Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Suvarov454 06-16-07, 06:45 PM	If my friend casts GMW +3 on my +1 Defender, can I use the enhancement bonus on my AC?
Mattastrophic 06-16-07, 06:47 PM	Yes, yes you can. -Matt
thorinXXX 06-17-07, 12:14 PM	According to the RAW you have two independant and overlapping enhancement bonuses; a +1 from enchantment, and a +3 from a spell. The +3 from the spell does not replace the bonus from the enchantment, if it did then the weapon would gain hardness and hitpoints from the spell. So you end up with a +1 bonus that can be used for offense or defense, and a +3 bonus that can only be used for offense. So the answer to your question is no.
kjenks 06-17-07, 12:34 PM	Thorin's making that up. The answer is yes.
thorinXXX 06-17-07, 12:48 PM	Thorin's making that up. The answer is yes. So, how do the stacking rules work then?
Timlagor 06-17-07, 01:14 PM	Thorin: It doesn't stack but the +3 does replace the +1 for all purposes.
Suvarov454 06-17-07, 01:40 PM	To summarize, in the example of a +1 Defending longsword that has had Greater Magic Weapon cast on it by a 12th level caster, all of the following options are valid: (a) +3 attack and damage, +0 AC (b) +2 attack and damage, +1 AC (c) +1 attack and damage, +2 AC (d) +0 attack and damage, +3 AC I was not entirely certain of my reading of the RAW (listed below) for (c) and (d), because the spell description specifially states "enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls". Still, the general description for magic weapons says the same thing, which leads me to believe that the Defending special ability still applies. Furthermore, I believe that GMW and Defending both modify the hardness of the weapon. Defending: 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. 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. Enhancement Bonus: An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks. Hardness and Hit Points: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points. Magic Weapon: Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.) Greater Magic Weapon: This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). MAGIC WEAPONS Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonus on attack rolls does not stack with their enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Stacking: In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
thorinXXX 06-17-07, 02:01 PM	So you are saying that a weapon with GMW cast on it gains hardness and hitpoints?
kjenks 06-17-07, 03:16 PM	Yes, it gains hardness and hit points. (Make sure you follow the DMG Errata here, too.)
Timlagor 06-18-07, 10:25 AM	"Defending" is an enchantement rather than an enhancement and does not give the weapon increased Hp and Hardness.
kjenks 06-18-07, 11:29 AM	"Defending" is an enchantement rather than an enhancement and does not give the weapon increased Hp and Hardness. I think what they're getting at is the rules for calculating hit points and hardness of weapons. Per the DMG Errata, "Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points." So when you put an enhancement bonus on a weapon, that rule applies. The rule does not specify permanent enhancement bonuses (like a magical weapon) or temporary enhancement bonuses (like a spell that grants an enhancement bonus), so it applies to all enhancement bonuses. A typical longsword has a hardness of 10 and 5 hit points. So at the beginning of the day, your +1 defending longsword has hardness 12, HP 15. When your cleric buddy casts GMW and bumps its enhancement bonus up to +3, its hardness becomes 16 and hits HP become 35. When the spell ends, it loses the extra hardness and the extra HP. And just like a barbarian coming out of a rage, at the point that the spell ends, if there's more damage than HP, the sword breaks. (Since you bring up the terminology thing, "enchantments" are mind-affecting things. "Defending" is a "special ability.")
thorinXXX 06-18-07, 01:18 PM	While I disagree with this interpretation as the correct one, it certainly is a valid one. Especially since you apply the enhancement bonus to everything, not just to hit and damage rolls.
dkay807 06-18-07, 04:58 PM	To summarize, in the example of a +1 Defending longsword that has had Greater Magic Weapon cast on it by a 12th level caster, all of the following options are valid: (a) +3 attack and damage, +0 AC (b) +2 attack and damage, +1 AC (c) +1 attack and damage, +2 AC (d) +0 attack and damage, +3 AC I was not entirely certain of my reading of the RAW (listed below) for (c) and (d), because the spell description specifially states "enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls". Still, the general description for magic weapons says the same thing, which leads me to believe that the Defending special ability still applies. Furthermore, I believe that GMW and Defending both modify the hardness of the weapon. Defending: 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. 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. Enhancement Bonus: An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks. Hardness and Hit Points: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points. Magic Weapon: Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.) Greater Magic Weapon: This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). MAGIC WEAPONS Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonus on attack rolls does not stack with their enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Stacking: In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. This is all correct. GMW +3 magically enhances the weapon such that it's new magical enhancement bonus is +3. You may use that enhancement bonus as you see fit - including gaining a higher bonus to AC when used in conjunction with th defending special property. I would even argue that (d) would actually be +1 to attack, +3 to AC because while you subtract the entire +3 magical enhancement bonus from attack and damage and add it as a bonus to your AC, the weapon remains masterwork, thus providing you with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack at all times.
Timlagor 06-18-07, 05:30 PM	Ken: he seemed to be sayign that having the defending ability would increase the hardness and hp of a weapon which it does not. I do agree that the GMW affects these values.
kjenks 06-18-07, 08:15 PM	Ken: he seemed to be sayign that having the defending ability would increase the hardness and hp of a weapon which it does not. I do agree that the GMW affects these values. Then we agree all over the place.
kjenks 06-18-07, 11:32 PM	I would even argue that (d) would actually be +1 to attack, +3 to AC because while you subtract the entire +3 magical enhancement bonus from attack and damage and add it as a bonus to your AC, the weapon remains masterwork, thus providing you with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack at all times. That extra little +1 is prevented by the exact wording of the Defending ability. If you transfer all of your enhancement bonus to AC, "all" would include the enhancement bonus you get from masterwork and the enhancement bonus from magic.
thorinXXX 06-19-07, 02:36 PM	That extra little +1 is prevented by the exact wording of the Defending ability. If you transfer all of your enhancement bonus to AC, "all" would include the enhancement bonus you get from masterwork and the enhancement bonus from magic. But it does not say all of your bonuses. It only says bonus, and the designers knew very well that there were multiple bonuses in play. You have a complerely separate enhancement bonus from being masterwork. That bonus never goes away, it is just usually irrelevant because it does not stack with the enchantment (or spell).
MatteBlack 06-19-07, 03:15 PM	My reading of the posted rules leads me to believe that since, GMW would give you +3 enhancement bonus to hit and damage it would overshadow the +1 defender enhancement when used for to hit and damage but, the weapon's +1 defender enhancement could be moved to AC while the GMW's +3 enhancement to hit and damaged remained in place. Since the weapon would have 4 total enhancements in +1 AC mode, it would gain the extra hardness and hit points. Essentially, adding the GMW would mean you would always use the weapon's enhancement for AC since the bonuses can exist next to one another but, not stack and the spell's text specifiies it's enhancement bonus only to to hit and damage. While the weapon ability is usable only with a general weapon enhancement. My key assumption is that "enhancement bonus" and "enhancement bonus to to hit and damage" are two different things.
MatteBlack 06-19-07, 03:19 PM	But it does not say all of your bonuses. It only says bonus, and the designers knew very well that there were multiple bonuses in play. You have a complerely separate enhancement bonus from being masterwork. That bonus never goes away, it is just usually irrelevant because it does not stack with the enchantment (or spell). Similarly, using the enhancement bonus for AC would mean that the masterwork bonus to hit would remain in effect and give a bonus that is usually eclipsed by the enhancement bonus to hit and damage.
kjenks 06-19-07, 05:48 PM	But it does not say all of your bonuses. It only says bonus, and the designers knew very well that there were multiple bonuses in play. Yes, it does indeed say "all." SRD === Defending: 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. ===
Suvarov454 06-19-07, 09:45 PM	Ken: he seemed to be sayign that having the defending ability would increase the hardness and hp of a weapon which it does not. I do agree that the GMW affects these values. Sorry. I meant that the Defending ability allowed you to decrease the hardness and hp of a weapon, by transfering it's enhancement bonus to an unnamed bonus to AC. That is, if the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC, then it isn't on the weapon, so it can't increase the weapon's hardness. I never mean that Defending (or Holy, or Bane or any other non-enhancement bonus magical ability of a weapon) would improve the weapon's hardness. As for the Masterwork enhancement bonus, it explicitly doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus. At the start of each round, you have a +3 sword, and the player gets to choose to apply the bonus to AC instead of to the weapon. If you transfer it all to AC, then there's none left for the weapon. If you transfer all but one, then you've only boosted AC by 2. Basically the rules for stacking prevent the Masterwork bonus to apply once the sword is magic.
thorinXXX 06-20-07, 03:06 PM	Yes, it does indeed say "all." SRD === Defending: 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. === Some or all of the sword's enhncement bonus, not all of the sword's enhancement bonuses. Big difference, because there are multiple enhancement bonuses in effect at once.
thorinXXX 06-20-07, 03:18 PM	Sorry. I meant that the Defending ability allowed you to decrease the hardness and hp of a weapon, by transfering it's enhancement bonus to an unnamed bonus to AC. That is, if the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC, then it isn't on the weapon, so it can't increase the weapon's hardness. I never mean that Defending (or Holy, or Bane or any other non-enhancement bonus magical ability of a weapon) would improve the weapon's hardness. As for the Masterwork enhancement bonus, it explicitly doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus. At the start of each round, you have a +3 sword, and the player gets to choose to apply the bonus to AC instead of to the weapon. If you transfer it all to AC, then there's none left for the weapon. If you transfer all but one, then you've only boosted AC by 2. Basically the rules for stacking prevent the Masterwork bonus to apply once the sword is magic. For the first part the weapon still has an enhancement bonus, it just is not bein used for offense, so how would it lose hardness and hit points when switched to defense. For the second part, no one has said that the bonuses stack. What is being said is that there are mulitple bonuses. If the bonuses were all rolled into a single bonus we would not need stacking rules.
kjenks 06-20-07, 04:05 PM	Some or all of the sword's enhncement bonus, not all of the sword's enhancement bonuses. Big difference, because there are multiple enhancement bonuses in effect at once. No difference, because they overlap. All means all, and that includes the +1 enhancement bonus for masterwork.
thorinXXX 06-20-07, 04:54 PM	No difference, because they overlap. All means all, and that includes the +1 enhancement bonus for masterwork. No, all quite clearly refers to a single bonus out of multple possible bonuses. If there was only one bonus there would be no need for stacking rules. As it is there are three enhancement bonuses: masterwork, spell, and magical enchantment. According to the stacking rules only the highest applies, but the others are still there if something happens to the highest. Just because a bonus is overlapped does not mean that it is not there.
Timlagor 06-20-07, 05:27 PM	Activating the defending proprty does not affect the Hardness or HP of the weapon: it still has the enhancement, it's just being used for AC rather than offence.
kjenks 06-20-07, 10:34 PM	No, all quite clearly refers to a single bonus out of multple possible bonuses. If there was only one bonus there would be no need for stacking rules. As it is there are three enhancement bonuses: masterwork, spell, and magical enchantment. According to the stacking rules only the highest applies, but the others are still there if something happens to the highest. Just because a bonus is overlapped does not mean that it is not there. So you're saying that all doesn't mean all?
dkay807 06-20-07, 10:56 PM	So you're saying that all doesn't mean all? Ken, I very much agree with Thorin on this one. The description clearly states "All of the bonus" not "All of the bonuses" However, the weapon has multiple enhancement bonuses. One is a magical +3 enhancement bonus to hit and damage. Another is a mundane +1 enhancement bonus to attack. Therefore, on your turn, you may apply any or all of that +3 magical enhancement bonus to AC and in turn, decrease that magical enhancement bonus by the same amount. You of course have the option to transfer all of the bonus. Once this is done, the mundane +1 enhancement bonus to attack remains. Of course, as is common for all of D&D, this is entirely up to the DM to adjudicate. If you feel uncomfortable with this ruling, you are free to rule otherwise as a DM. Additionally, I would also rule that the weapons hardness and HP does not decrease when you transfer the enhancement bonus to AC. My interpretation is that you simply decrease attack and damage and increase AC.
bitznarf 06-21-07, 10:20 AM	I completely disagree here dkay. Your weapon has an enhancement bonus. Okay fine. Does it matter how it got the number it has? No. You then decide where that bonus goes to. It still has the same enhancement bonus, it is just being applied differently. Thus regardless of how many GMW spells have been put on the weapon, it only has one number to work with.
Mattastrophic 06-21-07, 10:51 AM	Ken, I very much agree with Thorin on this one. The description clearly states "All of the bonus" not "All of the bonuses" So according to your ruling... If I were to cast Greater Magic Weapon twice on the same weapon, I could transfer the +3 from one of the castings into AC, while leaving the other one available for attack and damage? My Greater Magic Weapons aren't stacking with each other. If Defending works the way you're suggesting, one is merely overlapping the other. -Matt
chesspiece 06-21-07, 12:39 PM	So we’re arguing about when overlapping (for the same type of bonus) occurs. This is an Order of Operations problem and WotC hasn’t defined the correct order yet. If you overlap first, then MW enhancement, magic item enhancement, and spell enhancement result in a single +3 enhancement bonus that can be traded for the defender AC. Trading away 3 points of enhancement leaves no bonus for attack / defense. If you overlap last, then +1/+0 MW enhancement, +1 magic item enhancement, and +3 spell enhancement can trade away +3 enhancement bonus for the defender AC. But trading away 3 points of enhancement still leaves a +1 bonus for attack / defense (since the magic item still has a +1 enhancement bonus). This means that a +1 defender without GMW would at least always provide the +1 enhancement bonus to attack from MW. Since this order has never (to my knowledge) been defined, either is valid so IMHO this is a Core Rules issue / GM’s call. The second option seems different enough from how I’ve always played D&D, that I strongly prefer the first option. Your GM’s MMV.
bitznarf 06-21-07, 01:11 PM	So we’re arguing about when overlapping (for the same type of bonus) occurs. This is an Order of Operations problem and WotC hasn’t defined the correct order yet. If you overlap first, then MW enhancement, magic item enhancement, and spell enhancement result in a single +3 enhancement bonus that can be traded for the defender AC. Trading away 3 points of enhancement leaves no bonus for attack / defense. If you overlap last, then +1/+0 MW enhancement, +1 magic item enhancement, and +3 spell enhancement can trade away +3 enhancement bonus for the defender AC. But trading away 3 points of enhancement still leaves a +1 bonus for attack / defense (since the magic item still has a +1 enhancement bonus). This means that a +1 defender without GMW would at least always provide the +1 enhancement bonus to attack from MW. Since this order has never (to my knowledge) been defined, either is valid so IMHO this is a Core Rules issue / GM’s call. The second option seems different enough from how I’ve always played D&D, that I strongly prefer the first option. Your GM’s MMV. Thats just it, there is no 'overlap', there is stacking. The weapon isn't MW *and* +1 *and* +3. It is just +3. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking
katrick 06-21-07, 08:35 PM	read the Magic Weapon spell Mwk doesn't stack katrick
CSHunt68 06-21-07, 09:44 PM	Right. Because bonuses are governed by the stacking rules, and bonuses of the same type don't stack. But, the stacking rules still apply. A masterwork weapon has a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls (that's straight from the PHB). When you have a GMW on it for +3, the weapon then has an enhancement bonus of +3, making the masterwork enhancement bonus moot for the duration of the spell. Period.
chesspiece 06-21-07, 11:23 PM	Please don't misread me. I meant overlap (a term that Ken used in Post 24): intransitive verb 1 : to occupy the same area in part In other words, not stacking. At no point did I wish to suggest that the example weapon had +5 to hit and +4 damage. I think that everyone here agrees that the Mwk and +1 components are irrelevant in 99% of cases and that this is normally treated as a +3 weapon. However, the Defending ability is unusual because it trades away a bonus for a different benefit. I can't think of any other items in 3.5 that works this way. So when Defending says you can "transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus", do they mean that you've already applied the 'no stacking' rule and there is only "the [one] enhancement bonus" left? Or do they mean that 'no stacking' comes last and that you can trade away "the [biggest] enhancement bonus", leaving other sources of enhancement to provide +hit and +damage? Under the stacking rules linked above, it says: "If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies." By my reading, it doesn't say that Mwk and +1 no longer exist after the +3 GMW is in effect, only that they don't apply their bonuses to the rolls. If something temporarily eliminated the +3, that shouldn't necessarily eliminate the +1 or Mwk. So if +3 was gone (traded away), it's possible that you still get to use "the best bonus" that remains. I don't want to convince anyone to change their position. But I believe that both sides have valid readings.
bitznarf 06-21-07, 11:34 PM	By my reading, it doesn't say that Mwk and +1 no longer exist after the +3 GMW is in effect, only that they don't apply their bonuses to the rolls. If something temporarily eliminated the +3, that shouldn't necessarily eliminate the +1 or Mwk. So if +3 was gone (traded away), it's possible that you still get to use "the best bonus" that remains. Thats the thing, the defending property doesn't change the enhancement bonus on the weapon at all. It is still a +3 weapon. It just changes what that bonus goes to. Thus the fact that it is also a +1 weapon without the GMW spell on it doesn't even come into the equation.
Suvarov454 06-22-07, 08:03 AM	So we’re arguing about when overlapping (for the same type of bonus) occurs. This is an Order of Operations problem and WotC hasn’t defined the correct order yet. If you overlap first, then MW enhancement, magic item enhancement, and spell enhancement result in a single +3 enhancement bonus that can be traded for the defender AC. Trading away 3 points of enhancement leaves no bonus for attack / defense. If you overlap last, then +1/+0 MW enhancement, +1 magic item enhancement, and +3 spell enhancement can trade away +3 enhancement bonus for the defender AC. But trading away 3 points of enhancement still leaves a +1 bonus for attack / defense (since the magic item still has a +1 enhancement bonus). This means that a +1 defender without GMW would at least always provide the +1 enhancement bonus to attack from MW. Since this order has never (to my knowledge) been defined, either is valid so IMHO this is a Core Rules issue / GM’s call. The second option seems different enough from how I’ve always played D&D, that I strongly prefer the first option. Your GM’s MMV. After GMW's duration expires, you still have two sources of enhancment, +1/+0 from masterwork and +1/+1 from the weapon's magic. Given your "order of operations" interpretation, if the owner transfers the magic enhancement to defense, that the character still gets the +1/+0 to attack from masterwork. That is contrary to my understanding of the Defending property. The easiest way for me to resolve the "order of operations" in a way that produces results that match my expectations is to apply the effects of overlapping before allowing the player to transfer bonuses around (instead of after, like you are suggesting may be legal). By applying the stacking rules to the overlapping sources of enhancment bonus before, the GMW's effect overlaps the weapon's own +1 bonus for the duration of the spell, and the weapon's +1 bonus overlaps the mastwork bonus unless the weapon has its magic dispelled or surpressed (such as in an Anti-Magic Field); any bonus applied to AC is not available for offense. Please note, I am not insisting that applying the stacking rules after transferring bonuses to AC is incorrect. I am merely observing that, if it is correct, that a Defender always gets its masterwork bonus to attack, even if all magic bonuses are assigned to AC; also, if a Defender has two GMWs cast on it, it can have one assigned to AC at all times, and still get the full offensive bonus from the other. I imagine that Defending would be far more popular than it is now.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 09:29 AM	For the duration of the spell, the sword does not have a +1 enhancement bonus to attack. It has a +3 enhancement bonus. If you transfer all of that +3 to AC, it has no enhancement bonus left.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 10:26 AM	For the duration of the spell, the sword does not have a +1 enhancement bonus to attack. It has a +3 enhancement bonus. If you transfer all of that +3 to AC, it has no enhancement bonus left. I recommend you go re-read the defending property again. The enhancement bonus doesn't change, just where the bonus is applied changes.
kjenks 06-22-07, 11:23 AM	All means all.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 11:43 AM	I recommend you go re-read the defending property again. The enhancement bonus doesn't change, just where the bonus is applied changes. I've read the property, so _I_ recommend _YOU_ lose the snark. NOW. Or perhaps look up the definition of "transfer" - it's a perfectly common english word. If I transfer hit points to someone, I LOSE those hp, and he gains them. I do not retain the property of having those hit points. I have lost them. There is nothing to indicate, in the rules for Defending, whether or not this is still a weapon with a +3 enhancement when the bonuses are transferred to AC. That is, a weapon that has transferred its +3 enhancement to AC is no longer treated as a weapon with a +3 enhancement bonus to attacks and damage - we know that much. Whether or not it's a weapon with a +3 enhancement for other effects seems unclear. At the start of the turn, it's a weapon with a +3 enhancement bonus. Period. If you transfer all of that bonus to your AC, then there is nothing left of its enhancement bonus to apply to attack or damage. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 11:51 AM	"...the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus". Therefor both before and after the enhancement bonus is allocated, the weapon in question is still a +3 weapon. Try again.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 11:56 AM	Yep. Nice snip, by the way. ;) "A defending weapon allows a wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC ... 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." Look up "transfer", please. It's a +3 weapon for attack and damage, unless some of its bonus is transferred to AC at the start of a turn. At the beginning of the next turn, it's back to being a +3 weapon for attack and damage. Next?
bitznarf 06-22-07, 12:06 PM	Yep. Nice snip, by the way. ;) It was easier than typing out the whole thing. "A defending weapon allows a wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC ... 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." Yup, thats what the rules say. It's a +3 weapon for attack and damage And here is where the problem comes in. It's not a '+3 weapon for attack and damage', it's just a '+3 weapon'. What that +3 gets added to is what is modified by the defending property, it doesn't actually change that '+3'. Next?
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:13 PM	Your argument is perfectly circular. "It's a +3 weapon because it has a +3 bonus so it's a +3 weapon." It's not "just a +3 weapon". It has lost its enhancement bonus to attack and damage for the duration of that round on which its bonus is transferred to AC - I assume you would grant this, or else what is the downside of transferring all of the enhancement bonus to AC? The weapon clearly has to lose something. What else has it lost its +3 bonus to? You would say nothing, but there is no evidence to support your conclusion. It has CLEARLY lost its enhancement bonus to attack and damage, right? What supports your conclusion when, by the rules text, it has TRANSFERRED its +3 enhancement bonus to AC? There is NOTHING to indicate that it remains a +3 weapon, with a -3 penalty to attack and damage, which is what you are implying.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 12:28 PM	Your argument is perfectly circular. "It's a +3 weapon because it has a +3 bonus so it's a +3 weapon." It is circular because that is simply what the rules say. It's not "just a +3 weapon". It has lost its enhancement bonus to attack and damage for the duration of that round on which its bonus is transferred to AC Yes, the bonus is moved, but it is still there. Hence the word 'transfered'. The weapon doesn't lose anything, it just transfers where the bonus applies.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:30 PM	Right. The enhancement bonus is transferred. THAT'S what the rules say. (Not that the weapon loses the enhancement bonus to attack and damage.) So, when the enhancement bonus is transferred to AC, it no longer applies to the weapon. So, when a weapon with a +3 enhancement bonus transfers that +3 enhancement bonus to AC, it has no enhancement bonus left. Glad you agree. :D (BTW, your sentence "the bonus is moved, but it is still there" makes no sense. That is neither what "move" nor "transfer" means. lol Otherwise, the weapon should still be +3 in all respects - attack, damage, etc - hey, the bonus is still there, right? Either it's there, or it's not. Any intermediate interpretation has no basis in the rules as written.)
bitznarf 06-22-07, 12:31 PM	Please don't put words in my mouth. What I agree with is that when you use the defending property of a weapon to apply some of the enhancement bonus to AC, that part of the enhancement bonus is no longer added to the attack and damage. For example a +1 defending weapon with a +3 GMW on it is a +3 defending weapon. When the user allocates '3 units of enhancement' to AC rather than to attack and damage, it is still a +3 defending weapon, that hasn't changed. Thus the fact that the weapon is a +1 weapon without the GMW on it doesn't mean a thing.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:38 PM	Please stop putting words in the RAW that aren't there. A bonus cannot be "moved" or "transferred" and still remain in place. This has no basis in the RAW, nor any basis in reason or the english language. If something is MOVED it is no longer where you first put it ...
bitznarf 06-22-07, 12:44 PM	If the weapon was not still a +3 weapon, then the defending property would not have been able to transfer 3 to AC. Thus it is still a +3 weapon.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:50 PM	Please don't put words in my mouth. What I agree with is that when you use the defending property of a weapon to apply some of the enhancement bonus to AC, that part of the enhancement bonus is no longer added to the attack and damage. By your own words, a weapon is either +3 or it isn't. Where is your justification for saying that "that part of the enhancement bonus is no longer added to the attack and damage"? Where is your justification for saying that only "part" of its enhancement bonus is transferred? Please re-read the Defending property. For example a +1 defending weapon with a +3 GMW on it is a +3 defending weapon. Yes. When the user allocates '3 units of enhancement' to AC rather than to attack and damage, it is still a +3 defending weapon, that hasn't changed. Oh, yes, the weapon has FUNDAMENTALLY changed for the duration of that round of transfer. It no longer has a +3 enhancement bonus, because you've transferred it to AC. Where is this "units of enhancement" coming from? There's nothing in the rules about it - you're just making it up. The rules speak of "enhancement bonus" and nothing else. The Defending property speaks of transferring that enhancement bonus - not part of it, not units of it. You can transfer "any" or "all" of it, not select components of what that bonus applies to. Thus the fact that the weapon is a +1 weapon without the GMW on it doesn't mean a thing. I agree. But when that +3 Defender has transferred its +3 enhancement bonus to AC, it has a +0 enhancement bonus.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:52 PM	If the weapon was not still a +3 weapon, then the defending property would not have been able to transfer 3 to AC. Thus it is still a +3 weapon. Huh?? That's like saying that if I'm out of spells now, how could I have cast Cure Light Wounds at the start of the round. ?? The weapon started the round with a +3 enhancement bonus, then quickly acquired a +0 enhancement bonus since I transferred it OUT OF THE WEAPON and INTO MY AC. At the start of my next round, that bonus shifts back.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 12:53 PM	The weapon started the round with a +3 enhancement bonus, then quickly acquired a +0 enhancement bonus since I transferred it OUT OF THE WEAPON and INTO MY AC. At the start of my next round, that bonus shifts back. Once you have done that, is the weapon still a +3 defending weapon? Yes. The +3 just applies to AC rather than to attack and damage.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 12:57 PM	Call it what you want. Call it Excalibur, if you like. It has a +0 enhancement bonus for the duration of that round. There is no justification in the rules for your last sentence, nor does it logically follow from your previous proposition. The +3 applies to AC, rather than EVERYTHING ELSE that would be modified by the enhancement bonus of the weapon. Your assumption that it has a +0 enhancement bonus for attack and damage, while +3 for everything else is false, and you explicitly stated that yourself earlier. (So forgive me if I'm confused by your argument.) In a similar way, when I cast +3 GMW on a +1 longsword, it really still is a +1 longsword (in the way that you're saying "it really still is a +3 Defender"), but its enhancement bonus is treated as +3 for the duration of the spell, and for all purposes, not just attack and damage.
Nutation 06-22-07, 01:09 PM	This is not a useful back-and-forth between you two. It's just word juggling unless someone identifies an actual *game mechanic* that is altered (or isn't altered) by use of the defending ability (excluding actual attack & damage bonus, which everyone agrees on). For example: Who thinks that using a weapon's defending property changes it's hardness and hitpoints? For example: It's been lost in the weeds as to who believes the +1 to hit for a masterwork weapon now applies.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 01:12 PM	The +3 applies to AC, rather than EVERYTHING ELSE that would be modified by the enhancement bonus of the weapon. So you are claiming that when using the defending ability your sword loses HP and hardness? Your assumption that it has a +0 enhancement bonus for attack and damage, while +3 for everything else is false, and you explicitly stated that yourself earlier. (So forgive me if I'm confused by your argument.) I am saying that the weapon has a +3 enhancement bonus. Some of that '+3' is being applied to AC through the defending property of the weapon, the rest is being applied as normal. The defending ability moves the bonus from attack and damage to AC, nothing else. It doesn't make the weapon 'less magical'. Edit: I'm working on getting to that Nutation, if one approach doesn't work, try another, right?
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 01:53 PM	So you are claiming that when using the defending ability your sword loses HP and hardness? I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying that's what the rules indicate. If you transfer the +3 enhancement bonus FROM a weapon, into your AC, it loses that +3 enhancement bonus for the duration of the transfer. This is what is meant by "transfer". I am saying that the weapon has a +3 enhancement bonus. Some of that '+3' is being applied to AC through the defending property of the weapon, the rest is being applied as normal. There is no "some of" that +3. You're making things up. The defending ability moves the bonus from attack and damage to AC, nothing else. The rules do not indicate that. They explicitly indicate that the sum toto of the enhancement bonus is moved. They mention nothing about "attack and damage ... nothing else". You're making things up. It doesn't make the weapon 'less magical'. It explicitly changes the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If you want to say that makes it "less magical", so be it. It certainly is "less magical" when you swing it at your opponent, though, even by your own admission. This is what you get from reading the text of the rules.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 01:58 PM	There is no "some of" that +3. You're making things up. Sure there is, +1 is some of +3. +2 is also some of +3. It explicitly changes the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If you want to say that makes it "less magical", so be it. It certainly is "less magical" when you swing it at your opponent, though, even by your own admission. When did I say the weapon is less magical? I've said that the bonus to attack and damage isn't as high, nothing more. This is what you get from reading the text of the rules. No, that is what *you* get from misreading the rules. Given that you appear to believe that the using defending property of the weapon reduces the weapons HP and hardness, as well as have a lower magical aura, we will never make it to any common ground.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 01:58 PM	This is not a useful back-and-forth between you two. It's just word juggling unless someone identifies an actual *game mechanic* that is altered (or isn't altered) by use of the defending ability (excluding actual attack & damage bonus, which everyone agrees on). The rules indicate that the enhancement bonus of the weapon is transferred - this is the "game mechanic". It is explicit in the rules for the Defending property. Until there is a ruling otherwise, that means it is transferred for everything, not just attack and damage. There is no support for the other interpretation, other than to argue spirit of the rules, as bitznarf has begun doing ("it's still a +3 Defender", "it's not less magical", etc.)
bitznarf 06-22-07, 02:02 PM	There is no support for the other interpretation, other than to argue spirit of the rules, as bitznarf has begun doing ("it's still a +3 Defender", "it's not less magical", etc.) In my opinion, neither the RAW nor the spirit of the rules allow someone to cast 2 +3 GMW spells on the same defending weapon, resulting in +3 to attack, damage, and AC.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 02:02 PM	Sure there is, +1 is some of +3. +2 is also some of +3. Sorry, but that's not what I meant, and I don't know if you're being obtuse or facetious. YOU are arguing that part of "+3" is a bonus to attack and damage rolls, and that part of "+3" is application to hp and hardness. The Defending quality makes no distinction. You're making things up. When did I say the weapon is less magical? I've said that the bonus to attack and damage isn't as high, nothing more. You said I was implying that the weapon has suddenly become "less magical". Your phrase - check your posts. And, again, there's nothing to indicate that when you transfer enhancement bonus, it only affects attack and damage. You're making things up. No, that is what *you* get from misreading the rules. Given that you appear to believe that the using defending property of the weapon reduces the weapons HP and hardness, as well as have a lower magical aura, we will never make it to any common ground. I am arguing the rules as written, which you were kind enough to direct me to read in your first post to me. YOU are now arguing spirit. Next?
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 02:04 PM	In my opinion, neither the RAW nor the spirit of the rules allow someone to cast 2 +3 GMW spells on the same defending weapon, resulting in +3 to attack, damage, and AC. I agree. The rules for stacking explicitly prohibit it. A weapon cannot stack up two +3 enhancement bonuses. Neither can it transfer its enhancement bonus to AC and still retain its enhancement bonus. By the RAW, in any case. Or logic, or the use of the english language. Anything else? 'Cause we're arguing letter and spirit of the rules, now.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 02:12 PM	I agree. The rules for stacking explicitly prohibit it. A weapon cannot stack up two +3 enhancement bonuses. Neither can it transfer its enhancement bonus to AC and still retain its enhancement bonus. By the RAW, in any case. Or logic, or the use of the english language. Anything else? 'Cause we're arguing letter and spirit of the rules, now. Thats the thing, with the way you seem to want to read the rules, someone using a defending weapon could have a +3 GMW on it at the beginning of his turn, use the defending property to move/transfer the enhancement bonus to AC, resulting in a +0 defending weapon (how does that work ???), then have GMW cast on it again (by himself or someone else with a readied action or w/e) and have a +3 defending weapon again, with a net result of +3AC, +3attack, +3damage. After all, if the weapon is not still a +3 weapon, then the second GMW isn't conflicting with any other enhancement bonuses.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 02:28 PM	Thats the thing, with the way you seem to want to read the rules, someone using a defending weapon could have a +3 GMW on it at the beginning of his turn, use the defending property to move/transfer the enhancement bonus to AC, resulting in a +0 defending weapon (how does that work ???) How does that work? Just wait until the start of the next round and watch what happens. ... Wait for it. ... Wait for it. ... THERE! It's a +3 Defending weapon again! :) Magic! , then have GMW cast on it again (by himself or someone else with a readied action or w/e) and have a +3 defending weapon again, with a net result of +3AC, +3attack, +3damage. After all, if the weapon is not still a +3 weapon, then the second GMW isn't conflicting with any other enhancement bonuses. Well, by the RAW, that MIGHT work. For one round. Then, it goes back to being a weapon with two +3 enhancement bonuses, and they don't stack up. Wow - your 12+ level caster just used a 4th level spell to give a single PC +3 to hit and +3 damage for one round. What's the problem there? Here's a follow-up question for you: if Dispel Magic is cast on a +3 longsword, suppressing it for some duration, could it then benefit from a MW or GMW? I guess you'd argue that you couldn't, since, despite the fact that it's not magical for some period of time, it really still is a +3 longsword. But, I don't want to put words in your mouth. ...
bitznarf 06-22-07, 03:17 PM	How does that work? Just wait until the start of the next round and watch what happens. ... Wait for it. ... Wait for it. ... THERE! It's a +3 Defending weapon again! :) Magic! But in the main time we have a non-magical weapon with the defending property??? That just doesn't make sense. Well, by the RAW, that MIGHT work. For one round. Wow - your 12+ level caster just used a 4th level spell to give a single PC +3 to hit and +3 damage for one round. What's the problem there? Just a couple posts back you said it wouldn't. There are a lot of actions that are not legal within the RAW that are also often entirely useless. Doesn't make them legal. But, I don't want to put words in your mouth. ... Thank you. Here's a follow-up question for you: if Dispel Magic is cast on a +3 longsword, suppressing it for some duration, could it then benefit from a MW or GMW? I guess you'd argue that you couldn't, since, despite the fact that it's not magical for some period of time, it really still is a +3 longsword. You appear to be mis-understanding the approach I am taking here. I never said that the using defending property of a weapon reduces the 'magicness' of the weapon, that was a question I posed to you. On the defending weapon with the GMW spell on it, the weapon is at all times a +3 defending weapon. It has a +3 enhancement (until the spell ends). What that enhancement actually does is affected by the defending property, it doesn't actually change if the weapon has an enhancement. With your dispel magic example the weapon does actually lose its enhancement (well, it is suppressed actually, but for our purposes there is no difference). At this point for all purposes the weapon is not magical, it is merely masterwork. Thus a MW or GMW spell does affect the longsword as per normal.
CSHunt68 06-22-07, 04:20 PM	But in the main time we have a non-magical weapon with the defending property??? That just doesn't make sense. Of course it does. You just used the Defending property. It is in effect now. How is that so hard to understand? Just a couple posts back you said it wouldn't. There are a lot of actions that are not legal within the RAW that are also often entirely useless. Doesn't make them legal. It wouldn't work - read carefully now - in the general sense. It would work for precisely one round, in the way you used it. Clear? You appear to be mis-understanding the approach I am taking here. I never said that the using defending property of a weapon reduces the 'magicness' of the weapon, that was a question I posed to you. On the defending weapon with the GMW spell on it, the weapon is at all times a +3 defending weapon. And I answered. It has a +3 enhancement (until the spell ends). Not if it transfers its enhancement bonus to AC. Read the Defending property. What that enhancement actually does is affected by the defending property Right. If you use the Defending property to transfer the enhancement bonus to AC, it no longer applies to the weapon. For some reason (spirit of the rules, I'd guess) you are ASSUMING that this only applies to the attack and damage rolls of that weapon. There is nothing in the rules text ANYWHERE to support that. , it doesn't actually change if the weapon has an enhancement. With your dispel magic example the weapon does actually lose its enhancement (well, it is suppressed actually, but for our purposes there is no difference). At this point for all purposes the weapon is not magical, it is merely masterwork. Thus a MW or GMW spell does affect the longsword as per normal. Same thing, precisely. For whatever reason, that weapon has a +0 enhancement bonus. You are suppressing (losing) the enhancement bonus on your weapon - that is, temporarily transferring it - to AC. Again, please read the Defending entry. Please understand what "transfer" means. Please do not add rules to the RAW that aren't there.
Eric Anondson 06-22-07, 04:55 PM	... Wait for it. ... Wait for it. ... THERE! It's a +3 Defending weapon again! :) Magic!Who's the one that wanted the snark reduced?If you transfer the +3 enhancement bonus FROM a weapon, into your AC, it loses that +3 enhancement bonus for the duration of the transfer.This is wrong, you can only infer that because it does not in fact say it. The transfer is not from the weapon, it transfers the enhancement modifier from attack and damage to AC. It is still a part of the weapon.
bitznarf 06-22-07, 04:57 PM	Of course it does. You just used the Defending property. It is in effect now. How is that so hard to understand? I don't understand how it is possible to have a non-magical weapon with the magical property 'defending'. "A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus." Therefor this weapon cannot exist if it does not have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. A +0 defending weapon is not possible. Therefor the defending property cannot actually remove the enhancement bonus from the weapon, it can merely reallocate it. It wouldn't work - read carefully now - in the general sense. It would work for precisely one round, in the way you used it. Clear? Yes, it is clear to me how you would rule on such an issue. I don't think the steps I laid out would work at all. The second casting of GMW will not stack with the first. Not if it transfers its enhancement bonus to AC. Read the Defending property. The definition of transfer as found by a quick google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atransfer&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) Among the definitions is this: "move from one place to another". So the benefit of the enhancement bonus got moved. Does that mean that the enhancement bonus is gone, and another one can be used in its place? No. The enhancement bonus still exists. It was simply transfered/moved/reallocated. It is still the weapons enhancement bonus regardless of where it is allocated at the time. Right. If you use the Defending property to transfer the enhancement bonus to AC, it no longer applies to the weapon. For some reason (spirit of the rules, I'd guess) you are ASSUMING that this only applies to the attack and damage rolls of that weapon. Because any other option I have seen fails the common sense test. Like getting a non-magic weapon with a magical property.
CSHunt68 06-23-07, 12:07 AM	Who's the one that wanted the snark reduced? If I get snark, it goes right back. This is wrong, you can only infer that because it does not in fact say it. The transfer is not from the weapon, it transfers the enhancement modifier from attack and damage to AC. It is still a part of the weapon. Where does it say that? The "attack and damage" part? Show me. This is really all you and bitz have to do to prove your point. Show me where it says anything about the "attack and damage" part of the enhancement bonus with regards to the Defending property. Since you say this is what is in the RAW and I am misinterpreting. Everything else is really unimportant.
CSHunt68 06-23-07, 12:11 AM	I don't understand how it is possible to have a non-magical weapon with the magical property 'defending'. "A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus." Therefor this weapon cannot exist if it does not have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. A +0 defending weapon is not possible. Therefor the defending property cannot actually remove the enhancement bonus from the weapon, it can merely reallocate it. That's not what the rules say. This is a +3 Defending weapon which has transferred (moved, parted with) its enhancement bonus. Do not confuse crafting rules with game effects. How does a +3 Defending weapon have a +0 enhancement bonus? Simple - it has temporarily transferred its enhancement bonus to AC. It gets it back at the beginning of the next round. Yes, it is clear to me how you would rule on such an issue. I don't think the steps I laid out would work at all. The second casting of GMW will not stack with the first. Yes, it probably would. According to the rules as laid out for Defending. Just as it would work for the example I gave you, which you agreed with. (Despite the fact that this example is EXPLICITLY forbidden in the rules - check out the section on stacking in the DMG. The only way it works like we both think it does is if, in fact, at the time of casting it is +3 longsword with, temporarily perhaps, a +0 enhancement bonus. Do you think that Dispel Magic merely takes away the enhancement bonus to attack and damage from a weapon? Where is the justification for that?) The definition of transfer as found by a quick google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atransfer&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) Among the definitions is this: "move from one place to another". So the benefit of the enhancement bonus got moved. Does that mean that the enhancement bonus is gone, and another one can be used in its place? No. The enhancement bonus still exists. Not on the weapon. I think you need to look up "moved from one place to another" now. What, in that english sentence, makes you think that what you move is still where it was before you moved it? Seriously, do you know what "move" means? It was simply transfered/moved/reallocated. It is still the weapons enhancement bonus regardless of where it is allocated at the time. According to the Defending rules, it moves from one place to another. It does not exist in both places, nor does merely "part" of it move, as you've also argued. Because any other option I have seen fails the common sense test. Like getting a non-magic weapon with a magical property. Not common sense at all. And that's a very dangerous precedent to apply. Of course, at least now you're agreeing that it is a spirit of the rules question, and not a RAW issue. I'm fine with that. Argue spirit or common sense all you like. Just don't point to rules next time and say "maybe you should read them". Anything else?
Eric Anondson 06-23-07, 12:25 AM	Where does it say that? The "attack and damage" part? Show me.p. 221, first paragraph under WEAPONS. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. Thus the defending special ability transfers the magic weapon's enhancement bonus from the wielder's attack and damage rolls (normal for magic weapons) to the wielder's AC.
bitznarf 06-23-07, 12:44 AM	Yes, it probably would. According to the rules as laid out for Defending. Just as it would work for the example I gave you, which you agreed with. (Despite the fact that this example is EXPLICITLY forbidden in the rules - check out the section on stacking in the DMG. The only way it works like we both think it does is if, in fact, at the time of casting it is +3 longsword with, temporarily perhaps, a +0 enhancement bonus. Do you think that Dispel Magic merely takes away the enhancement bonus to attack and damage from a weapon? Where is the justification for that?) Come again? Not on the weapon. I think you need to look up "moved from one place to another" now. What, in that english sentence, makes you think that what you move is still where it was before you moved it? Seriously, do you know what "move" means? According to the Defending rules, it moves from one place to another. It does not exist in both places, nor does merely "part" of it move, as you've also argued. The effect of the bonus has moved from the weapon to AC, yes. It still exists. On the weapon. The weapon is the source of the bonus to AC. If the weapon was not still a +3 weapon, it would not have a bonus to apply to AC. Of course, at least now you're agreeing that it is a spirit of the rules question, and not a RAW issue. I'm fine with that. Nah, I wasn't getting through to you with a RAW argument so I tried something else.
CSHunt68 06-23-07, 07:37 PM	p. 221, first paragraph under WEAPONS. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. That's not all they apply to. You must show me where it says, in the Defending ability, that that's all that moves. Thus the defending special ability transfers the magic weapon's enhancement bonus from the wielder's attack and damage rolls (normal for magic weapons) to the wielder's AC. It transfers every attribute of the enhancement bonus away from the weapon. Re-read the Defending ability.
CSHunt68 06-23-07, 07:39 PM	The effect of the bonus has moved from the weapon to AC, yes. It still exists. On the weapon. The weapon is the source of the bonus to AC. If the weapon was not still a +3 weapon, it would not have a bonus to apply to AC. So, what does it mean that it "moved"? Again, please tell me how, after something "moves" in ANY sense of the word, that it still exists where it was before moving. If the weapon was not still a +3 weapon, it would not have a bonus to apply to AC. It does not, anymore. It has already moved its bonus to AC, and no longer has any enhancement bonus. It gets it back at the beginning of the next round. Goodness, english really isn't that confusing, is it? Nah, I wasn't getting through to you with a RAW argument so I tried something else. Right. Your argument isn't supported by RAW. As long as we're all clear.
kjenks 06-23-07, 07:44 PM	A +3 defending weapon. +3 attack, +3 damage, +0 AC -- none of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +2 attack, +2 damage, +1 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +1 attack, +1 damage, +2 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +0 attack, +0 damage, +3 AC -- all of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC See how it works? SRD === Defending: 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. ===
bitznarf 06-23-07, 08:07 PM	A +3 defending weapon. +3 attack, +3 damage, +0 AC -- none of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +2 attack, +2 damage, +1 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +1 attack, +1 damage, +2 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +0 attack, +0 damage, +3 AC -- all of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC See how it works? Right, in all cases it is still a +3 defending weapon. A +3 GMW spell put on that weapon will have absolutely no impact on anything. That isn't all that confusing is it CSHunt? It transfers every attribute of the enhancement bonus away from the weapon. Re-read the Defending ability. Tell me, how exactly does your AC score have a hardness or hit points, or a magical aura. It is just a number. Tell me how to allocate hardness/HP/magical aura strength to AC. Does your AC go up by the amount that the bonus increase all 3 of those items, as well as the straight '+3'? Does ones AC go up by 2 due to the bonus to hardness and by 10 more due to the bonus to HP (per +1 enhancement bonus). I don't think thats quite how it works, and if you want *everything* transferring, well, then you need to count everything.
Eric Anondson 06-23-07, 09:01 PM	It transfers every attribute of the enhancement bonus away from the weapon. Re-read the Defending ability.How about I cut and paste the entire defending ability that Ken was nice enough to type up. We can all look at it together. Defending: 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. I'm looking for "transfers every attribute away from the weapon". Nope, not seeing "every attribute" nor "from the weapon". You are inferring it. Saying "every attribute" leads to logical contortions on reasoning why the defending ability doesn't go away after the enhancement modifier of the weapon dips below +1 (a prerequisite the weapon must have for the special ability in the first place), or what happens to the weapon's hit points or hardness. It does say that the enhancement can be transferred to apply to AC, though. The implication seems clear that the enhancement is shifted from where it normally applies (attack and damage) to AC. The reader must assume the enhancement modifier remains a quality of the weapon regardless where the enhancement modifier is applied to. Plus, why should the defending special ability need to repeat what the enhancement normally applies to when it is already mentioned three pages earlier.
CSHunt68 06-24-07, 10:40 AM	A +3 defending weapon. +3 attack, +3 damage, +0 AC -- none of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +2 attack, +2 damage, +1 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +1 attack, +1 damage, +2 AC -- some of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC +0 attack, +0 damage, +3 AC -- all of the enhancement bonus is transfered to AC See how it works? SRD === Defending: 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. 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. Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus. === Reading the Defending weapon property, from the SRD, here's how it works: +3 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +0 AC; +2 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +1 AC; +1 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +2 AC; +0 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +3 AC. The enhancement bonus is transferred, not the attack and damage bonus (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the text). This translates into loss of attack and damage bonus, but, according to the SRD, that's not all.
CSHunt68 06-24-07, 10:46 AM	I'm looking for "transfers every attribute away from the weapon". Nope, not seeing "every attribute" nor "from the weapon". You are inferring it. It says "enhancement bonus". That implies "enhancement bonus", not attack and damage bonuses ONLY. YOU are inferring something that is not there. Nice try. Next? Saying "every attribute" leads to logical contortions on reasoning why the defending ability doesn't go away after the enhancement modifier of the weapon dips below +1 (a prerequisite the weapon must have for the special ability in the first place), or what happens to the weapon's hit points or hardness. Why is that a logical contortion at all?!?! The weapon has the ability to transfer its enhancement bonus to AC for a round at a time. It doesn't lose that ability just because it has done so. It is losing enhancement bonus, so it is losing hp and hardness - what's so hard to understand about that? This is magic, right?? Again, you're arguing spirit of the rules, not RAW. It does say that the enhancement can be transferred to apply to AC, though. The implication seems clear that the enhancement is shifted from where it normally applies (attack and damage) to AC. Where else does it "normally apply"? Why assume that it does not shift away from EVERYTHING it "normally applies to"? You're inferring something that is DEMONSTRABLY not in the text you yourself provided. The reader must assume the enhancement modifier remains a quality of the weapon regardless where the enhancement modifier is applied to. No, the reader must not. The reader should apply the RAW. Plus, why should the defending special ability need to repeat what the enhancement normally applies to when it is already mentioned three pages earlier. *sigh* This is getting tedious. The enhancement bonus applies to all kinds of things. When you transfer enhancement bonus away - which is what the Defending ability indicates - it loses everything that applies to. To assume otherwise is arguing spirit of the rules. Again, I'm fine with that, but please just say so.
