Post/Author/DateTime	Post
killbot 11-02-05, 05:31 PM	My group came up with a few defending weapon questions last night. Any help would be appreciated. 1. When you assign the weapons enhancement bonus to your AC, do you still get +1 to hit from the weapons MWness? 2. If you have assigned all the weapons bonus to AC, does it still count as magic for the purposes of DR? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-02-05, 05:36 PM	Yes and probably. The masterwork enhancement bonus and the magical enhancement bonus may not stack, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. I'm inclined to say it does still count as magic though. I mean it still has an enhancement bonus, you're just applying it to AC instead of attacks and damage.
SALDAR 11-02-05, 07:03 PM	1. Yes. The MW +1 to hit is an enhancement bonus that does not stack with the magical enhancement bonus. When the magical enhancement is not there the MW enhancement still is. 2. No. DR/Magic requires the weapon to have at least a +1 magical enhancement on attack and damage rolls. If you have used all of the enhancement bonus on defense then you have no magical enhancement bonus to your rolls to overcome DR/Magic.
Jack of All Trades 11-03-05, 07:31 PM	1. Yes. The MW +1 to hit is an enhancement bonus that does not stack with the magical enhancement bonus. When the magical enhancement is not there the MW enhancement still is. Savage. 2. No. DR/Magic requires the weapon to have at least a +1 magical enhancement on attack and damage rolls. If you have used all of the enhancement bonus on defense then you have no magical enhancement bonus to your rolls to overcome DR/Magic. This deffinately makes sense. 3. I have a question. Do you have to attack with the weapon to transfer the attack bonus to an AC bonus if you have the weapon in hand (for example, when casting a spell?)
RavenDrake 11-04-05, 12:36 AM	You have to be weilding the weapon for the weapon to add it's defending bonus. As long as you're holding a one handed or light defending weapon, and your other hand is free, then you can cast spells. You don't have to attack with the weapon. However, if you are using a two handed weapon(including a quarterstaff) or holding two weapons, you cannot use the defending ability unless you weild the weapon(s) properly, meaning no free hand to cast with. Also, this means that when weilding two weapons(or a double weapon) using the defending feature means you incur all the normal two weapon penalties, even if you attack with only one weapon, or one end of a douple weapon. As for Question 2 earlier... 2. If you have assigned all the weapons bonus to AC, does it still count as magic for the purposes of DR? I say YES. It's still a magic weapon, even if the magic is being used to defend rather than attack. IF you use SALDAR's logic, then if you transfer all the bonus to your AC, the weapon is no longer magical, thus it loses all of it's special abilities, including defending. How can that make sense?
Sledged 11-04-05, 12:52 AM	2. If you have assigned all the weapons bonus to AC, does it still count as magic for the purposes of DR? I say YES. It's still a magic weapon, even if the magic is being used to defend rather than attack. IF you use SALDAR's logic, then if you transfer all the bonus to your AC, the weapon is no longer magical, thus it loses all of it's special abilities, including defending.The weapon has to be more that just a magic weapon to overcome the DR. The rules say it has to have "at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls" to overcome the DR (See Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/TypesSubtypesAbilities.rtf) in the SRD). A cursed -1 longsword is a magic weapon, but it wouldn't overcome the DR. Why they don't list it as X/+1, I'll never know.
RavenDrake 11-04-05, 04:32 AM	No... it dosen't say: ...it has to have "at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls" to overcome the DR What is says is: Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. It points out that a WEAPON with a +1 magical enchancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is what counts as a magic weapon. That's why a Monk's Ki strike ability says "Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction." instead of "Her unarmed attacks are treated as being the same as a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with Damage Reduction". A Defending weapon still has an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Just because it's not USING some part of that bonus dosen't mean it no longer exists, just like turning off the energy effects on your weapon. A +2 Defending Longsword normally has a hardness of 14 (10 for Steel, +2 per point of enhancement bonus). Do you mean to tell me that if you put both points of enhancement into your AC, that the weapon's hardness will be back down 10? That's easier to sunder a defending weapon while it's defending than while it's rigged for combat?! This is a valid arguement. If you insist that changing the allocation of the weapons's enhancement bonus would actually change whether it can effect Damage Reduction, then it would have to change ALL effects that rely on the ammount of enhancement bonus the weapon has, including extra hardness, and in fact it's ability to remain enchanted at all.
Jack of All Trades 11-04-05, 10:44 AM	You have to be weilding the weapon for the weapon to add it's defending bonus. As long as you're holding a one handed or light defending weapon, and your other hand is free, then you can cast spells. You don't have to attack with the weapon. However, if you are using a two handed weapon(including a quarterstaff) or holding two weapons, you cannot use the defending ability unless you weild the weapon(s) properly, meaning no free hand to cast with. Also, this means that when weilding two weapons(or a double weapon) using the defending feature means you incur all the normal two weapon penalties, even if you attack with only one weapon, or one end of a douple weapon. Okay, So what if you have a greatsword in a locked gauntlet in your left hand and you have a +5 spiked gauntlet of defending in your right hand, and you decide to cast a spell using your free right hand to cast. Are you still "wielding" your gauntlet? Can you still use the defending ability since your right hand is free?
tarkin 11-04-05, 11:33 AM	Strict or Loose game: No. In order to be wielding a weapon, you can not use that hand for anything else that round (unless you have a special feat such as Improved Buckler Defense that lets you wield the weapon while using the same hand to wield the shield). Power Game Your DM might House rule against the offical rule listed above, allowing you to get it. Anything Goes Game: Your DM will definitely let you get away with this.
