The Healing Power of Water: The Ariek Sea Witch's Approach to Wellness

The Ariek Sea Witch is a mythical creature that is said to inhabit the depths of the ocean. Legends and folktales from various cultures around the world speak of this mysterious being, often portrayed as a powerful and malevolent entity with the ability to control the seas and manipulate weather patterns. According to ancient tales, the Ariek Sea Witch is often depicted as a seductive and alluring figure, using her enchanting voice and mesmerizing beauty to lure unsuspecting sailors to their doom. It is believed that she possesses the power to create storms and tempests, causing ships to sink and sailors to perish beneath the treacherous waves. Legends tell of the Ariek Sea Witch residing in a hidden underwater kingdom, where she commands an army of loyal sea creatures and minions. It is said that she can communicate with these creatures and bend them to her will, using them to carry out her nefarious deeds.

I dunno maybe it is regional language differences but to me, stacking implies groups of the same thing. I try to never use stacking when talking about powers in Pathfinders since pretty much nothing of the same type does with the only exeptions that immediatley come to mind being Dodge & competence bonuses.

You would get 5 to hit, 5 to damage, have double the range increment, affect incorporeal creatures, have a doubled threat range, and deal 4d6 bonus energy damage another d8 on a critical. It hasn t come up mouch, but I d houserule that enchanted ammo adds a damage bonus that stacks with the bow s enhancement bonus, but there may be some reason to disallow this.

It is said that she can communicate with these creatures and bend them to her will, using them to carry out her nefarious deeds. In some legends, the Ariek Sea Witch is portrayed as a witch who made a pact with a powerful sea deity in exchange for her immortality and control over the sea. Others say that she was once a mortal woman who was cursed by the gods for her arrogance and hubris, transforming her into a malicious sea witch.

Magic bow vs magic arrows

When you use a magic bow and magic arrows what bonuses get applied to the attack. Example: You have a +1 Flaming Burst Longbow and you fire out of it a +2 bane Cold Iron arrow. What I want to know is do they just not stack or what happens?

As I understand it (and I might be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt, lol), you get a +2 enhancement bonus on attacks and damage from the arrow (superseding the +1 on the bow so that does not apply), and the attack deals +1d6 bonus points of fire damage, ignoring damage reduction based on cold iron.

The enhancement bonuses do not stack but additional weapon special abilities apply (but don't stack with like abilities).

So +2 giant bane arrows fired from a +1 flaming burst longbow would have an enhancement bonus of +2 (+4 versus giants) and the flaming burst and giant bane special abilities.

Edit: For clarity regarding stacking.

As I understand it (and I might be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt, lol), you get a +2 enhancement bonus on attacks and damage from the arrow (superseding the +1 on the bow so that does not apply), and the attack deals +1d6 points of fire damage will ignoring damage reduction based on cold iron.

Master Arminas

bow: +1 (enh) + (flame)
arrow: +2 (enh) + (x-bane)
total: +2 (enh) + (flame) + (x-bane)

If anything in parentheses matches, take the higher of the two.

When you use a magic bow and magic arrows what bonuses get applied to the attack. Example: You have a +1 Flaming Burst Longbow and you fire out of it a +2 bane Cold Iron arrow. What I want to know is do they just not stack or what happens?

Nothing STACKS but the best or better abilities/modifiers always apply.

So from your example" +2 Enhancement from the Arrows, Flaming Burst, Cold Iron, Bane as applicable.

The higher Enhancment + always applies, either from the bow or from the arrow. Different special abilities all apply from the bow AND the arrow.

But a Flaming Burst Arrow shot from a Flaming Burst bow does not give you Flaming Burst twice. Only once since they are the same ability and nothing STACKS if it is the same.

Nothing STACKS but the best or better abilities/modifiers always apply.

So from your example" +2 Enhancement from the Arrows, Flaming Burst, Cold Iron, Bane as applicable.

The higher Enhancment + always applies, either from the bow or from the arrow. Different special abilities all apply from the bow AND the arrow.

But a Flaming Burst Arrow shot from a Flaming Burst bow does not give you Flaming Burst twice. Only once since they are the same ability and nothing STACKS if it is the same.

To be clear, cold-iron has to be on the arrow. Firing from a cold-iron bow would do nothing for you :P

Nothing STACKS but the best or better abilities/modifiers always apply.

Just using the term stacks slightly differently. If you add special abilities it is stacking, they just don't stack with like abilities.

Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement
bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the
enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of
the two enhancement bonuses applies.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an
enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic
weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with
an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.

So that's the RAW. They're kinda stupid, though. Why pay for enchanted ammo that gets used up, when you can enchant the bow and it lasts forever. It hasn't come up mouch, but I'd houserule that enchanted ammo adds a damage bonus that stacks with the bow's enhancement bonus, but there may be some reason to disallow this. I can imagine rich rangers with +5 bows firing +5 ammo for a total of +10 to damage.

Otherwise, I'd rule that enchanted ammo doesn't have to first be +1 before it can be given a special ability. Flaming arrows, not +1 flaming arrows for example. Otherwise, enchanted ammo is just silly.

Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement
bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the
enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of
the two enhancement bonuses applies.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an
enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic
weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with
an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.

So that's the RAW. They're kinda stupid, though. Why pay for enchanted ammo that gets used up, when you can enchant the bow and it lasts forever. It hasn't come up mouch, but I'd houserule that enchanted ammo adds a damage bonus that stacks with the bow's enhancement bonus, but there may be some reason to disallow this. I can imagine rich rangers with +5 bows firing +5 ammo for a total of +10 to damage.

Otherwise, I'd rule that enchanted ammo doesn't have to first be +1 before it can be given a special ability. Flaming arrows, not +1 flaming arrows for example. Otherwise, enchanted ammo is just silly.

What you do is buy an uber bow and a bunch of (relatively) cheap +1 X-bane arrows. Just use the correct arrow for the situation (at 160g a shot), and remember to go retrieve your missed arrows afterwards.

To be clear, cold-iron has to be on the arrow. Firing from a cold-iron bow would do nothing for you :P

Very true. Special materials always have to be on the ammunition themselves.

Just using the term stacks slightly differently. If you add special abilities it is stacking, they just don't stack with like abilities.

I dunno maybe it is regional language differences but to me, stacking implies groups of the same thing. I try to never use stacking when talking about powers in Pathfinders since pretty much nothing of the same type does with the only exeptions that immediatley come to mind being Dodge & competence bonuses.

But we are both right, just saying it different ways.

The way I look at it, the additional cost of magical ammunition is balanced by the fact that ammunition adds special abilities to an existing weapon. If you wanted to add dragon bane to a great axe, you are out of luck. If you want to add it to a long bow, you have this great option.

One house rule I might consider is letting damage from enhancement bonuses stack. So a +1 arrow fired from a +1 bow would do +2 damage. That would make magical arrows have at least some value combined with magic bows.

I dunno maybe it is regional language differences but to me, stacking implies groups of the same thing. I try to never use stacking when talking about powers in Pathfinders since pretty much nothing of the same type does with the only exeptions that immediatley come to mind being Dodge & competence bonuses.

Well I edited my above post for clarity because I definitely agree it's not as clear as I'd like the way I said it.

Very cool stuff everyone. Thanks for clearing that up. It definitely makes people with bows a whole hell of a lot more threat to my party now lol.

The rules for magic arrows (or other ammunition) are too draconian for most players to utilize them. Most characters by level 5 or so (when they could hope to purcahse magic ammo) already have a magic bow, so the only value of magic arrows is if they are at least +2, which is 8,000g for 50 if the GM is a hard case or 160g each even if the GM is being very nice. All for a +1 bonus or, at best, a d6 of some energy type.

