This still allows for some sickening weapon and shield fighter combos. Sheesh. A guy with a heavy defending shield and most of the shield fighting feats is going to be extremely hard to hit. I never even thought of making a defending shield, but now it's a no brainer with a weapon and shield fighter.
This still allows for some sickening weapon and shield fighter combos. Sheesh. A guy with a heavy defending shield and most of the shield fighting feats is going to be extremely hard to hit. I never even thought of making a defending shield, but now it's a no brainer with a weapon and shield fighter.
please read my earlyer post.
this Cost you 24k more in gold than ring of Protection+5 and amulet +5 and 3-5 feats. and you only get the bounus about 2 out of 3 rounds when you swing with both armor and shield. And you take -7 to hit.Yes is works but extremly poorly. Not effective.........
FAQ answer.Thanks Sean, for putting a little sanity in this mad world of ours.
This would have been a lot easier and cleaner if some editing was done beforehand and the magic item description was just changed to say what it meant.
It's basically a Combat Expertise enchantment, which also must be used in an attack to activate.
Can you attack the ground under your feet to activate the Defending weapon and/or Combat Expertise? :)
IMO, the old version of defender was pretty clear on intent. There was some leeway on RAW but intent was obvious.This would have been a lot easier and cleaner if some editing was done beforehand and the magic item description was just changed to say what it meant.FAQ answer.Thanks Sean, for putting a little sanity in this mad world of ours.
"Using" is in no way a clear and concise verb nor does it clearly and concisely convey the attempt that you have to actually attack with the weapon.
"Using" is in no way a clear and concise verb nor does it clearly and concisely convey the attempt that you have to actually attack with the weapon.
IMO, the old version of defender was pretty clear on intent. There was some leeway on RAW but intent was obvious.Except "using" isn't the only evidence of intent in the ability. As I said, why would the defender enhancement require you to switch out enhancement bonus to hit for a bonus to ac if this wasn't meant as a penalty to balance your increase in ac.
You guys can ignore that and focus on what the undefined term wielding means but from a mechanical view point you guys do not make much sense.
Defender is an ability that is balanced around trading enhancement bonus. By using defender without attacking, you are attempting to circumvent the penalty. The intent is clear.
No, you can't say the intent is clear by reading between the lines and making assumptions. I can read it entirely differently and make different assumptions. Or I can just read what it says. This is not a fiction writing competition; they are rules for a game.
Look:
"When making an attack with a Defending weapon, you may subtract from the attack a number up to the enhancement bonus of the weapon in order to add the number as a bonus to your AC until the start of your next turn."
Look, perfectly clear. No loopholes, no ambiguity. You get a -1 to -X penalty to attack using a +X Defending Weapon in order to gain a +X untyped bonus to your AC until your next turn. Took me 30 seconds.
Silly rabbit, RAI is all about interpretation. I never said that the raw was clear cut. In fact I said the opposite. The raw was very unclear.
When the rules are unclear in the specific mechanisms, you have to figure out what they were trying to achieve. Mechanically, it is easy to see that what I said was right. You have not replied to that. There is also many similar abilities in pathfinder that function in the same way(fighting defensively and combat expertise). The intent of these abilities is to trade hit bonus for armor class. If the intent of defender was not to trade hit bonus for armor class then you would not have to trade weapon enhancement bonus to hit for an ac bonus. This would just be an untyped ring of protection on your weapon.
Sure, with hindsight you can make certain that a single ability is clearer. They have to make rules for a whole system.
Which they can do in the process of writing the rules. Making a whole system is not an excuse to write individually bad rules. And yes, this was a 3.0/3.5 item - but look at new stuff written by Paizo. Their writing is just as poor in the same proportion.
And let's have a system example. I use Total Defense. I get bonus to defense without attacking. Ring of Force Shield. I activate the ring and get an AC bonus. Dodge - I have a feat and get an AC bonus.The intent is to make some one use a weapon to take the penalty and get the bonus. However, since these are game rules, you have to make that statement specific. Which it wasn't. RAI I could just wield a weapon to get the bonus. RAI I have to attack to get the bonus. Those are both valid interpretations so you can't rely on RAI for this item. In places where RAW isn't clear but RAI is, it's a different thing entirely. Here, nothing is clear because the language was pointlessly ambiguous.
This still allows for some sickening weapon and shield fighter combos. Sheesh. A guy with a heavy defending shield and most of the shield fighting feats is going to be extremely hard to hit. I never even thought of making a defending shield, but now it's a no brainer with a weapon and shield fighter.please read my earlyer post.
this Cost you 24k more in gold than ring of Protection+5 and amulet +5 and 3-5 feats. and you only get the bounus about 2 out of 3 rounds when you swing with both armor and shield. And you take -7 to hit.
Yes is works but extremly poorly. Not effective.........
It is an extra 5 AC on top of everything else when you attack. You're getting most of your damage from your main hand. When I say a dedicated shield specialist I mean a shield fighter with feats to really make the extra 5 AC work for you.
At high levels is when you really need that high AC. An extra five for a moderate drop in damage is a fine exchange for 24 k gold. I'd definitely buy the ring of protection and the amulet of natural armor first.
The defending shield would be something I'd pick up at the highest levels when the benefit would be additive.
Still doesn't beat the monk/duelist combo, but an extra 5 AC when you need it doesn't hurt.
Look:
"When making an attack with a Defending weapon, you may subtract from the attack a number up to the enhancement bonus of the weapon in order to add the number as a bonus to your AC until the start of your next turn."Look, perfectly clear. No loopholes, no ambiguity. You get a -1 to -X penalty to attack using a +X Defending Weapon in order to gain a +X untyped bonus to your AC until your next turn. Took me 30 seconds.
And you are wrong.
Your version allows attacks of opportunity (an attack) to set the defender bonus.
Which is NOT what happens.
Furthermore, your version allows them to reset the bonus before every and any attack.
which is NOT what happens.
Furthermore, your rule basically can be read as stacking with itself. So if I get 1 attack, I do a -5 for a +5 AC bonus until the start of my next turn.
On my 2nd attack, I choose to take another -5, for another +5 AC bonus. great, I'm at +10!
Repeat with 3rd and 4th attack, for +20 AC bonus until the beginning of my next turn.
Thanks! I LOVE Defender now!
See what 30 seconds of thinking you're great at writing rules gets you?
==Aelryinth
This still allows for some sickening weapon and shield fighter combos. Sheesh. A guy with a heavy defending shield and most of the shield fighting feats is going to be extremely hard to hit. I never even thought of making a defending shield, but now it's a no brainer with a weapon and shield fighter.please read my earlyer post.
this Cost you 24k more in gold than ring of Protection+5 and amulet +5 and 3-5 feats. and you only get the bounus about 2 out of 3 rounds when you swing with both armor and shield. And you take -7 to hit.
Yes is works but extremly poorly. Not effective.........It is an extra 5 AC on top of everything else when you attack. You're getting most of your damage from your main hand. When I say a dedicated shield specialist I mean a shield fighter with feats to really make the extra 5 AC work for you.
At high levels is when you really need that high AC. An extra five for a moderate drop in damage is a fine exchange for 24 k gold. I'd definitely buy the ring of protection and the amulet of natural armor first.
The defending shield would be something I'd pick up at the highest levels when the benefit would be additive.
Still doesn't beat the monk/duelist combo, but an extra 5 AC when you need it doesn't hurt.
I actually did a cost/benefit analysis of AC and when you should pick up certain bonuses. Because Defender is a 'notch' higher then Deflection in cost, the cost of Defender +3 is the same as a Ring of Protection +4. Nat AC is 1/2 the price, but it doesn't apply against touch AC. Defender and deflection bonus do.
So basically, you buy Nat AC, Deflect, Nat AC, Deflect, Nat AC, Deflect, Defender, Nat AC, Deflect, Defender, nat AC, deflect, Defender, deflect, Defender. (defender starting at +1 Defender sword, and upping the enhancement). It costs the same to go from Defender +3 to Defender +4 as it does for Prot+4 to Prot+5.
A standard Uber Shield for your sword and board builds is a Heavy Shield +5 of bashing, with +5 Defender spikes. You need Shield Spec, Improved Shield Bash, and Shield Mastery, and Shield ward if your Dm lets you take it.
The AC is +8 Shield, +5 Defending if you attack with it, and because of Shield Mastery, it's still a +7 Weapon on the attack.
===Aelryinth
Look:
"When making an attack with a Defending weapon, you may subtract from the attack a number up to the enhancement bonus of the weapon in order to add the number as a bonus to your AC until the start of your next turn."Look, perfectly clear. No loopholes, no ambiguity. You get a -1 to -X penalty to attack using a +X Defending Weapon in order to gain a +X untyped bonus to your AC until your next turn. Took me 30 seconds.
