|
A couple of questions about how the enhancement granted by these spells works.
1) Does the use of GMW/MV allow a way to temporarily bypass the +10 effective enhancement bonus limit? For example, by casting GMW (CL 20) on a +1 Keen Vorpal weapon to make an effective +5 Keen Vorpal weapon.
2) Does the enhancement provided by GMW stack with the part of a Bane weapon that increases the weapon's enhancement bonus by 2? For example, does a +1 Bane (Constructs) weapon with GMW cast on it to give it a +2 enhancement bonus strike as a +4 weapon vs constructs? (I'm seeing this as: GMW overlaps and does not stack with the weapon's natural enhancement bonus, but Bane should increase either the weapon's natural enhancement or that granted by GMW, whichever is higher.)
3) Greater Magic Weapon doesn't allow a weapon to bypass DR other than DR/magic. Does this stand even if the enhancement granted by the spell is then increased such as by Bane? That is:
3a) Would a +1 Bane (Constructs) weapon with GMW giving it an enhancement bonus of +2 strike as +4 weapon vs constructs for DR purposes and bypass DR/Adamantine, or would the weapon still only strike as +3 for purposes of DR (the sword's natural enhancement plus Bane)?
3b) If no to the above, does this stand even if the spell enhancement is only +1? Could a 5th level inquisitor cast Magic Weapon on his nonmagic weapon, activate Bane, and get an effective +3 weapon that bypasses cold iron/silver DR?
4) Does the enhancement granted by these spells count as the weapon/armour's enhancement bonus for purposes of weapon/armour abilities that grant bonuses based on an armour/weapon's enhancement bonus? For example, could you cast GMW (CL 20) on a +1 Defending weapon and then use the Defending ability to give yourself up to +5 to AC?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdo:
1) No.
A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10.
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
2-3b) For the purposes of the enhancement bonus it should count as either a +X Bane weapon OR a GMW weapon whichever is greater.
4) I see no reason you couldnt. For the duration it is a +5 Defending weapon.
- Gauss
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
That answers question #1.
Question #2: MV/GWM only affects enhancement bonuses (as far as I know), so if you have a +2 GWM spell active, it would increase it to +4.
Question #3 (both parts): No; such concepts can only be applied to weapon types that strike against that specific golem (or items that specifically state to bypass all Construct/Golem DR, such as a Golemshell Scarab, or whatever it's called).
Question #4: I would rule this as that GWM would only increase the amount you would receive to AC. As to how that would stack with MV, the property says the allocation bonus stacks with all others, so MV would stack with a Defending GWM property transferring bonus (but GWM enhancements would not stack with the weapon's standard enhancements).
*EDIT* Hope that helps!
|
|
(1) Missed that line, thanks. So casting GMW (CL 20) on a +1 Keen Vorpal Weapon gives you a +4 Keen Vorpal Weapon, since the weapon can't handle the full +5? I'm assuming the GMW bonus doesn't just fail at this point or start overriding weapon properties.
(3) Thought that was cheating, but wanted to make sure.
Looks like there's some disagreement on (2), though.
Gauss, isn't "(4) and not (2)" contradictory? If you can get a +3 Defending weapon using GMW, shouldn't you also be able to get a +3 Bane weapon? That is, if Defending interacts with (gain increased power from) the spell-based enhancement bonus, shouldn't Bane also interact with (give increased power to) that spell-based enhancement bonus (at least for to hit and damage, since the DR restriction is explicitly called out in GMW)?
The only argument I can see for (4) and not (2) is interpreting the line "Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus" to restrict Bane to interacting with the weapon's natural, permanent bonus (the "actual bonus"). However, the term "actual bonus" is vague and could have been used by the devs for ease of distinction from the improved enhancement bonus from Bane rather than to restrict this use.
Just trying to build up a coherent picture of how these properties work together.
Weirdo: No 4 and 2 are not contradictory. One adds to an enhancement bonus that does not stack with existing enhancement bonuses. The other uses whatever enhancement bonus exists. Note: the bane damage bonus would still apply even if GMW is added to it.
Let me put it this way:
When GMW and Bane interact what is the order of things?
Bane takes the weapon's existing enhancement bonus and increases it by +2.
Let us assume the weapon starts with a +1 and bane increases it to +2. Let us also assume that GMW is +3.
So the weapon is +1 (+3 when bane is active) and GMW is +3. Since GMW does not stack with the enhancement bonus of the weapon the bonus is +3 regardless.
Of course, this is my interpretation of how the bonuses work since there is no RAW to state what the order is. To me, GMW competes with the enhancement bonuses of the weapon. Bane is part of the weapon. Whichever is greater takes precedence.
If your GM wants it the other way (GMW first then Bane second) then that is his perogative.
Edit:
The specific order I would check it is as follows:
1) Is bane active?
2) If active add bane to weapon's enhancement bonus.
3) Use the higher enhancement bonus (weapon+bane or spell).
- Gauss
(1) Missed that line, thanks. So casting GMW (CL 20) on a +1 Keen Vorpal Weapon gives you a +4 Keen Vorpal Weapon, since the weapon can't handle the full +5? I'm assuming the GMW bonus doesn't just fail at this point or start overriding weapon properties.
(3) Thought that was cheating, but wanted to make sure.
Looks like there's some disagreement on (2), though.
Gauss, isn't "(4) and not (2)" contradictory? If you can get a +3 Defending weapon using GMW, shouldn't you also be able to get a +3 Bane weapon? That is, if Defending interacts with (gain increased power from) the spell-based enhancement bonus, shouldn't Bane also interact with (give increased power to) that spell-based enhancement bonus (at least for to hit and damage, since the DR restriction is explicitly called out in GMW)?
The only argument I can see for (4) and not (2) is interpreting the line "Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus" to restrict Bane to interacting with the weapon's natural, permanent bonus (the "actual bonus"). However, the term "actual bonus" is vague and could have been used by the devs for ease of distinction from the improved enhancement bonus from Bane rather than to restrict this use.
Unless Keen has a +6 modifier (which I know it doesn't), it should normally be amplified to a +5 Ke
Just trying to build up a coherent picture of how these properties work together.
Yeah. Since a weapon cannot have a +10 modifier (that is, weapon properties and enhancements that equate to a +10 bonus weapon), the limit would be +4 on a Vorpal Keen weapon.
It's not exactly "cheating". It's just something that follows a completely separate table of rules; enhancement bonuses (as well as Bane benefits) have nothing to do with reducing/bypassing DR (unless stated otherwise; of which, unless stated, does what I mentioned before).
The whole GMW and the Defending property stacking should go as follows: The GMW effect applies an improved enhancement bonus to the weapon (which does not stack with the previous enhancement bonus); that enhancement bonus granted from GMW should allow a Defending weapon to use the benefits of the GMW to apply to the Defending property (since the Defending property allows the enhancement bonus to transfer to AC, and stacks with it at all times, and its enhancement bonus is increased from its original amount).
@ Gauss
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.
While this may be interpreted in a number of ways, "actual" takes into account the concept of time, in that it determines past, present, and future; the past and future are disregarded until subjugated to a change (that is, in this case, the effects of GMW take effect or dissipate), and that the present (in this case, the effects of GMW are currently active,) is what is actually happening in a current scenario. Sure, it also determines what it truly is, but at the same time, what it truly is, is also affected by the amount that it is currently being amplified with (which is GMW).
The PC can have a +3 (+5 with GMW) Defending Bane (Construct) weapon. Sure, he can allocate all of his defenses to AC; but just remember that the Bane property increases the enhancement bonus against a specific foe 2 greater than the actual amount; this means that any regular foe gives the PC a +5 AC bonus, but if the foe is a Construct sub-type, the PC instead gains a +7 AC bonus, as the actual bonus granted from the weapon is now +5, with the addition of Bane against Construct sub-type creatures.
