Bane Weapons, useless. It's both overpowered and nerfed. An attempt to fix this. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bane Weapons, useless. It's both overpowered and nerfed. An attempt to fix this. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Judging Eagle
09-12-06, 11:35 AM Well, we all know or at least have heard of the weapon property known as Bane, the ones that adds +2 to hit and +2d6 versus the right target.

However, here's and interesting and some might even say novel concept.

What's the difference between a Human, a Dwarf and an Elf physiologically?

They've both got roughly the same gross physical anatomy, and probably the same internal organ setup, this is assuming that they can both consume the same type of food.

Now, let's look at a Beholder, and a Aboleth and a Mindflayer.

Now, there's no amount of explaination that can say that any of the three are even rempotely the same as any of the other in any way shape or form. If we look at Lords of Madness that opinion is proven to be correct, each one of the three have physionomes completely alien to not only humanoids, but to each other as well.

So, this begs the question:

"How does a Humanoid (Human) Bane weapon only work on humans (which share bodily similariries to almost all humanoids), while an Aberation Bane weapon affects all aberrations (no aberration which seems to be similar to any other aberation)?"

Obviously, the bane property is either nerfed, or broken, depending on one's viewpoint; being entirely too powerful versus some targets, while entirely too limited versus other types.

My fix?

Keep bane +2 to hit and +2d6 damge as it is for most targets, however Humanoids and Outsiders also become potential Bane types that add +2 to hit and +2d6 damge versus any Humanoid or Outsider.

The more specific types such as Humanoid (Aquatic) as well as any of the specific Outsider Types (Evil/Good, Law/Chaos, Erath/Fire/Water/Air etc.) instead adds +3 to hit and +3d6 damage versus the correct target.

The 'most' specic type (humanoid races) instead add +4 to hit and +4d6 damage instead versus that type of target (so a Dwarven Bane weapon will do twice as much damge as a Humanoid Bane weapon, but is still limited to only dwarves, however the Humanoid Bane weapon works on elves, humans, orcs, goblins and dwarves as well).

What does this mean?

Races that hunt specific other races will be more likely to carry the proper bane type of weapon (Dwarves vs Orcs/Goblins, maybe giants; and elves vs orcs if you're playing 'typical' fantasy) while races that hate many other races will carry mroe generalist weapons (orcs w/ humanoid bane weapons to not only fight elves, dwarves and humans, but other orcs as well).

Edit

Form a later post:

So, to sum up:

Bane works the way it does normally.

Crap.... +2 only adding +2 to hit and +2d6 damage... could be replaced with two +1 damage enhancements....making it subpar, although it does add +2 to hit.

Bleh, the humanoid and outsider bane properties cost +2 and add +2 to hit and +3d6 damage?

I think that should work.

Instead of changing bane, we merely introduce a new weapon enchantment called....

Humanoid Bane
Can be added to any weapon, ranged weapons confer this property on missles lanched from them.

Adds +2 to hit and +3d6 more damage versus all humanoids.

Cost +2 Weapon Enhancement
Caster lvl 10th, Summon Monster 1, Craft Arms and Armour

There are too many outsiders in the game to make an all-purpose enchantment that doesn't cost at least +3-+4 to deal +2 to hit and +2d6 vs. any outsider. So we'll leave that topic alone.
Kedami
09-12-06, 12:53 PM I like this idea and I think I'll use it in my next campaign which is actually starting soon (next week maybe).
Thanks for the idea.
Thelon Fairblade
09-12-06, 02:25 PM So for a +1 enhancement, the character gets a weapon that is +4 to hit and +4d6 against the specific type of foe. Let's say... undead. Or dragons.

Or does this only apply to the categories that have sub categories? I.e. dragonbane remains +2/+2d6, but Humanoid varies from 2/2d to 4/4d, depending on how specific you are.

So a Humanbane weapon is an even better buy, now, since humans remain the most common mid to high level foe. It was a reasonable choice at +2/2d6, now for the same price it is 4/4d6.

I understand your intuitive gripe. And I'm sure you don't want to hear "game balance". But... humanoids are very common, so the same "+1" cost had to be watered down in effect. Aberrations are not very common, so the +1 cost was fair to apply to all types.

