| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else out there think heavy armor is useless? if you have any kind of dex at all; it is sure better to wear just about anything else; i looked at the entire list of armor on crystal keep .com and what you see is that even with a little dex or wisdom bonus to dex; you can achieve a much better ac than with heavy armor; especially if you start adding magic buffs like cats grace or whatever dex type buff. anyone else have a veiw on this? also, the penalties for heavy armors are just rediculous; sheesh; some as high as -9; obviously; whoever made this junk up never wore any armor or fought in any like so many of us have and we aren't anywhere near as capable as any fantasy character. It seems to me that the game is very much leaning to light armors for high dex peeps and medium armors for those with lower dex values and heavy armor for that unlucky clod who doesnt want to move and has no dex that can even be buffed to a bonus anyhow. Without really powerful magic to change heavy armor to light armor; it is pretty much useless; any view on this?
I had a friend playing a fighter that felt exactly as you do. He was actually pretty bitter about it :[ He said he was looking forward to when he could buy Mithral Full Plate of Speed (or whatever) out of the DMG.
I agree with you. Next campaign I'm running I'm going to use a modified DR system, similar to the one in Iron Heroes, to make heavy armor more attractive. There's a reason knights wore plate mail for centuries. The incredible sense of triumph players felt when they acquired a suit of +1 platemail in 1e is gone and I don't like it.
I think DR would be better than taking AC in to the 30's and 40's. It makes sense that with plate mail you may get hit more often but the amount of damage bleeding through would be less.
Let me know what you come up with.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There was a long thread not too long ago about the problems with heavier armors. I think the problem with them is that the armor bonuses follow a sort of linear progression with the Dex bonus going down while the AC bonus goes up. This would be fine if it weren't for all the additional penalties that go along with heavy armor (e.g., reduced speed). I'd probably kick the Dex bonus up by one, kick the AC bonus up by one, or both.
There was a long thread not too long ago about the problems with heavier armors. I think the problem with them is that the armor bonuses follow a sort of linear progression with the Dex bonus going down while the AC bonus goes up. This would be fine if it weren't for all the additional penalties that go along with heavy armor (e.g., reduced speed). I'd probably kick the Dex bonus up by one, kick the AC bonus up by one, or both.
I think the penalties for wearing heavier armor are correct. Im not an expert but it seems right. I think simply raising one or both as you mentioned doesnt really correct the problem.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the penalties for wearing heavier armor are correct. Im not an expert but it seems right. I think simply raising one or both as you mentioned doesnt really correct the problem.
*shrug* Even if the penalties are "correct" (by which I assume you mean "realistic"), there's insufficient mechanical benefit from wearing heavier armor to offset those penalties. Increasing the AC bonus and decreasing the Dex penalty adds an additional mechanical incentive to wear heavier armor. Because the original question was along the lines of "how do I make heavy armor more desirable," increasing the benefits of heavier armor strikes me as one way to address the problem.
I'm not a big fan of the DR solution because (i) its effects are fairly minor as compared to an increase in AC and (ii) it requires applying an additional step in combat (first calculate whether you hit, then apply DR, then subtract hp).
I'm not a big fan of the DR solution because (i) its effects are fairly minor as compared to an increase in AC and (ii) it requires applying an additional step in combat (first calculate whether you hit, then apply DR, then subtract hp).
Just a litttle thought here: I was wondering if it would do any good if you mixed both the AC and DR system. This way you get high AC and DR. What do you think?..I was thinking about doing this on my game and since we're talking about this anyways, I'd like to know what you guys think.
I agree with you. Next campaign I'm running I'm going to use a modified DR system, similar to the one in Iron Heroes, to make heavy armor more attractive. There's a reason knights wore plate mail for centuries. The incredible sense of triumph players felt when they acquired a suit of +1 platemail in 1e is gone and I don't like it.
In my campagin the AC is broken into two independent stats; DR (Damage reduction) and DB (Defense bonus). The DB is 10+Dex+Level(differs per class)+Shield+Dodge and determines how hard is one to hit. Near misses deal damage to one's shield, sometimes shattering it.
The DR is a functin of one's armor and natural hide (if preasent) and is different for every type of attack (i.e plate armor renders you nearly immune to slashes but vulnurble to bludgeons).Every weapon has a penetration range double from its crit. range (exception: daggers and rapier who have PR of 14-20) when a penetration is scored the target's DR is ignored. So the toughest knight can still get a rapier point in the eye and die bleeding inside his fancy armor.
