Stacking +1 ammo with +1 Weapons

[mvincent]

Is it overpowering or unfair to allow +1 arrows & +1 bows to stack?

Allowing them to stack wouldn't be too unbalanced. Since the arrow could just as easily be made with special abilities (which are just as effective, if no moreso, than straight enhancement bonuses), the only advantage is that the requisite, initial +1 enhancement isn't wasted.

Also, arrows can be overly expensive to use regularly in a long running game anyway, so (essentially) giving them an extra +1 likely wouldn't really be unbalancing (i.e. since arrows are currently overpriced).

 

[Oryan77]

Thanks for all of the opinions.

Does it make a difference in the overall scheme of things that my world doesn't have magic shops? So the PC's can't just go buy handfulls of magical arrows anytime they want. I thought this might have an impact on the economic arguement.

I also thought the arrows seemed overpriced since they have to restock them when they run out. An fighter spends 8k on a magic blade and that's it...an archer spends 8k on +2 arrows and then has to spend another 8k each time he runs out. Of course this doesn't matter in my game since they can't just go buy their magic weapons.

 

[werk]

Does it make a difference in the overall scheme of things that my world doesn't have magic shops?

Not to me, I don't use magic shops either. As a result, any magical arrows the party has were taken from enemies. I've never had anyone BUY magic arrows, largely because it is a waste of money, as stated numberous times above.

If the overpricing is the issue, just reduce the price. Making them more (overly) effective compared to melee weapons isn't a decent solution, it just creates more problems.

 

[Dross]

Also, arrows can be overly expensive to use regularly in a long running game anyway, so (essentially) giving them an extra +1 likely wouldn't really be unbalancing (i.e. since arrows are currently overpriced).

Do you mean that it would be okay for the arrow +1 to stack, but not the arrow +5?
While the OP only stated a +1 arrow, any ruling must also include the +5 arrow.

I think that it would be unbalanced (the only reason I didn't houserule it in 3.0 was because it would have been too much of a hassle with the other DM's games).

Also, not the DR change from DR/+Y magic to DR/magic.

And it does make a difference that there are no magic shops. Just not in a bad way since it would affect all types of magics.

 

[mvincent]

Do you mean that it would be okay for the arrow +1 to stack, but not the arrow +5?

No. That is not what I meant at all.

While the OP only stated a +1 arrow, any ruling must also include the +5 arrow.

Yes, that is correct.

I think that it would be unbalanced

I think you probably missed why that might not be the case.

Example: +1 flaming, holy, bane arrows cost the same as +5 arrows and are basically about as effective. The difference is that the later doesn't stack with a +5 bow. Allowing stacking would make use of the +1 flaming, holy, bane arrows enhancement bonus (thus a net +1 gain in magical arrow effectiveness), but would also basically make one arrow no better than the other in regard to the +5 bow (which is not really unbalancing by itself).

To restate: thanks to the many special abilities available to arrows, they need not rely on straight enhancement bonuses to be useful... thus (to a smart archer) magical bows and magical arrows can effectively already "stack" anyways.

 

[werk]

To restate: thanks to the many special abilities available to arrows, they need not rely on straight enhancement bonuses to be useful... thus (to a smart archer) magical bows and magical arrows can effectively already "stack" anyways.

Right, but that's not stacking.

If you have a +5 bow, and shoot +1 whatever arrows, the arrows are +1, not +6. It's the stacking, giving the +1 arrow the bow's bonus that is unbalancing. 10 = 10 but 5+5 does not =10

+5 or +6 whatever arrows are much more expensive than two +5 weapons because to do otherwise is overpowered and unfair compared to melee types or throwers.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's so bad it's not even funny.

We had the 3.5 rule about bows and ammo as a house rule long before 3.5. We started with the old rule. I played an elf archer cleric (I knew it would be a very powerful concept, and that was intentional - to get rid of the old 2e walking bandaid image clerics still had in our campaign. It was still dumped on the new guy cause everyone else didn't want to be good for nothing but healing).

I give you that I started him on relatively high level. The other character went home (it was originally a ravenloft campaign, most had FR characters who were sucked in, I opted for a Rokugani one. When the DM decided to put them back out of Ravenloft, my Ninja of course went home, not to the Realms) and I dropped that archer in there.

He'd cast three extended greater magic weapons each day - one on his bow, and two on a stack of 50 arrows each. With a magical composite bow that adapted to the wearer's strength, 3.0 divine favour, 3.0 divine power, 3.0 righteous might, +4 arrows in a +4 bow, combined with boots of speed and rapid shot, I later got in 6 attacks (4 for BAB, 1 for speed, 1 for rapid shot), with something like

BAB 16/16/11/6/1
Dex +7
DF +5
Size -1
RS -2
Bow +4
Ammo +4

-> 34/34/34/29/24/19

At 2d6 (large bow)
+ Str +6
+ DF +5
+ Bw +4
+ Ar +4
+ Energy +1d6

for 2d6 +19 (+1d6).

Not counting Point-Blank shot.

I could use all the attacks most of the time (no need to follow enemies), and with persistant/quicken, I'd have most buffs on, especially in the big fights.

The DM then approached me to say something about the arrows. Since I didn't like how you had to have magical arrows to overcome DR, I gladly suggested them not to stack, but letting the bow transfer its power to the arrows.

We also quickly took away persistant spell (for quicken spell).

People were complaining that the character was rocking so hard. Mission accomplished, that was the last game where people would avoid clerics like the plague.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I've always ridden the fence on this. I'm not sure I like them stacking, but mvincent makes a good counterpoint.

If you have a +5 bow, and shoot +1 whatever arrows, the arrows are +1, not +6. It's the stacking, giving the +1 arrow the bow's bonus that is unbalancing. 10 = 10 but 5+5 does not =10

You have yet to really prove that it's unbalancing vs. mvincent's example.

Take a set of +5 arrows and a +5 bow and compare them to a set of +1 flaming holy bane arrows (assuming the target is affected by flaming, holy, and bane; or choose enhancements appropriately). In 3.5, you're effectively comparing a +5 bow to a +5 bow with a set of flaming holy bane arrows. That's clearly in favor of the second option, rendering the 3.5 rule grossly underpowered.

Assuming that all of the special enhancements are balanced for their given market modifiers (we have to make that assumption), then a simple +5 enhancement should be equivalent to +1 flaming holy bane. Why is it then that we nerf the entire +5 of the arrows, but only +1 out of the total +5 of the specially enhanced arrows? To make 3.5 'fair' we would need to eliminate all of the special enhancements as well, or perhaps make the ruling in D&D 3.6 that instead of not allowing them to stack, you get the bow + arrow enhancements - 1. So, if you use +5 arrows with a +5 bow, you get +9 on attacks and damage, a +9 enhancement in total, which is equivalent to +5 from the bow and flaming, holy, and bane from the arrows.

It's so bad it's not even funny.

You're example shows nothing except that clerics (with GMW, DF, DP, and RM) are questionable, which is what you wanted to show. It has little if not nothing to do with arrows stacking with bows.

 

[irdeggman]

Take a set of +5 arrows and a +5 bow and compare them to a set of +1 flaming holy bane arrows (assuming the target is affected by flaming, holy, and bane; or choose enhancements appropriately). In 3.5, you're effectively comparing a +5 bow to a +5 bow with a set of flaming holy bane arrows. That's clearly in favor of the second option, rendering the 3.5 rule grossly underpowered.

Assuming that all of the special enhancements are balanced for their given market modifiers (we have to make that assumption), then a simple +5 enhancement should be equivalent to +1 flaming holy bane. Why is it then that we nerf the entire +5 of the arrows, but only +1 out of the total +5 of the specially enhanced arrows? To make 3.5 'fair' we would need to eliminate all of the special enhancements as well, or perhaps make the ruling in D&D 3.6 that instead of not allowing them to stack, you get the bow + arrow enhancements - 1. So, if you use +5 arrows with a +5 bow, you get +9 on attacks and damage, a +9 enhancement in total, which is equivalent to +5 from the bow and flaming, holy, and bane from the arrows.
You're example shows nothing except that clerics (with GMW, DF, DP, and RM) are questionable, which is what you wanted to show. It has little if not nothing to do with arrows stacking with bows.

But that is the entire point why the enhancment bonus (for to hit and damage) don't stack.

It is precisely because the special abilities do (actually they overlap).

It is impossible for a fighter (non - epic) to wield a melee weapon that has the equivalent of +19 enhancements (I didn't count the first +1 for arrows because it is needed before applying any other abilties).

What this "arsenal" of arrows allows is for an archer to have at his disposal a large amount of "special purpose" weapons that can be used situationally.

These specail abilities, while equivalent to enhancement bonuses, are not the same. They only apply special features - that may or may not always be useful - while the enhancement bonus is always useful. The point is that the character needs to make a choice on what type of arrow he wants. If the enhancement bonus' stacked then in most cases there would really be no choice to make. Take the +5 arrows since they give a +5 composite longbow (str rating +4) a total of +10 to hit (not counting BAB,, Dex and other mods) and a +14 to damage - at a range increment of 110 ft (remember that it is only a -2 for each increment up to a maximum of 5 increments for a projectile weapon) so the +5 (extra from stacking to hit can instead be used to increase the effective range by countering the penalties for 2 increments. Now add on a far shot and the increments increase by 50%.

An archer has little risk when firing a weapon from a distance of taking any melee damage and (see my example earlier of the str rating composite bows - something that give the damage bonus without any enhancements) and can stay out of range of most spells (especially when using far shot).

Now how does mvincents' example counter this one (which was made much earlier by the way)?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

To make 3.5 'fair' we would need to eliminate all of the special enhancements as well, or perhaps make the ruling in D&D 3.6 that instead of not allowing them to stack, you get the bow + arrow enhancements - 1.

In regard to your first conclusion here, see my earlier post stating my opinion that in future editions of the game I personally think that ammo should not be enchantable. I conceed that it could still be made out of different substances, but not enchantable. That right there puts archers and melee folks right on the same page.

I don't like your second conclusion because it does little to counter the versatility issue of the +1 bane arrows used with a +X (and special qualities) bow.

My main issue with regard to the bow is still that an archer can stack out their bow to one level below a melee weapon and buy scores of magical arrows with the bane property so that he is prepared for any situation - and still spend less than a single melee weapon with the exact same enhancements as the bow plus one bane. The melee person needs to build a whole new weapon for each bane or put multiple banes on the same weapon which only drives the cost up further. To completely level the playing field between melee and ranged weapon fighting, ammo should be unenchantable because the bow confers all bonuses upon the ammo.