Stacking +1 ammo with +1 Weapons

[irdeggman]

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

Except that is the price for 50 arrows and not one.

 

[Grog]

Now composite bows also have a Str rating which applies to damage (and is not considered an enhancement) - melee weapons do not have anything similar to this that can apply.

Um, meele weapons have something exactly the same - the wielder's Str bonus is added to the damage the weapon does. And this costs nothing, and for a two-handed weapon, it's better than the bow because it adds x1.5 the Str bonus in damage instead of x1.

An archer can fire a number of arrows based on his BAB and at range so that a melee combatant won't reach him until suffering through several rounds worth of attacks.

Only in some situations. In a dungeon (which is where the majority of 3.x combat takes place), an archer might get one free round of shots on a meele fighter before he closes the distance. If he's lucky. And don't forget that bows are ridiculously easy to sunder.

I wonder how many of the people claiming that bow and arrow enhancement bonuses stacking is too powerful have actually done some math on the subject. Compare, say, a 12th level half-orc barbarian who uses a greatsword with a 12th level elven fighter who uses a longbow.

The barbarian has a 24 Strength and rage boosts him up to 30. He's using a +3 greatsword, weapon focus, which gives him +26/+21/+16 for 2d6+18 per attack, 25 average damage per hit. And that's without Power Attack.

The archer has a 24 Dex, 16 Strength. He's using a +3 composite longbow with a +3 strength bonus, weapon focus and specialization, which gives him +23/+18/+13, or +21/+21/+16/+11 when using Rapid Shot for 1d6+8 damage per hit, 11.5 average damage.

The archer does less damage in two hits than the barbarian does in one. And the barbarian is hitting a LOT more often. If the barbarian Power Attacks for 5 points, which makes his attack bonus the same as the Rapid Shotting archer, his average damage per hit jumps to 35. More than three shots from the archer.

Plus, against enemies with DR, the archer is screwed. The barbarian barely notices.

No, I don't think stacking bow and arrow bonuses is broken at all.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Except that is the price for 50 arrows and not one.

Here, I thought I'd quote myself just so that you know that I know what I'm doing! [Honestly, I don't mean this to be snarky, simply illustrating that I took this into account: ]

Since each bundle of arows is 50 arrows

Yes. That's how I got to arrive at 450 arrows per the monetary difference if arrow/bow enhancements are allowed to stack.

I wonder how many of the people claiming that bow and arrow enhancement bonuses stacking is too powerful have actually done some math on the subject.

I think you are missing the greater point of the thread. I'm still out as to which can do more damage. I've personally always assumed that a raging barbarian with Power Attack out-damages most others personally. Yet, the fact that an archer with far shot and a composite bow can nail a person even outside the average person's run distance can make a difference in this. Throw an intercepting meat shield and now that archer looks real good. Additionally, I am a firm believer that where combat takes place is largely campaign specific. For example, I am running a campaign here at ENWorld that has yet to see combat taking place in a dungeon. Honestly in my experience, dungeon combat is in the minority of the combats I do. But like I said, that is largely campaign specific and really can't be taken for granted on either side of the issue.

The main point of this thread so far has been to argue the aspects of whether allowing bow/arrow enhancements to stack. Economically, I believe it to be unbalanced. As a bonus to attack, I also see it as unbalanced because it might allow for as much as a +10 to attack when no melee character could gain more than a +5 from their weapon. As a bonus to damage, this is the one that I am the most neutral on. The bonus to damage is much less significant in comparison to an enemy's total hitpoints. But even with this regard I still think 2 out of 3 coniderations are definately unbalanced - and possibly the third.

 

[Grog]

I think you are missing the greater point of the thread. I'm still out as to which can do more damage. I've personally always assumed that a raging barbarian with Power Attack out-damages most others personally. Yet, the fact that an archer with far shot and a composite bow can nail a person even outside the average person's run distance can make a difference in this. Throw an intercepting meat shield and now that archer looks real good. Additionally, I am a firm believer that where combat takes place is largely campaign specific. For example, I am running a campaign here at ENWorld that has yet to see combat taking place in a dungeon. Honestly in my experience, dungeon combat is in the minority of the combats I do. But like I said, that is largely campaign specific and really can't be taken for granted on either side of the issue.

