D&D 5E Nonmagical arrows and magic bows

[Jaelommiss]

I would say the Magic Arrows come in a group of 10 arrows like the Silver Arrows in the Players Handbook page 148, 100 gp for 10, but for Magic Arrows would be 500 for 10 arrows and they break with a hit or are no longer magical
But if they come in a 1 each, then they don't break, and all come in Black

DMG page 150; Once it hits a target, the ammunition is no longer magical, 10 magic arrows can be made at a time, or from DMG Page 184, Oil of Sharpness, Up to 5 pieces of slashing or piercing ammunition can be coated

Arrow of Slaying - one can be made at coast

DMG Page 285, Max Bonus is +4

Where does it say that ten pieces of magic ammunition are made at a time? There is no mention of it on page 150. I assume that you mentioned it as an extension of your first paragraph, though I would be interested if it is mentioned in the book. Additionally, I think the max bonus listed on page 285 is saying that the maximum bonus on a single item is +4, not that there is a maximum possible cumulative bonus from all magic items used.

In the same way I would allow a player to use +3 armour, a +3 shield, and a ring of protection all at once for a cumulative +7 to AC, I would allow a +3 arrow to be used with a +3 bow for a +6 to hit. Considering magic ammunition is only a 5% chance on tables B, C, and D, and that it makes no mention (that I can find) of giving more than one piece, I hardly think it would be game breaking. A potion of X giant strength, found on the same tables with the same probability would be far more powerful in the hands of a fighter or barbarian than a single arrow would be for an archer.

If you (speaking broadly to DMs), think that it'll be an issue then don't give your players bows with +X. In my experience, players prefer magic items with interesting effects than flat modifiers anyway. I just gave my ranger a longbow that stores 5 charges and can be used to cast Hunter's Mark (1 charge) or Web (2 charges), restore 1d4+1 charges at midnight. The web spell requires a successful attack roll to activate, but can be used at any range the bow can be used at. I doubt he would be as happy if it were a longbow +1.

Regarding damage from a magical bow to a foe resistant to nonmagical weapon attacks, I would allow all regular ammo from an enchanted bow to work. Damage resistance is specified as being "from a nonmagical weapon" in all the cases I could find. All arrows fired from a magic bow are attacks from a magic weapon, and therefore bypass the resistance. As written, a magical arrow from a nonmagical bow would be resisted. The weapon used for the attack is nonmagical, regardless of what it fires. You could hypothetically fire the embodiment of magic from a nonmagical catapult and any bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage would be resisted. I would personally houserule to allow the magic arrow to bypass resistance, though I fully accept that it is not supported by RAW.

 

[txshusker]

Only A is proven. B has not yet been.

I've never played a version when they didn't stack... I cannot find where any argument that they don't comes from.

Then what the hell is a magical bow for?! If not to grant its arrows its magical bonus?

What, you're supposed to club enemies with your +N bow?

Honestly.

Well, you get a bonus to hit and a bonus on damage.... just like a +N sword, hammer, battle axe, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

At first glance this seems to give a huge boost to archers, that they can theoretically get their to-hit and damage to +6 while everyone else is limited to +3.

A rather obvious compromise would be to say yes the bow and arrow bonuses stack but the total is hard-capped at +3. Thus, shooting a +2 arrow from a +2 bow will still only give +3 to hit and damage.

Lan-"give me a sword any day"-efan

 

[Evenglare]

I'd vote yes, the arrow retains the properties of the bow. It would make little sense to have a flaming bow and not flaming arrows. There would be absolutely no use for the bow if the arrows weren't magical as well.

 

[txshusker]

At first glance this seems to give a huge boost to archers, that they can theoretically get their to-hit and damage to +6 while everyone else is limited to +3.

yep. Although, fighter classes getting girdles of strength would create the same issue with melee weapons. Which, if a DM is giving out +3 ammunition and a +3 bow - he ought to be giving out to the melee guys. So the amount to which the ammunition stack overpowers the bounded accuracy and how it creates disproportionate damage output is completely up to the DM.

I personally wouldn't worry about the stacking biz as much as how the interpretation of a magic bow magicks its ammunition in order to hit creatures that are only hit by magic weapons.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

Honestly I think it's ridiculous that we have to debate this after the release of the DMG. Why isn't it properly outlined in the book? Why do we have to resort to an elaborate exegesis just to find out if magic arrows and magic bows / missile weapons stack? The DMG looks awesome and I've already ordered it, but this lack of clarity has become a sort of pet peeve.

 

[MasterTrancer]

Then what the hell is a magical bow for?! If not to grant its arrows its magical bonus?

What, you're supposed to club enemies with your +N bow?

Honestly.

I was about to write this very same question...

 

[seebs]

At one point there was a debate in the PF rules forum on whether you could grapple someone in gaseous form, and Sean Reynolds opined that obviously you couldn't, and that they shouldn't need to say obvious things, and I think part of the intent here is that in the absence of "stacking" rules for bonuses, then you just follow the rules in a straightforward way: If you have a thing that gives you +1 to hit, add 1 to your attack roll. If you have two things that give you +1 to hit, add 1 to your attack roll, twice.

 

[aramis erak]

I'd vote yes, the arrow retains the properties of the bow. It would make little sense to have a flaming bow and not flaming arrows. There would be absolutely no use for the bow if the arrows weren't magical as well.

Not quite true. It's reduced utility, not no utility. The fundamental method of damage is velocity and mass; velocity squared * mass. If the bow's magic increases accuracy and speed (as it logically would), then the bonus to damage should apply as a non-magical–plus if the bow doesn't transfer its magic to/through the arrow. It wouldn't then negate resistance, but would still increase damage and rate of hit.

I'll not let them stack; I'll use the better of the bow's plus or the arrow's plus, and allow the arrow's specials as well even if the weapon's plusses stack, and yes, I will count normal arrows from a +0 or better magic bow as magic for defeating resistances.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I think I would count non-magical ammo fired by a magical bow as magical, but perhaps as a step lower than the bow: So an arrow shot by a +2 bow, would be considered a +1 arrow for such purposes and a +1 bow would not impart any magical essence to the arrow. As far as I've noticed, 5e doesn't make the distinction of resistance to +1/+2/+3 weapons, just binary magical or not, but I might use such distinctions for myself when running certain powerful opponents.

Bottom line: +1 bows - no, +2-3 bows - yes.

As to why, rather than thinking of bows as example, I think of magical guns in fiction--they always seem to imbue their bullets with their magicness.

.

Now, the thread has made me think of a couple of other conditions, namely whether the enchantment bonuses of arrows and bows stack, and whether the damage types overlap/extra damage stacks.

I'm not sure how I'm gonna handle stacking bonuses. It seems that per RAW they all stack, but it makes me nervous--I rather like magical plusses not stacking, as it means I don't have to think about it as much when I hand out enchanted stuff, which I appreciate.

As for the damage stacking, I think I'd roll a Fudge die with each such shot, with a roll of "+" meaning that you get both, "-" meaning that the enchantments cancel each other out, delivering neither, and "blank" as the bigger bonus overrides the smaller one.