Magic bows vs creatures requiring magic weapons to hit

[ken-do-nim]

I'm sure this has been gone over a million times, however I don't feel like resurrecting some musty old thread. I know we often have the same conversations over and over, but often the newer threads reveal additional ideas so it is worth doing.

So ... do you allow non-magic arrows fired from magic bows to affect creatures requiring magic weapons to hit? I'm leaning towards no, myself.

Oh, and while we are on the topic of magic bows, do you allow the bonus from a magic arrow to stack with the bow's? I currently say yes.

[DMPrata]

Yes on both counts.

Bow + 1 gives + 1 "to hit" and + 1 damage potential to arrows fired from it. If magic arrows are used, the bonus is the total of the bow's and the arrows'....

[ken-do-nim]

Yes on both counts.

Bow + 1 gives + 1 "to hit" and + 1 damage potential to arrows fired from it. If magic arrows are used, the bonus is the total of the bow's and the arrows'....

Dave, I thought I was the only crazy guy who was up at this early hour.

Thanks for the quote; that's certainly the way I've always played it. I was just wondering if it might make the "+x or better weapon to hit" requirement a little stronger of a defense for baddies if the bow's bonus wasn't included in meeting it.

[DMPrata]

Dave, I thought I was the only crazy guy who was up at this early hour.

Oh, how I wish that were so....

Thanks for the quote; that's certainly the way I've always played it. I was just wondering if it might make the "+x or better weapon to hit" requirement a little stronger of a defense for baddies if the bow's bonus wasn't included in meeting it.

I agree that it would make the magic weapon requirement a stronger defense, but I think not allowing an archer with a magic bow to harm a weapon-resistant creature because he doesn't also have magic arrows would be unbalancing. I would not, however, stack the bonuses with regard to the types of creatures the weapons can affect; e.g., an arrow +2 fired from a bow +1 would be +3 "to hit" and damage, but would not harm Orcus (+3 or better weapons required).

EDIT: I also think magic slings get slighted if they can't be used with ordinary stones.

[J_Elric_smith]

I would not, however, stack the bonuses with regard to the types of creatures the weapons can affect; e.g., an arrow +2 fired from a bow +1 would be +3 "to hit" and damage, but would not harm Orcus (+3 or better weapons required).

I concur with this
Ken

[rossik]

EDIT: I also think magic slings get slighted if they can't be used with ordinary stones.

agree with all..
also, think that is not worth to a wizard make a magical stone.

would you throw a stone +3 at a monster?

[ken-do-nim]

I agree that it would make the magic weapon requirement a stronger defense, but I think not allowing an archer with a magic bow to harm a weapon-resistant creature because he doesn't also have magic arrows would be unbalancing. I would not, however, stack the bonuses with regard to the types of creatures the weapons can affect; e.g., an arrow +2 fired from a bow +1 would be +3 "to hit" and damage, but would not harm Orcus (+3 or better weapons required).

Yeah that's a good ruling that solves the problem.

[doktorhook]

I say no to the first & yes to the second. The non magical projectile fired from the magical bow is still non magical no matter how accurately the bow makes it shoot or how powerful the release. The magical bow would be imparting a similar bonus that specially made bows do only the bonus is not caused from strength but from magic.

[Nagora]

I agree with the Doc on this. If the thing that hits the target isn't magical, it doesn't get through.

[Matthew-]

I also agree with Nagora and Doc.

[phantasm72]

I say no to the first & yes to the second. The non magical projectile fired from the magical bow is still non magical no matter how accurately the bow makes it shoot or how powerful the release. The magical bow would be imparting a similar bonus that specially made bows do only the bonus is not caused from strength but from magic.

I agree. IMC a weapon (the damaging part) needs to be magical to hurt something that needs magical weapons to hit. The arrow itself mundane. I dont see a magic bow 'transfering' its magicness onto an arrow and more then gauntlets of ogre power would make a normal sword magical.

[ken-do-nim]

I say no to the first & yes to the second. The non magical projectile fired from the magical bow is still non magical no matter how accurately the bow makes it shoot or how powerful the release. The magical bow would be imparting a similar bonus that specially made bows do only the bonus is not caused from strength but from magic.

I agree. IMC a weapon (the damaging part) needs to be magical to hurt something that needs magical weapons to hit. The arrow itself mundane. I dont see a magic bow 'transfering' its magicness onto an arrow and more then gauntlets of ogre power would make a normal sword magical.

Hey, so it turned out my 6 am post led to an interesting discussion after all! [As an aside, I had a great deal of trouble sleeping last night; the country's financial crisis is really getting to me. Sadly, I had some inside knowledge ... and chose not to believe it.]

Well, I can go either way on this debate. I'm entirely okay with saying that the magic of the bow is imparted onto the arrow fired from it for the duration of the shot. On the other hand, requiring magical arrows to hit magical targets means (a) if you want to stand back and fire on the big baddies of the game and actually hurt them, you have to use up resources and (b) a spell like protection vs normal missiles becomes much more meaningful.

So I think I'm going to go with requiring magical ammunition to hurt magical creatures. Then I don't need that errata about magical bows & magical arrows not stacking for that purpose.

[shimrod]

Ugh, that ruling would make extremely powerful bows/crossbows useless toys that could always be kept in check (easily and unfairly) by limiting the ammo, while not putting the same detriments on swords/etc. Utterly nerfs missile over melee, which is unfair to missile artists...and as DM Prata says, utterly screws slingers.

[oldman]

One other thing to consider is that magic arrows are destroyed whenever they hit and have a 50% chance to be destroyed when they miss. Is this also true for non-magic arrows shot from a magic bow? or is there still a chance to recover them after a hit? If you allow non-magic arrows fired from a magic bow to "become magical" and thus satisfy the requirement for striking opponents with resistance to non-magic weapons, then perhaps it would be fair to treat them as magical for purposes of recovery. Some food for thought...

[fiscused]

DMG page 169 says that a sling of seeking can fire a missile with a +2 bonus to hit and dam, but this missile is considered +1 with regards to hitting creatures with a special defense. From this example it is possible, BTB to hit a monster with a special defense despite not having a magical missile.

Therefore, I'd say "yes" the normal arrow can hit.

[Matthew-]

I don't think the inference in that example is definitive; if anything, it suggests that ammunition and launcher can be treated variably with respect to overcoming special defences. Not that I am saying that treating normal arrows shot from a magical bow as non magical for the purposes of overcoming defences is 'by the book', only that I would prefer better evidence.

[ken-do-nim]

DMG page 169 says that a sling of seeking can fire a missile with a +2 bonus to hit and dam, but this missile is considered +1 with regards to hitting creatures with a special defense. From this example it is possible, BTB to hit a monster with a special defense despite not having a magical missile.

Therefore, I'd say "yes" the normal arrow can hit.

Actually considering that they would have just called it a sling +2 instead of a sling of seeking, this tells me that not hitting such creatures is usually the norm. Just my read of it, ymmv. Does solve DMPrata's sling issue.

[ken-do-nim]

Ugh, that ruling would make extremely powerful bows/crossbows useless toys that could always be kept in check (easily and unfairly) by limiting the ammo, while not putting the same detriments on swords/etc. Utterly nerfs missile over melee, which is unfair to missile artists...and as DM Prata says, utterly screws slingers.

In campaigns I've been in, the bow specialists always have a large arsenal of magic arrows at their disposal, so I don't think this would be a serious nerf unless the DM intentionally makes it that way. Published modules usually have a fair amount of magic arrows.

[ken-do-nim]

Another interesting data point. In the DMG treasure table, the best bow is +1 and the best arrows are +3. UA extended this to include +4 arrows, but didn't add any bow better than +1. Make of that what you will.

[Matthew-]

Another interesting data point. In the DMG treasure table, the best bow is +1 and the best arrows are +3. UA extended this to include +4 arrows, but didn't add any bow better than +1. Make of that what you will.

Now that is an interesting observation. I had never noticed that particular limitation before, and it goes a long way towards explaining why bonuses from arrows and bows are allowed to stack.

[fiscused]

Hmmmm..
From the Sling of Seeking description:
"...+2 bonus for both "to hit" and damage dice, but missiles from such a weapon are only regarded as +1..."

Carefull analysis of this phrase reveals the word "but". This implies that it is a difference than the norm. Otherwise, it would say, "also".

Maybe.

[Matthew-]

Yes, but in the context it appears ("miscellaneous weapons", rather than purely missile weapons) the "but" may refer to the expectation that would be garnered from comparing it to a Dwarven Throwing Hammer as much as a Bow or Crossbow. It depends when "but" was introduced to the text, and what was had in mind. Belive me, the nuances of the text are not lost on us. In light of Ken-do-nim's observation I think it more likely, but I would not be convinced by that sentence alone (many times I have thought I had the right of a sentence in the DMG, only to see it contradicted elsewhere in the same book!).

[Willmark]

This is an interesting question and I don't see an issue with stacking per say.

To me the real issue of balance is with bow specialists, the base damage of d6+2 x2 is ridiculously powerful, get yourself a bow that allows for strength bonuses and watch that specialist do and ungodly amount of damage per arrow strike. When he reaches 7th and is doing 3/1? Forget it. later on 4/1?? Pin cushions.... Having magical arrows only becomes important if you are attacking that requires magic to hit, magic bow? The strength bow is a much better option and one I would not give up. at that level magical arrows are simply icing on the cake.

Now with that being said I am playing a character right now that is specialized in bow and the DM nerfed it. I have to agree him as I had never noticed it in all the years I played. But first combat... wow. Two hits is usually enough to drop almost anything you fight...

Now is there ways around this? Sure it costs 3 slots to specialize, you can use creatures that are immune to normal arrows, but are you going to do this every encounter? Doubtful? Mob the archer in combat? Sure it can happen if the archer is stupid about exposing himself undue risk. In short the DM can always "get the archer" if he wants to, but to do it continuously isn't the answer either.

