Defending Weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Defending Weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
SonShuma
06-08-06, 09:23 AM I play living Arcanis and we are currently haveing a little discussion over there about defending weapons. Do Defending Weapons Stack if you are wielding two weapons? If so, does anyone know where there is an article that can clafiry this. It just seems wrong with the wordig and such that they would not stack. I'll post more if this thread gets a response.
MarkB
06-08-06, 09:52 AM By the wording of the special ability ("a bonus that stacks with all others"), I'd say they'd definitely stack with each other - the specific item description trumps the general rules on bonus stacking.

And in balance terms, why not? A pair of +5 defending short swords will set you back 144,620 gp, which is well over twice the cost of adding +5 to your armour and shield, and leaves you having to pay an exorbitant price adding anything else to your weapons.
Bruunwald
06-08-06, 11:45 AM By the wording of the special ability ("a bonus that stacks with all others"), I'd say they'd definitely stack with each other - the specific item description trumps the general rules on bonus stacking.

And in balance terms, why not? A pair of +5 defending short swords will set you back 144,620 gp, which is well over twice the cost of adding +5 to your armour and shield, and leaves you having to pay an exorbitant price adding anything else to your weapons.

Not to mention that successfully wielding the two of them together means you probably are wearing medium or lighter armor.
FIREBLAST3DRAGONMASTER
06-08-06, 03:03 PM I'm pretty sure that d weapons don't stackbecause the highest bonus is the only one tht is counted. However, if one gives a +5 shield bonus and the other only gives a +5 to yor armor class than they do stack.

and if I may ask, what do you want wo defending weapons for anyway?

One in your off-hand should be enough while the other should be another weapon like a sickle of enfeebling.
Raven Dark
06-08-06, 03:25 PM Yes they do stack, although many DMs houserule against it to keep their players in line and to save on headaches. Most simply don't want to bother with a player character who wants to wield a pair of defending shortswords, a pair of defending gauntlets, a pair of defending blade boots, AND a defending spiked helm. The argument of whether or not they can even be "wielded at the same time" causes plenty of headaches on its own.

One thing to note (since many people overlook it), a +1 defending weapon is usually a really good deal. When you move the magical enhancement bonus to your AC, you get to keep the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. In effect, you trade in 1 point of damage in return for 1 point of AC. Not bad, eh? :D
MarkB
06-08-06, 06:43 PM One thing to note (since many people overlook it), a +1 defending weapon is usually a really good deal. When you move the magical enhancement bonus to your AC, you get to keep the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. In effect, you trade in 1 point of damage in return for 1 point of AC. Not bad, eh? :D
No, you're trading in two points of damage and one point on your attack rolls for +1 to AC, since the defending ability has the cost of a +1 enhancement in itself.
Raven Dark
06-08-06, 09:21 PM No, you're trading in two points of damage and one point on your attack rolls for +1 to AC, since the defending ability has the cost of a +1 enhancement in itself.

Huh? Two points of damage?

In any case, the Defending text is referring to the magical enhancement bonus upon the weapon. There is no way within the rules to make a masterwork weapon into a non-masterwork weapon.
pres_man
06-08-06, 09:55 PM A very strict reading of the defending ability limits the ability only to "swords".
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. 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.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.
Now there have be examples of defending daggers by WotC sources, and this would seem to indicate that this is perhaps too strict of a reading. On the other hand one could argue that daggers fall into the "sword" family (put a dagger sized for an ogre in the hands of a halfling, and tell me that isn't a sword).

The +2 comment I believe was in respect to the fact that you have to spend a +1 enhancement on getting the defending ability, thus a +1 shortsword has +2 cost of enhancements. 8,000 gp for 1 increase in AC. Heck for 5000 gp you could have got an Ioun stone for an insight bonus to AC of +1.
MarkB
06-09-06, 10:43 AM Huh? Two points of damage?
In comparison to not having the defending quality at all. For the price of a +1 defending weapon that gives you +1 to AC and +1 to attack, you could get a +2 weapon that gives you +2 to attack and +2 to damage, and probably upgrade your armour or shield more cheaply unless it's already heavily enhanced.
babysamurai
06-09-06, 11:07 AM A very strict reading of the defending ability limits the ability only to "swords".

