Defending weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Defending weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Drag0nUL
09-05-07, 07:57 AM From the SRD:

Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.

So, in order to be able to use the defending quality, the weapon must be 'wielded', right?
And what does exactly qualify as a 'wielded' weapon?
For example a character could have: his primary one handed weapon (which he uses to attack), defending armor spikes, defending shield spikes, defending spiked gauntlets on each hand. On how many of these items can he use the defending quality?
heffroncm
09-05-07, 12:17 PM You only have one "off-hand" slot for using something, and the description of Spiked Gauntlets and Armor Spikes both say they are wielded "as an off-hand weapon." The Defending Shield Spike is the way to go for AC Maximization, as you'll get the Shield bonuses and can use the Shield Spike's defending modifier.
Drag0nUL
09-05-07, 01:28 PM While very logical, that's a bit off from the answer I was expecting. While browsing through the CO boards I have seen quite a fair number of builds that seem to capitalize on multiple defending items. And these guys usually know what they are talking about rules-wise. So I am just puzzled.
heffroncm
09-05-07, 01:42 PM I apologize, I was going off memory. What I was referring to only applies directly to attacks, I.E. you can't attack with your primary hand weapon, an off-hand Shield Spike, and Armor Spikes in the same Full Attack.

As for multiple Defending items, I would go with the bonuses stacking rule on this one. It's the same bonus from the same ability, just granted by a different source, so should not stack.

Note that multiple Defending items on the CO board is considered controversial at best, and not used in most builds. Else, every single Cleric build would have a Shield Spike, Armor Spikes, Spiked Gauntlets, and Armor Razors, and cast Greater Magic Weapon on the +1 Defending items every day, to get a slot-free +20 AC.
Drag0nUL
09-05-07, 02:00 PM Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case.
heffroncm
09-05-07, 02:39 PM Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case.

The problem with old contests is that new rulings are made all the time, CustServ is always answering questions and the Sage is always updating the FAQ. The best bet with something of this nature, if you can't get the answer that satisfies here, is to ask in the "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread on the CO board. It's usually on the front page.
mvincent
09-05-07, 04:54 PM what does exactly qualify as a 'wielded' weapon?The best rule I've found is that if you could threaten with the weapon (assuming it is a type of weapon that threatens), then you are wielding it.
mvincent
09-05-07, 04:55 PM Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case.Obligatory notes regarding Multiple Defending Weapons:
Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpreted as indicating that it stacks with itself, but this appears unwarranted.

Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses:
"A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus."
... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses from the same source* don't stack with themselves. Note that "same source" in D&D does not refer to the "same item" (or same caster), but rather the "same effect” (or “same spell”).

It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (as this is what it actually is). This is also the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems.

Also note that the 3.0 FAQ said:
"Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon."

This is a good reference for intent, but the actual method presented is a bit suspect in 3.5. The same author later said (in the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)) that:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all."
Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties.
Sildatorak
09-05-07, 04:56 PM Keep in mind that even if you allow multiple defending weapons to stack (I wouldn't, personally), they are going to take the full TWF penalties even if they have the TWF feat(s). Only multiweapon fighting could reduce that penalty, and it is unlikely that they'll have the arms to qualify for it.
Tedronai
09-06-07, 03:10 AM Keep in mind that even if you allow multiple defending weapons to stack (I wouldn't, personally), they are going to take the full TWF penalties even if they have the TWF feat(s). Only multiweapon fighting could reduce that penalty, and it is unlikely that they'll have the arms to qualify for it.

That depends entirely on your definition of 'wielding' a weapon, to which no official ruling exists that does not seem to contradict another ruling on a similar matter. (see the above post by mvincent)
TWF as presented in the PHB is defined by making attacks with multiple weapons, not by 'wielding' them.
Sildatorak
09-06-07, 05:02 PM 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.Attacking is contingent on wielding, but "wielding" isn't limited to when you are attacking with the 2nd weapon. "When you fight in this way" can only refer to "if you wield a second weapon." "You can get one extra attack" is not a way of fighting, it is a benefit of the fighting style.

If you want to be "wielding" a weapon, even if only to trigger two-weapon defense or allow a defending off-hand weapon to function, you have to take the TWF penalty.
mvincent
09-06-07, 05:08 PM Attacking is contingent on wielding, but "wielding" isn't limited to when you are attacking with the 2nd weapon. "When you fight in this way" can only refer to "if you wield a second weapon." "You can get one extra attack" is not a way of fighting, it is a benefit of the fighting style.

If you want to be "wielding" a weapon, even if only to trigger two-weapon defense or allow a defending off-hand weapon to function, you have to take the TWF penalty.That appears to be an interpretation that the original designer does not share. As mentioned earlier, Skip Williams said (in the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)) that:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all."
Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties.

Also, many shields and such have properties that are only active while being "wielded". Note that this topic has actually been conclusively discussed several times before.
Amurayi
10-28-07, 05:04 PM Can a character (i.e. a mage) benefit from the Defending ability even though he doesn't attack with the weapon? He would only "wield" it but not "attack" with it. Does that count as using it?
mvincent
10-28-07, 06:47 PM Can a character (i.e. a mage) benefit from the Defending ability even though he doesn't attack with the weapon? He would only "wield" it but not "attack" with it. Does that count as using it?While that is one possible interpretation, the 3.0 FAQ stipulated that you have to attack with it to get the defending bonus.
runestar
10-29-07, 01:38 AM You are allowed to declare a "null attack" to benefit from a defending weapon.

This means that you do not actually need to attack someone, just spend an attack action to activate it.

For example, a wizard who is 20ft away from a foe can still activate his +5 defending dagger to get a +5 AC bonus, by using his standard action to make an action, then "cancel it out", even if he is not threatening anyone.

It should be clarified somewhere in either the 3.0 FAQ or at the back of the 3.0 PHB.:)

This is similar to the concept of declaring "null attacks" in M:TG.:)
mvincent
10-29-07, 12:09 PM You are allowed to declare a "null attack" to benefit from a defending weapon.Hm. Hadn't heard of that*, but it sounds reasonable. The 3.0 FAQ said that defending works like combat expertise.

Combat Expertise says "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll", so it seems reasonable enough to allow someone to use the attack action without actually attacking anyone.

The 3.0 FAQ also allowed one to use a defending weapon in your off-hand while making a standard action attack with your primary hand, so long as you take TWF'ing penalties (if used, this would be an exception to the ruling that TWF'ing penalties only apply during a full attack).

* I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling.
Cuindless
10-29-07, 08:30 PM Hm. Hadn't heard of that*, but it sounds reasonable. The 3.0 FAQ said that defending works like combat expertise.

Combat Expertise says "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll", so it seems reasonable enough to allow someone to use the attack action without actually attacking anyone.

The 3.0 FAQ also allowed one to use a defending weapon in your off-hand while making a standard action attack with your primary hand, so long as you take TWF'ing penalties (if used, this would be an exception to the ruling that TWF'ing penalties only apply during a full attack).

* I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling.

It seems to me that using Combat Expertise or Defending weapons in such a way would be counterproductive since it would not allow the "wielder" to cast. I haven't found any official rulings on it, (so, sadly, I don't get your "props") but it seems reasonable that if you're going to burn a standard action as a null attack to activate a weapon property you wouldn't be able to cast in the same round.
runestar
10-29-07, 08:43 PM * I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling.

It is odd that you are quoting the 3.0 PHB, yet asking me, since the ruling I am referring to is located right before the expertise ruling you are referencing...:P
mvincent
10-30-07, 02:14 PM It is odd that you are quoting the 3.0 PHBI'm not. I have only referenced the 3.0 FAQ and the 3.5 PHB so far.

the ruling I am referring to is located right before the expertise ruling you are referencing...:PI don't see it in the 3.0 SRD (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html). Can you provide a quote?
mvincent
10-30-07, 02:16 PM it seems reasonable that if you're going to burn a standard action as a null attack to activate a weapon property you wouldn't be able to cast in the same round.Since you only have one standard action per round, that would be assumed (unless using a quickened spell or somesuch).
runestar
10-30-07, 09:48 PM I don't see it in the 3.0 SRD. Can you provide a quote?

