| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I am a little confused how an when Defending Weapons can be used (and to which effect...).
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
Ok, RAI are in my view: wield a weapon - either attack better or defend yourself by transfering the bonus to AC.
Now my questions:
1) Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?
Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack
2) How is "wielder" defined. Do you just have to "wear" or "carry" the weapon in your hands or do you actively have to make an action with the weapon? What about an Defending Gauntlet you wear but in this hand you carry a sword for attacking? Do you "wield" the gauntlet or only the sword?
3)The defending ability states that the bonus stacks with all others. Does that mean that multiple defending weapons "wielded" all add up to AC or does this effect exclude same sources?
Perhaps someone has a good advice...
Greetings
Ploppy
Hi all,
I am a little confused how an when Defending Weapons can be used (and to which effect...).
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.Ok, RAI are in my view: wield a weapon - either attack better or defend yourself by transfering the bonus to AC.
Now my questions:
1) Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?
Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack2) How is "wielder" defined. Do you just have to "wear" or "carry" the weapon in your hands or do you actively have to make an action with the weapon? What about an Defending Gauntlet you wear but in this hand you carry a sword for attacking? Do you "wield" the gauntlet or only the sword?
3)The defending ability states that the bonus stacks with all others. Does that mean that multiple defending weapons "wielded" all add up to AC or does this effect exclude same sources?
Perhaps someone has a good advice...
Greetings
Ploppy
It doesnt specifically state that you need to attack with the weapon to benefit from the ability - only that it be weilded or held, it DOES say the weapon has to 'be used' on that turn that the ability is used but you dont HAVE to attack with it from reading it.
"Weilder" is defined as holding something, "Wearing" such as a Cloak Of Resistance does not require any thought or attention on your part whereas "Weilding" requires someone at least hold the object or carry it in their hands.
In the example you gave, if you had two weapons, a sword and a gauntlet, and the Gauntlet had this quality to it then sure, you could transfer some of the enhancement bonus to your AC but it requires a free action to do so but you have to decide how much of the bonus is transferred at the start of every turn.
If you chose to attack with the sword and not with the Gauntlet then it still grants the transferred bonus to AC, since the Gauntlet counts as "Weilded"
Technically if you used two of these weapons you COULD transfer the bonus of both weapons as long as you "weild" them but your going to suffer a loss to attacks doing so.
(Note : Enchanting two Gauntlets and weilding two weapons in those Gauntlets does not technically mean you can transfer four seperate bonuses to your AC since you cannot use all four weapons (if you wanted to) in the round. The ability seems to indicate the ability works only for weapons your capable of bringing to bear that round against an opponent)
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
First thanks Princess for the reply.
Although I´m not sure if I can see a conclusion in your post...
I´ll try a direct question:
"Can my monk wield two defending monk weapons (Sai e.g.), transfer all of the bonus into AC and make a flurry with unarmed attacks a full bonus?"
Yes or no? (and why)
Greetings
Sorry about that...
A 'Monk' weiding two Sai and transferring all the bonus to his AC instead of his attacks - sure, he could do that. And he uses the modified Flurry-Of-Blows routine at the chosen penalty.
If you had lets say, two +3 Defending Sai, and you made a 'Flurry Of Blows' attack and chose to transfer lets say...+2 from each weapon (for a net bonus of +4). He takes the remaining +1 and add to to his Flurry Of Blows bonus he normally possesses.
While "Flurry Of Blows" means you can attack with ANY weapon, which means any body part - the Defending quality seems to suggest you need to 'use' the weapon under this section (see below) however...
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
...as a result, I'd say its a difficult call to make since few if any characters can opt to use a weapon thats not-handheld.
My personal opinion?...you could get away with it, of course its extra expense for yourself to buy two weapons like that, its cheese of course but legal cheese nonetheless for a Monk type character - just expect your GM to want to throw a book at your head for it....lol
|
For my $.02, I don't believe you have to use a Defending weapon in a round to get its bonus. Only that you must take your free action to allocate your enhancement bonuses before you DO use it, IF you use it that round. This is to prevent you from making an attack with your bonus in attack/damage, then allocating as a free action to AC AFTER your attack.
I think wielding does mean "holding in such a way you COULD use it for an attack." Thus if you are a monk with two weapons, one held in each hand, I believe you could switch all your enhancement from the defending weapons to AC, and still take a full flurry of blows using feet and such.
I also allow spellcasters to have a defending weapon in hand, switch all the enhancement bonus to AC, and then cast a spell. However, if you are holding a staff you can't then cast a spell with somatic components, since to be "wielding" the staff you must hold it in two hands (so you COULD make an attack with it, even if you don't do so).
Yeah because you could use it for AoOs if any presented themselves. That's my view on it too... if you are threatening with it then you are using it.
First thanks Princess for the reply.
Although I´m not sure if I can see a conclusion in your post...
I´ll try a direct question:
"Can my monk wield two defending monk weapons (Sai e.g.), transfer all of the bonus into AC and make a flurry with unarmed attacks a full bonus?"
Yes or no? (and why)
Greetings
Yes, but note that two defending weapons do not stack with each other. Bonuses from the same source never stack unless explicitly stated, and defending only states that its bonuses stack with all other bonuses, not with itself.
The 'stacking' of bonuses is a legitimate issue but it is explained that certain bonuses dont stack with one another.
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
Its specifically mentioned that "generic" bonuses (in 3.5) like this that do not have a type infact DO stack unless specifically stated that they dont. For example, page 179 of the Core Rulebook, it says that "Dodge" bonuses infact stack with one another but others such as Enhancement and Natural Armor Bonuses do not - though other bonuses like Sacred/Profane/Luck are never explained or mentioned except at the item creation chapter (and even then they were listed as a footnote/subtext with no explination of their ability or inability to stack).
The AC bonus from a Defending weapon is 'untyped' or 'generic' and was allowed to stack in 3.5, theres no mention in the Pathfinder Rulebook on this - it doesnt go into detail about 'Sacred'/'Profane'/'Luck' and so on except under item creation. But this kind of 'generic' bonus was allowed to stack with all others (even other generic bonuses) in the same manner Dodge bonuses could (since the bonus was very rare and few if any items or spells could duplicate it)
Since there is no clear ruling or mention of the 'generic' bonus type (or any other beyond Deflection/Enhancment/Dodge/Natural), it should in fact defer to 3.5's explination until an official ruling is made. Truth is 'generic' is only what they chose to refer to it as but truth is it has no type therefore in theory shoud not be prevented from working with itself. Its a grey area bonus that has no real type/niche unlike the others.
Though as you said Zurai the wording of the Defending weapon if taken literally says "stacks with all others", this could also mean itself unless it stated specifically it cannot stack with others of its own type the encompassing word of "all" in the sentance would also include itself. No other items I have seen have such a mention so specific in the ability or item itself that it is stackable in this manner and the wording could be taken either way.
That being said the way you explained it also makes sense too, its all down to the interpretation of what "all other" clearly means, to have it say "any others" rather than "all others" would clear that confusion up. It doesnt exclude itself in this manner through the wording it looks like though.
Logic would dictate that no, you shouldnt be allowed to stack two Defending weapons - its cheesy, and has broken applications (lets say...a Maralith Demon?...six arms, six weapons...hmmm) and shouldnt be allowed to happen. But its legal all the same BUT you should expect the GM to bludgeon you with a book or two for doing it.
The 'stacking' of bonuses is a legitimate issue but it is explained that certain bonuses dont stack with one another.
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
Its specifically mentioned that "generic" bonuses (in 3.5) like this that do not have a type infact DO stack unless specifically stated that they dont. For example, page 179 of the Core Rulebook, it says that "Dodge" bonuses infact stack with one another but others such as Enhancement and Natural Armor Bonuses do not - though other bonuses like Sacred/Profane/Luck are never explained or mentioned except at the item creation chapter (and even then they were listed as a footnote/subtext with no explination of their ability or inability to stack).
The AC bonus from a Defending weapon is 'untyped' or 'generic' and was allowed to stack in 3.5, theres no mention in the Pathfinder Rulebook on this - it doesnt go into detail about 'Sacred'/'Profane'/'Luck' and so on except under item creation. But this kind of 'generic' bonus was allowed to stack with all others (even other generic bonuses) in the same manner Dodge bonuses could (since the bonus was very rare and few if any items or spells could duplicate it)
Since there is no clear ruling or mention of the 'generic' bonus type (or any other beyond Deflection/Enhancment/Dodge/Natural), it should in fact defer to 3.5's explination until an official ruling is made. Truth is 'generic' is only what they chose to refer to it as but truth is it has no type therefore in theory shoud not be prevented from working with itself. Its a grey area...
