|
I call shenanigans on this thread; which is odd because usually I'm the trouble maker.
The rules are pretty clear, I would go so far as to say that the sentence "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." is just another example of Paizo restating what we already know. It's pointless word bloat, and can be easily removed from future editions to make room for the many, many other far more important clarifications (like Sneak attack and spells for example).
Nothing in the bolded text states that said arrow overcomes additional DR beyond counting as magical (not unlike Enchant Weapon, Greater)... that is the crux of the question.No, nothing in the bolded text says anything about it. Therefore, since we aren't told otherwise shouldn't we apply the normal rules that apply to any other weapon with +3 or greater enhancement bonus? If we all agree that the enhancement bonus does indeed apply (as seems to be the case) then why wouldn't it allow you to overcome DR as per every other weapon with a enhancement bonus? Nothing says it doesn't...
As a general rule, the bonus would be applied towards DR reduction... but in the bolded line, this is a specific rule regarding arrows fired from a magical bow.
Does not specific trump general, when called out?
|
Nothing in the bolded text states that said arrow overcomes additional DR beyond counting as magical (not unlike Enchant Weapon, Greater)... that is the crux of the question.No, nothing in the bolded text says anything about it. Therefore, since we aren't told otherwise shouldn't we apply the normal rules that apply to any other weapon with +3 or greater enhancement bonus? If we all agree that the enhancement bonus does indeed apply (as seems to be the case) then why wouldn't it allow you to overcome DR as per every other weapon with a enhancement bonus? Nothing says it doesn't...
As a general rule, the bonus would be applied towards DR reduction... but in the bolded line, this is a specific rule regarding arrows fired from a magical bow.
Does not specific trump general, when called out?
You need a specific rule that say that the general rule is inapplicable to override it.
It's not a Frequently Asked Question. It's an Almost Never Asked Question, only asked in thought experiments on how to misinterpret the rules.This.
There's really nothing to be clarified here, beyond the level where some people "need" to have a written line stating that dead characters can't move/act/perceive/etc.
Pathfinder is a permissive system and therefore tells you what you *can* do not what you *can't* do. Pathfinder rules doesn't state what actions I'm allowed to take when 'dead' therefore, I cannot take any actions.
However, the rules also don't state that projectile weapons transfer the enhancement bonus to it's ammo, only stating it treats that ammo as magical, and as if it has an alignment if the weapon itself has an alignment.
I answered this yesterday, just 21 posts ago in this thread. Post 33. But nobody rebutted so I guess people just skipped my post as TL;DR. But it does give you the answer you're looking for.
It's not explicitly stated but it IS really quite obvious to even rudimentary logic - so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated. Please read the post and then itemize your objections to the logic I presented so I can see where you might be going wrong and help you to understand the rules better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A +5 Bow only bypasses DR, if you smack someone with it?
Hmm.
How would one attack with a Bow, and still be able to use it's enhancement bonus to bypass DR?
I wonder....
Awww, shucks, I smack people with my +5 bow all the time. It works. It becomes a +5 improvised staff (d6+5 damage). And my +5 sling becomes a +5 improvised garrote. My +5 pistol becomes a +5 improvised small club (sadly, only 1d4+5). Etc.
And that is obviously the ONLY way you can use the enhancement bonuses on magical projectile weapons...
Yeah, totally worth it for my gunslinger to pay 50,000 gold to buy a +5 improvised small club. Hey, but at least my gunslinger finally gets to use his STR modifier on his damage rolls!
It's not a Frequently Asked Question. It's an Almost Never Asked Question, only asked in thought experiments on how to misinterpret the rules.This.
There's really nothing to be clarified here, beyond the level where some people "need" to have a written line stating that dead characters can't move/act/perceive/etc.
Pathfinder is a permissive system and therefore tells you what you *can* do not what you *can't* do. Pathfinder rules doesn't state what actions I'm allowed to take when 'dead' therefore, I cannot take any actions.
However, the rules also don't state that projectile weapons transfer the enhancement bonus to it's ammo, only stating it treats that ammo as magical, and as if it has an alignment if the weapon itself has an alignment.
I answered this yesterday, just 21 posts ago in this thread. Post 33. But nobody rebutted so I guess people just skipped my post as TL;DR. But it does give you the answer you're looking for.
