Armor and Shield Spikes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor and Shield Spikes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Yoritomo Ni
10-28-04, 01:45 PM Howdy,

I have a couple of questions about Armor and Shield Spikes.

First, since they are considered weapons and can be made magical, can I make them +5 Defending Spikes?

If so, if I have +5 Defending Armor Spikes and +5 Defending Shield Spikes, but only plan on attacking with my Sword can I give the spikes -5 each for a total of +10 to my AC?

Thanks,

Dave
Thorak
10-28-04, 01:51 PM The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword.
Yoritomo Ni
10-28-04, 02:01 PM The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword.

So, if I am weilding a shield (with spikes) and my sword and go on full defense, am I weilding either as weapons?

Thanks,

Dave
kjenks
10-28-04, 02:29 PM The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword.

That's not quite right.

The old 3e FAQ covered this, changing the rules from the DMG description of the Defending ability to make it more like Expertise.

3.5e has changed Expertise to Combat Expertise and the new 3.5e FAQ does not change the workings of the Defending ability.

The only actual 3.5e rules we have to cover this situation are the DMG rules -- which don't require you to do what Thorak says. The SRD version says:
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.

Some people still apply the old 3e FAQ rule change to this. Some don't. Ask your DM. You might point out the text on the cover of the 3.5e FAQ, which might have some bearing on whether your DM will use the old 3e FAQ in his game.
Thorak
10-28-04, 04:06 PM Note that it says "allows the wielder". If you wield it, you're TWFing. Simply wearing or holding the shield is different; you can hold a greatsword in one hand, but need two hands to wield it, for instance. Though you do get passive benefits, like shield bonuses to AC, just for wearing the shield. But unless I'm weilding it as a weapon, I'm not "wielding" the shield, and thus as far as Defending goes, there's no Wielder to apply the benefit to.

So, if you go on full defense, you can get the benefits as long as you're taking the TWF penalties. And I don't see why you wouldn't, if you want to, because you can't make attacks so it doesn't hurt.
deathmaster35
10-28-04, 11:59 PM If so, if I have +5 Defending Armor Spikes and +5 Defending Shield Spikes, but only plan on attacking with my Sword can I give the spikes -5 each for a total of +10 to my AC?Thanks,Dave
Technicly yes, but I dont think that really follows the spirit of the rules. Even though they add a no named bonus, you really shouldnt let someone be under the same effect multiple times. It would be like if there was a magic item that you could activate to get +1 dodge bonus to AC for an hour, and then you use it 20 times to get a +20 to AC... come to think of it I think there is a rule that does this, but not sure where it is.

But pretty much they are both the same effect, even if they are from multiple items. Just stick to the armor spikes of defending :)

Oh and one more thing I forgot, any good GM should beat you about the neck and shoulders for even thinking of something like that :)
CruelDM
10-29-04, 09:48 AM There was an article on the D&D website not long ago (it should still be in the archives) about bonus stacking, I believe another place to look is the DMG at the start of the Magic Item section. These sources specifically cover "nameless" or "generic" bonuses, they state that a nameless bonus stacks with anything, even other nameless bonuses, except when the bonus comes from a similiar source or situation. I would think that 2 defending items bonuses are similiar sources and would not stack, so one could not benefit from 2 defending weapons.
Yoritomo Ni
10-29-04, 03:31 PM There was an article on the D&D website not long ago (it should still be in the archives) about bonus stacking, I believe another place to look is the DMG at the start of the Magic Item section. These sources specifically cover "nameless" or "generic" bonuses, they state that a nameless bonus stacks with anything, even other nameless bonuses, except when the bonus comes from a similiar source or situation. I would think that 2 defending items bonuses are similiar sources and would not stack, so one could not benefit from 2 defending weapons.

But Defending says this (emphasis mine):

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.

Dave
CruelDM
10-29-04, 03:39 PM that stacks with all others
Hence its a nameless bonus and follows the rules of stacking for nameless bonuses.

Edit: I found the article, I was misquoting but correct:

Rules Governing Bonuses

The basic rule to remember when combining two or more bonuses is this: two or more bonuses of different type stack, and two or more bonuses of the same type overlap. In general, a bonus's name indicates its type. A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself. .......author: Skip Williams

So, even bonuses without names do not stack with the same bonus. Defending bonus will not stack with another Defending bonus.
Aufenshauft
10-29-04, 03:46 PM The real problem with the whole question is that it is not a cost-efficient way to get ac. The cost of +3 armor enhancement is 3*3*1000=9000. Not bad. The cost for +3 ac from defending is a minimum of 4*4*2000= 32000. Yikes. (note, the defending aspect costs a +1 for cost purposes).

So, to make two +5 enhancements is (6*5*2000)*2= 120,000 gp. :mymy: Good luck doing this pre-epic, and even then it is rediculous. There are better ways of being a tank, like getting DR.

If you are using a shield on your off hand, you are wielding it, and thus get the bonus. I am bothered by spikes being used that way, but if you really want to waste all your money, by all means. I'll get a ring of protection (5*5*1000= 25000, and money to spare) ;)
CruelDM
10-29-04, 03:54 PM If Shield Spikes were employed to grant an AC bonus you would be wielding the shield as a weapon (even if you didnt swing it as one) and would have to abide by the Two Weapon Fighting penalties (including attacks made by your primary weapon).
Tony Vargas
10-29-04, 04:50 PM Good rule-0 on Defeding weapons: You must actually /use/ the weapon - ie use it to perform any sort of attack action on your initiative - to gain the AC bonus.
Anything else is begging for abuse.

Sure, it may seem a little unfair that you can't benefit from a Defending weapon while on total defense - but then you can't use combat expertise, either... and it's better than having players ask if they can use thier two spiked gauntlets, two swords, buckler axe, armor spikes, and bladed boots - all of defending - at once... :rolleyes:

Another good option would simply be to name the Defending bonus to AC - 'Deflection' would work.
Thorak
10-29-04, 04:54 PM I just reminded myself of how I defeated this proposition last time. If 'wearing' is the same as 'wielding', then any character can toss on two +5 Defending Gauntlets to the mix. Regardless of what weapons they may or may not be using, they get a +10 AC bonus.

I think it's pretty clear this is wrong, and there's a firm distinction between 'wearing' and 'wielding'. Wielding, in D&D terms, is used pretty much exclusively with regards to weapons, and specifically to using them actively in combat. Hence the rules that, if you wield two weapons, you're taking TWFing bonuses, regardless of whether you take the extra attack or not.

And which, according to the Defending ability, requires you to be wielding the item as a weapon. Using a shield without shield bashing is not "wielding" the shield.
CruelDM
10-29-04, 07:42 PM Note that you can only add the defending ability to a weapon. Armor/shield spikes are weapons, they grant you an off-hand attack in the course of a normal round unless you have already used an off hand attack that round with some other weapon (they also grant a benefit when grappling). Any round you did not use the spikes as a weapon you could not use the defending ability. Any round you did use them as a weapon you suffer from two weapon fighting penalties.

Two bonuses from 2 defending weapons do not stack as I pointed out earlier.
UZI
10-30-04, 09:08 AM Wielding doesn't mean "using". Wielding means "ready to use". Shield spikes are not protective gear, and can only act as weapons. If they're in your hand (by being on your shield), you're wielding them. The description of defending states the decision on how to allocate the bonus is made before using the weapon, but does not state that the weapon must actually be used.

So, technically you could take Two Weapon Fighting, wield two defending weapons (I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack), have an animated bashing shield with defending shield spikes, have defending armor spikes, and have defending gauntlets.

Since defending provides a bonus to AC, it could also affect touch AC, but not flat-footed AC (since you can only turn it on at the beginning of your turn and it lasts until the start of your next turn).
CruelDM
10-30-04, 10:48 AM I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack
They dont.

Reference my post above or read the whole article "Rules of the Game Part 1" available on the D&D website.
Thorak
10-30-04, 01:05 PM Wielding doesn't mean "using". Wielding means "ready to use". Shield spikes are not protective gear, and can only act as weapons. If they're in your hand (by being on your shield), you're wielding them. The description of defending states the decision on how to allocate the bonus is made before using the weapon, but does not state that the weapon must actually be used.

So, technically you could take Two Weapon Fighting, wield two defending weapons (I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack), have an animated bashing shield with defending shield spikes, have defending armor spikes, and have defending gauntlets.

