Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="VorpalStare" data-source="post: 2452209" data-attributes="member: 31325">From the DMG p. 224:[font=&amp;quot][/font][font=&amp;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.&nbsp;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]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="VorpalStare, post: 2452209, member: 31325"] From the DMG p. 224: [font=&quot][/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] [/QUOTE]

Verification