Jack of All Trades 11-04-05, 12:41 PM	I think I figured out why this is so. A defending gauntlet has to be totally free from use other than attacking because a defending weapon is physically moving around and protecting you from damage (ie. a gauntlet would attempt to swat the oncoming blade from hitting you thus, interupting the somatic components of the spell you were casting) Is this right, is this how it works, because if thats the case, thats really cool? Obviously my goal is to recieve a +5 defense bonus while I'm casting. To accomplish this a two handed weapon cannot be used... Again please correct me if I'm wrong but the other optimal ways of doing this are with a 1. longsword 2. rapier 3. exotically used bastard sword 4. or with a Sun Blade Which brings me to my next question. Whats the enhancement bonus of a sunblade? I know it has +2 to attack and damage, can one add a further +3 attack and damage and a full +5 weapon enhancement bonus (ie. flaming, frost, shock, defending, and spellstoring?)
bondious 11-05-05, 04:43 AM	How about Defending armor spikes? They are considered weapons (as far as I know) and do not require a hand to wield, correct? You wield them by wearing them, so whenever you have your armor on then you are considered armed. So if you made them Defending (say +3 Defending Armor Spikes) then you could simply walk around with a +3 AC bonus. Viable? I think so, but that's just me. :)
Doomed_Penguin 11-05-05, 09:23 AM	I think he's got you there...
Jack of All Trades 11-05-05, 06:07 PM	I was thinking about using the same idea with shield spikes and and animated heavy shield. Which seems significantly more valid to me than anything else. At least when you think about how a defending weapon should work. IMy theory is that a defending weapon moves to help reflect an oncoming blow. Wait a minute.... could you imagine a a suit of full plate mail with these spikes that would move around and maybe even grow on their own to protect you from attacks. That would be sweet....
RavenDrake 11-06-05, 01:58 AM	bondious: Yes, but you would incur penalties as if weilding an offhand weapon that way. Regardless of whether you "strike" with it or not, you must be "weilding" a defending weapon, and if you're "Weilding" your armour spikes, then they count against you as a weapon, even if you are going the cheesy "Greatsword and Spikes" combo... Jack of All Trades: Err.... I'm not so sure that would work... well, actually, since the sheild is treated for most purposes as if you still held it then I guess that would work. But you're still going to suffer penalties as if you are weilding an offhand weapon for it. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency. That means if you hold it at the ready to defend, even animated, it's the same as if weilding it in combat... but it's a neat way to get more AC out of a shield and still use two handed weapons... A +5 Animated Heavy Shield with +5 Defending Spikes = +12 to AC for only -4 to attack(heavier than light offhand weapon)...
bondious 11-06-05, 03:46 AM	3. I have a question. Do you have to attack with the weapon to transfer the attack bonus to an AC bonus if you have the weapon in hand (for example, when casting a spell?) I asked about the idea of Defending armor spikes along the lines of the question above. Armor spikes are considered light melee weapons, and it seems reasonable to me that you might need a free hand to utilize them in combat. It says in the armor spike's description: You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) And, in response to Jack of All Trades's question, you said: You have to be weilding the weapon for the weapon to add it's defending bonus. As long as you're holding a one handed or light defending weapon, and your other hand is free, then you can cast spells. You don't have to attack with the weapon. Seems to me that having Defending armor spikes in your "off hand" is the same thing as having a Defending dagger (or long sword or club or etc) in that same hand, while you use the unencumbered hand to cast spells. The spikes would still be at the ready, in case the caster wanted to attack the following round and threaten an area for attacks of opportunity...thus, in my opinion, they are "wielded". Here's another thought. Say a fighter was walking down the road with his greatsword slung across his back while wearing his handy-dandy +3 Defending Armor Spikes. Couldn't it be reasonable that he is considered armed and that, at a moment's notice, he could wield those spikes in combat? Should he, then, be able to take advantage of those spike's Defending property and have up to a +3 AC bonus, if he so chooses? Hmmm... :plotting:
RavenDrake 11-07-05, 02:47 AM	Yes. They can technically count as being always "Weilded". And they don't encumber your hand, so you can use it for somatic components. And yes, you threaten the area around you. And, yes, if you don't attack with any Primary Weapon or Attack OTHER than those armour spikes, then you don't suffer penalties to attack with them. However, if you make any other attack with your primary hand, then you have to count the Armour Spikes as a Secondary Weapon for them to still count as being "Weilded", meaning you take TWF penalties to ALL attacks. If you make an attack with any other secondary weapon, you can't use the armour spikes, thus they DON'T count as being weilded anymore, and thier defending power can't take over. At least, that's MY interpretation of how the Spikes would Work. This also raises an interesting question. If you make a an attack with a Weaponlike Spell(touch attack, Ray, etc), does that count as a Primary Hand attack? As for Thorny McDefender and his +3 Armour Spikes: Yes, at the very begining of his turn, as a free action, he can choose to allocate those spike's bonus to his AC. He has to be aware of the situation(he can't do it in reaction to an attack, for example, he has to actively choose to do it on his turn), much like how you can't reactively activate the Boots of Speed for thier AC bonus, even though activating them is a free action. Unless, of course, he takes a conscious thought every 6 seconds to tell his spikes to defend him.
Dhavaer 11-07-05, 03:02 AM	What would the Defending spikes look like? The image I got when it was brought up was of thorny tentacle type appendages.
Jack of All Trades 11-07-05, 12:49 PM	Yes. They can technically count as being always "Weilded". And they don't encumber your hand, so you can use it for somatic components. And yes, you threaten the area around you. And, yes, if you don't attack with any Primary Weapon or Attack OTHER than those armour spikes, then you don't suffer penalties to attack with them. However, if you make any other attack with your primary hand, then you have to count the Armour Spikes as a Secondary Weapon for them to still count as being "Weilded", meaning you take TWF penalties to ALL attacks. If you make an attack with any other secondary weapon, you can't use the armour spikes, thus they DON'T count as being weilded anymore, and thier defending power can't take over. At least, that's MY interpretation of how the Spikes would Work. This also raises an interesting question. If you make a an attack with a Weaponlike Spell(touch attack, Ray, etc), does that count as a Primary Hand attack? As for Thorny McDefender and his +3 Armour Spikes: Yes, at the very begining of his turn, as a free action, he can choose to allocate those spike's bonus to his AC. He has to be aware of the situation(he can't do it in reaction to an attack, for example, he has to actively choose to do it on his turn), much like how you can't reactively activate the Boots of Speed for thier AC bonus, even though activating them is a free action. Unless, of course, he takes a conscious thought every 6 seconds to tell his spikes to defend him. Okay I want to make sure I have this right, okay? So feel free to correct me if I have this wrong. So you are saying that I can decide at a moments notice whether or not I'm weilding my armor spikes. That being said. I can decide to forgoe the use of my armor spikes for the specific purpose of weilding my greatsword without penalty. You are also saying that you must choose at the beginning of a round one must choose whether or not to allocate the armor spikes attack bonus to ac, and that once the decision is made its too late to determine otherwise until the next round of combat. So in this circumstance I can effectively decide that I can hold my greatsword in my off-hand (unable to weild it) cast a spell using my primary hand, weild my armor spikes and activate the +5 bonus to ac? Correct?
elecgraystone 11-07-05, 02:50 PM	I asked cust sev this question. "#1 do you get penalties for wielding 2 weapons or for taking an extra attack with your second weapon?" "Response (Chris L.) 06/02/2005 07:54 AM Thank you for contacting us. 1) You only take penalties to your attacks for Two-Weapon Fighting when you actually attack with your off hand. Simply holding a 2nd weapon in your off hand, and not attacking with it, does not impose a penalty to regular attacks taken with your primary hand." So if i have a greatsword and armor spikes i can attack with the greatsword only and since i'm weilding (but not attacking with) the spikes, i don't take any pent. However, since i'm still weilding the spiked, i can get the defending weapon bonus to my AC. So RavenDrake is dead wrong. Now if you don't take the pent. for 2 weapon fighting, you can't use the spikes to attack until your next round. Lets say you got disarmed. You can't take an AOO with the spikes because you are not attacking with them.
RavenDrake 11-07-05, 11:51 PM	I asked cust sev this question. "#1 do you get penalties for wielding 2 weapons or for taking an extra attack with your second weapon?" "Response (Chris L.) 06/02/2005 07:54 AM Thank you for contacting us. 1) You only take penalties to your attacks for Two-Weapon Fighting when you actually attack with your off hand. Simply holding a 2nd weapon in your off hand, and not attacking with it, does not impose a penalty to regular attacks taken with your primary hand." So if i have a greatsword and armor spikes i can attack with the greatsword only and since i'm weilding (but not attacking with) the spikes, i don't take any pent. However, since i'm still weilding the spiked, i can get the defending weapon bonus to my AC. So RavenDrake is dead wrong. You didn't detail the full situation, and only asked about the two weapon fighting rules, which coloured his response. That being said, it makes his reaction somewhat misleading, based on one thing: There is a fundemental difference in holding and weapon and weilding a weapon. You can hold a weapon, just like you would hold a lantern or any other item. BUT it has not combat value, at all. AND the hand is occupied. Weilding a weapon means holding it ready and in position, preped for combat. In such a position, it ALWAYS effects your combat rolls. You must be weilding(not just holding) a weapon for it to activate it's Defending ability. 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. If you are Weilding an offhand weapon, regardless of whether you attack with it or not, you incur Two Weapon Fighting penalties. You can choose, for example, that you are merely holding your +x Defending [Offhand Weapon] so that you take no penalties to your attack roll with your primary weapon(assuming you haven't taken any attacks with it yet), BUT, if you are just holding (not weidling) that weapon, then you cannot acivate its defending property. If you are weilding (not just holding) an offhand weapon, then you incur all penalties associated with two weapon fighting EVEN IF you do not attack with that weapon. At least, that is my personal interpretation of the rules. It may have be clarified or errata'ed somewhere else. And with that said, using the above interpretation of the rules, I'm going to respond to Jack of all Trades now: Okay I want to make sure I have this right, okay? So feel free to correct me if I have this wrong. So you are saying that I can decide at a moments notice whether or not I'm weilding my armor spikes. Yes. As long as you have not made an offhand attack, you can choose whether or not you are weilding the spikes, or merely holding them. As they are mounted on your armour, holding seems fairly easy. Essentially, they are freely Quickdraw'able, even without the feat. Again, as is my interpretation. That being said. I can decide to forgoe the use of my armor spikes for the specific purpose of weilding my greatsword without penalty. Yes. In that case you are holding, not weilding, your armour spikes. Keep in mind this is my take on the FAQ, which at one point seemed to state that, since 'offhand' attacks can be made with any part of the body, you can make an 'offhand' attack even if your hands are full. Which, personally, I don't agree with. If you are weilding a "two handed" weapon, then you don't have any free attention(not "hand", as you don't need it for an unarmed strike) but "Attention" to make an unarmed attack. Multi-handed characters can make other attacks because thier bodies have more finely attuned senses when it comes to multiple attacks, but I still don't allow them to make an unarmed attack in addition to all thier others. I don't agree with the ideas being argued here, but as they seem to follow FAQ, Errata, and RAW(as far as I know) I can only interpret them as clearly as possible. You are also saying that you must choose at the beginning of a round one must choose whether or not to allocate the armor spikes attack bonus to ac, and that once the decision is made its too late to determine otherwise until the next round of combat. Yes. You must chose, at the begining of your turn, whether or not to apply the AC bonus of a defending weapon. As such, you must be weilding(not just holding) the weapon for it to take effect. That means that you must make a conscious effort to weild your armour spikes in a combat-effective manner as offhand weapons, thus incuring the standard TWF penalties. Just as the AC bonus lasts until the next round, so too do the penalties, and they colour not only your attacks on your turn, but any AoO you make until your next turn. So in this circumstance I can effectively decide that I can hold my greatsword in my off-hand (unable to weild it) cast a spell using my primary hand, weild my armor spikes and activate the +5 bonus to ac? Correct? Hoo boy.... Ok, first off: Changing how you hold a two handed weapon is up to your DM. Some say it's a move equivilent action to 'change hands' in this maner. Some say it's a free action. Some say it's a free action if you have certain feats(like Quick Draw).... you'd have to take it up with him. In this case, you could declare you were using your Armour Spikes as your "Primary Weapon" and just holding your Greatsword at the begining of your turn. If you do, then, technically, you can do this without penalty. Of course, depening on your DM, he make you "Draw" your Greatsword to weild again next turn. Additionally, since the Spikes are now your only weilded weapon, they will be the weapon you use for AoO, if you make any.
elecgraystone 11-08-05, 09:59 AM	You didn't detail the full situation, and only asked about the two weapon fighting rules, which coloured his response. That being said, it makes his reaction somewhat misleading, based on one thing: There is a fundemental difference in holding and weapon and weilding a weapon. But that's why i asked as i did. if the 2 weapon fighting counts WEILDING as having it in your hand and NOT attacking with it AND not taking pent, with it, then what other question did i need to ask. Why would WEILDING change definitions whan you use it in another rule? I saw that in other 2 weapon threads, the weilded definition kept coming into disagreement. The best way to find out how cusr serv. defined weilding was to use it in an example and see how THEY used it, not asking them for a definition. If you are Weilding an offhand weapon, regardless of whether you attack with it or not, you incur Two Weapon Fighting penalties. No, as i quoted, WEILDING two weapons doesn't incur 2 weapon pent., only taking the extra attack that you can take from 2 weapon fighting gives you the pent. Yes. As long as you have not made an offhand attack, you can choose whether or not you are weilding the spikes, or merely holding them. As they are mounted on your armour, holding seems fairly easy. Essentially, they are freely Quickdraw'able, even without the feat. Again, as is my interpretation. No, you ALWAYS weild your spikes. You see what cust serv said, then ignored it. My question was clear. Pent. with weilding 2 weapons are only with ATTACKING with 2 weapons. Hoo boy.... Ok, first off: Changing how you hold a two handed weapon is up to your DM. Some say it's a move equivilent action to 'change hands' in this maner. Some say it's a free action. Some say it's a free action if you have certain feats(like Quick Draw).... you'd have to take it up with him. In this case, you could declare you were using your Armour Spikes as your "Primary Weapon" and just holding your Greatsword at the begining of your turn. If you do, then, technically, you can do this without penalty. Of course, depening on your DM, he make you "Draw" your Greatsword to weild again next turn. Additionally, since the Spikes are now your only weilded weapon, they will be the weapon you use for AoO, if you make any. He could drop his greatsword from his one hand (free action), he's only letting go with 1 hand! Now he'd need quickdraw to regain his grip. (or as part of a move action) Of course you are always weilding your spikes, so you just have to pick you defence bonus at the start of the round. So you could: Set bonus on your spikes. Drop your greatsword from your off hand. cast your spell. Quickdraw your greatsword. (and use it for AOO) You do not have to do ANYTHING to use the defending spikes, because you ALWAYS weild them. PS: almost forgot killbots first post! The weapon is always MW, so if you use all the bonus on defence, you still get the MW bonus. Second, the weapon is magic (has to be for enchantments). So unless the weapon loses all powers, it's magic. If it stopped being magic when it has no bonus to hit, then no other enchantments would work. No flaming (weapon need a +1 to have this), bane, ghosttouch, ect.
