|
Protection from Arrows
School abjuration; Level alchemist 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a piece of tortoiseshell or turtle shell)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
The warded creature gains resistance to ranged weapons. The subject gains damage reduction 10/magic against ranged weapons. This spell doesn't grant you the ability to damage creatures with similar damage reduction. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 100 points), it is discharged.
My questions are... does protection from arrows provide DR against a ranged ammo with an enhancement bonus? Does protection from arrows provide DR against a ranged weapon with an enhancement bonus?
I think the answer is yes for the first one and no to the second one.
The answers are no and no -- both cases the attack is magical (due to the enhancement bonuses) and therefore bypasses the DR provided by the spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answers are no and no -- both cases the attack is magical (due to the enhancement bonuses) and therefore bypasses the DR provided by the spell.
Well, in most cases you are correct, however, the +1 to hit from masterwork ammo or a masterwork weapon is also an enhancement bonus and Protection from Arrows would protect against those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answers are no and no -- both cases the attack is magical (due to the enhancement bonuses) and therefore bypasses the DR provided by the spell.Well, in most cases you are correct, however, the +1 to hit from masterwork ammo or a masterwork weapon is also an enhancement bonus and Protection from Arrows would protect against those.
Quite correct, thank you.
the +1 to hit from masterwork ammo or a masterwork weapon is also an enhancement bonus and Protection from Arrows would protect against those.
Why? Masterwork is not magical, so it shouldn't bypass DR10/magic.
A Masterwork arrow, or a regular arrow fired from a masterwork bow both have a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, and both should be affected by PfA.
A +1 arrow, or a regular arrow fired from a +1 bow, both have a +1 enhancement bonus to hit (and a +1 enhancement bonus to damage), but both would bypass the DR/magic.
--edit--
Oh wow, I'm wrong.
While it does say "Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality)"
it also says:
"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."
So, I guess that means PfA would protect against a masterwork arrow fired from a mundane bow, but not against a mundane arrow fired from a masterwork bow.
Crazy.
Actually a masterwork weapon does not have a +1 enhancement bonus -- it has a +1 enhancement bonus to hit.
The difference is that a weapon with an actual enhancement bonus affects both the to hit and the damage rolls.
Masterwork has to specify what it gives a bonus to because it is not an enhancement bonus in and of itself -- it simply provides one on attack rolls.
@ Mortika:
It could -- but no more so than it can for archers, crossbowmen, dagger throwers or anyone else using a ranged weapon without magical bonuses (like a giant with throwing a boulder for example).
So..
..boulders?
...flaming hot Fire Giant boulders?
So..
..boulders?
...flaming hot Fire Giant boulders?
Yup, except the flaming hot part which is of course energy damage which ignores DR.
The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?
Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
|
|
The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
Archer with masterwork bow (but no enhancement bonus) using +1 ammo he found.
|
Archer with masterwork bow (but no enhancement bonus) using +1 ammo he found.The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
Unless that +1 ammo is just masterwork, then it is magical, and would avoid the DR that protection from arrows give you (10/magic).
|
|
Unless that +1 ammo is just masterwork, then it is magical, and would avoid the DR that protection from arrows give you (10/magic).Archer with masterwork bow (but no enhancement bonus) using +1 ammo he found.The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
it's not a weapon happler read above post.
Protection from Arrow is a spell that will be only useful for the PCs, when they are fighting tons of mooks with non-magical ranged weapons. For the NPCs, this spell becomes 100% useless as soon as the party's archer find is first magic bow.
|
|
it's not a weapon happler read above post.Unless that +1 ammo is just masterwork, then it is magical, and would avoid the DR that protection from arrows give you (10/magic).Archer with masterwork bow (but no enhancement bonus) using +1 ammo he found.The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
Really?
from the PRD in weapon descrtiptions:
Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows.
Arrows sure look like a weapon to me. They are listed on the weapon table, and have descriptions in the weapon lists.
Magic ammunition is specifically mentioned in a footnote on the magic weapons table, and described in the magic weapons chapter.
