divine bond (weapon) options limits

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

What is the reasoning behind paladins' divine weapon bond's list of properties that can be added?

FTR, the core paladin can use axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, speed. Some archetypes/oaths modify this, but not much.

What makes flaming holier than frost and shock? Why can't they add ghost touch?

And the warpriest's equivalent list is actually more restrictive because there were so many more properties in existence when it was written.

There are certainly properties I wouldn't want to let paladins/warpriests add.

• anything with alignment opposing theirs: anarchic, unholy
  
• anything with a enemy designated at creation: bane, heretical, miserable, treasonous
  
• special case: redeemed because making one involves making an unholy weapon first and then redeeming it
  

But with those exceptions specified, would it really be OP to let paladins and warpriests add any properties they feel are appropriate for their personal holiness?

[Java Man]

Switching the elemntal damage to a type more suited to deity/ideal followed sounds like a good flavor bit that has little or no balance impact.

This is the kind of change I would use as an opportunity to add more individuality to different faiths. Give each a couple of bane options suited to their ideals, as well as alignment based (axiomatic etc). Availible domains would be a good inspiration here.

[Claxon]

I definitely wouldn't allow generic bane, because it's too good (and the Inquisitors thing) but I could see allowing bane of 1 or 2 types based on the deity in question, or generically bane (undead) or bane(*opposed alignment* outsider).

[Tarik Blackhands]

Thematics and lack of future proofing mostly.

Fire, especially in fiction, has been very commonly associated with the holy (flame as a purifier, smiting people with holy fire, etc) which explains why paladins, holy rollers that they are, cause their swords to burstinto to flame rather than coating them in acid or electricity. The other stuff basically falls in that vein.

Would it be OP to let paladins pick basically anything? Probably not. The only real enchantments worth a damn on a pick and choose basis would be stuff like Bane or DR bypassers like holy/axiomatic but Smite handles that anyway (cheesing Training I guess is another thing I guess)

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Would it be OP to let paladins pick basically anything? Probably not. The only real enchantments worth a damn on a pick and choose basis would be stuff like Bane or DR bypassers like holy/axiomatic but Smite handles that anyway (cheesing Training I guess is another thing I guess)

Oh, I overlooked training. I guess I need to generalize "anything with a enemy designated at creation" to "anything with a choice made at creation." That rules out patriotic and (ironically) fervent, which are harmless, but neither is very good to do with divine bond anyway.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Claxon wrote:

I definitely wouldn't allow generic bane, because it's too good (and the Inquisitors thing) but I could see allowing bane of 1 or 2 types based on the deity in question, or generically bane (undead) or bane(*opposed alignment* outsider).

<nod> There's even precedent: the Oath against the Wyrm and the Oath of the Medevian swap out the ability to choose flaming for the ability to pick dragon-bane and outsider(evil)-bane respectively.