weapon. Finally there is the monk which may freely switch between monk weapons and his US for his full attack routine. (IRRC Kusarigame is not a monk weapon)






> To your 2 daggers and armor spikes example, does that mean that if someone with TWF (and improved and greater) started a full attack, and someone had a readied action to disarm them after they had attacked with both daggers, if that disarm succeeded then they wouldn't be able to make the rest of their attacks even if they had armor spikes, or a gauntlet? What if they had quick draw and another dagger? They might also want to use their gauntlet to attack a skeleton because of DR, which I'd certainly allow. Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying right, but if I am, I would need a citation to believe that.


He could still end his Full Attack. But since he already made the choice to TWF this round the penalties will remain until the next turn. Since it is still your turn, you can switch between weapons within your actions as said. The Armor Spikes are equipped and readied to be used. Thus you can switch to em as a non-action (since they are ready to be used) within your Full Attack after being disarmed.
Quick Draw works too since it is still your turn and doesn't interfere with your action left.





> There is no main hand/off-hand rule. You have the two weapon fighting special attack, that's it. If you aren't using the special attack then those rules do not apply. Your interpretation is just confusing things. I can use any number of weapons to attack with as long as I have the attacks to use. How else would a character get a full attack with thrown weapons? They are each different weapons used for separate attacks. I have wielded them all. Of course I am no longer wielding them because they are thrown, but using the same example for weapons that aren't thrown they would still be wielded and ready for use on something like an AoO or other such possible use throughout a turn. Nothing in the rules say that you must declare which weapons are wielded or not wielded. To wield something is to hold and use something. Just because I don't choose to attack with a weapon in my off-hand does not mean I am no longer wielding it.


Throwing weapons:
Even with TWF and Shuriken/Quick Draw you will only be wielding a maximum of 2 weapons at a time. You can (re-)draw more as needed for your Full Attack or hold more at a time, but at any given time you wield a maximum of 2. Just because you cycle trough your weapons doesn't change that you are always wielding a maximum of 2 weapons simultaneously.
You can *effectively wield more than 2 weapons over your turn* by cycling trough em, *but you still never wield more than 2 items/weapons at a time*. To wield a weapon, you need to designate it to either mainhand or offhand. 2 slots to fill, not more, not less. That is the reason why you can sole profit from a maximum of 2 defending weapons, because you can "wield" a maximum of 2 weapons at the same time. (and the enhancement sole works when you "wield" the weapon). Sorry, no infinite "defending weapon" stacking cheese here... the rules prevent this (thx god for that^^).

----------


## Drelua

I'm not finding that very convincing, googling the definition of wield, some dictionaries (Cambridge, brittanica) completely disagree with what you're saying. A lot of the definitions that came up said something like "to hold and be ready to use a tool," or even "to look as if you are going to use it" in one case. I definitely agree with limiting defending weapons, but telling players they have to keep track of which weapons they're wielding at the end of their turn in case they make an AoO sounds like it would very rarely come up, and be very annoying when it does. 

If they have a gauntlet that does a different damage type from their 2 main weapons, which have different properties, (say, a bane weapon in their off hand) and they have more than 2 AoOs come up in one turn, then it might matter. Do you ask players to decide which weapons they are wielding at the end of every turn? Because otherwise, they wouldn't even think of it until it came up, and I would get very annoyed being told I can't attack the skeleton with my gauntlet because I didn't decide to be wielding it, or being told I can't stab the demon with the evil outsider bane dagger that is in my hand, because I was wielding my gauntlet. I would just limit defending to weapons you have attacked with, and still could. Your system sounds needlessly complicated IMO. If a player wants to spend 72k for 5 AC that only triggers after a full attack that they made weaker so they could activate all their defending weapons, they can go right ahead.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> I'm not finding that very convincing, googling the definition of wield, some dictionaries (Cambridge, brittanica) completely disagree with what you're saying. A lot of the definitions that came up said something like "to hold and be ready to use a tool," or even "to look as if you are going to use it" in one case. I definitely agree with limiting defending weapons, but telling players they have to keep track of which weapons they're wielding at the end of their turn in case they make an AoO sounds like it would very rarely come up, and be very annoying when it does. 
> 
> If they have a gauntlet that does a different damage type from their 2 main weapons, which have different properties, (say, a bane weapon in their off hand) and they have more than 2 AoOs come up in one turn, then it might matter. Do you ask players to decide which weapons they are wielding at the end of every turn? Because otherwise, they wouldn't even think of it until it came up, and I would get very annoyed being told I can't attack the skeleton with my gauntlet because I didn't decide to be wielding it, or being told I can't stab the demon with the evil outsider bane dagger that is in my hand, because I was wielding my gauntlet. I would just limit defending to weapons you have attacked with, and still could. Your system sounds needlessly complicated IMO. If a player wants to spend 72k for 5 AC that only triggers after a full attack that they made weaker so they could activate all their defending weapons, they can go right ahead.


We are getting into DM decision/fiat area now. By RAW you can do some kind of non-actions outside of your turn. The sole example I'm aware of in the books is yelling something very short. Since switching to another already readied weapons for your mainhand/offhand is a non-action, your DM might allow it outside of your turn. But it ain't something you can demand from the DM by RAW.
The question are, "how often does it come up/becomes relevant?" and "do you wanna do the extra work for it?". I can see enough reason to handwave the lil details away for simplicities sake or even for the "rule of cool".
And as said, the DM has the option to make the decision to allow non-action switching for mainhand/offhand designations outside of your turn by RAW. It's just RAW doesn't force him to do so.

edit: wielding / holding
Imho carrying something in your hand qualifies as holding, but not wielding. So you can hold something without wielding it. Wielding implies (as you did find out yourself) "to hold and be ready to use a tool", which imho requires the mainhand/offhand designation in 3.5

----------


## Drelua

> We are getting into DM decision/fiat area now. By RAW you can do some kind of non-actions outside of your turn. The sole example I'm aware of in the books is yelling something very short. Since switching to another already readied weapons for your mainhand/offhand is a non-action, your DM might allow it outside of your turn. But it ain't something you can demand from the DM by RAW.
> The question are, "how often does it come up/becomes relevant?" and "do you wanna do the extra work for it?". I can see enough reason to handwave the lil details away for simplicities sake or even for the "rule of cool".
> And as said, the DM has the option to make the decision to allow non-action switching for mainhand/offhand designations outside of your turn by RAW. It's just RAW doesn't force him to do so.
> 
> edit: wielding / holding
> Imho carrying something in your hand qualifies as holding, but not wielding. So you can hold something without wielding it. Wielding implies (as you did find out yourself) "to hold and be ready to use a tool", which imho requires the mainhand/offhand designation in 3.5


I'm still not convinced there is any such thing as a mainhand/offhand unless you're TWFing, you haven't shown me anything remotely convincing saying that there is. We've been in DM fiat area for a while now. I cannot imagine a situation where a trained combatant has a weapon they regularly use _in their hand_, but isn't ready to use it. That doesn't make any sense to me, and isn't supported by any rules text I've seen. Some of many definitions of the word 'wielding' saying you have to be currently using it, is way too thin to support this.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> I'm still not convinced there is any such thing as a mainhand/offhand unless you're TWFing, you haven't shown me anything remotely convincing saying that there is. We've been in DM fiat area for a while now. I cannot imagine a situation where a trained combatant has a weapon they regularly use _in their hand_, but isn't ready to use it. That doesn't make any sense to me, and isn't supported by any rules text I've seen. Some of many definitions of the word 'wielding' saying you have to be currently using it, is way too thin to support this.


I think we should be able to agree that "wielding" is more then just "carrying" something in your hand. Both qualify as being "hold", which means that you can hold something in your hands without wielding it.

Imho this difference is reflected by the rules when you designate your weapons to your "hands" (mainhand & offhand).

If you now want to "wield" it, you need "to hold it and be ready to *use* it". If you want to "use" even a single weapon (to attack; the most basic use of a weapon) in 3.5, you have to designate which hand(s) you are using. Remind you of the option to use 1h weapons as 2h for the STR bonus. You do it all the time: designating weapons to your hands.
And as soon as you want to wield 2 weapons, the TWF rules comes into play. You can't wield more than 2 at any given time, since to reflect the difference between "holding & carrying" and "holding & wielding" you need to designate your weapon to your mainhand and/or offhand.

----------


## GoodbyeSoberDay

Make armor enhancements, as well as bracers of armor and the like, cheaper. That increases the opportunity cost of Mage Armor without messing with its fair and reasonable use.

As far as AC optimization goes, insofar as it is an issue, Mage Armor isn't really the culprit. +4 isn't nothing, but if you're falling off the RNG it's other stuff doing the heavy lifting.

----------


## Drelua

> I think we should be able to agree that "wielding" is more then just "carrying" something in your hand. Both qualify as being "hold", which means that you can hold something in your hands without wielding it.


Agreed on that, if you're carrying a weapon around not expecting a fight, you probably aren't holding it in a way that would really allow you to swing it. Maybe you're holding an axe close to the blade, a two-handed weapon in one hand, or holding a sword backwards, which no matter what action movies might tell me does not seem like an effective way to swing a sword. In situations like that, you would be holding but not wielding the weapon. But a trained and experienced combatant, holding a weapon in a fighting grip, is definitely ready to use it.




> Imho this difference is reflected by the rules when you designate your weapons to your "hands" (mainhand & offhand).
> 
> If you now want to "wield" it, you need "to hold it and be ready to *use* it". *If you want to "use" even a single weapon* (to attack; the most basic use of a weapon) in 3.5, *you have to designate which hand(s) you are using.*


(emphasis added)

You do? I have never heard anyone designate which hand they're using to make a single attack, only which weapon they were attacking with if they were wielding more than one. If someone were to say "I grab [whatever light weapon] and attack" I would be very surprised to hear them say "with my left/right hand." They are only making a single attack, so there is no such thing as an off-hand.




> Remind you of the option to use 1h weapons as 2h for the STR bonus. You do it all the time: designating weapons to your hands.


I don't see any relevance there. Of course using a weapon in 2 hands requires designating that you use both your hands, I just don't see any connection that and any rule that you have to have a main hand weapon and an off hand weapon when you're not TWFing. And even then, I've never seen it matter outside of making a full attack. Comparing the text of the TWF rules on PHB 160 and the Full-attack action on PH 143, it says you can get one extra attack, and these rules apply if you do, in a way that makes me think you can choose not to get the extra attack, and not have any of these rules apply. No extra attack, no off-hand, even if you have at least 6 BAB and use that attack with a weapon in each hand.




> *And as soon as you want to wield 2 weapons, the TWF rules comes into play.* You can't wield more than 2 at any given time, since to reflect the difference between "holding & carrying" and "holding & wielding" you need to designate your weapon to your mainhand and/or offhand.


I don't think this is true? You can wield multiple weapons without the TWF rules applying, my Dwarf Barb/Ranger did it all the time with his longhammer and his boulder helmet. Both those weapons were ready to go, neither was ever treated as the off-hand, and that character saw a tonne of different GMs over 40+ PFS sessions. Just don't take the option to get an extra attack, and TWF rules don't matter. It basically says "you can get one extra attack per round. Fighting in this way is very hard, and you take these penalties." (Very much paraphrased of course, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting what it says in the least) If you're not getting the extra attack, you are not "fighting in this way," so the rest of that rule doesn't apply.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> You do? I have never heard anyone designate which hand they're using to make a single attack, only which weapon they were attacking with if they were wielding more than one. If someone were to say "I grab [whatever light weapon] and attack" I would be very surprised to hear them say "with my left/right hand." They are only making a single attack, so there is no such thing as an off-hand.


Just because we all skip mechanical steps for simplicities sake and faster gameflow doesn't mean that those things don't exist and should never brought up. Let me give you the example of "immediate action". Some of them can break the flow of an "Attack" after the target and action has been declared but before the attack is resolved (hit confirmation and dmg results), e.g. the Shadow Cloak item.
So if someone wears a Shadow Cloak (or has other immediate action that do something similar), attacks now need to be declared at him, to give him the mechanical option to use his immediate attack.
But if nobody has or uses immediate action, imho almost every table combines the declaration of an attack + roll + outcome as a single step. You just make your rolls and tell if you did hit for dmg or not. The DM doesn't check if you cheated more "hands" than you really have, because he assumes "nobody at his table would so such a thing". But skipping steps for faster gameflow doesn't mean that they ain't there.
The same can be said here. Most DM don't keep track of how many hands his players use and if the mainhand/offhand rule for TWF applies. But imho for the 3.5 reflection of wielding this is the rule to use. Since wielding requires you "to look like you are gonna *use* it" and use is represented by assigning your weapon to "use", which requires you to determine in which hand you use it and if TWF rules apply or not. The TWF rules make sure that you don't wield more then 2 weapons at a time. You can have more weapons readied for use (holding 2 weapons, wearing armor spikes, wearing spiked gauntlets..), which means you can switch to em as a non-action as described. But you still wield sole your mainhand and offhand.





> I don't see any relevance there. Of course using a weapon in 2 hands requires designating that you use both your hands, I just don't see any connection that and any rule that you have to have a main hand weapon and an off hand weapon when you're not TWFing. And even then, I've never seen it matter outside of making a full attack. Comparing the text of the TWF rules on PHB 160 and the Full-attack action on PH 143, it says you can get one extra attack, and these rules apply if you do, in a way that makes me think you can choose not to get the extra attack, and not have any of these rules apply. No extra attack, no off-hand, even if you have at least 6 BAB and use that attack with a weapon in each hand.


If you sole use a single weapon, the TWF rules for mainhand and offhand are irrelevant. But it is still relevant if you have a hand free for other actions. Assume you play a gish and on your turn you use your longsword 2h for the extra STR bonus on damage. But you have an immediate action spell that you might wanna cast outside of your turn. So in preparation, you need to use a free action at the end of your turn to switch to 1h use. Otherwise you don't have a hand free for casting the immediate action spell. Why it is important to keep track of this? Because the gish can either have 2h Longsword AoO or needs to fall back to 1h Longsword AoO to be able to cast immediate action spells along. You can sole change your "grip" in your turn since that is a "free action" and not an "immediate action".

As you can see, these mechanical steps are there for a reason. They just come up so rarely that is seams that some people forget that these are actual rules.




> I don't think this is true? You can wield multiple weapons without the TWF rules applying, my Dwarf Barb/Ranger did it all the time with his longhammer and his boulder helmet. Both those weapons were ready to go, neither was ever treated as the off-hand, and that character saw a tonne of different GMs over 40+ PFS sessions. Just don't take the option to get an extra attack, and TWF rules don't matter. It basically says "you can get one extra attack per round. Fighting in this way is very hard, and you take these penalties." (Very much paraphrased of course, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting what it says in the least) If you're not getting the extra attack, you are not "fighting in this way," so the rest of that rule doesn't apply.


Both weapons where ready to be used, yeah. But just because they are ready to be "used", doesn't mean that you show the intent to "use" em. Again, if you are just carrying a weapon in your hand or have armor spikes equipped, bot are ready to be used. But you need to show the intent to use em, to count as wielding em.
If I knock you unconscious while you tightly hold to you sword. Do you still wield the sword? I guess not, because you show no intent to use it. Same here. You show no intent to use your Boulder Helmet, unless you specifically call it out (by designating as main- of offhand weapon). And your DM is happy that you don't always waste time by declaring that you don't use it. I hope you get what I mean here.

----------


## icefractal

> But at later levels, you shouldn't be afraid of a player who want to play (and shine) as a punching-bag. The caster are those who you should be afraid of (because of divination, teleportation and whatsoever makes the live as DM more of a pain..^^)


While I'd agree that one super-defended PC is not likely to be problem (just target the rest of the party), the overall impact of combat optimization vs strategic capabilities is a real YMMV situation depending on GM/campaign style.

If you plan out specific encounters and custom build the foes, then higher numbers aren't too much a problem, since you can adjust for them, where-as anything that skips entire chunks of material is going to suck.

