Dancing Weapon

[Dirty Magurdy]

I'm having a little bit of a problem discerning exactly what a dancing weapon does and does not do. And my players are conflicted on this as well.
Do any FAQs or any forums explain the weapon enchantment better?

Is it just the base attack bonus applied to the weapon?
Does the dancing weapon apply the "wielder's" strength modifier?
Use the "wielder's" feat benefits?
Use abilites granted through classes or prestige classes?
Or does it just swing (possibly multiple times) and dow base weapon damage as per the PHB plus the damage bonus from the enchantment on the weapon itself?

 

[FEADIN]

From the SRD:
Dancing: As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon. In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items. While dancing, it takes up the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the person who activated it everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the wielder who loosed it has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved the weapon can’t dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds.

For me it's as if wielded, all bonuses apply, nothing contradict this, the exceptions are written in the text.

 

[Dirty Magurdy]

Well Feadin, nothing contradicts your opinion, but nothing really supports it either. "Using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it," does nothing to lead me to believe that feats or ability modifiers apply - just BAB.
It just doesn't seem to really spell it out one way or another. I'm inclined to see it as you do, but I'd really like to know if that's how it was intended.

Thanks for your quick response.

 

[shadyizok]

basicly it all comes down to the interpretation of this line:

In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items.

Basicly if you would remove the 'and' and make to seperate sentences of it would you read:
In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers that target items. and In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all effects that target items.
or:
In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers. and In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all effects that target items.

If you take the second interpretation you can argue that an attack is a 'maneuver' that you could do with the weapon, and therefore are allowed to add your ability bonuses and feats to it.

 

[Dandu]

It's a +4 equivalent enchantment. Let it attack at the wielder's AB.

 

[FEADIN]

Yeah, I think that if there were more exceptions they'd have been included in the text but I agree: that's not clear.