Maybe Humanbane weapons don't affect elves because elves have that extra touch of magic in their blood? Or dwarves have an innate connection to stone? After all, a human can't pick up a Dwarven Thrower and use it at peak efficiency.

Maybe Aberrationbane weapons are keyed with a kind of axiomatic energy that attempts to enforce a kind of magical structure and design that is inimical to the warped nature of any abberation (i.e. the thing that makes it an "aberration" instead of a "magical beast").

Maybe all bane weapons reqiure blood samples of 5 different members of that type -- human blood is easy to come by, but you don't normally find 5 different beholders together, so the weapon has some illithid blood, a little gibbering mouther ick, some beholder eye juice, etc...
Thelon Fairblade
09-12-06, 02:31 PM From a campaign-experience standpoint, let me just say that a Humanbane weapon wrecked a good deal of the non-dungeon challenges of my last campaign. The *Rogue* was using a captured humanbane greatsword, doing 4d6 damage against bandits and thugs and assassin-monks, *before* adding his sneak attack. The fighter's specialized two-ended glaive did 1d8+5/1d6+4.

Now, the humanbane sword wasn't much use the rogue against the lizardmen, the undead, the minor demons, the magical beasts, and the other "adventure" denizens of the quests they went on, but then, the rogue used his "normal" weapons against those threats. For a mere 4k value, it was totally worth carting this spare weapon around on the off chance a human would be encountered.

Now, take your idea -- his weapon either now does 2/2d6 against all humanoids (orcs, elves, dwarves, etc.), or it does 4/4d6 against humans (depending on how it was constructed). I'm sure, given the humano-centric world of that campaign, he would superexcited to see his weapon doing an extra 4/4d6!
a_psh
09-12-06, 02:46 PM Thread title says that Bane weapons are "both overpowered and nerfed".

Your fix just seems to be to pile on a lot more of the "overpowered". Indeed, the Humanbane sword is already overpowered compared to undeadbane or dragonbane weapons in most campaign worlds.
True Cavalier
09-12-06, 03:04 PM If it ain't broken, don't fix it, and they really are not broken:embarrass

Besides, it does not make much of a difference flavor-wise, which is imo the single best reason to mess with a rule.
Judging Eagle
09-13-06, 12:32 PM I gues it all depends on campaign setting and how your game world works.

If humans are very common as enemies, then a normal humanbane weapon that does only +2 to hit +2d6 would be useful.

The problem is that in the game that I run there is no 'stock' enemy race, reptilianoids, aberrations, demons, goblinoids, giants, orcs and monsterous humanoids make up the bulk of the challenges my party faces, humans have very little interaction with the part of the game world where my PCs currently are warring.

So for a +1 enhancement, the character gets a weapon that is +4 to hit and +4d6 against the specific type of foe. Let's say... undead. Or dragons.

Or does this only apply to the categories that have sub categories? I.e. dragonbane remains +2/+2d6, but Humanoid varies from 2/2d to 4/4d, depending on how specific you are.

The dragon/undead bane weapon only adds it's normal +2 to hit +2d6 versus the appropriate target.

Hmm, how's this for a compromise.

Humanoid and Outsider Bane get bumped up to a weapon bonus cost of +2 but work the same way that Bane currently does.

the other subgroupings are left as-is with no increase.

Thus a Humanoid Bane HumanBane weapon would cost +2 and +1 plus a minimum cost on the weapon of +1 for a +4 weapon so 32,000 plus base weapon cost.

It's just that the fact that a monsterous humanoid bane weapon or an aberration bane weapon works on so many differnent types of really, radically differnt monsters, while humanoids get divided up with no true ryme or reason has ranckled with me for quite some time.

Don't get me started on favoured enemies for rangers, most of the divying up of the humanoid subgroups is utter BS when it comes to tracking or knowing where to hit something where it counts. Somehow the fact that you know where the kidneys or lungs on a one target no longer applies when you change from elf to dwarf or from orc to goblin. While you can learn where vital areas are on an illithid, beholder, aboleth easily enough.

From a game balance sense I know why it's setup the way it is, but it really makes no logical sense. Unless those other races have grossly indifferent internal anatomy; hell, if they're extenal musculatrure isn't the same then I could understand.

