Is this a fair ruling?

[Parra]

A character in a game Im DMing is planning on doing the following:
Enchant up a suit of Full plate
Add Armor Spikes to the Full Plate, enchanting those with the Defending Quality
Enchant a large shield with the Animated Quality
Add Shield Spikes, enchanting those with the Defending Quality

thereby making his AC monstrously high (he is working on the touch AC aspect too). He is a Cleric and weilding a 2-hander.
I plan on ruling the following:

"To gain the benifit of the Defending Armor Spikes you need to be weilding them. i.e. using them in a grapple or as an main/off-hand weapon.
To gain the benifit of the Defending Shield Spikes, you need to be using the shield as a weapon i.e. being used as part of a Shield Bash (or similar) attack"

what are peoples thoughts? Im not sure how RAW that is but I will need to nip this in the bud before he actually gets started on it

[Thefurmonger]

If you have a huge problem with his AC I would just tell him that it will cause balance issues.

Makeing up weird houserules is normally not a good way to g just to nerf someone.

I will point out that he would be investing a LOT of his WBL into AC, and at higher levels AC does not scale that well.

Any caster will either not care how high his AC is (Save or suck) or will have an easy work around (quickened true strike + Orb of death)

Again, the best option is almost always "Talk to the player about the problem like an adult"

[Gnaeus]

A character in a game Im DMing is planning on doing the following:
Enchant up a suit of Full plate
Add Armor Spikes to the Full Plate, enchanting those with the Defending Quality
Enchant a large shield with the Animated Quality
Add Shield Spikes, enchanting those with the Defending Quality

thereby making his AC monstrously high (he is working on the touch AC aspect too). He is a Cleric and weilding a 2-hander.
I plan on ruling the following:

"To gain the benifit of the Defending Armor Spikes you need to be weilding them. i.e. using them in a grapple or as an main/off-hand weapon.
To gain the benifit of the Defending Shield Spikes, you need to be using the shield as a weapon i.e. being used as part of a Shield Bash (or similar) attack"

what are peoples thoughts? Im not sure how RAW that is but I will need to nip this in the bud before he actually gets started on it

I think your rule is good. Alternately, you could houserule that defending gives some kind of typed bonus (like a deflection bonus, or an enhancement bonus to armor) and that it therefore will not stack with itself or with anything else that gives the same bonus.

On the other hand, remember that high level monsters have huge to-hit modifiers. Sprinkle in some touch attacks and some area effect or save or die or no-save just suck, and there are plenty of ways to challenge a high AC character. Most of the time the PC would be better off spending his time and money on something better.

[kamikasei]

Bear in mind that the spikes are weapons separate from the armor/shield. The defending property lets you transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to AC. Thus, he can't just get a +5 shield, put spikes on it, call them defending and get an extra +5 to his AC. He'd have to make it a +5 shield with +5 defending spikes attached. As Thefurmonger points out, it would be very expensive to do this.

Better to point out that this would be a large investment for returns that don't make him untouchable by any stretch, just unbalance him (in the sense that he's too heavily focused on one area over all others, not that he's too powerful).

The proposed houserule isn't a great one IMO as being able to keep a normal defending weapon in hand and use it to guard yourself even if you don't attack is a sensible approach that shouldn't be eliminated.

[olelia]

So..assuming he's at max enhancement bonus...unless your playing epic and I missed a beat.

+5 Full plate - 13
+5 Animated Large Shield - 7 EDIT
+5 Large Shield Spikes - 5
+5 Full plate spike -5

So AC 40 without adding in any rings, nat armor, or misc.

At the level where he's spending this kind of money...it still shouldn't be a problem for most creatures. Also..without that touch AC he will still get curb stomped by a lot of creatures and caster.

[Parra]

I know the best option is to talk to the player first, you should have seen some of his other min-max ideas.
He has a plan to allow his normal AC to count towards touch attacks and already has amazing saves (Paladin of Tyranny levels) and will eventually be adding both Wis & Cha to all saves so the whole save or suck thing will be hard to use on him.

Im not so sure that my ruling is that far into the weird houserules area. Under both shield spike and armor spike discriptions it states when they can be used as weapons, Im simply not allowing the weapon enchanted parts of them to be activated unless they are being used in their capacity as weapons.

Edit:

At the level where he's spending this kind of money...
he being a cleric allows for greater magic weapon to get around alot of that cost (and the armor version of it, cant remember the name). Im pretty sure there is some self crafting in there too.
Im less concerned about the cost, as thats just the time-frame its the inevitability of it

[olelia]

What level is the character anyway?

