PDA

View Full Version : Stacking "Defending" weapons?



Brock Samson
2009-06-03, 03:58 AM
First of all, this is allowed isn't it? Secondly: Just how much abuse can you do with this? Started with a quarterstaff, both ends defending, armor spikes defending, and an animated shield with defending, if these are all greater-magic-weaponed to +5, will it really up your AC by 20? What kind of a bonus is this? Would it apply to touch attacks? And any other methods of abuse for this wonderful quality?

Animefunkmaster
2009-06-03, 04:09 AM
do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source

Emphasis mine. Two weapons transferring enhancement bonus to AC from the defending special quality is coming from the same source (the defending special quality) which overrules that it "stacks with all others".

Jothki
2009-06-03, 04:16 AM
Emphasis mine. Two weapons transferring enhancement bonus to AC from the defending special quality is coming from the same source (the defending special quality) which overrules that it "stacks with all others".

I'm fairly sure that the rules work the other way around, with specific (stacks with all others) overrulling general (bonuses from the same source don't stack).

elliott20
2009-06-03, 04:28 AM
either way, it provides an "enhancement" bonus. as a named bonus, it can only be applied once.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-03, 04:35 AM
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.
The bonus is not added to AC as an Enhancement bonus, it is added as an unnamed bonus 'that stacks with all others' which would include other Defending bonuses. You could get a stack of +1 Defending Arrows, GMW the stack to +5, and if you could somehow fire all fifty in one round you would get +250 AC for that round.

elliott20
2009-06-03, 04:37 AM
wow, defending weapons stack? somehow, that just seems... kind of silly.

Talic
2009-06-03, 04:40 AM
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.

Emphasis Mine.

The enhancement bonus is being transferred.
It's type doesn't change; only what it's applied to.

Riffington
2009-06-03, 04:45 AM
I believe it stacks. However, you still have to use the weapon to get the bonus. So if you want 3 items to contribute, you have to make at least one attack with each of the three.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-03, 04:48 AM
Even if it read, "transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a[n enhancement] bonus that stacks with all others," it would still stack with all other enhancement bonuses, including other Defending bonuses. Regardless of how you want to read it, it explicitly says that it stacks with all other bonuses to AC.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-03, 04:54 AM
Emphasis Mine.

The enhancement bonus is being transferred.
It's type doesn't change; only what it's applied to.

IMHO, you win rule-wise and sanity wise.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-03, 05:08 AM
Same source + enhancement bonuses = don't stack. Seems clear enough for me. This also handily prevents using defending armor and shield spikes with a defending weapon.


I'm fairly sure that the rules work the other way around, with specific (stacks with all others) overrulling general (bonuses from the same source don't stack).

How do you figure which of those is general and which specific? Seems like it's the other way around for me. After all, if your logic were correct, Dodge bonuses from the same source would stack.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-03, 06:01 AM
The general rule is that multiple bonuses of the same name, or multiple unnamed bonuses from the same source, do not stack. The Defending property includes an exception to this rule, spelled out as clearly as they could have possibly made it. Yet people are still trying to say that it won't stack, when it is clearly an exception to that rule. There is absolutely nothing vague about "this bonus stacks with all others." If a character has one Defending bonus, and tries to apply a second Defending bonus, it would be included in the "all others" category and they would definitely stack with each other.

Talic
2009-06-03, 06:14 AM
The general rule is that multiple bonuses of the same name, or multiple unnamed bonuses from the same source, do not stack. The Defending property includes an exception to this rule, spelled out as clearly as they could have possibly made it. Yet people are still trying to say that it won't stack, when it is clearly an exception to that rule. There is absolutely nothing vague about "this bonus stacks with all others." If a character has one Defending bonus, and tries to apply a second Defending bonus, it would be included in the "all others" category and they would definitely stack with each other.

No. We are interpreting it not as an "all others" category. We are interpreting it as "the same". An enhancement bonus to AC granted by a defending weapon.

