Adamantine Defending Sword.

[JDowling]

Hyp - that is absurd and can't work.

As soon as the magical enhancement bonus would drop to +0 in your interpretation the sword can no longer hold defending, and all enchantments are stripped.

the rules clearly state that weapons need to have at least a +1 bonus if they have other abilities.

your interpretation of the rules is wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - that is absurd and can't work.

As soon as the magical enhancement bonus would drop to +0 in your interpretation the sword can no longer hold defending, and all enchantments are stripped.

the rules clearly state that weapons need to have at least a +1 bonus if they have other abilities.

That's not proof it can't work - as long as you never transfer the last point of enhancement bonus, you don't hit the paradox.

So a +4 Defender could transfer up to three points of enhancement bonus to AC, but if it transferred the fourth, it would no longer be able to support the Defending quality, and all the bonus would snap back to enhancement.

I can live with that - and it makes more sense to me than a sword that is no longer +2 to attack and damage defeating DR X/+2.

-Hyp.

 

[JDowling]

the problem is that the defending discription says that you can transfer some or all of the enhancement bonus to AC.

The paradox never happens because the bonus doesn't acctually go to +0, you just don't get the plus to hit and damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

the problem is that the defending discription says that you can transfer some or all of the enhancement bonus to AC.

That's just it. You're transferring the enhancement bonus. There is no distinction between the enhancement bonus and the "plus to attack and damage". The enhancement bonus is the "plus to attack and damage". You receive a special bonus to AC, and in exchange, you give up some or all of your enhancement bonus. If you give up your enhancement bonus, then your sword does not qualify as a weapon that can penetrate DR X/+2.

-Hyp.

 

[JDowling]

this is becoming circular, and I think poorly worded rules are to blame.

I read "...transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others." to mean that it is a special enhancement bonus to AC, special in that it stacks with all other bonuses. Thus, the sword still has the same enhancement bonus, but instead of benefiting attacking and damage, it benefits AC.

You are reading it as the enhancement bonus dissapears and a "special bonus" gets added to the AC.

I believe that I am right for several reasons.

first - the paradoxes and problems that arise when the enhancement bonus acctually lowers.

second - in the table of bonuses that explains stacking, there are three enhancement bonuses: Attacks/Damage, Armor, Ability score. Every other kind of bonus is listed. There is no "special bonus".

third - enchantments don't just go away, then reappear a round later.

Examples of problems with your interpretation:
- You use the Defending ability as it's worded, using all of the enhancement bonus, which then makes the weapon +0, meaning it can't hold the Defending ability, and is totally non-magical. Paradox.

- You are fighting a mage, you win initiative and hold your action until they go. You see them beginning to cast a spell (dispell magic) so you pump everything you have into AC, your sword becomes non-magical, his spell has no effect, has no legitamate target, etc (rather then possibly disableing the magic of your weapon for 1d4 rounds). Problem.

- You get Greater Magic Weapon cast on your Defending Weapon. You pump all your regular weapon's Enhancement bonus into Defending (+1 to +5 AC), then the sword suddenly has another +5 enhancement bonus for attack damage. Problem.

- You have Greater Magic Weapon cast on your sword, toss everything into AC (+1 to +5), then since the spell puts an "enhancement bonus" on the sword you use the Defending to pump another +5 AC, so you have +10 AC +0attack/dmg. Problem.

- How do you handle a +2 Defending Flaming Longsword? The paradox above means that both defending and flaming stop if you put all +2 to AC? Or does Flaming still work? Defending? Another problem with the same paradox.

Problems with my interpretation:
You can get a bonus to AC and still get through damage reduction.

Well guess what... the wording on Damage Reduction says that your weapon needs an enhancement bonus of whatever to work... there's three kinds of enhancement bonus - attack/dmg, stats, and AC... so if you had a Longsword of Ogre Power (custom magic item, normal longsword but with a +2 enhancement bonus to STR) then I guess you can break through damage reduction of x/+2 or less if you want to be really picky about it.

Also - the sage's ruling agrees with my interpretation and does not with yours. I think I have fairly well explained the reasoning behind the ruling, if you can't see it then I guess you just can't.

Anyway, I think I'm right, you think you are right, I doubt either of us will convince the other.

 

[Hypersmurf]

second - in the table of bonuses that explains stacking, there are three enhancement bonuses: Attacks/Damage, Armor, Ability score. Every other kind of bonus is listed. There is no "special bonus".

No, of course not - the bonus to AC is unnamed.

third - enchantments don't just go away, then reappear a round later.

If you mean enhancements, they do if they're targetted with a Dispel Magic. So there's at least one precedent.

- You use the Defending ability as it's worded, using all of the enhancement bonus, which then makes the weapon +0, meaning it can't hold the Defending ability, and is totally non-magical. Paradox.

Except it's not totally non-magical - since when the Defending ability becomes non-viable, the enhancement bonus will all snap back into place. Since you can only transfer the bonus once per round, the sword retains its normal enhancement bonus until next time you try - at least one round later.

- You get Greater Magic Weapon cast on your Defending Weapon. You pump all your regular weapon's Enhancement bonus into Defending (+1 to +5 AC), then the sword suddenly has another +5 enhancement bonus for attack damage. Problem.

I don't see one.

- You have Greater Magic Weapon cast on your sword, toss everything into AC (+1 to +5), then since the spell puts an "enhancement bonus" on the sword you use the Defending to pump another +5 AC, so you have +10 AC +0attack/dmg. Problem.

Only if you allow a non-crafted enhancement bonus to be transferred.

- How do you handle a +2 Defending Flaming Longsword? The paradox above means that both defending and flaming stop if you put all +2 to AC? Or does Flaming still work? Defending?

After a brief flicker, the sword would have a +2 enhancement bonus again.

I'd have to think about whether you'd have to reactivate the Flaming.

Well guess what... the wording on Damage Reduction says that your weapon needs an enhancement bonus of whatever to work... there's three kinds of enhancement bonus - attack/dmg, stats, and AC... so if you had a Longsword of Ogre Power (custom magic item, normal longsword but with a +2 enhancement bonus to STR) then I guess you can break through damage reduction of x/+2 or less if you want to be really picky about it.

Not quite.

A weapon's enhancement bonus affects attack and damage rolls.

A Longsword of Ogre Power would provide the wielder with a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength... but it doesn't have an enhancement bonus.

And the third type of Enhancement bonus isn't actually a bonus to AC directly, but an improvement to the Armor Bonus of a suit of armor or shield. That's why the Defending "special" bonus is unnamed, not an enhancement bonus - enhancement bonuses don't directly improve your AC.

-Hyp.

 

[Zentermi]

I'm prolly gonna get hammered on this one.

If you take a +2 Adamantine sword into a zone of Anti-Magic... you take away the the Enhancement bonus of "the enchantment".
The sword becomes unmagical, and cannot (unless damage it inflict exceeds DR) injure those critters only hurt by magical weapons. It still has +2 to hit and still inflicts 1d8+2 points of damage, but, while in the anti-magic zone... it's non-magical.

If you place the combined enchantments of +2 and Defending on an Adamantine bastard sword, when you strip the enchantments(via anti-magic) you are still left with with a non-magical +2 bastard sword. Defending should redirect the Magical enhancement, it should have no effect on the properties of the material enhancement. The Defending property essentially stips the enhancement enchantment from the blade during the round it's commanded to defend.

Look at it this way. If one of your PC's created an Adamantine bastard sword, +1 Defending... could he give himself +2 to AC(in effect gaining an additional +1 magical enhancement where one is not actually present)? Seriously, if moving the all of the magical enhancement moves all of the materiel enhancement... then that should work. Which it shouldn't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm prolly gonna get hammered on this one.

Why? I agree with you completely

-Hyp.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I'd go with the above as well, cause the rules support it mostly, and it's a clever idea.

But we could always make things easier on everyone, and house rule it no less , by saying that Defending swords give you acess to the Expertise Feat free. Does the same thing, with no hassle. You might want to bump it up to +2, as it could be used as a virtual feat, and could give you a +5 AC right off the bat, no need for a +5 sword, but it's an idea.

 

[green slime]

Will just to murky the waters bit further, I present the following:

A +2 Adamantine Defending weapon is able to add +2 to AC, and retain a non-magical +2 bonus to hit and damage. (given that it costs almost as much as a +4 weapon). It retains its hardness and hp, as a +2 magical adamantine weapon. It can penetrate DR X/+2 through virtue of the material the weapon is made of.

A Steel +2 Defending weapon that has its +2 applied to AC, it cannot penetrate DR X/+2. However I wouldn't have the hardness and hp of the sword reduced. The magic is still present in the weapon.

A +4 Steel Defending weapon that has all of its bonuses pumped into AC, while it cannot defeat DR X/+4, is still regarded as a +4 weapon for purposes of resisting sundering. It has the hardness and hp of a +4 weapon, at all times.

A +1 Adamantine Defending longsword can be used to add +1 to AC, and still retain a +2 bonus to hit and damage. It has the hardness and hp of a +1 adamantine weapon

Casting GMW (+5) on a +2 Defending longsword does not allow you to move more than +2 to your AC (at which time the weapon becomes +3, and can only defeat DR X/+3), nor does the spell in any way increase the hardness or hp of the weapon. The weapon under influence of GMW can be sundered by a +3 permanently enhanced weapon.

That's right, I dislike GMW...