Force Bow enchantment

[Da'ashi]

Hello everyone, this is my first post.

I am fairly new to D&D, but I play with a group of friends who have been playing for several years. I've come to a disagreement with the DM over the rules concerning the force enchantment on a composite longbow an I'm looking for some advice. While I realize that ultimately he gets the final decision, I thought one of you may be able to give me some info that could ultimately persuade him.

My character is a scout/ranger with the swift hunter feat. I recently got the force enchantment on my weapon to help deal with DR. He originally told me that the shield spell will negate my attacks, just as they do to magic missile. I can see the logic in this, given that the enchantment description on p. 35 of The Magic Item Compendium lists "magic missile" as a prerequisite spell. However I tried to argue that shield does not absorb all force effects, only MM. In the course of that discussion he told me that Windwall will also still stop my attacks. That made no sense to me, because the notion that shield stops the attacks rests on the premise that the enchantment converts arrows into something similar to magic missile.

During the discussion I also mentioned that I eventually wanted the splitting enchantment. He outright told me that archers are broken already and he likely wouldn't allow it. Now, he knows the game better than I do, but I don't understand why he thinks archers are overpowered at high levels. I played one epic level campaign, and the archer wasn't doing nearly as much damage as the melee fighters were doing.

Anyway, back to the main point. If both shield and Windwall completely stop my attacks, I'm not sure I want to bother with the force enchantment. Am I missing something? Is he correct?

Any help will be appreciated.

[Tar Palantir]

Shield definitely doesn't affect your shots, only the spell magic missile (the +4 AC still applies, obviously). Not 100% sure about wind wall after reading it; could go either way. And archery is about the least powerful thing in 3.5 short of one-handed fighting without a shield. They certainly aren't broken.

[Chilingsworth]

Well, certainly having both shield and windwall block attacks with a forcebow is contradictory. He should chose one or the other, if he's going to have either.

As for him calling archers broken, I'd suggest getting some help building a wizard, cleric, or druid. Then, show him what broken really means. Serriously, if he's calling archers broken, then maybe he doesn't know the game as well as you think.

[drax75]

Honestly Only Wind Wall should affect your Arrow's. That has been Said already.

If you Mix Archer with Rogue it can be a little nasty but i agree. You will likely be out Classed by your Cleric, Druid, Wizard.

I DM a lot with people wanting to play Archers and their is no way i would hamper you on both. Thats just silly, based on that if your target had a cup of water you could then say he was immune to flaming arrows as well....

The spell Shield very clearly states it only stops the spell Magic Missile. Not all force effects, just because it requires the spell to create the enchantment does not make it a magic missile.

http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/shield--2364/

So again your arrow should hit the target just fine (assuming they arnt using windwall)

Good Luck, and if your DM doesnt change Archers are always welcome in my games. Assuming you live in San Diego of course.....

[Da'ashi]

Thanks everyone. It's frustrating because if I try to argue the matter using deductive reasoning, I get told that I'm a noob trying to apply logic to a system that has wizards, dragons and elves. :(

I will try to convince him to pick one or the other, but thus far arguing has been pointless. Assuming I can't persuade him, is the force bow enchantment still worth it, or would you suggest something else?




As for him calling archers broken, I'd suggest getting some help building a wizard, cleric, or druid. Then, show him what broken really means. Serriously, if he's calling archers broken, then maybe he doesn't know the game as well as you think.

What annoys me is that I've seen him make an epic level Incantatrix that persisted spells all day long and was just crazy powerful, yet he still says archers (especially Rogue OOBI) are overpowered. Just looking at the math, OOBIs are not that impressive at all.

Aargh.

[Da'ashi]

Good Luck, and if your DM doesnt change Archers are always welcome in my games. Assuming you live in San Diego of course.....

I appreciate that, but I live in central Canada. San Diego is a bit of a long drive.

[SilverLeaf167]

Honestly, if he's this persistent about Shield granting immunity to your arrows and he considers archers overpowered (which is ridiculous), you can expect every second enemy you face to have it cast. Actually, even if you manage to convince him to remove that silly ruling, he still might throw endless Wind Walls at you just to "stop you from being overpowered". Playing an archer might not be such a good idea with a DM like that.

As a side note, DMs who nerf mundane characters to the ground while refusing to admit the broken nature of casters are surprisingly common for some reason. Personally, I think our group manages to just about balance it out by making a Gentleman's Agreement with the casters and being more lenient on the mundanes.

[Chilingsworth]

I will admit that a properly built archer with a forcebow can be a potent combatant. I've seen it done twice. Both cases monoclassed fighters without the splitting enhancement.

As far as wheather the forcebow enhancement is worth it with your dm's bastarization of it... I'd say it is, unless he goes out of his way to give every opponent access to windwall and shield, it'll still be an improvement over normal archery.

[Curmudgeon]

You might try the simple approach to your DM: spells do just what they say. That takes a whole lot of interpretation work off his shoulders. So Shield negates Magic Missile attacks because that's just what it says; it doesn't negate anything other than what's specified in the spell description. Wind Wall makes all arrows and bolts (unless they're siege engine projectiles) miss, and that's just what it does. The spell doesn't have any special provisions for arrow with the force property, so Wind Wall still does just what it says and those arrows are deflected, too.

You don't need to argue "balance" or "reasonableness"; just strive for simplicity. Along that line, the simple economic truth is that the DM controls how much wealth you've got, so when you get to the cost of a (minimum) +6 weapon (+1 minimum numeric enhancement, +2 for force, and another +3 for splitting) will be up to your DM. Likely by that time the spellcasters will be casting single (7th level) spells that end an encounter, so the fact that you can take out some enemies with a single full attack once you get splitting won't seem so significant.

[KillianHawkeye]

Alternatively, if your DM insists that the Shield spell blocks force arrows because they count as Magic Missiles, see if you can get him to justify making all your attacks automatically hit the target just like Magic Missiles do. :smallbiggrin:

[Douglas]

You might try the simple approach to your DM: spells do just what they say. That takes a whole lot of interpretation work off his shoulders. So Shield negates Magic Missile attacks because that's just what it says; it doesn't negate anything other than what's specified in the spell description.
This seems to me like your best bet for convincing him on the Shield issue. It's not a matter of logic or interpretation, it's a matter of what the spell says. Shield says quite explicitly that it blocks Magic Missile. Not force effects in general, but Magic Missile. Is an arrow shot from a Force bow a Magic Missile? No it is not, therefore Shield does not block it.

For Wind Wall, I don't think you can reasonably expect to win that argument so just drop it. Both ways are reasonable interpretations as is, you're not going to find something that makes one clearly the more correct choice.

As for archers being overpowered... I'd suggest asking him to build the most kickass absurdly powerful (in his opinion) rogue OOBI he can in order to demonstrate his position, and then post it here so we can tear it apart. Be sure to ask how he would be getting his shots to qualify for sneak attack.

[SowZ]

Ask him what he thinks is overpowered about archers. If it is the utility of being able to attack at a range, ask him why Archers are overpowered compared to any caster with massive times more utility. If it is damage, show him the math that even with splitting archers do less.

If your group doesn't have melee guys that have pounce, I can understand banning splitting, though. But not in conjunction with making it affected by so many spells.

Even rogue archers have difficulty getting Sneak Attacks because they can't flank.

[Vaz]

If he's ever wondering as to what is broken, have a look what's in the name of the game and the name of the makers.

Wizards. Wizards are spellcasters.

Dragons. Dragons are spellcasters.

Dungeons. Dungeonscape has Factotum. Factotums are broken.

[Xervous]

I laughed heartily at that, factotums are far from broken...

they just do too good a job of pointing out how much non-casters suck.

[Curmudgeon]

Dungeonscape has Factotum. Factotums are broken.
Actually, the whole book is "broken" due to bad writing and editing. Take, for instance, the Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208): it's a nice ACF which gives the Rogue reduced sneak attack capability against those normally sneak-immune. Then look at the Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike ACF. In the process of making this 2 lines shorter, they've changed it to ambiguous damage, rather than sneak attack damage in the EtCR original. So do sneak attack enhancements like Craven and ambush feats still apply? The answer is entirely up to your individual DM, since the Dungeonscape text is unclear. (Luckily, since they also shortened the name, you can still choose the original ACF and skip this mess.)

There are many unclear elements in the Factotum class description. Mike Mearls should be forced to refund a month's pay just for that.

[animewatcha]

I could be wrong, but can't order of the bow initiate be undone by just the deflect arrows feat? Or the graft that grants extra uses of it?

[Tsriel]

Factotums are broken.

Hardly. I played one for about six months, taking one from lvl 1 to 12. Here's what I learned about the class:

1. MacGuyver antics only work in very precise situations. Often times, you're usually waiting for that perfect opportunity to do the X-factor action that can change the tide of an event simply because your class resources are very limited. Factotums are highly reliant on having the right equipment.

2. You really can do everything...just not very well. Powerbuilding possiblities aside (there's some good ones out there on the net), anything that a Factotum brings to the table can be done more consistently by classes that specialize.

3. Every factotum ever played is only as good as the player behind it. Intelligence as a key stat aside, not everyone is able to display the level of ingenuity one would expect that a Factotum could do. I would say that this is not a class for newbies simply because players of a factotum need to have a fair level of experience and familiarity with the ruleset in order to get the most of out it.

[DarthCyberWolf]

Heh, my DM did something similar in that he ruled that a Brooch of Shielding would absorb the damage from a Force bow. It's not a matter of rule interpretation though, he knows it specifies Magic Missile. He did it just because. :smallconfused:

[Alienist]

Some DMs just get a bee in their bonnet about certain things. Everybody has a different idea about what is broken.

You're better off finding out what their prejudices are and simply avoid pushing those buttons.

... or you could get into lots of arguments with your DM. I'm sure that'll work out real well.