KarmaInferno 06-24-07, 01:04 PM	It's a +3 magic item regardless of where the bonus is being applied to. I don't see how it that is so confusing. It "transfers enhancement bonus to AC". The enhancement bonus isn't gone, it just applies to Armor Class now rather than attack/damage. +0 Attack/Damage + +3 AC = +3 Bonus +1 Attack/Damage + +2 AC = +3 Bonus +2 Attack/Damage + +1 AC = +3 Bonus +3 Attack/Damage + +0 AC = +3 Bonus The +3 does not go away, it just gets moved from one function to another. -karma
Eric Anondson 06-24-07, 01:26 PM	It says "enhancement bonus". That implies "enhancement bonus", not attack and damage bonuses ONLY. YOU are inferring something that is not there. Nice try.Wrong. The way enhancement modifiers to weapons work was already explained, in the same section, just three pages earlier. Repeating it is not necessary.Why is that a logical contortion at all?!?! The weapon has the ability to transfer its enhancement bonus to AC for a round at a time. It doesn't lose that ability just because it has done so. It is losing enhancement bonus, so it is losing hp and hardness - what's so hard to understand about that?Because it is a needless complication.This is magic, right?? Again, you're arguing spirit of the rules, not RAW.Wrong. The "magic" is the weapon bestowing its enhancement modifer to AC.Where else does it "normally apply"? Why assume that it does not shift away from EVERYTHING it "normally applies to"? You're inferring something that is DEMONSTRABLY not in the text you yourself provided.Because saying it shifts away from "EVERYTHING" means it loses the prerequisite for the special ability. Everything means everything. The logical contortion is reasoning why losing the prerequisite doesn't negate the defending ability. If you don't mean "everything", don't say "everything". Another consequence of assuming the enhancement modifier leaves the weapon entirely and goes to some "AC-thing" is the result of the defending weapon being sundered. Assuming the enhancement leaves the weapon entirely would mean that after the defending weapon is sundered the enhanced "AC-thing" sticks around until the end of the round even though the defending weapon is completely destroyed. Not only a needless complication, that's silly. Another consequence of assuming the enhancement modifier leaves the weapon entirely and goes to some "AC-thing" is the result of wielder of the defending weapon being disarmed. Assuming the enhancement leaves the weapon entirely would mean that after the wielder of the defending weapon is disarmed, someone else who picks up the defending weapon cannot use the defending weapon until prior wielder's next turn because the defending weapon's enhancement modifer is stuck as an "AC-thing" with the prior wielder. Needlessly complex.No, the reader must not. The reader should apply the RAW.The RAW for armor class do not have a floating "enhancement" modifier. There are: Armor modifiers (which can have enhancement applied to them) Shield modifiers (which can have enhancement applied to them) Competence modifiers Deflection modifiers Dexterity modifiers Dodge modifiers Insight modifiers Haste modifiers Luck modifiers Morale modifiers Natural Armor modifiers Profane modifiers Sacred modifiers Wisdom modifiers There is no "enhancement" just to AC. There is enhancement to armor and enhancement to shield. If the defending ability meant for the weapon's enhancement to be shifted off the weapon it would have said the enhancement is transferred to the armor. It does not say that. RAW. The reader must assume, by RAW, the weapon's enhancement modifier remains with the weapon and now applies to AC instead of attack and damage. Assuming the enhancement modifier leaves the weapon is outside the RAW. It isn't even spirit of the rules. *sigh* This is getting tedious.We have something we agree about. The enhancement bonus applies to all kinds of things. When you transfer enhancement bonus away - which is what the Defending ability indicates - it loses everything that applies to. To assume otherwise is arguing spirit of the rules. Again, I'm fine with that, but please just say so. You claim that the AC is a thing that can be enhanced by itself. The RAW state armor gets enhanced and shields get enhanced, and when enhanced the AC value of the equipment is improved. AC independent of armor or shields cannot be enhanced. Find an example in the RAW that supports the notion that enhancement modifiers get applied straight to AC without it being applied to armor or shields.
bitznarf 06-24-07, 01:59 PM	Tell me, how exactly does your AC score have a hardness or hit points, or a magical aura. It is just a number. Tell me how to allocate hardness/HP/magical aura strength to AC. Does your AC go up by the amount that the bonus increase all 3 of those items, as well as the straight '+3'? Does ones AC go up by 2 due to the bonus to hardness and by 10 more due to the bonus to HP (per +1 enhancement bonus). I don't think thats quite how it works, and if you want *everything* transferring, well, then you need to count everything. Because I don't want to type it all out.
CSHunt68 06-25-07, 10:11 AM	The assumption, Eric, that only attack and damage bonuses are transferred is not supported by the Defending definition, which is the RAW. That's all.
bitznarf 06-25-07, 10:33 AM	The assumption, Eric, that only attack and damage bonuses are transferred is not supported by the Defending definition, which is the RAW. That's all. Then what happens to the other bonuses provided by a +3 enhancement bonus? What happens to the hardness bump, the HP bump, and the magical aura bump? Where do they get transfered/allocated to?
Eric Anondson 06-25-07, 10:40 AM	The assumption, Eric, that only attack and damage bonuses are transferred is not supported by the Defending definition, which is the RAW.It is supported by the definition of what weapon magic enhancements apply to—attack and damage rolls made with the weapon. Which is the RAW. But it is not the only relevent rule. Armor class—independent of armor, shield, or natural armor—does not acquire enhancement modifiers in the RAW.
KarmaInferno 06-25-07, 09:09 PM	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. I can see that as the enhancement bonus now being on AC. Granted, I can see that being read as being an unnamed bonus to AC, too. The sentence could be worded better. -karma
bitznarf 06-25-07, 09:17 PM	I can see that as the enhancement bonus now being on AC. Granted, I can see that being read as being an unnamed bonus to AC, too. The sentence could be worded better. -karma Either way it is the weapon giving the bonus, the at all times +3 defending weapon; at least until the GMW spell runs out.
Eric Anondson 06-25-07, 09:45 PM	The sentence could be worded better.Heck yeah.
katrick 06-29-07, 02:37 PM	Deflection modifiers Dexterity modifiers Dodge modifiers Wisdom modifiers" There is no "enhancement" just to AC. There is enhancement to armor and enhancement to shield. Find an example in the RAW that supports the notion that enhancement modifiers get applied straight to AC without it being applied to armor or shields. Ahm, by RAW you can get an enhancement to all of these which goes straight to AC, or did i misunderstand your statement? katrick
Eric Anondson 06-29-07, 05:10 PM	Ahm, by RAW you can get an enhancement to all of these which goes straight to AC, or did i misunderstand your statement?*sigh* :banghead:
Nutation 06-29-07, 05:20 PM	Ahm, by RAW you can get an enhancement to all of these which goes straight to AC, or did i misunderstand your statement? katrick Generally speaking, an enhancement bonus increases something, and then that something gets added to AC. Thus, an enhancement bonus on armor increases that armor's "armor bonus". The larger "armor bonus" is what is added to AC. Sometimes what is being enhanced has a starting value of zero (Magic Vestment on clothing, most castings of Barkskin). But, it's still a two-step process. I don't know of any direct enhancement bonuses to Armor Class.