There is no question. There is no “magic damage” only “damage from magical sources.” Why would a spell not count as a “magical source?” That’s the point, the object you fling with Catapult doesn’t do the damage, the spell does. If the object did the damage, it would only be 1d4 bludgeoning just like any other thrown improvised weapon.
There is no “magic damage” only “damage from magical sources.” Why would a spell not count as a “magical source?” That’s the point, the object you fling with Catapult doesn’t do the damage, the spell does. If the object did the damage, it would only be 1d4 bludgeoning just like any other thrown improvised weapon.
We covered this already. There IS magical damage; Force damage is defined as magical damage in Player's Handbook p. 196 under damage types.
Catapult Is not a ranged spell attack nor a melee spell attack, it requires a saving throw, not an attack roll, therefore, as per monster manual definition, it's not damage from a magical attack. The spell description doesn't even suggest the damage is magical-it's listed specifically as bludgeoning.
You may note that both catapult and magic stone are transmutations. (IMO MS should be an enchantment.) the distinction between the two spells is that MS (as defined in spell description) provides a means to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Catapult doesn't do this, what is transmuted is the object's inertial velocity and vector (direction & mass.) the damage is nonmagical bludgeoning from a non-attack magical source, the damage is not magical.
There is no creature that is resistant or immune to non-magic silver/adamantine weapons.
if you don't have a magic weapon, a silvered/adamantine is required to hurt a few creatures:
Golems & Xorn are immune to non magical weapon attacks made with weapons that are not adamantine.
Devils, (not Demons) & lycanthropes (not jackalwere or vampires) are immune to nonmagical weapon attacks not made with silvered weapons.
Besides, both make precious so SHINEY....
Rather than an argument, this is an example of my point. They are not specifically resistant to silver or adamantine weapons (it is in fact the opposite).
The whole comment that this snippet is taken from was about how it doesn't matter if silvered/adamantine weapons are magical, not about if it matters that non-magic weapons are silvered/adamantine (because it obviously does).
There is no “magic damage” only “damage from magical sources.” Why would a spell not count as a “magical source?” That’s the point, the object you fling with Catapult doesn’t do the damage, the spell does. If the object did the damage, it would only be 1d4 bludgeoning just like any other thrown improvised weapon.
We covered this already. There IS magical damage; Force damage is defined as magical damage in Player's Handbook p. 196 under damage types.
You're not wrong, but more importantly, you're not relevant.
Catapult Is not a ranged spell attack nor a melee spell attack, it requires a saving throw, not an attack roll, therefore, as per monster manual definition, it's not magical damage. The spell description doesn't even suggest the damage is magical-it's listed specifically as bludgeoning.
But that also means that every creature that resists "non-magic attacks" does not resist catapult, as pointed out by Dave. So whether or not the damage is cause by magic is only relevant to things that prevent damage from magical sources, which a spell is.
You may note that both catapult and magic stone are transmutations. (IMO MS should be an enchantment.) the distinction between the two spells is that MS (as defined in spell description) provides a means to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Catapult doesn't do this, what is transmuted is the object's inertial velocity and vector (direction & mass.) the damage is nonmagical bludgeoning.
Transmutation is the school of magic that changes the shape or properties of objects. Enchantment is the school that changes the actions, thoughts, and emotions of creatures. Turning a rock into a magic rock is 100% transmutation.
There is no “magic damage” only “damage from magical sources.” Why would a spell not count as a “magical source?” That’s the point, the object you fling with Catapult doesn’t do the damage, the spell does. If the object did the damage, it would only be 1d4 bludgeoning just like any other thrown improvised weapon.
We covered this already. There IS magical damage; Force damage is defined as magical damage in Player's Handbook p. 196 under damage types.
Force damage is not magical if it doesn't come from a magical source. Yes, the description says "pure magical energy focused into a damaging form", but that doesn't override the fact that per sage advice, something only counts as magical if:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical? (the description of the feature itself)
You can hypothetically have non-magic force damage, for
Catapult Is not a ranged spell attack nor a melee spell attack, it requires a saving throw, not an attack roll, therefore, as per monster manual definition, it's not magical damage. The spell description doesn't even suggest the damage is magical-it's listed specifically as bludgeoning.
Damage doesn't have to come from an attack to be magical, it just has to have a magical source. Cone of Cold, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are all saving throws, but they're still magical damage.
You may note that both catapult and magic stone are transmutations. (IMO MS should be an enchantment.) the distinction between the two spells is that MS (as defined in spell description) provides a means to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Catapult doesn't do this, what is transmuted is the object's inertial velocity and vector (direction & mass.) the damage is nonmagical bludgeoning.
The school of magic doesn't affect anything regarding the damage type. Both catapult and magic stone are spells, therefore the damage caused by those spells is magical.
Whether or not the damage is cause by magic is only relevant to things that prevent damage from magical sources, which a spell is.
Fireball damage is non attack fire from a magical source. That means damage reduction re magical attacks does not apply. Saving throw benefits DO apply if the saving throw benefit specifies damage from a magical source.
I still think catapult is a different story though. The source of the damage is the projectile, not the spell which transmutes the object into a projectile.
Getting back to the spells in the header, both of these would fall into the same category as fireball- we're talking nonmagical damage "from a magical source."
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific damage reductions with this specific qualifier. Magic resistance is generally is an advantage modifier, unlike other resistances- which typically reduce damage.
(With a nod towards greater resistance granting both save & damage reduction such as granted from the Dwarven race feature & tiefling feat Infernal Constitution.)
Whether or not the damage is cause by magic is only relevant to things that prevent damage from magical sources, which a spell is.
Fireball damage is non attack fire from a magical source. That means damage reduction re magical attacks does not apply. Saving throw benefits DO apply if the saving throw benefit specifies damage from a magical source.
I still think catapult is a different story though. The source of the damage is the projectile, not the spell which transmutes the object into a projectile.
If you can show me where it says how much damage the projectile does without referring to the spell, you have a point. If you have to check the spell to know how much damage it does, than it is damage from a spell.
Getting back to the spells in the header, both of these would fall into the same category as fireball- we're talking nonmagical damage "from a magical source."
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific damage reductions with this specific qualifier. Magic resistance is generally is an advantage modifier, unlike other resistances- which typically reduce damage.
So you're saying magic resistance would give advantage against this "non-magic" damage? I rest my case your honor.
Whether or not the damage is cause by magic is only relevant to things that prevent damage from magical sources, which a spell is.
Fireball damage is non attack fire from a magical source. That means damage reduction re magical attacks does not apply. Saving throw benefits DO apply if the saving throw benefit specifies damage from a magical source.
I still think catapult is a different story though. The source of the damage is the projectile, not the spell which transmutes the object into a projectile.
If you can show me where it says how much damage the projectile does without referring to the spell, you have a point. If you have to check the spell to know how much damage it does, than it is damage from a spell.
Getting back to the spells in the header, both of these would fall into the same category as fireball- we're talking nonmagical damage "from a magical source."
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific damage reductions with this specific qualifier. Magic resistance is generally is an advantage modifier, unlike other resistances- which typically reduce damage.
So you're saying magic resistance would give advantage against this "non-magic" damage? I rest my case your honor.
A spell can increase the damage of an attack without making the attack magical. Example: enlarge/reduce.
Hunters Mark does more of the weapon damage type, & hex adds necrotic damage, both nonmagical damage from a magical source, but neither give saving throws for magical resistance to apply.
Hunters Mark does more of the weapon damage type, & hex adds necrotic damage, both nonmagical damage from a magical source, but neither give saving throws for magical resistance to apply.
Hex & hunters mark accessorize the attack. They do not count as magical attacks, but the spell source causes the associated weapon attack to be treated as a magical attack for purposes of determining immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities.
Yes, but the weapon is not doing the extra damage, the spell is. But the spell is not delivering the attack, the weapon is. It’s like either you just aren’t listening, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, your trolling for lulz, or you might want to stick to a simpler game.
Yes, but the weapon is not doing the extra damage, the spell is. But the spell is not delivering the attack, the weapon is. It’s like either you just aren’t listening, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, your trolling for lulz, or you might want to stick to a simpler game.
Whoa, careful with your wording.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Ultimately the question about whether the damage is magical is moot exclusively to the point of immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities; this only applies if it is a R/MWA or R/MSA.
If instead the action triggers a save, the source of the damage, not the damage itself, determines whether magic resistance applies.
Ultimately the question about whether the damage is magical is moot exclusively to the point of immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities; this only applies if it is a R/MWA or R/MSA.
If instead the action triggers a save, the source of the damage, not the damage itself, determines whether magic resistance applies.
Damage is never inherently magical, that is always determined by the source.
^^What he said.^^
The same applies to Catapult.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I actually don't have a side here, I'm just trying to glean better understanding and sometimes that's best done playing Asmodeus' Advocate.
Do U guys think the magic damage question should be moved to its own thread?
