All this talk about Defending weapons has prompted me to ask the following:
Any issue with crafting a +5 Hvy Shield (also enchanted as a +5 Defending weapon) for a net bonus of +12 shield bonus to one's AC?
A shield can be enchanted as a weapon, however that enchantment is seperate from the AC enchantment.
I was ... saying ... that defending does not necessarily require you to attack with it in order to gain the defending bonus to ac.
Yes, it does require that.
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.
But I would rule that you could use such an item AS a shield OR a defending weapon. Only one set of properties can apply at a time.It is legit. Shields can be enchanted as weapons in addition to be enchanted as shields. It would cost you the same ammount as enchanting 2 seperate items(a +5 hvy shield and a +x defending weapon)All this talk about Defending weapons has prompted me to ask the following:
Any issue with crafting a +5 Hvy Shield (also enchanted as a +5 Defending weapon) for a net bonus of +12 shield bonus to one's AC?
What if you had Imp. Shield Bash? That lets you keep the shield bonus even when attacking.
First off I look at defending like Expertise no swing no bonus. If want to swing not get regular shield bonus go for it. You need Improved shield bash.
Let look at this for minute to get this idea to work you need Two Weapon fighting Feat, Shield &/or Armor Proficient, Martial Weapon Proficient, Improved Shield Bash Feat, DEX 15. So that 5 feat and DEX of 15 to swing-2 -2 on rounds that swing twice. Note Armor spikes count at light weapon.
Now let talk Gold the +5 Shield 25k with +5 defending Spike 62k is 97K Gold just in magic. The Armor is 97k as well. So with Average Wealth by level you should not be pulling this trick off till level 15.
( a Ring of Protection +5* is 50k and amulet of Natural Armor +5 is 50k as well)
So your AC Would be like +9 base armor +5 Magic +2 shield +5 Magic DEX +1 so base AC 32. 37 on the round you move on only swing once and 42 on the rounds that you can take full attack plus you are minus -7 on all your swing that round with armor and shield spikes.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
* Ring of Protection adds to Touch AC for sure. I am not sure I defending add to Touch AC as well.
So final judgment if a PC want to a spend extra 24 K in gold to and 5 feats and have DEX 15 and take -7 to attack rolls one rounds that you take full attacks (which is about 2 out of 3 rounds in combat) to get the same AC that you would get just buy Ring of Protection +5 and Amulet Natural Armor +5 saving the feats not take -7 to your swings all the time and having 24K in your pocket go for it.
I was ... saying ... that defending does not necessarily require you to attack with it in order to gain the defending bonus to ac.Yes, it does require that.
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.
That line interacts interestingly with this combo, however. The "weapon" is a shield. "Using" a shield is simply having it equipped and ready for defense since a shield can be used offensively or defensively. Due to ambiguity of the verb and other technicalities, just having the shield equipped would count as using the "weapon" - ie, the shield.
A shield has two distinct uses, one as a shield and one as a weapon. You use it as a weapon by attacking with it and you use it as a shield by not attacking with it. Of course, that's in general and there are lots of feats and other things that might give you exception, but generally a shield is not used as a weapon if you don't take an action with it.
That line interacts interestingly with this combo, however. The "weapon" is a shield. "Using" a shield is simply having it equipped and ready for defense since a shield can be used offensively or defensively. Due to ambiguity of the verb and other technicalities, just having the shield equipped would count as using the "weapon" - ie, the shield.
Which is my point. You are "using" a shield simply by wielding it. The verb is far too ambiguous for what they want to convey for no reason at all. Making a shield a defending weapon is the best thing to do because of the use of the word "using" instead of "attack." An argument could easily construe that "using a weapon" means "attacking" if the enchantment is placed upon a weapon. However, if it is placed upon a shield as a weapon enhancement, it is still a shield. You are always "using" an equipped shield, ie "the weapon." Even if you don't attack. As long as it is equipped and the use of it isn't nullified (such as using a two-hand weapon with a buckler), you are using it.
Yep by RAW. Now for the +5 defending shield spikes...
