D&D 5E Nonmagical arrows and magic bows

[Mouseferatu]

Guys... You're letting PEK (Prior Edition Knowledge) interfere again.

5E doesn't address stacking. When something isn't meant to stack, it does this by changing the base rating (like things that give you X AC), rather than being a +Y value.

The rules say nothing--nothing--about some +Y bonuses not stacking, at least that I've found. I'm not even sure the word "stacking" has appeared at all. There is no reason for this to even be a question, save that we're all used to the idea of certain "types" of bonuses not stacking.

There are some unclear rules, I'm not suggesting 5E is perfect. But this just isn't one of them, if one looks solely at the game as written without PEK.

 

[aramis erak]

Guys... You're letting PEK (Prior Edition Knowledge) interfere again.

5E doesn't address stacking. When something isn't meant to stack, it does this by changing the base rating (like things that give you X AC), rather than being a +Y value.

The rules say nothing--nothing--about some +Y bonuses not stacking, at least that I've found. I'm not even sure the word "stacking" has appeared at all. There is no reason for this to even be a question, save that we're all used to the idea of certain "types" of bonuses not stacking.

There are some unclear rules, I'm not suggesting 5E is perfect. But this just isn't one of them, if one looks solely at the game as written without PEK.

It explicitly notes that spells don't stack with multiple instances of themselves, even from separate casters. In the magic rules. Since magical plusses to hit aren't spells, per se, they appear to be outside that.

For AC, it notes to use the various methods, and choose wichever is highest at the moment. (which leads to a guy with AC 15, and a Barkskin spell, is AC16, but if he uses the defense action, is only AC17).

Several powers that grant bonus dice specify that they do not stack with other uses of the same, in various ways.

Mearls has said that "nothing stacks".

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, I'd neglected the spells bit, but that's just my point. In the one primary example of non-stacking, the book specifically calls it out. (I don't count the AC thing as an example of stacking or not, because--as I mentioned--it's not a "+X bonus" but rather a "recalculate the base score as Y.")

There are no generally applicable rules for things not stacking. The ones that don't are always called out. The magic ammo and weapons are not called out. There is nothing as written in the book to even suggest they shouldn't.

I don't really have a horse in the race, in as much as I don't particularly care whether they do or not; I can see good mechanical and flavor reasons for both. I just truly don't see how/why this is a question of clarity.

 

[dd.stevenson]

There are no generally applicable rules for things not stacking. The ones that don't are always called out. The magic ammo and weapons are not called out. There is nothing as written in the book to even suggest they shouldn't.

Is there any generally applicable rule saying things should stack?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd argue that the rules do so by default.

Rule #1: A longbow +2 adds 2 to your attack roll.

Rule #2: An arrow +2 adds 2 to your attack roll.

If you have those rules, and nothing to say otherwise, your total is +4. Just reading as written.

 

[aramis erak]

Is there any generally applicable rule saying things should stack?

Only for spells of different names.

 

[Riley37]

Temporary hit points explicitly do not stack, but that's one specific.

If your PC has a +1 bow, and a quiver of normal arrows; and someone offers that PC a quiver of +1 arrows; would the PC say "meh, they won't make any difference with this bow" or "yes please, with those I can be a bit more accurate"?

 

[Moorcrys]

They stack in my game.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Thinking it over some more, I'm fine with keeping magical ammo extremely rare. In my game players will spend an attunement slot permanently to create magic items, so forcing magic ammo to be created one at a time will offer a good in-game explanation as to why this stuff isn't common.

I'd argue that the rules do so by default.

Mouse, we have a situation where spells of different names explicitly do stack, temporary hit points explicitly don't stack, and other things are left open. I don't find the claim that your interpretation is default, and other people's interpretation is somehow prior edition knowledge, to be very compelling at all.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Fair enough. Whereas I still don't really see why it's in question.

Fortunately, world peace or an end to famine aren't riding on our agreement over magical ammo in D&D.