Magic Bow and Incorporeality

[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.