So the next question would be, if the arrow used was silver/adamantine, would to barrage or volley be silver/adamantine?
Let’s take a look:
Conjure Barrage. You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
Conjure Volley. You fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition from a ranged weapon or throw a nonmagical weapon into the air and choose a point within range. Hundreds of duplicates of the ammunition or weapon fall in a volley from above and then disappear. Each creature in a 40-foot-radius. 20-foot-high cylinder centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the ammunition or weapon.
Nowhere does it specify if the copies/duplicates disappear before or after physically striking those in the AOE. It could be argued that they “disappear” before hand since the spells describe the damage being dealt, after the statement about “disappearing” and never describe the ammo hitting them at all.
Simply put. A focus would replace the material component needed to cast the spell, but a weapon/ammo is still needed for the effect of the spell to happen.
Simply put. A focus would replace the material component needed to cast the spell, but a weapon/ammo is still needed for the effect of the spell to happen.
The damage type is "Additional" the spell says "a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward " and "The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component."
It's possible that creatures that have resistance/immunity to non-silver or non-adamantine might resist the spell.
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?"
Simply put. A focus would replace the material component needed to cast the spell, but a weapon/ammo is still needed for the effect of the spell to happen.
The damage type is "Additional" the spell says "a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward " and "The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component."
It's possible that creatures that have resistance/immunity to non-silver or non-adamantine might resist the spell.
Can you name 1 creature that is resistant to magical weapon damage that is still vulnerable to silver or adamantine?
Simply put. A focus would replace the material component needed to cast the spell, but a weapon/ammo is still needed for the effect of the spell to happen.
The damage type is "Additional" the spell says "a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward " and "The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component."
It's possible that creatures that have resistance/immunity to non-silver or non-adamantine might resist the spell.
It never actually says that the creatures in the AoE actually get hit by the copies, they just take the spell damage. What your asking is ultimately irrelevant, those weapons never do the damage, the spell does.
It never actually says that the creatures in the AoE actually get hit by the copies, they just take the spell damage. What your asking is ultimately irrelevant, those weapons never do the damage, the spell does.
It doesn't matter either way. There is no creature with vulnerability to silver/adamantine. And there is no creature that is resistant or immune to non-magic silver/adamantine weapons.
At least as of right now, 3d8 magic bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and 3d8 magic adamantine/silvered bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are functionally indistinguishable 100% of the time.
I'm not sure i agree with that. If i conjure fire, or evoke a fireball, I'm doing fire damage.. If i shower a flesh golem with nonmagical weapons it won't take any damage whether I dump them out of a cart, teleport them over the target or conjure a volley/barrage.
Attacks (spell or otherwise) only do magical damage if specified. (Even Dragon claw attacks are not specified as magical, so that flesh golem can have a party on a blue dragon.)
If you have a reference that contradicts how I've been running this, I'd like to read it.
If the cone of ammunition is identical, and the spell component must be non-magical, then isn't the damage non-magical?
No because it is damage from a spell. All spells do magic damage.
even Catapult?
Yes.
But it doesn't say it makes the object magical. Magic Stone specifically states that it imbues the rock with magic. Magic Weapon specifically states that it makes a weapon magic. Catapult just says to choose and object and it flies through the air, nothing about it becoming enchanted.
It doesn’t need to make the item magical. It’s a magic spell. Magic Weapon and Shillelagh don’t do damage. Catapult and Conjure Barrage do.
I refuse to believe that anyone actually requires a specific line in a rulebook to say “damage done by a magic spell is magical.”
[EDIT] Nevertheless, such a line does exist. In the Monster Manual’s section on resistances and vulnerabilities no less: “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).”
[EDIT2] A stringent reading of the rules here will also reveal that it doesn’t matter anyway, since no monster has resistance to “non-magical damage,” only to “damage from non-magical attack.” Catapult, Conjure Volley, etc. call for saving throws. They aren’t attacks, so their damage wouldn’t be resisted even if it weren’t caused by a magic spell.
In the Monster Manual’s section on resistances and vulnerabilities no less: “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).”
This is what I was going to say.
[EDIT2] A stringent reading of the rules here will also reveal that it doesn’t matter anyway, since no monster has resistance to “non-magical damage,” only to “damage from non-magical attack.” Catapult, Conjure Volley, etc. call for saving throws. They aren’t attacks, so their damage wouldn’t be resisted even if it weren’t caused by a magic spell.
Ok, I think we're getting close but we're still not quite there.
MM p.8 "...a magical attack is an ATTACK delivered by a magic spell, magic weapon or another magical source."
The key word is attack. Crawford has already ruled that magic missile is not an attack (sage advice) with the caveat that DMs can play it any way they want.
RAW is pretty straightforward- unless a spell is specified as a RSA or MSA, that is to say, requires a to hit roll, IT'S NOT AN ATTACK. A stealthy sorcerer can cast a subtle fireball or magic missile without breaking stealth because they aren't attacks which break stealth. Both would still break invisibility, however, because spells break invisibility.
Ok, I think we're getting close but we're still not quite there.
MM p.8 "...a magical attack is an ATTACK delivered by a magic spell, magic weapon or another magical source."
The key word is attack. Crawford has already ruled that magic missile is not an attack (sage advice) with the caveat that DMs can play it any way they want.
RAW is pretty straightforward- unless a spell is specified as a RSA or MSA, that is to say, requires a to hit roll, IT'S NOT AN ATTACK. A stealthy sorcerer can cast a subtle fireball or magic missile without breaking stealth because they aren't attacks which break stealth. Both would still break invisibility, however, because spells break invisibility.
