Defending weapons do / don't apply to CMD?

[Terjon]

This is an argument my DM and I have been having for sometime. Whether the bonus from a defending weapon applies to CMD like many other bonuses. He says since its a general bonus with no real type and therefore not on the list of things that apply to CMD and AC that it doesn't. I argue that it was an oversight and should apply. Any thoughts?

[Quandary]

I agree it´s an oversight, which is really a general issue with CMD giving a specific list (now including Luck, after Errata) rather than exceptions which DON´T apply (e.g. like Touch AC does, excepting Armor, N.A., and Shield bonuses). It doesn´t really help believability for Untyped bonuses to apply to Touch AC but not CMD, although that is RAW. I include Untyped with CMD in all games I play, but for RAW purposes one can only hope they include that in the next Errata.

[HalifaxDM]

As a long time DM, I would allow the bonus to be added to CMD when used defensively. Whether or not the wording specifically allows, I am pretty that the intent of the item is for the weapon to aid with defense against any attack. While the bonus is not named it is stated that it stacks with all other AC bonuses. I am sure that someone will say "well it doesn't say it adds to the CMD", as an experienced DM I am pretty sure that allowing the defending ability to aid with defense against maneuvers isn't going to break anyone's game.

[Terjon]

That has been my point. The entire idea behind defending is to help your defenses and I couldn't see any reason that it wouldn't apply other than the oversight of its omission in text. I also thought it might have been fixed somewhere along the line and I just missed it. Thanks for the opinions though. I always like having people agree with me XD

[Jiggy]

Just to play devil's advocate here, since there hasn't been much said on the other side:

The description for "defending" says that you get to apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to you AC. Now, the enhancement bonuses of your armor or shield don't apply to your CMD, so it could be argued that your defending weapon's enhancement bonus functions identically to your armor's enhancement bonus (which you have to admit doesn't exactly sound like a huge stretch of logic). To do so would mean it would be excluded from your CMD.

What would be a rebuttal to this point?

[Quandary]

Rebuttal: Untyped applies to Touch AC, which ignores Armor/NA/Shield bonuses... As already mentioned up-thread.

Functioning identical to Armor bonus would expected to be classed as Armor bonus.
There are ways to make it stack if that is intended, such as ´increases your Armor Bonus by X...´.

[Terjon]

Quandary wrote:

Rebuttal: Untyped applies to Touch AC, which ignores Armor/NA/Shield bonuses... As already mentioned up-thread.

Functioning identical to Armor bonus would expected to be classed as Armor bonus.
There are ways to make it stack if that is intended, such as ´increases your Armor Bonus by X...´.

I would expect, if it were to apply as an enhancement bonus, for it to behave in such a way that the wording would be, "As a swift action you may shift any amount of a defending weapons enhancement bonus to your armor" or some such way... i've never been good with rule wording but you get the point. Which is why I would have to agree with quandary's rebuttal.

[Jiggy]

Quandary wrote:

Rebuttal: Untyped applies to Touch AC, which ignores Armor/NA/Shield bonuses... As already mentioned up-thread.

Functioning identical to Armor bonus would expected to be classed as Armor bonus.
There are ways to make it stack if that is intended, such as ´increases your Armor Bonus by X...´.

You might want to re-word for clarity. You don't even mention CMD. Would you mind fleshing out your rebuttal a bit? Be explicit and thorough, and use complete sentences. I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make.

EDIT: Ninja'd, but I don't think the ninja-ing post addresses mine, so my request stands. Thanks in advance for a reply.

[Maxximilius]

I discovered in other topics that any bonus or malus appyling to your touch AC also applies to your CMD (so for example, a low level-barbarian doesn't get any bonus when raging since the -2 armor malus counterbalances the +2 from strength). Same thing for Dodge bonuses, wisdom, deflection, etc.
Since Defendind is an untyped bonus to AC, it applies to Touch AC as well and thus should normally also apply to CMD.

[bugleyman]

I agree with the OP. Doesn't apply according to RAW, but probably does according to RAI. Allowing it makes sense and hardly seems unbalancing.

[Quandary]

Jiggy wrote:

You might want to re-word for clarity. You don't even mention CMD. Would you mind fleshing out your rebuttal a bit? Be explicit and thorough, and use complete sentences. I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make.

OK

Jiggy wrote:

it could be argued that your defending weapon's enhancement bonus functions identically to your armor's enhancement bonus

That would be a bad argument because the Untyped AC Bonus from Defending applies to Touch AC, which ignores all Armor/NA/Shield Bonuses.

-(end rebuttal explanation)------------------------------------------------------

Imagine you have an Untyped AC bonus of +1000. Nothing except a Natural 20 can TOUCH you.
But per RAW, that bonus doesn´t help to prevent being Tripped/Grappled/etc .
...So it is easier to contact somebody and use force to shove them around, than to merely touch them
(which would seem to be the pre-requisite for the rougher parts of the above maneuvers)

As stated, I expect Errata to allow Untyped Bonus to CMD.
All ATTACK Bonuses, no matter the type, DO apply to Maneuvers to which they apply
(i.e. in place of attack maneuvers for weapon specific bonuses).

[Jiggy]

Quandary wrote:

the Untyped AC Bonus from Defeding applies to Touch AC, which ignores all Armor/NA/Shield Bonuses.

Alrighty, now we're getting to real logic! Now then, your argument is valid, though to determine if it's correct we'll have to address whether or not your premise is true: can you verify that the Defending AC bonus applies to Touch? If so, then I think you've got it.

[Quandary]

Go read about Touch AC.

[Jiggy]

Quandary wrote:

Go read about Touch AC.

Good job, Quandary. Though I was hoping you'd quote it yourself, your rebuttal was quite successful.

Going back to playing devil's advocate, I can think of one other point that needs a rebuttal before it can be considered definitive that Defending applies to CMD:

The definition for CMD says the following:

PRD wrote:

A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Now, as has been pointed out, the AC bonus from Defending is untyped. As such, it is not a circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane or sacred bonus. Seeing as the above-referenced rule does not include any sort of "all [BLAH], such as..." language, it seems reasonable to conclude that the list of applicable bonuses is precise, rather than representative; i.e., only the types of AC bonuses listed can be transferred to CMD.

Rebuttals?

[Terjon]

Jiggy wrote:

The definition for CMD says the following:

PRD wrote:

A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Now, as has been pointed out, the AC bonus from Defending is untyped. As such, it is not a circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane or sacred bonus. Seeing as the above-referenced rule does not include any sort of "all [BLAH], such as..." language, it seems reasonable to conclude that the list of applicable bonuses is precise, rather than representative; i.e., only the types of AC bonuses listed can be transferred to CMD.

Rebuttals?

This point has been covered effectively. There is no rebuttal for this point. That is where the RAW/RAI discussion of this topic truly comes into play. The Touch AC point is the only possible explanation for the RAI being that defending applies to CMD while by RAW it isn't a question but a glaring omission that makes no sense.