D&D 5E Treasure Ammunition Doubt

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=6801685]Phantarch[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION]: there's nothing wrong with handing out the occasional permanent magic arrow.

Just as long as you don't make this an all-encompassing rule.

Making the occasional magic arrow or bolt unbreakable is fine. Making all magic arrows and bolts brings... issues.

I recommend you do this sparingly. Once I handed out an Arrow of Slaying (I think they're called). To not make this an underwhelming find, I made it unbreakable/permanent. I wouldn't make a dozen +1 arrows permanent.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the problem is the lack of consistency with magical ammunition.

For starters, Ammunition is both treated and not treated as a weapon. I mean, a weapon doesn't lose its magical properties simply because it's swung, so why would an Arrow? Why would a Magical Arrow be capable of breaking any more than a Magical Club?

If ammunition is going to be treated like a potion or scroll, it needs a similar power system. No more +1 Arrow here or +2 Bolt there, Ammunition should be classified as a single-use delivery system for a spell or effect - such as an Arrow of Slaying, or an Arrow of Chill Touch.

By moving the permanent bonuses onto the Bow or Sling instead of the ammunition itself, you would end up with a much better system that:
A) Doesn't create this kind of ridiculousness
B) Allows for a more inventive system of offering up bonuses in a form other than potions, scrolls or magical items with charges.

So the next time you roll +1 Ammunition on the Table, consider replacing it with an Arrow, Bolt or Stone that casts a 1st or 2nd level spell (and +2 offering 3rd level spells, +3 allowing 4th or 5th, but no higher). You'll suddenly find that receiving a Magical Arrow is on par with getting a Scroll of Lightning Bolt, or Potion of Speed.

Sorry, the 5E magic system is several magnitudes less robust than you would need.

It simply is not meant to withstand any kind of close scrutiny.

Your idea is not bad, but I would repair the foundation before adding bells and whistles like that.

By repair the foundation I mean reevaluate the basic pricing, much like what [MENTION=6704530]Saidoro[/MENTION] did (link above)

 

[CapnZapp]

As a houserule, +X items are not magical, they're masterwork. Magical items always have magical properties, such as flaming. An arrow that is +1 more accurate to hit and deals 1 more damage than average is not magical. It's well made. An arrow that causes the target to become a harmless potted plant for 1d4 rounds, now that's magical. I have generally completely houseruled magic items from top to bottom.

As a simple rule of thumb: WOTC did a terrible job on their magic items and everything related to them.

A fine houserule.

And an excellent sitrep!

 

[redrick]

I understand your point, redrick, but when you use the term "single use item" to describe a potion, for example, we are looking to a bunch of "on combat use item", as the case of a 10 or 15 pieces of ammunition. Then the logic isn't compare 1 +1 arrow with a +1 longsword, but compare a +1 arrow with a potion of giant strength. In the second, seems like only one piece of ammunition can do barely nothing.

And last, of course DM can do anything he wants about treasure. My point here is just that give 10 or 15 ammos make more sense than just one, thinking about the hole system.

Yes, that's a fair comparison. A potion is usually worth an encounter.

Since your average combat is 3 rounds, I'd see giving out 1d6 pieces of ammunition to be very reasonable. 10-20 feels too extravagant to me, compared with the other items on the table. That's 3-6 combats worth of arrows. On the other hand, personally, one piece of ammunition feels kind of lame. It makes it feel a little too precious. I'm much more likely to use my magic arrows if I have 3 of them.

In the hands of a character with the Archery fighting style, a +2 arrow is pretty great. That's 20% better odds of hitting over a melee character, and I believe it stacks with a magical bow. The tables don't distinguish between magic ranged weapons and magic melee weapons, so once the magic battle-axes start coming out, the magic bows can start coming out as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just because the 5th edition rules allow you to stack the +2 from the Archery fighting style, the +3 from a magic bow and the +3 from magic arrows does not mean it is a good idea to do it.

If you allow archers to gain a whopping +5 on their melee comrades, the Sharpshooter feat becomes ungodly. It essentially ends up as 10 free damage With. Every. Hit.

WotC apparently didn't think it merited a mention, but if I were you, I would never ever hand out magic bows and (permanent and or plentiful) magic ammunition in the same campaign.

 

[Eltab]

How can we be expected to adventure, when we are too busy hoarding our single +1 arrow?

My HotDQ group sort of had the same problem when we got an Oathbow - the PC carrying it would never shoot anybody because "the Oath might be wasted on a little guy".

I later became DM and persuaded that person differently:
In the meanwhile, the Oathbow had been stolen by the enemy (by killing that PC; the player made a Barbarian and continued). I gave the NPC in question a promotion and told him to 'finish what he started'. His archer minion Oathed the PC and shot HER with it. (First time I actually hurt the Barbarian !) She promptly raged and reclaimed her dead friend's bow. Nobody - including our Ranger - wanted to argue the point. Now she will shoot at anything that doesn't land and face her personally.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Just because the 5th edition rules allow you to stack the +2 from the Archery fighting style, the +3 from a magic bow and the +3 from magic arrows does not mean it is a good idea to do it.

If you allow archers to gain a whopping +5 on their melee comrades, the Sharpshooter feat becomes ungodly. It essentially ends up as 10 free damage With. Every. Hit.

WotC apparently didn't think it merited a mention, but if I were you, I would never ever hand out magic bows and (permanent and or plentiful) magic ammunition in the same campaign.

Yeah, this. Either exclude magic ammo, or ban the feat.

I'm inclined to suspect that the purpose of single-item ammunition was to effectively remove ammo from the game, without explicitly doing so (presumably to keep a semblance of older-edition comparability.)