Bane versus spellcasters?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I am trying to find a weapon enhancement that does bonus damage against
spellcasters and those with spell-like abilities. I know I have seen it
somewhere. Any ideas?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FOudncvGlMP-_brfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>I am trying to find a weapon enhancement that does bonus damage against
>spellcasters and those with spell-like abilities. I know I have seen it
>somewhere. Any ideas?

Nevermind - I just found it: Magebane, from Complete Arcane. Damn, that is
powerful. Essentially, at high levels, almost *everything* is going to have
spell-like abilities. That means it will act as Bane against most Dragons,
Demons, Devils, Celestials, Liches, Mind Flayers, and tons of other things.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

capt_malachias@hotmail.com wrote:

> I am trying to find a weapon enhancement that does bonus damage against
> spellcasters and those with spell-like abilities. I know I have seen it
> somewhere. Any ideas?

Complete Arcane, I think?

Rather overpowered at +1, no? A vast majority of creatures in D&D has at
least some sort of spell-like ability...


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c919b596074f0499899c8@news.iskon.hr...
> capt_malachias@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I am trying to find a weapon enhancement that does bonus damage against
>> spellcasters and those with spell-like abilities. I know I have seen it
>> somewhere. Any ideas?
>
> Complete Arcane, I think?
>
> Rather overpowered at +1, no?

Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.

> A vast majority of creatures in D&D has at
> least some sort of spell-like ability...

Exactly.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

capt_malachias@hotmail.com wrote:

> >I am trying to find a weapon enhancement that does bonus damage against
> >spellcasters and those with spell-like abilities. I know I have seen it
> >somewhere. Any ideas?
>
> Nevermind - I just found it: Magebane, from Complete Arcane. Damn, that is
> powerful. Essentially, at high levels, almost *everything* is going to have
> spell-like abilities. That means it will act as Bane against most Dragons,
> Demons, Devils, Celestials, Liches, Mind Flayers, and tons of other things.

.... including such mundane things as gnome commoners.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <KOWdnRBdsN0DDbXfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Incidentally, I think that means it automatically dings drow, aasimar,
>tieflings, genasi, half-fiends and half-celestials.
>
Hmm. They my still-hypothetical aasimar paladin would have serious worries
about someone taking the (ancestral relic) sword away from her and using it
against her.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1109972796.470997.221220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c919b596074f0499899c8@news.iskon.hr...
[maagebane]
>> > Rather overpowered at +1, no?
>
>EEP! That's a +1?!? WTF!
>
>> Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.
>
>Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
>is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
>a normal +2 weapon?

Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or would it
need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <1109972796.470997.221220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1c919b596074f0499899c8@news.iskon.hr...
> [maagebane]
>>>> Rather overpowered at +1, no?
>>
>> EEP! That's a +1?!? WTF!
>>
>>> Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.
>>
>> Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
>> is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
>> a normal +2 weapon?
>
> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or
> would it need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?

Split it in three - +1 each for arcane and divine casters, +2 for
spell-likes. Even then, each of those is seriously attractive.

--
Mark.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:38s7ooF5m2mlbU1@individual.net...
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> In article <1109972796.470997.221220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>>> "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1c919b596074f0499899c8@news.iskon.hr...
>> [maagebane]
>>>>> Rather overpowered at +1, no?
>>>
>>> EEP! That's a +1?!? WTF!
>>>
>>>> Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.
>>>
>>> Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
>>> is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
>>> a normal +2 weapon?
>>
>> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or
>> would it need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?
>
> Split it in three - +1 each for arcane and divine casters, +2 for
> spell-likes. Even then, each of those is seriously attractive.

Divine casters are not affected by the feat currently.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 4 Mar 2005 19:59:24 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <KOWdnRBdsN0DDbXfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
>Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Incidentally, I think that means it automatically dings drow, aasimar,
>>tieflings, genasi, half-fiends and half-celestials.
>>
>Hmm. They my still-hypothetical aasimar paladin would have serious worries
>about someone taking the (ancestral relic) sword away from her and using it
>against her.

Your hypothetical anything-paladin would have an issue, since Paladins have
a fair number of spell like abilities, to say nothing of actual spells.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Is there any simple change that would make [Magebane] work?
>> +2 at least? or would it need to go to +3? or restrict what
>> spell-likes it affects?
>
>Split it in three - +1 each for arcane and divine casters, +2 for
>spell-likes. Even then, each of those is seriously attractive.

