Defending on both ends of a two-headed weapon?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Could a quarterstaff, double-whatever, gnome hooked hammer, etc. get the benefit of having +5 defending on BOTH ends of a weapon? i.e., could a frail wizard carry around a quarterstaff that functioned as +10 to armor?

 

[jontherev]

I don't know an official answer, but I created a wizard's staff (quarterstaff) for a player in my campaign, and it has defending on both ends. I don't see any balance problem here. It's an expensive investment if you want a +5/+5 quarterstaff with defending properties on both ends, JUST for the AC improvement. I say go for it.

 

[Crothian]

The defending property does say stacks with all other bonuses so I would say yes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, it wouldn't JUST be defending. It would get spell storing and some other useful enchantments, too.

Thanks.

 

[mvincent]

The defending property does say stacks with all other bonuses so I would say yes.

Obligatory notes regarding Multiple Defending Weapons:
Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpreted as indicating that it stacks with itself, but this appears unwarranted.

Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses:
"A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus."
... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses from the same source* don't stack with themselves. Note that "same source" in D&D does not refer to the "same item" (or same caster), but rather the "same effect” (or “same spell”).

It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (as this is what it actually is). This is also the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems (example: +1 defending armor spikes, double weapon, shield spike, spiked gauntlets, spiked codpiece, boot-blade, etc. all with Greater magic weapon +5 cast on them).

 

[Deset Gled]

Note that the 3.0 FAQ clarified that you need to actually wield a Defending weapon to get the AC bonus, not just hold it. Depending on your DM, you may have to take a to-hit penalty or even make a full attack to get the bonus from the second side.

 

[Caliban]

Could a quarterstaff, double-whatever, gnome hooked hammer, etc. get the benefit of having +5 defending on BOTH ends of a weapon? i.e., could a frail wizard carry around a quarterstaff that functioned as +10 to armor?

Sure, but unless you learn how to cast spells while attacking with both ends of the staff (i.e. TWF), it's only marginally useful to a wizard.

 

[mvincent]

Note that the 3.0 FAQ clarified that you need to actually wield a Defending weapon to get the AC bonus, not just hold it. Depending on your DM, you may have to take a to-hit penalty or even make a full attack to get the bonus from the second side.

The 3.0 FAQ said:
"Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t
actually attack with the weapon."

This is a good reference for intent, but the actual method presented is a bit suspect in 3.5. The same author later said (in the RotG) that:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all."
Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

[threadjack]In my campaign, I have all 'plus' weapon enhancements to apply equally to both ends of a double weapon. Only special effects like flaming, or holy, or defending, have to be enchanted separately. This means that 'plus' enchantments are more economical and special effects are less common.[/threadjack]

 

[Deset Gled]

Implying that one can wield (i.e. threaten with) a 2nd weapon without taking TWF'ing penalties.

My post was actually incorrect; the FAQ never states that you have to "wield" the weapon. It says you have to attack with the weapon (a la Expertise). Technically, both of these rulings can exist side by side with no direct contradiction (even if there is a cognitive one).