+1 Defending sword

[Mouseferatu]

Smurfy, I'm normally impressed with your ability to find holes in the rules, even if I don't always agree with you on them.

But in this case, I think you're manufacturing one, so far as your point 2 goes. The defending capability clearly states "some or all" of its bonus can be transfered. Now, it could certainly be a legitimate houserule to state that it must retain at least one "plus" to its attack rolls, but if we're discussing RAW, that's a non-issue.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If you rule that you must always leave at least a +1 bonus when transferring, then the masterwork/magical split becomes moot anyway.

Not only that, but it makes a the special property of a +1 defending weapon completely and utterly useless. No, I don't think that's a legitimate viewpoint.

The other important issue is that defending weapons have to be swords. If you allow them to be non-swords, then you might as well fix the defending property description to suit your purposes anyways.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The other important issue is that defending weapons have to be swords. If you allow them to be non-swords, then you might as well fix the defending property description to suit your purposes anyways.

Zuh?

What are you talking about?

 

[Infiniti2000]

The defending property is written thusly with the relevant word bolded, "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." Thus, it only works with swords. Now, I readily agree it's a cut'n'paste typo or, at best, extremely poorly worded, but there you have it.

 

[Nail]

.....but there you have it.

Yup.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I say I'd allow it.

You're keeping the +1 to hit, but since you've transferred the Enhancement from MAGIC bonus, the sword would no longer bypass DR X/Magic, NOR do the +1 damage ... giving up both of those for a +1 AC is alright in my book. If you have a +3 Defender and drop 2 points into AC it still does +1 Damage and strikes true on Magic DR, so I don't see keeping that last +1 to-hit really unbalances stuff. As said, it's pretty expensive AC.

--fje

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

As I read it, the sword's bonus hasn't changed. Transfer and allocate are the key words. It's still a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus. The Defending property allows you to apply it to your AC. That doesn't mean the bonus has gone away or been reduced, that means the bonus is being redirected. The total amount of bonus is the same. Now, if the sword got hit with a Dispel Magic or Antimagic Field, then it would regain the masterwork +1 enhancement bonus. But not when you use Defending.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But in this case, I think you're manufacturing one, so far as your point 2 goes.

Well, I'm just recapping the previous thread

That doesn't mean the bonus has gone away or been reduced, that means the bonus is being redirected. The total amount of bonus is the same.

Yes, but if you choose to redirect some of the bonus (the magical 'some') to AC, and leave the rest of the bonus (the masterwork 'some') applied to attacks, why would you not receive that +1 enhancement bonus to attacks?

The other question is whether the hardness and hit points of the weapon decrease when you transfer enhancement bonus as a bonus to AC. I'd say yes, they do.

-Hyp.

 

[Kurotowa]

Yes, but if you choose to redirect some of the bonus (the magical 'some') to AC, and leave the rest of the bonus (the masterwork 'some') applied to attacks, why would you not receive that +1 enhancement bonus to attacks?

After a lot of thought and failed posts, I believe the difference in thought is this. I see the Defending ability as being applied after the sword checks to see what enhancement bonuses it has, not before.

That is to say:

PC uses free action to active Defending -> Sword checks and finds it is a +3 defending longsword -> PC moves +3 from attack enhancement to AC bonus -> PC attacks

not:

PC uses free action to active Defending -> PC moves +3 from attack enhancement to AC bonus -> sword checks and finds it is a masterwork sword with no magical enhancements to attack -> PC attacks with +1 MW enhancement

 

[Nail]

....IOW, you assert that the "masterwork" enhancement bonus is separate and separable from the "magical" enhancement bonus. (See Hyp's point #1 in post #10.) I don't see anything wrong with that....is there some RAW language that says the "masterwork" enhancement bonus ceases to exist when a magical enhancement is put on a weapon?