Actually, I don't think it is ("Defending" ability is, if memory serves, the equivalent of an additional +1 for any weapon). Armour spikes are considered a weapon (I didn't notice until recently, but they are there in the PHB under martial weapons) so defending armour spikes are well within the rules.
And I thought that the 'defending' ability added a +1 to a weapon for cost reasons only. That only a person using a weapon with a 'Defending' ability could decide to drop bonuses on 'to hit' and add it to the AC (for one round), up to the amount of the magical enhancement.
Ultradan
I may be way off the track but, isn't a defending weapon a weapon with (specifically) the 'Defending' ability? Like a +2 sword of defending? And not armor spikes... Nor a weapon you just happen to be full-defending with.
Just a thought.
Ultradan
No, you're on track. The one who originally mentioned the armor spikes specifically stated +5 "defending" armor spikes, so I'd presume they mean that the armor spikes have been appropriately enhanced with that ability.
As for the Greater Magic weapon ploy... "Does not stack" does not mean "Does not work". It simply means that the higher of the bonuses is used, instead of adding together.
The other suggested interpretation seems based on an unduly pedantic reading of the rules. If we wanted to get REALLY pedantic, is says "using" the weapon. Arguably, even using the full defence action you are using the weapon (parrying and so on) but you are not attacking. I would suggest that if the weapon is drawn, held in the hand and the character is aware and able to act, it is being used. Armour spikes make this maybe a little trickier (you can't draw them, they are always drawn) but unless you are flat-footed I would say you should be in a position to use the defending property.
I would agree that a character who is fighting using the Full Defense option was using the weapon with which he was parrying. However, if the character was merely carrying the weapon, or even holding the weapon in his hand while doing something else (for example, casting a spell), then I wouldn't consider the weapon to be in use.
Likewise, I would rule that the armour spikes weren't being used simply because the character happened to be wearing the armour; he would have to specifically do something with the spikes, which essentially means making an attack. (I'm at a loss as to how a character would use armour spikes as part of a Full Defense. However, as I'm not an expert in all combat arts, I would allow that usage if the player pressed for it.)
How much was this magical armor again? How does it stack up against wealth-by-level? Sounds like it would be way too much for anyone but a 18-20th level PC, no?
Personally, I don't see the problem re: defending spikes. You want to pay that much? The rest of your enchanted items/ability boosters/other magical items will suffer for you to get a significantly, but not unbeatably, better AC. I say let the player do it if he wants to.
My understanding is that Plate Armor and Rapiers were contemperaries - field plate - for certain battlefield situations (given certain geographies - some never had plate), jousting plate (for jousting), parade armor (for parades) rapiers as dueling swords - NOT war swords. The nature of the game is that everything goes for adventuring (which didn't really exist) and the simplifications of combat are tailored to make everything work in every circumstance.
In the game, there is probably an Adventurer Plate - lighter more flexible than jousting plate or even battlefield plate - and it is this adventurer plate that is actually worn by adventurers.
Also if you are playing game with a more Renaissance feel, firearms and rapiers are fine.
If not imagine a rapier as a more cut and thrust type weapon like a schiavona and just move on.
I mean there are spiked chains and whips and nunchucks and all manner of silly weapons integrated...
I like this answer.
I like this answer.My understanding is that Plate Armor and Rapiers were contemperaries - field plate - for certain battlefield situations (given certain geographies - some never had plate), jousting plate (for jousting), parade armor (for parades) rapiers as dueling swords - NOT war swords. The nature of the game is that everything goes for adventuring (which didn't really exist) and the simplifications of combat are tailored to make everything work in every circumstance.
In the game, there is probably an Adventurer Plate - lighter more flexible than jousting plate or even battlefield plate - and it is this adventurer plate that is actually worn by adventurers.
Also if you are playing game with a more Renaissance feel, firearms and rapiers are fine.
If not imagine a rapier as a more cut and thrust type weapon like a schiavona and just move on.
I mean there are spiked chains and whips and nunchucks and all manner of silly weapons integrated...
Spiked chains are not historical I'll grant (although chains with weights on the ends have been used as weapons in past centuries) and whips were used more often on animals than people but still were on occasion used on people. As for nunchaku they have been used for centuries but it should be noted that possession of them is banned in a number of countries, including Canada (grumble), Germany, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (anti-nunchaku laws in the UK were loosened somewhat in 1991). Possesion is also illegal in some US and Australian states ie New York, Arizona, California and Massachusetts in the US and in New South Wales, Australia it can only be owned if you have a permit.
|
As for the Greater Magic weapon ploy... "Does not stack" does not mean "Does not work". It simply means that the higher of the bonuses is used, instead of adding together.
yes, that's the idea.
