Magic Bow and Incorporeality

[Baron Von StarBlade]

This debate came up in our gaming session last night and it pretty much divided the group down the middle. The party was being assulted by wraiths and the thief of the party wanted to shoot the wraith with his +1 shortbow and a nonmagical arrow. Half of the group said the arrow would meet the requirements for a minimium +1 weapon to hit since it was fired from a magical weapon, the other half said it wouldn't since magical ammunition specifically states it wouldn't penetrate damage reduction. Unfortunately we were unable to find any reference stating if a non magical ammunition would affect an incorporeal creature if it was fired from a magic weapon.
I guess the crux of the question is: Is Incorporeality a form of damage reduction and does the same rules apply to it as damage reduction? The DM made a spot ruling in favor of the no damage group.

Thanks,

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I do not know of a specific clarification of this.

But in my opinion the DR rule for bows and arrows makes it clear that a magic bow does not confer any actual magic to the arrow itself.

Therefore, the non-magical arrow will still pass harmlessly through the incororperal target.

 

[StealthyMark]

Incorporeality is very different than Damage Reduction. But...

Reread the discription of Incorporeality. The DMG, pg. 77 states: "They can only be harmed by ...+1 or better magical weapons...". Arrows fired from a magical bow are not magical (DMG, pg. 183), thus are not able to harm the incorporeal creature.

OTOH, you can harm a creature with Damage Reduction, say 10/+1 with normal arrows. You just inflict 10 points of damage per hit less.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Reread the discription of Incorporeality. The DMG, pg. 77 states: "They can only be harmed by ...+1 or better magical weapons...". Arrows fired from a magical bow are not magical (DMG, pg. 183), thus are not able to harm the incorporeal creature.

I have thoroughly read page 183 of the DMG as well as the SRD and no where on that page does it state an arrow fired from a magical bow is not magical. The closest statement would be the following quote:

Only the ammunition's enhancement bonus is applied against damage reduction, since it is the only part of the weapon actually striking the creature

However that specificially states for Damage Reduction, ie the exception to the rule. Therefore if Incorporeality is a form of Damage Reduction then it would apply.

 

[StealthyMark]

IMO, common sense dictates so. If a non-magical arrow can't overcome Damage Reduction, because "it is the only part of the weapon actually striking the creature", the same is true to incorporeality.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Incorporeality is very different than Damage Reduction. But...

Reread the discription of Incorporeality. The DMG, pg. 77 states: "They can only be harmed by ...+1 or better magical weapons...". Arrows fired from a magical bow are not magical (DMG, pg. 183), thus are not able to harm the incorporeal creature.

OTOH, you can harm a creature with Damage Reduction, say 10/+1 with normal arrows. You just inflict 10 points of damage per hit less.

I totally agree that they are different.
However, one element they share is that it is the presence of a magic effect that overcomes them. Clearly a non magical arrow does not qualify. Just because a magic bow was used to make the non-magic arrow more accurate (increasing to hit and damage) does not change the way the arrow interacts with an incorporal target.

Anti-magic zones and such aside - Once an arrow leaves the bow there is really no difference between a +1 Composite Longbow and a MW Mighty Composite Longbow +1 (also assuming STR 12+ for both archers). A magic bow simply improves the aim and impact power (stacking with mighty composite effects) of the arrow.

On the other hand firing a +1 arrow from a normal composite longbow would result in a *slightly* poorer shot than a normal arrow from a MW mighty composite longbow +1, but the arrow itself would then seek to improve the attack.

That is my way of looking at it. Perhaps I am just wrong, but it models the rules.

 

[Petrosian]

I would also rule NO effect.

While there is not an iron clad absolute statement that the arrow is NON-MAGICAl, there is NO statement whatsoever that it IS magical.

incorporeality insists tha attack be magical which means the onus is to prove you have a magical attack. At least thats how my mind works.

The liek case of arrows vs DR... helps cement the basic ruling.

Other possible cases...

would you the GM add to the arrows hardness and hit points because it was fired from a magic +1 bow? Thats what would happen if the arrow were made magical. This could be important for firing through walls of fire and such.

Again for me this would be no.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I would treat it the same for DR, as others have stated. The object actually doing the striking is not magical, therefore it still suffers the miss chance. Later!

 

[Altalazar]

The DMG could be considered a little ambiguous on your specific question, but really it is saying that a magic bow does not make the arrow equivalent in magic in terms of affecting creatures that need special magic to be affected.

This came up with a more direct situation with a creature with damage reduction and an psionic archer in my game. He spent a good deal of money on a magic str bow, but was upset to find that it still didn't help against damage reduction. So now he is going to see about getting some magic arrows.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I would also rule NO effect.

Just for reference I was on the side of it wouldn't hit the wraith as well, but I can see validity to both sides of the arguement.

While there is not an iron clad absolute statement that the arrow is NON-MAGICAl, there is NO statement whatsoever that it IS magical.

Actually there is. Consider a +1 Flaming Longbow. An arrow shot from this weapon would indeed be magical. If such a weapon was used in the battle with the wraiths how would damage be determined? Would only the flaming damage count or since the description specifially states that the weapon bestows the energy upon the ammunition that the damage from the arrow would also cause damage.

Secondly on page 183 of the DMG it states that the enhancement bonuses stack for attack and damage purposes.

Thirdly you can easily make the same arguement that there is not an iron clad absolute statement that the arrow is magical, and there is No statment whatsoever that the arrow is non-magical.

incorporeality insists tha attack be magical which means the onus is to prove you have a magical attack. At least thats how my mind works.