Definitely too strict.

They used the word "sword" as an example - they should have written "the weapon" instead of "the sword".

If defending could only be applied to weapons that specifically had the word "sword" in their title - then there goes your defending rapier, or defending jovar etc.
jaelis
06-09-06, 11:22 AM Multiple defending weapons do not stack. I know I am in the minority on this, but I also know that I am right :)

It says the bonus stacks with all "others." I think that can safely be expanded to mean, it stacks with all other bonuses. But that does not mean that it stacks with the same (ie, defending) bonus from another source. A second defending weapon does not provide an "other" bonus, it provides the same bonus again and should not stack. That is more consistent with both the general rules for bonuses and the specific wording of the defending property.

Some similar examples are:
- penalties, which stack, but not if the come from the same source. If you are hit by two rays of enfeeblement, even from different casters, only the larger penalty applies. We know this is correct because it is specified in the rules for penalties.

- The weapon focus feat. A sunsword is treated as both a short sword and a bastard sword, but if you have WF(short sword) and WF(bastard sword), you only get a +1 bonus to hit. We know this is correct because it is specified in the rules for the sunsword.

- The assasin's dagger provides a +1 bonus on an assassin's death attack. Using the dual strike feat, you could attack with two daggers at once. Would the bonuses stack? Here the rules don't say, but I wouldn't let them stack because they are unnamed bonuses from the same source. What's the point of the "same source" rule if it doesn't apply in cases like this?

- The melee weapon mastery feat in the PHB II gives unnamed bonuses to hit and damage with either bludgeoning, slashing or piercing weapons. If you took it for both bludgeoning and piercing weapons, would the bonuses stack when you used a morningstar? The rules don't say, but it seem like most people on the boards accepted the argument that they wouldn't, because they are unnamed bonuses from the same source. If that logic applies to the bonuses from two arguably different feats, why doesn't it apply to the bonuses from two different defending weapons?

Rules aside, there is good reason to play this way. Allowing a character to benefit from every defending weapon on his person is broken at high levels, where it would become the cheapest way to improve your AC. Often people fix this by saying you need to wield the weapon to get the bonus, and try to define what "wielding" is. But that is not so easy to do in funny cases where you are switching weapons around during your turn, and it can be a headache. I think that my interpretation is just as well supported by the rules and much easier to apply.
pres_man
06-09-06, 12:25 PM Definitely too strict.
They used the word "sword" as an example - they should have written "the weapon" instead of "the sword".
If defending could only be applied to weapons that specifically had the word "sword" in their title - then there goes your defending rapier, or defending jovar etc.
As I said, it was just one way to interpret the ability. Of course noone said the word "sword" had to be in their title or even in their description block, just that it BE a "sword". I'm sure we could all agree whether a weapon is a "sword" just using common sense for most of them. The question would be if a few particulars are "swords", is a kukri a sword? Is a dagger? The punching dagger? These are smaller or weilded differently (punching dagger) so our idea of a sword seems to not agree, but give them to a child and they will probably treat them as swords. It is pretty clear from the following picture that at least most of the things on the right side are "swords" (even if they never really existed).
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG120_WEB.jpg

