Community

tehsquirrely wrote:

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.

Alane wrote:

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 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.

Dalzig wrote:

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.

Dalzig wrote:

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.

Dalzig wrote:

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.