bondious 11-08-05, 12:10 PM	I think the REAL issue on this thread is the fact that many find it difficult to spell the word "wielding". :teach: "Eye-eee", not "eee-eye"...spell check it if you don't believe me. 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. The funny thing is that THIS was posted, clearly (and boldly, I might add) illustrating the correct spelling. As for the topic at hand, I guess that everyone has their opinion about how Defending works, probably due to the somewhat vague rules. If they said something like "a defending weapon must be held in one's hand and attacked with that round" then that would be clear, nae? Hell, the rules for Defending don't even limit you to just ONE! 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. Now this is merely playing :devil: 's Advocate, and I wouldn't let anyone in my games do this, but the rules do not specifically say that you can only use ONE Defending weapon. Imagine a Marilith with 6 +3 Defending Long Swords. She would have a +18 bonus to AC...how cheezy would THAT be? The point is that I'm sure that there is room for some leeway, and that it is the DM's choice of how to interpret the rule. I, personally, am leaning towards only allowing standard melee weapons, excluding armor spikes and spiked shields, as Defending weapons...but if a character wants to have both a Defending weapon and a regular weapon, but wants to use the Defending weapon as a makeshift "shield", then he/she won't suffer any combat penalties. Just my :twocents: on the subject. Peace and chicken grease. :)
RavenDrake 11-09-05, 01:41 AM	I fail to see as how my.... er... our spelling has any relevance on the topic at hand. :D As I said, this is my interpretation of the rules. The customer service person's concise(but vastly oversimplified) description of two weapon fighting is only relevent when you're not including the defending aspect of the weapon. You asked simply about whether the two weapon penalties came from having two weapons, or from attacking with them. Regardless of your use of the term 'wielding' in the question, his response didn't include that word. Not even once. He used "Holding". And, as I said, holding a weapon has no combat relevance, aside from not being able to use that hand for skills/somatic components. And as for this: The best way to find out how cusr serv. defined weilding was to use it in an example and see how THEY used it, not asking them for a definition. That is the most counterintuitive thing I've ever heard, and if that's the logic you're using to parse the CS representative's answer(IE: Use the word my way and see if he corrects me), then.. At any rate, I've said my views on both the op's question on defending and on my view of twf with defending(all aspects).
elecgraystone 11-09-05, 01:16 PM	That is the most counterintuitive thing I've ever heard, and if that's the logic you're using to parse the CS representative's answer(IE: Use the word my way and see if he corrects me), then.. At any rate, I've said my views on both the op's question on defending and on my view of twf with defending(all aspects). #1 there is no definition for wield in the game. #2 when i asked about wielding, the cusr serv responded with the answer that holding (that's how HE reads wielding) doesn't give you any pent. unless you make the extra attack under the 2 weapon rules. A defending weapons requires you to wield it (cust serv reads this as HOLD). If you don't like the answer i got from cust serv, why not ask them to define wield for you? I'll give them an e-mail to ask about DEFENDING weapons. That should ease your worries.