There is also parry, which basically adding a portion of your attack bonus to your DB.
And this is how we do it.
I don't mind the way armor works.
But that may be because I think quick lightly armored heroes are much cooler/versitile/interesting/and dangerous.
Medival knights were pretty BA but even they were screwed if they got knocked of their horse. And if they were fighting on foot they did well, until the serfs pulled crossbow which the knights did not have the mobility to avoid. So heavy armor feels great to me as far as flavor goes.
I think heavy armor is a good option mechanically so long as you can counter the obvious mobility problem typically by having a good horse and a better backup plan. Me, I'd wait for the mithral full plate.
I've playtested the armor as DR variant from UA, and it has a wee tiny flaw :
It renders the PCs virtually impervious to minor critters at low levels - even 1 pt of DR/- (from armor) means that dispatching groups of the smaller monstrous vermin (for example) are utterly scoffed at and are a guaranteed cakewalk. Decent armor DR (2/- or 3/-) makes it even worse - and it removes certain summonable critters from the game altogether. Not to mention familiars (if anyone uses them) from being effective participants on a PC's or NPC's behalf until the mid-to-low-high level range.
Sometimes its fun to have to deal with the whole Raiders of the Lost Ark "nest o' tarantulas" thing early on.
i remember the old Feild plate... reduced the dame by 1 from each die... those were the days. but i changed the system for armor a bit and added a "AR" for you Rifts players to the armor so there was a chance to hit the armor and not the person and thuse doing less damage. ( kinda kills your gear fast but lets you live longer )
|
|
In my campagin the AC is broken into two independent stats; DR (Damage reduction) and DB (Defense bonus). The DB is 10+Dex+Level(differs per class)+Shield+Dodge and determines how hard is one to hit. Near misses deal damage to one's shield, sometimes shattering it.
The DR is a functin of one's armor and natural hide (if preasent) and is different for every type of attack (i.e plate armor renders you nearly immune to slashes but vulnurble to bludgeons).
Every weapon has a penetration range double from its crit. range (exception: daggers and rapier who have PR of 14-20) when a penetration is scored the target's DR is ignored. So the toughest knight can still get a rapier point in the eye and die bleeding inside his fancy armor.
There is also parry, which basically adding a portion of your attack bonus to your DB.And this is how we do it.
Do you mind posting a complete breakdown of this system? It sounds very interesting and I would love to test it out in my games.
Like everything in the game, effective use of armor requires some imagination. There are more benefits to armor (especially magical armor) than AC, and that just with a DMG.
What would you want your armor to do?
Enchant it to do that.
Take feats to make it more effective, create feats to make it more effective.
The right armor for the right character.
I believe that the stats used for heavy armor are pretty much alright. To become realistic you cannot create a fighter or paladin - who are the ones who profit most for heavy armor - and have a score of 18 in Str, Con AND Dex. At least this happens if the DM wants balanced players. Now, if most of the abilities are approximately 18 then I think that the DM must come up with many changes so that the game can run smoothly. But a paladin with full plate, a shield and a good selection of feats is at least invincible.
On another hand for a good DR and AC system check out Conan role-playing game.
Let me now whether I am wrong.
I've playtested the armor as DR variant from UA, and it has a wee tiny flaw :
It renders the PCs virtually impervious to minor critters at low levels - even 1 pt of DR/- (from armor) means that dispatching groups of the smaller monstrous vermin (for example) are utterly scoffed at and are a guaranteed cakewalk. Decent armor DR (2/- or 3/-) makes it even worse - and it removes certain summonable critters from the game altogether. Not to mention familiars (if anyone uses them) from being effective participants on a PC's or NPC's behalf until the mid-to-low-high level range.
Sometimes its fun to have to deal with the whole Raiders of the Lost Ark "nest o' tarantulas" thing early on.
Well, I don't know how UA handles DR but...it would make sense that critters which are small enough could get inside the armor, thus bypassing DR (and making killing them much more difficult...say, give that DR to them and make the wearer of armor take the same damage they do). Do this and that beetle swarm in AoW will be giving nightmares to your players for weeks.
Funny, I've not seen any front-line fighter types NOT wear the heaviest armours they can get their hands on*. Of course, I make use of 28-point buy, and have usually played Core Rules only, so maybe that makes a difference - it's much harder to say 'if you have any Dex bonus at all', when having that bonus means sacrificing your Str and/or Con.
* Actually, on second thought, this excludes the Barbarians, although even they went for the Mithral full plate as soon as they had the money.
As for the 'Armour as DR' system - in principle it makes a lot of sense, and should provide for a more realistic game. In practice, it creates a lot of problems, especially at high levels. In particular, Power Attack becomes the feat to end all feats, especially when combined with a two-handed weapon (since a lower AC means you can transfer more to the damage instead, and the x2 multiplier with a two-handed weapon more than offsets the DR granted by armours in UA). Likewise, sneak attack becomes much more powerful, as do other effects that add lots of extra damage.
Part of the problem is ability scores - if you have an 18 in Dex, Strength, and Con - well yes your need for heavy armor is reduced - and your character is BS.
To armor class IS damage reduction - the attack roll is not to see if the attack "touched" the target - it is to see if the blow "penetrated" enough to do damage. The vast majority of attacks "touch" that is why a touch attack is so potent - but vwith heavy armor many are deflected or so damaged reduced as to be meaningless. Surely this is obvious - adding damage reduction just muddies the situation. The real issue is the labels that WotC has chosen for the various characteristics of armor, attacks, and damage (which are actually pretty clear - but not common parlance) not the underlying mechanics. IMO.
The example is in the real world to - as a martial artist my opponents hit me all of the time - but rarely (okay bragging a little) with enough force to do any damage.
|
Funny, I've not seen any front-line fighter types NOT wear the heaviest armours they can get their hands on*. Of course, I make use of 28-point buy, and have usually played Core Rules only, so maybe that makes a difference - it's much harder to say 'if you have any Dex bonus at all', when having that bonus means sacrificing your Str and/or Con.
* Actually, on second thought, this excludes the Barbarians, although even they went for the Mithral full plate as soon as they had the money.
Quite. I use point buy too in my campaigns, which may explain the difference. But heavy armour also often mean heavy shield, which gives further boost to AC and make magical enhancement through buying armour enhancement cheaper.
I think the original post really arises out of a prefeence for playing nimble characters. Notwithstanding, my PCs often swap into heavy armour even if they have a good DEX as the difference in AC is often more than offset by the loss of DEX adjustment. Consider one PC in my campaign, a paladin/rogue with a DEX of 14. He wears full plate, with a basic AC (before any magic, and he doesn't use a shield much anyway) of 19. If he wore chain shirt, his AC would be 16. Even in breastplate, it would be 17.
Now, there is another character in my campaign, a ranger/fighter who does the whole two weapon thing. His DEX is around 20 and he wears a mithril chain shirt. Here, he would be seriously disadvantaged by heavy armour. But you need a really serious DEX bonus (+4 or more) before heavy armour becomes significantly disadvantageous. It is possible to enhance DEX with Cat's Grace, as mentioned above, but unless you have a sorcerer who doesn't want to cast anything else with his 2nd level slot that may not be available for every fight without serious expense (potions/Gloves of Dexterity).
And the mobility disadvantage is something of an illusion, to the extent that (if the encumbrance rules are strictly considered) someone in heavy armour will probably be at least moderately encumbered due to the sheer weight, and have a movement rate of 20' and a maximum DEX bonus of +3 anyway. (And, as a DM, anyone wearing heavy armour is not going to be a worry if you use encumbrance - or have a habit of forgetting it, like me - since they can't really get any slower.)
The degree of stat roll/ point buy really determines the cost/profit ratio of armors.
Even in a 32 point game, you have to blatantly powergame to be at a point where heavy armor is inferior to a dex fighter for overall AC. The dex fighter gets a good touch AC, granted, but the only thing that beats a pally or fighter in full plate is a cleric in full plate, and only if he buffs himself.
A lot of various "broken/worthless/unbalanced" arguments seem to grow from lack of definition of the point buy in question. Weapons of Legacy are a good example of being balanced at 25 point buy, but rather "unbalanced" in 32, because the penalties are easier to offset.
Co-owner - Battlegrounds to Board Games
|
Well, I don't know how UA handles DR but...it would make sense that critters which are small enough could get inside the armor, thus bypassing DR (and making killing them much more difficult...say, give that DR to them and make the wearer of armor take the same damage they do). Do this and that beetle swarm in AoW will be giving nightmares to your players for weeks.
I have been toying around with the UA rules for DR and armor and to me they make a lot of sense. But I can see the problem at low levels with DR against creatures that only deal 1-2 points of damage on a hit. For anyone who is not familiar with them, the rules for armor/DR are posted at this URL... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm
Sorry dudes, I dissagree with the lot of ya. You can't have it all... I don't see the trouble with heavy armor.
You have a good dex but don't have Improved Initiative? Use heavy armor to maximize your AC even when flat-footed.
If your character has a excellent dexterity, then use it to avoid hits and take only light armor. If your dex is poor and you move like a tree trunk in battle, then use heavy armor.
It just all depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your character.
If your fighters have 20 Strength and 18 Dexterity, you should, in my opinion, re-evaluate your character generation procedure. In my games, characters have average scores, 11s, 13s, a 16 with an occasional 17 (I have a thing for regular folks becoming heroes).
Just my opinion. Game on.
Ultradan
There's a reason knights wore plate mail for centuries.
There's a reason they stopped wearing it, too: it stopped working when people started using the Welsh Heavy Longbow, the arbalest, early muskets, and cannon loaded with chain and grape shot. This is one of the reasons why I dislike the mental image of full plate & rapiers in the same battle: they weren't used at the same time in history.
I've seen this discussed on the WOTC boards, and somebody pointed out there that the uselessness of heavy armor due to a DEX bonus is a direct result of higher stats, which is kind of a "well, duh" answer, but bear in mind that the game was balanced for the 24-28 point buy. If you allow a 32 point buy, people buy the stats they ned for their character and still have a few points left over, so they drop a couple in DEX so they can take Dodge, Mobility & Spring Attack, and suddenly they've got a +2 or +3 DEX bonus.
Want to see people wearing plate in your campaigns? Use a 24 point buy. You don't need to modify anything.
|
I'm playing a heavily armored cleric in one campaign, and I can tell you, his armor is a necessity. It's not even a point-buy game; the rolling method was rather generous.
But after putting the highest score in Wisdom, getting a decent Con and Cha (for turning), and enough Str to hit anything, it left me with a +0 Dex bonus.
People are comparing the benefits of full plate versus a character with maxed out and enhanced Dex with light armor. That's not a fair comparison; just as the lightly armored character is buffing up their Dex, the heavily armored character is getting the best they can afford in magical armor and shields, which can really boost the AC, and give some special qualities to boot.
The only thing I hate about heavy armor is being a sitting duck for touch attacks. That and swimming; my cleric waits on shore while everyone else does the swimming.
I think the Dex (and other) penalties are all right. I have worn a chainmail once (or at least something close it, it was modeled after Chain mail armor from normannic times), something like Hide Armor, and Chain Shirts several times (thanks to LARPing), and any but the lightest armor slows you down, and lets you move clumsier, because of the extra weight you have to carry. I once even wore a plate mail (which was not fitted to me), and if you are unused to it, you will have a hard time moving in it at all. Even if it fits and you are used to it, it seriously reduces your ability to move freely - plate mail is just not flexible.
That said, the best armorers produced armors (esp. plate) which let the wearer move with more freedom - thats what masterwork items are for.
Stefan
I play in a game where the stats are fairly high (we use a generous and forgiving stat generation method).
My own character has a +3 Dex modifier, and is built around mobility; in spite of being duergar and having a base 20 speed, he zips around the battlefield with Spd 40 in Mithral full plate. He gets his full dex bonus, and is working on getting feats that'll bring his touch AC equal to his normal AC.
Now, what I'm getting at with all this is that I don't think the heavier armors are worthless if you build your character with the intent of taking advantage of what those armors have to offer. Some builds will see an immediate advantage, while others (like mine) will need time to grow into the concept.
There's a reason knights wore plate mail for centuries.There's a reason they stopped wearing it, too: it stopped working when people started using the Welsh Heavy Longbow, the arbalest, early muskets, and cannon loaded with chain and grape shot. This is one of the reasons why I dislike the mental image of full plate & rapiers in the same battle: they weren't used at the same time in history.
I've seen this discussed on the WOTC boards, and somebody pointed out there that the uselessness of heavy armor due to a DEX bonus is a direct result of higher stats, which is kind of a "well, duh" answer, but bear in mind that the game was balanced for the 24-28 point buy. If you allow a 32 point buy, people buy the stats they ned for their character and still have a few points left over, so they drop a couple in DEX so they can take Dodge, Mobility & Spring Attack, and suddenly they've got a +2 or +3 DEX bonus.
Want to see people wearing plate in your campaigns? Use a 24 point buy. You don't need to modify anything.
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 into the game - worrying about putting rapiers and plate into the same context is miniscule conflict by comparison.
My two cents
Does anyone else out there think heavy armor is useless?
No more than roleplaying.
I don't get worked up about it. Heavy armors have profound limitations in real life -- why not in D&D? For me, plate mail (or whatever) is part of the character, not a tactically-sound decision.
Two more cents.
Jack
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmmm...good points re: stat buy and armor. I've always played with rolled characters, and my experience has been that they don't wear heavy armor for the most part.
I still think heavy armor should be a little better than it is (and that clerics shouldn't get to wear it). Right now, it's a fair trade off between having a high Dex v. wearing heavy armor (or, more likely, when all the benefits are taken into account for high Dex, it is the better choice). Considering that heavy armor requires a feat and that relatively few classes get it, I would like for it to be a little better than it is so as to give that benefit some additional heft.
I suppose one other alternative for those with similar feelings is to give heavy armor the light fortification special ability. That would tap into the whole armor prevents damage feeling that seems to run through discussions like this.
I still think heavy armor should be a little better than it is (and that clerics shouldn't get to wear it).
Why shouldn't clerics wear heavy armor - the class is modeled on "Holy Knights" rather than actual priests - if it was modelled on priests they would have high skill points and few or no armor/weapon proficiencies?
|
In our game we use heavy armor, because you need to have a high dex to beat +18 AC (+5 heavy full plate with +5 defending spikes).
This is the second time I have seen this combination -- I don't believe that this is a valid interpretation.
While you can give an enhancement bonus to the spikes, it is a weapon enhancement bonus and I don't see how it would add to your AC. While wielding a +5 sword you don't get to add the enhancement to your AC.
If I am incorrect in my interpretation of this, please let me know where it is written that this can be done. Thanks.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Why shouldn't clerics wear heavy armor - the class is modeled on "Holy Knights" rather than actual priests - if it was modelled on priests they would have high skill points and few or no armor/weapon proficiencies?
Hopefully, at this point, it should come as no surprise that my answer relates in no way to "reality." The cleric is the most powerful core class. Beefing up armor is to benefit the pallie and the fighter (the other two core classes with heavy armor proficiency). The cleric's got enough benefit without making his armor better. He can go skulk in the corner and cast magic vestment on his socks as far as I care.
First of all, I have always used the dice roll system. It does tend to lead to a minor number of the characters having 16-18's in their STR,DEX, and CON scores, but they are the minority. Yes, high DEX characters tend to go for the light armor. Yes, rouges, scouts, rangers and fast moving character types tend to use light armor so they can use their special abilities. But I have never seen any of my players pass up the chance to get a suit of magical heavy armor, the bonus to AC far outstrips the loss to dex bonus. Besides, most of my characters take feats and extra magical abilities that help them get that bonus to dex back with the heavy armor. As far as creatures in the game, well I tend to tailor my encounters, so the monsters tend to have their stats rolled as well.
As for the aromor as DR rules, I am not to fond with them after playing in several systems that already have that rule incorperated. It tends to lead to getting hit more often, even if you take less damage. I would rather avoid getting hit altogether.
Regarding the defending armor spikes, it would work, but you would have to attack with them if you wanted to convert their bonus to an AC bonus. So your either relying on armor spikes as a weapon, or your two weapon fighting, so its not offensively optimized.
Still, that is a slick combo to jack up AC, me likey!
|
|
Regarding the defending armor spikes, it would work, but you would have to attack with them if you wanted to convert their bonus to an AC bonus. So your either relying on armor spikes as a weapon, or your two weapon fighting, so its not offensively optimized.
Where is it written that attacking with armor spikes increases your AC? Where is it written that an enhancement bonus to armor spikes gives a bonus to AC?
Since using armor spikes requires a grapple, I don't know how that would relate to two-weapon fighting. Can you grapple with a weapon plus get your normal attacks with a normal weapon? If so, again, where is it written?
This seems a bit broken (or is it unbalanced?) if this is truly a valid combination. They took away the compounding enhancement bonus with bows plus arrows for similar reasons. I am just not sure how two separate enhancement bonuses on the same item stack to provide a +10 enhancement bonus on any one item. If it actually is written down somewhere, great -- just let me know where it is.
Where is it written that attacking with armor spikes increases your AC? Where is it written that an enhancement bonus to armor spikes gives a bonus to AC?
It's specifically because of the 'defending' property on the spikes, which allows some or all of the enhancement bonus to be added to AC.
As was indicated earlier, though, it only applies if you actually make an attack with the spikes.
|
|
It's specifically because of the 'defending' property on the spikes, which allows some or all of the enhancement bonus to be added to AC.
As was indicated earlier, though, it only applies if you actually make an attack with the spikes.
Thanks -- that makes a lot more sense. Although, since it only applies if you make an attack with the spikes, it seems to me that a better way to go would be to do the same "defending" combination on your normal weapon than have the spikes at all -- but then you wouldn't be hitting quite as much either -- and of course we are then back to "is it really better than medium or lighter armor?"
I agree with UltraDan; heavy armor can be a great purchase, esp. at low levels and for people without Uncanny Dodge. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all other protection seems left in the dust by the duelist's Elaborate Parry: "At 7th level and higher, if a duelist chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each level of duelist she has." If I read this correctly, this means at 7th level she can trade +1 of attack bonus (using Combat Expertise) in exchange for +8 dodge to AC (n/incl the +1 per point of Int already received due to canny defense)? Being conservative, I always assume that "fight defensively" in this context does NOT include use of Combat Expertise... but should it?
|
|
I agree with UltraDan; heavy armor can be a great purchase, esp. at low levels and for people without Uncanny Dodge. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all other protection seems left in the dust by the duelist's Elaborate Parry: "At 7th level and higher, if a duelist chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each level of duelist she has." If I read this correctly, this means at 7th level she can trade +1 of attack bonus (using Combat Expertise) in exchange for +8 dodge to AC (n/incl the +1 per point of Int already received due to canny defense)? Being conservative, I always assume that "fight defensively" in this context does NOT include use of Combat Expertise... but should it?
That sounds like an incorrect interpretation. When you fight defensively, you normally get a -4 to hit and +2 to AC, and with total defence you don't attack and get +4 AC (I think - I don't have the books here and my players don't do it often). "Fighting denfensively" is a specific combat action set out in the PHB, not a generic term for reducing attack bonus to get a boost in AC (such as you do with Combat Expertise). So I would (if was your DM) disallow your interpretation. But it is still a reasonable trade: -4 to hit to get +9 (at 7th level) to AC.
Thanks -- that makes a lot more sense. Although, since it only applies if you make an attack with the spikes, it seems to me that a better way to go would be to do the same "defending" combination on your normal weapon than have the spikes at all
Quite right. The only advantage would be that the spikes can't be disarmed.
-- but then you wouldn't be hitting quite as much either -- and of course we are then back to "is it really better than medium or lighter armor?"
Indeed.
the app has it right... of course, is it really worth 72300 gp for +5 ac that you have to allocate every round?
tog
|
|
no need to pay so much, just pay for +1 defending spikes and get a cleric/wizard to cast greater magical weapon. You'll get +5 defending spikes but cheaper.
I don't think Greater Magic Weapon works to enhance an existing special weapon enchantment. It simply gives you an enhancement bonus for "to hit" and damage rolls. In your example, the +1 defence would stay at +1 and you would get maybe +5 to hit and damage, but only a possible +1 to AC.
Where is it written that you have to use the weapon to get the bonus to AC ?
From the SRD: "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."
Note the phrase "before using the weapon".
Unless i am wrong, it's just written that you have to choose to switch enhancement to AC before you use, not that you have to use the weapon.
Yep, I think you are wrong :)
|
|
Where is it written that you have to use the weapon to get the bonus to AC ?
From the SRD: "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."
Note the phrase "before using the weapon".
Unless i am wrong, it's just written that you have to choose to switch enhancement to AC before you use, not that you have to use the weapon.
Actually, I'm with Apprentice Wizard on this one. I think the "before using the weapon" piece means you need to decide on your turn, and before you might use the weapon, how much enhancement bonus you want to allocate between AC and attack. That is presumably to stop someone rolling to attack, deciding how much bonus they need to hit and allocating the remainder to AC. I don't think it implies that you HAVE to attack to get the benefit, but you need to decide how much to allocate before you CAN attack (or not).
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 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
|
|
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
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.