Adamantine Defending Sword.

[Judas]

I had this almost exact question a little while ago, so if someone could do a search for me looking for posts started by me, that would be a great help for point of refrence.

A few things to note.

1. Adamantine weapons are only a +1 enhancement as of MoF.
2. The defending ability takes the magical pluses and either makes them:
   A.) Enhancement bonuses to hit and damage, or
   B.) *Special* bonuses to AC that stack with all other bonuses.
3. Apply stacking rules.[/list=1]As per the Defending ability description:

   A defender weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a special 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. Caster Level: 8th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Market Price: +1 bonus.

   So let's say you have a (a.)+1 Adamantine, Defending Longsword & a (b.)+1 Defending Longsword. If you put the +1 to hit and damage for either sword, you are doing 1d8+1. Since the swords are magical, they have to be of masterwork quality, so right there they're +1 to hit enhancement. For sword A. it's also adamantine, so there's another +1 to hit enhancement bonus, but it also provides a +1 to damage enhancement bonus. So sword "A" is +1/+1, where as sword "B" is +1/+0.
   
   Now we want to add the defending ability to both, but wait, to put ANY magical abilities on a weapon, it first has to have a base +1 magical enhancement bonus. So sword A is +1/+1:+1, and Sword B is +1/+0:+1. Then we add defending, which does not add any enhancement bonuses in of itself. So sword A should have +2/+2 to hit and damage, and sword B should be +2/+1. Right? Of course not. Stacking rules apply, and since all said bonuses are specifically "enhancement" bonuses. Both swords A & B, are only +1/+1 doing 1d8+1.
   
   So now that we see what a waste the +1 magic bonus is on an adamantine weapon, we now switch the magic to the defense side. The Sword A is +1/+1:+0, and Sword B would become +1/+0:+0. Stacking rules applied, with sword A you still have a a sword that only does 1D8+1, but now provides a +1 to AC as well. Sword B would drop the +1 damage but would still be +1 to hit and +1 to AC.
   
   The Adamantine table from MoF:
   
   

 

[Wolf72]

iirc that table was erratted, for 1d8+ it is suppossed to be +2

 

[Angcuru]

heck, I rule that if a +1 enhancement makes a steel sword more likely to hit and more damaging, it can do the same thing with adamantine. Phooey to anyone who says otherwise. BTW, iwatt, that is a GREAT idea!

 

[Judas]

iirc that table was erratted, for 1d8+ it is suppossed to be +2

Ok, good. I thought it was a little overpriced for only +1.

But even if it is +2, the mechanic remains the same.

 

[CrimsonTemplar]

I still hold that you don't get the Adamantine bonus "back" if you put the magical enhancement bonus to AC.

With regards to the +1 Defending Adamantine Longsword ? posed earlier, I'd say that since magical bonuses override the inherent bonuses of Admantine weapons the following would happen:

A) If you use the weapon for straight attack (no bonuses to AC) you'll get +2 to hit (+1 Magical & +2 Adamantine = +2 overall bonus)/+2 damage (+1 Magical & +2 Adamantine = +2 overall bonus).

B) If you use the Defending property you can put +1 to your AC (the enhancement bonus of the weapon) and you will still receive a +1 to hit/+1 damage. This is due to the fact that the weapon is still a +1 magically enhanced weapon.

Ultimately this is up to your DM, whatever he says goes...because he's the DM & he can manipulate the rules as he sees fit. If you're playing in a campaign like LG then you should submit this question to whoever is running the campaign and get their "official" answer.

 

[Judas]

I still hold that you don't get the Adamantine bonus "back" if you put the magical enhancement bonus to AC.

With regards to the +1 Defending Adamantine Longsword ? posed earlier, I'd say that since magical bonuses override the inherent bonuses of Admantine weapons the following would happen:

A) If you use the weapon for straight attack (no bonuses to AC) you'll get +2 to hit (+1 Magical & +2 Adamantine = +2 overall bonus)/+2 damage (+1 Magical & +2 Adamantine = +2 overall bonus).

B) If you use the Defending property you can put +1 to your AC (the enhancement bonus of the weapon) and you will still receive a +1 to hit/+1 damage. This is due to the fact that the weapon is still a +1 magically enhanced weapon.

Ultimately this is up to your DM, whatever he says goes...because he's the DM & he can manipulate the rules as he sees fit. If you're playing in a campaign like LG then you should submit this question to whoever is running the campaign and get their "official" answer.

I agree, It's ultimately up to the DM. But your examples are flawed. There are no "Magical" or Adamantine bonuses as stated in your example. In the situation of a adamantine weapon with the defending ability there are only Enhancement and Special bonuses.

Stacking rules define that no like type bonuses stack (Except armor for armor and shields, and dodge). If you have 2 or more like type bonuses, you simply take the greatest of all the bonuses and drop the rest. The weapon has a +2 Natural Enhancment bonus. The weapon also has a +2 Magical Enhancment bonus. Which is greater? They tie, you take one and drop the rest. The weapon now switches to defense, and all of the pluses are switched to a "special" bonus that applies to AC. Wepaon natural enhancement is still +2. It's Magical enhancement bonus is now +0. Which is greater?

This may seem wrong to some, but this was intended by design. This is why a non-magical Adamantine weapon costs more than any other steel weapon +2 of the same type. A +2 Adamantine weapon will cost/value at near 20,000gp, where as +2 steel weapon will just be over 8,000gp. (Going from memory, correct me if I'm wrong, but an adamantine weapon will still cost 9,000gp MORE than a like steel weapon).

 

[iwatt]

Angcuru said:

BTW, iwatt, that is a GREAT idea!

Yeah it seems pretty cool, but in complete honesty I didn't realize I'd done this until I was test swinging the sword.

 

[JDowling]

after looking through the rule books and this thread I'd have to say that quite simply - it doesn't work.

The +2 Defending Adamantine Weapon does not lose it's "+2 magical enhancement bonus". The sword still has the bonus but it allows you to allocate the bonus as you see fit (to AC or Attack/Damage). It does not lose the bonus and gain a new (different) bonus.

If a DM is going to rule otherwise (altering the rules presented in the book) then a +2 Defending Longsword can't break through a beast that has DR 30/+2 while the user allocates the bonus to AC when the sword is still clearly a +2 weapon.

The benefit of adamantine is, as clearly stated in DMG, that in an area where magic does not function or on a non-magical adamantine item (or a magical adamantine item with bonuses lower then the material bonuses) you still gain the material bonuses, but they do not stack with magical bonuses. Nothing more.

Defending never states the the weapon loses it's enchancement bonus, because it doesn't. It redirects that bonus to AC instead of to hit/damage.

Therefore: A defending weapon with all of it's enhancement bonus being directed to AC still has it's enhancement bonus, which means that it supresses the material bonus on the adamantine.

Therefore: A +2 defending adamantine weapon can not give +2 to hit, +2 to damage, and +2 AC all at the same time.

That's how I would rule, and the only way that I can see the rules make any sense. A +2 defending weapon that is currently giving it's +2 to AC instead of attack/damage is still clearly a +2 weapon. Otherwise I could make a +1 defending weapon, then use the +1 for AC (for several weeks straight) and enchant it as a +1 weapon again (well, it doesn't have any magical enhancement bonus, so why can't I enchant it? It just has a "Special AC bonus"), which is obviously not right.

EDIT:

This may seem wrong to some, but this was intended by design. This is why a non-magical Adamantine weapon costs more than any other steel weapon +2 of the same type. A +2 Adamantine weapon will cost/value at near 20,000gp, where as +2 steel weapon will just be over 8,000gp. (Going from memory, correct me if I'm wrong, but an adamantine weapon will still cost 9,000gp MORE than a like steel weapon).

The reason this doesn't hold up is because an ordinary non-magical adamantine weapon has +2 to hit and damage, and the ordinary non-magical adamantine weapon costs more then the ordinary non-magical steel version, for obvious reasons. Adding an enchantment ontop of the base cost of the weapon doesn't add any additional cost (the enchantment is no harder, it is the same enchantment).

Adamantine does not cost more because it gives a special bonus to enchanted defending weapons. It costs more because the material, unenchanted, is equivalent to a +1 or +2 weapon, or a +1, +2, or +3 suit of armor, and it even works where magic doesn't.

 

[splitinfinitude]

I think that's the "A" answer.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a DM is going to rule otherwise (altering the rules presented in the book) then a +2 Defending Longsword can't break through a beast that has DR 30/+2 while the user allocates the bonus to AC when the sword is still clearly a +2 weapon.

Actually, that's exactly how I'd rule.

"A defender weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his or her AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others."

If you transfer all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to a special bonus to AC, the weapon no longer has an enhancement bonus.

No DR penetration, no immunity to damage from non-magical weapons, no extra hardness and hit points.

In fact, if your +5 Defender has been damaged so that it has less than 6 hit points remaining, and you transfer all of its enhancement bonus to AC, since it no longer qualifies for the extra hit points from having an enhancement bonus, it would drop below 1 hit point and break.

Defending never states the the weapon loses it's enchancement bonus, because it doesn't. It redirects that bonus to AC instead of to hit/damage.

It has an enhancement bonus, but when it transfers, that enhancement bonus becomes a "special bonus". It is no longer an enhancement bonus to the weapon.

Therefore: A defending weapon with all of it's enhancement bonus being directed to AC still has it's enhancement bonus, which means that it supresses the material bonus on the adamantine.

Magic doesn't suppress the bonus from Adamantine. It overlaps. There's a major difference.

Otherwise I could make a +1 defending weapon, then use the +1 for AC (for several weeks straight) and enchant it as a +1 weapon again (well, it doesn't have any magical enhancement bonus, so why can't I enchant it? It just has a "Special AC bonus"), which is obviously not right.

Not so. The special bonus lasts until your next turn, at which point you need to consciously reallocate it to defence. That means that during the crafting process, it would be "strobing" between having-an-enhancement-bonus and not-having-an-enhancement-bonus, so you couldn't add more abilities as if it were a weapon of lesser bonus.

-Hyp.