armor spikes

[nute]

Oh, I'd give the penalty for the player being a munchkin. Unless he could describe exactly how those armor spikes are parrying attacks without yanking him all over the place.

 

[mvincent]

Oh, I'd give the penalty for the player being a munchkin. Unless he could describe exactly how those armor spikes are parrying attacks without yanking him all over the place.

A -2 circumstance penalty is always within the DM's purview (and is technically RAW).

 

[Hypersmurf]

For 3.5; I would keep the intent of the 3.0 FAQ (i.e. you have to attack during your turn, and the defending weapon must be wielded), but discard the TWF'ing penalty if the extra attack is not used.

I'm not sure how "You don't take TWF penalties" can be keeping the intent of an answer that said "You take TWF penalties"...?

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I'm not sure how "You don't take TWF penalties" can be keeping the intent of an answer that said "You take TWF penalties"

I explained it earlier. If you are actually open to it, I'd be happy to do so again (possibly in a different way).

But I'm guessing this might possibly be your way of saying "I don't agree with you, and never will"

 

[Hypersmurf]

I explained it earlier. If you are actually open to it, I'd be happy to do so again (possibly in a different way).

But I'm guessing this might possibly be your way of saying "I don't agree with you, and never will"

I'm just obviously seeing a completely different 'intent' to the 3E FAQ answer.

You suggest the intent is that you must attack and must wield the weapon, and that the intent does not include the TWF penalties.

I agree you must wield the weapon - a Defending weapon applies its bonus to 'the wielder', so if you're not wielding it, you're not 'the wielder'.

I don't agree that you must attack; the FAQ says you must take the Attack action or Full Attack action, but taking the action doesn't necessitate using the attack thus allowed.

And the answer says you incur TWF penalties whether or not you attack, which to me is the opposite of "You must attack, but you don't incur TWF penalties".

I honestly don't understand how one can claim the intent of an answer to be the opposite of the wording of the answer.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I'm just obviously seeing a completely different 'intent' to the 3E FAQ answer.

Long ago (before the TWF'ing RotG articles) some players took this 3.0 clarification to mean that wielding a second weapon will always cause your primary weapon to suffer TWF'ing penalties. However, the TWF'ing RotG articles (written by the same author) indicated that this was not the case. This means that either he had a change of heart or he never meant that to begin with. In either case, the 3.0 ruling does not seem to be in sync with the RotG TWF'ing rules (the latter of which I would imagine to have primacy over the former)

The author might mean for defending to be an atypical case, but that would make it a 'kludge' that does not have a basis in how he has stated TWF'ing works (making the TWF'ing penalty a ad-hoc penalty, rather than a genuine application of the TWF'ing rules). My guess is that this was a quick (and possibly poorly considered) ruling for 3.0 meant to limit the unanticipated use of off-hand defending weapons, without fully considering how TWF'ing worked. I believe Skip later more fully considered how TWF'ing worked, but never updated the 3.0 answer.

I don't agree that you must attack; the FAQ says you must take the Attack action or Full Attack action, but taking the action doesn't necessitate using the attack thus allowed.

I agree with you on this (my apologies: I must have poorly stated my position earlier).

 

[Mann Gegen Mann]

When i play with my uncle the armor spiks don't do anaything than add 1 to defence.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Oh, I'd give the penalty for the player being a munchkin. Unless he could describe exactly how those armor spikes are parrying attacks without yanking him all over the place.

a parry is an attack? I dont think i follow.

i don't think munchkin is the word you looking for, i think the word your looking for is "creative". Its also thematic with spiked armor.

I don't see the word "parry" in the defending description

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.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

anyway its simple, defending spikes are curved in such a way to catch weapons. I could draw you a sketch if you like.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Long ago (before the TWF'ing RotG articles) some players took this 3.0 clarification to mean that wielding a second weapon will always cause your primary weapon to suffer TWF'ing penalties.

I took the 3E rules for wielding a second weapon in your off-hand to mean that wielding a second weapon will always cause your primary weapon to suffer TWF'ing penalties.

The 3E clarification just happened to agree with that

-Hyp.

 

[nute]

a parry is an attack? I dont think i follow.

i don't think munchkin is the word you looking for, i think the word your looking for is "creative". Its also thematic with spiked armor.

I don't see the word "parry" in the defending description

It's how I as a DM envision a Defending weapon working - instead of putting all of its magic woobie into hitting more accurately/harder, it's being used to deflect attacks (the only logical way a weapon can add to your defense).

Thus, if your armor spikes have the Defending property, they're a weapon being wielded to deflect an attack. If you were doing the same with Two-Weapon Defense; 1) you'd suffer the TWF penalties because you're wielding two weapons, and 2) it would be a Shield bonus (as Defending should provide). If you're using them as your sole attack weapon then you're fine.

In the same way that if you had a Heavy Shield, you could enchant it with Defending - but then if you were using that bonus to your AC, that would mean you're using the shield as a weapon, and thus suffering the TWF penalties (unless you're JUST shield bashing).

Similar question: Jimmy Paladin is carrying his Big Steel Shield in his left hand, and wielding his bastard sword in the other. He is also wearing a +3 defending spiked gauntlet, although not using it to attack (he only has one attack per round).

Can he get that +3 to AC if he's not attacking with the gauntlet? I say not without taking TWF penalties, since Defending specifically states that the weapon must be wielded.

Same as with armor spikes, I would rule IMC that to gain the weapon's benefit, you must be using it actively.