# Defeating a Balor



## Krel (Oct 24, 2006)

What are some tips you would have for defeating a balor?
1. Items
2. Spells
3. Tactics
4. Etc.

The party consists of five 15th level characters: a wizard, a barbarian, a fighter, a cleric, and a rogue.

Thanks for your help!

-Krel


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 24, 2006)

First, I'm going to assume you mean Balor, not Balrog. 


In most cases, casting Holy Word gets rid of them pretty easily.


----------



## Victim (Oct 24, 2006)

Some kind of dimensional anchor/lockdown effect is important.  Fortification and Fire Resistance should also come in handy.


----------



## Simm (Oct 24, 2006)

Balrog: Try to trick it into following you on to a narrow stone bridge.

Balor: Anything holy and hope for the best.

Alternate Balor: Enlist the aid of a Pit Fiend and take out whoever comes out on top. (Pit Fiends have 18 HD and thus can be summoned through Greater Planar Binding)


----------



## Krel (Oct 24, 2006)

Simm said:
			
		

> Balrog: Try to trick it into following you on to a narrow stone bridge.
> 
> Balor: Anything holy and hope for the best.
> 
> Alternate Balor: Enlist the aid of a Pit Fiend and take out whoever comes out on top. (Pit Fiends have 18 HD and thus can be summoned through Greater Planar Binding)




Yeah, sorry, Balor.  Hehe...too much LOTR lately.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 24, 2006)

The wizard casts energy resistance on the barbarian, while the cleric lays on spell immunity to several of the balor's abilities. Once the barbarian has the thing's attention, the fighter and rogue attack. You might want to polymorph the rogue into a hydra... a full attack while flanking would be pretty good.


----------



## Cerowyn (Oct 24, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The wizard casts energy resistance on the barbarian, while the cleric lays on spell immunity to several of the balor's abilities. Once the barbarian has the thing's attention, the fighter and rogue attack. You might want to polymorph the rogue into a hydra... a full attack while flanking would be pretty good.



The Balor's _Greater Dispel Magic_ power makes the energy resistence and spell immunities probably pretty short-lived (since their effects are pretty obvious), and therefore probably not a good use of resources. Better to provide instantaneous help, such as healing, and defensive magic, such as _Protection From Evil_ to ward against the _Dominate Monster_ power (and keep hoping that the Balor just assumes your save is very good so that it doesn't waste a _Greater Dispel Magic_). _Enlarge_ (both for the extra damage and reach), _Haste_ (for obvious reasons) and _Wraith Strike_* (since it halves the Balor's AC against attacks by that person) are all invaluable spells against the beastie. Unless your cleric has the Spell Penetration feat, spells like _Holy Word_ are only going to be effective about 35% of the time.

_Polymorph_ing the rogue into something like an advanced Pyro-hydra is probably a good idea. The fire immunity, multiple attacks and reach are all good counters to the Balor's similar advantages.

And of course that _Greater Teleport_ at will ability is a killer. It's very hard to keep such a critter in one place long enough to off 'em. It's not a bad idea to try a _Dimensional Lock_ or something like it, even if it doesn't have a great chance of succeeding.

* Caveat: I can't recall off the top of my head if SR applies to _Wraith Strike_. Ignore it if it does.


----------



## Pinotage (Oct 24, 2006)

Some form of Silence spell or a way to counter the Blashpemy ability. Otherwise the party is going to hurt.

Pinotage


----------



## Andras (Oct 25, 2006)

Don't roll a one on the charge attack that would kill it outright.


----------



## Presto2112 (Oct 25, 2006)

One useful tip... keep spellcasters as far away as possible.  Once the killing blow lands, the Balor's death throes have a good chance of wiping your d4 and d6 HD PCs out.

Ranged attack, ranged attack, ranged attack.


----------



## Krel (Oct 25, 2006)

Presto2112 said:
			
		

> One useful tip... keep spellcasters as far away as possible.  Once the killing blow lands, the Balor's death throes have a good chance of wiping your d4 and d6 HD PCs out.
> 
> Ranged attack, ranged attack, ranged attack.




The only problem I have with this is that the Balor can just simply teleport right up to the spellcasters, and they will be so far away that the other PCs won't be able to reach them for several rounds...


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Cerowyn said:
			
		

> The Balor's _Greater Dispel Magic_ power makes the energy resistence and spell immunities probably pretty short-lived (since their effects are pretty obvious), and therefore probably not a good use of resources.




Just provoking the balor into using a spell-like ability that doesn't kill anybody is a good use of resources.

I've had some more thoughts. The fighter should probably attack from a range, readying his action every turn to interrupt any attack or spell by the balor. You'll need some good damage, though. By the same token, the wizard could attempt to counterspell every single spell-like ability using greater dispel magic himself. 

Another good tactic is the summoned monster dogpile... get enough creatures on the board, and the balor will have trouble using his whip or making effective use of area spells.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 25, 2006)

Andras said:
			
		

> Don't roll a one on the charge attack that would kill it outright.



 That only works against the 3.0 Balor, which can be defeated by a 4th-level Fighter who wins initiative and crits.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

+1 holy bane vs. evil outsiders composite longbow (Str +5) using +1 axiomatic bane vs. chaotic outsiders arrows = 1d8 + 1 + 5 + 6 + 2d6 + 2d6 + 2d6 = 37.5 damage. Not big enough to interrupt a spell-like ability, but enough to kill a balor in seven hits without critting.


----------



## Venator (Oct 25, 2006)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Some form of Silence spell or a way to counter the Blashpemy ability. Otherwise the party is going to hurt.
> 
> Pinotage




I was under the impretion that the 3.5 Blasphemy didnt need to be heard in order to take effect?  Doesnt it just need to be said?

I guess if the Balor is actually inside a silenced area it would work.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Venator said:
			
		

> I was under the impretion that the 3.5 Blasphemy didnt need to be heard in order to take effect?  Doesnt it just need to be said?
> 
> I guess if the Balor is actually inside a silenced area it would work.




It's not mind affecting, so being deaf won't help, but it is sonic, so silence should.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> +1 holy bane vs. evil outsiders composite longbow (Str +5) using +1 axiomatic bane vs. chaotic outsiders arrows = 1d8 + 1 + 5 + 6 + 2d6 + 2d6 + 2d6 = 37.5 damage. Not big enough to interrupt a spell-like ability, but enough to kill a balor in seven hits without critting.



I realize this is just an example, but here in the Rules forum, we like to pick things apart.  In this example, I see the following issues:

1. Str +5.  I allow it, but I know that some do not.  Just keep that in mind.
2. I think you intended the +1 damage from the bow/arrow, right?  It should be +3 due to one or the other bane effect.
3. What's the +6 damage?  Did you mean to type 2d6, because there's a 2d6 missing.
4. You could add weapon specialization (and greater) and favored enemy for more.  Maybe that's the +6?
5. You are forgetting a critical element: cold iron.

More on topic, I found out that the best way to kill a balor is to summon 3 very old radiant dragons to fight it for you.  Right, Gansk?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I realize this is just an example, but here in the Rules forum, we like to pick things apart.  In this example, I see the following issues:
> 
> 1. Str +5.  I allow it, but I know that some do not.  Just keep that in mind.




Who doesn't allow composite bows? I'm not sure I understand.



> 2. I think you intended the +1 damage from the bow/arrow, right?  It should be +3 due to one or the other bane effect.




I gave it a separate line, which is....



> 3. What's the +6 damage?  Did you mean to type 2d6, because there's a 2d6 missing.




I forgot the axiomatic the first time around, should be +8 and one more 2d6.



> 4. You could add weapon specialization (and greater) and favored enemy for more.  Maybe that's the +6?




You could, but I was assuming a pre-existing fighter build, not necessarily a specialized archer.



> 5. You are forgetting a critical element: cold iron.




I kind of thought it went without saying, but there you are.


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 25, 2006)

He means +5 composite bows. The PHB limits them to +4 for humans and the like. Of course, giants have more powerful bows, but theirs are a hell of a lot bigger too.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> He means +5 composite bows. The PHB limits them to +4 for humans and the like. Of course, giants have more powerful bows, but theirs are a hell of a lot bigger too.




Is that a 3.0 thing? Because I don't see it.


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Is that a 3.0 thing? Because I don't see it.




I mean the +4/+5 in terms of "Mighty". Sorry, thought that would be pretty obvious.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> I mean the +4/+5 in terms of "Mighty". Sorry, thought that would be pretty obvious.




"Mighty" is definitely a 3.0 thing.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> By the same token, the wizard could attempt to counterspell every single spell-like ability using greater dispel magic himself.



Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.