Magic ammunition is a magic weapon.
Archer with masterwork bow (but no enhancement bonus) using +1 ammo he found.
Sigh, the rules they are for reading:
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.
My guess is that this spell is intended to stop small projectiles. A strict reading would be all the "ranged weapons" on the chart on the weapons table in the equipment section.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
A generous GM could allow the spell to apply to any weapon that has a range increment. They could also apply the spell to manticore spikes, and similar attacks.
A really generous GM (the type who likes to keep spells from becoming totally useless) could also apply this spell to siege engine projectiles, thrown stones, and any other non-magic attack that has a range increment.
I would probably allow it to affect everything, but I could see how a player could use this to play a nuke-from-orbit caster that could be kind of annoying. A wand of this could shut down some types of encounters, but if my players got all meta-game about it, monsters would start to all have oils of magic weapon or the half-fiend template if I wanted to be a cruel GM.
Its rather simple really. Its DR 10/Magic against ranged attacks, so look at the ranged attack, if its magic it ignores the DR.
This would include;
-Masterwork Bow + a +1 Arrow
-+1 Bow + an Arrow
If it is treated as a magic attack it goes through. Its not rocket science.
stuff
Honestly if this spell is shutting down encounters the encounters need to be designed better.
I personally read "all ranged weapons" as meaning exactly that -- fine you take 10 points less damage from a catapult... it's still a freaking catapult and it's still going to really hurt (and no I don't use the current damage for siege weapons as it stands -- 4d6 from a light catapult does *not* make a wall buster... or for the heavy 6d6... honestly these damages are pathetic).
stuffHonestly if this spell is shutting down encounters the encounters need to be designed better.
I personally read "all ranged weapons" as meaning exactly that -- fine you take 10 points less damage from a catapult... it's still a freaking catapult and it's still going to really hurt (and no I don't use the current damage for siege weapons as it stands -- 4d6 from a light catapult does *not* make a wall buster... or for the heavy 6d6... honestly these damages are pathetic).
Yeah the damage of siege weapons are pathetic, even more when you consider the huge penalty to ranged attack rolls that comes with them. You'll never see a 1st-level orc warrior using a ballista against the PCs, because he would hit them only on a natural 20. Also, adding your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with siege weapon is kind of mewh, I think that Intelligence would be a better candidate.
|
|
Yeah the damage of siege weapons are pathetic, even more when you consider the huge penalty to ranged attack rolls that comes with them. You'll never see a 1st-level orc warrior using a ballista against the PCs, because he would hit them only on a natural 20.
I imagine they deliberately made them sub-optimal against infantry, since seige weapons generally were meant to hit buildings and stuff.
Better to just equip orcs (or ogre seige gunners) with 'normal' oversized heavy crossbows. -2 to hit, 2d8 damage for the orcs with Large heavy crossbows, -2 to hit, 3d8 damage for the ogres with Huge heavy crossbows.
I have no idea what it was called, but I read about a Roman war-weapon that was useful against infantry. It was a bunch of metal tubes clumped together, with a javelin placed within each tube, with the ends of the javelins sticking out of the back. The entire tube-cluster was pointed at the infantry / target area, and a big flat board / paddle was slammed into the back of the cluster (using the same sort of torsion a catapult arm used), causing all of the javelins to leap forward at the same time. That would be fun to see, some sort of a 'fill X squares with javelins' weapon. Sort of a medieval gatling gun...
Yeah the damage of siege weapons are pathetic, even more when you consider the huge penalty to ranged attack rolls that comes with them. You'll never see a 1st-level orc warrior using a ballista against the PCs, because he would hit them only on a natural 20.I imagine they deliberately made them sub-optimal against infantry, since seige weapons generally were meant to hit buildings and stuff.
Better to just equip orcs (or ogre seige gunners) with 'normal' oversized heavy crossbows. -2 to hit, 2d8 damage for the orcs with Large heavy crossbows, -2 to hit, 3d8 damage for the ogres with Huge heavy crossbows.
