Defending weapon property

[Dross]

Greetings all, thought that i'd delurk and say hi ("Hi.") to everyone.

my question is about the Defending property for weapons. if you choose to make the entire plus of the weapon as a bonus to defence, do you still get the masterwork property of the weapon for your attack rolls?

from the SRD (emphasis mine)
[font=&quot]A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
[/font]
and for masterowrk weapons
[font=&quot]it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.[/font]


So if you have a longsword +2 of defending and you use the +2 for you AC, do you still get the +1 masterwork enhancement bonus to you to hit?

I think that the masterwork proprty would not still be included in your attack bonus because it is an enhancement bonus and you have put all the enhancement bonus to your AC (which doesn't stack with the magic +2)

thanks in advance,

Dross

[font=&quot]
[/font]

 

[PrinceZane]

My guess would be yes, but no. Yes it it applicable but not stackable. So you take the higher of the two numbers, therefore the +2 > +1mw.

 

[myradale]

You know, I never thought of that before, but yeah.

A +2 defender has a +2 magical enhancement bonus to attack and damage, and a +1 physical enhancement bonus that do not stack with each other. The +1 is due to the masterwork construction of the weapon, a purely physical quality involving the keeness of teh blade and the perfect balance and so forth.

Not only does this mean that if you transfer +2 to your defence, you maintain the +1 to hit, but if you suddenly found yourself in an antimagic field, you still have a masterwork +1 weapon. It's still as balanced and keen as it was when it was magical.

interesting.

 

[SidusLupus]

Yes, I'd say so since like the others have noted, the blade is still sharp, and that can't be taken away from it when you swing it (or poke with it).

 

[Endovior]

Normally, the masterwork bonus doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus... but IN THIS SITUATION, the wielder has gotten rid of the enhancement bonus entirely (he has an unnamed bonus to his AC instead...), so it's not a matter of stacking, it's a matter of there being only one bonus, the masterwork bonus. Of course, when you do that, your weapon is effectively nonmagical, so this is not advisable agains the myriad foes with DR/Magic.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Normally, the masterwork bonus doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus... but IN THIS SITUATION, the wielder has gotten rid of the enhancement bonus entirely (he has an unnamed bonus to his AC instead...), so it's not a matter of stacking, it's a matter of there being only one bonus, the masterwork bonus. Of course, when you do that, your weapon is effectively nonmagical, so this is not advisable agains the myriad foes with DR/Magic.

See, that's just it. The defending property 'got rid' of the enhancement bonus on attacks. Why doesn't that also include the masterwork enhancement bonus? The defending property doesn't restrict itself to just the magical enhancement bonus.

I agree with you about the DR/magic part though.

 

[VorpalStare]

From the DMG p. 224:
[font=&quot]

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.

[/font][font=&quot]
Note that the text refers to the enhancement bonus in the singular. If the weapon has more than one enhancement bonus, only one can be tranferred to AC. This avoids the problem of having a +1 defending weapon with 3 or 4 Greater Magic Weapon spells cast on it providing +15 AC bonus. An argument can be made for this because the (unstackable) enhancement bonuses from the spells become unnamed (stackable) AC bonuses when transformed via the defending weapon property. I believe that the intent of the designers was to allow only the weapon's permanent enhancement bonus to be adjusted so that the defending benefit could not be obtained too cheaply.

Also, the enhancement bonus transferred to AC is at the discretion of the user, so, in the current example, he can simply choose not to transfer the masterwork bonus to AC and retain the +1 to hit. The description of the defending property doesn't say whether the enhancement bonus needs to be both to hit and damage or just to hit to provide an AC benefit. I'd rule that the MW bonus is not sufficient to generate +1 AC to avoid giving the user of the weapon a free benefit without sacrificing any combat bonuses.[/font]

 

[Dross]

[font=&quot]
Note that the text refers to the enhancement bonus in the singular. If the weapon has more than one enhancement bonus, only one can be tranferred to AC. This avoids the problem of having a +1 defending weapon with 3 or 4 Greater Magic Weapon spells cast on it providing +15 AC bonus. An argument can be made for this because the (unstackable) enhancement bonuses from the spells become unnamed (stackable) AC bonuses when transformed via the defending weapon property. I believe that the intent of the designers was to allow only the weapon's permanent enhancement bonus to be adjusted so that the defending benefit could not be obtained too cheaply.

