Stacking +1 ammo with +1 Weapons

[irdeggman]

In point of fact, what seems to be happening is that everyone is arguing that allowing the flaming, holy, and bane arrows to function is the overpowering aspect of it. This is what mvincent and I are trying to show (at least if I may speak for my esteemed colleague). I think irdeggman agress by his use of the "arsenal" example. Nonlethal Force clearly agrees, as well.

Yes it makes things unfair - but not as much as allowing enhancement bonuses to stack.

The reason for this is that most enhancements are situational (bane, holy, etc,) and enhancement bonuses are applicable in all cases. There are some exceptions, like flaming and icy - but even those can be situational -like when fighting creatures with the Fire or Cold descriptor.

So, my conclusion is that if you allow the flaming, holy, bane portion of a +1 flaming, holy, bane arrow to stack with a +5 bow, then you should allow +4 of the +5 arrow to also stack. Or, just allow them to stack entirely or perhaps disallow enhancements on arrows, period (as Nonlethal Force suggests).

Again the problem is that allowing the enhancement bonus to stack only makes the problem more profound since the enhancement bonus always applies.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let's see if we can lay it out for those who don't quite get it yet.

Nice. This makes the rest of your post meaningless.

By the same argument then all feats are created equal - which we all know is patently not true (well at least a lot of us know that). All feats are useful but not equal.

No straw man arguments, please.

 

[irdeggman]

Nice. This makes the rest of your post meaningless.
No straw man arguments, please.

I wasn't tryhing to be sarcastic but only adding to what mvincent said

and I'm fairly certain some people just aren't getting how this works (despite several efforts to explain)

The bottom line from perspective is that archers are more powerful (in most cases) than melee combatants using the existing 3.5 rules but

Allowing the enhancement bonus to stack only makes the problem more profound since the enhancement bonus always applies.

 

[werk]

I wasn't tryhing to be sarcastic but only adding to what mvincent said

I'd like to thank you for laying it all out as a representative of those that don't quite get it all yet. It's not a dialogue, so it's a good idea to make sure everyone is on the same page. Thanks!

Allowing the enhancement bonus to stack only makes the problem more profane since the enhancement bonus always applies.

^Fixed that for you

 

[Infiniti2000]

I wasn't tryhing to be sarcastic ...

It doesn't matter. I believe I get it, so I can safely ignore your explanation that would otherwise help me.

The bottom line from perspective is that archers are more powerful (in most cases) than melee combatants using the existing 3.5 rules but

Agreed.

Allowing the enhancement bonus to stack only makes the problem more profound since the enhancement bonus always applies.

Only by a +1 bonus. Sure, that's a little more powerful, but not significantly so.

The bottom line from my perspective is that allowing the enhancement bonuses to stack is no more powerful than allowing only the special abilities to overlap (of course, considering the +1 requirement). Yes, allowing the special abilities to overlap means that archers are generally stronger than meleeers (sp?), but I've also seen relatively convincing arguments that archers are stronger without magical/special arrows just because of ranged attacks (as perhaps it should be, realistically speaking). So, when Oryan77 questions the fairness of allowing the ammo enhancement to stack, it's appropriate the consider the whole thing.

Nonlethal Force probably has the right of it. He also brings up a point which is much more in line with my previous question (my emphasis):

In other words, to truly prove your point, you need to show that merely having a +5 bow with a set of +5 arrows is more powerful when compared to a +5 bow with a set of +1 flaming, holy, bane arrows.

2. As far as the numbers go, I don't have a problem allowing the stacking on damage rolls nearly as much as I have a problem allowing the stacking on attack rolls. To me allowing a +5 bow and a +5 arrow to stack to make a net total of +10 to attack is much more significant than the corresponding +10 to damage. I feel this way because HPs increase much more significantly than AC does.

Given this inclination, if true, then it may be provable that a +5 arrow (stacking) is more powerful than a +1 flaming, holy, bane arrow (even considering that all special effects apply to the opponent). Of course, it would be AC-based and unfortunately highly dependent on the campaign.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The possibility of firing a +10 bane (Evil Outsider), bane (Chaotic Outsider), Axiomatic, Holy, Speed arrow at a Demon (with a +1 still left over for something) just doesn't strike me as a good idea. Putting at least some kind of limitations on it is at least something. Maybe its not enough, but its at least some kind of limitation.

 

[irdeggman]

It doesn't matter. I believe I get it, so I can safely ignore your explanation that would otherwise help me.

Agreed.

Only by a +1 bonus. Sure, that's a little more powerful, but not significantly so.

If you only allow +1 to add on. A single +1 is not much of a problem but that is not the issue.

Since the OP was talking about letting them stack - the implications is to remove the restriction that they can't stack so a +5 arrow and a +5 bow yields a +10 arrow (no special properties).

The bottom line from my perspective is that allowing the enhancement bonuses to stack is no more powerful than allowing only the special abilities to overlap (of course, considering the +1 requirement). Yes, allowing the special abilities to overlap means that archers are generally stronger than meleeers (sp?), but I've also seen relatively convincing arguments that archers are stronger without magical/special arrows just because of ranged attacks (as perhaps it should be, realistically speaking). So, when Oryan77 questions the fairness of allowing the ammo enhancement to stack, it's appropriate the consider the whole thing.