Well, the designers of 3.x have said that their goal in making the system was to go "back to the dungeon," so to speak. And most published adventures focus mainly on dungeons. I will grant that, in a campaign where most combats take place outdoors, during the daytime, in good weather, in places with clear terrain and good visibility, archery will be much more useful and effective than it otherwise would be. But I don't think most campaigns fall into that category.

The main point of this thread so far has been to argue the aspects of whether allowing bow/arrow enhancements to stack. Economically, I believe it to be unbalanced. As a bonus to attack, I also see it as unbalanced because it might allow for as much as a +10 to attack when no melee character could gain more than a +5 from their weapon. As a bonus to damage, this is the one that I am the most neutral on. The bonus to damage is much less significant in comparison to an enemy's total hitpoints. But even with this regard I still think 2 out of 3 coniderations are definately unbalanced - and possibly the third.

Check my example again. Not only is the barbarian doing more damage than the archer, he also has a significantly better chance to hit.

And as for economics, fighters and barbarians can get a large amount of damage for free from Strength. That has to be factored in as well. I was actually somewhat conservative in my estimate of my example barbarian's Strength - it could easily have been even higher than what I listed.

 

[Pyrex]

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.

...until you factor in Greater Magic Weapon.

Putting +8 worth of overlapping properties on the bow & arrow then casting GMW for a combined effective bonus of +18 is sick, wrong and broken.

 

[Grog]

...until you factor in Greater Magic Weapon.

Putting +8 worth of overlapping properties on the bow & arrow then casting GMW for a combined effective bonus of +18 is sick, wrong and broken.

Only +16 (weapons have to have a +1 enchantment before you can put other stuff on them). And you can do the same thing with a meele weapon. And you have to be 20th level to get that huge bonus. And you only have it for 50 shots (10 rounds if you're using Rapid shot, 12.5 if you're not).

 

[irdeggman]

Another interesting fact.

Arrows can be used as an improvised melee weapon (-4 to hit, treat as a dagger for damage). They are not destroyed in this manner since they are no longer "ammunition".

So it can be a cheap way to arm characters with weapons that bypass DR/magic.

Pretty much the rules for handling magical ammunition are fairly well out of whack - even currenlty without adding anything more to them.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well, the designers of 3.x have said that their goal in making the system was to go "back to the dungeon," so to speak. And most published adventures focus mainly on dungeons. I will grant that, in a campaign where most combats take place outdoors, during the daytime, in good weather, in places with clear terrain and good visibility, archery will be much more useful and effective than it otherwise would be. But I don't think most campaigns fall into that category.

Be that as it may, my point is that where combat takes place is largely dependant upon the DM and the intelligence of the players so long as they are not surprised. I see no reason to add so many descriptors to the out-of-doors combat so as to make my point (and originally Infinty2000's I believe) seem childish and rare. We're having a nice discussion here. Just because you play underground and I don't is no reason to demean one opinion over the other. I totally agree that underground archers will seldom get off more than one shot. But one does not need to go underground at every turn, either.

 

[Zustiur]

Only +16 (weapons have to have a +1 enchantment before you can put other stuff on them). And you can do the same thing with a meele weapon. And you have to be 20th level to get that huge bonus. And you only have it for 50 shots (10 rounds if you're using Rapid shot, 12.5 if you're not).

This is where the economic argument falls down. Sure, you can have a higher bonus by dropping an enhancement from the bow and increasing the arrows... but the melee fighter's sword isn't going to run out of ammo.


As for stacking - I think I've always played the 2e way? Where the enhancements on the bow count for + to hit, but the enhancements on the arrow count for + to damage. I'm really not sure where I got this method from originally, but I've never realized until seeing this thread that that isn't how it works.

Zustiur.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

This is where the economic argument falls down. Sure, you can have a higher bonus by dropping an enhancement from the bow and increasing the arrows... but the melee fighter's sword isn't going to run out of ammo.

I suppose in the long run that's true. But if you allow stacking, that's 450 arrows later - not counting the ones that miss and aren't destroyed. I still think economically the archer wins simply because they can use the bane option so much better than a melee person can.