I have some questions about blocking weapons:
The blocking description says you gain the shield bonus while fighting defensively. Any reason why you shouldn't also gain the shield bonus while taking full defense?
If fighting defensively and making multiple attacks, does each attack have to be made with the blocking weapon in order to gain the shield bonus (ex. can a monk mix in some unarmed strikes)?
I have some questions about blocking weapons:
The blocking description says you gain the shield bonus while fighting defensively. Any reason why you shouldn't also gain the shield bonus while taking full defense?
If fighting defensively and making multiple attacks, does each attack have to be made with the blocking weapon in order to gain the shield bonus (ex. can a monk mix in some unarmed strikes)?
Personally I would give the bonus there as well, but I have no rule references to back that up.
On your second point, I would say no. The "penalty" only applies to that weapon, not all attacks (like Combat Expertise). Since someone with Two-weapon fighting could attack with both weapons and still gain the bonus, there is no reason to assume that someone, like a monk, could punch someone a couple time, then swing the weapon...again though, nothing really to back that up.
I would be careful though. That last part could lead to a lot of abuse.
Imagine a Monk with 4 attacks. He attacks with the first 3 at his best bonus (with Flurry, of course) and then with his last attack, that sucks anyway, takes a penalty and misses (but still gets the bonus AC).
You could house rule it that the first attack MUST be made with the weapon...
I have some questions about blocking weapons:
The blocking description says you gain the shield bonus while fighting defensively. Any reason why you shouldn't also gain the shield bonus while taking full defense?
If fighting defensively and making multiple attacks, does each attack have to be made with the blocking weapon in order to gain the shield bonus (ex. can a monk mix in some unarmed strikes)?
Personally I would give the bonus there as well, but I have no rule references to back that up.
On your second point, I would say no. The "penalty" only applies to that weapon, not all attacks (like Combat Expertise). Since someone with Two-weapon fighting could attack with both weapons and still gain the bonus, there is no reason to assume that someone, like a monk, could punch someone a couple time, then swing the weapon...again though, nothing really to back that up.
I would be careful though. That last part could lead to a lot of abuse.
Imagine a Monk with 4 attacks. He attacks with the first 3 at his best bonus (with Flurry, of course) and then with his last attack, that sucks anyway, takes a penalty and misses (but still gets the bonus AC).You could house rule it that the first attack MUST be made with the weapon...
I think that house rule would make for a good compromise. Cheers.
I assume you mean the special quality "blocking" found on page 130 of "Ultimate Combat", since I found no reference in the PRD when searching for "blocking".
I would have it work like the "defending" property in the core book, in that at least one attack has to be made with the blocking weapon, but it doesn't matter wich one. It's only a +1 shield bonus, after all.
I don't see any problem with gaining the shield bonus when taking the total defense full round action, but there's no RAW support for that position.
I don't see any problem with gaining the shield bonus when taking the total defense full round action, but there's no RAW support for that position.
And that's what first got me thinking about this. So far no one I've talked to can account for why this bonus does not also extend to full defense. Unfortunately, my GM is going pure RAW so I'll have to wait to see if this gets an errata down the line.
And that's what first got me thinking about this. So far no one I've talked to can account for why this bonus does not also extend to full defense. Unfortunately, my GM is going pure RAW so I'll have to wait to see if this gets an errata down the line.
I don't see any problem with gaining the shield bonus when taking the total defense full round action, but there's no RAW support for that position.
This is just my view on the matter... If you're fighting defensively with a blocking weapon, then it makes sense that you get the +1 shield bonus because you are using that weapon. If you are using the total defense action, you aren't fighting and therefore don't get the +1 shield bonus for using the weapon (since you aren't using it). It's not a shield, it's just a blocking weapon that gives you a shield bonus when you are fighting with it.
This is just my view on the matter... If you're fighting defensively with a blocking weapon, then it makes sense that you get the +1 shield bonus because you are using that weapon. If you are using the total defense action, you aren't fighting and therefore don't get the +1 shield bonus for using the weapon (since you aren't using it). It's not a shield, it's just a blocking weapon that gives you a shield bonus when you are fighting with it.And that's what first got me thinking about this. So far no one I've talked to can account for why this bonus does not also extend to full defense. Unfortunately, my GM is going pure RAW so I'll have to wait to see if this gets an errata down the line.
I don't see any problem with gaining the shield bonus when taking the total defense full round action, but there's no RAW support for that position.
I can see that, but if you're devoting all of your attention to defense shouldn't you get a bonus from a weapon that is particularly good at defending?
You should get the bonus for just having the weapon in your hand even while doing "total defense". Any DM that doesn't allow that is rude, for lack of a better word. -_-