I'm trying to expand the capabilities of my Bolt Ace to handle the 'less than physical' undead using his signature weapon
What are the *PFS-legal* ways to make this happen, if any?
Thank you for your time in advance!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 (half damage, no crits)
Ghost blanch Ammo (expensive, 20 gp per arrow)
Ghost touch crossbow. (Expensive, especially if you want other enchantments.) - Oops. Ghost touch only applies to melee weapons and ammo, not crossbows.
Have a spell warrior skald in the party.
Ghost Salt on 10 bolts for 200 GP.
You would need to fire more than 400 bolts to equal getting a +1 Ghost Bolts package (which is 50 bolts) so the blanch is far more effective.
In addition, this should let you crit the ghost, which you cannot do with a mere magical weapon.*
*-This is still up for debate, but several GMs have allowed it. I would allow it. However, be warned that your mileage may vary.
Ghost salt blanch on the bolts
What source is Ghost Salt Blanch in?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Society Field Guide
Thank you very much for the quick response, and that makes life a lot easier, yes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost Salt on 10 bolts for 200 GP.
You would need to fire more than 400 bolts to equal getting a +1 Ghost Bolts package (which is 50 bolts) so the blanch is far more effective.
In addition, this should let you crit the ghost, which you cannot do with a mere magical weapon.*
*-This is still up for debate, but several GMs have allowed it. I would allow it. However, be warned that your mileage may vary.
While I agree there may still be some question on this, I really don't think there should be.
The language of Ghost Touch says that you can attack incorporeal creatures normally. Which would include precision damage of all kinds (criticals, sneak attacks, etc.).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost Salt on 10 bolts for 200 GP.
You would need to fire more than 400 bolts to equal getting a +1 Ghost Bolts package (which is 50 bolts) so the blanch is far more effective.
In addition, this should let you crit the ghost, which you cannot do with a mere magical weapon.*
*-This is still up for debate, but several GMs have allowed it. I would allow it. However, be warned that your mileage may vary.
While I agree there may still be some question on this, I really don't think there should be.
The language of Ghost Touch says that you can attack incorporeal creatures normally. Which would include precision damage of all kinds (criticals, sneak attacks, etc.).
An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.
So you definitely can with ghost touch. Weirdly this is found in the subtype instead of the much longer special quality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The language of Ghost Touch says that you can attack incorporeal creatures normally. Which would include precision damage of all kinds (criticals, sneak attacks, etc.).An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.So you definitely can with ghost touch. Weirdly this is found in the subtype instead of the much longer special quality.
Ghost Salt doesn't convey the ghost touch special property however:
The blanching gives the weapon the ability to do full damage to incorporeal creatures, even if the weapon itself is nonmagical.
So full damage, but still no precision-damage or critting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a note I agree with Majuba.
The language of Ghost Touch says that you can attack incorporeal creatures normally. Which would include precision damage of all kinds (criticals, sneak attacks, etc.).An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.So you definitely can with ghost touch. Weirdly this is found in the subtype instead of the much longer special quality.Ghost Salt doesn't convey the ghost touch special property however:
The blanching gives the weapon the ability to do full damage to incorporeal creatures, even if the weapon itself is nonmagical.So full damage, but still no precision-damage or critting.
Agreed, that's why I mentioned ghost touch.
|
Why is it when I see threads like this no one mentions Holy Weapon Balm? Not only does it give you similar benefits to ghost salt, since most incorporeal creatures that I can think of right off are undead you get an extra 2d4 damage against them.
It actually doesn't give the same benefits as ghost salt, unless you have magical ammo. If you are going to be buying magical ammo you might as well.
Holy Weapon Balm
This violet balm comes in a small ceramic pot. When applied to a weapon as a standard action, it forms a transparent coating. Weapons coated in this balm deal an additional 2d4 points of damage to undead or evil outsiders. A creature affected by the balm must succeed at a DC 10 Reflex save or take an additional 1d4 points of damage the following round. Any nonmagical weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if it were a magic weapon. Any magic weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if the weapon had the ghost touch special ability. The balm remains effective until you make a successful attack with the weapon or until 1 minute has passed, whichever is sooner. Each dose of balm can coat one weapon or 10 pieces of ammunition.
Yup.
It's a distinction that, when I often explain it at a table, I'm accused of being pedantic.
It's hard to tell, but either you or the rules are being a bit pedantic there.
The weapon affects the ghost "normally". Normal would, to me, include precision damage.
|
An arrow from a magic bow is magical isn't it?
True enough Nefeet thou for the large price difference I would still take the standard action to coat my 10 arrows personally. The extra damage will come in handy as in my experience few people carry ghost touch weapons.
And as the balm applies ghost touch it allows critability that ghost salt does not.
It's actually not, oddly enough. It only counts as magical for DR as per RAW. You get the effects of a magic weapon without the technical classification. Which is why you need magical arrows not just a magical bow for fighting incorporeal. Though, I've seen many GMs wave this.
Also, I like to suggest the Force Sword spell to the many spellcaster's which may use it. As it creates a force longsword which gets magical enhancements as your CL goes up. You may hand this sword to another character.
Instant Weapon is great if your caster is also a melee character them-self. A force weapon of any type.
But those two spells are melee only.
It's actually not, oddly enough. It only counts as magical for DR as per RAW.
|
An arrow from a magic bow is magical isn't it?
True enough Nefeet thou for the large price difference I would still take the standard action to coat my 10 arrows personally. The extra damage will come in handy as in my experience few people carry ghost touch weapons.
And as the balm applies ghost touch it allows critability that ghost salt does not.
It's actually not, oddly enough. It only counts as magical for DR as per RAW. You get the effects of a magic weapon without the technical classification. Which is why you need magical arrows not just a magical bow for fighting incorporeal. Though, I've seen many GMs wave this.
Okay, there's been a lot of new information for me on this thread, but you definitely don't need magical arrows for harming incorporeal creatures. A magical bow is enough.
Okay, there's been a lot of new information for me on this thread, but you definitely don't need magical arrows for harming incorporeal creatures. A magical bow is enough.
thank you. i was looking all over for that. didn't think to look in the bestiary
|
|
Okay, there's been a lot of new information for me on this thread, but you definitely don't need magical arrows for harming incorporeal creatures. A magical bow is enough.An arrow from a magic bow is magical isn't it?
True enough Nefeet thou for the large price difference I would still take the standard action to coat my 10 arrows personally. The extra damage will come in handy as in my experience few people carry ghost touch weapons.
And as the balm applies ghost touch it allows critability that ghost salt does not.
It's actually not, oddly enough. It only counts as magical for DR as per RAW. You get the effects of a magic weapon without the technical classification. Which is why you need magical arrows not just a magical bow for fighting incorporeal. Though, I've seen many GMs wave this.
Wow, that is hidden fairly deep. Thanks!
Though, I don't think it would count as magical for holy weapon balm.
Wow, that is hidden fairly deep. Thanks!
Though, I don't think it would count as magical for holy weapon balm.
Holy balm: . Any nonmagical weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if it were a magic weapon.
a magic weapon would hurt the undead, so it works.
|
|
Wow, that is hidden fairly deep. Thanks!
Though, I don't think it would count as magical for holy weapon balm.Holy balm: . Any nonmagical weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if it were a magic weapon.
a magic weapon would hurt the undead, so it works.
I meant for this line.
"Any magic weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if the weapon had the ghost touch special ability."As it is not a magic weapon(just plays one on tv), it won't have ghost touch from holy weapon balm. The balm would be superfluous.
Wow, that is hidden fairly deep. Thanks!
Though, I don't think it would count as magical for holy weapon balm.Holy balm: . Any nonmagical weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if it were a magic weapon.
a magic weapon would hurt the undead, so it works.
I meant for this line.
"Any magic weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if the weapon had the ghost touch special ability."As it is not a magic weapon(just plays one on tv), it won't have ghost touch from holy weapon balm. The balm would be superfluous.
An arrow fired from a magic bow is magic. The sort of hair splitting between being magic and just overcomming the dr is what the FAQ goes against.
|
|
An arrow fired from a magic bow is magic. The sort of hair splitting between being magic and just overcomming the dr is what the FAQ goes against.
Wow, that is hidden fairly deep. Thanks!
Though, I don't think it would count as magical for holy weapon balm.Holy balm: . Any nonmagical weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if it were a magic weapon.
a magic weapon would hurt the undead, so it works.
I meant for this line.
"Any magic weapon coated with the balm affects incorporeal undead or evil outsiders as if the weapon had the ghost touch special ability."As it is not a magic weapon(just plays one on tv), it won't have ghost touch from holy weapon balm. The balm would be superfluous.
Not really. I mean, that's the way I'd like to view it. But the FAQ only adds "affects incorporeal as if magic just like it does to DR", not "is magic".
To be clear, I'm against ' is like but isn't' logic, but that sort of distinction is made in the pathFinder rules system. Though I wish things either just were or weren't.
Not really. I mean, that's the way I'd like to view it. But the FAQ only adds "affects incorporeal as if magic just like it does to DR", not "is magic".
The faq doesn't add. It clarifies. Yes, the arrow is magic.
|
|
The faq doesn't add. It clarifies. Yes, the arrow is magic.
Not really. I mean, that's the way I'd like to view it. But the FAQ only adds "affects incorporeal as if magic just like it does to DR", not "is magic".
It says 'Such attacks should also be able to harm incorporeal creatures as if the attack was magic. This will be reflected in future errata.'
It adds incorporeal to the list of tHings the arrow is treated as magic for, but continues to treat it "like magic but it is not"
Yes, it is a hair distinction and yes some gms will ignore it. But this is the type of system PathFinder is. And I'm not the first to dislike that aspect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is a hair distinction and yes some gms will ignore it.
No one that takes the opposite ruling is "ignoring" it, nor are they cheating, or any other perjorative you wish to put on it.
It's always been pretty obvious that if you shoot an arrow from the bow the arrow is now magic. If that wasn't clear enough for some people, fine. They went and made it clearer. You want it made clearer still, and in the meantime think that everyone else is doing it the wrong way.
We're not.
|
|
Yes, it is a hair distinction and yes some gms will ignore it.
No one that takes the opposite ruling is "ignoring" it, nor are they cheating, or any other perjorative you wish to put on it.
It's always been pretty obvious that if you shoot an arrow from the bow the arrow is now magic. If that wasn't clear enough for some people, fine. They went and made it clearer. You want it made clearer still, and in the meantime think that everyone else is doing it the wrong way.
We're not.
To cheat one must be cognizant of the act. I do not claim this is the case. I only claimed that you must ignore what is literally written to hold your view, which is the first step of a RAI interpretation. I wrote a long post explaining the different between RAW and RAI and the importance of acknowledging the difference.
Instead I'll just ask, what do you offer as evidence that your RAI interpretation is more correct than the literal interpretation of the english words written? As "it is obvious" is meaningless. Especially given that they went out of their way to write it such that your interpretation couldn't be true given the words used instead of writing the simple "all magical ranged weapons' fired ammunition is magical" instead of "acts like magical for these specific rules".
As I have already said, at a home table I take your view. It makes the game more fun. But my opinion on what should be is meaningless against what is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A magical bow is enough.thank you. i was looking all over for that. didn't think to look in the bestiary
I only claimed that you must ignore what is literally written to hold your view
You do no have to do any such thing.
That the arrow counts as magic to bypass dr does NOT automatically mean that the arrow only counts as magic to bypass DR.
Instead I'll just ask, what do you offer as evidence that your RAI interpretation is more correct than the literal interpretation of the english words written?
Because the idea that there is one true literal interpretation of the english words as written is complete total and utter malarky*. You can take the raw and chase it down the rabbit hole and winds up in vastly different places. The apparent intent is a better option than THE literal meaning simply because THE literal meaning does not exist.
*Thanks joe
As "it is obvious" is meaningless. Especially given that they went out of their way to write it such that your interpretation couldn't be true given the words used instead of writing the simple "all magical ranged weapons' fired ammunition is magical" instead of "acts like magical for these specific rules".
And then they deliberately clarified/moved the rules further towards that intent. Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The evidence is clear in the language you are trying to cite against it.
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.
Note that you combine everything from the bow and the arrow (or other projector/projectile), except overlapping the enhancement bonuses. It calls out that non-magic gets the magic, and gets the alignment. This is precisely because of people saying "oh, but that's not a magic arrow, it won't hurt this DR/magic(or /good) creature".
This language was missing from the rules in 3.0, and added for clarity in 3.5.
Why not just say "the arrow becomes magical when you shoot it"? Because then you have to specify when it becomes unmagical (since it could survive being shot if it misses). Imagine a PC shooting durable arrows to make them magical and then reselling them. No need to open this door, just say it works for DR/magic & alignment.
There is always intentions written into the rules - following their history helps bring that out. When you fire an arrow from a magic bow, it is magic for that attack. Simple reading of the rules.
However, if you want to go all RAW... you could be right about the balm, as it states it does all that when "applied to a magic weapon" - the arrow might not be magical at that time...
I was just trying to get my poor bolt ace the ability to do some damage so he doesn't get punked if he runs into incorporeal.
So the takeaway of this, it seems table variation is in place, and purchasing blanches = good.
Did I miss any other crucial points that aren't GM judgement calls?
|
|
I only claimed that you must ignore what is literally written to hold your viewYou do no have to do any such thing.
That the arrow counts as magic to bypass dr does NOT automatically mean that the arrow only counts as magic to bypass DR.
Instead I'll just ask, what do you offer as evidence that your RAI interpretation is more correct than the literal interpretation of the english words written?Because the idea that there is one true literal interpretation of the english words as written is complete total and utter malarky*. You can take the raw and chase it down the rabbit hole and winds up in vastly different places. The apparent intent is a better option than THE literal meaning simply because THE literal meaning does not exist.
