Magical ranged weapon and ammunition

[sineva]

Hi, I have several questions regarding magical ranged weapon that uses ammunition mechanics on DnD 5e.

The basic questions itself are simple:

Q.1: Does any attack with magical ranged weapon that uses ammunition (Bow +1 for example) would count as magical (ignores non-magical damages resistant) even if the ammunition used is a normal, non-magical one?

Q.2: Or it is the ammunition that counted as one?

Q.3: Or both?

Q.4 How is the attack rolls and damage mechanics works on these? For example, if both the ammo and the weapon itself are magical, is it possible to use +2 arrow and +2 bow to get accumulative +4 bonus attack and/or +4 damage?


There is no single DM on our campaign, we create common settings and rules and take turns as DMs, so every mechanics had to be approved by all. Currently we stick with 3 rules:

1. It counts as magical damage only if the ammunition is also magical regardless of the bow/crossbow

2. Magical ranged weapon (Bow +1) only adds the attack rolls, not the damage

3. Magical ammo (Arrow +1) adds only damage


Yet we are having quite an argument on this particular mechanic. Our Ranger and Fighter thinks it practically halved their damage output :smallconfused: and drain their resources for magical ammo (it cost a lot in our campaign, 500GP for 20). They want their Bow+1 automatically deals magical damage.

But others point out if that is the case, they could have Bow+2 coupled with Arrow+2 for cumulative bonus attack and damage of 4 :smallannoyed: , which is OP.

I want your opinion on this. We really need a solid ground to convince the others, so any reasons, arguments, and justifications are welcomed.

Thank you for your help.:smallsmile:

[Zalabim]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has errata. Magic Weapons (p. 140): The section ends with a new paragraph: "If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."

As for the attack and damage bonus from magical ammuntion, it's like giving someone a potion of X giant's strength. They stack, but magical ammunition is expendable. Splitting attack to the weapon and damage to the ammunition is like requiring someone use a potion of X giant's strength. Magic items are totally up for customization; if you want an item that only boosts attack rolls or only boosts damage rolls you can do that, like the Flametongue with just extra fire damage or the wand of the war wizard with just bonus to spell attack rolls.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has errata. Magic Weapons (p. 140): The section ends with a new paragraph: "If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."

As for the attack and damage bonus from magical ammuntion, it's like giving someone a potion of X giant's strength. They stack, but magical ammunition is expendable. Splitting attack to the weapon and damage to the ammunition is like requiring someone use a potion of X giant's strength.

I approve of this RAW.

A Hunter with a Longbow +3 and a pack of Arrows +3, Bracers of Archery, the Archery fighting style and the Sharpshooter feat should feel like a feathered death machine. It's a nice alternative to all the polearm/great weapon DPR builds.


if you want an item that only boosts attack rolls or only boosts damage rolls you can do that

Mhm. Like the Longbow of Marksmanship and Heavy Crossbow of Accuracy from Baldur's Gate.

[sineva]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has errata. Magic Weapons (p. 140): The section ends with a new paragraph: "If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."



Thank you for your answer.

Yet I'd like to ask however, where could I found that missing paragraph? Our core DM guidebook does not have that and I need solid proof to convinces other DMs

Thank you again :smallsmile:

[Kadzar]

Thank you for your answer.

Yet I'd like to ask however, where could I found that missing paragraph? Our core DM guidebook does not have that and I need solid proof to convinces other DMs

Thank you again :smallsmile:I believe this is the most current errata: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/errata-may-2016

[sineva]

I believe this is the most current errata:

THIS. A very solid proof :smallbiggrin:

Thank you :smallcool: