Undead Bane

[Lannister2112]

Curious if anyone knows the why of the restrictions on Bane in the 2e. No undead bane seems odd especially.

"The GM might allow bane runes for other creature traits, such as astral, dream, or demon. However, humanoids, undead, and specific types of humanoids (such as elves) are never a valid option."

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1041

[Baarogue]

Lannister2112 wrote:

Curious if anyone knows the why of the restrictions on Bane in the 2e. No undead bane seems odd especially.

"The GM might allow bane runes for other creature traits, such as astral, dream, or demon. However, humanoids, undead, and specific types of humanoids (such as elves) are never a valid option."

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1041

Just speculating, but maybe because Disrupting already exists?

[breithauptclan]

Or perhaps because it is too broad of a category. Similar to the reasoning for the restriction on 'humanoid' or even specific types of humanoid. If the campaign generally takes place with those types of creatures as enemies, then the option would become way more powerful.

[HammerJack]

Probably because undead is such a large category.

[Castilliano]

The main problem with Humanoid sub-types is Human, which covers too many enemies in most campaigns. Undead yes, is too broad too in that one can expect to face some undead in most dungeons, and in thematic dungeons they can be the majority. In non-themed games I'd likely allow undead sub-types, like Vampire though it's likely better to go w/ Holy anyway.

[Kelseus]

It's to eliminate powergaming. Undead already are weak against positive damage and 99% will be against good damage, both of which a PC should be able to access with little effort.

Also, disrupting already exists and is a level 5 rune instead of 4.

[Perpdepog]

Castilliano wrote:

The main problem with Humanoid sub-types is Human, which covers too many enemies in most campaigns. Undead yes, is too broad too in that one can expect to face some undead in most dungeons, and in thematic dungeons they can be the majority. In non-themed games I'd likely allow undead sub-types, like Vampire though it's likely better to go w/ Holy anyway.

Once you're level 11 sure, though it's not something I'd expect to be an option around the same time Bane comes online, which is probably another reason for the restriction; Bane is also a low-level rune.

I was honestly surprised that outsider types were valid options for Bane, though I suppose it makes sense. PF2E is making a conscious effort to steer away from the large outsider bestiary population, and the rune does still require that an outsider subset be chosen.

[Squiggit]

Kelseus wrote:

Undead already are weak against positive damage and 99% will be against good damage, both of which a PC should be able to access with little effort.

This isn't exactly correct. Zombies are weak to positive, but outside that a surprisingly large number of undead aren't. Weakness to Good is also relatively uncommon, only a handful of undead possess that.

[Kelseus]

Squiggit wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

Undead already are weak against positive damage and 99% will be against good damage, both of which a PC should be able to access with little effort.

This isn't exactly correct. Zombies are weak to positive, but outside that a surprisingly large number of undead aren't. Weakness to Good is also relatively uncommon, only a handful of undead possess that.

Sorry, I meant they are susceptible to good/positive damage.

[Sanityfaerie]

I'm pretty sure that the "specific types of humanoids" are because they don't want to have to deal with (for example) PFS grief players waving around swords of racism.

For both "undead" and the more general "humanoid" it's both because they're too common and because some campaigns will weight that way even mreo heavily.