Ammo should not have to have the +1 magic weapon preruquisite to add enchantments like flaming or shocking or even bane. And they should be freely available in small amounts.

I house rule ammo in my games so that characters can actually benefit from their use. The main rule I have is that you can add enchantments without the +1 pre-requisite, but I don't let what enchantments exist stack, so no +5 bows shooting +5 arrows for a +10 attack bonus.

Would the Bane ability just be added to the whole, or would it only boost the enhancement of the arrow vs its bane?

for example: firing a +1 dragon bane arrow from a +2 bow at a dragon.
Do you get +3 (arrow's bane bonus) or +4 (bow's bonus plus bane bonus)?

+3. In this case, the arrow is treated as a +3 weapon against creatures of the appropriate Bane, and overrides the bow's +2. At least, that is how I would run it.

Here's a question:

If I have a bow with a +5 enhancement bonus and +5 worth of special properties (let's say distance, ghost touch, and keen), and I fire a +1 arrow with flaming, shock, corrosive, thundering, and frost, will the arrow gain ALL of those benefits, essentially making the arrow have a number of bonuses beyond the max of +10?

If not, how would you determine what gets cut?

Here's a question:

If I have a bow with a +5 enhancement bonus and +5 worth of special properties (let's say distance, ghost touch, and keen), and I fire a +1 arrow with flaming, shock, corrosive, thundering, and frost, will the arrow gain ALL of those benefits, essentially making the arrow have a number of bonuses beyond the max of +10?

If so. dang. :(

If not, how would you determine what gets cut?

Personally, in the case of ties, I'd let the player choose which applied up to the +10 limit.

Yes. You would get +5 to hit, +5 to damage, have double the range increment, affect incorporeal creatures, have a doubled threat range, and deal +4d6 bonus energy damage (+ another d8 on a critical). And each individual arrow would cost you 1,440 gold. 72,000 gold for fifty arrows. Plus the 200,000 gp bow. Note that you cannot reuse arrows that hit their target.

Yeah, archery is capable of inflicting pretty good damage.

Allowing a bow to be enhanced just like any other weapon, with the option to buy arrows for situational use. is draconian?

If you took away magic ammunition entirely, bows would be on an even keel with every other weapon in the game.

@Dennis- The thing is bows aren't on the even keel with every other weapon in the game in the least really. The amount of damage done by someone in melee out strips someone with a bow quite handily. Magical ammunition helps balance it considering that they are paying the cost of a +2 weapon to add a +1 bonus to their attacks. So unless your games treasure scale is way out of sync the person using the bow will almost always be behind in damage and money due to trying to compete.

I often house rule that ammo is crafted in batches of 200 (instead of in batches of 50). This cuts the overall price into a value that I think is reasonable for the effect. It also makes the cost per arrow for enchantments come out to really pretty numbers.

I recommend doing this for Shuriken if nothing else, as they get all the penalties of being ammo without the benefits of a launcher to go with it.

Most arrows are destroyed post use, so you know. The durable arrow from Elves of Golarion fixes this.

Most arrows are destroyed post use, so you know. The durable arrow from Elves of Golarion fixes this.

By RAW you have a 50% chance of recovering an arrow that misses its target. The 50% you don't recover are considered "destroyed or lost". It doesn't say which, nor does it give a ratio of destroyed to lost arrows. So "durable" is of dubious value if your GM rules that missed arrows are "lost" instead of "destroyed." Durable doesn't fix "lost."

However, durable arrows are supposed to be reusable if you hit, and RAW says nothing about whether arrows you hit with are "lost" so it's reasonable to assume you can reuse the ones you hit with.

So the value of durable arrows is essentially directly proportional to how reliably you hit with them.

Using durable arrows only stops the arrow from breaking, but the magic still disappears when the arrow is fired. You'll still have a masterwork arrow left, but you would have to re-enchant it.