A +1 weapon got an +1 enhancement bonus.
If a cleric casts greater magic weapon on it, it got a +5 enhancement bonus.
As both are enhancement, only the highest works.
So you got a +5 weapon for the price of a +1 weapon and a spell from your cleric.
I'm not quite sure what is being said here. The original comment by Apprentice Wizard was that +1 defending armour spikes could be turned to +5 defending armour spikes using Greater Magic Weapon. I.e. you pay about 8000gp to get a potential +1 to AC and then use the spell to get a potential +5 to AC. Was that what was meant? Is so, my contention was that wasn't really in the spirit of what Greater Magic Weapon was about. My suggestion was that you can get a +5 to hit with that, no problem - but the most increase in AC you could get would still be +1, because the enhancement provided by the spell only affect "to hit" and damage. The defending property was only enchanted to a "+1 specification" and so you wouldn't get an additional boost to AC simply because the spell increased the enhancement bonus.
I don't think this is covered in any rules clarifications, so this is just my opinion. It's a fairly complex interaction to adjudicate for stacking purposes, but that is my view anyway. It's based on the fact that Greater Magic Weapon, as a spell, seems to be about increasing "to hit" rolls and damage, not AC. Also, you seem to be getting a +6 weapon (+5 defending) for the cost of a +2 weapon (+1 defending). Obviously, Greater Magic Weapon can provide a +5 weapon simply for the cost of the spell. However, there is a big difference in cash terms between a +2, a +5 and even a +6 weapon, which impacts on game balance. And it seems a bit "having your cake and eating it" to get the +5 enchantment AND the flexibility to use all of that enhancement as you wish with the defending ability, all from a single, relatively low level spell - it is only a 3rd level, after all.
|
|
I would agree that a character who is fighting using the Full Defense option was using the weapon with which he was parrying. However, if the character was merely carrying the weapon, or even holding the weapon in his hand while doing something else (for example, casting a spell), then I wouldn't consider the weapon to be in use.
Likewise, I would rule that the armour spikes weren't being used simply because the character happened to be wearing the armour; he would have to specifically do something with the spikes, which essentially means making an attack. (I'm at a loss as to how a character would use armour spikes as part of a Full Defense. However, as I'm not an expert in all combat arts, I would allow that usage if the player pressed for it.)
I think we differ in interpretation. However, re full defence with armour spikes, I sort of envisage them as a sort of big, spiked gauntlet and armguard affair, doubtless heavily reinforced with metal plates and whatnot. You could probably parry fairly effectively with that.
|
|
Actually, I don't think it is ("Defending" ability is, if memory serves, the equivalent of an additional +1 for any weapon). Armour spikes are considered a weapon (I didn't notice until recently, but they are there in the PHB under martial weapons) so defending armour spikes are well within the rules.
And I thought that the 'defending' ability added a +1 to a weapon for cost reasons only. That only a person using a weapon with a 'Defending' ability could decide to drop bonuses on 'to hit' and add it to the AC (for one round), up to the amount of the magical enhancement.
Ultradan
Yes, I agree - that is what I meant. Sorry if I was ambiguous.
Spiked chains are not historical I'll grant (although chains with weights on the ends have been used as weapons in past centuries) and whips were used more often on animals than people but still were on occasion used on people. As for nunchaku they have been used for centuries but it should be noted that possession of them is banned in a number of countries, including Canada (grumble), Germany, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (anti-nunchaku laws in the UK were loosened somewhat in 1991). Possesion is also illegal in some US and Australian states ie New York, Arizona, California and Massachusetts in the US and in New South Wales, Australia it can only be owned if you have a permit.
Yes I know. I moonlight as a karate instructor, and have tought nunchaku for a couple of years. It is my considered opinion that while they are useful tools for developing hand eye coordination, kinesthetic sense, wrist strength/stamina, etc. or for beating the crap out of rice - which is what the farmers really used them for (they were an improvised weapon NOT a weapon of choice) - however they pretty much blow chunks as combat weapons. Now in the context where no one else has any kind of weapon - okay maybe they could be moderately effective (I would much rather be unarmed - or have a piece of pipe, a sturdy stick, or knife) - or useful in intimidating someone, but in the context of the game where people have armor, swords, and bows - well they are just lame. But if people want to use them in the game fine. Like I said there are all manner of goofy weapons, spells, classes, etc. Some people like them - fine. By the same token I am allowed to believe they suck. And to feel the same about spiked chains, double swords, and whips (but if you want to spend an exotic weapon proficiency on such well thats your perogotive). Regular chains, weighted chains, and certain other martial arts weapons I have no trouble with though that said spears, swords, axes, maces, and bows are my favorites - and the chosen weapons of pretty much every pre-firearm metal working culture.
