Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Enchanter_Tom 07-17-07, 07:00 PM	Let's say I'm hunting devils and I want a weapon to smash them. I decide to buy a +1 longsword with the bane (evil outsiders) and the bane (lawful outsiders) on it. Now, when I fight a devil, do I have a +3 to hit/damage and 4d6 points of extra damage, or do I have a +5 to hit/damage +4d6 damage? RAW, I'd say the former; spirit-of-the-rules, I'd say the latter. Is there an official ruling on this?
Dalthbar 07-17-07, 08:05 PM	Banes can stack without issue. Since the types of banes are different (evil outsider and lawful outsider), there's no problems there. So you'd get the +5 / 4d6+1.
Salla 07-17-07, 08:52 PM	Banes can stack without issue. Since the types of banes are different (evil outsider and lawful outsider), there's no problems there. So you'd get the +5 / 4d6+1. The FAQ disagrees, but I, personally, think that such a specialized weapon should be allowed to operate as you say. As always, consult your DM.
Bopple 07-17-07, 08:53 PM	It makes enhancement bonus +2 better than 'normal'. Since normal enhancement is +1, the net result is +3, no matter how many bane's you can apply. But then again, many DM's allow them to stack, because it's no big deal. Some even find it more flavorful.
Thane26425 07-17-07, 10:04 PM	I can see it working as it would be a very specialized piece. You could always add the evil outsider bane to a Sword of the Planes, which would have a nice effect too.
unfortunate_crow 07-17-07, 10:19 PM	The FAQ is a lump of crap anyways. If you are unclear about a rule, you can save yourself the time of looking in the FAQ by just erring on the side of stupid.
runestar 07-17-07, 10:31 PM	The FAQ is a lump of crap anyways. If you are unclear about a rule, you can save yourself the time of looking in the FAQ by just erring on the side of stupid. I would beg to disagree. Apart from a few all too glaring errors, the FAQ has generally done an admirable job of clarifying vague rules conundrums. Though some of the latest entries, like the viability of a half-dragon dragon have me worrying more for the people asking said questions than for the Sage answering them.:P I am also interested to see what your definition of "stupid" entails.;)
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 11:10 PM	This is a stupid debate. It's already been decided by players everywhere that you can have a flaming/frost sword, for extra dice. How much more stupid can you get? Of course you can have holy and anarchistic together. Or Holy and bane evil outsiders. Or whatever. Hell, with flame and frost as opposite, you could as well have holy and unholy together. In other words, as stupid as stupid gets... do what you want with your gold pieces, as long as you can sleep at night, as a player. (At the risk of starting a thread of "what's on and what's off" at one time, sheesh).
BlackFiend 07-18-07, 11:12 AM	The issue is not the extra dice of damage. The issue is the enhancement bonus for attacking you get for targetting your bane creature. Most people forget, but with bane, you get more than just bonus damage dice, you also get an attack roll bonus. And no...they do not stack. They are both enhancement bonuses to the "normal" enhancement bonus. They both give +2 to the same normal enhancement bonus, not stacked or compounded in any way. Bane: A bane weapon excels at attacking one type or subtype of creature. Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe.
Nezkrul 07-18-07, 12:32 PM	The pool of players I belong to (about 30) all think that having multiple banes on a weapon is ok. It's such a narrowly focused weapon that the only time you pull it out is when you face what its targeted at, and all other times its just an expensive piece of jewelry worthy of being stolen. RAW/I(FAQ answer): No, they don't stack in any way. RAI(majority of board members): Yes, the extra dice stack, no you only get +2 to hit and damage with the enhancement bonus. And multiple banes of the same type have no effect. Friendly Game: sure, put all your eggs in one basket. it WAS your money :D
risner 07-19-07, 02:13 AM	Also, how do you have a bane weapon that is doubly bane for someone? A sword can be flaming and frosting, that makes sense. A sword can't be BANE !!! BANE against someone, it is bane or it isn't bane. If it is bane, you get the benefits of bane. If not, you don't.
StruckingFuggle 07-19-07, 02:38 AM	Sure it does. If you have a weapon that's more effective against fire creatures, and more effective against evil creatures, it in fact seems to only make sense that it would be even more effective against evil fire creatures, no?
was_fired 07-19-07, 02:45 AM	Also, how do you have a bane weapon that is doubly bane for someone? A sword can be flaming and frosting, that makes sense. A sword can't be BANE !!! BANE against someone, it is bane or it isn't bane. If it is bane, you get the benefits of bane. If not, you don't. The most classic example is evil outsider bane and chaotic outsider bane. If you attack a demon which is a chaotic evil outsider then both banes requirements are met. Heck a +5 Cold Iron Holy Evil Outsider, Chaotic Outsider Bane weapon is a classic template for a demon hunter's sword.
MerlintheTuna 07-19-07, 02:46 AM	Also, how do you have a bane weapon that is doubly bane for someone?How can a derringer and a .357 magnum have different levels of lethality? I mean, they're both pistols. How can citric acid and hydrochloric acid not be as dangerous as each other? They're both acids! You've created a binary condition where there isn't a need to have one. I don't see any problem (aside from naming) of having a character start with his Oozecrusher Mace and upgrading it to an Oozeexploder Mace. And having a weapon that simultaneously shoots out both fire and ice without having the two interfere with each other is preposterous; doubly so because cold is actually treated as if it's its own element in the process.