Defeating a Balor

[Ridley's Cohort]

So don't let him get off implosion because there really isn't an effective defense against it, save anti-magic.

A Readied Wall of Force spell can disrupt the line of effect of Implosion. The Wall can be made 5'x5' if you do not want to reshape the battlefield too much. Then Ready again.

Trading one PC's action for one of Mr. Badass' action tends to be extremely advantageous.

 

[glass]

The enhancement bonuses don't stack. The bow provides a +1 normally, +3 with bane (two higher). The arrow produces a +1 normally , +3 with bane (two higher). Both +3's are enhancements and don't stack (because bows and arrows don't stack).

Both banes increase the existing enhancement bonus, and the bow confers its bane quality on the arrows it fires. The increases in ehancement bonuses are unnamed (or are not bonuses at all) so they stack.

EDIT: Or, what Pawsplay (and Hyp) said.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Both banes increase the existing enhancement bonus, and the bow confers its bane quality on the arrows it fires. The increases in ehancement bonuses are unnamed (or are not bonuses at all) so they stack.

Whether the bonuses to the enhancement bonuses are named or not is irrelevant; it's a question of what they modify. pawsplay did bring up the good point of the bow conferring the property on the arrow, but IMO, as Hyp pointed out, that doesn't fly (pun intended). Some question to help figure it out:

1. What's the normal enhancement bonus on a +1 X-Bane arrow? Isn't it +1 because for it to be +3, you'd have to be fighting an X-creature, which is most likely considered not-normal? (I suppose it might depend on the campaign, but that type of adjudication to me is not worth pursuing.)

2. What's the normal enhancement bonus on a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane arrow? Does it matter if you're fighting an X-creature, a Y-creature, or an X/Y-creature?

Also, I don't like the fact that to consider a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane weapon +5 vs. an X/Y-creature you have to establish an order precedence (in order to say that +3 is 'normal'). There might be nothing inconsistent in this case, but it's a bad precedent to set in the face of other things like AC and effects (e.g. the famous ray of enfeeblement/poison debate).

 

[pawsplay]

Well, a +1 bane arrow is "normally" +3 when attacking a certain foe. It really doesn't matter, though; the description doesn't assume any special cases. "Normal" can be presumed to mean "without considering this property, itself" as well as "doesn't apply to an enhancement bonus not from the weapon, such as greater magic weapon."

It does NOT say:

Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is equal to +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.

It says:

Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.

Thus, I read two bane properties as two unnamed increases to the enhancement bonus, with no limitation on both applying.

 

[MarkB]

The thing I'd tend to question, since Bane is a single enhancement form divided into categories, is whether multiple Bane effects count as "same source" for stacking purposes. My gut feeling is that they should.

 

[pawsplay]

Considering that bane (Chaotic outsiders) affects djinn and not efreet, and bane (Evil outsiders) affects demons but not djinn, I'd say they are different effects. I also feel a disconnect when a +1 bane (chaotic) bane (evil) weapon is not any more effective than simply a +1 bane (evil) weapon against demons.

But then again, if you feel bane is one effect, then you could not apply it multiple times anyway, which means it would only come up for the ranged weapon + ammo situation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Thus, I read two bane properties as two unnamed increases to the enhancement bonus, with no limitation on both applying

But, for these "bonuses" to a bonus to stack, you have to rule one way or the other as follows:

1. The 'normal' enhancement bonus includes the increase from other banes, or any other sources. For this, you need to apply some rules of precedence.

2. The word 'normal' is a red herring and these bane increases are actually bonuses and were intended to stack because they are unnamed and unnamed bonuses stack.

I reject #1 because I don't think 'normal' for X-Bane would include Y-Bane. It is illogical.

I reject #2 because the +2 extra for X-Bane is not a bonus to an enhancement bonus. It's a different enhancement bonus. All of the rules on stacking bonuses for #2 don't apply because you're not adding +2 to +2 to +1. You're adding +3 to +3 and coming up with +5.

But I suspect most people would consider the enhancement bonus effective increases to stack.

You're probably right about most people. I would not, however, because the people in this thread keep referring to them as bonuses, and they're not. They're merely different enhancement bonuses. It's not +1 and +2 to get +3, it's simply either +1 or +3. For it to be +5 like you suggest, you must be ordering the banes and assuming that one of the banes forms the 'normal' enhancement bonus. I cannot agree with that because such ordering is not used anywhere in the rules and, in fact, it is usually contrary to the rules (e.g. AC, enfeeblement+poison).

Disclaimer: I called them bonuses to the enhancement bonuses in previous posts, but that was wrong. They are not bonuses, which is a clearly defined term.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I reject #2 because the +2 extra for X-Bane is not a bonus to an enhancement bonus. It's a different enhancement bonus. All of the rules on stacking bonuses for #2 don't apply because you're not adding +2 to +2 to +1. You're adding +3 to +3 and coming up with +5.

To me, it seems that a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane sword, which has an enhancement bonus that is +2 better than normal and also +2 better than normal, has an enhancement bonus that is +4 better than normal.

That's the viewpoint from which I reach +5.

Compare:

An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
An enlarged spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.

What does the last sentence mean? No metamagic feat apart from Heighten changes the spell's level. And changes to the spell slot are all based on the spell's 'actual' level. Yet somehow, "one level higher than the actual level" and "one level higher than the actual level" can combine to give a result of "two levels higher than the actual level".

I don't see Bane as behaving differently - +2 higher than normal and +2 higher than normal can combine to give +4 higher than normal.

I would not, however, because the people in this thread keep referring to them as bonuses, and they're not.

I haven't been.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

A Readied Wall of Force spell can disrupt the line of effect of Implosion. The Wall can be made 5'x5' if you do not want to reshape the battlefield too much. Then Ready again.

Trading one PC's action for one of Mr. Badass' action tends to be extremely advantageous.

Balors are large. A 5X5 wall might not be enough unless it is right in front of the target. And just how do you know who to put the force wall in front of unless you already are seeing them implode?

 

[pawsplay]

I never said bonus. I said increase, and there are no limitations on increases.