Darksol, I also see 'the weapon's enhancement bonus' which I take to mean the enhancement bonus possessed by the weapon rather than granted to the weapon by the spell. Like I said, other people may see it differently. If there was not a question on the interpretation the OP wouldn't have posted it.
- Gauss
Darksol, I also see 'the weapon's enhancement bonus' which I take to mean the enhancement bonus possessed by the weapon rather than granted to the weapon by the spell. Like I said, other people may see it differently. If there was not a question on the interpretation the OP wouldn't have posted it.
- Gauss
Touche; you've proven me wrong. It would be based upon the weapon's then, and not the spell's (since I didn't notice that part before; I curse my low perception roll, and my low perception modifier due to alcohol influence).
*Edit* Still, even if the weapon was a +1 originally, the Defending property would allot the PC a +3 AC against Construct creatures.
|
|
Did not consider the Bane + Defending combo, but will keep that in mind since it could be useful.
I tend to interpret "the weapon's enhancement bonus" and "(the weapon's) actual bonus" as "the enhancement bonus currently possessed by the weapon" In this case if we interpret the enhancement bonus granted by GMW as being a true/actual enhancement bonus for purposes of increasing the power of Defending, it should be a true/actual enhancement bonus for the purposes of being acted on by Bane. I also don't see either Bane or Defending as becoming active until they apply in combat. Therefore, I see the timeline as:
1) Cast GMW and increase current enhancement bonus by overlap
2) Hit something that Bane applies to
3) Find weapon's current enhancement bonus, including spell or ability modifiers, and increase it by 2
Still, there's obviously a good argument for the reverse, so I will check in with my DM first.
Would you say that in this case Bane wouldn't stack with a Magus' Arcane Pool or a Paladin's Divine Bond weapon improvements, or would those function differently since unlike GMW they explicitly stack with the weapon's natural enhancement bonus?
It's just something that follows a completely separate table of rules; enhancement bonuses (as well as Bane benefits) have nothing to do with reducing/bypassing DR (unless stated otherwise; of which, unless stated, does what I mentioned before).
Actually, weapon enhancement bonuses do allow a weapon to overcome DR, as seen here.
My understanding is that Bane normally increases not only the to hit and damage, but also the weapon's enhancement bonus for purposes of penetrating DR, since Bane specifically says "the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better" and not "the weapon gets +2 to hit and damage."
Greater Magic Weapon specifically says, however, that the enhancement bonus granted by that spell does not allow the weapon to bypass DR other than DR/magic, so a nonmagic weapon with GMW (CL 12, +3) cast on it does not strike as Cold Iron the way a permanent, crafted +3 weapon would. I was wondering if stacking GMW with Bane (if possible) allowed this restriction to be bypassed, but that felt against the intent of the rules and therefore like cheating.
And now this is becoming "Fun with Bane"...
Would you say that in this case Bane wouldn't stack with a Magus' Arcane Pool or a Paladin's Divine Bond weapon improvements, or would those function differently since unlike GMW they explicitly stack with the weapon's natural enhancement bonus?
The bolded = yes
- Gauss
|
|
Reviving thread for one last question on this line...
Do Arcane Pool and Divine Bond stack with the weapon's current enhancement bonus, whether natural or due to GMW, or only with the weapon's natural enhancement?
Example: Molly is an 8th-level Magus with a +1 Sword. Molly casts GMW on her sword, making the weapon +2. Molly then uses Arcane Pool to give the weapon a +2 enhancement bonus. Is Molly's weapon now +4, because Arcane Pool stacks with the weapon's current effective bonus of +2? Or is it only +3, because Arcane Pool stacks with the weapon's natural enhancement of +1, thus overriding but not stacking with the GMW bonus of +2.
At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.