D&D 5E Does a nonmagic arrow from a magic bow pierce nonmagic weapon resistance?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

a +1 bow can be justified in that it shoots the arrows "harder" and allows "better aim" but the actual objects shot from it are not imbued with magic.

With older editions, it was crystal clear that damage was how hard you hit (magic swords were sharper), and a creature that needed a +2 to hit didn't care whether that extra force was imparted by the bow or the arrow. (It was kind of weird that a magic +2 to damage would overcome more than a high-strength +2 to damage, but whatever).

This edition significantly muddies the question by letting damage represent accuracy for ranged weapons (Dex to damage was never a thing in old editions), and including magic weapons that don't grant a bonus to hit or damage. If a magic +0 weapon can overcome resistance, without actually hitting harder (or causing more damage), then it raises the question of what exact property of the magic allows it to do so.

 

[Dausuul]

Mundane equals nonmagical. Do you even know what these words mean?

I think what Hemlock means is that the arrow is a piece of ammunition, not a weapon. The bow is the weapon, and thus a magical bow shooting a non-magical arrow can bypass resistance to non-magical weapons.

Although I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the reasoning. This would imply that magical arrows, when shot from non-magical bows, do not penetrate resistance. I would argue instead that since neither the bow nor the arrow can function as a weapon without the other, the "weapon" is really the combination of bow and arrow. If either one is magical, the whole is magical.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I think what Hemlock means is that the arrow is a piece of ammunition, not a weapon. The bow is the weapon, and thus a magical bow shooting a non-magical arrow can bypass resistance to non-magical weapons.

Although I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the reasoning. This would imply that magical arrows, when shot from non-magical bows, do not penetrate resistance. I would argue instead that since neither the bow nor the arrow can function as a weapon without the other, the "weapon" is really the combination of bow and arrow. If either one is magical, the whole is magical.

This still requires the ludicrous result of "nonmagical arrows instantly become magical when nocked in my special bow" for special unexplained game-designer-had-a-brain-fart reasons.

 

[Dausuul]

This still requires the ludicrous result of "nonmagical arrows instantly become magical when nocked in my special bow" for special unexplained game-designer-had-a-brain-fart reasons.

The arrows are imbued with magic for about three seconds, quite different from creating a true magic arrow, which retains its magic until used and can be shot from any bow. There is nothing ludicrous about this; you just don't like it.

 

[Minigiant]

Wait ... wut? This makes (no?) sense. I think a lot of people have had some fun on this thread, and I think you can justify various versions (mostly by being "more fun" or "more realistic," FWIW), but ...

I don't think anyone is confusing the concepts here. Here, let me use the analogy again for you. Creature can only be hurt by "silver weapons." By your reasoning, then if the bow is silver, that's a silver weapon attack.

Your distinction don't make sense- regarding the last one- if the Bow is magic, isn't the +1 (for example) still "magical piercing damage" under your theory? If a creature is only able to be hit by magical weapons, then a +1 arrow won't hit it, because it's not a "magic weapon attack?" This makes even less sense (the creature is immune to non-magic weapons, so if you shoot a non-magic arrow from a magic bow, it works, but a *magic arrow* which you said would penetrate the creature if you stabbed it would just bounce off because you shot it, instead....).

Eh..... TBH, I am 150% more confused now. I prefer quantum entanglement. That theory made a lot more sense.

Youre confused.

A magic arrow shot from a mundane is still magical piercing damage.

So if a creature is immune to piercing damage from non magical weapon, they still get damaged by the +1 arrow as it deals magical piercing damage. The same magic damage as the "spike growth" and thorn whip spells.

Silver isn't magical by itself and thus a silver bow doesn't grant magic to the arrows.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

The arrows are imbued with magic for about three seconds, quite different from creating a true magic arrow, which retains its magic until used and can be shot from any bow. There is nothing ludicrous about this; you just don't like it.

Actually, arrows fired at long range can have a flight time somewhat longer than three seconds. (Yes, I've fired a longbow IRL.) You might want to quit pulling numbers out of your *** and making up nonsense like this "three second rule" which I'm fairly certain appears nowhere in the 5E PHB nor the DMG.

 

[JeffB]

This still requires the ludicrous result of "nonmagical arrows instantly become magical when nocked in my special bow" for special unexplained game-designer-had-a-brain-fart reasons.

We are playing a game of pretend elves, dragons, and faeries. I'm not sure why this would be a leap of faith for anyone

 

[Uchawi]

If you take a large creatures ammunition, like a giant's arrow, and tie it to a humanoid's magical bow. Does that make it a magical spear? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, arrows fired at long range can have a flight time somewhat longer than three seconds. (Yes, I've fired a longbow IRL.) You might want to quit pulling numbers out of your *** and making up nonsense like this "three second rule" which I'm fairly certain appears nowhere in the 5E PHB nor the DMG.

Now you're just randomly nitpicking, with a side order of gratuitous aggression.

A DM can certainly rule that mundane arrows don't count as magical when shot from magic bows. I wouldn't even call that a house rule, just a different ruling based on something that could be read either way. But we know from Sage Advice what the intent was, and this is a simple, reasonable explanation for the intended rule: The arrow is imbued with temporary magic that lasts for the duration of its flight. You don't like it; fine. You don't have to. But that doesn't make it "ludicrous."