There is no question. There is no “magic damage” only “damage from magical sources.” Why would a spell not count as a “magical source?” That’s the point, the object you fling with Catapult doesn’t do the damage, the spell does. If the object did the damage, it would only be 1d4 bludgeoning just like any other thrown improvised weapon.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
if you don't have a magic weapon, a silvered/adamantine is required to hurt a few creatures:
Golems & Xorn are immune to non magical weapon attacks made with weapons that are not adamantine.
Devils, (not Demons) & lycanthropes (not jackalwere or vampires) are immune to nonmagical weapon attacks not made with silvered weapons.
Besides, both make precious so SHINEY....
We covered this already. There IS magical damage; Force damage is defined as magical damage in Player's Handbook p. 196 under damage types.
Catapult Is not a ranged spell attack nor a melee spell attack, it requires a saving throw, not an attack roll, therefore, as per monster manual definition, it's not damage from a magical attack. The spell description doesn't even suggest the damage is magical-it's listed specifically as bludgeoning.
You may note that both catapult and magic stone are transmutations. (IMO MS should be an enchantment.) the distinction between the two spells is that MS (as defined in spell description) provides a means to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Catapult doesn't do this, what is transmuted is the object's inertial velocity and vector (direction & mass.) the damage is nonmagical bludgeoning from a non-attack magical source, the damage is not magical.
Rather than an argument, this is an example of my point. They are not specifically resistant to silver or adamantine weapons (it is in fact the opposite).
The whole comment that this snippet is taken from was about how it doesn't matter if silvered/adamantine weapons are magical, not about if it matters that non-magic weapons are silvered/adamantine (because it obviously does).
You're not wrong, but more importantly, you're not relevant.
But that also means that every creature that resists "non-magic attacks" does not resist catapult, as pointed out by Dave. So whether or not the damage is cause by magic is only relevant to things that prevent damage from magical sources, which a spell is.
Transmutation is the school of magic that changes the shape or properties of objects. Enchantment is the school that changes the actions, thoughts, and emotions of creatures. Turning a rock into a magic rock is 100% transmutation.
Force damage is not magical if it doesn't come from a magical source. Yes, the description says "pure magical energy focused into a damaging form", but that doesn't override the fact that per sage advice, something only counts as magical if:
You can hypothetically have non-magic force damage, for
Damage doesn't have to come from an attack to be magical, it just has to have a magical source. Cone of Cold, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are all saving throws, but they're still magical damage.
The school of magic doesn't affect anything regarding the damage type. Both catapult and magic stone are spells, therefore the damage caused by those spells is magical.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
^^^What they said.^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
LoL
Well I figure it's important to go with your strengths; if I can't be irreverent at least i can be irrelevant.
Dx does make a good point though
Fireball damage is non attack fire from a magical source. That means damage reduction re magical attacks does not apply. Saving throw benefits DO apply if the saving throw benefit specifies damage from a magical source.
I still think catapult is a different story though. The source of the damage is the projectile, not the spell which transmutes the object into a projectile.
Getting back to the spells in the header, both of these would fall into the same category as fireball- we're talking nonmagical damage "from a magical source."
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific damage reductions with this specific qualifier. Magic resistance is generally is an advantage modifier, unlike other resistances- which typically reduce damage.
(With a nod towards greater resistance granting both save & damage reduction such as granted from the Dwarven race feature & tiefling feat Infernal Constitution.)
If you can show me where it says how much damage the projectile does without referring to the spell, you have a point. If you have to check the spell to know how much damage it does, than it is damage from a spell.
So you're saying magic resistance would give advantage against this "non-magic" damage? I rest my case your honor.
👏
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A spell can increase the damage of an attack without making the attack magical. Example: enlarge/reduce.
Hunters Mark does more of the weapon damage type, & hex adds necrotic damage, both nonmagical damage from a magical source, but neither give saving throws for magical resistance to apply.
Hex & hunters mark accessorize the attack. They do not count as magical attacks, but the spell source causes the associated weapon attack to be treated as a magical attack for purposes of determining immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities.
Yes, but the weapon is not doing the extra damage, the spell is. But the spell is not delivering the attack, the weapon is. It’s like either you just aren’t listening, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, your trolling for lulz, or you might want to stick to a simpler game.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Whoa, careful with your wording.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Ultimately the question about whether the damage is magical is moot exclusively to the point of immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities; this only applies if it is a R/MWA or R/MSA.
If instead the action triggers a save, the source of the damage, not the damage itself, determines whether magic resistance applies.
Damage is never inherently magical, that is always determined by the source.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here