2 defending weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

2 defending weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
prozacman
02-02-07, 03:11 AM simple question, if you are wielding 2 defending swords can you gain the armor bonus twice?

more complicated question; do you actually have to attack with it to gain to AC bonus?

thanks in advance. i have an inclination as to how this should work, but would like feedback from others.
RavenDrake
02-02-07, 03:19 AM To my knowledge there is no official ruling on the subject. Interpretations come down, generally, as to whether the phrase "stacks with all others" means "stacks with any other available armour class bonus including itself" or "stacks with any armour class bonus that is NOT also a defending weapon"

Personally I would not allow them to stack. I don't like the idea of stacking anything that is not clearly and expressly allowed to stack. The phrasing of the defending ability is hazy enough that I have to err on the side of not allowing them to stack with themselves.

As for having to attack with the weapon, no you don't. You used to have to in 3.0 to claim benefits from defending and expertise, but not anymore. You do, however, have to have the weapon in hand(or otherwise equiped and at the ready) in order to use the benefit though; you can't prop a defending greatsword up across your shoulder with one hand and start casting spells and still claim the defending bonus.
prozacman
02-02-07, 03:25 AM thank you. very helpful...

I figured the 2 defending weapons would come down to DM option, i just want some opinions on it.

anyone else have any opinions on the double defending weapons?
Ryu Katsuragi
02-02-07, 04:37 AM I, personally, wouldn't allow them to stack.

Why? I envision defending weapons to be like a fencer's off-hand weapon; you use it to help knock away blows, which you attack with your main hand. To my knowledge, this is a popular tactic used by Drizzt with Twinkle (which I'm sure is his off-hand weapon, and is defending?)

Problem comes when people want more, like then wanting to stack defending gauntlets, defending bootknives, etc.
prozacman
02-02-07, 04:50 AM hmmm... thats exactly the problem i see happening...

it is in fact exactly what one of the players said to me tonight..

me: well, even if it does stack thats a max of 3 of them: two swords and spiked armor

him: what about boot knives?

me: your not wielding a knife in your boot

Its only a matter of time until he realizes that you can buy defending spiked gauntlets...

I think it may be prudent to disallow stacking defending weapons... He'll simply try to abuse them.

Thanks again,

any other thoughts? perhaps anyone who thinks multiple defending weapons SHOULD stack? i'm curious to hear the other side, if there is one
jaelis
02-02-07, 07:50 AM I'm in the no-stacking camp myself. I think it's just simpler and easier to play.

The pro-stacking camp usually also says that you need to actually attack with the weapon to get the benefit, so you're still limited to just two and you have to take the TWF penalties. So that is hardly any less restrictive. (Unless you have multiple arms.)

Some people go with allowing any weapon you have equipped to stack. The main justification there is that getting AC from defending weapons is so expensive that there's no reason to disallow it. I think that is provably untrue at very high (probably epic) levels, but most people aren't playing there.
runestar
02-02-07, 08:02 AM It could get abusive...
Imagine a thrikeen with 4 +1 defending weapons, armour spikes, boot blades, helmet horns etc, enchant them to +5 with greater magic weapon and let rip...:P
penchant
02-02-07, 09:02 AM If you are using wealth by level to keep things balanced then it should not be a problem to allow the items to stack, even if the player has ten +1 defending items. Defending is a trade off. While the PC might be well armored against attack, he will not be making a whole lot of attacks himself. Its no worse than Improved Combat Expertise.

Remember, if you want your armor to have +1 Defending Armor Spikes it still takes at least 4000 gp to do so. Getting a free +10 to AC will be all the character is buying.
Harliquinn
02-02-07, 09:22 AM To my knowledge there is no official ruling on the subject. Interpretations come down, generally, as to whether the phrase "stacks with all others" means "stacks with any other available armour class bonus including itself" or "stacks with any armour class bonus that is NOT also a defending weapon"

I would tend to agree with the second interpretation: " A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. The use of the word 'others' is reasonably interpreted to mean 'other than itself or other defending weapons'. To rule otherwise opens up a lot of problems.
draconic_swine
02-02-07, 09:24 AM The pro-stacking camp usually also says that you need to actually attack with the weapon to get the benefit, so you're still limited to just two and you have to take the TWF penalties. So that is hardly any less restrictive. (Unless you have multiple arms.)

I'm also one of the "It doesn't stack, you damn munchkin" guys, but if I allowed it to stack, I would make the player have to attack with the weapon & take the TWFing penalties, as you said.
mvincent
02-02-07, 12:06 PM Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpreted as indicating that it stacks with itself, but this appears unwarranted.

Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses:
"A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus."
... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves.

It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems).
Steevo
02-02-07, 12:35 PM When I first opened this thread, I was of the opinion that the bonuses from two defending weapons should stack, but I suppose I never really thought about how that ruling could be abused. I'm not a munchkin by nature, so I sometimes find myself blindsided by how ridiculous they can get if you don't keep an eye on them.

Even so, I'm still inclined to say they stack, but only when both weapons are weilded. I agree that boot knives aren't weilded for this purpose, but I'm also inclined to say that spiked gauntlets aren't weilded if they're holding another weapon. I mean, if the character was holding a vorpal sword in a flaming burst spiked gauntlet, I wouldn't allow the flaming burst to go off after he critted with the vorpal sword.

I don't expressly say that the character needs to be attacking with both weapons, but I will still do my best to limit it to two weapons at a time. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that if you transfer the entire weapon bonus to AC, the weapon no longer strikes as a magic weapon because it no longer has an enhancement bonus, so there is a (potentially) serious drawback to just putting everything on AC.

Having said that, there is a valid point in the idea that two bonuses from the same source never stack, be they named bonuses or unnamed. (Is that actually RAW? I've never seen it in print but I think it is.) It's probably best for all concerned to just say no, I suppose.
runestar
02-02-07, 09:56 PM Well, it should be okay so long as it is not abused. I guess it should be okay so long as no one goes overboard with stacking them.

Perhaps my stay at the CO boards has started to warp my mentality...:embarrass
Nezkrul
02-03-07, 11:51 AM Well, it should be okay so long as it is not abused. I guess it should be okay so long as no one goes overboard with stacking them.

Money, bro. Costs lots of money. Every one seems to ignore money as a limiting factor to item abuse.
mvincent
02-03-07, 01:59 PM Money, bro. Costs lots of money. Every one seems to ignore money as a limiting factor to item abuse.Greater Magic Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm) can reduce that cost considerably. Abusive defending builds typically use this combo.

Example: My 10th lvl caster with a bead of karma, death knell and a (shared) orange ioun stone would often get GMW at +4. Use this on defending armor spikes, spiked shield and your main weapon and it could net you +12 AC that stacks with other (far more expensive) items. At higher levels, the effect can become very pronounced.
Vaelan
02-03-07, 05:29 PM This is largely a matter of interpretation, as RavenDrake said. It stems from the term "wield" being undefined and reasonable interpretations resulting from each interpretation.

I would say that you can't gain the bonus if you don't actually make attacks with the weapon, but I'm not under the impression that this won't stop people from ultimately getting +5 AC practically for free, aside from the cost of the weapon, since I thought of one way while typing this rather brief post.
prozacman
02-04-07, 02:41 AM thanks for all the input folks... i was thinking along these lines anyway, but having seen many others write what was already floating around the back of my head has been incredibly helpful... I'll make sure to discuss it with the other DMs and we will come to a group consensus.

The cost is a bit prohibitive, but not really that bad if your bent on getting your AC as high as possible and already have +5 armor, shield, ring of prot, and amulet of natch armor.