Nope. This assumption on what "wield" means is clearly wrong. Otherwise, everyone who wears a shield while wielding a weapon is, necessarily, TWFing, because the shield is "ready to use" in a shield bash. Which is clearly wrong. Wearing a shield doesn't require you to wield the shield as a weapon. Heck, you gain the shield bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious, where you're clearly not "wielding" anything.

"Wield", in D&D terms, means "actively ready to use". In other words, while you may not be actually whacking someone with it, you're ready to, and therefore are taking the TWF penalties. Now, you don't have to make the extra off-hand attacks, if you don't want to. So you could, wielding a glaive, TWF with your Defending armor spikes to boost your AC, while never actually attacking with the spikes. Because you're ready to attack with them, should anyone close, and you're taking the TWFing penalties to allow you to wield the second weapon.

And, clearly, it's impossible to wield a second weapon in the same hand, like the gauntlet you're holding your sword in, or to wield more than two (for a standard two-armed humanoid). Sure, you could TWF with armor spikes or a spiked shield, get the Defending bonus, and never attack with it (useful, in the shield's case, because it's only actually bashing that causes you to lose the AC, not wielding it as a weapon). But not both a shield and armor spikes, unless you're not wielding any other weapon. And certainly not a shield, armor spikes, and two gauntlets, as well as your sword.

Edit: Even if we assumed they stack, which I'll admit is debateable. CruelDM makes good points, but Defending states it stacks with "all other bonuses". I don't see why that wouldn't include other Defending bonuses, making it an explicit exception to the general rule CruelDM is quoting. But that's why I'm saying it's debateable, and my post isn't claiming one or the other, just assuming the worst to show it's wrong on an entirely different level.
UZI
10-30-04, 01:06 PM Might be willing to agree, but the defending enhancement states is stacks with all other bonuses to AC. Its a bit ambiguous on whether this explicit stacking description indicates it stacks with other defending weapons or not. It is a question on whether they come from the same source (ie, type of effect: defending), or different source (ie, transfer of each individual weapon's enhancement bonus to stackable AC).

We know different castings of the same spell don't stack bonuses, but do different weapons with the same ability, albeit by subtracting from different weapons' enhancement bonuses have such a limitation. You cannot look at the required spell for defending either, since this is Shield of Faith, which is a deflection bonus, and we expect defending to stack with deflection bonus.
UZI
10-30-04, 01:20 PM Nope. This assumption on what "wield" means is clearly wrong. Otherwise, everyone who wears a shield while wielding a weapon is, necessarily, TWFing, because the shield is "ready to use" in a shield bash. Which is clearly wrong. Wearing a shield doesn't require you to wield the shield as a weapon. Heck, you gain the shield bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious, where you're clearly not "wielding" anything.

TWF penalties only come into play when you use the weapon that round. Using a shield as a shield (instead of bashing), or holding a second weapon but not using it, does not incur TWF penalties. Using them as weapons, however, does incur penalties.

Spikes contribute nothing to the AC of the wielder, they are only offensive. If you're holding a shield with spikes on it, you're wielding the spikes since it will not take any action (not even a free action) to ready the spikes to attack.

And again, you do not have to actually use the spikes to get the benefit of defending, only declare that the enhancement bonus is going to be used for defense this round at the beginning of your turn.

While I can see defending spikes on an animated shield, I'd probably not allow the spikes to provide defense unless they were dancing, mainly because I wouldn't allow an animated shield to perform a shield bash on its own, and thus the spikes are not "truly" wielded.

Of course, this is all uber cheese anyway.
CruelDM
10-30-04, 01:34 PM 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.
Underline and bold are mine for emphasis. The important part is spelled out in the description of the ability. You have to declare your intent at the round start and you have to use the weapon to get the benefit.

