+1 Defending sword

[Hypersmurf]

I see the Defending ability as being applied after the sword checks to see what enhancement bonuses it has, not before.

The sword never checks anything.

The bonuses exist, or they do not exist.

If I'm wearing a +1 buckler with Improved Buckler Defense, and I have a Shield spell running, and I'm wielding two weapons with the Two Weapon Defense feat, I have three shield bonuses. A +2 shield bonus from the buckler, a +1 shield bonus from TWD, and a +4 shield bonus from Shield.

The total improvement to my AC is only +4; the three bonuses do not stack. But all three exist, and are independent of each other.

If my +1 buckler has an ability that lets me transfer its enhancement bonus as a bonus to all saves, then I can drop its shield bonus from +2 to +1 by shifting that +1 enhancement bonus.

The total improvement to my AC is still +4. Even though some of my shield bonus has been reduced, the total (due to the overlapping effects) has not changed.

-Hyp.

 

[Kurotowa]

Let me try phrasing it differently.

There is no such thing as a masterwork or magical bonus, just an enhancement bonus. A masterwork sword has a +1 enhancement bonus to attack. A +1 sword has a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Because they're both enhancement bonuses they overlap.

The defending property allows you to change enhancement bonus to hit and damage into untyped AC bonus. If you have a +2 defending longsword and add +1 AC you still have a +1 enhancement to hit and damage. If you shift that second point you have no enhancement bonus left. You're not shifting magical or masterwork because those don't exist. There's just the sword's total enhancement bonus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because they're both enhancement bonuses they overlap.

The defending property allows you to change enhancement bonus to hit and damage into untyped AC bonus. If you have a +2 defending longsword and add +1 AC you still have a +1 enhancement to hit and damage. If you shift that second point you have no enhancement bonus left. You're not shifting magical or masterwork because those don't exist. There's just the sword's total enhancement bonus.

This is what I referred to earlier about considering 'some of the enhancement bonus' to be a purely quantitative measure, rather than a qualitative.

-Hyp.

 

[Nyeshet]

I tend to take the qualitative approach.

I see the Masterwork property as being due to better balance, etc of the weapon. It is entirely non-magical (and, in fact, I allow MW to increase the attack bonus beyond +1 if the DC met is high enough - and to grant a bonus to damage, although this is a separate DC check). Furthermore, I consider magical and non-magical boni as distinctly separate. They may overlap, but they are from separate sources. Otherwise a +1 sword would lose all enhancement in an antimagic field. Instead, only the magical enhancement is lost. Defending does not alter the sword - its distribution of mass or any other non-magical quality. As such, I cannot see it affecting the MW enhancement in any way. It is partly because of this that the weapon needs a +1 enhancement before Defending can be applied - so that it has something to work with.

Thus, I see nothing wrong with using Defending and retaining the +1 MW enhancement to attack. The magical enhancement has been negated by the Defending property, allowing the formerly overshadowed MW enhancement to shine through.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just to add my $.02, I also see little difference between these two situations:

1. Character with +1 defending sword enters antimagic field, field removes magic enhancement bonus, leaves sword with +1 enhancement bonus to hit
2. Character with +1 defending sword transfers magic enhancement bonus to AC, leaves sword with +1 enhancement bonus to hit.

In either case, the sword's enhancement bonus is removed by some factor, leaving the masterwork enhancement bonus behind.

 

[Cabral]

Defending does not alter the sword - its distribution of mass or any other non-magical quality. As such, I cannot see it affecting the MW enhancement in any way.

Well, I can see the argument against letting the MW bonus remain, the defending weapon veers from the path you intend to deflect attacks and so the effective -1 to hit and damge (or more for weapons with higher bonuses) actually comes from the sword interfering with your swing. I prefer to see the weapon's defensive measures as being more minor corrections leading you towards a more perfect kata. (You didn't parry that attack, it was just natural for you to deflect as part of your attack. In fact this could spurn a combat expertise focused prestige class ... nah, I'm too lazy )