Greater Magic Weapon and a +1 Defender

[rushlight]

Ok, this arose during our last session. Basically, it's a question of abilities constructed into a magic sword, versus similar (or duplicate) abilities temporarily placed onto the same sword.

So, here's the situation. You've got a magic sword: a +1 defending, Brilliant Energy, Dancing Sword. Once constructed, no further magic abilities can be placed into the sword (barring Epic things) because it's at +10 - the maximum limit defined by the DMG.

Then you cast Greater Magic Weapon on it. to give it an enhancement bonus of +5. So, what happens? If the spell exactly duplicates (and replaces) the enhancement bonus built into the sword, then you've got a +14 sword, and can use the full +5 for the Defending ability. But that's not legal, since you can't have a +14 sword. Another way to look at it would be that the Greater Magic Weapon spell would just fail, and no bonus would be gained. This also seems wrong, since the rules state that though identical named bonuses (in this case, an enhancement bonus) do not stack, and only the highest would be effective (the +5).

Last, comes my decision. I ruled that while the spell was on the sword, it was a +5 to hit, +5 to damage sword. At the same time, only +1 could be used for the Defending ability, since that's the maximum bonus constructed into the sword. There's a reason that a +5 Defending sword would cost 72,000 gp. If you could duplicate that exactly for just 8,000 gp (a +1 Defender) and a fairly low level spell, then why would anyone ever spend the money for the actual sword?

Essentially, I ruled that the two effects were seperate entities, and functioned differently. What to you folks think?

 

[AGGEMAM]

You ruled correctly.

The sword is still a +1 Defending Brilliant Energy Dancing Sword, but it has +5 to hit and +5 to damage.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I just read a sage response on another thread here (the one about magic vestment), which likely applies to GMW as well (and I think they will handle it like this in 3.5e): The weapon can only have a total +10 on enhancements. If you have a +1 Defending, Dancing, Brilliant Energy Weapon, it's already +10, and GMW won't make it a +5 D,D,BE, since that would be a total of +14.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, the Magic Vestment one was the Sage's "correction" to that freaky phrase that had us all tied in knots... that doesn't appear in any form in the GMW spell text.

It also ties directly into the Divine Shield argument.

But if we break the question down into its two parts, and ignore the epic cap part... forget the Dancing and Brilliant Energy.

If we have a +1 Defending longsword, it is a sword with a +1 Enhancement bonus, that can transfer some or all of its Enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC.

If we cast a CL15 GMW on it, it is now a sword with a +5 Enhancement bonus, that can transfer some or all of its Enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC.

No epic cap is reached - a +5 Defending longsword is only a +6 MPM.

Aggeman contends that there is a difference between the Enhancement bonus granted by the Craft Arms and Armor Feat, and the Enhancement bonus granted by the spell - that one works with the Defending property and the other doesn't.

This would mean that a +5 Defender with a CL15 GMW cast on it could transfer all its +5 'crafted' bonus to AC, and still retain the +5 enhancement bonus to Attack and Damage from GMW, because the 'spell' bonus is untouched by the Defending property.

I disagree, and say that an Enhancement bonus is an Enhancement bonus, and that that same +5 Defender with a CL15 GMW cast on it (giving it a 'second' +5 Enhancement bonus, if you like), would behave just like any other +5 Defender. A +1 Defender with a CL15 GMW would behave just like any other +5 Defender. For the duration of the spell, it is a Defending weapon with a +5 Enhancement bonus, some or all of which can be transferred as an unnnamed bonus to AC.

That's why my Divine-Shield-monkey Paladin has a shield that's crafted as a +1 Defending Bludgeoning weapon. When he activates his Divine Shield feat, he can get 18 points of AC out of the shield: +2 Armor Bonus (Large Shield), +8 Enhancement Bonus to shield's bonus (Divine Shield +8), and +8 unnamed bonus (8 points of 'weapon' Enhancement transferred to AC via Defending property).

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Hypersmurf what about the defending shield spikes? Wouldn't your shield be lonely with out them and their +5 to AC?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf what about the defending shield spikes? Wouldn't your shield be lonely with out them and their +5 to AC?

Defending shield spikes are not a separate weapon. They merely change the shield from being a 1d4 bludgeoning weapon to being a 1d6 piercing weapon.

You either have a Defending Shield, or a Defending Spiked Shield. You don't have a Defending Shield with Defending Spikes.

-Hyp.

