Does the Defending Enhancement require weapon use to activate? (DnD 3.5)

[theblasblas]

I've been reading about opinions here and other forums on how the Defending Enhancement works and the consensus seems to be that it requires you to use the weapon in order to get the bonus to AC. However I can't understand the reason often give for this which is the text in bold below:

"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."

It's being taken that this means that you have to use the weapon, but couldn't it simply be a clarification that you can only decide the allocation of bonus before attacking with the weapon so that you couldn't attack with it at full enhancement bonus and then allocate the bonus to AC for the rest of the round?

[Venger]

So you're asking if you can have a defending shuriken or something clipped to your belt, use the free to get the bonus to AC, but not have to make an attack with the weapon during your turn?

Yeah, that's fine. If you don't attack with the weapon that turn, then you're not taking the free action after you've attacked with the weapon, so it is by definition "before you attack with the weapon" that turn, you're all good.

[theblasblas]

Haha... well, I wasn't thinking of it to that extent, but yeah, I guess using my interpretation would lead to all sorts of cheese. Can I ask how you would rule this based on RAI?

If I understand it correctly, the fluff for enhancement bonuses is that the weapon corrects itself in order to hit targets more effectively, and then Defending is intended to work by tweaking this behavior so that the weapon corrects itself to block enemy attacks instead of correcting itself to hit enemies. Based on this I would RAI rule that this would work for dual wielded weapons, double weapons, armor spikes and shield spikes whether you use them or not, but not for weapons that are simply hanging off of your body.

...Though the idea of shurikens and kunai attached to chains defending you by floating around your body and blocking attacks does sound awesome XD

[Venger]

Haha... well, I wasn't thinking of it to that extent, but yeah, I guess using my interpretation would lead to all sorts of cheese. Can I ask how you would rule this based on RAI?

If I understand it correctly, the fluff for enhancement bonuses is that the weapon corrects itself in order to hit targets more effectively, and then Defending is intended to work by tweaking this behavior so that the weapon corrects itself to block enemy attacks instead of correcting itself to hit enemies. Based on this I would RAI rule that this would work for dual wielded weapons, double weapons, armor spikes and shield spikes whether you use them or not, but not for weapons that are simply hanging off of your body.

...Though the idea of shurikens and kunai attached to chains defending you by floating around your body and blocking attacks does sound awesome XD

There is no such thing as RAI, so let's just get that out of the way first.

There's no ambiguity involved here: take a free action, subtract some number between 1 and the enhancement bonus of the weapon and add it to your AC, stacking with all other bonuses.

There is no proviso that you need to be wielding the weapon, or that its powers only activate upon an attack, such as fiery burst, so this rule doesn't exist. Your proposed houserule is unnecessary.

A point or two to your AC isn't going to break anything. Monsters' to-hit scales so much more quickly than a pc's ability to boost ac in the first place that unless you go all the way with it like an abjurant champion, it's seldom worth the trouble, and you're often better off investing in miss chance, like a minor cloak of displacement instead.

I say shuriken because they're priced as ammunition, so getting passive buffs like this, initiative, warning, etc, instead of on your actual weapon is standard practice. That is a pretty cool visual. I'm sure there was a naruto character who did that

[Crow_Nightfeath]

Multiple braid blades of defending xD

[Uncle Pine]

You can't just hoard defending weapons in your backpack and expect them to work. Here's what MIC says about activating magic items:

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 many cases, using an item requires an action of some kind.
You cannot activate an item that you do not properly possess, hold, or wear. A rod or wand must be held in your hand, a cloak must be worn on your back, and so on. Some items merely require that you carry them on your person but not specifically worn in a slot or carried in a hand (in a backpack, floating around your head, and so on).
As the defending weapon property doesn't give any particular exception about not needing to hold the weapon to gain its properties, one must default to the general rules (which requires you to do so). Compare defending to ioun stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones) or rapid wrath (Ghostwalk p66), which spell specific rules on their usage.

What you can do is buying as many +1 defending hidden blades as you can (for a humanoid creature, that's 2 boot blades, 2 elbow blades, 2 knee blades, and 2 sleeve blades) as well as 2 +1 defending gauntlets and then get hit by a chain greater magic weapon every morning by the party's wizard.

EDIT: Also you know, "a defending weapon allows the wielder" to do all sorts of stuff with it. How are you gonna use it if you aren't wielding it?
EDIT_2: I realised part of your question was also about having to use the defending weapon: no, you don't have to use it. However, you must still wield it to activate its properties.

[heavyfuel]

Unfortunately, the Defending quality only applies to swords. Other weapons can't be made don't benefit from being made "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.

And you have to use the weapon, and since "using" a weapon isn't defined in game terms, it's up to each DM to decide what this means. You can't say simply wielding or having the sword in your possession counts as "using" it. This might be how you decide to rule it, but it's not RAW afaik.

Scratch that.

Turns out "using" a weapon does mean making an attack with it. All quotes from the SRD.


When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1½ times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action.

So yeah. It needs to be a sword, and you need to attack with it.


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.

You can only take the free action at the start of the turn before using the weapon.

[Venger]

Unfortunately, the Defending quality only applies to swords. Other weapons can't be made "Defending".



And since "using" a weapon isn't defined in game terms, it's up to each DM to decide what this means. You can't say simply wielding or having the sword in your possession counts as "using" it. This might be how you decide to rule it, but it's not RAW afaik.

Nah, melee weapon enhancements can be applied to any melee weapon

[heavyfuel]

Nah, melee weapon enhancements can be applied to any melee weapon

It can be applied. It just wouldn't have any effect since it's not a sword. The text is pretty clear that only a sword's enhancement bonus is transferred to AC.

[Uncle Pine]

Turns out "using" a weapon does mean making an attack with it. All quotes from the SRD.

Of course using a weapon means attacking with it (or activating it I guess, if it happened to have other magical properties). Luckily, defending doesn't require you to use the weapon to gain its benefits but just to reap them before using the weapon. Compare it to Power Attack, which you can also activate even when doing something other than attacking with your turn while still getting bonus damage on your AoO.

[heavyfuel]

Of course using a weapon means attacking with it (or activating it I guess, if it happened to have other magical properties). Luckily, defending doesn't require you to use the weapon to gain its benefits but just to reap them before using the weapon. Compare it to Power Attack, which you can also activate even when doing something other than attacking with your turn while still getting bonus damage on your AoO.

Defending says: "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"

It's necessarily at the start of the turn, and necessarily before using the sword.

While you can make the argument that using the sword at some later point is technically activating "defending" before using the sword, I then ask you: What happens if you don't get a chance to use it again?

It's a valid question. Your sword can be targeted by a Disjunction effect for example, and you'll never again be able to use it. So if you can't use it in the future, you couldn't have used the free action to activate it. And we have a time paradox.

The only logical conclusion that avoids this possible paradox is that you must activate the defending property just before using the sword during your action.

[Fouredged Sword]

No. The requirement to activate the ability before using the sword does not require the sword to then be used. It simply means that you cannot use the sword before activating the ability. Once you use your sword for any reason you can no longer activate defending.

And one uses a sword by wielding it. And one wields a sword by holding it in a combat ready fashion. You don't need to swing at something.

[Uncle Pine]

Defending says: "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"

It's necessarily at the start of the turn, and necessarily before using the sword.

While you can make the argument that using the sword at some later point is technically activating "defending" before using the sword, I then ask you: What happens if you don't get a chance to use it again?
No, my point is that "you need whether to allocate the weapon's enchantement as an AC bonus thanks to the defending property before using the weapon" means "you can't use your weapon before choosing whether to make use or defending or not". It's the way rules are worded for a game like d&d, it's the way other rules worded like this work in d&d, and I don't see why the defending property should be treated any different. I guess Fouredged Sword worded this better than me:

No. The requirement to activate the ability before using the sword does not require the sword to then be used. It simply means that you cannot use the sword before activating the ability. Once you use your sword for any reason you can no longer activate defending.


It's a valid question. Your sword can be targeted by a Disjunction effect for example, and you'll never again be able to use it. So if you can't use it in the future, you couldn't have used the free action to activate it. And we have a time paradox.

The only logical conclusion that avoids this possible paradox is that you must activate the defending property just before using the sword during your action.
The other logical conclusion is that if an enemy spellcaster prepared a disjunction targeted at your sword in case you activated the defending property and stripped it of its magical power after you used a free action to activate it but before you could swing it, you would simply not gain the AC bonus. This is certainly the conclusion I would go for, as there are better occasions to talk about time paradoxes in d&d (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b).

[theblasblas]

Ah, great point about it needing the weapon to be wielded for the enhancement to work. I guess the next question then is if armor spikes and spiked gauntlets are considered wielded so long as they are worn. I am of the opinion that they are.

To support my prior statement regarding not having to use the weapon for Defending to activate, I would like to point out how statements phrased "do x before z" are usually used. If something says "Shake well before opening" it does not mean that you need to open it after shaking it, but rather that before any opening happens you have to shake it. The only time that the words that come after "before" become mandatory is when they are describing a past event such as, "He took a taste of the chocolate sauce before pouring it all over his body".

Since there are no cases of similar phrases in other 3.5 material, I would say that we should go with how the phrase is usually used. Now since it does not require the weapon to be used for Defending to activate, time paradox averted.

[Fouredged Sword]

Armor spikes are wielded by wearing the armor they are attached to. Spike gauntlets may require an empty hand, not sure. I would have to read the text carefully. Now you MAY read into the sword line on defending as disqualifying them, but that is a valid seeming rules point of contention.

Thematically swords are seen as both a weapon of offense and defense. I am not sure WoTC was thinking that or just wrote Sword when they intended Weapon. I could see both as a DM. Reading it as sword only prevents a number of cheese, but seems a silly restriction.

A potential honest fix would be for the defending enchantment to provide an AC bonus and attack penalty to all attacks up to the enhancement bonus of the weapon that round like power attack or combat expertise.

This removes the enchanted weapon never swung problem. It would apply to all attacks that round as the automatic defense throws off your offense.

[Necroticplague]

A potential honest fix would be for the defending enchantment to provide an AC bonus and attack penalty to all attacks up to the enhancement bonus of the weapon that round like power attack or combat expertise.

This removes the enchanted weapon never swung problem. It would apply to all attacks that round as the automatic defense throws off your offense.
Except it doesn't solve the 'never swung' problem. it just means that you'll use a lot of Defending weapons when you don't plan on making any attack roll at all. So, another change that sacrifices martial characters at the altar of spellcaster supremacy (though at least DFAs can also get in on the action).

[heavyfuel]

Now you MAY read into the sword line on defending as disqualifying them, but that is a valid seeming rules point of contention.

That's not reading into anything. It's reading it. It clearly as day disqualifies any non-sword weapon. It shouldn't be a point of contention to anyone who can understand the English language.


The other logical conclusion is that if an enemy spellcaster prepared a disjunction targeted at your sword in case you activated the defending property and stripped it of its magical power after you used a free action to activate it but before you could swing it, you would simply not gain the AC bonus. This is certainly the conclusion I would go for, as there are better occasions to talk about time paradoxes in d&d (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b).

In this situation you wouldn't ever benefit from the AC bonus, so this point is moot.

If a melee opponent, say, readied to sunder your weapon upon activation, AND he succeeded, AND he dealt enough damage to sunder your magical sword, AND he had the Combat Brute feat to attack you after the sunder, then what we have is simply an edge case, which the rules very often don't cover.

This is a case we need DM intervention.

For other cases we do not. The rules are clear in that you must take the free action before using the sword, i.e., before attacking with it.

[theblasblas]

Hmm.... about the sword restriction... It does not specify that only swords can be used, but simply uses it as an example, and in fact mentions a "defender weapon". Furthermore, in the second sentence it says "the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus" without a mention of swords, further cementing the fact that the previous mention of swords is merely an example.



The rules are clear in that you must take the free action before using the sword, i.e., before attacking with it.

Yes, you must take the free action before attacking, but you don't have to attack afterwards to take the free action. It's plain English, as I've outlined in my previous reply.

[Uncle Pine]

For other cases we do not. The rules are clear in that you must take the free action before using the sword, i.e., before attacking with it.

On this we agree: you have to take the free action before using the sword.


In this situation you wouldn't ever benefit from the AC bonus, so this point is moot.

The Disjunction conundrum is a point you brought out. I merely pointed out there is no danger of such thing as the time paradox you speculated about. :smallconfused: