Does the bane magic weapon property work like greater magic weapon or weapon enhancement for DR

The weapon property bane is a wonderful boost to a weapon on the occasions where its the right bane. One effect is that the weapon enhancement is +2 than what the weapon states, so a +1 bane (human) sword is actually a a +3 weapon against humans. But when dealing with creatures that have DR, the difference enhancement levels matter for overcoming DR, and other sources like magic weapon greater while increasing the enhancement, do not affect DR.

from magic weapon greater

This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

Since the weapon property doesnt have the same wording as the spell, my thoughts are that it would be effective against higher DR types, but I have nothing to stand on for this.

Disadvantage/adversity dice pool mechanic that knocks dice greater than 1 out of the pool and adds 1s to it

I am working on a dice pool system for skills and actions to be used in a new system.

In this system, any rolls of 1 will negatively affect the outcome of resolving an action using a dice pool.

In this instance, I am trying to model the probability of each outcome when rolling 2d4 with 1d4 disadvantage/adversity by looking at the total of the 2 highest dice rolled (which in this case is the entire 2d4) after disadvantage is calculated.

The way disadvantage is intended to work is:

  • Any disadvantage dice that roll a 1 are added to the pool
  • Any disadvantage dice that roll above 1 will remove the highest die in the pool of equal or lesser value from the pool if that die in question is greater than 1 (the disadvantage die itself is not added)

Since it is not possible to remove elements from sequences, I am trying to build up the sequence DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED while excluding dice that would be removed from the pool so the function can then return the total of the requested number of dice specified in the parameter POSTOOUTPUT calculated from this sequence.

I have worked on code similar to the below for several days and while I have advantage (and passing the dice sequence straight through with no advantage or disadvantage) working, I am still not getting what I believe are the correct results that I have done by manually mapping out the 64 possible outcomes.

The mechanics of adding disadvantage dice that roll 1 to the pool seem to be working, as I have determined by running the code with POSSTOOUTPUT set to {3}.

I have a feeling that I am missing something obvious and will still keep working on it, but any insight or guidance that can be offered would be much appreciated.

LOWMAX: 1 DICESEQ: 2d4 ADVANTAGESEQ: {} DISADVANTAGESEQ: 1d4 POSTOOUTPUT: {1..2}  function: POSITION:s DICEPARAM:s with ADVANTAGEPARAM:s advantage and DISADVANTAGEPARAM:s disadvantage {  ADVANTAGE: 0  ADVANTAGEPROCESSED: {}  DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED: {}  \ Other code omitted due to irrelevance \   if DISADVANTAGEPARAM != {} & ADVANTAGEPARAM = {} \If there is only disadvantage \  {      loop Y over {1..#DISADVANTAGEPARAM}  \ Have also tried loop Y over DISADVANTAGEPARAM and not used the indexing \   {     REMOVED: 0 \ This flag is to be set when a die has been removed from the pool for the current disadvantage die in the sequence \    loop X over {1..#DICEPARAM} \ Have also tried loop X over DICEPARAM, no different \    {   \ Have also tried without the whole loops and just gone with code like if DICEPARAM > DISADVANTAGEPARAM hoping that the mechanics of passing dice collections to the function as parameters that expect sequences will do the job, still no luck \     if X@DICEPARAM>Y@DISADVANTAGEPARAM | X@DICEPARAM <=LOWMAX     {      DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED: {DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED, X@DICEPARAM}     }          if X@DICEPARAM <= Y@DISADVANTAGEPARAM     {      if !REMOVED      {       REMOVED: 1      }      else      {       DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED: {DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED, X@DICEPARAM}      }     }      if Y@DISADVANTAGEPARAM <= LOWMAX     {      DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED: {DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED, Y@DISADVANTAGEPARAM}     }      }   }    COMBINED: [sort {DISADVANTAGEPROCESSED}]   result: POSITION@COMBINED    }  }  output [POSTOOUTPUT DICESEQ with ADVANTAGESEQ advantage and DISADVANTAGESEQ disadvantage] named "[DICESEQ] with [ADVANTAGESEQ] advantage and [DISADVANTAGESEQ] disadvantage" ``` 

Should Greater Restoration work against Prismatic Spray’s Indigo Ray?

My group is playing DnD 5e. We encountered an ancient blue dragon who cast Prismatic Spray at us. Our Ranger/Druid, who was in Air Elemental wildshape at the time, got struck by the Indigo Ray and failed his Dexterity Save:

6-Indigo: On a failed save, the target is Restrained. It must then make a Constitution saving throw at the end of each of its turns. If it successfully saves three times, the spell ends. If it fails its save three times, it permanently turns to stone and is subjected to the Petrified condition. The successes and failures don’t need to be consecutive, keep track of both until the target collects three of a kind.

Because he was an Air Elemental, he was immune to being restrained, but the DM had him continue to make making Con saves for the 2nd half of that Ray’s effects. Just before he (unknowingly) failed the third Con save, he transformed back into his usual Eladrin form, and became a Petrified stone statue as per the spell’s effects.

Upon defeating the dragon, the group attempted to restore him to his usual form using a Greater Restoration spell that he had stored in a Ring of Spell Storing. The spell successfully removed the Petrified condition, but because the spell says the creature "permanently turns to stone", our DM ruled that he was now a living stone statue, unless/until he could find some other way to return him to flesh-and-blood status. This transformation came with a -2 to Dex (his main stat) but a +1 to Strength and Con, and some damage resistances. He’s not altogether miffed by these changes and likes the flavor of the ruling, but I’m wondering, should Greater Restoration have worked on its own to return him fully to flesh and blood, even if the spell says "permanently"?

Why does the rogue’s Greater Weapon Specialization specify legendary proficiency?

The rogue’s level 15 class feature specifies:

Your damage from weapon specialization increases to 4 with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you’re an expert, 6 if you’re a master, and 8 if you’re legendary.

How can a rogue get legendary proficiency in any weapon? As far as I’m aware, only the fighter reaches legendary proficiency with weaponry, but a fighter will never be able to qualify for this feature because it comes directly from the rogue’s list of class features rather than a rogue feat. Consequently, the two states:

  1. Has legendary proficiency
  2. Has access to this feature

seem mutually exclusive. Is there something I’ve missed?

What happens if a character’s velocity is greater than 0m when the character gets a Phase?

I’m preparing to run a Hero System, 6th Edition campaign, and I’m struggling to understand movement, especially velocity. Here’s the question: When a character’s Phase ends yet his velocity is still greater than 0m, does the character’s velocity affect what Actions the character can take on his next Phase?

For example, Slick’s Phase ends, but his velocity is still 20m. On Slick’s next Phase, can he take a Zero Phase Action to add velocity (E61 156), spend a Half Phase to take a Half Move during which he adds even more velocity, then spend a Half Phase to take an Action that requires an Attack roll, despite Slick still having a greater-than-0m velocity? Or, because Slick’s velocity is 20m at the start of the Phase, must Slick first take a Full Move or Half Move to reduce his velocity to 0m before the character can do anything else besides move?

Note: My confusion stems from this statement: A character "may not deactivate the Movement Power until he decelerates to 0m normally or through some outside means" (E61 156 and E62 25). So far as I can tell, the game doesn’t describe exactly what this means (i.e. I can’t tell if not moving is supposed to be the same thing as deactivating a Movement Power). Further, the game doesn’t seem to describe how already having velocity when a Phase begins impacts the character’s ability to take Actions. Finally, I’ve found no examples that cover what I imagine is this relatively common situation.

Can a familiar’s greater steed(s) ‘Reincarnate’ with a Ring of Spell Storing?

Can a flock of Pegasii summoned mounts Reincarnate any humanoid with a (properly loaded) Ring of Spell Storing?

The points below are not really new per se but rather a cumulative-inductive discovery of StackExchange rulings. This is listed below:

  • A familiar &/or summoned mount can cast any spell from a Ring of Spell Storing.

  • A Ring of Spell Storing stores up to five spell-levels – thus fifth lvl max. (hence this includes Reincarnation)

  • The casting / catching of spells (specifically ‘Reincarnate’ in this case) does not seem to require components. Thus the 1000 gold worth of rare unguents is neither needed to ‘charge’ the ring, nor cast-use it.

  • Correct use of various summoning spells + Ring o’ SpellStore® allows each familiar &/or steed to have one (1) familiar + one (1) steed each, hence: Menagerie Ad nauseum.

Thus it seems that any character with previous access-planning to the right summoning and necromatic spells could have a flight of a few thousand loyal Pegasii striving to Reincarnate them (should they die).

If so: this seems impressive &/or surprising.

In Pathfinder 1E, how do Greater Magic Fang and Amulet of Mighty Fists stack

My animal companion has an Amulet of Mighty Fists that only gives me, say, +1, Frost, without any enhancement bonus. So it’s a +2 equivalency, with a +1 enhancement bonus.

Let’s say that I then cast a Greater Magic Fang which would grant a +3.

I can see any of the following things happen.

  1. Nothing — there’s already an enhancement situation.
  2. No more Frost. It’s now a +3 enhancement bonus with no special abilities.
  3. +3/Frost — it takes the greater of the two enhancement bonuses and keeps the special abilities.

Honestly I can accept see any of these. Right now we’re playing that it’s the recipient’s choice of 1 or 2. Any opinions?

Is Greater Link Spell as limitless as it appears?

I recently found this link, allegedly giving the text for two metamagic feats from Magic and Mayhem. The following, with typos corrected, got my attention:

Greater Link Spell [Metamagic]
You can cast any number of spells at the same time.
Prerequisite: Link Spell.
Benefit: As Link Spell, except that you may link any number of spells together.

Link Spell [Metamagic]
You can cast two spells at the same time.
Benefit: When preparing spells, you can link two spells together. These spells must then be cast at the same time; when you cast one, you automatically cast the other. The casting time is equal to the longest casting time listed between the two spells. (For example, if one spell has a casting time of "1 standard action" and the other has a casting time of "1 round," you need a full-round action to cast them both.) You choose all targets normally for the spells; they can have different targets or the same targets.
Each linked spell takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal.

Assuming that this is the correct text, is Greater Link Spell really as limitless as it appears? As I read it, I could have 100 fifth-level spells with a casting time of 1 round or less, prepare them all as a single Greater Link Spell with a casting time of 1 round, and this would take up one sixth-level spell slot with absolutely no other costs. Is this correct? I fear any Wizard that can cast Fireball 1000 times per round.

Does the Sneak Attack class feature of the Generic Classes stack with the improved and greater versions of it?

Generic Classes have the possibility to gain different class features in exchange of a bonus feat:

For the purposes of these classes, the following class features can be selected in place of bonus feats (unless noted, each may only be selected once).

The Sneak Attack class features that can be selected are:

Sneak Attack (Ex)

As the rogue ability, but +2d6 on damage rolls. Prerequisites: Hide 4 ranks, Move Silently 4 ranks.

Improved Sneak Attack (Ex)

Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 11 ranks, Move Silently 11 ranks, sneak attack.

Greater Sneak Attack (Ex)

Add +4d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 18 ranks, Move Silently 18 ranks, sneak attack, improved sneak attack.

Do these three class features stack together?