Maximum Enhancement for a Bane weapon?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, it's more like the "fallacy of grey."

If I say something is white, and someone argues that it's black, someone will assume that the correct answer is that it's somewhere in the middle (grey).

Or, in other words, just because someone decides to argue a point doesn't necessarily mean that it's well-supported. Pointing out that some people disagree with the interaction of Bane and a normal enhancement bonus does not mean that the rules are unclear on this point, or that the opposing view is particularly well-supported by the rules.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Put me in the "shocked there is any controversy over Bane stacking up" camp.

I can perfectly understand that some DMs believe that it is inappropriate for their campaign and therefore a house rule is necessary. But the RAW is clear enough IMO.

 

[udalrich]

I can actually see logic to support both sides of the argument. Bane increases the "normal enhancement bonus". The weapon in question has two enhancement bonus: the +1 bonus from being crafted as a magic weapon and the +5 bonus from GMW. Unless "normal" is a game term whose definition I missed, you have to figure out which one Bane affects. Essentially, you have a +5/+1 weapon, where the +1 doesn't normally matter so we tend to forget about it.

You can either assume that "normal" is the one permanently attached to the weapon (+1), in which case Bane and GMW don't stack (you get a +5/+3 weapon). Or you can assume that "normal" is the one that would apply if you used the weapon now (+5), in which case they do stack (+7/+1). If the party wizard normally casts GMW on it first thing in the morning, you could even argue that the +5 bonus is applicable, because it's the bonus that is normally used with the weapon. (I doubt the last argument would work with many GMs, including me.)

There's certainly a reasonable argument that can be made for increasing the +1, since both the +1 and Bane are permanent effects, so it's reasonable to assume that one permanent effect modifies the other permanent effect. Personally, I would lean toward this interpretation, but I think the rules are ambiguous and require a house rule to clarify it.

 

[Nail]

cost of +5, Bane weapon = 72,000gp
cost of +1, Bane weapon and a Pearl of Power III for your wizard buddy = 17,000gp
ECL system assumes you have X amount of gold at each level in swag.
effective amount of gold you have = X + 55,000gp[/URL]

You seem to be claiming that +1 Bane weapon + Pearl of Power (3, for your Wiz 20 buddy) = +5 Bane weapon.

You don't recognize the large difference in usefulness between these two?

 

[Nail]

I can actually see logic to support both sides of the argument. Bane increases the "normal enhancement bonus".

If you have a masterwork weapon, and a Clr 20 has cast GMW on it, which enhancement bonus do you normally use?

If you have a MW weapon, and a Clr 20 casts GMW and Undead Bane on it, what is its enhancement bonus when attacking undead?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The only guidance under the RAW I know of for determining what is "normal" is the modifier stacking rules, by which the Enhancement bonus which is highest at the moment is the one we care about.

The fact that a whole array of equal or lesser Enhancement bonuses may simultaneously exist is not relevant.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

If you have a masterwork weapon, and a Clr 20 has cast GMW on it, which enhancement bonus do you normally use?

If you have a MW weapon, and a Clr 20 casts GMW and Undead Bane on it, what is its enhancement bonus when attacking undead?

the most common answer is "whatever gives me the most pluses"

I, however, am against whole builds based around how much money they can save by cutting corners using quasi-legal or fuzzy area rules.

Sure, not everyone will do it, but enough will such that enemies have to start doing it to keep up with the power curve, which leads to one dimensional characters and encounters where everything starts off with a volley of dispels, followed by a half hour of recalculations, which is boring and not fun.
I think that's against Rule 0.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Personally, I would not rate a +5 Bane weapon as a loophole.

Arguably GMW has always been problematic, if the PCs have the luxury of counting on it.

 

[eamon]

I can actually see logic to support both sides of the argument. Bane increases the "normal enhancement bonus". The weapon in question has two enhancement bonus: the +1 bonus from being crafted as a magic weapon and the +5 bonus from GMW. Unless "normal" is a game term whose definition I missed, you have to figure out which one Bane affects. Essentially, you have a +5/+1 weapon, where the +1 doesn't normally matter so we tend to forget about it.

