Defending weapon property

[Infiniti2000]

Personally, I lean towards allowing the masterwork bonus to hit while the magical bonus is fully transferred to AC, but only because defending weapons need help to be cost-effective.

I'm not gonna argue the cost-effective point, but if thats the way you feel (or can prove), then shouldn't you actually consider the case where the weapon (sword only?) has an enhancement bonus higher than +1*? With a +2 enhancement bonus, you never achieve equilibrium because you're moving +1 atk/+1 dmg into just +1 AC.

* As you've stated, you'd be moving a +1 dmg into +1 AC while maintaining the +1 atk.

 

[moritheil]

I'm not gonna argue the cost-effective point, but if thats the way you feel (or can prove), then shouldn't you actually consider the case where the weapon (sword only?) has an enhancement bonus higher than +1*? With a +2 enhancement bonus, you never achieve equilibrium because you're moving +1 atk/+1 dmg into just +1 AC.

* As you've stated, you'd be moving a +1 dmg into +1 AC while maintaining the +1 atk.

I totally and completely fail to understand what it is that you're asking here. A masterwork bonus is explicitly +1, right? Are you asking what happens with a +2 defending sword? You raise 2AC and retain a +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to attack (but not damage, of course.)

You are not "moving +1 damage;" you are moving a +1/+1, and the +1 atk of the +1/+1 just happens to overlap with the masterwork +1 atk.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I was just trying to follow what you mean by cost effective. Perhaps my inference was incorrect. Why don't you explain that first?

 

[pbd]

All means all.

Ok, then I just transfer 2 of the +2 defending weapon's bonus to may armor class, not ALL of it. So I get +2 to AC and still have the +1 Masterwork bonus to hit.

 

[moritheil]

I was just trying to follow what you mean by cost effective. Perhaps my inference was incorrect. Why don't you explain that first?

Money is better spent on properties other than defending. As such, I don't begrudge a player a +1 masterwork bonus to attack if they use a defending weapon.

 

[kjenks]

Ok, then I just transfer 2 of the +2 defending weapon's bonus to may armor class, not ALL of it. So I get +2 to AC and still have the +1 Masterwork bonus to hit.

You're not getting the picture.

Because of the overlap rules, this weapon has only a +2 enhancement bonus. When you transfer all of it to AC, ALL of it goes to AC.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's too vague. Why is the defending property not worth it versus other properties, such as simple additional enhancement?

 

[moritheil]

That's too vague. Why is the defending property not worth it versus other properties, such as simple additional enhancement?

For starters, it's a weapons enhancement, and costs twice the cost per increment vs. an armor enhancement, right? Then there's the fact that you can get, say, magebane instead of defending.

 

[moritheil]

You're not getting the picture.

Because of the overlap rules, this weapon has only a +2 enhancement bonus. When you transfer all of it to AC, ALL of it goes to AC.

He's arguing over what the "it" in question is. He asserts that it is the +2 magical enhancement bonus ("the bonus") that is transferred. This leaves the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus. In short, he contends that the non-explicit wording in the SRD is an error, and is clearly meant to refer to the magical bonus.

 

[pbd]

You're not getting the picture.

Because of the overlap rules, this weapon has only a +2 enhancement bonus. When you transfer all of it to AC, ALL of it goes to AC.

What overlap rule? I know about stacking rules; the masterwork bonus still exists, but does not stack with the enhancement bonus of a magic weapon. You get the larger bonus only, when you transfer the magical enhancement bonus to AC, the masterwork bonus still exists and is now the larger bonus to hit.