The defending weapons costs about 20-30k more than a equally bonused ring of protection.. which will add up, but we tend to play high wealth games where cost isnt as limiting as it should be

again thanx for the input... id still love to hear more
ScipioX
02-04-07, 01:29 PM The FAQ is pretty clear that you actually have to attack with defending weapons to get the bonus. Its basically a very expensive (and crappy) form of expertise.

Probably by the rules, defending doesn't stack with itself. But even if you do allow it, its very hard to abuse because of the expense and attack requirement.
G_Mancer
02-04-07, 01:39 PM defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother. if not, a defending sword +1 would make a ring of pro +2 useless, which is never the case.
you do not have to attack o gain the bonuses. if you did have to attack, you woulnd't gain the bonuses while using the total defence action. and again, if you cant get one deflection bonus you cant get any, and i'm possitive you can get a ring of pro's deflection bonus when not fighting at all.
think of deflection bonuses as an invisible forcefield around you or the item. the more of a defleciton bonus the stronger or bigger the forcefield is.
SALDAR
02-04-07, 01:50 PM defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother.

Including the deflection bonuses from two different rings of protection?
mvincent
02-04-07, 02:06 PM defending weapons stack.No

defending is a deflection bonus.No

all deflection bonuses stack with eachother.No

Strikeout ;)
mvincent
02-04-07, 02:12 PM The FAQ is pretty clear that you actually have to attack with defending weapons to get the bonus.That is actually from the 3.0 FAQ... which would still be legit if more recent 3.5 rulings (by the same author) didn't contradict parts of this particular ruling.

I still use this ruling myself though (with some modifications to fit the recent rulings) as I feel it still conveys some of the designer's intent.
Steevo
02-04-07, 11:24 PM defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother. if not, a defending sword +1 would make a ring of pro +2 useless, which is never the case.

I'm fairly sure Dodge bonuses are the only named bonuses that will stack with themselves. Deflection does not stack with itself, witness the fact that two rings of protection don't stack.

That said, the bonus from a defending weapon is unnamed (there's no name for the bonus in the Defending description anyway,) so it really hinges on how sticky you are about the idea of two bonuses from the same source stacking. As I said before, I'm fairly sure RAW says they don't stack if they both come from the same source (ie: defending weapons), but I can't actually find it in print.
SALDAR
02-05-07, 08:35 PM The Defending description in the SRD states:
"As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn."

So you do have to use it to get the AC bonus (i.e. attack with it).
mvincent
02-06-07, 11:52 AM The Defending description in the SRD states:
"As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn."

So you do have to use it to get the AC bonus (i.e. attack with it).1) Another way to parse might be "if you do use it, the allocating must be done before doing so"
2) The text does not define what constitutes "using" it.

I'm not saying I disgree with your interpretation, I'm just saying it isn't a truism, and I see room for others to reasonably interpret the text otherwise.
risner
02-06-07, 04:46 PM simple question, if you are wielding 2 defending swords can you gain the armor bonus twice?

more complicated question; do you actually have to attack with it to gain to AC bonus?

1) No
2) Yes
SALDAR
02-06-07, 10:51 PM 1) Another way to parse might be "if you do use it, the allocating must be done before doing so"
2) The text does not define what constitutes "using" it.

I'm not saying I disgree with your interpretation, I'm just saying it isn't a truism, and I see room for others to reasonably interpret the text otherwise.
From the SRD under Magic Weapons:
"Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action)."

So, to gain the benefit of defending you must attack with it. I know it starts with usually but I take this as you usually gain the benefits by attacking with the weapon unless the Special Ability or item description tells you otherwise. Defending does not specify otherwise so you gain the benefit by attacking with it.
mvincent
02-06-07, 11:12 PM From the SRD under Magic Weapons:
"Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it.That line is simply describing use activated items, and is giving an example. However (in the context it was using) we definitely know that you do not have to take the attack "action" to benefit from a magic weapon.... i.e. you could benefit from it while taking an AoO, etc.

btw: really? come on...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
prozacman 02-02-07, 03:11 AM	simple question, if you are wielding 2 defending swords can you gain the armor bonus twice? more complicated question; do you actually have to attack with it to gain to AC bonus? thanks in advance. i have an inclination as to how this should work, but would like feedback from others.
RavenDrake 02-02-07, 03:19 AM	To my knowledge there is no official ruling on the subject. Interpretations come down, generally, as to whether the phrase "stacks with all others" means "stacks with any other available armour class bonus including itself" or "stacks with any armour class bonus that is NOT also a defending weapon" Personally I would not allow them to stack. I don't like the idea of stacking anything that is not clearly and expressly allowed to stack. The phrasing of the defending ability is hazy enough that I have to err on the side of not allowing them to stack with themselves. As for having to attack with the weapon, no you don't. You used to have to in 3.0 to claim benefits from defending and expertise, but not anymore. You do, however, have to have the weapon in hand(or otherwise equiped and at the ready) in order to use the benefit though; you can't prop a defending greatsword up across your shoulder with one hand and start casting spells and still claim the defending bonus.
prozacman 02-02-07, 03:25 AM	thank you. very helpful... I figured the 2 defending weapons would come down to DM option, i just want some opinions on it. anyone else have any opinions on the double defending weapons?
Ryu Katsuragi 02-02-07, 04:37 AM	I, personally, wouldn't allow them to stack. Why? I envision defending weapons to be like a fencer's off-hand weapon; you use it to help knock away blows, which you attack with your main hand. To my knowledge, this is a popular tactic used by Drizzt with Twinkle (which I'm sure is his off-hand weapon, and is defending?) Problem comes when people want more, like then wanting to stack defending gauntlets, defending bootknives, etc.
prozacman 02-02-07, 04:50 AM	hmmm... thats exactly the problem i see happening... it is in fact exactly what one of the players said to me tonight.. me: well, even if it does stack thats a max of 3 of them: two swords and spiked armor him: what about boot knives? me: your not wielding a knife in your boot Its only a matter of time until he realizes that you can buy defending spiked gauntlets... I think it may be prudent to disallow stacking defending weapons... He'll simply try to abuse them. Thanks again, any other thoughts? perhaps anyone who thinks multiple defending weapons SHOULD stack? i'm curious to hear the other side, if there is one
jaelis 02-02-07, 07:50 AM	I'm in the no-stacking camp myself. I think it's just simpler and easier to play. The pro-stacking camp usually also says that you need to actually attack with the weapon to get the benefit, so you're still limited to just two and you have to take the TWF penalties. So that is hardly any less restrictive. (Unless you have multiple arms.) Some people go with allowing any weapon you have equipped to stack. The main justification there is that getting AC from defending weapons is so expensive that there's no reason to disallow it. I think that is provably untrue at very high (probably epic) levels, but most people aren't playing there.
runestar 02-02-07, 08:02 AM	It could get abusive... Imagine a thrikeen with 4 +1 defending weapons, armour spikes, boot blades, helmet horns etc, enchant them to +5 with greater magic weapon and let rip...:P
penchant 02-02-07, 09:02 AM	If you are using wealth by level to keep things balanced then it should not be a problem to allow the items to stack, even if the player has ten +1 defending items. Defending is a trade off. While the PC might be well armored against attack, he will not be making a whole lot of attacks himself. Its no worse than Improved Combat Expertise. Remember, if you want your armor to have +1 Defending Armor Spikes it still takes at least 4000 gp to do so. Getting a free +10 to AC will be all the character is buying.
Harliquinn 02-02-07, 09:22 AM	To my knowledge there is no official ruling on the subject. Interpretations come down, generally, as to whether the phrase "stacks with all others" means "stacks with any other available armour class bonus including itself" or "stacks with any armour class bonus that is NOT also a defending weapon" I would tend to agree with the second interpretation: " A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. The use of the word 'others' is reasonably interpreted to mean 'other than itself or other defending weapons'. To rule otherwise opens up a lot of problems.
draconic_swine 02-02-07, 09:24 AM	The pro-stacking camp usually also says that you need to actually attack with the weapon to get the benefit, so you're still limited to just two and you have to take the TWF penalties. So that is hardly any less restrictive. (Unless you have multiple arms.) I'm also one of the "It doesn't stack, you damn munchkin" guys, but if I allowed it to stack, I would make the player have to attack with the weapon & take the TWFing penalties, as you said.
mvincent 02-02-07, 12:06 PM	Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is sometimes interpreted as indicating that it stacks with itself, but this appears unwarranted. Take for example the wording for unnamed bonuses: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar to (or even more permissive than) the wording for defending weapons, yet we do not interpret that to mean they can stack with themselves. In fact, we know that unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves. It is most reasonable to view the bonus from defending as an unnamed bonus (and likely the most balanced way to handle potential stacking problems).
Steevo 02-02-07, 12:35 PM	When I first opened this thread, I was of the opinion that the bonuses from two defending weapons should stack, but I suppose I never really thought about how that ruling could be abused. I'm not a munchkin by nature, so I sometimes find myself blindsided by how ridiculous they can get if you don't keep an eye on them. Even so, I'm still inclined to say they stack, but only when both weapons are weilded. I agree that boot knives aren't weilded for this purpose, but I'm also inclined to say that spiked gauntlets aren't weilded if they're holding another weapon. I mean, if the character was holding a vorpal sword in a flaming burst spiked gauntlet, I wouldn't allow the flaming burst to go off after he critted with the vorpal sword. I don't expressly say that the character needs to be attacking with both weapons, but I will still do my best to limit it to two weapons at a time. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that if you transfer the entire weapon bonus to AC, the weapon no longer strikes as a magic weapon because it no longer has an enhancement bonus, so there is a (potentially) serious drawback to just putting everything on AC. Having said that, there is a valid point in the idea that two bonuses from the same source never stack, be they named bonuses or unnamed. (Is that actually RAW? I've never seen it in print but I think it is.) It's probably best for all concerned to just say no, I suppose.
runestar 02-02-07, 09:56 PM	Well, it should be okay so long as it is not abused. I guess it should be okay so long as no one goes overboard with stacking them. Perhaps my stay at the CO boards has started to warp my mentality...:embarrass
Nezkrul 02-03-07, 11:51 AM	Well, it should be okay so long as it is not abused. I guess it should be okay so long as no one goes overboard with stacking them. Money, bro. Costs lots of money. Every one seems to ignore money as a limiting factor to item abuse.
mvincent 02-03-07, 01:59 PM	Money, bro. Costs lots of money. Every one seems to ignore money as a limiting factor to item abuse.Greater Magic Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm) can reduce that cost considerably. Abusive defending builds typically use this combo. Example: My 10th lvl caster with a bead of karma, death knell and a (shared) orange ioun stone would often get GMW at +4. Use this on defending armor spikes, spiked shield and your main weapon and it could net you +12 AC that stacks with other (far more expensive) items. At higher levels, the effect can become very pronounced.
Vaelan 02-03-07, 05:29 PM	This is largely a matter of interpretation, as RavenDrake said. It stems from the term "wield" being undefined and reasonable interpretations resulting from each interpretation. I would say that you can't gain the bonus if you don't actually make attacks with the weapon, but I'm not under the impression that this won't stop people from ultimately getting +5 AC practically for free, aside from the cost of the weapon, since I thought of one way while typing this rather brief post.
prozacman 02-04-07, 02:41 AM	thanks for all the input folks... i was thinking along these lines anyway, but having seen many others write what was already floating around the back of my head has been incredibly helpful... I'll make sure to discuss it with the other DMs and we will come to a group consensus. The cost is a bit prohibitive, but not really that bad if your bent on getting your AC as high as possible and already have +5 armor, shield, ring of prot, and amulet of natch armor. The defending weapons costs about 20-30k more than a equally bonused ring of protection.. which will add up, but we tend to play high wealth games where cost isnt as limiting as it should be again thanx for the input... id still love to hear more