*Thanks joe
As "it is obvious" is meaningless. Especially given that they went out of their way to write it such that your interpretation couldn't be true given the words used instead of writing the simple "all magical ranged weapons' fired ammunition is magical" instead of "acts like magical for these specific rules".And then they deliberately clarified/moved the rules further towards that intent. Why?
Some things are plain. You don't suggest that Weapon Focus allows you to fly, simply because it doesn't say you can't, do you? What is utter malarky is to use the word "interpretation" and twist it till any opinion is "correct". Yes, the game has vagueness. Yes, the writing is not always perfectly understandable. But, you know, sometimes it is. And you know quite well that not saying you can't does not give you permission to do something. The game is written to permit things not forbid them. It doesn't have to say "an arrow is not magical" it only has to not say "the arrow is magical".
And I most certainly did not say every sentence can only have one literal meaning. We are talking about english after all. But left doesn't mean right(given the same subjective facing, of course). "As if" never means "is". And "for this circumstance" never means "for all circumstances". One of the possible definitions of the series of words must match your "interpretation" of the words to also be "literally correct". Given an elementary level of reading comprehension, which you obviously exceed, means that you already know this fact. So why are you acting like you don't?
And,no they didn't move the rules further towards "that goal". They merely included situation B to situation A where it "acts as if magical". Acting as if something is different than being that something.
And I notice you didn't offer a single piece of logical evidence. Instead you chose to speak rather vaguely.
]
One of the possible definitions of the series of words must match your "interpretation" of the words to also be "literally correct.
it is plain that a normal arrow fired from a magic bow is a magic arrow the same way that a magic sword is a magic sword. It's magic and it hits things. They just didn't want an enterprising monk with snatch arrows getting shot 10,000 times from his friends +1 longbow making a mint at magic mart.
To some people that was not clear. that's fine. they made it clearer. But not only are you calling that a change, you're ignoring that they "changed" it so that the language is closer to that being how it works.
Yes, the game has vagueness. Yes, the writing is not always perfectly understandable. But, you know, sometimes it is.
9 times out of 10 splitting hairs this fine winds up with the wrong answer. You would realize that you should stop doing this, but you insist that your answer was right all along.
And I notice you didn't offer a single piece of logical evidence. Instead you chose to speak rather vaguely.
because this is not a logic puzzle or an F of X game. I notice you didn't put any of your answers into semaphore. Flag on the play.
You want to rule it your way, do it. You deserve the seriously? Looks you're going to get from your players. But quit it with the backhanded insults of house ruled, home brew, and ignoring the words as written towards your fellow dms for not following an arbitrary rules paradigm with a horrible track record of being right.
An excellent point SCPRedMage - not trolling at all, but making an excellent point. Why do the rules not address that? Because in 3.5 the + of a weapon didn't do that - the only DR considerations from the magic on a weapon were magic and alignment. And those were only put there because they had to take out the 3.0 language that said "add everything together" (which included enhancement bonuses).
You want to rule it your way, do it. You deserve the seriously? Looks you're going to get from your players.
This, entirely this. Of all the really questionable rulings from a (formerly) local GM, trying to stand firm on this ridiculousness is what everyone remembers with great frustration.
Wei Ji - you're not going to have table variation, or at least you shouldn't. Regardless, ghost salt is a probably too cheap and effective solution.
A ghost salt blanch'd bolt fired from a +1 crossbow does what, then?
|
|
I agree, but by the hair-splitting interpretation, it only says they count as magic, so they'd only overcome DR /magic.How do non-magical, non-special material arrows fired from a +3 bow interact with DR /silver?They overcome the DR.
Huh?
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.
|
|
Here's how I view the issue with the Balm (although I've never had this actually come up at a table before, and it may never; I've only just today learned of this stuff):
1) miner extracts nonmagical iron ore from the ground
2) weaponsmith creates nonmagical arrowheads
3) shopkeeper sells quiver of nonmagical arrows
4) archer loads nonmagical arrow into magical bow
5) enemy is hit with a magical arrow
1) miner extracts nonmagical iron ore from the ground
2) weaponsmith creates nonmagical arrowheads
3) shopkeeper sells quiver of nonmagical arrows
4) archer coats nonmagical arrow with Holy Balm
5) archer loads magical arrow into magical bow
6) enemy is hit with a magical arrow
No effective difference.
Holding a magical bow in your left hand doesn't turn the nonmagical arrow in your right hand magical.
It only becomes magical after being fired.
Furthermore, unless you're a three-armed Alchemist, your left hand was applying the Balm anyways.
At least, that's how I interpret the sequence of events. I'm certainly open to changing that understanding.
Huh?
He;'s saying that if you hair split the +3 bow gives the arrow a +3 bounus that only gets through magic DR, not cold iron or silver DR, because it's not a magic +3 arrow its simply an arrow that can go through magic DR.