It was one of the questions asked in the FAQ at the end of the 3.0 PHB. I can't access it at the moment, must less provide a direct quote. Anyone with the book nearby care to help out?:P
mvincent
10-30-07, 11:41 PM It was one of the questions asked in the FAQ at the end of the 3.0 PHB. I can't access it at the moment, must less provide a direct quote. Anyone with the book nearby care to help out?:PI have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, but I do not see an FAQ at the end.
runestar
10-31-07, 07:54 AM I have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, but I do not see an FAQ at the end.

No sage advice by Skip williams?:confused:
mvincent
10-31-07, 12:04 PM No sage advice by Skip williams?:confused:No. However, the 3.0 FAQ (here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)) is sage advice by Skip Williams. You could look in there (I didn't find anything though).

To clarify: The FAQ could only be written after the PHB was first published. I'm not saying that all copies of the PHB don't have Sage advice by Skip Williams (I hadn't seen those though)... but certainly many earlier copies could not have. Regardless, it should be the same sage advice as in the 3.0 FAQ.
Cuindless
10-31-07, 03:55 PM Since you only have one standard action per round, that would be assumed (unless using a quickened spell or somesuch).

So, with the Quickened Spell feat a wizard with a defending quarterstaff +3 could cast the spell, then fight defensively and make an attack with full "defense mode" activated, thus increasing his AC by 5?
mvincent
10-31-07, 04:12 PM So, with the Quickened Spell feat a wizard with a defending quarterstaff +3 could cast the spell, then fight defensively and make an attack with full "defense mode" activated, thus increasing his AC by 5?Yup. This is only marginally better than Total Defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense), but might be worthwhile for a high level wizard using Greater Magic Weapon on his +1 defending staff... making it a (cheap) +4 or +5 defending staff.

Example: a 14th level Wizard/Archmage could maybe boost his Caster Level to 20 using an orange ioun stone, deathknell (via a ring of spell storing) and a bead of Karma (via Use Magic Device)... then cast Greater Magic Weapon (+5) on his +1 defending staff along with his normal buffs. Together with a mithral buckler and alter-self (troglodyte form), etc. his AC might well be higher than anyone else in the party. He could sit back and tank until needed.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drag0nUL 09-05-07, 07:57 AM	From the SRD: Defending A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. So, in order to be able to use the defending quality, the weapon must be 'wielded', right? And what does exactly qualify as a 'wielded' weapon? For example a character could have: his primary one handed weapon (which he uses to attack), defending armor spikes, defending shield spikes, defending spiked gauntlets on each hand. On how many of these items can he use the defending quality?
heffroncm 09-05-07, 12:17 PM	You only have one "off-hand" slot for using something, and the description of Spiked Gauntlets and Armor Spikes both say they are wielded "as an off-hand weapon." The Defending Shield Spike is the way to go for AC Maximization, as you'll get the Shield bonuses and can use the Shield Spike's defending modifier.
Drag0nUL 09-05-07, 01:28 PM	While very logical, that's a bit off from the answer I was expecting. While browsing through the CO boards I have seen quite a fair number of builds that seem to capitalize on multiple defending items. And these guys usually know what they are talking about rules-wise. So I am just puzzled.
heffroncm 09-05-07, 01:42 PM	I apologize, I was going off memory. What I was referring to only applies directly to attacks, I.E. you can't attack with your primary hand weapon, an off-hand Shield Spike, and Armor Spikes in the same Full Attack. As for multiple Defending items, I would go with the bonuses stacking rule on this one. It's the same bonus from the same ability, just granted by a different source, so should not stack. Note that multiple Defending items on the CO board is considered controversial at best, and not used in most builds. Else, every single Cleric build would have a Shield Spike, Armor Spikes, Spiked Gauntlets, and Armor Razors, and cast Greater Magic Weapon on the +1 Defending items every day, to get a slot-free +20 AC.
Drag0nUL 09-05-07, 02:00 PM	Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case.
heffroncm 09-05-07, 02:39 PM	Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case. The problem with old contests is that new rulings are made all the time, CustServ is always answering questions and the Sage is always updating the FAQ. The best bet with something of this nature, if you can't get the answer that satisfies here, is to ask in the "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread on the CO board. It's usually on the front page.
mvincent 09-05-07, 04:54 PM	what does exactly qualify as a 'wielded' weapon?The best rule I've found is that if you could threaten with the weapon (assuming it is a type of weapon that threatens), then you are wielding it.
mvincent 09-05-07, 04:55 PM	Thanks for your answers. My question arose from reading some builds posted on a quite old CO boards gish contest thread. Until then I had the same opinion (multiple defending items don't stack) but since the builds were supposed to be perfectly legal I thought there is perhaps a specific ruling for this case.Obligatory notes regarding Multiple Defending Weapons: Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is sometimes interpreted as indicating that it stacks with itself, but this appears unwarranted. Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses from the same source* don't stack with themselves. Note that "same source" in D&D does not refer to the "same item" (or same caster), but rather the "same effect” (or “same spell”). It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (as this is what it actually is). This is also the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems. Also note that the 3.0 FAQ said: "Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon." This is a good reference for intent, but the actual method presented is a bit suspect in 3.5. The same author later said (in the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)) that: "If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all." Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties.
Sildatorak 09-05-07, 04:56 PM	Keep in mind that even if you allow multiple defending weapons to stack (I wouldn't, personally), they are going to take the full TWF penalties even if they have the TWF feat(s). Only multiweapon fighting could reduce that penalty, and it is unlikely that they'll have the arms to qualify for it.
Tedronai 09-06-07, 03:10 AM	Keep in mind that even if you allow multiple defending weapons to stack (I wouldn't, personally), they are going to take the full TWF penalties even if they have the TWF feat(s). Only multiweapon fighting could reduce that penalty, and it is unlikely that they'll have the arms to qualify for it. That depends entirely on your definition of 'wielding' a weapon, to which no official ruling exists that does not seem to contradict another ruling on a similar matter. (see the above post by mvincent) TWF as presented in the PHB is defined by making attacks with multiple weapons, not by 'wielding' them.
Sildatorak 09-06-07, 05:02 PM	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.Attacking is contingent on wielding, but "wielding" isn't limited to when you are attacking with the 2nd weapon. "When you fight in this way" can only refer to "if you wield a second weapon." "You can get one extra attack" is not a way of fighting, it is a benefit of the fighting style. If you want to be "wielding" a weapon, even if only to trigger two-weapon defense or allow a defending off-hand weapon to function, you have to take the TWF penalty.
mvincent 09-06-07, 05:08 PM	Attacking is contingent on wielding, but "wielding" isn't limited to when you are attacking with the 2nd weapon. "When you fight in this way" can only refer to "if you wield a second weapon." "You can get one extra attack" is not a way of fighting, it is a benefit of the fighting style. If you want to be "wielding" a weapon, even if only to trigger two-weapon defense or allow a defending off-hand weapon to function, you have to take the TWF penalty.That appears to be an interpretation that the original designer does not share. As mentioned earlier, Skip Williams said (in the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)) that: "If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all." Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties. Also, many shields and such have properties that are only active while being "wielded". Note that this topic has actually been conclusively discussed several times before.
Amurayi 10-28-07, 05:04 PM	Can a character (i.e. a mage) benefit from the Defending ability even though he doesn't attack with the weapon? He would only "wield" it but not "attack" with it. Does that count as using it?
mvincent 10-28-07, 06:47 PM	Can a character (i.e. a mage) benefit from the Defending ability even though he doesn't attack with the weapon? He would only "wield" it but not "attack" with it. Does that count as using it?While that is one possible interpretation, the 3.0 FAQ stipulated that you have to attack with it to get the defending bonus.
runestar 10-29-07, 01:38 AM	You are allowed to declare a "null attack" to benefit from a defending weapon. This means that you do not actually need to attack someone, just spend an attack action to activate it. For example, a wizard who is 20ft away from a foe can still activate his +5 defending dagger to get a +5 AC bonus, by using his standard action to make an action, then "cancel it out", even if he is not threatening anyone. It should be clarified somewhere in either the 3.0 FAQ or at the back of the 3.0 PHB.:) This is similar to the concept of declaring "null attacks" in M:TG.:)
mvincent 10-29-07, 12:09 PM	You are allowed to declare a "null attack" to benefit from a defending weapon.Hm. Hadn't heard of that, but it sounds reasonable. The 3.0 FAQ said that defending works like combat expertise. Combat Expertise says "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll", so it seems reasonable enough to allow someone to use the attack action without actually attacking anyone. The 3.0 FAQ also allowed one to use a defending weapon in your off-hand while making a standard action attack with your primary hand, so long as you take TWF'ing penalties (if used, this would be an exception to the ruling that TWF'ing penalties only apply during a full attack). I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling.
Cuindless 10-29-07, 08:30 PM	Hm. Hadn't heard of that, but it sounds reasonable. The 3.0 FAQ said that defending works like combat expertise. Combat Expertise says "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll", so it seems reasonable enough to allow someone to use the attack action without actually attacking anyone. The 3.0 FAQ also allowed one to use a defending weapon in your off-hand while making a standard action attack with your primary hand, so long as you take TWF'ing penalties (if used, this would be an exception to the ruling that TWF'ing penalties only apply during a full attack). I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling. It seems to me that using Combat Expertise or Defending weapons in such a way would be counterproductive since it would not allow the "wielder" to cast. I haven't found any official rulings on it, (so, sadly, I don't get your "props") but it seems reasonable that if you're going to burn a standard action as a null attack to activate a weapon property you wouldn't be able to cast in the same round.
runestar 10-29-07, 08:43 PM	* I'll give you props' if you can find such a ruling. It is odd that you are quoting the 3.0 PHB, yet asking me, since the ruling I am referring to is located right before the expertise ruling you are referencing...:P
mvincent 10-30-07, 02:14 PM	It is odd that you are quoting the 3.0 PHBI'm not. I have only referenced the 3.0 FAQ and the 3.5 PHB so far. the ruling I am referring to is located right before the expertise ruling you are referencing...:PI don't see it in the 3.0 SRD (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html). Can you provide a quote?
mvincent 10-30-07, 02:16 PM	it seems reasonable that if you're going to burn a standard action as a null attack to activate a weapon property you wouldn't be able to cast in the same round.Since you only have one standard action per round, that would be assumed (unless using a quickened spell or somesuch).
runestar 10-30-07, 09:48 PM	I don't see it in the 3.0 SRD. Can you provide a quote? It was one of the questions asked in the FAQ at the end of the 3.0 PHB. I can't access it at the moment, must less provide a direct quote. Anyone with the book nearby care to help out?:P
mvincent 10-30-07, 11:41 PM	It was one of the questions asked in the FAQ at the end of the 3.0 PHB. I can't access it at the moment, must less provide a direct quote. Anyone with the book nearby care to help out?:PI have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, but I do not see an FAQ at the end.
runestar 10-31-07, 07:54 AM	I have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, but I do not see an FAQ at the end. No sage advice by Skip williams?:confused:
mvincent 10-31-07, 12:04 PM	No sage advice by Skip williams?:confused:No. However, the 3.0 FAQ (here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)) is sage advice by Skip Williams. You could look in there (I didn't find anything though). To clarify: The FAQ could only be written after the PHB was first published. I'm not saying that all copies of the PHB don't have Sage advice by Skip Williams (I hadn't seen those though)... but certainly many earlier copies could not have. Regardless, it should be the same sage advice as in the 3.0 FAQ.
Cuindless 10-31-07, 03:55 PM	Since you only have one standard action per round, that would be assumed (unless using a quickened spell or somesuch). So, with the Quickened Spell feat a wizard with a defending quarterstaff +3 could cast the spell, then fight defensively and make an attack with full "defense mode" activated, thus increasing his AC by 5?
mvincent 10-31-07, 04:12 PM	So, with the Quickened Spell feat a wizard with a defending quarterstaff +3 could cast the spell, then fight defensively and make an attack with full "defense mode" activated, thus increasing his AC by 5?Yup. This is only marginally better than Total Defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense), but might be worthwhile for a high level wizard using Greater Magic Weapon on his +1 defending staff... making it a (cheap) +4 or +5 defending staff. Example: a 14th level Wizard/Archmage could maybe boost his Caster Level to 20 using an orange ioun stone, deathknell (via a ring of spell storing) and a bead of Karma (via Use Magic Device)... then cast Greater Magic Weapon (+5) on his +1 defending staff along with his normal buffs. Together with a mithral buckler and alter-self (troglodyte form), etc. his AC might well be higher than anyone else in the party. He could sit back and tank until needed.