+3 Defender - Usage

[Scion]

No downside compared to say, defending, which is going to be much more expensive in the long run.

That would be 'less' downside, not 'none'

Also, as I definately feel that defending is 'incredibly' underpowered and/or overpriced for what it does I dont see how saying that parrying is better sometimes is a bad thing in any way.

That would be a reasonable approach, I agree, but to do so properly IMO, you'd need to go through all of the DMG special abilities and possibly reprice those. As it is, though, flat cost abilities wreak havoc with the existing DMG special abilities. This is clearly evident with respect to defending and parrying, case in point.

I think that given time they will eventually fix them. One step at a time.

Even with defending being so bad it is still better than parrying in specific situations, so even that point doesnt pan out completely (with defending you can get a +10 to your AC with a two weapon fighter, that is pretty significant, although 'extremely' costly).

I dont see it wreaking any havoc though. Parrying is better in most cases, but then one could say that shocking is better than flaming (not to say it is an equal comparison, just another comparison with similar issues).

What is wreaking havoc? If new books put out abilities which are more balanced and/or fixed versions of what is in the core books I have no problem with that.

That is rather what happened in 2nd edition after all and then when they made 3rd they got to pick through for the good stuff

 

[Scion]

Okay guys, think we've become a little sidetracked here. I'm not interested in a Defender versus anything because my DM put in a Defender and that's that.

I was just interested in the logistics of using said Defender, that's all. It seems to be pretty much split down the middle so far too. Some people would let the bonus apply constantly (well, if held) other want it swung before this applies.

Any other points of view?

It seems to come down to how you interpret, 'before using the weapon'.

It would have been nice if they had said something along the same lines as combat expertise, they had it right there after all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Those calculations are faulty because it's a weapon. Since it's a weapon, then it can't (by core RAW at least) be priced by a means different than a market modifier.

Non sequitor.

"The core rules only include examples weapon enhancements priced as modifiers" is true.

"Therefore, that is the only way to price enhancements" is not true.

Besides, the rule for pricing says to compare it to existing schemes to determine whether or not it's over- / underpriced. For a comparison, we look to armor, which is a good mix of items which are priced as an enhancement equivalent and others which are priced as a straight modifier. In all cases, the straight modifiers include the x1.5 for additional abilities.

By extension, weapon abilities would, as well.

Why isn't there an additional uncustomary space limitation penalty?

Because that applies to Wondrous Items only: "Wondrous items that don’t match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity."

The real problem I have is with a static price for a weapon special ability.

Why?

 

[ARandomGod]

AC bonus (Other): Bonus squared x 2,500 gp
Save bonus (Other): Bonus squared x 2,000 gp

Parrying: +1 Insight to AC & Saves

Additional ability charge on a "slotted" item: x1.5

+1 Insight to AC: 1^2 * 2,500 gp = 2,500 gp * 1.5 = 3,750
+1 Insight to Saves: 1^2 * 2,000 gp = 2,000 gp * 1.5 = 3,000

Total: 6,750

If anything, 8,000 gp might be a little overpriced for what you get.

Yea, I use those enhancements all the time, very good. Of course, once you've gotten +1 insight to AC and saves, you should get +1 luck to AC and saves... But after that the defender enhancement starts looking pretty sweet.

 

[Infiniti2000]

"The core rules only include examples weapon enhancements priced as modifiers" is true.

It's true, but incomplete. It'd be more properly writen, "The core rules only include weapon enhancements and special abilities priced as modifiers." In fact, the SRD says "Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item..." It's clear that the core rules do not allow for weapon enhancements or special abilities to be priced other than as a market modifier.

Again, I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing. A better system with more flat costs could be put into place, but the special abilities in the DMG should be revisited if you allow it. Also, obviously, the psionic special abilities specifically break this rule, but they're psionic weapons and not magic weapons. Presumably, they designed all the psionic special abilities carefully with the flat cost modifier in place. If so, that's great. But, then you still shouldn't combine psionic special abilities with magical special abilities because that hasn't been designed to work together well (IMO).

 

[blargney the second]

Back to the original questions:

1) I'd say you can't have it active outside of combat. It seems to want active participation to maintain the AC bonus every round.

2) It doesn't mention attacking with it to gain the benefit, so it should still apply while spellcasting.

It uses up your only free action for the round, so you can't take any other immediate or free actions, including casting swift or quickened spells. (So no feather fall if you start falling...) Technically you also couldn't speak during the round, as it requires at least a free action.

-blarg

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't help noting something about shields-as-weapons.

You can have a +1 heavy shield that is also crafted as a +1 Defending weapon; no spikes required.

If you do have spikes, then you have a +1 heavy spiked shield that is also crafted as a +1 Defending weapon. You don't have a +1 heavy shield with +1 Defending spikes.

The spikes make the shield a spiked shield, and the spiked shield is crafted as a magic weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It uses up your only free action for the round, so you can't take any other immediate or free actions, including casting swift or quickened spells. (So no feather fall if you start falling...) Technically you also couldn't speak during the round, as it requires at least a free action.

The limit to free actions is "What the DM considers reasonable". There is no limit of one free action per round.

There is a limit of one swift action per round, and an immediate action counts towards that limit.

Speaking is not an immediate action; it is a free action that can be taken even when it is not your turn. As such, it does not count towards your swift action limit.

Note that drawing ammunition is a free action, so if you limit free actions to one per round (exercising your right as the DM to define 'reasonable'), an archer can never get more than three attacks per two rounds...

-Hyp.

 

[Rhun]

Any other points of view?

If you were playing in my game, I would let the bonus apply to your AC as long as the weapon was in hand. Once you sheath the sword, you are not "wielding" it, and thus would no longer retain the bonus. Just my opinion.

 

[Scratched_back]

2) It doesn't mention attacking with it to gain the benefit, so it should still apply while spellcasting.

-blarg

Ahhh, well that's good, that's one of the most important point for me. So basically I've been given +3 AC for any round in which I cast, activate a wand, drink a potion, move positions and the rest of it.

Common opinion appears to be that it must be unsheathed and held for this, which I think is more than reasonable.

I was a bit concerned that it was a duff item at first, but to be honest, for a fighter/mage it seems very useful indeed, especially stacking with Shield and Mage Armour and the likes.