How would they stack?

Example: +1 Magebane(Arcane), Magebane(Divine) Longsword

Versus a 1st level Wizard, it's +3, and does +2d6 bonus damage.
What would it be versus a Mystic Theurge?

Donald
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>>Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
>>is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
>>a normal +2 weapon?
>
> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or would it
> need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?

I don't like it *conceptually*, but you could always reduce
the effect too, downgrading from +2 to-hit and +2d6 damage
to +1 to-hit and +1d6 damage.

That would probably be quite balanced if the "cost" is a +3
WQ bonus.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca wrote:

> >> Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.
> >
> >Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
> >is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
> >a normal +2 weapon?
>
> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or would it
> need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?

In the interests of flavour, I'd go for restricting. I dislike the very
concept of a everything-bane weapon, even though it might be balanced at
+4 or +5 or whatever; just use straight plusses if you want your sword
to be very good at cutting things up no matter what.

I'd probably allow bane vs. those with arcane slots (wizards, assassins,
dragons...) and bane vs. those with divine slots (clerics, rangers,
solars...). Not sure whether it should be +1 or +2. More likely +2.

Bane vs. spell-likes is right out, IMO. So many creatures have some sort
of spell like ability that such a weapon doesn't really have any "slayer
of X" theme, it just does a bunch of damage against a bunch of stuff,
from gnome commoners to almost all mid/high-level monsters. That's what
plusses and energy enhancements are for.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <1109972796.470997.221220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
> >Malachias Invictus wrote:
> >> "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1c919b596074f0499899c8@news.iskon.hr...
> [maagebane]
> >> > Rather overpowered at +1, no?
> >
> >EEP! That's a +1?!? WTF!
> >
> >> Yeah. It is pretty much a "must have" at higher levels.
> >
> >Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously,
> >is there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and
> >a normal +2 weapon?
>
> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or
would it
> need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?

A full up "anything bane" strikes me as a +5 enhancement.

+2 for the +2 enhancement against anything, +2 for +2d6
of damage, +1 for the fact that your +2d6 of damage is
NOT elemental and thus cuts through DR with the main
damage and ignores elemental immunities and resistances.

The ability to get a +2 enhancement over the normal limit
of +5 is ignored since that isn't all that important to
ballance at most levels.

The listed power is clearly quite close to an "anything
bane" I would tend to go with +4, or maybe +3.

Actually of course I wouldn't let it into my game at all.
A +5 "anything bane" I can at least understand, but why
something that hits all users of arcane magic, and why
does it count an Angel's spell-like ability as arcane?

DougL
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:58:27 +0100, Peter Knutsen wrote:


> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>>>Not to mention mid levels, and maybe even low levels. Seriously, is
>>>there any real choice between +1 "almost everything" bane and a normal
>>>+2 weapon?
>>
>> Is there any simple change that would make it work? +2 at least? or
>> would it need to go to +3? or restrict what spell-likes it affects?
>
> I don't like it *conceptually*, but you could always reduce the effect
> too, downgrading from +2 to-hit and +2d6 damage to +1 to-hit and +1d6
> damage.

How about looking at this another way? Keep the target as everything
that can cast spells or has spell-like abilities, but totally change the
effect.

Say, instead of a simple hit/damage bonus, you have magebane weapons
treated as having done twice as much damage for the purpose of
concentration checks, and they jam spellcasting for a few rounds. You
could even use the continuing damage rule for the jamming, with the damage
fading each round.

--
Phoenix
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 01:42:04 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) wrote:

>Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>>> Is there any simple change that would make [Magebane] work?
>>> +2 at least? or would it need to go to +3? or restrict what
>>> spell-likes it affects?
>>
>>Split it in three - +1 each for arcane and divine casters, +2 for
>>spell-likes. Even then, each of those is seriously attractive.
>
>How would they stack?
>
>Example: +1 Magebane(Arcane), Magebane(Divine) Longsword
>
>Versus a 1st level Wizard, it's +3, and does +2d6 bonus damage.
>What would it be versus a Mystic Theurge?

Painful?


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom