Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Crowe 12-31-05, 05:34 PM	The meat of this question is how defending weapons and shields stack and combine. Okay, let's see if I've got this straight If I use a sword a shield, I get to attack with the sword and defend with the shield, gaining the shield's Shield bonus. If I choose, I can perform a shield bash, attacking with the shield, however I do not get to attack with my primary weapon, or get the shield's shield bonus (basically using an offhand weapon). I may upgrade the shield with shield spikes, improving the shield's damage as a weapon. Shield spikes are enchanted seperately from the shield, for example you can have a +3 Shield with +1 Flaming Spikes. If I take dual wield, I can attack with both my primary weapon and my shield at the same time, though again, I don't get the shield bonus. If I did this, and used a shield with Defending Shield Spikes (for example, a +1 Shield with +5 Defending Shield Spikes), I could use The Defending property on the when I attacked, I am unclear whether I could use it on defense, since technically, I am still "wielding" the defending weapon. If I take improved shield bash and dual wield, I can attack with both primary weapon and shield WHILE retaining the shield's ac bonus. If I understand this correctly, it seems that if you have a +5 large steel shield with +5 defending spikes, you could get a +12 AC bonus off of it if you applied all of your +'s to AC, and of course, you still get an attack with the spikes. What if your primary weapon is defending as well? Can you stack that with your defending shield spikes? Defending armor spikes on your plate as well, will all that stack as well? Hope you can clarify this, it SEEMS legal, if a bit cheezy, of course, the gear for this kind of scenario is a bit over the top. Thank you, C. Rowe
Thorak 12-31-05, 06:52 PM	The meat of this question is how defending weapons and shields stack and combine. Okay, let's see if I've got this straight If I use a sword a shield, I get to attack with the sword and defend with the shield, gaining the shield's Shield bonus. Yep. If I choose, I can perform a shield bash, attacking with the shield, however I do not get to attack with my primary weapon, or get the shield's shield bonus (basically using an offhand weapon). I may upgrade the shield with shield spikes, improving the shield's damage as a weapon. Shield spikes are enchanted seperately from the shield, for example you can have a +3 Shield with +1 Flaming Spikes. It's better to think of shields as being enchantable as both weapons and defensive items, separately; you can enchant an unspiked shield as a weapon just as easily as a spiked one. Note, too, that there's a -4 penalty to hit for using an off-hand weapon, and you can only apply 1/2 your Str bonus. This in the Glossary, and the only way around it is to be TWFing and have the TWF feat. Silly, but they have yet to fill this tiny hole left by removing Ambidexterity, doesn't come up too much anyway. If I take dual wield, I can attack with both my primary weapon and my shield at the same time, though again, I don't get the shield bonus. If I did this, and used a shield with Defending Shield Spikes (for example, a +1 Shield with +5 Defending Shield Spikes), I could use The Defending property on the when I attacked, I am unclear whether I could use it on defense, since technically, I am still "wielding" the defending weapon. "Wielding" isn't defined in D&D, much to my regret. I make that personal, because I've had to go through pages of debate on it. What these broke down to is that, in absence of a D&D definition, we have to go by the English one. And "wielding" is an active term, you can't passively wield something. So, to get the benefit of a Defending weapon, you have to be actively using it. To me, that means TWF penalties. Especially since, otherwise, there's no reason not to get +5 Defending gauntlets, blade boots, and armor spikes, for a nice +25 AC boost which you can keep while fighting with a greatsword at no penalty. Which seems game-breaking. So I strongly suggest that the "wielding two weapons causes the TWF penalties" is probably the best interpretation of a passage that could be taken either way. You don't have to attack with an off-hand weapon. TWF means you can attack with it. You never have to take all your attacks, and you only lose the shield AC bonus if you actually do so. It's certainly possible to take the TWF penalties, and not attack with the shield, but get the shield bonus and Defending bonus. That might seem powergamey, but it's less so than the loads of Defending gear the other interpretation supports. If I take improved shield bash and dual wield, I can attack with both primary weapon and shield WHILE retaining the shield's ac bonus. If I understand this correctly, it seems that if you have a +5 large steel shield with +5 defending spikes, you could get a +12 AC bonus off of it if you applied all of your +'s to AC, and of course, you still get an attack with the spikes. Yes, at an effective -9 to hit. -5 from moving the +5 to an AC bonus, and -4 from TWF with a one-handed weapon. It's a big penalty to hit, but if you're more worried about AC than the actual off-hand attack, it works great. What if your primary weapon is defending as well? Can you stack that with your defending shield spikes? Yep, Defending stacks with itself, explicitly. Defending armor spikes on your plate as well, will all that stack as well? As well, no. You can't wield more than two weapons. Not unless you have more than two arms. Same reason you need three wieldable limbs to qualify for Multi-weapon Fighting. Hope you can clarify this, it SEEMS legal, if a bit cheezy, of course, the gear for this kind of scenario is a bit over the top. Thank you, C. Rowe Hope I've clarified it for you. I'll also say that the above is my interpretation of the rules. I think it's more consistent and "right" than the alternative, but two-weapon fighting is worded so ambiguously it is, in all honesty, impossible to rule for sure on that text alone. I've hashed this out over 20+ pages of a thread dedicated to it; both sides eventually admitted the other side had a point, and no firm decision could be made. I choose my interpretation because it seems less abusive, and more in tune with what "wield" means in English. But I'm not saying the argument, based on RAW alone, can't be made.