Which is my point. You are "using" a shield simply by wielding it. The verb is far too ambiguous for what they want to convey for no reason at all. Making a shield a defending weapon is the best thing to do because of the use of the word "using" instead of "attack." An argument could easily construe that "using a weapon" means "attacking" if the enchantment is placed upon a weapon. However, if it is placed upon a shield as a weapon enhancement, it is still a shield. You are always "using" an equipped shield, ie "the weapon." Even if you don't attack. As long as it is equipped and the use of it isn't nullified (such as using a two-hand weapon with a buckler), you are using it.You are using the shield simply by wielding it, but you're not using the weapon simply by wielding it.
You are if the weapon is a shield.
That's simply making an unnecessary exception for this particular weapon in order to break the system.
You are if the weapon is a shield.
What unnecessary exception? A shield can be enchanted as a weapon. The "weapon" is still a shield. The verb in the feat is not as stringent as it should be to achieve the desired result; therefore, if you are wielding a shield, you are "using" the "weapon." Not a single part of that is using an exception to anything. I am using a commanding mastery of the English language and knowledge of the rules of the game.
''Untyped''/''unnamed'' bonuses, I hate those. If the bonus to AC given by a Defending weapon was a ''shield'' bonus, the combo described in the OP wouldn't work, but by RAW, it could work. Of course I would recommand to any GMs out there to ban this cheesy combo.
*bashes face into keyboard*
hdsfgfkj
Another defending thread... RAW there is a huge grey area as to what constitutes "using the weapon". Is it having equipped and ready to strike? Is it swinging it?
I think it's swinging it, but in the absence of a clarifcation, it is up for debate.
|
I dont think there is. By RAW, it works just fine. To wield a weapon/item, it just needs to be held and ready to use, (such as for AoO's or attacking, to threaten with it if it's a melee weapon).
Defending says nothing about needing to attack with it, but INSTEAD says exactly what needs to be done, round by round, (A free action BEFORE any attacks are made).
A Light and Heavy Shield can be enchanted as both a weapon and an armor, seperately. You can even magic a gauntlet and still wield both it and a weapon at the same time.
I dont think there is. By RAW, it works just fine. To wield a weapon/item, it just needs to be held and ready to use, (such as for AoO's or attacking, to threaten with it if it's a melee weapon).
I appreciate your zeal for the subject, but there *is* a grey area.
Do note that Defending says nothing... I repeat nothing about wielding a weapon. Instead, it says:
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.
If you don't use the weapon on your turn did you use it? IMO the only way to use a weapon is attack with it. If that was not the case, that part of the clause is not necessary and should have been left out.
You are using the shield simply by wielding it, but you're not using the weapon simply by wielding it.
I tried to use this reasoning with a fellow player in one of our previous games who wanted to have Defending spikes on his armor and more Defending spikes on his shield even though he'd never use them to attack. Somebody challenged me to find a definition for "using" in the 3.5 rules. I don't think that it was in there, and the presiding DM declared it a legal combo.
The PC in question was a Cleric who could get all of the "weapons" up to at least +4 enhancement by pumping his caster level for GMW with some feat like Divine feat. I think he actually spent some feats on Extra Turning to fuel the combo. He probably had somewhere around AC 50 at 13th level.
These guys argued that the PC was "using" the weapons since he could attack with them at any time, threatened an area with them, etc. They also argued that the phrase "before using" was just in there to prevent you from attacking with the weapon and then switching the bonus to defense afterwards.
House Rule Thoughts - It seems like the intent was probably to trade your chance to hit for AC, but I could kind of see a guy saying "I took the Full Defense action, so I'm [bold]using[/bold] my weapon to parry. I'm trading my attack bonus for AC, and that could come up if somebody triggers an AoO." Maybe the bonuses shouldn't stack and/or you shouldn't be able to get the bonus for a weapon you didn't attack with unless you took any appropriate penalties for TWF to "use" the weapon for defense.
|
I'm an active 2 weapon fighter using a sword & shield combo. I believe that a Defending is perfectly legal due to the option it being actively used in combat. It true that even on the rounds that it is not in use it still threatens regardless of whether an AoO because it provides the character the option of a different attack form in combat. Case in point, 1vl 1 human fighter with a heavy shield and longsword is surounded by skeletons. He's learned from the prior combat round that his sword has less of an effect than his shield. This does not stop him from using both attacks on his turn against skeleton #1, but it gives him the better option of hitting with his shield on his AoO because he knows it will be more effective than his sword with likely the same attack bonus.