[neoseph7]

Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon
in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by
attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user
needs to activate (such as the sunlight power of a sun blade), then the
user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action).


Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer
some or all of the sword’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 effect to AC lasts until his next turn.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor,
shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

I think you are fair in requiring that the weapon needs to be used in order to derive the benefit of the ability.

There are two ways to look at this. RAW (or intent of designers) and DM's adjudication (or "will this be fun?"). When I play, I try to follow RAW as reasonably as possible in the interest of fairness (so that I don't have to think about adjudication and can focus on, say, story telling). But if the RAW is going to kill the mood of the game, it isn't worth it.

PC power: Many players love the idea of their characters being massively powerful, especially if they don't belong to a broken class and are trying to keep pace with the perfectly optimized party wizard. But the fact is, if the DM feels that the party is too powerful, s/he has two choices: Increase CR or tell the Party to power down. The latter is the epitome of buzz kill. I have been down the road of the former. It leads to "all or nothing" victories where either the party kills everything in one shot or is wiped out in one shot, usually based on initiative rolls. If you have never had the... pleasure of this experience, let me spoil the ending for you: It sucks and is no fun for a normal party.

[Gaiyamato]

If he makes the armor from Riverine (Stormwrack pg 128) he gets half the AC bonus as a deflection bonus instead.
Not that that is helping much, but just thought I'd mention it. lol.

I'd say that your ruling is fair and it certianly makes sense.

[unre9istered]

Between the armor and shield spikes he's spending 144000gp on a +10 untyped bonus to AC. Doesn't seem too unfair to me.

[PinkysBrain]

what are peoples thoughts? Im not sure how RAW that is but I will need to nip this in the bud before he actually gets started on it
The RAW says "at the start of his turn before using the weapon". Now what exactly "using" means can be argued about, but the mere fact that it's arguable in the first place means that you are consistent with the RAW. Whenever there is ambiguity the DM is the final arbitrator, this isn't about rule 0 ... simply about judgement.

Not that it really matters, because if you want to houserule you can houserule of course ... but making the argument from a RAW perspective is easier to sell to the player.

[kamikasei]

I think you are fair in requiring that the weapon needs to be used in order to derive the benefit of the ability.

Dang. I looked up defending before I posted because I thought there was already a clause about it only working if you attacked that round, and overlooked the part you highlighted, hence my saying that the houserule was a bad one for eliminating a legitimate use of the ability. Since that use is already ruled out, the houserule is not only not unfair, but not even necessary.


I know the best option is to talk to the player first, you should have seen some of his other min-max ideas.
He has a plan to allow his normal AC to count towards touch attacks and already has amazing saves (Paladin of Tyranny levels) and will eventually be adding both Wis & Cha to all saves so the whole save or suck thing will be hard to use on him.

They say the DM laughs when players make plans. You don't need to search through the rules to find excuses to disallow excessive optimization. Just tell him "no, that's too much".

[Parra]

the character is currently level 6,

the estimated cost for these things on +1 armor/weapons is ~26,000gp (plus masterwork cost)
using greater magic weapon and magic vestment gives it the rest of the plus, which isnt that much currently but then items that cast those once a day are not too expensive either.

Yes its beyond his current finances, but I would rather get the idea out of his head now then when he starts investing in the items.

[Havelock]

Actually, the rules specifically states that you must wield the weapon to use the defending property, and I would rule that he must then grapple to count as wielding armor spikes, and you must use the shield as a weapon (thus loosing the AC from the shield) in order to count as wielding shield spikes.

On the other hand, paying (AC bonus+1)*(AC bonus+1)*2000 isn't really worth it in the first place.

It'll cost him 8000 for +1 AC, 10k more for +2, 14k more for +3, 18k extra for +4, 22k extra for +5.

Simple enhancements on armor and shield costs 1k, 3k, 5k, 7k and 9k per step. So he needs them both up to +4 before it is even worth starting.

Deflection and natural armor costs 2k, 6k, 10k, 14k, 18k. So he'll need +2 on both of those before it's worth it, or it at least breaks even.

So there you already have 48k worth of magic before it's even economical. Add in 4k for Dex boosting item also. And 5k for an Ioun stone, leaving us at 57k....

It would be balanced, even if the rules had allowed it, heh.

[Gorbash]

Between the armor and shield spikes he's spending 144000gp on a +10 untyped bonus to AC. Doesn't seem too unfair to me.

No, not really. He buys a lot of +1 Defending Weapons and +1 Armors and then casts Greater Magic Weapon/Vestments on all of them.

[Muad'dib]

Actually, the rules specifically states that you must wield the weapon to use the defending property, and I would rule that he must then grapple to count as wielding armor spikes, and you must use the shield as a weapon (thus loosing the AC from the shield) in order to count as wielding shield spikes.

On the other hand, paying (AC bonus+1)*(AC bonus+1)*2000 isn't really worth it in the first place.

It'll cost him 8000 for +1 AC, 10k more for +2, 14k more for +3, 18k extra for +4, 22k extra for +5.

Simple enhancements on armor and shield costs 1k, 3k, 5k, 7k and 9k per step. So he needs them both up to +4 before it is even worth starting.

Deflection and natural armor costs 2k, 6k, 10k, 14k, 18k. So he'll need +2 on both of those before it's worth it, or it at least breaks even.

So there you already have 48k worth of magic before it's even economical. Add in 4k for Dex boosting item also. And 5k for an Ioun stone, leaving us at 57k....

It would be balanced, even if the rules had allowed it, heh.

You don't have to be in a grapple to use armor spikes. The description specifically says you can make a regular melee or offhand attack with them as well. So as long as he makes an attack with them at all it should still count. Dual wielding will be a (explicit deleted) to optimize on top of this to make it worth it.

[unre9istered]

No, not really. He buys a lot of +1 Defending Weapons and +1 Armors and then casts Greater Magic Weapon/Vestments on all of them.

Good call, didn't think of that. Definitely go with the "must attack with it" ruling in this case.

[strider24seven]

Or you could subtley warn him off from it by sending an army of Duskblades that channel Chill Touch with Wraithstrike.

Or just an army of Wizards with Chill Touch.

Or an army of Allips.

Like I said, sublety is the key.

[unre9istered]

Or you could subtley warn him off from it by sending an army of Duskblades that channel Chill Touch with Wraithstrike.

Or just an army of Wizards with Chill Touch.

Or an army of Allips.

Like I said, sublety is the key.

Considering the AC from a Defending weapon is untyped, it would apply to both touch and incorporeal touch attacks. These example might just show him that this strategy is too awesome not to use.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I would say that hes still paying up the wazoo for all this so its balanced.
However.


The animated shield and shield spikes. I wouldn't let him get away with that one, mainly becuase you can't shield bash with an animated shield(as far as i know) therefore you can't gain the benefits of it.

Though on his regular full plate i would let him.


You could also rule that the enhancement bonus from greater magic weapon doesn't work with defending property.

[SilverStar]

I'd let him do it all, then enter the spellswords channelling Polar Ray with their Arcane Strike'ing Power Attacking Wraithstriking selves.

Course, there's ways to apply some of that to his touch AC, but you don't need to advertise 'em.

[neoseph7]

For a setup that is always granting a huge AC bonus it would cost up the wazoo. The standard armor was going to be purchased from the start, so let's not take that into account. What we have are multiple +1 Defending weapons.

(I mean, would it be fair to allow a player to carry a bumch of +1 Defending Daggers on his belt and use the defensive bonus from all of them?)

Each +1 Defending weapon costs 8kgp and provides +1 AC, which isn't that outrageus if you never have more than two. But how can Greater Magic Weapon be used to cheapen this?

A Cleric can cast the spell at level 7 (with no benefit from Magic Weapon).
At level 8, A cleric can cast GMW and get an additional +1 to AC for each casting for 8 hours. That's at the cost of spell capacity (still a resonable expense). At high levels when 3rd level spells aren't so significant (say ~16) it's a free +3 to AC in addition to the 8k spent for the +1 per weapon+casting. For two sets of spikes, that's +8AC for 16kgp and 2 low level spells.

How can a low level Cleric take advantage of this? A CL8 Scroll of GMW costs 800GP (or 600 if you get the Sor/Wiz version and have the party wizard cast it for you). A 16th level version of the scroll would cost 1600GP (1200WIZ), though admittedly a spellcaster can suffer mishaps for higher level scroll casting. We're now out to 8KGP + 1.2KGP/16hours for a total of +4 AC when active. That's within the realm of possibility by 10th level.

But this can be worse. It's 15/25 per casting with a wand, which go out to 4th level, and for which Arcane/Divine doesn't matter. A wand of GMW (CL8) would cost 18kgp (or 360 GP per casting). That's 8kgp+ 360/8hours for +2 AC per weapon. For the higher level wand (Caster Level 16) 36kgp. That's 8kgp+720gp/16hours for +4 to AC. For two weapons we have 16kgp (set cost)+36kgp(for 50 uses, which will be the vast majority of encounters once purchased) for a grand total of 52kgp for +8AC. The only AC bonus that follows 1k*AC^2 is Armor/Shield enhancement, for which 8AC would be 64kgp (a benefit of 12kgp that can go towards, well, probably the wand). Other AC bonuses follow 2k*bonus^2, for which 8AC would cost 128kgp. The difference (76kgp) is complete and total cheese.

By 12th level it would be reasonable for a character to have spent enough gold to purchase this setup (especially if the coned the wizard into craft magic arms and armor, or even took the feat themselves). There are other feats for reducing item creation costs. If they cast Magic Vestment on themselves for the shield and armor, it only costs ~2kgp for the Armor and Shield +16kgp for the enchanted spikes +36kgp for the wand totaling 54kgp. For optimized dex we have AC=10(base)+8(armor)+1(dex)+3(armor ench)+2(shield)+3(shield ench)+8(spikes defending)=35. That leaves 38kgp for wealth by kevel for other supplies. Spending an additional 4k on rings of deflection and amulet of natural armor leaves us with an AC:37 and 34kgp to play with.another 12kgp pumps up the AC to 39 and leaves 22kgp left, which is enough for offensive/expended materials to this point in the adventure.

Should a 12th level Cleric have an AC of 39 after only spending 66kgp?

[Tar Palantir]

Of course, there's also the fact that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack.


In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. (Emphasis mine)

[Doug Lampert]

At level 8, A cleric can cast GMW and get an additional +1 to AC for each casting for 8 hours. That's at the cost of spell capacity (still a resonable expense). At high levels when 3rd level spells aren't so significant (say ~16) it's a free +3 to AC in addition to the 8k spent for the +1 per weapon+casting.

4th level slot for a cleric.

And then you're comparing a wand to permanent AC improvements, ignoring that a wand of Magic Vestment is the same cost and gives the same AC boost when applied to armor and shield and then claiming the bonus is too high for the cost. Wand based armor is CHEAP, this is because defenses that cost to have up are crap. You need to use them EVERY day unless you're willing to waste the first five rounds of any battle where they're attacking you self buffing or fighting like crap. Casting defenses from wands is only good in games where the GM gives you lots of advance warning of any problems.

The spells should come from slots. Fortunately Pearls of Power provide some of the needed slots. So it's still fairly cheap, but so what? He's giving up attacks to do this, the shield spikes won't work (no way he's wielding them), and he needs to wield the armor spikes, so he's taking a minus to his main weapon and restricting his full caster to melee! This isn't a buff.

[neoseph7]

The duration of GMW is hour/level. Most DMs let the party cast spells when they first wake up, and most spell casters start their day with hour/level buffs. At 12th level, that's half the day (12 hours). At 16th level it's the entire time a character is awake (assuming 8 hours to sleep and prepare spells). At 8th level, it's a third of the full day and half of the waking day. A spell caster would not need to waste time at the start of combat to prepare these buffs.

[herbe]

where can i find these armor/shield enchantments:Defending Quality,Animated Quality they are mentioned in the 1st post

[neoseph7]

where can i find these armor/shield enchantments:Defending Quality,Animated Quality they are mentioned in the 1st post

You can find them on pages 218 and 224 of the DMG, or here


Animated:Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2
feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself
but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character
at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any
penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty,
arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.
Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor,
animate objects; Price +2 bonus.

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer
some or all of the sword’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 effect to AC lasts until his next turn.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor,
shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

[Darklord Xavez]

A character in a game Im DMing is planning on doing the following:
Enchant up a suit of Full plate
Add Armor Spikes to the Full Plate, enchanting those with the Defending Quality
Enchant a large shield with the Animated Quality
Add Shield Spikes, enchanting those with the Defending Quality

thereby making his AC monstrously high (he is working on the touch AC aspect too). He is a Cleric and weilding a 2-hander.
I plan on ruling the following:

"To gain the benifit of the Defending Armor Spikes you need to be weilding them. i.e. using them in a grapple or as an main/off-hand weapon.
To gain the benifit of the Defending Shield Spikes, you need to be using the shield as a weapon i.e. being used as part of a Shield Bash (or similar) attack"

what are peoples thoughts? Im not sure how RAW that is but I will need to nip this in the bud before he actually gets started on it

How did he get that stuff anyways? Is the shield and armor masterwork? Anyways, talk about it to him out of game. It works every time.

[ericgrau]

Ya, don't allow cheesy tricks like this one in real games. Save them for theoretical discussions.

[bobspldbckwrds]

you know what is always fun? anti-magic fields.

[Panigg]

Not a bad idea tho.

Rules limit this to 1 weapon. So I would allow it on the shieldspikes, without him having to attack with it and nothing more.