Defending weapon enhancement question.

[kreynolds]

Here's a snip of the Defending enhancement...

Defending: 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.

One of my characters (Holy Crap! I finally got to play! ) just got a +1 defending sabre. My question is this; If I transfer the +1 from the weapon to my AC, is the sabre still treated as a +1 weapon in regards to damage reduction that it can bypass? For example, if I come up against a creature with DR 10/+1, does my sabre still negate the DR?

 

[ashockney]

Rule 0

In our campaigns, we have always played that so long as your weapon meets the requirements, it works on the appropriate creature...so long as the enhancement is not directly removed through a targeted dispelling or disjunction. So, for example, in an anti-magic shell or in your case, I would say that the weapon meets the requirements and would therefore work against the appropriate defense.

Further, I would support this arguement with the fact that it's hard enough for PC's(particularly in the lower levels) to get magic items that will affect an opponent with DR, you don't need to limit this any further than necessary.

 

[Caliban]

I'm afraid not. The +1 is transferred to defense, not offense. It no longer has a +1 enhancement bonus, it has a +1 unnamed bonus to AC.

 

[kreynolds]

But what if someone tried to strike the weapon while the bonus was transfered to AC? Would they still need a weapon with a +1 or better enhancement to damage it? That's the wierd part about it. I still see the weapon as being a +1 weapon, it's just that it is helping you increase your defense instead of your offense. Does that make any sense?

EDIT: By the way, I now know why I avoided these damn weapons in my games.

 

[Crothian]

But what if someone tried to strike the weapon while the bonus was transfered to AC? Would they still need a weapon with a +1 or better enhancement to damage it? That's the wierd part about it. I still see the weapon as being a +1 weapon, it's just that it is helping you increase your defense instead of your offense. Does that make any sense?

EDIT: By the way, I now know why I avoided these damn weapons in my games.

Again, no. The enhancement bonus is gone if you use it for defense.

 

[kreynolds]

Again, no. The enhancement bonus is gone if you use it for defense.

The ruleslawyer in me says "No" to both of my questions as well, but another part of me just wanted to make sure I was right about this.

 

[Caliban]

EDIT: By the way, I now know why I avoided these damn weapons in my games.

I agree, in my opinion Defending and Speed weapons bring up more rules questions than any two other core weapon abilities combined.

Personally, I ruled that the the enhancement bonus of the weapon is temporarily "suppressed" when it comes to bypassing DR, but still increases the weapons hardness and hitpoints, and still makes it harder to sunder.

Basically it can't serve any offensive purpose while being used for defense, but can still protect the weapon itself.

 

[Kibo]

The ruleslawyer in me says "No" to both of my questions as well, but another part of me just wanted to make sure I was right about this.

I would say the enhancement bonus is intrinsic to the weapon. In this case the defending nature of the weapons modifies what it is applied to, AC instead of hit and damage. Would you also say that if you used the bonus to hit and damage that round that in all other ways, such as defending against sunder, that it wasn't a magic weapon any more? Obviously not.

Likewise, if one 'spends' the bonus to modify the hit and damage rolls, can one still use that now used up bonus to penetrate DR. The bonus is the bonus, what a character chooses to apply the bonus towards should in no way alter the bonus.

IMNSKO

 

[kreynolds]

Two things, Kibo.

1) Why did you quote me?

and

2) What was all that again?

 

[Voadam]

I would say it comes down to interpreting "transfers" .

I think the most literal reading would be yes, when you transfer a bonus away from enhancement, it is treated as if it was no longer a weapon with that level of enhancement bonus so no DR penetration or sunder protection.

The fact that a defending weapon is more vulnerable to sundering strikes me as anomolous and silly and makes the benefits of the power even more nominal so I would probably go with Caliban's house rule.