Items with always active properties held in off-hand with shield

[WalterKovacs]

If one permits implements to grant passive benefits (like +1 to defenses) when held but unusable one must logically grant it to weapons as well to avoid penalizing weapon-focused characters.

DC

There are a vast number of examples where weapon-focused characters are granted benefits that are not granted to implement users. Many are simply built into the system (i.e. feats, enchantments, etc) but it has rarely been a situation where both sides were treated equally. There are the energy enchantments on weapons (which can turn all damage to a damage type ... there is one implement that can convert one of two energy types into the other type only), the weapon focus feats (compared to the limited, and stat requirement based, energy focus feats). Even some of the damage type feats (like cold resistance granting combat advantage) are actually more useful for a weapon wielder with an item that makes all their attacks cold (which they can turn off if they run into someone with resistance/immunity to cold) than it is for a caster that specializes in attacks with that energy type.

As for the issue of holding 4 wands ... while logically possible, it isn't something that is allowed by the rules. The light sheild situation is a specific case because the rules allow something to be held while the shield is "in" that hand. Otherwise, each hand can hold one item. (the holy symbol thing, lacking an actual slot, was dealt with ahead of time as if you have more than one, none of them work ... I would expect Ki foci to work similarly once they come out and start having actual enchantments above the basic Magic Ki Focus they have now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The issue with allowing implements properties to work when held in the shield hand is pretty much like this:

I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property. Note that there is not even any relationship between how he uses it and the benefit he gets. Its not like he's using it as an implement and it works differently, he's just holding the thing, same as I am. This is why I object to the FAQ entry in question and will ignore it.

Another reason is just sheer complexity. Realistically when playing the game most of your players are not rules lawyers. If something works a certain way for character X, then it should work the same for character Y unless there is an obvious difference in the way the characters function related to the thing. Wizards can use wands, fighters can't, that's simple and understandable to all players. Some item working differently, especially a passive type of effect, simply due to obscure rules lawyerly text in some FAQ entry is not player friendly at all.

 

[DreamChaser]

As for the issue of holding 4 wands ... while logically possible, it isn't something that is allowed by the rules.

Can you cite for this?

I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property. Note that there is not even any relationship between how he uses it and the benefit he gets. Its not like he's using it as an implement and it works differently, he's just holding the thing, same as I am. This is why I object to the FAQ entry in question and will ignore it.

Exactly...thank you for providing the specific example of how screwed up this ruling is.

DC

 

[sfedi]

One thing I'd like to point out is that while weapons have a lot of flexibility, in terms of different proficiency bonuses and properties, implements come with the perk of having attacks that target multiple NADs, which could probably give you a +1 or +2 to your to hit chance (depending on the particular foe and your selection of attacks)

 

[WalterKovacs]

Can you cite for this?

Cite where it doesn't say you can hold multiple things in the same hand? The book rarely lists every thing you cannot do unless it's a specific exception. In the case of the light shield, it is specifically allowing you to hold something in the same hand you are using to wield something else, which you otherwise could not do.

Light Shield specifically says that you can hold an item in that hand even though you need to "use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly." While it doesn't say anything about being unable to hold 4 wands at once, it also doesn't say anything about being able to either.

 

[eamon]

The issue with allowing implements properties to work when held in the shield hand is pretty much like this:

I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property.

Well, the defensive dagger isn't an enchantment; it's not clear to me that that weapon property even applies at all when used as an implement. Would a versatile weapon when used as an implement gain +1 to damage rolls when used two-handed?

In any case, the example you give is less abusive than it seems. Firstly, it requires a light shield - which sorcerer's aren't proficient with anyhow, and they can take TWF/TWD feats which provide equal AC and more damage anyhow. A parrying dagger and a spiked shield would even work without any feat investment, although that would require two mage's enchantments.

By contrast, the fighter could just use a heavy shield and gain +1 ref and have no issues with an otherwise useless dagger.

There are cases where this creates odd corner cases, but I don't think this is one of them (or, if you rule that it is, that it matters).

 

[STAT]

Well, the defensive dagger isn't an enchantment

I'm gonna guess you don't own Adventurer's Vault because Defensive is, in fact, an enchantment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the defensive dagger isn't an enchantment; it's not clear to me that that weapon property even applies at all when used as an implement. Would a versatile weapon when used as an implement gain +1 to damage rolls when used two-handed?

In any case, the example you give is less abusive than it seems. Firstly, it requires a light shield - which sorcerer's aren't proficient with anyhow, and they can take TWF/TWD feats which provide equal AC and more damage anyhow. A parrying dagger and a spiked shield would even work without any feat investment, although that would require two mage's enchantments.

