Can you stack magic weapon special abilities?
- Thread starter darthkilmor
- Start date
Jack Simth
First Post
... So what's the attack/damage of a +5 Holy, Anarchic, Bane(Outsider[Lawful]), Bane(Outsider[Evil]) Silver Greatsword against a Pit Fiend?
Do the Banes and the alignment effects stack with other versions of themselves and each other (aka, is it +5 (enhancement) +2(Bane(Outsider[Evil]) +2(Bane(Outsider[Lawful)) = +9 attack, with 2d6(base) +5(enhancement) +2+2d6 (Bane(Outsider[Evil]) +2+2d6 (Bane(Outsider[Lawful])) +2d6(Holy) +2d6(Anarchic)-1(Silver)=10d6+8 damage, or do they not stack, so it's "merely" +7 attack and 6d6+6 damage?)
Do the Banes and the alignment effects stack with other versions of themselves and each other (aka, is it +5 (enhancement) +2(Bane(Outsider[Evil]) +2(Bane(Outsider[Lawful)) = +9 attack, with 2d6(base) +5(enhancement) +2+2d6 (Bane(Outsider[Evil]) +2+2d6 (Bane(Outsider[Lawful])) +2d6(Holy) +2d6(Anarchic)-1(Silver)=10d6+8 damage, or do they not stack, so it's "merely" +7 attack and 6d6+6 damage?)
cheshire_grin
First Post
I believe there's a FAQ entry that indicates that pluses from Banes should not stack, but that there is no problem with homeruling that they do, since Bane is a fairly specific enhancement. I think the extra damage dice stack by RAW, though.
It may depend on the campaign, too; in an average campaign a Bane (Outsider[Evil]), Bane (Outsider[Lawful]) isn't going to stack all that often, while in a campaign based on assaulting the Nine Hells it's obviously going to be more useful.
(In the latter, such a weapon would be greatly prized and thus perhaps the price would be higher than RAW.)
It may depend on the campaign, too; in an average campaign a Bane (Outsider[Evil]), Bane (Outsider[Lawful]) isn't going to stack all that often, while in a campaign based on assaulting the Nine Hells it's obviously going to be more useful.
(In the latter, such a weapon would be greatly prized and thus perhaps the price would be higher than RAW.)
eamon
Explorer
Non-epic weapons can't have an enhancement bonus of more than +5. It's not entirely clear if this limitation applies to the improved enhancement bonus provided by bane, but consider that if you allow enhancement bonuses to exceed +5 on a non-epic weapon, it can bypass epic damage reduction by RAW.
That's problematic, especially in combination with the Artificer class, which can add something like the Bane enchantment on the fly. You could house-rule that you need a "true, epic" weapon and not just +6 enhancement bonus to bypass epic damage reduction, which I think is closer to the real spirit, but allowing artificers (and anything else which can add bane enchantments) to bypass epic damage reduction willy-nilly isn't very balanced. The ability to add the customized bane enchantment is good enough as-is, without bypassing epic DR.
I'd suggest either not allowing bane to improve enhancement bonuses across the +5 boundary (you could argue this is RAW, even if twisted logic), or special-casing bane; and not considering it an enhancement bonus or not considering the improved enhancement bonus for purposes other than to hit and damage.
That's problematic, especially in combination with the Artificer class, which can add something like the Bane enchantment on the fly. You could house-rule that you need a "true, epic" weapon and not just +6 enhancement bonus to bypass epic damage reduction, which I think is closer to the real spirit, but allowing artificers (and anything else which can add bane enchantments) to bypass epic damage reduction willy-nilly isn't very balanced. The ability to add the customized bane enchantment is good enough as-is, without bypassing epic DR.
I'd suggest either not allowing bane to improve enhancement bonuses across the +5 boundary (you could argue this is RAW, even if twisted logic), or special-casing bane; and not considering it an enhancement bonus or not considering the improved enhancement bonus for purposes other than to hit and damage.
Claudius Gaius
First Post
Well, its not RAW, but why not just allow it and throw in an extra +1 surcharge? If you want a sword wrapped in 1d6 flame, that's easy. If you want it wrapped in the fire of a blast furnace, the enchantment is a lot more complicated: you've got to protect the user and the blade from its own destructive power. If you want plasma from the sun's core, now you have to keep it from blowing up the area and so on.
Ergo: +1d6 = +1, +2d6 = +3, and +3d6 = +5.
Thus possible, but less efficient than mixing elements.
Ergo: +1d6 = +1, +2d6 = +3, and +3d6 = +5.
Thus possible, but less efficient than mixing elements.
werk
First Post
Claudius Gaius said:
Nice! I was thinking along these lines for why it should not be allowed...energy is +1, burst is +2 and only grants additional damage on a crit so it wouldn't be balanced to grant 2d6 energy damage for just an additional +1.
Your solution...uh...solves that.
I like and don't think it's too far off balance.
As for stacking banes as described...I'd allow it if the campaign followed the wealth guidelines. If over on wealth (or WAY over, as I see too often) then it quickly turns into the golf-bag approach, having the exact right tool for each job = overpowered...but that wouldn't really be a problem with the stacking...
