| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Okay, so I looked up a few threads on how magic weapon properties work. There seems to be some ambiguity about the Bane property.
So, imagine a weapon that is +1 human bane. An inquisitor wants to use his ability to add Orc bane to it as well. The players hand book seems to say that you can't put the same property on a weapon twice, but is bane(orc) the same as bane(human)?
The advantage would be against half orcs for double bane.
I can see arguments either way, I would personally allow it. (Of course I am playing an inquisitor atm, so I may be biased)
My real question would be, is there any official ruling? Anyone know?
Thanks in advance!
|
My understand is that you would be unable to add another bane property to the item. Now, myself as GM, I would allow you to replace the bane property with a different bane if you were an inquisitor, but I wouldn't let you have a double bane weapon like you describe.
The whole point of the inquisitor's bane ability is to be able to give that powerful ability to a weapon at will rather than need to collect bane weapons.
My (potentially incorrect) understanding of the situation was that Bane(Human) and Bane(Orc) were technically two different properties that just used the same base mechanic.
Well, there we have the two differing opinions I have found so far on the boards.
Anyone have an official answer?
It depends on how official you need.
Actually, that raises another question. Are Bane(Dragon) and Bane(Orc) considered the same enchantment or not?EDIT: Missed that rule. Yeah; you can't have multiple enhancements of the same type on a weapon. For bane weapons, I suppose TECHNICALLY a dragon bane enhancement is different enough from a fey bane enhancement so that might work... but the RAW says no.
I consider evil outsider bane and chaotic outsider bane to be two different properties.
Evil outsider bane and evil outsider bane are the same property, though...
That sounds like both of them would allow it, but it's questionable as to whether that's a solid ruling or just how they would personally do it. (Actually I can't tell if JJ likes the idea or not, he might be reluctantly saying it could work?)
|
As a note though, there is no Bane (human) weapon property. There is the Bane property, which allows weapons to have a Designated foe. I don't allow multiple Bane enchants on a single weapon any more than I'd allow two Flaming enchants on a single weapon, though your mileage may vary.
"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.
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."
I'm pretty sure what they meant was Bane: Humanoid (Human) Ssalarn
I would think that even if they can be placed on the same weapon they do not stack. As a general rule like things do not stack. If I have favored enemies evil outsiders +2, and favored enemies chaotic outsiders +2 I get +2 not +4. Bane should not stack with itself.
|
|
Every developer who has commented on Bane, has stated that you can place multiple, different Bane properties on one weapon.
That's not exactly true. James Jacobs said the argument could be made but RAW says no, and SKR said he allows it in his home games, which is different than when he makes an actual ruling saying "This was the intent of that ability".