How valuable is a Composite Bow, and why would you enchance it if you stack up STR?

[bendking]

I can't see why the STR to damage is THAT important, it doesn't have that major of an impact in my opinion.
Also, why would you ever enhance a Composite Longbow or something if you are going to get Bracers of Strength or what have you? Should you just buy a +10 from the get go and enhance it while sucking up with the -2 attack? Is there a way to increase it's STR to damage increment?

[Troacctid]

Well, you could always use a bone bow and have it auto-scale to your Strength. It's an exotic weapon, but add a wand chamber and stick a wand of Master's Touch in there and you should be fine.

[Xervous]

Or if you could dig up Hank's Energy Bow and finagle your DM into letting you use component parts of its enchantments... yeah, there's a thought.

Hank's Energy Bow
infinite 2d4 force arrows
+3 enhancement
auto adjusts for strength
RANGED POWER ATTACK
22k IIRC

[Sagetim]

I don't know what this bone bow thing is, but if you're going to have a really high strength mod and you know it, you may as well get a bow with the strength mod you're aiming for. If the only downside is a -2 to hit, it's not going to be that much of a problem for an archer build. Especially if you pick up psionic shot, psychic meditation, and Fell Shot for consistent single shots against touch ac.

If you have a DM who is willing, you can get the bow enchanted by a psion for 'on use manifest Bolt' to have unlimited ammunition of ectoplasmic basic ammunition. Sure, it's not going to do force damage, but it would only be about 2k for a manifester level 1 version of it. Higher manifester levels would cost more, but could allow for an unlimited supply of short lived enhancement bonus'd ammo. You would still need a +1 bow to start with, because a weapon has to have a +1 before it can be enchanted. At least, that's what I would do for unlimited ammo (since it seems more approvable than unlimited force damage arrows).

[Xervous]

I don't know what this bone bow thing is, but if you're going to have a really high strength mod and you know it, you may as well get a bow with the strength mod you're aiming for. If the only downside is a -2 to hit, it's not going to be that much of a problem for an archer build. Especially if you pick up psionic shot, psychic meditation, and Fell Shot for consistent single shots against touch ac.

If you have a DM who is willing, you can get the bow enchanted by a psion for 'on use manifest Bolt' to have unlimited ammunition of ectoplasmic basic ammunition. Sure, it's not going to do force damage, but it would only be about 2k for a manifester level 1 version of it. Higher manifester levels would cost more, but could allow for an unlimited supply of short lived enhancement bonus'd ammo. You would still need a +1 bow to start with, because a weapon has to have a +1 before it can be enchanted. At least, that's what I would do for unlimited ammo (since it seems more approvable than unlimited force damage arrows).

I'm curious how unlimited force damage arrows would have a hard time getting approved. Genuinely curious.

[Sagetim]

I'm curious how unlimited force damage arrows would have a hard time getting approved. Genuinely curious.

The base damage on this weapon in question is force damage. Force Damage. There are no monsters that are immune to it (as far as I know, other than the epic level Force Dragon), and I'm pretty sure there are no monsters with any resistance to it. 2d4+3+str mod with a x3 crit, long range, rapid shottable and things like weapon specialization would only increase the force damage done. Feats like Greater Psionic Shot would add Force Damage to an attack made with such a bow, greater enhancement bonuses would also add directly to the force damage dealt by the bow. Pretty much anything that normally increases the physical damage of an attack with an arrow, now adds to force damage with this bow. So yeah...sneak attack dice with this bow? Force Damage.

Another way of saying this is: Many DM's find Force Damage to be scary. It's a damage type that gives the middle finger to even esoteric monsters that are incredibly hard to kill. While the baseline damage might not be 'great', there are ways to multiply that.

[heavyfuel]

Or if you could dig up Hank's Energy Bow and finagle your DM into letting you use component parts of its enchantments... yeah, there's a thought.

Hank's Energy Bow
infinite 2d4 force arrows
+3 enhancement
auto adjusts for strength
RANGED POWER ATTACK
22k IIRC

Note that it's unclear wether he simply allows for any Str bonus without giving the atk penalty in case you don't meet it, or if it actually ads any Str to damage.

Also, while it's a steal for just 22k, the bow becomes pretty irrelevant later in the game where it's simply better to to have a Splitting Collision Whatever +4 (Greater Magic Weapon) Bow since you need DM's permission to progress Hank's Bow, as it's a Specific Weapon

[Silva Stormrage]

Note that it's unclear wether he simply allows for any Str bonus without giving the atk penalty in case you don't meet it, or if it actually ads any Str to damage.

Also, while it's a steal for just 22k, the bow becomes pretty irrelevant later in the game where it's simply better to to have a Splitting Collision Whatever +4 (Greater Magic Weapon) Bow since you need DM's permission to progress Hank's Bow, as it's a Specific Weapon

What? Thats the first I have heard of not being able to add enchantments to specific weapons. Why wouldn't you be able to just add splitting onto Hank's Energy Bow?

[Rainshine]

Why not? It's a hundred extra or so for an extra damage on all your ranged attacks. PF even has an enchantment, Adaptable, for people like Barbarians whose STR might be fluctuating.
If you're level 6 with full BAB, +1 STR, and Rapid Shot, your base damage per turn (assuming all hits) as an archer goes from 3d8 (13.5 avg) to 3d8+3 (16.5 avg). That's a little over 20% bonus in a turn of damage, for 150g. Sounds worth it for an archer.

[heavyfuel]

@ Hank's Bow: I just checked, and it's a +2 Bow (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a), not +3


What? Thats the first I have heard of not being able to add enchantments to specific weapons. Why wouldn't you be able to just add splitting onto Hank's Energy Bow?

You can, you just need to ask the DM how much the bow's properties are worth (whether in terms of +X, or in terms of raw gold)

As Hank's Energy Bow is a Specific Weapon, it lacks a formula for how much its properties are priced. If don't have a formula, you can't add +X enhancements to the particular item at the SRD's price because the SRD items follow the formula. While you can still add fixed cost enhancements, it's up to each DM to determine how much it costs to upgrade Hank's Bow adding +X enhancements.

At any rate, I'd rather avoid depending on the wims of my DM when it comes to my character, which is why I usually go by the rules (even if not benefitial to me) instead of asking for a house-rule.

[Curmudgeon]

I can't see why the STR to damage is THAT important, it doesn't have that major of an impact in my opinion.
It's going to matter when you encounter an enemy with Damage Reduction when you don't have the specific arrows needed to penetrate it; instead, you just need to power through the DR.

[Forrestfire]

@ Hank's Bow: I just checked, and it's a +2 Bow (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a), not +3



You can, you just need to ask the DM how much the bow's properties are worth (whether in terms of +X, or in terms of raw gold)

As Hank's Energy Bow is a Specific Weapon, it lacks a formula for how much its properties are priced. If don't have a formula, you can't add +X enhancements to the particular item at the SRD's price because the SRD items follow the formula. While you can still add fixed cost enhancements, it's up to each DM to determine how much it costs to upgrade Hank's Bow adding +X enhancements.

At any rate, I'd rather avoid depending on the wims of my DM when it comes to my character, which is why I usually go by the rules (even if not benefitial to me) instead of asking for a house-rule.

That's not how it works. If you have a Hank's Energy Bow, it is a +2 composite bow with some effects that don't matter when upgrading it. Adding Splitting would buff it to +5 with flat enchantments, and cost the difference between +2 and +5 (42,000gp).

[Curmudgeon]

That's not how it works. If you have a Hank's Energy Bow, it is a +2 composite bow with some effects that don't matter when upgrading it.
Says who? You're presupposing a formula of +2 enhancement and fixed costs otherwise. However, there's nothing in the rules which backs that up; i.e., no reason the costs for the "some effects that don't matter" couldn't include another +1 enhancement + some fixed costs, or even +2 enhancement - some cost reductions. What heavyfuel says is correct: no formula means no formula. You can add fixed cost weapon abilities, and that's all, in the absence of a formula.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The str rating for bows is a "realism" artifact that just does not work at all with the D&D ruleset. I think since 3.0 assumed you'd be constantly selling off your weapon for new better ones you find (the "upgrade" rules were a 3.5 revelation, and a badly needed one). The price for magic weapons is just too high to have to start back at square one, especially at later levels.

Pathfinder did it better and just made "Adjustable" a +1000 gp flat cost magic enhancement that lets you use a composite bow w/ any str bonus and have it match.

In 3E, your best option as far as I know is the Bow of the Wintermoon from MIC, it's the cheapest option that doesn't cost a feat.

[ericgrau]

For only 100 gp per +1 damage it's a steal. Upgrading it after making it magical is a problem, but
(a) As an archer you're probably getting dex first and str second
(b) I usually get other better items before a magic weapon: boots of speed, +2 str, etc. Then finally the magic bow. If you wanted to delay it further you could even get bane arrows, a few +1 arrows in case of DR, and then finally the magic bow. By that point it's not a big deal if you never boost str again until epic. At epic it's not a big deal to drop 100,000 gp to sell and replace your bow.
(c) Or yeah port in the PF enchantment, but I wouldn't even spend the 1,000 gp on that until high level. Who wants to spend the 12,000 gp upgrading your str item to +4, on an archer mind you, until you're super rich?
(d) Even at high level you can buy other things besides +4 str with your gold, many things that are better, so it's not a big loss even if you stay at a+2 item through high levels.

[Xervous]

The base damage on this weapon in question is force damage. Force Damage. There are no monsters that are immune to it (as far as I know, other than the epic level Force Dragon), and I'm pretty sure there are no monsters with any resistance to it. 2d4+3+str mod with a x3 crit, long range, rapid shottable and things like weapon specialization would only increase the force damage done. Feats like Greater Psionic Shot would add Force Damage to an attack made with such a bow, greater enhancement bonuses would also add directly to the force damage dealt by the bow. Pretty much anything that normally increases the physical damage of an attack with an arrow, now adds to force damage with this bow. So yeah...sneak attack dice with this bow? Force Damage.

Another way of saying this is: Many DM's find Force Damage to be scary. It's a damage type that gives the middle finger to even esoteric monsters that are incredibly hard to kill. While the baseline damage might not be 'great', there are ways to multiply that.

I'm going to come off as some sort of buttocks-hat but if DMs are having trouble with damage, from arrows, I question the competency involved WITH THE EXCEPTION OF low power campaigns, like dirt low power.

[Silva Stormrage]

Says who? You're presupposing a formula of +2 enhancement and fixed costs otherwise. However, there's nothing in the rules which backs that up; i.e., no reason the costs for the "some effects that don't matter" couldn't include another +1 enhancement + some fixed costs, or even +2 enhancement - some cost reductions. What heavyfuel says is correct: no formula means no formula. You can add fixed cost weapon abilities, and that's all, in the absence of a formula.

I have never heard of it being used that way and that seems ridiculous. What about all the specific weapons in the DMG and the like? Is there any rules for upgrading those?

Considering there ARE weapon enchantments that are just + Gold and don't modify the enchantment bonus it seems really intuitive that you are allowed to do that. Hell the MiC even states, "The following weapons are usually constructed with properties described here. You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item." Unless you mean to tell me that you somehow think that that statements doesn't actually mean anything because WoTC didn't add a specific formula for each weapon. Its pretty clear what their intent was.

Actually wasn't there a rule letting you strip off the specific weapon enchantment for those weapons? I could of sworn there was a thread discussing how to abuse that manyfanged dagger from SK with that.

[Curmudgeon]

Silva Stormrage, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

You can add fixed cost weapon abilities, and that's all, in the absence of a formula.
No formula means you have no clue how to add +n enhancement cost abilities. You can add fixed cost weapon abilities.

[Silva Stormrage]

Silva Stormrage, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

No formula means you have no clue how to add +n enhancement cost abilities. You can add fixed cost weapon abilities.

My point was that in the section detailing specific weapons like these in the Magic Item Compendium it stated that you could increase the enchantment bonus to those specific weapons just as any other weapon. You are arguing that you are unable to add enchantment bonus to those specific weapons due to lack of a formula.

So either the magic item compendium authors forgot to add a formula (Not impossible I admit it IS WoTC) or they intended you to be able to increase weapon enchantments like normal and treat the rest of the weapon's abilities as fixed cost weapon enchantments. Since I doubt WoTC would of made a formula for each individual item (Which they would almost need to since each specific item is so widely different from each other) I feel the second option is a MUCH more reasonable interpretation.

Sorry if I was unclear in my original post. I was trying to emphasize that its seems more reasonable that the special abilities of specific weapons are to be treated as fixed cost weapons.

[Curmudgeon]

My point was that in the section detailing specific weapons like these in the Magic Item Compendium it stated that you could increase the enchantment bonus to those specific weapons just as any other weapon.
That refers to "the following weapons", meaning just those in Magic Item Compendium. Your earlier statement referred to "all the specific weapons in the DMG and the like", where there is no such blanket statement. Without that disclaimer that the enhancement is only as stated, you can't add +n enhancement cost properties absent a formula.

[Silva Stormrage]

That refers to "the following weapons", meaning just those in Magic Item Compendium. Your earlier statement referred to "all the specific weapons in the DMG and the like", where there is no such blanket statement. Without that disclaimer that the enhancement is only as stated, you can't add +n enhancement cost properties absent a formula.

........ But... what?
....
Your WHOLE argument falls apart if it can apply to the MiC weapons. As your argument is that there isn't a formula so you can't enchant them. My argument is that they clearly intended them to be treated as regular +X weapons and they other special abilities are treated as a fixed cost ability. You can't just say "Okay ya the MiC specific weapons can be enchanted without a formula but the ones in the DMG, oh no that would be too much of a leap in logic"

I know you like to have everything by the rules as possible but seriously this is near the same level as saying there is no rules way to stop drowning. The MiC is the main source of rules on magic items. The MiC states that specific magic weapons can be enchanted with +X enchantment bonuses like regular weapons. Why would you even bother trying to come up with some convoluted excuse on why the MiC doesn't apply. Its pretty clear that this is there intent...

[Curmudgeon]

Your WHOLE argument falls apart if it can apply to the MiC weapons. As your argument is that there isn't a formula so you can't enchant them.
The statement in MIC means there is an implied formula for those specific weapons. It applies nowhere else.

[Silva Stormrage]

The statement in MIC means there is an implied formula for those specific weapons. It applies nowhere else.

But the formula isn't specified anywhere. So either you can enchant specific weapons without a formula or you can't. The "They can be enchanted as a regular weapon" implies that the intent was for them to just use the regular enchanting formula.

I am well aware of what you are arguing, that the MiC only applies to the specific weapons in the MiC not the DMG.

What I am asking is do you ACTUALLY think that the writer's intent for writing that section in the MiC was to have it ONLY apply to the MIC weapons? Do you actually think they just figured you could never enchant the specific weapons when the wrote the DMG?

There aren't any rules for recovering from drowning either (Ignoring the fact that there ARE actually but its in an obscure section in Lords of Madness so for a decent chunk of 3.5's lifespan there weren't so the general point stands)? Would you just tell a PC that they die no save once they start drowning because the writers didn't write in a specific rule that tells you how to stop drowning?

[Crake]

I'm going to come off as some sort of buttocks-hat but if DMs are having trouble with damage, from arrows, I question the competency involved WITH THE EXCEPTION OF low power campaigns, like dirt low power.

I had a DM who was unwilling to let me have the force enchantment on my bow because "being able to ignore DR is too OP". This is in the same group as a werebear greataxe wielding character with 36 or something strength, and a crusader with mountain hammer strikes. Oh, and 2 DMM clerics, can't forget them.

Then again, that DM loved to stonewall me, i still remember the time he said greater resistance was too powerful for a level 11 wizard, (buying it with my WBL and everything), and then later goes on to let the druid just have it for free. Yup... ok.

Some DMs are just unable to understand balance, and others are just jerks.

[Curmudgeon]

What I am asking is do you ACTUALLY think that the writer's intent for writing that section in the MiC was to have it ONLY apply to the MIC weapons?
Yes, that's exactly what I think they meant when they wrote "the following weapons".

[Sagetim]

I'm going to come off as some sort of buttocks-hat but if DMs are having trouble with damage, from arrows, I question the competency involved WITH THE EXCEPTION OF low power campaigns, like dirt low power.

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable comment to me. But I am assuming that you're not assuming that there are ways to pump ranged damage up to the point that the base dice become almost irrelevant to the damage dealt.

2d4+2+str mod seems pretty low I'll admit, so let's explore some ways to inflate that. Gravity Bow, for instance would increase the base damage by increasing the weapon's effective size. A higher enhancement bonus and a high strength bonus would add directly to the force damage dealt. Improved critical would double the chances of a x3 damage hit. And those are just some relatively simple options.

Someone could use this bow for ranged sneak attacks, letting them roll a fistful of d6's that count as force damage for the purpose of bypassing DR and such. Force damage also hates on incorporeal things like ghosts and ethereal planes walking assassins who are using ghost touch weapons to try and kill people while retaining their etherealness as a means of defense. Wait, ghost touch does work that way, right? Or was that misinterpreting on my part...anyway-

You're right, it's not a high damage amount on it's own. But in contrast I've seen a fighter take a great sword and consistently hit for over 30 damage a hit. Because 30 was his minimum. That's not with charging or anything, that was just him hitting things with his sword. So while I'm not going to know all the tricks off hand for maximizing the damage potential of this bow, I'm willing to assume the ways are there.

Also, I'm going to point at Crake's comment: 36 strength. So what would that be with this bow? 2d4+2+13 damage per hit? Sure, it's not going to win any brutey contests, but a minimum of 17 force damage per hit is pretty respectable. Especially if you can be plunking that on a target for multiple rounds as it has to take the time to close to melee range.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Another way of saying this is: Many DM's find Force Damage to be scary. It's a damage type that gives the middle finger to even esoteric monsters that are incredibly hard to kill. While the baseline damage might not be 'great', there are ways to multiply that.

I agree with this. In our first high leveled campaign (lvl 16-21), one of the items in the loot pile was some sort of Force Bow from Arms and Equipment Guide. It imbued your arrows with force power, giving them ghost touch, and bypassing DR. Coupled with my set of Raptor Arrows, and some archery spells, my ranger could seriously rack up the damage, especially against his favoured enemies. I expect the DM wasn't expecting the bow to suddenly negate the only proper defence his monsters had against my flurry of arrows, which was DR. (I seem to remember the damage being 4d6+5 (+14 vs my favoured enemies), with an average of 7 attacks a round. Finding ways to bypass the DR was always my biggest problem)

Though the campaign may have been lowish op for the standards of this forum. I don't know. Never played outside our group.

[Necroticplague]

Someone could use this bow for ranged sneak attacks, letting them roll a fistful of d6's that count as force damage for the purpose of bypassing DR and such. Force damage also hates on incorporeal things like ghosts and ethereal planes walking assassins who are using ghost touch weapons to try and kill people while retaining their etherealness as a means of defense. Wait, ghost touch does work that way, right? Or was that misinterpreting on my part...anyway-.

Nope, ghost touch doesn't work that way. Ghost touch works against (and for) Incorporeal, not Ethereal. There is a specific weapon that has that ability, though.

[Nifft]

I have noticed that archers usually manage to get off full attacks far more often than melee character do, so it does seem like a minor + to archery damage is worth more than the equivalent + to melee damage, but I'm not sure exactly how much.

[Twurps]

I have noticed that archers usually manage to get off full attacks far more often than melee character do, so it does seem like a minor + to archery damage is worth more than the equivalent + to melee damage, but I'm not sure exactly how much.

This.
More full attacks, combined with usually more attacks per round (rapid/many shot and their improved and greater versions). Resulting in even more arrows (splitting property), Makes extra damage per hit very much worth it. As the extra damage is easily multiplied by 10 or more per round.

(Also makes overcoming DR much more worth it)

[Telonius]

Now that's a weird little thing that I'd never noticed:


All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a -2 penalty on attacks with it.

Emphasis added. So is that -2 supposed to be in addition to the usual -4 nonproficiency penalty, or instead of the usual penalty?

[Sagetim]

Now that's a weird little thing that I'd never noticed:



Emphasis added. So is that -2 supposed to be in addition to the usual -4 nonproficiency penalty, or instead of the usual penalty?

It's an untyped penalty, which means it stacks with a -4 nonprof penalty. But if you're in an situation where you're using a longbow that you're not only not proficient with, but too low strength to use, you're probably already up **** creek without a paddle. As I recall, if you're proficient with a short bow or long bow, you are proficient with their composite counterparts, and that weapon focus, spec, etc are treated the same for longbow/composite and short bow/composite.

[Telonius]

I mean, in a situation where a person would ordinarily have Longbow proficiency, but doesn't have Strength at least equal to the composite number - which is what the OP was talking about. Basically, have an 18-Strength Fighter buy a Composite Longbow (+10 Str) and just eat the penalty until he increases his strength sufficiently. Ordinarily he'd have proficiency in both longbows and composite longbow; the general rule is that composite longbow proficiency is covered by any other regular longbow proficiency. But that first bolded phrase suggests that, if he doesn't have at least a Strength bonus of +10, he's not actually proficient in it.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I'm going to come off as some sort of buttocks-hat but if DMs are having trouble with damage, from arrows, I question the competency involved WITH THE EXCEPTION OF low power campaigns, like dirt low power.

This is completely unfair to say. I have a player in my game who has a swift hunter build using cleric for travel devotion to get off full attacks with rapid shot that get full skirmish damage. With improved skirmish feat and splitting enhancement applied to the weapon from the party artificer she has a terrifying DPR even against foes with DR. They're level 13 and her average full attack looks something like +21/+21/+16/+11 (10d6+7) 20/x3 before applying splitting or the power shot ability of the weapon. Due to Swift Hunter, Undead and Constructs normally immune to precision damage will actually be taking more damage than that. Not as impressive as an ubercharger but she easily has the highest DPR in the group and is much more versatile than a typical melee build.

And Hank's Energy Bow is +2 with 2d6 base damage, not 2d4.

[heavyfuel]

But that first bolded phrase suggests that, if he doesn't have at least a Strength bonus of +10, he's not actually proficient in it.

Seems like a case of specific beats general. You aren't proficient, but instead of -4, you take -2.

The period between the sentences make it impossible to know for sure. It's either "You're not proficient AND you can't use it effectively (total of -6)" or "You're not proficient BECAUSE you can't use it effectively (total of -2)"

I also assume the developers used the term "proficient" broadly, and forgot that it was already defined in game.

Personally I'd go for the -2. Seems like the RAI and RAW, even if they're both blurry.

[Strigon]

I can't see why the STR to damage is THAT important, it doesn't have that major of an impact in my opinion.
Also, why would you ever enhance a Composite Longbow or something if you are going to get Bracers of Strength or what have you? Should you just buy a +10 from the get go and enhance it while sucking up with the -2 attack? Is there a way to increase it's STR to damage increment?

For 100 GP per +1 to damage, that's a steal!
For a longbow that deals 1D6 damage, it's an average of 3.5, meaning ~30% extra damage for an extra 100 GP; that's actually incredible.
Actually, in ways, it's even better than that; for enemies with DR, it isn't just 30%, it can be a difference between consistently doing nothing, and consistently dealing 2 or 3 damage - it adds up.

As for going with enchantments, magic items often bypass DR entirely. In that case, it's much better to have an enchantment bonus. Also, in a much more situational context, they're harder to break (although normally the DM won't bother breaking your gear, and if they do, no enchantment in the world will save it.)

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'm going to come off as some sort of buttocks-hat but if DMs are having trouble with damage, from arrows, I question the competency involved WITH THE EXCEPTION OF low power campaigns, like dirt low power.

If you think that arrow damage is only relevant in low power campaigns, you have either never seen a well optimized archer or you have some really strange ideas about what constitutes "low power, like dirt low power." In my last high level 3.5 campaign (age of worms), our archer needed a spreadsheet to calculate his damage and a round where he only did 250 points of damage to AC 40 was a bad round for him. He was easily the highest damage output character in the group.

Archery damage in 3.5 and Pathfinder (and even more so in 3.0) is consistently very high even at relatively low levels of optimization and it tends to be one of the easiest attack styles to optimize. High strength, high dexterity, rapid shot, all the obvious archery feats (and weapon specialization etc if you're a fighter), a bow with greater magic weapon and a bunch of enhancements--you're there. You can combine various splatbook options to stack even more damage on or (more likely) to let you get fighter archer level damage on a character with more skill and spell options, but even the base level of optimization is pretty darn effective.

[Xervous]

This is completely unfair to say. I have a player in my game who has a swift hunter build using cleric for travel devotion to get off full attacks with rapid shot that get full skirmish damage. With improved skirmish feat and splitting enhancement applied to the weapon from the party artificer she has a terrifying DPR even against foes with DR. They're level 13 and her average full attack looks something like +21/+21/+16/+11 (10d6+7) 20/x3 before applying splitting or the power shot ability of the weapon. Due to Swift Hunter, Undead and Constructs normally immune to precision damage will actually be taking more damage than that. Not as impressive as an ubercharger but she easily has the highest DPR in the group and is much more versatile than a typical melee build.

And Hank's Energy Bow is +2 with 2d6 base damage, not 2d4.

So I was goofing on the stats, thank you... just thought to check the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20121112070748/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's possible to stack up large amounts of damage on Hank's, there's no denying that. What I don't see you pointing out is that this is causing any sort of problem for you as a DM. My comment was directed at the DMs who don't know how to handle a game that is going into double digit levels which is pretty much when these sorts of numbers become more common. As per the WBL guidelines a player could obtain Hank's Energy Bow somewhere between level 5 and 6 if they had a crafting buddy (which would probably be even lower if it's a reduction stacking crafter) of course this is assuming the DM will allow the player to allocate more than half their WBL to a single item. Following that no more than half rule and WBL Hank's appears as early as mid 9. If at level 13 your main thing is to do damage with arrows, I would expect you to be pretty damn good at it in the standard setting of 3.5e where the power level of notable enemies and the party wizard is riding up the quadratic curve.

If there is a Gentleman's Agreement in effect or a (reasonable) banlist that's a case of a DM policing his game to prevent issues from arising. Players intentionally going for a level of optimization beyond the DM's level of expertise logically result in situations where the DM is out of their depth. Hence if the DM is having issues with damage they are having a learning experience. Whether or not they take away the right facts from the event is up to them. There ARE matters of right and wrong they could come across, but just as many will be style choices and otherwise involved with understanding their audience (the players).