And you are wrong.
Your version allows attacks of opportunity (an attack) to set the defender bonus.
Which is NOT what happens.
Furthermore, your version allows them to reset the bonus before every and any attack.
which is NOT what happens.
Furthermore, your rule basically can be read as stacking with itself. So if I get 1 attack, I do a -5 for a +5 AC bonus until the start of my next turn.
On my 2nd attack, I choose to take another -5, for another +5 AC bonus. great, I'm at +10!
Repeat with 3rd and 4th attack, for +20 AC bonus until the beginning of my next turn.Thanks! I LOVE Defender now!
See what 30 seconds of thinking you're great at writing rules gets you?
==Aelryinth
That's what editing is for. So I add what? As a free action before making an attack? That limits it to once a turn and onto your turn and still defines what you are doing.
I don't know why Cartigan insists on making pointless posts. I already told him how it worked, and then on top of that we got a FAQ that said the same thing. Why are you still pretending that you have made an argument?
It's still poorly written.
That's what editing is for. So I add what? As a free action before making an attack? That limits it to once a turn and onto your turn and still defines what you are doing.
A free action before an attack can still be toggled many times before each attack (assuming you have more than 1). You can take many free actions during your turn.
That's what editing is for. So I add what? As a free action before making an attack? That limits it to once a turn and onto your turn and still defines what you are doing.A free action before an attack can still be toggled many times before each attack (assuming you have more than 1). You can take many free actions during your turn.
Are you not limited to 1 free action a turn or is that the sub-free actions swift and immediate?
You are thinking about swift actions.. I'm not sure how many immediate actions you can have, but those occur outside your turn.
|
For the record, you can take as many free actions as you want each round. You can take one swift action each round. Immediate actions are swift actions, except you can take them when it's not your turn. If you take an immediate action, you lose your swift action on the next around.
Personally, if I were writing the description of the ability, I'd say, "As a swift action, you can choose to subtract a number from its enhancement bonus and add that number as a circumstance bonus to your Armor Class until the beginning of your next turn. This effect ends immediately if you are no longer threaten with that weapon."
That would mean:
1) You can still use it if you're not attacking, which means you can use it if you are planning on taking AoO's or total defense.
2) It still has a cost (a swift action), so it's not a "free" AC bonus.
3) As a circumstance bonus, it will almost certainly stack with whatever other armor you have (what else gives a circumstance bonus to AC?), but there's no ambiguity about it stacking with itself or other defending weapons.
4) You have to be capable of using the weapon, so no sheathing or dropping it in favor of something else.
5) As an added bonus, stunning or disarming you causes the effect to end.
I realize that's getting pretty far away from the original writing, but that's how I would envision it working.
Thinking about it, all you have to do to fix mine is define the bonus type. "Competence" should work. Why do I care if you take the penalty on your turn before an attack or on another turn with a readied action or AoO? Long as you only get it once.
For the record, you can take as many free actions as you want each round. You can take one swift action each round. Immediate actions are swift actions, except you can take them when it's not your turn. If you take an immediate action, you lose your swift action on the next around.
As a minor caveat, you can take as many free actions as the DM will allow. There comes a point when you can't reasonably fit any more free actions into the time available in a round.
Ring of Protection + 1 2K
Ring of Protection +2 upgrades by 6 K total 8K
Ring of Protection +3 upgrades by 10 K total 18K
Ring of Protection +4 upgrades by 18 K total 32K
Ring of Protection +5 upgrades by 18K total 50K
Amulet of Natural Armor + 1 2K
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 upgrades by 6 K total 8K
Amulet of Natural Armor +3 upgrades by 10 K total 18K
Amulet of Natural Armor +4 upgrades by 18 K total 32K
Amulet of Natural Armor +5 upgrades by 18K total 50K
Spike +1 2K no AC help
Spike +1 Defending upgrades 6K total 8K +1 AC when you swing
Spike +2 Defending upgrades 12K total 18K +2 AC when you swing
Spike +3 Defending upgrades 18K total 32K +3 AC when you swing
Spike +4 Defending upgrades 18K total 50K +4 AC when you swing
Spike +5 Defending upgrades 26K total 72K +5 AC when you swing
Armor +5 with Heavy Fortification with Spikes +5 Defending Pitfall 198 K
Shield +5 with Spell Turning with Spikes +5 Defending 172 K
-2 to hit if you have 2 weapon fighting -5 moved to hit to defending. So still -7
Need Armor Prophecy, Martial Weapon Prophecy, Two Weapons Fighting, and Improved Shield Bash. DEX 15
DEX +2 Item 4K total
DEX +4 Item upgrades 12K total 16K
DEX +6 Item upgrades 16k total 32K
Dusty rose Prism +1 insight bonus to AC
5,000 gp
• And maybe an other 1K, 5K or 10K for the Armor to be Mithral so can jet Full DEX
MANUAL OF QUICKNESS OF ACTION
Aura strong evocation (if miracle is used); CL 17th
Slot —; Price 27,500 gp (+1), 55,000 gp (+2), 82,500 gp (+3), 110,000 gp (+4), 137,500 gp (+5);
Total Money spent approximately 644.5K of 685K for level 19 AWBL
Lastly with Average Wealth by Level table you should be able not till start level 14 and be able to finish it till level 19. At which point you will have spent 94.% of your wealth on nothing but AC….. And some time along path with you supper high AC your GM will stop attacking you (cause they can not hit you but on a natural 20) and will only attack the other PC that are not Defender types. Witch means all of your gold/ feat investment is wasted. Side effect is that the other PC that are not Defender types will swung at more often and hit more often there fore die more often. Which mean greater amount gold spent on Raise Dead spell? Which put the party behind gold curve and weakens the party as whole…..? Is this your goal?
The high-end Defender type should be roughly no higher than middle AC than the low AC (Wizard) are behind it. Balanced…If not some one fall off which means some dies in game terms. Balanced PC, Balanced Party, means Greater fun for all at the table. Not just one person weekend week out. If it one shot game where you never see these folk again go for it. Cause in this game there is no way to make monster/ bad guy attack you an only you…. Other than them getting caught in confusion spell and you attack them.... Thoughts......not right now...
Also fight will take longer because you not hitting as often as you should. Due to -7 to hit.( I did not factor in Power Attack, Lunge, and or Combat Expertise)
In home game this would never happen cause get every thing on that just right is not going to happen. As crafter I would not make it for you. Money could be spent better for the group as a whole. In organized game play like LG, LC or Pathfinder Society ect…. Word will get out folk will not play you cause that do not have fun or they die. Cause GM swing at them not you since they can’t hit you.
wow that is a load of misleading information.
+5 armor= 25k
+5 shield= 25k
+5 defending weapon= 72k
+5 amulet of na = 50k
+5 ring of prot= 50k
+6 dex belt=36k
total spent on ac= 258kWays to reduce this total:
+1 defending weapon w/ gmw(daily with lvl 3 pearl of power)cast on it= 17k instead of 72k.barkskin cast on you daily(with pearl of power lvl 2)= 4k instead of 50k
total spent now is 157k spent on ac at lvl 20.
Perfectly affordable.
You won't always have time to get those buffs up though.
How was it misleading?
He had special properties on the spikes such as fortification. If you just want the AC then your list is correct, but for his list I don't think his math was too far off.
I did not see the double defending spikes.
418.5K I missed add smome thing twice My Fault if you knock of Fort, Spellturning, pitfall. And that fast level to have that combo is level 18.
The whole point was to build super defender 2 weapon so you lost 5 AC and the tome AC for DEX . and Ioun stone....and the + 5 Heavy Fortification + 5 Spell Turning making the armor and shield each +10 total 100k each. and I though the +5 to Imitative and +5 vs trap AC was worth the extra 26K.
Yes could do that but did factor in Now need Druid with 7 Pearls 2 4K and 3 rod of extend 11K to get that all time so that 28K +33K that 61 K + Druid Caster level 20 to get it all the time. 11K more and you need Druid level 20 (which I can not buy... But I like to lol)
Wizard level 20 in pocket to do it Greater magic weapon...I have one those laying arounder here to.
He's also not figuring in Shield Mastery.
Shield Mastery removes all penalties to attack from the Shield. Technically speaking, you don't even need TWF.
It also provides a 'free' enhancement bonus based on the SHIELD LEVEL of the shield, not the weapon enhancement bonus.
So, a H. Shield +5 with Shield Mastery is a +7 weapon, all by itself. If you have it enchanted as a +5 Defender Weapon, that's totally seperate.
