Bane Weapon vs. Damage Reduction

Hi there,

and here is another question for those of you wise in the rulings of the game.

The last two gaming sessions our group fought a quite powerful demon that was not only hard to hit but had also Damage Reduction 15/good and cold iron (at least this is what the GM said after the fight).

One of our characters was a ranger with a +2 evil outsider bane longbow. The DM ruled that this weapon did not overcome the demon's damage reduction.

I was of a slightly different opinion thinking that the increased enhancement bonus of +4 would take care of the cold iron and good prerequisites.

We won in the end, but I think this was not the last demon we are going to face and I hope that you can clear this up before our next fight.

Would do you think?

On a similiar note: Would a +4 evil outsider bow also overcome epic damage resistance? I found nothing in the rules that stated that the enhancement bonus of a bane weapon would stop at +5 (which would make +4 and +5 bane weapons slightly less useful).

Thanks
Jan

Hi there,

and here is another question for those of you wise in the rulings of the game.

The last two gaming sessions our group fought a quite powerful demon that was not only hard to hit but had also Damage Reduction 15/good and cold iron (at least this is what the GM said after the fight).

One of our characters was a ranger with a +2 evil outsider bane longbow. The DM ruled that this weapon did not overcome the demon's damage reduction.

I was of a slightly different opinion thinking that the increased enhancement bonus of +4 would take care of the cold iron and good prerequisites.

We won in the end, but I think this was not the last demon we are going to face and I hope that you can clear this up before our next fight.

Would do you think?

On a similiar note: Would a +4 evil outsider bow also overcome epic damage resistance? I found nothing in the rules that stated that the enhancement bonus of a bane weapon would stop at +5 (which would make +4 and +5 bane weapons slightly less useful).

Thanks
Jan

Personally, I would have allowed the Bane Weapon to over gome the DR as it is treated as a +4 weapon against it's Bane opponent. But that's an established houserule in my campaign. I don't think it's mentioned in RAW either way. I'd also allow the effective +7 bow.

I am of the opinion Bane does increase the effective enhancement bonus of a weapon, so it would qualify for improved DR penetration when used against an appropriate target.

However in your example, the ranger would have failed to overcome the DR because the effective enhancement bonus would only have been a +4, not the +5 to overcome alignment based DR.

I am of the opinion Bane does increase the effective enhancement bonus of a weapon, so it would qualify for improved DR penetration when used against an appropriate target.

However in your example, the ranger would have failed to overcome the DR because the effective enhancement bonus would only have been a +4, not the +5 to overcome alignment based DR.

Is this rule stated somewhere or is it a house rule?

The way my group has always played it is the DR is exactly what it says. If you're weapon isn't good and cold iron it's not getting past DR.

Maezer wrote:

I am of the opinion Bane does increase the effective enhancement bonus of a weapon, so it would qualify for improved DR penetration when used against an appropriate target.

However in your example, the ranger would have failed to overcome the DR because the effective enhancement bonus would only have been a +4, not the +5 to overcome alignment based DR.

Is this rule stated somewhere or is it a house rule?

The way my group has always played it is the DR is exactly what it says. If you're weapon isn't good and cold iron it's not getting past DR.

The general rule about +x overcoming certain DRs is here. The specific case of the Bane Weapon does not yet exist in RAW so it's a matter of what the GM allows.

A weapon needs to be +5 to ignore alignment-based DR, so a +2 bane weapon would be insufficient to bypass it anyway.

The general rule about +x overcoming certain DRs is here. The specific case of the Bane Weapon does not yet exist in RAW so it's a matter of what the GM allows.

Excellent, thanks. I think I'm going to really have to start sifting through the new books and finding all these little things tucked in out of the way places.

And agree with the above posters about the weapon only being +4 and thus not beating the +5 needed.

Let's look at it from a logical point of view.

The "Bane" special ability is supposed to be a trade-off. You could buy a +5 sword that would be effectively +5 against everything. But, for less gold, you could buy a +3 Bane sword that is effectively +5 against one class of creatures and, the trade-off, is just +3 against everything else.

You save money, but your sword has limitations. But, when it comes to facing the critters that your sword is designed to defeat, your sword should not be punished for being "Bane" instead of a true +5 sword. After all, the trade-off was supposed to be the fact that it's weak against everything else, not that it's weak against its chosen "bane" creature type.

If the DM is going to rule that "Bane" is weak against its chosen type and also weak against everything else, then it "Bane" becomes a liability rather than an ability. Ergo, unless we want "Bane" to be tossed off into the trash bin and never used, we should be wary of making rulings that underpower the ability against the chosen type of creature.

Now, of course, others have correctly said the weapon was too weak to overcome the alignment DR.

