Defending weapon enhancement question.

[Coredump]

Well, this got me pouring over the rulebooks again..

And I have determined it is definitely a... depends.

For the first question(bypassing DR)
There is nothing that says it 'loses' its status as a +1 weapon. It (could be argued) that it is still a +1 weapon, though it is not longer giving the +1 to hit/damage. The DR rule says that it has to have an enhancement bonus,and the defender does. No where does it say that it has to use the bonus for attacking. NOw, I can see how you may judge it to be that way; but I can also see how it makes sense to look at the weapon as 'powerful magic' and let it go as powerful enough.

In fact, upon re-reading the 'defender' description. It seems to agree. The enhancement bonus is tranfered from being 'to hit' to being 'to defend'; it talks about transfering, not removing. It still has a +1 enhancement; you just get to determine what it is enhancing.


As for the sundering of the weapon. It still depends, on the same beliefs. Personally, I still think it is a +1 weapon, it just give +1 AC instead of +1 to hit. (almost said THAC0

Of course, this also brings up if you consider 'other' properties to add to the sunder difficulty as they add to the price. Thus making your +1 defender the equivalent of a +2 weapon for the purposes of sundering. This makes plenty of sense to me, since it is 'more magical'/'more powerful' than a typical +1 sword.

If you say no to the last two, consider this. You have a +5 Holy Defender with Flaming burst. Pretty impressive.... But when you transfer the +5 to defense, I get to sunder your sword with my club. Huh??

Furthermore, I think the above decisions can be made almost independently. I would rule that your sword is *still* a +1 no matter how you transfer the enhancement bonus, but if you make it AC, it doesn't get past the DR. I don't know what I would do about the defender making it '+2'. But I think the rules can be used to argue either side on all three cases. (well, the last one is a bit weak.)

Sorry for rambling....

.

 

[kreynolds]

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.

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, given my sabre above, would a +1 weapon be required to damage it at all? Or would any weapon suffice (even mundane), only the sabre would still have the hardness and hit points of a +1 sabre?

 

[kreynolds]

Of course, this also brings up if you consider 'other' properties to add to the sunder difficulty as they add to the price. Thus making your +1 defender the equivalent of a +2 weapon for the purposes of sundering.

In regards to this, I just go by the books, meaning only the +1 to +5 enhancement bonus of the weapon counts against striking the weapon. Other enhancements don't take precedence.

 

[Stalker0]

I'd say the defending weapon is kind of like a shield once you transfer the bonus. Therefore, I'd say it has the same sunder protection a +1 shield would have.

By the same token, if I used a +1 shield to bash someone, I would penetrate DR as far as I know. I'd therefore give it to the defending weapon.

Quick question on the subject, does it say anywhere that the defender use the innate enhancement bonus, or could you swap the bonus from a GMW?

 

[kreynolds]

Quick question on the subject, does it say anywhere that the defender use the innate enhancement bonus, or could you swap the bonus from a GMW?

Here's a Sage reply on that...

question: if a staff +5 defender has greater magic weapon cast on it with a caster level 12 and the character uses the defender ability to make it +5AC, +0 to hit does the enhancement bonus from GMW take precedence and make it a +4 to hit, +5AC weapon?

No, if you allocate all a defending weapon's bonus to defense, you have no bonus left over for attacks; the same would hold true if you were wielding an adamantine defending weapon. (The bonus you've allocated to defense is still there, and it still doesn't stack with any other bonus the weapon might have.) Note that of you had a +1 defending weapon and you made it +5 with greater magic weapon, you could only devote +1 to defense (giving you +1 AC and +4 attack).

 

[Caliban]

I'd say the defending weapon is kind of like a shield once you transfer the bonus. Therefore, I'd say it has the same sunder protection a +1 shield would have.

This is basically what I do. You would still need a +1 weapon to sunder a +1 defender sword with it's bonus set to defense.

By the same token, if I used a +1 shield to bash someone, I would penetrate DR as far as I know. I'd therefore give it to the defending weapon.

No, you wouldn't penetrate DR with a +1 shield, unless it was a +1 offensive enhancement on the shield (or a shield of bashing).

Check the beginning of the magic armor section in the DMG, it talks about enchanting shields as weapons and as armor.

 

[Kibo]

Two things, Kibo.

1) Why did you quote me?

and

2) What was all that again?

So I could use IMNSKO, and it was something you were discussing as a profesional internet d20 rules poobah or something.

While I might be illiterate, I can't see where you'd have difficulty in understanding that I said, in brief, "+1 is +1, what roll one would apply it to hardly changes the fact that it's still +1."

 

[kreynolds]

So I could use IMNSKO,

What is "IMNSKO"? I know what "IMNSHO" is, but your expression is lost on me.

and it was something you were discussing as a profesional internet d20 rules poobah or something.

I'll go ahead and take that as a compliment instead of the insult I think it might have been intended to be.

While I might be illiterate, I can't see where you'd have difficulty in understanding that I said, in brief, "+1 is +1, what roll one would apply it to hardly changes the fact that it's still +1."

I think my difficulty in understanding you stemmed from your illiteracy. Just kidding. I just didn't understand the wording of your post.

By the way...relax a little.

 

[Caliban]

While I might be illiterate, I can't see where you'd have difficulty in understanding that I said, in brief, "+1 is +1, what roll one would apply it to hardly changes the fact that it's still +1."

A +1 enhancement on offense is not the same as a +1 enhancement on defense.

One increases attack/damage, the other increases AC.

A +1 enhancement on attack/damage helps you sunder things, a +1 on defense (such as for armor) does not, although it will help protect the item from being sundered.

By the straight interpretation of the rules, the +1 on the defender weapon is transferred into an unnamed bonus to AC. It's not properly a +1 enhancement anymore, and won't help with anything related to an enhancement bonus (penetrating DR, sundering, being sundered, hardness, etc).

I simply choose to treat it as a +1 defensive enhancement (like that of a shield), so that it still prevents the weapon from being sundered by a lesser enhancement.

 

[Kyramus]

Personally, A +1 sabre defender in my campaign will still be considered a +1 weapon whether or not it is using it for defense or offense.

So what if the +1 is in AC, the magic stil resides in the weapon. Defender quality also states...that the defender quality uses shield or shield of faith, which means that the weapon was designed primarily for defense, but no wizard would make the weapon just becaust it's another shield. it will hit a dr +1 creature and damage it normally without it's +1 attack and damage bonus.