Is there anything preventing you from picking up and reusing your bolts and arrows after a battle? What about other forms of ammunition?
Well, as far as bombs, there's a logical reason you can't reuse those ...
I guess it'd vary. As far as I remember:
-Normal thrown weapons: as long as the target didn't run off with it. (Yes, I'm now imagining a goblin surviving a thrown starknife, then fleeing in glee to play with its new toy.) Applies to throw-only weapons like darts and javelins.
-Ammo and shuriken: no, hitting 'ruins' it for this purpose.
That was the 1E version. I..really don't imagine any reasons to change it aside from folks too cheap to buy a box of bolts themselves.
Barring any other rule i am running it as a consumable. Ammunition was commonly collected post battle in real life, but rarely did it survive hitting or missing in a usable state.
Exceptions would be things like missed sling shots in a small clean room, but I would rather just break realism and have the character store large amounts in their backpack. Keeps tracking simple.
"Consumable: An item with this trait can be used only once. Unless stated otherwise, it’s destroyed after activation, though, part of it might be recoverable for other purposes. For instance, while a potion is consumable, the vial it comes in is not destroyed when you drink it. Consumable items include alchemical items (page 543) as well as ammunition, oils, potions, scrolls, snares, talismans, and other magical consumables (which begin on page 559). When a character creates consumable items, she can make them in batches of four, as described in Consumables and Ammunition (page 245)."
I imagine a magical flaming arrow kind of burns itself out/combusts on use.
As for whether conventional ammunition is reusable..... I don't know if it was my complete lack of sleep last night (I have been awake 35 hours now
1, but I can't even find anywhere that explicitly states that nonmagical ammunition is consumed at all, (a passing mention is made to ammunition being "launched", but that is all that I can find).
I liked the way 5e does it - you can spend 1 minute to recover half of the ammunition you expended in the battle - this accounts for a reasonable amount of the ammunition being lost or broken, while avoiding bogging the game down too much with dice rolls to recover cheap ammo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I can tell, only Magical Ammunition is actually classified as Consumable for certain. The Sidebar in CRB, pg. 535 lists ammunition under the "consumables" section, however it is pretty clearly referring to Magical ammunition in that instance.
As a general rule, I will be running ammunition as a consumable, and providing a reasonable amount as loot from enemies that reasonably have proper ammunition.
There is no definite answer for this question in the CRB, aside from magical ammo, which is definitely consumed. There are arguments to be had for both sides, but a clear statement like "all ammunition is considered to have the consumable trait" or "non-magical ammo can be reused if recovered from the battle field" is missing.
Personally, for normal use, and with civilization nearby to replenish, I wouldn't usually bother with keeping track of the exact number of arrows spent (which you could consider as PCs picking up enough arrows after each fight to refill their quivers). YMMV, but to my mind, keeping the bookkeeping required low is a good thing.
If I felt it neccessary to keep an exact count of arrows (someone going through huge numbers of arrows per fight, while only bringing one quiver's worth, or an extended expedition through the desert, the high seas or underground caves, etc.), until an official ruling is published, I'll go with non-reusability, as that seems to be the most likely intention to me.
If I were to allow reuse, and saw a reason to keep careful count, I'd certainly not allow 100% reuse, as shots bouncing off or going through armor, shields, rocks, etc. would most certainly end up at least in part unusable (not to mention those going over board on a ship, or down a chasm in the mines of Moria). Off the top of my head, 25% reusable arrows, as well as harvestable resources from destroyed arrows to recraft another 25% seems like a good number in that case.
It is weird to me that a dagger not having the consumable trait makes it clear that it's not used up by attacking with it, but an arrow also not having the consumable trait has "no definitive answer" as to it being used up by attacking with it or not.
A lot of that is coming from our inbuilt expectations of how things work based in other games or PF1.
To me, any ammunition is by default a consumable. Same with trail rations and the like. If I go to restock consumables, I'm probably buying arrows.
It is weird to me that a dagger not having the consumable trait makes it clear that it's not used up by attacking with it, but an arrow also not having the consumable trait has "no definitive answer" as to it being used up by attacking with it or not.
In 1st Edition, ammo that hit was destroyed, and ammo that missed had a 50/50 recovery rate.
Hence why I asked. I was wondering if the intent of the rules was meant to be different from the previous edition.
