I will be starting a campaign and foresaw a question that I will need an answer a LONG ways from now as in they are Lvl 1 and it won't come into effect until Lvl 11 at the earliest. I thought I might ask it know so that I am not scrambling for an answer at the last minute next year.
The character will be taking a class that, at Lvl 6, their "unarmed strikes are considered magical for the purposes of bypassing damage resistances". They have already talked about plans to multiclass and the Lvl 5 feature of the new class states "a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage."
So, if their unarmed strikes are considered magical for damage resistance purposes, are they also considered a magical attack and eligible for the additional 1d10 damage?
No. A magical attack or effect is stuff that comes from spells or spell-like things. Fireball is a magical attack or effect. Many monsters have magical abilities (Beholder's eye-rays for example) that aren't actually spells. But hitting things with a magic weapon doesn't count. If you hit with a magic weapon and used Booming Blade, though, that would count.
Since the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for the purpose of damage resistance, not for the purpose of other features that depend on magical attacks, no.
But I'm curious what class feature that even is. It doesn't sound familiar to me, and the wording feels... vague.
Since the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for the purpose of damage resistance, not for the purpose of other features that depend on magical attacks, no.
But I'm curious what class feature that even is. It doesn't sound familiar to me, and the wording feels... vague.
Since the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for the purpose of damage resistance, not for the purpose of other features that depend on magical attacks, no.
But I'm curious what class feature that even is. It doesn't sound familiar to me, and the wording feels... vague.
Yeah - I just had a quick look at the standard classes. Only Artificer hands out a sub-class feature at level 5, and none of those features are this one. So I'm also interested what this class is. Colour me intrigued :)
I will be starting a campaign and foresaw a question that I will need an answer a LONG ways from now as in they are Lvl 1 and it won't come into effect until Lvl 11 at the earliest. I thought I might ask it know so that I am not scrambling for an answer at the last minute next year.
The character will be taking a class that, at Lvl 6, their "unarmed strikes are considered magical for the purposes of bypassing damage resistances". They have already talked about plans to multiclass and the Lvl 5 feature of the new class states "a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage."
So, if their unarmed strikes are considered magical for damage resistance purposes, are they also considered a magical attack and eligible for the additional 1d10 damage?
I'm with everyone else - "a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage" is word salad on par with Tasha's, and I'm super curious where it's coming from. This is how WOTC writes rules when it's paying attention (granted, many rules blocks are phoned in with minimum effort):
When a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes magical damage, you can use your reaction to magically deal an additional 1d10 damage of the same type to that creature.
Since the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for the purpose of damage resistance, not for the purpose of other features that depend on magical attacks, no.
But I'm curious what class feature that even is. It doesn't sound familiar to me, and the wording feels... vague.
While Ki-Empowered unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, they are still not magical attacks so any other game elements that can be used with magical attacks are not usable.
Can you quote to where "magical attacks" is defined in 5E, in a way that would exclude attacks that "count as magical" (even if they count as magical "only for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.")?
If you care, JC seems to disagree, by treating a feature that treats nonmagical arrows as "magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks" to satisfy the Curving Shot feature that just looks for "magic arrows."
I don't see "magical attack" identified anywhere in a meaningful way other than in the context of damage resistance, outside of this Arcane Archer ability, and if JC is okay with lumping that in with damage resistance...
Attempting to give a strict RAW answer on a uniquely worded homebrew feature is going to be problematic. This is absolutely a "ask your DM" type of interaction.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Attempting to give a strict RAW answer on a uniquely worded homebrew feature is going to be problematic. This is absolutely a "ask your DM" type of interaction.
Can you quote to where "magical attacks" is defined in 5E, in a way that would exclude attacks that "count as magical" (even if they count as magical "only for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.")?
That's the problem, "magical attacks" isn't really a 5E term, it's wording from whoever wrote the homebrew and it doesn't interact well with the official mechanics.
"Starting at 5th level, you can amplify the destructive effects of magical energies. Whenever a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage."
So the way this works is that a) you have to be within 30 feet of the creature being attacked by magic, b) the attack has to hit and deal damage, and c) it can only happen once per round because it uses your reaction.
-------
The problem is that neither "magical attack" nor "attacked by magic" have any specific meaning in these rules, so our rule discussion is over.
If the OP would like a bunch of our confused and contradictory opinions on how this *should* be ruled, then please let us know.
But my confused and contradictory opinion is objectively correct, I feel! I'm so certain about it, that I'll even claim that yours is unreasonable, and, if the thread goes long enough, indicative of a fundamental wrongness in your heart, which prevents you from feeling genuine human joy, let alone playing D&D properly!
Sorry, I think I need to take a break from here, lol.
Ki empowered strikes describe themselves as magical. Arcane Archer shows the RAI here for such features being sufficient for “magical.” The intent of the home brew isn’t important, to the extent that “magical [attack\weapon]” is ever used in 5E, ki empowered strikes is the type of ability that satisfies it. If you’re going to use SAC to argue against that, I’d urge you to read the JC tweet I linked too… same author disagreeing with themself? Or, demonstrating that you’re misreading the SAC? You decide.
I will be starting a campaign and foresaw a question that I will need an answer a LONG ways from now as in they are Lvl 1 and it won't come into effect until Lvl 11 at the earliest. I thought I might ask it know so that I am not scrambling for an answer at the last minute next year.
The character will be taking a class that, at Lvl 6, their "unarmed strikes are considered magical for the purposes of bypassing damage resistances". They have already talked about plans to multiclass and the Lvl 5 feature of the new class states "a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage."
So, if their unarmed strikes are considered magical for damage resistance purposes, are they also considered a magical attack and eligible for the additional 1d10 damage?
No. A magical attack or effect is stuff that comes from spells or spell-like things. Fireball is a magical attack or effect. Many monsters have magical abilities (Beholder's eye-rays for example) that aren't actually spells. But hitting things with a magic weapon doesn't count. If you hit with a magic weapon and used Booming Blade, though, that would count.
Since the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for the purpose of damage resistance, not for the purpose of other features that depend on magical attacks, no.
But I'm curious what class feature that even is. It doesn't sound familiar to me, and the wording feels... vague.
Monk. It's the Ki-Empowered Strikes feature.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Yeah - I just had a quick look at the standard classes. Only Artificer hands out a sub-class feature at level 5, and none of those features are this one. So I'm also interested what this class is. Colour me intrigued :)
Not that one, the other feature, about reactions. Sounds like home brew, which means, just tighten up that home brew to provide the guidance you seek.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm with everyone else - "a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage" is word salad on par with Tasha's, and I'm super curious where it's coming from. This is how WOTC writes rules when it's paying attention (granted, many rules blocks are phoned in with minimum effort):
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant the feature that doesn't make sense.
It's probably this Artificer Subclass on DMs Guild, based on the reddit comments.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I feel like the Ki-Empowered Strikes feature is pretty clear. Magic... For the purposes of overcoming resistances. Not for any other purposes.
While Ki-Empowered unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, they are still not magical attacks so any other game elements that can be used with magical attacks are not usable.
Can you quote to where "magical attacks" is defined in 5E, in a way that would exclude attacks that "count as magical" (even if they count as magical "only for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.")?
If you care, JC seems to disagree, by treating a feature that treats nonmagical arrows as "magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks" to satisfy the Curving Shot feature that just looks for "magic arrows."
I don't see "magical attack" identified anywhere in a meaningful way other than in the context of damage resistance, outside of this Arcane Archer ability, and if JC is okay with lumping that in with damage resistance...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Attempting to give a strict RAW answer on a uniquely worded homebrew feature is going to be problematic. This is absolutely a "ask your DM" type of interaction.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Quite right.
That's the problem, "magical attacks" isn't really a 5E term, it's wording from whoever wrote the homebrew and it doesn't interact well with the official mechanics.
Agreed, and here are the words of its creator:
--------++
"Starting at 5th level, you can amplify the destructive effects of magical energies. Whenever a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage from a magical attack or effect, you can use your reaction to deal an additional 1d10 damage."
So the way this works is that a) you have to be within 30 feet of the creature being attacked by magic, b) the attack has to hit and deal damage, and c) it can only happen once per round because it uses your reaction.
-------
The problem is that neither "magical attack" nor "attacked by magic" have any specific meaning in these rules, so our rule discussion is over.
If the OP would like a bunch of our confused and contradictory opinions on how this *should* be ruled, then please let us know.
But my confused and contradictory opinion is objectively correct, I feel! I'm so certain about it, that I'll even claim that yours is unreasonable, and, if the thread goes long enough, indicative of a fundamental wrongness in your heart, which prevents you from feeling genuine human joy, let alone playing D&D properly!
Sorry, I think I need to take a break from here, lol.
(28 pages later...)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
From Sage Advice:
''Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• 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?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.''
Ki-Empowered Strikes doesn't have a yes for any of these questions.
Ki empowered strikes describe themselves as magical. Arcane Archer shows the RAI here for such features being sufficient for “magical.” The intent of the home brew isn’t important, to the extent that “magical [attack\weapon]” is ever used in 5E, ki empowered strikes is the type of ability that satisfies it. If you’re going to use SAC to argue against that, I’d urge you to read the JC tweet I linked too… same author disagreeing with themself? Or, demonstrating that you’re misreading the SAC? You decide.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.