Bahne's page

The section pertaining to the Damage Reduction values of specific enhancement bonus weapons are as follows... (see it on page 562)

DR TYPE & Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivilent

cold iron/silver +3

adamantine* +4

alignment based +5

*Note that this does not give the weapon the ability to ignore hardness like an actual adamantine weapon does.

Thusly a character with a +3 Defending Sai could bypass the DR's of opponents with Cold Iron/Silver (regardless of what the weapons made from) as long as he doesnt transfer ANY of the weapons enhancement in that round to AC, if he does, then his attacks will only function vs DR/Magic as a plain magic weapon.
So unless said Sai is already crafted from special materials, then the odds of him usefully employing it against dangerous opponents even in this defesive fashion are limited.

cheers! :)

.........."ALOT"...

I feel myself agreeing and concurring with all you're writing and feel i'm coming from same perspective :)

so... OP... do you feel your question is answered properly so that you may go about the game? :D

As for bypassing DR based on the weapons Enhancement Bonus, it is reduced because it explicitly lowers the enhancement bonus of the weapon in that round to give you a bonus to AC, so it DOES reduce the weapons DR penetrating ability albeit temporarily - its not a house rule either, its fact. The Defending ability states your "transferring some or all of the weapons enhancement bonus..." which explicltly means the weapon losses the bonuses to hit, damage and DR bypassing ability

Ahh I had not read up on that, I think alot would just assume that the weapon is a +X weapon regardless where the bonus is transfered and as such should be able to penetrate a +X DR :D Well now i have no qualms enforcing that rule :) cheers.

as for the monks and the weapons and unarmed etc... yeah all you need in my opinion is to be "ready to use your weapons against incoming attacks". I think we all basically agree on this matter and are just saying it with different words :D

hmm.. how about using your entire body as some sort of interception tool for tripping ? forcing the horse to rear and throw of the rider? opposed trip/riding checks?

maybe use another skill instead of trip... like if its a person who has knowledge of animals and knows that if you turn your body like so and so use a related knowledge skill and so on and so forth :)

I tend to go with what feels right in terms of the idea, design, concept, theme of the subject in question.

From that perspective, a defending weapon to me is a weapon that magically empowers you to better defend yourself vs. incoming strikes/blows with said weapon as such you need to have it in hand and use it actively in the fight, but I would not go as far to demand sacrficing attacks on it as your AC is a passive stat normally. You still have the option of going total defense. The magic power of this weapon is just so awesome that it kinda gives you a total defense like effect without sacrificing your attacks to get it.

given the above perspective I would be inclined to allow stacking 2 defending weapon bonusses. I would keep a vary eye out tho, but on the other hand you are trading off your bonus to attack. however in case of multiple limbs, I think i'd enforce a house rule saying max 2 defending weapons can be in effect, even tho such a limitation does strike me as a lame decision based on fear of powermunckins :P

I might be a nasty evil DM and consider, optionally as a house rule to say that if you use the bonusses for defense they do not count when figuring out if you have the proper bonus to penetrate Damage reduction. Its just a thought, coz at some point characters will stack an impressive amount of +hit +dmg anyways that they wont feel much "sacrifice" on moving bonusses from offense to defense and removing the ability to penetrate damage reduction +4 would give a feel of sacrificing your offensive stance. This is not thought through and prolly has pitfalls and may strike some as totally unfair, it was just a sudden idea on the spot :D

in summation: under my GM rule, 2 defending weapons would stack, should be wielded in your hands and could be applying ac bonus even if you attack with them.

my 2 cent :D

I dont even see an issue in this, like shadowlord is explaining very detailed is that the feel and idea and design of the shadowdancer should trumpf any rulelawyering which this feels like to me :D

the lighting is a conditional requirement for the power to be used, not a criteria for detection. The criteria for detection is the stealth check. The hiding in plain sight merely lets the shadow dancer attempt a stealth check as I see it.

If a rogue is creeping along a moonlit city street moving from shadow to shadow with a stealth check of 26, and a dwarven city guard walks past him with a spot check of 15 would you allow the dwarf to catch the rogue because the dwarf has darkvision?

Playing is about fun, having success experiences, as a general rule of thumb I let my players get away with a whole lot more than the rules normally stipulate im sure, i just dont bother to check if i feel that it is in the spirit of the story and atmosphere and general feel of the session and campaign etc...

If it's an npc shadowdancer, I would still allow the hips both in total darkness or within range of anything remotely resembling shadows. Meeting a prestige class should be an important noteworthy encounter, and prestige classes themselves should have a certain aura about them or maybe Awe.

in summation... I would rule pc/npc shadow dancer should be able to utilize hips within range of any kind of shadow or "darkness" regardless of those watching having darkvision or not.

thats my 25cents worth :)