But if you run things more sandbox - width over depth - then it's the reverse.  The players did an end-run around all the guards and finished this fortress really early?  Ok, on to the next thing - knot-cutting doesn't take as much real-time as combat usually, so it's likely that they're still going to get some challenge in most sessions.  But when you're using stock-MM foes, then sufficiently high PC numbers are a problem - unless you want to switch the campaign style to "nearly unopposed titans" at that point.

----------


## loky1109

> Just because we all skip mechanical steps for simplicities sake and faster gameflow doesn't mean that those things don't exist and should never brought up.


It's impossible to proof unexisting of something, so you should proof existing. 
And saying "proof" I mean proof, not reasoning. 
I could be wrong, but I heard such idea ("you have to declare hand") first time now. I play D&D about 20+ years, so I have the right to doubt.
UPD: I read TWF section in PHB and I see what you are talking about, but there are no limitations about numbers of weapons. Yes, there uses singular, but it still doesn't look enough. 




> If you sole use a single weapon, the TWF rules for mainhand and offhand are irrelevant. But it is still relevant if you have a hand free for other actions. Assume you play a gish and on your turn you use your longsword 2h for the extra STR bonus on damage. But you have an immediate action spell that you might wanna cast outside of your turn. So in preparation, you need to use a free action at the end of your turn to switch to 1h use. Otherwise you don't have a hand free for casting the immediate action spell. Why it is important to keep track of this? Because the gish can either have 2h Longsword AoO or needs to fall back to 1h Longsword AoO to be able to cast immediate action spells along. You can sole change your "grip" in your turn since that is a "free action" and not an "immediate action".


Totally agree with you here, but don't see how is this related to TWF, main and off hands.




> Both weapons where ready to be used, yeah. But just because they are ready to be "used", doesn't mean that you show the intent to "use" em. Again, if you are just carrying a weapon in your hand or have armor spikes equipped, bot are ready to be used. But you need to show the intent to use em, to count as wielding em.


It looks for me you are trying to introduce new unnecessary terms. "Weapon ready to use," "Hold weapon," "Carry weapon," "Wield weapon." Occam's razor is against you.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> It's impossible to proof unexisting of something, so you should proof existing. 
> And saying "proof" I mean proof, not reasoning. 
> I could be wrong, but I heard such idea ("you have to declare hand") first time now. I play D&D about 20+ years, so I have the right to doubt.
> UPD: I read TWF section in PHB and I see what you are talking about, but there are no limitations about numbers of weapons. Yes, there uses singular, but it still doesn't look enough.


I did gave you proof, but seem to kinda ignore it.
Since "wield" is undefined in 3.5, we fall back to general English definition. And to wield means "to hold a weapon with the *intent to use* it" not just simply holding and carrying it. If you have the intent to use a weapon, you have to decide if you use a single one or rely on the TWF to wield 2 weapons. 
As example, you could hold a weapon in each hand, but sole wield one to prevent the TWF penalties. You don't get a penalty for just "holding" something in your other hand (e.g. a wand or a weapon you just "hold" but not "wield").







> Totally agree with you here, but don't see how is this related to TWF, main and off hands.


It was to show that while it is relevant to keep track of "hands" used, that we don't do it all the time for simplicities sake. 
How often do you tell your DM if you use your weapon 1h or 2h? In my experience the people tell it maybe at the start of the fight and if they change weapons in fight. Otherwise they just skip this mechanical step for a faster combat spacing. 
Do you always tell your DM that you let one hand off your 2h weapon to cast a spells and to grip the weapon again afterwards? Technically you would need to do it, but again, I barely see people doing this every time (because it's most of the time just time consuming, nothing else).
From my experience, unless it is relevant for a build, these things easily get skipped in the communication. But the mechanical steps are still there.

The same with "using a weapon" and the TWF rules. The general rules for combat always check how many weapons you are "using". Since a normal character can only assign a maximum of 2 weapons to use. And how does he do that? I assume by designating the 1-2 weapon/s to mainhand and/or offhand.




> It looks for me you are trying to introduce new unnecessary terms. "Weapon ready to use," "Hold weapon," "Carry weapon," "Wield weapon." Occam's razor is against you.


All these different terms see use in 3.5
Some more, some less.

Some Examples:
Rapid Wrath - from Ghostwalk a spear that doubles your movement speed for just "carrying" it.
+1 Warning (weapon) - from MIC. Gives it benefit as long as the weapon is "held".

But most special weapon abilities require you to "wield" it. 

And with "weapon ready to use" I mean a weapon in a state where you don't need to spend any more action before you can use em. Like a drawn and held sword, or worn armor spikes. Both are in a state ready to be used, if you show the intent to use em (by designating em as mainhand or offhand weapon).
As counter-example: When you hold a sword while sleeping, do you wield it? Can you make AoO? I guess not. 

If you ignore the different meanings of these words, then you are houseruling imho.

----------


## AnonymousPepper

> Well spotted. For me the underlying issue is that AC optimization, I wouldn't outright call it "cheese" but it does make the game less fun (imho) if PCs are unhittable or near-unhittable. It's like playing a video game in god mode.
> 
> And it strikes me that at mid levels, AC optimization is too easy (at high levels it's admittedly not so easy). And it also strikes me that pretty much all the "unhittable" builds at mid level use Mage Armor.


Unhittable builds use (Greater) Luminous Armor or similar. 

Mage Armor is not the problem.

----------


## loky1109

> Since "wield" is undefined in 3.5...


...we can't solve this issues in the RAW field. Dixi.




> If you have the intent to use a weapon, you have to decide if you use a single one or rely on the TWF to wield 2 weapons.


This came from... where? How did you switch between general English definition and D&D mechanic? 




> It was to show that while it is relevant to keep track of "hands" used, that we don't do it all the time for simplicities sake.


Yes, it's example, but how can I be sure if it is applicable in the TWF case? 




> Do you always tell your DM that you let one hand off your 2h weapon to cast a spells and to grip the weapon again afterwards? Technically you would need to do it


Technically you wouldn't. You would only if you change it. Because switching grip is an action and you should declare actions you want to make.




> The same with "using a weapon"


I don't see where your conviction that it is the same came from. It isn't clear analogous cases. It is about different rulsets.
I see you have logical chain here, but I don't see this chain itself, only start and finish, and therefore can't agree it is undeniable. 




> The general rules for combat always check how many weapons you are "using".


Again don't see where it came from. Not "always" only before your first attack in the round. 
If you want example about decision making I have one. Do you know when do you should make decision about will you make single attack or full? Before making (or not making) second attack. It's last possible bifurcation point. This illustrates logic of designers, you shouldn't make decision until moment comes when it's absolutely necessary. 




> All these different terms see use in 3.5
> Some more, some less.


Do all this "terms" have definitions?
If no it aren't "terms" just "words" and all your assumptions are only assumptions without solid base. 
You are trying to use nonspecific colloquial definitions as very specific almost technical or science terminology. This doesn't work this way. 




> When you hold a sword while sleeping, do you wield it? Can you make AoO?


You can't make AoO because you're flat-footed. )
And, by the way, I don't see any obstacles for flat-footed character to wield weapon.

----------


## Drelua

To hold is to "grasp, carry, or support with one's hands," according to the first definition that came up. Carrying does not have to be done with the hands. If something is in my pocket, I'm carrying it, but not holding it. That's the distinction, you don't have to be holding the spear for it to work, you just have to have it on you. No one's ignoring the meanings of these words.

The 2 handing example is a completely different thing, because there's clear rules about the benefits of holding a one handed weapon in two hands, and there's things you need a free hand to do, like cast spells. The only main hand off-hand rule I can find is part of TWFing, used to resolve a full attack. When you are not making a full attack, these rules aren't relevant. When you're not getting the extra attack you can get, these rules aren't relevant.

I understand you're using the definiton of wielding. I do not understand where you got the limit of 2 weapons, nothing in the definition of wielding says that, and nothing in the TWF main hand/off hand rules says you cannot, say, be wielding your armor spikes while attacking with a sword and longsword. Please provide a citation for this, because I can't find the rules you're saying I'm ignoring.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> ...we can't solve this issues in the RAW field. Dixi.


Why shouldn't it be solvable by RAW? Just because it uses undefined (by 3.5) words from the English language (like every rule)? Imho you just wanna ignore that it can be solved by RAW because you don't like the outcome.





> This came from... where? How did you switch between general English definition and D&D mechanic?


Yeah, because D&D mechanics rely on the base English definition where 3.5 don't have specific definitions. As it is normal for any kind of rule (even outside of 3.5) which relies on the English language. Do I really have to argue that the language used in rules matters?

If you wanna start combat what do you do? Lets assume you have already a drawn and held sword and armor spikes equipped. I assume you tell your DM which weapons you are using, if you use your sword 1h or 2h and if you TWF with your armor spikes. As soon as you want to show the intent to "use" a weapon, you designate how you are gonna use it (alone 1h or 2h / as mainhand / as offhand).




> Yes, it's example, but how can I be sure if it is applicable in the TWF case?


It important for the combat overall. You can use a 2h weapon and still TWF with armor spikes, since those don't need a "hand" free, but still rely on the TWF mainhand/offhand rule. It's important if you intend to cast spells later and for other things. As such you should know if you have a "hand" free and if your mainhand and offhand are used or not.




> Technically you wouldn't. You would only if you change it. Because switching grip is an action and you should declare actions you want to make.


In the example I did give you about holding/wielding a 2h weapon and wanting to cast a spell, you would need one hand free for that and thus would need to declare the actions for switching grip before casting the spell and afterwards to grip your 2h (e.g. Greatsword) again. My question was, do you tell your DM always (!) that you let one hand go off the G.sword and grip it after the spell has been cast? I barely see anyone do this at real tables. 
Technically you need to do that. But from my experience these lil details often get skipped and ignored for a faster game space. But that doesn't mean that these mechanics are irrelevant.




> I don't see where your conviction that it is the same came from. It isn't clear analogous cases. It is about different rulsets.
> I see you have logical chain here, but I don't see this chain itself, only start and finish, and therefore can't agree it is undeniable.


with the "the same" I meant here that people also like to skip the TWF steps for faster game flow.




> Again don't see where it came from. Not "always" only before your first attack in the round. 
> If you want example about decision making I have one. Do you know when do you should make decision about will you make single attack or full? Before making (or not making) second attack. It's last possible bifurcation point. This illustrates logic of designers, you shouldn't make decision until moment comes when it's absolutely necessary.


Ah I see, now I can full attack with my Longsword without TWF penalties, then Quick Draw a dagger and make my offhand attacks with penalty. 
Sorry but I don't buy that interpretation. The rules are always checking what you are doing or intent to do this round. The way how actions are declared and used doesn't change anything here. 





> Do all this "terms" have definitions?
> If no it aren't "terms" just "words" and all your assumptions are only assumptions without solid base. 
> You are trying to use nonspecific colloquial definitions as very specific almost technical or science terminology. This doesn't work this way.


If you don't rely on undefined (in 3.5) words from English language, I have a hard time believing that you can interpret any 3.5 rule. Do I really have to argue that we fall back to English definition and that the word still has an impact on the rules? Even without a specific 3.5 definition!





> You can't make AoO because you're flat-footed. )
> And, by the way, I don't see any obstacles for flat-footed character to wield weapon.


You all where arguing a moment ago that "holding" a weapon is the same as "wielding" it. I hope you get my intend here. To show that you ain't just holding the weapon, you need to declare your intend to use it. And that you do by explaining how you use it. You determine if you use it 1h or 2h; if you TWF or not (mainhand and/or offhand). You basically designate your "hands" (not just your physical hands, but also your mainhand and offhand in specific TWF scenarios).




> To hold is to "grasp, carry, or support with one's hands," according to the first definition that came up. Carrying does not have to be done with the hands. If something is in my pocket, I'm carrying it, but not holding it. That's the distinction, you don't have to be holding the spear for it to work, you just have to have it on you. No one's ignoring the meanings of these words.


If you don't ignore the meaning, you should be able to see the mechanical difference between holding and wielding. Just because a weapon is ready to be used (drawn held sword / equipped gauntlets..) doesn't mean you have or show the intent to use it. You need to mentally prepare yourself for the "use". This is reflected when you determine how you "use" your weapon. Do you use it alone? 1h? 2h? TWF with another weapon?
"How do you *use* it": If you ask this question, you know which rules you need to "use" the weapon. Designating the weapon to your "hands" (physically and possibly mainhand/offhand).





> The 2 handing example is a completely different thing, because there's clear rules about the benefits of holding a one handed weapon in two hands, and there's things you need a free hand to do, like cast spells. The only main hand off-hand rule I can find is part of TWFing, used to resolve a full attack. When you are not making a full attack, these rules aren't relevant. When you're not getting the extra attack you can get, these rules aren't relevant.


Have you ever asked yourself the question why the TWF don't apply if you don't make a Full Attack but sole a single Attack? Because you are sole wielding a single weapon at that moment. Any other weapon is either just held or sole equipped for that moment. That is the reason why the TWF rules sole apply if you "wield" two weapons, not for just "holding" two weapons.





> I understand you're using the definiton of wielding. I do not understand where you got the limit of 2 weapons, nothing in the definition of wielding says that, and nothing in the TWF main hand/off hand rules says you cannot, say, be wielding your armor spikes while attacking with a sword and longsword. Please provide a citation for this, because I can't find the rules you're saying I'm ignoring.


The general TWF rules limit you to using/wielding 2 weapons max. Thus you can sole wield 2 weapons. Any other weapon you might have readied is either just "held" (another not used weapon held in your other hand) or merely "equipped" (armor spikes, spiked gauntlet, shield spikes you don't intend to use...).
Outside of Multiweapon Fighting you can't use/wield more than 2 weapons at the same time. You can switch trough more weapons in your turn yeah, but at any given moment you wield a maximum of 2 (except MWF).

----------


## Drelua

> Ah I see, now I can full attack with my Longsword without TWF penalties, then Quick Draw a dagger and make my offhand attacks with penalty.
> Sorry but I don't buy that interpretation. The rules are always checking what you are doing or intent to do this round. The way how actions are declared and used doesn't change anything here.


But the rules do very clearly say that you can decide after your first attack, whether it was the beginning of a full-attack action or a standard action attack. PHB 143, under "Deciding between an attack or a full-attack." If you begin to make a full-attack, then one-shot whatever enemy you were attacking, you can then take a move action. This doesn't mean you can begin TWFing after your first attack, because you can turn a full attack into a single attack, not the other way around.




> If you don't ignore the meaning, you should be able to see the mechanical difference between holding and wielding. Just because a weapon is ready to be used (drawn held sword / equipped gauntlets..) doesn't mean you have or show the intent to use it. You need to mentally prepare yourself for the "use". This is reflected when you determine how you "use" your weapon. Do you use it alone? 1h? 2h? TWF with another weapon?
> "How do you *use* it": If you ask this question, you know which rules you need to "use" the weapon. Designating the weapon to your "hands" (physically and possibly mainhand/offhand).


I've already acknowledged that there's a difference between holding and wielding, like if you're holding a 2 handed weapon in one hand. Doesn't mean you can't wield more than 2 weapons at once.




> Have you ever asked yourself the question why the TWF don't apply if you don't make a Full Attack but sole a single Attack? Because you are sole wielding a single weapon at that moment. Any other weapon is either just held or sole equipped for that moment. That is the reason why the TWF rules sole apply if you "wield" two weapons, not for just "holding" two weapons.


No, I've never asked myself this question, because the answer is too obvious to even ask. It's because you can't make attacks with 2 different weapons without making at least 2 attacks. TWF rules can't apply when you can't use 2 weapons. 

If someone takes a move action and attacks a skeleton with their gauntlet to get around the DR, then the necromancer runs past them, provoking an AoO, I would definitely let them attack with their regular weapon, or either regular weapon if they have 1 in each hand, and haven't seen a rule suggesting this is wrong. They could also attack another skeleton with their gauntlet if it ran past them and they had multiple AoOs per turn, so this is not because I'm assuming they went back to 'wielding' their 2 main weapons.

This is not a case where I am ignoring a rule for ease of play, this is a case where the rule you're claiming exists, so far as I can tell, doesn't.




> The general TWF rules limit you to using/wielding 2 weapons max.


Again, citation needed, this is not how I read the TWF rules at all. It says "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." That is a direct quote. Armor spikes are an exception to the rule that the weapon should be in your (off-)hand because they specify that they can be used for off hand attacks. If there is a rule somewhere saying you can't make your main hand attacks from 6+ BAB, or haste, with different weapons, please direct me to it because I can't find it.




> Thus you can sole wield 2 weapons. Any other weapon you might have readied is either just "held" (another not used weapon held in your other hand) or merely "equipped" (armor spikes, spiked gauntlet, shield spikes you don't intend to use...).
> Outside of Multiweapon Fighting you can't use/wield more than 2 weapons at the same time. You can switch trough more weapons in your turn yeah, but at any given moment you wield a maximum of 2 (except MWF).


Your reasoning continues to make no sense to me, and be based on no rules that I can find. You keep saying 'these rules exist, these rules say this,' without providing a quotation. The text of Two-Weapon Fighting on PHB 160 is written in a way that reads to me as "this option is there if you want it," not "these restrictions exist." If a fighter is wielding a greatsword while wearing armor spikes just in case they get grappled, the TWF rules are not triggered because they aren't taking this extra attack, and the associated penalties. 

You can get an extra attack from a second weapon, but not a third attack from a third weapon, because MWF requires 3 or more hands and the TWF rules only say you can get 1 extra attack with 1 weapon, not because you can only wield 2 weapons at once. Your off-hand iteratives have to be made with the same weapon, not because of some restriction on how many weapons you can wield at once, but because the text if ITWF says "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it."

I'm not going to keep arguing about this much longer if you can't provide a citation or two supporting how you say the rules work. If anyone feels we're derailing the thread too much, say so and I'll drop it.

----------


## loky1109

> Have you ever asked yourself the question why the TWF don't apply if you don't make a Full Attack but sole a single Attack?


It actually isn't true.
I want to make my ol' good full attack with sword and dagger, strike enemy once with all the required penalties and enemy... just die after this first strike.




> Ah I see, now I can full attack with my Longsword without TWF penalties, then Quick Draw a dagger and make my offhand attacks with penalty.


No, you don't. Of course it doesn't work this way. Last possible bifurcation point between TWF and not TWF is before applying penalties to the first attack. 
Last possible bifurcation point between AoO with my sword, or my dagger, or my kick is just before I make this AoO and even if I partially agree with your idea about maximum two weapons simultaneously, but I sure you could select which exactly weapons are these two in any moment before any attack (including AoO) you make any number of times during your turn or out of your turn (I claim it is non-action). And while you normally can't attack with more than one weapon simultaneously it doesn't matter.




> If you don't rely on undefined (in 3.5) words from English language, I have a hard time believing that you can interpret any 3.5 rule. Do I really have to argue that we fall back to English definition and that the word still has an impact on the rules? Even without a specific 3.5 definition!


Do you really see no difference between "word" and "term"? 
You can freely change word with synonym without changing meaning, but this isn't true work for terms even if you take complete synonym.
Having a definition is the only way to understand whether a particular word was meant by the authors as a term or not and if yes what this term means.

While we don't have any strict definition we couldn't be sure if our understanding of the term correct. Or even is it term or not.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> But the rules do very clearly say that you can decide after your first attack, whether it was the beginning of a full-attack action or a standard action attack. PHB 143, under "Deciding between an attack or a full-attack." If you begin to make a full-attack, then one-shot whatever enemy you were attacking, you can then take a move action. This doesn't mean you can begin TWFing after your first attack, because you can turn a full attack into a single attack, not the other way around.


I guess you didn't get what I meant here. I do know how you can alter between a move action and a full attack after your initial attack. (as I have pointed out in my last sentence of that quote: "The way how actions are declared and used doesn't change anything here.")
But what you can't do is rolling attack for a single weapon (without TWF penalties) and then decide to use a 2nd weapon after your initial attack. You need to decide before your first attack if you want to use a 2nd weapon via TWF or not. Do you just hold your 2nd dagger or do you intend to wield it? 





> I've already acknowledged that there's a difference between holding and wielding, like if you're holding a 2 handed weapon in one hand. Doesn't mean you can't wield more than 2 weapons at once.


Wielding means either putting something to use or at least to show the intent to use it. To "use" a weapon or to show that you ain't just "holding" it, you need to decide if you wanna TWF or not. Here the mainhand and offhand rule comes into play. And that limits a normal character to "wield" sole 2 weapons at a time, since you sole have mainhand and offhand as possible designations.






> No, I've never asked myself this question, because the answer is too obvious to even ask. It's because you can't make attacks with 2 different weapons without making at least 2 attacks. TWF rules can't apply when you *can't use 2 weapons*.


When you* can't use 2 weapons*, then you ain't "wielding" 2 weapons. Since "wield" needs at least that you show the intent to *use* it. But you ain't doing that if you just "hold" the other weapon. I hope that you now get my point here.
You can't wield more than 2 weapons simultaneously since you sole have mainhand and offhand slot to "use" weapons. Anything more is not "used" and thus not "wielded". You can switch those designations over the course of your turn (and if the DM is nice maybe even on enemies turn for a non-action switch). But that doesn't change that at any given single moment (not turn!) you wield sole you mainhand and maybe your offhand (if you want to TWF).

How would you assign a 3rd weapon that you wanna simultaneously use? You can't if you sole have a maximum of 2 slots. Conclusion, you can sole profit from "wielding" 2 weapons at the same time. You can switch em over your turn, but you can only "wield" a maximum of 2.






> Your reasoning continues to make no sense to me, and be based on no rules that I can find. You keep saying 'these rules exist, these rules say this,' without providing a quotation. The text of Two-Weapon Fighting on PHB 160 is written in a way that reads to me as "this option is there if you want it," not "these restrictions exist." If a fighter is wielding a greatsword while wearing armor spikes just in case they get grappled, the TWF rules are not triggered because they aren't taking this extra attack, and the associated penalties.


The TWF rules give you the permission to use a maximum of 2 weapons since you have sole your "mainhand" and "offhand" slot. 
You want a rule quote? You shall get one:
Two Weapon Fighting - Special Attack (SRD)



> If you *wield a second weapon in your off hand*, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:


Here you can see that if you want to "wield" a 2nd weapon, you have to rely of the TWF rules. Any further complains?
I hope this settles that you can sole "wield" a maximum of 2 weapons as normal character. You can have more and cycle through em, but you can sole "wield" 2 and no more (unless you have a specific exception like MWF).






> *snip*


See above the quote about the "TWF - Special Attack". The rule shows that "wielding" a 2nd weapon requires the offhand.
I hope this settles this. 
If not, then you can show me which rule does give you the permission to "wield" 3 or more weapons (except MWF of course).

----------


## loky1109

> The TWF rules give you the permission to use a maximum of 2 weapons since you have sole your "mainhand" and "offhand" slot.


Where is it written? I'm talking about sole "offhand" slot.




> But what you can't do is rolling attack for a single weapon (without TWF penalties) and then decide to use a 2nd weapon after your initial attack. You need to decide before your first attack if you want to use a 2nd weapon via TWF or not.


Sorry, but who did say opposite? O_o




> I hope this settles that you can sole "wield" a maximum of 2 weapons as normal character.


No.




> The rule shows that "wielding" a 2nd weapon requires the offhand.
> If not, then you can show me which rule does give you the permission to "wield" 3 or more weapons (except MWF of course).


Even if I'd agree with this point (I'm still not sure about this), I see no obstacles to determine which weapon I'm weld just before each attack including AoO. Thus, yes, in any moment of time I could wield only two weapons, but this doesn't matter.
I claim that selecting weapons is a Not an Action, but part of attack.

----------


## Drelua

> Wielding means either putting something to use or at least to show the intent to use it. To "use" a weapon or to show that you ain't just "holding" it, you need to decide if you wanna TWF or not. Here the mainhand and offhand rule comes into play. And that limits a normal character to "wield" sole 2 weapons at a time, since you sole have mainhand and offhand as possible designations.


Nothing says you can only wield one main hand and one off hand weapon. The TWF rules are written with the assumption that you're only using weapons held in the hands, and that you only have 2 hands, but then armor spikes provide an exception to this.,





> When you* can't use 2 weapons*, then you ain't "wielding" 2 weapons. Since "wield" needs at least that you show the intent to *use* it. But you ain't doing that if you just "hold" the other weapon. I hope that you now get my point here.
> You can't wield more than 2 weapons simultaneously since you sole have mainhand and offhand slot to "use" weapons. Anything more is not "used" and thus not "wielded". You can switch those designations over the course of your turn (and if the DM is nice maybe even on enemies turn for a non-action switch). But that doesn't change that at any given single moment (not turn!) you wield sole you mainhand and maybe your offhand (if you want to TWF).
> 
> How would you assign a 3rd weapon that you wanna simultaneously use? You can't if you sole have a maximum of 2 slots. Conclusion, you can sole profit from "wielding" 2 weapons at the same time. You can switch em over your turn, but you can only "wield" a maximum of 2.


All I said was that you can't use 2 weapons to make a single attack, nothing about that means you aren't wielding 2 or more weapons. If you take a move action and a standard action attack, you can only use 1 weapon for that. Are you saying that you lose the 'off-hand designation' when you take a standard action attack?





> The TWF rules give you the permission to use a maximum of 2 weapons since you have sole your "mainhand" and "offhand" slot. 
> You want a rule quote? You shall get one:
> Two Weapon Fighting - Special Attack (SRD)
> 
> Here you can see that if you want to "wield" a 2nd weapon, you have to rely of the TWF rules. Any further complains?
> I hope this settles that you can sole "wield" a maximum of 2 weapons as normal character. You can have more and cycle through em, but you can sole "wield" 2 and no more (unless you have a specific exception like MWF).


Nothing about the text of TWF on PHB indicates anything like a maximum, only that if you have a second weapon you can make an extra attack with it. Nothing about the phrase "if you wield a second..." indicates that you can't wield a third. I've already quoted this same text more than once, it doesn't prove any of what you're saying. This doesn't say that you have to use TWF rules to wield a second weapon, only that if you do have a second weapon you may choose to employ TWF rules to get an extra attack. It says "_if_ you wield a second weapon, you _can..._" so no, you don't have to use TWF rules to wield a second weapon, because it says you have to already be wielding a second weapon to even have the option to use TWF rules. You can't 'have to rely on TWF rules to wield a second weapon' when you have to be wielding a second weapon for TWF rules to be available.




> See above the quote about the "TWF - Special Attack". The rule shows that "wielding" a 2nd weapon requires the offhand.
> I hope this settles this. 
> If not, then you can show me which rule does give you the permission to "wield" 3 or more weapons (except MWF of course).


Wielding a second weapon requires the off-hand, yes. Because to make a TWF full attack, you have to designate a main hand and off hand, *for the purposes of that full attack.* Nothing I've seen indicates to me that you have to make that designation at any other time. The text of ITWF suggests to me that off hand attacks in a TWF full attack have to be made with the same weapon, but nothing I've seen indicates the same for main hand attacks. Nothing I've seen indicates that there is at any time a restriction on which weapons that you have equipped, are available for an AoO. That is not spelled out anywhere, so it is not a rule.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree at this point, I think we're both repeating ourselves and not convincing each other at all.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

We are getting derailed: And since I'm unsure if you still know about what we are arguing here, I'll try to sum up the situation to give an overview:

1. Drag assumed that you can easy profit from several (I assume more than 2 are meant here) "defending" Special Abilities and stack em.

2. I argued against it, since "defending" requires you to "wield" the weapon. 

3. We have "TWF - Special Attack" rules which allow you to "wield" a 2nd weapon in your "offhand".

4. Outside of Multi Weapon Fighting, you lack the permission to "wield" more than 2 weapons.

Show me which rule does give you the permission to wield/use more than  2 weapons at any given single moment.
And I don't mean single "turn" here. Since as said, you can cycle multiple weapons through your 2 weapon slots (mainhand/offhand).

3.5 if permission based. I have shown you where you are given permission to wield/use 2 weapons. 

Now it's your turn to show the rules that allow you to wield/use 3 or more (outside of MWF).


My conclusion about "defending":
You can stack a maximum of 2 and that means you take TWF penalties. To profit from that, you need to be "wielding" those weapons at the start of your turn to determine the "defending" value and at the end of your turn (to profit on your enemies turns). You can switch to other weapons during your turn, but you need to be "wielding" back the defending weapons at the end of your turn. Which further means, you can sole use them to make AoO. 
Your DM could (!not must!) allows you to make non-action weapon switches outside of your turn. But that is a free DM decision and nothing you can demand by RAW. And it would sole allow you to wield/use other weapons for possible AoO. You are still limited by the TWF rule to wield a maximum of two (defending weapons) at a time. You lack the permission to wield/use more.

----------


## Drelua

> We are getting derailed: And since I'm unsure if you still know about what we are arguing here, I'll try to sum up the situation to give an overview:
> 
> 1. Drag assumed that you can easy profit from several (I assume more than 2 are meant here) "defending" Special Abilities and stack em.
> 
> 2. I argued against it, since "defending" requires you to "wield" the weapon. 
> 
> 3. We have "TWF - Special Attack" rules which allow you to "wield" a 2nd weapon in your "offhand".(snip)


This is where you lose me. TWF on PHB 160 does not say "You may wield a 2nd weapon and get an extra attack with it." It gives you an option to take an extra attack, if you are wielding a 2nd weapon. It says "if you wield a 2nd weapon in your off-hand..." as if that is a thing you can already do, because it is. Then it says "you _can_ get one extra attack." Not you do, or you must, you can, meaning it is optional. For similar wording, look at the beginning of the description of the Full Attack Action on PHB 143. "If you get more than one attack per round [for whatever reason] you _must_ use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." When the rules are describing the way things always work, they use words like "must." When they are presenting an entirely optional thing you may choose to do, they say "can" or "may."

You can absolutely wield 2, or more, weapons regardless of TWF rules. I've read over the quarter of a page describing TWF quite a few times now, and nothing there reads as giving permission to wield a 2nd weapon. It is simply describing a thing you may do if you are wielding 2 weapons. It's just a thing you can do, there are no restrictions described there that should apply if you do not choose to take the extra attack. At least that's how I read it.

----------


## Darg

> 4. Outside of Multi Weapon Fighting, you lack the permission to "wield" more than 2 weapons.
> 
> Show me which rule does give you the permission to wield/use more than  2 weapons at any given single moment.
> And I don't mean single "turn" here. Since as said, you can cycle multiple weapons through your 2 weapon slots (mainhand/offhand).


The rules don't give you permission to "wield" anything. You just do because it's simply a function of reality. The burden of proof is on you to show where it says you can only wield/use 2 weapons at a time. "Weapon slots" don't exist as a function of the rules. The only item slots the rules ever mention are the magic items on the body.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> The rules don't give you permission to "wield" anything. You just do because it's simply a function of reality. The burden of proof is on you to show where it says you can only wield/use 2 weapons at a time. "Weapon slots" don't exist as a function of the rules. The only item slots the rules ever mention are the magic items on the body.


Defending requires you to "wield" the weapon to benefit from its effect.
I've shown that the TWF come into play when you "wield" a "second" weapon (doesn't matter if you hold it in your "other hand" or if you wear em like armor spikes, it's about the "TWF off hand" designation here).



> If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.


This is a proof that the TWF rules apply when you "wield a second weapon". The rule explains what happens if you "wield a second weapon". They give you permission to optionally "wield a second weapon". You can't deny that. 

Can you show me your proof by the rules that you can "wield" more weapons?