In short stacking isn't the worst issue, strength bows and specialization or specialization by itself is a area that can be very much abused.

[ken-do-nim]

For your interest, the 2nd Edition DMG adds the following sentence to the description of Bow +1: "A nonmagical arrow fired from a magical bow is a nonmagical missile."

Whether you agree with 2nd edition rulings or not, you have to admit that there usually is one for many of the debates we have here on the 1E forum.

To me the real issue of balance is with bow specialists, the base damage of d6+2 x2 is ridiculously powerful, get yourself a bow that allows for strength bonuses and watch that specialist do and ungodly amount of damage per arrow strike. When he reaches 7th and is doing 3/1? Forget it. later on 4/1?? Pin cushions.... Having magical arrows only becomes important if you are attacking that requires magic to hit, magic bow? The strength bow is a much better option and one I would not give up. at that level magical arrows are simply icing on the cake.

I realize that they didn't have time to playtest UA properly, but ... what were they thinking? Just reading the part about bow specialization makes me gag. Probably my #1 complaint of the book.

[dungeonmeister]

Based on the description of magic bows in the DMG, I would tend to say that the arrows fired from a magic bow only gain a bonus to hit and damage, they do not gain the additional magical qualities needed to hit monsters that cannot be hit by normal weapons. Although this might seem to devalue magic bows, remember that a quiver full of magic arrows will eventually run out.

I don't think it would cause great harm to rule either way on this, though.

[Bedivere]

DMG page 169 says that a sling of seeking can fire a missile with a +2 bonus to hit and dam, but this missile is considered +1 with regards to hitting creatures with a special defense. From this example it is possible, BTB to hit a monster with a special defense despite not having a magical missile.

Therefore, I'd say "yes" the normal arrow can hit.

I've always taken the fact that the sling of seeking specifically mentions this, while other magic missile devices don't, to mean that this is a special feature of a Sling of Seaking that other missile devices don't have.

So, no to the first question - a normal arrow shot by a magic bow can't affect a creature that requires magic to hit. The bonus to hit and damage is from the shot being placed more accurately, but even a normal arrow shot right in a wraith's eye is still a normal arrow.

As noted in the DMG, the bonuses do stack with magic arrow bonuses.

[Piper]

Just when I think I've got the 1e rules digested inside & out; my fellow gamers (or should that be gamerz?) come up with a new wrinkle I haven't thought of. So ... the consensus appears to be:

• +1 bow firing non-magical arrow = +1 to hit/damage but will not hit creatures struck by +1 or better weapons
• +1 bow firing +1 arrow = +2 to hit/damage and will strike creatures only hit by +1 weapons but will not be effective versus creatures struck by +2 or better weapons
• Normal bow firing +1 arrow = +1 to hit/damage versus creatures struck by +1 weapons

Do I correctly summarize the majority view? Interesting stuff.
edit to correct minor typo

[JerryB]

There are definitely some good points made here, it's a good discussion and I'm glad we are having it.

It's always been my opinion that the breakage rules spelled out for magical arrows are a general rule for any arrow or crossbow bolts, and was only specified for the enchanted variety to prevent their indefinite reuse, something unlikely to be an issue with regular ammunition. I've always considered it that way, and if a player wanted to recover fired crossbow bolts have always applied the same rule. A strict reading of the rules could be interpreted to apply that chance of breakage to only magical projectiles, but then you are left without a rule for mundane ammunition.

I am also of the opinion that an enchanted bow grants a bonus to the chance to hit and the damage inflicted per the rules, but that no other benefit is gained unless such were spelled out in the item description. The text also grants a bonus to hit and/or to damage for weaponry built for and used by characters with great strength, and in my opinion these are the same in principle. I believe in the situation under discussion that the absence of any further information is the indicator of it's lack. If the projectile were to have been treated as a magic weapon when fired by a magic bow I do believe that the DMG would simply say so, and that not every omission is unintentional.

On a final note I think it's great that this simple idea, that a normal arrow fired from a magic bow is still a normal arrow, puts us diametrically opposed to tetsnbn.

DuBeers has it correct in my opinion.

[Matthew-]

I couldn't say whether it is the majority view, but DuBeers has certainly summarised my take on things.

As an aside, though, if bows more powerful than +1 were available in a particular campaign milieu, I would not allow the bonuses to stack with magical arrows.

[Nagora]

I realize that they didn't have time to playtest UA properly, but ... what were they thinking? Just reading the part about bow specialization makes me gag. Probably my #1 complaint of the book.

I don't see the issue here, really. The double damage is only on targets within 30'. Given the difficulties of firing into melee underground and the ranges normally involved above ground, I've never thought this was a big deal.

6 darts per round with Str bonus, however, is a problem. In fact, Str bonuses for missile weapons are a bigger deal all round with or without specialisation.

I suppose one could reduce the damage bonus in line with the to-hit penalty for range. Hmmmmmm...