Defending weapon property

[Infiniti2000]

For starters, it's a weapons enhancement, and costs twice the cost per increment vs. an armor enhancement, right?

Right, which is what I inferred from your post. So, to make the +1 defending sword cost-effective, you have to leave a +1 bonus on attacks (or possibly on damage) when you move +1 to AC (because the AC bonus should be cheaper).

Is this a correct interpretation of what you mean? If so, I hope my previous post now makes sense. Honestly, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or anything.

 

[moritheil]

Right, which is what I inferred from your post. So, to make the +1 defending sword cost-effective, you have to leave a +1 bonus on attacks (or possibly on damage) when you move +1 to AC (because the AC bonus should be cheaper).

Is this a correct interpretation of what you mean? If so, I hope my previous post now makes sense. Honestly, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or anything.

Oh, now I get it. You want to know if I house-rule defending weapons. I do not.

I'm simply stating that since they're kind of a crappy deal, that biases me in favor of allowing that one tiny +1 atk adjustment from masterwork, which is debatable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I was more interested in a discussion on it, but perhaps that would be better off in the House Rules forum. In other words, the defending property is arguably too weak as a +1 modifier on weapons, so perhaps it would be better off as a +X gp adjustment instead, or maybe to modify it to only remove the +1 on atttacks or +1 on damage and not both. Like I said, though, this is regardless of the masterwork bonus debate. That only helps us (me, maybe) see this as an issue.