Another weapon that is kind of intersting is the warhammer as represented in the game - basically a huge headed sledge hammer. REALLY impractical - they would be way too slow and also have no cultural context. They don't take any heat because there are iconic to dwarves and have a long history in the myths of Thor. I think they work but mostly because they seem mechanically balanced - have a context in lore and in the iconic material on dwarves, and sort of make sense - being wholloped by a sledge hammer would hurt (you would be punctured 4 or 5 times by a rapier while you got it going but still).
Its a game use what you want to make your gaming world work the way you see fit.
I close with this, just because there are MANY options, does not mean that ALL options are universally available. That is if your game is not oriental you may (if you choose) disallow asain weapons and classes - or take those items and give them a european, african, meso-american (or whatever ever spin), just because it is in a book. Doesn't mean that it is available in 6 local shop in 5 colors, 4 sizes, and 10 different levels of quality.
Cheers
|
|
Yes I know. I moonlight as a karate instructor, and have tought nunchaku for a couple of years. It is my considered opinion that while they are useful tools for developing hand eye coordination, kinesthetic sense, wrist strength/stamina, etc. or for beating the crap out of rice - which is what the farmers really used them for (they were an improvised weapon NOT a weapon of choice) - however they pretty much blow chunks as combat weapons. Now in the context where no one else has any kind of weapon - okay maybe they could be moderately effective (I would much rather be unarmed - or have a piece of pipe, a sturdy stick, or knife) - or useful in intimidating someone, but in the context of the game where people have armor, swords, and bows - well they are just lame. But if people want to use them in the game fine. Like I said there are all manner of goofy weapons, spells, classes, etc. Some people like them - fine. By the same token I am allowed to believe they suck. And to feel the same about spiked chains, double swords, and whips (but if you want to spend an exotic weapon proficiency on such well thats your perogotive). Regular chains, weighted chains, and certain other martial arts weapons I have no trouble with though that said spears, swords, axes, maces, and bows are my favorites - and the chosen weapons of pretty much every pre-firearm metal working culture.
Another weapon that is kind of intersting is the warhammer as represented in the game - basically a huge headed sledge hammer. REALLY impractical - they would be way too slow and also have no cultural context. They don't take any heat because there are iconic to dwarves and have a long history in the myths of Thor. I think they work but mostly because they seem mechanically balanced - have a context in lore and in the iconic material on dwarves, and sort of make sense - being wholloped by a sledge hammer would hurt (you would be punctured 4 or 5 times by a rapier while you got it going but still).
Its a game use what you want to make your gaming world work the way you see fit.
I close with this, just because there are MANY options, does not mean that ALL options are universally available. That is if your game is not oriental you may (if you choose) disallow asain weapons and classes - or take those items and give them a european, african, meso-american (or whatever ever spin), just because it is in a book. Doesn't mean that it is available in 6 local shop in 5 colors, 4 sizes, and 10 different levels of quality.
Cheers
I am far from an expert in combat of any kind, but...
I have to agree on some of the non-real world exotic weapons. Two-bladed sword? How can you ever get any weight behind a blow with that? Fine in the game, but the fact that no one ever actually really used them in combat probably says it all.
On the warhammer point, my (limited) understanding is that the "real" warhammer was actually a pick, designed to punch through plate armour by focussing all the energy of the blow through the spike. It was also often on a polearm, rather than a short handled weapon. The D&D warhammer would maybe make a nice sound like a gong, and would probably be effective against "soft" armoured foes (leather, chain), but wouldn't do much versus a decently armoured enemy. So the "real" warhammer exists as the pick and maybe something like the halberd in the D&D rules. Of course, realism isn't the primary focus of the rules, but game balance.
Two-bladed sword? How can you ever get any weight behind a blow with that?And how/where do you store/carry a two-bladed sword? It's not like it extends like Darth Maul's Lightsaber...
