D&D 5E Magic Ammunition

[CapnZapp]

The big deal with magic ammo is that they're consumables: you can hand them out instead of giving a proper magic item.

This is actually very valuable for me, since it makes ammo a powerful tool to keep inflation and the Christmas tree effect in check.

The actual numerical bonuses aren't that much of a deal. The fact you don't have to permanently hand out an item is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

4. What's this about their being useless 95% of the time? Because, um, no. Basically, it works like this: you hesitate over whether to use it. If you hit, you feel vindicated, and if you miss, you grumble. Sure, you'll only turn a miss into a hit 5% of the time, but that's not what magic arrows are about... they're about the extra damage as well. And that's NOT negligeable, like, ever.

On the attack roll, the +1 matters 5% of the time and doesn't matter 95% of the time. If you find a quiver full of magical arrows, and you fire all of them, then you'll hit one more time than you would have if you'd fired a full quiver of non-magical arrows.

Damage-wise, the only HP that matters is the last one. If you don't take the enemy down to exactly zero HP, then your +1 to damage was wasted because it ends up taking the same number of hits either way. So, with a long bow, the extra single point of damage doesn't matter 87.5% of the time.

Small bonuses only matter in the aggregate, when you have large quantities of them. The +1 arrow is an insult to anyone who knows math... unless you're using it to hurt a creature who is immune to non-magical weapons, in which case it might be justified.

 

[georbit]

+1 arrows should be a whole lot less expensive than a +1 bow, which is why a low level character might want a few in their quiver.

 

[delericho]

It gets a little bit weirder than that. A normal magical weapon can make an infinite number of attacks with that bonus, and the arrow only ever gives you one attack, so it's (1/infinite) of a real +1 weapon.

This is incorrect. Unless your campaign lasts for an infinite length of time, the number of attacks you make will most certainly be finite. Even in a campaign that's been running since 1974 it's unlikely there is any single character who has made more than 100k attack rolls.

Damage-wise, the only HP that matters is the last one. If you don't take the enemy down to exactly zero HP, then your +1 to damage was wasted because it ends up taking the same number of hits either way.

This is also incorrect. It makes a difference if your attack or any subsequent one takes the creature down to exactly zero hit points.

 

[delericho]

I'm trying to figure out how many magic arrows/bolts to give out when I want to include magic ammunition in a treasure. For example, instead of a level 1-2 spell scroll, how many +1 arrows?

I favour giving out "a bunch", which is an indeterminate number of arrows good for giving one character the bonus on all attacks for a single encounter.

Then again, I also favour Paraxis' approach of not giving out +1 arrows at all, and instead giving out 'special effect' arrows instead.

 

[Agamon]

On the attack roll, the +1 matters 5% of the time and doesn't matter 95% of the time. If you find a quiver full of magical arrows, and you fire all of them, then you'll hit one more time than you would have if you'd fired a full quiver of non-magical arrows.

That's a very results-oriented way of looking at it. Looking at it as a higher potential to hit with every arrow makes it a better choice than a regular arrow, always. That's basic game theory.

You could also save magic arrows for attack resistant creatures, then they more than double your damage every time you hit over regular arrows. That's huge.

 

[delericho]

You could also save magic arrows for attack resistant creatures, then they more than double your damage every time you hit over regular arrows. That's huge.

Assuming your character knows which are the resistant creatures and which aren't.

 

[Agamon]

Assuming your character knows which are the resistant creatures and which aren't.

If your PC is first to attack, true. But it quickly becomes apparent. And assuming a magical-looking foe is normal weapon resistant is a decent assumption.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've always thought +1 arrows are a really meh treasure. Mystery and wonder of magic? Not so much. Dramatic effect on combat? No. Exciting story? Sorry.

Rather then a pile of +x arrow I'd rather see one with a spell on it. Sleep, hold, blind (is that spell still in there?) at low level, harm, dominate, plane shift, or disintegrate at high level. The equivalent effect on a combat between one effect arrow and a quiver full of +3 arrow might be equivalent, and you get more drama.

 

[mlund]

To Hell with Arrows, +1 Magical. That's just rubbish. If I want to give me players +1 to hit I'll either bite the bullet and give them a way to obtain a magical bow, a limited-use magical quiver, or the magical oils route.

Deliberate and distinctive magic arrows, for me, need to evoke shades of the Bard the Bowman's "Black Arrow." No, they don't need to knock dragons out of the sky in a single shot, but a [Something] Bane effect would be a really nice start. Something like Ensnaring Strike wouldn't be bad either. If you find a couple of magic arrows in one of my campaigns, rest assured it's going to mean something that can at least keep up with mundane poisons or first-level, quick-action spells.

Marty Lund