It could be argued that the attack is magical since it is being initiated with a magical weapon.


Finally I reiterate my question is there any place that states incorporeality is a form of Damage Reduction? If the answer is yes then obviously the arrow would do no damage. However if the answer is no then the arrow should do damage since the rules state against DR only the arrow's bonus is used. Again use the logic that the statement concerning arrows penetrating DR is the exception to the rule not vice verca.

 

[Petrosian]

I do not assume an attack is magical UNLESS there is reason to do so. hence, for me, its an obvious question and answer.

About 2 weeks ago we had a small salamander trying to hit a shadow. Since the salamander had nor DR i ruled it was non-magical and hence no hit.

As for the salamanders hit, just like the guy with the +1 corrosive bow, if he did not have magical attack to hit, the secondary effects were also ignored.

Your flaming bow would work the same. i see little dispute beyond the old "well it doesn't aboslutely cleary and withou question say i cannot hit him" type of nonsense.

Does the DMg specifically say that a hit with a daffodil would work vs the wraith? Didn't think so.

But as always, YMMV. your game. Your rules.

There is no clear and unequivocal answer about either the arrow of the daffodil. If you need one to make up your own mind, write the sage cuz ABSOLUTELY BUT NO ONE HERE CAN GIVE YOU ONE.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I do not assume an attack is magical UNLESS there is reason to do so. hence, for me, its an obvious question and answer.

But it was launched with a Magical bow. I would agree completely if the thief was trying to be like Legolas in LoTR by stabbing the wraith with the arrow before shooting it

About 2 weeks ago we had a small salamander trying to hit a shadow. Since the salamander had nor DR i ruled it was non-magical and hence no hit.

I would agree with that since there are rules defined for this.

As for the salamanders hit, just like the guy with the +1 corrosive bow, if he did not have magical attack to hit, the secondary effects were also ignored.

I believe the sage ruled on this saying the secondary damage would in fact hit the target. Of course I don't have all of my sage advice at work. . Maybe Caliban or one of the other pseudo-sages could clarify.

Does the DMg specifically say that a hit with a daffodil would work vs the wraith? Didn't think so.

If it was a +1 daffodil yes otherwise it would fall under the needs to be a +1 weapon to hit category.

But as always, YMMV. your game. Your rules.

Of course but I was asking the opinions and advice of the community.

There is no clear and unequivocal answer about either the arrow of the daffodil. If you need one to make up your own mind, write the sage cuz ABSOLUTELY BUT NO ONE HERE CAN GIVE YOU ONE.

No need to get snippy I already have an email into the Sage with this question. Thanks for the input though.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually there is. Consider a +1 Flaming Longbow. An arrow shot from this weapon would indeed be magical. If such a weapon was used in the battle with the wraiths how would damage be determined? Would only the flaming damage count or since the description specifially states that the weapon bestows the energy upon the ammunition that the damage from the arrow would also cause damage.

The flaming enhancment on a bow (along with the frost, holy, unholy, shocking, thundering and corrosive) only passes on the enhancement to its ammunition because the text of the enhancement says it does so. If it were a general rule that a magic bow enhanced an arrow fired from it to magical status, these descriptions in the DMG would not need this clarification.

Arrows fired from a magical bow do not in general become magical. For any purpose.

 

[Psion]

Sorry, I see trying to suggest that since it only mentions DR that the same does not apply to incorporeality to be a desperate attempt at loophole jumping to save yer but. I'd rule "no hit."

Of course you could make your own ruling or see if the Sage had anything to say... but I'll lay odds that he is going to tell you the same thing.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Actually there is. Consider a +1 Flaming Longbow. An arrow shot from this weapon would indeed be magical.

I do not see that this statement is clearly true. It seems just as reasonable to me to assume that a flaming bow sends a magic flame along for a ride on the still-totally-not-magic arrow.


On a total tangent, if I fire a +1 flaming arrow from a +1 bow of flame, who much flame damage will I do?

The precendent seems to imply 2d6, but I am not sure.

 

[Hypersmurf]

On a total tangent, if I fire a +1 flaming arrow from a +1 bow of flame, who much flame damage will I do?

The precedent seems to imply 2d6, but I am not sure.

It think it would depend on whether you'd allow a +1 Flaming, Flaming, Flaming Shortsword to do +3d6 fire damage or not.

The way I read it, a +1 Flaming Arrow shot from a Flaming Bow would become a +1 Flaming, Flaming Arrow. If the shortsword is possible, the arrow does +2d6 damage. If not, +1d6.

-Hyp.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Except a +1 short sword with magic weapon cast on it is still just a +1 short sword.

Use a +1 short bow and cast magoc weapon on your arrow you get +2 to hit and +2 to damage.

So even if you don't allow a flaming flaming sword (Which I don't think I would), you still have a model for applying both the magic of the bow and the magic of the arrow

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except a +1 short sword with magic weapon cast on it is still just a +1 short sword.

Use a +1 short bow and cast magic weapon on your arrow you get +2 to hit and +2 to damage.

Because "Unlike most enhancement bonuses, but similar to the way in which armor and shields work together, the enhancement bonuses of magic ranged weapons and magic ammunition stack for attack and damage purposes."

Flaming is not an enhancement bonus. It's a special ability.

-Hyp.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Fair enough.

That certainly seems the best answer.