There is a big difference between carrying an item and wielding it.
Thorak
10-30-04, 07:52 PM TWF penalties only come into play when you use the weapon that round. Using a shield as a shield (instead of bashing), or holding a second weapon but not using it, does not incur TWF penalties. Using them as weapons, however, does incur penalties.
That's my point. Wielding the shield incurs penalties, merely wearing or holding it does not. Yes, the distinction is there in the game terms, otherwise merely wearing a shield would be enough to inflict TWF penalties on each shield wearer. And I don't think the intent is that someone using a heavy shield needs a Dex of 15 and the TWF feat to wear his shield as a protective item without taking -6 to hit on his primary weapon. Which is what you're implying if you state that wearing a shield is "wielding" it.
Spikes contribute nothing to the AC of the wielder, they are only offensive. If you're holding a shield with spikes on it, you're wielding the spikes since it will not take any action (not even a free action) to ready the spikes to attack.
The spikes aren't separate from the shield. And yes, you can hold an item without wielding it. I can hold a greatsword in one hand just fine. Can I wield it in that hand? Nope. "Wielding" is a very specific term in D&D, it's never explicitly defined but it is only ever, to my knowledge, used to mean "a weapon being actively used in combat as a weapon". As distinct from "a weapon being held and not used in combat".

If you disagree, find a use of "wield" in D&D that works otherwise. Like I said; if "wield" only means "have ready", then shields force the user to take TWF penalties even when not used as weapons.
And again, you do not have to actually use the spikes to get the benefit of defending, only declare that the enhancement bonus is going to be used for defense this round at the beginning of your turn.
Yes, you don't have to take the extra off hand attack TWF provides you. You do have to incur the penalties stating that you're wielding the shield as a weapon, though. I never claimed you had to attack with a weapon for it to be wielded, just that it had to be held in such a way as to be ready to attack at any moment. Which a shield isn't, necessarily.
While I can see defending spikes on an animated shield, I'd probably not allow the spikes to provide defense unless they were dancing, mainly because I wouldn't allow an animated shield to perform a shield bash on its own, and thus the spikes are not "truly" wielded.

Of course, this is all uber cheese anyway.
Yes. And if you were right in your "wear = wield" bit, I'd toss on armor spikes and 2 gauntlets, for a nice +20 AC bonus. Which is ridiculous. Especially since there's no way I can wield all 4. And Defending refers to the "wielder".