----------



## Legildur (Oct 25, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.



You are 100% correct, [rhetorical] but doesn't it seem odd that Spell-Like Abilities can be dispelled, but not counterspelled using Dispel Magic? [/rhetorical]


----------



## starwed (Oct 25, 2006)

There's no limitation on how high the Str bonus can be:


> _Longbow, Composite: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. *A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost.*
> 
> For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow._


----------



## Khelvan (Oct 25, 2006)

Krel said:
			
		

> The only problem I have with this is that the Balor can just simply teleport right up to the spellcasters, and they will be so far away that the other PCs won't be able to reach them for several rounds...





Anticipate Teleport or Greater Anticipate Teleport from SC can help here to hold the Balor away.

Your Wizard should take a look on this spells if you can use the SC.

Khelvan.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2006)

I suggest Antimagic Field to shut down all those SLAs and special weapon effects, multiple tanglefoot bags to slow it down, then have the barbarian go toe-to-toe, with the rogue flanking and attempting non-lethal sneak attacks. Once it drops, get everyone clear and unload ranged attacks on it from beyond 100 feet.

The downside is the DR. I vaguely seem to recall that while most DR is Ex, alignment-based DR is Su, and if that's true, then the attackers only need cold iron weapons. However, I can't find a cite for that ruling, so maybe I'm mis-remembering. I'm not sure of anything short of the Good subtype that will give a weapon Good alignment in an anti-magic field.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I gave it a separate line, which is....
> I forgot the axiomatic the first time around, should be +8 and one more 2d6.



 Huh?  Where'd you get the +8 (was +6)?  Can you be specific about what you mean?  It should be:

1d8 (base)
+3 (bane enhancement)
+5 (strength)
+8d6 (holy, axiomatic, two banes)

Where is your extra +8 (was +6) coming from?


----------



## glass (Oct 25, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Huh?  Where'd you get the +8 (was +6)?  Can you be specific about what you mean?  It should be:
> 
> 1d8 (base)
> +3 (bane enhancement)
> ...



I thinkl he was separating the extra enhancement bonus from the banes out from the basic enhancement bonus. So he should have a +1 and then +4 (or alternatively just a +5).

Doesn't explain why he has a +1 and +8 (total +9) and you have a total +3, though. Unless I am missing something obvious, of course.


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I thinkl he was separating the extra enhancement bonus from the banes out from the basic enhancement bonus. So he should have a +1 and then +4 (or alternatively just a +5).
> 
> Doesn't explain why he has a +1 and +8 (total +9) and you have a total +3, though. Unless I am missing something obvious, of course.



 The enhancement bonuses don't stack.  The bow provides a +1 normally, +3 with bane (two higher).  The arrow produces a +1 normally , +3 with bane (two higher).  Both +3's are enhancements and don't stack (because bows and arrows don't stack).


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.




Fine, then. He can just ready an action to cast a greater dispel magic on every spell-like ability as it used, if you want to get pedantic about it.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Huh?  Where'd you get the +8 (was +6)?  Can you be specific about what you mean?  It should be:
> 
> 1d8 (base)
> +3 (bane enhancement)
> ...




Bah! Where is my mind? That should be +4, from two banes.

_Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. _


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Bah! Where is my mind? That should be +4, from two banes.
> 
> _Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. _



 The bow is +1 bane (so +3).  The arrow is +1 bane (so +3).  They do not stack, so at most it is +3.  If you want to separate it, like you did (which is wrong because they are not separate), then it would be +1 and +2, not +1 and +4.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The bow is +1 bane (so +3).  The arrow is +1 bane (so +3).  They do not stack, so at most it is +3.  If you want to separate it, like you did (which is wrong because they are not separate), then it would be +1 and +2, not +1 and +4.




They are not +3 and +3. They are +1 and +1, and the ammo has the properties of both the arrow and bow, which both have bane. Each bane effect increases the effective enhancement bonus (from +1 to +3, then to +5).


----------



## Shadeus (Oct 25, 2006)

How do you beat a balor?

1. Surprise
2. Win Initiative.

The balor has unholy aura so your melee guys will make to be making saves every attack.  It also has implosion.  At DC 27, even a 15th-level fighter might have trouble with that one and your wizard is in trouble.  That's save or die every round.

So don't let him get off implosion because there really isn't an effective defense against it, save anti-magic.

You might try Banishment.  Try to get at least three things to enhance the banishment spell to make the save more difficult and more likely to get through spell resistance.  This would be a good time to use Assay Spell Resistance as well.  Unfortunately it's a Will save and it's not exactly a bad save for a balor.

Celestial Brilliance will do damage every round to the balor as well, assuming you get through spell resistance.

I thought there was a demon blight cleric spell in SC that also might have been of some use as well.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Shadeus said:
			
		

> So don't let him get off implosion because there really isn't an effective defense against it, save anti-magic.




_Implosion has no effect on creatures in gaseous form or on incorporeal creatures._


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Fine, then. He can just ready an action to cast a greater dispel magic on every spell-like ability as it used, if you want to get pedantic about it.



That'll only help against the non-instantaneous ones.



			
				Shadeus said:
			
		

> It also has implosion.  At DC 27, even a 15th-level fighter might have trouble with that one and your wizard is in trouble.  That's save or die every round.



_Implosion_ is 1/day.


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 25, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> That'll only help against the non-instantaneous ones.
> 
> 
> _Implosion_ is 1/day.




Implosion lasts 1/rnd per level, allowing you to implode somebody 1/round.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Implosion lasts 1/rnd per level, allowing you to implode somebody 1/round.



 Sorry. Silly me.


----------



## Nail (Oct 25, 2006)

A balor can be killed with the Antimagic field, combined with a Wall of Stone (beware the timing issues).  Our party used that against the Githyanki Lich Queen the second time we killed her.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Implosion lasts 1/rnd per level, allowing you to implode somebody 1/round.




But requires concentration to do so.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> They are not +3 and +3. They are +1 and +1, and the ammo has the properties of both the arrow and bow, which both have bane. Each bane effect increases the effective enhancement bonus (from +1 to +3, then to +5).



No.  The rule on enhancement bonuses with ranged weapons and ammo is:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.



  You do not suddenly treat the enhancement bonus as a special ability.  There is only one enhancement bonus on the weapon.  The arrow's enhancement bonus is not co-mingled with the bow's in order to count as a single weapon's enhancement bonus.  Thus, the total is +3.  But, at least I understand where you went wrong with that.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2006)

_Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition._

So by the RAW, the ammo has both bane properties.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 26, 2006)

Legend Lore to know the True Name of the Balor.
Then, buy a 20 000 GP. Cast "trap the soul". No need to worry about things like SR if you know the name of the beast, and a nice +2 save DC. 


If you are for some real fun, however, then I think that Irresistible Dance is your best friend. And spell penetration, and greater spell penetration, too.


----------



## Andras (Oct 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> That only works against the 3.0 Balor, which can be defeated by a 4th-level Fighter who wins initiative and crits.




Is there some reason 3.5 Balors cannot be killed with a single attack that does 290 or more HP (post DR)?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 26, 2006)

Andras said:
			
		

> Is there some reason 3.5 Balors cannot be killed with a single attack that does 290 or more HP (post DR)?



 Because you aren't going to do that much damage in one attack unless you are seriously twinked out, whereas the 3.0 Balor could be killed by accident when casually buffed by a 7th-level Wizard.


----------



## Shadeus (Oct 26, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But requires concentration to do so.




That's right, up to 4 rounds....not quite a round per level.  But still, in a 5 person party, I would hate to be the last man standing alone against the balor.   Oh, and the balor's concentration skill?  +33


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition._
> 
> So by the RAW, the ammo has both bane properties.




Chiming in with a "What pawsplay said".

A +1 X-Bane Bow shooting +1 Y-Bane arrows is essentially identical to a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane bow shooting +1 arrows, or a +1 Bow shooting +1 X-Bane Y-Bane arrows.

Now, the question arises - if I have a +4 X-Bane Bow and a +1 arrow, what's the effective enhancement bonus against X?  It depends on whether the Bow bestows the Bane quality on the ammunition _instead of_ benefiting from it itself, or _as well as_.

In the instead-of case, we have a Bow with a +4 enhancement bonus, and an Arrow with an effective +3 enhancement bonus (+1 increased by 2), only the best of which applies - the +4.  In this case, the Bane is effectively useless, because the bow's enhancement bonus outweighs the arrow's, even once Bane is taken into account.

In the as-well-as case, we have a Bow with an effective +6 enhancement bonus (+4 increased by 2), and an Arrow with an effective +3 enhancement bonus (+1 increased by 2), only the best of which applies - the +6.  The Bane applies to the arrow, but again is essentially ignored; the Bane also applies to the bow, which means that this shot could bypass DR X/Epic.

