From the PHB: "When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls." Bold for emphasis.
Now as I'm reading this ability you could "wield" a shuriken in your off-hand (not attacking with it) and increase the damage of your primary hand weapon since it says YOUR WEAPON DAMAGE DIE, not the shurikens damage die. The same holds true for the dagger. Is this true? Is this open to debate?
From the PHB: "When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls." Bold for emphasis.Now as I'm reading this ability you could "wield" a shuriken in your off-hand (no
From the PHB: "When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls." Bold for emphasis.
Now as I'm reading this ability you could "wield" a shuriken in your off-hand (not attacking with it) and increase the damage of your primary hand weapon since it says YOUR WEAPON DAMAGE DIE, not the shurikens damage die. The same holds true for the dagger. Is this true? Is this open to debate?
Honestly I think you are just really trying to bend the rules here. It doesn't make any sense that holding a shuriken in your off hand would increase the die size of your dagger.
Honestly I think you are just really trying to bend the rules here. It doesn't make any sense that holding a shuriken in your off hand would increase the die size of your dagger.
Honestly I think you are just really trying to bend the rules here. It doesn't make any sense that holding a shuriken in your off hand would increase the die size of your dagger.
I agree.
Tehsquirrely, what would you say if a Rogue in your campaign wanted to hold a shuriken AND a dagger in his left hand, while wielding a warhammer in his right? Would you give him the +1 attack bonus and a 1d12 damage die with the warhammer? Or would you call him a rules lawyer and tell him where to stick that shuriken? :D
- Alane -
("Ouch!")
I agree.Tehsquirrely, what would you say if a Rogue in your campaign wanted to hold a shuriken AND a dagger in his left hand, while wielding a warhammer in his right? Would you give him the +1 attack bonus and a 1d12 damage die with the warhammer?
Tehsquirrely, what would you say if a Rogue in your campaign wanted to hold a shuriken AND a dagger in his left hand, while wielding a warhammer in his right? Would you give him the +1 attack bonus and a 1d12 damage die with the warhammer? Or would you call him a rules lawyer and tell him where to stick that shuriken? :D
- Alane -
("Ouch!")
I wouldn't let him hold both in his off hand. I would however say holding 1 confers its printed benefit. If the rogue wanted to wield a warhammer and not be able to use any of his class abilities thats perfectly fine with me.
I'm not trying to bend the rules. Thats just what they say. I'm asking if this is perhaps a mistake or if WotC infact intended this. Referencing you and referancing your weapon are two very different things. After all the power does in fact say:" When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size." When you wield, and then saying your weapon. It doesn't say "When you wield a shuriken your damage die increases by one size." Nor does it say "When attacking with a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size." You see the differances, they're subtle, but have a huge impact on what the ability actually does.
I wouldn't let him hold both in his off hand. I would however say holding 1 confers its printed benefit. If the rogue wanted to wield a warhammer and not be able to use any of his class abilities thats perfectly fine with me.I'm not trying to bend th
The term 'wield' has an ambiguous definition, which leads to problems.
Possible definitions: 1. To hold a weapon, implement, or item in a hand. 2. To actively use a weapon, implement, or item in an action.
There's probably more. Under Definition 1, the bonus would be conferred to a weapon held in your other hand. Under Definition 2, it would not.
Personally, Definition 2 is right, no way around it. But not everyone is a believer.
The term 'wield' has an ambiguous definition, which leads to problems.Possible definitions:1. To hold a weapon, implement, or item in a hand.2. To actively use a weapon, implement, or item in an action.There's probably more. Under Definition 1, th
The term 'wield' has an ambiguous definition, which leads to problems.
Possible definitions: 1. To hold a weapon, implement, or item in a hand. 2. To actively use a weapon, implement, or item in an action.
There's probably more. Under Definition 1, the bonus would be conferred to a weapon held in your other hand. Under Definition 2, it would not.
Personally, Definition 2 is right, no way around it. But not everyone is a believer.
Actually, under definition 2, you are still wielding a weapon if it's in your off-hand. You simply aren't attacking with it. The rules are pretty clear on this, you can wield two weapons, however (barring class powers) you may only attack with one, and since the rogue weapon talent says wield, not attack it seems like you do in fact increase damage die.
From a logical stand point, think of it as you are using the off-hand weapon to parry, feint, and threaten. It's not doing any damage dealing work, but its still affecting combat.