Wield is different from wear or hold.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Yoritomo Ni 10-28-04, 01:45 PM	Howdy, I have a couple of questions about Armor and Shield Spikes. First, since they are considered weapons and can be made magical, can I make them +5 Defending Spikes? If so, if I have +5 Defending Armor Spikes and +5 Defending Shield Spikes, but only plan on attacking with my Sword can I give the spikes -5 each for a total of +10 to my AC? Thanks, Dave
Thorak 10-28-04, 01:51 PM	The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword.
Yoritomo Ni 10-28-04, 02:01 PM	The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword. So, if I am weilding a shield (with spikes) and my sword and go on full defense, am I weilding either as weapons? Thanks, Dave
kjenks 10-28-04, 02:29 PM	The FAQ covers this; to benefit from any weapon, you must be wielding it as a weapon. So, if you want to benefit from shield spikes or armor spikes, even just passively through their Defending bonus, you need to be wielding them with TWFing rules. Meaning you also can't wield both at the same time as a sword. That's not quite right. The old 3e FAQ covered this, changing the rules from the DMG description of the Defending ability to make it more like Expertise. 3.5e has changed Expertise to Combat Expertise and the new 3.5e FAQ does not change the workings of the Defending ability. The only actual 3.5e rules we have to cover this situation are the DMG rules -- which don't require you to do what Thorak says. The SRD version says: 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. Some people still apply the old 3e FAQ rule change to this. Some don't. Ask your DM. You might point out the text on the cover of the 3.5e FAQ, which might have some bearing on whether your DM will use the old 3e FAQ in his game.
Thorak 10-28-04, 04:06 PM	Note that it says "allows the wielder". If you wield it, you're TWFing. Simply wearing or holding the shield is different; you can hold a greatsword in one hand, but need two hands to wield it, for instance. Though you do get passive benefits, like shield bonuses to AC, just for wearing the shield. But unless I'm weilding it as a weapon, I'm not "wielding" the shield, and thus as far as Defending goes, there's no Wielder to apply the benefit to. So, if you go on full defense, you can get the benefits as long as you're taking the TWF penalties. And I don't see why you wouldn't, if you want to, because you can't make attacks so it doesn't hurt.
deathmaster35 10-28-04, 11:59 PM	If so, if I have +5 Defending Armor Spikes and +5 Defending Shield Spikes, but only plan on attacking with my Sword can I give the spikes -5 each for a total of +10 to my AC?Thanks,Dave Technicly yes, but I dont think that really follows the spirit of the rules. Even though they add a no named bonus, you really shouldnt let someone be under the same effect multiple times. It would be like if there was a magic item that you could activate to get +1 dodge bonus to AC for an hour, and then you use it 20 times to get a +20 to AC... come to think of it I think there is a rule that does this, but not sure where it is. But pretty much they are both the same effect, even if they are from multiple items. Just stick to the armor spikes of defending :) Oh and one more thing I forgot, any good GM should beat you about the neck and shoulders for even thinking of something like that :)
CruelDM 10-29-04, 09:48 AM	There was an article on the D&D website not long ago (it should still be in the archives) about bonus stacking, I believe another place to look is the DMG at the start of the Magic Item section. These sources specifically cover "nameless" or "generic" bonuses, they state that a nameless bonus stacks with anything, even other nameless bonuses, except when the bonus comes from a similiar source or situation. I would think that 2 defending items bonuses are similiar sources and would not stack, so one could not benefit from 2 defending weapons.
Yoritomo Ni 10-29-04, 03:31 PM	There was an article on the D&D website not long ago (it should still be in the archives) about bonus stacking, I believe another place to look is the DMG at the start of the Magic Item section. These sources specifically cover "nameless" or "generic" bonuses, they state that a nameless bonus stacks with anything, even other nameless bonuses, except when the bonus comes from a similiar source or situation. I would think that 2 defending items bonuses are similiar sources and would not stack, so one could not benefit from 2 defending weapons. But Defending says this (emphasis mine): 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. Dave
CruelDM 10-29-04, 03:39 PM	that stacks with all others Hence its a nameless bonus and follows the rules of stacking for nameless bonuses. Edit: I found the article, I was misquoting but correct: Rules Governing Bonuses The basic rule to remember when combining two or more bonuses is this: two or more bonuses of different type stack, and two or more bonuses of the same type overlap. In general, a bonus's name indicates its type. A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself. .......author: Skip Williams So, even bonuses without names do not stack with the same bonus. Defending bonus will not stack with another Defending bonus.
Aufenshauft 10-29-04, 03:46 PM	The real problem with the whole question is that it is not a cost-efficient way to get ac. The cost of +3 armor enhancement is 331000=9000. Not bad. The cost for +3 ac from defending is a minimum of 442000= 32000. Yikes. (note, the defending aspect costs a +1 for cost purposes). So, to make two +5 enhancements is (652000)2= 120,000 gp. :mymy: Good luck doing this pre-epic, and even then it is rediculous. There are better ways of being a tank, like getting DR. If you are using a shield on your off hand, you are wielding it, and thus get the bonus. I am bothered by spikes being used that way, but if you really want to waste all your money, by all means. I'll get a ring of protection (55*1000= 25000, and money to spare) ;)