elecgraystone 11-09-05, 03:58 PM	Here it is, hot off the presses. Hello. I asked a question a few monthes ago and this was the response i got. " Reference # 050601-000329 Hi I have some questions about 2 weapon fighting. #1 do you get penalties for wielding 2 weapons or for taking an extra attack with your second weapon? Response (Chris L.) 06/02/2005 07:54 AM Thank you for contacting us. 1) You only take penalties to your attacks for Two-Weapon Fighting when you actually attack with your off hand. Simply holding a 2nd weapon in your off hand, and not attacking with it, does not impose a penalty to regular attacks taken with your primary hand." Now, i've been on a thread on the boards about defending weapons. One person posted "when weilding two weapons(or a double weapon) using the defending feature means you incur all the normal two weapon penalties, even if you attack with only one weapon, or one end of a douple weapon." However, when i asked before, chris L. said that wielding 2 weapons doesn't incur any pent. I guess i'm asking #1 what does wield mean in D&D. #2 defending states "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". Going with chris L.'s answer, you can use your off-hand to wield a defending weapon, use it's power and not take 2-weapon pent. if you do no use it to attack, right? #3 are you always wielding weapons like armor spikes, gauntlets, spiked guantlets, shields ect that are attached? If you are not, when wouldn't you be? I can see you not wielding your gauntlets if you are holding something, but when don't you wield your armor spikes or a shield? Hey there Kevin. Strictly by the rules, if you are simply carrying a defending weapon in your off-hand and do not attack with it, then you can get the defending bonus and not incur any two-weapon fighting penalties. You are always wielding weapons like armor spikes, gauntlets, and the like as long as they are being worn or are on the armor you are wearing. Shields are not always attached, but as long as you had the shield in hand, it would count as being wielded, yes. Have fun and good gaming! What do you think now RavenDrake? So you can have a defending gauntlet and use the power AND have a weapon in it. (always wielding) Pop a shield spike on your shield and defending for the extra AC. Make it a large mithral shield with a spike and you can get an AC of +12 from it (+5 shield, +2 large shield, +5 defending spike) with NO minus to your attack. (and no pent to a magic user!;no failure or check pent!)
Jack of All Trades 11-09-05, 08:35 PM	I just want to say.... Ungawuh
ShadowCub 11-09-05, 09:13 PM	So you can have a defending gauntlet and use the power AND have a weapon in it. (always wielding) Pop a shield spike on your shield and defending for the extra AC. Make it a large mithral shield with a spike and you can get an AC of +12 from it (+5 shield, +2 large shield, +5 defending spike) with NO minus to your attack. (and no pent to a magic user!;no failure or check pent!) Uhm, okay.... so where is "Defending" described? I checked my DMG and didn't find it there..... I'm thinking I may want to put something like this together myself! One thing that wasn't asked was if "Defending Gauntlets" would interfere with Somatic components, but then, since I'm not planning on running a spell caster, my curriosity on that point is merely knowledge for knowledge's sake.
elecgraystone 11-10-05, 10:08 AM	Uhm, okay.... so where is "Defending" described? I checked my DMG and didn't find it there..... I'm thinking I may want to put something like this together myself! One thing that wasn't asked was if "Defending Gauntlets" would interfere with Somatic components, but then, since I'm not planning on running a spell caster, my curriosity on that point is merely knowledge for knowledge's sake. You are always weilding a gauntlet. Gauntlet is a weapon. Does gauntlet(the weapon) SAY anything about casting in them? NO And, by them selves, they are not armor. (no ac bonus, ckeck pent or fail chance) Should they, yeah. Do they, no. Good place for a houserule. Just remember that a light mithral shield has a fail % of 0!
elecgraystone 11-10-05, 10:11 AM	Uhm, okay.... so where is "Defending" described? I checked my DMG and didn't find it there..... I'm thinking I may want to put something like this together myself! One thing that wasn't asked was if "Defending Gauntlets" would interfere with Somatic components, but then, since I'm not planning on running a spell caster, my curriosity on that point is merely knowledge for knowledge's sake. Here you go 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.
RavenDrake 11-16-05, 02:11 AM	What do you think now RavenDrake? Fair enough. I'm willing to concede the point, technically, to you and the Customer Service Rep. This, however, dosen't change my position on the issue. It merely means that it becomes a houserule, rather than being backed by RAW...
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 09:05 AM	Fair enough. I'm willing to concede the point, technically, to you and the Customer Service Rep. This, however, dosen't change my position on the issue. It merely means that it becomes a houserule, rather than being backed by RAW... That's cool, it's your game. This kind of debate was bound to happen when they didn't define wield. When something can be read 2 different ways, WOTC SHOULD anticipate that and try to clear it up. This should have been in a FAQ or an errata a long time ago.
tui 11-16-05, 02:17 PM	So does the Defending weapon's enhancement bonus "that stacks with all other" AC bonuses allow you to wield multiple Defending weapons? Could you use +5 Defending Armor Spikes on Full Plate +5 (+18), +5 Defending Shield Spikes on a Heavy Steel Shield +5 (+12), and a +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets, for a +35 AC? Tack on the usual Ring of Protection +5 and Amulet of Natural Armor +5.. Sure, there are probably cheaper ways to get a 55 AC than spending 368K gp, but still...
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 02:34 PM	So does the Defending weapon's enhancement bonus "that stacks with all other" AC bonuses allow you to wield multiple Defending weapons? Could you use +5 Defending Armor Spikes on Full Plate +5 (+18), +5 Defending Shield Spikes on a Heavy Steel Shield +5 (+12), and a +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets, for a +35 AC? Tack on the usual Ring of Protection +5 and Amulet of Natural Armor +5.. Sure, there are probably cheaper ways to get a 55 AC than spending 368K gp, but still... Since there is no DMG errata on defending, "stacks with all other" means just that. So you could have: +5 defending spikes(+5) +5 full plate(+13) +5 defending shield spike(+5) +5 heavy shield(+7) +5 gauntletsX2(+10) <remember the weapon is gauntlet, not gauntlets> =+40 Add ring and amulet for a +50 With a 12+ dex AC=61
tui 11-16-05, 02:43 PM	Yeah, but can you use a spiked gauntlet in the same hand you're wielding a heavy shield? I'd say: "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else" means no.