So, you could take the Defender +5 all the way to +0, +5 AC, and then simply use the Shield level enhancement bonus to attack at +7, no penalty.
A H Shield +5 of Bashing with +5 Defender Shield Spikes is 98 k, about the same price as a +7 Weapon. Two +7 weapons are the same price as a +10 Weapon.
So, if you can find +3 of weapon enhancements that can give you +13 to AC and an extra shield bash in the off hand, you've got a fair price comparison.
A +4 Nat Ac Amulet, a +4 Ring of Prot, and a +3 Defender sword combine for +11 AC and 96k gp, more AC then +5 Nat AC and Prot, and cheaper. Actually, you could throw on that +1 Insight item, and be almost at par.
Marginal benefits are always goodness. A weapon, 2 more AC, and +4 Touch AC, for the same money. Niceness.
==Aelryinth
For the record, you can take as many free actions as you want each round. You can take one swift action each round. Immediate actions are swift actions, except you can take them when it's not your turn. If you take an immediate action, you lose your swift action on the next around.
Personally, if I were writing the description of the ability, I'd say, "As a swift action, you can choose to subtract a number from its enhancement bonus and add that number as a circumstance bonus to your Armor Class until the beginning of your next turn. This effect ends immediately if you are no longer threaten with that weapon."
That would mean:
1) You can still use it if you're not attacking, which means you can use it if you are planning on taking AoO's or total defense.
2) It still has a cost (a swift action), so it's not a "free" AC bonus.
3) As a circumstance bonus, it will almost certainly stack with whatever other armor you have (what else gives a circumstance bonus to AC?), but there's no ambiguity about it stacking with itself or other defending weapons.
4) You have to be capable of using the weapon, so no sheathing or dropping it in favor of something else.
5) As an added bonus, stunning or disarming you causes the effect to end.I realize that's getting pretty far away from the original writing, but that's how I would envision it working.
Circumstance bonuses stack.
Your AC bonus is ineffective against ranged attacks, unless you are threatening something.
Not so easy, is it?
=========
Cartigan's isn't fixed, either. Because he can still set the bonus to whatever he wants to before any attack. So, if he has an iterative that's going to miss, fix THAT one at -5, and all the others at +0. If he gets AoO, set those at +0...he still gets his +5 from the previous attack.
In other words, after editing, he still got it wrong. It's a good thing you didn't print it out, eh?
Moral of the Story: writing clear, concise rules is nowhere near as easy as it seems.
==+Aelryinth
|
|
Circumstance bonuses stack.
Your AC bonus is ineffective against ranged attacks, unless you are threatening something.
Technically, "Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source." Although I suppose you could then argue what "essentially" means. I was mostly just picking an arbitrary type so that the "Defending" property wouldn't stack with itself, but Insight or Luck would be fine, too.
Also, "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." You don't have to have anybody standing next to you in order to threaten.
I think you are confused alil about shield mastery. you do not add your shield bonus as an enhancement bonus to attack. you add your shield's enhancement bonus to ac as an enhancement bonus to attack and damage.
So, a H. Shield +5 with Shield Mastery is a +7 weapon, all by itself.==Aelryinth
uh, what? No, it's shield bonus, including enhancement. A heavy shield is +2 all by itself.
Unless they errata'd it. I know the bonus from Shield Spec is not included.
Either way, you still basically get a full bonus weapon at the same time you get a full Defender effect.
===Aelryinth
Circumstance bonuses stack.
Not with those granted by the same source.
Cartigan's isn't fixed, either. Because he can still set the bonus to whatever he wants to before any attack.
So?
So, if he has an iterative that's going to miss, fix THAT one at -5, and all the others at +0. If he gets AoO, set those at +0...he still gets his +5 from the previous attack.
What?
Tom your -7 for the shield attacks is right but for all attacks is wrong.
Your primary weapon in your main hand would not suffer from the transfer of the enhancement bonus on the shield spike to ac.So if you are getting the crap beat out of you by someone who is consistently just beating your ac without the transfer of the bonus then do the transfer on later rounds. You gain the untyped defender bonus to your ac, lose some efficiency when attacking with your shield, but your main hand swings are unaffected and remain at the -2(twf + light off hand).
-7 total to all attacks -2 for two weapon fighting -5 defending shield spike and -5 for defending armor spikes
Circumstance bonuses stack.Not with those granted by the same source.
Cartigan's isn't fixed, either. Because he can still set the bonus to whatever he wants to before any attack.So?