I have no idea what it was called, but I read about a Roman war-weapon that was useful against infantry. It was a bunch of metal tubes clumped together, with a javelin placed within each tube, with the ends of the javelins sticking out of the back. The entire tube-cluster was pointed at the infantry / target area, and a big flat board / paddle was slammed into the back of the cluster (using the same sort of torsion a catapult arm used), causing all of the javelins to leap forward at the same time. That would be fun to see, some sort of a 'fill X squares with javelins' weapon. Sort of a medieval gatling gun...
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but siege weapons are sub-optimal (or should I say useless) against infantry AND they don't do enough damage to actually break castle walls. I guess I'll follow your advice and use oversized weapons instead, even if I always thought that a ballista was an oversized crossbow. :)
But, to come back to the OP, I think that Protection from Arrow was hit by the nerf bat when they changed how DR/magic works in 3.5 (and Pathfinder), so I think that this spell should at least protect you from siege weapons and giant boulders.
stuffHonestly if this spell is shutting down encounters the encounters need to be designed better.
I personally read "all ranged weapons" as meaning exactly that -- fine you take 10 points less damage from a catapult... it's still a freaking catapult and it's still going to really hurt (and no I don't use the current damage for siege weapons as it stands -- 4d6 from a light catapult does *not* make a wall buster... or for the heavy 6d6... honestly these damages are pathetic).
Bring on the Palladium-esque Damage setups 1d6*10, 2d4*10 etc.
|
|
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but siege weapons are sub-optimal (or should I say useless) against infantry AND they don't do enough damage to actually break castle walls. I guess I'll follow your advice and use oversized weapons instead, even if I always thought that a ballista was an oversized crossbow. :)
You're wrong. I was *only* talking about using seige weapons not being optimal to use against people.
Not that second thing that you added, about buildings.
The fact that seige weapons are junk against stationary targets, due to the hardness rules, is an unrelated and real issue, that would need to be addressed in some other way, such as A) allowing them to halve hardness, due to their special design or B) automatically subtracting a fixed number of hardness, say, 5 pts.
Ignores half hardness sounds better to me. Heck, I'd even allow that to apply to DR as well, so that a dragon attacking a castle can't just blithely ignore the ballista. (Not that he couldn't anyway, since they'd never hit him thanks to his ridiculous natural armor rating.)
Mega-damage rules! Woo!
Just on the topic of ballistas.. :)
Ballistas were actually rather accurate weapons used primarily against infantry. So its a little ironic they take penalties to hit in Pathfinder. They weren't much good at taking out heavy fortifications, but that is why the catapult was made.
Perhaps if siege engines had the base damage that they show and then added on [i]falling damage[/b] based on the distance the shot covers.
This means a light catapult firing from 100 feet away would do 4d6+10d6 damage, and account for the fact that the arch actually lends speed to the hit at the end of the trajectory.
I personally read "all ranged weapons" as meaning exactly that -- fine you take 10 points less damage from a catapult... it's still a freaking catapult and it's still going to really hurt (and no I don't use the current damage for siege weapons as it stands -- 4d6 from a light catapult does *not* make a wall buster... or for the heavy 6d6... honestly these damages are pathetic).
Sure it's a wall buster. It just takes a while - to the point that it's just one of many strategies to reduce a fortress. Why do you think assaulting armies either storm the walls, undermine the walls, use treachery to get gates open, or settle in for a siege?
Sure it's a wall buster. It just takes a while - to the point that it's just one of many strategies to reduce a fortress. Why do you think assaulting armies either storm the walls, undermine the walls, use treachery to get gates open, or settle in for a siege?
Exactly. If castle sieges were a half-hour affair, no one would ever have bothered building castles in the first place.
That's not to say that 4d6 is an accurate number. I have no idea. But 'no' is probably a safe bet. :)
Sure it's a wall buster. It just takes a while - to the point that it's just one of many strategies to reduce a fortress. Why do you think assaulting armies either storm the walls, undermine the walls, use treachery to get gates open, or settle in for a siege?
I personally read "all ranged weapons" as meaning exactly that -- fine you take 10 points less damage from a catapult... it's still a freaking catapult and it's still going to really hurt (and no I don't use the current damage for siege weapons as it stands -- 4d6 from a light catapult does *not* make a wall buster... or for the heavy 6d6... honestly these damages are pathetic).
Actually lets look into this:
Lets say I have a stone castle with walls 10 feet thick and 15 feet tall.
Now hit points for very large objects are broken into sections, so lets say each 10 foot wide part of the wall is its own section (so a section is 10 feet x 10 feet x 15 feet tall).
Each inch of stone provides 15 hp, 120 inches in 10 feet means 1,800 hp per section assuming we ignore anything besides thickness.
Now the stone wall also has hardness 8.
The light catapult at 4d6 does an average of 14 hp damage each time it is shot. Meaning 6 points of damage a hit. Assuming that you have a crew of 3 (2 to rearm the catapult each round and 1 to fire it) it's going to take 300 rounds simply to take down one section of that wall. 10 rounds a minute means it takes 30 minutes of continuous firing to take a section down.
Not bad for a single section of a 10 foot thick stone wall I guess, but I bet I can get 3 people to do it faster in other ways without going pass paizo's 6~9 NPC level range, and without using magic.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
Sorry, I'm late... Manticore?
Sorry, I'm late... Manticore?The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.
Matt triple points for playing, and an extra 2 for a monster with a ranged natural weapon but because a natural weapon is a weapon I'm afraid the Manticore doesn't get to win on this round.
A wonderful attempt though!
Actually lets look into this:Lets say I have a stone castle with walls 10 feet thick and 15 feet tall.
Now hit points for very large objects are broken into sections, so lets say each 10 foot wide part of the wall is its own section (so a section is 10 feet x 10 feet x 15 feet tall).
Each inch of stone provides 15 hp, 120 inches in 10 feet means 1,800 hp per section assuming we ignore anything besides thickness.
Now the stone wall also has hardness 8.
The light catapult at 4d6 does an average of 14 hp damage each time it is shot. Meaning 6 points of damage a hit. Assuming that you have a crew of 3 (2 to rearm the catapult each round and 1 to fire it) it's going to take 300 rounds simply to take down one section of that wall. 10 rounds a minute means it takes 30 minutes of continuous firing to take a section down.
Not bad for a single section of a 10 foot thick stone wall I guess, but I bet I can get 3 people to do it faster in other ways without going pass paizo's 6~9 NPC level range, and without using magic.
Ok, couple of issues.
A castle wall would be a rough hewn stone wall. That makes it 540hp per 10x10x10 foot section (per cube).
It does have 8 hardness.
A light catapult takes 2 crew, and takes two full turns to load. So it fires only every 3rd turn.
So, if there's 10 turns per minute, it's firing 3 times per minute.
Average roll is 14hp (as you said). So it get's 6hp through on average per hit.
540/6 = 90, 90 attacks. Or, about 30 minutes to take out that section.
Granted, that's the same time you had, but now the numbers match the entries in the book. :) I know, nitpicky.
That's assuming you can hit the same 10x10x10 cube every time with the catapult from 150 feet away (granted, it get's easier after awhile).
Well I disagree with several of your issues:
1. I took the stone right off of substances table, and I specified that it was 10 feet not the 3 feet that the rough hwen stone wall has... now if you take that 540 and multiple by 3 for 9 feet that puts us at 1,620 which after adding in the other foot puts you right back where I was at 1,800 hp.
2. A light catapult has a crew of 2 to rearm -- full agreement -- I don't think however it would be impossible to have a guy standing there with a readied action to fire the catapult every time it was loaded.
Basically the reason we end up at the same place is you took a third what I had for firing times, but also about a 1/3 of what I had for thickness too.
An outer castle wall will be thicker than a 'mere' 3 feet.
Well I disagree with several of your issues:
1. I took the stone right off of substances table, and I specified that it was 10 feet not the 3 feet that the rough hwen stone wall has... now if you take that 540 and multiple by 3 for 9 feet that puts us at 1,620 which after adding in the other foot puts you right back where I was at 1,800 hp.
2. A light catapult has a crew of 2 to rearm -- full agreement -- I don't think however it would be impossible to have a guy standing there with a readied action to fire the catapult every time it was loaded.
Basically the reason we end up at the same place is you took a third what I had for firing times, but also about a 1/3 of what I had for thickness too.
An outer castle wall will be thicker than a 'mere' 3 feet.
Fair enough, I missed the bit about 3 feet thick. :) So, that would boost it up to either 90 minutes, or if you allow it to fire every second turn, then about 60 minutes (5 times per minute). 1800/6 = 300 / 5 = 60.
Even if you have 3 guys on it, it's still two turns to load, and then fire. So it's firing every other turn, or 5 times per minute (as stated above). So minimum of 60 minutes.
Honestly, that seems awful fast to me. Historically, they'd fire catapults for days on end to blow a wall out.
Well a couple of other things:
The catapults specifically state you can have the crew do their actions to reload at the same time. Meaning it only takes a literal round to reload it (with two people taking a full round action each round to do so).
And we are assuming they manage to continuously hit the same part of the wall from minimum range (100 feet).
In all likelyhood they would be set up about 1,400 feet away (to be out of the range of a composite longbow) which is in their last range increment, and probably have restricted line of sight at that point too. meaning the chances of hitting the exact same spot on the wall each time is fairly low (-20 to hit for range increments alone).
Well a couple of other things:
The catapults specifically state you can have the crew do their actions to reload at the same time. Meaning it only takes a literal round to reload it (with two people taking a full round action each round to do so).
And we are assuming they manage to continuously hit the same part of the wall from minimum range (100 feet).
In all likelyhood they would be set up about 1,400 feet away (to be out of the range of a composite longbow) which is in their last range increment, and probably have restricted line of sight at that point too. meaning the chances of hitting the exact same spot on the wall each time is fairly low (-20 to hit for range increments alone).
Huh, that's even more jacked up. :) It's like trying to throw nine guys at one woman in one night to have a baby the next month. :) There's only so much you can do with parallel work without getting in each other's way. Oh well.
However, I did notice another tid bit. Once they've hit a specific section of wall, they auto hit the same section unless the wind changes. Another bit of 'duh what' as it assumes every catapult load is equally balanced and equally weighted.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I'm late... Manticore?The spell never says anything about attacks.... "ranged weapons" is used multiple times but never attacks. does that change anyones answer?Show me a monster with a ranged attack that doesn't use a weapon that is also possibly affected by DR and I might offer a variation on my above answers.Matt triple points for playing, and an extra 2 for a monster with a ranged natural weapon but because a natural weapon is a weapon I'm afraid the Manticore doesn't get to win on this round.
A wonderful attempt though!
Yeah, thought about that after I posted. 3.5 (in)complete psionic opens up that mess with Crystal shard, but that was a poorly writen book anyway.
One could argue that manticore Spikes are an extraordinary ability, natural weapon is never mentioned in the write up. :-)
Yeah, thought about that after I posted. 3.5 (in)complete psionic opens up that mess with Crystal shard, but that was a poorly writen book anyway.One could argue that manticore Spikes are an extraordinary ability, natural weapon is never mentioned in the write up. :-)
Hm... at that point however improved natural weapon doesn't help them, you can't take weapon focus with them, they can't be used with vital strike, greater magic fang does nothing for them, am amulet of the mighty fist doesn't help, etc, etc.
AND since we can plainly see that manticores have weapon focus(spikes) we can see that it counts as a weapon -- as such it would be stopped by protection from arrow's DR.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AND since we can plainly see that manticores have weapon focus(spikes) we can see that it counts as a weapon -- as such it would be stopped by protection from arrow's DR.
contra to this point, you can take WF (ray). Rays are spells not weapons ;-)
Edit: If you throw a dwarf at the target, does the DR apply?
(prepares to have a bad guy with DR 5/beard just in case.)