Simularly, 10th level fighter wearing +1 Fullplate with +2 defending Armor spikes is just as viable becaus the Half fiend hybrid form were-bear will grapple him if he hits, at which point that great axe he typically swings does him no good. In case your wondering where the +1 fullplate w/+2 defending spike comes from I believe it was something one of the villans in Age of Worms was wearing.
Finally, you will often times see rogue characters armed with +2 defending daggers in their off hand. Yet we never deduct this from their AC when the leap out of a shadow and sneak attack the PC with there primary +1 Flaming burst rapiers. Why would you try to penalize the sword & board 2 wpn fighter the same way. After all, they are paying for it. Literally. Additionally, this developement actually gives another attempt at an AC bump that many have not considered, but in reality desperately need, particulary when your actually fighting a CR appropriate creature yet it can hit you on a 2 or better even though your armored to the best capability in the land. All this really does is give that poor dumbfounded hero a chance of actually dodging a hit that wasn't a critical fumble.
That's a good find, Trikk. I don't think I ever came up with that during my group's discussion. I find it sort of compelling, but it kind of implies that a +1 sword doesn't have a +1 except for when you're swinging it. That seems untrue since if I try to sunder your +1 sword it has extra hardness and HP whether or not you're swinging it at the time.
Similarly, a flaming sword presumably has flames on it when it is not being swung. I suppose in that case the sword is now being "used" as a torch of sorts, but if the flaming enchantment can change the "use" of a sword from being swing to being carried then the Defending enchantment probably can't easily be excluded from doing something similar.
That said, I think your approach is a pretty solid and common sense way to rule this.
|
|
I dont think there is. By RAW, it works just fine. To wield a weapon/item, it just needs to be held and ready to use, (such as for AoO's or attacking, to threaten with it if it's a melee weapon).I appreciate your zeal for the subject, but there *is* a grey area.
Do note that Defending says nothing... I repeat nothing about wielding a weapon. Instead, it says:
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.
If you don't use the weapon on your turn did you use it? IMO the only way to use a weapon is attack with it. If that was not the case, that part of the clause is not necessary and should have been left out.
Not trying to be rude or snarky, but I still dont see where the grey area is coming from. Part of the word change is due to (Animated Shield), Paizo has changed the item to not always be in affect. A lot of this has already been called out in the other thread. If you define a weapon as being wielded only when used to attack, that means a few things that obviously was not the intent.
1.) that means an evil character can hold a Holy Avenger, soak up the super good arua and use it as a perfectly valid (metagame) lie that they can't be evil, they have a holy avenger. As long as they don't attack with it, they don't get the Negative Level, right?
2.) any similar item, such as "wieding" a holy symbol, can't actualy be done, so no Turning/Channeling/Divine Focus.
3.) you can't make AoO until after you have already taken your attack action in any round.
It never says that you have to attack with it, nor do the Fighting Defensivly options. However, under the activation of magical weapons, it says most weapons simply need to be used like swinging, but some have speific activations (which a Defending weapon does, a free action before attacking with it).
Sean K Reynolds, you're our hero!!!
FAQ answer.
Thanks Sean, for putting a little sanity in this mad world of ours.
@devilkiller
Multiple instances of Defending don't stack, please see the text where it says it stacks with all other AC bonuses. Another instance of defending is the same and not another.
|
Multiple instances of Defending don't stack, please see the text where it says it stacks with all other AC bonuses. Another instance of defending is the same and not another.
"Stacks with all others" is the sensible way to read it. But I prefer "stacks with all others", at least when being facetious.
|
I'll bet we can still milk some more out of this argument. If you have a +1 Defending Weapon and use a free action to assign the bonus but then don't attack with it, you don't get the AC bonus -- but what if, immediately after you go, somebody moves out of a square you threaten and you take your AoO with that weapon? Do you then gain the AC bonus?
It's not the start of your turn, is it?