 

[rushlight]

But if we break the question down into its two parts, and ignore the epic cap part... forget the Dancing and Brilliant Energy.

If we have a +1 Defending longsword, it is a sword with a +1 Enhancement bonus, that can transfer some or all of its Enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC.

If we cast a CL15 GMW on it, it is now a sword with a +5 Enhancement bonus, that can transfer some or all of its Enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC.

No epic cap is reached - a +5 Defending longsword is only a +6 MPM.

Aggeman contends that there is a difference between the Enhancement bonus granted by the Craft Arms and Armor Feat, and the Enhancement bonus granted by the spell - that one works with the Defending property and the other doesn't.

This would mean that a +5 Defender with a CL15 GMW cast on it could transfer all its +5 'crafted' bonus to AC, and still retain the +5 enhancement bonus to Attack and Damage from GMW, because the 'spell' bonus is untouched by the Defending property.

I disagree, and say that an Enhancement bonus is an Enhancement bonus, and that that same +5 Defender with a CL15 GMW cast on it (giving it a 'second' +5 Enhancement bonus, if you like), would behave just like any other +5 Defender. A +1 Defender with a CL15 GMW would behave just like any other +5 Defender. For the duration of the spell, it is a Defending weapon with a +5 Enhancement bonus, some or all of which can be transferred as an unnnamed bonus to AC.

But that is exactly why I threw in the Brilliant Energy and Dancing qualties in my example. By your method, you are breaking one of the two rules I mentioned above. If the +5 from a GMW counts exactly the same as a built-in +5 enhancement, then in certain situations you would violate the "No weapon can have more than a +10 bonus" rule, as you could potentially have a +14 weapon.

Reguardless of the actual bonuses built into the sword, you cannot have a situation where a +14 weapon would arrise. Therefore, I don't see how the +5 enhancement bonus from GMW can exactly duplicate the +1 built-in enhancement bonus. It seems that while the +5 replaces the +1 for hitting and damage (just as the spell says) it doesn't function for other special abilites that are built into the sword (because those functions aren't mentioned in the spell).

 

[Hypersmurf]

But that is exactly why I threw in the Brilliant Energy and Dancing qualties in my example. By your method, you are breaking one of the two rules I mentioned above. If the +5 from a GMW counts exactly the same as a built-in +5 enhancement, then in certain situations you would violate the "No weapon can have more than a +10 bonus" rule, as you could potentially have a +14 weapon.

Unless, as Kaeyoss suggests, it works like the Sage's reinterpretation of Magic Vestment - GMW grants an enhancement bonus of +1/3 caster levels, up to a limit of +10 in "plus equivalents" on the weapon.

If your sword is +1, Brilliant Energy, Dancing, Defending, that's a +9 MPM. GMW bumps it up by +5, except that as soon as it goes past +2, it breaks the +10 cap. So it stops at +2.

... if you assume that GMW is limited in the same way as Magic Vestment.

A lot of people argue (particularly in reference to the Divine Shield feat) that the +5/+10 pre-Epic limit is only in reference to permanent items created with the Craft Arms and Armor feat.

The argument is that a +8 Cha modifier gives a +8 Enhancement bonus to the defensive and offensive properties of a shield, both of which break the pre-Epic +5 cap.

Others argue that the pre-Epic cap is a feature of the weapon/armor, not of the feat, and that no matter how high your Cha modifier gets, Divine Shield can't give a shield an Enhancement bonus greater than +5.

It's one of those several-page arguments that never gets resolved

-Hyp.

 

[reapersaurus]

A lot of people argue (particularly in reference to the Divine Shield feat) that the +5/+10 pre-Epic limit is only in reference to permanent items created with the Craft Arms and Armor feat.

eh - kinda seems straight-forward to me...

The limitation of +10 enhancements was mentioned in the section that immediately prefaces the permanent enhancements portion of the DMG shopping-mall o' weapon & armor enhancements, so unless it's explicitly stated as applying to spells, than why would they?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The limitation of +10 enhancements was mentioned in the section that immediately prefaces the permanent enhancements portion of the DMG shopping-mall o' weapon & armor enhancements, so unless it's explicitly stated as applying to spells, than why would they?

"Magic armor bonuses are referred to as enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses)."

It doesn't say "You may not craft armor with an enhancement bonus greater than +5". It says enhancement bonuses never rise above +5.

And by the Heavy Crossbow precedent, the location of the rule does not disqualify it from applying to other situations.

-Hyp.