Also you'll notice that none of the other abilities mention anything but "weapon" (I think I'm right about that), thus the idea that this is an example seems to be an exception. I'm a firm believer when something is different from everything else, then there usually is a reason for that.
MarkB
06-09-06, 02:12 PM Also you'll notice that none of the other abilities mention anything but "weapon" (I think I'm right about that), thus the idea that this is an example seems to be an exception. I'm a firm believer when something is different from everything else, then there usually is a reason for that.
Since the random treasure generation tables in the DMG are just as capable of generating a defending mace as they are a defending short sword, I think not.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SonShuma 06-08-06, 09:23 AM	I play living Arcanis and we are currently haveing a little discussion over there about defending weapons. Do Defending Weapons Stack if you are wielding two weapons? If so, does anyone know where there is an article that can clafiry this. It just seems wrong with the wordig and such that they would not stack. I'll post more if this thread gets a response.
MarkB 06-08-06, 09:52 AM	By the wording of the special ability ("a bonus that stacks with all others"), I'd say they'd definitely stack with each other - the specific item description trumps the general rules on bonus stacking. And in balance terms, why not? A pair of +5 defending short swords will set you back 144,620 gp, which is well over twice the cost of adding +5 to your armour and shield, and leaves you having to pay an exorbitant price adding anything else to your weapons.
Bruunwald 06-08-06, 11:45 AM	By the wording of the special ability ("a bonus that stacks with all others"), I'd say they'd definitely stack with each other - the specific item description trumps the general rules on bonus stacking. And in balance terms, why not? A pair of +5 defending short swords will set you back 144,620 gp, which is well over twice the cost of adding +5 to your armour and shield, and leaves you having to pay an exorbitant price adding anything else to your weapons. Not to mention that successfully wielding the two of them together means you probably are wearing medium or lighter armor.
FIREBLAST3DRAGONMASTER 06-08-06, 03:03 PM	I'm pretty sure that d weapons don't stackbecause the highest bonus is the only one tht is counted. However, if one gives a +5 shield bonus and the other only gives a +5 to yor armor class than they do stack. and if I may ask, what do you want wo defending weapons for anyway? One in your off-hand should be enough while the other should be another weapon like a sickle of enfeebling.
Raven Dark 06-08-06, 03:25 PM	Yes they do stack, although many DMs houserule against it to keep their players in line and to save on headaches. Most simply don't want to bother with a player character who wants to wield a pair of defending shortswords, a pair of defending gauntlets, a pair of defending blade boots, AND a defending spiked helm. The argument of whether or not they can even be "wielded at the same time" causes plenty of headaches on its own. One thing to note (since many people overlook it), a +1 defending weapon is usually a really good deal. When you move the magical enhancement bonus to your AC, you get to keep the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. In effect, you trade in 1 point of damage in return for 1 point of AC. Not bad, eh? :D
MarkB 06-08-06, 06:43 PM	One thing to note (since many people overlook it), a +1 defending weapon is usually a really good deal. When you move the magical enhancement bonus to your AC, you get to keep the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. In effect, you trade in 1 point of damage in return for 1 point of AC. Not bad, eh? :D No, you're trading in two points of damage and one point on your attack rolls for +1 to AC, since the defending ability has the cost of a +1 enhancement in itself.
Raven Dark 06-08-06, 09:21 PM	No, you're trading in two points of damage and one point on your attack rolls for +1 to AC, since the defending ability has the cost of a +1 enhancement in itself. Huh? Two points of damage? In any case, the Defending text is referring to the magical enhancement bonus upon the weapon. There is no way within the rules to make a masterwork weapon into a non-masterwork weapon.
pres_man 06-08-06, 09:55 PM	A very strict reading of the defending ability limits the ability only to "swords". 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. Now there have be examples of defending daggers by WotC sources, and this would seem to indicate that this is perhaps too strict of a reading. On the other hand one could argue that daggers fall into the "sword" family (put a dagger sized for an ogre in the hands of a halfling, and tell me that isn't a sword). The +2 comment I believe was in respect to the fact that you have to spend a +1 enhancement on getting the defending ability, thus a +1 shortsword has +2 cost of enhancements. 8,000 gp for 1 increase in AC. Heck for 5000 gp you could have got an Ioun stone for an insight bonus to AC of +1.
