Multiple Defending Weapons?

[Cieyrin]

Would having multiple defending weapons work? I had a player do it once for the pure defensive value, b/c a) the AC is untyped so it stacks with everything and b) Having different defending weapons isn't exactly the same source. Also on this note, can you only switch the enhancement bonus that your weapon natively has or is it feasible to use GMW to enhance the weapon and use the greater enhancement bonus provided? I suppose the same applies to the Empyreal armor enhancement and Magic Vestment, as well, though no crazy stacking like with multiple defending weapons, since those are all sacred.

[woodenbandman]

Strictly rules as written it works, but I feel this is a case of rules unwritten where this thing should have been addressed. It's ultimately the DM's call, and I'd personally allow it because otherwise monsters always hit after the level at which this becomes feasible and it's damningly hard to try to avoid getting hit just by pumping your AC. For a Thri-Kreen, though... Y'know what? Thri-Kreen are a poorly designed race. Never mind about them. The point is that yes, in the rules that will totally work, but i'd ask the DM.

[sofawall]

There are certain topics where every time I see them, I cringe, and this is one of them.

It will either be done in one or two pages or turn into a 5+ page flamefest before Roland locks it. This is my guess.

EDIT: Shield Spikes. Armour Spikes. Braid Blades. Gauntlets.

Many ways to get AC from Defending without even using your weapon.

[Cieyrin]

There are certain topics where every time I see them, I cringe, and this is one of them.

It will either be done in one or two pages or turn into a 5+ page flamefest before Roland locks it. This is my guess.

EDIT: Shield Spikes. Armour Spikes. Braid Blades. Gauntlets.

Many ways to get AC from Defending without even using your weapon.

Strictly speaking, you don't actually need the spikes, as you can enchant the shield as a weapon, as per the SRD.

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

Also, I didn't quite think about the flamefest that could ensue off of this <_<;; let's hope it doesn't come to that. As long as no one clearly abuses the unnamedness with all those things you sggested, it should be alright.

Honestly, I don't think it would be such a stretch to change the unnamed bonus to a competence bonus. It would solve the horde of defending weapons thing nicely. I'm fairly sure there isn't a conflicting competence AC bonus and it's only up to +5, pre-epic.

Also, I still wonder about the enhancement conversion and whether you have to enchant the weapon with the bonus or if you can get away with Greater Magic Weapon for that factor.

[SurlySeraph]

I personally don't have a problem with this, but I think that DnD needs more emphasis on defence and less on offence, so I'm a bit biased.

Shield Spikes. Armour Spikes. Braid Blades. Gauntlets.

Many ways to get AC from Defending without even using your weapon.

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.

If you enforce that the character must attack with or otherwise use the weapon to get the AC bonus, this isn't a problem. Well, if you disallow braid blades, anyway. Which I sincerely hope every DM does.

[sofawall]

Strictly speaking, you don't actually need the spikes, as you can enchant the shield as a weapon, as per the SRD.



Also, I didn't quite think about the flamefest that could ensue off of this <_<;; let's hope it doesn't come to that. As long as no one clearly abuses the unnamedness with all those things you sggested, it should be alright.

Honestly, I don't think it would be such a stretch to change the unnamed bonus to a competence bonus. It would solve the horde of defending weapons thing nicely. I'm fairly sure there isn't a conflicting competence AC bonus and it's only up to +5, pre-epic.

Also, I still wonder about the enhancement conversion and whether you have to enchant the weapon with the bonus or if you can get away with Greater Magic Weapon for that factor.

You can use GMW, and the other thread on this topic is getting a bit snippy already.

[SparkMandriller]

If anyone starts trying to get abusive point out that defending only works on swords. What are they gonna do, ask you to let them have +25 AC from weapons they never use because it'd be more fair that way?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Defending is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses don't stack.

Now, if someone is RAW-focused enough to claim that the Defending weapon entry overrides that(which it does, it's stupid, but it does), then I'm willing to claim that Defending can only apply to swords. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

[tyckspoon]

Defending is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses don't stack. always stack except with themselves.

You're usually more on the ball than that.

[Emy]

Defending is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses don't stack.

What?

Yes, they do. Untyped bonuses do stack.

... unless they're from the same source. Now, there's an argument here that AC bonuses from multiple defending weapons are from the same source, and that would be fine... but that's not what you wrote.

edit: ninja'd

[Sstoopidtallkid]

You're usually more on the ball than that.

Yes, I should have added "from the same source", but it was already more complicated than I wanted that paragraph to be and I considered it implied. Consider me suitably chastised.

[Draz74]

Untyped bonuses from the same source (i.e. Defending weapons, which certainly are "the same source"*) don't stack normally. However, the issue is that the Defending description actually says the bonus stacks "with all others." But if anyone tries to actually abuse this with too many different weapons:

If anyone starts trying to get abusive point out that defending only works on swords. What are they gonna do, ask you to let them have +25 AC from weapons they never use because it'd be more fair that way?

QFT. Fight rules-lawyering with rules-lawyering. It's clearly not what was intended, but the Defending description does use the word "sword," which you can use to disqualify Defending Armor Spikes/Shield Spikes/whatever other strange weapons the player digs up.

* Saying different Defending weapons are different sources is like saying "A Haste spell from the Wizard and a Haste spell from the bard are different sources," or "a WIS-to-AC "AC Bonus" class ability from a Monk level is a different source than the same ability from two Swordsage levels."

[Killer Angel]

Fight rules-lawyering with rules-lawyering.

As SurlySeraph pointed out, by RAW you must use the weapon to get the defensive bonus, so I think the debate is moot.
If not strictly by RAW, at least by RAI...

[lesser_minion]

You shouldn't be able to do it (you must actively use the weapon as a weapon to claim the bonus), but it doesn't break the game if your DM rules otherwise - remember that it is an excrutiatingly expensive way of improving AC (barring Chain Greater Magic Weapon).

[Yora]

I don't see the problem with having two defending weapons. If you are not a two-weapon character, the off-hand weapon works just like a shield, only being more expensive.
Except when you allow animated shields.

And if you're fighting with two-weapons and defend with one, you trade attack-bonus and damage for AC, which is a worse trade than Combat Expertise.

And if you want to attack with both weapons at the same time, I really don't think getting a temporary AC-boost makes a character overpowered.

[Tyrrell]

Of course if you're a wizard taking the full defense action then you don't care how much your to hit sucks.

[Yora]

But it is a full-action. So why not run away instead? Seems more effective to me.

[SparkMandriller]

If you're a wizard taking a total defence action with two swords then you've got other problems. Like the fact you're using your standard action for raising your AC instead of actually doing something. Or the fact you can't use any spells with material or somatic components because both your hands are full.

If a wizard wants to go get a defending shortsword and a pearl of power just to get 1 or 2 more AC than a ring or amulet of about the same price would give him, then I'd even let him use it just by holding it. I doubt it's gonna break the game. By the levels this stuff would occur at he's got a lot of other ways to avoid being hit, and they're all a lot more annoying to counter. (He's even allowed to put defending on a dagger instead of a sword if he's willing to ask me nicely and be my friend for a year and a day.)

[Lamech]

Here is the text

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.

I like to interpert the bolded part as you only get one start of turn. So after you've preformed one free action your "start of turn" is gone. Thats what I think YMMV.

Even if you don't like that interpertation still don't allow multiple defending weapons, it just ends badly. (Six armed psion wielding 6 double weapons with 6 spiked bucklers. Everything, even the shields is enchanted with defending. Then chain GMW them all to plus 5.) AC + 120