Wielding a Weapon Versus Holding a Weapon

Wield: To handle (a weapon or tool, for example) with skill and ease.
Handling: The act of taking or holding something in the hands.

So lets say we have a character with two handed weapon and a one handed weapon. Can the character have both during battle, carry one, while only using the other weapon, without taking the two weapon fighting penalty? From I was reading it looked like it was freely exchangeable to swap only using the one handed weapon to only using the two handed weapon. Or does said character have to apply the penalty regardless if said weapon is in the character's other hand regardless of reasons. I seen another post saying something about rules not saying anything about just carrying the weapon so now I'm curious. This is assuming they don't have two weapon fighting feat if that matters.

As far as I'm concerned carrying it requires you to hold the item. To hold an item requires it to be handled. Which means we are wielding it some fashion or another. If we are wielding two weapons then I assume penalties would apply.

This strays into bending the rules into a situation that is clearly not as intended (at least to me).

If I am not attacking with a full attack (or pounce) and using both weapons to make my attacks then I am not two-weapon fighting.

Take a simple example. If I am holding a torch in one hand and a sword in the other and I go to fight with the sword I obviously shouldn't be taking two-weapon penalties for illuminating the battlefield so I can see my target.

If we stretch this even further. What if I am eating a banana when I am suddenly attacked. I quickly draw a sword with one hand but not wanting to lose my valuable potassium source I refuse to unhand my banana. Therefore I attack my assailant with my sword, I am clearly not engaging in two-weapon fighting with my partially eaten banana and therefore should take no penalty.

Basically, if you aren't using two weapons to fight then you don't engage the two-weapon fighting rules. It's as simple as that.

Now if you are intent on rules layering this then the rules are still clearly against penalties applying.

"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."-SRD

You'll notice the important word "can", which means you are able to. You are not required to engage in two weapon fighting merely because you are holding two weapons. Just like you are not required to engage in two weapon fighting when using a quarterstaff merely because it is a double weapon.

I'm talking about freely swapping between two weapons. Switching from two-hand to one-hand is a free action. So why would two weapon fighting not apply to this? Clearly they would have two weapons. Both intended to be used at one point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarian Horde

That's not what I was asking for. I'm talking about freely swapping between two weapons. Switching from two-hand to one-hand is a free action. So why would two weapon fighting not apply to this? Clearly they would have two weapons. Both intended to be used at one point.

---

Are you using the two weapon fighting rules or iterative?

If you are using a full attack to two weapon fight then the penalties apply. If you are merely using iterative and changing which weapon deals damage then you are not engaging in two weapon fighting and the penalties do not apply.

That seems like a technicality to me, but I see your point.

----
Edited here
Look I just assumed if your holding or carrying a weapon then your handling it. If your handling a weapon that means your wielding it. If you wielding it I was pretty sure penalties applied. It strikes me odd that it wouldn't but I see where your coming from.

It's not a technicality, it's just how full attacks work. If you aren't using the two-weapon fighting special attack, you don't take any penalty for switching between two weapons. You only get the penalty if you use the offhand weapon to get an extra attack. If simply wielding an extra weapon imposed the penalty, nobody would ever wear gauntlets.

History lesson! Back before the 3.5 update, characters used to be either right-handed or left-handed, and you could take a feat to become ambidextrous. Any attack made with your non-dominant hand took a -4 penalty. This rule was removed in the 3.5 update, and all characters are now functionally ambidextrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarian Horde

That seems like a technicality to me, but I see your point.

---

It's not. Let me provide two examples to illustrate the situation from a rules standpoint.

Bob the level 6 fighter has a bab of +6/+1 and is holding a long sword and a long spear. He uses a full attack and starts with a attack with his long sword at +6, then he free action drops his long sword, grabs his spear in both hands, and does a 2h attack with his spear at +1.

Timmy the level 6 rogue has a bab of +4 but has two weapon fighting. He is holding a long sword and dagger and engages in a full attack.

He attacks with a roll of +2/+2 for both weapons. Timmy has chosen to engage in two weapon fighting to gain an extra attack before his bab would allow him to. As a result he suffers penalties which he has somewhat mitigated by taking the two weapon fighting feat.

Bob the fighter has no desire to two weapon fight but likes to have the right tool for the job on hand. He gets two attacks because he has a high bab. At no point is he engaging in two weapon fighting because he knows he never took that feat and the penalties would be outrageous. Furthermore while Bob can hold the long spear 1 handed he cannot attack with it one handed and as such it would be nonsense to even try applying the two weapon fighting rules.

Now from a Grammer standpoint. You're cherry picking definitions.
To wield: to hold and use and item (such as a tool).
To handle: to feel or manipulate with hands

The definitions that apply to weapon usage relate to when one is trying to use it for its intended purpose (as a weapon). If it is merely being held in one's hands it isn't being wielded.

If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

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.

My bad I was just under the impression that if you had another weapon being wielded in your off hand it automatically counted as two weapon fighting. And that the extra attack was just optional if you choose to take it. And that you took the penalties until you no longer were two weapon fighting.

I think I see the confusion. The first sentence uses 'can' which means you have the important conditional that means you can choose to engage in two weapon fighting or not. The second sentence says the penalties apply "when you fight this way" which is a statement that refers to the choice to engage in two weapon fighting. If I choose not to engage in two weapon fighting then I am merely holding the second weapon and take no penalties.

The more interesting part of this discussion is if "Bob"'s spear was a +1 Defending, but he attacked twice with his Longsword...would he be able to assign those 2 points of enhancement bonus to his AC?

This further dovetails into ridiculous stacking of Warning, Eager, and other various passive weapon enhancements on Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, Boot knives, hair knives, mouthpick weapons and all the other crazy options people toss out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diarmuid

The more interesting part of this discussion is if "Bob"'s spear was a +1 Defending, but he attacked twice with his Longsword...would he be able to assign those 2 points of enhancement bonus to his AC?

This further dovetails into ridiculous stacking of Warning, Eager, and other various passive weapon enhancements on Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, Boot knives, hair knives, mouthpick weapons and all the other crazy options people toss out.

---

I would personally say that you only get the bonuses if you were capable of attacking with the weapon, but that's a very RAI interpretation.

Every thread I've read that looks at that scenario can't find a RAW reason why you can't have 157 +1 defending weapons on your body and boost your AC into the stratosphere. It's also one of the earliest 'there's no rule that says I can't...' discovery of the 3e ruleset that I was made aware of that truly pushed me into the mindset that discussions regarding RAW only matter so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronikoce

It's not. Let me provide two examples to illustrate the situation from a rules standpoint.

Bob the level 6 fighter has a bab of +6/+1 and is holding a long sword and a long spear. He uses a full attack and starts with a attack with his long sword at +6, then he free action drops his long sword, grabs his spear in both hands, and does a 2h attack with his spear at +1.

---

While it is probably RAI to work that way, the rules never say that putting the second hand on a two-handed weapon is a free action. The most similar action (draw weapon) is a move action (or a free action combined with a move at BAB 1 or higher)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LooseCannoneer

I would personally say that you only get the bonuses if you were capable of attacking with the weapon, but that's a very RAI interpretation.

---

It's also RAW that Bob can't use the defending spear after attacking with the longsword:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie the Duck

Every thread I've read that looks at that scenario can't find a RAW reason why you can't have 157 +1 defending weapons on your body and boost your AC into the stratosphere. It's also one of the earliest 'there's no rule that says I can't...' discovery of the 3e ruleset that I was made aware of that truly pushed me into the mindset that discussions regarding RAW only matter so much.

---

It wouldn't work because of the stacking rules. Bonuses even unnamed ones do not stack it they are from the same source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andezzar

While it is probably RAI to work that way, the rules never say that putting the second hand on a two-handed weapon is a free action.

---

I'm not near my books and have limited time so I can't dig up the source but the rules related to doing this do exist. They are referred in relation to casting spells (and therefore needing a free hand to do somatic components) while wielding a 2h weapon. A wizard can be wielding a staff, release it with one hand as a free action, cast spell, retake staff with hand as free action.

The rule may be referenced in either the duskblade text somewhere or it might just be a post from the Sage. I honestly can't remember.

It is in one of the rules of the game articles which are not RAW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andezzar

It is in one of the rules of the game articles which are not RAW.

---

Personally I think this falls under the category of if your DM rules against it, find a new DM...

The iconic wizard in stories carries a staff. To be unable to create that character in d&d is foolish.

Since that is just my opinion though it may not be helpful for convincing a DM who for some reason loves following the rules to the letter regardless of the outcome.

Well, to be fair the iconic wizard also doesnt actually ever swing the staff at anyone and just uses it as a focus for various magical effects and whatnot.

:smallcool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diarmuid

Well, to be fair the iconic wizard also doesnt actually ever swing the staff at anyone and just uses it as a focus for various magical effects and whatnot.

:smallcool:

---

You beat me to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diarmuid

Well, to be fair the iconic wizard also doesnt actually ever swing the staff at anyone and just uses it as a focus for various magical effects and whatnot.

:smallcool:

---

Gandalf smacks people with his staff.
Though he doesn't often cast flashy magic and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andezzar

It is in one of the rules of the game articles which are not RAW.

---

Is there actually a document that declares what is and isn't RAW?

It's an understandable bit of confusion, but basically if you're holding a two-handed weapon and you only have one hand available with which to wield it, that weapon might as well be air, you can't do anything with it until you have two hands. Even if it was a light or one-handed weapon, fighting with two weapons only causes the penalties if you specifically invoke the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Because, just to be nice and confusing, TWF is not the only way to fight with two weapons. :smallsigh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronikoce

If we stretch this even further. What if I am eating a banana when I am suddenly attacked. I quickly draw a sword with one hand but not wanting to lose my valuable potassium source I refuse to unhand my banana.
...
If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

---

You, sir, have a way with words. I feel compelled to sig this, if I may?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie the Duck

Is there actually a document that declares what is and isn't RAW?

---

Pretty much every errata document tells us which rule takes precedence. The Rules of the Game articles aren't even mentioned there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drelua

You, sir, have a way with words. I feel compelled to sig this, if I may?

---

Absolutely, go right ahead!