| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can only place one bane on a weapon at a time. They changed that in PF, I think.
You can only place one bane on a weapon at a time. They changed that in PF, I think.
I'm not seeing that anywhere. (Bane in the PRD)
My thoughts on this subject are that bonuses of the same type don't stack. What the PRD says is that "Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus". So, if I'm interpreting rules correctly (and this is unfortunately a corner case): having a +1 evil outsider bane chaotic outsider bane longsword is possible, but only one or the other applies and both bane bonuses don't stack against a CE creature.
In 3.5 I house-ruled that they stacked only because the weapon that had both of those bane properties was a near-artifact-status legendary demon-slaying weapon, but that was GM fiat. YMMV.\
EDIT: Whoops! Cheapy was right again:
"Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once." My bad.
if they are typed differently I'm pretty sure they stack.
|
EDIT: Whoops! Cheapy was right again:
"Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once." My bad.
Can that be interpreted more liberally? I.E. is Bane: Undead "the same" as Bane: vermin?
Regardless, if you want the 4d6 goodness you can always do holy/evil stacked with bane.
EDIT: Whoops! Cheapy was right again:
"Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once." My bad.
Can that be interpreted more liberally? I.E. is Bane: Undead "the same" as Bane: vermin?
Regardless, if you want the 4d6 goodness you can always do holy/evil stacked with bane.
The way I read it (and its placement below the special abilities) is that you cannot have 2 "bane"s on the same weapon, just like you couldn't have 2 "frost"s, "holy"s, "defending"'s, etc.
It could always be interpreted by a GM more liberally in a home game, as said YMMV.
I think you cant have 2 Bane undeads but you can have 1 bane undead and 1 bane elf those aren't the same ability. as for the OP question no you would only apply 1 bane bonus. just if you met a werewolf ghost(not even sure that is possible) either lycanthrope or undead would count not both.
They don't stack. Bane raises the original enhancement of the weapon, and adds to 2d6 to that. It does not stack with another bane to give you +4 and +4d6
Bane: A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe. To randomly determine a weapon's designated foe, roll on the following table.
The phrase "actual bonus" is referring to the weapons original enhancement level before bane comes into play.
As for the +2d6 stacking I can't find the thread that explained why that would not work.
As for double baned weapons a GM might see it as having the same ability on a weapon twice, which is against the rules. Just because each bane is affecting a different creature type that does not necessarily mean it is not the same ability.
RAW two banes are still two banes, and I don't think it is rules legal
Design Manager
|
You couldn't have two different Bane properties on a single weapon because there is no "Bane Undead" special ability. You have the "Bane" special ability, and then a weapon with that property gains a designated foe, which could be undead (or whatever):
d% Designated Foe
01–05 Aberrations
06–09 Animals
10–16 Constructs
17–22 Dragons
23–27 Fey
28–60 Humanoids (pick one subtype)
61–65 Magical beasts
66–70 Monstrous humanoids
71–72 Oozes
73–88 Outsiders (pick one subtype)
89–90 Plants
91–98 Undead
99–100 Vermin
Moderate conjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon monster I; Price +1 bonus
So your "Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once" applies to Bane just like any other weapon property.
While it's true that you couldn't put Bane twice on the same weapon, I think it would still be a reasonable houserule as long as someone doesn't overdo it. ("I want a +1 Longsword of Human Bane, Dragon Bane, Orc Bane, Dwarf Bane, and Animal(Bunny) Bane!") Afterall, most of the time, a player with two Banes on their weapon would only get one or the other, they'd just get use out of it slightly more often, since Bane is a corner case ability to begin with. And I probably wouldn't mind stacking them if both types coincide, with exceptions, like the fighter getting the Bane Evil Outsider and Chaotic Outsider in preparation of diving into the Abyss for a quest line. (If that happened, it would probably depend on the player what I did, since I've known players who come up with things like that and then gloat about how smart they are, in and out of character, and somehow don't end up dead by morning.) Though a reasonable compromise could be cutting the second bane in half if they would both apply, so only +3 and +3d6. Just a thought.
My point is that while it's against the rules, it would rarely, if ever, be game breaking, So a GM Houseruling it within reason wouldn't be a horrible idea. That's my 2 cents.
That is what I am thinking also Ssalarn. Bane is Bane, and therefore it can't be gained twice.
I tried to argue for a while that Bane (undead) was a different ability from Bane (Animals) but...it's wrong :(
That's a real shame they're not allowed to stack.
|
I'm not certain if, for example, Bane (evil outsider) and Bane (chaotic outsider) count as different abilities or not, but I am sure that if both were on the same weapon and it hit a chaotic evil outsider it would be +2 and do +2d6 extra damage.
The +2/+2d6 applies to any target that qualifies. Qualifying twice is superfluous; you either qualify or you don't.
