Divine Bond (Over 9,000!)


Rules Questions

201 to 218 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

Does that count as a light weapon, or 1-handed?


Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Does that count as a light weapon, or 1-handed?

Depends on the sausage.


Xum wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Does that count as a light weapon, or 1-handed?
Depends on the sausage.

It might count s a double weapon


Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Xum wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
GMW lasts hour per level.
divine Bond does not. so, the +20 won't last for hours.
Touche sales man. Remember they can use it 4 times a day though too!

Exactly, and we generally don't have more than 4 encounters a day unless we're slogging through a dungeon and even then we may self-limit the encounters to no more than 4 a day. So the pally has access to the mega-weapon every encounter every day (basically). It's just a bit much for my taste, which is why I like the +10 max enhancement rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This just in: According to James Jacobs, the +10 limit DOES only apply to the magical abilities found in the magic items chapter. You can find the relevant quotes below, or see the post over in the Bane Weapons thread for yourself.

James Jacobs wrote:
A +5 dragon bane dancing greatsword is a legal weapon. Against a dragon, it would function as a +7 dragon bane dancing greatsword, but that doesn't increase its price at all (or put it over the limit of +10 weapon enhancements).
Ravingdork wrote:

So then only the actual enhancement bonuses (what you pay for) are restricted by the +10 limit rather than the effective enhancement bonuses (such as bane's situational increase)?

In other words, the +10 weapon enhancement limit only really applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter?

Your example has an effective enhancement (bonuses and abilities) of +11 and an actual enhancement of +10. Am I to take that to mean that a +4 dancing flaming burst greatsword could benefit from a high caster level greater magic weapon spell (making it a +5 dancing flaming burst greatsword temporarily) since that is an effective enhancement bonus rather than an actual one?

James Jacobs wrote:

The +10 weapon enhancement limit only applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter, yes.

My example of a +5 dragon bane (+1) dancing (+4) greatsword adds up to a +10 weapon, as far as I can tell.

Yay! It makes sense again! Much thanks to James for the clarification!

Since the paladin class feature grants the special abilities from the magic item chapter, I believe he is still limited to +10 total enhancements worth of abilities, but greater magic weapon may work on it as well now since it isn't a property from the magic item chapter, but a spell.


Dosgamer wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Xum wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
GMW lasts hour per level.
divine Bond does not. so, the +20 won't last for hours.
Touche sales man. Remember they can use it 4 times a day though too!
Exactly, and we generally don't have more than 4 encounters a day unless we're slogging through a dungeon and even then we may self-limit the encounters to no more than 4 a day. So the pally has access to the mega-weapon every encounter every day (basically). It's just a bit much for my taste, which is why I like the +10 max enhancement rule.

You may like it, but throwing abilities in the trash is never a good thing.


Ravingdork wrote:

This just in: According to James Jacobs, the +10 limit DOES only apply to the magical abilities found in the magic items chapter. You can find the relevant quotes below, or see the post over in the Bane Weapons thread for yourself.

James Jacobs wrote:
A +5 dragon bane dancing greatsword is a legal weapon. Against a dragon, it would function as a +7 dragon bane dancing greatsword, but that doesn't increase its price at all (or put it over the limit of +10 weapon enhancements).
Ravingdork wrote:

So then only the actual enhancement bonuses (what you pay for) are restricted by the +10 limit rather than the effective enhancement bonuses (such as bane's situational increase)?

In other words, the +10 weapon enhancement limit only really applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter?

Your example has an effective enhancement (bonuses and abilities) of +11 and an actual enhancement of +10. Am I to take that to mean that a +4 dancing flaming burst greatsword could benefit from a high caster level greater magic weapon spell (making it a +5 dancing flaming burst greatsword temporarily) since that is an effective enhancement bonus rather than an actual one?

James Jacobs wrote:

The +10 weapon enhancement limit only applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter, yes.

My example of a +5 dragon bane (+1) dancing (+4) greatsword adds up to a +10 weapon, as far as I can tell.

Yay! It makes sense again! Much thanks to James for the clarification!

Since the paladin class feature grants the special abilities from the magic item chapter, I believe he is still limited to +10 total enhancements worth of abilities, but greater magic weapon may work on it as well now since it isn't a property from the magic item chapter, but a spell.

I'm not positive your interpreting it the same way he is. Earlier in the same thread he upheld Joshua's ruling, and there are multiple ways to interpret his statement based off the context.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Caineach wrote:
I'm not positive your interpreting it the same way he...

Several other posters have read the same text and have come to the same conclusion as I. I'm not going to argue the point though. I most certainly believe in the possibility of multiple interpretations. Please share with me some of the other possible interpretations that you think he might be using so that I may ponder them for a bit.


This comes down to one thing and one thing only.

What is the DM allowing.

Without Paizo chiming in with a clarification there can be no resolution. As a DM I would enforce the +10 modified ruling for a non-epic weapon. I would do this because otherwise the PCs' enemies would be able to enchant the heck out of their own weapons (buff spells only, nothing permanent) and proceed to demolish them. I tend to also follow the goose to gander rule (what the PCs' can do, the BBEG and friends can do to).

You really have to ask yourself if you want to be on the receiving end of this.


Xum wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Does that count as a light weapon, or 1-handed?
Depends on the sausage.

Two handed in my case, I get x3 on power attack too.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Xum wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Does that count as a light weapon, or 1-handed?
Depends on the sausage.
Two handed in my case, I get x3 on power attack too.

Don't forget that it has spell storing already loaded with a grease spell.


Ravingdork wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I'm not positive your interpreting it the same way he...
Several other posters have read the same text and have come to the same conclusion as I. I'm not going to argue the point though. I most certainly believe in the possibility of multiple interpretations. Please share with me some of the other possible interpretations that you think he might be using so that I may ponder them for a bit.

He is refering to enhancement bonuses granted by bane or the Oath Bow, which are worked into the magic item and their base price. He is saying those abilities stack with the +5 to make it higher when dealing with specific foes. My interpretation is that he is not saying that temporary bonuses, like spells, that mimic normal enchantments, do not follow the +5/+10 rule that normally applies.

Liberty's Edge

Xum wrote:


You may like it, but throwing abilities in the trash is never a good thing.

That's my issue with this as well, however, you're only throwing it away at higher-levels, thus, Pathfinder Society isn't an issue here. (DB is only +3 at level 12). It starts to become limiting around lvl 17 or so (according to the Character Wealth by Level Table), so it's entirely the purview of the GM. At that point, some house-rule options would be:

1.) Damn the torpedoes and ignore the +10 limit for weapons.
2.) Keep the limit, but allow the character to also get the mount instead of another +1 for the weapon
3.) Keep the +10 limit but allow DB to be split between two different weapons.
4.) Keep the limit, but allow some of the DB bonus to be added to armor/shield. (This is a tad unbalancing)
5.) At lvl 20 give all Paladins retractable adamantite claws that count as paired Keen Axiomatic Holy Avengers. (By far the best option IMO)

That said, it would be nice to add a bit of clarification about the +10 limit to the Divine-bond RAW, as well as adding some official rules for high-end characters to keep the ability from getting trashed.


Although I don't believe the RAW allow it the question I'd ask would be, is it fun? It isn't fun to have opponents cheese out, but it would still be cool to see the other guy wiu this totally decked out sword, but the fun stops when you realize the fnal product isn't as magical as you thought. It would be fun as a player to juice up your magic sword with a ton of bonus', even for a little while. Which seems to outway the penalties.

So I guess I just changed my mind. I'd allow it, though I consider it a house ruling and not official interpretation of the rules.


Caineach wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I'm not positive your interpreting it the same way he...
Several other posters have read the same text and have come to the same conclusion as I. I'm not going to argue the point though. I most certainly believe in the possibility of multiple interpretations. Please share with me some of the other possible interpretations that you think he might be using so that I may ponder them for a bit.
He is refering to enhancement bonuses granted by bane or the Oath Bow, which are worked into the magic item and their base price. He is saying those abilities stack with the +5 to make it higher when dealing with specific foes. My interpretation is that he is not saying that temporary bonuses, like spells, that mimic normal enchantments, do not follow the +5/+10 rule that normally applies.

I am in agreement with this as well. Those two weapons spell out an exception and you do pay for that exception

Sovereign Court

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Zurai wrote:
The rules do, however, say that I can add +6 enchantment to any weapon if I'm a 20th level Paladin.

They sure do. They also say you can't exceed a total of +10 worth of enhancement bonuses and special abilities with a maximum of +5 worth of enhancement bonus. How *you* choose to run it in *your* game is entirely up to you, though.

Zurai wrote:
The rules do say that I can turn a +1 dancing vorpal longsword into a +5 dancing vorpal longsword by casting greater magic weapon.

Greater magic weapon says,

Quote:
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.

Nowhere in there does it say you can exceed the maximum +10 enhancement bonus. Again, how you choose to run this in your game is entirely up to you, but that's the RAW.

Should we (and more likely, "when we") release epic rules, I'm sure we'll clarify further in that rules set how weapon enhancement works beyond level 20 since, (and this is actually my opinion now) the math of 3.5 breaks down significantly post-20th level and those types of adjustments need to be made.

I want to point out once more (and perhaps I'm being overzealous in pointing this out repeatedly) however you or your GM choose to interpret and run the game is entirely up to you. House rules have been a staple of this game since I started playing with the red box--heck, I remember starting a 3.0 game back in 2002 or so where the GM was convinced a bunch of his house rules were canon and it took a significant perusal of the book to show him they weren't. The GM is and should always be the final arbiter regardless of what us nerd designers here in house think. ;-)

Joshua, I'm certainly in agreement with what you say here, but the one case where this does break down has been mentioned in this thread, the Bane property.

Bane is the only core, non-paladin smite way to bypass Epic Damage Reduction. A +4 or +5 Bane (Magical Beasts) weapon is the only way to bypass the Tarrasque's DR. A +4 or +5 Unholy Bane (Outsider, good) is the only way to bypass the Solar's DR.

--Vrocket Science!


King of Vrock wrote:

Joshua, I'm certainly in agreement with what you say here, but the one case where this does break down has been mentioned in this thread, the Bane property.

Bane is the only core, non-paladin smite way to bypass Epic Damage Reduction. A +4 or +5 Bane (Magical Beasts) weapon is the only way to bypass the Tarrasque's DR. A +4 or +5 Unholy Bane (Outsider, good) is the only way to bypass the Solar's DR.

--Vrocket Science!

Humm, haven't thought of that...

201 to 218 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Divine Bond (Over 9,000!) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.