Now if the "core problem" was to be adressed it seems to me that something along the lines that arrows and bow enhancement stack - up to the maximum for a weapon. So when combined they could have no more than a +10 overall enhancement and no more than a +5 enhancement bonus. This would make things a lot closer to being truely balanced.

But simply opening the gate even further really doesn't make a bad situation any better it only serves to make it even more imbalanced, IMO.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Now if the "core problem" was to be adressed it seems to me that something along the lines that arrows and bow enhancement stack - up to the maximum for a weapon. So when combined they could have no more than a +10 overall enhancement and no more than a +5 enhancement bonus. This would make things a lot closer to being truely balanced.

Closer ... yes. But still not truly balanced. Using the economic argument here, I've already shown that at the level of +7 weapons I can make a +5 bow and 300 +1 arrows (with a +1 special ability on it) compared to a +7 melee weapon. To me that just isn't right. The archer already has the advantage of not having to worry about melee attacks if he can shoot far enough away. Why should they get the ability to specialize their attacks by using cheap (in comparison to a +8 weapon) arrows? If we were to calculate how many arrows you could make between a +10 melee weapon and a +8 bow using a +1 (+1 special ability) arrow I think it would get even more disproportinate!

In any case, I could easily make the arguement that I can make 2 +5 weapons for much less than a +10 weapon. So balance is still not yet acheived even if you do let them stack up to +10.

By the way, I would like to add here that this discussion may be one of the most enjoyable discussions I've had on this board for a long time. I hope that we can continue to look at this issue and contribute possitively. Thanks to all who have participated so far.



Edit: Just for giggles....

[Igoring base costs and masterwork costs...]
+10 melee weapon (with one of the special properties as bane (___): 200,000 gold.

+8 bow: 128,000 gold.
+1 arrow with bane (_____) ability: 8,000 gold.

So, 200,000 minus the 128,000 is 72,000 gold if I am not mistaken. 72,000 divided by 8,000 should be 9, should it not? Since each bundle of arows is 50 arrows, 9 times 50 means that an archer could have 450 specialized bane arrows to use with his bow for the same amount of money as a melee fighter gets 1 weapon.

Of course, this is assuming that we houseruled that bows and arrows stack completely. If we use the current 3.5 rules:

+9 bow: 162,000 gold.

200,000 - 162,000 = 38,000 if I did my math right. That makes 4 sets of bane arrows (200 bane arrows!) with 6,000 gold left over.

Just sayin' ... that's all.

 

[mvincent]

The reason for this is that most enhancements are situational (bane, holy, etc,) and enhancement bonuses are applicable in all cases.

Yes. As mentioned, it would take a smart archer to fully use all the different abilities. Using just enhancement bonuses is much easier, but not neccesarily more powerful. An additional 3 1/2 points of damage seems more effective than a +1 to hit and +1 to damage. Usually archers value more damage than to hit bonuses, but even if you put a premium on your chances to hit (over damage), then enhancements like brilliant energy and seeking seem suitable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

An additional 3 1/2 points of damage seems more effective than a +1 to hit and +1 to damage.

But that goes back to an assumption that they are equal. As defined in the market modifier ruleset, a +1 enhancement bonus is equal to flaming. Now, I'm not entirely sure that this assumption is correct, but I have a desire for an alternative to it. I don't even like it on normal melee weapons.

But, let me summarize:

1. Stacking enhancement bonuses: provably broken when compared to non-projectile weapons. Allowed by 3.0 but not 3.5.
2. Overlapping special enhancements: provably broken when compared to non-projectile weapons. Allowed by both 3.0 and 3.5.
3. Projectile weapons: provably unbalanced in general when compared to non-projectile weapons.

#1 was fixed, but not #2 or #3. Ranged weapons provoking an AoO and not threatening is the attempted fix at rebalancing them, but for pure damage, ranged weapons are hard to beat. #3 is way beyond the scope of what we can (easily) fix anyway, so I'll drop the issue. We have two new choices as suggested here:

1. Nonlethal Force: Do not allow enhancements of any kind on the arrows. This fix necessitates not implementing a houserule that requires magical arrows to overcome DR/Magic or similar houserules. IMO, this really does fix #1 and #2, no doubt.
2. irdeggman: Allow arrow and bow enhancements to stack - up to the maximum for a weapon. This seems to work on the surface and handles the houserules well enough, except that the pricing will force one to min/max the costs between the bow and the weapons.

What I'd like to see is a proposal that eliminates all the market modifiers. I personally hate that as a rule. It's much easier to balance special enhancements as a static cost, especially since they have nothing whatsoever to do with the other enhancements. It also allows for much finer control. e.g. flaming is +1 and flaming burst is +2. Clearly, flaming burst is stronger, but most people will agree that it's not worth a whole extra market modifier. As a static increase, it would be a lot more palatable and still remain balanced. Without the market modifiers on everything, we would just need to limit the total enhancements on a weapon, either by total cost or number of them or some other factor.

That helps with the enhancement bonus vs. special enhancement imbalance, but not with the stacking/overlapping question. To that end, so far I'm thinking NLF has the best choice.