House Rule for ranged bonuses

This one has bugged me for a while... so I "fixed" it...

The rules state: "The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies."

Changed to: "The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon stacks with the enhancement bonus from ammunition for purposes of the attack roll only. Only the bonus from the ammunition applies to the damage roll."

Seems to work better for me... otherwise anyone with a +2 bow wouldn't give a damn about +2 arrows... which seemed strange...

The house rule effects are illustrated on the attached table....

I like the differences, despite (maybe even because of) the big attack bonus when one has a magic bow and arrows... at least now the +2 bow wielder perceives +2 arrows as useful...

Anyone have comments?

I'd rather let the bonuses to damage stack,... to hit is much stronger.

Still, that houserule makes archers stronger... and IMHO they don't need that at all.

Why not have them go one for one?

The bonus of the bow is used for to-hit, the bonus for the arrows for damage.

Sylrae said:

The bonus of the bow is used for to-hit, the bonus for the arrows for damage.

Click to expand...

I did that for a while. It worked fine. The main differences between a regular game and that rule set were:

1/ The magic dudes cast greater magic weapon on ammo instead of on bows; and
2/ The archer dude valued enhancement bonuses to his bow.

In retrospect, I'd double the amount of ammo enhanced per unit cost (a.k.a halve the price of ammo).

Cheers, -- N

Though to be fair Nifft, those differences certainly seem more intuitive to me. As an archer, wouldn't I care to the utmost for my bow, as an extension of my will; and sure, I'd enjoy shooting with fine arrows, but it's not as important by any means.

I really like the concept of bow to-hit and arrow to-damage....I hadn't thought of that before.

bow to-hit and arrow to-damage....

That was actually going to be my original ruling...

But then I decided I didn't like the idea of an archer with a non-magic bow and +4 arrows having the same chance to hit with these "very magic" arrows as he has with his mundane arrows...

ardentmoth said:

Though to be fair Nifft, those differences certainly seem more intuitive to me.

Click to expand...

"To be fair" about what?

-- N