Your not understanding at all. Just because I see your point DOES NOT mean I agree with your view.
You seem to think understanding means agreeing with you in all things. This simply is not the case. And ya know asking pazio to agree with you is kinda pointless as I understand what your saying. I just do not agree with it.
So, in other words, you admit that it's a house rule and that it had no bearing on the discussion of what the core rules allow when you brought it up?
not at all. That is how the rules read to me. It was not till I brought it up here that I saw other folks read it diffent then I did. The words can be taken eaither way if ya ask me.
I do not hanng out on boards that tear that part of the rules apart nor do I try and brake the game for fun like some folks do. So ya know I had never..I mean never had someone point out that mopst folks do not rule it the way I do.
You have showed me nothing yet that makes me see it any other way.
EDIT: And you brought this up first when it had no bearing on the discussion at hand not I.
You said yourself that you don't care what Paizo's ruling is. That pretty much makes this a house rule on your part, since you admit that nobody else rules it the way you do. And, no, you're the one who brought up caster levels to make magic weapons, with your silly, "You have to have CL 25 to make a +10 weapon!" post.
|
A) as far as I read it, Zurai is right about the CL for enhancement bonuses vs special weapon properties interact for a total minimal caster level for item creation.
B) the entire arguement is a diversion from the point that no, you can NOT automatically buy any item you want over 16,000gp. There is a flat 75% chance it's freely availabie, and a small chance the exact item you want would come up on that 3d4 roll. But since you are talking about stacking the hell out of enhancement bonuses and special weapon properties (and AA class abilities), the odds of rolling up that +5 flaming, holy, axiomatic dragon-bane bow are effectively nil. You can take feats and create such an item, yes, but it's by no means guaranteed to be in stock at Absolom's Bow-a-Rama.
which brings us to C), if the AA's ability doesn't stack over +10, it's a cost-saving feature past what, 14th level? And that's ok, since Item Creation feats are at least half that anyway: cash savers. It's ok to use feats and class-granted abilities solely to save you some coin to spend elsewhere.
So recap,
+5 longbow with a +1 holy, flaming, human bane arrow with boots of speed. A OK!
+5 longbow of speed with a +1 holy, flaming, human bane arrow, That's horribly broken all you munchkins and definately NOT OK!
I swear I asked for butter on this popcorn....
No, no you would not make the bow. You simply do not pour a large part of your cash flow into an item you can maybe sell. No small company does this and stays a company much less a single guy. You putting a lot of cash into one item more cash then a major city can spend. Hell more cash then some kingdoms can get on short notice.
Simply put no craftsman can just craft a 200'000 gp item in hopes of selling it. Items like that are made for a person they have a reason to be. It simply would not work like that
A level 1 human expert could craft a +5 sword.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Level 1 Human expert with Craft Arms and Armor and Skill Focus(Craft(Blacksmithing)) with a 14 int.
The DC would be 5 + 15(caster level of the item) + 5(for not meeting the caster level 15 requirement) = 25 DC
Craft check: +1(ranks) +3(class skill) +3(skill focus) +2(stat bonus) +2(masterwork tools) = +11
Sure he has a 65% chance of failing the craft check and a 40% chance of creating a cursed item, but he could create the item.
Also, there is this thing called commissioning. A nobleman would find a well known swordsmith and pay them part of the price upfront(usually the cost of materials) to craft a sword for them. The swordsmith would then craft the sword and the noble would pay the smith the rest of the money when the sword was delivered. Very common way of handling the crafting of very expensive items in the middle ages, but apparently no one in the world of Pathfinder is smart enough to handle these kinds of arrangements...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Charender, shortly after the rulebook came out, there was a discussion about whether or not the (3x enhancement bonus) requirement was, indeed, a unavoidable requirement, or simply another "requirement" that could be bypassed with the -5 penalty, as you suggest.
Another option that someone recommended was -5 penalty per enhancement bonus. That way, a +3 fork-fauchard is more difficult to craft than a +1 fork-fauchard.
Jason was answering threads at that time. And I believe he ruled that the 3x enhancement bonus was an unavoidable restriction on the caster's level. I don't have it bookmarked, and haven't been able to locate it. (It was 7 months ago.) So I can't cite anything, but that's the memory I have about that discussion.
Charender, shortly after the rulebook came out, there was a discussion about whether or not the (3x enhancement bonus) requirement was, indeed, a unavoidable requirement, or simply another "requirement" that could be bypassed with the -5 penalty, as you suggest.
Another option that someone recommended was -5 penalty per enhancement bonus. That way, a +3 fork-fauchard is more difficult to craft than a +1 fork-fauchard.
Jason was answering threads at that time. And I believe he ruled that the 3x enhancement bonus was an unavoidable restriction on the caster's level. I don't have it bookmarked, and haven't been able to locate it. (It was 7 months ago.) So I can't cite anything, but that's the memory I have about that discussion.
I wonder why that didn't make it into any official errata.
A +3 is more difficult than a +1 because the caster level is factored into the crafting DC. A level 1 trying to craft items that are beyond their caster level is going to have a much higher chance of failure. A level 1 wizard crafting a level 1 item is looking at a DC of 6. The same wizard trying to craft a level 7 item is looking at a DC of 17. Not something a level 1 character can do reliably.
My level 1 expert would have a 95% chance to craft a +1 sword, a 80% chance to craft a +2, a 65% chance to craft a +3, a 50% chance to craft a +4, and a 35% chance to craft a +5. There is no way the expert could turn a profit selling +3 or higher weapons.
It would take a level 10 expert to craft a +5 sword with no chance of losing materials. 10 ranks +3(class skill) +3(stat) +2(masterwork tools) +6(skill focus) = +24
Charender, shortly after the rulebook came out, there was a discussion about whether or not the (3x enhancement bonus) requirement was, indeed, a unavoidable requirement, or simply another "requirement" that could be bypassed with the -5 penalty, as you suggest.
Another option that someone recommended was -5 penalty per enhancement bonus. That way, a +3 fork-fauchard is more difficult to craft than a +1 fork-fauchard.
Jason was answering threads at that time. And I believe he ruled that the 3x enhancement bonus was an unavoidable restriction on the caster's level. I don't have it bookmarked, and haven't been able to locate it. (It was 7 months ago.) So I can't cite anything, but that's the memory I have about that discussion.
I wonder why that didn't make it into any official errata.
A +3 is more difficult than a +1 because the caster level is factored into the crafting DC. A level 1 trying to craft items that are beyond their caster level is going to have a much higher chance of failure. A level 1 wizard crafting a level 1 item is looking at a DC of 6. The same wizard trying to craft a level 7 item is looking at a DC of 17. Not something a level 1 character can do reliably.
My level 1 expert would have a 95% chance to craft a +1 sword, a 80% chance to craft a +2, a 65% chance to craft a +3, a 50% chance to craft a +4, and a 35% chance to craft a +5. There is no way the expert could turn a profit selling +3 or higher weapons.
It would take a level 10 expert to craft a +5 sword with no chance of losing materials. 10 ranks +3(class skill) +3(stat) +2(masterwork tools) +6(skill focus) = +24
Here has been our interpretation. Basically the "prerequisites" that you can bypass are only those in the "requirement" section of the item description. Note that the caster level is above that area, on the top of item descriptions, near what aura it radiates. A perfectly valid reading and one which makes more sense to me personally and from a game balance perspective. A 10th level character cannot make a +4 sword, though it could make a +3 flaming sword.
This keeps what you're saying from happening, crafting a epic-level magical item at low levels simply because you have cranked your spellcraft skill.
Here has been our interpretation. Basically the "prerequisites" that you can bypass are only those in the "requirement" section of the item description. Note that the caster level is above that area, on the top of item descriptions, near what aura it radiates. A perfectly valid reading and one which makes more sense to me...Charender, shortly after the rulebook came out, there was a discussion about whether or not the (3x enhancement bonus) requirement was, indeed, a unavoidable requirement, or simply another "requirement" that could be bypassed with the -5 penalty, as you suggest.
Another option that someone recommended was -5 penalty per enhancement bonus. That way, a +3 fork-fauchard is more difficult to craft than a +1 fork-fauchard.
Jason was answering threads at that time. And I believe he ruled that the 3x enhancement bonus was an unavoidable restriction on the caster's level. I don't have it bookmarked, and haven't been able to locate it. (It was 7 months ago.) So I can't cite anything, but that's the memory I have about that discussion.
I wonder why that didn't make it into any official errata.
A +3 is more difficult than a +1 because the caster level is factored into the crafting DC. A level 1 trying to craft items that are beyond their caster level is going to have a much higher chance of failure. A level 1 wizard crafting a level 1 item is looking at a DC of 6. The same wizard trying to craft a level 7 item is looking at a DC of 17. Not something a level 1 character can do reliably.
My level 1 expert would have a 95% chance to craft a +1 sword, a 80% chance to craft a +2, a 65% chance to craft a +3, a 50% chance to craft a +4, and a 35% chance to craft a +5. There is no way the expert could turn a profit selling +3 or higher weapons.
It would take a level 10 expert to craft a +5 sword with no chance of losing materials. 10 ranks +3(class skill) +3(stat) +2(masterwork tools) +6(skill focus) = +24
Cranked up craft AND a lucky roll, there is a limit to what you can get from just cranking up your skill.
The only problem I have with that line of thinking is for weapon special abilities, the caster level is in the prerequisite field. So you must meet the requirement for enhancement bonuses, but not for special abilities?
Realistically, high level items would never be made by someone seeking profit. A craftsman gets paid 500 a day regardless if he's making a +1 shortsword or a +10 bow of doom. There's added risk with the high level stuff (may not sell, harder to craft), and no increased margin. Just one of the many issues with the D&D economy... In my mind, most of the high level stuff that's available is either a relic, or was crafted as a labor of love. (Bob the Bowyer does not spend the better part of a year crafting his +10 bow to make some money, but because he want's to just craft something amazing, and then have it hopefully go kill something big and scary, so he can say his bow did that...) ;)Now my own rules question: do flaming arrows stack with a flaming bow? I get the impression from posts that they do not, but I searched and couldn't find it explicitly spelled out... Or what about flame arrow spell + flaming bow?
I agree with ya on. As to the stacking, no flaming does not stack with flaming, but frost or something would as long as it did not go over +10
The only problem I have with that line of thinking is for weapon special abilities, the caster level is in the prerequisite field. So you must meet the requirement for enhancement bonuses, but not for special abilities?
I disagree with your reading of that. The weapon special abilities section has a shorthand version of the "box" we see for whole magic items. Example(from Bane):
Moderate conjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon monster I; Price +1 bonus.
Notice the semicolons? I think that these lines are meant to denote their placement would they have gotten the four star treatment of their own proper write-up. It's a matter of perspective I suppose, but this is not a question I ever asked.
Also the rules for magic weapon bring this number into play in a different way, because you compare that number to the CL of the enhancement bonus and require the higher of the two, I don't think you can bypass it.
The only problem I have with that line of thinking is for weapon special abilities, the caster level is in the prerequisite field. So you must meet the requirement for enhancement bonuses, but not for special abilities?
I disagree with your reading of that. The weapon special abilities section has a shorthand version of the "box" we see for whole magic items. Example(from Bane):
Moderate conjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon monster I; Price +1 bonus.
Notice the semicolons? I think that these lines are meant to denote their placement would they have gotten the four star treatment of their own proper write-up. It's a matter of perspective I suppose, but this is not a question I ever asked.
Also the rules for magic weapon bring this number into play in a different way, because you compare that number to the CL of the enhancement bonus and require the higher of the two, I don't think you can bypass it.
The biggest problem I have with your interpretation is that ONLY casters can craft magic weapons. Fantasy lore is full of artificers who were not casters making amazing weapons. When I first saw the rules that allowed you to ignore prerequisites at a penalty, I figured it was to fix this problem.
The biggest problem I have with your interpretation is that ONLY casters can craft magic weapons. Fantasy lore is full of artificers who were not casters making amazing weapons. When I first saw the rules that allowed you to ignore prerequisites at a penalty, I figured it was to fix this problem.
Jason (Or James?) already stated Caster Level is not a prerequisite... except for enhancement bonus. Which I hate, because it means you have to have a CL (or equivalent) for one type of enchantment (Enhancement Bonus) but not another (non-enhancement enchantments or wondrous items).
In my own games, I house rule it that CL is a requirement that can't be bypassed or overcome. That's just me though. I am going to have to edit the CL's of some objects though to make it consistent (like those CL 19 pearls, stupid things).
As to the current argument, the text is pretty clear. Your base number is the CL of the enhancement, or the CL of the bonus, whichever is higher, not the 'effective enhancement bonus level' times 3. So the CL of making a +4 Longbow and the CL of a +4 Flaming Longbow are the same, 12 (3x4 = 12).
What are you guys even arguing about anymore.
Honestly.
AA is incredible because it effects your arrows, not your bow. Spend all your cash making your bow extra awesome, and grab the free magic arrows. Win/win.
What are you guys even arguing about anymore.
Honestly.
AA is incredible because it effects your arrows, not your bow. Spend all your cash making your bow extra awesome, and grab the free magic arrows. Win/win.
Doesn't work. When you make your bow extra awesome, you're using up enhancement bonus slots that prevent you from using your Arcane Archer abilities on your arrows. You can only have +10 total bonus equivalency.
|
Doesn't work. When you make your bow extra awesome, you're using up enhancement bonus slots that prevent you from using your Arcane Archer abilities on your arrows. You can only have +10 total bonus equivalency.
Same misunderstanding again : the +10 max applies to a weapon (exemple : the bow) but it has never been mentioned AFAIK that it applies to ammunition (example : the arrows)
|
Table 15-10 on page 469, subnote two:
"Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."
Page 468
"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."
Also page 468
"A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10."
Taken together, a bow bestows its bonuses onto the ammunition it fires, with the possible exception of the enhancement bonus if the arrows bonus is higher.
However, a single weapon cannot have a modified bonus higher than +10. So a +10 bow of crazy elemental damage would apply the total +10 bonus to its arrows, either leaving no space for further improvements from enhancements on the arrows themselves, or the total bonus wouldn't be applied because the arrow would be maxed out first.
And yes, an arrow is a weapon.
Additionally, pazio has added specific errata for this section with their second edition errata update.
"In the Weapons section, change the third sentence of the
third paragraph to read as follows.
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus
(enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus
equivalents, including those from character abilities
and spells) higher than +10."
Due to that bit of text, the arcane archer bonuses no longer bypass the +10 max, so they're in the exact same place that the paladin is in. All in all, it means that these two classes can spend their money elsewhere than on their weapons. The paladin can get away with a +4 weapon, and the arcane archer can get away with a +6 weapon, since the elemental burst = +2 and the aligned = +2. The enhance arrows is kind of useless once the bow gets its first +1 enhancement bonus, which is necessary for boosting it anyhow.
Same misunderstanding again : the +10 max applies to a weapon (exemple : the bow) but it has never been mentioned AFAIK that it applies to ammunition (example : the arrows)
Doesn't work. When you make your bow extra awesome, you're using up enhancement bonus slots that prevent you from using your Arcane Archer abilities on your arrows. You can only have +10 total bonus equivalency.
Ammunition is a sub-category of weapon. So, yes, it does apply. There's also the minor fact that Paizo has specifically and explicitly stated that NOTHING can overcome the +10 limit to enchantments.
Ammunition is a sub-category of weapon. So, yes, it does apply. There's also the minor fact that Paizo has specifically and explicitly stated that NOTHING can overcome the +10 limit to enchantments.Same misunderstanding again : the +10 max applies to a weapon (exemple : the bow) but it has never been mentioned AFAIK that it applies to ammunition (example : the arrows)
Doesn't work. When you make your bow extra awesome, you're using up enhancement bonus slots that prevent you from using your Arcane Archer abilities on your arrows. You can only have +10 total bonus equivalency.
There is some grey area here.
When I fire a mundane arrow from a +1 flaming bow, the arrow becomes magical, gets a +1 to hit and damage, and does 1d6 fire damage, but does the arrow actually become a +1 flaming arrow?
Just like casting the keen spell on a +1 sword doubles its threat range, but it does not make is a +1 keen sword.
There is some grey area here.
When I fire a mundane arrow from a +1 flaming bow, the arrow becomes magical, gets a +1 to hit and damage, and does 1d6 fire damage, but does the arrow actually a +1 flaming arrow?
Just like casting the keen spell on a +1 sword doubles its threat range, but it does not make is a +1 keen sword.
That is not a grey area, magical bows treat arrows fired from them as magic , so yes it's a +1 flaming arrow, it's cheaper to make the bow magic, not the arrows. Unless you want to outfit a large number of folks with flaming arrows the bow is always the better call.
It's like adding flaming to a long sword twice, it just does not stack, so a +1 flaming arrow, shot from a +1 flaming bow is still a +1 flaming arrow.
There is some grey area here.
When I fire a mundane arrow from a +1 flaming bow, the arrow becomes magical, gets a +1 to hit and damage, and does 1d6 fire damage, but does the arrow actually a +1 flaming arrow?
Just like casting the keen spell on a +1 sword doubles its threat range, but it does not make is a +1 keen sword.
That is not a grey area, magical bows treat arrows fired from them as magic , so yes it's a +1 flaming arrow, it's cheaper to make the bow magic, not the arrows. Unless you want to outfit a large number of folks with flaming arrows the bow is always the better call.
It's like adding flaming to a long sword twice, it just does not stack, so a +1 flaming arrow, shot from a +1 flaming bow is still a +1 flaming arrow.
I can't seem to find anything in the RAW to confirm what you are saying. The only thing I can find is that mundane arrows fired from a magic or aligned bow count as magical or aligned for DR purposes.
I can't seem to find anything in the RAW to confirm what you are saying. The only thing I can find is that mundane arrows fired from a magic or aligned bow count as magical or aligned for DR purposes.
It is in the footnotes of the Ranged Weapon Special Abilities table:
2 Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.
This applies to every special ability that can be used on ranged weapons except Distance, Returning, Seeking, Speed, and Brilliant Energy. Everything else imparts the ability to the ammo.
I can't seem to find anything in the RAW to confirm what you are saying. The only thing I can find is that mundane arrows fired from a magic or aligned bow count as magical or aligned for DR purposes.It is in the footnotes of the Ranged Weapon Special Abilities table:
2 Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.This applies to every special ability that can be used on ranged weapons except Distance, Returning, Seeking, Speed, and Brilliant Energy. Everything else imparts the ability to the ammo.
Ok, got it.
That only brings up which brings up the weird case when a +1 bow of speed, seeking, and distance stacks just fine with a +5 flaming burst, shocking burst, dragon bane arrow, but a +1 holy, axiomatic bow will not stack with a +5 flaming shocking burst arrow.
Even worse there are no rules for the DM to follow on how to adjudicate it. I fire a 5 flaming burst, shocking burst arrows from a +1 holy, axiomatic bow. By the RAW, what stays and what gets overridden?
Fascinating thread, I do have a question relating to this. What are the effective enhancement bonuses of an Oathbow. Obviously in its normal configuration the Oathbow only has an effective bonus of 2 and I am guessing the effective bonus of 6 when it is activated with a sworn enemy. I get 6 due to the 5 from the enchancement bonus and assuming Sworn Enemy is equivalent to Bane, a +1 bonus. Of course towards an non-Sworn Enemy the Oathbow has an effective enhancement bonus of 0.
I have an elven bard going for arcane archer so understanding the relationship between the arcane archer abilities and the Oathbow is going to be important.
Doug
Fascinating thread, I do have a question relating to this. What are the effective enhancement bonuses of an Oathbow. Obviously in its normal configuration the Oathbow only has an effective bonus of 2 and I am guessing the effective bonus of 6 when it is activated with a sworn enemy. I get 6 due to the 5 from the enchancement bonus and assuming Sworn Enemy is equivalent to Bane, a +1 bonus. Of course towards an non-Sworn Enemy the Oathbow has an effective enhancement bonus of 0.
I have an elven bard going for arcane archer so understanding the relationship between the arcane archer abilities and the Oathbow is going to be important.
Doug
The oathbow is a PITA to deal with. It does not line up with anything on the weapon enchantment tables, so I will have to wing it. This is not RAW.
Baseline it is a +2 composite longbow(+2 strength) - 8600 gold.
Thus the oath ability is worth 17,000, which doesn't match up to anything on the table. The best I can come up with is that the oathbow counts as a +3 weapon with a base cost a 7600 gold.
Further, I would rule that the oath effect is an enhanced bane effect(normal bane is +2 enhancement and adds 2d6 damage, the oathbow band gives +3 and adds 2d6 damage with some drawbacks), and thus it can stack beyond +5(a +5 bane arrow is +7 against its bane target).
So if I shoot a +5 flaming arrow from an oathbow at a target I have swarn an oath against, it would effectively be a +8 flaming arrow and deal an extra 2d6 bane damage.
|
|
Ammunition is a sub-category of weapon.
I would like to know where in the RAW it explicitely states so.
Because I never saw anyone take Weapon Focus or Weapon Spe for arrows or bolts, but always for bows and crossbows.
Also, the ammunitions seem to be missing from the weapon groups of the Fighter's Weapon Training ability.
Finally, the wording on page 468 of the core rulebook : "Weapons or ammunition can be made of an unusual material." is unnecessarily complicated if ammunitions are indeed weapons.
The simplest explanation is that ammunitions are not weapons. Of course, when presented with due evidence to the contrary, I will dutifully recant my heretical ways.
Arrows and bolts deal damage..look at your bow or cross bow..they have no damage listed, they are the delivery system for the thing that deals damage.
They are weapons in the same way a shield is a weapon. True they are not effective by themselves but they are weapons.
What.
Look, if I have a +10 bow and I'm firing fire shocking arrows, I'm pretty sure those are +10 fire shocking arrows.
And even if they're not, guess what? AA is still awesome. Instead of buying a +10 bow, you now only need to buy a +5 bow. Oh how terrible, the class saves me a bajillion gold I can then spend elsewhere, and removes the need to buy specialized ammunition. However will I cope?
If you are running a private campaign, why not allow the total bonus to exceed the cap at +10. I would allow this for arcane archers personally and I do anyways. I see no problems with it so far. The cap does seem wrong with the AA and paladin but I did not even realize it until I read this post. Still, I will allow my players to ignore this. Of course if you have a rules monger in your group.... well find a new group. I always enjoy playing than debating rules.
Also, can't artifacts have a higher than +10 bonus? I know I had seen some with a +6 and +7 enhancement bonus without adding special qualities into it. Of course, these are at much higher levels and probably beyond 20 or near 20.
Cheers
Most artifacts dont exceed the bonus. They have special abilities that can be put on normal weapons, which is what makes them artifacts. I think an epic level artifact could exceed the +10, but being above +10 makes a weapon epic(even though the rules dont exist yet), not an artifact. I will probably ignore the +10 limit for paladins myself or I will let the player swap the weapons abilities for the ones that come from the paladin as long as his divine bond is active.
I think its called Divine bond anyway.
TRUE STRIKE.
+20.
anyone who says there is no way to push past the +10 limit, there is precedent for beyond +10 bonus....i know its an insight bonus. but i think the rules regarding a +10 cap are for single weapon power limits, and are not limits on final bonuses added or even single category limits.IMHO
TRUE STRIKE.
+20.
anyone who says there is no way to push past the +10 limit, there is precedent for beyond +10 bonus....i know its an insight bonus. but i think the rules regarding a +10 cap are for single weapon power limits, and are not limits on final bonuses added or even single category limits.IMHO
Apples to oranges.
I haven't read all the posts in this discussion yet however there seems to be a flaw in the thinking on the ones I have read
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. All magic weapons
are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses
on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses
on attack rolls.
Weapons come in two basic categories: melee and ranged.
Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used
as ranged weapons. In this case, their enhancement bonuses
apply to both melee and ranged attacks.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities
count as additional bonuses for determining
the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted).
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents)
higher than +10.
A weapon with a special ability
must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons
cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
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.
It only says Weapons, however arrows are ammunition and I can find nothing saying ammunition is subject to that rule.
Any thoughts?
[edit]:Finally found a mention of Ammunition as a "sub category of weapons" seems like a stretch. Ammunition is destroyed when used weapons are not.
OMG !!!
I suspect that's not what was intended.In any case, if someone wants to pay the price of +11 arrows everytime he breaks all the arrows... I wouldn't worry (until someone comes with the megacombo that exploits that)
