Animated Shields

[billd91]

The original write-up of the rule is the primary source. I can't be wrong, any more than the sky can be wrong about being blue.


glass.

It can be if the rule is written poorly or in such a way that it is too easily misinterpreted compared to what the design team intended.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I recall that in the 3.0 FAQ. However, this was in regard to using the defending weapon's properties (and treating it as expertise).

Right.

The bonus to AC from the Defending weapon applies to 'the wielder'. The answer stated that to benefit from an off-hand Defending weapon, one needed to incur TWF penalties, even if one did not make an extra attack.

There are two ways to read 'fight this way' - either 'wielding a second weapon in the off-hand', or 'gain an extra attack'. The FAQ answer doesn't fit the second at all, and fits the first perfectly... if one is holding the Defending weapon but not wielding it, then TWF penalties do not apply... but neither can one be considered 'the wielder', and so the bonus to AC cannot apply either. In order to benefit from the AC bonus, one must wield the second weapon in one's off-hand... but then one is 'fighting this way' and TWF penalties apply.

While one might read 'fight this way' the other way, I don't feel it makes as much sense grammatically; 'gain an extra attack' doesn't sound like a 'way' of fighting in the same fashion that 'wielding a second weapon' does. Nor do I think it leads to as much consistency; nor do I think it fits with that first example we had from Wizards addressing (even obliquely) the matter.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

There are two ways to read 'fight this way' - either 'wielding a second weapon in the off-hand', or 'gain an extra attack'. The FAQ answer doesn't fit the second at all, and fits the first perfectly

We may just have to disagree on this. As mentioned, the old 3.0 FAQ answer appears to be a kludge and doesn't seem to be intended to address this. The more recent examples from the 3.5 FAQ appear to agree with my interpretation, as does the very recent RotG article in which the original author of the ambiguous 3.0 answer gives a much more clear answer that disagrees with your interpretation.

Can you understand how this would appear to invalidate any support the 3.0 answer might lend to your argument (and how using it, but not the RotG clarification, might appear hypocritical)?

I believe that the best we could hope for to resolve this would be to have a series of articles (written by one of the original main designers) detailing TWF'ing. Since we now have such a thing, ignoring it if it still doesn't fit your interpretation seems more like sour grapes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

We may just have to disagree on this.

Yeah.

I'm not so much 'using' the FAQ answer, as that it helped me cement my own reading at the time.

When you fight this way... wait, in which way? The only 'way' I see in that paragraph is 'wield a second weapon'. Gaining an extra attack isn't a way of fighting; it's a benefit of a way of fighting.

So I already had my reading before the FAQ answer was written; it just happened to take the same position.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

So I already had my reading before the FAQ answer was written; it just happened to take the same position.

Fair enough. To clarify, do you feel that your interpretation is the true writer's intent (i.e. what the answer will be if WotC ever officially resolves it), or simply what you prefer?

 

[Deset Gled]

I believe that the best we could hope for to resolve this would be to have a series of articles (written by one of the original main designers) detailing TWF'ing. Since we now have such a thing, ignoring it if it still doesn't fit your interpretation seems more like sour grapes.

I believe the best thing we could hope for is an errata clarifying the original text.

Otherwise you run into problems with the Primary Source rule, legal problems with the OGL, and all that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fair enough. To clarify, do you feel that your interpretation is the true writer's intent (i.e. what the answer will be if WotC ever officially resolves it), or simply what you prefer?

I think based on the wording ("Fighting in this way is very hard...") that the intention was that wielding two weapons at once incurs a penalty. It also bestows the advantage of being able to make an extra attack, but does not require you to avail yourself of that advantage.

The penalty balances the versatility that using two weapons at once allows, while you also get the benefit of extra attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I think based on the wording ("Fighting in this way is very hard...") that the intention was that wielding two weapons at once incurs a penalty.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying.

This will likely be cleared up (eventually) in 4.0. I previously (before the RotG) put my "geek cred" on the line for my interpretation, and am willing to do so again. If you are shown to be correct on this, I will pay homage to your prowess in a manner of your choosing.

 

[mvincent]

I believe the best thing we could hope for is an errata clarifying the original text.

I thought of that, but given my choice of only one I'd still opt for the series of articles (only because they could theoretically cover more ground).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And I'll add that I do the same. Animated shields undo the only major benefit of going the sword-and-board route: better AC. So in the interests of balancing play, they are ruled out in all the D&D games I run.

So, do you also ban Improved Shield Bash? For a single feat, a sword and boarder can make the TWF guy feel pretty obsolete, especially with the insultingly weak TW defense string of feats, which effectively do the opposite of ISB, except far less efficiently.