So I have a player who wants to be a blood hunter archer. As I look at the class, the Blood Maledict ability does say “weapon” but also mentions that each end of a polearm is considered a separate weapon.
So the answer to “can the bow be the weapon?” isn’t cut and dry. The extra damage is clearly intended to be from the toxicity of the blood, not by enhancing the weapon itself.
Right? If not, what am I missing (beyond an obstinate argument that “well...weapon!”)
Public Mod Note
(MellieDM):
Moved from Bugs & Support to Rules & Game Mechanics
If the blood hunter wanted bows to be treated differently, it would have said so. And the effects seem to be very magical with no mention of blood toxicity, so it's fine.
That's not the point, nor did I ever imply I'm not planning on letting him. (But *thanks* for jumping to the conclusion I'm some sort of jerk...appreciate the love) I'm rather neutral on the topic, but would rather understand how people thought the rules actually read.
> Playing a bloodhunter is already a suboptimal choice
See that's why I'm leaning towards letting him have it. I'm not enamored with the class's survivability, and this player doesn't have a great track record with being effective to begin with.
I was replying to post #2. It hurts my feelings that you assumed I was talking to you when in fact I was using vicious mockery on Chicken Champ :( Plus, I was joking. Blood hunters are a great class and I don't believe they are sub-optimal at all. Combat is only one of the three pillars of gameplay and the class gives players exploration and social interaction options that are at least as rich as any other class in my opinion. And even saying that, I don't believe they are inferior in the area of combat--at least the one who plays at my table isn't.
To address your question directly, I assume you are talking about the Crimson Rite ability. Since the rules don't address bows specifically, I think we have to treat them like any other kind of weapon carrying the crimson rite effect. I don't see any problem mechanically or thematically with putting it on a bow and making the arrow have the associated effect while in flight to the target in much the same way a magical bow makes mundane arrows deliver magical attacks when fired at a target. That being said, I would say that if you started swinging your bow around as a melee weapon, it would likely also deliver the crimson rite damage type through melee attacks as well.
Or possibly you really did mean Blood Maledict and I completely missed your point. if so, then sorry.
In regards to the polearm specification: I believe the main reason for that is because of how some features use polearms. There things that, after making an attack with a polearm, allow you to make an attack with the opposite end of the polearm. I'm not sure as to why those features have that specification but it would interact with the way that the blood maledict works.
Personally, I would allow blood maledict to work on a bow. There are other features that give some sort of upgrade weapons, such as the forge domain cleric's blessing of the forge. It works on bows, blood maledict should too.
The short answer is: Crimson Rite specifies each end of a weapon separately to avoid loopholes with Two-Weapon Fighting and weapons like the Double-Bladed Scimitar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Or possibly you really did mean Blood Maledict and I completely missed your point. if so, then sorry.
No worries. As noted, I'm usually fine with letting the rule of fun prevail during the game. Between games, I usually like to check to see..hmm, are we doing this right? Am I about to step on a landmine with this.
At any rate, someone showed me a comment from Mercer who indicated he hadn't intended to exclude bows. So that works for me.
Im a Blood Hunter (Order of Ghost Slayer) Archer - Lvl4 - Wood Elf - and I am consitently the highest DPS of the party. With Sharpshooter feat and plus 10 to hit - I deal 1D8+6 plus Crimson rite 1d4 and if undead an additional 1d4... at level 5 I get second action/Shot - so take that all x2. If I enable sharpshooter then bonus to hit is reduced to plus 5 only but you get plus 10 to damage... so, so fine when that happens - never mind when you roll a critical hit...
All from a distance taking littel or no damage.
To be honest- it can actually be a little boring from gameplay style though - one arrow one kill from afar, while the party is in the thick of it trying to survive...
So I have a player who wants to be a blood hunter archer. As I look at the class, the Blood Maledict ability does say “weapon” but also mentions that each end of a polearm is considered a separate weapon.
So the answer to “can the bow be the weapon?” isn’t cut and dry. The extra damage is clearly intended to be from the toxicity of the blood, not by enhancing the weapon itself.
Right? If not, what am I missing (beyond an obstinate argument that “well...weapon!”)
Bows are weapons. Arrows aren't, they're ammunition. Playing a bloodhunter is already a suboptimal choice, don't be a jerk to your player.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Playing a bloodhunter is already an awesome choice, don't be a jerk to your player.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If the blood hunter wanted bows to be treated differently, it would have said so. And the effects seem to be very magical with no mention of blood toxicity, so it's fine.
> don't be a jerk to your player.
That's not the point, nor did I ever imply I'm not planning on letting him. (But *thanks* for jumping to the conclusion I'm some sort of jerk...appreciate the love) I'm rather neutral on the topic, but would rather understand how people thought the rules actually read.
> Playing a bloodhunter is already a suboptimal choice
See that's why I'm leaning towards letting him have it. I'm not enamored with the class's survivability, and this player doesn't have a great track record with being effective to begin with.
I was replying to post #2. It hurts my feelings that you assumed I was talking to you when in fact I was using vicious mockery on Chicken Champ :( Plus, I was joking. Blood hunters are a great class and I don't believe they are sub-optimal at all. Combat is only one of the three pillars of gameplay and the class gives players exploration and social interaction options that are at least as rich as any other class in my opinion. And even saying that, I don't believe they are inferior in the area of combat--at least the one who plays at my table isn't.
To address your question directly, I assume you are talking about the Crimson Rite ability. Since the rules don't address bows specifically, I think we have to treat them like any other kind of weapon carrying the crimson rite effect. I don't see any problem mechanically or thematically with putting it on a bow and making the arrow have the associated effect while in flight to the target in much the same way a magical bow makes mundane arrows deliver magical attacks when fired at a target. That being said, I would say that if you started swinging your bow around as a melee weapon, it would likely also deliver the crimson rite damage type through melee attacks as well.
Or possibly you really did mean Blood Maledict and I completely missed your point. if so, then sorry.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
In regards to the polearm specification: I believe the main reason for that is because of how some features use polearms. There things that, after making an attack with a polearm, allow you to make an attack with the opposite end of the polearm. I'm not sure as to why those features have that specification but it would interact with the way that the blood maledict works.
Personally, I would allow blood maledict to work on a bow. There are other features that give some sort of upgrade weapons, such as the forge domain cleric's blessing of the forge. It works on bows, blood maledict should too.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
The short answer is: Crimson Rite specifies each end of a weapon separately to avoid loopholes with Two-Weapon Fighting and weapons like the Double-Bladed Scimitar.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No worries. As noted, I'm usually fine with letting the rule of fun prevail during the game. Between games, I usually like to check to see..hmm, are we doing this right? Am I about to step on a landmine with this.
At any rate, someone showed me a comment from Mercer who indicated he hadn't intended to exclude bows. So that works for me.
Im a Blood Hunter (Order of Ghost Slayer) Archer - Lvl4 - Wood Elf - and I am consitently the highest DPS of the party. With Sharpshooter feat and plus 10 to hit - I deal 1D8+6 plus Crimson rite 1d4 and if undead an additional 1d4... at level 5 I get second action/Shot - so take that all x2. If I enable sharpshooter then bonus to hit is reduced to plus 5 only but you get plus 10 to damage... so, so fine when that happens - never mind when you roll a critical hit...
All from a distance taking littel or no damage.
To be honest- it can actually be a little boring from gameplay style though - one arrow one kill from afar, while the party is in the thick of it trying to survive...