I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?
For example, if you're a paladin with a +5 defending longsword and he's up against some archers up a cliff or on a balcony then there's no way you can get the benefit from your defending property. It requires an attack roll, despite saying it's a free action at the start of your turn. Unless you can convince your GM that rolling an attack against yourself, and hopefully missing, is legit to get the bonus to your AC. But I doubt that'd fly. Plus, that'd hinder your ability to get to the target. And that doesn't seem like the intent of this ability. It should help you, not hinder you, right?
On a very similar note, does the same FAQ apply to the allying property?
Try using the defending weapon with melee targets. Since it's supposed to be used on melee weapons.
For ranged enemies, until you get to melee with them you're not attacking them anyways, use total defense or cover until then.
Defending isn't useless if you stop trying to use it incorrectly.
|
Paizo's ruling makes the defending property useless outside melee. Yes, it's a nerf but it's a reasonable one. I'd rather not go back to the days of everyone wearing +5 defending armor spikes.
Though at very high levels it's still viable - using your last iterative (which has a good chance of missing anyway) on the spikes to get the +5 AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is reasonable to house-rule that you can spend a standard action to activate the property without actually making an attack.
The reason for the FAQ is to stop exploits like just holding a defending dagger to get an AC bonus while casting spells or something. If you use at least a standard action to activate without an attack, it still prevents that sort of thing, but does allow a bit more versatility in the use of the weapon property.
It is reasonable to house-rule that you can spend a standard action to activate the property without actually making an attack.
The reason for the FAQ is to stop exploits like just holding a defending dagger to get an AC bonus while casting spells or something. If you use at least a standard action to activate without an attack, it still prevents that sort of thing, but does allow a bit more versatility in the use of the weapon property.
I can certainly agree with this. It does seem to go against the whole "free action" statement in the ability description though.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?
As Protoman said, the point is to exchange your bonus to hit for a bonus to AC. If you aren't losing a bonus to hit, you can't gain a bonus to AC. The design team has clarified their intent.
You would be using your action to attack the ground. Totally fair tradeoff.
I see the intent, lose the bonus to gain the AC. It just doesn't make sense to me to be useless against archers. But if the GM would let you use a standard action to activate it then it'd be about the same as attacking the ground. The only difference is if you're attacking the ground then you could do it in a charge then.
Does the same "must make attack roll" apply to the allying special ability?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQs only apply to what they are talking about. Nothing else.
FAQs only apply to what they are talking about. Nothing else.
That's what I thought, but I've seen multiple posts refer to it and say they both have the same language and therefore both should follow that FAQ. They do both follow the intent idea of losing the attack bonus to gain one.
And DM's are perfectly in their rights to make it so in their games, but that is a houserule.
My point isn't that the defending property is useless. The title of the post is a question because I'm asking if it's useless.
If you actually think about what that FAQ says then it's kind of trying to make a distinction between wielding and holding something. And it doesn't make sense the way the FAQ has put it.
If you look at it, it is saying that you're only wielding the weapon if you make an attack roll with it. But this doesn't make much sense.
Lets look at it. Youre in combat and you and your opponents started a little ways apart. So turn 1 was spent buffing/closing the gap/ranged attacks. Its turn 2 and the fighter with his longsword drawn is positioned in front of the wizard. Well your opponents identify the wizard and decide he's the more important person to kill first. So they move past the fighter, who hasn't attacked, to get to the wizard. But you see, the fighter hasn't attacked, so if we're going by that FAQ then he's technically not wielding his longsword despite having it in his hand with the intention of attacking. And if he's not wielding his longsword then he can't make an attack of opportunity with it (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you can't make AoO's with something you're just holding and not wielding). Which means he would have to attack first with the longsword just to be able to make an AoO. Since he hasn't attacked with it, he's not wielding it, so no AoO.
If this is incorrect, which I fully feel that it is, then someone please show me how. But that is what I'm seeing the FAQ implying from its distinction between wielding and holding.
I feel that the defending property should have just been errated to add a line about only working when you make an attack roll, not the FAQ'ratta that they did instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could attack the invisible windmill in front of you, I'm sure.
Tilting at windmills again TOZ?
In the end, the whole idea was for there to be an opportunity cost to using the property, not just holding a +5 defending weapon to get 5 to AC.
You could attack the invisible windmill in front of you, I'm sure.
I'm definitely gonna be doing this if I ever make a defending weapon haha.
Tilting at windmills again TOZ?
In the end, the whole idea was for there to be an opportunity cost to using the property, not just holding a +5 defending weapon to get 5 to AC.
The opportunity cost makes sense. And I believe that's most people's argument as to why allying should be the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at it, it is saying that you're only wielding the weapon if you make an attack roll with it.
That isn't exactly what they are saying.
You can be wielding the weapon just fine, but unless you use a weapon you can't activate its magical properties. For some things this doesn't matter because they are always on (basic enhancement bonues) or have enough or unlimited duration (like the flaming property.) When the ability has a one round duration though, you can't have it be active unless you use it.
There is of course weirdness in that you have to activate it at the start of your turn, before you can actually possibly have 'used' it, but treating it as a declaration to activate that will only come into effect when actually used makes it work out, and is really the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQs only apply to what they are talking about. Nothing else.
Except this FAQ has this line:
"Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits. "The inclusion of "so on" makes this FAQ one of the few that goes outside its own bounds.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?
For example, if you're a paladin with a +5 defending longsword and he's up against some archers up a cliff or on a balcony then there's no way you can get the benefit from your defending property. It requires an attack roll, despite saying it's a free action at the start of your turn. Unless you can convince your GM that rolling an attack against yourself, and hopefully missing, is legit to get the bonus to your AC. But I doubt that'd fly. Plus, that'd hinder your ability to get to the target. And that doesn't seem like the intent of this ability. It should help you, not hinder you, right?
On a very similar note, does the same FAQ apply to the allying property?
Although I normally avoid weighing in on these types of threads... I think this is a great example of where common sense could help resolve a problem. Personally, I see no problem with someone deciding to take a standard action to "attack" a nearby square in order to activate a weapon's defending ability. After all... you can already do this when you're attempting to attack something you suspect is invisible in any adjacent square. This would allow the character facing a row of distant archers to activate his weapon's defending property by, essentially, spending a standard action to make a fake attack against a non-existant adjacent enemy. He'd still have a move action to try to get closer to the archers to attack for real or to otherwise escape their line of fire, and it certainly fits with the thematics of the weapon itself and doesn't "break the game."
If you look at it, it is saying that you're only wielding the weapon if you make an attack roll with it.That isn't exactly what they are saying.
You can be wielding the weapon just fine, but unless you use a weapon you can't activate its magical properties. For some things this doesn't matter because they are always on (basic enhancement bonues) or have enough or unlimited duration (like the flaming property.) When the ability has a one round duration though, you can't have it be active unless you use it.
There is of course weirdness in that you have to activate it at the start of your turn, before you can actually possibly have 'used' it, but treating it as a declaration to activate that will only come into effect when actually used makes it work out, and is really the same thing.
I didn't think about it like that. That actually makes a lot more sense.
Although I normally avoid weighing in on these types of threads... I think this is a great example of where common sense could help resolve a problem. Personally, I see no problem with someone deciding to take a standard action to "attack" a nearby square in order to activate a weapon's defending ability. After all... you can already do this when you're attempting to attack something you suspect is invisible in any adjacent square. This would allow the character facing a row of distant archers to activate his weapon's defending property by, essentially, spending a standard action to make a fake attack against a non-existant adjacent enemy. He'd still have a move action to try to get closer to the archers to attack for real or to otherwise escape their line of fire, and it certainly fits with the thematics of the weapon itself and doesn't "break the game."I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?
For example, if you're a paladin with a +5 defending longsword and he's up against some archers up a cliff or on a balcony then there's no way you can get the benefit from your defending property. It requires an attack roll, despite saying it's a free action at the start of your turn. Unless you can convince your GM that rolling an attack against yourself, and hopefully missing, is legit to get the bonus to your AC. But I doubt that'd fly. Plus, that'd hinder your ability to get to the target. And that doesn't seem like the intent of this ability. It should help you, not hinder you, right?
On a very similar note, does the same FAQ apply to the allying property?
I definitely appreciate the weigh in here so thank you. That was basically the conclusion I'd come to with the help of these guys here. So thanks to everyone.
Though I do still wonder if allying is in fact subject to that FAQ or not. Since I've seen people argue it both ways here alone.
The problem with defending is that it really is worthless.
You pay the scaling cost of a +1 enhancement to get the ability to trade your 2000*bonus^2 weapon enhancement for a 1000*bonus^2 armor enhancement. This is never worth doing unless you weren't attacking anyways.
It was a stupid FAQ that confused the meaning of wielding to defeat an "abuse" that was the only actual purpose a still not very good enhancement had.
That's how I saw it as well.
It's the same thing as fighting defensively to get an AC bonus against missiles. You use an attack action (ie, a standard) which is an opportunity cost penalty in itself, whether or not you actually bother to attack the ground or thin air or whatever. In the case of the Defending weapon, you're parrying arrows; when fighting defensively (or going all-out defence or using Expertise) you're parrying and dodging.
I'd agree that it's not a great investment, but it's not useless.
It's a bonus to AC that stack with all others. It means you can have +5 armor, and then effectively add even more to. If you have +5 armor, you probably have +5 to natural armor, +5 deflection bonus, and many other cheap AC bonuses.
And defending stacks with all of them.
So it's not worthless, it just isn't meant to add a flat bonus to your AC since it stack with all other bonuses.
The weapon would activate when making an attack of opportunity.
This is another case of "and" being mistaken for "or".
You are wielding a weapon when in combat.
You need to be holding the weapon to wield it.
You are holding the weapon while you are wielding it.
You can attack the incoming arrows.
You can charge in and attack where you suspect an invisible enemy might be.
The weapon would activate when making an attack of opportunity.
This is another case of "and" being mistaken for "or".
You are wielding a weapon when in combat.
You need to be holding the weapon to wield it.
You are holding the weapon while you are wielding it.
You can attack the incoming arrows.
You can charge in and attack where you suspect an invisible enemy might be.
...*scratches head* what??... I'm not seeing the point here? What are you trying to get across that is relevant to what's been said? I feel like I'm missing something...
I can't resist this one.
What about a dancing and defending +5 armor spike? That way you would only have to waste one standard action every four rounds or so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I normally avoid weighing in on these types of threads... I think this is a great example of where common sense could help resolve a problem. Personally, I see no problem with someone deciding to take a standard action to "attack" a nearby square in order to activate a weapon's defending ability. After all... you can already do this when you're attempting to attack something you suspect is invisible in any adjacent square. This would allow the character facing a row of distant archers to activate his weapon's defending property by, essentially, spending a standard action to make a fake attack against a non-existant adjacent enemy. He'd still have a move action to try to get closer to the archers to attack for real or to otherwise escape their line of fire, and it certainly fits with the thematics of the weapon itself and doesn't "break the game."I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?
For example, if you're a paladin with a +5 defending longsword and he's up against some archers up a cliff or on a balcony then there's no way you can get the benefit from your defending property. It requires an attack roll, despite saying it's a free action at the start of your turn. Unless you can convince your GM that rolling an attack against yourself, and hopefully missing, is legit to get the bonus to your AC. But I doubt that'd fly. Plus, that'd hinder your ability to get to the target. And that doesn't seem like the intent of this ability. It should help you, not hinder you, right?
On a very similar note, does the same FAQ apply to the allying property?
So...it's an invisible action tax? Smooth one Paizo.
I've not seen the ability used since that FAQ was released, and have never really agreed with it. I also agree with Artolost. The FAQ only really served to confuse the meaning of "wielding" in order to defeat an "abuse" that was the only actual purpose that a sorta'-decent enhancement had.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly. In most cases, though, using an item requires a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. "
So this covers James proposed "attacking the air" option.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this really is a silly ruling, in the same vein as the Volley-spell/ranged Sneak Attack ruling. Why? Because it makes no sense.
I understand a little of the idea behind it. It's a weapon, so you get the benefits of the enchantment when you attack. But, specifically in the case of a defending weapon, it makes little sense.
The main reason I see for using a defending weapon is two-weapon fighting, and sword/board fighting. But in those instances, getting an enchanted, defending weapon at a reasonable level is unfeasible, and typically a waste of money. Sure, I can see how a +5 defending weapon might actually be a decent boon to a two-weapon fighter, but c'mon: You're going to want that bonus to hit/damage the VAST majority of the time, because your fighting style demands it, and if you're going sword/board, it's entirely likely that your AC is ALREADY so high that you stand to gain little benefit from the defending property.
As it stands, the defending property is too expensive, and is typically worthless outside of those situations where it, by this ruling, doesn't even work properly.
How I would do it: Make the Defending enchantment work off of Combat Expertise. You want to make people like that feat? "While wielding a weapon with the Defending property, reduce the penalty to attack rolls for Combat Expertise by an amount equal to the weapon's Enhancement bonus. While not using Combat Expertise, the weapon grants the wielder a bonus to AC equal to 1/2 the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum +1)."
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's useless. Here's a situation that I've seen come up: Martial character wants to move up to enemy. Moving means he only gets one attack, and will be subject to the foe's full attack as a counterattack.
I've played a fighter that had both Combat Expertise and a defending weapon. Let's look at 12th level as an example, with a +3 defending weapon. I can move up, fight defensively, CE, and use defending for an additional +10 AC. It's at -11 to hit, true, but my primary attack is so good that I can generally hit even with that penalty. My AC jumps from somewhere around 32 to 42, which means my foe is probably fishing for 20s to hit me on his turn. Heck, my touch AC is probably somewhere in the mid 20s making a lot of casters sad.