Durable Arrow: These arrows are tightly wrapped in strands of some kind of alchemical glue. Durable arrows don’t break due to normal use, whether or not they hit their target; unless the arrow goes missing, an archer can retrieve and reuse a durable arrow again and again. Durable arrows can be broken in other ways (such as deliberate snapping, hitting a fire elemental, and so on).

If crafted with magic (such as bane), the magic only lasts for one use of the arrow, but the nonmagical arrow can still be reused or imbued with magic again.

Durable masterwork arrows were my best friend for the first few levels.

I'd only shoot them if I knew they couldn't go too far if I missed, and avoided using them on fire elementals or oozes. The DM never gave me grief about recovering them.

The rules for magic arrows (or other ammunition) are too draconian for most players to utilize them. Most characters by level 5 or so (when they could hope to purcahse magic ammo) already have a magic bow, so the only value of magic arrows is if they are at least +2, which is 8,000g for 50 if the GM is a hard case or 160g each even if the GM is being very nice. All for a +1 bonus or, at best, a d6 of some energy type.

Ammo should not have to have the +1 magic weapon preruquisite to add enchantments like flaming or shocking or even bane. And they should be freely available in small amounts.

I house rule ammo in my games so that characters can actually benefit from their use. The main rule I have is that you can add enchantments without the +1 pre-requisite, but I don't let what enchantments exist stack, so no +5 bows shooting +5 arrows for a +10 attack bonus.

I also use the same house rule (no +1 enhancement bonus pre-requisite for ammunitions) in my game, but I also made a house rule stating that only magic arrows with an enhancement bonus of +1 or greater can bypass DR/magic. Mundane arrows fired by a magic bow will not bypass DR/magic. This may seem a little harsh, but it's the only way I have found to make magic ammunitions relevant in my game.

Durable adamantine weapons are a 1st level character's best friend.

The rules for magic arrows (or other ammunition) are too draconian for most players to utilize them. Most characters by level 5 or so (when they could hope to purcahse magic ammo) already have a magic bow, so the only value of magic arrows is if they are at least +2, which is 8,000g for 50 if the GM is a hard case or 160g each even if the GM is being very nice. All for a +1 bonus or, at best, a d6 of some energy type.

Ammo should not have to have the +1 magic weapon preruquisite to add enchantments like flaming or shocking or even bane. And they should be freely available in small amounts.

I house rule ammo in my games so that characters can actually benefit from their use. The main rule I have is that you can add enchantments without the +1 pre-requisite, but I don't let what enchantments exist stack, so no +5 bows shooting +5 arrows for a +10 attack bonus.

I also use the same house rule (no +1 enhancement bonus pre-requisite for ammunitions) in my game, but I also made a house rule stating that only magic arrows with an enhancement bonus of +1 or greater can bypass DR/magic. Mundane arrows fired by a magic bow will not bypass DR/magic. This may seem a little harsh, but it's the only way I have found to make magic ammunitions relevant in my game.

My concern is that you've now made magic arrows "relevant" at the expense of making magic bows irrelevent against DR/magic monsters. That is penalizing your archers disproportionately compared to your melee characters. Essentially you're saying "OK, melee characters can use their weapons all the time, but you bow users better invest in magic arrows in addition to your magic bows if you want to keep up against certain creatures."

The rules for magic arrows (or other ammunition) are too draconian for most players to utilize them. Most characters by level 5 or so (when they could hope to purcahse magic ammo) already have a magic bow, so the only value of magic arrows is if they are at least +2, which is 8,000g for 50 if the GM is a hard case or 160g each even if the GM is being very nice. All for a +1 bonus or, at best, a d6 of some energy type.

Ammo should not have to have the +1 magic weapon preruquisite to add enchantments like flaming or shocking or even bane. And they should be freely available in small amounts.

I house rule ammo in my games so that characters can actually benefit from their use. The main rule I have is that you can add enchantments without the +1 pre-requisite, but I don't let what enchantments exist stack, so no +5 bows shooting +5 arrows for a +10 attack bonus.

I also use the same house rule (no +1 enhancement bonus pre-requisite for ammunitions) in my game, but I also made a house rule stating that only magic arrows with an enhancement bonus of +1 or greater can bypass DR/magic. Mundane arrows fired by a magic bow will not bypass DR/magic. This may seem a little harsh, but it's the only way I have found to make magic ammunitions relevant in my game. My concern is that you've now made magic arrows "relevant" at the expense of making magic bows irrelevent against DR/magic monsters. That is penalizing your archers disproportionately compared to your melee characters. Essentially you're saying "OK, melee characters can use their weapons all the time, but you bow users better invest in magic arrows in addition to your magic bows if you want to keep up against certain creatures."

True, and even if my players knew about that house rule before making their characters, 3 of them are exclusively ranged (alchemist, bard, summoner), one is a switch hitter (fighter) and one have no feat related to ranged combat or melee combat (cleric). Ranged combat is still very efficient in my game because it features a lot of outdoor encounters and when most of the monsters encountered by the PCs will have DR/magic, the PCs should have enough ressources to always have a handful for magic ammunitions on them.

If this is changed from 3.5, it's an exceptionally minor change, and I actually had LG campaign staff rule that a +1 bow firing non-magical arrows would not affect an incorporeal creature because the arrows were only +1 for the purposes of overcoming DR.

Throughout history, sailors and seafarers have told tales of encountering the Ariek Sea Witch. Many claimed to have witnessed her hauntingly beautiful appearance as she emerged from the depths of the ocean or created tumultuous storms with a wave of her hand. These encounters often ended tragically, with ships being wrecked and sailors lost at sea. In modern times, the tales of the Ariek Sea Witch continue to captivate the imagination. She has become a popular character in literature, films, and other forms of entertainment. Her allure and mystique make her a compelling and frightening antagonist, representing the vast and unpredictable power of the ocean. While the Ariek Sea Witch may be nothing more than a mythical creature, her legend serves as a reminder of the awe-inspiring and dangerous nature of the sea. She represents the deep and unexplored mysteries that lie beneath the waves, captivating our imagination and reminding us of the timeless power and beauty of the ocean..

Reviews for "Embracing Your Intuition: Lessons from the Ariek Sea Witch"

1. Jane - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with "Ariek Sea Witch". The characters were poorly developed and the plot was confusing. I found it difficult to connect with any of the characters and their motivations seemed vague at best. The writing style was also lackluster and failed to evoke any emotion or create a compelling atmosphere. Overall, I was left feeling unsatisfied and would not recommend this book.

2. Mark - 1 star - "Ariek Sea Witch" was a complete waste of time. The story lacked originality and was riddled with clichés. The dialogue was stilted and the attempts at humor fell flat. I found myself skim-reading through sections and had to force myself to finish it. The pacing was incredibly slow and the ending felt rushed and unsatisfying. I definitely regret investing my time and money into this book.

3. Sarah - 2 stars - I had high hopes for "Ariek Sea Witch" but unfortunately, it fell short. The world-building was confusing and inconsistent, making it difficult to immerse myself in the story. The main character was unlikable and her decisions often lacked justification. The romance subplot felt forced and lacked chemistry. While the writing itself was decent, it was not enough to make up for the flaws in the overall plot and character development. I would not recommend this book to others.

4. Chris - 2 stars - "Ariek Sea Witch" had the potential to be an interesting fantasy novel, but it fell flat. The pacing was off, with certain parts dragging on and others feeling rushed. The world-building was shallow and lacked depth, leaving me with many unanswered questions. The plot was predictable and lacked originality. The main character's journey felt contrived and her development was unconvincing. Overall, I was underwhelmed by this book and wouldn't recommend it.

The Art of Sea Witchcraft: Inspired by Ariek Sea Witches