kjenks 12-31-05, 07:47 PM	Thorak is incorrect. As you can see from the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the Player's Handbook, you take attack penalties if you attack with a second weapon, not if you wield it.
Thorak 12-31-05, 10:14 PM	Thorak is incorrect. As you can see from the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the Player's Handbook, you take attack penalties if you attack with a second weapon, not if you wield it. You sound awfully confident of that. The text, specifically, is "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack rolls with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand." The question is what the penalties apply from. The apply when "fighting in this way". So what's the "way"? There are two clauses in the previous sentence, it is an if-then clause. If A, then B. And you cannot grammatically tell based on that sentence structure which part of the sentence a following sentence refers to. It could be either. Typically, you have to use context, but the case could be made that the "way" of fighting could be either. As an example of the grammar, look at the following sentences; "If you drive carelessly, you can hit somebody. This is dangerous, so don't do it." Is hitting someone dangerous? Obviously. But it's fairly clear that what the second sentence is referring to is the driving carelessly, since hitting someone is ridiculously obviously dangerous. And the above is grammatically fine. There is no way to tell, based on the PHB, which way they meant this. However, there are suggestive entries in the FAQ; "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 (see Table 8–10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, Player’s Handbook, page 160)." p. 32 Explicitly, wielding weapons causes them to suffer TWF penalties. "When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack." p. 22 Here, they emphasize that gaining an extra attack is a result of fighting with more than one weapon, not the entire thing. Which is how the original text is worded, FWIW. Nothing says you have to take the benefit, but I don't see why if you don't take the benefit you get to ignore the penalties. Also, note that your interpretation means that I can fight with a reach weapon while wearing armor spikes, take absolutely no penalties to hit with the reach weapon, and still make AoOs with the armor spikes against adjacent squares; there's a whole question in the FAQ on this. It clearly states that if you're wielding the armor spikes, you can make AoOs with them. Now, me, I don't think you should be able to fight with two weapons unless you're two-weapon fighting. That seems pretty darn obvious to me. And considering the rules can easily be correctly interpreted to support that angle, and there's supportive evidence in the FAQ that this is correct, and there's none that making the extra attack is what causes the penalties, I'll stick to my argument, and demand that you provide even just a little evidence to support your conclusion that I'm unequivocably wrong. Especially since I stated that by the PHB alone, both interpretations were legit; I wasn't claiming this interpretation was the only possible one, just the one most consistent with the rules and less prone to abuses.
kjenks 12-31-05, 11:11 PM	You sound awfully confident of that. I am. The text, specifically, is "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack rolls with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand." The question is what the penalties apply from. [They] apply when "fighting in this way". So what's the "way"? There are two clauses in the previous sentence, it is an if-then clause. If A, then B. And you cannot grammatically tell based on that sentence structure which part of the sentence a following sentence refers to. It could be either. Yes, I can. Let's diagram the sentence. I can't do a traditional slant diagram in this interface, but I'll try to get the main structural points across. There are many references to the parts of a sentence. Here's a good link: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/toc.html Here's a Web site about diagramming sentences with the slant diagram: http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/basicdiagrams.htm (There are many more references, with many different styles. Google for "diagram a sentence".) SRD === TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. === It's that first sentence that causes the problem, along with the pronoun "this" from the second sentence, so let's diagram that first sentence. First, the overall structure: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," -- that's a dependent clause (or a dependent adverb clause, depending on which grammar expert you ask). Notice that you can't use that clause alone as a complete sentence. It is dependent on the rest of the sentence for meaning and can not be evaluated outside of the sentence. "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." -- that's an independent clause. You can use that independent clause alone as a complete sentence, but the dependent clause indicates an additional condition which must be met for the independent clause to be true. The independent clause includes a subject and a verb. The pronoun "you" is the subject of the independent clause, and therefore the subject of the sentence. The word "can" is the verb of the independent clause, and therefore the verb of the sentence. The dependent clause also includes a subject, "you," and a verb, "wield." An independent clause can be connected to a dependent clause. The dependent clause is the subordinate idea of the sentence. It is dependent on another clause for meaning and context. It is connected to the independent clause by the subordinating conjunction "if." Here's a reminder of the basic terms of grammar I use in the diagram below: A verb may be followed by an object that completes the verb's meaning. Two kinds of objects follow verbs: direct objects and indirect objects. Verbs that take objects are known as transitive verbs. Verbs not followed by objects are called intransitive verbs. In addition to the transitive verb and the intransitive verb, there is a third kind of verb called a linking verb. The word (or phrase) which follows a linking verb is called not an object, but a subject complement. A preposition links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence. The word or phrase that the preposition introduces is called the object of the preposition. A prepositional phrase can also be an adverb phrase, functioning as an adverb. Let's try the diagram like this: "If" - subordinating conjunction "you" - subject of the dependent clause "wield" - transitive verb of the dependent clause "a second weapon" - direct object of "wield" "in" - preposition modifying "a second weapon" "your off hand," - direct object of "in", completing the prepositional phrase Notice the comma separating the dependent clause from the following independent clause. "you" - subject of the sentence "can" - verb of the sentence "get one extra attack" - the prepositional phrase, acts as an adverb modifying the verb "can" "per round with that weapon." - another prepositional phrase, modyfing the word "attack" In this sentence, one can put the independent clause first and the dependent clause second (as the sentence is stated in the PH/SRD) or one could put the independent clause first, like this: "You can get one extra attack per round with a second weapon if you wield that second weapon in your off hand." We all agree that the phrase "fight this way" in the second sentence of the TWF rule refers back to the first sentence -- but how? This is really the key to the whole discussion. Does "fight this way" refer to the dependent clause (If you wield a second weapon in your off hand) or to the entire sentence? A pronoun can replace a noun or another pronoun. You use pronouns like "he," "which," "none," and "you" to make your sentences less cumbersome and less repetitive. Grammarians classify pronouns into several types, including the personal pronoun, the demonstrative pronoun, the interrogative pronoun, the indefinite pronoun, the relative pronoun, the reflexive pronoun, and the intensive pronoun. A demonstrative pronoun points to and identifies a noun or a pronoun. "This" and "these" refer to things that are nearby either in space or in time, while "that" and "those" refer to things that are farther away in space or time. The demonstrative pronouns are "this," "that," "these," and "those." "This" and "that" are used to refer to singular nouns or noun phrases and "these" and "those" are used to refer to plural nouns and noun phrases. SRD === You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. === "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" -- independent clause, subject "you," verb "suffer" "when you fight this way." -- dependent clause beginning with the the subordinate conjunction "when" The dependent clause modifies the subject/predicate pair of the independent clause, so all of these penalties apply "when you fight this way." Here are the individual parts: "You suffer" -- subject, verb "a –6 penalty" -- the first direct object of "suffer" "with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" -- prepositional phrase modifiying "penalty" where the preposition is "with" and the object of the preposition is "your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" "and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" -- conjunction "and" indicates that this is the second direct object of "suffer" (Incidentally, they're inconsistently mixing the words "with" and "to" as in "penalty WITH your regular attacks" and "penalty TO the attack with your off hand.") "when you fight this way." -- dependent clause beginning with the the subordinate conjunction "when" In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence -- meaning that the penalties only apply if you both "wield a second weapon in your off hand" and you take "one extra attack per round with that weapon" -- not to either clause in isolation. So that's how I break down that second sentence. You can see how the dependent clause of the second sentence refers ("this way") to the independent clause of the first sentence. Or, in plain English, you can wield two weapons with no TWF penalty. It's only when you make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon that you suffer TWF penalties.
kjenks 12-31-05, 11:19 PM	Is a character wielding a two-handed reach weapon (such as a longspear) and wearing spiked armor threatening all squares within 10 feet? Assuming he has Combat Reflexes, can he make an attack of opportunity with his longspear and then with his armor spikes in the same round? A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away. Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is allowed an attack of opportunity, he may use any weapon that threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack. In this case, imagine an enemy who charged the character and then tried to disarm him. The charge attack would provoke an attack of opportunity from the longspear as the enemy moved out of a threatened square (in order to move adjacent to the character and deliver the charge attack). Then, the disarm attempt would provoke another attack of opportunity (assuming the enemy didn’t have Improved Disarm). This attack of opportunity could be made only with the armor spikes, since the longspear doesn’t threaten an adjacent enemy. Clearly, the character is wielding both the longspear and the armor spikes, yet this FAQ entry does not impose TWF penalties on the attacks. Contrast that with the FAQ entry describing TWF with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon, where the character does get an off-hand attack with the armor spikes and he does suffer TWF penalties.