> This is where you lose me. TWF on PHB 160 does not say "You may wield a 2nd weapon and get an extra attack with it." It gives you an option to take an extra attack, if you are wielding a 2nd weapon. It says "if you wield a 2nd weapon in your off-hand..." as if that is a thing you can already do, because it is. Then it says "you _can_ get one extra attack." Not you do, or you must, you can, meaning it is optional. For similar wording, look at the beginning of the description of the Full Attack Action on PHB 143. "If you get more than one attack per round [for whatever reason] you _must_ use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." When the rules are describing the way things always work, they use words like "must." When they are presenting an entirely optional thing you may choose to do, they say "can" or "may."
> 
> You can absolutely wield 2, or more, weapons regardless of TWF rules. I've read over the quarter of a page describing TWF quite a few times now, and nothing there reads as giving permission to wield a 2nd weapon. It is simply describing a thing you may do if you are wielding 2 weapons. It's just a thing you can do, there are no restrictions described there that should apply if you do not choose to take the extra attack. At least that's how I read it.


1. The TWF rules handle the situation when you "wield a second weapon in your off hand". Can you show me any rules that handle the situation to "wield more weapons". Burden of proof in on you here. I have proven that we have rules that handle the situation to "wield a 2nd weapon". As such, the rules give you the permission to the option to "wield 2 weapons". Without the TWF rules, you couldn't wield 2 weapons.

2a. I assume you ain't arguing that Armor Spikes  (when using it together with other weapons) bypass the TWF rules because you don't use your off hand. 
The TWF rules apply as soon as you "wield a second weapon in your off hand". 

2b. At the same time I assume that you don't automatically "wield" your armor spikes just because you wear em.
To "wield" your armor spikes you need to designate it either as a single weapon used, or rely on the TWF rules.
I mean, otherwise you are constantly forced to use it as off hand weapon

3. I have given you proof that "wielding" is used in conjunction with using the weapon for (TWF) attacks. Can you show any rules where "wielding" is used for a mechanical state outside of "attacks". Do you have any quote that shows just wearing or holding a weapon is enough to count as "wielding" in 3.5. Do you have any evidence for that? So far the evidence presented is against your claims.

----------


## loky1109

> You can stack a maximum of 2 and that means you take TWF penalties.


Well, I could agree about "maximum 2", but not about penalties.
There is example somewhere (can't remember where) about Two Weapon Defense, Double Weapon and Charge.
When you charge with DW, you could choose use it as Two-Handed weapon and get more damage from 1.5*Str and 2*PA, or could choose use it as One-Handed and you get extra AC from TWD. Without any penalties. You even could use off-hand side of your DW, if you want get benefit of Weapon Finesse. Still without penalty. 




> Which further means, you can sole use them to make AoO.


Here I don't agree, too. Yes, 3.5 if permission based, but not only. There is general rule, if some action isn't in list of actions in PHB - it is standard action. Unless it's too stupide to be standard.

----------


## Drelua

You haven't proven anything gruftzwerg, the rules you quoted do not say what you're saying they do. I'm not going to continue to rehash that, I'll just say I disagree with your reading and leave it at that.

I will ask you this, though. If you believe TWF rules give you permission to wield a second weapon, and that this is only possible if you explicitly have permission to do so, then where are you given permission to wield a single weapon? The ability to wield weapons is a function of reality, where it's possible to wield multiple weapons, not something you can only do if explicitly given permission.

----------


## Darg

> Defending requires you to "wield" the weapon to benefit from its effect.


No, it does not. Your definition requires the weapon's use. However, the defending property does not require the weapon to be used in order to benefit from the effect.




> As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapons enhancement bonus *at the start of his turn before using* the weapon


At the start of the turn, BEFORE using the weapon. Not "WHEN using the weapon."




> I've shown that the TWF come into play when you "wield" a "second" weapon (doesn't matter if you hold it in your "other hand" or if you wear em like armor spikes, it's about the "TWF off hand" designation here).
> 
> This is a proof that the TWF rules apply when you "wield a second weapon". The rule explains what happens if you "wield a second weapon". They give you permission to optionally "wield a second weapon". You can't deny that.


No, they do not. They only come into play when you are wielding a second weapon and CHOOSE to benefit from the extra attack. It does not declare that anytime you are wielding two weapons you must take the extra attack and penalties. It's a special attack for a reason. It's optional.




> Can you show me your proof by the rules that you can "wield" more weapons?


Multiweapon fighting exists and monk FoB explicitly states you can alternate between any number of weapons.




> 1. The TWF rules handle the situation when you "wield a second weapon in your off hand". Can you show me any rules that handle the situation to "wield more weapons". Burden of proof in on you here. I have proven that we have rules that handle the situation to "wield a 2nd weapon". As such, the rules give you the permission to the option to "wield 2 weapons". Without the TWF rules, you couldn't wield 2 weapons.


TWF rules only apply if you choose to benefit from the extra attack, period. You can choose not to benefit from the extra attack. You can choose to attack with a double weapon as a one handed weapon without the extra attack.




> 2a. I assume you ain't arguing that Armor Spikes  (when using it together with other weapons) bypass the TWF rules because you don't use your off hand. 
> The TWF rules apply as soon as you "wield a second weapon in your off hand".


Again, this doesn't apply because they give you the option.




> 2b. At the same time I assume that you don't automatically "wield" your armor spikes just because you wear em.
> To "wield" your armor spikes you need to designate it either as a single weapon used, or rely on the TWF rules.
> I mean, otherwise you are constantly forced to use it as off hand weapon


The problem is that you're making the assumption that wielding means to attack with a weapon, however the rules never declare as much. In real life you can wield a weapon without firing a shot or swinging a sword. Brandishing is as much a "use" of a weapon as trying for the kill is. Wielding a weapon is much more broad than you think it is.




> 3. I have given you proof that "wielding" is used in conjunction with using the weapon for (TWF) attacks. Can you show any rules where "wielding" is used for a mechanical state outside of "attacks". Do you have any quote that shows just wearing or holding a weapon is enough to count as "wielding" in 3.5. Do you have any evidence for that? So far the evidence presented is against your claims.


Wielding is a state of readiness or action. Again, the TWF rules don't require their use when wielding a second weapon. They give you the option to benefit from them if certain criteria are met. So far you have yet to present actual evidence of what the rules say wielding is.

----------


## Gnaeus

Personally, I agree with Gruftzwerg. Primarily from a "which rules interpretation generates a bizarre outcome, thats the one we avoid" perspective. The negative outcome here being that defending weapons are stupid because every remotely optimized character has a set of +5 defending armor spikes. Which is a thing I cannot imagine anyone intended, have never seen in an adventure, or the literature.

----------


## Darg

> Personally, I agree with Gruftzwerg. Primarily from a "which rules interpretation generates a bizarre outcome, thats the one we avoid" perspective. The negative outcome here being that defending weapons are stupid because every remotely optimized character has a set of +5 defending armor spikes. Which is a thing I cannot imagine anyone intended, have never seen in an adventure, or the literature.


Even then it's easily exploitable for characters with more than 2 arms as they can still wield these weapons. The difference is that casters now have easier access to the exploitation than the martials. And it's not actually all that easy to get that many wielded weapons on a core character all increased to +5 with defending. At cheapest you get a +1 defending weapon and get an extra +1 at level 8 and every for levels later ending at +5 at 20. At most expensive you spend 10% of your WBL at 20 devoting a weapon to it.

If you really want it nerfed, instead of justifying it with arbitrary and unsupported claims it's just better to simply make it so that the ability simply can't stack with itself. Fixes the problem in all cases instead of the arbitrary fixation on 2 armed players.

----------


## Drelua

Yeah, there's easier ways to nerf defending. I'm just realizing now this may have been a houserule from my first DM, but I always thought you had to attack with a defending weapon to benefit from it. It does say "before using the weapon" so it's not an unreasonable interpretation that they meant before attacking with it, and that you have to actually be going to attack with it to benefit from it.

I don't agree that any remotely optimized character has +5 defending armor spikes, there's cheaper ways to boost your AC that you don't have to wait until you get a turn to activate, so maybe every remotely optimized character above a certain level, but that would be a fairly high level. Even at level 16, 72k is more than a quarter of your wealth. If you already have +5 armor, +5 ring of protection, and a +5 amulet of natural armor, which are cheaper and active when you're flat-footed, then that's 197k you've spent just on your AC. I can't see that being affordable before like level 18, going by standard WBL.

I also think creating a main-hand/off-hand rule that isn't supported by any rules text does create other problems and bizarre outcomes, like restrictions on which weapons a character can make AoOs with, and trained and experienced combatants not being able to attack with the knife that's in their hand because they chose to be wielding their sword and armor spikes this turn. "I would stab this zombie with my knife, but I just punched a skeleton with the gauntlet on that hand, so I couldn't possibly use the knife." If you want to create this house rule go ahead I guess, but I am certain it is not RAW.

----------


## tyckspoon

> I don't agree that any remotely optimized character has +5 defending armor spikes, there's cheaper ways to boost your AC that you don't have to wait until you get a turn to activate, so maybe every remotely optimized character above a certain level, but that would be a fairly high level. Even at level 16, 72k is more than a quarter of your wealth. If you already have +5 armor, +5 ring of protection, and a +5 amulet of natural armor, which are cheaper and active when you're flat-footed, then that's 197k you've spent just on your AC. I can't see that being affordable before like level 18, going by standard WBL.


Anybody who is 'optimizing' is not paying for +5 weapons. You have somebody throw a caster-level boosted Greater Magic Weapon with a Lesser Rod of Chain metamagic, obviously >.>

----------


## Drelua

> Anybody who is 'optimizing' is not paying for +5 weapons. You have somebody throw a caster-level boosted Greater Magic Weapon with a Lesser Rod of Chain metamagic, obviously >.>


Fair enough, though I think that's getting a little beyond 'any remotely optimized character.' I think at most levels, it takes some fairly heavy optimization to get your CL up to 20.

----------


## Fizban

This was just going to be a PM, but it got long enough I figured I might as well post it properly, it's not like I have to hang around if I don't want to.

I just popped back to the forum having heard about WotC's attempts to revoke the OGL etc (thread at top of page as expected), and don't really feel like actually getting into anything, but I had to give some sort of response/acknowledgement of your thread. Because part of my "I barely even want to talk to anyone around here anymore why even bother" includes. . . posting a thread about how Mage Armor is OP and immediately being shouted down by people simultaneously claiming that +4 AC isn't actually important and also you can't take it away because that wouldn't be fair, somehow. Or at least that's how it felt and I remembered it. Link is here if you're interested.

Well looking back, it seems I was trying to focus more on my discovery of _why_ Mage Armor being OP was a problem from a mechanical gameflow standpoint which people didn't care about, rather than just rehashing what should be the obvious fact that it _is_ OP. Because I'd already had that argument too many times I guess.

I see you mentioning on page 2 that the problem is characters being unhittable making the game less fun, and I would suggest the problem there is the removal of the AC gap: One or two characters being unhittable while the others are squishy is a tactical game to play, but when the roles originally designated as squishy have the same AC as the tanks, everyone is equally unhittable (or hittable after the monsters are op'd). The biggest problem with (non-shapeshifting etc) Mage Armor tank builds is less the basic Mage Armor, and more the fact that there's a PrC that gives +5 AC over 5 levels when the very best non-magic versions are maybe +3/5, except it's actually +10/5 levels because it can apply to 2 spells, and one of those spells gives another +4-8 more than Mage Armor. Or in other words, the exact same reason anything other broken combo is broken.

As for your first post, re: shapeshifters and animal companions, the problem there is that what little balancing if any was done for those almost certainly did not include barding- we have the reports that Wild Shape was never used for anything other than small animal scouting, and I haven't seen any "animal companions" (which were normal animals you were not "entitled" to) in any of the statblocks listed as playtest or preconstructed characters. And if Mage Armor is "okay" because it "just replaces light armor," how can it be okay for things that aren't supposed to wear armor? As I point out whenever someone recommends char-op'ing monsters, just because you can give it armor/weapons/etc for "free" doesn't mean you haven't massively changed the power of something. 

So yes, Mage Armor is OP. It provides a higher bonus than (almost) any other AC spell, at a lower (the lowest possible) level, for longer, and the primary drawback is deliberately chosen so that it doesn't apply to the people who would most want to use it, the exact opposite of a balancing drawback. It blatantly fails the most basic of tests for OP-ness given in the DMG itself, persisting as continuously grandfathered in versions of an old spell from a time when the game was far different. In 3.x, especially when combined with the greater canon of work, it will drastically narrow if not completely destroy the AC gap that drives the most basic tactical gameplay of a game based on tactical combat. And it combines further with huge swathes of the game which are known to have been poorly or not at all playtested and balanced. (And all of these apply to the Shield spell equally or more).


The simplest fix is to just accept all of that and get rid of Mage Armor. Ask yourself and search for the true reason you're resistant to doing so, and if you don't find anything better than "because it's a published spell," you have your answer.Otherwise you can start by reducing the bonus, +2 is actually comparable to the other AC boosting spells- and don't go giving it free scaling either, it's already frontloaded in duration. . .And you could reduce the duration- in fact if you make Mage Armor a +4 min/level and get rid of "Shield" for being a redundant duplicate, you'd solve the second problem as well.You could increase the level, but this only pushes the problem further back. Spell slots of around -2 below maximum start being considered cheap spam/buff slots, so if Mage Armor is 3rd it just means it's not in common use until around EC9. The only way to push it back to the endgame is to actually push it back to endgame, and while there are in fact other late-game spells where +4 AC is considered huge, because it _is_ huge in a d20 system, the pushback problem of people who know that the published version was 1st level means it's far easier to just remove the spell entirely and not allow anything that can be recognized as "this DM hates Mage Armor so much they made it 7th level"- no new magical force armor spells, no magical force armor at all.You could give it spell failure: planning to get hit should not be a first resort of a non-martial character, it should be a last resort, and a big AC bonus that is least detrimental when you're already out of spells and on plan C+ fits that. Even better, unlike the various combos for removing spell failure from actual armor at varying costs, such a modified version of the spell would have no such build-free ways of removing it.For shapeshifting and companion problems, make it only apply to humanoid shaped creatures of Large or smaller, or even Medium or smaller size.And of course combining the last few, you could make it an _actual_ conjuration, which conjures armor. A spell that conjures a Chain Shirt on someone keeps all the penalties without whining about perfect magical force being anything less than perfect. A physical object of a standard shape no greater than a standard size would never suggest that the same effect should apply to anything else.Obviously you make the same changes to any other variants you want to keep in the game.

How to fix the barding problem? Once again, there really isn't one. Even if you've limited all shapeshifting and pets to specifically chosen and vetted (and even separate) lists to ensure that they're always balanced, you will always have the problem that some players expect their big animal/monster/etc shapeshifting/pet/summon to stand on its own stats because duh, it's a monster!- and other players will expect that any creature can have armor strapped to it because that's how physics works and they love upgrading things and want to put armor on their stuff. These are two mutually exclusive viewpoints when it come to game balance: unless you make two versions of every list, one with creatures that are not allowed armor and one with creatures that are only usable when they _have_ armor, and that's just getting ridiculous if you ask me*.

So we come back to the rule of +2: unless a creature entry specifically says that type of creature wears armor, barding can never provide more than +2. That's essentially the designated number for "significant enough to matter on a d20 without breaking the d20 system." This may or may not include enhancement bonus, depending on how you're expecting WBL to interact with these things, since enhancement is expected to go up for everyone with WBL.

*Edit: actually come to think of it, Druid already has the perfect excuse, don't they: the class where you're not allowed to use metal because it's ikcy-not-natural-enough, can support a restriction where you aren't allowed to put armor on your animal companions because they don't naturally wear armor. It's uncomfortable (or outright harmful over time) and just wrong because reasons, and it doesn't work with Wild Shape for the same because reasons. Other classes without such fluff restrictions have their warmount/warbeast/etc tables calibrated assuming a certain amount of armor, set at whatever middle point between "realism" and rules-functional you desire, and the two types of players can be directed to appropriate versions of the class feature.