However, they're bodies supposedly move in the same way as a humans does and they eat, breathe an perform other bodily functions the same way humans do; so they're general internal and external weakpoints* should be the same as on a human or a mammal (most land animals share similar anatomocal weaknesses with mammals, lungs for instace are always betrayed by a ribcage, in fish gills are not thought of as a target at first, but once you know gills are a weakpoint you know where to go' eyes in all creatures are universal weakpoints).

*:(kidneys (back of any animal/human right above the hips), lungs (look for a ribcage and puncture, suffocation does the rest), limb joints (gee, where the hell can a limb's joint be? Too hard to figure this one out), eyes (...no really, where are they?), brain (skull/head...usually), ears (sometimes visible, sometimes not), neck (...way too many targets here, large veins/arteries, larynx, spinal colum and it's nerve structure etc.))

Maybe all bane weapons reqiure blood samples of 5 different members of that type -- human blood is easy to come by, but you don't normally find 5 different beholders together, so the weapon has some illithid blood, a little gibbering mouther ick, some beholder eye juice, etc...

Don't make up rules, all it takes is an 8th lvl caster who can cast Summon monster 1 and has Craft Arms and Armour.

If we decide to use your idea, wouldn't the Humanbane weapon be stronger versus humans than the Aberation bane weapon versus aberations? Seeing as it's been dipped in more of one type of blood/bodily fluid and thus closer linked to that kind of creature?

Really, it's hard to come up with a good fix for this, game balance wise, the property sucks unless you know you'll be fighting a specific type of enemy.

Unless the PCs know they'll be fighting lots of humans, the property is pointless, and if they will be fighting lots of them, it's "powerful" however, you should never reduce the CR of an encounter just because the entire party packs bane weapons.
PhaedrusXY
09-13-06, 12:42 PM Really, I think the only change that might need to be made is making Humanoid Bane work vs. all humanoids, and that is kind of campaign specific, as has already been pointed out. All the stuff about more specific Bane weapons should either be dropped entirely, or written up as a totally separate enhancement (Greater Bane, Demon Slaying, etc). Just don't let it stack with normal bane...
a_psh
09-13-06, 05:33 PM Hmm, how's this for a compromise.

Humanoid and Outsider Bane get bumped up to a weapon bonus cost of +2 but work the same way that Bane currently does.

the other subgroupings are left as-is with no increase.Seem like it could work.

If you really wanted to, you could throw out subtyped weapons completely, too.

With this variant, you are simultaneously addressing the problem of Bane weapons that are simultaneously overly specific and overpowered: now your Humanoid-Bane-for-+2 sword is going to be a lot less twinkish than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a human-heavy game, but also less worthless than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a very monster-centric game.

Kind of cool when you figure out how to simultaneously nerf and buff something to make it more balanced overall, eh?
Drodain
09-13-06, 05:56 PM A +4/4d6 is the equivalent of a +7 bonus, it's in the ELH, I forget what it's called. I'm just saying that for even a +2 enhancement to mimic a +7 bonus on specific enemies is well worth the cost.
Judging Eagle
09-13-06, 06:15 PM Yeah, just eliminating the subtypes and aloow for outsider and humaoind bane weapons instead.

Both would be utterly useless now that the PCs will be moving on to deal with giants, animals, magical beasts and undead however. Heh.
Judging Eagle
09-13-06, 06:26 PM Seem like it could work.

If you really wanted to, you could throw out subtyped weapons completely, too.

With this variant, you are simultaneously addressing the problem of Bane weapons that are simultaneously overly specific and overpowered: now your Humanoid-Bane-for-+2 sword is going to be a lot less twinkish than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a human-heavy game, but also less worthless than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a very monster-centric game.

Kind of cool when you figure out how to simultaneously nerf and buff something to make it more balanced overall, eh?

Yet an other reason why I tell everyone to submit any idea they have to a forum, discussion with other people that care about the topic will always result in refining the initial idea.

So, to sum up:

Bane works the way it does normally.

Crap.... +2 only adding +2 to hit and +2d6 damage... could be replaced with two +1 damage enhancements....making it subpar, although it does add +2 to hit.

Bleh, the humanoid and outsider bane properties cost +2 and add +2 to hit and +3d6 damage?

I think that should work.

That keeps it in line with how Bane works with respect to other +1 damage enhancing properies (+1d6 more damage and +2 more to hit).