Untyped bonuses dont stack
From the SRD
StackingIn most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
1) Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?
Yes. The entire purpose of the defending ability is that you sacrifice attack for defense. If you are not using the weapon, as a weapon, you don't get the AC bonus.
Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
Since you are sacrificing your entire attack routine to defend, then yes.
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
No, no AC bonus for a weapon just being held. Also no AC bonus for armor or shield spikes unless you are attacking with them.
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack
No. For the love of God, no. See above.
2) How is "wielder" defined. Do you just have to "wear" or "carry" the weapon in your hands or do you actively have to make an action with the weapon? What about an Defending Gauntlet you wear but in this hand you carry a sword for attacking? Do you "wield" the gauntlet or only the sword?
C'mon. Seriously? Does the defending special ability say that merely having an item in your possession grants an AC bonus? No? There's your answer. If you attack with the gauntlet, then it can defend. If you attack with the sword, then it can defend. The defending ability is very simple, straightforward, and balanced.
3)The defending ability states that the bonus stacks with all others. Does that mean that multiple defending weapons "wielded" all add up to AC or does this effect exclude same sources?
The rules are unclear on this. Personally I would allow multiple defending bonuses to stack, but if, and only if, the affected weapons were used in an attack.
Perhaps someone has a good advice...
Great characters are not created from minutiae or by attempting to exploit perceived loopholes. If you think you've found a way to create an exceptionally powerful character by relying on some previously overlooked technicality, then the answer is simple. "No, you can't do that."
I wonder if anyone's attempted to buy a +4 defending amulet of mighty fists for their monk, to try to get +4 ac for every attack in his flurry.
One for each elbow, knee, hand, and foot.
Talk about a nearly untouchable flurry of whiffs.
...Great characters are not created from minutiae or by attempting to exploit perceived loopholes. If you think you've found a way to create an exceptionally powerful character by relying on some previously overlooked technicality, then the answer is simple. "No, you can't do that."
I totally agree with your interpretation of the rules. The questions asked are already the worst-case RAW scenario I could think of after looking at the defending description (although it seems that Takamonk raises an new very wierd aspect...).
Nevertheless I think for a monk it is a viable option to blow his flurry attack(s) with the lowest BAB on defending weapons and take the better unarmed attacks for damage dealing. As a monk you normally don´t hit anything with them at higher levels (except at a natural 20), so you gain at least some AC buff.
I tend to go with what feels right in terms of the idea, design, concept, theme of the subject in question.
From that perspective, a defending weapon to me is a weapon that magically empowers you to better defend yourself vs. incoming strikes/blows with said weapon as such you need to have it in hand and use it actively in the fight, but I would not go as far to demand sacrficing attacks on it as your AC is a passive stat normally. You still have the option of going total defense. The magic power of this weapon is just so awesome that it kinda gives you a total defense like effect without sacrificing your attacks to get it.
given the above perspective I would be inclined to allow stacking 2 defending weapon bonusses. I would keep a vary eye out tho, but on the other hand you are trading off your bonus to attack. however in case of multiple limbs, I think i'd enforce a house rule saying max 2 defending weapons can be in effect, even tho such a limitation does strike me as a lame decision based on fear of powermunckins :P
I might be a nasty evil DM and consider, optionally as a house rule to say that if you use the bonusses for defense they do not count when figuring out if you have the proper bonus to penetrate Damage reduction. Its just a thought, coz at some point characters will stack an impressive amount of +hit +dmg anyways that they wont feel much "sacrifice" on moving bonusses from offense to defense and removing the ability to penetrate damage reduction +4 would give a feel of sacrificing your offensive stance. This is not thought through and prolly has pitfalls and may strike some as totally unfair, it was just a sudden idea on the spot :D
in summation: under my GM rule, 2 defending weapons would stack, should be wielded in your hands and could be applying ac bonus even if you attack with them.
my 2 cent :D
My issue is not with the stacking of bonuses but the fact it specifically states under the Defending quality that it DOES stack with all others (by very definition all would include itself, otherwise it should say any other instead which would exempt it.)
