Defending armor spikes? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Defending armor spikes? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mist of Shadows
02-05-06, 03:45 PM Can you slap the defending enchantment on an armor spike or shield spike?
Centauri
02-05-06, 03:57 PM Can you slap the defending enchantment on an armor spike or shield spike? Technically, yes. It's rather cheesy, of course, to turn an enhancement bonus you're not really plannng to use into a deflection bonus to AC. At a minimum of about 18,000 gold for a +1 to AC, it's also rather expensive.
RavenDrake
02-05-06, 04:50 PM While it's been generally borne out by most of the "official sources" that you merely have to have the defending weapon at the ready to gain that bonus, I have a standing house-rule that if you're going to use a defending weapon of any sort(that means Defending Primary weapon, offhand weapon, armour spikes, or a defending sheild) then you are weilding(emphasis added for personal reasons) the weapon. As such, if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to use armour spikes defending properties, you take the standard penalties associated with two weapon fighting(but also any benefits). This means even if you're weilding a longspear in two hands, you can gain the benefit of defending armour spikes.

My specific ruling is that, if you want ANY benefit that derives from a WEAPON, you have to be weilding the weapon. Not holding it in your hand, not propped on your shoulder while you cast, but held in hand, at the ready, in a combat posisition, and as such you take all penalties associated with two weapon fighting if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to take advantage of another weapon's abilities. Additionally, you can only take advantage of TWO weapons in this manner. Whatever weapon is in your primary hand(even if you're weilding it in two hands), and whichever other weapon you want to use that's available(including but not limited to offhand weapons, shields as weapons, unarmed attacks, armour spikes, etc).

But, as I said, that's my house rule and your mileage my vary.
ScipioX
02-06-06, 01:01 AM Its a very expensive way to gain AC. So I see little problem with a character slapping some defending spikes on.
terrashand
02-06-06, 01:06 AM Dancing Defending armor spikes would look interesting popping off your armor and floating around you though.
kjenks
02-06-06, 08:56 AM Yes, you can give magical armor spikes the Defending ability, and no, you do not take attack penalties while using them (unless you actually attack with them).

Consider using Greater Magic Weapon to temporarily increase the enhancement bonus -- you can divert that to AC.
Maxxx
02-06-06, 09:02 AM You should also remember that the bonus granted by the defending ability is unnamed and thus would stack with all others. So yes it really is effective, especially with the method kjenks mentioned.

If you really have alot of money you can do that with two weapons (one could be shield spikes) and the armor spikes, as all of these stack it would give a good boost to your AC, of course making your weapons nearly non-magical and worseless in battle :D
DarknessEternal
02-06-06, 11:36 AM At a minimum of about 18,000 gold for a +1 to AC, it's also rather expensive.
8,000 not 18,000. It's still a really expensive thing to do though.
mvincent
02-06-06, 12:54 PM My specific ruling is that, if you want ANY benefit that derives from a WEAPON, you have to be weilding the weapon. Not holding it in your hand, not propped on your shoulder while you cast, but held in hand, at the ready, in a combat posisition, and as such you take all penalties associated with two weapon fighting if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to take advantage of another weapon's abilities. It's been debated, but in D&D at least, the term "wielding" does not seem to require two-weapon fighting penalties (as evidenced by shield enhancements mentioning a wielder, by several examples in the 3.5 FAQ, by the aligned weapons quote below, etc.)
... bestows one negative level on any <opposite aligned> creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.Also the Rules of the Games (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041109a) says: "you must hold a magic weapon in one or two hands (as appropriate for the weapon) to use any of its magical properties." which seems to imply that you don't actually have to be attacking to use special abilities.

However, your house rule requiring the penalties in regard to defending is certainly justified. The weapon description itself doesn't even refer to wielding, but the 3.0 FAQ ruling on defending was even more strict than your house-rule (and still seems applicable and official, since the associated rules haven't changed):
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.
mvincent
02-06-06, 01:02 PM Obligatory note regarding defending stacking with itself (since the subject was bound to be mentioned):

The idea of defending weapons stacking is subject to interpretation.

Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is often interpretted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though that isn't neccesarily true.

Take for example the wording for unamed bonuses:
"A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus."
... this is similar to the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unamed bonuses don't stack with themselves.

It is reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unamed bonus (and probably a more balanced way to handle potential stacking problems if you are not using the 3.0 ruling on defending weapons).
RavenDrake
02-06-06, 04:01 PM It's been debated, but in D&D at least, the term "wielding" does not seem to require two-weapon fighting penalties (as evidenced by shield enhancements mentioning a wielder, by several examples in the 3.5 FAQ, by the aligned weapons quote below, etc.)

