Firing into a Antil magic shell

[Anditch]

Picture this 1 bowman standing outside of a Anti magic zone using a +2 bow firing at a monster in the Anti magic zone.
Can the magical plusses be adding to hit the monster as i am outside the radius. I agree that the plusses to damage should not be calculated because its inside. As the bow is working properly what is stopping the arrow from aiming properly.I reckon that the calculations of hitting the monster are sorted out before the arrow hits the Anti magic shell thus this should not divert the projectile off course. the magic should be nulled as soon as it hits the shell thus stopping the +2 damage. Can anyone sort this one out pls?

 

[Artoomis]

Nope, the arrows plusses don't help. At least part of the bonus is magically penetrating defenses, not proper aiming.

In a similar vein, if you start a sword swing outside an antimagic field but swing into the field, the attack bonuses of the sword do not apply.

 

[Camarath]

I think two simple questions can determine whether you get the bonuses.

1) Was the arrow (or bow) magical when you fired it? If the answer is yes then you get the Enchantment bonus to hit on your attack roll.
2) Was the arrow magical when it hit the target? If it was not then you do not get the Enchantment bonus to damage or the over come DR (if your foe has non-magical DR).

The attack roll and the damage calculation are two separate but related events.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think two simple questions can determine whether you get the bonuses.

1) Was the arrow (or bow) magical when you fired it? If the answer is yes then you get the Enchantment bonus to hit on your attack roll.

There is a potential problem with this though - because in D&D the whole issue of armour penetration is bundled together with the roll to hit. A bonus to hit is also partly a bonus to penetrate armour. For at least some magic bow effects (e.g. flaming) the bow transfers its power to the arrow for the purposes of implementing its magic. I'm not suggesting that this is the case for the enhancement bonus to hit, but...

I'm hoping that 3.5e will help to clarify some of these issues

Cheers

 

[Camarath]

There is a potential problem with this though - because in D&D the whole issue of armour penetration is bundled together with the roll to hit. A bonus to hit is also partly a bonus to penetrate armour. For at least some magic bow effects (e.g. flaming) the bow transfers its power to the arrow for the purposes of implementing its magic. I'm not suggesting that this is the case for the enhancement bonus to hit, but...

I'm hoping that 3.5e will help to clarify some of these issues

Cheers

As far as I am aware there is no game mechanic that would give credence to needing or allowing a Enchanted weapon to penetrate or negate an armour bonus to AC. There are several alternate rule systems that handle armor in a diferent fashion (such as treating it as DR) that would be probly be affected in this situation. But as the rules stand now, you gain bonuses to taking an action wile taking the action, so in place of a specific rule or rule principle, I think you have to give the bonus to hit. I know that this does not make prefect sense form a realism stand point but the nethier does the way d20 handles armor. I doubt that 3.5 will change the fondamentals of how armor is handled.

 

[mmu1]

As far as I am aware there is no game mechanic that would give credence to needing or allowing a Enchanted weapon to penetrate or negate an armour bonus to AC. There are several alternate rule systems that handle armor in a diferent fashion (such as treating it as DR) that would be probly be affected in this situation. But as the rules stand now, you gain bonuses to taking an action wile taking the action, so in place of a specific rule or rule principle, I think you have to give the bonus to hit. I know that this does not make prefect sense form a realism stand point but the nethier does the way d20 handles armor. I doubt that 3.5 will change the fondamentals of how armor is handled.

What he's saying is that in D&D, the "to hit" bonus is actually a "to hurt" bonus, and as such, it's not just about accuracy but also about blowing through armor and defenses. By your reasoning, the "to hit" bonuses on magical items shouldn't be any help when striking a ghost, an ooze, a golem or a zombie, because their AC represents generic resistance to getting damaged, not armor coverage - it doesn't matter where you hit a stone golem, it's just a uniform lump of rock.

 

[Camarath]

What he's saying is that in D&D, the "to hit" bonus is actually a "to hurt" bonus, and as such, it's not just about accuracy but also about blowing through armor and defenses. By your reasoning, the "to hit" bonuses on magical items shouldn't be any help when striking a ghost, an ooze, a golem or a zombie, because their AC represents generic resistance to getting damaged, not armor coverage - it doesn't matter where you hit a stone golem, it's just a uniform lump of rock.

The bonus is to hit, not to hurt or damage, you can hit but not damage in d20, armor makes you harder to hit not to hurt in D20. The monsters you mentioned do not have "generic resistance to getting damaged", they have an natural AC bonus and is handled as such unless you alter the normal rules. You are applying non-rule based logic and resoning to the rules. I argee that to be realistic some bonus to AC should give a restance to damage but that is just not the way the system works. Damage Reduction is the mechanic that provides for physical (and magical) restiance to damage not Armor or Natural Armor.

 

[Camarath]

I feel that we are dealing with rationalzations about why the rules work a certain way, not what the rules are and how they work. The rules are repressetative of the real word (with magic and all that) not a simulation of the real word. There is no direct correlation between how thing would work out of game and how things do work in game. The rules do not always make perfect sense. The rules also have to incorporate internal game balance and playability something the real world neglects terrilby. Logical correlation of in-game mechanics and real world principles adds a venre of understanding and comprehension of the resoning behind the system but can not be relied apon to accurtely predict how the rules will work in certain situations.

 

[Pax]

Some of your bonusses are indeed working towards gettign through the target's armor.

Otherwise, why wouldn't armor work against TOUCH attacks?

Picture this: A monk/sorceror; his unarmed attack bonus totals to, oh ... let's say, a nice big +10.

He attacks a foe who has Dexterity 12 and Full Plate Armor +5, for AC 24 (touch AC 11).

Our erstwhile monk/sorceror tries to punch his enemy, and rolls a 10. 10+10=20, not enough to "hit" an AC of 24.

Next (beinghasted) he decides to try casting <i>chill touch</i>, iand again rolls a 10. 10+10=20, enough to touch his foe and deliver the spell.

Same bonus to hit, same target; a touch worked but a punch didn't. Why? That armor, that's why.

Now, our monk's twin brother shows up, wearing his Necklace of Natural Weapons +5. He, too tries to punch the plate-armored foe, and also rolls a 10. His attack bonus, however, is +15, including the necklace. 10+15=25 ... enough to do harm, despite the armor.

Both of them rolled high enough on ALL attacks to touch the plate-armored foe; the first twin failed to get "through" the armor to the foe within, and couldn't score any damage.

The second twin, however, had a +5 magical bonus "to hit", and was able, with the SAME accuracy of blow (10 roll, +10 skill), do damage. IOW, he somehow got "through" the armor.

...

Therefor, his magical bonus "to hit" was a bonus "to penetrate the foe's armor". D&D is intentionally vague as to how and why enhancement bonusses on magic weapons make them more able to hit -- perhaps they're more accurate, or perhaps they go through steel armor like a hot knife through warm butter.

Could be either; most likely it's a combination of the two.

 

[mmu1]

The bonus is to hit, not to hurt or damage, you can hit but not damage in d20, armor makes you harder to hit not to hurt in D20. The monsters you mentioned do not have "generic resistance to getting damaged", they have an natural AC bonus and is handled as such unless you alter the normal rules. You are applying non-rule based logic and resoning to the rules. I argee that to be realistic some bonus to AC should give a restance to damage but that is just not the way the system works. Damage Reduction is the mechanic that provides for physical (and magical) restiance to damage not Armor or Natural Armor.

That AC represents how hard you are to hurt, not to hit with a physical attack is one of the most elementary facts of D&D, in any edition. Just because the way "to hit" is used is misleading, doesn't change the reality of how the system works...

Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

"Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you." PHB, p.119

"Remember, too, that an attack that does not deal damage is not always a miss. Heavily armored characters may be frequently hit, but their armor protects them." DMG, p.71