And if you ever play in Adventurer's League, while this page says the Sage Advice isn't explicitly allowed, the Sage Advice itself does state that its rulings are considered official rulings on unclear rules.
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter.
As such, Sage Advice should be treated as part of the RAW in Adventurers League
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Not to mention, magical ranged weapons have ALWAYS conferred the magical properties to their ammunition in literally every other edition, so I don't think they'd change that all of a sudden.
With a caveat: in AD&D1 & AD&D2 I'm pretty sure only the ammunition's enchantment counted towards what it could hit (i.e. a creature immune to non-magical weapons would suffer no damage from a normal arrow fired from a magical bow).
So, this got me wondering and I dug out my old books.
In my 1st ed AD&D PHB & DMG and couldn't find any ruling either way, though it explicitly stated in the DMG that the magical bonuses of bows and arrows stacked.
I also had a look at my D&D Basic & Expert rulebooks and they also make no mention, but the Companion set includes the text:
For example, normal arrows shot by a longbow +1 can harm gargoyles (which are damaged only by magic).
So, this got me wondering and I dug out my old books.
In my 1st ed AD&D PHB & DMG and couldn't find any ruling either way, though it explicitly stated in the DMG that the magical bonuses of bows and arrows stacked.
I also had a look at my D&D Basic & Expert rulebooks and they also make no mention, but the Companion set includes the text:
For example, normal arrows shot by a longbow +1 can harm gargoyles (which are damaged only by magic).
#Nerd4Life
:) I'll check too, cause I have a weakness for nerdy rules lawyering. In the 2e DMG (revised, p.242) under the description for the Bow +1 it says "This gives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls to arrows fired from it. If magical arrows are used, total the bonuses of both the bow and the arrows used. ... A nonmagical arrow fired from a magical bow is a nonmagical missile."
I'll have to dig more concerning 1st edition and Basic/Expert (I used the Modlvay version of the rules, way back when.)
Haha, nice one! I genuinely didn't know whether I'd find any rules on the subject or not.
The D&D Expert set definitely had monsters that were immune to normal damage (golems etc), which is probably why they added the rule to the companion set.
Let me know if you find any reference in 1st ed, as I couldn't find one.
If magical bows don't confer the magic to the arrow, what is the point of them being magical? Just delete them from the game, they serve no purpose because a common bow can fire a magical arrow.
If magical bows don't confer the magic to the arrow, what is the point of them being magical? Just delete them from the game, they serve no purpose because a common bow can fire a magical arrow.
Did you just say, "what's the point of a nonmagical bonus that can be added to a magical bonus"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
If magical bows don't confer the magic to the arrow, what is the point of them being magical? Just delete them from the game, they serve no purpose because a common bow can fire a magical arrow.
Did you just say, "what's the point of a nonmagical bonus that can be added to a magical bonus"?
No. I am saying if the magical bonus is not conferred to the arrow there is no point for the bow to be magical, because the only time the magical bonus would be a factor is when you smack someone with the bow. I highly doubt the game designers meant a magical bow to only optimize the sub-optimal use of the bow, that would be ridiculous.
If magical bows don't confer the magic to the arrow, what is the point of them being magical? Just delete them from the game, they serve no purpose because a common bow can fire a magical arrow.
Did you just say, "what's the point of a nonmagical bonus that can be added to a magical bonus"?
No. I am saying if the magical bonus is not conferred to the arrow there is no point for the bow to be magical, because the only time the magical bonus would be a factor is when you smack someone with the bow. I highly doubt the game designers meant a magical bow to only optimize the sub-optimal use of the bow, that would be ridiculous.
It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that magical bows are intended to confer their bonuses on arrows fired from them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that magical bows are intended to confer their bonuses on arrows fired from them.
Exactly my point. A magical bow that does not confer it's bonus to the arrow has no purpose in the game. It is therefore logical to assume that they do confer it.
It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that magical bows are intended to confer their bonuses on arrows fired from them.
Exactly my point. A magical bow that does not confer it's bonus to the arrow has no purpose in the game. It is therefore logical to assume that they do confer it.
It's not always how it worked in some previous editions though, as per the last 2 pages of discussion - you could think of it as the +1 longbow magically guiding the wielder to be more accurate, so that the ranged attack is made with a +1 to hit bonus and the normal arrow fired from that bow also does +1 damage, also because more accurate or perhaps launched at a higher speed.
All pretty moot though, as 5th edition missile weapons DO confer their magical nature onto ammunition launched from them.
Using your analogy, a sling stone normally does d4 bludgeoning damage. A +1 sling confers +1 to hit and damage, so d4+1. Is this due to the sling making the stone magical, or, as you suggested, due to increased momentum or accuracy provided by the magical sling? I prefer the latter explanation. Otherwise, why have magical ammunition at all?
So, if an enemy has resistance against all non-magical damage, one way to handle it would be that the resistance negates the regular d4 damage but doesn't negate the +1. Thus, in this case, the enemy would take 1 point of damage from each successful hit.
We're so focused on the mechanics of the magical item that we forget the reason for the resistance of the creature in the first place. It's often because of how powerful or magical that creature is. Thus to allow any regular ammunition to become fully magical just its launched from a magical sling buffs the attacker and nerfs the resistance of the attacked.
Using your analogy, a sling stone normally does d4 bludgeoning damage. A +1 sling confers +1 to hit and damage, so d4+1. Is this due to the sling making the stone magical, or, as you suggested, due to increased momentum or accuracy provided by the magical sling? I prefer the latter explanation. Otherwise, why have magical ammunition at all?
So, if an enemy has resistance against all non-magical damage, one way to handle it would be that the resistance negates the regular d4 damage but doesn't negate the +1. Thus, in this case, the enemy would take 1 point of damage from each successful hit.
We're so focused on the mechanics of the magical item that we forget the reason for the resistance of the creature in the first place. It's often because of how powerful or magical that creature is. Thus to allow any regular ammunition to become fully magical just its launched from a magical sling buffs the attacker and nerfs the resistance of the attacked.
No, the point of resistance against nonmagical attacks is to:
Explain why regular people like an army of guards can’t take care of it on their own.
Make it so lower level PCs without magic weapons would have a very hard time taking care of the problem, but mid-high level (5th level+) PCs can handle it more effectively.
If you make it so that the base d4 (or whatever) is resisted and only the +1 is not then that unduly buffs the monster and nerfs the PC, and disrupts the balance between magic weapon wielding melee attackers and spellcasters compared to magic weapon wielding ranged attackers.
Also, the point of magic ammo is twofold:
They provide a finite number of magical attacks to lower level parties that haven’t found magical ranged weapons yet.
They stack with magical ranged weapons so as to potentially provide the only source of magic attack bonuses higher than +3, up to a +6 total if both ammo and weapon are +3 enchanted.
And if you ever play in Adventurer's League, while this page says the Sage Advice isn't explicitly allowed, the Sage Advice itself does state that its rulings are considered official rulings on unclear rules.
As such, Sage Advice should be treated as part of the RAW in Adventurers League
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
So, this got me wondering and I dug out my old books.
In my 1st ed AD&D PHB & DMG and couldn't find any ruling either way, though it explicitly stated in the DMG that the magical bonuses of bows and arrows stacked.
I also had a look at my D&D Basic & Expert rulebooks and they also make no mention, but the Companion set includes the text:
#Nerd4Life
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Haha, nice one! I genuinely didn't know whether I'd find any rules on the subject or not.
The D&D Expert set definitely had monsters that were immune to normal damage (golems etc), which is probably why they added the rule to the companion set.
Let me know if you find any reference in 1st ed, as I couldn't find one.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
If magical bows don't confer the magic to the arrow, what is the point of them being magical? Just delete them from the game, they serve no purpose because a common bow can fire a magical arrow.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Here is an IDEA on this (not an actual rule)...
Using your analogy, a sling stone normally does d4 bludgeoning damage. A +1 sling confers +1 to hit and damage, so d4+1. Is this due to the sling making the stone magical, or, as you suggested, due to increased momentum or accuracy provided by the magical sling? I prefer the latter explanation. Otherwise, why have magical ammunition at all?
So, if an enemy has resistance against all non-magical damage, one way to handle it would be that the resistance negates the regular d4 damage but doesn't negate the +1. Thus, in this case, the enemy would take 1 point of damage from each successful hit.
We're so focused on the mechanics of the magical item that we forget the reason for the resistance of the creature in the first place. It's often because of how powerful or magical that creature is. Thus to allow any regular ammunition to become fully magical just its launched from a magical sling buffs the attacker and nerfs the resistance of the attacked.
No, the point of resistance against nonmagical attacks is to:
If you make it so that the base d4 (or whatever) is resisted and only the +1 is not then that unduly buffs the monster and nerfs the PC, and disrupts the balance between magic weapon wielding melee attackers and spellcasters compared to magic weapon wielding ranged attackers.
Also, the point of magic ammo is twofold:
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING