Recent Posts
Hey everyone,
I have a question about ranged weapons and their ammunition.
Specifically, what stacks and what applies?
Page 468 of the PCRB speaks a bit about Ranged Weapons and Ammunition.
Istates:
"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.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or hither is treated as a magic weapon for overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon."
The language above seems to say that the amunition itself only gains a few of the properties of the missile weapon (e.g. a magical bow) - but not all of them. Further, later entries for magical weapon properties go on to specifically state when a magical weapon bestows the benefit upon the ammunition fired from it. Thus, non-magical ammunition seem to become "magical" in a limited and restricted sense when fired from a magical ranged weapon.
In addition: The language from page 468 makes it clear that ammunition fired from a magical bow is "treated as a magic weapon for overcoming damage reduction." A quick look to the rules on Incorporeal (Ex) on page 301 of the Pathfinder Beastiary makes it clear that incorporeal creatues can "be harmed only by ...magic weapons..." Incorporealness is not a Damage Reduction issue - it seems that the weapon directly "touching" the incorporeal target must be magical to inflict harm.
Specific Questions:
1. When firing a non-magical arrow from a +1 bow, which of the following applies:
a. +1 enhancement bonus (from the bow) to hit;
b. +1 enhancement bonus (from the bow) to damage;
c. All of the above.
2. So, does non-magical ammunition fried from a magical ranged weapon harm an incorporeal target?
a. Yes
b. No
I'd really appreciate feedback - or decisive answer from the game designers - so we can figure out if ammunition is itself relevent in the game -or- it is simply something like non-valuable spell components (e.g. spend 50 gp once ever 5 levels and you're good to go if your bow is cool enough).
Consiering the advantages that ranged fighers get (i.e. nearly always being able to use their Full Attack), this would seem a good balancer - at least as far as the damage they inflict per arrow (if the enhancement bonus to damage didn't carry over of they could not affect incorporeal foes unless the ammunition itself was not magical).
Thank you.
Can I please have a specific citation to black-and-white rules that state whether the enhancement bonus from a magical missile weapon is confered upon the ammunition for purposes of to-hit bonus and damage bonus?
I'm looking for specifics here - and trying to look at the Pathfinder rules blank-slate with no reference to past D&D game systems.
I'm taking the philosophy of "if it is not speficially mentioned as in, then its out."
Reason: I believe that ammunition should be relevent because it is the ammunition making physical contact with the target and -not- the missile weapon. Bonuses to hit (e.g. a benefit to accuracy) make sense for the missile weapon itself, but it seems to me that the item physically striking the target should determine magical properties, enhancement bonuses to damage, and so on (unless a magical property of the ranged weapon specifically so identifies).
-B
From d20pfsrd:
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: 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.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
From d20pfsrd:
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: 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.Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
Wow, so now no one reads the original posts anymore...
1. When firing a non-magical arrow from a +1 bow, which of the following applies:
a. +1 enhancement bonus (from the bow) to hit;
b. +1 enhancement bonus (from the bow) to damage;
c. All of the above.
C. All of the above
2. So, does non-magical ammunition fried from a magical ranged weapon harm an incorporeal target?
a. Yes
b. No
A. Yes. (although it inflicts half damage to the target, just as any magic weapon works against incorporeal targets)
Wow, so now no one reads the original posts anymore...From d20pfsrd:
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: 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.
From the OP: Can I please have a specific citation to black-and-white rules that state whether the enhancement bonus from a magical missile weapon is confered upon the ammunition for purposes of to-hit bonus and damage bonus?
I quoted the SRD to illustrate that of 2 enhancement bonuses (ranged weapon and ammo here), the higher of the 2 applies. How does this NOT specifically address the OP's request? (Or should I have pointed out that a ranged weapon's +1 enhancement bonus might be higher than the +0 enhancement bonus of nonmagical ammo, and the higher bonus APPLIES - and it applies to the resolution of the attack).
Additionally, from the d20pfsrd magic weapons section:
A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
I was trying to help, what exactly were you trying to accomplish?
Wow, so now no one reads the original posts anymore...From d20pfsrd:
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: 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.Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
The quoted text answers the question about stacking quite clearly in plain english, so it seems like the quoter *did* read the original post.
I think this example would be a good representation of what is being asked:
Robert Ranger has a +1 flaming long bow and fires a +2 frost arrow.
When it hits is it a +2 flaming, frost arrow or is it just a +2 frost arrow?
I am curious about this as well, I may have missed this in the book but can't remember anything about the special abilities.
The quoted text answers the question about stacking quite clearly in plain english, so it seems like the quoter *did* read the original post.
If the quoter had read the original post, he would have seen that the original post included those same exact quotes from beginning to end and that the original poster had specific questions about the language of the quotes. Thus, simply quoting them and not providing any other text whatsoever very strongly implies that the quoter did not, in actuality, read the original post.
I think this example would be a good representation of what is being asked:
Robert Ranger has a +1 flaming long bow and fires a +2 frost arrow.
When it hits is it a +2 flaming, frost arrow or is it just a +2 frost arrow?I am curious about this as well, I may have missed this in the book but can't remember anything about the special abilities.
+2 flaming, frost arrow
If the quoter had read the original post, he would have seen that the original post included those same exact quotes from beginning to end and that the original poster had specific questions about the language of the quotes. Thus, simply quoting them and not providing any other text whatsoever very strongly implies that the quoter did not, in actuality, read the original post.
I quoted the SRD in response to the following:
From Xaene:Can I please have a specific citation to black-and-white rules that state whether the enhancement bonus from a magical missile weapon is confered upon the ammunition for purposes of to-hit bonus and damage bonus?
If you can provide a reference to the rules that more fully addresses this request for a specific citation, then please do.
The fact that the OP quoted the same text implies the OP misunderstood/misread that text rather than any deficiency in my understanding what was requested by the OP. The OP did not ask for an interpretation, the OP asked for a citation. As for all those placing bets on this occasion, yeah, I read the OP, and responded to the OP's second submission.
Can you give me a citation on that concerro? I am not sure where in any of the rules it says anything about it. I get the +2 portion, thats clearly stated in the Core Rulebook, but what about the other?
-thanks
I don't believe there is a citation for this. This is a case where there is no rule to disallow it.
Just as a magical bow confers its magical abilities on a nonmagical arrow, and without a rule to the contrary, it does likewise with a magical arrow. Normal stacking rules apply, and this appears to be a case where applying 2 different effects would be allowed.
Can you give me a citation on that concerro? I am not sure where in any of the rules it says anything about it. I get the +2 portion, thats clearly stated in the Core Rulebook, buthttp://paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/createNewP ost?post=v5748gbiiglum&thread=v5748dmtz2973#newPost what about the other?
-thanks
I am the great Concerro. You dare to question me<shocked and appalled>?
Did I spell appalled correctly?
Oh yeah the question.
Under the "Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities" look at the 2 subscript. It states--> 2 Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.
Edit: The arrow is already a frost arrow, and according to the quoted rule it gets the flaming also which comes from the bow. In order for the frost or flame to cancel the other out there would have to be a rule stating that the arrow or the bow over rode the other. There is no such rule. Also what Mr.Young said.
If the quoter had read the original post, he would have seen that the original post included those same exact quotes from beginning to end and that the original poster had specific questions about the language of the quotes. Thus, simply quoting them and not providing any other text whatsoever very strongly implies that the quoter did not, in actuality, read the original post.The quoted text answers the question about stacking quite clearly in plain english, so it seems like the quoter *did* read the original post.
Exactly
If the quoter had read the original post, he would have seen that the original post included those same exact quotes from beginning to end and that the original poster had specific questions about the language of the quotes. Thus, simply quoting them and not providing any other text whatsoever very strongly implies that the quoter did not, in actuality, read the original post.I quoted the SRD in response to the following:
From Xaene:Can I please have a specific citation to black-and-white rules that state whether the enhancement bonus from a magical missile weapon is confered upon the ammunition for purposes of to-hit bonus and damage bonus?
If you can provide a reference to the rules that more fully addresses this request for a specific citation, then please do.
The fact that the OP quoted the same text implies the OP misunderstood/misread that text rather than any deficiency in my understanding what was requested by the OP. The OP did not ask for an interpretation, the OP asked for a citation. As for all those placing bets on this occasion, yeah, I read the OP, and responded to the OP's second submission.
I can see that, and he did ask for "black and white". Perhaps someone should have pointed out to the OP that he, his own self, was quoting "black and white print".