Oh, it's you again.

As I clearly stated, several times, that was my personal houserule on the subject. I'm well and fully aware that most sources state that TWF penalties don't necessarily apply, but I'm saying that on my gaming table, they do... and I was presenting that as a possible alternative.
mvincent
02-06-06, 05:12 PM Oh, it's you again.

As I clearly stated, several times, that was my personal houserule on the subject. I'm well and fully aware that most sources state that TWF penalties don't necessarily apply, but I'm saying that on my gaming table, they do... and I was presenting that as a possible alternative.My clarification was in regard to your use of the term 'wield' (as I read it, you did not seem to make clear if your definition was also a house rule).

Note that I specifically addressed your house rule as such (indicating that I understood that part to be a house rule). I also supported your house rules with official rules (possibly making your house-rule a legitimate, official rule).

If I have offended you somehow by providing any of the previous information, I apologize. However, I feel that other readers could make use of it.
ubernex
02-06-06, 05:30 PM I would let it go. By the time that a PC could afford to blow the gold on "defending" armor spikes, they could be buying or making a whole lot of other things. It is a pretty pricey was of getting one or two more points of AC, but I would allow it. One more thing to cry about when they loose their armor to a Bebilith ;)
mvincent
02-06-06, 06:46 PM I would let it go. By the time that a PC could afford to blow the gold on "defending" armor spikes, they could be buying or making a whole lot of other things. It is a pretty pricey was of getting one or two more points of AC, but I would allow it. But that isn't taking the clever players into account (and those are the exact sort to use this trick in the first place).

Let's take (for example) a 12th level cleric using greater magic weapon on his his defending armor spikes, defending spiked shield, defending gauntlets and defending mace. If he's using his bead of karma, that's a +4 defense each, that stacks with all the other things he's got (dex +2, gloves of dex +1, magic vestment full-plate +12, magic vestment shield +6, ring of protection +2, rose ioun stone +1, amulet of natural armor +2, natural armor from polymorph other: troglodyte +6, etc.). Ideally, a 54 AC should be harder to obtain at 12th level.

AC is intended to be hard to accumulate as you start reaching the upper boundaries. But here, even if you allowed only one defending weapon (recommended), that still brings him from 42 AC to 46 AC with no drawback other than an 8000 gp investment (and a daily spell). Normally such an increase would require a much greater expense at this point.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mist of Shadows 02-05-06, 03:45 PM	Can you slap the defending enchantment on an armor spike or shield spike?
Centauri 02-05-06, 03:57 PM	Can you slap the defending enchantment on an armor spike or shield spike? Technically, yes. It's rather cheesy, of course, to turn an enhancement bonus you're not really plannng to use into a deflection bonus to AC. At a minimum of about 18,000 gold for a +1 to AC, it's also rather expensive.
RavenDrake 02-05-06, 04:50 PM	While it's been generally borne out by most of the "official sources" that you merely have to have the defending weapon at the ready to gain that bonus, I have a standing house-rule that if you're going to use a defending weapon of any sort(that means Defending Primary weapon, offhand weapon, armour spikes, or a defending sheild) then you are weilding(emphasis added for personal reasons) the weapon. As such, if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to use armour spikes defending properties, you take the standard penalties associated with two weapon fighting(but also any benefits). This means even if you're weilding a longspear in two hands, you can gain the benefit of defending armour spikes. My specific ruling is that, if you want ANY benefit that derives from a WEAPON, you have to be weilding the weapon. Not holding it in your hand, not propped on your shoulder while you cast, but held in hand, at the ready, in a combat posisition, and as such you take all penalties associated with two weapon fighting if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to take advantage of another weapon's abilities. Additionally, you can only take advantage of TWO weapons in this manner. Whatever weapon is in your primary hand(even if you're weilding it in two hands), and whichever other weapon you want to use that's available(including but not limited to offhand weapons, shields as weapons, unarmed attacks, armour spikes, etc). But, as I said, that's my house rule and your mileage my vary.
ScipioX 02-06-06, 01:01 AM	Its a very expensive way to gain AC. So I see little problem with a character slapping some defending spikes on.
terrashand 02-06-06, 01:06 AM	Dancing Defending armor spikes would look interesting popping off your armor and floating around you though.
kjenks 02-06-06, 08:56 AM	Yes, you can give magical armor spikes the Defending ability, and no, you do not take attack penalties while using them (unless you actually attack with them). Consider using Greater Magic Weapon to temporarily increase the enhancement bonus -- you can divert that to AC.
Maxxx 02-06-06, 09:02 AM	You should also remember that the bonus granted by the defending ability is unnamed and thus would stack with all others. So yes it really is effective, especially with the method kjenks mentioned. If you really have alot of money you can do that with two weapons (one could be shield spikes) and the armor spikes, as all of these stack it would give a good boost to your AC, of course making your weapons nearly non-magical and worseless in battle :D
DarknessEternal 02-06-06, 11:36 AM	At a minimum of about 18,000 gold for a +1 to AC, it's also rather expensive. 8,000 not 18,000. It's still a really expensive thing to do though.
mvincent 02-06-06, 12:54 PM	My specific ruling is that, if you want ANY benefit that derives from a WEAPON, you have to be weilding the weapon. Not holding it in your hand, not propped on your shoulder while you cast, but held in hand, at the ready, in a combat posisition, and as such you take all penalties associated with two weapon fighting if you have a weapon in your primary hand and want to take advantage of another weapon's abilities. It's been debated, but in D&D at least, the term "wielding" does not seem to require two-weapon fighting penalties (as evidenced by shield enhancements mentioning a wielder, by several examples in the 3.5 FAQ, by the aligned weapons quote below, etc.) ... bestows one negative level on any <opposite aligned> creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.Also the Rules of the Games (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041109a) says: "you must hold a magic weapon in one or two hands (as appropriate for the weapon) to use any of its magical properties." which seems to imply that you don't actually have to be attacking to use special abilities. However, your house rule requiring the penalties in regard to defending is certainly justified. The weapon description itself doesn't even refer to wielding, but the 3.0 FAQ ruling on defending was even more strict than your house-rule (and still seems applicable and official, since the associated rules haven't changed): 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.
mvincent 02-06-06, 01:02 PM	Obligatory note regarding defending stacking with itself (since the subject was bound to be mentioned): The idea of defending weapons stacking is subject to interpretation. Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is often interpretted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though that isn't neccesarily true. Take for example the wording for unamed bonuses: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar to the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unamed bonuses don't stack with themselves. It is reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unamed bonus (and probably a more balanced way to handle potential stacking problems if you are not using the 3.0 ruling on defending weapons).
RavenDrake 02-06-06, 04:01 PM	It's been debated, but in D&D at least, the term "wielding" does not seem to require two-weapon fighting penalties (as evidenced by shield enhancements mentioning a wielder, by several examples in the 3.5 FAQ, by the aligned weapons quote below, etc.) Oh, it's you again. As I clearly stated, several times, that was my personal houserule on the subject. I'm well and fully aware that most sources state that TWF penalties don't necessarily apply, but I'm saying that on my gaming table, they do... and I was presenting that as a possible alternative.
mvincent 02-06-06, 05:12 PM	Oh, it's you again. As I clearly stated, several times, that was my personal houserule on the subject. I'm well and fully aware that most sources state that TWF penalties don't necessarily apply, but I'm saying that on my gaming table, they do... and I was presenting that as a possible alternative.My clarification was in regard to your use of the term 'wield' (as I read it, you did not seem to make clear if your definition was also a house rule). Note that I specifically addressed your house rule as such (indicating that I understood that part to be a house rule). I also supported your house rules with official rules (possibly making your house-rule a legitimate, official rule). If I have offended you somehow by providing any of the previous information, I apologize. However, I feel that other readers could make use of it.
ubernex 02-06-06, 05:30 PM	I would let it go. By the time that a PC could afford to blow the gold on "defending" armor spikes, they could be buying or making a whole lot of other things. It is a pretty pricey was of getting one or two more points of AC, but I would allow it. One more thing to cry about when they loose their armor to a Bebilith ;)
mvincent 02-06-06, 06:46 PM	I would let it go. By the time that a PC could afford to blow the gold on "defending" armor spikes, they could be buying or making a whole lot of other things. It is a pretty pricey was of getting one or two more points of AC, but I would allow it. But that isn't taking the clever players into account (and those are the exact sort to use this trick in the first place). Let's take (for example) a 12th level cleric using greater magic weapon on his his defending armor spikes, defending spiked shield, defending gauntlets and defending mace. If he's using his bead of karma, that's a +4 defense each, that stacks with all the other things he's got (dex +2, gloves of dex +1, magic vestment full-plate +12, magic vestment shield +6, ring of protection +2, rose ioun stone +1, amulet of natural armor +2, natural armor from polymorph other: troglodyte +6, etc.). Ideally, a 54 AC should be harder to obtain at 12th level. AC is intended to be hard to accumulate as you start reaching the upper boundaries. But here, even if you allowed only one defending weapon (recommended), that still brings him from 42 AC to 46 AC with no drawback other than an 8000 gp investment (and a daily spell). Normally such an increase would require a much greater expense at this point.