----------


## pabelfly

> This was just going to be a PM, but it got long enough I figured I might as well post it properly, it's not like I have to hang around if I don't want to.
> 
> I just popped back to the forum having heard about WotC's attempts to revoke the OGL etc (thread at top of page as expected), and don't really feel like actually getting into anything, but I had to give some sort of response/acknowledgement of your thread. Because part of my "I barely even want to talk to anyone around here anymore why even bother" includes. . . posting a thread about how Mage Armor is OP and immediately being shouted down by people simultaneously claiming that +4 AC isn't actually important and also you can't take it away because that wouldn't be fair, somehow. Or at least that's how it felt and I remembered it. Link is here if you're interested.
> 
> Well looking back, it seems I was trying to focus more on my discovery of _why_ Mage Armor being OP was a problem from a mechanical gameflow standpoint which people didn't care about, rather than just rehashing what should be the obvious fact that it _is_ OP. Because I'd already had that argument too many times I guess.
> 
> I see you mentioning on page 2 that the problem is characters being unhittable making the game less fun, and I would suggest the problem there is the removal of the AC gap: One or two characters being unhittable while the others are squishy is a tactical game to play, but when the roles originally designated as squishy have the same AC as the tanks, everyone is equally unhittable (or hittable after the monsters are op'd). The biggest problem with (non-shapeshifting etc) Mage Armor tank builds is less the basic Mage Armor, and more the fact that there's a PrC that gives +5 AC over 5 levels when the very best non-magic versions are maybe +3/5, except it's actually +10/5 levels because it can apply to 2 spells, and one of those spells gives another +4-8 more than Mage Armor. Or in other words, the exact same reason anything other broken combo is broken.
> 
> As for your first post, re: shapeshifters and animal companions, the problem there is that what little balancing if any was done for those almost certainly did not include barding- we have the reports that Wild Shape was never used for anything other than small animal scouting, and I haven't seen any "animal companions" (which were normal animals you were not "entitled" to) in any of the statblocks listed as playtest or preconstructed characters. And if Mage Armor is "okay" because it "just replaces light armor," how can it be okay for things that aren't supposed to wear armor? As I point out whenever someone recommends char-op'ing monsters, just because you can give it armor/weapons/etc for "free" doesn't mean you haven't massively changed the power of something. 
> ...


I think this comes from different expectations of what an arcane mage is, and what role it is supposed to play. You'd like a mage to be a glass cannon - powerful and fragile, which is understandable. Other people don't mind a character that is weak but uses part of its magic ability to bolster its defenses.

Abjurant Champion is pretty OP - it turns what should be a +4 AC bonus into a +9 AC bonus, more that doubling its effectiveness, the class is trivially easy to enter, and even manages to give full BAB and full caster progression to boot. Maybe that's the problem here?

Lastly, a regular mage can get regular 4 AC armor or better, with no arcane spell failure with relatively little cost, even if we banned Mage Armor. By sixth or seventh level, we could get a studded leather shirt with Twilight enchantment to get +4 AC armor with no ASF. At higher levels we can get an even more AC bonus if we want to, using exotic materials like Mithral or Blended Quartz , other armor modifiers like Thistledown Suit or Githcraft to reduce ASF even further, not to mention dips or the like that grant ASF reduction, and that's by no means an exhaustive list.

So, I'm not sure how you're going to solve your problem of mages having high AC. If you ban the spell, you'll only find players will find other ways to solve the problem.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Well, I could agree about "maximum 2", but not about penalties.
> There is example somewhere (can't remember where) about Two Weapon Defense, Double Weapon and Charge.
> When you charge with DW, you could choose use it as Two-Handed weapon and get more damage from 1.5*Str and 2*PA, or could choose use it as One-Handed and you get extra AC from TWD. Without any penalties. You even could use off-hand side of your DW, if you want get benefit of Weapon Finesse. Still without penalty.


Imho that is due to the specific nature of a double weapon I guess. You are "wielding" a (single) weapon, even if you don't "wield" both ends. With that "exploit" you could "wield" 3 defending enchantments (e.g. use one side of the double weapon as mainhand and armor spikes as offhand).
But double weapons are an exception to the general rules by itself (like MWF). It's not the norm. While with a standard action you could sole attack with one end of the weapon, it could still be either end. Due to this, you could say that you wield both ends of the single (double-) weapon, even with just a single attack.





> Here I don't agree, too. Yes, 3.5 if permission based, but not only. There is general rule, if some action isn't in list of actions in PHB - it is standard action. Unless it's too stupide to be standard.


Where did you get that one from? Imho you are mixing up rules here. We have specific rules for abilities and magic items that they default to standard actions, but that ain't a general rule for all possible actions.
As such, unless otherwise mentioned, your DM sets the action needed if PHB doesn't give an answer for a specific action taken.
Example: You are trying to figure out what a mechanical machine's purpose it. Depending on the size and complexity of the machine, you DM might require anything from a free action + multiple hours/days. There is no rule that would force the DM into a standard action here.
Imho I don't see any rule that would affect our situation here.







> You haven't proven anything gruftzwerg, the rules you quoted do not say what you're saying they do. I'm not going to continue to rehash that, I'll just say I disagree with your reading and leave it at that.
> 
> I will ask you this, though. If you believe TWF rules give you permission to wield a second weapon, and that this is only possible if you explicitly have permission to do so, then where are you given permission to wield a single weapon? The ability to wield weapons is a function of reality, where it's possible to wield multiple weapons, not something you can only do if explicitly given permission.


Sorry, but I at least tried to give evidence how "wield" is used in 3.5 language, which is still closer to a prove than what you do. Rant about my interpretation without any quote based arguments.

And yeah, the TWF give you the permission to wield/use a 2nd weapon. Do I really need to prove that to you? Really? (I feel a bit trolled here.. sorry, no offense. just how I feel..)
The TWF rules picture the possible situation that you "wield a 2nd weapon in your off hand" and therefore give you the permission that this is a legal option. Thus it allows you to "wield a 2nd weapon in your off hand".
I could have also explained that the Power Attack rules give you the permission to "power attack". Really... I get a headache from these kind of questions...


*__________________________________________________  ________________________________________
@everybody:
If you have access to a PHB pdf file, search (CTRL+F) for "wield" and look at the results. You'll sole find example about people using weapons (or spells..), not just holding em. If you should find a quote that suggests otherwise, pls show it.
__________________________________________________  ________________________________________*





> No, it does not. Your definition requires the weapon's use. However, the defending property does not require the weapon to be used in order to benefit from the effect.


To wield something, you need to show the intent to *use* it. This is presented by the 3.5 mechanics when you designate the weapons you "intent to use" for the attack actions. If you don't intent to use attack actions with the weapon, you don't show that you "intent to use it".






> At the start of the turn, BEFORE using the weapon. Not "WHEN using the weapon."


Yeah at the start of the turn, when you designate the weapon/s you intend to use..
I don't see any other possible moment technically. Sorry, but I don't get it if this should have proved something.






> No, they do not. They only come into play when you are wielding a second weapon and CHOOSE to benefit from the extra attack. It does not declare that anytime you are wielding two weapons you must take the extra attack and penalties. It's a special attack for a reason. It's optional.


Sine "wielding" requires you to show your intent to use, this is exactly what the Attack and TWF rules do. You assign the weapons that you intent to wield for attacking (not just merely holding/wearing it).






> Multiweapon fighting exists and monk FoB explicitly states you can alternate between any number of weapons.


Specific exception, not the norm. Thanks for confirming that you need to rely on specific exceptions to wield more than 2 weapons. That is what I've been saying all the time. (did we really agree here or did I misinterpret your statement?^^)





> TWF rules only apply if you choose to benefit from the extra attack, period. You can choose not to benefit from the extra attack. You can choose to attack with a double weapon as a one handed weapon without the extra attack.


Never denied that. I sole say that if you want to benefit from "defending", that you need to "wield" a weapon. And "wielding" requires you to show that you intent to use it, not just holding/wearing the weapon. Most N/PC should be able to tell if you just hold/wear a weapon, or if you show your intent to use it. The latter requires you to prepare for an "Attack" (or Full Attack), by designating your weapons.




> Again, this doesn't apply because they give you the option.


See above. If you want to profit from 2 defending weapons, you are relying on the TWF rules. Nobody forces you to TWF (to profit from 2 defending weapons). It's your free choice.
But you can't argue that you wield more than 2 by the *general rules* unless you can provide any evidence for it. Exceptions exist, I'm not denying that.





> The problem is that you're making the assumption that wielding means to attack with a weapon, however the rules never declare as much. In real life you can wield a weapon without firing a shot or swinging a sword. Brandishing is as much a "use" of a weapon as trying for the kill is. Wielding a weapon is much more broad than you think it is.


If you take the base definition of "wield" and put it into 3.5 context that is the sole logical interpretation.
As said above. Look up "wield" in the PHB and see in which ways it is used by the authors. Show me any prove that you can "wield" a weapon by just merely holding or equipping a weapon. The burden of proof is on you here, not me. You are arguing here without any rule evidence at all. I try at least to show how 3.5 used the word "wield" and how "wield" requires more from you than just "holding" or "wearing" a weapon.





> Wielding is a state of readiness or action. Again, the TWF rules don't require their use when wielding a second weapon. They give you the option to benefit from them if certain criteria are met. So far you have yet to present actual evidence of what the rules say wielding is.


Sorry but that is exactly what the TWF require from you to be able to profit from the TWF rules:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, .." is the condition under which you may use the TWF rules.
"Wielding" reflects the "readiness for an *action*".
By giving you the option to "wield a 2nd weapon in you offhand", you have gained the permission to do so. Show me any *general rule* that allows you to wield more weapons.




> Even then it's easily exploitable for characters with more than 2 arms as they can still wield these weapons. The difference is that casters now have easier access to the exploitation than the martials. And it's not actually all that easy to get that many wielded weapons on a core character all increased to +5 with defending. At cheapest you get a +1 defending weapon and get an extra +1 at level 8 and every for levels later ending at +5 at 20. At most expensive you spend 10% of your WBL at 20 devoting a weapon to it.
> 
> If you really want it nerfed, instead of justifying it with arbitrary and unsupported claims it's just better to simply make it so that the ability simply can't stack with itself. Fixes the problem in all cases instead of the arbitrary fixation on 2 armed players.


Specific exception to the general rules for TWF exist. I never denied that. My claims where aimed sole at the general rules.
We are talking about 3.5 here. I mean we have for almost anything an exception that someone will pull out from some obscure source, no matter what the topic is. But I'm talking about "wielding weapons" under the GENERAL RULES here.






> *snip*


I agree with many points you make.
As I said in the beginning, the underlying question here is "Is AC optimization to much for your table/DM to handle?".
Or as the OP replied, that it would "take a lot of the fun away".

To get back to "Mage Armor":
Imho Mage Armor by itself ain't OP nor gamebreaking. That's like saying that "Power Attack" is to OP (by itself). Those things sole get OP when they are used "*as part*" of an optimization goal and if the "optimizer" takes it to far and the rest of the table can't handle the outcome (including that it might just get to boring/annoying for the others).

From an objective point of view imho Mage Armor is balanced.
It's +4 AC at lvl 1 for a limited duration that requires daily resources. Sure the limitation and resource requirement may become nearly irrelevant at some point (at higher lvls), but they are still there. For the most part, the spell by itself it OK from a balancing point of view.

The problem here is "optimization"!
The OP's table needs to decide what kind of optimization and which amount of optimization is fine for the current adventure/campaign. Nerfing stuff individually is to time consuming and bears the risk of causing problems at other parts of the game. It's far better to discuss "optimization" at your table and to come to some kind of gentleman's agreement. Because that is something that you can do occasionally and the required changes for that aren't time consuming. (on the other hand, rule/optimization discussions can get very lengthy too^^)

----------


## Drelua

"Without any quote based arguments?" Seriously? I've provided more quotes than you have, and when you did it was one I had already shown, so that's unfair. I'll say one last time, by my reading as well as Darg's, if I'm understanding them correctly, TWF rules do not give permission to wield a second weapon. 

Any time the basic rules for a thing you can do are presented, they begin by saying something like "you can try to trip someone as an unarmed melee attack." Not "if you are trying to trip someone." Because the latter phrase does not grant permission to trip, it is built on the assumption that you can. Improved Trip does use very similar language in the second paragraph of it's benefit section, saying "if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent..." Like the first line of TWF rules on PHB 160, this is an if/then statement. If doing x, you can do y. Not you may do x, that is not how it's phrased.

And I don't have access to a PHB pdf, but a google search did turn up Holy, and other alignment weapon properties, which use "wield" and "in hand" interchangeably. 


> It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.


 This seems to contradict the idea that a weapon can be in the hand but not wielded, since that would make this sentence contradict itself. If it could be "no longer wielded" while still "in hand," then this sentence would both say that in that situation the negative level remains, but also that it disappears. You did ask for examples of 'wielding' that didn't fit what you were saying, so there you go. Maybe search the DMG if you have a pdf of that.

It's very clear we aren't going to convince each other at this point, we look at the same text and read it in completely different ways so I doubt we'll ever agree on this, and that's fine. But I would appreciate if you wouldn't say I wasn't making a quote based argument when I have, more than once.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> "Without any quote based arguments?" Seriously? I've provided more quotes than you have, and when you did it was one I had already shown, so that's unfair. I'll say one last time, by my reading as well as Darg's, if I'm understanding them correctly, TWF rules do not give permission to wield a second weapon.


I haven't seen any general rule quote so far.
Sorry for being so precise here, but as said, "Exceptions" exist. I haven't seen any quote that gives "general permission" to wield more than 2 weapons so far. Sole specific exceptions.




> Any time the basic rules for a thing you can do are presented, they begin by saying something like "you can try to trip someone as an unarmed melee attack." Not "if you are trying to trip someone." Because the latter phrase does not grant permission to trip, it is built on the assumption that you can. Improved Trip does use very similar language in the second paragraph of it's benefit section, saying "if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent..." Like the first line of TWF rules on PHB 160, this is an if/then statement. If doing x, you can do y. Not you may do x, that is not how it's phrased.


These are optional rules. You don't need to use em if you don't intent to. But that doesn't change that those rules give you the permission for that option in the first place. Without TWF rules, no dual wielding weapons. You are relying on the TWF rules to have the permission to optionally use/wield a 2nd weapon..

Regarding the Trip examples:
"If you are trying to trip someone.."
That is because it is *referring* to the defined "Trip"-action. 
I don't see that the TWF action is "referring" to "wield", since that ain't defined in 3.5
The TWF rules are referring to the possibility that you might wanna "wield a 2nd weapon in you offhand". By providing rules for this possibiltiy, it gives you the permission for this option: "to wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand".
Thus not an equal comprehension imho.





> And I don't have access to a PHB pdf, but a google search did turn up Holy, and other alignment weapon properties, which use "wield" and "in hand" interchangeably.  This seems to contradict the idea that a weapon can be in the hand but not wielded, since that would make this sentence contradict itself. If it could be "no longer wielded" while still "in hand," then this sentence would both say that in that situation the negative level remains, but also that it disappears. You did ask for examples of 'wielding' that didn't fit what you were saying, so there you go. Maybe search the DMG if you have a pdf of that.


Can you pls provide some example quotes? I would happily change my mind if I see the evidence myself (after all I'm an optimizer for forum purposes, so I'm really curious here^^)
And remember that these have to be general rule. Not specific rules nor specific rules making assumptions about general rules.






> It's very clear we aren't going to convince each other at this point, we look at the same text and read it in completely different ways so I doubt we'll ever agree on this, and that's fine. But I would appreciate if you wouldn't say I wasn't making a quote based argument when I have, more than once.


I didn't want to sound rude or mean here. Sorry if I did make that impression. But as said, I want general rule quotes, not specific rules who have the permission to trump general rules by default. I know that there are specific exceptions to wield more than 2 weapons. But I'm talking about the "norm character" here who relies sole on the general rules presented in the PHB, since the Primary Source Rule designates the PHB as source for general rules like in our situation.

Yeah we seem to have very different point of views here. It's not that I don't see where you are coming from, but I just don't agree with that from my RAW point of view. But unless we give these kind of discussions a chance, we would never be able to convince each other about anything.
And while I agree that for the most part the discussion seem to be stagnating, I still think we ALL made some progress here.

