| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Example: A ranger of 12th level has favorerd enemy evil outsider and some evil outsider bane arrows. Now he targets a dragon with instant enemy spell and set it too evil outsider. It reads:
With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.
Since im treating the enemy as a evil outsider for all purposes as long as instant enemy is going, does the bane arrows do the extra 2d6 damage?
Also if i fired a bane arrow out of a +2 holy bow, do i add the bonuses to = +5 to hit, or just take the higher of the 2 for a +3 to hit?
Any thoughts?
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes."
To me, "type of favored enemy" is not the same as "creature type". So no, I don't think it would work.
From my understanding... Yes it works as you have said. You treat the target as that type of creature for all purposes.
Yes, it would work by RAW.
Nice discovery!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Favored Enemy does not equal Bane. The spell "Makes you think" that the creature is an evil outsider (in the above case) it is an Enchantment spell. This should not have any thing to do with bane. If the spell was a transmutation spell then bane would work. Short answer no, the arrows are evil outsider bane. If you are using instant enemy you are not fighting evil outsiders.
From my understanding... Yes it works as you have said. You treat the target as that type of creature for all purposes.
So can I cast Instant Enemy (construct) on myself and make myself immune to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, nonlethal damage, mind-affecting effects, bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning?
So can I cast Instant Enemy (construct) on myself and make myself immune to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, nonlethal damage, mind-affecting effects, bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning?
Targets one creature that is not your favored enemy.
Description: With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't mean your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.
Edited for grammar
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?
Someone tries to put me to sleep. Too bad -- I treat myself as immune to sleep and wake up. ;-)
If you don't like that example, how about darkvision? Since I'm treating myself as a contruct, do I get darkvision? Or if I treat myself as an aquatic humanoid, can I breathe underwater?
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't help your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.
But you're claiming it would help you (the ranger) damage the dragon with a Cure spell? And it would help an (unintelligent) bane arrow damage the dragon?
For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.
In the example, you treat the dragon as if it were an evil outsider. Your arrows don't.
Also if i fired a bane arrow out of a +2 holy bow, do i add the bonuses to = +5 to hit, or just take the higher of the 2 for a +3 to hit?
Assuming the target is bane-able and evil, so both effects come into play:
The bane property causes the enchantment of the weapon (in this case, the arrow) to be 2 higher than usual.So, launching a +1 bane arrow (there are no plain 'bane' arrows) from a +2 holy bow (which hat an effective enhancement bonus of +2) equals launching a +3 projectile from a +2 bow, resulting in only the higher bonus being given, as two different enhancement bonues won't stack.
Same goes for the damage. You'll have 2d6 (untyped) damage bonus from bane, 2d6 (untyped) damage bonus from holy, a +3 effective enhancement bonus from the bane arrow, a +2 enhancement bonus from the holy bow, netting you a total of 4d6+3 damage on top of your normal arrow (the enhancement bonuses, once again, not stacking).
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?Someone tries to put me to sleep. Too bad -- I treat myself as immune to sleep and wake up. ;-)
You would be immune to a sleep spell that you cast on yourself... but that doesn't mean that you'd be immune to sleep cast on you by someone else.
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't help your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.But you're claiming it would help you (the ranger) damage the dragon with a Cure spell?
From the wording of the spell, I don't see why a Ranger couldn't cast Cure Light on a Dragon, who is being treated as Undead by the Ranger.
It looks like it doesn't change the actual creature type of the target, just how the Ranger interacts with it. If the Ranger is considering a creature to be "Undead" as a result of this spell, then positive energy spells cast by the Ranger should inflict damage.
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?Someone tries to put me to sleep. Too bad -- I treat myself as immune to sleep and wake up. ;-)You would be immune to a sleep spell that you cast on yourself... but that doesn't mean that you'd be immune to sleep cast on you by someone else.
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't help your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.But you're claiming it would help you (the ranger) damage the dragon with a Cure spell?From the wording of the spell, I don't see why a Ranger couldn't cast Cure Light on a Dragon, who is being treated as Undead by the Ranger.
It looks like it doesn't change the actual creature type of the target, just how the Ranger interacts with it. If the Ranger is considering a creature to be "Undead" as a result of this spell, then positive energy spells cast by the Ranger should inflict damage.
If the Ranger treats the creature as "Undead" then the creature would also be immune to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning from that ranger, just as undead are. That seems ridiculous.
The spell just lets you use your favored enemy bonus against creatures that aren't your favored enemy. Bane weapon would have no effect.
