Stacking +1 ammo with +1 Weapons

[Oryan77]

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

If I hand a player a magic bow, it seems like a waste when they find +1 arrows. They become nothing but a hassle. Then the players will just sell them and get half their value in gold. I know while they use them the PC would technically have a +2 bonus weapon, but at least it's not permanent (the arrows will be used up).

Both items are pretty standard. And I hate feeling like something is going to waste in the game. I kind of see it being the same as owning a +1 shield with +1 armor, both give a bonus to the same thing.

 

[Pyrex]

Yes, it's unbalanced.

In 3.0 they stacked. Said stacking was broken. In 3.5 they no longer stack. For good reason.

It's not the same thing as a +1 Shield and a +1 Chain Shirt stacking. It'd be more like allowing multiple Dusty Rose Ioun Stones to stack.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

... Which means that magic arrows are almost always the result of spells like Greater Magic Weapon, and you've had to divvy them up between multiple archers.

I actually have a house rule that makes magic arrows and the Protection from Arrows spell slightly more useful. From 10th level, the DR 10/magic provided by Protection from Arrows can only be overcome by ranged weapons which are themselves inherently magical. In the case of projectile weapons, the projectile needs to be magical. So a normal arrow fired from a +2 longbow won't penetrate the DR, but a +1 arrow fired by a +2 longbow will (although it will still only have the +2 enhancement bonus to attack and damage from the longbow).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I think it is largely unbalanced from an economics perspective.

A +1 weapon costs 2,000 gold (plus basic costs).
A +2 weapon costs 8,000 gold (plus basic costs).

If you allow them to stack, you are essentially giving an unfair economical advantage to the ranged fighters.

It gets even worse when special abilities come into play. A weapon cannot have more than a +5 bonus ... but ...

Take a +1 Shock Bow shooting +1 Flaming arrows. Your end result is a +2 Flaming Shock strike under the system you propose. The Bow would cost you 8,000 gold + base costs. The arrows would likewise cost 8,000 gold + base costs. That's a grand total of a mere 16,000 gold.

On the other hand, to do it by the book you could do it several different ways. The most traditional way would be to have a +2 flaming shock bow (or arrows, I suppose). That would cost you 32,000 gold + base costs. Again it is double what you would pay under your suggestion.

Another route yuou could take is to split the extra ability onto the different weapons, but you still need a minimu of +1 on each to do this. You could, for example, have a +2 flaming bow and +1 shock arrows. The bow would cost 18,000 gold + base costs. The arrows would cost 8,000 gold + base costs. This saves you some money: ~ 5,700 gold (since in the first example the arrows need not be masterwork but the do in this example). However, the downfall is that once the ammo is spend, it's gone for good.

Anyway, if you don't care about the economic issue, I'm honestly not sure there is a problem with what you propose. But game balance often involves an economic angle.

 

[Delta]

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

Consider this. They stacked in all D&D editions 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

It wasn't a problem in 1E, but there were two differences of note. (1) There were only bows up to +1, and arrows up to +3. (2) The price of a bow +1 was about twice that of a sword +1.

So one thing I've considered is let them stack, but double the price of all missile weapons & ammunition.

 

[irdeggman]

But with in 3.5 archers are even more deadly not allowing the ammo and bows to stack - imagine what happens if they stacked.

In earlier editions strength bows didn't functionlike they do now either.

So a character can have a +3 composite longbow (with a STR rating of +3).

That will be +3 to hit and +6 to damage. The archer can fire at range (and multiple times per round if he has a high enough BAB) with these applying to every arrow fired.

Add feats like far shot to increase the range increment to 165 ft (110 + 50%) then this puts the archer out of range of melee fighters and a lot of spells.


The "properties" of ammo and bows overlap so a +3 flaming burst bow firing a +1 icy burst arrow fires a +3 flaming burst, icy burst arrow. It is possible via this overlapping to be able to fire an equivalent +20 (non-epic) arrow since both the bow and the arrow have the +10 limit. While a bastard sword wielding melee combatant is limited to only a +10 bastard sword.

IMO 3.0 exposed this aspect of archers and it was "fixed" in 3.5 accordingly.

 

[Artoomis]

Ah, but remember, from an ecomonic standpoint, that arrows are destroyed when used, unlike other magic weapons.

 

[werk]

Ah, but remember, from an ecomonic standpoint, that arrows are destroyed when used, unlike other magic weapons.

Then why do arrows have the same base cost to enhance as melee weapons? If they were cheaper, your argument would hold water, but as it is, the rules contradict your claim.

And they are not all destroyed, only the ones that hit

"Magic Ammunition and Breakage: When a magic arrow, crossbow bolt, or sling bullet misses its target, there is a 50% chance it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless. A magic arrow, bolt, or bullet that hits is destroyed."


If we want to argue balance, then balance the archer with +4 bow and +4 arrows against the melee fighter with a +5 weapon. (ignoring equipment costs) For 64kgp the archer gets a +8 to attack and damage, but for 50k the melee guy only gets +5, that's a 3 point bonus over the melee guy for only 14k. We can see from the table that a +8 should cost 128k, fully double what the archer paid.

That's not balanced, and if you think it is, I want a +8 sword for 64k that reverts back to a +4 sword after I hit 50 times.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Ah, but remember, from an ecomonic standpoint, that arrows are destroyed when used, unlike other magic weapons.

I could give you a serious answer, but I'd just be repeating what Werk already said well. So instead, I'll give you a non-serius quip:

Nobody said the archer had to be smart!

Seriously, though ... I do understand what you are saying about the economic aspect and ammunition being destroyed.

A melee weapon (or fully stacked out bow with normal arrows) that is a +2 human bane flaming frost shock thundering weapon would be the equivalent of a +7 weapon that would have a price tag of ~ 98,000 gold at the local magic mart.

A bow that is a +1 flaming frost shock thundering weapon would have the equivalent of a +5 weapon and would retail for ~ 50,000 gold. [That's a difference of 48,000 gold by simply removing a +1 human bane property] If you allow the arrows to stack, you could get a set of +1 human bane arrows for a cool 8,000 gold. So for the same price as the original, you can buy 6 sets of 50 magically enhanced arrows to get the same attack. To me, 300 arrows is not balancing - and this unbalance only gets greater as the power of weapons increases due to the doubling nature of the weapon prices. Oh, and it actually is more likely more than 300 arrows, because some of the arrows that miss will not be destroyed. So the archer will get more than 300 shots out of his 300 arrows - or he should!

In the current system that 3.5 uses, you can already us this ammo being destroyed to your advantage if you are smart and select your weapon attributes properly. [Bane is a good one for the arrow IMO] A +2 flaming frost shock thundering bow would still cost 72,000 gold. That is 26,000 gold off the original price of 98,000 gold for a fully decked out +7 equivalent weapon. Even under the current rules you can still buy 3 sets of +1 bane (anything) arrows and still have 2,000 gold in change left over. That's 150 arrows! I can think of plenty of bane targets I could pick and just carry those arrows around!

Anyway, I personally think the way that they have the rules is fine. If the archer is smart about where they pick their special properties ... they can still come out ahead without stacking ammow and bow damage.

If I can insert my honest opinion, I personally think that in future generations of the game that ammo should not be enchantable. It should still be able to be made out of different substances (darkwood, alchemical silver, etc) but I do not believe it should be enchantable. That would put the archers and the melee fighters on the same page. As it is, the melee guy needs a new weapon for each time he wants to be versatile - especially with the bane option. The archer merely needs to reserve the bane option for his ammo and buy in small quantities as needed. [I think this is somewhat balanced by the fact that melee people can Power Attack ... but then this really shows how archers have it good over melee specialists who cannot Power Attack! And sneak attack isn't really an arguments, because there are ways to sneak attack from an archer's perspective as well.]

I still consider 3.5 ways fair and balanced - but slightly tipped in favor of the archer. Worst case scenario for the archer is to fire mundane ammo - at which point he's only on the same page as the melee guy from an economic standpoint.

 

[Artoomis]

...If we want to argue balance...

I don't.

I was not making any statment about what is or is not balanced - I simply was pointing out that you must take into account the fact that the arrows (that hit) are destroyed plus 1/2 of the ones that miss.

I think that point is now been covered.