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 02:50 PM	Yeah, but can you use a spiked gauntlet in the same hand you're wielding a heavy shield? I'd say: "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can?t use your shield hand for anything else" means no. Here is my question to cust serv. "#3 are you always wielding weapons like armor spikes, gauntlets, spiked guantlets, shields ect that are attached? If you are not, when wouldn't you be? I can see you not wielding your gauntlets if you are holding something, but when don't you wield your armor spikes or a shield?" And there response. "You are always wielding weapons like armor spikes, gauntlets, and the like as long as they are being worn or are on the armor you are wearing. Shields are not always attached, but as long as you had the shield in hand, it would count as being wielded, yes." SO,you can't use the hand, but that doesn't stop you from wielding the gauntlet.
tui 11-16-05, 02:52 PM	Since there is no DMG errata on defending, "stacks with all other" means just that. I've been pondering how this was interpreted by people in the past, and I think folks have said, "It stacks with all OTHER bonuses, but that doesn't mean it stacks with itself." So I think these people would say Defending weapons' AC bonuses don't stack.
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 02:54 PM	Oh, just thought of something. The FAQ states that you can attack with the shield spike OR the shield. So if you agree with them, you could enchant the shield itself with defending for an extra +5
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 03:05 PM	I've been pondering how this was interpreted by people in the past, and I think folks have said, "It stacks with all OTHER bonuses, but that doesn't mean it stacks with itself." So I think these people would say Defending weapons' AC bonuses don't stack. They might. However they have no rules to back it up. SRD:"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." The rules do not state what kind of bonus, just that it stacks with ALL others. It makes an exception in the rule that bonuses that come from the same kind of souce don't add. It doesn't exclude ANY bonuses. IE ALL Look at it another way. How can you say that the defending bonus isn't an AC bonus? That's the only way you can say it doesn't fall under the "ALL" ac bonuses.
tui 11-16-05, 03:10 PM	SO,you can't use the hand, but that doesn't stop you from wielding the gauntlet. I hear what you're saying.. the description of the shield explicitly says you can't use the shield hand for anything else. So you're saying the custserv response that "you are always wielding gauntlets" overrides the explicit description of the shield, since you specifically asked "when wouldn't you be?" and his answer didn't include that situation. But I'm not sure which to put more wieght in.. the explicit exception to the rule as provided in the SRD, or the custserv response. I tend towards the prior, unless it was clear that the custserv response considered that specific situation.
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 03:27 PM	I hear what you're saying.. the description of the shield explicitly says you can't use the shield hand for anything else. So you're saying the custserv response that "you are always wielding gauntlets" overrides the explicit description of the shield, since you specifically asked "when wouldn't you be?" and his answer didn't include that situation. But I'm not sure which to put more wieght in.. the explicit exception to the rule as provided in the SRD, or the custserv response. I tend towards the prior, unless it was clear that the custserv response considered that specific situation. There is no rule change. SRD:"Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can?t use your shield hand for anything else" Defending just needs you to be wielding a weapon. Wielding isn't defined in the rules. Which is why i mailed cust serv. Cust serv stated that you wield a gauntlet as long as it's worn. You don't have to DO anything with your hand to use the defending power. All you have to do is be able to make a free action. If your characters hands were tied behind his back and he had defending gauntlets, he could activate them even though he can't attack with them. Wielding and being able to attack with the weapon are 2 different things. And you seem to have missed one part of my question. "I can see you not wielding your gauntlets if you are holding something, but when don't you wield your armor spikes or a shield?" The reply was you are always wielding your gauntlets, I asked about holding something and I would have understood if they had said that i WASN'T wielding a gauntlet while holding something.
tui 11-16-05, 03:29 PM	They might. However they have no rules to back it up. I googled around and found someone referencing the Rules of the Game: Does it Stack (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040120a), where Skip Williams says, "A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself." That's why they emphasize the Defending weapon's description to read, "...as a bonus that stacks with all OTHERS".
tui 11-16-05, 03:43 PM	And you seem to have missed one part of my question. "I can see you not wielding your gauntlets if you are holding something, but when don't you wield your armor spikes or a shield?" The reply was you are always wielding your gauntlets, I asked about holding something and I would have understood if they had said that i WASN'T wielding a gauntlet while holding something. Ok, so the custserv guy is essentially saying a defending weapon works like a ring of protection, or bracers of armor, or whatever. It magically provides the protection without necessarily changing how you fight in combat.. it isn't like wearing a ring of protection results in sword attacks being deflected off your pinky, for example. And like those other things, it doesn't work if it is in your backpack and not on your finger, or over your hand, or whatever (unless it explicitly says it does). That makes sense, and is nice and consistent after all, once I consider it like that.
elecgraystone 11-16-05, 04:02 PM	I googled around and found someone referencing the Rules of the Game: Does it Stack (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040120a), where Skip Williams says, "A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself." That's why they emphasize the Defending weapon's description to read, "...as a bonus that stacks with all OTHERS". I'll emphasize all. Dictionary :ALL adj. 1.the whole of 2. every one of 3. the greatest possible 4. every 5. any Skips rules on stacking are good, but the power tells us that is stacks with everything. Power overrides general rule. all others includes itself, unless you have another way to define all. If i say you can add 1 to any other number, 1 isn't excluded is it?