Does this suit every person's playstyle? No. But the defending property does have a place for certain builds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not useless at high levels. As I said above - it's used like this:
Level 16 martial wields a greatsword. He also has defending armor spikes. Whenever he makes a full-attack, he makes the 1st 3 with his greatsword & makes the 4th attack with his armor spikes, shifting their + bonus to AC. Will that 4th attack suck? Of course! But it only sucks a bit more than it would with the greatsword at -15 anyway.
It has the secondary benefit of having enchanted armor spikes - which normally wouldn't be worth purchasing at all as they're too niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would that even work? Doesn't that count as two-weapon fighting? Can you two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon? I'm not saying it can't work - I'm just curious if it can.It's not useless at high levels. As I said above - it's used like this:
Level 16 martial wields a greatsword. He also has defending armor spikes. Whenever he makes a full-attack, he makes the 1st 3 with his greatsword & makes the 4th attack with his armor spikes, shifting their + bonus to AC. Will that 4th attack suck? Of course! But it only sucks a bit more than it would with the greatsword at -15 anyway.
It has the secondary benefit of having enchanted armor spikes - which normally wouldn't be worth purchasing at all as they're too niche.
It's not Two Weapon Fighting. You can freely switch between weapons or attack with multiple weapons or whatever so long as you aren't actually getting any extra attacks with it. Attacking 3 times with a greatsword and once with spikes when you have 4 attacks is kosher. Attacking 4 times with the greatsword and 3 times with the spikes using greater TWF is not.
See this FAQ.
Note that they also ruled the defending bonuses stack with one another (somethng I don't agree with).
So if you have defending shield, gauntlets, sword and armor spikes, you can get a VERY high AC quite quickly if you wish.
If you have Shield Master, Defending on your shield is basically a no-penalty addition to AC, since the + th/dmg comes from the armor side, anyways.
Note that you can't attack an incoming arrow unless you ready an action to do so. Activating the defender has to be done on your turn, and before you declare any attacks with it. Free actions are not swift or immediate, remember. So, for instance, you can't activate Defender when taking an AoO.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Yeah, but very little is useless at high levels. +6 weapons are expensive, and for the vast majority of the game defending is basically pointless, then becomes only moderately useful to super rich characters at very high levels.I don't know about that - I ran a scenario a couple weeks back and a player's whole build was based on absorbing attacks from the enemies - and he had an insane AC - he could careless about hitting well as long as he protected his allies.
He was complaining about some of the more intelligent enemies effectively ignoring him when they couldn't hit him. I probably shouldn't have pointed out to him that he should be using something like the Antagonize feat - I'm sure the next I run something for his character he will show up with it.
But you don't even need the AC bonus from defending to pull that off. Even then, it's WAY too much. A +2 Defending longsword costs 18,000 gold for a +2 bonus to AC... If you attack with it and take a -2 hit to your attack/damage, and if you really want to "tank", you need to present yourself as a threat, which that penalty doesn't help. You could easily spend the same funds on a +2 sword, a ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, cloak of resistance, AND a magic shield, all of which do more for you than getting defending.
|
|
Yeah, but very little is useless at high levels. +6 weapons are expensive, and for the vast majority of the game defending is basically pointless, then becomes only moderately useful to super rich characters at very high levels.
There are a lot of magic items which are useless and/or too expensive until high levels. This is one more.
It actually works better with a monk since they have more useless iteratives.
Actually - unarmed monks should already do something similar with Allying - stacking enchant on it & special abilities on the AoMF. It's more expensive but works more smoothly if the Allying is a Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes so that you don't give up a swing.
(The Bodywrap only applies to a few unarmed swings - but if you have Allying apply to your fist - it applies to every swing. :P)
Does the same "must make attack roll" apply to the allying special ability?
The "defending" special ability requires an attack be made because it is use-activated
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
The "free action" refers to the act of choosing how to allocate, not the act of using the weapon.
So your question becomes Is the "allying" special ability use-activated ?
I would think so, yes.
Does the same "must make attack roll" apply to the allying special ability?The "defending" special ability requires an attack be made because it is use-activated
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.The "free action" refers to the act of choosing how to allocate, not the act of using the weapon.
So your question becomes Is the "allying" special ability use-activated ?
I would think so, yes.
Thanks for the response. That makes sense.
What if you can attack as a swift action for whatever reason? Like by expending ki or something. Would you be able to activate defending then? Since that is an attack roll still?
It must be a reach weapon, because some of you are really reaching to make it non functional.