Maximum Enhancement for a Bane weapon?

[Kmart Kommando]

... because Orcus isn't an orc?

lol, I meant Gruumsh, that one-eyed orc god.

 

[Hypersmurf]

lol, I meant Gruumsh, that one-eyed orc god.

A clearer example might be a +1 Evil Outsiderbane, Chaotic Outsiderbane weapon used against a demon.

-Hyp.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

When that +1 Orc Bane sword is made, it is a +1 sword all the time. it is also a +3 vs Orcs all the time. You just aren't using it on Orcs all the time. the Bane property doesn't say add +2 to the enhancement bonus of the sword, it says has an effective enhancement bonus +2 higher vs the Bane targets. So when you cast GMW +5 on the sword, it is already a +1 sword, and it is already +3 vs Orcs, and the spell makes it +5 vs everything. The sword was made before the spell was cast.

 

[Nail]

When that +1 Orc Bane sword is made, it is a +1 sword all the time. it is also a +3 vs Orcs all the time. You just aren't using it on Orcs all the time. the Bane property doesn't say add +2 to the enhancement bonus of the sword, it says has an effective enhancement bonus +2 higher vs the Bane targets. So when you cast GMW +5 on the sword, it is already a +1 sword, and it is already +3 vs Orcs, and the spell makes it +5 vs everything. The sword was made before the spell was cast.

We've quoted the rules to you, KK. You are free to interpret the word "normal" however you'd like....but you'll find most people (even most publishers of 3.xe adventures and material) disagree with you. Normal does not mean "what the weapon has without additional magic".

If I have a +1 Evil Outsider Bane, Chaotic Outsider Bane, I'm gonna expect to get that +5 to hit and damage versus demons.

Orc-us included.


As an aside, I fail to see how using a spell to get a +7 weapon is "abusing the system", especially given it's only normally possible at level 20. This isn't some hole in the rules.

 

[eamon]

A bane weapon improves a weapons existing enhancement bonus. Clearly, this should stack with GMW.

I can see an argument why Bane would not stack with itself however; stacking rules specify that bonuses accruing from the same source don't stack. A bane enchantment would stack with a "normal" enhancement bonus - it explicitly says it does, after all (and not just permanent enhancement bonuses), but if you consider multiple bane enchantment to be "the same source", or the "same effect" then they won't stack - or even if you simply consider the enhancement bonus after bane's addition not to be "normal". Consider also the "behind the curtains" on DMG page 21, which suggests that stacking limitations are in place to prevent pile-it-on play, and to avoid situations in which you inevitable end up with absurd bonuses. Allowing multiple bane enchantments to stack is not something I'd allow. It's the same source - you can use multiple bane enhancements to widen the scope of the weapon, but not to stack, if you follow this approach.

You're also within reason to simply disallow multiple bane enchantments on a weapon at all. The bane text says that "A bane weapon excels at attacking one type or subtype of creature" after all. But if you're like me, you wouldn't bother working out the consequences until after the fact, and rather that disallowing the enchantment at all, I'd have em overlap.

Further, it's also not hard to come up with an argument why bane would not push an enhancement bonus beyond +5. The section on magic weapons - in which the bane property is described - says so. Epic rules provide an escape hatch, but it seems to me that that's not what bane is designed to do - and nowhere in bane's description does it say it can exceed normal limitations. Given the consequences of allowing bane weapons to breach this barrier, I'd be inclined to leave it intact - in other words, you can't make an epic weapon using bane as a loophole in my game. Then again, I don't run an epic game, so I'm not inclined to allow any of the epic rules in play, if I can avoid it. If you are, I can imagine you'd rule otherwise.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

We've quoted the rules to you, KK.

your interpretation of the rules.

You are free to interpret the word "normal" however you'd like....but you'll find most people (even most publishers of 3.xe adventures and material) disagree with you. Normal does not mean "what the weapon has without additional magic".

considering how much the rules themselves are argued over, that statement doesn't really hold water.

As an aside, I fail to see how using a spell to get a +7 weapon is "abusing the system", especially given it's only normally possible at level 20. This isn't some hole in the rules.

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

normal, since you asked..

 

[eamon]

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

That's not a fair comparison. Firstly, you need to have a 20th level wizard buddy in the first place (which isn't exactly low-powered requirement there), and secondly, a pearl of power doesn't free up a slot, it just allows the reuse of that slot (so sure, he could cast GMW again, but that's not the same thing as casting any third level spell).

So yes, a party that has a 20th level wizard in tow willing to spend a (mere 3rd level) spell-slot has an advantage over one that doesn't have such a wizard. That's not a symptom of a broken rule, however.

You're quite right in saying that the rules are argued over and that rules can be interpreted multiple ways. However, D&D provides a standard framework for determining stacking. This framework only considers the type of the bonus, and its source. Bane weapon's description strongly indicates that it's an improvement to normal stacking. It increases the pre-existing (i.e. normal) enhancement bonus. There's no reason I can fathom for supposing that the "normal enhancement bonus" should be anything other than the definition found in the PHB, DMG, and SRD. As a matter of fact, the description stresses that it's just a plain normal enhancement bonus.

Which is exactly what greater magic weapon provides. Ergo, bane improves the enhancement bonus provided by greater magic weapon.

It's a minor issue that higher-enhancement weapons, which are expensive, aren't particularly useful sometimes. It's not a major balance issue. You can mitigate it's import by using augment crystals and dispel magic. And it's only an issue once 3rd level spell slots are not longer a limiting factor. Sorcerers who want to use this buff need to spend a spell known. Notably, this is a spell that's most useful for other party members - so it promotes party cohesion (a fine thing). It's somewhat unfortunate, the way enhancement bonuses and other weapon enchantments interact in terms of pricing, (such that adding enhancement bonuses causes other enchantments to rise in price), but that's really it. By not letting bane stack, you're really not fixing that problem, since you can still have a +1 flaming, frost, shocking, keen, vicious, brilliant energy weapon - and let the wizard pimp that to +5, which really isn't any less powerful that the bane issue.

So not allowing bane to improve the enhancement bonus granted by GMW doesn't fix the real issue. More generally, the ease with which an enhancement bonus can be added may be unfortunate, but it's not game-breaking. Finally, there's no reason to assume that the enhancement bonus provided by GMW is somehow abnormal.

Conclusion: let bane+GMW stack, already!

 

[Diirk]

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

Cost of +5 weapon = 50000 gp
Cost of +1 weapon and a pearl of power = 11000 gp

So apparently casting GMW is an "abuse of the rules" anyway, so whats it matter if its bane or not ? You'd let flaming, keen, holy work with GMW I assume, so quibbling over bane seems pointless.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

considering how much the rules themselves are argued over, that statement doesn't really hold water.

Again, the fact that three people continually insist that Taft is the President doesn't mean that there's any real debate over the subject.

 

[eamon]

Again, the fact that three people continually insist that Taft is the President doesn't mean that there's any real debate over the subject.

Is that supposed to be a Chewbacca defense?