Can you quote to where "magical attacks" is defined in 5E
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.
It absolutely does for the last bullet point: "Your unarmed strikes count as magical"
So, yes, per Sage Advice a level 6+ Monk's unarmed attacks are magic/deal magic damage. Unless you want to argue that the Ki-Empowered Strikes feature is not a description of the Monk's unarmed attacks.
Well, no. The description absolutely does not say it’s magical. The description says it counts as magical within a very specific context.
Without the extremely specific limitation of “for purposes of overcoming damage resistance,” I’d agree that “counts as” is equivalent to “is.” But the text itself imposes a significant limit on that, so it’s not.
Can you quote to where "magical attacks" is defined in 5E
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.
It absolutely does for the last bullet point: "Your unarmed strikes count as magical"
So, yes, per Sage Advice a level 6+ Monk's unarmed attacks are magic/deal magic damage. Unless you want to argue that the Ki-Empowered Strikes feature is not a description of the Monk's unarmed attacks.
Well, no. The description absolutely does not say it’s magical. The description says it counts as magical within a very specific context.
Without the extremely specific limitation of “for purposes of overcoming damage resistance,” I’d agree that “counts as” is equivalent to “is.” But the text itself imposes a significant limit on that, so it’s not.
Indeed. Consider this: the feature could've just said "your unarmed strikes are magical." It could've said that, that would've made sense. But it doesn't say that.
Compare it to the Powerful Build feature given to goliaths. You count as one size category larger *for the purposes of determining* how much weight etc etc. Is a goliath Large? Can he effectively use weapons designed for Large creatures, and grapple Huge creatures, and occupy 4 squares on a grid, and move through the spaces of enemies who are Small?
If he hits or misses a Hunter Ranger with an attack, and the Ranger can see him, can the Ranger use Giant Killer on him?
No, no, no, no, no, and no. I think we're done here.
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
It's poorly written, and there aren't many (published) features that it will matter for. To the extent that "magical [attack/weapon]" (1) isn't defined in the rulebooks, but (2) has an application in the Arcane Archer which demonstrates RAI that such features satisfy it, and (3) the only alternative criterion that WOULD exclude them is provided in the SAC, which isn't a rulebook/RAW, and (4) the author to which that SAC is attributed himself has confirmed the RAI of #2 above....
Messy, but I don't think "Magical ____" is sufficiently defined in the rulebooks to warrant interpretations hostile to player's benefiting from the features.
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
Eh, it's a grey area. The wording of the Curving Shot says "magic arrow" for sure, which means any magical ammunition, but that is also the exact name of the level 6 feature. I agree that it is poorly written, but it is possible that it can mean the arrows created by the level 6 ability because of that match, not because the arrows themselves count as magical beyond that which the rules say.
It's poorly written, and there aren't many (published) features that it will matter for. To the extent that "magical [attack/weapon]" (1) isn't defined in the rulebooks, but (2) has an application in the Arcane Archer which demonstrates RAI that such features satisfy it, and (3) the only alternative criterion that WOULD exclude them is provided in the SAC, which isn't a rulebook/RAW, and (4) the author to which that SAC is attributed himself has confirmed the RAI of #2 above....
Messy, but I don't think "Magical ____" is sufficiently defined in the rulebooks to warrant interpretations hostile to player's benefiting from the features.
Probably not, but I don't think you can discount those interpretations either (I'm not saying I wouldn't rule exactly the way you would for the AA)
I'm inclined to agree with ChoirOfFire. If something was magical, it would not need to count as magical for a given situation. It's like saying your attack bypasses nonmagical resistance in lieu of being magical.
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
The Arcane Archer demonstrates nothing of the sort. The feature in question literally opens with the sentence "you gain the ability to infuse arrows with magic." The arrows are explicitly, textually magical above and beyond any "purposes of overcoming resistance..."
It's poorly written, and there aren't many (published) features that it will matter for. To the extent that "magical [attack/weapon]" (1) isn't defined in the rulebooks, but (2) has an application in the Arcane Archer which demonstrates RAI that such features satisfy it, and (3) the only alternative criterion that WOULD exclude them is provided in the SAC, which isn't a rulebook/RAW, and (4) the author to which that SAC is attributed himself has confirmed the RAI of #2 above....
Messy, but I don't think "Magical ____" is sufficiently defined in the rulebooks to warrant interpretations hostile to player's benefiting from the features.
Again, Arcane Archer doesn't demonstrate that, but if we were to take a tweet as being indicative of RAI, then surely the SAC should carry at least as much weight.
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
It's poorly written, and there aren't many (published) features that it will matter for. To the extent that "magical [attack/weapon]" (1) isn't defined in the rulebooks, but (2) has an application in the Arcane Archer which demonstrates RAI that such features satisfy it, and (3) the only alternative criterion that WOULD exclude them is provided in the SAC, which isn't a rulebook/RAW, and (4) the author to which that SAC is attributed himself has confirmed the RAI of #2 above....
Messy, but I don't think "Magical ____" is sufficiently defined in the rulebooks to warrant interpretations hostile to player's benefiting from the features.
Alright, let's grant that it's As Intended for Magic Arrow and magic arrow to be the same thing, to put it in humorous terms. That the text you're referencing is sufficiently representative of the designers' intentions. It's not a subject I feel well enough versed in to debate. The fact remains that As Written, it doesn't work. If you rule as written with Arcane Archer, they have to either acquire magic arrows, or have spells cast on their nonmagical arrows, to use Curving Shot. RAW and RAI are in conflict here. Yes?
I think it's perfectly valid to base a ruling on either RAI or RAW here, but you can't do both, clearly. RAI feels weirder for Monks and less weird for Arcane Archers due strictly to the fiction of those characters, but the fiction and the rules are one and the same for 5e, or so I keep hearing, so it may be valid to rule differently for the two just based on fiction. RAW is "hostile" to both. My philosophy on these matters is to favor the players, but to keep the ban hammer within reach in case things get stupid. But that's DM preference. Ultimately this is just gonna come down to the DM, but I think they're A-OK ruling either way, and I guess that's where we differ.
Wow. Did not expect a question about rules to get this heated. *pause* Wait, I have been playing D&D for 26 years since AD&D. I really should have expected a question about rules to get heated. *G*
Yes, the other class was Disruptor. Normally, I have a strict no third party/homebrew rule, but I thought I would try it once as long as it came from a published source and/or DMs Guild AND I got a chance to look it over first. Nothing from a three-ring binder they had in their back pocket for a rainy day or a last minute request. Only half of the group actually took me up on it and the rest used WOTC sources.
In all, if this becomes an issue, I will probably just sidestep the whole issue with Insignia of Claws from Tyranny of Dragons:
Wondrous Item, Uncommon
The jewels in this insignia of the Cult of the Dragon flare with purple light when you enter combat, empowering your natural fists or natural weapons.
While wearing the insignia, you gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls you make with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. Such attacks are considered to be magical.
Wow. Did not expect a question about rules to get this heated. *pause* Wait, I have been playing D&D for 26 years since AD&D. I really should have expected a question about rules to get heated. *G*
Yes, the other class was Disruptor. Normally, I have a strict no third party/homebrew rule, but I thought I would try it once as long as it came from a published source and/or DMs Guild AND I got a chance to look it over first. Nothing from a three-ring binder they had in their back pocket for a rainy day or a last minute request. Only half of the group actually took me up on it and the rest used WOTC sources.
In all, if this becomes an issue, I will probably just sidestep the whole issue with Insignia of Claws from Tyranny of Dragons:
Wondrous Item, Uncommon
The jewels in this insignia of the Cult of the Dragon flare with purple light when you enter combat, empowering your natural fists or natural weapons.
While wearing the insignia, you gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls you make with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. Such attacks are considered to be magical.
If you've got a Monk player, you can guarantee they'll ask you for this item eventually. (I guess there's Eldritch Claw Tattoo now, too, but I feel like people don't know about that one as much.) So this'll be a clean, stealthy fix for the whole argument, provided that you're comfortable giving the item around level 5. They won't even suspect there's an ulterior motive. >:P
Wow. Did not expect a question about rules to get this heated. *pause* Wait, I have been playing D&D for 26 years since AD&D. I really should have expected a question about rules to get heated. *G*
Yes, the other class was Disruptor. Normally, I have a strict no third party/homebrew rule, but I thought I would try it once as long as it came from a published source and/or DMs Guild AND I got a chance to look it over first. Nothing from a three-ring binder they had in their back pocket for a rainy day or a last minute request. Only half of the group actually took me up on it and the rest used WOTC sources.
In all, if this becomes an issue, I will probably just sidestep the whole issue with Insignia of Claws from Tyranny of Dragons:
Wondrous Item, Uncommon
The jewels in this insignia of the Cult of the Dragon flare with purple light when you enter combat, empowering your natural fists or natural weapons.
While wearing the insignia, you gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls you make with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. Such attacks are considered to be magical.
If you've got a Monk player, you can guarantee they'll ask you for this item eventually. (I guess there's Eldritch Claw Tattoo now, too, but I feel like people don't know about that one as much.) So this'll be a clean, stealthy fix for the whole argument, provided that you're comfortable giving the item around level 5. They won't even suspect there's an ulterior motive. >:P
Well, the two classes don't interact like that until Lvl 11. It should be fine.
I actually did not know about the Eldritch Claw Tattoo. They are similar in rarity although the Tattoo does require attunement but gives a bonus ability to make up for it. It also calls it "Magical Strikes" but the description defaults back to "your unarmed strikes are considered magical for the purpose of overcoming immunity and resistance to nonmagical attacks". I'll keep it in the back of my mind for when the time comes and how their equipment build looks at the time.
At 7th level, you gain the ability to infuse arrows with magic. Whenever you fire a nonmagical arrow from a shortbow or longbow, you can make it magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. The magic fades from the arrow immediately after it hits or misses its target.
So you infuse them with magic. What does that magic do? It magically makes nonmagical arrows cant as magical, but only for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity.
Feels like some sort of paradox magic puzzle if you ask me, is an angel that always tells the truth telling me "this is a lie" or something? :p
This Arcane Archer ability uses (much of) the same language that Ki-Empowered Strikes does. It has the same effect. That effect, both explicitly in the text of the Arcane Archer version, and as demonstrably RAI from the totality of the Arcane Archer's other features, makes these non-magical arrows into "magical arrows."
If it works that way for Arcane Archer, RAI, it's hard to argue that Ki-Empowered Strikes was intended to do less for the Monk. Any and all "magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity..." abilities in 5E, are probably RAI "magical ____".
If it does anything that cannot be explained by natural physics, it is magical. If it says it counts as magical, it is magical. If it uses spells, mystical energies, or taps into mysterious unexplainable sources of cosmic power... magical. An arrow changing directions mid flight fired by an arcane archer? Magical. Ki-Empowered anything is magical. Whether something is magical or not is super easy to figure out. If you need additional instructions or if something seems borderline, then sure, consult the books for additional guidance. But none of this is going to help the OP because they're admittedly relying on a homebrew ability that isn't written like actual official content. Only their DM will be able to answer their question for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Actually I am the DM. That's why I came here to get ahead of question that might pop up in the future. Most of my searches on the answer, especially that Sage Advice post, were a tad vague and I saw a lot of back-and-forth. Thought I would come here to see what the consensus was.
If they monk feature made the attacks magical, it would only do so vs opponents that require magical punches to overcome resistances...So you as a DM would have to mention every time this is the case so they could trigger the extra damage... Otherwise you're just ignoring the entire 2nd section of the class feature.
There's a reason the class feature is worded this ay though is because they are not magical. They count as such in 1 specific case, but they still don't become magical in nature. Never. I agree that otherwise the ruling would just state that your attacks are magical, period.
Honestly, since the homebrew triggers of any magical effect happening nearby, there will be loads of opportunities to trigger this of allies except if the entire party is full martial :D.
The Arcane Archer is not comparable, it specifically make arrows magical, therefore they're magical attacks. The sentence about bypassing resistance and immunities to nonmagical attacks was not even needed concerning you imbue arrows with magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, no. The description absolutely does not say it’s magical. The description says it counts as magical within a very specific context.
Without the extremely specific limitation of “for purposes of overcoming damage resistance,” I’d agree that “counts as” is equivalent to “is.” But the text itself imposes a significant limit on that, so it’s not.
Indeed. Consider this: the feature could've just said "your unarmed strikes are magical." It could've said that, that would've made sense. But it doesn't say that.
Compare it to the Powerful Build feature given to goliaths. You count as one size category larger *for the purposes of determining* how much weight etc etc. Is a goliath Large? Can he effectively use weapons designed for Large creatures, and grapple Huge creatures, and occupy 4 squares on a grid, and move through the spaces of enemies who are Small?
If he hits or misses a Hunter Ranger with an attack, and the Ranger can see him, can the Ranger use Giant Killer on him?
No, no, no, no, no, and no. I think we're done here.
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
It's poorly written, and there aren't many (published) features that it will matter for. To the extent that "magical [attack/weapon]" (1) isn't defined in the rulebooks, but (2) has an application in the Arcane Archer which demonstrates RAI that such features satisfy it, and (3) the only alternative criterion that WOULD exclude them is provided in the SAC, which isn't a rulebook/RAW, and (4) the author to which that SAC is attributed himself has confirmed the RAI of #2 above....
Messy, but I don't think "Magical ____" is sufficiently defined in the rulebooks to warrant interpretations hostile to player's benefiting from the features.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Eh, it's a grey area. The wording of the Curving Shot says "magic arrow" for sure, which means any magical ammunition, but that is also the exact name of the level 6 feature. I agree that it is poorly written, but it is possible that it can mean the arrows created by the level 6 ability because of that match, not because the arrows themselves count as magical beyond that which the rules say.
Probably not, but I don't think you can discount those interpretations either (I'm not saying I wouldn't rule exactly the way you would for the AA)
I'm inclined to agree with ChoirOfFire. If something was magical, it would not need to count as magical for a given situation. It's like saying your attack bypasses nonmagical resistance in lieu of being magical.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You would be, except that Arcane Archer demonstrates that RAI, counting as magical "for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance" also satisfies counting as magical for the purpose of "magical [attack/weapon]" references.
The Arcane Archer demonstrates nothing of the sort. The feature in question literally opens with the sentence "you gain the ability to infuse arrows with magic." The arrows are explicitly, textually magical above and beyond any "purposes of overcoming resistance..."
Again, Arcane Archer doesn't demonstrate that, but if we were to take a tweet as being indicative of RAI, then surely the SAC should carry at least as much weight.
Alright, let's grant that it's As Intended for Magic Arrow and magic arrow to be the same thing, to put it in humorous terms. That the text you're referencing is sufficiently representative of the designers' intentions. It's not a subject I feel well enough versed in to debate. The fact remains that As Written, it doesn't work. If you rule as written with Arcane Archer, they have to either acquire magic arrows, or have spells cast on their nonmagical arrows, to use Curving Shot. RAW and RAI are in conflict here. Yes?
I think it's perfectly valid to base a ruling on either RAI or RAW here, but you can't do both, clearly. RAI feels weirder for Monks and less weird for Arcane Archers due strictly to the fiction of those characters, but the fiction and the rules are one and the same for 5e, or so I keep hearing, so it may be valid to rule differently for the two just based on fiction. RAW is "hostile" to both. My philosophy on these matters is to favor the players, but to keep the ban hammer within reach in case things get stupid. But that's DM preference. Ultimately this is just gonna come down to the DM, but I think they're A-OK ruling either way, and I guess that's where we differ.
Wow. Did not expect a question about rules to get this heated. *pause* Wait, I have been playing D&D for 26 years since AD&D. I really should have expected a question about rules to get heated. *G*
Yes, the other class was Disruptor. Normally, I have a strict no third party/homebrew rule, but I thought I would try it once as long as it came from a published source and/or DMs Guild AND I got a chance to look it over first. Nothing from a three-ring binder they had in their back pocket for a rainy day or a last minute request. Only half of the group actually took me up on it and the rest used WOTC sources.
In all, if this becomes an issue, I will probably just sidestep the whole issue with Insignia of Claws from Tyranny of Dragons:
If you've got a Monk player, you can guarantee they'll ask you for this item eventually. (I guess there's Eldritch Claw Tattoo now, too, but I feel like people don't know about that one as much.) So this'll be a clean, stealthy fix for the whole argument, provided that you're comfortable giving the item around level 5. They won't even suspect there's an ulterior motive. >:P
Well, the two classes don't interact like that until Lvl 11. It should be fine.
I actually did not know about the Eldritch Claw Tattoo. They are similar in rarity although the Tattoo does require attunement but gives a bonus ability to make up for it. It also calls it "Magical Strikes" but the description defaults back to "your unarmed strikes are considered magical for the purpose of overcoming immunity and resistance to nonmagical attacks". I'll keep it in the back of my mind for when the time comes and how their equipment build looks at the time.
So you infuse them with magic. What does that magic do? It magically makes nonmagical arrows cant as magical, but only for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity.
Feels like some sort of paradox magic puzzle if you ask me, is an angel that always tells the truth telling me "this is a lie" or something? :p
This Arcane Archer ability uses (much of) the same language that Ki-Empowered Strikes does. It has the same effect. That effect, both explicitly in the text of the Arcane Archer version, and as demonstrably RAI from the totality of the Arcane Archer's other features, makes these non-magical arrows into "magical arrows."
If it works that way for Arcane Archer, RAI, it's hard to argue that Ki-Empowered Strikes was intended to do less for the Monk. Any and all "magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity..." abilities in 5E, are probably RAI "magical ____".
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If it does anything that cannot be explained by natural physics, it is magical. If it says it counts as magical, it is magical. If it uses spells, mystical energies, or taps into mysterious unexplainable sources of cosmic power... magical. An arrow changing directions mid flight fired by an arcane archer? Magical. Ki-Empowered anything is magical. Whether something is magical or not is super easy to figure out. If you need additional instructions or if something seems borderline, then sure, consult the books for additional guidance. But none of this is going to help the OP because they're admittedly relying on a homebrew ability that isn't written like actual official content. Only their DM will be able to answer their question for them.
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.
Actually I am the DM. That's why I came here to get ahead of question that might pop up in the future. Most of my searches on the answer, especially that Sage Advice post, were a tad vague and I saw a lot of back-and-forth. Thought I would come here to see what the consensus was.
If they monk feature made the attacks magical, it would only do so vs opponents that require magical punches to overcome resistances...So you as a DM would have to mention every time this is the case so they could trigger the extra damage... Otherwise you're just ignoring the entire 2nd section of the class feature.
There's a reason the class feature is worded this ay though is because they are not magical. They count as such in 1 specific case, but they still don't become magical in nature. Never. I agree that otherwise the ruling would just state that your attacks are magical, period.
Honestly, since the homebrew triggers of any magical effect happening nearby, there will be loads of opportunities to trigger this of allies except if the entire party is full martial :D.
The Arcane Archer is not comparable, it specifically make arrows magical, therefore they're magical attacks. The sentence about bypassing resistance and immunities to nonmagical attacks was not even needed concerning you imbue arrows with magic.