Question on some rules

[Judas]

Basic Foundation of Magic Weapons: All magical weapons before enchanting are of MasterWork Quality.

Situation 1:
Longsword +2 gets taken into anti magic field.
Is the original +1 to hit from MW still usable?

Situation 2:
Longsword +1 Defender. The +1 is shunted to the "Special" defense bonus to ac, making the sword "+0" for attack and damage.
Is the original +1 to hit from MW still usable?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes; yes.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm not so sure that the answer to the second question is yes.

(Moved to Rules.)

 

[kreynolds]

I have to agree with CRGreathouse. The sword is still masterwork, and since the enhancement bonus no longer applies to attacks, stacking isn't an issue.

 

[Judas]

I have to agree with CRGreathouse. The sword is still masterwork, and since the enhancement bonus no longer applies to attacks, stacking isn't an issue.

I'm in agreement with the Yes to both. Two of my players (one of which is a DM) don't seem to grasp the idea of stacking. In this instance anyway.

 

[kreynolds]

Thank you Sean.

Read my sig.

My friends take your word like it came straight from the sage.

Oh boy. There goes the neighborhood.

 

[Murrdox]

Bah, I usually take kreynold's word like it came straight from the FAQ.

 

[Judas]

Read my sig.



Oh boy. There goes the neighborhood.

Yup. That's why I edited my prior post.

But back to topic.... I had the player make a 6th level character, and we got to the point where he was "making" the weapon. He's using the dwarven metal from MoF (The stuff that does +1 Electrical and +1 Fire damage per hit) For his masterwork Rapier. I gave him a +2 limit on what bonuses could be used. So basically that stuck him with a +1 weapon, and a +1 ability since he didn't want a normal +2 weapon. When I got to the defender ability, I told him that would make a great ability combo with the wepaon material he's using. He could shunt the +1 to defense and still have a "+1" weapon to hit, and he would still get +2 to the damage roll (+1 fire & +1 electrical). And so the argument started.

 

[kreynolds]

Yup. That's why I edited my prior post.

Which is why I quoted your prior post before you edited it.

 

[Judas]

Anybody else have an opinion on the issue? Agree, disagree, etc?