Greater Magic Weapon and Bane Weapon Property
- Thread starter maggot
- Start date
Methos of Aundair
First Post
One of the lines in the Bane description in the SRD reads:
“Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.”
The question I bring up is where it states “normal enhancement bonus”. To me, this would imply the bonus granted by the weapon itself, not that of the GMW cast on it. If the we’re talking about a +1 Bane (Giant) Longsword who someone has cast GMW on and the wielder faces off with a Giant, I would assume it would attack at only a +3 bonus (+1 from sword, +2 from bane). In other words, the wielder either has a +3 Longsword that deals 2d6 extra damage, or they use the +4 enhancement bonus instead. Now, I realize this sounds odd, but that seems to be how the rules state, at least in my opinion. Again, this is how I interpret the rules, not saying I would rule it that way myself.
In regards to the question on whether it would bypass epic DR, I would definitely say no to that (based off opinion, not by the rules). I don’t like the idea of players using a 3rd level spell to be able to bypass epic DR. That’s just wrong, IMO.
“Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.”
The question I bring up is where it states “normal enhancement bonus”. To me, this would imply the bonus granted by the weapon itself, not that of the GMW cast on it. If the we’re talking about a +1 Bane (Giant) Longsword who someone has cast GMW on and the wielder faces off with a Giant, I would assume it would attack at only a +3 bonus (+1 from sword, +2 from bane). In other words, the wielder either has a +3 Longsword that deals 2d6 extra damage, or they use the +4 enhancement bonus instead. Now, I realize this sounds odd, but that seems to be how the rules state, at least in my opinion. Again, this is how I interpret the rules, not saying I would rule it that way myself.
In regards to the question on whether it would bypass epic DR, I would definitely say no to that (based off opinion, not by the rules). I don’t like the idea of players using a 3rd level spell to be able to bypass epic DR. That’s just wrong, IMO.
I (still) say that it would be a +4 longsword, but it does to the extra 2d6 damage. The bane ability is still in effect, but the bane enhancement bonus is superceded by GMW.
By the way, there was a previous discussion not too long ago about bane arrows and GMW cast on the bow. Unfortunately, my email is down now, so I do not have the link to that thread.
By the way, there was a previous discussion not too long ago about bane arrows and GMW cast on the bow. Unfortunately, my email is down now, so I do not have the link to that thread.
if someone has defending then allowing them to eat away at one pile of plus's while still useing the other would seem to be pretty overpowered.
Along the same line that is why I would say that the +4 simply overrides the +1. It is now a +4 weapon for all intents and purposes. It simply makes things easier and cuts down in the overpoweredness.
Also, for DR, epic dr is defined to be +6 or greater, not any special sort of modifier or way of making a weapon. So, if it becomes +6 in any way then it will bypass epic dr.
Which still makes sense from a flavor standpoint. 'this is the only weapon in the realm that can hurt the beast, as it was specially designed with it in mind..' Normally a +4 weapon (whether through base enhancements or through enchantment) it becomes +6 when against the beast and is actually able to battle its way through the epic dr. Good enough
Along the same line that is why I would say that the +4 simply overrides the +1. It is now a +4 weapon for all intents and purposes. It simply makes things easier and cuts down in the overpoweredness.
Also, for DR, epic dr is defined to be +6 or greater, not any special sort of modifier or way of making a weapon. So, if it becomes +6 in any way then it will bypass epic dr.
Which still makes sense from a flavor standpoint. 'this is the only weapon in the realm that can hurt the beast, as it was specially designed with it in mind..' Normally a +4 weapon (whether through base enhancements or through enchantment) it becomes +6 when against the beast and is actually able to battle its way through the epic dr. Good enough
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
nhl_1997 said:
That was a different situation. If GMW was cast on the arrows, it would be the same question
-Hyp.
Methos of Aundair
First Post
Whoops, hehe. I guess this is what happens when you forget to reread your post before submitting it. Oh well. Let me try and clarify my point, or at least state what I was supposed to be saying.
The problem is that the bane bonus doesn’t apply to the enhancement bonus from GMW. As stated in the bane descriptor it adds the +2 bonus to its normal enhancement. IMO, the normal enhancement would be the one built into the weapon during creation, or in this case the +1. If a spellcaster casts GMW on the sword the bane enhancement bonus would not apply to that of the higher enhancement bonus of GMW since it isn’t the normal enhancement bonus. The bane bonus is still there, just overlapped (nhl1997 said it better). I think the confusion is what exactly is the normal enhancement bonus. In the above question about a +1 bane (vs. giants) longsword that had GMW cast on it and the wielder attacks a giant I believe the wielder would get a +4 enhancement bonus with the additional +2d6 damage. I do not believe IMO that bane would stack with GMW due to its descriptor.
Hope this post was more clear, my last post even confused me, sorry everyone.
The problem is that the bane bonus doesn’t apply to the enhancement bonus from GMW. As stated in the bane descriptor it adds the +2 bonus to its normal enhancement. IMO, the normal enhancement would be the one built into the weapon during creation, or in this case the +1. If a spellcaster casts GMW on the sword the bane enhancement bonus would not apply to that of the higher enhancement bonus of GMW since it isn’t the normal enhancement bonus. The bane bonus is still there, just overlapped (nhl1997 said it better). I think the confusion is what exactly is the normal enhancement bonus. In the above question about a +1 bane (vs. giants) longsword that had GMW cast on it and the wielder attacks a giant I believe the wielder would get a +4 enhancement bonus with the additional +2d6 damage. I do not believe IMO that bane would stack with GMW due to its descriptor.
Hope this post was more clear, my last post even confused me, sorry everyone.
glass
(he, him)
Ferret said:
It doesn't seem likely the weapon would be worse against giants
Emphasis mine.Methos of Aundair said:
It all hinges on what is meant by the word 'normal'.
Although it is not expilcitly stated anywhere, I get the strong impression that when the text says 'normal' or 'normally' it means 'other than in the specific situation being discussed'. Take the Evasion description: Normally there means 'if the character didn't have evasion'.
Thus, normally in this case means 'when not fighting giants'. So, put me in the +6 camp.
glass.
