Defending Weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Defending Weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gendar Manyspell
01-06-07, 10:39 PM I know that you take away from the plus to hit, but do you also take it away from the damage as well?
Seerow
01-06-07, 10:42 PM Yes
draconic_swine
01-07-07, 08:37 AM As Seerow said, the answer is yes. Defending takes from your weapon's enhancement bonus and adds to your AC bonus, and a weapon's enhancement bonus adds to both attack and damage. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending) and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) are the relevant SRD quotes.

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC...

Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
LegacyKing
01-07-07, 09:53 AM Another related question:
Does the Spell Greater Magic Weapon (which gives an enhancement bonus of up to +5) work with the defender property?

I.e. I make a +1 defending weapon, then cast Magic Weapon making it really a +4 defending weapon, can I then take 4 away and add that to my defense?
Tyler Do'Urden
01-07-07, 10:13 AM Um, yeah, it looks like it works. The spell gives the weapon an enhancement bonus, and the defending property lets you subtract from the weapon's enhancement bonus and add to your AC.

Just note that the enhancement bonus from the spell and the enhancement bonus from the weapon wouldn't stack.
lord_xarallon
01-07-07, 01:17 PM What about multiple defending weapons, would the bonuses stack with each other?
draconic_swine
01-07-07, 01:29 PM It's debatable. Some people say yes, others no. Depends how the DM interprets "that stacks with all others". I personally allow it, but only up to two weapons; that way you don't have characters running around with two weapons, a light shield, armour spikes, and so forth, gaining an AC bonus from each one.
mvincent
01-07-07, 03:29 PM What about multiple defending weapons, would the bonuses stack with each other?Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpreted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though this appears unwarranted.

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

It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems).
DarkRhystar
01-07-07, 05:51 PM Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpreted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though this appears unwarranted.

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

It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems).

The counter point (as I understand it) goes along the lines of this though:

Two different Wizard cast Haste on themselves.

Two different Wizards, two different instances of Haste, yet only a single +1 dodge bonus as it falls under the "Same effect More than Once" category.

You could liken the two Haste spells to the two Defending weapons. Even though we're talking about separate Weapons and Wizards, the origin of the bonuses are considered the same.

Doesn't seem all that unbalancing to allow stacking, but YMMV.
mvincent
01-07-07, 06:04 PM The counter point (as I understand it) goes along the lines of this thoughYour post seems confusing. Your counter-point seems against stacking, but so was my initial point. Can you clarify?
StruckingFuggle
01-07-07, 06:42 PM Um, yeah, it looks like it works. The spell gives the weapon an enhancement bonus, and the defending property lets you subtract from the weapon's enhancement bonus and add to your AC.

Just note that the enhancement bonus from the spell and the enhancement bonus from the weapon wouldn't stack.

Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains?
mvincent
01-07-07, 06:49 PM Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains?I personally would say no because the shift doesn't technically reduce the first enhancement bonus on the weapon (which would allow the overlapped GMW enhancement bonus to be used).

Mind you, the effectiveness of defending weapons seems pretty marginal, so allowing this also seems fine (and could well be a legitimate interpretation).
jaelis
01-07-07, 06:55 PM Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains?

It wouldn't work. A weapon has only a single enhancement bonus. If you cast GMW on a +5 weapon, you get no benefit, whether defending or not.

Now here's a trick... the fighter has his +5 defending weapon, and at the start of his turn shifts it all to AC. The wizard has readied an action to cast GMW, and does so now. Does the fighter get any benefit? I'd say no, but it's kind of fun to think about.
risner
01-07-07, 07:17 PM Put me in these camps:

1) Defending does not specifically say it stacks with other Defending weapons, therefore it doesn't stack with itself.

2) Defending weapons need to be used in the same way Combat Expertise is used (in other words you must be prepared to attack with the weapon that round; so no "I have 10 defending weapons" in use yaking.)

3) GMW won't help/stack with Defending since the enhancement bonus isn't removed, just "used" in a different way this round.
Jay_Ibero_911
01-07-07, 08:14 PM Put me in these camps:

1) Defending does not specifically say it stacks with other Defending weapons, therefore it doesn't stack with itself.

2) Defending weapons need to be used in the same way Combat Expertise is used (in other words you must be prepared to attack with the weapon that round; so no "I have 10 defending weapons" in use yaking.)

3) GMW won't help/stack with Defending since the enhancement bonus isn't removed, just "used" in a different way this round.

I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?
DarkRhystar
01-07-07, 08:40 PM Your post seems confusing. Your counter-point seems against stacking, but so was my initial point. Can you clarify?

It is against stacking, typing "counter-point" was unintentional. :)
journeyman777
01-07-07, 10:26 PM I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?There isn't one. It's just a somewhat common houserule to prevent people from using defending armorspikes while still letting TWF types stack the bonus from their weapons.

Personally, I just prevent the possible abuse directly and rule that the defending property can't be put on armor or shield spikes. That works for my group and keeps us from having to track an AC that changes every round based on attack routines.
draconic_swine
01-07-07, 10:37 PM I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?

The closest thing to proof you're gonna get is this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending):

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 key is how you interpret "using the weapon". I'm of the opinion that using it refers to actually wielding and attacking with it, a la combat expterise.
risner
01-08-07, 10:10 AM I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?

To me "using the weapon" is unambiguous. It means "attack with that weapon this round."
jaelis
01-08-07, 10:38 AM A counter argument is based on the Two Weapon Defense feat, which says you get a benefit even while using the total defense action (and thus making no attacks). This indicates that you can gain a defensive benefit without attacking. (Which is of course one way to "use" it.)

But the arguments go round and round. A given group should just decide how they want to play it. Personally, I favor not letting them stack, but not requiring attacks to get the benefit. Mostly because I think you ought to be able to parry with a sword without needing to attack with it.
mvincent
01-08-07, 11:51 AM I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?
There isn't one.Actually, there is. From the 3.0 FAQ:
"Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.)"

I do know if the answer is entirely still valid*, but the basic intent in the above line still seems applicable.

* Note that 3.0 FAQ answers are normally still valid unless newer rules can be shown to invalidate them, but some of the associated rules relating to this answer have changed.
RavenDrake
01-09-07, 07:17 PM A counter argument is based on the Two Weapon Defense feat, which says you get a benefit even while using the total defense action (and thus making no attacks). This indicates that you can gain a defensive benefit without attacking. (Which is of course one way to "use" it.)

But the arguments go round and round. A given group should just decide how they want to play it. Personally, I favor not letting them stack, but not requiring attacks to get the benefit. Mostly because I think you ought to be able to parry with a sword without needing to attack with it.

First off, Two Weapon Defense has a specific provision that spells out what happens when using Total Defense Action with TWD, and it's different than how TWD normally works... and none of that counteracts the attack limitation on things like Expertise...

Second, for me(as a DM), to make use of things like Two Weapon Defense, Defending Weapons, etc. you have to hold the weapon you're gaining the benefit for at the ready at all times, meaning you incur all applicable Two Weapon Fighting penalties... but that's just me.
mvincent
01-09-07, 08:51 PM for me(as a DM), to make use of things like Two Weapon Defense, Defending Weapons, etc. you have to hold the weapon you're gaining the benefit for at the ready at all times, meaning you incur all applicable Two Weapon Fighting penalties... but that's just me.Nothing wrong with that for your own games, but here is the official measure on it (for reference for others):

The Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a) says:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty"
RavenDrake
01-10-07, 02:31 AM Nothing wrong with that for your own games, but here is the official measure on it (for reference for others):

The Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a) says:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty"

And what, pray tell, does "the official measure on it (for reference for others)" have to do with what I said?

I said you take "applicable two weapon fighting penalties". TWF penalties don't apply to attacks of opportunity, ergo it's never "applicable".

I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turn, for your normal attacks(even if you only take a standard attack action). This is representative of holding the weapon at the ready to strike (for the extra attack) or to intercept blows (TWD, Defending in offhand, etc).
jaelis
01-10-07, 08:22 AM I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turn, for your normal attacks(even if you only take a standard attack action). This is representative of holding the weapon at the ready to strike (for the extra attack) or to intercept blows (TWD, Defending in offhand, etc).

Even when you don't use total defense, the RoTG article says it works:

Using the Two-Weapon Defense Feat: This feat gives you a +1 shield bonus to your Armor Class when you wield two weapons or a double weapon. You need only hold the weapons or double weapon to gain the shield bonus. If you're fighting defensively or using the total defense action, the shield bonus from the feat increases to +2.

Not that I have any objection to you playing how you want, and I wouldn't even try to argue that the RoTC interpretation follows clearly from the rules text. (I'd say the rules text is just silent on the question.)

Rules aside, why do you feel that you need to hold your second weapon ready for an attack in order to get a defensive benefit? It seems to me quite reasonable to use a weapon as a sort of improvised shield, just blocking attacks. Since you don't take a penalty on attacks when using a shield, why should you when using a weapon to parrry?
mvincent
01-10-07, 11:48 AM And what, pray tell, does "the official measure on it (for reference for others)" have to do with what I said?To clarify; my reply was not meant in anyway to be snide (I thought I made that clear). I was merely providing information.

I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turnThreatening (and making AoO's) with an off-hand weapon would be considered to be gaining a benefit from it.
RavenDrake
01-10-07, 05:56 PM Not that I have any objection to you playing how you want, and I wouldn't even try to argue that the RoTC interpretation follows clearly from the rules text. (I'd say the rules text is just silent on the question.)

Rules aside, why do you feel that you need to hold your second weapon ready for an attack in order to get a defensive benefit? It seems to me quite reasonable to use a weapon as a sort of improvised shield, just blocking attacks. Since you don't take a penalty on attacks when using a shield, why should you when using a weapon to parrry?

It's mostly a matter of balance. By instituting the rule, it elminates a vast majority of "abusive" uses (such as Defending armour spikes or a defending sheild tacking on extra AC). And the rule honestly dosen't impair two weapon weilders to any signifigant degree, in my opinion.

A shield is a much easier item to defend with than a sword, or a dagger. If ALL you are doing is defending(full defense action) then it's considerablly easier. If you're intent on fighting to full effeciency, having to divert your attention to defend with your offhand weapon, even if you're not using it to strike, is a pretty signifigant distraction in my estimation.

Threatening (and making AoO's) with an off-hand weapon would be considered to be gaining a benefit from it.

Yes. And by my ruling if you want to threaten with the offhand weapon, then you take on the applicable two weapon fighting penalties on your turn. Two weapon fighting penalties, as normal, don't apply to the attack of opportunity itself.
Neodymium
01-10-07, 06:07 PM i believe the "before using the weapon" is there just to make sure people don't attack using the full bonus and then transfer the bonus before anybody attacks them.
jaelis
01-10-07, 08:38 PM It's mostly a matter of balance. By instituting the rule, it elminates a vast majority of "abusive" uses (such as Defending armour spikes or a defending sheild tacking on extra AC). And the rule honestly dosen't impair two weapon weilders to any signifigant degree, in my opinion.

Guess I don't see it as unbalancing, assuming that you don't let multiple items stack. +1 AC for 8000 gp and no slot seems fair to me. An ioun stone will get you that for 5000.

But making you take the TWF penalties to benefit from TWD seems like a definite gimp. There's plenty of times when a TWFer can't make a full attack. Your rule means they lose the benefit of their feat when that happens. (Unless they want to take a terrible -2 attack for +1 AC exchange.)
RavenDrake
01-11-07, 03:11 AM Guess I don't see it as unbalancing, assuming that you don't let multiple items stack. +1 AC for 8000 gp and no slot seems fair to me. An ioun stone will get you that for 5000.

Some of the things I mean by abusive:

A Fighter with TWD and Armour spikes claiming his TWD bonus for the armour spikes while using a reach weapon.

A fighter with a +X Heavy Shield(+X Defending) tacking on the Defending bonus from his shield with no penalty.

Eventually your characters will have enough money that throwing +6 on a shield for defense(Defending plus +5) is chumpchange, but I feel that specifically calling these things out without making the rule address all two weapon fighters isn't balanced, because they're both legal withing the rules(technically). For my games, my ruleing was the most balanced way of addressing all two weapon fighting concearns.

But making you take the TWF penalties to benefit from TWD seems like a definite gimp. There's plenty of times when a TWFer can't make a full attack. Your rule means they lose the benefit of their feat when that happens. (Unless they want to take a terrible -2 attack for +1 AC exchange.)

Actually, -2 to attack seems pretty fair for +1 ac. Fighting defensively with TWD means -6 for +4 AC, which is even better... though, not as good as, say, just giveing them +1 ac because they've got something else in thier hand.

With Complete Adventurer's Dual Strike in the mix most Two Weapon Fighters don't particularly mind the ruling.