Hmmm...so if I had the feat Craft Construct and enough scrolls of Instant Enemy (construct), I could modify one of my friends into a suit of Construct Armor and wear him around like a battlesuit. Sweet!
If the Ranger treats the creature as "Undead" then the creature would also be immune to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning from that ranger, just as undead are. That seems ridiculous.
The spell just lets you use your favored enemy bonus against creatures that aren't your favored enemy. Bane weapon would have no effect.
My comments were actually in reference to hogarth's plan to treat their character as a construct, to prevent others from doing nasty things to them. That would fail, because the spell only affects what the Ranger does, not anyone else.
That having been said, the spell does say that the Ranger treats the person as their favored enemy in "all ways". Being as the Ranger has to be 10th level to be able to cast the spell, I don't see how it's a problem to let a Bane effect work. A Ranger with Favored Enemy: Undead isn't going to use bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, or stunning in their attacks, especially if they've CHOSEN to treat the enemy as having those features.
Hmmm...so if I had the feat Craft Construct and enough scrolls of Instant Enemy (construct), I could modify one of my friends into a suit of Construct Armor and wear him around like a battlesuit. Sweet!
First.. OUCH! If this is how a Ranger treats friends, how do they treat enemies?
Secondly... Ranger would treat the friend as a Construct, not Construct Building Materials.
Thirdly... Duration is 1 minute/level. Even assuming a way around my second point, you wouldn't be able to complete crafting in that amount of time. You couldn't recast because your friend, who is in the middle of being crafted into a suit of armor, would still be considered a construct until after the spell expires - even as a swift action, recasting it before the poor friend dies would be dicey at best.
Fourthly... Under the "Rule of Cool", this might be a really cool back story for an intelligent weapon.
I'm pretty sure that the spell only lets you get the benefits of favored enemy and any other ranger ability that involves favored enemy on that target.
Anything else just seems like nonsense to me, especially when you start talking about using Craft Construct on people!
It looks like the ranger can treat the dragon as an evil outsider...
But the arrows don't give a damn what the ranger thinks he's using the arrows against, so bane wouldn't apply anyways.
So what about bane longspear?
Bane short swords?
Bane unarmed strike (via AoMF)?
Bane natural weapons (via AoMF)?
It looks like the ranger can treat the dragon as an evil outsider...
But the arrows don't give a damn what the ranger thinks he's using the arrows against, so bane wouldn't apply anyways.
I would agree, if not for the "for all purposes" part of the spell. The ranger is treating the creature "for all purposes" as if it were another creature type - one that the ranger has as a favored enemy.
Considering that Bane is only a +1 enchantment on a weapon, I don't see why, from a balance standpoint, the 10th level Ranger's use of a Bane enhancement shouldn't qualify as "for all purposes." (10th level being the earliest a ranger can cast 3rd level spells).
It looks like the ranger can treat the dragon as an evil outsider...
But the arrows don't give a damn what the ranger thinks he's using the arrows against, so bane wouldn't apply anyways.
I would agree, if not for the "for all purposes" part of the spell. The ranger is treating the creature "for all purposes" as if it were another creature type - one that the ranger has as a favored enemy.
Considering that Bane is only a +1 enchantment on a weapon, I don't see why, from a balance standpoint, the 10th level Ranger's use of a Bane enhancement shouldn't qualify as "for all purposes." (10th level being the earliest a ranger can cast 3rd level spells).
Because of the "ranger treats as..."
It seems to me that a bane weapon when created, is attuned to a particular creature type to inflict damage against that specific type. Whether the ranger is pretending that the subtype is a different type, has no bearing.
Because the bane enhancement doesn't care what the ranger thinks the enemy is. If the ranger has bane (dragon) arrows and decides to fail his knowledge check to figure out what that displacer beast is and assumes it's a dragon, bane wouldn't work. The bane enhancement only cares about what the target is. The effects of the spells don't transfer to the bane enhancement.
It seems to me that a bane weapon when created, is attuned to a particular creature type to inflict damage against that specific type. Whether the ranger is pretending that the subtype is a different type, has no bearing.
