Didn't work for me either.
Again, I will ask, because someone MUST know.
How does PFS rule with bane weapons and Instant Enemy?
Many, many, many (in fact so far in ALL cases) when I have this sort of debate on these boards, the way I rule is the same way PFS rules.
If PFS allows bane weapons to benefit from instant enemy, it will be the first time PFS allows an exploit I don't.
So, what does PFS do?
|
PFS doesn't have a ruling, because they go by the rules of the game. Therefore, without a FAQ post on the topic, it is up to GM interpretation. As a GM, I would rule that a bane weapon activates, because that is one of many possible purposes.
To people who are calling my own personal rulings exploitative and abusive, stop letting emotions into the rules discussion please.
PFS doesn't have a ruling, because they go by the rules of the game. Therefore, without a FAQ post on the topic, it is up to GM interpretation. As a GM, I would rule that a bane weapon activates, because that is one of many possible purposes.
To people who are calling my own personal rulings exploitative and abusive, stop letting emotions into the rules discussion please.
"Exploit: To employ to the greatest possible advantage."
Not sure why you have an emotional reaction to that word. It means what it means. It perfectly describes what you are doing.
You continue to assert that your interpretation of the rule, an interpretation that "provides the greatest possible advantage" is the only interpretation.
Several people have shown how the rule can be interpreted differently.
In my opinion the interpretation that "you" means the character only, not items, teammates or animal companions is not merely a different interpretation, but is far more likely to be the developer's original intent.
My interpretation does not seek the greatest possible advantage. It seeks what I see as a reasonable advantage that meets the rule as written. Your interpretation quite literally "seeks the greatest possible advantage."
Therefore it is, by literal definition, an "exploit."
It isn't my fault you react emotionally to that.
That's extremely silly, not to mention downright abusive.I don't see how it's either. It's precisely what the spell is designed to do. The ranger will get to use both his bane and FE bonuses on monsters for no consumables. How is using a 3rd level spell a couple times a day to achieve the same result abusive (or silly)?
It isn't "his" bane. It is his bow's bane. That's the point.
I understand your point, I was asking the Badger's. You still haven't explained in what sense does a weapon 'treat' a monster. The player makes a roll, the player checks target type, the player rolls damage. The weapon does not 'treat' targets in any way, the weapon modifies how you interact with said target. Your argument makes no sense.It isn't "his" bane. It is his bow's bane. That's the point.That's extremely silly, not to mention downright abusive.I don't see how it's either. It's precisely what the spell is designed to do. The ranger will get to use both his bane and FE bonuses on monsters for no consumables. How is using a 3rd level spell a couple times a day to achieve the same result abusive (or silly)?
Notice that even when I strongly disagree with someone, I do my best to avoid making insulting and derogatory comments like "your argument makes no sense."
My argument makes sense. "Bane" is by its very definition a magical enhancement placed on a weapon. The magical enhancement is described in the rules this way:
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 such foes.
It says nothing about the user of the weapon. It describes the effect specifically as something the weapon does on its own. No matter WHO uses the bow, that chosen foe type will suffer the additional damage of the bane enhancement on the weapon.
You may disagree with that. You may argue vehemently that "instant enemy" overrides it, even though there is nothing in the rules that says instant enemy overrides weapon enhancements.
But to say it "makes no sense" is purely and simply rude and unnecessary.
If the weapon were an intelligent bane weapon, would you rule it differently?
A bane weapon against constructs is always a bane weapon against constructs. If it is wielded by someone that has no clue he is fighting a construct, it would still work. The character does not determine if the creature is a construct or not. The fact the target is a favored enemy does not change weapon's nature.
The weapon interacts with target. You wield it. You chose what feats to apply. You choose to use skills that have bonuses because it is a favored enemy. The weapon does not change its "hardwired" abilities.
You interpret it differently. (You, not your clothes or your car :P ) And because many also read it differently, it really should be FAQ'd. There is no clear consensus. And we are not going to change each other's opinions. I hear your argument. I believe you are wrong.
But this is a thread about fighter vs ranger archers. There are threads in the rules section already arguing the different opinions about this particular spell.
I think the fighter archer is better. The ranger archer is more versatile.
Greg
EDIT removed some pronouns causing confuzlement
|
I'm fairly certain (though that conversation on Bane Weapons and Instant Enemy makes me wonder - if it does in fact work that way, then the Ranger may very well be better at higher levels) that the Fighter is a better, well, Fighter in combat.
The Ranger has the advantage of a small spell list and an animal companion.
Basically, here's some advice. If you're gonna go with Ranger, get Boon Companion to make your Animal Companion as strong as a Druid's. Then, at the very least, the Ranger actually might do as much damage as the Fighter, once you factor in the fact that they have an animal companion also plucking away at the enemies.
However, solely on their abilities, it seems that the Fighter's massive amount of Feats gives him the edge in combat and Damage Per Round (both in terms of damage dice as well as accuracy).
Now that is a really unusual interpretation. Where is the reference that magic abilities are determined by the "player" or even the "character" if that is what you mean? Does this mean one can turn keen off and on? The closest I can find to this unique adjudication is
Actually, it would not. 'You' has to know that the target is a construct in order to apply the +2 to hit, and the extra damage. Now, 'you' is typically the player.
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities./quote]
If the gm was being sneaky and not letting the player know it was a bane weapon, the gm may become 'you' in this case and apply the bonuses behind the scenes. In neither case, however, does the weapon become the actor. The weapon informs the actor how to interact with the target. Rules are mechanical. They inform players how to play the game. That his bonus is from a magical weapon or a class ability is immaterial. The player looks at the targets type, calculates his bonuses, and rolls the dice.
Not quite getting what you are getting at there. Doesn't change the weapon. The weapon does not repurpose. Only the character's abilities are focused against the enemy.
But once again, I will not change your opinion of the rule. It seems completely obvious to me that I am correct. I am certain you feel just as certain that you are correct. FAQ it and let this thread alone. There is a RULE thread
Instant Enemy and Bane Weapons
Much better place for the discussion.
I still think the ranger's companion, skill set, and class abilities make him a more versatile character. But, something awesome about a fighter archer with all those bow specific feats *sighs* THWAK THWAK THWAK THWAK!!! Never played a zen archer, really want to give it a try though. But magus currently, followed by an inquisitor in Carrion Crown. So probably a few years away.
Greg
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a human ranger. I take Favored Enemy: Animals. I cast Instant Enemy on the party's half orc barbarian. Then I buff him with Animal Growth. Legal?
I'm still a human ranger. I take Favored Enemy: Undead. I cast Instant Enemy on myself. Now I get healed by negative energy. Legal? Or would it only be my negative energy that heals myself because only "I" can treat "me" as my favored enemy type? Can I decide to treat myself as undead in lieu of making a saving throw against Dominate Person? That should be legal, right?
Funky, it has been my experience that misreading the rules in a certain way is directly proportional to the benefit the reader gains from the misreading.
It's not necessarily malice. Just human nature.
|
Who is the better Archer? Ranger or Fighter?
It depends on the game.
For a PFS game the Ranger wins hands down. Early entry for Improved Precise Shot means the Ranger is netting +4 to hit over the Fighter in almost every combat for 5 full levels. The Fighter finally qualifies for Imp. Precise Shot when PFS games are ending.
For a non-PFS game the Fighter can close the gap for level 11 on. But being that the Ranger has Instant Enemy by then I can see it being argued that the Ranger will pull away again.
The Ranger will also be much better out of combat for all levels.
I vote Ranger > Fighter.