*********************************************************************

to answer the other question, about Epic damage reduction, No, a +4 or +5 Bane weapon (couting at +6 or +7 effective enhancement) would NOT overcome epic DR.

The reason for this is that Epic DR is specifically designed for weapons that can only be crafted using Epic Crafting feats and created by Epic crafters. These weapons do not appear in the Core rulebook. The Core rules actually provide for weapon "effective" bonuses as high as +10, and the Epic Level Handbook provides for "actual" bonuses as high as +10 and "effective" bonuses as high as +20. Any weapon created using acceptible CORE rules is not epic and doesn't bypass Epic DR.

By way of comparison, a +5 Bane sword costs 72,000 GP and is perfectly allowed in the Core rules. On the other hand, a +6 sword costs 720,000 GP, 10x more than the Core sword, and cannot be created by anyone less than 25th level using the Craft Epic Arms & Armor feat.

I am of the opinion Bane does increase the effective enhancement bonus of a weapon, so it would qualify for improved DR penetration when used against an appropriate target.

However in your example, the ranger would have failed to overcome the DR because the effective enhancement bonus would only have been a +4, not the +5 to overcome alignment based DR.

Yes, sorry I obviously made a mistake here and mixed up the adamantine and aligment numbers. But back to the basic question, it seems as if most of you think that the extra +2 bonus for the bane quality can help overcome damage reduction, right?

Would be worth to find a spellcaster who could enhance the bow from +2 bane to +3 bane, being level 14 now the next evil outsider is probably just around the corner.

Thanks
Jan

to answer the other question, about Epic damage reduction, No, a +4 or +5 Bane weapon (couting at +6 or +7 effective enhancement) would NOT overcome epic DR.

The reason for this is that Epic DR is specifically designed for weapons that can only be crafted using Epic Crafting feats and created by Epic crafters. These weapons do not appear in the Core rulebook. The Core rules actually provide for weapon "effective" bonuses as high as +10, and the Epic Level Handbook provides for "actual" bonuses as high as +10 and "effective" bonuses as high as +20. Any weapon created using acceptible CORE rules is not epic and doesn't bypass Epic DR.

By way of comparison, a +5 Bane sword costs 72,000 GP and is perfectly allowed in the Core rules. On the other hand, a +6 sword costs 720,000 GP, 10x more than the...

I like that way of thinking and I think the numbers support your argument. It would be rather cheap to create a weapon to challenge Demon Lords/Archfiends/Demigods that way. This does not seem to be the way it was intended to be.

Yep, a +3 bane weapon should overcome alignment DR vs its targeted group.

I'm with your DM on this one.

I don't think the bane property will help overcome damage resistance by treating the enhancement bonus of the weapon as higher than its base enhancement bonus.

First, we know that temporary enhancements to a weapon (such as from Greater Magic Weapon) don't help it overcome DR as if it were a weapon with the actual higher enhancement bonus. James has told us as much. Thus, casting Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 sword to temporarily make it a +5 sword won't let that sword overcome DR/cold iron, silver, adamantine, etc.. Same would go for the Paladin's divine bond ability.

And I think theres good reason for that. Allowing the temporary enhancements to work in overcoming DR not only makes DR easier to overcome in general, but it also makes the special materials and certain weapon enhancements and certain spells far less valuable in their own right. It also makes the high enhancement bonus weapons more desirable as well.

For such reasons, I'd say that the bane property doesn't help the weapon overcome DR as if it were actually of a higher enhancement bonus.

Furthermore, it keeps things simpler by keeping the weapons ability to overcome DR static, rather than changing depending on creature type.

Finally, it makes giving the evil outsider bane property to any +3 weapon far too desirable for its +1 cost. In most campaigns, the only creatures that have the high alignment based DR that a PC will want to overcome are evil outsiders. So why bother with a +5 weapon, or with the align weapon spell, when that +3 evil outsider bane weapon will overcome all the DR any evil outsider might ever have (except for DR/epic) anyways? Allowing such also allows the +3 evil outsider bane weapon to overcome all the DR for an evil outsider even if he has say DR/law or DR/adamantine, and that really just strikes me as silly.

A weapon's bane quality does not entitle it to overcome a monster's DR directly. But the fact that it's doing 2d6+2 ADDITIONAL points of damage to those monsters means that extra damage does help somewhat to offset most damage reduction when compared to a non-bane weapon, simply because you're doing more damage and thus getting more damage through the creature's DR.