MarkB 06-09-06, 10:43 AM	Huh? Two points of damage? In comparison to not having the defending quality at all. For the price of a +1 defending weapon that gives you +1 to AC and +1 to attack, you could get a +2 weapon that gives you +2 to attack and +2 to damage, and probably upgrade your armour or shield more cheaply unless it's already heavily enhanced.
babysamurai 06-09-06, 11:07 AM	A very strict reading of the defending ability limits the ability only to "swords". Definitely too strict. They used the word "sword" as an example - they should have written "the weapon" instead of "the sword". If defending could only be applied to weapons that specifically had the word "sword" in their title - then there goes your defending rapier, or defending jovar etc.
jaelis 06-09-06, 11:22 AM	Multiple defending weapons do not stack. I know I am in the minority on this, but I also know that I am right :) It says the bonus stacks with all "others." I think that can safely be expanded to mean, it stacks with all other bonuses. But that does not mean that it stacks with the same (ie, defending) bonus from another source. A second defending weapon does not provide an "other" bonus, it provides the same bonus again and should not stack. That is more consistent with both the general rules for bonuses and the specific wording of the defending property. Some similar examples are: - penalties, which stack, but not if the come from the same source. If you are hit by two rays of enfeeblement, even from different casters, only the larger penalty applies. We know this is correct because it is specified in the rules for penalties. - The weapon focus feat. A sunsword is treated as both a short sword and a bastard sword, but if you have WF(short sword) and WF(bastard sword), you only get a +1 bonus to hit. We know this is correct because it is specified in the rules for the sunsword. - The assasin's dagger provides a +1 bonus on an assassin's death attack. Using the dual strike feat, you could attack with two daggers at once. Would the bonuses stack? Here the rules don't say, but I wouldn't let them stack because they are unnamed bonuses from the same source. What's the point of the "same source" rule if it doesn't apply in cases like this? - The melee weapon mastery feat in the PHB II gives unnamed bonuses to hit and damage with either bludgeoning, slashing or piercing weapons. If you took it for both bludgeoning and piercing weapons, would the bonuses stack when you used a morningstar? The rules don't say, but it seem like most people on the boards accepted the argument that they wouldn't, because they are unnamed bonuses from the same source. If that logic applies to the bonuses from two arguably different feats, why doesn't it apply to the bonuses from two different defending weapons? Rules aside, there is good reason to play this way. Allowing a character to benefit from every defending weapon on his person is broken at high levels, where it would become the cheapest way to improve your AC. Often people fix this by saying you need to wield the weapon to get the bonus, and try to define what "wielding" is. But that is not so easy to do in funny cases where you are switching weapons around during your turn, and it can be a headache. I think that my interpretation is just as well supported by the rules and much easier to apply.
pres_man 06-09-06, 12:25 PM	Definitely too strict. They used the word "sword" as an example - they should have written "the weapon" instead of "the sword". If defending could only be applied to weapons that specifically had the word "sword" in their title - then there goes your defending rapier, or defending jovar etc. As I said, it was just one way to interpret the ability. Of course noone said the word "sword" had to be in their title or even in their description block, just that it BE a "sword". I'm sure we could all agree whether a weapon is a "sword" just using common sense for most of them. The question would be if a few particulars are "swords", is a kukri a sword? Is a dagger? The punching dagger? These are smaller or weilded differently (punching dagger) so our idea of a sword seems to not agree, but give them to a child and they will probably treat them as swords. It is pretty clear from the following picture that at least most of the things on the right side are "swords" (even if they never really existed). http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG120_WEB.jpg Also you'll notice that none of the other abilities mention anything but "weapon" (I think I'm right about that), thus the idea that this is an example seems to be an exception. I'm a firm believer when something is different from everything else, then there usually is a reason for that.
MarkB 06-09-06, 02:12 PM	Also you'll notice that none of the other abilities mention anything but "weapon" (I think I'm right about that), thus the idea that this is an example seems to be an exception. I'm a firm believer when something is different from everything else, then there usually is a reason for that. Since the random treasure generation tables in the DMG are just as capable of generating a defending mace as they are a defending short sword, I think not.