==Aelryinth
|
|
I'll bet we can still milk some more out of this argument. If you have a +1 Defending Weapon and use a free action to assign the bonus but then don't attack with it, you don't get the AC bonus -- but what if, immediately after you go, somebody moves out of a square you threaten and you take your AoO with that weapon? Do you then gain the AC bonus?
Under those circumstances, I think you would. But, that assumes you're allowed to assign the bonus without actually getting it, which is still pretty ridiculous.
I'll bet we can still milk some more out of this argument. If you have a +1 Defending Weapon and use a free action to assign the bonus but then don't attack with it, you don't get the AC bonus -- but what if, immediately after you go, somebody moves out of a square you threaten and you take your AoO with that weapon? Do you then gain the AC bonus?
... The answer is no. You didn't activate the power.. you declare you want to use it then don't use the weapon. If you don't use the weapon to attack per SKR's faq, then you don't get the bonus. You must attack with it on your turn.
If you don't have the bonus you can't have it when your AoO comes up.
*shrug*
Another house rule then. I find it odd that any other property, once activated, works just by the weapon being wielded and ready to attack (such as flaming, etc), but defending you have to attack with it.
In my own games, the weapon must wielded and available for attack, be it a part of an attack action of AoO.
FAQ answer.
Um, so I get the bonus if I make an AoO, but not otherwise?
Seems a little weird to me. Why would an opponent opening himself up, allow me to increase my AC? Me thinks there's a slight disconnect there.
I'm beginning to think people are intentionally misconstruing what was written by sean..
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
If you don't attack with the defending weapon on your turn you don't get the AC boost. Not on an AoO, not ever.
The only way to get the bonus is to:
1. It is your turn to act
2. Activate the Defending Weapon (free)
3. Attack with the defending weapon (standard or full)
4. You now gain the AC Boost until your next turn.
If you do not perform step #3 then you get no bonus, try again next turn.
You must attack on YOUR TURN to activate Defending. If you don't, no AC bonus, period...no AoO's get it, either.
I personally rule 'attack' as 'take attack action', so if you don't have anyone to hit, you can sit there, do NOTHING else, and still get the AC bonus...say, by being the target of an archer while defensive fighting or total defense.
==Aelryinth
FAQ answer.Um, so I get the bonus if I make an AoO, but not otherwise?
Seems a little weird to me. Why would an opponent opening himself up, allow me to increase my AC? Me thinks there's a slight disconnect there.
I think the intent of the defend ability is to allow those who intend to fight in melee to get a better defense. The problem is that how does one know when a player is just trying to game the system.
I think the intent of the defend ability is to allow those who intend to fight in melee to get a better defense. The problem is that how does one know when a player is just trying to game the system.
Honestly, why do we care?
How many non-shield proficient characters wear mithral bucklers? They aren't proficient, but they don't give any penalties either, so that's a 'gaming of the system' for a +1 to +6 AC bonus.
I think the intent of the defend ability is to allow those who intend to fight in melee to get a better defense. The problem is that how does one know when a player is just trying to game the system.Honestly, why do we care?
How many non-shield proficient characters wear mithral bucklers? They aren't proficient, but they don't give any penalties either, so that's a 'gaming of the system' for a +1 to +6 AC bonus.
I would allow you to use the defending property as long as the item is in a possible attack position, but not many GM's are as lenient as I am, so that is why it might matter to them.
Some people are also nit picky about strange things(things that are strange to me) and would not say anything about the shield, but they would complain about the weapon.
I would allow you to use the defending property as long as the item is in a possible attack position, but not many GM's are as lenient as I am, so that is why it might matter to them.
Some people are also nit picky about strange things(things that are strange to me) and would not say anything about the shield, but they would complain about the weapon.
Granted, I really meant 'We' as in, the community. Yes, people are going to play the system. As long as they aren't jumping through mental gymnastics and giving me 10 page backgrounds that explain why they have 2 levels of barbarian, 3 levels of monk, 2 levels of Paladin, and 5 levels of fighter all so they can get this uber combination of abilities that let them one shot an ancient red dragon, then I'm fine with it. :)
I guess my motto is moderation in all things, especially optimization. :)