But again, this is just what works for my play group.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gendar Manyspell 01-06-07, 10:39 PM	I know that you take away from the plus to hit, but do you also take it away from the damage as well?
Seerow 01-06-07, 10:42 PM	Yes
draconic_swine 01-07-07, 08:37 AM	As Seerow said, the answer is yes. Defending takes from your weapon's enhancement bonus and adds to your AC bonus, and a weapon's enhancement bonus adds to both attack and damage. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending) and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) are the relevant SRD quotes. A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC... Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
LegacyKing 01-07-07, 09:53 AM	Another related question: Does the Spell Greater Magic Weapon (which gives an enhancement bonus of up to +5) work with the defender property? I.e. I make a +1 defending weapon, then cast Magic Weapon making it really a +4 defending weapon, can I then take 4 away and add that to my defense?
Tyler Do'Urden 01-07-07, 10:13 AM	Um, yeah, it looks like it works. The spell gives the weapon an enhancement bonus, and the defending property lets you subtract from the weapon's enhancement bonus and add to your AC. Just note that the enhancement bonus from the spell and the enhancement bonus from the weapon wouldn't stack.
lord_xarallon 01-07-07, 01:17 PM	What about multiple defending weapons, would the bonuses stack with each other?
draconic_swine 01-07-07, 01:29 PM	It's debatable. Some people say yes, others no. Depends how the DM interprets "that stacks with all others". I personally allow it, but only up to two weapons; that way you don't have characters running around with two weapons, a light shield, armour spikes, and so forth, gaining an AC bonus from each one.
mvincent 01-07-07, 03:29 PM	What about multiple defending weapons, would the bonuses stack with each other?Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is sometimes interpreted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though this appears unwarranted. Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves. It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems).
DarkRhystar 01-07-07, 05:51 PM	Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is sometimes interpreted as evidence that it stacks with itself, even though this appears unwarranted. Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves. It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems). The counter point (as I understand it) goes along the lines of this though: Two different Wizard cast Haste on themselves. Two different Wizards, two different instances of Haste, yet only a single +1 dodge bonus as it falls under the "Same effect More than Once" category. You could liken the two Haste spells to the two Defending weapons. Even though we're talking about separate Weapons and Wizards, the origin of the bonuses are considered the same. Doesn't seem all that unbalancing to allow stacking, but YMMV.
mvincent 01-07-07, 06:04 PM	The counter point (as I understand it) goes along the lines of this thoughYour post seems confusing. Your counter-point seems against stacking, but so was my initial point. Can you clarify?
StruckingFuggle 01-07-07, 06:42 PM	Um, yeah, it looks like it works. The spell gives the weapon an enhancement bonus, and the defending property lets you subtract from the weapon's enhancement bonus and add to your AC. Just note that the enhancement bonus from the spell and the enhancement bonus from the weapon wouldn't stack. Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains?
mvincent 01-07-07, 06:49 PM	Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains?I personally would say no because the shift doesn't technically reduce the first enhancement bonus on the weapon (which would allow the overlapped GMW enhancement bonus to be used). Mind you, the effectiveness of defending weapons seems pretty marginal, so allowing this also seems fine (and could well be a legitimate interpretation).
jaelis 01-07-07, 06:55 PM	Hmmm ... what if I have a +5 Defending Weapon to ALSO has GMW on it, and shift all five points into my AC? Since they're overlapping, would they both go down, or would only one go down, while the other remains? It wouldn't work. A weapon has only a single enhancement bonus. If you cast GMW on a +5 weapon, you get no benefit, whether defending or not. Now here's a trick... the fighter has his +5 defending weapon, and at the start of his turn shifts it all to AC. The wizard has readied an action to cast GMW, and does so now. Does the fighter get any benefit? I'd say no, but it's kind of fun to think about.
risner 01-07-07, 07:17 PM	Put me in these camps: 1) Defending does not specifically say it stacks with other Defending weapons, therefore it doesn't stack with itself. 2) Defending weapons need to be used in the same way Combat Expertise is used (in other words you must be prepared to attack with the weapon that round; so no "I have 10 defending weapons" in use yaking.) 3) GMW won't help/stack with Defending since the enhancement bonus isn't removed, just "used" in a different way this round.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-07-07, 08:14 PM	Put me in these camps: 1) Defending does not specifically say it stacks with other Defending weapons, therefore it doesn't stack with itself. 2) Defending weapons need to be used in the same way Combat Expertise is used (in other words you must be prepared to attack with the weapon that round; so no "I have 10 defending weapons" in use yaking.) 3) GMW won't help/stack with Defending since the enhancement bonus isn't removed, just "used" in a different way this round. I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?