It's not explicitly stated but it IS really quite obvious to even rudimentary logic - so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated. Please read the post and then itemize your objections to the logic I presented so I can see where you might be going wrong and help you to understand the rules better.
That is a common tactic here. Someone provides a crystal clear rules based answer that contradicts some absurd view held by a few so those few ignore the answer and bury it under a mountain of new posts. Then you have to go and make the same arguments over again which will only get buried in the same way. Very frustrating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the cases when understanding the history of the game can help out a lot.
People are taking the sentence: "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" as a limiter, because it doesn't say that +3 bypasses silver etc. etc.
The thing is though, that sentence is directly copied from 3.5. In 3.5 higher enhancement bonuses didn't bypass dr/silver, cold iron etc. A +1 weapon and a +5 weapon would bypass exactly the same DR (DR/magic only unless made from an actual special material.)
Taking that sentence as proof that only DR/magic is intended to be bypassed from a +5 bow is unreasonable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magic Weapon and Magic Fang spells state:
"This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."
Everywhere magic bonuses do not overcome other types of reduction it is explicitly called out as an exception. The rule on magic weapons transferring their abilities to ammo does NOT have a similar restriction. It just says it bypasses "damage reduction", nowhere does it state only "Magic" damage reduction, as the spell states. Therefore, since there is no restriction in the text, the magic overcomes all "damage reduction" which means other types besides magic.
Alignment is also transferred, so even if a magic weapon only has the minimum +1, it still overcomes alignment as long as the weapon is of the proper alignment.
Alignment is noted regarding damage reduction, not regarding all abilities. It is noted because the only thing that would not be transferred is material. So a cold iron or silver crossbow would not help penetrate cold iron. But cold iron or silver arrows would even if fired from a wooden crossbow.
Do other properties apply? Of course. How do we know? Simple deduction from assuming your argument is true. If other properties such as holy did not apply, then most of the magic weapons creation section is utterly useless. The rules would specify people add the abilities to weapons which could not be used, when all they'd have to do is specify the abilities must be added to ammo. The rule makers did not do this. So we have to choose between entire chapters of rules and books full of magic items are wrong, or your interpretation of one sentence is wrong. The best choice is you are interpreting it wrong.
The problem you guys aren't getting is the fact that there is one rule that states you use the higher of the two enhancement bonuses between a weapon and it's ammo.
So this would mean if you have a +3 bow and a +1 arrow, you get:
- +3 to hit and damage
- Overcome DR/Cold Iron and DR/Silver in addition to DR/Piercing and DR/Magic
- Increase the hardness of the weapon and the projectile by +6 and the hp of both by +30
However, then we have another specific rule that states projectiles fired from a weapon are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Then it goes on to further state that weapons with an alignment convey that alignment onto it's ammo. Further it goes to indicate that weapons with certain abilities pass that ability to the projectile.
So, if the first rule were absolutely true, then the next rule is both redundant, and muddles the clarity of the rules. Because if weapons passed the full enhancement bonus of the weapon onto the projectile, then you wouldn't need to indicate that weapons with an alignment also pass on; you also would only indicate which abilities don't get passed to the projectile, instead of which ones that do.
However, lets assume the second rule is still true and projectiles don't benefit the DR penetration of high enhancement bonuses. With that in mind, if you have a +3 bow and a +1 arrow you get:
- +3 to hit and damage
- Overcome DR/Piercing and DR/Magic
- Increase the hardness of only the bow by 6 and the hp of the bow by 30, while the arrow has an increase in hardness of 2 and increased hp by 10.
Now, it's absolutely possible that the big about only being treated as magic is a holdover from 3rd Edition D&D, because in 3E/3.5 enhancement bonuses did not increase DR penetration like it does now. It had different rules for DR, so in that edition, the rule about arrows being treated as magical, and having alignment, made sense.
Now however? Now it changes some of the underlying rules and assumptions most players had about the game. What the rules state is pretty clear, because the specific rules for what a projectile gets from the weapon are clear. How the rules are intended to function, however, is altogether unclear.
This is why a FAQ is necessary. The FAQ is used to clear up unclear rules, and also, indicate some future errata if necessary to clear it up.
Side Note: Paizo does not, necessarily, use the term 'FAQ' correctly. While meaning "Frequently Asked Questions" there are a number of FAQs that weren't really 'frequently asked' but still answered. They use it as a catch-all term for questions asked by the populace and clarified by the designers. Whether those questions are frequently asked or not, doesn't really matter.
If it were a true "Frequently Asked Questions" then simulacrum and other long-standing issues would have a clear priority over any other "FAQ" because they come up all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if the first rule were absolutely true, then the next rule is both redundant, and muddles the clarity of the rules. Because if weapons passed the full enhancement bonus of the weapon onto the projectile, then you wouldn't need to indicate that weapons with an alignment also pass on; you also would only indicate which abilities don't get passed to the projectile, instead of which ones that do.
Your entire argument boils down to: "They explicitly state that, if higher, the weapon's enhancement bonus applies to the projectile and then they print some redundant text, i.e. that the arrow with the enhancement bonus counts as magical so obviously redundancy nullifies the explicit rule."
But the existence of unnecessary or redundant text does NOT cancel out explicit rules.
We can all speculate until the cows come home why they included that second bit of text but it explicitly says that the projectile gains the enhancement bonus of the weapon if it is higher and the second bit of text doesn't contradict that.
I still agree with Tels in that it is unclear.
So, if the first rule were absolutely true, then the next rule is both redundant, and muddles the clarity of the rules. Because if weapons passed the full enhancement bonus of the weapon onto the projectile, then you wouldn't need to indicate that weapons with an alignment also pass on; you also would only indicate which abilities don't get passed to the projectile, instead of which ones that do.
Your entire argument boils down to: "They explicitly state that, if higher, the weapon's enhancement bonus applies to the projectile and then they print some redundant text, i.e. that the arrow with the enhancement bonus counts as magical so obviously redundancy nullifies the explicit rule."
But the existence of unnecessary or redundant text does NOT cancel out explicit rules.
We can all speculate until the cows come home why they included that second bit of text but it explicitly says that the projectile gains the enhancement bonus of the weapon if it is higher and the second bit of text doesn't contradict that.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other? That's not for us to decided. Both rules are equally valid, and therefore, the rule needs clarification.
So FAQ it.
But the existence of unnecessary or redundant text does NOT cancel out explicit rules.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other? That's not for us to decided. Both rules are equally valid, and therefore, the rule needs clarification.
So FAQ it.
There is no rule that says the enhancement bonus bestowed on ammunition fired from a magical bow does count for the purpose of bypassing DR/silver etc.
There are not two rules.
There is one rule (ammunition gets the weapons enhancement bonus) and one clarifying statement, originally from 3.5, that says ammunition from a magical weapon bypasses DR/magic.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other? That's not for us to decided. Both rules are equally valid, and therefore, the rule needs clarification.So FAQ it.
Neither rule overrides the other. Both are applicable. Is a +5 enhanced weapon considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction? Yep. At most you can say the text saying that the projectile is considered magical is unnecessary because we already know that from the fact that it has a +5 enhancement bonus.
Your argument only shows that the second text is telling us something that we already know from the first. That is NOT overriding or contradicting or unclear. It is just not necessary.
It needs no clarification. The rules spell it out explicitly how it works but you are drawing an unjustified conclusion from a redundancy.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other? That's not for us to decided. Both rules are equally valid, and therefore, the rule needs clarification.So FAQ it.
Neither rule overrides the other. Both are applicable. Is a +5 enhanced weapon considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction? Yep. At most you can say the text saying that the projectile is considered magical is unnecessary because we already know that from the fact that it has a +5 enhancement bonus.
Your argument only shows that the second text is telling us something that we already know from the first. That is NOT overriding or contradicting or unclear. It is just not necessary.
It needs no clarification. The rules spell it out explicitly how it works but you are drawing an unjustified conclusion from a redundancy.
See, you cannot, with any amount of authority, declare one to be the overriding rule. In your opinion, one is a redundancy and the other is the rule. However, it doesn't really matter.
There is a rule, that explicitly states that a ammunition fired from a weapon with a +1 bonus or higher is treated as a magical weapon. No more, no less.
So, lets play a game where we make some minor changes to the rule, without changing the rule.
"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."
- "Non-magical mmunition 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." Functionally the same sentence and carries the rules are exactly the same.
- "Non-ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus +5 is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." Still the same rules, slight change to the sentence. However, this points out what the rules states: ammunition fired from a magical weapon is treated as magical. It does not state it is treated as having the same enhancement bonus as the weapon.
One rule states ammo gets the enhancement bonus.
One rule states ammo is only treated as magical.
Which rule is correct/ That is not up to us to decided. You can shout about redundancy all you want, but both rules exist.
It's not like the guys in charge of the rules can't make mistakes. I mean hell, just look at these two FAQs:
Granted, this could be a case of specific trumps general, but it's also a clear discord on how the rules are adjudicated on this issue.
Neither. They both apply and one happens to be a redundant holdover from 3.5.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other?
And yet, you don't get to declare a part of the rules redundant.
Honestly, I don't know why you guys are so against clarification. It's not like it harms anything if they did FAQ this or not.
See, you cannot, with any amount of authority, declare one to be the overriding rule. In your opinion, one is a redundancy and the other is the rule. However, it doesn't really matter.There is a rule, that explicitly states that a ammunition fired from a weapon with a +1 bonus or higher is treated as a magical weapon. No more, no less.
No one is saying that one overrides the other except for you.
Rule 1: A bow adds its enhancement bonus to a projectile if that projectile has no bonus or has a lower bonus.
Question 1: Does a weapon with an enhancement bonus count as magical for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction?
Answer 1: Yes it sure does. So the projectile would count as a magical weapon for overcoming damage reduction.
Rule 2: Ammunition fired from a weapon with a +1 or higher bonus counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Question 2: Does this change anything from Rule 1 or the answer to Question 1?
Answer: Nope, it just says again that it counts as magical for overcoming damage reduction. It just restates the obvious which is clear to just about everyone.
Nothing is being overridden!
And yet, you don't get to declare a part of the rules redundant.Neither. They both apply and one happens to be a redundant holdover from 3.5.
Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other?
It isn't being declared redundant it IS redundant by definition. Go look it up.
Honestly, I don't know why you guys are so against clarification. It's not like it harms anything if they did FAQ this or not.
Because there are truly obscure rules that need clarified without the dev team wasting time on things like this that are perfectly clear.
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, including those from character abilities and spells) 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.
Your forgetting to check the general rules on weapons and instead focusing on the specific rules on ammunition.
The bolded section clearly says that the enhancement bonus applies to attack and damage for magic weapon and it does not make any exception to that statement for ranged weapons of any kind. In fact the next paragraph clearly calls out ranged weapons as magic weapons.
Secondly, there would be no reaons whatsoever to enchant a bow past +1 if the higher enhancement bonus or additional abilities did NOT pass onto the ammunition, which again obeys the line above from the general magic weapon rules.
The ammunition statement was originally a clarification from 3.0 compared to previous editions for how ammunition was now being handled.
I'm getting confused here... it seems people are saying the same thing, yet disagreeing. So, question...
Take 2 archers:
One is equipped with a +3 longbow and nonmagical arrows.
The other...
Nonmagical longbow with +3 arrows.
Which DR is overcome by each archer?
As I understand/interpret things...
The first would be DR/magic, while the second would overcome magic, cold iron, and silver.
The arrows shot by both are effectively identical.
That doesn't quite answer the question.
What DR is overcome?
I'll go ahead and FAQ, if only just to see a bunch of high-level archer builds cry about having to invest in all kinds of disposable arrows and quivers to hold said arrows because apparently their Bows don't do jack anymore.
That being said, I'm sure the answer is Yes. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of creating anything more than maybe a +1 Bow? The point of making a weapon such as a Bow have an Enhancement Bonus allows attacks made with such a weapon to provide a +5 Enhancement Bonus to attack and damage rolls. The RAI here is quite obvious; the Enhancement Bonus on a Bow applies to the ammunition you fire from it. Again, if that wasn't the case, having a Bow higher than +1 is pointless.
There's also this tidbit in the Glossary of the CRB:
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment.
Which ironically enough, supports the cause of "Bows can't bypass DR no matter what their enhancement bonus is," because Ammunition, even if it was conveyed the Enhancement Bonus of a Bow/Gun/Whatever, wouldn't even be able to bypass DR (Shurikens get the green card), because Ammunition aren't Weapons. And the "Bypass DR because of high enough enhancement bonus" rule only applies to Weapons.
The arrows shot by both are effectively identical.That doesn't quite answer the question.
What DR is overcome?Er, it exactly answers the question. Being that they are effectively identical, they both override the DR that is overridden by a +3 weapon:
magic, cold iron, silver
Technically incorrect.
