Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 11-10-04, 05:17 PM	Can I put the Defending weapon property on Shield Spikes so when I bash with my shield (no AC bonus), I can use the Defending property of the spikes?
Thorak 11-10-04, 08:59 PM	Yep. Works the same as any other Defending weapon would at that point; you lose to-hit and damage, and gain AC.
CruelDM 11-10-04, 09:20 PM	Dont you then force yourself to wield the spikes in combat to gain the bonus (take the TWF penalties anytime you assign the bonus to AC)?
PhaedrusXY 11-10-04, 09:46 PM	Dont you then force yourself to wield the spikes in combat to gain the bonus (take the TWF penalties anytime you assign the bonus to AC)?Kind of. Here is an excerpt from the 3.0 FAQ: Do I have to make an attack to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class? No, you don’t have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the Armor Class bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. You cannot use Expertise with the total defense action or any other action except attack or full attack.This is talking about using Expertise, but the same thing applies to a Defending weapon. So you'd have to declare the Attack or Full Attack action with your shield to gain the benefit from the defending ability. If you attack with another weapon, you'd take TWF penalties. But you could also just use the shield as your primary weapon. Edit: Here's the quote about Defending weapons working just like Expertise from the same FAQ: Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background? 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.
Thorak 11-11-04, 03:15 PM	Dont you then force yourself to wield the spikes in combat to gain the bonus (take the TWF penalties anytime you assign the bonus to AC)? The spikes and the shield aren't two different items. They're a single item; a spiked shield. If you're shield bashing with it, you're attacking with the weapon, and thus can use it's Defending property. If the original poster's question was "can I enchant the spikes separately, to retain the attack bonus of the shield while attacking while Defending with the spikes?" the answer would be no, because it's a single item, not two.
Purkake 11-11-04, 03:19 PM	Actually they are treated as two items i think it is also somewhere in the FAQ and i says that you can attack with the spikes or the bash and that you can enchant the spikes seperatly. Here we goThe description of the magical bashing property for shields says it can be added only to light or heavy shields. Does this exclude shields with shield spikes? That is, can you have a +2 spiked light shield of bashing? You can add the bashing property to a spiked shield. If you do, you use the bashing damage or the spike damage, as you prefer. The example +1 spiked light shield of bashing, if made for a Medium character, would deal 1d4 points of damage from the spike or from a bash. (Normally a light shield bash deals 1d3 points of damage, but the bashing enhancement increases that to 1d4.) If you use the spike damage, you’re using a piercing weapon, and the spike has no enhancement bonus (but you could enhance the spike separately). If you use the bash, you’re using a bludgeoning weapon that has a +1 enhancement.
Bluebrush 11-11-04, 04:30 PM	You could also take Shield Expert/Improved Shield bash to avoid losing your shield AC bonus.
CruelDM 11-11-04, 04:37 PM	The spikes and the shield aren't two different items. They're a single item; a spiked shield. If you're shield bashing with it, you're attacking with the weapon, and thus can use it's Defending property. Thats not what I meant Thorak, maybe I wasnt clear. If you declared that you would recieve an AC benefit from the defending spiked shield you would then have to adjust your attacks as if you were wielding two weapons, ie. -4/-6 (or -2/-2 if you had TWF) even if you only used your primary weapon to actually attack. Furthermore, without imp. Shield Bash, anytime you used the defending spiked shield to add to your AC you would lose the normal shield bonus to AC.
Thorak 11-11-04, 05:00 PM	Thats not what I meant Thorak, maybe I wasnt clear. If you declared that you would recieve an AC benefit from the defending spiked shield you would then have to adjust your attacks as if you were wielding two weapons, ie. -4/-6 (or -2/-2 if you had TWF) even if you only used your primary weapon to actually attack. Furthermore, without imp. Shield Bash, anytime you used the defending spiked shield to add to your AC you would lose the normal shield bonus to AC. Well, yes. And if you only attacked with the shield, it would be an off-hand attack, since shield bashes are by definition off hand attacks. I see how you intended your post now, it was just your use of the term "spikes" that raised a warning flag to me, since some people see them as different items. Like Purkake; that bit says you can decide to use the spikes for damage or the bashing enchantment. It doesn't say that they're separate weapons, just a single weapon with two possible sources of damage.
Purkake 11-11-04, 05:13 PM	My point is that you can enchant the spikes separately from the shield. So you can have defending shield spikes. How would that look like? The spikes reach out and block the hit? :rolleyes:
Naaman 11-12-04, 01:26 AM	It's magical, it doesn't need to make sense.
kjenks 11-12-04, 08:24 AM	Thats not what I meant Thorak, maybe I wasnt clear. If you declared that you would recieve an AC benefit from the defending spiked shield you would then have to adjust your attacks as if you were wielding two weapons, ie. -4/-6 (or -2/-2 if you had TWF) even if you only used your primary weapon to actually attack. Furthermore, without imp. Shield Bash, anytime you used the defending spiked shield to add to your AC you would lose the normal shield bonus to AC. That was a concept from the 3e FAQ, but it wasn't incorporated into the 3.5e rules or FAQ. The actual 3.5e rules for Defending weapons don't require you to take take TWF penalties in this situation. For example, if you're wielding a +2 longsword and a +2 Defending silver shortsword and you move 20 feet to attack an opponent with your longsword, you can use the Defending ability on the shortsword even though you didn't attack with it. Since you didn't attack with the shortsword, you don't take TWF penalties on your single longsword attack that round. If a werewolf runs past you later that round, you can take an AoO with the shortsword (again without the TWF penalties). TWF penalties only apply when you gain an extra attack with that second weapon. They don't apply just because you're wielding a second weapon. Ask your DM.
Thorak 11-12-04, 08:40 AM	That was a concept from the 3e FAQ, but it wasn't incorporated into the 3.5e rules or FAQ. The actual 3.5e rules for Defending weapons don't require you to take take TWF penalties in this situation. For example, if you're wielding a +2 longsword and a +2 Defending silver shortsword and you move 20 feet to attack an opponent with your longsword, you can use the Defending ability on the shortsword even though you didn't attack with it. Since you didn't attack with the shortsword, you don't take TWF penalties on your single longsword attack that round. If a werewolf runs past you later that round, you can take an AoO with the shortsword (again without the TWF penalties). TWF penalties only apply when you gain an extra attack with that second weapon. They don't apply just because you're wielding a second weapon. Ask your DM. Actually, the 3.5 rules do require you to take the penalties. TWF penalties engage when you wield two weapons. Defending can be used to improve the AC of the wielder. You can be the wielder unless you're wielding said weapon. Ergo, you must be taking the TWF penalties to gain the off-hand weapon's Defending bonus, regardless whether you attack or not. The TWF penalties must apply when you wield the second weapon. Otherwise, what happens if you take the penalties, and kill the enemy with your last primary hand attack, missing the first 3 by 1 point each? If you only take the penalties for the extra attacks, you wouldn't have taken the penalties, and would have hit with your first attack, probably killing your enemy. And then being able to attack others. And kindly don't try to imply it's the intent to make extra attacks; that's not even remotely implied in the text. There are two options for the sentence; either wielding, or making the extra attacks, that causes the penalties. The latter causes paradoxes and problems. The former does not. It seems pretty clear that the former, therefore, is the best interpretation, since it's the one that doesn't cause potential issues. Plus the FAQ disagrees with you. For instance; "Thus, a character wielding two rapiers is wielding two one-handed weapons, and suffers a –4 penalty on attack rolls with both his primary hand and his off hand." Clearly, it's stating that wielding two weapons causes the TWF penalties. So, if you choose to ignore the FAQ's assertion that "my" interpretation (quotes used because it's the one I'm using, not the one I came up with) is right, and that your intepretation causes paradoxes and problems, then I suppose I can't contradict you. The line in question could be read both ways. But I think it's clear which way it should be read; wielding two weapons causes the TWF penalties. That's the only way it makes sense, and the FAQ agrees.
tarkin 11-12-04, 11:13 AM	Thorak is entirely correct. You can't get magical bonuses from a shield that is on the ground, in your pack, or even strapped to your back. Shields and weapons are USE activated items, so to get any magical benefit from a weapon or shield you are required to be using it as a weapon or a shield. For weapon enchantments that means it must be in your hand and either the only weapon you are making attacks with, or one of two weapons you are making attacks with if you are taking the TWF penalties. For armor encahntments on shields it means you must be getting the shield benefit. Those are the Official rules of the game, as written by WoTC. People may ignore them in their own games, but risk being called munchkins by the rest of us.
CruelDM 11-12-04, 11:40 AM	So if I had a small steel defending spiked shield +1 (thats +1 defending, not +1 shield) and I used it to transfer the attack bonus to defence, I would actually loose 1 AC point and suffer penalties to my attacks if I didnt have Improved Shield Bash. The shield is normally worth a +2 shield bonus to my AC but I am not wielding it as a shield (so I loose 2 points to my AC) to get the +1 defense bonus to my AC. A shield enchanted in this manner would have to be +3 or greater to actually be a benefit. Kind of ironic isnt it?
kjenks 11-12-04, 10:34 PM	Actually, the 3.5 rules do require you to take the penalties. TWF penalties engage when you wield two weapons. Not quite. TWF penalties engage when you wield a second weapon in your off hand AND you take an extra attack with that weapon. Check out the rules on TWF: TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. Prerequisite: Dex 15. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) No extra attack, no TWF penalties. Check out my longsword/silvered Defending shortsword example again. The attacker isn't making a full attack so he can't attack with two weapons, but he can wield both weapons. Notice the AoO with the shortsword. Unlike the Combat Expertise feat, the Defending ability does not require you to attack.
Thorak 11-12-04, 10:56 PM	I reiterate; interpreting TWF to mean you only take the penalties for making an extra attack creates paradoxical situations the core rules can't solve and disagrees with the FAQ's assertions. Interpreting it to mean you take the penalties if you wield two weapons makes everything work nice and efficiently. If you mean to imply that the illogical and contradictory explanation, rather than the simple and plain one, is the correct one, go ahead. I think it's ridiculous. Besides, if there was a debate (and I admit there could be) the FAQ answers it. Wielding causes the penalties. I quoted the relevant bit earlier. This is the official answer. Feel free to houserule, but you are houseruling.
UZI 11-13-04, 08:01 AM	As an example of the Balor's (a creature wielding two weapons and using TWF) attack sequences: Quoth the SRD Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +33 melee (2d6+8/19–20) Full Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19–20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +31 melee (1d10+7) The Balor only takes the TWF penalties when fighting with two weapons, not by wielding. Same applies for using a double-weapon with only a single attack (such as in the sample half-dragon in the MM).
Thorak 11-13-04, 11:24 AM	UZI; that's because you can hold a weapon while not wielding it. Take a two-handed weapon and a caster, for instance. They need a free hand to cast, so they hold their weapon in one hand and cast with the other. They aren't wielding the weapon, though, because that takes two hands. Clearly holding the weapon isn't enough to be considered "wielding". Another example; shields. They're useable as weapons, but you don't take TWF penalties unless you wield them as such; just holding them doesn't inflict the penalties. Therefore, the Balor (or any creature) can choose to hold, and not wield, one of their two weapons, and focus on the other, not taking the TWF penalties. But they can't then use the second weapon for any purpose in that round, even for things like Defending, since they're not wielding it. But, to go back to my shield example, what do you do if you interpret the other way, if your first level fighter is fighting one enemy? When he uses TWF to ensure he gets the most chance to defeat his opponent, and hits on his sword attack? He didn't make the extra attack, but he took the penalty... Or what if he's level 6, and wants to do defeat his enemy this round so he can save his friend from another enemy 20 feet away? And uses TWF, misses the first attack by 1 point, hits with the second and kills his opponent, and again never makes the shield bash that would have been the extra attack that caused the TWF penalties. Because here, he doesn't make the extra attack you claim causes the penalties. And if he shouldn't have been penalized, his first strike would have hit and probably killed his opponent. And then, a single attack being a Standard action, he could have moved this round. In both cases, the Fighter is being penalized for something you claim isn't happening. And in the latter, it's screwing him up. If you take the penalty for wielding two weapons, it doesn't matter if you don't take the extra attack, and none of these issues come up. And I'd much rather take the interpretation that doesn't cause potential issues and is supported by the FAQ. Since that's the official interpretation. Like I said; houserule if you don't like it, but don't claim your houserule is core.