A +4/4d6 is the equivalent of a +7 bonus, it's in the ELH, I forget what it's called. I'm just saying that for even a +2 enhancement to mimic a +7 bonus on specific enemies is well worth the cost.

Which is why I submitted the idea here and have since reworked it, if you had read the rest of the thread.
Patrick Draken-Korin
09-16-06, 10:44 PM IMHO, bane as is isn't borken. That doesn't mean I like it however. My answer is simpler however; bane deals +2/+2d6 on the applicable chosen subtyp, and +1/+1d6 on all others of the type.

A weapon that affects outsiders and fiends equally well never seems to be an issue, though formians and slaadi have been enemies simultaneous on at lest one occasion. However, the idea that elves and humans are sufficiently different that no benefit is warented is minorly absurd. Half-elves anyone?
Judging Eagle
09-18-06, 01:48 PM IMHO, bane as is isn't borken. That doesn't mean I like it however. My answer is simpler however; bane deals +2/+2d6 on the applicable chosen subtyp, and +1/+1d6 on all others of the type.

A weapon that affects outsiders and fiends equally well never seems to be an issue, though formians and slaadi have been enemies simultaneous on at lest one occasion. However, the idea that elves and humans are sufficiently different that no benefit is warented is minorly absurd. Half-elves anyone?

Yeah, that's an other way to fixing the Bane property.
Mandarbgrim
09-18-06, 01:54 PM I would suggest leaving it as is. It seems reasonably balanced...except for perhaps Magicbane which seems one of the most useful of them all.
a_psh
09-18-06, 04:48 PM I would suggest leaving it as is. It seems reasonably balanced...except for perhaps Magicbane which seems one of the most useful of them all.The balance of Bane weapons is very fragile and campaign-dependent. PCs would be pretty stupid not to take Human Bane weapons in a game where they knew that 80% of their enemies would be human, for example.
Mandarbgrim
09-18-06, 05:37 PM I agree. It completely depends on the campaign. The last campaign I played in half the enemies were undead..obviously Undeadbane would have been overpowered. The campaign I am currently running..all the players have fought has been 1 harpy & a bunch of human bandits. Human bane would be been awesome. Well...until they get to the Aberration infested Dwarven Gem Mine & then get sucked into Ravenloft for the Co-DM to start throwing all undead at them.

It's balanced in the same way that Ranger's favored enemy is balanced...it totally depends upon the campaign, but relies on the DM keeping the balance in mind.
a_psh
09-18-06, 06:23 PM It's balanced in the same way that Ranger's favored enemy is balanced...it totally depends upon the campaign, but relies on the DM keeping the balance in mind.That still means one could do better, though.

And rebalancing Bane weapons to suit your campaign is, more or less, what the insights in this thread are about.
Mandarbgrim
09-19-06, 09:44 AM This gets into an issue that all Feats/Classes/Spells/Magic Items face though. Their "balance" is always campaign specific. If I throw nothing but fire based creatures, because of the campaign, at the PC's then that +1 Keen Icy Burst Scimitar is going to be pretty cool. If they are in an artic landscape the entire campaign it will be way less than cool.

If the campaign consists heavily of medium humanoids then the Monk is going to be tripping & grappling to greater effect more often. Those feats that make him better at grappling are going to be more powerful than normal. If my style of play is too throw large battles with many minor enemies at the PC's all of the time then AOE spells just became more powerful than Rays all of the time.

In my mind, any "balanced" item/spell/feat/class can turn out under or overpowered depending upon the campaign, but that isn't a fault of Bane Weapon.

As far as the actual issue & not thoery, I would be a bit hazy on having PC's with +4 & +4d6 bonus's against humans when I use humans as enemies very frequently. I use humanoids a good 30% of the time, so they would be getting a lot of bang for their buck out of bane on either of those.

Question: I don't think this has ever been mentioned anywhere, but can a weapon be enchanted with multiple banes? What if an enemy is susceptable to more than 1? Such is the case with Magebane & Humanbane combined against a Human Warlock... Does it work or not?
Thelon Fairblade
09-19-06, 11:30 AM yes, multiple banes are legal, and yes, the human warlock struck by a magicbane humanbane weapon is deep doodoo.

In the last "how obnoxious can we be?" mini-adventure, the paladin had a +1 cold iron holy axiomatic evil-outsider bane weapon, and we went hunting demons... +5 to hit (1+2+2), +1+6d6 damage, and bypassed all DR.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Judging Eagle 09-12-06, 11:35 AM	Well, we all know or at least have heard of the weapon property known as Bane, the ones that adds +2 to hit and +2d6 versus the right target. However, here's and interesting and some might even say novel concept. What's the difference between a Human, a Dwarf and an Elf physiologically? They've both got roughly the same gross physical anatomy, and probably the same internal organ setup, this is assuming that they can both consume the same type of food. Now, let's look at a Beholder, and a Aboleth and a Mindflayer. Now, there's no amount of explaination that can say that any of the three are even rempotely the same as any of the other in any way shape or form. If we look at Lords of Madness that opinion is proven to be correct, each one of the three have physionomes completely alien to not only humanoids, but to each other as well. So, this begs the question: "How does a Humanoid (Human) Bane weapon only work on humans (which share bodily similariries to almost all humanoids), while an Aberation Bane weapon affects all aberrations (no aberration which seems to be similar to any other aberation)?" Obviously, the bane property is either nerfed, or broken, depending on one's viewpoint; being entirely too powerful versus some targets, while entirely too limited versus other types. My fix? Keep bane +2 to hit and +2d6 damge as it is for most targets, however Humanoids and Outsiders also become potential Bane types that add +2 to hit and +2d6 damge versus any Humanoid or Outsider. The more specific types such as Humanoid (Aquatic) as well as any of the specific Outsider Types (Evil/Good, Law/Chaos, Erath/Fire/Water/Air etc.) instead adds +3 to hit and +3d6 damage versus the correct target. The 'most' specic type (humanoid races) instead add +4 to hit and +4d6 damage instead versus that type of target (so a Dwarven Bane weapon will do twice as much damge as a Humanoid Bane weapon, but is still limited to only dwarves, however the Humanoid Bane weapon works on elves, humans, orcs, goblins and dwarves as well). What does this mean? Races that hunt specific other races will be more likely to carry the proper bane type of weapon (Dwarves vs Orcs/Goblins, maybe giants; and elves vs orcs if you're playing 'typical' fantasy) while races that hate many other races will carry mroe generalist weapons (orcs w/ humanoid bane weapons to not only fight elves, dwarves and humans, but other orcs as well). Edit Form a later post: So, to sum up: Bane works the way it does normally. Crap.... +2 only adding +2 to hit and +2d6 damage... could be replaced with two +1 damage enhancements....making it subpar, although it does add +2 to hit. Bleh, the humanoid and outsider bane properties cost +2 and add +2 to hit and +3d6 damage? I think that should work. Instead of changing bane, we merely introduce a new weapon enchantment called.... Humanoid Bane Can be added to any weapon, ranged weapons confer this property on missles lanched from them. Adds +2 to hit and +3d6 more damage versus all humanoids. Cost +2 Weapon Enhancement Caster lvl 10th, Summon Monster 1, Craft Arms and Armour There are too many outsiders in the game to make an all-purpose enchantment that doesn't cost at least +3-+4 to deal +2 to hit and +2d6 vs. any outsider. So we'll leave that topic alone.
Kedami 09-12-06, 12:53 PM	I like this idea and I think I'll use it in my next campaign which is actually starting soon (next week maybe). Thanks for the idea.
Thelon Fairblade 09-12-06, 02:25 PM	So for a +1 enhancement, the character gets a weapon that is +4 to hit and +4d6 against the specific type of foe. Let's say... undead. Or dragons. Or does this only apply to the categories that have sub categories? I.e. dragonbane remains +2/+2d6, but Humanoid varies from 2/2d to 4/4d, depending on how specific you are. So a Humanbane weapon is an even better buy, now, since humans remain the most common mid to high level foe. It was a reasonable choice at +2/2d6, now for the same price it is 4/4d6. I understand your intuitive gripe. And I'm sure you don't want to hear "game balance". But... humanoids are very common, so the same "+1" cost had to be watered down in effect. Aberrations are not very common, so the +1 cost was fair to apply to all types. Maybe Humanbane weapons don't affect elves because elves have that extra touch of magic in their blood? Or dwarves have an innate connection to stone? After all, a human can't pick up a Dwarven Thrower and use it at peak efficiency. Maybe Aberrationbane weapons are keyed with a kind of axiomatic energy that attempts to enforce a kind of magical structure and design that is inimical to the warped nature of any abberation (i.e. the thing that makes it an "aberration" instead of a "magical beast"). Maybe all bane weapons reqiure blood samples of 5 different members of that type -- human blood is easy to come by, but you don't normally find 5 different beholders together, so the weapon has some illithid blood, a little gibbering mouther ick, some beholder eye juice, etc...
Thelon Fairblade 09-12-06, 02:31 PM	From a campaign-experience standpoint, let me just say that a Humanbane weapon wrecked a good deal of the non-dungeon challenges of my last campaign. The Rogue was using a captured humanbane greatsword, doing 4d6 damage against bandits and thugs and assassin-monks, before adding his sneak attack. The fighter's specialized two-ended glaive did 1d8+5/1d6+4. Now, the humanbane sword wasn't much use the rogue against the lizardmen, the undead, the minor demons, the magical beasts, and the other "adventure" denizens of the quests they went on, but then, the rogue used his "normal" weapons against those threats. For a mere 4k value, it was totally worth carting this spare weapon around on the off chance a human would be encountered. Now, take your idea -- his weapon either now does 2/2d6 against all humanoids (orcs, elves, dwarves, etc.), or it does 4/4d6 against humans (depending on how it was constructed). I'm sure, given the humano-centric world of that campaign, he would superexcited to see his weapon doing an extra 4/4d6!
a_psh 09-12-06, 02:46 PM	Thread title says that Bane weapons are "both overpowered and nerfed". Your fix just seems to be to pile on a lot more of the "overpowered". Indeed, the Humanbane sword is already overpowered compared to undeadbane or dragonbane weapons in most campaign worlds.
True Cavalier 09-12-06, 03:04 PM	If it ain't broken, don't fix it, and they really are not broken:embarrass Besides, it does not make much of a difference flavor-wise, which is imo the single best reason to mess with a rule.
Judging Eagle 09-13-06, 12:32 PM	I gues it all depends on campaign setting and how your game world works. If humans are very common as enemies, then a normal humanbane weapon that does only +2 to hit +2d6 would be useful. The problem is that in the game that I run there is no 'stock' enemy race, reptilianoids, aberrations, demons, goblinoids, giants, orcs and monsterous humanoids make up the bulk of the challenges my party faces, humans have very little interaction with the part of the game world where my PCs currently are warring. So for a +1 enhancement, the character gets a weapon that is +4 to hit and +4d6 against the specific type of foe. Let's say... undead. Or dragons. Or does this only apply to the categories that have sub categories? I.e. dragonbane remains +2/+2d6, but Humanoid varies from 2/2d to 4/4d, depending on how specific you are. The dragon/undead bane weapon only adds it's normal +2 to hit +2d6 versus the appropriate target. Hmm, how's this for a compromise. Humanoid and Outsider Bane get bumped up to a weapon bonus cost of +2 but work the same way that Bane currently does. the other subgroupings are left as-is with no increase. Thus a Humanoid Bane HumanBane weapon would cost +2 and +1 plus a minimum cost on the weapon of +1 for a +4 weapon so 32,000 plus base weapon cost. It's just that the fact that a monsterous humanoid bane weapon or an aberration bane weapon works on so many differnent types of really, radically differnt monsters, while humanoids get divided up with no true ryme or reason has ranckled with me for quite some time. Don't get me started on favoured enemies for rangers, most of the divying up of the humanoid subgroups is utter BS when it comes to tracking or knowing where to hit something where it counts. Somehow the fact that you know where the kidneys or lungs on a one target no longer applies when you change from elf to dwarf or from orc to goblin. While you can learn where vital areas are on an illithid, beholder, aboleth easily enough. From a game balance sense I know why it's setup the way it is, but it really makes no logical sense. Unless those other races have grossly indifferent internal anatomy; hell, if they're extenal musculatrure isn't the same then I could understand. However, they're bodies supposedly move in the same way as a humans does and they eat, breathe an perform other bodily functions the same way humans do; so they're general internal and external weakpoints* should be the same as on a human or a mammal (most land animals share similar anatomocal weaknesses with mammals, lungs for instace