Defending Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon

[Dekalinder]

So, let's say I have a +5 Defending weapon with Greater Magic Weapon cast on top of it for +5 bonus.

If I decide to allocate the weapon +5 bonus to my AC with the defending propriety, does my weapon still retains the +5 bonus granted by the spell?

In other words, is the bonus from the spell separated by the one of the weapon itself? And Does Defending only applyes to the weapon one?

Note: under this interpretation, a +1 Defending weapon with a +5 worth of Greater Magic Weapon would only be able to add 1 to you AC.

Second Note: I'm not interested in RAI since i'm never going to do it nor allow it in my home games, and I don't play PFS. Just interested in the RAW answer for accademic purposes. That does'n mean you are not free to discuss it in this thread if you really want to, but I would ask you to please try and look it from a more "legalistic" point of view.

[DM_Blake]

The whole question is moot. You can't stack a magic weapon's enhancement bonus with the enhancement bonus from Greater Magic Weapon. You only get the higher of the two Enhancement bonuses.

As for your "Note" this should be possible. You have a +1 Defending weapon and hit it with +5 from Greater Magic Weapon. This enhances it to be a +5 Defending weapon for the duration of the spell and you should treat it as such, using all +5 for your AC if you wish to do so.

[Dekalinder]

DM_Blake wrote:

The whole question is moot. You can't stack a magic weapon's enhancement bonus with the enhancement bonus from Greater Magic Weapon. You only get the higher of the two Enhancement bonuses

Never intended that they stack, actually the opposite. They each go their own way and you use the bigger one at the moment of the attack. Think of it like having a +5 arrow on a +5 defending bow. OFC bows can't have the defending propriety, but it should be a good analogy.

Edit: Or even a third case, Body Wrap of Mighty strike +5 with a +4 defending Amulet of Mighty Fist.

[DM_Blake]

Dekalinder wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

The whole question is moot. You can't stack a magic weapon's enhancement bonus with the enhancement bonus from Greater Magic Weapon. You only get the higher of the two Enhancement bonuses

Never intended that they stack, actually the opposite. They each go their own way and you use the bigger one at the moment of the attack.

Except it doesn't work that way.

You have the +5 defender, and you cast GMW on it for +5, so first you resolve that. The +5 enhancement bonus doesn't stack with the +5 enhancement bonus so you take the greater of the two (they're equal) and you have a +5 defender.

Once that is resolved, you make a decision each round about whether you're going to use none, some, or all of that +5 for AC.

What you're trying to do is say "I use +5 of my enhancement bonus for my AC and use the other +5 of my enhancement bonus for attack and damage" - but you don't have two separate enhancement bonuses; you only have one, and it's only +5 because there was no stacking.

[Dekalinder]

No one else has an opinion on this? Any of the tre cases?

[Chess Pwn]

or our opinion has been expressed and we have nothing more to add.

[SlimGauge]

Defending is use activated. Whatever enhancement bonus the weapon had at that time is all that is available to be allocated.

TLDR: I agree with DM Blake.

[thorin001]

DM_Blake wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

The whole question is moot. You can't stack a magic weapon's enhancement bonus with the enhancement bonus from Greater Magic Weapon. You only get the higher of the two Enhancement bonuses

Never intended that they stack, actually the opposite. They each go their own way and you use the bigger one at the moment of the attack.

Except it doesn't work that way.

You have the +5 defender, and you cast GMW on it for +5, so first you resolve that. The +5 enhancement bonus doesn't stack with the +5 enhancement bonus so you take the greater of the two (they're equal) and you have a +5 defender.

Once that is resolved, you make a decision each round about whether you're going to use none, some, or all of that +5 for AC.

What you're trying to do is say "I use +5 of my enhancement bonus for my AC and use the other +5 of my enhancement bonus for attack and damage" - but you don't have two separate enhancement bonuses; you only have one, and it's only +5 because there was no stacking.

No, you have 2 (3 including MW) overlapping bonuses. Normally you use the highest as you only have one use for an enhancement bonus. With a Defending weapon you have multiple uses for an enhancement bonus.

[DM_Blake]

thorin001 wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

The whole question is moot. You can't stack a magic weapon's enhancement bonus with the enhancement bonus from Greater Magic Weapon. You only get the higher of the two Enhancement bonuses

Never intended that they stack, actually the opposite. They each go their own way and you use the bigger one at the moment of the attack.

Except it doesn't work that way.

You have the +5 defender, and you cast GMW on it for +5, so first you resolve that. The +5 enhancement bonus doesn't stack with the +5 enhancement bonus so you take the greater of the two (they're equal) and you have a +5 defender.

Once that is resolved, you make a decision each round about whether you're going to use none, some, or all of that +5 for AC.

What you're trying to do is say "I use +5 of my enhancement bonus for my AC and use the other +5 of my enhancement bonus for attack and damage" - but you don't have two separate enhancement bonuses; you only have one, and it's only +5 because there was no stacking.

No, you have 2 (3 including MW) overlapping bonuses. Normally you use the highest as you only have one use for an enhancement bonus. With a Defending weapon you have multiple uses for an enhancement bonus.

No, you have one enhancement bonuses with three overlapping (non-stacking) sources for that one bonus. You still have just the one +5 enhancement bonus and therefore must still be limited each round to deciding whether to use all, some, or none of that one bonus to Defend (apply to AC) or reserve it for attacking instead.

[thorin001]

They cannot overlap unless there are multiples, so your statement is demonstrably false.

[alexd1976]

Dekalinder wrote:

No one else has an opinion on this? Any of the tre cases?

DM_Blake explained it perfectly. If you are looking for other opinions, you are looking for people to disagree with the rules.

[Kirth Gersen]

I disagree.

GMW's bonus TYPE is "enhancement," but it does not actually grant the weapon an inherent enhancement bonus -- only a temporary one. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the GWM does not penetrate DR the way a "real" magic weapon does.

If you have a +1 defender and cast GMW +5 on it, you defend at +0 or +1 (only), because the GMW spell doesn't change the actual weapon's real properties. However, you'd gain the temporary +5 from GMW no matter how much of the actual bonus you're defending with -- "non-stacking" bonuses overlap, they do not supersede one another. The sword doesn't become +6 (stacking), and likewise it doesn't actually become a +5 defending sword (superseding). It stays a +1 defending sword, but has a temporary enhancement bonus to attacks and damage of +5 for as long as the spell lasts.

DMBlake's interpretation uses superseding bonuses, rather than overlapping ones. Dekalinder's interpretation does, too, in a sense.

In no way can a +1 defending sword be used to defend at +5 by casting GMW on it.

[Dekalinder]

alexd1976 wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

No one else has an opinion on this? Any of the tre cases?

DM_Blake explained it perfectly. If you are looking for other opinions, you are looking for people to disagree with the rules.

I'm perfectly fine with people agreeing with DM_Black, but i'd like them to say so. Even better if they provide some rules, deduction, or points of interest.

BTW Kirth provided a better explaination than mine to the way I was looking at the situation.

[Brain in a Jar]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I disagree.

GMW's bonus TYPE is "enhancement," but it does not actually grant the weapon an inherent enhancement bonus -- only a temporary one. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the GWM does not penetrate DR the way a "real" magic weapon does.

Unless i'm missing something, which if i am please correct me.

I don't think that is true.

"Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."

That and as far as i know there is no difference between a Greater Magic Weapon's enhancement and an enhancement on a magic weapon.

[Gisher]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I disagree.

GMW's bonus TYPE is "enhancement," but it does not actually grant the weapon an inherent enhancement bonus -- only a temporary one. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the GWM does not penetrate DR the way a "real" magic weapon does.

Unless i'm missing something, which if i am please correct me.

I don't think that is true.

"Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."

That and as far as i know there is no difference between a Greater Magic Weapon's enhancement and an enhancement on a magic weapon.

It is in the spell description.

CRB wrote:

Magic Weapon, Greater

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). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

[Brain in a Jar]

Thanks Gisher.

I've never noticed that line before. (But i also don't use enhancement to bypass alignement/material DR in my games.)

