the Defending property

[Rkhet]

Does that mean a damaged Defending weapon breaks if you transfer too much?

 

[Jack Simth]

Only if you forget to Greater Magic Weapon it first!

 

[azhrei_fje]

The two bonuses overlap, but they are still separate bonuses, and can be affected separately. I'm not transferring "+5 of my +5"; I'm transferring "+5 of my [overlapping +5 and +1]" - some, not all.

-Hyp.

Hmm. Well, you can rule any interpretation you want, but I don't see that the RAW describe things that way. They say "enhancement bonus", not "enhancement bonus from magic", as you state early in your post. Then later you say you're transferring +5 and leaving the +1 enhancement bonus that didn't stack. But the defending property doesn't say that you can pick and choose which enhancement bonuses you transfer (those from magic vs. those from material type) and which you don't.

It seems to me that the RAW need to be clarified with respect to attack and/or damage bonuses from material type. They should be called something different... perhaps "material bonus" or "construction bonus" (being a little more general).

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the defending property doesn't say that you can pick and choose which enhancement bonuses you transfer (those from magic vs. those from material type) and which you don't.

Yes, it does - it says you can transfer "some or all". I'm choosing to transfer some (the 'some' of the enhancement bonus that originates from magic), rather than all (which would include the 'some' that originates from the masterwork quality).

-Hyp.

 

[jeffhartsell]

Yes, it does - it says you can transfer "some or all". I'm choosing to transfer some (the 'some' of the enhancement bonus that originates from magic), rather than all (which would include the 'some' that originates from the masterwork quality).

-Hyp.

There was a big discussion about this many years ago and I will have to disagree with Hyper on this one. If you have a +5 weapon and transfer +5 to AC you get a -5 to-hit/damage (thus a net of -0 to-hit/damage and +5 AC). From what I remember of the debate you are not transfering the magic to AC and still leaving the +1 masterwork.

A +1 defender does not let you have a +1 to-hit/+0 damage +1 AC. I thought it did many moons ago, but I was wrong then.

This ability works like combat expertise. I am "transfering" +x to-hit/damage to +x AC. That weapon is only +x to-hit/damage. It is not +x and +1 to-hit that is hidden until I uncover it.

It is true that if you suppress the magic it is still a +1 masterwork weapon. But transfering the bonus to AC is NOT suppressing it. It still has the magic you are just re-assigning the bonus that is overlapping the masterwork from +5 to-hit/damage to +5 AC. The masterwork is immaterial unless the weapon is dispelled or anti-magiced in some fashion.

I argued about a defending adamantine weapon still having to-hit/damage bonuses if you moved the enhancement to AC. Nada.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you have a +5 weapon and transfer +5 to AC you get a -5 to-hit/damage (thus a net of -0 to-hit/damage and +5 AC).

No, you don't.

This ability works like combat expertise.

No, it doesn't.

With Combat Expertise, you do take a penalty to attacks in exchange for AC.

The Defending weapon does not impose a penalty; it removes a bonus.

When you apply a penalty in conjunction with a bonus that is made up of a pair of overlapped bonuses, the penalty effectively 'counters' both bonuses. But if you remove one of a pair of overlapped bonuses, the other remains.

And the weapon explicitly allows you to transfer 'some' of the bonus.

It still has the magic you are just re-assigning the bonus that is overlapping the masterwork from +5 to-hit/damage to +5 AC.

That's right.

The masterwork is immaterial unless the weapon is dispelled or anti-magiced in some fashion.

That isn't. The masterwork is 'immaterial' (has no obvious mechanical effect) unless the enhancement bonus it overlaps drops below +1.

... which it does, if you transfer that enhancement bonus to AC.

I argued about a defending adamantine weapon still having to-hit/damage bonuses if you moved the enhancement to AC. Nada.

I would certainly rule that a 3E Defending Adamantine weapon could be used so as to transfer the magical enhancement bonus ('some' of the total enhancement bonus of the weapon) to AC while leaving the material enhancement bonus. Just because people disagreed with you then doesn't mean they were right.

-Hyp.

 

[jeffhartsell]

I forget where/when we got the official ruling on the defending adamantine weapon. It is broken to allow a +1 adamantine defending weapon to always be +1 to-hit/+1damage/+1 AC. That was not the intent of the ability. I'll just have to agree to disagree. It took me awhile to change my mind, but eventually I did.

I love trying to find loop holes since I like to debate, but I always take into account the intent of a rule and then try to reword a rule so that it is more clear based on intent.

The spring attack thread is a good example. The way spring attack is word in 3.5 makes it work differently than in 3.0. IMO the intent of defending is to allow a bonus to AC at the expense of to-hit/damage. You cannot get a +5 AC with at +5 weapon and still have a +1 to-hit or damage left over via special materials.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I have a +1 enhancement bonus from being masterwork, and a +5 enhancement bonus from magic.

...

If I transfer the +5 enhancement bonus from magic to AC, I have not transferred all the enhancement bonus, only some. The +1 enhancement bonus from masterwork remains. And yet, a +5 enhancement bonus was transferred.

That's a big assumption (underlined) and is the problem with your interpretation. There's nothing in the rules to support that you can do such a thing, but there is evidence (anecdotal, to be honest) that says you can't. It is not a targeted dispel magic, so introducing that example is a red herring and a strawman. Nothing is suppressing any magic. As far as the defending description goes, there is ONE enhancement bonus, not two, and certainly not defined as allowing the wielder to separate out the sources.

 

[Felix]

I'd say the +5 Defending shortsword keeps its hardness and hit points. This is because the magic of the blade, which is what makes it harder in the first place, has not diminished... merely shifted around.

What I'm trying to avoid, which the increase-to-AC-reduces-hardness/HP crowd's ruling would lead to, is a situation where a guy is fighting a sundering enemy and not making use of his sword's defending property. The enemy damages the sword quite a bit, but is killed. The next day, the defending-shortsword guy starts fighting again, and decides to transfer some enhancement bonus to AC. The sword snaps in half.

Or, on the brink of having his sword sundered, he drops it. And it becomes stronger again.

Those situations seems absurd to me, and worth avoiding. And so...

The bonus the defending sword gives to AC is unnamed, it just stacks with all others. The source of that unnamed bonus is a Weapon Special Property and an enhancement bonus. [Not RAW] So I don't have any problem saying that the bonus is an enhancement bonus that stacks with all others. [/Not RAW]

If you make that change, the sword retains a total +5 enhancement bonus, even if three of it is attack/damage, and two of it is AC. Similar to how you still have $20 wether its one twenty, two tens, a ten and two fives, etc. The sword keeps its HP and hardness, a Weapon Special Quality improves in the face of sundering, and magical swords don't break all of a sudden.

It might not be strictly RAW, but it's bloody well close enough.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Then what do you do with a spell such as (greater) magic weapon? If your weapon takes significant damage and then the spell ends, does the weapon fall apart? I think it makes sense thematically in addition to making sense in the rules. I see it as directly analogous to the defending property.

However, I think the defending property is very weak, so I would rule it as you do just to keep the defending property from being complete crap. I just don't agree that the situation is as absurd as you believe.