Actually, they do. It's poorly explained in the Player's Handbook, but it's an alternate Brilliant Energy ability developed by mind-flayer mariners in their free time. It only works when drawing the weapon; after the blades are fully extended, it shuts off. It also plays music developed by George Lucas. I don't know why they didn't clearly state that in the book....
|
Actually, they do. It's poorly explained in the Player's Handbook, but it's an alternate Brilliant Energy ability developed by mind-flayer mariners in their free time. It only works when drawing the weapon; after the blades are fully extended, it shuts off. It also plays music developed by George Lucas. I don't know why they didn't clearly state that in the book....
Dude, I am so picking up this weapon next time -- extendable blades AND a personal soundtrack when wielded -- what more could you want?
Dude, I am so picking up this weapon next time -- extendable blades AND a personal soundtrack when wielded -- what more could you want?
Hot balloon-breasted girls in dental floss fawning over you when you rescue them from the bad guy? (Sounds like an anime scene to me!)
|
|
A +1 weapon got an +1 enhancement bonus.
If a cleric casts greater magic weapon on it, it got a +5 enhancement bonus.
As both are enhancement, only the highest works.
So you got a +5 weapon for the price of a +1 weapon and a spell from your cleric.
There has really been some interesting discussion here about this.
First -- In order to get a +5 enhancement bonus from your local cleric, they need to be 20th level to cast it. If you are marching around with 20th level characters, then I don't know how much of an issue this would be.
Second -- the "price" is for a +2 weapon -- +1 enhancement bonus and +1 for defending property.
Third -- I like what Sword of Cyric said in that they would only be able to use this kind of scenario with two weapon fighting and the full attack action. The problem I have with that is -- Is it possible to use Two Weapon Fighting with a grapple weapon (the only way to "use" armor spikes)?
Would a cleric be able to hold a +5 defending mace invoking the defending property while standing in the background (not in direct combat) and cast spells with the full defending AC benefit? If so, then I don't see too much problem with someone doing nothing more than standing in the back doing little to nothing more than defending themselves with this scenario. (And then, how useful are they really?) If not, then they shouldn't be able to use this kind of combination. Either way, I don't see how a person should be able to use this kind of combination to attack without any kind of penalties to their primary weapon -- especially when the defending "weapon" can only really be used in a grappling attack.
|
A couple of quick points on hammers, maces, mattocks, and the like:
1. You need to consider how advanced the metallurgy of your world is. Historically, decent metallurgy was rare and expensive. (This may have been a part of the origin of the idea of "magic swords".) A long weapon made of pot metal won't last long, and the same is true to a lesser extent for spikes like those on military picks or morning stars. Axes are less susceptible to this, but they aren't as heavy as hammers.
2. It is nearly impossible to cut through metal armor in combat. There are tools that can punch through armor-gauge steel, but they normally require that the steel be well supported. People who aren't laying on the ground tend to bounce when you hit them really hard, so even a blow that could punch through supported steel won't punch through worn armor. OTOH, a hard enough bash can bruise, sprain joints, or break bones even without breaching armor.
Mass weapons are pretty scary even to someone in good armor, which is why they were used historically.
On the larger issue of D&D's model of armor:
1. D&D wildly overstates the difficulty of moving in armor. I've worn armor that is probably about equivalent to half plate (breastplate with tassets, pauldrons, vambraces, cuisses, greaves, gauntlets, full helm, heavy boots) for hours consecutively. My over-the-ground speed was somewhat reduced, but I could leap obstacles and perform a front-rolling breakfall in the armor. Dexterity (and practice, which is not included in the D&D defense model at all) was approximately as valuable in armor as out. While you can't dodge as quickly, the armor increases the effectiveness of small dodges. In armor, you don't have to miss the blow entirely, you have to make it ineffective, for which purpose small moves are sufficient, but you need to make those moves at the right times, which I see as DEX.
2. D&D wildly understates the usefulness of shields. From experience, I'd say that a shield reduces the probability fo hitting by approximately 50%, not D&D's 10-20%. And again, Dexterity is crucial here. Small moves of what would be a "Large Shield" in D&D are usually all that are necessary to prevent a hit. The trick is to be able to react quickly enough, which is a matter of skill and dexterity.
Oh, and it's effectively impossible to punch through a wooden shield in combat, too, though it's possible to degrade the shield's edges or make the shield unwieldy by sticking things into it.
What was the typical material used for shields, historically speaking? Oak? I agree that there may be a misperception by those not versed with such tools or wood in general about the durability of an oaken item. Even other hardwood, for that matter- not even a fraction as easy to break as some might be inclined to believe.
Of course, the people here at Paizo seem to be more familiar with such facts.
|
|
What was the typical material used for shields, historically speaking?