are always betrayed by a ribcage, in fish gills are not thought of as a target at first, but once you know gills are a weakpoint you know where to go' eyes in all creatures are universal weakpoints). *:(kidneys (back of any animal/human right above the hips), lungs (look for a ribcage and puncture, suffocation does the rest), limb joints (gee, where the hell can a limb's joint be? Too hard to figure this one out), eyes (...no really, where are they?), brain (skull/head...usually), ears (sometimes visible, sometimes not), neck (...way too many targets here, large veins/arteries, larynx, spinal colum and it's nerve structure etc.)) Maybe all bane weapons reqiure blood samples of 5 different members of that type -- human blood is easy to come by, but you don't normally find 5 different beholders together, so the weapon has some illithid blood, a little gibbering mouther ick, some beholder eye juice, etc... Don't make up rules, all it takes is an 8th lvl caster who can cast Summon monster 1 and has Craft Arms and Armour. If we decide to use your idea, wouldn't the Humanbane weapon be stronger versus humans than the Aberation bane weapon versus aberations? Seeing as it's been dipped in more of one type of blood/bodily fluid and thus closer linked to that kind of creature? Really, it's hard to come up with a good fix for this, game balance wise, the property sucks unless you know you'll be fighting a specific type of enemy. Unless the PCs know they'll be fighting lots of humans, the property is pointless, and if they will be fighting lots of them, it's "powerful" however, you should never reduce the CR of an encounter just because the entire party packs bane weapons.
PhaedrusXY 09-13-06, 12:42 PM	Really, I think the only change that might need to be made is making Humanoid Bane work vs. all humanoids, and that is kind of campaign specific, as has already been pointed out. All the stuff about more specific Bane weapons should either be dropped entirely, or written up as a totally separate enhancement (Greater Bane, Demon Slaying, etc). Just don't let it stack with normal bane...
a_psh 09-13-06, 05:33 PM	Hmm, how's this for a compromise. Humanoid and Outsider Bane get bumped up to a weapon bonus cost of +2 but work the same way that Bane currently does. the other subgroupings are left as-is with no increase.Seem like it could work. If you really wanted to, you could throw out subtyped weapons completely, too. With this variant, you are simultaneously addressing the problem of Bane weapons that are simultaneously overly specific and overpowered: now your Humanoid-Bane-for-+2 sword is going to be a lot less twinkish than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a human-heavy game, but also less worthless than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a very monster-centric game. Kind of cool when you figure out how to simultaneously nerf and buff something to make it more balanced overall, eh?
Drodain 09-13-06, 05:56 PM	A +4/4d6 is the equivalent of a +7 bonus, it's in the ELH, I forget what it's called. I'm just saying that for even a +2 enhancement to mimic a +7 bonus on specific enemies is well worth the cost.
Judging Eagle 09-13-06, 06:15 PM	Yeah, just eliminating the subtypes and aloow for outsider and humaoind bane weapons instead. Both would be utterly useless now that the PCs will be moving on to deal with giants, animals, magical beasts and undead however. Heh.
Judging Eagle 09-13-06, 06:26 PM	Seem like it could work. If you really wanted to, you could throw out subtyped weapons completely, too. With this variant, you are simultaneously addressing the problem of Bane weapons that are simultaneously overly specific and overpowered: now your Humanoid-Bane-for-+2 sword is going to be a lot less twinkish than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a human-heavy game, but also less worthless than a Human-Bane-for-+1 sword would be in a very monster-centric game. Kind of cool when you figure out how to simultaneously nerf and buff something to make it more balanced overall, eh? Yet an other reason why I tell everyone to submit any idea they have to a forum, discussion with other people that care about the topic will always result in refining the initial idea. So, to sum up: Bane works the way it does normally. Crap.... +2 only adding +2 to hit and +2d6 damage... could be replaced with two +1 damage enhancements....making it subpar, although it does add +2 to hit. Bleh, the humanoid and outsider bane properties cost +2 and add +2 to hit and +3d6 damage? I think that should work. That keeps it in line with how Bane works with respect to other +1 damage enhancing properies (+1d6 more damage and +2 more to hit). A +4/4d6 is the equivalent of a +7 bonus, it's in the ELH, I forget what it's called. I'm just saying that for even a +2 enhancement to mimic a +7 bonus on specific enemies is well worth the cost. Which is why I submitted the idea here and have since reworked it, if you had read the rest of the thread.