You can either assume that "normal" is the one permanently attached to the weapon (+1), in which case Bane and GMW don't stack (you get a +5/+3 weapon). Or you can assume that "normal" is the one that would apply if you used the weapon now (+5), in which case they do stack (+7/+1). If the party wizard normally casts GMW on it first thing in the morning, you could even argue that the +5 bonus is applicable, because it's the bonus that is normally used with the weapon. (I doubt the last argument would work with many GMs, including me.)

There's certainly a reasonable argument that can be made for increasing the +1, since both the +1 and Bane are permanent effects, so it's reasonable to assume that one permanent effect modifies the other permanent effect. Personally, I would lean toward this interpretation, but I think the rules are ambiguous and require a house rule to clarify it.

I agree it's a reasonable argument, but ultimately, I don't think it holds much water. It's not that the weapon has multiple enhancement bonuses, it has only one enhancement bonus. It has multiple effects which grant an enhancement bonus, and only the strongest effect is at relevant. If the enhancement bonus of a weapon is +5, then that's it's enhancement bonus: at that moment, it doesn't make a difference what was, what might be or what will be. It has an enhancement bonus of +5. Bane improves that enhancement bonus by two - whereever it happens to come from. Why is it only improving your "normal" enhancement bonus? Since it's not improving the resultant enhancement bonus (it only stacks "once").

There's absolutely no problem, balance or otherwise, with that ruling. It's simple, and consistent, and doesn't require you to keep track of "multiple" enhancement bonuses (what happens if permanency comes into play? Is that "normal"?)

There's exactly two issues that it doesn't address, and that's whether multiple banes stack, which you can either resolve by simply not allowing multiple bane enchantments at all, or by allowing them to stack, or by considering them "the same source", so they don't stack. I adhere to the last interpretation, since it doesn't encourage "pile it on" play. Can you imagine the poor Hellhound otherwise vs. a Evil Outsider bane, Lawful Outsider bane, Fire Outsider bane, frost weapon? Heck, that sounds so funny I might just allow it for kicks. In a one-shot anyway! I mean, that way you could make a +11 non-epic weapon

The second issue is that of epic damage reduction. Epic Damage reduction applies literally to all attacks with weapons of +5 or less enhancement bonus. That means that bane might circumvent it. You either accept that (fine by me) or you don't, but do allow bane to exceed +5 enhancement bonus (which follows the rules only in spirit, but not to the letter), or you just don't allow bane to exceed +5 enh. bonus - the most restrictive interpretation, which, considering the section on magic weapons in which bane is defined, which says that a weapons enhancement bonus can't exceed +5, is also consistent.

I'd be inclined to leave epic damage reduction in epic territory - i.e. uncircumventable by mortal magic . But I don't really care either way, as I'm unlikely to encounter a situation in which it matters. An it only really matters at level 15+, in practice, since you either need a caster of 16th level to create at least a +4 weapon via GMW, or enough money to spend on a +4, bane weapon. Is it really that important, at that point? Are weapons which only overcome damage reduction versus a very specific epic opponent really that interesting?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I adhere to the last interpretation, since it doesn't encourage "pile it on" play. Can you imagine the poor Hellhound otherwise vs. a Evil Outsider bane, Lawful Outsider bane, Fire Outsider bane, frost weapon? Heck, that sounds so funny I might just allow it for kicks. In a one-shot anyway! I mean, that way you could make a +11 non-epic weapon

I would call a sword like that a True Bane weapon -- a device so potent when wielded by a competent warrior that all members of a certain species should simply flee before it.

For one hundred generations, hellhounds mums will tell their pups to behave, eat all the eyeballs so they can grow strong...or the rabid elf with The Chill Death Wind will come for them!

I think it is a very good to have such weapons in a campaign. The potential problem is that huge price differential between epic and non-epic weapons would encourage fighters to carry 5-10 weird bane weapons.

Fighters having one primary weapon and a couple interesting specialty weapons is generally a good thing, and should be encouraged.