That and the bonus types are not so clearly defined either, the core rulebook goes on to mention Deflection/Natural/Enhancement, etc but says nothing on the issue of Sacred/Profane/Luck and so forth. The Defending weapon explicitly states the following...
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
Therefore a character could weild two Defending weapons and convert the bonus as a untyped bonus to AC for that round but I do agree to some extent that the weapons should be used somewhat to attack in that round - simply possessing them shouldnt really work but then again a Monk with two Defending Sai doesnt have to use the Sai to make his AoO's when he could just as easily kick his opponent instead. (Note that Monks have always been able to do this, they have always been able to attack with whatevers at hand or with an unarmed strike especially on an Attack Of Opportunity, the difference to carrying a defending weapon is of no consequence in this example - a Monk is not 'forced' to employ it as the absolutely only attack he can do for that round)
Not many characters have an option to attack with anything else except with whats in their hands. (Unless they have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and even then only for a measly 1d3 damage plus strength bonus without other items, etc.)
In short this is a cheesy way to improve AC but it is technically legal. The arguement about stacking would stand if the entry on the Defending weapon didnt explicitly exclude it from this rule however - which it does, when it says "...stacks with all others...".
Now I'll give you that the ability can be interpreted either way but theres nothing to stop a character weilding two Defending Weapons and using both for the same purpose - but items like Rings Of Protection and so forth provide you with a bonus thats clearly not excluded and thusly cannot stack.
But I'd rule personally that a character should try to use the weapon from which hes gaining the bonus from in that round - its cheesy (but legal cheese) for a Monk to opt to use another form of attack instead but he MUST be weilding the weapons in his hands, not just carrying it on his person. Plus remember the extra expense the character is going to to purchase said weapons, depending how much of a bonus they want its not going to be cheap to buy two weapons of a decent enhancement bonus WITH the Defending quality.
As for bypassing DR based on the weapons Enhancement Bonus, it is reduced because it explicitly lowers the enhancement bonus of the weapon in that round to give you a bonus to AC, so it DOES reduce the weapons DR penetrating ability albeit temporarily - its not a house rule either, its fact. The Defending ability states your "transferring some or all of the weapons enhancement bonus..." which explicltly means the weapon losses the bonuses to hit, damage and DR bypassing ability.
My issue is not with the stacking of bonuses but the fact it specifically states under the Defending quality that it DOES stack with all others (by very definition all would include itself, otherwise it should say any other instead which would exempt it.)
"All" isn't the important word. "Others" is.
...Great characters are not created from minutiae or by attempting to exploit perceived loopholes. If you think you've found a way to create an exceptionally powerful character by relying on some previously overlooked technicality, then the answer is simple. "No, you can't do that."I totally agree with your interpretation of the rules. The questions asked are already the worst-case RAW scenario I could think of after looking at the defending description (although it seems that Takamonk raises an new very wierd aspect...).
Nevertheless I think for a monk it is a viable option to blow his flurry attack(s) with the lowest BAB on defending weapons and take the better unarmed attacks for damage dealing. As a monk you normally don´t hit anything with them at higher levels (except at a natural 20), so you gain at least some AC buff.
Glad we agree, Ploppy. And sorry if the tone of my reply was a little...strident. I was tired.
Edit: And on further thought, the question of whether you can apply the defending bonus to AC during a full defense action probably needs an official clarification. I would say yes, but I could see it going either way.
...Great characters are not created from minutiae or by attempting to exploit perceived loopholes. If you think you've found a way to create an exceptionally powerful character by relying on some previously overlooked technicality, then the answer is simple. "No, you can't do that."I totally agree with your interpretation of the rules. The questions asked are already the worst-case RAW scenario I could think of after looking at the defending description (although it seems that Takamonk raises an new very wierd aspect...).
Nevertheless I think for a monk it is a viable option to blow his flurry attack(s) with the lowest BAB on defending weapons and take the better unarmed attacks for damage dealing. As a monk you normally don´t hit anything with them at higher levels (except at a natural 20), so you gain at least some AC buff.
Glad we agree, Ploppy. And sorry if the tone of my reply was a little...strident. I was tired.
Edit: And on further thought, the question of whether you can apply the defending bonus to AC during a full defense action probably needs an official clarification. I would say yes, but I could see it going either way.
My thought is still that if you are threatening with the weapon you are using it.
