I'm talking about this wording in the resistances or immunities section of stat blocks: "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks"
I'd assume this resistance/immunity wouldn't apply to you if you're using for example Ammunition +1, even though it isn't explicitly stated that attacks made with it count as magical. Its attacks count as magical, because it is a magic item (not necessarily because it gives you a bonus to damage; other things count as magical attacks without giving you a bonus to damage or attack as well).
So here's the question: Would this also apply to an Unbreakable Arrow? It's a magic weapon as well, and I couldn't find anything in the combat section about what exactly makes an attack count as magical, therefore you could argue that any attack made with a magic weapon counts as magical (in addition this one stays magical after the attack, Ammunition +1 doesn't).
The bar for magical item is pretty low. If it has any additional effect beyond the basic equipment in the PHB, it's magical.
Yes, it's very clear that those are magic items. But does an attack with a magic item automaticly mean it's a magical attack?
Yes according to DMG Errata and Sage Advice
Magic Weapons (p. 140). The section ends with a new paragraph: “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.”
My fighter attacks a creature with a magical longbow and nonmagical arrows. Is the attack magical? The attacks made by a magical ranged weapon are magical, even if the ammunition isn’t magical. (This point was clarified in the errata for the Dungeon Master’s Guide.)
Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities: Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.
I am going to say "no," and here is why. +1, +2, and +3 ammunition, in the magic item description, specifies that it is "magic ammunition." Arrows of slaying specify, "an arrow of slaying is a magic weapon...." Unbreakable ammunition does not contain this specificity in its description, which is why I will rule "no." A DM is free to change that, however.
I am going to say "no," and here is why. +1, +2, and +3 ammunition, in the magic item description, specifies that it is "magic ammunition." Arrows of slaying specify, "an arrow of slaying is a magic weapon...." Unbreakable ammunition does not contain this specificity in its description, which is why I will rule "no." A DM is free to change that, however.
It is in the Magic Items list, not the regular equipment list. It has the ammunition tag, being an arrow. And the description says "This arrow can’t be broken, except when it is within an antimagic field."
It is clearly a magical arrow, a magical piece of ammunition.
I do not deny that it is a magical item, but every single other magic weapon specifies that they are magic weapons in their description. These arrows lack that in their description. This tells me that the intention is that they are not meant to overcome the resistance and immunities to nonmagical weapons.
I am going to say "no," and here is why. +1, +2, and +3 ammunition, in the magic item description, specifies that it is "magic ammunition." Arrows of slaying specify, "an arrow of slaying is a magic weapon...." Unbreakable ammunition does not contain this specificity in its description, which is why I will rule "no." A DM is free to change that, however.
It is in the Magic Items list, not the regular equipment list. It has the ammunition tag, being an arrow. And the description says "This arrow can’t be broken, except when it is within an antimagic field."
It is clearly a magical arrow, a magical piece of ammunition.
I do not deny that it is a magical item, but every single other magic weapon specifies that they are magic weapons in their description. These arrows lack that in their description. This tells me that the intention is that they are not meant to overcome the resistance and immunities to nonmagical weapons.
So by your point of view, it is pointless to silver or poison ammunition, because the bow is what attacks and deals damage?
And I guess magic ranged weapons were errata'd to say they make their arrow count as magical for no reason since magic arrows don't overcome resistances.
Like I get what you are saying that the rules don't state it plainly, but 5e is like that about a lot of things. And you just have to use common sense, interpret plain language, or infer based on related rules.
Yup. Any magic item bypasses magic damage resistance (even nonweapon magic items used to make improvised weapon attacks).
Now, there’s probably some real edge cases we could debate, like whether a magic item needs to be a PERMANENTLY magic item in order to satisfy “attack with a magic item,” or if you can temporarily enchant an item (with Light, for example) to make it temporarily “magic.” It’s harder to draw a bright line between that and an artificer infusion than one might think, but a “tough” DM might try to draw a line in the sand that makes it harder for low-level parties to scrounge up a magic weapon attack in a desperate situation.
I am going to say "no," and here is why. +1, +2, and +3 ammunition, in the magic item description, specifies that it is "magic ammunition." Arrows of slaying specify, "an arrow of slaying is a magic weapon...." Unbreakable ammunition does not contain this specificity in its description, which is why I will rule "no." A DM is free to change that, however.
