Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FaerellG 01-08-07, 06:35 PM	So in a conversation when a friend mentioned that between 2-H sword, 2WF, and Sword/Board, Sword/Board was the weakest. It got me thinking. Usually I like to try and take the weakest builds and make them viable somehow. So the obvious benefit of S/B is AC. How to jack it up higher. Thus the question of Armor and Shield spikes. Can you enchant them with Defending? I know it adds untyped damage, as far as i know there isn't a rule that says you can't add Defending to Armor and Shield spikes, but yeah...there's the question.
aelryinth 01-08-07, 07:35 PM	Sword and Board is considered the weakest for several reasons. 1) A great offense is better then a great defense. There are many, many ways around a high AC. there are not many ways around being suddenly dead in one round. Thus, the quicker the enemy is dead, the better absolute defense you have against him. TWF and THW are much, much better then Sword and Board on offense. 2) The 'board' is substitutable. Animated Shields mean THF/TWF can get a shield for themselves. Improved Buckler Defense does the same thing for cost of a feat. So, S&B loses its one advantage...AC. 3) Spikes and Defender. Yes, you can enchant them with Defender, just like you can on a shield. No, Defender bonuses won't stack with themselves. ----------------- To make S&B viable, you have to remove the ability to use shields from the other two groups. Defender spikes is a wash. THEN, when you do the dmg comparison, you get something remarkable. Because the S&B gy has such a high AC, he's actually doing m ore dmg over time to the other two styles then he is taking back from them. In other words, the THF/TWF guys are better at killing lower AC bad guys, but the S&B guys are better at killing THEM. That's why S&B was figured out as the best default fighting style, completely ignoring the power of Rule 1. They are trying to fix S&B by making it more TWF, and keeping the shield bonus in more situations. Rule1 still dominates, however. ===Aelryinth
FaerellG 01-08-07, 07:46 PM	Ok...before this thread turns into a discussion about whether or not S/B is viable or not, or is overpowered or not. I'm going to nip that in the bud. I don't care how good/crappy it is. As for the Defending bonus, I read that it stacks with everything. The literal quote "...stacks with all others." Is there an erratta that says it doesn't stack with itself?
The_Mad_Linguist 01-08-07, 07:55 PM	Ok...before this thread turns into a discussion about whether or not S/B is viable or not, or is overpowered or not. I'm going to nip that in the bud. I don't care how good/crappy it is. As for the Defending bonus, I read that it stacks with everything. The literal quote "...stacks with all others." Is there an erratta that says it doesn't stack with itself? Note the bolded word.
Valdrax 01-08-07, 08:10 PM	As for the Defending bonus, I read that it stacks with everything. The literal quote "...stacks with all others." Is there an erratta that says it doesn't stack with itself? That's part of the key clauses on whether or not defending is broken. The other is that "[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 bonus lasts until the beginning of his next turn." What constitutes "use?" Wielding the weapon in combat or having it readied? Actually attacking with it? Depending on the interpretation, defending is kind of a cool bonus for Expertise and other defensive fighters and useless for wizards casting spells from the back of the party, or it's a broken god-power. There's no need for a shield to abuse defending. A character wearing armor with +5 defending armor spikes with two +5 defending spiked gauntlets on both arms and wielding two +5 defending weapons has 5 +5 typeless bonuses to AC "that stacks with all others." Depending on interpretation, this could even apply to touch + flat-footed AC, meaning a base AC of 35. (Oh, and if you want a shield, get a +5 animated shield with +5 defending armor spikes.) Most sane DMs I've seen rule that the weapon must be intended to be used in an attack for that combat, though that can create issues with initiative and players wanting to change their minds to do something else (like heal a downed comrade) after already receiving the benefit. In addition, I like The_Mad_Linguist's interpretation. It's semantic, but it does nicely narrow the impact. Of course, since the bonus is typeless, the question comes down to whether it's a "defending" bonus or a "sword" bonus, in which case the freak job above could use a regular gauntlet in the place of one of the spiked gauntlets and make sure his light off-handed weapon differed from his primary weapon to cheese it with 5 different "[insert weapon name here]" bonuses. I'd slap a player that brought me that, though. However, there's no errata I can find that more tightly defines "use" for defending weapons, nothing that prevents defending weapons from stacking with each other, and nothing that prevents abuse like wearing defending gauntlets & wielding weapons at the same time. Defending weapons are one of those edge corners of the game that I think needs to be revisited.
Caelic 01-08-07, 08:20 PM	The default rule is that bonuses...even unnamed bonuses...do not stack with themselves. Exceptions are very explicitly spelled out--dodge, for instance. In this case, you have an ambiguous passage which could...kinda, sorta, if you read it the right way...possibly suggest that Defending stacks with itself. "Kinda sorta if you read it the right way," IMO, isn't enough to constitute an exception to a rule--particularly when the rule and its very clear exceptions are in the same book.
FaerellG 01-09-07, 01:26 PM	Huh, thanks Caelic. That's a reasonable interpretation. As for the concept of "use" I was planning on using it anyways +5 shield with Improved Shield Bash with +5 defending spikes +12 AC from the shield.