CruelDM 10-29-04, 03:54 PM	If Shield Spikes were employed to grant an AC bonus you would be wielding the shield as a weapon (even if you didnt swing it as one) and would have to abide by the Two Weapon Fighting penalties (including attacks made by your primary weapon).
Tony Vargas 10-29-04, 04:50 PM	Good rule-0 on Defeding weapons: You must actually /use/ the weapon - ie use it to perform any sort of attack action on your initiative - to gain the AC bonus. Anything else is begging for abuse. Sure, it may seem a little unfair that you can't benefit from a Defending weapon while on total defense - but then you can't use combat expertise, either... and it's better than having players ask if they can use thier two spiked gauntlets, two swords, buckler axe, armor spikes, and bladed boots - all of defending - at once... :rolleyes: Another good option would simply be to name the Defending bonus to AC - 'Deflection' would work.
Thorak 10-29-04, 04:54 PM	I just reminded myself of how I defeated this proposition last time. If 'wearing' is the same as 'wielding', then any character can toss on two +5 Defending Gauntlets to the mix. Regardless of what weapons they may or may not be using, they get a +10 AC bonus. I think it's pretty clear this is wrong, and there's a firm distinction between 'wearing' and 'wielding'. Wielding, in D&D terms, is used pretty much exclusively with regards to weapons, and specifically to using them actively in combat. Hence the rules that, if you wield two weapons, you're taking TWFing bonuses, regardless of whether you take the extra attack or not. And which, according to the Defending ability, requires you to be wielding the item as a weapon. Using a shield without shield bashing is not "wielding" the shield.
CruelDM 10-29-04, 07:42 PM	Note that you can only add the defending ability to a weapon. Armor/shield spikes are weapons, they grant you an off-hand attack in the course of a normal round unless you have already used an off hand attack that round with some other weapon (they also grant a benefit when grappling). Any round you did not use the spikes as a weapon you could not use the defending ability. Any round you did use them as a weapon you suffer from two weapon fighting penalties. Two bonuses from 2 defending weapons do not stack as I pointed out earlier.
UZI 10-30-04, 09:08 AM	Wielding doesn't mean "using". Wielding means "ready to use". Shield spikes are not protective gear, and can only act as weapons. If they're in your hand (by being on your shield), you're wielding them. The description of defending states the decision on how to allocate the bonus is made before using the weapon, but does not state that the weapon must actually be used. So, technically you could take Two Weapon Fighting, wield two defending weapons (I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack), have an animated bashing shield with defending shield spikes, have defending armor spikes, and have defending gauntlets. Since defending provides a bonus to AC, it could also affect touch AC, but not flat-footed AC (since you can only turn it on at the beginning of your turn and it lasts until the start of your next turn).
CruelDM 10-30-04, 10:48 AM	I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack They dont. Reference my post above or read the whole article "Rules of the Game Part 1" available on the D&D website.
Thorak 10-30-04, 01:05 PM	Wielding doesn't mean "using". Wielding means "ready to use". Shield spikes are not protective gear, and can only act as weapons. If they're in your hand (by being on your shield), you're wielding them. The description of defending states the decision on how to allocate the bonus is made before using the weapon, but does not state that the weapon must actually be used. So, technically you could take Two Weapon Fighting, wield two defending weapons (I'm assuming the transferable unnamed "defense" bonus from two defending weapons stack), have an animated bashing shield with defending shield spikes, have defending armor spikes, and have defending gauntlets. Nope. This assumption on what "wield" means is clearly wrong. Otherwise, everyone who wears a shield while wielding a weapon is, necessarily, TWFing, because the shield is "ready to use" in a shield bash. Which is clearly wrong. Wearing a shield doesn't require you to wield the shield as a weapon. Heck, you gain the shield bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious, where you're clearly not "wielding" anything. "Wield", in D&D terms, means "actively ready to use". In other words, while you may not be actually whacking someone with it, you're ready to, and therefore are taking the TWF penalties. Now, you don't have to make the extra off-hand attacks, if you don't want to. So you could, wielding a glaive, TWF with your Defending armor spikes to boost your AC, while never actually attacking with the spikes. Because you're ready to attack with them, should anyone close, and you're taking the TWFing penalties to allow you to wield the second weapon. And, clearly, it's impossible to wield a second weapon in the same hand, like the gauntlet you're holding your sword in, or to wield more than two (for a standard two-armed humanoid). Sure, you could TWF with armor spikes or a spiked shield, get the Defending bonus, and never attack with it (useful, in the shield's case, because it's only actually bashing that causes you to lose the AC, not wielding it as a weapon). But not both a shield and armor spikes, unless you're not wielding any other weapon. And certainly not a shield, armor spikes, and two gauntlets, as well as your sword. Edit: Even if we assumed they stack, which I'll admit is debateable. CruelDM makes good points, but Defending states it stacks with "all other bonuses". I don't see why that wouldn't include other Defending bonuses, making it an explicit exception to the general rule CruelDM is quoting. But that's why I'm saying it's debateable, and my post isn't claiming one or the other, just assuming the worst to show it's wrong on an entirely different level.
UZI 10-30-04, 01:06 PM	Might be willing to agree, but the defending enhancement states is stacks with all other bonuses to AC. Its a bit ambiguous on whether this explicit stacking description indicates it stacks with other defending weapons or not. It is a question on whether they come from the same source (ie, type of effect: defending), or different source (ie, transfer of each individual weapon's enhancement bonus to stackable AC). We know different castings of the same spell don't stack bonuses, but do different weapons with the same ability, albeit by subtracting from different weapons' enhancement bonuses have such a limitation. You cannot look at the required spell for defending either, since this is Shield of Faith, which is a deflection bonus, and we expect defending to stack with deflection bonus.
UZI 10-30-04, 01:20 PM	Nope. This assumption on what "wield" means is clearly wrong. Otherwise, everyone who wears a shield while wielding a weapon is, necessarily, TWFing, because the shield is "ready to use" in a shield bash. Which is clearly wrong. Wearing a shield doesn't require you to wield the shield as a weapon. Heck, you gain the shield bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious, where you're clearly not "wielding" anything. TWF penalties only come into play when you use the weapon that round. Using a shield as a shield (instead of bashing), or holding a second weapon but not using it, does not incur TWF penalties. Using them as weapons, however, does incur penalties. Spikes contribute nothing to the AC of the wielder, they are only offensive. If you're holding a shield with spikes on it, you're wielding the spikes since it will not take any action (not even a free action) to ready the spikes to attack. And again, you do not have to actually use the spikes to get the benefit of defending, only declare that the enhancement bonus is going to be used for defense this round at the beginning of your turn. While I can see defending spikes on an animated shield, I'd probably not allow the spikes to provide defense unless they were dancing, mainly because I wouldn't allow an animated shield to perform a shield bash on its own, and thus the spikes are not "truly" wielded. Of course, this is all uber cheese anyway.
CruelDM 10-30-04, 01:34 PM	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. Underline and bold are mine for emphasis. The important part is spelled out in the description of the ability. You have to declare your intent at the round start and you have to use the weapon to get the benefit. There is a big difference between carrying an item and wielding it.
Thorak 10-30-04, 07:52 PM	TWF penalties only come into play when you use the weapon that round. Using a shield as a shield (instead of bashing), or holding a second weapon but not using it, does not incur TWF penalties. Using them as weapons, however, does incur penalties. That's my point. Wielding the shield incurs penalties, merely wearing or holding it does not. Yes, the distinction is there in the game terms, otherwise merely wearing a shield would be enough to inflict TWF penalties on each shield wearer. And I don't think the intent is that someone using a heavy shield needs a Dex of 15 and the TWF feat to wear his shield as a protective item without taking -6 to hit on his primary weapon. Which is what you're implying if you state that wearing a shield is "wielding" it. Spikes contribute nothing to the AC of the wielder, they are only offensive. If you're holding a shield with spikes on it, you're wielding the spikes since it will not take any action (not even a free action) to ready the spikes to attack. The spikes aren't separate from the shield. And yes, you can hold an item without wielding it. I can hold a greatsword in one hand just fine. Can I wield it in that hand? Nope. "Wielding" is a very specific term in D&D, it's never explicitly defined but it is only ever, to my knowledge, used to mean "a weapon being actively used in combat as a weapon". As distinct from "a weapon being held and not used in combat". If you disagree, find a use of "wield" in D&D that works otherwise. Like I said; if "wield" only means "have ready", then shields force the user to take TWF penalties even when not used as weapons. And again, you do not have to actually use the spikes to get the benefit of defending, only declare that the enhancement bonus is going to be used for defense this round at the beginning of your turn. Yes, you don't have to take the extra off hand attack TWF provides you. You do have to incur the penalties stating that you're wielding the shield as a weapon, though. I never claimed you had to attack with a weapon for it to be wielded, just that it had to be held in such a way as to be ready to attack at any moment. Which a shield isn't, necessarily. While I can see defending spikes on an animated shield, I'd probably not allow the spikes to provide defense unless they were dancing, mainly because I wouldn't allow an animated shield to perform a shield bash on its own, and thus the spikes are not "truly" wielded. Of course, this is all uber cheese anyway. Yes. And if you were right in your "wear = wield" bit, I'd toss on armor spikes and 2 gauntlets, for a nice +20 AC bonus. Which is ridiculous. Especially since there's no way I can wield all 4. And Defending refers to the "wielder". Wield is different from wear or hold.