It's not clear from the description whether the bow continues to benefit from Bane even while bestowing the property on the arrow.

However, I agree with pawsplay's original proposition - that a +1 X-Bane bow shooting a +1 Y-Bane arrow gives you an effective +1 X-Bane Y-Bane arrow... which is effectively +5 against creatures which are both X and Y.

(There's room for argument, I suppose, that a +1 Chaotic-Outsider Bane, Evil-Outsider-Bane sword would only be +3 and not +5 against a demon - both abilities allow its enhancement bonus to be treated as +2 higher "than normal", where "normal" is arguably +1.  But I suspect most people would consider the enhancement bonus effective increases to stack.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Victim (Oct 26, 2006)

Shadeus said:
			
		

> That's right, up to 4 rounds....not quite a round per level.  But still, in a 5 person party, I would hate to be the last man standing alone against the balor.   Oh, and the balor's concentration skill?  +33




So?  The DC for the concentration check is 19+damage.  You only need to put 25 damage past its defenses to force a 50/50 check.  If the party can't do at least that much, then they're not going to win anyway.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> So?  The DC for the concentration check is 19+damage.  You only need to put 25 damage past its defenses to force a 50/50 check.  If the party can't do at least that much, then they're not going to win anyway.




And in fact, that is the very purpose I was envisioning for the "special love to Balor" bow and arrow set.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 26, 2006)

Shadeus said:
			
		

> So don't let him get off implosion because there really isn't an effective defense against it, save anti-magic.




A Readied Wall of Force spell can disrupt the line of effect of Implosion.  The Wall can be made 5'x5' if you do not want to reshape the battlefield too much.  Then Ready again.

Trading one PC's action for one of Mr. Badass' action tends to be extremely advantageous.


----------



## glass (Oct 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The enhancement bonuses don't stack.  The bow provides a +1 normally, +3 with bane (two higher).  The arrow produces a +1 normally , +3 with bane (two higher).  Both +3's are enhancements and don't stack (because bows and arrows don't stack).



Both banes increase the existing enhancement bonus, and the bow confers its bane quality on the arrows it fires. The increases in ehancement bonuses are unnamed (or are not bonuses at all) so they stack.

_EDIT: Or, what Pawsplay (and Hyp) said._ 


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Both banes increase the existing enhancement bonus, and the bow confers its bane quality on the arrows it fires. The increases in ehancement bonuses are unnamed (or are not bonuses at all) so they stack.



 Whether the bonuses to the enhancement bonuses are named or not is irrelevant; it's a question of what they modify.  pawsplay did bring up the good point of the bow conferring the property on the arrow, but IMO, as Hyp pointed out, that doesn't fly (pun intended).  Some question to help figure it out:

1. What's the _normal _enhancement bonus on a +1 X-Bane arrow?  Isn't it +1 because for it to be +3, you'd have to be fighting an X-creature, which is most likely considered not-normal?  (I suppose it might depend on the campaign, but that type of adjudication to me is not worth pursuing.)

2. What's the _normal _enhancement bonus on a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane arrow?  Does it matter if you're fighting an X-creature, a Y-creature, or an X/Y-creature?

Also, I don't like the fact that to consider a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane weapon +5 vs. an X/Y-creature you have to establish an order precedence (in order to say that +3 is 'normal').  There might be nothing inconsistent in this case, but it's a bad precedent to set in the face of other things like AC and effects (e.g. the famous ray of enfeeblement/poison debate).


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2006)

Well, a +1 bane arrow is "normally" +3 when attacking a certain foe. It really doesn't matter, though; the description doesn't assume any special cases. "Normal" can be presumed to mean "without considering this property, itself" as well as "doesn't apply to an enhancement bonus not from the weapon, such as greater magic weapon."

It does NOT say:

_Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is equal to +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus._

It says:

_Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus._

Thus, I read two bane properties as two unnamed increases to the enhancement bonus, with no limitation on both applying.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 26, 2006)

The thing I'd tend to question, since Bane is a single enhancement form divided into categories, is whether multiple Bane effects count as "same source" for stacking purposes. My gut feeling is that they should.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2006)

Considering that bane (Chaotic outsiders) affects djinn and not efreet, and bane (Evil outsiders) affects demons but not djinn, I'd say they are different effects. I also feel a disconnect when a +1 bane (chaotic) bane (evil) weapon is not any more effective than simply a +1 bane (evil) weapon against demons.