Enhancement bonuses from armor? Stacks with.
Enhancement bonuses from shields? Great.
Every other bonus? Sure.

But adding water to water doesn't make it twice as wet. It's just more of the same.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-03, 06:52 AM
The general rule is that multiple bonuses of the same name, or multiple unnamed bonuses from the same source, do not stack. The Defending property includes an exception to this rule, spelled out as clearly as they could have possibly made it. Yet people are still trying to say that it won't stack, when it is clearly an exception to that rule. There is absolutely nothing vague about "this bonus stacks with all others." If a character has one Defending bonus, and tries to apply a second Defending bonus, it would be included in the "all others" category and they would definitely stack with each other.

"All others" seems to exclude "itself".

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-03, 06:57 AM
Quarterstaff, +5 Defending/+5 Defending
Left side grants +5 AC
Right side grants +5 AC

Left side regards right side as another bonus, "all other bonuses" applies in this case and left side is able to stack with right side.

Right side regards left side as another bonus, "all other bonuses" applies in this case and right side is able to stack with left side.

It does not say 'some' other bonuses, it does not say 'different' bonuses, it says "all other bonuses." All includes every. single. one. It does not say all other bonuses except other defending bonuses, it says ALL other bonuses. That includes other instances of the Defending property, because regardless of whether or not they're the same type of bonus or from the same source, they're still different bonuses and will stack due to the exception given in the ability.

If you don't like that a character could have +1 Defending armor spikes, a +1 Defending animated shield, and two +1 Defending weapons, all with GMW +5, then look at the second sentence of the property instead of the first: "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." It's a simple matter of ruling that only weapons you attack with can grant you the benefit of their Defending property, because no amount of desire on your part will change the fact that in this case, multiple abilities of the same name from the same source do in fact stack with each other.

Darrin
2009-06-03, 07:12 AM
Started with a quarterstaff, both ends defending, armor spikes defending, and an animated shield with defending, if these are all greater-magic-weaponed to +5, will it really up your AC by 20?

You're missing... two spiked gauntlets, two dwarven buckler-axes (RoS), two boot blades (CSc), two elbow blades (CSc), two knee blades (CSc), chahar-aina (OA), dastana (OA), braid blade (Dungeon #120), and... I think there's a horned helm in MIC that gives you a gore attack.

And that's before you go into Warshaper + Kensai to give yourself an infinite number of defending tentacles.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-03, 07:19 AM
There is one peculiar limitation of the defending property:
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. By RAW, this bonus will only stack with all others if it's on swords. So no armor spikes, shield spikes, doubly-enhanced quarterstaves -- just swords.

J.Gellert
2009-06-03, 07:36 AM
And any other methods of abuse for this wonderful quality?


You're missing... two spiked gauntlets, two dwarven buckler-axes (RoS), two boot blades (CSc), two elbow blades (CSc), two knee blades (CSc), chahar-aina (OA), dastana (OA), braid blade (Dungeon #120), and... I think there's a horned helm in MIC that gives you a gore attack.

And that's before you go into Warshaper + Kensai to give yourself an infinite number of defending tentacles.

The other thing that comes to mind is a Marilith... Of course, that one doesn't get Knee Blades, but still... Don't ever, ever tell your DM this.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-03, 12:08 PM
There is one peculiar limitation of the defending property: By RAW, this bonus will only stack with all others if it's on swords. So no armor spikes, shield spikes, doubly-enhanced quarterstaves -- just swords.+1 this. Yes, it's RAWtarded, but it handily prevents people from stacking more than 2 defending weapons(other than Thri-Keen etc).

Talic
2009-06-03, 12:22 PM
Left side regards right side as another bonus, "all other bonuses" applies in this case and left side is able to stack with right side.

Right side regards left side as another bonus, "all other bonuses" applies in this case and right side is able to stack with left side.That's one way to interpret it, sure.

Another way is that defending bonuses are not an "other" bonus. No left side, no right side, no nothing. If you use a defending weapon, and then try to use another defending weapon, you are trying to apply the same bonus twice.

And if we have multiple interpretations, and one leads to imbalance and abilities beyond the power scale of the item, and opens the door to rules abuse...

And the other does not...

Why on Earth would ANYONE choose the former?
Why are you, Biff?

And then why are you trying to Rules Lawyer it right back out?
Are you just trying to prove you're smart?

In that case, you win the internets. Here's a cookie.
Are we done now?

AbyssKnight
2009-06-03, 12:39 PM
Talic,

I think your response is entirely too personal and antagonistic to Bif.

As far as why he would argue for a position that is abusable, it is because the default assumption when discussing a rule is discuss what the rule is. Not what it should be, or how it is better. Bif simply believes that the consequences of the rule that the bonus from a defending weapon "stack(s) with all other bonuses" is that defending weapons stack with other defending weapons. He is stating his opinion and defending that opinion.

I personally think that is a logical conclusion from the text. And it would be far from the first or only broken thing that results from the rules being followed. More than half of the ideas people post on the internet seem to fall under "horrible things technically allowed by the rules."

For the record, I also don't have a problem with the conclusion that it shouldn't stack due to game balance or other issues.

It has nothing to do with trying to "win the internets" or any other such nonsense.

Don't attack the person just because you disagree with their argument.

lsfreak
2009-06-03, 12:54 PM
There is one peculiar limitation of the defending property: By RAW, this bonus will only stack with all others if it's on swords. So no armor spikes, shield spikes, doubly-enhanced quarterstaves -- just swords.
Though strictly speaking, there are examples of defending daggers in the books. Several of the hidden blades say in their text "Treat a [boot blade, sleeve blade, and instrument blade] as a dagger," in which case is something treated exactly the same as a dagger for damage, feats, class features, and everything else, not a dagger in this instance.

Lamech
2009-06-03, 01:03 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. 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. If I understand this this must be done at the start of his turn, not after he has taken another action. Like say moving or casting a spell or assigning some of a defending weapon's bonus to AC. So stacking them would be difficult.

And no those two bonuses would not be the same bonus. They would be two differant ones, mearly from the same source. Otherwise applying that to here which has similar language would make the last sentence meaningless because they are not "other bonuses" if they are from "the same source"


A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source. Which would mean this is the only basic rule to govern circumstance bonuses.


circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
So now circumstance bonuses would always stack with each other.

A much simpler way of looking at would be if one is using a +4/+5 quaterstaff how would you call a +4 bonus the same as a +5?

Heliomance
2009-06-03, 01:21 PM
Isn't the best way to abuse Defending by stacking it with Dancing, and havig a cloud of weapons hovering around you?

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-03, 01:31 PM
Isn't the best way to abuse Defending by stacking it with Dancing, and havig a cloud of weapons hovering around you?

Too expensive. that's a +6, whereas 50 +1 Defending Shurikens cost a single +2 (plus the MWK Shuriken price, as ammo), and Greater Magic Weapon CL 20th is really easy to get.

If you want to get crazy with it, Fukimi-Bari can be carried in your mouth (at an unlimited number), can be fired 3 at a time (so 15 attacks with Rapid Shot), and are ammunition for all intents. Range increment 5, so it really doesn't matter what you fire them at so long as you shoot them every round. 50 of them lasts for about 3 rounds, and there's no RAW limit to how many you can hold in your mouth. Start having fun guys.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-03, 01:34 PM
By RAW, this bonus will only stack with all others if it's on swords. So no armor spikes, shield spikes, doubly-enhanced quarterstaves -- just swords.