Also, the enhancement bonus transferred to AC is at the discretion of the user, so, in the current example, he can simply choose not to transfer the masterwork bonus to AC and retain the +1 to hit. The description of the defending property doesn't say whether the enhancement bonus needs to be both to hit and damage or just to hit to provide an AC benefit. I'd rule that the MW bonus is not sufficient to generate +1 AC to avoid giving the user of the weapon a free benefit without sacrificing any combat bonuses.[/font]

Well, with regard to multiple GMW the enhancement bonus is not the sword's, it's a spell that provides the better enhancement value at least to my way of thinking. VorpalStare, would ou allow the GMW to be cast on a +2 weapon making it +5 attack and damage and +2 for AC? That would seem plausable given what you have said.

i will not asked people individuall about what they said but ask questions in general.

The SRD doesn't state that the enhancement moved is the magical enchancement bonus only (although that could be reading too much into it) but the implied total enhancememnt bonus. So in this case does the source of the bonus override the type of bonus?

Are there other instances where source of the bonus overrides the bonus type? it has been stated that the MW property still works in an anti-magic field, but that's because the magic has been suppressed, not the enhancement bonus of the weapon. using this as an example, doesn't that at least imply that the MW enhancement goes with the magical enhancement to AC (+2), but does not stack for an additional +1 to AC (+3)

PrinceZane, i'm confused (again/still ) does that mean that you think the +1 MW goes with the +2 magical enhancement to AC or not?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This is a really interesting question!

My gut reaction is no. You should not be able to get the +1 enhancement bonus to hit for a masterwork weapon. This is mainly because it would have been explicitly stated in the DMG if such was how it worked. The vagueness in description means that they may not have really thought it through - they have just assumed that everyone else was thinking in the same way that they were.

However, I'm finding it difficult to come up with anything to justify this position.
The masterwork enhancement bonus still applies and is separate to the magical enhancement bonus which has been transferred into AC. There is nothing that says that because the weapon is magical, the masterwork property no longer exists anymore and so, I think I'd have to let it stand: +1 to hit +0 to damage. You just lose that +1 to damage. I think this is worthy of further study though. Hypersmurf can usually smurf these ones out.

In regards to DR/magic though, I totally disagree with Endovior and Infiniti2000. The weapon is still magical - even if it's enhancement bonus has been "magically" transferred to a different bonus (unnamed to AC). It does not ever stop being a magical weapon and so unless it is momentarilly dispelled or anti-magicked, then I would still say that this ability is not affected.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hypersmurf]

In regards to DR/magic though, I totally disagree with Endovior and Infiniti2000. The weapon is still magical - even if it's enhancement bonus has been "magically" transferred to a different bonus (unnamed to AC). It does not ever stop being a magical weapon and so unless it is momentarilly dispelled or anti-magicked, then I would still say that this ability is not affected.

It's still a magical weapon. But do you consider it to be a weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus (not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality) while that bonus is transferred to AC?

Related question - a Medium +1 defending longsword has hardness 12 and 15 hit points. If you transfer the +1 enhancement bonus to AC, what are its hardness and hitpoints in that time?

Regarding the masterwork bonus - in 3E it was unambiguous. The masterwork quality provided an unnamed bonus to attack rolls, that didn't stack with an enhancement bonus. Thus, even if one transferred enhancement bonus entirely to AC with a Defending weapon, the masterwork unnamed bonus was unaffected. No argument.

In 3.5, I can see how either reading can be argued... but I'd support 'same as in 3E'. The 'enhancement bonus' you transfer is that referred to in the opening paragraphs of the Magic Weapons section, by context; the masterwork quality's enhancement bonus is unaffected.

-Hyp.