kjenks 11-13-04, 01:35 PM	UZI; that's because you can hold a weapon while not wielding it. Take a two-handed weapon and a caster, for instance. They need a free hand to cast, so they hold their weapon in one hand and cast with the other. They aren't wielding the weapon, though, because that takes two hands. Clearly holding the weapon isn't enough to be considered "wielding". Another example; shields. They're useable as weapons, but you don't take TWF penalties unless you wield them as such; just holding them doesn't inflict the penalties. Therefore, the Balor (or any creature) can choose to hold, and not wield, one of their two weapons, and focus on the other, not taking the TWF penalties. But they can't then use the second weapon for any purpose in that round, even for things like Defending, since they're not wielding it. You're making that up. There's nothing in the rules that talks about holding a weapon and not wielding it. There's nothing in the rules that talks about holding a weapon but not being able to attack with it. There's nothing in the rules saying someone wielding two weapons must choose to hold, and not wield, one of their two weapons, and focus on the other, not taking the TWF penalties. The Balor example isn't the best example to use here because the MM got the TWF penalties wrong (instead of -2/-2, they should be -4/-4 since both a longsword and a whip are one-handed weapons). Check out the Drider. Only takes TWF penalties during full attack. Check out the Minotaur: Attack: Greataxe +9 melee (3d6+6/x3) or gore +9 melee (1d8+4) Full Attack: Greataxe +9/+4 melee (3d6+6/x3) and gore +4 melee (1d8+2) He's clearly wielding both weapons, yet his attack bonus only reflects using his gore as a secondary attack (-5 with 1/2 Str bonus for secondary natural weapon) during a full attack. Or, Thorak, when he's wielding his greataxe, would you say he's just carrying his horns around and not wielding them? Nonsense. He's wielding both, and he can take an AoO with either one, even when limited to a standard action instead of a full attack. And since he's wielding both, he could have a Defending greataxe and use its AC bonus, even when he's just using a standard action to attack with a single gore.
Thorak 11-13-04, 06:22 PM	You're making that up. There's nothing in the rules that talks about holding a weapon and not wielding it. There's nothing in the rules that talks about holding a weapon but not being able to attack with it. There's nothing in the rules saying someone wielding two weapons must choose to hold, and not wield, one of their two weapons, and focus on the other, not taking the TWF penalties. I'm not making it up. It's just not an explicit rule. If you can wear a shield without invoking TWF penalties, you can hold any weapon without doing so for the exact same reason. Or are you really trying to imply that holding a weapon counts as "wielding", and therefore all shield users are forced to be TWFing every round? Clearly, there's a difference between "wield" and "hold". Otherwise, shields are forcing their users to take a -6 to hit on their primary attack. The Balor example isn't the best example to use here because the MM got the TWF penalties wrong (instead of -2/-2, they should be -4/-4 since both a longsword and a whip are one-handed weapons). Yes, but one mistake doesn't mean the rest isn't accurate. Unless you mean that because they made one error, Balor's don't exist. Check out the Drider. Only takes TWF penalties during full attack. Check out the Minotaur: Attack: Greataxe +9 melee (3d6+6/x3) or gore +9 melee (1d8+4) Full Attack: Greataxe +9/+4 melee (3d6+6/x3) and gore +4 melee (1d8+2) He's clearly wielding both weapons, yet his attack bonus only reflects using his gore as a secondary attack (-5 with 1/2 Str bonus for secondary natural weapon) during a full attack. Or, Thorak, when he's wielding his greataxe, would you say he's just carrying his horns around and not wielding them? Nonsense. He's wielding both, and he can take an AoO with either one, even when limited to a standard action instead of a full attack. And since he's wielding both, he could have a Defending greataxe and use its AC bonus, even when he's just using a standard action to attack with a single gore. The Drider only takes TWF penalties during a Full Attack because he doesn't bother wielding his second dagger during an Attack action, because he can't get the extra attack so the penalty would be useless, so he holds it instead. Point in my favor, since the Drider doesn't have quickdraw and thus isn't switching weapons around as a free action. And the minotaur isn't wielding two weapons. He's combining a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon. Those are different rules than TWFing, and yes, he always is wielding the horns, and they never penalize his primary attacks. So yes, he could just attack with his horns while wielding his Defending greataxe. But his horns would be at a -5 because they're a secondary natural weapon, because he's wielding his primary one, the greataxe.
UZI 11-13-04, 10:09 PM	Quoth Thorak If you can wear a shield without invoking TWF penalties, you can hold any weapon without doing so for the exact same reason. Or are you really trying to imply that holding a weapon counts as "wielding", and therefore all shield users are forced to be TWFing every round? No, as the TWF penalties only apply when fighting with the off-hand weapon, not simply wielding. You appear to want to take this condition and give it a new title called "holding"...tell me, does it take a standard or a free action to switch a weapon from the "holding" to the "wielding" state? If so, can you please find the reference in the SRD or the core books where I can look up both the definition of "holding a weapon" and how to switch one to wielding?