ScipioX 02-04-07, 01:29 PM	The FAQ is pretty clear that you actually have to attack with defending weapons to get the bonus. Its basically a very expensive (and crappy) form of expertise. Probably by the rules, defending doesn't stack with itself. But even if you do allow it, its very hard to abuse because of the expense and attack requirement.
G_Mancer 02-04-07, 01:39 PM	defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother. if not, a defending sword +1 would make a ring of pro +2 useless, which is never the case. you do not have to attack o gain the bonuses. if you did have to attack, you woulnd't gain the bonuses while using the total defence action. and again, if you cant get one deflection bonus you cant get any, and i'm possitive you can get a ring of pro's deflection bonus when not fighting at all. think of deflection bonuses as an invisible forcefield around you or the item. the more of a defleciton bonus the stronger or bigger the forcefield is.
SALDAR 02-04-07, 01:50 PM	defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother. Including the deflection bonuses from two different rings of protection?
mvincent 02-04-07, 02:06 PM	defending weapons stack.No defending is a deflection bonus.No all deflection bonuses stack with eachother.No Strikeout ;)
mvincent 02-04-07, 02:12 PM	The FAQ is pretty clear that you actually have to attack with defending weapons to get the bonus.That is actually from the 3.0 FAQ... which would still be legit if more recent 3.5 rulings (by the same author) didn't contradict parts of this particular ruling. I still use this ruling myself though (with some modifications to fit the recent rulings) as I feel it still conveys some of the designer's intent.
Steevo 02-04-07, 11:24 PM	defending weapons stack. defending is a deflection bonus, and all deflection bonuses stack with eachother. if not, a defending sword +1 would make a ring of pro +2 useless, which is never the case. I'm fairly sure Dodge bonuses are the only named bonuses that will stack with themselves. Deflection does not stack with itself, witness the fact that two rings of protection don't stack. That said, the bonus from a defending weapon is unnamed (there's no name for the bonus in the Defending description anyway,) so it really hinges on how sticky you are about the idea of two bonuses from the same source stacking. As I said before, I'm fairly sure RAW says they don't stack if they both come from the same source (ie: defending weapons), but I can't actually find it in print.
SALDAR 02-05-07, 08:35 PM	The Defending description in the SRD states: "As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn." So you do have to use it to get the AC bonus (i.e. attack with it).
mvincent 02-06-07, 11:52 AM	The Defending description in the SRD states: "As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn." So you do have to use it to get the AC bonus (i.e. attack with it).1) Another way to parse might be "if you do use it, the allocating must be done before doing so" 2) The text does not define what constitutes "using" it. I'm not saying I disgree with your interpretation, I'm just saying it isn't a truism, and I see room for others to reasonably interpret the text otherwise.
risner 02-06-07, 04:46 PM	simple question, if you are wielding 2 defending swords can you gain the armor bonus twice? more complicated question; do you actually have to attack with it to gain to AC bonus? 1) No 2) Yes
SALDAR 02-06-07, 10:51 PM	1) Another way to parse might be "if you do use it, the allocating must be done before doing so" 2) The text does not define what constitutes "using" it. I'm not saying I disgree with your interpretation, I'm just saying it isn't a truism, and I see room for others to reasonably interpret the text otherwise. From the SRD under Magic Weapons: "Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action)." So, to gain the benefit of defending you must attack with it. I know it starts with usually but I take this as you usually gain the benefits by attacking with the weapon unless the Special Ability or item description tells you otherwise. Defending does not specify otherwise so you gain the benefit by attacking with it.
mvincent 02-06-07, 11:12 PM	From the SRD under Magic Weapons: "Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it.That line is simply describing use activated items, and is giving an example. However (in the context it was using) we definitely know that you do not have to take the attack "action" to benefit from a magic weapon.... i.e. you could benefit from it while taking an AoO, etc. btw: really? come on...