so, if you have arrow deflection, you could use Defender for an AC bonus against missile weapons without fighting? :)
==Aelryinth
I am aware of that. I am going off Neon's 'use weapon' language.
Keep in mind that this is still abusable, although pricey to do so. Basically the whole situation is coming up because the NPC in question is taking a -1 to hit for +12 to AC using Defender weapons.
you could do the same with, say, Barbazu Beards, bladed boots/spiked gauntlets, and a bite attack.
Remember, you don't really care if your Defender attacks hit. So sacrifice your worst iterative and any non-contributory extra attacks...it's not like you have to HIT with them.
So you could get +5 from an Amuelet of Mighty Fists (Defender +5), +5 From a Defender Barbazu Beard, and +5 from sacrificing your last iterative with Boots or Gauntlets. You sacrifice three attacks that weren't going to hit or do much damage for +15 AC.
Sure, you have to full attack, but it's not like it's costing you anything to waste empty attacks for amonster AC bonus.
==Aelryinth
|
It also incurs the curse of having a high AC without the damage potential to back it up.
I have a 9th level Armor Master that's rocking a 34 AC (with DR 6/- on top of that), but his damage potential is like 2d6+5, and his to-hit sucks. Once enemies realize I'm not a threat, and they can't hit me anyways, they just turn their attention to my other party members.
Whoa, whoaaaa. 3 +5 Defender weapons is an out until you're 16+, I'm pretty sure. And +15 to AC at that level is SIGNIFICANT. because it comes on top of everything else.
Let's say our dear Marilith with 6 +1 Defender Weapons happens to have Greater Magic Weapon as an intrinsic, at CL 20.
Now all her weapons are +5.
For each -1 on her sword attacks, her AC goes up by 5. She can burn them all back down to +1 for +24 to her AC, rendering her pretty much unhittable at a 56 ac.
Yes, it's an example, but an example of abuse. Such a marilith would have all the offense of a standard one, but be nigh unhittable unless a party is extremely buffed out.
A PC would do the same thing, except he'd sacrifice his 4th iterative to a boot, and a bite and beard that he doesn't care if they hit, anyways, for a net +15 to AC that doesn't really hurt his offense at all (at least, if he can afford the weapons and/or a high level caster to enhance them)
------------
I personally think that you should only get the bonus from ONE Defender, but it should work anytime you take the attack action or READY to take the attack action...so that it works against missile or ranged attacks even if you aren't in melee. As long as you didn't spell cast, you should be able to use Defender.
But not multiple Defenders. I believe the above version is the most balanced and playable.
==Aelryinth
Let's say our dear Marilith with 6 +1 Defender Weapons happens to have Greater Magic Weapon as an intrinsic, at CL 20.
Now all her weapons are +5.
For each -1 on her sword attacks, her AC goes up by 5. She can burn them all back down to +1 for +24 to her AC, rendering her pretty much unhittable at a 56 ac.
Unhittable by the Fighter doesn't mean unhittable. Mage's disjunction bypasses her SR and brings all her weapons back to +1 and her touch AC back to 17; clashing rocks trhe following round smacks her for 20d6, knocks her prone and may bury her under rubble.
It's an extreme example, but so is a marilith with six defender weapons and CL 20. How does she get GWM at CL 20? (Pardon my ignorance regarding "as an intrinsic.")
Mariliths had Greater Weapon as an SLA at one point. And to be CL 20 she'd have to be some form of advanced Marilith.
Basically, I'm just pointing out that the effect is more abusable the more limbs you have, for the exact same penalty your AC increases.
Defender shouldn't stack with itself, but the AC should be able to apply without having to be in melee.
==Aelryinth
Getting Defender from two weapons would be no different from getting the same spell cast on you by two different casters and having the benefits stack. The Source is still Defending, regardless of which Defender effect it comes from, and sources don't normally stack with themselves.
It's just a shift of precedent, and I'd like to see an official ruling that it works, and not a potential editing error.
==Aelryinth
If the spell said it stacks with all others
Imagine you have two weapons magically trying to protect you. If they were to both magically move into the way of an attack, would that not have a greater chance of blocking it? ANd would that not be the case because they are not the same source?
Why bother saying all others? It could have been worded much more simply one way or the other, but all is all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because 'all others' does not include 'itself' in ANY other interpretation of the rule. And the bonus from two instances of the same source is always interpreted as being with itself, and so not stacking.
Defender is same source, ergo, it shouldn't stack.
==Aelryinth
because 'all others' does not include 'itself' in ANY other interpretation of the rule. And the bonus from two instances of the same source is always interpreted as being with itself, and so not stacking.
Defender is same source, ergo, it shouldn't stack.==Aelryinth
Do we have another ability that says stacks with all others and is known not to stack with itself? And it sounds kind of like you're begging the question. You're calling all defending weapons the same source and saying the same source doesn't stack because it says others, but you haven't yet shown that different defending weapons are one source.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
oi. But two abilities from two classes that say you get Wis to AC would not stack, despite being abilities from two classes. The source is the Wis, and despite being 'different', they are in fact the same thing. This is past precedent.