DarkRhystar 01-07-07, 08:40 PM	Your post seems confusing. Your counter-point seems against stacking, but so was my initial point. Can you clarify? It is against stacking, typing "counter-point" was unintentional. :)
journeyman777 01-07-07, 10:26 PM	I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit?There isn't one. It's just a somewhat common houserule to prevent people from using defending armorspikes while still letting TWF types stack the bonus from their weapons. Personally, I just prevent the possible abuse directly and rule that the defending property can't be put on armor or shield spikes. That works for my group and keeps us from having to track an AC that changes every round based on attack routines.
draconic_swine 01-07-07, 10:37 PM	I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit? The closest thing to proof you're gonna get is this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending): 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 key is how you interpret "using the weapon". I'm of the opinion that using it refers to actually wielding and attacking with it, a la combat expterise.
risner 01-08-07, 10:10 AM	I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit? To me "using the weapon" is unambiguous. It means "attack with that weapon this round."
jaelis 01-08-07, 10:38 AM	A counter argument is based on the Two Weapon Defense feat, which says you get a benefit even while using the total defense action (and thus making no attacks). This indicates that you can gain a defensive benefit without attacking. (Which is of course one way to "use" it.) But the arguments go round and round. A given group should just decide how they want to play it. Personally, I favor not letting them stack, but not requiring attacks to get the benefit. Mostly because I think you ought to be able to parry with a sword without needing to attack with it.
mvincent 01-08-07, 11:51 AM	I'm sure you have a source, but would you mind sharing where it says you must make an attack with a defending weapon to benefit? There isn't one.Actually, there is. From the 3.0 FAQ: "Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.)" I do know if the answer is entirely still valid, but the basic intent in the above line still seems applicable. Note that 3.0 FAQ answers are normally still valid unless newer rules can be shown to invalidate them, but some of the associated rules relating to this answer have changed.
RavenDrake 01-09-07, 07:17 PM	A counter argument is based on the Two Weapon Defense feat, which says you get a benefit even while using the total defense action (and thus making no attacks). This indicates that you can gain a defensive benefit without attacking. (Which is of course one way to "use" it.) But the arguments go round and round. A given group should just decide how they want to play it. Personally, I favor not letting them stack, but not requiring attacks to get the benefit. Mostly because I think you ought to be able to parry with a sword without needing to attack with it. First off, Two Weapon Defense has a specific provision that spells out what happens when using Total Defense Action with TWD, and it's different than how TWD normally works... and none of that counteracts the attack limitation on things like Expertise... Second, for me(as a DM), to make use of things like Two Weapon Defense, Defending Weapons, etc. you have to hold the weapon you're gaining the benefit for at the ready at all times, meaning you incur all applicable Two Weapon Fighting penalties... but that's just me.
mvincent 01-09-07, 08:51 PM	for me(as a DM), to make use of things like Two Weapon Defense, Defending Weapons, etc. you have to hold the weapon you're gaining the benefit for at the ready at all times, meaning you incur all applicable Two Weapon Fighting penalties... but that's just me.Nothing wrong with that for your own games, but here is the official measure on it (for reference for others): The Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a) says: "If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty"
RavenDrake 01-10-07, 02:31 AM	Nothing wrong with that for your own games, but here is the official measure on it (for reference for others): The Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a) says: "If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty" And what, pray tell, does "the official measure on it (for reference for others)" have to do with what I said? I said you take "applicable two weapon fighting penalties". TWF penalties don't apply to attacks of opportunity, ergo it's never "applicable". I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turn, for your normal attacks(even if you only take a standard attack action). This is representative of holding the weapon at the ready to strike (for the extra attack) or to intercept blows (TWD, Defending in offhand, etc).