I'm not an archaeologist, so take the following with that in in mind.
The materials used are unclear. Wood seems to have been common, though what sort is largely unknown. Wood doesn't survive well in typical archaeological contexts, so we're left with artistic representations and a few scraps. And the artistic conventions of former times are different enough that art can be quite difficult to interpret.
We have the remains of metallic rims, bosses, and grips, and there are a few large metal shields that we believe to have been intended for decoration. I think metal bucklers are fairly well attested as well.
We also have pretty recent examples of hide shields being used by the Zulus, and I believe there is evidence of wicker shields as well. Both of these are notably lighter than wood or metal shields, of course, though also less durable. (Though if you've ever tried to cut well-tanned leather, you know that it's a non-trivial task.)
The material for wooden shields I can see as being as varied as the region its coming from. Rawhide would be useful (as in the Zulu example previously), as long as it's wet, its very shapeable. Boiled leather (cuirboille, which reeks, IMHO, when making it) would also be plausible as a shield material.
Wicker would only be marginally useful against bludgeoning weapons - piercing or slashing it wouldn't be terribly effective against. Bone shields, while very creepy, would be interesting as well.
A livewood (from Eberron) shield would be interesting - you'd never have to repair the darn thing. :)
|
|
The material for wooden shields I can see as being as varied as the region its coming from.
It's not just the material, but the construction techniques that are important to understand. For instance, multiple thin layers of wood would react to a blow much differently than a single layer of thicker planks. And if you glue the thin layers (laminated wood is attested as early as the Egyptians), you get something quite strong and durable (plywood, basically).
Wicker would only be marginally useful against bludgeoning weapons - piercing or slashing it wouldn't be terribly effective against. Bone shields, while very creepy, would be interesting as well.
I suspect that Wicker, if you choose your grasses right, would work pretty well against most weapons. Woven and dried rattan (for instance) is very hard to cut and should absorb a blow fairly well. (You might need to replace your shield after every serious fight, but it would probably last through most fights. The biggest advantage of wicker is that it is light and thus mobile. Also, you might have a bit of visibility through the shield, which would mitigate one of the problems of using large shields -- the blind spot low on your shield side.
It is my considered opinion that while they are useful tools for developing hand eye coordination, kinesthetic sense, wrist strength/stamina, etc. or for beating the crap out of rice - which is what the farmers really used them for (they were an improvised weapon NOT a weapon of choice) - however they pretty much blow chunks as combat weapons. Now in the context where no one else has any kind of weapon - okay maybe they could be moderately effective (I would much rather be unarmed - or have a piece of pipe, a sturdy stick, or knife)
Very well said indeed.
Valid comment Kyr. I merely noted that there was a real world aspect to these things. Truthfully, if I were playing a monk, I would choose different weapons than nunchaku, for example: kama, quarterstaff, sai, siangham, possibly others. Actually, on the two-bladed swords question, I did think of one "two-bladed sword" that some Korean and Japanese martial arts associations have taken an interest in, and called one of the few practical martial arts weapons developed in a while: Star Trek's bat'leth, which some have actually developed katas for. Actually, it could probably be represented in game by a masterwork two-bladed sword, similar to how a masterwork bastard sword is described as being analogous to a katana. Other interesting Trek weapons: mek'leth, kar'takin, d'k tahg, and lirpa (though they might not be really practical to use)
Back to the heavy armour question: the magical materials (mithral, leafweave, darkleaf, etc.) actually expand the limit on max dex. Also in the third party source (Sword and Sorcery)Book of Eldritch Might 2, there are a few armour special qualities of interest: two that alter the max dex bonus of the armour: one raises it a few points; the second, more expensive option eliminates a max dex cap altogether. Other magic properties listed reduce or eliminate armour check penalties or ASF. As far as I know it has not been updated to 3.5. The book though does contain a revamp of the bard class, that uses a new type of magic, spellsongs, that fit with a bards music focus, and some nifty spells.
One other thing, I've seen a few people use notation (sp?) in their posts. What the heck does that mean.
Actually, they do. It's poorly explained in the Player's Handbook, but it's an alternate Brilliant Energy ability developed by mind-flayer mariners in their free time. It only works when drawing the weapon; after the blades are fully extended, it shuts off. It also plays music developed by George Lucas. I don't know why they didn't clearly state that in the book....Two-bladed sword? How can you ever get any weight behind a blow with that?And how/where do you store/carry a two-bladed sword? It's not like it extends like Darth Maul's Lightsaber...
