Bane Rune


Rules Discussion


Why is it against RAW to have... (let's just use the example the book uses) an Elf Bane weapon?

Before someone says anything, I ALREADY understand "Humanoid" and "Undead" are too general for something like this. The "It's your game, you can what you want" is also VERY understood! Neither of these comments has anything to do with what I'm trying to figure out.


To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)


Jerrod Owex wrote:
Why is it against RAW to have... (let's just use the example the book uses) an Elf Bane weapon?

I'm not quite understanding the question.

It is against RAW because it ... goes against the rules as they are written in the rulebook... That is what being against RAW means.

Then there is something that vaguely resembles a balance argument for allowing it as homebrew. Which would be fine. You can homebrew an Elf Bane weapon if you really want to and get agreement from the other players at your table.

If you want me to read the minds of the game developers of why they made it RAW to not allow such broad categories - I'm not sure I could do that. MEATSHED's nod to the potential for questionable game content is just as good as anything else I can come up with.


MEATSHED wrote:
To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)

No, it was removed due to how strong it is in themed campaigns, or how useless it is when you never fight chosen enemies. The idea that it's because of IRL political stances is an afterthought/coincidental circumstance.


Jerrod Owex wrote:

Why is it against RAW to have... (let's just use the example the book uses) an Elf Bane weapon?

Before someone says anything, I ALREADY understand "Humanoid" and "Undead" are too general for something like this. The "It's your game, you can what you want" is also VERY understood! Neither of these comments has anything to do with what I'm trying to figure out.

You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.

And honestly, Bane weapons are just terrible anyway. Oh, I do an additional D6 against this type of enemy, or I can take an elemental property rune and just do an additional D6 of whatever type I want, with an added critical effect to boot, and it works against every enemy, not just certain ones.

Maybe if Bane did more, it might be a fair tradeoff, but as it stands it is at-best a flavor option that is probably not worth having due to the current political climate compared to "Flaming sword."


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)
No, it was removed due to how strong it is in themed campaigns, or how useless it is when you never fight chosen enemies.

As opposed to current bane which is strong in themed campaigns and useless if you never fight the enemies its good against. Like that is just the nature of how bane works, if they wanted it to not have that issue they would need to give it a full rework. Like the only mechanical reason I could see is that it makes you play a guessing game withing a guessing game (while it can't pick undead because they effectively already have one in disrupting)

Dark Archive

Bane was always a mediocre option for a permanent item, but a fantastic option for a temporary buff.

Heck, it was one of the things that made the Investigator a worthwhile class.

Dark Archive

Heck, I meant Inquisitor, not Investigator.
But now it's too long to edit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:

Heck, I meant Inquisitor, not Investigator.

But now it's too long to edit.

Yeah that had me scratching my head and I was planning to read up on Investigator tonight to see what I'd been missing


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.

Elf is NOWHERE near as general as those two things, but sure.


MEATSHED wrote:
To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)

As soon as I finished typing question I KNEW someone was gonna use the racism BS, I just didn't think it would be FIRST!


Jerrod Owex wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.
Elf is NOWHERE near as general as those two things, but sure.

Paizo disagrees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no one really cares about this either way as much the OP.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Jerrod Owex wrote:

Why is it against RAW to have... (let's just use the example the book uses) an Elf Bane weapon?

Before someone says anything, I ALREADY understand "Humanoid" and "Undead" are too general for something like this. The "It's your game, you can what you want" is also VERY understood! Neither of these comments has anything to do with what I'm trying to figure out.

You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.

And honestly, Bane weapons are just terrible anyway. Oh, I do an additional D6 against this type of enemy, or I can take an elemental property rune and just do an additional D6 of whatever type I want, with an added critical effect to boot, and it works against every enemy, not just certain ones.

Maybe if Bane did more, it might be a fair tradeoff, but as it stands it is at-best a flavor option that is probably not worth having due to the current political climate compared to "Flaming sword."

You're overlooking one very important factor: Bane is way cheaper. You can afford it way before flaming. You were never meant to compare them because one is level 4 and the other 8. You're much more likely to get an elemental rune in the end, but in a themed campaign Babe has its place.


Hmmm...they didn't remaster it. So the question may be kinda moot. Or maybe they just didn't remaster it because it's SoM rather than CRB.

I never read the original entry as 'avoiding racism.' I read it as giving you a fixed, limited set of antagonists it could work against. Which is quite reasonable for a lvl 4 rune that adds an additional +1d6, I think. Agree, 'humanoid' would've been waaaay too common a category to include in Bane's list. And the entry would've been pages long if they listed every critter or ancestry separately lol.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The other thing is that PF2 Bane is like PF2 Favored Enemy. They are rooted in granting extra understanding about those specific categories of creatures. PF1 bane felt more like PF2 weakness, how silver just hurts werewolves more, almost like an allergy. Now Bane works by letting you instinctually know where to stab something to make it hurt more and inherently understanding how the creature fights better.

Humanoids are simultaneously too diverse and too monolithic for this to work. Anatomically they are too similar. Generally, where you stab an elf to make it hurt more will be the same place you stab a human or dwarf. At the same time, a consistent theme is that humanoids are the most diverse for their skill sets. Bane being equally effective against an elf monk and an elf barbarian doesn't really make sense.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Bane Rune All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.