Taureus_Drakken 01-09-07, 04:18 PM	This might be just me, but the way I read the Defending entry the Defending bonus becomes unnamed, because only the weapon is refered to as having the Defending enchantment. IMO this is how they would stack with all other. And in the example of having a total of 6 Defending weapons, I do believe you would be able to get the AC bonus from all of them; albeit expensively, and not really helping you out the much in the area of hitting another creatures AC if it was high, and you wouldn't know right away if you put +30 into your AC, great, but you are still hitting with your regular attack, so I don't really see how that would help you that much.
Caelic 01-09-07, 05:34 PM	The problem, Taureus, is that unnamed bonuses from identical sources don't stack, with a few explicit exceptions.
Ipsissimus 01-09-07, 06:16 PM	Towershield!
Sci 01-09-07, 06:33 PM	Well, waitaminute then, bringing up the Tower Shield is a good point...does it's cover bonus stack with the shield bonus of another shield? I.E. a sort of a two-shield fighter, who uses a spiked heavy shield in one hand and a tower shield of some type get the bonus of both? I've been wondering about it as a easy way to get high AC at low levels for a cheap price... I mean if I read the rules right, with Improved Shield Bash, you could have nice bonuses as just a first level fighter.
The_Mad_Linguist 01-09-07, 07:28 PM	And in the example of having a total of 6 Defending weapons, I do believe you would be able to get the AC bonus from all of them; albeit expensively, and not really helping you out the much in the area of hitting another creatures AC if it was high, and you wouldn't know right away if you put +30 into your AC, great, but you are still hitting with your regular attack, so I don't really see how that would help you that much. Extreme case - a quiver full of defending arrows.
Valdrax 01-09-07, 08:05 PM	And in the example of having a total of 6 Defending weapons, I do believe you would be able to get the AC bonus from all of them; albeit expensively, and not really helping you out the much in the area of hitting another creatures AC if it was high, and you wouldn't know right away if you put +30 into your AC, great, but you are still hitting with your regular attack, so I don't really see how that would help you that much. Eh, who cares? I'm the divine spellcaster / ASF-ignoring arcane spellcaster in the back doing a little dance. :cheer: Also... Extreme case - a quiver full of defending arrows. I like the way you think.
Caelic 01-09-07, 08:08 PM	Eh, who cares? I'm the divine spellcaster / ASF-ignoring arcane spellcaster in the back doing a little dance. :cheer: Also... I like the way you think. And, of course, you're wielding every arrow in your quiver all the time. And all the ones in your backpack. And the ones in your bag of holding. *Cringe* I remember the first go-around with this "brilliant tactic."
Valdrax 01-09-07, 08:24 PM	The default rule is that bonuses...even unnamed bonuses...do not stack with themselves. Exceptions are very explicitly spelled out--dodge, for instance. Actually, untyped bonuses do explicitly stack. I'll quote some relevant questions from the current 3.5 FAQ: (Edit: Ignore the below argument. Caelic and VoxPVoxD make a good argument about the fact that these examples refers to multiple untyped bonuses from different sources.) The text for synergy under the Diplomacy skill on page 72 of the Player’s Handbook states: “If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.” I’m assuming that means if a character has 5 ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), and Sense Motive that the character would receive only a +2 synergy bonus on Diplomacy checks. Or would the character receive a +6 synergy bonus (+2 for each)? The bonuses listed in the synergy section of a skill description are unnamed and so they stack. (There’s no such thing as a synergy bonus in the current edition of the D&D game.) The character in your example would receive a +6 bonus on Diplomacy checks. Do the bonuses granted by brambles and spikes (Complete Divine, page 156 and page 181) stack? No and yes. The two spells each grant an enhancement bonus on attack rolls, and thus only the higher enhancement bonus (that granted by spikes) would apply. However, the damage bonus granted by each spell is untyped and would therefore stack with each other. (Emphasis in the answers is mine.) So, specifically, unnamed / untyped bonuses do stack unless there's text in later books that address this issue. In fact, the text in the DMG on bonus types explicitly mentions "named bonuses" when talking about bonuses that do not stack. This is why I think defending weapons are broken and need nerfing in the form of definitions of "use."
VoxPVoxD 01-09-07, 08:35 PM	Caelic isn't saying untyped bonuses stack, he's saying untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack. You can cast both Spikes and Brambles on a club and get the damage boost of both (providing you're using the Complete Divine versions and not the slightly nerfed Spell Compendium versions). You cannot cast Spikes twice or three or four times on the same staff. This use of Defending falls into the second category.
Caelic 01-09-07, 08:39 PM	Valdrax, Take a closer look at the text you quoted. Note that the examples you cite are all unnamed bonuses from different sources. Brambles and Spikes are different spells; the bonuses to synergy are from different skills. This is entirely in keeping with the general principle that unnamed bonuses stack with everything except themselves. (I will produce the relevant text when I can locate it; if anyone else has it handy, it would be appreciated.) By the most literal reading of the rules, not taking any outside readings into account, you are correct; the rulebooks do not stipulate that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves, and the rules on identical effects not stacking, literally written, only apply to spells.
VoxPVoxD 01-09-07, 08:42 PM	Stacking In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm
Caelic 01-09-07, 08:45 PM	Thanks, Vox. I knew it was in there somewhere; I just couldn't remember where. :)
Valdrax 01-09-07, 10:39 PM	Caelic & VoxPVoxD: Thanks for pointing that out. That fixes any perceived problems with defending weapons in my mind. No matter how many you have, you still get a max +5 bonus. In that case, sword and board does give you more AC, but I agree with the other posters that slightly more AC isn't as good as more damage & going first.