One problem Saern: lightsabres(sabers) can cut objects and constructs; brilliant energy weapons pass right through such things. If one were to put a lightsabre(saber) in D&D, I think sunblade would be a better implementation, without alignment tie-ins. Just my two cents/coppers.
Also in the third party source (Sword and Sorcery)Book of Eldritch Might 2...
As far as I know it has not been updated to 3.5.
It was updated as part of the "Complete Book of Eldritch Might".
On the same note I believe there are a couple of feats that help users of heavy armour. Heavy armour optimization and improved heavy armour optimization. These feats allow those in heavy armour to get higher possible ACs then is possible with light armour and dextarity.
Heavy armour is useful if you have a low DEX and need to be a front line combatant. Not all fighters are nimble, rapier-wielding scamps, some are more akin to tanks (in both the real world and WoW sense). Surely this is obvious?
But your not a tank; this might work in a low point game where people only roll 3 dice and take that number giving average values 9-12, but so very many classes give bonuses to light armor or medium that this makes no since; add your wisdom bonus and you will find that characters in light armor have a much better armor rating than anyone in heavy plate.
The whole idea that armor is restricting to movement in combat like the aforementioned example of a knight is well, rediculous; after all; if not wearing armor was so great; nobody would have worn it; after crossbows were invented shortly after came gunpowder weapons and that is what made armor obsolete; the poster is mixing his centuries; Maximillian plate being the heaviest in an attempt to withstand gunpowder weapons make knights near immobile, but we are talking about the 16th and later centuries here. I would guess that most peoples games are set around the year 1k to 1350AD; where chain turns to plate and chain with full plate barely begining. Paladium has a nice real world reference in one of their books about weapons and armor; every D&D er should have a copy for all the weapons and the cool castles inside. 1k AD is about the height of the viking era where chainmail ruled the day, but of course the Romans had chainmail back before year zero so you can see it was valuable for a long time as weapon technology didnt really advance. Plate was added to chain during the crusades and any crusader in platemail could vault into the saddle. Anyone in light armor just got chopped to peices by them; easily; i might add. So if you want to apply the real world; which I can't say I am a big fan of; you can see that the armor penalties are rediculous; add magic metals and enchantments and they are just plain absurd.
Hehe I love this game; like that it is fluid and the rules change as new and different stuff is considered; Dragon once came with a lengthy like 3 page thing about this; wonder why and how the current rules came about; makes you think maybe they just want to push back the game to pre 1k AD which; is really the high fantasy era and no plate really exists; other than that you would have to do the Golden Era of the ancient world of the Greeks and Romans and such.
On the same note I believe there are a couple of feats that help users of heavy armour. Heavy armour optimization and improved heavy armour optimization. These feats allow those in heavy armour to get higher possible ACs then is possible with light armour and dextarity.
compare that if you will to how many feats are for light armor wearers or medium; betcha there are many many more. Hehe I think movie magic has taken over D&D; funny how ever culture has developed armor as it is to easy to get hit.
One problem Saern: lightsabres(sabers) can cut objects and constructs; brilliant energy weapons pass right through such things. If one were to put a lightsabre(saber) in D&D, I think sunblade would be a better implementation, without alignment tie-ins. Just my two cents/coppers.Actually, they do. It's poorly explained in the Player's Handbook, but it's an alternate Brilliant Energy ability developed by mind-flayer mariners in their free time. It only works when drawing the weapon; after the blades are fully extended, it shuts off. It also plays music developed by George Lucas. I don't know why they didn't clearly state that in the book....Two-bladed sword? How can you ever get any weight behind a blow with that?And how/where do you store/carry a two-bladed sword? It's not like it extends like Darth Maul's Lightsaber...
You do know that there wasn't a serious word in that post of mine, don't you? I'm well aware of the differences between light sabers and brillaint energy weapons.
Topic well hashed ove - spent 30 minutes reading it all.
On subject, and merely and anecdote, haven't seen heavy armor become useless in any of my campaigns - the highest level reaching 15. The tanks always had higer AC than the plucky sword dancers. Just realized that my 24 point buy had something to do withthis.
Off subject - Shields and material they were made of:
From my research - viking heavy BTW - center grip viking combat rounds were made of thin and layered light wood. The center grip was made of metal and included "extensions" which acted as a frame that, with rivets and washers (square or diamond shape of course), held things together. This was aided by a flat metal rim and layers of textile to hold things together. I've read felt on the inside and rawhide on the outside in some cases. This obviously was for nice shields. All this was topped off with the center boss.
I have fought in the SCA with a shield as close to the above for 3 years straight (modern safety conventions were added). It was the second most important peice of armor I wore - first being my helmet.
Saern sometimes it's a bit hard to tell when people are kidding in here. Actually, I've thought at times of planning/designing D&D crossover adventures/campaigns with, among other things: ST:DS9 (with TNG & Voy being able to be added in), Star Wars (circa Ep 2-3), Babylon 5, CSI franchise, Law and Order franchise, West Wing, RL (wars, other circumstances if workable), some other possibilities as well. I figured others had probably had similar ideas in the past so your suggestion seemed serious enough. Just saying is all. No trouble intended.
No trouble caused! Didn't mean to sound incensed. I actually threw in the mention of mind-flayer mariners and the sound track to help convey that I was just being nonsensical, but it's not the first time I've had a misunderstanding of writen word. Can't convey body language or inflection is the problem with it.
Wrap you brain around this; a ranger in light armor; chainmail can take an alternate level and gain the same wisdom bonus to ac that monks get, wear a shield, get a good dex bonus as the chain's penalty is pretty small; depending on stats of course, a character like this with a couple feats and without any magic or buffs can easily be into the high twenties or low thirties in AC by 15th level; add any buffs or magic and it goes even farther up and have still very little penalty at all. A warrior can get what, like 8 or so from heavy armor; use almost no dex; more penalty and a bit more armor from a heavy sheild and with the same stats and a couple feats get a low to moderate 20's AC while having large penalties; this sort of thing is not well thought out. I could make many light fighters that have ac's that far exceed a heavy fighter given the same level and same stats; try it yourself and you will see what I mean; try something moderate like 10th or 15th level or so and see what you get; try a few examples and you will probably come to the conclusion that heavy armor is useless in the game with the current rules.
Once we can all see the problem; I would like some ideas on how to fix the AC system in the game.
|
|
Wrap you brain around this; a ranger in light armor; chainmail can take an alternate level and gain the same wisdom bonus to ac that monks get, wear a shield, get a good dex bonus as the chain's penalty is pretty small; depending on stats of course, a character like this with a couple feats and without any magic or buffs can easily be into the high twenties or low thirties in AC by 15th level; add any buffs or magic and it goes even farther up and have still very little penalty at all. A warrior can get what, like 8 or so from heavy armor; use almost no dex; more penalty and a bit more armor from a heavy sheild and with the same stats and a couple feats get a low to moderate 20's AC while having large penalties; this sort of thing is not well thought out. I could make many light fighters that have ac's that far exceed a heavy fighter given the same level and same stats; try it yourself and you will see what I mean; try something moderate like 10th or 15th level or so and see what you get; try a few examples and you will probably come to the conclusion that heavy armor is useless in the game with the current rules.
Once we can all see the problem; I would like some ideas on how to fix the AC system in the game.
1) Wear armour or carry a shield and the WIS bonus to AC disappears. Those are the rules in the PHB. If your contention is based on monks wearing armour, there may be a flaw in your logic.
2) Cost. The cost of enchanting a set of armour and a shield can get you a +10 bonus to AC at high levels (i.e. +5 on the armour and +5 on the shield) but the cost is way lower than an epic +10 chain shirt.
This has been thrashed out above, but to repeat - it depends fundamentally on you stats, and the method used to generate them. But if you have a low DEX, you wear heavy armour. It makes sense. High DEX, light armour. If you only ever create high DEX characters, then yeah, wear light armour.
The penalties for heavy armour don't really matter that much if they don't imapct skills you use. The only one really of great practical use in combat is Tumble. So you can't tumble in heavy armour - not the end of the world. Reduced movement can be a pain, but a quick Haste spell can deal with that.
I think it all boils down to preferences, rather than game mechanics. It is perfectly vialble to have a PC fighter decked in full plate who can mow down the opposition and have a decent AC. And I don't think someone in light armour would be especially better off. I have tried it and it comes out in the wash.
Actually, I don't think it is ("Defending" ability is, if memory serves, the equivalent of an additional +1 for any weapon). Armour spikes are considered a weapon (I didn't notice until recently, but they are there in the PHB under martial weapons) so defending armour spikes are well within the rules.I may be way off the track but, isn't a defending weapon a weapon with (specifically) the 'Defending' ability? Like a +2 sword of defending? And not armor spikes... Nor a weapon you just happen to be full-defending with.
Just a thought.