MindWandererB 11-16-05, 04:30 PM	What do you think now RavenDrake? So you can have a defending gauntlet and use the power AND have a weapon in it. (always wielding) Pop a shield spike on your shield and defending for the extra AC. Make it a large mithral shield with a spike and you can get an AC of +12 from it (+5 shield, +2 large shield, +5 defending spike) with NO minus to your attack. (and no pent to a magic user!;no failure or check pent!) Well, I don't know about RavenDrake, but the 3.0 FAQ has this to say: 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. Although this wasn't reprinted in the 3.5 FAQ, most people play it this way. Otherwise, you're right. In fact, you could get even more abusive: +5 Heavy Shield enchanted as a +5 defending weapon (doesn't have to have a spike to count as a weapon) +5 defending armor spikes +5 defending spiked gauntlets on each hand +5 defending weapon By the way, Skip's Rules of the Game columns are usually wrong. There is nothing in the rules to suggest that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves, except this from the glossary: Modifiers to a given check or roll stack if they come from different sources and have different descriptors (or no descriptors at all), but do not stack if they have the same descriptors or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). Now, whether two different Defending weapons count as two different sources is difficult to say- after all, two unnamed bonuses from the same spell cast by two different people counts as the same source.
elecgraystone 11-17-05, 11:27 AM	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. This is nice and all, but the FAQ can't override rules. No were does it say in defending that you have to take ANY action other than a free action to use it's power. Just wield. And as/per cust serv, wield is hold/attached. And new material overrides old. Just the same as if a spell shows up in 2 books, the LAST book has the right version. So even if you use the 3.0 FAQ, the new official material (cust serv IS official), would override that until it showed up in an errata. Now, whether two different Defending weapons count as two different sources is difficult to say- after all, two unnamed bonuses from the same spell cast by two different people counts as the same source. Even if they were the same source, the text overrides the general rule. All other means all other. If it doesn't stack with other defending weapons, then it should be all others except other defending weapons. If a new piece of equipment was published that was an armor add on (like a chain skirt) that said (adds a +1 armor bonus that stacks with an existing suit of armor), the text overrides the fact that like bonuses don't stack as a general rule. How is stacks with all(any) bonus to AC different? If it falls under the same source rule then why not say it gives an unnamed bonus to AC? Much easier than a bonus that stacks with all others. And NOt the same.
RavenDrake 11-18-05, 01:50 AM	And that's why I rule it like I do... cause that sort of thing is really silly. I can fully understand the point, and it's especially frustrating since these are the EXACT same issues from 3.0 that still haven't be fully defined and clarified by offical errata...
elecgraystone 11-18-05, 08:56 AM	And that's why I rule it like I do... cause that sort of thing is really silly. I can fully understand the point, and it's especially frustrating since these are the EXACT same issues from 3.0 that still haven't be fully defined and clarified by offical errata... And i 100% understand your point. I also 100% support your ruling. Myself, i do it a little different than you. I use the cust serv way of wielding.(IE holding or attached) Other than that 3.0 FAQ, WOTC have been pretty consistant on thier use of wield. The main reason i don't worry about players using multiple defending weapons is the cost. 72,000 per +5 defender (with NO other enchantments). Rings of prot.+5 and amulet of nat. armor +5 cost 50,000GP, so defending isn't thier first pick. In the example i showed, the cost would have been 432,000 GP! (not including weapon cost and MC) 216,000 gets you a +6 in all stats! And this means that they have no bonus to hit/damage fron magic and cant use magic gauntlets. 432,000Gp and ALL they got was an AC 60. (which is different than a 40 how?; nat. 20 still hits!) If a DM's players have 432,000Gp to spend, either it's an epic game and a 60+AC isn't a problem or defending stacking isn't the problem with the game! ;) I've had defending stack since 3.0 and i've never had a player go looking for a defending weapon. Only ones they ever used were ones they got as treasure. Because they understand that Gp do not grow on trees and they need thier weapons to KILL monsters. I figure an extra 22,000Gp for a bonus that stacks with anything sound about right. Now, if you want to see ugly, look at a marlith with defending gauntlets/weapons/armor. (shudder) I used one in a very high level game in hell. Didn't have to worry about them using the stuff. (hell forged + large size stuff) It turned a cake-walk into a real battle.