So, if he has an iterative that's going to miss, fix THAT one at -5, and all the others at +0. If he gets AoO, set those at +0...he still gets his +5 from the previous attack.What?
Example: Three attacks at +20/+15/+10.
I set my bonus at 0 for the first two attacks, getting two attacks at full.
The +10 attack has a 25% chance of hitting, so I take a -5 to it and gain +5 AC until the end of my turn.
On his turn, I get an AoO. I set the chance back to full to get full attack bonus, but happily I still get +5 AC until the beginning of my turn.
---
i.e. your rule is NOT clear. even devolving it to a swift action means you only penalize the attack LEAST likely to hit, to gain the full benefit of the AC bonus, because you can determine it per attack.
==Aelryinth
Circumstance bonuses stack.Not with those granted by the same source.
Cartigan's isn't fixed, either. Because he can still set the bonus to whatever he wants to before any attack.So?
So, if he has an iterative that's going to miss, fix THAT one at -5, and all the others at +0. If he gets AoO, set those at +0...he still gets his +5 from the previous attack.What?Example: Three attacks at +20/+15/+10.
I set my bonus at 0 for the first two attacks, getting two attacks at full.
The +10 attack has a 25% chance of hitting, so I take a -5 to it and gain +5 AC until the end of my turn.
On his turn, I get an AoO. I set the chance back to full to get full attack bonus, but happily I still get +5 AC until the beginning of my turn.
---
i.e. your rule is NOT clear. even devolving it to a swift action means you only penalize the attack LEAST likely to hit, to gain the full benefit of the AC bonus, because you can determine it per attack.==Aelryinth
No, it's perfectly clear. It's just less stringent when used like that.
-7 total to all attacks -2 for two weapon fighting -5 defending shield spike and -5 for defending armor spikesTom your -7 for the shield attacks is right but for all attacks is wrong.
Your primary weapon in your main hand would not suffer from the transfer of the enhancement bonus on the shield spike to ac.So if you are getting the crap beat out of you by someone who is consistently just beating your ac without the transfer of the bonus then do the transfer on later rounds. You gain the untyped defender bonus to your ac, lose some efficiency when attacking with your shield, but your main hand swings are unaffected and remain at the -2(twf + light off hand).
No.
You only get the penalty if you attack with the defender effect as a weapon.
Thus, the 'armor spikes' only give a penalty if you attack with them, but you get the full benefit of the spikes. So, by this definition, attack once with shield, once with spikes, +10 AC.
Nah.
And you're ignoring Shield Mastery. No penalty for Shield Bashing, so no -2 to Shield. Shield Mastery gives a +7 Enhancement bonus derived from the Shield as armor, not weapon. So you use that bonus to attack with, and put the defender bonus based off the weapon enhancement on full defense.
Net is +7 for the shield, with no TWF penalty for it, and a +13 AC benefit (Shield+5, Shield Spec, Defender +5).
===Aelryinth
No, it's perfectly clear. It's just less stringent when used like that.
You really mean, more abusable, right? Because by this, you're basically just gifting out Defender AC.
I'll just slap +5 Defender on something, flail in the general direction of the enemy, and get +5 AC with an attack that will not hit anyways...but any attack that does have a chance to hit won't be penalized?
It's basically giving up an attack for Defender AC at best. If that's what you meant it to do, then you're golden...but then, that's not what your rule said, and doesn't seem to be your intention.
Edit: And if circumstances arise from each seperate attack, that will promptly be argued as from a different event, so they'd stack.
===Aelryinth
No, it's perfectly clear. It's just less stringent when used like that.You really mean, more abusable, right? Because by this, you're basically just gifting out Defender AC.
Abusable in that you can take a -5 penalty to one attack to gain a +5 bonus to AC once a round? If you say so. If you want a character so armored that they can never be touched, play a caster, not a mundane Fighter missing one of his attacks so the +35 to hit monster might miss him on a single one of his next attacks that do 2d10+25 damage.
No.
Abusable in that you're getting +5 stacking, touch AC for basically free (or, the cost of a +1 Enhancement), and which will be abused thereby.
I.e. "I'm going to spend an attack that wouldn't hit anyways so I get +5 AC. No penalty to all my other attacks for my defending, however!"
==+Aelryinth
No.
Abusable in that you're getting +5 stacking, touch AC for basically free (or, the cost of a +1 Enhancement), and which will be abused thereby.