It is weird to me that a dagger not having the consumable trait makes it clear that it's not used up by attacking with it, but an arrow also not having the consumable trait has "no definitive answer" as to it being used up by attacking with it or not.
Real world expectations, also no item in the equipment section has a consumable trait. Including oil, nor does oil specifically state that it is consumed in its description.
It is weird to me that a dagger not having the consumable trait makes it clear that it's not used up by attacking with it, but an arrow also not having the consumable trait has "no definitive answer" as to it being used up by attacking with it or not.Real world expectations, also no item in the equipment section has a consumable trait. Including oil, nor does oil specifically state that it is consumed in its description.
Ah yes. The non-consumable flask of oil. I'm sure nobody would ever do anything untoward with that. XD
The problem is that there is no "real" entry listing the traits for non-magical ammo anywhere in the CRB.
There is the weird entry in the weapons table, which only lists its bulk and price and shows what weapon it's meant to be fired by. But on that table, it's missing all other info; note, e.g. that items that don't have any weapon traits are listed here with a "-" in the trait section, while ammo is listed with nothing at all. If there is a way of denoting "this weapon has no traits", namely "-" in the trait section, a blank space instead is obviously not the same. Especially, if ammo has that many blank spaces in its entry, anyway.
Would anyone seriously consider arrows a weapon that does no damage, can only be used with no hands, at no range (despite being listed under ranged weapons,) and of course, usable only in batches of 10, because there isn't even an entry for 1 arrow? That would be ridiculous!
Ammo was quite obviously put on that table because they needed a convenient place to list its price and bulk for equiment purchasing purposes. Using this entry, which is so different from all non-ammo entries on that table, to imply anything else, even to the point of considering ammo as a weapon, is wrong in my opinion.
The only real listing we have is for magical ammo, which do have the consumable trait, but its unclear if this is due to their magic being expended or due to them being ammo. Yes, their magic is consumed on use, but even "If you shoot the [activatable] ammunition without activating it first, it functions as non-magical ammunition and is still consumed." But is it consumed because it is still kinda magical ammo, or is that because that's what is supposed to happen to non-magical ammo? Who knows...
In short, there is no clear answer, and so everyone uses what they think is the intended rule. And trying to use indirect implications of unclear quotes from a quite imprecisely written source to back up their point of view.
As a preface I am not against arrows being retrievable, rather saying that it is more realistic that they should not. This is however a game of magic and longbows can be fired decently from a prone position :p
.
As for real world expectation, I don't think that exactly works out because many kinds of real-world ammunition are recoverable and reusable barring specific damaging events - i.e. not every dear taken down by an arrow falls on and breaks the shaft.
That is why I mentioned sling bullets. Arguably there may not be enough force behind blowgun darts to destroy them though. But when it comes to arrows and bolts made traditionally anything that hits a target is most likely going to be unusable. Keep in mind how arrows/bolts were made.
Points of failure were, hitting bone, shaft damage, tip damage, fletching damage and most commonly arrow neck of the arrow. Even when striking lighter armours arrows were often unusable or very grisly to retrieve (often with a risk of damage to the missile if not done carefully).
When missing a target they often burried themselves into soft surfaces like dirt/clay (becoming extremely hard to find, especially as most lacked dyed fletching), hit harder damaging surfaces like wood, or hit hard surfaces like stone.
Despite this, they were commonly retrieved as arrows and bolts were expensive to make and worth while recycling when possible by passing them back to a fletcher or blacksmith.
Forged arrows in hunting were usually used by accomplished marksmen with others using less expensive and more disposable arrows. Animals would generaly be hit with arrows to panic and weaken them and finished off with spears or chased down by trained dogs.
Traps, slings and dogs played larger roles in hunting smaller animals.
As a preface I am not against arrows being retrievable, rather saying that it is more realistic that they should not. This is however a game of magic and longbows can be fired decently from a prone position :p
.
As for real world expectation, I don't think that exactly works out because many kinds of real-world ammunition are recoverable and reusable barring specific damaging events - i.e. not every dear taken down by an arrow falls on and breaks the shaft.
That is why I mentioned sling bullets. Arguably there may not be enough force behind blowgun darts to destroy them though. But when it comes to arrows and bolts made traditionally anything that hits a target is most likely going to be unusable. Keep in mind how arrows/bolts were made.