The key here is the defending property says "using" the weapon... not attacking with it.
If you are using Full Defensive, then you are using the weapon to block... since this is a use of the weapon you can switch it over. If you have the weapon ready to attack anyone approaching you you are using the weapon, so you can have the bonus... Heck if you are pointing the weapon at someone in order to intimidate them you are still using the weapon, hence bonus is still allowed.
I think the idea that the only "use" of a weapon is attacking is fallacious and something that anyone that uses or trains with weapons on even a semi-regular basis will see as such.
My thought is still that if you are threatening with the weapon you are using it.The key here is the defending property says "using" the weapon... not attacking with it.
If you are using Full Defensive, then you are using the weapon to block... since this is a use of the weapon you can switch it over. If you have the weapon ready to attack anyone approaching you you are using the weapon, so you can have the bonus... Heck if you are pointing the weapon at someone in order to intimidate them you are still using the weapon, hence bonus is still allowed.
I think the idea that the only "use" of a weapon is attacking is fallacious and something that anyone that uses or trains with weapons on even a semi-regular basis will see as such.
I'm inclined to agree. Having a weapon drawn and ready is "using" it, even if you don't attack anyone with it. You're prepared to use it for an AoO, or in the event an enemy pops up right next to you. YMMV.
I'm inclined to agree. Having a weapon drawn and ready is "using" it, even if you don't attack anyone with it. You're prepared to use it for an AoO, or in the event an enemy pops up right next to you. YMMV.
Now were moving in circles back to my first question:
Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?
Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack
In my view perhaps the wording of the defending ability should be reworded:
"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as an untyped bonus that stacks with all others (still open). As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus {at the start of his turn} (delete) before using the weapon in an attack or full defence action, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
But this would rule out the use in a passive way without really attacking with the weapon.
As for bypassing DR based on the weapons Enhancement Bonus, it is reduced because it explicitly lowers the enhancement bonus of the weapon in that round to give you a bonus to AC, so it DOES reduce the weapons DR penetrating ability albeit temporarily - its not a house rule either, its fact. The Defending ability states your "transferring some or all of the weapons enhancement bonus..." which explicltly means the weapon losses the bonuses to hit, damage and DR bypassing ability
Ahh I had not read up on that, I think alot would just assume that the weapon is a +X weapon regardless where the bonus is transfered and as such should be able to penetrate a +X DR :D Well now i have no qualms enforcing that rule :) cheers.
as for the monks and the weapons and unarmed etc... yeah all you need in my opinion is to be "ready to use your weapons against incoming attacks". I think we all basically agree on this matter and are just saying it with different words :D
The section pertaining to the Damage Reduction values of specific enhancement bonus weapons are as follows... (see it on page 562)
DR TYPE & Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivilent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment based +5
*Note that this does not give the weapon the ability to ignore hardness like an actual adamantine weapon does.
Thusly a character with a +3 Defending Sai could bypass the DR's of opponents with Cold Iron/Silver (regardless of what the weapons made from) as long as he doesnt transfer ANY of the weapons enhancement in that round to AC, if he does, then his attacks will only function vs DR/Magic as a plain magic weapon.
So unless said Sai is already crafted from special materials, then the odds of him usefully employing it against dangerous opponents even in this defesive fashion are limited.
The section pertaining to the Damage Reduction values of specific enhancement bonus weapons are as follows... (see it on page 562)
DR TYPE & Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivilent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment based +5
*Note that this does not give the weapon the ability to ignore hardness like an actual adamantine weapon does.
Thusly a character with a +3 Defending Sai could bypass the DR's of opponents with Cold Iron/Silver (regardless of what the weapons made from) as long as he doesnt transfer ANY of the weapons enhancement in that round to AC, if he does, then his attacks will only function vs DR/Magic as a plain magic weapon.
So unless said Sai is already crafted from special materials, then the odds of him usefully employing it against dangerous opponents even in this defesive fashion are limited.
cheers! :)
This is an example where an exception to the rules overrides the general rule.
A non-stacking bonus is also a bonus. It just doesn't stack. Two enhancement bonuses to armor do not stack -- only the largest bonus applies. However, both bonuses still exist -- they aren't "overwritten" in the sense that one prevents the other from existing.
When you refer to one of those non-stacking bonuses of the same type, they're still bonuses. At no point do they stop being bonuses.