Ultradan
Indeed they are, going back to heavy armour when you add in the armour optimisation feats... a whole new world my friends, a whole new world.
Kendrik
It's a bad idea because it breaks the spirit of the design for defending weapons. Yes, it "technically" doesn't break any rules and the cost is significant; but, come on, no designer ever had this in mind when the concept was created. This is simply someone looking to powergame his/her AC so as to become almost invulnerable. No character wants to be hit, but if you're all but guaranteed to NEVER be hit, where is the suspense or, for that matter, fun?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Costs the same as any defending weapon, so why is it unbalanced?The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
Quick question... are the Armor spikes treated as a separate entity than the armor itself for purposes of enhancing?
Quick question... are the Armor spikes treated as a separate entity than the armor itself for purposes of enhancing?Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Costs the same as any defending weapon, so why is it unbalanced?The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
Yes. The armor and armor spikes are treated as separate items for enhancing.
Quick question... are the Armor spikes treated as a separate entity than the armor itself for purposes of enhancing?Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Costs the same as any defending weapon, so why is it unbalanced?The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
Yes, they are treated as weapons.
Ex Spiked shield. +2 heavy steel shield with +3 spikes. This sheild grants +4 sheild bonus to ac and gains a +3 to hit and damage when the spikes are used to attack. They are seperately enchanted and to do so costs the same as a +2 sheild (4,000) and a +3 weapon (18,000) plus the cost of the masterwork spikes and sheild.
|
|
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Costs the same as any defending weapon, so why is it unbalanced?The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
I don't think that it truly is unbalanced -- as long as the spikes are used/thought of as an "off-hand" weapon incurring all penalties associated with it. It really isn't different that carrying around a defending dagger in the other hand. Because of this, I am not sure if I would allow it in combination with a two-handed weapon -- I don't think that I would allow it to be used with two other weapons at the same time. As GGG said -- it really just goes against the spirit of the game.
As far as balance is concerned --
The way that ApprenticeWizard explained it has a number of issues. He was talking about +5 heavy armor with +5 defending armor spikes. By my quick calculation, this armor would cost 97,000 gp (excluding the cost of the MW armor and spikes) to purchase let alone try to find someone to create -- especially at lower levels. And this is just for his defense. What would he have left to purchase his offensive weapon. If you are allowing your players access to equipment like this at 5th level, there are probably other issues with your game.
There was then talk of just having a +1 defending spikes on the +5 armor. Even this is a 33,000 gp valued armor and it gives you a whole +1 bonus to AC (with the appropriate penalty for two-weapon fighting). Then the idea was that the resident cleric would cast magic weapon on the spikes getting them up to +5 bonus. In order for this to happen, the cleric would need to be 20th level caster and I don't know if the +5 will really make that much difference at that level.
Last thing is that if any DM wishes to target a heavily armored fighter -- you don't do it with swords or even with arrows. This fighter will have little to no Reflex save and probably won't have much of a Will save. Dominate person the fighter and let the rest of the party deal with a heavily armored tank. The ranged touch AC most likely wouldn't be very high, so nearly any damage dealing spell will make short work of this kind of character. If you combine this with the restriction that the character would be utilizing two-weapon fighting penalties, it probably isn't as bad as it appears.
It might be a little unbalanced, but probably workable if the character gets this equipment at an appropriate level. But I totally agree with GGG -- it really goes against the spirit of the rules.
I think it all boils down to preferences, rather than game mechanics. It is perfectly vialble to have a PC fighter decked in full plate who can mow down the opposition and have a decent AC. And I don't think someone in light armour would be especially better off. I have tried it and it comes out in the wash.
The game is all about preferences, anyway. That said, it's more likely that a character using a more powerful generation method is more likely to use light/medium armor instead of heavy. However, that's because the more powerful generation method is more likely to allow the character to have three good scores, instead of one or two.
Of course, I do have to say that the scariest combat character I've created (a 30th level character for The Quicksilver Hourglass) was lightly armored: an Elf Scout 15/Dervish* 10/Tempest 5 (*-I made one change, Slashing Blades worked with longswords instead of scimitars, turning the class into an "Elf Bladedancer"). With the Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting epic feat and two +6 Defending Speed Longswords, he was just sick (Skirmish bonuses when Dervish Dancing, plus Amibidexterity with Slashing Blades: FIVE attacks with EACH hand at no penalty, doing 1d8+4d6+5 damage before Str and magic; EIGHTEEN attacks for one round per day with A Thousand Cuts).