Defending - Melee Weapon Special Ability

[Olaf the Stout]

I am looking at getting a Quarterstaff of Defending for my Wizard. The description for the ability is:

Defending: 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.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

In order to get this bonus to your AC do you need to actually make an attack with the weapon or can you just hold it in your hand, do something else (like cast a spell) and transfer all of the enhancement bonus to your AC?

If you do this, does it still count as a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction?

Olaf the Stout

 

[Caliban]

Oof, this is another one those questions that can generate pages of discussion, debate, and eventually cyberstalking and restraining orders.

My opinion: You have to actually use it as part of the attack action (or at least take the appropriate penalties) in order to activate the ability.

It's still a magic weapon, even if you shift it's entire enhancement bonus to AC.

I'm not even going to get into the whole "Casting Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 defender, or on a +5 defender after you have transferred the bonus to your AC" debate" or the whole "defending spiked shield, defending armor spikes, and defending weapon" issues.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In order to get this bonus to your AC do you need to actually make an attack with the weapon or can you just hold it in your hand, do something else (like cast a spell) and transfer all of the enhancement bonus to your AC?

If you're holding a quarterstaff (a two-handed weapon) in one hand in order to cast, you aren't 'the wielder'.

If you do this, does it still count as a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction?

There are a couple of interesting issues here.

Firstly, if you transfer enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC, the weapon gains no benefit that would normally accrue from that enhancement bonus. Its hardness and hit points will decrease, it will deal less damage and have a lower attack bonus, and so forth.

However, a weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus in order to possess special abilities... like Defending. So, in theory, if you transfer away the last point of enhancement bonus, the weapon is no longer eligible to be a Defending weapon. The implication is that one must always retain at least a single point of enhancement bonus (so a +3 Defending sword could transfer 1 or 2 points, but not 3 points, to AC)... which means the damage reduction question becomes irrelevant, since there is no DR X/+1, X/+2, X/+3 in 3.5. (It would still be an issue with a +6 Defending weapon vs DR X/Epic.)

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's still a magic weapon, even if you shift it's entire enhancement bonus to AC.

But DR X/Magic isn't overcome by just any magic weapon:
Damage reduction may be overcome by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality).

A magic weapon that doesn't have a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality, isn't a magic weapon capable of overcoming DR.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

If you're holding a quarterstaff (a two-handed weapon) in one hand in order to cast, you aren't 'the wielder'.



There are a couple of interesting issues here.

Firstly, if you transfer enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC, the weapon gains no benefit that would normally accrue from that enhancement bonus. Its hardness and hit points will decrease, it will deal less damage and have a lower attack bonus, and so forth.

However, a weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus in order to possess special abilities... like Defending. So, in theory, if you transfer away the last point of enhancement bonus, the weapon is no longer eligible to be a Defending weapon. The implication is that one must always retain at least a single point of enhancement bonus (so a +3 Defending sword could transfer 1 or 2 points, but not 3 points, to AC)... which means the damage reduction question becomes irrelevant, since there is no DR X/+1, X/+2, X/+3 in 3.5. (It would still be an issue with a +6 Defending weapon vs DR X/Epic.)

-Hyp.

Or you could take a slightly broader interpretation and rule that it still has it's full enhancement bonus, it's merely being used for a different purpose than normal due to the defending ability. No loss of hit points, hardness, and you can take it down to an effective +0 enhancement if you choose.

Or not.

 

[Caliban]

But DR X/Magic isn't overcome by just any magic weapon:
Damage reduction may be overcome by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality).

A magic weapon that doesn't have a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality, isn't a magic weapon capable of overcoming DR.

-Hyp.

I use a slightly more reasonable interpretation. Feel free to run it anyway you choose.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I use a slightly more reasonable interpretation.

More reasonable, where "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus" includes "some weapons without a +1 or higher enhancement bonus"?

If I cast Align Weapon on an otherwise non-magical sword, does it bypass DR X/Magic?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

More reasonable, where "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus" includes "some weapons without a +1 or higher enhancement bonus"?

If I cast Align Weapon on an otherwise non-magical sword, does it bypass DR X/Magic?

-Hyp.

You know that don't I don't like the question game, and on more than one occasion I've politely requested that you don't attempt to use it with me. Yet you still choose not to give me that simple courtesy.

In my opinion, your interpretation make the Defending ability overly complicated and useless at the same time.

I've given what I believe is a simple and reasonable way to rule on the ability.

That's really all I have to say. I'm just not interested in debating this particular topic. I'm sure it can reach several pages without any further input on my part.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

It never says anywhere in the text for Defending that the weapon actually loses it's enhancement bonus; it's just being applied differently. It won't change the hardness or hitpoints of the weapon, just it's bonus to hit and damage. (If it lost it's enhancement bonus, then it would lose the defending power, since a weapon needs to be at least +1 to have special weapon powers)

 

[Hypersmurf]

In my opinion, your interpretation make the Defending ability overly complicated and useless at the same time.

Only useless if you have an enhancement bonus of less than +2 on the weapon.

And it's complicated by taking an implicit "minimum of +1" rule (explicit in the general Magic Weapons section, but not highlighted in the Ability description) and reminding the wielder of its existence.

I don't see it as less simple, and it strikes me as the natural consequence - if you transfer away a bonus that has benefits, you lose access to those benefits until you regain the bonus.

-Hyp.