See, I was looking at it in the following way:
1. Ranger has an Evil Outsider Bane Dagger and Favored Enemy: Evil Outsider2. Ranger casts Instant Enemy on a critter.
3. Ranger attacks Critter
4. Ranger checks type: "Is this an Evil Outsider"?
4.1 Yes: Ranger treats critter as an Evil Outsider in all ways.
4.1.1 Ranger gets Favored Enemy Bonus
4.1.2 Ranger gets Bane attack, because the Ranger is the one doing the attacking, not the weapon.
The only way it might make a difference is if the weapon was intelligent, and actually "knew" that the critter wasn't an Evil Outsider. The attack is coming from the Ranger, therefore the attack gets Bane.
If the ranger has bane (dragon) arrows and decides to fail his knowledge check to figure out what that displacer beast is and assumes it's a dragon, bane wouldn't work.
Is this a serious argument? Voluntarily failing a knowledge check is a far cry from having a spell, which you have to be 10th level to cast, alter reality.
I have a lot of respect for the opinions you carry on this board, Cheapy, so I'm going to assume that you weren't intentionally reducing to absurdity.
The bane enhancement only cares about what the target is. The effects of the spells don't transfer to the bane enhancement.
The Bane enhancement doesn't care about anything, since it's simply a magical enhancement to a weapon. Who DOES care about it is the Ranger, who has been magically ensorceled to treat the target of the spell as if it were another creature type.
My stance is that the spell does exactly what it says, and overrides the normal rules - the Ranger treats the target of the spell as if it were a different creature type, in all ways. The Ranger attacks as if he's attacking one of his favored enemies, and as such gets the favored enemy bonus. For the same reasons, the Ranger's Bane ability triggers, because the Ranger is effectively attacking a creature of that creature type, with a weapon that is Bane against that creature type.
I want to make a Cleric/Ranger so that I can cast Instant Enemy (evil outsider) and then banish them!
A mace of smiting suddenly starts to look better too. On a critical, your "construct" enemy is destroyed, no save!
I want to make a Cleric/Ranger so that I can cast Instant Enemy (evil outsider) and then banish them!A mace of smiting suddenly starts to look better too. On a critical, your "construct" enemy is destroyed, no save!
Sounds like a good, creative synergy to me.
The Bane enhancement doesn't care about anything, since it's simply a magical enhancement to a weapon.
This is exactly my point. The bane weapon is a weapon crafted to harm a specific creature, it doesn't care who wields it or who it's wielded on. It has just been pre-programmed to be more effective against a certain creature type.
I still feel that how the ranger perceives the enemy has no bearing on the bane weapon. It is a tool, specifically crafted to be superior against a certain type of creature.
If the wielder can override this, it doesn't make sense to me.
A ranger is fighting a fire-elemental. He casts Instant Enemy and changes the subtype to Undead, all of a sudden, the Fire elemental is taking damage from the ranger's flaming burst longsword?
A ranger is fighting a fire-elemental. He casts Instant Enemy and changes the subtype to Undead, all of a sudden, the Fire elemental is taking damage from the ranger's flaming burst longsword?
Nothing about the spell says that the creature loses it's other types - the "Undead" Fire Elemental would still have all of it's Elemental resistances.
A ranger is fighting a fire-elemental. He casts Instant Enemy and changes the subtype to Undead, all of a sudden, the Fire elemental is taking damage from the ranger's flaming burst longsword?Nothing about the spell says that the creature loses it's other types - the "Undead" Fire Elemental would still have all of it's Elemental resistances.
True enough, I guess, however I still believe his undead bane weapon is still ineffective.
Short of an errata to clarify "for all purposes", we shall just have to agree to disagree.
I still believe his undead bane weapon is still ineffective.
I still don't understand how, if the ranger is attacking an Undead creature (which he's doing, courtesy of the spell), the Undead Bane weapon he's wielding wouldn't trigger. Either the Ranger is treating the creature as Undead, or he's not.
Short of an errata to clarify "for all purposes", we shall just have to agree to disagree.
I concur about agreeing to disagree, although I don't see where "for all purposes" should require any clarification.
I definitely wouldn't leave a table or group over this, although I would (post-game) definitely make my case to the GM about it. If this were part of my character concept, I would ask permission to re-tool the character. That would be more due to lack of communication between GM and Player, though.
Regardless, it has been a good discussion!
You don't determine what your Weapon is Bane against. The weapon determines what the weapon is bane against.
The ranger changing his favorite enemy effects no change upon his sword whatsoever. What you're basically trying to claim is that the spell affects the sword and the ranger at the same time, which is not in the Area of Effect of the spell.
Now, a spell which altered a Bane effect for a weapon would be permissible, or one that granted it, much like an inquisitor.
