Defender ability - underrated?

[ken-do-nim]

Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus) to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions), 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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftMagicArmsAndArmor), shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) or shield of faith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOfFaith.htm); Price +1 bonus.


Is it just me, or is the defender weapon ability (+1 bonus) the most underrated in the game? This is because it doesn't say you even have to be attacking with the weapon to get the ac bonus. Let me give some examples:

Example A: A cleric wields a +1 defender. He uses greater magic weapon on it to increase the bonus. Every round he doesn't use it to fight - while exploring, spell-casting, even grappling - it improves his ac.

Example B: A monk has +1 nunchuks in one hand, and the "real" weapon in the other (be it another weapon or just an empty hand). He gets the cleric to put greater magic weapon on the nunchuks to improve the bonus. He never ever fights with the nunchuks; it is simply there for an ac bonus. He still gets the full flurry with the "real" weapon.

Example C: A race with a natural weapon takes 2 levels of kensai. He makes that natural weapon +1 defending. He gets the druid to put greater magic fang on it. He then uses the bonus for full armor class and attacks with the natural weapon at +0, but if it doesn't hit, it is not a big deal; it's just secondary. Perhaps we're talking about a centaur, and he has made his hooves +1 defenders. He uses that scary large-sized greatsword (actually probably large-sized spiked chain ;-) for the damage, and he has turned his wimpy hooves into +3 or +4 to his armor class (touch included) without actually sacrificing the extra attacks.

[PinkysBrain]

IMO "stacks with all others" does not refer to the bonuses from multiple defending weapons ... I'd let their bonuses overlap.

[Thomas]

Not very impressive, really; the cleric could just cast a spell that gives you the same bonus to AC directly (and then cast GMW on your weapon).


IMO "stacks with all others" does not refer to the bonuses from multiple defending weapons ... I'd let their bonuses overlap.

Agreed. Divine grace doesn't stack with divine grace, so there's no reason defending needs to stack with defending. (And it's the only way to prevent six-armed abuses...)

[PinkysBrain]

Every little bit of AC helps though, getting some armor/shield spikes with defending is great value for money.

[ken-do-nim]

Not very impressive, really; the cleric could just cast a spell that gives you the same bonus to AC directly (and then cast GMW on your weapon).


If you are referring to magic vestment (only an armor bonus), I want to remind you we are talking about stacking here. This isn't a one or the other thing. Once you are up to greater magic weapon +5, wouldn't it be nice to know that every round you take to cast a spell, your armor class improves by 5? Well each to his own, I guess.

Correction:


Every little bit of AC helps though, getting some armor/shield spikes with defending is great value for money.

Yeah, the armor spikes is probably a better spot for this. Then you can get the +5 every round. Thanks PinkysBrain.

[NullAshton]

Every little bit of AC helps though, getting some armor/shield spikes with defending is great value for money.

That is BRILLIANT. *steals for warmind*

[Person_Man]

Well, most Kensai builds that I've seen will have both fists enchanted, with one fist having Defending and the other having Speed.

But keep in mind that +5 armor costs 25,000 gp. A +5 weapon costs 50,000 gp. So a for the cost of a +4 Defending weapon, you can buy full plate +5 and a shield +5.

So yeah, Defending is nifty, but not economical.

[Thomas]

Yeah. Defending weapons are mostly for people not using armor or shields (like, say, a Duelist, who can hold a +X defending dagger in the off-hand and not lose any abilities).

[barawn]

But keep in mind that +5 armor costs 25,000 gp. A +5 weapon costs 50,000 gp. So a for the cost of a +4 Defending weapon, you can buy full plate +5 and a shield +5.


Yeah, but the bonus stacks. You'd buy all three, if you have the money, and then it's +14. Plus, as has been pointed out, GMW on any Defending weapon is insane. For a +1 cost, that's nothing.

Also, remember that enhancement costs scale by square, which means things aren't always cheaper with just armor+shield. Want +10 to your AC? +3, +3, +2 defending. That's 9K+9K+18K = 36K = less than 50K. Of course, you only gain it if you choose to not have a +2 weapon, but it is still cheaper.

Man. I feel like I dope for not noticing this for my last character, where it would've been very, very appropriate.

[Thomas]

It's not "insane." It works the exact same as GMW on any other weapon. Hitting 20% more often (and dealing +4 damage) is better than being hit 20% less, in general; if you end fights 25% earlier (by doing 20% more damage), you're going to take 25% less damage (instead of 20% less damage)...

[ken-do-nim]

It's not "insane." It works the exact same as GMW on any other weapon. Hitting 20% more often (and dealing +4 damage) is better than being hit 20% less, in general; if you end fights 25% earlier (by doing 20% more damage), you're going to take 25% less damage (instead of 20% less damage)...

Sigh. Nobody's talking about reducing their main weapon. See PinkysBrain's post about using armor spikes, or my #2 & #3 ideas in the original post about weapons that aren't in use anyway or secondary attakcks.

[Aximili]

It's not "insane." It works the exact same as GMW on any other weapon. Hitting 20% more often (and dealing +4 damage) is better than being hit 20% less, in general; if you end fights 25% earlier (by doing 20% more damage), you're going to take 25% less damage (instead of 20% less damage)...
It's really not that simple.
Suppose you need a 16 to hit him, and he needs a 16 to hit you. Increasing your AC by 4 is much better than increasing your to-hit (and damage) by 4.

Increasing your to hit will allow you to hit him 1.8 times as much as he hits you.
Increasing your AC will change it to 5 times.

[barawn]

It's not "insane." It works the exact same as GMW on any other weapon. Hitting 20% more often (and dealing +4 damage) is better than being hit 20% less, in general; if you end fights 25% earlier (by doing 20% more damage), you're going to take 25% less damage (instead of 20% less damage)...

As ken-do-dim mentioned, you only use the +4 AC when you're not attacking, or when it doesn't matter. Getting a +4 to hit doesn't always let you hit 20% more often. If you already hit 80% of the time, it only helps you hit 15% more often. If you already need a 24 to hit, then you go from hitting 5% of the time to ... 5% of the time.

Obviously, in those cases, you an end up taking less damage by taking the AC.

See other thread about fighting defensively.

[Thomas]

There's plenty of spells that can give you +4 or +5 AC (at caster level 20th) that stacks with whatever else you happened to have. In fact, for a 20th-level caster, that's not even remotely impressive.

[Truwar]

There are a LOT more economical avenues to gain AC than defending; deflection, shield, armor, natural, dodge, etc. In its current form defending is only even marginally useful in VERY specialized situations. I think it would be more appropriate if it simply gave you a bonus to AC equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus (without having to sacrifice enhancement bonus). It would still be one of the weaker enhancements but it would not be as much of a waste of money.



As ken-do-dim mentioned, you only use the +4 AC when you're not attacking, or when it doesn't matter. Getting a +4 to hit doesn't always let you hit 20% more often. If you already hit 80% of the time, it only helps you hit 15% more often. If you already need a 24 to hit, then you go from hitting 5% of the time to ... 5% of the time.



Bonus to hit can easily be converted to damage by power attack and if you are fighting a creature you need to roll a 24 to hit I am guessing that 4 extra points of AC is not going to do you much good. Fights need to be eneded as quickly as posible. The longer a fight is dragged out, the higher a chance of something catostrophic happening to your PC.

[ken-do-nim]

Every little bit of AC helps though, getting some armor/shield spikes with defending is great value for money.

This thread is clearly separating those that "get it" and those that don't. But to those that get it, this post from PinkysBrain is genius as NullAshton also mentioned.

Formerly the favored soul I was making had a +1 defending warhammer upped to +3 with greater magic weapon. I thought I was clever for noticing that every round he is not fighting with it he can improve his armor class by 3. But now, I'll give him a non-magical warhammer which he can still up to +3 with greater magic weapon, and instead give him +1 defending armor spikes that he also ups to +3 with GMW and puts all those points on defense.

[barawn]

[COLOR=black]There are a LOT more economical avenues to gain AC than defending; deflection, shield, armor, natural, dodge, etc.

All of which stack with it, so why wouldn't you want the option of having both? You don't have to use it. But a very, very clever wizard/rogue could really, really use it.


Bonus to hit can easily be converted to damage by power attack and if you are fighting a creature you need to roll a 24 to hit I am guessing that 4 extra points of AC is not going to do you much good.

Depends on the character. If you read the Fighting Defensively thread, there are plenty of times when it would come in handy. If you 1) don't have power attack, and 2) have a crappy base attack bonus, you can still be ridiculously useful as an attack sink.

But still - if you need to damage the character... you, um, don't drop the bonus. If you're not attacking, you take it.

You want a concrete example? Fine. Melee character with a high Bluff. Every other round, Feint, tacking on the +5 (from the Cleric who cast GMW on you beforehand) as an AC bonus, thus knocking the opponent's AC down the next round, and possibly getting sneak attack damage if you're a nasty bastard. Yes, you only hit every other round, but the increased hit chance could easily compensate.

You're not talking about taking the AC bonus all the time. Only when it's advantageous to you.

[Person_Man]

This thread is clearly separating those that "get it" and those that don't. But to those that get it, this post from PinkysBrain is genius as NullAshton also mentioned.

Formerly the favored soul I was making had a +1 defending warhammer upped to +3 with greater magic weapon. I thought I was clever for noticing that every round he is not fighting with it he can improve his armor class by 3. But now, I'll give him a non-magical warhammer which he can still up to +3 with greater magic weapon, and instead give him +1 defending armor spikes that he also ups to +3 with GMW and puts all those points on defense.

OK, well a simpler question is how much gp do you have to spend? Once we know this, we can find the optimal collection of magic items to get your AC as high as possible. Semantic arguments are pointless when we can just stat things out.

And why are you playing a Favored Soul? My understanding is that their MAD and slower spell progression and lack of domains and limited spells made them garbage compared to clerics, and most other casters in general.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes. It works like that. You can use a weapon as a sort of makeshift shield.
You could use a +5 defending dagger on one hand and not attack with it... but that would be a rare case. Using it while not fighting is alright. It's like using total cover with a tower shield when not fighting.

Anyway, you could just pick up a magic shield, if your class allows shields.

[barawn]

Anyway, you could just pick up a magic shield, if your class allows shields.

Or both! :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

Agreed. Divine grace doesn't stack with divine grace, so there's no reason defending needs to stack with defending. (And it's the only way to prevent six-armed abuses...)

Not the only way. It's a Free Action to activate each one and the DM can limit Free Actions...

Enchanted Shields with Defending Spikes are often touted, or so I hear.

[FdL]

Original poster's analysis is too abstract, combat doesn't work that way or it'd be chess. Rules are a means of translating what happens into turns and numbers and other ugly stuf.

I think that the idea behind defending weapons is that they are not used to attack, but to defend. But it's an active defense, you'd be swinging the weapon to intercept, parry and deflect your rival's attacks. It's not like a character would just hold it in their hand and magically "receive an AC bonus".

Also, for this same reason your example A would be wrong; this should apply only to combat, and should not be useful against touch attacks or being flat footed, since it's something you do and doesn't act as a covering shield would, respectively. I'm curious about what the rules say about it.

Anyway, to me it sounds like a pretty good attribute, for example with TWF, with the off-hand weapon used to block and defend (like a main gauche). And advantage vs. a shield is that you don't get armor check penalty and you can switch to the offensive whenever you like.

One thing I didn't get, though. Does it say explicitly that you can't attack with that weapon to receive the AC bonus?

[Thomas]

At least you can't use an animated shield with defending shield spikes... or can you?

[PinkysBrain]

Your use of your weapons is always assumed to be active, for instance in the round you cast a spell you are still threatening your surrounding with the weapons you wield and able to make AoOs.

[The_Snark]

OK, well a simpler question is how much gp do you have to spend? Once we know this, we can find the optimal collection of magic items to get your AC as high as possible. Semantic arguments are pointless when we can just stat things out.

And why are you playing a Favored Soul? My understanding is that their MAD and slower spell progression and lack of domains and limited spells made them garbage compared to clerics, and most other casters in general.

Just because they're not as good as the standard cleric does not by any means make them garbage. It's like the sorcerer/wizard relationship; sure, the wizard is generally accepted to be better, but that doesn't make the sorcerer a bad class. So long as a Favored Soul sticks to buffing and non-save dependent things, it works fine... and the class features are already oriented towards combat. They're a perfectly workable class.

Anyway, off-topic. Defending armor spikes (or shield spikes, or off-hand weapons) are good to have as an extra source of AC at high levels, but it isn't really as cost-effective as most other ways of getting AC. Of course, you can't hit somebody with a ring of protection, so it does depend.

[ken-do-nim]

Original poster's analysis is too abstract, combat doesn't work that way or it'd be chess. Rules are a means of translating what happens into turns and numbers and other ugly stuf.

I think that the idea behind defending weapons is that they are not used to attack, but to defend. But it's an active defense, you'd be swinging the weapon to intercept, parry and deflect your rival's attacks. It's not like a character would just hold it in their hand and magically "receive an AC bonus".

Also, for this same reason your example A would be wrong; this should apply only to combat, and should not be useful against touch attacks or being flat footed, since it's something you do and doesn't act as a covering shield would, respectively. I'm curious about what the rules say about it.

Anyway, to me it sounds like a pretty good attribute, for example with TWF, with the off-hand weapon used to block and defend (like a main gauche). And advantage vs. a shield is that you don't get armor check penalty and you can switch to the offensive whenever you like.

One thing I didn't get, though. Does it say explicitly that you can't attack with that weapon to receive the AC bonus?

Original poster here. You seem to have gotten the gist of my question. If it is always active, and not just active when the weapon is in use, then it seems too good. Hmmm... let's go back to 1st edition and see what it says:

"Sword +4, Defender, gives its wielder the option of using all, some, or none of the +4 bonus in defense against any opponent using a hand held weapon such as a dagger, mace, spear (not hurled), sword, etc. For example, the wielder can on the 1st round of battle opt to use the sword as +2 and save the other 2 bonus factors to be added on to his or her armor class. This can be done each round."

I would say that definitely supports the conclusion that the intent was that the defending bonus only be used when the weapon is in use, and even then against a threatened opponent. But alas, we're in 3.5 now, and it's up to the DM to interprete the rules as I put them in the original post.

Edit: I just noticed that the spells required to create a defending weapon are shield and shield of faith. Both of those spells do have effects which are always active.

[Thomas]

Original poster here. You seem to have gotten the gist of my question. If it is always active, and not just active when the weapon is in use, then it seems too good. Hmmm... let's go back to 1st edition and see what it says:

It is active on any round where you take a free action to allocate the bonus. If you are stunned or otherwise unable to act, you lose the bonus. You obviously have to wield the weapon, and I'd also rule that the free action means you're holding it defensively and in combat readiness, which wouldn't be all right in several situations.

Edit: The text, from the SRD...

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.

[ken-do-nim]

So Thomas would you rule then that you must attack with the defending weapon in order to gain the armor class bonus?

[Thomas]

I wouldn't (because I don't think it's necessary for balance; and because I like the duelist with defending dagger -build), but I still think it'd be a fair and reasonable ruling.

For me, "wielding" would qualify as "using."

[ken-do-nim]

I wouldn't (because I don't think it's necessary for balance; and because I like the duelist with defending dagger -build), but I still think it'd be a fair and reasonable ruling.

For me, "wielding" would qualify as "using."

Which brings us back to the armor spikes idea. You're always kinda "wielding" them.

[FdL]

Yeah, but it's not like you turn a switch on and you have the AC. The activation is an abstract way of implying that you're going to use the weapon to deflect blows in combat.

[Thomas]

Which brings us back to the armor spikes idea. You're always kinda "wielding" them.

And those are fine by me, really - but you have to keep taking the free action, and the rules specifically suggest DMs limit those. If any player of mine wanted to keep taking the free action to allocate the bonus of his armor spikes, the character would constantly have to be in combat readiness, and probably a combat stance at that. It certainly wouldn't be feasible when, say, walking down a city street.

[ken-do-nim]

And those are fine by me, really - but you have to keep taking the free action, and the rules specifically suggest DMs limit those. If any player of mine wanted to keep taking the free action to allocate the bonus of his armor spikes, the character would constantly have to be in combat readiness, and probably a combat stance at that. It certainly wouldn't be feasible when, say, walking down a city street.

So in game terms you are saying it doesn't add to flat-footed armor class. Fair enough.

[Thomas]

It does if you've used the free action. When you're flat-footed, you almost certainly haven't, so mostly it wouldn't add. (That's not even interpretation, that's a pretty clear, explicit consequence of the rules.)

[Kantolin]

The activation is an abstract way of implying that you're going to use the weapon to deflect blows in combat.

As a brief aside, this is, after all, a purely magical bonus.

One could in fact argue that the weapon makes a magical barrier around you. If it was just you blocking, then that would be something you could do without any magic involved, even if it was 'helping you block'.

Or well, one could argue. ^_^ You could also say that it does indeed just help you block and that you have to work at it, but that's not an automatic assumption when we're discussing magical enhancements.

I like the idea of a hero with spiked armour who just seems to coincidentally not be struck nearly as often as most...

[Draz74]

There's not much point in a Cleric with a Defending Dagger.

But the Monk with Defending Nunchaku, or the Defending Armor Spikes (for Cleric/Fighter/whatever), are good ideas for picking up a couple of extra points of AC for a medium cost at higher levels. And of course the Duelist is a special case where the Defending Dagger is practical.

Weapon enhancements are so much more expensive than armor enhancements, though, that this is only a practical idea once you've already got some hefty enhancements on your armor (or Bracers of Armor).

[FdL]

Kantolin, it's a risk one runs, because you have to use your imagination to flesh out the game. The rules were created as a way to encode things that could happen in combat, but you can't just play with the rules assuming things happen in that abstract way, you have to decode them back to what they are referring to.

For example, it's not like D&D combat is people taking turns to swing at each other every 6 seconds. It's an abstract way of handling simultaneous actions and attack, defense, and many other complex variables that would take place in a combat situation.

So personally I do think that some use of the weapon is involved with the defending bonus. I take my clues from the way this is described in novels like the Drizzt ones (see Twinkle, defending scimitar). Besides, what would the point be for a weapon to just project a shielding field? A weapon is for attacking, otherwise it would make more sense if the item was a ring or an amulet. I'm more inclined to think that the bonus makes the weapon move faster or more accurately against the enemy's attacks, either moving magically or making it easier to the wielder to use it for that purpose (ie, the magic makes the weapon so light and/or hard that it actually feels it flies by itself to intercept blows).

[Kantolin]

...you can't just play with the rules assuming things happen in that abstract way, you have to decode them back to what they are referring to.

This is true, to a point. I don't believe that people simply stand put for six seconds, then take their single swing.

Simultaneously, I usually assume that parrying with your weapon is part of very standard combat. A close hit might have been barely turned aside by your longsword, a blow may not connect because just before it would have, you saw an opening and swung yourself, forcing them to step away to avoid it as you cover yourself with your weapon.

And a defending bonus can be explained as improving on this. Simultaneously, it could also be explained as not doing so, and it's perfectly viable to assume so.


Besides, what would the point be for a weapon to just project a shielding field?
Personally, I'm fond of the seat-of-his-pants hero... more along the 'Better lucky than good'. One who found a rare sword while digging through the Deep Dark Dungeon of Delvers, Dire Apes and Darkmantles, and keeps getting just dang lucky. Ever since he found that Daredevil sword, things have just coincidentally kept missing him, even that Dinosaur stampede he was forced to run from.

That, personally, is more entertaining to me than just letting you parry more frequently.

At the same time, if it's not to you, that's cool too: There isn't really a wrong method of dealing with that. But saying you can't do it as a 'switch' is assuming your interpretation is the most accurate, which is not necessarily the case, as you can make an argument in any way you like.

Only real thing you can argue can't happen is by RAW, which seems a bit questionable on the subject.

[FdL]

Yeah, you're right. Because the books are not that accurate in their descriptions for the mechanics of things. And that's ok, because you can make your own interpretation of them, but should be done keeping in mind coherence within the system and the flavor of the game.

My point was mainly against over-simplistic interpretations of the rules due to their abstract nature. We're not playing with numbers, and tables, they are just tools to organize and describe concepts.