Obvious typo is obvious. Inherited from the AD&D Defender sword.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-03, 01:40 PM
Obvious typo is obvious. Inherited from the AD&D Defender sword.And the fact that Defending stacks with itself isn't an obvious error? As written, it stacks. Also as-written, it only applies to swords. RAI, you shouldn't be able to stack 6 defending weapons, and RAI it should apply to non-swords(since the dagger is possible to randomly generate), but you need to pick whether to follow RAW or RAI. Neither works the way you want it to.

sofawall
2009-06-03, 01:42 PM
No, we aren't, because I agree that Defending weapons can stack with each other. Not with themselves, but with each other.

They stack with all other bonuses. Do we agree on that?


Each weapon is a separate source, do we agree on that?

So, unnamed bonuses that have been explicitly called out to stack with all other bonuses, from different sources.

Honestly, it seems more likely that defending stacks then Fist of the Forest/Deepwarden.

Telonius
2009-06-03, 01:42 PM
Regardless, Defending only shows up in the Melee Weapon table. So, sadly, no getting a stack of +5 Defending arrows.

Taking this back to 3.0, the old FAQ had this to say about Defending Weapons:


Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens in the background?

Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon.

From the old SRD:


Expertise [General]
Prerequisite: Int 13+.
Benefit: When the character uses the attack action or full attack action in melee, the character can take a penalty of as much as -5 on the character's attack and add the same number (up to +5) to the character's Armor Class. This number may not exceed the character's base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until the character's next action. The bonus to the character's Armor Class is a dodge bonus.
Normal: A character not capable of the Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attacks and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

Note that Dodge Bonuses by definition stack with all others, including themselves. Now, from the 3.5 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.

Emphasis added. It seems pretty clear to me that this was intended to work just like the 3.0 defending weapons. I would rule - as Wizards suggested in 3.0 - that the bonus only be applied if a melee weapon is actually used during that round. You would take penalties as though fighting with multiple weapons for any other defending weapons you have otherwise. If you would not normally get enough attacks to use additional weapons, those Defending bonuses would not apply (so no stacking seventeen Defending Daggers).

Curmudgeon
2009-06-03, 01:56 PM
Though strictly speaking, there are examples of defending daggers in the books. That's perfectly fine. You can have 1 defending dagger. That bonus to AC just won't stack with all others. If you want the defending bonus to stack, it's gotta be on swords.

I admit it's screwy, but it's the best way I know to tackle this niche problem in the rules via strict adherence to the RAW.

Riffington
2009-06-03, 02:06 PM
I admit it's screwy, but it's the best way I know to tackle this niche problem in the rules via strict adherence to the RAW.

Why is it so bad to allow multiple defending weapons provided that the user actually makes an attack with each one of them as required by RAW?

Curmudgeon
2009-06-03, 02:22 PM
Why is it so bad to allow multiple defending weapons provided that the user actually makes an attack with each one of them as required by RAW? It's because that makes it a bargain-basement AC power-up for certain situations, like a Marilith or Thri-Kreen with Multiweapon Fighting. They could have their 6 +1 held weapons and use all in a full attack, transferring +6 to AC. But all these attacks are still at +1 because the weapons retain their masterwork bonus. So:
no reduction in attack for any weapon
+6 to AC
all for only 2/3 the cost of a single +3 weapon
And what's the cost of a normal +6 armor boost? Epic.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-03, 02:25 PM
It's because that makes it a bargain-basement AC power-up for certain situations, like a Marilith or Thri-Kreen with Multiweapon Fighting. They could have their 6 +1 held weapons and use all in a full attack, transferring +6 to AC. But all these attacks are still at +1 because the weapons retain their masterwork bonus. So:
no reduction in attack for any weapon
+6 to AC
all for only 2/3 the cost of a single +3 weapon
And what's the cost of a normal +6 armor boost? Epic.And this ignores GMW or similar Shenanigans. Picture a Thri-Keen using it to get +30 to AC instead of +6.

Claudius Maximus
2009-06-03, 02:33 PM
If you want to get crazy with it, Fukimi-Bari can be carried in your mouth (at an unlimited number), can be fired 3 at a time (so 15 attacks with Rapid Shot), and are ammunition for all intents. Range increment 5, so it really doesn't matter what you fire them at so long as you shoot them every round. 50 of them lasts for about 3 rounds, and there's no RAW limit to how many you can hold in your mouth. Start having fun guys.

This makes for a hilarious image. I imagine a guy with a mouth stuffed with needles, coughing and spitting them about indiscriminately as he struggles to breathe. It's sad indeed that this is impossible.

AbyssKnight
2009-06-03, 03:09 PM
And what's the cost of a normal +6 armor boost? Epic.

Umm...No. Bracers of Armor +6 are only like 36,000.

But a +6 untyped, stacks with everything AC boost.....

Telonius
2009-06-03, 03:26 PM
And this ignores GMW or similar Shenanigans. Picture a Thri-Keen using it to get +30 to AC instead of +6.

But with GMW, would the enhancement bonus that you're moving be "the sword's enhancement" or the spell's enhancement? IMO, since the bonus is there because of a spell, it's not an enhancement bonus inherent to the sword, so it wouldn't be subject to shifting it over.

Bear in mind that while GMW is hours/level, you still have to cast it six times if you're going to pull off that combination. You're either going to blow quite a few spell slots (if you're a caster, and in that case why are you in melee?), or a bunch of money on wands.

I definitely agree that the +1's are an issue. But with Blade Barrier at will, that's the least of your problems if you're dealing with a Marilith.

Riffington
2009-06-03, 03:34 PM
It's because that makes it a bargain-basement AC power-up for certain situations, like a Marilith or Thri-Kreen with Multiweapon Fighting. They could have their 6 +1 held weapons and use all in a full attack, transferring +6 to AC. But all these attacks are still at +1 because the weapons retain their masterwork bonus. So:
no reduction in attack for any weapon
+6 to AC
all for only 2/3 the cost of a single +3 weapon
And what's the cost of a normal +6 armor boost? Epic.

The marilith is not paying 2/3 the cost of a single +3 weapon, but rather 48k.
I don't believe you still get the masterwork bonus if you use the defending property. The enhancement bonus of the weapon is +1 because masterwork is an enhancement bonus, and the defender property shifts the enhancement bonus.

So if the Marilith spends 48k on +1 defender weapons rather than on ordinary +2 weapons, the result is:

-2 to attack with each weapon. (works out to -20% to damage output)
+6 to AC
-2 to damage with each weapon. (x 9 attacks)

This is likely a bad tradeoff for said Marilith except when she is wading through archers or something.

AbyssKnight
2009-06-03, 03:53 PM
I don't believe you still get the masterwork bonus if you use the defending property. The enhancement bonus of the weapon is +1 because masterwork is an enhancement bonus, and the defender property shifts the enhancement bonus.


Well, you are transfering the magic enhancement bonus for attack/damage to AC. But the sword has a non-magical +1 enhancment bonus to hit (but not damage) for being masterwork.

I don't see how Defending would remove the non-magical bonus, only the magic bonus.

Talic
2009-06-03, 03:54 PM
Talic,

I think your response is entirely too personal and antagonistic to Bif.

As far as why he would argue for a position that is abusable, it is because the default assumption when discussing a rule is discuss what the rule is. Not what it should be, or how it is better. Bif simply believes that the consequences of the rule that the bonus from a defending weapon "stack(s) with all other bonuses" is that defending weapons stack with other defending weapons. He is stating his opinion and defending that opinion.

I personally think that is a logical conclusion from the text. And it would be far from the first or only broken thing that results from the rules being followed. More than half of the ideas people post on the internet seem to fall under "horrible things technically allowed by the rules."

For the record, I also don't have a problem with the conclusion that it shouldn't stack due to game balance or other issues.

It has nothing to do with trying to "win the internets" or any other such nonsense.

Don't attack the person just because you disagree with their argument.

I'm not attacking the person. I'm questioning his reasons for bringing it up. I didn't malign his character or his person in any way. I merely questioned his reason. That is not an attack.

When I see someone arguing back and forth on the issue, going all in-depth and complex, and technical... And I think this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU).

Curmudgeon
2009-06-03, 04:31 PM
Oops! I forgot the additional +1 cost of defending. 48,000 gp is the correct total. That's still way below the 360,000 gp cost of a +6 armor enhancement bonus.

Riffington
2009-06-03, 04:37 PM
Well, you are transfering the magic enhancement bonus for attack/damage to AC. But the sword has a non-magical +1 enhancment bonus to hit (but not damage) for being masterwork.

I don't see how Defending would remove the non-magical bonus, only the magic bonus.

It doesn't say the magic enhancement bonus, it says the enhancement bonus.

And because Defending doesn't remove the non-magical bonus per se. It constantly moves your hand to parry incoming blows, which (naturally) interferes a bit with your ability to hit and hurt things. While it's doing that, the fact that your sword is well-balanced for swinging may be balanced out by the sword has a mind of its own.

Curmudgeon: it is true that for a Marilith who is interested in making full attacks, needs a high armor class, but doesn't need great damage output, defending weapons are a superb investment. But (other than fighting masses of archers), when does a Marilith really find herself preferring 6 Defending weapons to vanilla (or keen or wounding or whatever) magic weapons? Were I a Marilith, I would likely want at most one Defending weapon.

Animefunkmaster
2009-06-03, 04:54 PM
Since the masterwork +1 enhancement bonus doesn't stack with the magical +1 enhancement bonus under normal circumstances (still there, just doesn't apply), could you then apply them both to your AC for a +2? Is that what your saying, because the maralith example just got hotter (read as +12 to AC).

I do not agree that multiple defending weapons stack or even that they can transfer nonmagical enhancement bonuses (the masterwork weapon is still masterwork).

Edit: +6 or +12 to AC is nothing to scoff at, if you remain untouchable in a given combat you have already won, the +2 enhancement bonus to damage won't give you much damage compared to how much damage you could do by avoiding damage yourself.

Lamech
2009-06-03, 04:58 PM
Its a action you take at the start of your turn. Not a action you take sometime after the start of your turn. If you take an action is it still the start of your turn? That makes no sense. You can only use it once a turn. You can't get bonuses from differant defending weapons because you can only do it once.

Chronos
2009-06-03, 05:06 PM
Edit: +6 or +12 to AC is nothing to scoff at, if you remain untouchable in a given combat you have already won, the +2 enhancement bonus to damage won't give you much damage compared to how much damage you could do by avoiding damage yourself.Except that you're doing nothing but making full attacks all of which will miss, and you're still vulnerable to anything that doesn't require an attack roll. Your opponent is more untouchable than you are.

Riffington
2009-06-03, 05:15 PM
Since the masterwork +1 enhancement bonus doesn't stack with the magical +1 enhancement bonus under normal circumstances (still there, just doesn't apply), could you then apply them both to your AC for a +2? Is that what your saying, because the maralith example just got hotter (read as +12 to AC).

Clearly not, because the weapon's enhancement bonus is only +1 (the rules for magic weapons state that the masterwork +1 enhancement bonus does not stack with the magic weapon's +1 enhancement bonus). If you are going to apply some part of the weapon's enhancement bonus to something other than attack and damage rolls, first you must calculate that weapon's enhancement bonus. And that bonus is +1. And you then decide how much of it to apply to attack/damage, and how much to apply to AC.

Brock Samson
2009-06-04, 12:35 AM
So if you have an amulet of natural attacks with defending on it, shapechange/wild shape/polymorph into a 12 headed hydra, then cast Superior Magic Fang (giving all 12 heads and any other natural attacks a potential +5 enhancement) then...... Profit?

Telonius
2009-06-04, 10:27 AM
Defending is a property of Weapons, not Wondrous Items. A Hydra can still benefit from GMF, just not use the Defending trick. You'd need some way of independently granting Defending to all of the natural attacks in order to do it.