I assumed since the spell created the whip, that the damage was magical piercing damage. Another player at the table felt differently, saying "well if it doesn't say it's magical piercing, then it's not"
The DM was on the fence about it and ruled since it's only a cantrip and has the added utility function, for the time it's nonmagical unless I can find sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
I'm good either way, but I would like to hear the community's input.
It is a bit of grey area, as the Spells section of the PHB does not state it clearly. However, the reasoning I follow is this:
Some creature are either immune or resistant to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks (emphasis mine). A spell is by definition a discrete magical effect, therefore it counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming that immunity or resistance.
It is a bit of grey area, as the Spells section of the PHB does not state it clearly.
It's not a grey area. Resistance or immunity to nonmagical attacks is mainly relevant to monsters. It's therefore addressed in the Monster Manual (in the introduction, under Vulnerabilities, Resistances and Immunities):
Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source).
While reading up on this I found that tools created magically are NOT magic. Doesn’t that count got whips that are created magically but are themselves not magic thereby causing piercing damage because it’s not a magic attack but damage caused by an item created by magic. There appears to be as step between the two actions of creating a weapon through magical means then making a melee attack with it.
While reading up on this I found that tools created magically are NOT magic. Doesn’t that count got whips that are created magically but are themselves not magic thereby causing piercing damage because it’s not a magic attack but damage caused by an item created by magic. There appears to be as step between the two actions of creating a weapon through magical means then making a melee attack with it.
The trick here is, that you do not create the thorn whip per se. It is an instantaneous effect and the whip dissipates again after doing its thing.
When you cast a spell that creates an object that can be handled for a while and is not explicitly stated as being magical, that object does not do magical damage if used for attacking.
By this logic, does a spell like Fireball or Wall of Fire deal fire AND magical damage, thus bypassing a monster's fire immunity?
No. Magical damage just means any damage from a magical source. Fire resistance and immunity applies to the damage type, regardless of source (unless specifically stated otherwise).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is no such thing as “Magical Damage” in 5e. There is only damage from nonmagical sources, and damage from magical sources. Spells are magical sources of damage. You can tell because they are “magic spells.”
By this logic, does a spell like Fireball or Wall of Fire deal fire AND magical damage, thus bypassing a monster's fire immunity?
No. Magical damage just means any damage from a magical source. Fire resistance and immunity applies to the damage type, regardless of source (unless specifically stated otherwise).
Ok, I think I see the difference. Take Fire Elemental:
Damage ResistancesBludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks
Damage ImmunitiesFire, Poison
If that had said "Fire from Nonmagical Attacks" under immunities, instead of just "Fire", THEN it would be susceptible to fireball. This is why Thorn Whip will deal full damage to Fire Elemental, since the piercing damage comes from a Magical attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This came up in my game last night.
I assumed since the spell created the whip, that the damage was magical piercing damage. Another player at the table felt differently, saying "well if it doesn't say it's magical piercing, then it's not"
The DM was on the fence about it and ruled since it's only a cantrip and has the added utility function, for the time it's nonmagical unless I can find sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
I'm good either way, but I would like to hear the community's input.
Any damage made from a spell is inherently magical.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/26/does-any-piercing-bludgeoning-or-slashing-damage-from-spells-count-as-magical-in-nature/
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It is a bit of grey area, as the Spells section of the PHB does not state it clearly. However, the reasoning I follow is this:
Some creature are either immune or resistant to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks (emphasis mine). A spell is by definition a discrete magical effect, therefore it counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming that immunity or resistance.
Fantastic! Thanks everyone.
It's not a grey area. Resistance or immunity to nonmagical attacks is mainly relevant to monsters. It's therefore addressed in the Monster Manual (in the introduction, under Vulnerabilities, Resistances and Immunities):
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yeah, what counts as magical damage is pretty clearly laid out here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#VulnerabilitiesResistancesandImmunities
While reading up on this I found that tools created magically are NOT magic. Doesn’t that count got whips that are created magically but are themselves not magic thereby causing piercing damage because it’s not a magic attack but damage caused by an item created by magic. There appears to be as step between the two actions of creating a weapon through magical means then making a melee attack with it.
The trick here is, that you do not create the thorn whip per se. It is an instantaneous effect and the whip dissipates again after doing its thing.
When you cast a spell that creates an object that can be handled for a while and is not explicitly stated as being magical, that object does not do magical damage if used for attacking.
By this logic, does a spell like Fireball or Wall of Fire deal fire AND magical damage, thus bypassing a monster's fire immunity?
No. Magical damage just means any damage from a magical source. Fire resistance and immunity applies to the damage type, regardless of source (unless specifically stated otherwise).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is no such thing as “Magical Damage” in 5e. There is only damage from nonmagical sources, and damage from magical sources. Spells are magical sources of damage. You can tell because they are “magic spells.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok, I think I see the difference. Take Fire Elemental: