|
Technically a +1 bow without +1 arrows will only make the arrows +1 for the purposes of overcoming DR.
RAW:
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.
|
A masterwork bow provides a +1 enhancement bonus to hit. A +1 magical bow provides a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, which does not stack with masterwork. Magical bows impart most of their magical abilities to the arrows they fire, meaning that you take the higher enhancement bonus from each, and add together any special abilities such as flaming or holy. Identical abilities do not stack, and you always use the highest enhancement bonus (do not add them together).
Technically a +1 bow without +1 arrows will only make the arrows +1 for the purposes of overcoming DR.
RAW:
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.
Your statement that a +1 bow without +1 arrows does not recieve the +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage is incorrect. In fact, the rules you quote specifically indicate otherwise. "The higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies."
|
|
Your statement that a +1 bow without +1 arrows does not recieve the +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage is incorrect. In fact, the rules you quote specifically indicate otherwise. "The higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies."
I don't disagree, as 99.999% of all GMs (including myself) run it as such, but why bother putting in the wording of "is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."?
If this is changed from 3.5, it's an exceptionally minor change, and I actually had LG campaign staff rule that a +1 bow firing non-magical arrows would not affect an incorporeal creature because the arrows were only +1 for the purposes of overcoming DR.
The wording has bothered me for a while, but since I've never met a Pathfinder player or GM who runs it other than as what you've said, I've never brought it up before. It was more a curiosity thing.
The statement is redundant but provides additional explanation. I think it and the subsequent sentence were added to avoid the opposite argument: "It's got an enhancement bonus, but it's not actually a magical weapon striking this creature with DR10/magic, therefore it doesn't get through its DR."
|
|
The statement is redundant but provides additional explanation. I think it and the subsequent sentence were added to avoid the opposite argument: "It's got an enhancement bonus, but it's not actually a magical weapon striking this creature with DR10/magic, therefore it doesn't get through its DR."
Agreed. It also might be a holdover from 3.0 when enhancement bonuses did stack and (as you pointed out) stuff had DR 10/+3 or DR 5/+5