Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Conjureman" data-source="post: 46504" data-attributes="member: 2583">Greater magic weapon specifically grants an enhancement bonus to attack.  In my interpretation,that would mean that nothing gained through GMW would affect AC alotment from a defender, and the maximum bonus on the weapon would still be a +5 enhancement bonus.  Depending on how you chose to interpret that situation, you could declare that if the defender bonus was applied to AC, there is effectively no enhancement bonus to the attack of the weapon and the full +4 would apply to attack and damage.Personally, I would restrict the defender to +5 enhancement bonus total, meaning that with the afore mentioned GMW cast upon it you can chose to have +2 att/dmg and +2 AC, +3 att/dmg and +1 AC, or +4 att/dmg +0 AC.  Comparing this to the magic vestment/armor with enhancement bonus equivalents situation is a case of apples versus oranges though.  The defender does indeed have a +2 enhancement bonus, not a market price equivalent bonus.  It happens to have a special ability that allows the user to chose whether to apply the enhancement bonus to offense or defense, but the enhancement bonus itself is inherent to the weapon.The primary point of my last post was that allowing the enhancement bonus to affect armor that had all kinds of nifty non-armor class affecting enhancements is in no way unbalancing and fits the spirit of the spell, which tends to leave players walking away from the table a bit happier and more content.  Or, put another way, if it doesn't really affect much of anything, and it makes the player happy, why bother to forbid it.  In the example I gave previously it is clear that at the levels one would have the equivalent of +10 armor (if ever) that adding the temporary enhancement bonus to AC accomplishes absolutely nothing but giving the player a feel good move.  Forbidding it, conversely, accomplishes absolutely nothing but providing the potential for resentment around the feeling that a rule was arbitrarily interpreted to the negative, debates (or arguements), etc. etc.  The fact is that there is no right answer to this because the rules don't spell it out either way.  There is no line saying "Temporary enhancement bonuses from spells are/aren't effected by this +10 max" so in the end, it is a matter of interpreation.When I am boiled down to interpreting a rule and having to make a judgement call, I look at 1) game effect and balance and 2) Worst possible outcome for each decision.  I addressed balance in my last post, pointing out how in the scenario provided, a +5 enhancement bonus to the cleric's armor would result in *no difference at all in terms of the fighter's odds to hit*.  So, play balance I will not sweat.Now let's look at worse possible outcome.  If I permit the spell on the set of armor, worst possible outcome is that the player will waste a 3rd level spell to enhance his armor, accomplishing nothing other than feeling good that his AC is sooo high, until he figures out that it makes no difference.  If I forbid the spell, worst possible outcome is that the player will get all pissed off, resulting in arguements, debates, etc. etc over a decision I made that had *no point whatsoever except to say no, as in the end, casting the spell would not have made one blessed iota of difference*My goal when I DM is for everyone to have fun, in the end.  Fun comes in different packages for different people, but I think most people oppose rules interpretations that they feel are arbitrary or unfair.  So again, my basic stance would be why bother to forbid it when it doesn't really do much of anything anyway?</blockquote>

Verification