Thorak 11-13-04, 11:53 PM	No, as the TWF penalties only apply when fighting with the off-hand weapon, not simply wielding. You appear to want to take this condition and give it a new title called "holding"...tell me, does it take a standard or a free action to switch a weapon from the "holding" to the "wielding" state? If so, can you please find the reference in the SRD or the core books where I can look up both the definition of "holding a weapon" and how to switch one to wielding? Could you quote the section where it covers how, mechanically, to resolve eating? There's tons of things that aren't explicitly covered in the books. Some because they're really not needed, others, like this, which are implied throughout the text. No, there's no definition of "holding" or "wielding". There probably should be, but it's not necessary; the distinction is implied throughout the books. And it's not like everything is defined in the books, either. As for what it takes to switch between them; it's not an action. The terms are descriptive, they don't define different states, just how you're holding it. I'll note that the Draw a Weapon action does not state you are then wielding the weapon. Once you have the weapon in hand, you're holding it. If you choose to wield it in battle, that's descriptive of how you're using it. If you just keep holding it, you're not wielding it. And like I said; the TWF penalties have to apply when you wield the second weapon, not just on the extra attack. Trying to make it mean the latter creates paradoxical issues where you take the penalty, and then never take the attack that creates the penalty. In which case, there wouldn't be a penalty. Which means, if he missed an earlier attack by 1 or 2, he would have hit there. And, of course, the FAQ agrees with this, and states, as I quoted, that wielding causes the penalties. In fact, it assumes it's true to the extent that it doesn't even mention it in it's own question, but just in one of the examples. So, logically, you're wrong. And officially, you're wrong. Your interpretation disagrees with the official FAQ, and creates paradoxes and rule issues. Why do you insist it's "right", since it's based on an incredibly questionable interpretation of two lines for which the official ruling as I've presented it is just as valid, even just considering those two lines?
UZI 11-14-04, 09:35 AM	The rules for eating in combat are covered under "potions" and the "Swallow Whole" special ability. But back to the topic at hand: Thorak wrote Once you have the weapon in hand, you're holding it. If you choose to wield it in battle, that's descriptive of how you're using it. Under that house-rule, if I don't attack with a weapon I am not wielding it, I am only holding it. So under your rules, you must spend a standard action to deactivate the flaming property on off-hand weapons if you don't intend to "describe" yourself as wielding the weapon that round (that is, make an off-hand attack with it), or else the flaming damage will hurt you, as it doesn't hurt the wielder, and clearly you are only holding, not wielding the weapon. As far as the full-attack with dual-wielding goes, the whole purpose of declaring the intention at the beginning of the full-attack sequence is to ensure the penalties are taken for all attacks. If you then do not take the off-hand attack, that's a personal problem, but since you didn't know you wouldn't need the off-hand attack at the start of the sequence, it didn't change your fighting technique to be slightly sloppier with the main hand so as to get a decent off-hand attack in.
CruelDM 11-14-04, 09:53 AM	As far as the full-attack with dual-wielding goes, the whole purpose of declaring the intention at the beginning of the full-attack sequence is to ensure the penalties are taken for all attacks. The same holds true for declaring a defending bonus from a defending weapon in your off-hand, if you declare it on your turn, you take the TWF penalties.
Thorak 11-14-04, 11:36 AM	Under that house-rule, if I don't attack with a weapon I am not wielding it, I am only holding it. So under your rules, you must spend a standard action to deactivate the flaming property on off-hand weapons if you don't intend to "describe" yourself as wielding the weapon that round (that is, make an off-hand attack with it), or else the flaming damage will hurt you, as it doesn't hurt the wielder, and clearly you are only holding, not wielding the weapon. You're making stuff up. You can hold a Flaming weapon without it hurting you. "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." Unless you're hitting yourself, you're not taking damage. The bit on the wielder not taking damage is superfluous. As far as the full-attack with dual-wielding goes, the whole purpose of declaring the intention at the beginning of the full-attack sequence is to ensure the penalties are taken for all attacks. If you then do not take the off-hand attack, that's a personal problem, but since you didn't know you wouldn't need the off-hand attack at the start of the sequence, it didn't change your fighting technique to be slightly sloppier with the main hand so as to get a decent off-hand attack in. Again, you're making stuff up. The TWFing rules can be intepreted one of two ways; "fighting in this way", which causes you to take the penalties, refers either to "wield a second weapon" or "get one extra attack per round with that weapon." My argument is for the former. I thought yours was for the latter. But now you're claiming that you take the penalties when you declare the intent to make an extra attack? How is that in the rules, in any way? It states "get an extra attack..." Not intend to get an extra attack. If you're not TWFing just because you're wielding the weapons, by the RAW, the penalty would have to be applied if you actually make the extra attack. That's the only other way the line can be read. And like I said; to make it workable, you need to create houserules. Like you're doing with this "declaring intent" stuff. Which, IMHO, certainly strongly implies that the interpretation is wrong; since the other interpretation works without raising any issues whatsoever.