The defending weapon has an enhancement bonus that stacks with all other bonuses. The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.
In this case, the specific (defending weapon rules) has overruled the general rules for bonus stacking.
The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.
By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus. For a bonus to stack with itself, it must say something to the effect of, "This bonus stacks even with itself" (see the Blood in the Water stance from Book of 9 Swords for an example). Very, very few things in the game stack with themselves.
The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus. For a bonus to stack with itself, it must say something to the effect of, "This bonus stacks even with itself" (see the Blood in the Water stance from Book of 9 Swords for an example). Very, very few things in the game stack with themselves.
I can not find a reference about "same source":
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
Stacking strictly speaks of "bonuses of the same type". Normally identical sources produce bonuses of the same type, but this is not the basis of stacking.
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
Ok, dodge bonuses stack "with each other" while defending bonuses stack "with all others". My English is not good enough to see the semantic difference...perhaps a native speaker, please.
I can not find a reference about "same source"The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus. For a bonus to stack with itself, it must say something to the effect of, "This bonus stacks even with itself" (see the Blood in the Water stance from Book of 9 Swords for an example). Very, very few things in the game stack with themselves.
Core Rulebook, page 208:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Ok, dodge bonuses stack "with each other" while defending bonuses stack "with all others". My English is not good enough to see the semantic...perhaps a native speaker, please.
"Other" is defined as "not one's self". Dodge bonuses stack with each other, meaning that two different dodge bonuses (+1 from the Dodge feat and +1 from haste, for example) stack. Two dodge bonuses from the same source (if you had haste cast on you twice, for example) do not stack.
Thanks for the clarification.
So it ends in the question what the "source" of the bonus is. Is it the items (=two different sources) or the effect (=two times same source) that counts?
Looks like a Rule 0 decission.
The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus.
No, the same source is an identical item gives the same bonus. A bonus coming from 2 rings of protection is the same bonus coming from the same source -- a ring of protection. You're confusing something specific (the ring giving the bonus) and something general (a ring of protection).
|
The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus.No, the same source is an identical item gives the same bonus. A bonus coming from 2 rings of protection is the same bonus coming from the same source -- a ring of protection. You're confusing something specific (the ring giving the bonus) and something general (a ring of protection).
You're saying that wearing the two rings of protection only gives you one bonus. By that logic, if one ring was dispelled, you would get no bonus. The two rings each give a bonus, but only one applies at a time due to them being the same type.
If you had two sources of untyped bonuses, such as the two defending weapons, you would have two bonuses, not one. Thus, since untyped bonuses stack, the two defending weapons should stack.
You're saying that wearing the two rings of protection only gives you one bonus.
It is giving one bonus -- a deflection bonus. That's the name of the bonus -- maybe I should say "bonus type".
The two rings each give a bonus, but only one applies at a time due to them being the same type.
No, they give a bonus simultaneously that does not stack. If one ring is dispelled, the other bonus is still there.
If you had two sources of untyped bonuses, such as the two defending weapons, you would have two bonuses, not one. Thus, since untyped bonuses stack, the two defending weapons should stack.
Right. I don't disagree with you (: The argument I'm making is that there's one *type* of bonus -- the enhancement bonus to AC that stacks with all other bonuses. That stacks with multiple instances of itself -- another instance of the bonus can be consider one "other" bonus. It's not the same instance of a bonus.
The terminology is probably the difficulty here. . .
There is a bonus type -- deflection bonus
And there's a bonus instance -- one ring of protection versus another
The intent is that a bonus instance of defending weapons stacks with all bonus instances of all bonus types. But that's overly wordy and wouldn't make it in a book q:
|
|
Right. I don't disagree with you (: The argument I'm making is that there's one *type* of bonus -- the enhancement bonus to AC that stacks with all other bonuses. That stacks with multiple instances of itself -- another instance of the bonus can be consider one "other" bonus. It's not the same instance of a bonus.
Oh, my bad. I see we were arguing the same side now. XD
Oh, my bad. I see we were arguing the same side now. XD
It's more fun to argue on boards than to agree (:
I know you are wrong by how you use the incorrect smiley. :)
It's the correct smiley if you're trying to avoid programs that convert a smiley automatically to a graphical smiley q:
In the same train of thought...
