Defend the Magebane enchantment

[clark411]

Specifically, why it's a +1 and not say, a +2.

+1d6 to casters and anything that has spell-likes? That's a whole lot of most aberrations, demons, devils, celestials, and things that have a CR above 6.

 

[dedicated]

It only works against magic things, and deals the same as the elemental enhancements

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It only works against magic things, and deals the same as the elemental enhancements

Unless I missed some errata, it functions identically to any other Bane weapon. It operates as a weapon with an enhancement bonus 2 higher than normal against its target creature (eg. +3 instead of +1) and does an additional 2d6 points of damage if it hits.

Considering how many things have spell-like abilities, it's really broken at +1. Someone proposed the following fix: add, after "spell-like abilities" the words "gained from levels in a character class". That will include the warlock, but exclude a vrock, for example.

 

[NimrodvanHall]

or make it a +2 ability like the Psy bane property from the Xph

 

[Armadon63]

it's a good +1 if you take away the spell like ability part.

 

[clark411]

A friend made a good note, according to the text, it only affects "arcane spell-likes." Per his interpretation, only warlocks technically have "arcane spell-likes," as this doesn't literally mean "a spell-like ability that is on the sor/wiz list."

If Magebane literally means "This grants extra damage to Warlocks at all times, and arcane casters only when they have arcane spells available to cast", it seems to be +1 material.

and i'll have to look at the Psibane enchantment..

Thanks for the input.

 

[Tiberius]

A friend made a good note, according to the text, it only affects "arcane spell-likes." Per his interpretation, only warlocks technically have "arcane spell-likes," as this doesn't literally mean "a spell-like ability that is on the sor/wiz list."

If Magebane literally means "This grants extra damage to Warlocks at all times, and arcane casters only when they have arcane spells available to cast", it seems to be +1 material.

and i'll have to look at the Psibane enchantment..

Thanks for the input.

I'm pretty sure that spell-likes are considered arcane unless specified otherwise. The quote's a little flimsy, as it's discussing how spells with effects that differ by class are determined, but I think it relevent. Ah, here's the citation:

A monster's spell-like abilites are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

I'll look into it further, but I think it's +2 material.

Edit: Upon further review, I can't find evidence to back up my initial claim. As such, my argument is void.

 

[dcollins]

Specifically, why it's a +1 and not say, a +2.

+1d6 to casters and anything that has spell-likes? That's a whole lot of most aberrations, demons, devils, celestials, and things that have a CR above 6.

It sounds like it would be better rated at +2. The whole intent behind it is to recreate the 1st Ed. "+2 vs. magic-using and enchanted creatures" weapon ability, so it's definitely not the case that including those aberrations, demons, devils, etc., was accidental. But, you make a good case that it was underpriced in this ruleset.

 

[beaver1024]

It nerfs arcane spellcasters, that's the justification that is needed. Quite appropriate really coming from a book entitled "Complete Arcane", where it's basically full of nerfs for arcane spellcasters.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not having the book with me, does the text actually say something like "spellcasters and spell-like abilities" or does it just stipulate "arcane spellcasters"? It makes a big difference, as a creature with just spell-like abilities (arcane or not) is not a spellcaster.