"Mageslaying" weapon ability - this looks freaky..

[Abstraction]

Would a more appropriate wording be "any creature that has the ability to cast spells or use spell-like abilities as a class feature"? That then excludes all monsters that do not have class levels.

 

[Armadon63]

Man take an Occult slayer( I thinks that it) from complete warrior and give him a magebane weapon and mageslayer feats from complete arcane. Talk about dead arcane casters in 1 hit. HHmmm think that may be my next character.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally I think that, unless you're basically guaranteed to be fighting the appropriate monster, 'bane' weapons are a total waste of time.

Total.

So it's a bad metric for comparing other abilities to.

If we compare magebane to a +1 weapon, we'll find that about half the time, magebane gives double the bonus. So even there.

Except it also adds that 2d6 damage. That bumps it up into the "much more powerful" range.

It comes into effect about as often as holy does. Holy does not provide the +2 to hit and damage.

Therefore it's more powerful than holy.

Easily a +3 as it stands.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Personally I think that, unless you're basically guaranteed to be fighting the appropriate monster, 'bane' weapons are a total waste of time.

Total.

So it's a bad metric for comparing other abilities to.

If we compare magebane to a +1 weapon, we'll find that about half the time, magebane gives double the bonus. So even there.

Except it also adds that 2d6 damage. That bumps it up into the "much more powerful" range.

It comes into effect about as often as holy does. Holy does not provide the +2 to hit and damage.

Therefore it's more powerful than holy.

Easily a +3 as it stands.

Magebane is easily better than any of the +1 (+1D6 elemental damage) enhancements (except maybe screaming, but now, that enhancement is an invitation to every single monster in the area to join the noisy fight over hence, a drawback in and of itself ) - especially seeing how common Elemental resistance XYZ/5 is on monsters.
Better then "Keen" or "Weapon of Impact", too

Same for the +2 enehancements - wounding gets outclassed easily and as for "holy" - maybe the campaigns I play in differ, but "holy" would be rather weak around here, as much of the opposition is neutral in outlook (even if it is a violent disagreeing outlook ) rather than "evil"... Of course in something like the CotSQ campaign, both enhancements would be worth it, even/especially combined on one weapon at WotC cost...
Yeah +3 or even +4 sounds more like it.

 

[coyote6]

I think magebane should be a +2 property, like the 3e version of bane.

(Of course, I suspect holy and the like are weak as +2 abilities, though they'd be too strong at +1. IMO, they need a small enhancement bonus boost [making it effectively "evil bane"], a burst-like damage boost on critical hits, or some other minor ability; piercing alignment-based DR isn't enough).

I'd like to say clouting should be melee-only, which would prevent most abuses of it (no 4 arrows for 40 ft of knockback, for instance), but I had lots of fun in Diablo with a bow of the bear (IIR the name C) .

Personally, I'd say movement caused by a clouting doesn't provoke AoOs -- after all, it's sudden, unexpected, and presumably rapid. (IIRC, somewhere in a recent WotC book there's a spell or special ability that moves a foe back, expressly without provoking AoOs.)

To cover the third weapon special ability: I'd like to see a lesser version of skillful, one without the BAB boost. Of course, mere proficiency probably isn't worth even a +1 . . . maybe a flat +x gp, or a +1/2 equivalent (to borrow a mechanic from one of Malhavoc's books).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Same for the +2 enehancements - wounding gets outclassed easily and as for "holy" - maybe the campaigns I play in differ, but "holy" would be rather weak around here, as much of the opposition is neutral in outlook (even if it is a violent disagreeing outlook)

Generally if your PC is good, and someone has an outlook that disagrees with him to a violent degree, that individual is evil - otherwise you could come to some sort of arrangement.

Yes, I know it's possible to come up with scenarios where good PC's are opposing some genuinely good force, but they tend to be the sort of thing that can be overcome unless the DM is being quite obstructionist.

And of course a great deal of creatures require good-aligned weapons to damage properly. Significantly fewer need chaotic, lawful or evil weapons.

rather than "evil"... Of course in something like the CotSQ campaign, both enhancements would be worth it, even/especially combined on one weapon at WotC cost...
Yeah +3 or even +4 sounds more like it.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Generally if your PC is good, and someone has an outlook that disagrees with him to a violent degree, that individual is evil - otherwise you could come to some sort of arrangement.

Not necessarily - it just might not be possible for either party to move from its position, and the coin has to fall to one side or the other. But lets keep real life debates out of here, shall we ?

Yes, I know it's possible to come up with scenarios where good PC's are opposing some genuinely good force, but they tend to be the sort of thing that can be overcome unless the DM is being quite obstructionist.

And of course a great deal of creatures require good-aligned weapons to damage properly. Significantly fewer need chaotic, lawful or evil weapons.

Hmmm, I disagree heartily on the first assumption - fought too many githzerai, slaadi and other stuff with terrible names and neutral alignments who simply did not care for good vs. evils. Same goes for many human mercenaries, summoned monsters, beasts, animals and other stuff not dedicated to one cause or plane - e.g. the usual guards and reinforcements one has to wade through to face the BBEG (if he really is a BB Evil G.... ). Not to mention charmed, tricked, blackmailed and simply struggling to survive people and things. But that may be a matter of campaign style and less b/w scenarios.

/agree with regard to the second

 

[Sue Bloodbucket]

- fought too many githzerai, slaadi and other stuff with terrible names and neutral alignments who simply did not care for good vs. evils.

hmm why do i get the feeling that this is referring to my GM-ing style?

In all aspects mentioed abouve i feel like uzagi says...
+3 sounds a better deal. But as with many things it depends heavily on the campaign you are running. This weapon enchantment would simply ruin mine, wheras ruin means that encounter would be solved by hackin' and slayin' on the majorety...
In other Campaings it could be useless to the bone.


Sue

Ähm... did i mention that my evil overlord has taken the art of psionics seriously in the last few weeks?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not to mention charmed, tricked, blackmailed and simply struggling to survive people and things. But that may be a matter of campaign style and less b/w scenarios.

I think it is. I've met DMs who think that the most appropriate action for a chaotic good creature who suspects someone of pilfering some fruit (with no actual evidence) is to kill them and then maybe consider asking questions about it, or have animals fight to the death instead of retreating.

Or have a neutral force of outsiders attempt to invade the world and turn everyone into their spawn, without even considering that, just maybe, this isn't a neutral act.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh come now, the Formians are always trying to take over not just the world, but the multiverse. Because once we're all slaves to the formian masters all our cares and woes will be eliminated as we serve the common good. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Lawful. Neutral. Freaky.