It is in the Magic Items list, not the regular equipment list. It has the ammunition tag, being an arrow. And the description says "This arrow can’t be broken, except when it is within an antimagic field."
It is clearly a magical arrow, a magical piece of ammunition.
I do not deny that it is a magical item, but every single other magic weapon specifies that they are magic weapons in their description. These arrows lack that in their description. This tells me that the intention is that they are not meant to overcome the resistance and immunities to nonmagical weapons.
Is it your position then that a moon-touched sword also doesn’t overcome normal weapon resistance?
As the player of a maul wielding conquest paladin who had to run around with a staff of birdcalls to use against certain enemies, I would absolutely say, if it is magical it bypasses resistance and immunities.
I am become terror, now tweet like the mightiest songbird and cower before my blood-chilling chirps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm talking about this wording in the resistances or immunities section of stat blocks: "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks"
I'd assume this resistance/immunity wouldn't apply to you if you're using for example Ammunition +1, even though it isn't explicitly stated that attacks made with it count as magical. Its attacks count as magical, because it is a magic item (not necessarily because it gives you a bonus to damage; other things count as magical attacks without giving you a bonus to damage or attack as well).
So here's the question: Would this also apply to an Unbreakable Arrow? It's a magic weapon as well, and I couldn't find anything in the combat section about what exactly makes an attack count as magical, therefore you could argue that any attack made with a magic weapon counts as magical (in addition this one stays magical after the attack, Ammunition +1 doesn't).
It’s pretty simple- if the weapon/ammo is magical, it’s a magic weapon attack, so yes.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Fired magic arrows are not nonmagical attacks.
The bar for magical item is pretty low. If it has any additional effect beyond the basic equipment in the PHB, it's magical.
Noone said they were.
Yes, it's very clear that those are magic items. But does an attack with a magic item automaticly mean it's a magical attack?
From Sage Advice
Yes according to DMG Errata and Sage Advice
Magic Weapons (p. 140). The section ends with a new paragraph: “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.”
My fighter attacks a creature with a magical longbow and nonmagical arrows. Is the attack magical? The attacks made by a magical ranged weapon are magical, even if the ammunition isn’t magical. (This point was clarified in the errata for the Dungeon Master’s Guide.)
Also confirmed in the Monster Manual errata;
Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities: Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.
great point...if you purchased the DMG on DDB, it reflects this language.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I am going to say "no," and here is why. +1, +2, and +3 ammunition, in the magic item description, specifies that it is "magic ammunition." Arrows of slaying specify, "an arrow of slaying is a magic weapon...." Unbreakable ammunition does not contain this specificity in its description, which is why I will rule "no." A DM is free to change that, however.
I do not deny that it is a magical item, but every single other magic weapon specifies that they are magic weapons in their description. These arrows lack that in their description. This tells me that the intention is that they are not meant to overcome the resistance and immunities to nonmagical weapons.
So by your point of view, it is pointless to silver or poison ammunition, because the bow is what attacks and deals damage?
And I guess magic ranged weapons were errata'd to say they make their arrow count as magical for no reason since magic arrows don't overcome resistances.
Like I get what you are saying that the rules don't state it plainly, but 5e is like that about a lot of things. And you just have to use common sense, interpret plain language, or infer based on related rules.
Yup. Any magic item bypasses magic damage resistance (even nonweapon magic items used to make improvised weapon attacks).
Now, there’s probably some real edge cases we could debate, like whether a magic item needs to be a PERMANENTLY magic item in order to satisfy “attack with a magic item,” or if you can temporarily enchant an item (with Light, for example) to make it temporarily “magic.” It’s harder to draw a bright line between that and an artificer infusion than one might think, but a “tough” DM might try to draw a line in the sand that makes it harder for low-level parties to scrounge up a magic weapon attack in a desperate situation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Is it your position then that a moon-touched sword also doesn’t overcome normal weapon resistance?
As the player of a maul wielding conquest paladin who had to run around with a staff of birdcalls to use against certain enemies, I would absolutely say, if it is magical it bypasses resistance and immunities.
I am become terror, now tweet like the mightiest songbird and cower before my blood-chilling chirps.
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.