By RAW, a +3 Bow shooting regular ammunition does not bypass Cold Iron or Silver because ammunition being shot from a +1 Bow counts as Magic for overcoming Damage Reduction.
That being said, this is one of those cases like with the Dead condition, where a PC who is dead can technically still take actions and such as normal, whereas the obvious intent behind the Dead condition is that they're...you know...not living anymore.
or[/b] Silver because ammunition being shot from a +1 Bow counts as Magic for overcoming Damage Reduction.
No, because the sentence immediately before that one you're reading says the ammo IS +3.
So, it is +3 ammo per RAW and it also counts as magical, too. Which is redundant because all +3 ammo counts as magical +3 ammo so there is no need to say it twice, but they did. One does NOT replace the other; the second sentence DOES NOT replace the first one. The first sentence still fully applies.
So that +3 bow shooting non-magical arrows is imparting the full +3 enhancement bonus to the arrows. In flight and at the time they strike their target, they ARE +3 arrows with EVERYTHING that comes with being +3, including being able to overcome certain kinds of DR (not just magic).
or[/b] Silver because ammunition being shot from a +1 Bow counts as Magic for overcoming Damage Reduction.No, because the sentence immediately before that one you're reading says the ammo IS +3.
So, it is +3 ammo per RAW and it also counts as magical, too. Which is redundant because all +3 ammo counts as magical +3 ammo so there is no need to say it twice, but they did. One does NOT replace the other; the second sentence DOES NOT replace the first one. The first sentence still fully applies.
So that +3 bow shooting non-magical arrows is imparting the full +3 enhancement bonus to the arrows. In flight and at the time they strike their target, they ARE +3 arrows with EVERYTHING that comes with being +3, including being able to overcome certain kinds of DR (not just magic).
I didn't see a sentence that stated you apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to its ammunition. Could you cite that? If you did, I'd probably concede, but I didn't see a sentence in either the Magic Weapons or Weapons table (and its entries) stating otherwise.
(I'd normally concede anyway, but by RAW from what I can tell, you don't actually apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to its ammunition. It's obviously RAI, but it's not mentioned in RAW, which is silly if it's supposed to be RAI.)
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.
Bows are weapons. Crossbows are weapons. Firearms are weapons. Slings are weapons. They apply their bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
This:
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.
See the part I bolded.
Fire a +1 arrow out of a +3 bow, and the bonuses do not stack. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.
Which means the arrow that hits the guy is a +3 arrow since that is the only bonus that applies.
The very next sentence 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".
If a fighter in melee is using a +3 magic weapon and he hits a creature with DR/silver, you would rule, by RAW, that the fighter's magic weapon overcomes that DR because it is a +3 magic weapon.
Likewise, if an archer is using a +3 bow and he fires a +1 arrow, which uses the higher enhancement bonus so it strikes as a +3 arrow which, per the last part I quoted, you treat it as a +3 magic weapon and he hits a creature with DR/silver, you would rule, by RAW, that the archer's magic arrow overcomes that DR because it is "treated as" a +3 magic weapon.
What the rule really says is this: The projectile weapon's enhancement bonus does not stack with the ammo's enhancement bonus but you use the higher of the two. Whichever bonus you use, that is the bonus of the projectile when it strikes, and you treat it the same way you treat any other magic weapon for purposes of overcoming DR.
You had me up until the last part; at least, by RAW.
A +1 Arrow and a +3 Bow means that the Arrow is +3. This was never debated; a +3 Arrow is a +3 Arrow. But here's the debacle:
If an Arrow is a weapon, then I would concede. Unfortunately, this means that you would consider all ammunition as weapons. Shurikens are normally weapons, sure, and are treated as Ammunition for specific purposes. Unfortunately, Arrows are Ammunition, and aren't treated as weapons for the purposes of determining if they can bypass DR or not, especially if we parse a by-RAW reading. If Arrows are weapons, then I concede. Of course, the burden of proof that Arrows are Weapons rests on your shoulders, so if you can prove that Arrows are Weapons when fired, and not Ammunition, then you would win.
Until that happens though, I will still remain unconvinced.
You had me up until the last part; at least, by RAW.
