Sage Advice on Energy Burst Bows

[mkletch]

This bit is from a post of the recent Sage Advice. The whole article can be seen here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/news...=article&sid=2008&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Here is the Q/A that I'm calling to question:

From the referenced article
Q: This question pertains to the specific enchantments, the burst spells. If you have a shocking burst arrow, it has that effect all by itself, and if you have a shocking burst bow, then it imbues any regular arrow with that effect. Can you have, say, a shocking burst bow and a flame burst arrow and have the effects stack to do a ridiculous amount of electricity AND fire damage?

A: I can’t think of any enchantment spell that is a burst. You’re actually speaking of a weapon property. There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons, but that's not what happens. Check out ranged weapons and ammunition on Page 183 of the DMG. The bonuses of, say, a magical bow and a magical arrow stack, but only the arrow's magic applies when the arrow actually hits.

However, I'd like to point out this example from the SRD, which matches the DMG:

From the SRD, Magic Items (Weapons)
Shocking Burst
Upon command an shocking burst weapon deals +1d6 points of bonus electricity damage on a successful hit. In addition it also explodes with electricity upon striking a successful critical hit. The electricity does not harm the hands that hold the weapon. Shocking burst weapons deal +1d10 points of bonus electricity damage on a successful critical hit. If the weapon’s critical multiplier is x3, add +2d10 points of bonus electricity damage instead, and if the multiplier is x4, add +3d10 points of bonus electricity damage. Bows, crossbows, and slings so enchanted bestow the electricity energy upon their ammunition.
Caster Level: 10th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, call lightning or lightning bolt; Market Price: +2 bonus.

(Emphasis mine)

So which one are we supposed to believe? I'm tired of seeing Sage Advice (which eventually turns into the official FAQ) that contradicts the books. If there is a change to be made, then make an offical errata. This semi-official equivocation or contradiction is annoying at best, extremely disruptive at worst. What will the 3.5 verbiage be?

-Fletch!

 

[dcollins]

The Sage sometimes gets them wrong (as we all do). I'm not surprised that in a real-time live chat he's even more prone to a mistake (working entirely from memory) than other times. This sure looks like an error, based on the information you present.

 

[kreynolds]

There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons...

Did he mean...

"There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to ammunition..."

? Or did he mean...

"There has been considerable talk about ammunition imparting their special properties to weapons..."

 

[mkletch]

huh?

The latter makes no sense...

-Fletch!

 

[kreynolds]

Re: huh?

The latter makes no sense...

Neither does the original sentence that I quoted, which is why I asked.

 

[magnas_veritas]

Re: Re: huh?

Neither does the original sentence that I quoted, which is why I asked.

That may be the other part of the problem, then. Poorly-worded question and working from memory combined would do that.

Brad

 

[Marshall]

The Sage is wrong.

Go thru all his stuff, He's got around an 85% accuracy rate.

Unfortunately, youre right that all his answers eventually become errata. So take the errata with a grain of salt too.

 

[Caliban]

The Sage is wrong.

Go thru all his stuff, He's got around an 85% accuracy rate.

I have. It's around a 99% accuracy rate, but people really remember the ones he get's wrong.

Generally he answers about 20 questions per Sage Advice column, and people generally have problems with one or two of his answers.

I'm sure his "off the cuff" answers in live chats and private e-mails have a lower accuracy rate though.

 

[kengar]

I have. It's around a 99% accuracy rate, but people really remember the ones he get's wrong.

Generally he answers about 20 questions per Sage Advice column, and people generally have problems with one or two of his answers.

I'm sure his "off the cuff" answers in live chats and private e-mails have a lower accuracy rate though.

Not to nit-pick, but for every question wrong out of 20, that's a 5% drop in accuracy, so 1-2/20 would be 90-95% accurate. Coupled with a lower rate from live chat, etc. would put it pretty close to Marshall's 85%.




PS- Okay, that was kinda nitpicky, feel free to ignore.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not to nit-pick, but for every question wrong out of 20, that's a 5% drop in accuracy, so 1-2/20 would be 90-95% accurate. Coupled with a lower rate from live chat, etc. would put it pretty close to Marshall's 85%.




PS- Okay, that was kinda nitpicky, feel free to ignore.

This assumes, of course, that every problem anyone has a problem with is wrong.