Dunno if we will come to a conclusion anytime soon, but there is no need to hurry and heat the discussion up unnecessary. If anyone still wants to provide arguments, I'm still up for it. On the other hand, if you like to step back from the topic for now, we can do that too. Maybe we all need some time to let the discussion sink in and get some new thoughts on that topic.
_________________

Do we have any rule quote (preferring general rules if possible..) where a weapon is wielded but not used? (which would imho be contrary to the base English definition of "wield", but let us ignore that rabbit hole for just a moment).

----------


## Darg

Dismissing an actual example for the broadness of wielding for being too specific is a little much. At this point no amount of proof is going to convince you otherwise and this discussion is simply going to get nowhere.

Did it ever occur to you that it isn't an exception and is simply explaining how it works in context because you don't have to swing a weapon to be considered wielding it?

There is no general rule for wielding. You'll never find it. No one else will find it either. Your claims that TWF covers all cases of wielding is broadening a specific case into generality. It has the header "Two Weapon Fighting" for a reason.

----------


## Drelua

> I haven't seen any general rule quote so far.
> Sorry for being so precise here, but as said, "Exceptions" exist. I haven't seen any quote that gives "general permission" to wield more than 2 weapons so far. Sole specific exceptions.


I don't believe something that is a function of reality requires general permission. There's no rule saying "You can wield 1 weapon" so we defer to reality, where people can effectively use multiple weapons simultaneously.




> These are optional rules. You don't need to use em if you don't intent to. But that doesn't change that those rules give you the permission for that option in the first place. Without TWF rules, no dual wielding weapons. You are relying on the TWF rules to have the permission to optionally use/wield a 2nd weapon..


I'm not sure what you mean by optional rules, do you mean the player has the option not to use them?



> Regarding the Trip examples:
> "If you are trying to trip someone.."
> That is because it is *referring* to the defined "Trip"-action. 
> I don't see that the TWF action is "referring" to "wield", since that ain't defined in 3.5


I was quoting the section defining the trip rules. It's not referring to another defined trip action, it is providing the definition. Without that section there would be no trip combat maneuver. You seem to be saying the TWF section defines wielding a second weapon, so the rules that define the trip action, and any other action I checked, being worded differently was my point. That just isn't how rules define an action. It's not defining wield, it's just using it as a regular word, so we defer to reality.




> Can you pls provide some example quotes? I would happily change my mind if I see the evidence myself (after all I'm an optimizer for forum purposes, so I'm really curious here^^)
> And remember that these have to be general rule. Not specific rules nor specific rules making assumptions about general rules.


What do you mean by a general rule? Again, sincere question, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I was responding directly to when you said:




> If you have access to a PHB pdf file, search (CTRL+F) for "wield" and look at the results. You'll sole find example about people using weapons (or spells..), not just holding em. If you should find a quote that suggests otherwise, pls show it.


It's from the DMG not the PHB, but I believe it suggests otherwise, so I showed it as requested. The quote I included in my last post is from _holy_, but _axiomatic, anarchic_, and _unholy_ use the exact same wording. They use "wielded" and "in hand" interchangeably, which at least shows that if you can only wield 2 weapons, and that wielding your armor spikes and sword could prevent you from simultaneously wielding the dagger in your hand, the person writing those properties didn't know it. The rules don't seem to make a distinction between holding and wielding a weapon. Saying that you can't wield a sword holding it by the tip is what the DM should do, but that's not a rule it's just common sense, and common sense isn't RAW.

Apologies if I over reacted, but saying I wasn't making quote based arguments when I was, is frustrating. I have been providing quotes and page numbers, we just don't interpret them the same way. I haven't presented a general rule on the subject because there isn't one. Light and One-Handed weapons both say they take one hand to wield, and can be wielded in either hand, (PHB 113, "A light weapon is used in one hand," "A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off-hand") so from that it's reasonable to interpret that wielding a weapon in one hand shouldn't prevent your other hand from doing the same. If something occupies one hand, and you have two, then you should be able to use both hands.

There's no rule I've been able to find saying you can wield a first weapon, we're already basing that off reality to an extent, so the rest should also be based on how it is in reality. Lack of a general rule doesn't mean you're right, you're claiming a main-hand/off-hand rule exists so that has to be proven to be true, it doesn't have to be disproven to not be true.

----------


## icefractal

I have to say, I utterly and completely reject "it prevents Defending abuse" as a reason to redefine how "wielding" works.  If you want to change something for balance purposes then just do so!  You're the GM, you have the power, just be honest about it!

This isn't the first time I've seen the "get evil-genie tricky with wording to shut down some (perceived) cheese" strategy advocated, and I have to wonder - who out there actually prefers this (as a player)?  Like if a GM says up front "no long-range teleportation" or "no save-or-die spells", then fine, I can work with that, or decline to play if it's a dealbreaker.  But if they pretend it's allowed, and then make it unusable by "interpretation", that's annoying and deceptive.  Is the point to trick people into playing who'd decline if they knew those things were banned?

----------


## lylsyly

@icefractal +1

I spent 13.5 years in the army. when I was walking thru the woods/snow/desert holding my rifle in my hands was I "holding" it or "wielding" it? Better bloody believe it only took a hot monent to raise and shoot someone!

Now "Is Mage Armor too cheap?" We here don't think so ... And we houseruled it to be an Abjuration Spell so that you CAN use the Abjurant Champion Class abiities with it!!!

----------


## RandomPeasant

> I have to say, I utterly and completely reject "it prevents Defending abuse" as a reason to redefine how "wielding" works.  If you want to change something for balance purposes then just do so!  You're the GM, you have the power, just be honest about it!


Strongly endorsed. Nothing is more frustrating that contorting the rules into incoherence in order to avoid simply admitting things are broken. Especially because your actual goal (creating a balanced version of the thing) is always going to be better-served by simply creating the balanced version of that thing from first principles. Is the way Defending works right now abusable? Absolutely. Is the best fix for that anything to do with "what does it mean to be wielding something"? Absolutely not. Just say "Defending bonuses don't stack" or whatever it is you think is the _right_ rule, not the thing you can get away with pretending is the "real" rule. Doing the latter will always lead to worse rules and a worse game than doing the former.




> This isn't the first time I've seen the "get evil-genie tricky with wording to shut down some (perceived) cheese" strategy advocated, and I have to wonder - who out there actually prefers this (as a player)?


Who prefers it as a _DM_? If someone comes to me and says "actually I can do True Dragon stuff with my DWK because it has age categories and the Dragon type", it seems to me much easier as a DM to shut that down on the basis of "I have established that we interpret the rules on a good-faith basis and change them when they are dumb, that is dumb so I am changing it" than to have to say "I have established that we interpret the rules on strict textualism that argues from competing dictionaries, let me go figure out what 'dragon' and 'type' and 'true' and 'age category' all mean to decide whether this is okay". Presuming good faith is _very useful!_ The reason we don't do it all the time in the real world is that there are sometimes people with opposing interests who cannot be relied on to act in good faith at all times. But why you would choose to play a TTRPG for fun in a situation like that is somewhat beyond me.

----------


## Darg

RAW discussion is for the internet or friendly chat. DM is law is for everywhere else.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Dismissing an actual example for the broadness of wielding for being too specific is a little much. At this point no amount of proof is going to convince you otherwise and this discussion is simply going to get nowhere.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that it isn't an exception and is simply explaining how it works in context because you don't have to swing a weapon to be considered wielding it?
> 
> There is no general rule for wielding. You'll never find it. No one else will find it either. Your claims that TWF covers all cases of wielding is broadening a specific case into generality. It has the header "Two Weapon Fighting" for a reason.


I just follow what the Primary Source Rule (PSR) dictates when I want to compare rules to each other. As such, I have to dismiss anything more specific used for general rule claims:

The PSR says that we have book and topic precedence. What does that mean?
The PHB has supremacy when it comes to the general rules to play the game.
Topic precedence means that each (main/general) topic provides the general rules for its own topic.
Anything more "*specific*" creates its own *subtopic*, which may *trump* the general rules for its *niche*.

A lil example:
1) We have general Attack rules
2) we have more specific Full Attack rules
3) TWF is even more specific
4) ....

I can't take the TWF to make claims for general Attack rules, because over the lil steps there are multiple points where the general rules have been altered and changed. If I want to make general claims about "Attack", I have to provide general Attack quotes and not specific quotes from a subrule or a special ability.

In the early days of 3.5 we did lack access to the Primary Source Rule, since it ain't been printed in any book....
It's hiding at the top of most ERRATA pages...
This caused many problems in the early days, because people where quoting specific stuff to make claims about general rules.

A good example of that is the monk's specific Unarmed Strike ability. Since the special ability is named like the normal "unarmed strike" attack option, people claimed that anybody could enchant his US like a manufactured or natural weapon. But the rules don't work that way. The monk's US is specific and thus changes the general rules sole for its niche here.
Conclusion: I can't use the monk's US as reference to make general US claims.

Same here:
If you provide specific examples (e.g. a specific weapon, or specific attack,...) for "wield", these create always "specific exception" thus have the permission to trumping any possible general rule. Again, you can't use a specific example to make general claims. A specific subtopic doesn't have the permission to make general/global rules. And if you sole rely on the specific example for your argumentation, you can't be sure what the general rules tell and where the specific example did make changes. 

While there are no general rules for "wield" itself, we have general rules for using weapon: the attack rules
And for *using* more than a single weapon, we have the TWF rules.
Since wielding means to show the intent to use a weapon and is multiple times used along the attack rules, we have to follow the rules presented there as general rules.

As 3.5 is permission based, you have to show me the (general) rules that allows you to wield more then 2 weapons.
I can show you that we have general Full Attack and TWF rules that will take care of the situation. And the latter sole gives you permission to optionally "wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand".




> @icefractal +1
> 
> I spent 13.5 years in the army. when I was walking thru the woods/snow/desert holding my rifle in my hands was I "holding" it or "wielding" it? Better bloody believe it only took a hot monent to raise and shoot someone!


Let me try to put your example into 3.5 context:
Since you where prepared for the "hot moment" to raise and shoot someone, I assume that you didn't use double "move actions" each turn.
To be prepared means in 3.5, that you ready an action. That is what you did there in the woods/snow/desert.
Splitting your actions each turn into "move action" and "readying a standard action to attack".
As such, you did designate the weapon that you wanna wield/use for that "readied action".

I still don't see any evidence that you "wield" a weapon just by "holding" it.

Don't get me wrong here, but I assume you didn't run brain-AFK there. You need to concentrate on your surroundings to be prepared. Same in 3.5. You ain't prepared for using something just by holding it. You also need to mentally and maybe even physically (proper combat stance) prepare yourself (= paying the action costs involved).

Or let me just ask this (again no offense here, so pls don't get me wrong here):
"Was all you learned just to "hold" a weapon to be able to use it?
To use a weapon, you need to learn how to "wield" it. "Wielding" is much more than just "holding" a weapon.

As such, in 3.5 you would have been "wielding" your rifle all the time in the woods/... and not just holding it.






> Strongly endorsed. Nothing is more frustrating that contorting the rules into incoherence in order to avoid simply admitting things are broken. Especially because your actual goal (creating a balanced version of the thing) is always going to be better-served by simply creating the balanced version of that thing from first principles. Is the way Defending works right now abusable? Absolutely. Is the best fix for that anything to do with "what does it mean to be wielding something"? Absolutely not. Just say "Defending bonuses don't stack" or whatever it is you think is the _right_ rule, not the thing you can get away with pretending is the "real" rule. Doing the latter will always lead to worse rules and a worse game than doing the former.


"Incoherence" just because I try to prove that there is a mechanical difference between "holding" and "wielding" in 3.5?
Ain't that a bit to harsh?





> Who prefers it as a _DM_? If someone comes to me and says "actually I can do True Dragon stuff with my DWK because it has age categories and the Dragon type", it seems to me much easier as a DM to shut that down on the basis of "I have established that we interpret the rules on a good-faith basis and change them when they are dumb, that is dumb so I am changing it" than to have to say "I have established that we interpret the rules on strict textualism that argues from competing dictionaries, let me go figure out what 'dragon' and 'type' and 'true' and 'age category' all mean to decide whether this is okay". Presuming good faith is _very useful!_ The reason we don't do it all the time in the real world is that there are sometimes people with opposing interests who cannot be relied on to act in good faith at all times. But why you would choose to play a TTRPG for fun in a situation like that is somewhat beyond me.


I am not giving a play advice here. I just want to differentiate between RAW forum responses and those that rely on DM fiat/houserules. Because for the "reader" it ain't always helpful if he sole gets DM fiat/houserules as response or worse if he ain't even know that it is DM fiat/a houserule.
I also don't wanna force anyone to play "that" way. The decision is always up to the DM (and his table to some extend).
If it is possible, the RAW side of things should be always presented along any advice given, so that the "reader" can decide for himself which point of view is the best for his situation/table.

____________________________________

Imho the PSR does imho a good job. Or would you all rather enjoy 3.5 with cross-referencing stuff so that a single class druid may enchant his US like a monk? I hope not^^

----------


## loky1109

> Since wielding means to show the intent to use a weapon


It's just your idea without zero proofs. No, general English definition doesn't count.

----------


## icefractal

> Imho the PSR does imho a good job. Or would you all rather enjoy 3.5 with cross-referencing stuff so that a single class druid may enchant his US like a monk? I hope not^^


Can you unroll that?  I guess you're referring to the "A monks unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" text which Monk has and IUS doesn't?

But what form of enchanting does that open up that a Druid doesn't have?  Craft Arms and Armor?  Assuming you can make your unarmed strike count as masterwork?  Not only can a Druid with a Monk's Belt arguably do the same, but there's the whole "Amulet of Mighty Fists".  Or, Greater Magic Fang.  And to what extent are Druids relying on unarmed strikes vs natural weapons anyway?  It just doesn't sound like a big deal, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> It's just your idea without zero proofs. No, general English definition doesn't count.


How are you able to read the core rules in the English language without using the base definition of the undefined words the rules contain? Without defaulting to the English language you can't interpret any rule at all..

If a word in rule text is undefined, you fall back to the normal definition that the language provides. This ain't just a 3.5 specific thing. This is true for any kind of rule text that uses defined keywords. Even the laws written anywhere work on the same principle. You always fall back to the normal definition of a word in the used language, when no specific definition (for laws) is given. 
You couldn't even generate a character in 3.5 without relying on general definitions of words in the English language (assuming you have an English handbook).






> Can you unroll that?  I guess you're referring to the "A monks unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" text which Monk has and IUS doesn't?
> 
> But what form of enchanting does that open up that a Druid doesn't have?  Craft Arms and Armor?  Assuming you can make your unarmed strike count as masterwork?  Not only can a Druid with a Monk's Belt arguably do the same, but there's the whole "Amulet of Mighty Fists".  Or, Greater Magic Fang.  And to what extent are Druids relying on unarmed strikes vs natural weapons anyway?  It just doesn't sound like a big deal, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning.


That was just one example, and not even any gamebreaking one.

Yeah, the quote you posted is what I was referring to.

The druid would gain the option to buff his US  both in his normal humanoid form and wild shape form. Greater Magic Fang would also buff his humanoid form. Just some minor examples. He could also use any Natural Attack enhancing other spell the druid has access to in his normal form (and the druid has a bunch of things that alter natural attacks IIRC, but don't quote me on that^^).

A monk's belt does not the same. The belt sole gives your the *unarmed "damage"* (!) of a monk, not the *monk's US ability*. Thus, the belt doesn't give you the special monk's US interactions with spells and effects.
Either you have the monk's US ability (from any source that provides it) or you don't. The belt doesn't change that. (neither does the Monk's Tattoo do that, since it works like the belt). 

