Defending weapon property

[kjenks]

Greetings all, thought that i'd delurk and say hi ("Hi.") to everyone.

my question is about the Defending property for weapons. if you choose to make the entire plus of the weapon as a bonus to defence, do you still get the masterwork property of the weapon for your attack rolls?

from the SRD (emphasis mine)
[font=&quot]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.
[/font]
and for masterowrk weapons
[font=&quot]it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.[/font]


So if you have a longsword +2 of defending and you use the +2 for you AC, do you still get the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to you to hit?

I think that the masterwork proprty would not still be included in your attack bonus because it is an enhancement bonus and you have put all the enhancement bonus to your AC (which doesn't stack with the magic +2)

thanks in advance,

Dross

[font=&quot]
[/font]

I looked at this in detail some months ago. I noticed that the wording of the Defending ability and the overlapping of named bonuses interacts a little oddly here. This appears to be the key question: Are you transfer some or all of the enhancement bonus to AC?

If you transfer all of the enhancement bonus to AC, all means all, including the masterwork enhancement bonus which overlaps with the magical enhancement bonus.

Take your +2 Defending weapon as an example.

+2 attack, +2 damage, +0 AC (that's "none" of the enhancement bonus to AC)
+1 attack, +1 damage, +1 AC (that's "some" of the enhancement bonus to AC)
+0 attack, +0 damage, +2 AC (that's "all" of the enhancement bonus to AC)

All means all, including all of the masterwork enhancement bonus and all of the magical
enhancement bonus.

Not only is that a literal interpretation of the rule, it's also the way I've always seen it played and it's what I believe the game designers intended to happen.

But really, why worry about a measly +1 attack bonus? That extra little bit rarely makes a difference between life and death. If it bothers you, talk to your DM. The DM can always tweak an attack roll if he feels like it. Or not.

 

[myradale]

All means all, including all of the masterwork enhancement bonus and all of the magical
enhancement bonus.
QUOTE]


Imagine a very very sharp blade (masterwork). Now imagine that magic envelopes that blade, creating an aura that is even sharper and more damaging (+ to hit and damage).
If you redirect that magic, the aura dissappears.
If you rule that the the enhancement bonus from masterwork goes away as well, is the defending property or antimagic field somehow making the sword duller and more unwieldy than it was before any magic was applied? And does it magically make it sharp again once the spell or effect is finished?
I think this is an Occam's Razor situation... the simplest solution is the right one and only the magical enhancement bonus is redistributed or lost by magical means.

 

[kjenks]

All means all.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think this is an Occam's Razor situation... the simplest solution is the right one and only the magical enhancement bonus is redistributed or lost by magical means.

Except that the simplest solution is that all means all. Occam's razor would prohibit you from attributing a flavor description to the masterwork enhancement bonus in order to keep it. Instead, the defending property specifies all enhancement bonuses. Not some, depending on what they are, but all.

 

[Bad Paper]

I am wielding a +1 defending longsword. I transfer its bonus to my AC. Yippee. I am then caught inside an Antimagic Field. Does my attack-roll bonus go up?

No. That is absurd and gives me a headache. Therefore, the defending property does not affect the masterwork bonus.

 

[kjenks]

I am wielding a +1 defending longsword. I transfer its bonus to my AC. Yippee. I am then caught inside an Antimagic Field. Does my attack-roll bonus go up?

No. That is absurd and gives me a headache. Therefore, the defending property does not affect the masterwork bonus.

Your weapon effectively reverts back to being a masterwork weapon since both its +1 magical enhancement bonus and it Defending ability are suppressed while you're in the AMF, so yes, your AC goes down and your attack bonus does increase.

It doesn't bother me that you find this absurd. I know of many absurd situations in the D&D rules.

Here. Take two Advil for that headache.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Because I am in a nitpicky mood today...

Instead, the defending property specifies all enhancement bonuses. Not some, depending on what they are, but all.

Hmm... let's look again a the defending property.

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.

(emphasis mine)

Let's tackle the two emboldened words in reverse order. First of all, the text clearly says bonus. Singular. Not bonuses as you indicate above. That clearly means you can transfer all of one single bonus to AC, and cannot possibly transfer two or more different bonuses, even if they are both enhancement bonuses.

But for sake of argument, let's say for the sake of argument, that that we ignore the obvious lack of pluralizing. Let us then look at the other bold word: some.

Some means some.

And the wielder of course can choose to allocate the enhancement bonus however he chooses. There he could choose to allocate both different enhancement bonuses (again assuming we ignore the rules of English grammar) to AC, but he does not have to. He could instead choose apply only some of the bonus, namely a quantity equal to the entire magical bonus, but not the enhancement bonus, thus retaining the masterwork bonus to attack.

But I've decided my above argument was not silly and nitpicky enough, therefore I am going to take my grammatically over analyses on level further. Let’s look at two more quotes, regarding magic and masterwork weapons.

Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5.

A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

So what's the difference between theses two quotes? The difference is what is providing the bonus. In the first example, the magic weapon is clearly the subject of the sentence. Thus we can clearly see that magic weapons have an enhancement bonus. This bonus is innate to the weapons, and it will have the bonus even if it is just sitting the middle of the floor.

Now let's look at the second sentence in the masterwork quote. What is the subject of this sentence? I'll get you a hint, it's not "it." Yes, the subject of this sentence is "wielding." Thus as anybody can clearly see, it is not the masterwork weapon itself that grants the bonus, it is the act of wielding the sword that grants the bonus to attack.

Finally, let us look again at the defending property, this time with new emphasis added.

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.

Note that it refers to the "sword's" bonus, not "the sword's bonus, and the enhancement bonus granted from wielding the sword." Since we already established that the masterwork enhancement bonus comes not from the sword itself, but rather from the act of wielding it, it is obvious that the masterwork enhancement bonus cannot be transferred to AC.

(On a related note, it seems that while any weapon can be given the defending property, only swords can transfer their enhancement bonuses. I guess all other weapons are just out of luck).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Some means some.

Well, true, but in this argument, we're discussing transferring all, not some. If it were only some, there would be no debate because the masterwork bonus does not stack with the remaining enhancement bonus. So, pointing out 'some' is not relevant.

Thus as anybody can clearly see, it is not the masterwork weapon itself that grants the bonus, it is the act of wielding the sword that grants the bonus to attack.

That's only true if you ignore other rules, which would then be in conflict. Statements such as "The enhancement bonus granted by the masterwork quality ..." and "The enhancement bonus of masterwork ammunition ..." and (from the on-line Glossary) "Exceptionally well-made, generally providing a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls (if the item is a weapon or ammunition), ...."

Let's tackle the two emboldened words in reverse order. First of all, the text clearly says bonus. Singular. Not bonuses as you indicate above. That clearly means you can transfer all of one single bonus to AC, and cannot possibly transfer two or more different bonuses, even if they are both enhancement bonuses.

To rebut with more nitpickiness, it also uses "the" bonus, indicating that there can't possibly be more than one, or that even in the case of multiple bonuses, they are treated as one.

(On a related note, it seems that while any weapon can be given the defending property, only swords can transfer their enhancement bonuses. I guess all other weapons are just out of luck).

Yup. We'll call that a copy/paste bug from 1e when it was a specific weapon.

 

[Zandel]

Thanks Hyp. Miss-read that quickly.

 

[moritheil]

I've never heard of an interpretation that a magical bonus destroys the preexisting masterwork bonus before today. Rather, the masterwork bonus isn't normally thought of because, like the magical bonus, it's enhancement, and its effects are overlapped.

Doesn't it stand to reason that when you do something else to the magical bonus, the masterwork bonus remains?

Ah, but the question then becomes "is the intent to overlap as long as they're the same bonus to the same thing - enhancement bonuses to hit - or is the intent to overlap so long as some sort of benefit is being derived?"

Personally, I lean towards allowing the masterwork bonus to hit while the magical bonus is fully transferred to AC, but only because defending weapons need help to be cost-effective.