Check out the Ranger's Favoured Enemy ability:
'If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.'
If you don't think the two Bane's are separate abilities and therefore cannot both be on the same weapon there is nothing more to think about.
If you think they are separate and can be on the same weapon, then the target either qualifies to take the +2/+2d6 or it doesn't.
I've seen published multi-Bane weapons in 3.5 and no-one batted an eyelid. When the devs of PF added the 'no ability twice' rule, do you really think they were trying to nerf this? Or were they trying to stop +1 flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming daggers doing 1d4+9d6 fire?
I cant believe munchkins are actually arguing this. I run gestalt games only and to think that people think it's ok to have two bane special abilities on the same weapon is to me ridiculous. Yes bane and holy stack so smite that evil outsider all you want. But really some of the things that get argued on these boards is just ridiculous. 3.5 has magebane. different ability. Only one ability applies so if your evil outsider has levels in an arcane spellcasting class it gets hurt, but not at +4 to hit and damage +4d6 damage. That's my opinion. Some things make me sad.
I'm not certain if, for example, Bane (evil outsider) and Bane (chaotic outsider) count as different abilities or not, but I am sure that if both were on the same weapon and it hit a chaotic evil outsider it would be +2 and do +2d6 extra damage.
The +2/+2d6 applies to any target that qualifies. Qualifying twice is superfluous; you either qualify or you don't.
Check out the Ranger's Favoured Enemy ability:
'If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.'
If you don't think the two Bane's are separate abilities and therefore cannot both be on the same weapon there is nothing more to think about.
If you think they are separate and can be on the same weapon, then the target either qualifies to take the +2/+2d6 or it doesn't.
I've seen published multi-Bane weapons in 3.5 and no-one batted an eyelid. When the devs of PF added the 'no ability twice' rule, do you really think they were trying to nerf this? Or were they trying to stop +1 flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming daggers doing 1d4+9d6 fire?
I think they were trying to stop any one item from stacking that might cause issues. I am not saying that everything that would stack otherwise would cause problems, but by having the no stacking rule in place it cuts a lot of problems off before they get started.
|
|
Imagine a time before you read the Bane special ability entry. You are told that you CAN have more than one Bane on the same weapon because elf bane and orc bane are different abilities. When you read the entry yourself you find nothing to change that opinion. If, instead, you were told that you CANNOT have two different Banes because it's the same ability twice, when you read the entry yourself you'd find nothing to change that opinion!
A lot of Patfinder's Core Rulebook was cut and paste from the 3.5 DMG and PHB. When some rules changed, especially late on in the process, the 'ripple effect' of that rule change was not thorough! I have a particular disgust with this lack of follow through re: mithral weapons!
I don't believe any game designers intentionally nerfed multi-bane weapons. The bonuses don't stack; you just get a wider choice of targets. I also can't see them wasting two more pages detailing separate entries for all possible Bane types just so they can stack. I just think it never occured to them that the new rule could be read as disallowing multi-bane weapons.
The solution is simple enough. Errata the Bane entry. Add a sentence to the end. Either:-
a.) 'The Bane ability may be added multiple times to a single weapon; each designated foe may only be chosen once. If a target falls into more than one type of designated foe it's effects do not stack.'
OR
b.) 'No weapon may be enchanted with the Bane ability more than once.'
Even if an errata is not forthcoming, it cannot be a problem in PFS. The only way to get more than a basic +1 weapon is if there is one on the chronicle sheet. So if there is a multi-bane weapon on there then they must be okay. If such a weapon never appears on a chronicle sheet that doesn't resolve the argument, but it won't be an issue in PFS because there is no such weapon to worry about!
If it were up to me I'd allow them. Since the bonuses never stack it won't cause any problems whatsoever.
If you want a bane effect that does 4d6 damage play an inquisitor. their bane ability stacks with regular bane, which is on their spell list.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/inquisitor.html
That does not work either. The inquisitor's bane ability actually applies bane to the weapon. It is just not permanent.
|
|
Well, what about a +1 Bane (evil outsider) arrow, shot out of a +1 Bane (chaotic outsider) longbow?
This is definitely legal! How could it not be?
What happens if the attack is vs. a chaotic evil outsider?
A Bane weapon is +2/+2d6 to a designated foe. Is the target a designated foe for that Bane weapon? If yes the weapon is +2/+2d6,. If not, it isn't. Easy.
Being a designated foe in two different ways is irrelevant. When a ship hits an iceberg the cry goes out, 'Abandon ship! Women and children first!' Does anyone think that female children get TWO seats in the lifeboat? No! They either qualify for a seat or they don't.
This means that there are no game balance issues with multi-bane weapons. There is no doubt that a Bane arrow can be shot from a Bane bow. If people want to spend their dosh to enchant their weapons this way, let them! Nothing bad will happen.
I promise!