Chrono Nexus 12-31-05, 11:31 PM	AAAAhhh!!! Too many words! God, I'm suffocating! Why not just dissallow the defending bonus to spikes? If it doesn't fit, cut it so it does.
Thorak 01-01-06, 12:29 AM	Clearly, the character is wielding both the longspear and the armor spikes, yet this FAQ entry does not impose TWF penalties on the attacks. Contrast that with the FAQ entry describing TWF with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon, where the character does get an off-hand attack with the armor spikes and he does suffer TWF penalties. This entry doesn't say a damn thing about penalties whatsoever, yay or nay, so it's hardly supportive evidence. It only says that "Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is allowed an attack of opportunity, he may use any weapon that threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack." Note that it says wielding more than one weapon. And "wielding" is a term that refers to active, not passive, use. So it cannot refer to simply wearing the armor as a defensive item, you have to be actively using it. If you wield a broom, you're sweeping with it or swinging it around or something. If it's just being held in your hand, then you aren't wielding squat. That's what the word means, and in absence of a D&D definition, we have to use the standard English. If anything, this entry supports my case; you have to wield to use the weapon, and wielding is active use, and thus is a "way" you are fighting, and triggers the penalties. As for the big post, I'm going to cut out the grammatical irrelevancies; we're not debating whether something's a dependent or independent clause or what those are or aren't, but how subsequent sentences can refer to prior ones; In this sentence, one can put the independent clause first and the dependent clause second (as the sentence is stated in the PH/SRD) or one could put the independent clause first, like this: "You can get one extra attack per round with a second weapon if you wield that second weapon in your off hand." Yes, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand. My point applies whichever way you word it. In the second sentence of the TWF rule, the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to a thing that is nearby either in space or in time -- specifically, the way of fighting described in the previous sentence. The entire previous sentence describes a way of fighting. Taken alone, the dependent clause of the previous sentence just describes a condition necessary for fighting "this way." Therefore, "fight this way" must refer to both clauses of the previous sentence -- meaning that the penalties only apply if you both "wield a second weapon in your off hand" and you take "one extra attack per round with that weapon" -- not to either clause in isolation. That's not the only way it can be interpreted, and I believe you know it. It refers to a "way" of fighting. Gaining an extra attack is a benefit of the way of fighting, not the way itself. So the dependent clause can very easily be the "way" of fighting all on its lonesome. [quote]So that's how I break down that second sentence. You can see how thedependent clause of the second sentence refers ("this way") to the independent clause of the first sentence. Or, in plain English, you can wield two weapons with no TWF penalty. It's only when you make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon that you suffer TWF penalties. [quote] And like I said, you can grammatically make the point that it can be interpreted this way. I never claimed otherwise. I only said that there's another, equally valid interpretation, and there are sources in the FAQ which clearly suggest that wielding is enough to trigger the penalties, rather than making the attack. And, IMHO, is less prone to abuse, because by your interpretation, I can wield 2 gauntlets, 2 blade boots, and armor spikes, and get Defending bonuses from all 5. And given two equally valid interpretations strictly by the RAW, I'll always pick the more consistent and less abusive one.
mvincent 01-02-06, 03:03 PM	Thorak is incorrect.Yes*. One can be considered wielding something without attacking with it. Shields refer to having wielders, and aligned weapons say: "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 (for this thread), 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 pretty clearly implies that you don't actually have to be attacking to use special abilities. Steering away from that, 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 the most balanced way to handle it). *Thorak has a long history of intractability on the wield subject, even though he previously conceded (in disgust) that he couldn't actually determine what WotC means by wield, and that he would no longer debate it. If you have doubts about wielding, best to ask around on other newsgroups (or find examples from FAQ), as has I've done previously.
Thorak 01-02-06, 03:49 PM	I conceded that WotC doesn't know what "wield" means. Just to set the record absolutely straight. The word has a meaning, and unless/until they choose to define it for D&D purposes, we have to use the standard English one. It's not my fault someone at WotC can't or won't use a dictionary.
jaelis 01-02-06, 04:18 PM	Steering away from that, 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 the most balanced way to handle it). For what it's worth, I think that this is the best solution to the problem.