A +1 Arrow and a +3 Bow means that the Arrow is +3. This was never debated; a +3 Arrow is a +3 Arrow. But here's the debacle:
If an Arrow is a weapon, then I would concede. Unfortunately, this means that you would consider all ammunition as weapons. Shurikens are normally weapons, sure, and are treated as Ammunition for specific purposes. Unfortunately, Arrows are Ammunition, and aren't treated as weapons for the purposes of determining if they can bypass DR or not, especially if we parse a by-RAW reading. If Arrows are weapons, then I concede. Of course, the burden of proof that Arrows are Weapons rests on your shoulders, so if you can prove that Arrows are Weapons when fired, and not Ammunition, then you would win.
An arrow isn't a weapon, it's ammo. The rule I quoted says so too: "Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
So it IS ammo but it is TREATED as a magic weapon for just this purpose.
Easy Peasy.
You had me up until the last part; at least, by RAW.
A +1 Arrow and a +3 Bow means that the Arrow is +3. This was never debated; a +3 Arrow is a +3 Arrow. But here's the debacle:
If an Arrow is a weapon, then I would concede. Unfortunately, this means that you would consider all ammunition as weapons. Shurikens are normally weapons, sure, and are treated as Ammunition for specific purposes. Unfortunately, Arrows are Ammunition, and aren't treated as weapons for the purposes of determining if they can bypass DR or not, especially if we parse a by-RAW reading. If Arrows are weapons, then I concede. Of course, the burden of proof that Arrows are Weapons rests on your shoulders, so if you can prove that Arrows are Weapons when fired, and not Ammunition, then you would win.
An arrow isn't a weapon, it's ammo. The rule I quoted says so too: "Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
So it IS ammo but it is TREATED as a magic weapon for just this purpose.
Easy Peasy.
I should apologize; inebriation does lead to a lack of parsing in regards to connecting the dots. I understood what you were stating this time. I concede. Well done.
I should apologize; inebriation does lead to a lack of parsing in regards to connecting the dots. I understood what you were stating this time. I concede. Well done.
The goal was never to get you to concede. It was merely to help you understand. And anyone else reading the thread with similar questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Threads like this are what got me stop reading the rules forum two years ago (well, that and diabetes).
BTW: Nice to see you again BBT & DM_B
Is anyone really going to rule differently, than what seems to blatantly obvious?
I am seriously asking here.
I actually might. It gives a purpose to magical arrows and helps tone down the overwhelming damage of archers, and especially, gunslingers.
You really think you need to stick it to martials with a houserule like that?
It doesn't stick it to martials too bad. I've heard that archer builds are top dog in consistent DPR, so bringing those guys down in-line with other martials isn't such a bad idea.
Martials' problems have rarely been "I don't do enough damage in combat". Their problems are with everything else.
So this isn't going to hurt them too much.
Heck, if the super-archer isn't rocket-tag-murdering every piercable enemy in the dungeon on the first round, maybe the GM could use slightly weaker/fewer monsters, then maybe the casters won't nova and blow all their spells in the first 15 minutes of the adventuring day.
Might even be a good thing...
...Nah, who am I kidding. Martials can't have nice things!
All right, I've been offline for a week while my internet company got their heads unstuck from their bums. I don't really have much more to add to this thread outside of what's already been said.
In catching up on stuff I missed, however, I came across this post from the "Ask Mark Seifter" thread.
Does a nonmagical arrow overcome cold iron and silver DR, when shot from a +3 bow?The text of: "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." would somewhat imply not, though "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." seems to state that it gains the enhancement bonus. Then again, there are ways to gain an enhancement bonus that aren't "true" enhancement bonus like greater magic weapon, and those don't count as special materials. But usually those tell you that they don't. I'm going to say the text goes both ways. Personally, I'd like there to be some reason to buy +5 arrows, but that bias aside, I think the text leans more toward making the arrows bypass.
While most things Mark says in his thread are said from the perspective of "Pathfinder Player: Mark Seifter" as opposed to "Paizo Design Team Member: Mark Seifter" as his posts don't hold any legal sway in his thread (except when it comes to the Kineticist)... His post probably holds more sway than most.
Now, I will grant you, Mark thinks the rules lean more in favor of nonmagical arrows being able to pierce DR if shot from a magical bow with a high enhancement bonus, at the same time, he also points out the text goes both ways.
I consider a Mark to be a highly intelligent guy and he's got a very firm grasp of the rules. So if Mark thinks that the text could go both ways (but favors one side slightly more) then I think that's enough of a reason for a FAQ to clarify it. Don't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought magic arrows were for people who used bows infrequently, but still needed to hit things.