Two-Weapon Defense

[FoxWander]

Hmm. Well, I confessed that I'm looking at the SRD 3.5e description of the TWD, and it does NOT mentioned that it is limited to defending melee attacks only. All it says, "+1 shield bonus to AC, +2 shield bonus to AC when fighting defensively or total defense." No restriction.

True, if you take TWD then i'd say it's a +1 (+2 if fighting defensively) to AC for every situation a shield bonus can be used.

But my point was it shouldn't require a feat in the first place. If all I'm doing is attacking with my rapier and using the dagger solely for defense, then I feel it should give you a bonus to AC. The reason for this is because if you look at how a buckler is used in actual fights, you'll see it's an active defense. The buckler is too small to block attacks without you actively moving it in the way of those attacks. In other words, you don't so much block attacks with a buckler as you parry them. Since a dagger (and main gauche especially) can be used the same way, then a defensive dagger should be able to give you a bonus to AC without requiring a feat to do so- especially if you're not also using it to attack. I see TWD as a feat that covers that situation- to get a defensive bonus while attacking with the 2nd weapon. But you should be able to get the defense bonus without requiring a feat IF you're not attacking as well.

 

[Caliban]

True, if you take TWD then i'd say it's a +1 (+2 if fighting defensively) to AC for every situation a shield bonus can be used.

But my point was it shouldn't require a feat in the first place. If all I'm doing is attacking with my rapier and using the dagger solely for defense, then I feel it should give you a bonus to AC. The reason for this is because if you look at how a buckler is used in actual fights, you'll see it's an active defense. The buckler is too small to block attacks without you actively moving it in the way of those attacks. In other words, you don't so much block attacks with a buckler as you parry them. Since a dagger (and main gauche especially) can be used the same way, then a defensive dagger should be able to give you a bonus to AC without requiring a feat to do so- especially if you're not also using it to attack. I see TWD as a feat that covers that situation- to get a defensive bonus while attacking with the 2nd weapon. But you should be able to get the defense bonus without requiring a feat IF you're not attacking as well.

Unfortunately, this would have the effect of making bucklers nearly useless, and giving a free +1 AC to sorcerers, wizards, bards, rogues, and any character build that doesn't include using a two-handed weapon or shield.

 

[Ranger REG]

But my point was it shouldn't require a feat in the first place. If all I'm doing is attacking with my rapier and using the dagger solely for defense, then I feel it should give you a bonus to AC. The reason for this is because if you look at how a buckler is used in actual fights, you'll see it's an active defense. The buckler is too small to block attacks without you actively moving it in the way of those attacks. In other words, you don't so much block attacks with a buckler as you parry them. Since a dagger (and main gauche especially) can be used the same way, then a defensive dagger should be able to give you a bonus to AC without requiring a feat to do so- especially if you're not also using it to attack. I see TWD as a feat that covers that situation- to get a defensive bonus while attacking with the 2nd weapon. But you should be able to get the defense bonus without requiring a feat IF you're not attacking as well.

I agree with Caliban. It makes the buckler less worthy to wield if a secondary weapon can be made to provide a defensive benefit without acquiring a specific training in their use (i.e., TWD feat). Besides, by default, a nonmagical weapon cannot provide any defensive benefit, unless it is specified in its description.

Feel free to houserule that main gauche can provide defensive benefit, but again, consider the repercussion you're doing to the buckler.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I wonder if you could enchant your weapons then with a shield enhancement ? Separately, as for shield spikes.

Shield spikes aren't enchanted at all.

If you add them to a shield, you have a spiked shield, which, like a normal shield, can receive enhancement bonuses and special abilities as both a shield and a weapon.

The spikes are not enchanted; the shield is. All the spikes do is change the shield's damage type from bludgeoning to piercing and increase it a little.

-Hyp.

 

[Oin]

I wonder if you could enchant your weapons then with a shield enhancement ? Separately, as for shield spikes.

Nice!!! Why not? If you have the player making it pay the material cost and xp cost for both attack and shield enhancements. I'm playing a high Dex dwarf with two Dwarven Waraxes. I like the idea. <<runs to phone to call Dwarven Mage player>>

 

[Darklone]

Shield spikes aren't enchanted at all.

If you add them to a shield, you have a spiked shield, which, like a normal shield, can receive enhancement bonuses and special abilities as both a shield and a weapon.

The spikes are not enchanted; the shield is. All the spikes do is change the shield's damage type from bludgeoning to piercing and increase it a little.

-Hyp.

Ah right... But a shield needs separate enhancements for the AC and the weapon stuff, right? Duh...

 

[Caliban]

Shield spikes aren't enchanted at all.

If you add them to a shield, you have a spiked shield, which, like a normal shield, can receive enhancement bonuses and special abilities as both a shield and a weapon.

The spikes are not enchanted; the shield is. All the spikes do is change the shield's damage type from bludgeoning to piercing and increase it a little.

-Hyp.

And I believe this is still intended to be true in 3.5, despite the incorrect/illegal example in the DMG (page 217).

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I believe this is still intended to be true in 3.5, despite the incorrect/illegal example in the DMG (page 217).

Yeah - I don't have a 3.5 DMG yet, but someone said it involved adding spikes to a buckler and then treating them as a separate weapon?

That doesn't follow the way they're described in the PHB at all.

-Hyp.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Yeah - I don't have a 3.5 DMG yet, but someone said it involved adding spikes to a buckler and then treating them as a separate weapon?

That doesn't follow the way they're described in the PHB at all.

-Hyp.

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the armour/shield and the spikes were treated separately for the purposes of enhancements, as they were in 3.0E. Thus, if one cast magic vestment on one's spiked full plate, the AC value of the armour increased but the spikes did not gain any enhancement bonus to attacks or damage, and did not overcome DR/magic. Similarly, if one cast magic weapon on one's spiked full plate, the spikes gained an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage, and would overcome DR/magic, but the armour's AC value did not increase. Certainly, if it were any other way, +1 spiked armour would be the best value magic weapon around - either becuase you didn't have to pay for the enhancement bonus to the AC value of the armour, or didn't have to pay for the enhancement bonus to the attack and damage rolls for the weapon. As it is, a suit of +1 spiked +1 full plate (noting the two "plusses" to denote the enhancement value of the spikes separate to the enhacement value of the armour) should cost 2650gp + 2350gp, or 5000gp, because it is both a +1 magic weapon and +1 magic armour.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

PS Hyp., how 'bout wandering over to the debate on druid wildshape and give us your professional rule lawyer view on attack and damage rolls for multiple attacks in wildshape!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the armour/shield and the spikes were treated separately for the purposes of enhancements, as they were in 3.0E.

That's how armor spikes worked in 3E, but not shield spikes.

Y'see, you don't need spikes to add weapon enhancements to a shield. But you do pay for different enhancements separately.

To add a +1 enhancement bonus to a shield's armor bonus (or shield bonus in 3.5) costs 1000gp, and the shield must be a masterwork shield (150gp on top of the base price). To add a +1 enhancement bonus to a shield's attack and damage rolls costs 2000gp, and the shield must be a masterwork weapon (300gp on top of base price).

A +5 Shield of Heavy Fortification which is also a +5 Ghost Touch Flaming Burst weapon with the Throwing and Returning abilities costs 10gp (base) + 150gp (masterwork shield) + 100,000gp (+10 shield MPM) + 300gp (masterwork weapon) + 200,000gp (+10 weapon MPM), for 300,460gp total, and acts as a +5 martial bludgeoning weapon.

If you build it with spikes, it's a spiked shield, that acts as a +5 martial piercing weapon. You don't add any special abilities to the spikes; you add them to the spiked shield.

In 3E, and in 3.5.

Armor spikes in 3E were treated as a separate item. In 3.5, I'm not certain yet... "spiked armor" is an entry on the weapons table, not "armor spikes". I'd need to look into it more closely.

-Hyp.