Patrick Draken-Korin 09-16-06, 10:44 PM	IMHO, bane as is isn't borken. That doesn't mean I like it however. My answer is simpler however; bane deals +2/+2d6 on the applicable chosen subtyp, and +1/+1d6 on all others of the type. A weapon that affects outsiders and fiends equally well never seems to be an issue, though formians and slaadi have been enemies simultaneous on at lest one occasion. However, the idea that elves and humans are sufficiently different that no benefit is warented is minorly absurd. Half-elves anyone?
Judging Eagle 09-18-06, 01:48 PM	IMHO, bane as is isn't borken. That doesn't mean I like it however. My answer is simpler however; bane deals +2/+2d6 on the applicable chosen subtyp, and +1/+1d6 on all others of the type. A weapon that affects outsiders and fiends equally well never seems to be an issue, though formians and slaadi have been enemies simultaneous on at lest one occasion. However, the idea that elves and humans are sufficiently different that no benefit is warented is minorly absurd. Half-elves anyone? Yeah, that's an other way to fixing the Bane property.
Mandarbgrim 09-18-06, 01:54 PM	I would suggest leaving it as is. It seems reasonably balanced...except for perhaps Magicbane which seems one of the most useful of them all.
a_psh 09-18-06, 04:48 PM	I would suggest leaving it as is. It seems reasonably balanced...except for perhaps Magicbane which seems one of the most useful of them all.The balance of Bane weapons is very fragile and campaign-dependent. PCs would be pretty stupid not to take Human Bane weapons in a game where they knew that 80% of their enemies would be human, for example.
Mandarbgrim 09-18-06, 05:37 PM	I agree. It completely depends on the campaign. The last campaign I played in half the enemies were undead..obviously Undeadbane would have been overpowered. The campaign I am currently running..all the players have fought has been 1 harpy & a bunch of human bandits. Human bane would be been awesome. Well...until they get to the Aberration infested Dwarven Gem Mine & then get sucked into Ravenloft for the Co-DM to start throwing all undead at them. It's balanced in the same way that Ranger's favored enemy is balanced...it totally depends upon the campaign, but relies on the DM keeping the balance in mind.
a_psh 09-18-06, 06:23 PM	It's balanced in the same way that Ranger's favored enemy is balanced...it totally depends upon the campaign, but relies on the DM keeping the balance in mind.That still means one could do better, though. And rebalancing Bane weapons to suit your campaign is, more or less, what the insights in this thread are about.
Mandarbgrim 09-19-06, 09:44 AM	This gets into an issue that all Feats/Classes/Spells/Magic Items face though. Their "balance" is always campaign specific. If I throw nothing but fire based creatures, because of the campaign, at the PC's then that +1 Keen Icy Burst Scimitar is going to be pretty cool. If they are in an artic landscape the entire campaign it will be way less than cool. If the campaign consists heavily of medium humanoids then the Monk is going to be tripping & grappling to greater effect more often. Those feats that make him better at grappling are going to be more powerful than normal. If my style of play is too throw large battles with many minor enemies at the PC's all of the time then AOE spells just became more powerful than Rays all of the time. In my mind, any "balanced" item/spell/feat/class can turn out under or overpowered depending upon the campaign, but that isn't a fault of Bane Weapon. As far as the actual issue & not thoery, I would be a bit hazy on having PC's with +4 & +4d6 bonus's against humans when I use humans as enemies very frequently. I use humanoids a good 30% of the time, so they would be getting a lot of bang for their buck out of bane on either of those. Question: I don't think this has ever been mentioned anywhere, but can a weapon be enchanted with multiple banes? What if an enemy is susceptable to more than 1? Such is the case with Magebane & Humanbane combined against a Human Warlock... Does it work or not?
Thelon Fairblade 09-19-06, 11:30 AM	yes, multiple banes are legal, and yes, the human warlock struck by a magicbane humanbane weapon is deep doodoo. In the last "how obnoxious can we be?" mini-adventure, the paladin had a +1 cold iron holy axiomatic evil-outsider bane weapon, and we went hunting demons... +5 to hit (1+2+2), +1+6d6 damage, and bypassed all DR.