Points of failure were, hitting bone, shaft damage, tip damage, fletching damage and most commonly arrow neck of the arrow. Even when striking lighter armours arrows were often unusable or very grisly to retrieve (often with a risk of damage to the missile if not done carefully).
When missing a target they often burried themselves into soft surfaces like dirt/clay (becoming extremely hard to find, especially as most lacked dyed fletching), hit harder damaging surfaces like wood, or hit hard surfaces like stone.
Despite this, they were commonly retrieved as arrows and bolts were expensive to make and worth while recycling when possible by passing them back to a fletcher or blacksmith.
Forged arrows in hunting were usually used by accomplished marksmen with others using less expensive and more disposable arrows. Animals would generaly be hit with arrows to panic and weaken them and finished off with spears or chased down by trained dogs.
Traps, slings and dogs played larger roles in hunting smaller animals.
I think part of the confusion for people when it comes to arrows being retrievable comes with most peoples real world experience with arrows being with modern arrow shafts that are made of aluminium and carbon fibre, often with plastic fletchings - they are far more resilient than traditional wooden arrows with feather fletchings.
I think part of the confusion for people when it comes to arrows being retrievable comes with most peoples real world experience with arrows being with modern arrow shafts that...As a preface I am not against arrows being retrievable, rather saying that it is more realistic that they should not. This is however a game of magic and longbows can be fired decently from a prone position :p
.
As for real world expectation, I don't think that exactly works out because many kinds of real-world ammunition are recoverable and reusable barring specific damaging events - i.e. not every dear taken down by an arrow falls on and breaks the shaft.
That is why I mentioned sling bullets. Arguably there may not be enough force behind blowgun darts to destroy them though. But when it comes to arrows and bolts made traditionally anything that hits a target is most likely going to be unusable. Keep in mind how arrows/bolts were made.
Points of failure were, hitting bone, shaft damage, tip damage, fletching damage and most commonly arrow neck of the arrow. Even when striking lighter armours arrows were often unusable or very grisly to retrieve (often with a risk of damage to the missile if not done carefully).
When missing a target they often burried themselves into soft surfaces like dirt/clay (becoming extremely hard to find, especially as most lacked dyed fletching), hit harder damaging surfaces like wood, or hit hard surfaces like stone.
Despite this, they were commonly retrieved as arrows and bolts were expensive to make and worth while recycling when possible by passing them back to a fletcher or blacksmith.
Forged arrows in hunting were usually used by accomplished marksmen with others using less expensive and more disposable arrows. Animals would generaly be hit with arrows to panic and weaken them and finished off with spears or chased down by trained dogs.
Traps, slings and dogs played larger roles in hunting smaller animals.
Well that and the movies. We've all seen Legolas collecting arrows from orcs after all. I think from a balance perspective, arrows are cheap enough to reasonably expect any ranged character to be able to bear the cost of their mundane ammo, especially after a level or two.
So it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way. Unless you are doing a super long away from civilization campaign. In which case crafting becomes the order of the day. We all know how much people love them some crafting rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially that 4 day requirement. *rolls eyes*
Yes, the crafting rules don't work well for mundane low-value items like arrows (4 days of work to make a single batch of 10 arrows for 1sp, or save 50% of that 1sp for an extra day's work seems... not very useful). I'd say they are primarily designed for crafting high-value items.
For any "normal" campaign, however, no PC would seriously think to make those himself when he could just buy stacks of them at basically no cost from NPCs who craft them much more efficiently.
If you wanted to play a campaign that hinges on being far away from civilization, those formerly mundane items suddenly become much more valuable due to their scarcity and you'd think twice about "wasting" good ammo on some monster that you could just as well take out with a spear. Under those conditions, having them difficult to craft to replace might make more sense.
But that would be a specific kind of campaign with a much stronger focus on the survival aspect than usual...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 280: Under the Ammunition heading, add the sentence “Using ammunition destroys it.”
Thank you for posting that here. Though I already saw it in the errata document, it will be useful to anyone else searching the forums.
I'm happy for the clarification, but they do need to work on standardising their language.
They have introduced a consumable trait for the purpose of marking items that are destroyed on use, so why not use that, i.e. "All Ammunition has the consumable trait"?
Instead, they say essentially the same thing using different terminology. Yes, we all still understand what it means (probably more clearly than with using traits), but if they're not using the trait system then why have it in the first place?
That's a good point. You should repeat that in their errata thread.
Yeah, I guess it makes more sense there. Crossposted.