As for the additional +2 enhancement bonus that is granted to bane targets, that's a curious bit of complexity introduced by allowing high enhancement bonuses to penetrate DR (and yet another reason I'm personally not a big fan of letting high enhancement bonuses penetrate DR, even if it IS a popular rule). It's not a temporary increase to the enhancement bonus, after all, since it's ALWAYS in effect against those foes. I would say that the increase to the enhancement bonus WOULD allow the bane weapon to penetrate additional DR as if it were a higher enhancement bonus.

A weapon's bane quality does not entitle it to overcome a monster's DR directly. But the fact that it's doing 2d6+2 ADDITIONAL points of damage to those monsters means that extra damage does help somewhat to offset most damage reduction when compared to a non-bane weapon, simply because you're doing more damage and thus getting more damage through the creature's DR.

As for the additional +2 enhancement bonus that is granted to bane targets, that's a curious bit of complexity introduced by allowing high enhancement bonuses to penetrate DR (and yet another reason I'm personally not a big fan of letting high enhancement bonuses penetrate DR, even if it IS a popular rule). It's not a temporary increase to the enhancement bonus, after all, since it's ALWAYS in effect against those foes. I would say that the increase to the enhancement bonus WOULD allow the bane weapon to penetrate additional DR as if it were a higher enhancement bonus.

I don't think anyone actually suggested that Bane automatically overcome the DR of its target. Rather, that the increased enhancement bonus would meet the qualifications of the 'Effective Enhancement Bonus' for overcoming specific types of DR. If a creature has DR/-, having a Bane weapon isn't going to help you, other than providing an increase in damage.

I too am in the camp with just about everyone else. A +3 Bane weapon counts as a +5 weapon against it's specific creature type for all purposes, including what DR it can bypass. However, one last question. How does this work for the Inquistor? Does this work for his class ability to put a Bane of his choice on a weapon for x rounds per day? I would like to say yes because Bane should work the same across the board. On the other hand, this would mean that an Inquisitor would rarely want a weapon better than +3 (plus extra abilities). The effect is also 'temporary' by definition, since it will never last for more than 2 minutes a day.

Bane: PRG page 469.

Enhancement weapon is +2 better and deals +2d6 extra dmg.

Nothing is said about ignoring dmg red.So it does not bypass dmg reduction in any way.

Check Overcoming DR: PRG page 562

Enhancement bonuses can overcome certain DR types based on enhancements. The discussion has been whether the +2 from a bane weapon counts towards overcoming DR on that table.

So far the consensus seems to be yes.

Inquisitor: yes, it would increase the plus of the weapon. However, as this is a temporary enhancement increase, it would not count against DR.

Using this weapon in this way makes the bane weapon too powerful, unbalancing the rule.

Using this weapon in this way makes the bane weapon too powerful, unbalancing the rule.

In what way? Which rule?

as this is a temporary enhancement increase, it would not count against DR.

Bane is not a "temporary" enhancement. Rather, it is permanent, albeit conditional.

Should count against DR for the appropriate type of creature it affects.

FWIW,

Rez

Russ Taylor wrote:

as this is a temporary enhancement increase, it would not count against DR.

Bane is not a "temporary" enhancement. Rather, it is permanent, albeit conditional.

Should count against DR for the appropriate type of creature it affects.

The inquistor's bane ability is temporary, as opposed to the bane enhancement. You trimmed "Inquisitor:" off my post :)

@Rezdave Russ was replying to Zappo's Q about the Inquisitor not the general cast.

Check Overcoming DR: PRG page 562

Enhancement bonuses can overcome certain DR types based on enhancements. The discussion has been whether the +2 from a bane weapon counts towards overcoming DR on that table.

So far the consensus seems to be yes.

Yes I have read, you are right!!!!

@Rezdave Russ was replying to Zappo's Q about the Inquisitor not the general cast.

That makes better sense ... I kept looking for a Poster named "Inquisitor" to whom he was replying.

I missed the question. Sorry.

R.

0gre wrote:

@Rezdave Russ was replying to Zappo's Q about the Inquisitor not the general cast.

That makes better sense ... I kept looking for a Poster named "Inquisitor" to whom he was replying.

I missed the question. Sorry.

R.

In any case, the original question has been rendered somewhat moot by a recent FAQ:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=3?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#130

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=4?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#179

Rezdave wrote:

0gre wrote:

@Rezdave Russ was replying to Zappo's Q about the Inquisitor not the general cast.

That makes better sense ... I kept looking for a Poster named "Inquisitor" to whom he was replying.

I missed the question. Sorry.

R.

In any case, the original question has been rendered somewhat moot by a recent FAQ:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=3?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#130

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=4?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#179

And you felt the need to resurrect a 7 year old dead thread why?

Because all of that beauty sleep has made me irresistible?

Not to mention the FAQ has nothing to do with the original question, and the original question was pretty definitively answered more than 7 years ago.

A weird resurrection choice.