I can’t tell which side of the discussion you are on. Everything you are saying further proves that monsters with either resistance or immunity to “damage from non-magical attacks” would still take full damage from spells like Catapult, Conjure Barrage, and Conjure Volley.
Let's try and break down what's been gleaned from this convo:
You can replace the listed component with a foci because it's neither costed nor stated to be consumed per spellcasting rules
But this causes the spell to fail anyway because to completely the first step you need the exact same items listed in the components anyway
The spell causes either "Hundreds of duplicates of the ammunition or weapon fall in a volley from above" or "a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear", functionally the same in terms of the effect, just its shape changes
Creatures in the area must succeed on a dexterity saving throw or take damage (so it's not an attack)
The damage type is the same as the ammunition or weapon
For the purposes of resistances, this would overcome it because although the spell does bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage, it's not from an attack. The resistance would have to say "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing" not "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks" to apply in this case. This makes the ammunition being silvered a moot point (because silvering only applies to attacks) and also being adamantine (due to the spell only affecting creatures, not objects).
It’s in the journey, not the destination in which we find enlightenment.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let’s take a look:
Nowhere does it specify if the copies/duplicates disappear before or after physically striking those in the AOE. It could be argued that they “disappear” before hand since the spells describe the damage being dealt, after the statement about “disappearing” and never describe the ammo hitting them at all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Simply put. A focus would replace the material component needed to cast the spell, but a weapon/ammo is still needed for the effect of the spell to happen.
Probably. Can you name one instance where it matters since it is now doing spell damage and not weapon damage?
Conjure Barrage
The damage type is "Additional" the spell says "a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward " and "The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component."
It's possible that creatures that have resistance/immunity to non-silver or non-adamantine might resist the spell.
"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
Can you name 1 creature that is resistant to magical weapon damage that is still vulnerable to silver or adamantine?
It never actually says that the creatures in the AoE actually get hit by the copies, they just take the spell damage. What your asking is ultimately irrelevant, those weapons never do the damage, the spell does.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It doesn't matter either way. There is no creature with vulnerability to silver/adamantine. And there is no creature that is resistant or immune to non-magic silver/adamantine weapons.
At least as of right now, 3d8 magic bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and 3d8 magic adamantine/silvered bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are functionally indistinguishable 100% of the time.
As of right now. Who knows what may come out next?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If the cone of ammunition is identical, and the spell component must be non-magical, then isn't the damage non-magical?
"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
No because it is damage from a spell. All spells do magic damage.
even Catapult?
"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
Yes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not sure i agree with that. If i conjure fire, or evoke a fireball, I'm doing fire damage.. If i shower a flesh golem with nonmagical weapons it won't take any damage whether I dump them out of a cart, teleport them over the target or conjure a volley/barrage.
Attacks (spell or otherwise) only do magical damage if specified. (Even Dragon claw attacks are not specified as magical, so that flesh golem can have a party on a blue dragon.)
If you have a reference that contradicts how I've been running this, I'd like to read it.
Under Damage Types (PH p.196)
You'll note that "magical" is not a damage type. The Only damage type that is defined as magical is FORCE damage.
But it doesn't say it makes the object magical. Magic Stone specifically states that it imbues the rock with magic. Magic Weapon specifically states that it makes a weapon magic. Catapult just says to choose and object and it flies through the air, nothing about it becoming enchanted.
Elemental Weapon
Shillelagh
"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
It doesn’t need to make the item magical. It’s a magic spell. Magic Weapon and Shillelagh don’t do damage. Catapult and Conjure Barrage do.
I refuse to believe that anyone actually requires a specific line in a rulebook to say “damage done by a magic spell is magical.”
[EDIT] Nevertheless, such a line does exist. In the Monster Manual’s section on resistances and vulnerabilities no less: “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).”
[EDIT2] A stringent reading of the rules here will also reveal that it doesn’t matter anyway, since no monster has resistance to “non-magical damage,” only to “damage from non-magical attack.” Catapult, Conjure Volley, etc. call for saving throws. They aren’t attacks, so their damage wouldn’t be resisted even if it weren’t caused by a magic spell.
This is what I was going to say.
This is a good observation.
Ok, I think we're getting close but we're still not quite there.
MM p.8 "...a magical attack is an ATTACK delivered by a magic spell, magic weapon or another magical source."
The key word is attack. Crawford has already ruled that magic missile is not an attack (sage advice) with the caveat that DMs can play it any way they want.
RAW is pretty straightforward- unless a spell is specified as a RSA or MSA, that is to say, requires a to hit roll, IT'S NOT AN ATTACK. A stealthy sorcerer can cast a subtle fireball or magic missile without breaking stealth because they aren't attacks which break stealth. Both would still break invisibility, however, because spells break invisibility.
I can’t tell which side of the discussion you are on. Everything you are saying further proves that monsters with either resistance or immunity to “damage from non-magical attacks” would still take full damage from spells like Catapult, Conjure Barrage, and Conjure Volley.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let's try and break down what's been gleaned from this convo:
For the purposes of resistances, this would overcome it because although the spell does bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage, it's not from an attack. The resistance would have to say "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing" not "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks" to apply in this case. This makes the ammunition being silvered a moot point (because silvering only applies to attacks) and also being adamantine (due to the spell only affecting creatures, not objects).
Find my D&D Beyond articles here