I.e. "I'm going to spend an attack that wouldn't hit anyways so I get +5 AC. No penalty to all my other attacks for my defending, however!"
==+Aelryinth
Wrong. Competence bonuses don't stack with those from the same source.
And if you believe an extra +5 bonus isn't going to help you hit anyone, why do you need a +5 to AC?
-7 total to all attacks -2 for two weapon fighting -5 defending shield spike and -5 for defending armor spikesTom your -7 for the shield attacks is right but for all attacks is wrong.
Your primary weapon in your main hand would not suffer from the transfer of the enhancement bonus on the shield spike to ac.So if you are getting the crap beat out of you by someone who is consistently just beating your ac without the transfer of the bonus then do the transfer on later rounds. You gain the untyped defender bonus to your ac, lose some efficiency when attacking with your shield, but your main hand swings are unaffected and remain at the -2(twf + light off hand).
No.
You only get the penalty if you attack with the defender effect as a weapon.
Thus, the 'armor spikes' only give a penalty if you attack with them, but you get the full benefit of the spikes. So, by this definition, attack once with shield, once with spikes, +10 AC.
Nah.
And you're ignoring Shield Mastery. No penalty for Shield Bashing, so no -2 to Shield. Shield Mastery gives a +7 Enhancement bonus derived from the Shield as armor, not weapon. So you use that bonus to attack with, and put the defender bonus based off the weapon enhancement on full defense.
Net is +7 for the shield, with no TWF penalty for it, and a +13 AC benefit (Shield+5, Shield Spec, Defender +5).
===Aelryinth
Yes cause that make me have to spend 2 more feat to get that combo.
but that way would have save me alot of money cause. I would only have spend 8k on the spike to make +1 Defending. but if more all shield +5 to spike +5 then +10 AC defineding from the shield.I also think -2 for attacking with the shield twon weapon but not -5 or -10 Defending I do not think that was the intent of the feat.
K guy with Armor spikes and Shield Spike with Armor Pro. & Shield Pro. Improved Shield Bash, and Two Weapon Fighitng DEX 15. That is cause that all I have talked about. Armor +5 with Defending +5 Spikes and Shield +5 with +5 Defending Spikes. Make full Attack with both armor spikes and shield spike. Use all defending abilty on both armor and shield. -2 for weapon fighting -5 defending for shield spike(swing A)
-2 for two weapon fighting -5 defending for armor spike(swing B). -7 to both swings.
No.
Abusable in that you're getting +5 stacking, touch AC for basically free (or, the cost of a +1 Enhancement), and which will be abused thereby.
I.e. "I'm going to spend an attack that wouldn't hit anyways so I get +5 AC. No penalty to all my other attacks for my defending, however!"
==+Aelryinth
Wrong. Competence bonuses don't stack with those from the same source.
And if you believe an extra +5 bonus isn't going to help you hit anyone, why do you need a +5 to AC?
Straw Man. COmpetence bonuses are a very rare form of AC you are highly unlikely to have from any other source. If this was a Deflection Bonus, it would be non-stacking. With Competence, it stacks with everything...including rare but more common luck, insight, sacred, and morale bonuses.
As for your second question, why don't you give all your characters +5 to AC for nothing and come back to me with the answer?
==Aelryinth
Ah, they did correct it. I stand corrected.
==Aelryinth
Straw Man. COmpetence bonuses are a very rare form of AC you are highly unlikely to have from any other source.
Which contradicts the fact it doesn't stack with competence bonuses from the same source... how?
Yes cause that make me have to spend 2 more feat to get that combo.
but that way would have save me alot of money cause. I would only have spend 8k on the spike to make +1 Defending. but if more all shield +5 to spike +5 then +10 AC defineding from the shield.I also think -2 for attacking with the shield twon weapon but not -5 or -10 Defending I do not think that was the intent of the feat.
K guy with Armor spikes and Shield Spike with Armor Pro. & Shield Pro. Improved Shield Bash, and Two Weapon Fighitng DEX 15. That is cause that all I have...
by the time you can afford a +6 weapon and +6 armor, you're going to be high enough level to afford Shield Mastery. Since the benefits are incredible, you WILL take it.
So, you basically are going at +5/-7, not -7/-7. I think you can agree +12 to hit and keeping your +8 Shield AC on a bash is worth two feats for a TWF guy, right?
==Aelryinth