jaelis 01-10-07, 08:22 AM	I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turn, for your normal attacks(even if you only take a standard attack action). This is representative of holding the weapon at the ready to strike (for the extra attack) or to intercept blows (TWD, Defending in offhand, etc). Even when you don't use total defense, the RoTG article says it works: Using the Two-Weapon Defense Feat: This feat gives you a +1 shield bonus to your Armor Class when you wield two weapons or a double weapon. You need only hold the weapons or double weapon to gain the shield bonus. If you're fighting defensively or using the total defense action, the shield bonus from the feat increases to +2. Not that I have any objection to you playing how you want, and I wouldn't even try to argue that the RoTC interpretation follows clearly from the rules text. (I'd say the rules text is just silent on the question.) Rules aside, why do you feel that you need to hold your second weapon ready for an attack in order to get a defensive benefit? It seems to me quite reasonable to use a weapon as a sort of improvised shield, just blocking attacks. Since you don't take a penalty on attacks when using a shield, why should you when using a weapon to parrry?
mvincent 01-10-07, 11:48 AM	And what, pray tell, does "the official measure on it (for reference for others)" have to do with what I said?To clarify; my reply was not meant in anyway to be snide (I thought I made that clear). I was merely providing information. I meant that, if you want to gain any of the benefits of an offhand weapon(not just the extra attack), then you take TWF penalties on your turnThreatening (and making AoO's) with an off-hand weapon would be considered to be gaining a benefit from it.
RavenDrake 01-10-07, 05:56 PM	Not that I have any objection to you playing how you want, and I wouldn't even try to argue that the RoTC interpretation follows clearly from the rules text. (I'd say the rules text is just silent on the question.) Rules aside, why do you feel that you need to hold your second weapon ready for an attack in order to get a defensive benefit? It seems to me quite reasonable to use a weapon as a sort of improvised shield, just blocking attacks. Since you don't take a penalty on attacks when using a shield, why should you when using a weapon to parrry? It's mostly a matter of balance. By instituting the rule, it elminates a vast majority of "abusive" uses (such as Defending armour spikes or a defending sheild tacking on extra AC). And the rule honestly dosen't impair two weapon weilders to any signifigant degree, in my opinion. A shield is a much easier item to defend with than a sword, or a dagger. If ALL you are doing is defending(full defense action) then it's considerablly easier. If you're intent on fighting to full effeciency, having to divert your attention to defend with your offhand weapon, even if you're not using it to strike, is a pretty signifigant distraction in my estimation. Threatening (and making AoO's) with an off-hand weapon would be considered to be gaining a benefit from it. Yes. And by my ruling if you want to threaten with the offhand weapon, then you take on the applicable two weapon fighting penalties on your turn. Two weapon fighting penalties, as normal, don't apply to the attack of opportunity itself.
Neodymium 01-10-07, 06:07 PM	i believe the "before using the weapon" is there just to make sure people don't attack using the full bonus and then transfer the bonus before anybody attacks them.
jaelis 01-10-07, 08:38 PM	It's mostly a matter of balance. By instituting the rule, it elminates a vast majority of "abusive" uses (such as Defending armour spikes or a defending sheild tacking on extra AC). And the rule honestly dosen't impair two weapon weilders to any signifigant degree, in my opinion. Guess I don't see it as unbalancing, assuming that you don't let multiple items stack. +1 AC for 8000 gp and no slot seems fair to me. An ioun stone will get you that for 5000. But making you take the TWF penalties to benefit from TWD seems like a definite gimp. There's plenty of times when a TWFer can't make a full attack. Your rule means they lose the benefit of their feat when that happens. (Unless they want to take a terrible -2 attack for +1 AC exchange.)
RavenDrake 01-11-07, 03:11 AM	Guess I don't see it as unbalancing, assuming that you don't let multiple items stack. +1 AC for 8000 gp and no slot seems fair to me. An ioun stone will get you that for 5000. Some of the things I mean by abusive: A Fighter with TWD and Armour spikes claiming his TWD bonus for the armour spikes while using a reach weapon. A fighter with a +X Heavy Shield(+X Defending) tacking on the Defending bonus from his shield with no penalty. Eventually your characters will have enough money that throwing +6 on a shield for defense(Defending plus +5) is chumpchange, but I feel that specifically calling these things out without making the rule address all two weapon fighters isn't balanced, because they're both legal withing the rules(technically). For my games, my ruleing was the most balanced way of addressing all two weapon fighting concearns. But making you take the TWF penalties to benefit from TWD seems like a definite gimp. There's plenty of times when a TWFer can't make a full attack. Your rule means they lose the benefit of their feat when that happens. (Unless they want to take a terrible -2 attack for +1 AC exchange.) Actually, -2 to attack seems pretty fair for +1 ac. Fighting defensively with TWD means -6 for +4 AC, which is even better... though, not as good as, say, just giveing them +1 ac because they've got something else in thier hand. With Complete Adventurer's Dual Strike in the mix most Two Weapon Fighters don't particularly mind the ruling. But again, this is just what works for my play group.