'Defender' is the source of the AC. It doesn't matter if it's on different swords, the 'Defender' is the source of the AC in this case. Identical sources don't stack, precedent. It's not an 'other' bonus, it's the 'same' bonus.
All I want is clarification. The very fact we are arguing about it is reason enough to request clarification.
Hit the FAQ button, people!
==Aelyrinth
oi. But two abilities from two classes that say you get Wis to AC would not stack, despite being abilities from two classes. The source is the Wis, and despite being 'different', they are in fact the same thing. This is past precedent.
'Defender' is the source of the AC. It doesn't matter if it's on different swords, the 'Defender' is the source of the AC in this case. Identical sources don't stack, precedent. It's not an 'other' bonus, it's the 'same' bonus.
All I want is clarification. The very fact we are arguing about it is reason enough to request clarification.
Hit the FAQ button, people!
==Aelyrinth
You just made the same claim over again.
Slightly OT: I like how a lot of people on the boards will tell me that because they saw X in a stat block that must be how the rule works, but here we're only questioning a rule because it was in a stat block. That's funny to me.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Aye, I keep making the claim, because people keep disputing the claim. I'm not sure if they are willfully blind or just not reading prior posts. So, I patiently repost the same argument that has precedent.
The reason this is coming up is very simple. Defender stacking has NEVER, to my knowledge, ever come up in a single official statblock in 3e, 3.5, or PF before. It was considered highest cheese to stack Defender in 3E and 3.5, and it was assumed NOT to stack, because, well, it would simply be too cheesy.
And yet now we're being told it's official, and can really be abused by multi-limbed attackers with weapons, which basically begs every TWF to throw on useless weapons for free stacking AC bonuses.
I'm sure the maker of the stat block thought it was a cool trick, without going through the implication of what it actually means for balance.
Ergo, I want clarification. Was it an editing error, was it a special ability of that monster, or is it official, and all Defender bonuses stack?
that's it. I just want it official.
hit the FAQ button, people! They put it in print, now let's be certain that's how it is supposed to be! They've made errors before, I just want it to be verified!
===Aelryinth
Aye, I keep making the claim, because people keep disputing the claim. I'm not sure if they are willfully blind or just not reading prior posts. So, I patiently repost the same argument that has precedent.
The reason this is coming up is very simple. Defender stacking has NEVER, to my knowledge, ever come up in a single official statblock in 3e, 3.5, or PF before. It was considered highest cheese to stack Defender in 3E and 3.5, and it was assumed NOT to stack, because, well, it would simply be too cheesy.
And yet now we're being told it's official, and can really be abused by multi-limbed attackers with weapons, which basically begs every TWF to throw on useless weapons for free stacking AC bonuses.
I'm sure the maker of the stat block thought it was a cool trick, without going through the implication of what it actually means for balance.
Ergo, I want clarification. Was it an editing error, was it a special ability of that monster, or is it official, and all Defender bonuses stack?
that's it. I just want it official.
hit the FAQ button, people! They put it in print, now let's be certain that's how it is supposed to be! They've made errors before, I just want it to be verified!
===Aelryinth
Why would someone use a useless weapon if they're a two weapon fighter? Wouldn't it be simpler to just enchant a shield and bash with it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the only one currently 'posting' who is making the claim, but if you go through the whole thread there's obviously been others doing the same.
And again, the precedent is this has never been done in print before. In nigh 20 years of 3E material, stacking defender has never been done in an official book.
So, don't try to dismiss me because I'm the only one ACTIVE about it. Hit the FAQ button, let's get an official answer, and be done with it.
==Aelryinth
ry simple. Defender stacking has NEVER, to my knowledge, ever come up in a single official statblock in 3e, 3.5, or PF before. It was considered highest cheese to stack Defender in 3E and 3.5, and it was assumed NOT to stack, because, well, it would simply be too cheesy.
===Aelryinth
All I could find were more discussions almost exactly like this one, regardless of edition.
Yep. So, official judgment needed!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oi. But two abilities from two classes that say you get Wis to AC would not stack, despite being abilities from two classes. The source is the Wis, and despite being 'different', they are in fact the same thing. This is past precedent.
'Defender' is the source of the AC. It doesn't matter if it's on different swords, the 'Defender' is the source of the AC in this case. Identical sources don't stack, precedent. It's not an 'other' bonus, it's the 'same' bonus.
All I want is clarification. The very fact we are arguing about it is reason enough to request clarification.
Hit the FAQ button, people!
==Aelyrinth
Actually, the presumption that the source is WIS is not clear. Outside of JJ, the design team has yet to chime in on a number of matters where, say, a feat and a class ability both allow you to add INT to a a damage roll.
In fact, I have an outstanding FAQ request that I linked earlier in the thread that has 60+ clicks on it already because 'source' is an important but undefined term.
[edit]
So I linked it again. Sue me.