Let me try to give maybe better examples then the belt and the druid, why the PSR is so important:

1. The invisibility spell redefines what counts as an attack for its own purpose (being more specific than the general rules here and thus getting a green pass from the PSR). But what it can't do is to alter the general rules for attacking outside of its niche. And yeah, on the old wizard 3.5 board there have been people trying to argue that the spell does alter the definition of "Attack" on a general/global level...

2. Complete Warrior (and another book that I always forget...) makes the assumption about PRC, that if you loose any PRC requirements later on, that you also loose your PRC abilities and may not further progress the PRC (until you regain the requirements). The Primary Source Rule says that the general PRC rules are handled by the DMG. And the PRC rules in the DMG don't back up that statement and sole requires you to meet the requirements when you enter the very first level of a PRC. This is also proven by the Dragon Disciple PRC in the DMG. The DD prc has a capstone ability that would theoretically disqualify itself from its requirements. IF we wouldn't have the PSR, the DD would become dysfunctional due the statement in Complete Warrior.
But since the wording in Complete Warrior doesn't try to establish specific rules for the book itself and makes wrong assumptions about the general PRC rules, the PRS rules against it.

3. On older 3.5 related forum posts (not sole this board), you'll find people arguing about "size stacking". The argument was that some spells/abilities don't mention "that it may not stack with other things" and argue that this means that it can be stacked. The problem here is that we have "Stacking" rules in 3.5. It is defined what you may stack. And since 3.5 is permission based, this means anything not mentioned there has no permission at all to stack.
"Size" doesn't get mentioned in the stacking rules, thus you lack the permission to stack em.
This means that a size altering effect can at best remind you that size effects don't stack. But it doesn't need to remind of that, because the general rules didn't allow it in the first place.
The people who had this misconception have been the same people trying to discredit the FAQ (since it also rules against size stacking) for not being RAW... (the FAQ has some lil RAW issues, but not as much as people back then wanted to make you believe it was).

The underlying mechanics of the Primary Source Rule can be found anywhere in real life. Be it any kind of rules, laws or even (program) code. They all create a hierarchy (more or less, depending on the complexity of the topic). All can work with "(re-)defined" keywords and fall back to the general definition of the language used if it ain't a defined keyword.
The 3.5 problem with the PSR is, that it is hidden in the ERRATAs. The very first years the players didn't know that the rules have been intended with the PSR in mind. And if you wasn't one who had internet back then *and* have been online active with 3.5 related stuff, you never even heard of the ERRATA (while I had internet back then, I missed the ERRATA for a long time until I noticed them...). We are still feeling some of the aftereffects of these misconception now imho (the myth how bad the FAQ is, is one of them).

________________________

May I kindly ask: How many years did you live under the misconception that you "know the rules", while not knowing the most important rule: the "Primary Source Rule", that handles all rule conflicts? 
For me it was something between 5-10years of 3.5 play until I notice the PRS and the ERRATA...
Enough time to build up many misconceptions which I'm still trying to solve nowadays... about 10-15 years later..
Thx @ WotC for hiding the PSR in the ERRATA and causing more debates than anything else in my life...

----------


## loky1109

Told you again. There are words and there are terms. General definitions are not applicable in the case of terms. At all. General definitions are too broad, terms should have precise definitions.




> If a word in rule text is undefined, you fall back to the normal definition that the language provides.


If a term in rule text is undefined, you could do nothing, only guess. It's authors' mistake. Unsolvable.
If you take colloquial definition and base on it some assumptions, you may not call it RAW or finally correct, even if your logical structure is flawless. Because you cannot say this about the very base.

Also I should say, I think the Primary Source Rule for D&D 3.5 ruleset is bad a idea itself. This rule can't work correctly without regular retrospective corrections for every previous books with every new book.




> The underlying mechanics of the Primary Source Rule can be found anywhere in real life. Be it any kind of rules, laws or even (program) code.


If D&D 3.5 rules was a code it would be easier to wrote new than to fix this. 




> All can work with "(re-)defined" keywords and fall back to the general definition of the language used if it ain't a defined keyword.


No. If some word in code isn't a defined keyword program fails.




> How many years did you live under the misconception that you "know the rules", while not knowing the most important rule: the "Primary Source Rule", that handles all rule conflicts?


I still "live under the misconception that you "know the rules", while not knowing the most important rule: the "Primary Source Rule", that handles all rule conflicts." PSR doesn't work for D&D 3.5. Saying "work" I mean "make things better and easier to understand". Opposite in some cases it makes rules worse. For example PrC and CW. It'd be much better for all ruleset if this rule updated all rules about PrC.

I'm strongly ignoring PSR.

----------


## Darg

And in this case wield is not a term but a word to say its implied meaning. What Gruftzwerg continues to fail to show is context within the rules that limit its meaning for use in the rules. Everything so far pointed to in the rules does not limit the scope of definition by any stretch of the imagination.

----------


## icefractal

> The underlying mechanics of the Primary Source Rule can be found anywhere in real life. Be it any kind of rules, laws or even (program) code. They all create a hierarchy (more or less, depending on the complexity of the topic).


Funny you should mention that, because from a programming POV the PSR probably shouldn't pass a code review.  

Why?  Because it makes (in some cases) the first definition of something the primary source which is impossible to override.  That's like a config system which overrides newer versions with older versions and has no way to remove the older versions from the server.  It's a moot point now since the system is no longer being updated, but the fact that 2007 WotC was bound by what 2003 WotC decided with no official way to change it is a major flaw with the PSR.

I do understand the instinct of "hands off my combo!" which would make that immutability a good thing.  I've felt it too.  But it's not really a good thing for the game as a whole.  And again, moot now anyway.

And that's why I feel like the PSR is a lot less important in the present.  We don't need to speculate "what if a future book did ___?" because there will be no future books.  There are a finite number of conflicts that the PSR covers, and it's a small enough number that a gaming group can just decide for each one which version suits them better.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Told you again. There are words and there are terms. General definitions are not applicable in the case of terms. At all. General definitions are too broad, terms should have precise definitions.
> 
> If a term in rule text is undefined, you could do nothing, only guess. It's authors' mistake. Unsolvable.
> If you take colloquial definition and base on it some assumptions, you may not call it RAW or finally correct, even if your logical structure is flawless. Because you cannot say this about the very base.


It would be a "3.5 specific term" if it would have a "3.5 specific definition". Since it lacks that, RAW falls back to the general English definition. There is no "but, if or when" here possible. Anything else is not RAW but is making the assumption (= not RAW) that the authors have failed to define "wield".
But I don't need to assume that the author has failed, to get to a functional and imho more balanced interpretation of what is presented by RAW. So imho, I don't see the demand that "wield" has had to be intended as "term" by the authors. 

You can argue that the intentions (RAI) of the authors was something else. And as long as you just treat it as RAI, I don't have any problem with it (heck, I might rule even the same way at my table).
But that doesn't change that RAW dictates something else.




> Also I should say, I think the Primary Source Rule for D&D 3.5 ruleset is bad a idea itself. This rule can't work correctly without regular retrospective corrections for every previous books with every new book.


Why would that be? I have a fully functional and imho balanced RAW interpretation. The sole thing that is breaking here is your interpretation of "wield" that "holding" or just "wearing" weapons is enough (if we follow my interpretation of the rule text by RAW).

And as said, the Primary Source Rule ain't something 3.5 specific. Laws work on the same principles. You have redefined key words for laws too. Laws are also split into topic, and there are even topic specific defined terms. Laws also rely on hierarchy (e.g international laws that you country has joined/signed at some point > national laws > traffic laws > highway/autobahn traffic laws >...). As such it follows the same underlying mechanics as PSR uses with "topic and book precedence"). Laws also create more specific topics and those can trump more general made laws. "e.g. you get some money for having children, but if you are a single parent, you might get more." = Specific Trumps General, since a more specific topic (single parent) was created, it may trump the general rule for that topic.




> If D&D 3.5 rules was a code it would be easier to wrote new than to fix this. 
> 
> 
> No. If some word in code isn't a defined keyword program fails.


If you have programmed yourself, you should know what I mean when I say: *"Hello World"*
The most simple code that most programmers get taught first. It lets you display "normal words". Those "normal words" are a legal part of that specific program code. And if you have used the right syntax in your programming language (effectively grammar & syntax in a normal spoken language), you will get a functional result.
So, imho you can have functional code (together) with "normal words".






> I still "live under the misconception that you "know the rules", while not knowing the most important rule: the "Primary Source Rule", that handles all rule conflicts." PSR doesn't work for D&D 3.5. Saying "work" I mean "make things better and easier to understand". Opposite in some cases it makes rules worse. For example PrC and CW. It'd be much better for all ruleset if this rule updated all rules about PrC.
> 
> I'm strongly ignoring PSR.


If you deny and ignore the PSR, no wonder that you often disagree with RAW. 

I was living under the misconception that you argue about RAW.

So I have to assume from now on that most your responses are RAI and not RAW (and have to figure out which is which one, since you don't tag em). That solves many discussion we had in the past...

Fine, you don't care for RAW. But maybe stop targeting RAW arguments with RAI arguments. It's fine to present a RAI interpretation (and I'm happy if we have RAW and RAI interpretations presented together for any topic). 
But "attacking" RAW arguments with RAI interpretations makes ZERO sense. 
Because RAW and RAI are not the same thing! Each has its own purpose. And both have their *OWN SEPARATE* discussion. One relies on a pure literal reading of the rules, the other on speculation about designer intentions and that they have failed to write correct rules. You can't mix those up. They have distinct purposes that exclude each other.







> And in this case wield is not a term but a word to say its implied meaning. What Gruftzwerg continues to fail to show is context within the rules that limit its meaning for use in the rules. Everything so far pointed to in the rules does not limit the scope of definition by any stretch of the imagination.


I thought that we have established that the general English definition of "wield" is that you "show at least the intent to use it" and that just holding and wearing (e.g. while asleep) ain't enough?

And as said, since 3.5 is permission based: I've shown examples in the rules that give you the permission to optionally "wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand". 
The burden of prove is on you, not me, to show that 3.5 allows you to "wield" more than a 2nd weapon at the same time. I can't prove the absence/nonexistence of that permission (unless you want me to quote the entire 3.5 rules for you to read through..?). You have to prove that the *permission exists*.




> Funny you should mention that, because from a programming POV the PSR probably shouldn't pass a code review.  
> 
> Why?  Because it makes (in some cases) the first definition of something the primary source which is impossible to override.  That's like a config system which overrides newer versions with older versions and has no way to remove the older versions from the server.  It's a moot point now since the system is no longer being updated, but the fact that 2007 WotC was bound by what 2003 WotC decided with no official way to change it is a major flaw with the PSR.
> 
> I do understand the instinct of "hands off my combo!" which would make that immutability a good thing.  I've felt it too.  But it's not really a good thing for the game as a whole.  And again, moot now anyway.
> 
> And that's why I feel like the PSR is a lot less important in the present.  We don't need to speculate "what if a future book did ___?" because there will be no future books.  There are a finite number of conflicts that the PSR covers, and it's a small enough number that a gaming group can just decide for each one which version suits them better.


The PSR equivalent for coding would be the foundation of digital programming: "AND"; "OR", "NOR",...
These will never change and will always handle code the same way. No matter what you code write or even in which programming language you use.
Further, the definition of your "defined variables" don't change.

And future updates in code, would be in 3.5 things like rule revisions (3.0 to 3.5 a major improvement update), ERRATA files (bugfixes), additional books (content update),...

You also need to differentiate between "RAW", "RAI" and a "play advice". Just because I argue about RAW doesn't mean that I wanna force this as play advice ;)
_____________________________________________

PS @ everyone: I hope I didn't sound rude here in my response. I just woke up with a lil headache and dunno if that affected my social behavior. No ill intentions here.
_____________________________________________

----------


## tyckspoon

> Funny you should mention that, because from a programming POV the PSR probably shouldn't pass a code review.  
> 
> Why?  Because it makes (in some cases) the first definition of something the primary source which is impossible to override.  That's like a config system which overrides newer versions with older versions and has no way to remove the older versions from the server.  It's a moot point now since the system is no longer being updated, but the fact that 2007 WotC was bound by what 2003 WotC decided with no official way to change it is a major flaw with the PSR.


There absolutely were ways to change prior decisions - that's what errata *are*. An official notice that the intended text has changed. WotC's hesitation to make more aggressive use of that tool is a different argument, but it was there.

Even conflicting with the main Primary Sources (the PHB/DMG/MM, which between them define nearly all the basic mechanics of the game) isn't that much of a problem _if you write the books acknowledging that the Primary Source Rule exists._ Put a sidebar/disclaimer blurb near the start of every splatbook that says something like "This book is the Primary Source for any content introduced or contained within this book. If text in this material contradicts information from another source, the version in this book is only the ruling text for items within this book." There. Now if somebody does something like, say, accidentally change how Prestige Classes work, the damage is contained to the one book, and if WotC wanted that rule to become the new standard for -everything- they either boilerplate the same text into further books that contain examples of that content, or they errata the actual general source for Prestige Classes.

----------


## Drelua

Personally, I agree that your rule is mostly functional, and almost certainly completely balanced, but unless there's some important rules text you haven't shown, I don't agree that it's a RAW interpretation. You talk about a main-hand/off-hand rule like it's definitely a rule that exists, but your argument seems to be just that it's vaguely implied, which doesn't fit within my understanding of what RAW is. Whether or not it's balanced has no impact on whether or not it's RAW. There is nothing presenting a limit on how many weapons you can wield, so I see no reason not to defer to reality.

When a term, in this case 'wield,' is undefined by the ruleset, we use the real word definition. I completely agree with you there, and also agree that it doesn't really matter if it's a term defined by the rule text or a word defined by the dictionary. That's sort of like the PSR, absent a definition specific to the ruleset, we use the more general dictionary definition. But nothing I've seen indicates a rules distinction between holding a weapon in your hands and wielding it. I've even shown cases of "in hand" and "wielded" being used interchangeably in _holy_, and the 3 other alignment weapon properties. So to be convinced that rule was in error and these are actually different things within the rules, I would need to see some rules text at least suggesting there's a distinction. Without something like that, I don't agree that yours is a viable RAW interpretation, because I don't know what written rules you're interpreting to get there. 

Since we're comparing to code, think of it like a video game. Yes, it's possible to hold a weapon in a way that wouldn't allow you to attack with. But the rules don't allow for that. If you equip a weapon to your hand, you're wielding it as a weapon, because the programming doesn't allow for anything else. I wouldn't really mind everything you're saying as a house rule, I would disagree with it but have no problem playing under it, but I don't see how it's RAW.

As we've covered, some dictionary definitions of 'wield' don't say you have be using or ready to use the thing, just looking like you're ready to use it. I already can't imagine someone who's been in a lot of fights and has a lot of training not being ready to use the knife they just stabbed someone with seconds ago, so to say that they could not even look ready to use it is just absurd.

Hope that isn't too rambly, and comes across as respectful. This is a trivial thing I'm arguing about because I have a lot of free time, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything like that.

----------


## loky1109

> It would be a "3.5 specific term" if it would have a "3.5 specific definition". Since it lacks that, RAW falls back to the general English definition. There is no "but, if or when" here possible. Anything else is not RAW but is making the assumption (= not RAW) that the authors have failed to define "wield".


So you told "wield" isn't a term? So why did you build your points around it as if it is?
If it isn't a term it could be freely replaced with any synonym without loss of the meaning.




> You can argue that the intentions (RAI) of the authors was something else.


I specifically didn't talk about RAI here.




> I have a fully functional and imho balanced RAW interpretation.


No, you don't. Your interpretation isn't RAW, it is less functional than its inexistence, and it of saying "balanced" you are talking about Defending weapon you are some wrong again. 




> If you have programmed yourself, you should know what I mean when I say: "Hello World"


You couldn't claim "Hello World" is a executive part of a code. 




> It lets you display "normal words".


Key word is "display." 




> Those "normal words" are a legal part of that specific program code.


/*This is "legal part" of SQL program code, too.*/
/*fdgoihxdfbloiihdbodfhbxgidhbxfglijbxfnhl, either.*/




> So, imho you can have functional code (together) with "normal words".


