Defending - Melee Weapon Special Ability

[Infiniti2000]

Simply stating "that is a straw man" is not an adequate rejoinder unless you state why the argument is a straw man.

I did state why, because a monk's fist doesn't have hit points. It doesn't even have the concept of hit points. It's a worse analogy than trying to add a +4 enhancement to Constitutation to Undead. At least the creature has the category for the attribute even if it's --. Another example, a sword has hit points. Can I make a spell (i.e. is it reasonable, or a non-straw man argument) that grants +N hit points to only the hilt of that sword? No, not unless I first devise the rules that grant the hilt individual hit points.

Where is this going? I'm not sure.

Suffice it to say that I think there's no resolution on this topic. Hyp presents the argument that the rules have no clear solution.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Lets say I have a +5 Defending longsword. I reallocate all of the +5 bonus to my AC.

BBEG Blackguard uses His improved Sunder attack on My longsword, dealing it 40 points of damage...

Is My sword destroyed?

Are you wielding it two-handed, is it adamantine (-ium), and are you using the FAQ?

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

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.

Do you have an actual rule cite for that theory?

We are told:
A: Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5.
B: They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.

Those are two separate sentences, and thus two separate thoughts. Is there any stated rule that says when you allocate your enhancement bonus using the defending ability, it ceases to be an enhancement bonus?

Yes, you transfer it as a bonus that stacks with all others. But it doesn't say it's an unamed bonus. And, an unamed bonus automatically stacks with all others making in unnecessary to note that it stacks.

Is it not just as reasonable to say the bonus to AC is an enhancement bonus that breaks the normal rules and stacks with all others? Defending says "transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus." Thus the bonus type has been named. It's an enhancement. And when applied to AC, it's an enhancement bonus that stacks with all others.

In fact, there is no sentence in defending that refers to a bonus to AC with out noting the weapon's enhancement bonus. Since the ability never says the name changes, I submit it doesn't.

Thus a defending weapon is:

A: A magic weapon that has and enhancement bonus ranging from +1 to +5.
B: It can transfer these bonuses to (1) both attack and damage rolls when used in combat or (2) to AC as an enhancement bonus that stacks with all others when wielded.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But it doesn't say it's an unamed bonus.

Are there any unnamed bonuses that do?

Lets say I have a +5 Defending longsword. I reallocate all of the +5 bonus to my AC.

BBEG Blackguard uses His improved Sunder attack on My longsword, dealing it 40 points of damage...

Is My sword destroyed?

I'm going to instead take the example of a +5 Defending longsword, where you reallocate +4 of the +5 enhancement bonus as a bonus to AC.

This leaves you with a Defending longsword with a +1 enhancement bonus, so it has a hardness of 12 and 15 hit points; the 40 points is more than sufficient to destroy it.

In your proposed scenario, by my reading the enhancement bonus would 'snap back' once the sword ceased to qualify for the Defending ability, so by the time the Blackguard attacked, it would have a hardness of 20 and 55 hit points. It would take 20 damage, but survive.

However... if in the next round you once again allocated all +5 to AC, you would - in that instant that the sword had no enhancement bonus - have a sword with 5 hit points that had taken 20 damage, and it would break.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And it doesn't matter how much or how politely you are asked not to be passive aggressive, dismissive and condescending, yet you still do it.

You know the rule about personal attacks. Don't.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Only if it loses all of its enhancement bonus. You can transfer some or all. It's just that if you transfer all, it's no longer eligible to be a Defending weapon.

Actually, you can't by your reading.

In your proposed scenario, by my reading the enhancement bonus would 'snap back' once the sword ceased to qualify for the Defending ability, so by the time the Blackguard attacked, it would have a hardness of 20 and 55 hit points. It would take 20 damage, but survive.

Que Practicum, you declared an illegal action - and therefore simply "lost" that action.

By your reading, under no condition can you actually achieve a +5 bonus to AC from a +5 Sword of defending.

You can be both consistent and wrong - as long as you are consistenly wrong.
In this case, I think I have shown that your argument is inconsistent within itself, regardless of the actual rules, as the two statements quoted above clearly show.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, you can't by your reading.

Certainly you can.

You can transfer all of the enhancement bonus. It's not that you can't do it... it's that once you have, it can no longer support that state, since a sword which is not a Defending weapon can't provide a bonus to your AC.

The action wasn't illegal; it just resulted in a state that could not persist.

By your reading, under no condition can you actually achieve a +5 bonus to AC from a +5 Sword of defending.

Exactly. You can transfer all of the enhancement bonus, but it won't result in a +5 bonus to AC; it will result in you being back where you started. Much like the duration of a Fireball, the transfer and the reversal of the transfer both occur in the same instant.

It's just that if your sword has already taken more than 5 points of damage, the third thing that occurs in that instant is the sword breraking.

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Certainly you can.

You can transfer all of the enhancement bonus. It's not that you can't do it... it's that once you have, it can no longer support that state, since a sword which is not a Defending weapon can't provide a bonus to your AC.

The action wasn't illegal; it just resulted in a state that could not persist.

Que Practicum ne Differencia -

In Practice there is no difference.

Exactly. You can transfer all of the enhancement bonus, but it won't result in a +5 bonus to AC; it will result in you being back where you started. Much like the duration of a Fireball, the transfer and the reversal of the transfer both occur in the same instant.

Actually, they don't; but that is why you are missing the whole point over in the Time Stop thread as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In Practice there is no difference.

There's a huge difference.

I want to take a Move action to move into that opponent's space. I can't; it's not a legal action.

I want to take a Bull Rush action to move into that opponent's space. I enter his space, but when I fail my check, it results in a state that cannot persist, and I end up back where I started.

There's a difference between an action that cannot be taken, and an action that can be taken but results in an unsustainable situation.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Sheesh that all sounds like lawyers talking about why they stopped to study physics now.