Actually, under definition 2, you are still wielding a weapon if it's in your off-hand. You simply aren't attacking with it. The rules are pretty clear on this, you can wield two weapons, however (barring class powers) you may only attack with one, a
Actually, under definition 2, you are still wielding a weapon if it's in your off-hand. You simply aren't attacking with it. The rules are pretty clear on this, you can wield two weapons, however (barring class powers) you may only attack with one, and since the rogue weapon talent says wield, not attack it seems like you do in fact increase damage die.
So as long as a rogue has a dagger that he never uses in his left hand, he can use all his abilities with a Bastard Sword. Sneak Attack, all his powers....
Oh oh! Here's a new one! To make a ranged attack, you must be wielding a ranged weapon. A dagger counts as a ranged weapon. So you can now make ranged attacks with the Bastard Sword in your other hand!
So as long as a rogue has a dagger that he never uses in his left hand, he can use all his abilities with a Bastard Sword. Sneak Attack, all his powers....Oh oh! Here's a new one! To make a ranged attack, you must be wielding a ranged weapon. A dag
So as long as a rogue has a dagger that he never uses in his left hand, he can use all his abilities with a Bastard Sword. Sneak Attack, all his powers....
Oh oh! Here's a new one! To make a ranged attack, you must be wielding a ranged weapon. A dagger counts as a ranged weapon. So you can now make ranged attacks with the Bastard Sword in your other hand!
Seems you're right. Thanks! I'm not the one who wrote the rules, so don't blame me, I'm just reading them and providing my literal interpretation. As they say, don't shoot the messanger. I'm more than happy to debate this with you.
Okay just for everyone's knowledge, PHB page 270 says: "Simply wielding a weapon in each hand doesn't allow you to make two attacks in a round. If you hold two melee weaopns, you can use either one to make a melee attack." It would seem from this snippet that the terms "wield" and "hold" are used interchangably and mean the same thing. This paragraph also implies that you can infact wield a weapon in each hand. If there are rules that say otherwise, please let me know.
Seems you're right. Thanks! I'm not the one who wrote the rules, so don't blame me, I'm just reading them and providing my literal interpretation. As they say, don't shoot the messanger. I'm more than happy to debate this with you.Okay just for every
Eh, I've submitted the question to Customer Service. I'll post back when I get an answer.
Alright then. Seems like kind of a big oversight on WotC's writing staffs part though to leave such a huge loophole in the requirements section for powers. Perhaps they should simply have changed powers like that to "you must attack with a light blade," or whatever instead of "you must wield a light blade." Or beter defined what the term "wield" means.
Alright then. Seems like kind of a big oversight on WotC's writing staffs part though to leave such a huge loophole in the requirements section for powers. Perhaps they should simply have changed powers like that to "you must attack with a light blad
Or they just didn't have rule-lawyer playtesters. THAT was the oversight they made.
*shrug*
Not all rules lawyers are lawful evil! I consider myself a benevolent neutral good thank you.:D But yeah, maybe WotC should consider hiring someone with a degree in law.:P
Not all rules lawyers are lawful evil! I consider myself a benevolent neutral good thank you.:D But yeah, maybe WotC should consider hiring someone with a degree in law.:P
It says "your weapon damage die" not "your weapon damage DICE", which means it cannot be referring to dual wielding (since both hands now have their own damage die)
It says "your weapon damage die" not "your weapon damage DICE", which means it cannot be referring to dual wielding (since both hands now have their own damage die)
Wield means to actually attack with it, the same reason why in 3e, you must actually attack with a defending weapon to get the AC bonus, and not just benefit from simply holding it in your off-hand.
Wield means to actually attack with it, the same reason why in 3e, you must actually attack with a defending weapon to get the AC bonus, and not just benefit from simply holding it in your off-hand.;)
Really, this is a non issue. The connotation of the statement indicates the increase applies only to the damage the shuriken would do. The attack bonus only applies when attacking with a dagger. Trying to eek out something else out of that is bad gamesmanship.
Really, this is a non issue. The connotation of the statement indicates the increase applies only to the damage the shuriken would do. The attack bonus only applies when attacking with a dagger. Trying to eek out something else out of that is bad
Seems I've been beaten by customer service, but for the sake of arguement....
webrunner wrote:
It says "your weapon damage die" not "your weapon damage DICE", which means it cannot be referring to dual wielding (since both hands now have their own damage die)
My weapon still only has 1 damage die, I merely have 2 weapons.
runestar wrote:
Wield means to actually attack with it, the same reason why in 3e, you must actually attack with a defending weapon to get the AC bonus, and not just benefit from simply holding it in your off-hand.
Does the PHB actually say this anywhere? Becuase I havn't seen it. Not that I don't believe you, customer service said the same thing, I'd just like to know if the PBH does in fact actually say this.
sevensided wrote:
Really, this is a non issue. The connotation of the statement indicates the increase applies only to the damage the shuriken would do. The attack bonus only applies when attacking with a dagger. Trying to eek out something else out of that is bad gamesmanship.
The statement doesn't say "the shuriken's weapon damage die," or "when you attack with a shuriken," so this statement in fact implies alot of things. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm just pointing out holes in the rules.
Seems I've been beaten by customer service, but for the sake of arguement....My weapon still only has 1 damage die, I merely have 2 weapons.Does the PHB actually say this anywhere? Becuase I havn't seen it. Not that I don't believe you, customer serv
The whole wielding deal is one of those common sense issues. Holding a weapon is not wielding it. They did use confusing language on pg 270, I agree. Confusing enough that in the next sentence they feel the need to clarify that you can't attack with the two weapons you are wielding. It's like they knew they left people thinking you can attack with weapons you are wielding and so they said you have to pick one. I would have just fixed the error and said, if you are holding two weapons, you can only wield one of them for attack purposes.
The whole wielding deal is one of those common sense issues. Holding a weapon is not wielding it. They did use confusing language on pg 270, I agree. Confusing enough that in the next sentence they feel the need to clarify that you can't attack with
I would have just added a glossary of terms in the back of the DMG (smallest book) to avoid confusion. Many, many, MANY games that use terms use their own definition not a dictionary definition so its good practice to define commonly used terms in any game system.
I would have just added a glossary of terms in the back of the DMG (smallest book) to avoid confusion. Many, many, MANY games that use terms use their own definition not a dictionary definition so its good practice to define commonly used terms in an
Personally I feel that this ruling is left to the Dm you are playing with. I described this as when holding a shuriken I thhrow it with it (more so as a role-play element) to increase damage. Both are reasoning was that without the benefit of wielding two weapons and getting the benefit the the hell else would you EVER use a shuriken or dagger where you sacrifice BOTH damage and prof. with EACH weapon. Honestly I think there only needs to be a short amends to this rule and have it appy to light blades (+1 to atk) and wielding a light versatile with two hands (+tier to damage die). Like I said though it's DM's choice in my opinion, and for me if you can roleplay it you can have it.
Personally I feel that this ruling is left to the Dm you are playing with. I described this as when holding a shuriken I thhrow it with it (more so as a role-play element) to increase damage. Both are reasoning was that without the benefit of wieldin
Personally I feel that this ruling is left to the Dm you are playing with. I described this as when holding a shuriken I thhrow it with it (more so as a role-play element) to increase damage. Both are reasoning was that without the benefit of wielding two weapons and getting the benefit the the hell else would you EVER use a shuriken or dagger where you sacrifice BOTH damage and prof. with EACH weapon. Honestly I think there only needs to be a short amends to this rule and have it appy to light blades (+1 to atk) and wielding a light versatile with two hands (+tier to damage die). Like I said though it's DM's choice in my opinion, and for me if you can roleplay it you can have it.
Holy thread necro.
You just responded to a 5 year old queston. Do you honestly think the OP is reading this one?
Holy thread necro.You just responded to a 5 year old queston. Do you honestly think the OP is reading this one?
Personally I feel that this ruling is left to the Dm you are playing with. I described this as when holding a shuriken I thhrow it with it (more so as a role-play element) to increase damage. Both are reasoning was that without the benefit of wielding two weapons and getting the benefit the the hell else would you EVER use a shuriken or dagger where you sacrifice BOTH damage and prof. with EACH weapon. Honestly I think there only needs to be a short amends to this rule and have it appy to light blades (+1 to atk) and wielding a light versatile with two hands (+tier to damage die). Like I said though it's DM's choice in my opinion, and for me if you can roleplay it you can have it.
You can only use one weapon to attack unless a power specifically says you can use two, and even then the weapon must have the off-hand property (unless you're a Ranger). So you can't attack with a dagger AND throw your shuriken at the same time. You have to choose which to WIELD when making the attack. Wielding is thus defined as using the weapon TO ATTACK, not just having it in your hand.
Rules Compendium page 269, in case you want to check it out.
You can only use one weapon to attack unless a power specifically says you can use two, and even then the weapon must have the off-hand property (unless you're a Ranger). So you can't attack with a dagger AND throw your shuriken at the same time. You
