Defending weapon enhancement question.

[Caliban]

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.

As long as your the DM (or the DM agrees with you), that's perfectly OK.

So what if the +1 is in AC, the magic stil resides in the weapon.

But it's not being used to attack, so it's not part of the weapons bonus when trying to bypass DR, anymore than a +1 (defense) bonus on a shield will allow it to bypass DR when used to shield bash. You would need a +1 (offense) bonus on the shield.

I'm just saying that the defender ability seems to be similar to that, and so that's the way I rule it, since the ability itself is pretty vague about it.

 

[Stalker0]

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

I'll have to check that section again, but if its true then yeah I'd say the defending bonus can't be used to bypass DR when its put on defence, but is still good against sunder. the best compromise I think

 

[Destil]

Uhm... I'm sure this has come up before, but... what happens once you cast greater magic weapon on a defender you have transfered to full defense? Wackyness ensues?

P.S. While I like the idea of this enhancement quite a bit Isee why the're such a pain with reguards to the rules...

 

[Caliban]

Uhm... I'm sure this has come up before, but... what happens once you cast greater magic weapon on a defender you have transfered to full defense? Wackyness ensues?

P.S. While I like the idea of this enhancement quite a bit Isee why the're such a pain with reguards to the rules...

kreynolds answered that one earlier in this thread with a response from the Sage.

Even with GMW, you can only transfer the weapons base enhancement bonus to defense.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

Don't listen to the ruleslawyer in you - or any other.


I say that it's still a +x weapon. I doesn't lose it's magic. So it's still as effective as before concerning DR and Sunder and whatnot. It just loses the attack bonus, because it helps you block attacks rather than get ones through. The only thing you loose is the +x on attack (and maybe the +x on damage).

I just can't think of any explaination why that perfect, magically enhanced edge suddenly goes dull just because you switched to defend mode. Or why the weapon, whose hardness is enhanced by powerful magic, suddenly is as fragile as your average weapon made by a second-story orc blacksmith who makes them a dozen an hour, out of old tin left over from New Years Eve.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

By the way...relax a little.

I might be imaginating things, but I somehow get the indistinct impression that you set people's teeth (or toots, if you want ) on edge.

 

[Kibo]

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

The "K" is like humility only without all the extra smilies. Speaking of which, slow down or you'll use them all up, and they'll be none left for the rest of us.

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

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.

Yeah. That's me. I'm sitting here in a pool of my own tears with steam comming outta my ears. Sometimes a little perspective can be a wonderful thing. Some people might wonder about a person so overly sensitive that they take a playful wink and nod as an insult that they need to be big about and just over look. But not me, I'm blinded by my rage and tears, remember.

And hey, it's not your fault. You're not a member of my fan club, and if you're not a member, no decoder ring (strictly enforced).

 

[Kibo]

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

The +1 is the weapon enhancement, the defender enhancement allows one to choose to apply the magic of the weapon to a defensive act or an offensive act (the default). But the +1 is an offensive enchantment, and is within the letter and certainly spirit of the rules that it would penetrate DR, and count as a +1 weapon against sunder attempts and all other actions that depend on the enhancement bonus of a weapon. What a person chooses to apply the enhancement bonus to (hit and damage vs AC) is irrelevant, it never changes the fact that it is a +1 enhanced weapon. It's not like extra +1 hit and damage from other sources, (weapon focus and specialization) count to reducing DR. It's the magic enhancement of the weapon, not where that enhancement is employed (should one be so fortunate to have a choice) that the rules being discussed depend on. In the case of comparing the rules for armor enchantment, the item in question is a weapon, and has a bonus to hit and damage as a default, so is clearly enchanted as a weapon. The defender enchantment never changes that, it builds upon it.

Certainly the idea of enchanting a sword as magic armor is interesting, and I can even see stealing that idea to make really interesting weapons. But that's not what a defender is.

 

[Caliban]

The +1 is the weapon enhancement, the defender enhancement allows one to choose to apply the magic of the weapon to a defensive act or an offensive act (the default).

No, acording to the ability itself, it transfers the enhancement bonus to defense instead of offense. It's been moved from offense to defense. It's now a defensive bonus, not an offensive bonus.

But the +1 is an offensive enchantment, and is within the letter and certainly spirit of the rules that it would penetrate DR, and count as a +1 weapon against sunder attempts and all other actions that depend on the enhancement bonus of a weapon.

Since the bonus has been transferred, it is no longer there by the letter of the rules. And I certainly don't think it is in the spirit of the rules for it to still penetrate DR when it's no longer giving you a bonus to attack and damage.

What a person chooses to apply the enhancement bonus to (hit and damage vs AC) is irrelevant, it never changes the fact that it is a +1 enhanced weapon.

It certainly is relevant, since the defender ability transfers the bonus. It not just "choosing to apply it to something else", it's actually being moved from offense to defense.

Technically it wouldn't even help the hardness or prevent it from being sundered. I don't think that is in the spirit of the rules, which is why I chose to rule it as I did. It's effectively transferred from an (offense) enhancement bonus to a (defense) enhancement bonus, but it's still unnamed as far as stacking purposes are concerned. It seemed the simplest and most fair ruling.

It's not like extra +1 hit and damage from other sources, (weapon focus and specialization) count to reducing DR. It's the magic enhancement of the weapon, not where that enhancement is employed (should one be so fortunate to have a choice) that the rules being discussed depend on.

Actually, yes it is. Like I have pointed out previously, the +1 on a shield doesn't help it penetrate DR, unless it is specifically enchanted as an offensive enhancement.

In the case of comparing the rules for armor enchantment, the item in question is a weapon, and has a bonus to hit and damage as a default, so is clearly enchanted as a weapon. The defender enchantment never changes that, it builds upon it.

Read the defender ability again. It most definitely does change the enchancement. It transfers it from attack/damage to AC. Temporarily, it's no longer an enhancement bonus, it's an unnamed bonus to AC.

Certainly the idea of enchanting a sword as magic armor is interesting, and I can even see stealing that idea to make really interesting weapons. But that's not what a defender is.

That is pretty much exactly what the defender ability is.

 

[kreynolds]

Yeah. That's me. I'm sitting here in a pool of my own tears with steam comming outta my ears. Sometimes a little perspective can be a wonderful thing. Some people might wonder about a person so overly sensitive that they take a playful wink and nod as an insult that they need to be big about and just over look. But not me, I'm blinded by my rage and tears, remember.

And hey, it's not your fault. You're not a member of my fan club, and if you're not a member, no decoder ring (strictly enforced).

So, are you purposely trying to antagonize me then? I don't believe I've given you any reason to behave in such a way.