But then again, if you feel bane is one effect, then you could not apply it multiple times anyway, which means it would only come up for the ranged weapon + ammo situation.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Thus, I read two bane properties as two unnamed increases to the enhancement bonus, with no limitation on both applying



 But, for these "bonuses" to a bonus to stack, you have to rule one way or the other as follows:

1. The 'normal' enhancement bonus includes the increase from other banes, or any other sources.  For this, you need to apply some rules of precedence.

2. The word 'normal' is a red herring and these bane increases are actually bonuses and were intended to stack because they are unnamed and unnamed bonuses stack.

I reject #1 because I don't think 'normal' for X-Bane would include Y-Bane.  It is illogical.

I reject #2 because the +2 extra for X-Bane is not a bonus to an enhancement bonus.  It's a different enhancement bonus.  All of the rules on stacking bonuses for #2 don't apply because you're not adding +2 to +2 to +1.  You're adding +3 to +3 and coming up with +5.



			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> But I suspect most people would consider the enhancement bonus effective increases to stack.



 You're probably right about most people.  I would not, however, because the people in this thread keep referring to them as bonuses, and they're not.  They're merely different enhancement bonuses.  It's not +1 and +2 to get +3, it's simply either +1 or +3.  For it to be +5 like you suggest, you must be ordering the banes and assuming that one of the banes forms the 'normal' enhancement bonus.  I cannot agree with that because such ordering is not used anywhere in the rules and, in fact, it is usually contrary to the rules (e.g. AC, enfeeblement+poison).

Disclaimer: I called them bonuses to the enhancement bonuses in previous posts, but that was wrong.  They are not bonuses, which is a clearly defined term.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I reject #2 because the +2 extra for X-Bane is not a bonus to an enhancement bonus.  It's a different enhancement bonus.  All of the rules on stacking bonuses for #2 don't apply because you're not adding +2 to +2 to +1.  You're adding +3 to +3 and coming up with +5.




To me, it seems that a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane sword, which has an enhancement bonus that is +2 better than normal and also +2 better than normal, has an enhancement bonus that is +4 better than normal.

That's the viewpoint from which I reach +5.

Compare:

_An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
An enlarged spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative._

What does the last sentence mean?  No metamagic feat apart from Heighten changes the spell's level.  And changes to the spell slot are all based on the spell's 'actual' level.  Yet somehow, "one level higher than the actual level" and "one level higher than the actual level" can combine to give a result of "two levels higher than the actual level".

I don't see Bane as behaving differently - +2 higher than normal and +2 higher than normal can combine to give +4 higher than normal.



> I would not, however, because the people in this thread keep referring to them as bonuses, and they're not.




I haven't been.

-Hyp.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 26, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> A Readied Wall of Force spell can disrupt the line of effect of Implosion.  The Wall can be made 5'x5' if you do not want to reshape the battlefield too much.  Then Ready again.
> 
> Trading one PC's action for one of Mr. Badass' action tends to be extremely advantageous.



Balors are large. A 5X5 wall might not be enough unless it is right in front of the target. And just how do you know who to put the force wall in front of unless you already are seeing them implode?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2006)

I never said bonus. I said increase, and there are no limitations on increases.


----------



## Jack Simth (Oct 26, 2006)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Legend Lore to know the True Name of the Balor.
> Then, buy a 20 000 GP. Cast "trap the soul". No need to worry about things like SR if you know the name of the beast, and a nice +2 save DC.



Skip the gem.  It's a Conjouration(Summoning) Sor/Wiz 8 spell.  Shades is your friend.  With a couple of feats and/or PrC levels, it does not matter if he makes the initial save, or not.

Of course, your DM may disagree, as the gem is an "active" component in the spell (has a listed role).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I never said bonus. I said increase, and there are no limitations on increases.



But there are no rules on increases, stacking or otherwise.  So, what rule do you have that says that two increases stack, unnamed or named?  Not calling them bonuses does not mean you weren't using the rules on bonuses. 


			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> What does the last sentence mean?



 It means that they are cumulative, just like it says.  You'll note that bane does not have that text, so is it cumulative?  That's where you get into the discussion on 'normal'.


			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> To me, it seems that a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane sword, which has an enhancement bonus that is +2 better than normal and also +2 better than normal, has an enhancement bonus that is +4 better than normal.



 Show me how/why you add the two +2's together.  What allows you to do that?  Clearly, you're making one or the other bane operative on a different 'normal' than the other.  In other words: "To me, it seems that a +1 X-Bane Y-Bane sword, which has an enhancement bonus that is +2 better than +1 (normal) vs. X-Bane and +2 better than +3 (normal) vs. Y-Bane, has an enhancement bonus that is +4 better than +1 (normal)."  If you use +1 in the Y-Bane clause, you can't get to +5.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It means that they are cumulative, just like it says.




But apart from Heighten, there _are_ no changes to the spell level as a result of metamagic feats...

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But there are no rules on increases, stacking or otherwise.  So, what rule do you have that says that two increases stack, unnamed or named?  Not calling them bonuses does not mean you weren't using the rules on bonuses.




Why do I need I rule that says they stack? In the absence of any other factors, two increases will both apply, unless the result would be a contradiction. 

Let us suppose for a moment that increases do not "stack." (Now, that's meaningless, because increases don't stack, lie down or play dead, they just make something bigger, but let's suppose it for a moment). That's bad news for someone who wants to increase his Strength at 8th level if he already did so at 4th. It makes it very difficult to increase the size of advanced monsters. Further, advanced monsters that increased in size would not necessarily have access to Improved Natural Attack. No character could advance beyond 2nd level in a class. Practiced caster and the Good domain power would not combine their effects for the caster level of spells. A character's hit points would have only a limited ability to increase, and any class ability that said it increased every X levels would be cut short after one increase.

Now, I did not use the word "increase" because the ability uses it, but simply because the ability states the weapon is treated as "+2 better than its normal enhancement bonus." There is no indication that it is a typed bonus that does not stack, so it must therefore be:

a) not a bonus, or
b) an unnamed bonus

If it is not a bonus, there is nothing preventing the increase from applying twice. If it is, it is an unnamed bonus. The question is simply, does more than one bane effect count as a different effect? Ordinarily, a weapon may have only one bane effect (by my reading, since bane is a particular property and each weapon has one chosen foe). The ranged weapon/armoo situation complicates this. Two bane effects versus the same creature type would clearly not stack, but two bane effects that are intended for different foes seem to be a different source to me. As each one pertains to a specific foe, it is not the same as one that pertains to a different foe (bane is not cast and a foe chosen each time; each magic item contains only one specific bane property).


----------



## Whimsical (Oct 27, 2006)

*Death Throes countermeasure*

I came up with this one when fighting homebrewed monsters that blow up when killed.

When attacking a balor, at least one PC should be doing nonlethal damage to it. This will increase the window between unconsiousness and death, greatly if the nonleathal damage is being done by a high damage dealer.

When it falls unconsious, loot it of its treasure, then kill it with ranged attacks 101' away.

File this one away in your tactics database.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 27, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Balors are large. A 5X5 wall might not be enough unless it is right in front of the target. And just how do you know who to put the force wall in front of unless you already are seeing them implode?




Spellcraft can be used to identify any magical effect that has a spell equivalent.  Readied Actions have the peculiar property that they can complete before the observed trigger is finished.

If you are a high enough level Wizard to be fighting a Balor, your Spellcraft skill is probably +25 or better.  Swami predicts you will make that skill check.

Furthermore, Implosion is also Close range, so the eligible targets may be few or one if the party spreads out.

You are correct that 5x5 would usually not be sufficient.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 27, 2006)

pawsplay, Hyp, we shall agree to disagree.  If anyone wants to continue that discussion on banes stacking, I'd be happy to in another thread.  My apologies to the OP for the derailment.


----------



## dagger (Oct 27, 2006)

Assay Spell Resistance (+10 to overcome spell resistance) from Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium for wizards should nulify the SR problem. It's also a SWIFT spell.


My high level wizards use that a lot....


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2006)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> When attacking a balor, at least one PC should be doing nonlethal damage to it.



This...this is a VERY good idea.  Kids, write this one down.


----------



## FEADIN (Oct 28, 2006)

I have one, it was in 3.0, the fighter8/rogue12 with holy aura and fire resistance was grappled by the whip, dragged near the Balor, immolated, struck by the sword (not beheaded) and...the SR was pierced and the Balor missed the save versus the Holy aura, went blind, it was the rogue's turn, he wore two weapons with all those feats.
You know, when you're blind near a rogue with seven attacks it's never a good day.


----------