I thouhgt Kirth meant that the spell wouldn't bypass DR/Magic because of that. :)

[Gisher]

You are welcome. :)

[Shadowearth]

I'm gonna necro this 11 year old post to inquire opinions about a near similar question, but using a defending amulet of mighty fists with no enhancement bonus on it (as is legal per the text on amulet of mighty fists) and greater magic fang.

The enhancement bonus from greater magic fang doesn't have a conflict with failing to stack with an existing enhancement bonus on the amulet, because there isn't one. Would the defending special ability in this case be able to use the +X enhancement bonus from GMF to add to AC? Or would you still feel that the enhancement bonus isn't available to defending.

[Azothath]

Amulet of Mighty Fists CL5 Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
Defending CL8 (+1) This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
there seems to be a RAW disconnect in the verbiage.

[Oli Ironbar]

I’m not sure there is any more rules expertise now on this matter than there was 11 years ago, but GMs have had the decade to find what makes and doesn’t break their own games, so ask your GM.

Fool around, find out, have fun breaking things and more fun building them back together.

[glass]

As I see it, it breaks down like this:

Defending says "the weapon's enhancement bonus" in the singular and doesn't address multiple overlapping enhancement bonuses on the same weapon (even though almost every defending weapon will be masterwork so will have at least two). So the solid RAW answer the OP was looking for probably does not exist.

You could read "its enhancement bonus" as "one of its enhancement bonuses" or "its built-in enhancement bonus" (in which case the GMW trick wholly or partly works, respectively) or you could read it as "the enhancement bonus it is actually applying to attacks" (in which case it mostly doesn't). GM's call either way.

That in turn has a knock-on effect on how it works with the AoMF. If it is "built-in" then such an amulet is useless. Either of the other calls make it functional.

Personally, I would go with "the enhancement bonus actually applying to attacks" except that I would allow user to keep the masterwork enhancement if they completely traded the magical enhancement bonus(es). But that last part is straying into house rule territory, however you read the RAW.

Azothath wrote:

Amulet of Mighty Fists CL5 Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

Defending CL8 (+1) This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
there seems to be a RAW disconnect in the verbiage.

Not seeing any disconnect there. Unarmed strike is a melee weapon.

[Azothath]

Azothath wrote:

Amulet of Mighty Fists CL5 Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

Defending CL8 (+1) This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
there seems to be a RAW disconnect in the verbiage.

just responding to the unclear language, notice seems. I know it can be a complicated issue so it needs a bit of clarity and I just didn't have the time to research the background. So I stopped at that point as I want clarity to continue.

→CRB FAQ on Unarmed Strike, 2013-03 which impacted Magic Fang.

updated →Magic Fang:T1 text.

→UltMag FAQ on Magus spell combat and Unarmed Strike, 2013-04 showing that a class ability may levy restrictions on what attacks can be used. Here unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand.

→APG FAQ on Zen Archer perfect strike and Unarmed Strike, 2011 which is about setting a precedent where an archetype modifies a feat.

From Monk class: A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

→Impv'd Unarmed Strike feat which lacks the Monk classes text about manufactured weapons and natural weapon. LoL, logically it makes it more complicated due to the UltMag and APG FAQs which imply the Monk class is modifying the feat (the Monk text does not flow into the feat). The Game isn't consistent and it is just a game so you have to use some sensibility.

I'm sure I missed something as it is muddled in RAW. So probably not my last update post. It is about the logical relationships; A→B, A↔B, A≡B...

= = =
I personally don't oppose putting Defending on an enhanced weapon BUT it does rely on basic enhancement bonuses to modify unlike other magic abilities. It's not like flaming or flaming burst. So if the weapon doesn't have a bonus it becomes a floating modifier (via the +0 amulet) rather than the usual additive ability. A +1 defending amulet of mighty fists (a +2 item) clarifies the issue.
There's going to be some GM pondering on this particular corner case.
On the Game Balance side, defensive bonuses are half the cost of attack bonuses, but as stacking (double the cost) would be equivalence and a pass. The Amulet of Mighty Fists has the double cost built in.