By contrast, the fighter could just use a heavy shield and gain +1 ref and have no issues with an otherwise useless dagger.

There are cases where this creates odd corner cases, but I don't think this is one of them (or, if you rule that it is, that it matters).

Yeah, confusingly defensive is actually an enchantment. There are others too, enchantments that work via properties that are "always on". In AV in a quick scan I see Bloodthirsty Weapon (could be very interesting for a caster), Brilliant Energy Weapon (but works for anyone), Defensive Weapon, Demonbane Weapon, Holy Healer's Weapon, Lucklender, Mace of Healing, Medic's Weapon, Prime Shot Weapon, Shapechanger's Sorrow, Staggering Weapon (but not any good as an implement), Subtle Weapon (yoinks!), Thundergod Weapon (probably not much use), Vanguard Weapon (ditto).

All of the above are by this ruling now usable by an arcane caster even when using a light shield.

And a light shield is NOT a bad idea for a caster. Especially if he can still use his SUBTLE WEAPON with it!!!! I mean that thing is a premo weaplement. Bloodthirsty ain't bad either, defensive is good, etc. I'd happily take a proficiency in light shield as a sorcerer vs TWD. Heck I can STILL wield the spiked shield. Heck, its a light blade, I can now have spiked shield as a light blade weaplement, hold another weaplement in my hand and use its properties (or a straight implement, rod of ruin anyone?) AND have my main implement. hi-diddly diddle.

Honestly its not the worst thing in the entire universe, but why cant the fighter or the cleric do the same thing? Oh, they can, by MCing into swordmage or sorcerer, "rolls eyes". Its just way too confusing and its nonsense. Every 4e player has to be a rules lawyer now? This is dumb. Weaplements are a nightmare from that perspective already.

 

[eamon]

I'm gonna guess you don't own Adventurer's Vault because Defensive is, in fact, an enchantment.

Actually, there are three "defensive" properties; I believed AbdulAlhazred was refering to the defensive weapon property, such as on the parrying dagger or the cutting wheel - this grants +1AC, after all, and is interesting to have. There's also the defensive weapon enchantment, but this isn't that interesting to have, and the defensive implement enchantment for staffs, which grants +1 to FRW and also +1AC if you're a staff-wizard (which is potentially interesting).

I agree that this is a potentially attractive option for a caster with light shield proficiency, and that the rules are messy. I don't agree that it's necessarily problematic balance-wise, nor that this ruling is merely the fault of the FAQ - it's ill-defined, but the FAQ ruling is quite consistent with the books.

To me, it's worth comparing to the iron armbands (if anything, this is less of an issue). It's a problem, and could use a fix, but it's not nearly important enough to be worth bothering about (I don't like long lists of house rules). Unlike the iron armbands, I seriously doubt this will come up in most games; most casters don't have a light shield proficiency; the bard (which does) uses wands, instruments or a very small list of songblades (which don't have these interesting properties). Looks like you'll need stat prereq's and at least one feat invested - in addition to an extra item cost to gain these benefits; realistically, for a feat you could also just enchant a parrying dagger and have almost the same thing anyhow - and then you can even use TWD and dual implement mastery and other juicy bits, and the feat doesn't require a stat prereq.

So, sure, it's not 100% percent consistent, but no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, there are so many tiny inconsistencies, I'm just not going to bother with something this irrelevant.

If this were problematic - has anybody actually seen this in-game and was it significantly better than a plain parrying dagger?

If the answer to either is no, you should ask yourself why you care. If a player wants to do this (and probably feel all smart for thinking of it), and it's not a balance problem, and probably not a consistency issue (I doubt he'll pick a weapon enchantment), then why interfere with their character building fun? What's the point?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There may be many small inconsistencies as you call them eamon, but the point is to have LESS of them and to have less of a demand for players to require system mastery of obscure elements of the rules in order to understand all of the options available to their characters. The more of this crap there is in the game, the more it slides down the slippery slope towards 3.x where the whole game was about knowing that X was a trap option and obscure PrC Y combined with 3 levels A followed by 2 levels of B and feat C made "I WIN". Feh! It just smells bad.

Don't reduce this discussion to a debate about the Defensive Weapon enchantment. Look at all the other ones that are available as well. No, I don't think any of them are game breaking, but every little tricky dicky foo fah that exists in the game like this just makes it a worse game and not a better game. If its "no big deal" then isn't the superior option to simply rule consistently? What is gained by ALLOWING this.

And if you want to discuss it in terms of something that might be unbalancing then I think you need to look at Subtle Weapon as your potential culprit because Subtle Weapon is a very powerful enchantment. It figures prominently in weaplement cheese.