Could a character use a defending dagger in his off-hand, claim the defending bonus and yet not fight with it in order to avoid TWF penalties?
I don't see why not, as Two-Weapon Defense does not require you to attack with the offhand weapon to get the bonus.
True, besides a +5 defending dagger is not better (if more expensive) than a +5 buckler...
Just a point for Zurai to consider: Using a +3 dagger of defending in one hand and a +4 Longsword of defending in the other.
Switching all of those enhancements over to AC would stack because... they are from two different sources. Your quoted text says that it doesn't stack with something from the same source (ie 2 Haste spells) however, these two untyped bonuses would stack since they are from two different sources (ie 2 different weapons.)
Just a point for Zurai to consider: Using a +3 dagger of defending in one hand and a +4 Longsword of defending in the other.
Switching all of those enhancements over to AC would stack because... they are from two different sources. Your quoted text says that it doesn't stack with something from the same source (ie 2 Haste spells) however, these two untyped bonuses would stack since they are from two different sources (ie 2 different weapons.)
Incorrect. They are from the same source: the defending weapon property. Saying that two different weapons with the same weapon property are different sources is the same thing as saying that Bob the Wizard and Sal the Sorcerer are two different sources for the bonuses provided by the haste spell.
Defending weapon AC bonuses are considered same source and don't stack with defender bonuses...that would be stacking with themselves, not all others. 'All others' is the definition of untyped bonuses IN GENERAL, and the defending weapon does not in any way allow you to supersede the rule that same source bonuses do not stack with themselves. Bonuses have to very specifically allow that.
THus, two defending weapons do not stack with one another. Nor do 4 (Shield SPikes, armor spikes, main weapon, gauntlets) which you are allowing if you DO allow them to stack.
2) Wielding a defending weapon in the off hand, you cannot avoid TWF penalties.
'Wielded' in the context of a weapon specifically means ready to attack with. If you are not ready to attack with the weapon in your off hand, you can't Defend with it, and you aren't TWF...you're just holding onto the dagger. You CAN hold onto the weapon and not attack with it, and get the bonus, but you will ALWAYS have the penalty.
This can get sticky if you are only making single attacks. Technically, you 'can't' attack with the off hand weapon, but this is a fallacy if someone argues it. Given an AoO, you could still attack with it, or throw it, or something. It must be ready to be used, even if you don't use it.
The defining characteristic is that the weapon is up, ready for use, and nothing else is being done with the hand or your action that would let it NOT be used. In short, you can't hold it in one hand while casting a spell and get the bonus, because you aren't ready to use it.
This is the same kind of reason why if you have Armor Spikes and a Reach weapon, you take TWF penalties if you want to have both available for use.
It's also why if you are using a double weapon as a single weapon, and the off head is Defender, you don't get the bonus. The off head is not ready for use. You have to shift your grip and MAKE it ready...and at the beginning of your turn, and the TWF penalty kicks in.
===Aelryinth
|
|
If you are not ready to attack with the weapon in your off hand, you can't Defend with it, and you aren't TWF...you're just holding onto the dagger. You CAN hold onto the weapon and not attack with it, and get the bonus, but you will ALWAYS have the penalty.
Why don't you get TWF penalties when you use sword and board then?
Defending weapon AC bonuses are considered same source and don't stack with defender bonuses...that would be stacking with themselves, not all others. 'All others' is the definition of untyped bonuses IN GENERAL, and the defending weapon does not in any way allow you to supersede the rule that same source bonuses do not stack with themselves. Bonuses have to very specifically allow that.
THus, two defending weapons do not stack with one another. Nor do 4 (Shield SPikes, armor spikes, main weapon, gauntlets) which you are allowing if you DO allow them to stack.
2) Wielding a defending weapon in the off hand, you cannot avoid TWF penalties.
'Wielded' in the context of a weapon specifically means ready to attack with. If you are not ready to attack with the weapon in your off hand, you can't Defend with it, and you aren't TWF...you're just holding onto the dagger. You CAN hold onto the weapon and not attack with it, and get the bonus, but you will ALWAYS have the penalty.
This can get sticky if you are only making single attacks. Technically, you 'can't' attack with the off hand weapon, but this is a fallacy if someone argues it. Given an AoO, you could still attack with it, or throw it, or something. It must be ready to be used, even if you don't use it.
The defining characteristic is that the weapon is up, ready for use, and nothing else is being done with the hand or your action that would let it NOT be used. In short, you can't hold it in one hand while casting a spell and get the bonus, because you aren't ready to use it.
This is the same kind of reason why if you have Armor Spikes and a Reach weapon, you take TWF penalties if you want to have both available for use.
It's also why if you are using a double weapon as a single weapon, and the off head is Defender, you don't get the bonus. The off head is not ready for use. You have to shift your grip and MAKE it ready...and at the beginning of your turn, and the TWF penalty kicks in.
===Aelryinth
Some parts of this post don't make sense. If you wield a weapon in each hand, but only attack with one weapon, you don't suffer the penalties for two-weapon fighting. If this were true, then shield bashing based PCs would always suffer TWF penalties even when they decide not to shield bash. Why would it change simply because one of the weapons you are holding is a defending weapon? The defending property says nothing about needing to attack with it to gain the bonus to AC. If you are a TWF, and decide not to use both weapons on your turn, you can't then decide later on your turn to attack with your off-hand weapon as you elected not to use both weapons for that turn. Doing so would require you to retroactively determine your attack rolls with the TWF penalties. However, if an attack of opportunity presents itself, you could decide to attack with either weapon at no TWF penalty to the attack roll. TWF penalties do not confer themselves to all your attacks for the round (like Power Attack states), only the ones you take on your current turn. I can't provide a link but there was a series of articles on TWF that Skip Williams explained in detail how it works back in the 3.5 days.
EDIT: Ninja'd be Triomega!
The 'stacking' of bonuses is a legitimate issue but it is explained that certain bonuses don't stack with one another.
Maybe you should reread the passage you quoted. It specifically says untyped bonuses stack.
Stacking
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
See? All the qualifiers for things that stack occur BEFORE the word "but." It then starts a separate, but related thought on what doesn't stack.
Also, what's with all this "doesn't stack because it's from the same source" stuff? Though I am familiar with the rule, I fail to see how two entirely different and distinctive defending weapons are the same source rather than two entirely different and distinctive sources.
Also, what's with all this "doesn't stack because it's from the same source" stuff? Though I am familiar with the rule, I fail to see how two entirely different and distinctive defending weapons are the same source rather than two entirely different and distinctive sources.
Saying that two different weapons with the same weapon property are different sources is the same thing as saying that Bob the Wizard and Sal the Sorcerer are two different sources for the bonuses provided by the haste spell.
Also, what's with all this "doesn't stack because it's from the same source" stuff? Though I am familiar with the rule, I fail to see how two entirely different and distinctive defending weapons are the same source rather than two entirely different and distinctive sources.Saying that two different weapons with the same weapon property are different sources is the same thing as saying that Bob the Wizard and Sal the Sorcerer are two different sources for the bonuses provided by the haste spell.
Point taken. Did you post that in the thread earlier? If so, I must have missed it somehow.
The 'stacking' of bonuses is a legitimate issue but it is explained that certain bonuses don't stack with one another.
Maybe you should reread the passage you quoted. It specifically says untyped bonuses stack.
Stacking
n most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
See? All the qualifiers for things that stack occur BEFORE the word "but." It then starts a separate, but related thought on what doesn't stack.
Also, what's with all this "doesn't stack because it's from the same source" stuff? Though I am familiar with the rule, I fail to see how two entirely different and distinctive defending weapons are the same source rather than two entirely different and distinctive sources.
Re-emphasized that to answer your own question -- the source is the defending property. Otherwise having two speeding weapons should give two extra attacks, or having two different blank bonuses from two of the same item should stack.
Two haste spells are the same spell.
And two defending weapon enchantments are the same weapon enchantment.
|
|
Two haste spells are the same spell.And two defending weapon enchantments are the same weapon enchantment.
Excepting on two different weapons, where as the haste spells are cast on the same target. And actually, I would see no problem stacking those bonuses either. Less effective than hasting two of your party.
Excepting on two different weapons, where as the haste spells are cast on the same target. And actually, I would see no problem stacking those bonuses either. Less effective than hasting two of your party.Two haste spells are the same spell.And two defending weapon enchantments are the same weapon enchantment.
Kinda like the defending property from two different weapons wielded by the same person also affects the same target? One haste does affect two (or more) of your party.