I don't think this is addressed in the rules, but I could see an argument either way.
on one hand, maybe the damage comes from the magic being imparted on the arrow. on the other hand, it could be that the bow simply fires the arrow with supernatural accuracy, but otherwise does not alter the arrow.
I think this is going to be a table ruling specifically for your group.
At our table it is the arrows that must be magical. Regular arrows fired from a magic bow do not cause damage but magic arrows from a regular bow do. Of course the best is magic arrows from magic bow
Normally, you'd count an attack from a +X weapon to be magical. Therefore yes, the ammunition becomes magical.
However, the creature is far into homebrew that RAW is basically meaningless at this point. The only the DM can know or decide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
DMG Errata: "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."
Ammo fired from a Magical Weapon doesn't become magical. Rules as written, it is only considered magical if it needs to overcome nonmagical resistance/immunity. I would not treat it as magical for any other purpose, including applying magical resistance/immunity.
In the case you described, the normal ammunition fired from a magical weapon should do full damage.
DMG Errata: "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."
Ammo fired from a Magical Weapon doesn't become magical. Rules as written, it is only considered magical if it needs to overcome nonmagical resistance/immunity. I would not treat it as magical for any other purpose, including applying magical resistance/immunity.
In the case you described, the normal ammunition fired from a magical weapon should do full damage.
Still a little gray area in that answer though. It doesn't outright say it can count as nonmagical. It just says it is magical, and the reason it is magical.
Still a little gray area in that answer though. It doesn't outright say it can count as nonmagical. It just says it is magical, and the reason it is magical.
It is my belief that if the ammunition fired from a magic weapon was intended to be considered magical for any other purpose, the errata would have been adjusted to include those purposes. For example, it would say, " If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it isconsidered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and applying resistance and immunity to magical attacks and damage."
DNDPlay20:
I'm assuming the ammo becomes magical...since a +1 bow also increases damage.
If a DM uses a weapon's magical damage enhancement to determine whether ammo damage should be considered magical, then magical weapons that don't increase to-hit or damage are an interesting point to consider. What kind of damage would you say nonmagical arrows fired from a Longbow of Warning (+0) deal, given that the amount of damage dealt is not magically enhanced?
a) All of the damage should be considered magical, but only for the purposes of overcoming nonmagical resistance/immunity (RAW) b) All of the damage should be considered magical, for all cases (including applying magic immunity). c) Only the portion of the damage magically enhanced by the weapon should be considered magical (in this case, 0) and would be able to overcome nonmagical resistance and immunity. The rest of the damage (in this case, all of it) should be considered nonmagical. d) Other
Scenario: Party faces a creature with full magical immunity but nonmagical weapons harm it.
Question: In above case, does normal ammunition fired from a magical weapon do damage?
By rule, what would the answer be, and where can I find that rule?
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
I'm assuming the ammo becomes magical...since a +1 bow also increases damage.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
I don't think this is addressed in the rules, but I could see an argument either way.
on one hand, maybe the damage comes from the magic being imparted on the arrow. on the other hand, it could be that the bow simply fires the arrow with supernatural accuracy, but otherwise does not alter the arrow.
I think this is going to be a table ruling specifically for your group.
At our table it is the arrows that must be magical. Regular arrows fired from a magic bow do not cause damage but magic arrows from a regular bow do. Of course the best is magic arrows from magic bow
Normally, you'd count an attack from a +X weapon to be magical. Therefore yes, the ammunition becomes magical.
However, the creature is far into homebrew that RAW is basically meaningless at this point. The only the DM can know or decide.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf
DMG Errata: "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."
Ammo fired from a Magical Weapon doesn't become magical. Rules as written, it is only considered magical if it needs to overcome nonmagical resistance/immunity. I would not treat it as magical for any other purpose, including applying magical resistance/immunity.
In the case you described, the normal ammunition fired from a magical weapon should do full damage.
Still a little gray area in that answer though. It doesn't outright say it can count as nonmagical. It just says it is magical, and the reason it is magical.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
It is my belief that if the ammunition fired from a magic weapon was intended to be considered magical for any other purpose, the errata would have been adjusted to include those purposes. For example, it would say, " If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and applying resistance and immunity to magical attacks and damage."
If a DM uses a weapon's magical damage enhancement to determine whether ammo damage should be considered magical, then magical weapons that don't increase to-hit or damage are an interesting point to consider. What kind of damage would you say nonmagical arrows fired from a Longbow of Warning (+0) deal, given that the amount of damage dealt is not magically enhanced?
a) All of the damage should be considered magical, but only for the purposes of overcoming nonmagical resistance/immunity (RAW)
b) All of the damage should be considered magical, for all cases (including applying magic immunity).
c) Only the portion of the damage magically enhanced by the weapon should be considered magical (in this case, 0) and would be able to overcome nonmagical resistance and immunity. The rest of the damage (in this case, all of it) should be considered nonmagical.
d) Other