That functional code doesn't try to interpret this normal words, or perform any operations with them (as a words) besides impute/output. 




> If you deny and ignore the PSR, no wonder that you often disagree with RAW.


Strongly No!




> But maybe stop targeting RAW arguments with RAI arguments.


I couldn't say I newer do that, but in most cases when I say RAW, I'm talking about RAW.




> But "attacking" RAW arguments with RAI interpretations makes ZERO sense.
> Because RAW and RAI are not the same thing! Each has its own purpose. And both have their OWN SEPARATE discussion.
> One relies on a pure literal reading of the rules, the other on speculation about designer intentions and that they have failed to write correct rules. You can't mix those up. They have distinct purposes that exclude each other.


Do you really think I don't know or don't understand this? Or I can't separate my strongly conviction about PSR is thing that makes D&D worse from written rules?

If you need to involve colloquial definitions instead of terms there are nothing PSR could help with. It is just issue unsolvable in RAW. D&D 3.5 is full of them. When customer support still worked I and my friends not once or twice times received answers sorta "rules are silent about this".

----------


## Menzath

Wield is indeed an ambiguous term in 3.5. For certain weapons like armour spikes, spiked gauntlet, to more esoteric like hidden elbow blade, foot spikes, poison ring, tail blade, or that weird mouth pick thing you are always "wielding" them as long as you are conscious and have them strapped on.
 Are you attacking with them? Not necessarily. Are they off-hand weapons? Sort of/maybe but not always? And for the odd mention on TWF earlier, what about multi-weapon fighting?

The defending property RAW vs RAI is a little more obvious but still requires house rules.
Having it read like power attack or expertise where you can only use it when making an attack with that weapon is a bit more in line with intent, and even house ruling what type of AC bonus it gives so it can't stack is the more obvious solution.

After looking at various abilities related to wielding, such as Sunder and holding tools(like lock picks, or torches, but also things you can spit like poisons and certain special weapons) wield tends to refer to anything on you that can actively be used without needing another action to take hold of, or activate it. Crown Ray blasts? Check. spitting poison that you put into a fake tooth or capsule before hand? Check. Any of the hidden weapons in complete scoundrel? Check. Anything in your hands or strapped to any part of you? Check.
There are even a few fringe cases of animated items that read as you are considered to be wielding them for (roughly)any reason.

As for if mage armours +4 armour AC is to much... not really? High AC is nice. Is it the best way to avoid damage? Not always.
That such a bonus at what is considered baseline past level 3 wasn't present in some classes without the expenditure of a good deal of wealth, wasn't that the exact reason why the luminous armour spells were put into BoED? They went one step further and made them wacky sanctified spells that every caster could get access to. 

With the release of more splat books and the gap that heavier armour and more enchantments that armour could get and more monsters with better attack bonuses, low armour AC became needed to a higher degree and less costly. 
The introduction of eternal wands was exactly for uses like this, spells you would need only a few times per day that lasted in hours.

And you can't forget that for the express reason of casting mage armour on allies they made multiple itterrations of mage armour, mass.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Now if somebody does something like, say, accidentally change how Prestige Classes work, the damage is contained to the one book, and if WotC wanted that rule to become the new standard for -everything- they either boilerplate the same text into further books that contain examples of that content, or they errata the actual general source for Prestige Classes.


If you are referring to what Complete Warrior says about PRC, there isn't any damage thanks to the Primary Source Rule. Not even for that book. Because the wording doesn't imply that "these are specific rules for Complete Warrior". It assumes general rules wrongly and therefore draws wrong conclusions. Thus it gets ignored for that by the PSR.

And if WotC would want to make changes, they would need to either:
a) release a new ERRATA for the DMG, since it has topic supremacy over the tropic "PRC".
b) release a new kind of Rules Compendium that claims to be a rule update.
c) make a new 3.X revision..^^

Just a new (e.g.) "Complete X" book wouldn't be enough, since it could sole create a specific exception for its niche, if it makes the specific call out for that. It couldn't make any global changes.




> Personally, I agree that your rule is mostly functional, and almost certainly completely balanced, but unless there's some important rules text you haven't shown, I don't agree that it's a RAW interpretation. You talk about a main-hand/off-hand rule like it's definitely a rule that exists, but your argument seems to be just that it's vaguely implied, which doesn't fit within my understanding of what RAW is. Whether or not it's balanced has no impact on whether or not it's RAW. There is nothing presenting a limit on how many weapons you can wield, so I see no reason not to defer to reality.
> 
> When a term, in this case 'wield,' is undefined by the ruleset, we use the real word definition. I completely agree with you there, and also agree that it doesn't really matter if it's a term defined by the rule text or a word defined by the dictionary. That's sort of like the PSR, absent a definition specific to the ruleset, we use the more general dictionary definition. But nothing I've seen indicates a rules distinction between holding a weapon in your hands and wielding it. I've even shown cases of "in hand" and "wielded" being used interchangeably in _holy_, and the 3 other alignment weapon properties. So to be convinced that rule was in error and these are actually different things within the rules, I would need to see some rules text at least suggesting there's a distinction. Without something like that, I don't agree that yours is a viable RAW interpretation, because I don't know what written rules you're interpreting to get there.


Let me explain the problems I see when I compare a specific example like your "holy" example (for "wield"), with a more general example for like in the TWF rules (for "wield"):

Since the wording of "holy" doesn't imply to create more specific rules for "wielding" or "holding" a weapon, it is merely referencing more general rules and definitions.
This bears the risk of wrong assumptions about the more general rules and definitions.

The entire Attack rules (incl. TWF; Full Attack;...) in the PHB are higher in the rule hierarchy created by the PSR.
The PHB is the primary source for the rules to play the game and not the DMG where you find the special weapon ability "holy" in it.
And there we find rules that give you the optional permission to "wield a 2nd weapon".

I give you full point for the "holy" example as a good evidence for RAI. But I hope that you can now see why this still doesn't affect my RAW point of view here.







> Since we're comparing to code, think of it like a video game. Yes, it's possible to hold a weapon in a way that wouldn't allow you to attack with. But the rules don't allow for that. If you equip a weapon to your hand, you're wielding it as a weapon, because the programming doesn't allow for anything else. I wouldn't really mind everything you're saying as a house rule, I would disagree with it but have no problem playing under it, but I don't see how it's RAW.


Sorry but now you are oversimplifying this to the 2 regular weapon slots. For an equal comprehension you would need to recreate the rules for equipped and worn weapons like armor spikes and such thing.
And if you further implement the other rules 3.5 has like weapon switching and the TWF rules, guess which weapons are "active" to effectively count as "wielding"? Imho if you manage to code 1:1 the 3.5 rules, you would end up with my interpretation.




> As we've covered, some dictionary definitions of 'wield' don't say you have be using or ready to use the thing, just looking like you're ready to use it. I already can't imagine someone who's been in a lot of fights and has a lot of training not being ready to use the knife they just stabbed someone with seconds ago, so to say that they could not even look ready to use it is just absurd.


Try to imagine that you are using Armor Spikes. You need to make sure that your own weapons don't interfere with that while trying to maintaining a position to be still able to attack. I think that we can agree that there are positions for the "knife" that qualify for either option when you use your Armor Spikes. Assume that you also swing your sword together with your armor spike attacks (leaving the "knife" in a "held" but not directly threatening position to your enemy). And if you want realism, what about the multitasking limitations here. Maintaining an effective attack position for a sword + armor spikes simultaniously is imho at the limit of a regular human without any special abilities. You could cycle to other weapons the next moment (within your turn and your action limitation), but the coordination needed to "wielding" 2 weapon at the same time is imho the limit for most normal humans.
As a side note: If you use science: There is no real multitasking for humans. It's always a mere illusion created by cycling trough the tasks.




> Hope that isn't too rambly, and comes across as respectful. This is a trivial thing I'm arguing about because I have a lot of free time, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything like that.


I think that we are past that point and know that we don't bear any ill intentions and thoughts here ;)





> So you told "wield" isn't a term? So why did you build your points around it as if it is?
> If it isn't a term it could be freely replaced with any synonym without loss of the meaning.


If it is a 3.5 term, it needs a 3.5 specific definition. Otherwise it is just a term in the English language. And since "wield" lacks a 3.5 specific definition, I have to fall back to it being a term in the English language. There is no other option here.





> No, you don't. Your interpretation isn't RAW, it is less functional than its inexistence, and it of saying "balanced" you are talking about Defending weapon you are some wrong again.


Excuse me, but who ignores the written rules in the ERRATA as he sees fit here?
ERRATA aren't optional like some "Complete X" book. It's an official rule update that everybody who has internet has access too (includes everyone here on an internet forum). You can't just dismiss them by RAW. For that you have "houserules" as tool. So if you wanna ignore the PSR, that is your houserule and not RAW. 





> You couldn't claim "Hello World" is a executive part of a code. 
> 
> 
> Key word is "display." 
> 
> /*This is "legal part" of SQL program code, too.*/
> /*fdgoihxdfbloiihdbodfhbxgidhbxfglijbxfnhl, either.*/


So what? That is just the specific nature of programming languages.





> That functional code doesn't try to interpret this normal words, or perform any operations with them (as a words) besides impute/output.


Doesn't change that is it still part of the "code". Even 3.5 has that. Remind you of *_fluff text_* used in all books. Those also have no real mechanical function either. The difference is that 3.5 also relies on undefined words for its functional code compared to program code. Otherwise they mainly work the same way.





> Strongly No!
> 
> 
> I couldn't say I newer do that, but in most cases when I say RAW, I'm talking about RAW.
> 
> 
> Do you really think I don't know or don't understand this? Or I can't separate my strongly conviction about PSR is thing that makes D&D worse from written rules?


As said, you ignore written rules when it doesn't benefit your interpretation and thus you are houseruling.

If you don't like the PSR, how are you judging the difference between the general Attack rules and the specific Power Attack rules? They clearly present different mechanics. How do you decide that the Power Attack rules take precedence without the PSR?

If you wanna rely on the "Specific Trumps General" mechanic, that is a mechanic what thrives from the PSR.
Since the PSR gives permission for Topic Precedence without any limitation of how precise a topic can be.
As such anything more "specific" creates its own niche topic where it has supremacy over it.

Since Power Attack creates a more specific situation than a regular Attack, it creates its own subtopic. And in it's own subtopic, it has supremacy and can thus trump any previous more general rule for that specific topic.

So, what you are doing is using the PSR as you see it fit. You don't completely dismiss it, cause you are constantly using it without realizing it. Without the PSR anything more specific is just contradicting with more general rule and every interaction of rules becomes dysfunctional.

No PSR = No Specific Trumps General







> If you need to involve colloquial definitions instead of terms there are nothing PSR could help with. It is just issue unsolvable in RAW. D&D 3.5 is full of them. When customer support still worked I and my friends not once or twice times received answers sorta "rules are silent about this".


As said before, without relying on the general English definitions for words used in the 3.5 rules that don't have a specific definition in 3.5, you couldn't read/interpret a single sentence in the rules. 99% of the ruletext consists of undefined word in 3.5. If you don't fall back to the general English definition, how are you reading them at all? I'm curious  (I try to make a stingy comment for fun's sake. I hope you don't feel offended here. No ill intentions) ;)

I agree that there are parts where 3.5 RAW is silent or even has multiple legal interpretations that contradict each other.. (I'm looking at the Whirlwind feat here, and no I don't intent to start a debate about that now..^^).
3.5 ain't perfect we all know that and we all try to make the best out of it.




> Wield is indeed an ambiguous term in 3.5. For certain weapons like armour spikes, spiked gauntlet, to more esoteric like hidden elbow blade, foot spikes, poison ring, tail blade, or that weird mouth pick thing you are always "wielding" them as long as you are conscious and have them strapped on.


Can you provide any quotes for that? Ideally general rules if possible for a RAW interpretation. But I'm also accepting specific examples as evidence for RAI.

----------


## loky1109

> Excuse me, but who ignores the written rules in the ERRATA as he sees fit here?
> ERRATA aren't optional like some "Complete X" book. It's an official rule update that everybody who has internet has access too (includes everyone here on an internet forum). You can't just dismiss them by RAW. For that you have "houserules" as tool. So if you wanna ignore the PSR, that is your houserule and not RAW.


"I'm wrong" doesn't mean "you're right". 




> If it is a 3.5 term, it needs a 3.5 specific definition. Otherwise it is just a term in the English language.


Otherwise it isn't term. There is no other option here.




> If you are referring to what Complete Warrior says about PRC, there isn't any damage thanks to the Primary Source Rule. Not even for that book. Because the wording doesn't imply that "these are specific rules for Complete Warrior". It assumes general rules wrongly and therefore draws wrong conclusions. Thus it gets ignored for that by the PSR.





> Anybody but a druid, monk, rogue, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons.


Is Commoner proficient with all simple weapons? PSR says yes. How about Psion?

I'm expecting you'll say "it's a special exception." Okay, how do you know what is "a special exception" and what is "wrong conclusion"?




> So what? That is just the specific nature of programming languages.


This means just putting word into code doesn't make it executive part of a code. Just putting word into rules doesn't make it term.




> The difference is that 3.5 also relies on undefined words for its functional code


You just say: "3.5 doesn't work" now.




> As said, you ignore written rules


As I said, you call written rules things that isn't. I'm talking about using general English word definitions for specific terms.
PSR is irrelevant to this.




> As said before, without relying on the general English definitions for words used in the 3.5 rules that don't have a specific definition in 3.5, you couldn't read/interpret a single sentence in the rules.


Words != Terms. I have nothing more to say you.

----------


## Menzath

> Can you provide any quotes for that? Ideally general rules if possible for a RAW interpretation. But I'm also accepting specific examples as evidence for RAI.


I'll give a few quotes, but the problem I am running into with all of these weapons, none have rules on when you wield them besides general weapon rules.

In the entire phb. Wield in general refers to anything you hold, but some of these special weapons(and splat book weapons) you don't hold, and the special rules for them don't describe anything different from normal weapons besides attaching them, or special rules for drawing or activating. Even the special shield property Animated just says 





> Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.



Like almost every other weapon the rules for if this was a spiked shield and if I am wielding it were simply omitted. Even other actual weapons like hidden weapons and alchemic tools that are used as weapons don't have any rules on how or when they are wielded. Tail blade and tail scythe? No rules. You either have them strapped on, or don't. Amor spikes? Special attack rules, yes. 0 rules on wielding.





> Spiked Armor: You can outfit your armor with spikes, which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack. See Armor, later in this chapter.





> Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table 75: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a 4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You cant also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.



You wield them as a martial light weapon. That's it. When do you start wielding them? As soon as you put the armor on I guess?

The problem seems to be that wield was never properly defined and as weapons became stranger writers may have fallen back onto unarmed attacks and monk's, so they decided that if any body part can be a weapon it doesn't matter?

We know when you are not wielding a weapon, when it is sheathed, dancing, stored(such as in bags), or when it is dropped or disarmed. This leads me to believe that at all other times when a weapon is not in one of these states and on your person it is being wielded.

----------


## Drelua

> The PHB is the primary source for the rules to play the game and not the DMG where you find the special weapon ability "holy" in it.
> And there we find rules that give you the optional permission to "wield a 2nd weapon".


I would agree with your reasoning if I saw any conflict, any rule saying you may wield a second weapon, but since your argument hinges on a reading of the TWF rules that doesn't make sense to me, we're probably never going to agree. It says "if you are" not "you may."

I can't think of a single case, in rules or law, where that would count as permission. Maybe in code, but rulesets like D&D are dependent on us not being computers. If a law says 'if you're going 30 over the speed limit...' then you can be pretty sure it isn't giving permission to do that. And I haven't found a single example of other rules saying 'if you are doing (whatever thing)' where they explain how to do that thing. Have you seen anything like that? If you have that pdf you mentioned, maybe ctrl+f "if you are" and see what comes up.

TWF rules do not give permission to wield a second weapon. As long as we disagree on that, we'll come to different conclusions. Because if it did say that, you might be right.

----------