The Ranger gets his FE bonuses against the creature. He can't suddenly use Detect Aberration on a dragon, either. The spell alters his perceptions, it changes nothing else. It has no more power to change the magic on the sword then it does to change the actual, 'real' type of the enemy.
==Aelryinth
I concur about agreeing to disagree, although I don't see where "for all purposes" should require any clarification.
The ambiguous part for me is "type of favored enemy". You're suggesting that the word "type" in that phrase is the same word as in the phrase "creature type". But it's not exactly the same -- some favored enemy categories involve a subtype, for instance.
Let me put it this way. Suppose the spell read as follows:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."
Would that be the same or different?
I agree that there is some ambiguity in the spell description. (Geez, what spell description doesn't have some ambiguity?) But since the spell is not a transmutation, the effect only happens for the ranger, not other characters or even objects like bane arrows. The ranger is "confused" and therefore treats the enemy as a favored enemy, but his arrows are not.
But I could see a ruling that any weapons or effects used by the ranger gain the benefit as being consistent with the ruling too.
This is just another example of why "instant enemy" is a really, really poorly designed spell. It's already totally broken, why the hell do you need to add this to the mix?
I think I would prefer to see something along the lines of:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes in respect to a ranger's special abilities"
I think I would prefer to see something along the lines of:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes in respect to a ranger's special abilities"
Note that there are a few things that refer to a ranger's favored enemy that are outside the ranger's special abilities (e.g. the Horn of Antagonism from the APG).
"For the duration of the spell, the rangers gains Favored Enemy bonuses against that enemy as if it were the highest Favored Enemy bonus he currently has."
==Aelryinth
"For the duration of the spell, the rangers gains Favored Enemy bonuses against that enemy as if it were the highest Favored Enemy bonus he currently has."
==Aelryinth
That would be a perfectly reasonable spell - if that's what the spell said.
I think I would prefer to see something along the lines of:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes in respect to a ranger's special abilities"
That would be just fine, except that "in respect to a ranger's special abilities" is not "for all purposes". I'm reading the spell as to allow more options to what the character can do than just that - like the Ranger being able to use a cure spell to damage something he considers "Undead" as a result of the spell.
Based on RAW, that's what it says. Based on RAI, where's the harm in giving the player more options?
That would be a perfectly reasonable spell - if that's what the spell said."For the duration of the spell, the rangers gains Favored Enemy bonuses against that enemy as if it were the highest Favored Enemy bonus he currently has."
==Aelryinth
It is pretty certain that's what the intended purpose of the spell is. You know that Paizo doesn't always write these things clearly.
I could see a ruling that any weapons or effects used by the ranger gain the benefit as being consistent with the ruling too.
That's the point I've been trying to make.
It is pretty certain that's what the intended purpose of the spell is. You know that Paizo doesn't always write these things clearly.
With all due respect, it's anything but pretty certain... since that's not at all what the spell says. The spell, as written, says that the Ranger gets to treat a target enemy as if it were one of the creature types that the ranger has as a Favored Enemy.
It lists no restrictions on how the Ranger can treat it as a Favored Enemy... quite the opposite, in that it specifically says it is treated as the Favored Enemy Type "in all ways."
"In All Ways" =/= "In All Ways... Except This."
Note that there are a few things that refer to a ranger's favored enemy that are outside the ranger's special abilities (e.g. the Horn of Antagonism from the APG).
This spell references the Favored Enemy ONLY in that what the Ranger is allowed to treat the target creature as.
The Bane enhancement would not work. The Instant Enemy spell only allows the Ranger to treat the target as his Favored Enemy with regards to his Favored Enemy class ability.
An example of why it does not work in the manner the OP suggests:
Take a Ranger who has Favored Enemy - Outsider (Evil) who happens across a Tyrannosaurus (a Neutral creature) and he chooses to target the dinosaur with his Instant Enemy spell. Awesome, now the Ranger gets to use his Favored Enemy bonus against it!
But now let's say the Ranger uses a Wand of Protection from Evil on himself. Does he now get the bonuses from the Prot Evil spell against the Tyrannosaurus? No, he does not, the dinosaur is a neutral animal, not actually an Evil creature. Could the Ranger now use Banishment or Dismissal on the Tyrannosaurus, if he had it available? No, he could not, the dinosaur is not actually an Outsider.
Just as the spell would not treat the creature as the Ranger's Favored Enemy, so too would the Bane Arrow not work. The Bane enhancements damage is coming from the weapon it is placed upon, not from the Ranger himself.
Let me put it this way. Suppose the spell read as follows:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."
Would that be the same or different?
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."
as opposed to:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes. "
Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table.
The only difference between the two wordings is replacing the word "type" with "choice". I don't see a difference there, other than that your wording is more ambiguous.
The spell, as written, references "Favored Enemy Type", just as the Favored Enemy ability tells you to select a "creature type" from the table.
There are also Traits this would work with.
Benefit You gain a +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls made against gnolls. If you are a barbarian and you’re fighting gnolls, your rage lasts 1 round longer than normal. If you’re a ranger and you select humanoid (gnoll) as a favored enemy, your trait bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against gnolls increases to +2. If you’re a spellcaster, you gain a +1 trait bonus to spell save DCs for damaging spells against gnolls.
So it gives you an additional +2/+2 to hit/damage ON TOP of your favored bonus any time you use instant enemy.
Edit - Sorry for the thread necro, but I think this is an important topic
I think the point that most people are missing is that, regardless of how much sense it makes, or RAI, the wording of the spell specifically calls out "for all purposes" and places no restrictions on what "all purposes" applies to.
RAI, obviously this probably wasn't meant to apply to everything. I have always assumed that favored bonus is something the ranger gains because he/she is practiced at hunting that sort of enemy (say aberrations). When I read that the spell is of type enchantment, it appears to me that the spell is translating the knowledge a ranger has when it comes to hunting one type of enemy, to another type (say allowing knowledge of hunting aberrations to be applied to elves).
As a thought experiment though, consider the following:
What we do not know is how a bane weapons enchantment actually damages its enemy type. Does it contain some type of energy that is the antithesis of a type? or does it provide the user with some sort of inherent ability or knowledge used to damage an enemy? (just as one might wonder if a to hit bonus provided by a numerical enchantment grants the user greater prowess, or if the weapon simply homes in on a target somewhat).
Depending on how a magical bonus interacts I could see a spell allowing you to translate that "knowledge", or at least the possibility of this interaction.
TL;DR - Even though the spell causes some nonsensical scenarios, by RAW the spell applies "for all purposes" and until there is clarification on this issue, it should be interpreted as written. If there is any time a character would say that treating an enemy as as one of they types defined in favored enemy would change an interaction, the enemy is treated as that type.
You magic items do not benefit from your Favored enemy. Their bane is not Bane:Your Favored Enemy, it is Bane:Evil Outsider. Your spell alters your favored enemy, not your magic items.
So no this does not work.
You magic items do not benefit from your Favored enemy. Their bane is not Bane:Your Favored Enemy, it is Bane:Evil Outsider. Your spell alters your favored enemy, not your magic items.
So no this does not work.
I think RAI you're totally right. But it is Bane:<Enemy Type>
I just don't see how by RAW, you get around the spell specifically calling out "for all purposes" and places no restrictions on what "all purposes" applies to.
Could you not say that "I treat that enemy as <insert type here> for the purpose of wielding any weapon with the bane property" and have that be included under the umbrella of "for all purposes" ?
The only thing that wouldn't make this work is that if it were somewhere defined that the types mentioned in favored enemies, are not in any way related to creature types, which is a hard argument to make I think since they use all of the same names.
It is really quite simple. The spell lets you treat creature X as if it was creature Y which you normally have as a Favored Enemy. The litmus test is if you had Creature X as a favored enemy and had Bane creature Y on your weapons would you get that bane on creature X? No of course not. This spell does nothing different.
Just because you want it to be more powerful than it obviously is does not mean it is.
It is really quite simple. The spell lets you treat creature X as if it was creature Y which you normally have as a Favored Enemy. The litmus test is if you had Creature X as a favored enemy and had Bane creature Y on your weapons would you get that bane on creature X? No of course not. This spell does nothing different.
Just because you want it to be more powerful than it obviously is does not mean it is.
It has nothing to do with how powerful I wan't the spell to be and has everything to do with the actual wording of the spell.
The spell does not say you get to treat an enemy as if that enemy was on your list of favored enemies (which makes more sense). It instead says
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes. "
Note how favored enemy only limits the list of types that you can cast this spell on, and the list of types you can treat an enemy as. Also not that at the same time it states that the purposes for which this treatment can be used for are ... all of them.
If saying "I treat that enemy as <insert type here> for the purpose of wielding any weapon with the bane property" does not fall under the list of every possible purpose then obviously it wont work.