If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
It's up to DMs to determine what constitute damage bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks or magical one for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunity.
If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
I'm not sure if it is damage from a magical source in this case. It comes down to whether the wand as an improvised weapon has any weapon properties at all, since it was not a weapon to begin with.
If I have tavern brawler and use a goblin in plus 1 chainmail or a wand of the war mage plus 1 as a improvised weapon is that not magical damage?
How about battlerager and wearing plus 1 spike armor for that 1d4 bonus action damage?
If not what gives melee weapons their magical abilities to be considered magical damage and not other items to be used as improvised magical weapons?
What do you mean by "magical damage"? Are you trying to injure a werewolf or an archmage (which is protected by stoneskin)?
These are the rules for determining if something is magical. The stoneskin question is the same as armor of invulnerability, so the damage will count as magical, as you used a magic item to deal it - this is explicitly covered in the linked ruling. If you're trying to hurt a werewolf, it's immaterial if the damage is magical, you need to know if the attack is magical. That's a lot harder to define, but for your particular corner case I think you're covered: a wand of the war mage is exactly as magical as a scimitar of warning, and it's widely agreed upon an attack with the latter is a magical attack.
These are the rules for determining if something is magical. The stoneskin question is the same as armor of invulnerability, so the damage will count as magical, as you used a magic item to deal it - this is explicitly covered in the linked ruling. If you're trying to hurt a werewolf, it's immaterial if the damage is magical, you need to know if the attack is magical. That's a lot harder to define, but for your particular corner case I think you're covered: a wand of the war mage is exactly as magical as a scimitar of warning, and it's widely agreed upon an attack with the latter is a magical attack.
It's not even agreed upon in this thread :)
While everything you said is true about determining whether an item is magical, and I do not question that the wand of the war mage is magical, when you use an item as an improvised weapon, all properties are stripped from it, and the damage it does is determined by the improvised weapon rules. This interpretation of the improvised weapon rules as they are written is backed up as RAI as well here and here.
If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
I'm not sure if it is damage from a magical source in this case. It comes down to whether the wand as an improvised weapon has any weapon properties at all, since it was not a weapon to begin with.
The source of the damage is a magic item. I'm not aware of any rules that require a source have magical weapon properties to be magical.
If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
I'm not sure if it is damage from a magical source in this case. It comes down to whether the wand as an improvised weapon has any weapon properties at all, since it was not a weapon to begin with.
The source of the damage is a magic item. I'm not aware of any rules that require a source have magical weapon properties to be magical.
Me either. It depends on how cut and dry you read the improvised weapon rules. Those rules say what an improvised weapon is, but does that mean it is ONLY those things?
Battlerager spiked armor is a weird case because it's magical armor that was also specifically crafted to be a weapon as well. It's not addressed any better than the other examples discussed, but I think it has a stronger case for being ruled as causing magical damage that may or may not get the +1.
A DM looking to rule against it could always say that a damage (roll) is magical when contained in the magic item description and nonmagical when found elsewhere, such as improvised weapon rules or improvised damage in the DMG. This could be explained as the magic item not designed to be used to deal damage this way.
So, if you punch someone while wearing a Ring of Spell Storing it counts as magical? That is quite the stretch!
It would be, if anyone were suggesting that. But no one is, so I think we're in the clear.
Hitting someone with a wand is not dealing damage from a magical source. You just smacked them with something because you weren't smart/wise/charismatic enough to activate it.
If the wand is magical, then it literally is. You didn't just smack them with "something." You smacked them with a magic item. The source of the damage is literally magical. That's not arguable.
If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
I'm not sure if it is damage from a magical source in this case. It comes down to whether the wand as an improvised weapon has any weapon properties at all, since it was not a weapon to begin with.
The source of the damage is a magic item. I'm not aware of any rules that require a source have magical weapon properties to be magical.
Me either. It depends on how cut and dry you read the improvised weapon rules. Those rules say what an improvised weapon is, but does that mean it is ONLY those things?
I know you posted this four days ago, so feel free to ignore this, but I genuinely do not understand what point you're trying to make even a little bit, so if you want to elaborate, I'd appreciate it.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in this edition. There’s “damage from magical attacks/weapons” and everything else. Since an improvised weapon is not actually a weapon, it can’t be a “magic weapon.” Therefore it cannot deal “damage from a magic weapon.”
When an object is used as an improvised weapon, it does not carry over the properties like heavy, finesse, ammunition, or two-handed for that object. The question I was struggling with is whether an object's status as magical or non-magical would be considered a property of the object that gets stripped away when the improvised weapon rules redefine the damage done by an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to another weapon. If we apply that ruling very strictly, we could say that a magic longbow is only magical when used as a longbow and not when used as an improvised weapon. So no +1 and no bypassing non-magical resistance. But I don't know if the rules really establish this. As I said above, the improvised weapon rules tell us what an improvised weapon is (an object that inflicts 1d4 damage of a type the DM deems appropriate), but does that mean that ALL other aspects of that object should be stripped away for the purpose of making the improvised attack? Or are there some innate properties of an object that are retained?
You said you were not aware of any rules that require a source to have magical weapon properties to be considered magical when used as a weapon. I am also not aware of such a rule, but the question remains for where to draw the line.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in this edition. There’s “damage from magical attacks/weapons” and everything else. Since an improvised weapon is not actually a weapon, it can’t be a “magic weapon.” Therefore it cannot deal “damage from a magic weapon.”
This actually isn't entirely true. Resistance is always against non-magical attacks, not attacks from non-magical weapons. The MM defines a magical attack as an attack delivered by (among other things) magic items, not magic weapons specifically.
When an object is used as an improvised weapon, it does not carry over the properties like heavy, finesse, ammunition, or two-handed for that object. The question I was struggling with is whether an object's status as magical or non-magical would be considered a property of the object that gets stripped away when the improvised weapon rules redefine the damage done by an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to another weapon. If we apply that ruling very strictly, we could say that a magic longbow is only magical when used as a longbow and not when used as an improvised weapon. So no +1 and no bypassing non-magical resistance. But I don't know if the rules really establish this. As I said above, the improvised weapon rules tell us what an improvised weapon is (an object that inflicts 1d4 damage of a type the DM deems appropriate), but does that mean that ALL other aspects of that object should be stripped away for the purpose of making the improvised attack? Or are there some innate properties of an object that are retained?
You said you were not aware of any rules that require a source to have magical weapon properties to be considered magical when used as a weapon. I am also not aware of such a rule, but the question remains for where to draw the line.
Magic items are magic items. That's not a property, that's what it is. A longbow is a longbow, even if you're using it in an improvised fashion to make a melee attack with it.
I'm also not aware of any rule that says any properties are lost when using a weapon in an improvised fashion. We're given a new damage die and a range (if we're throwing a weapon), but I can't find anything that says, for example, a scimitar isn't finesse when you throw it or a longbow isn't two-handed when you bash someone with it.
Even if such properties were stripped, again, whether or not an item is a magic item isn't a property, it's an identity.
Keep in mind that all instances (as far as I know) of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing magical weapons were errata'ed to be resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing magical attacks.
An attack made with an item that has any magical properties is an attack with something magical. There is no requirement (as far as I know) for the item to have magical weapon properties. So hitting someone over the head with a magic toaster would do magical bludgeoning damage :)
In the end, this is well into an area of DM judgement. How they want to run it in their game is up to them.
Keep in mind that all instances (as far as I know) of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing magical weapons were errata'ed to be resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing magical attacks.
They are not many examples, but demon lords have immunity to poison; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that is nonmagical.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in this edition. There’s “damage from magical attacks/weapons” and everything else. Since an improvised weapon is not actually a weapon, it can’t be a “magic weapon.” Therefore it cannot deal “damage from a magic weapon.”
This actually isn't entirely true. Resistance is always against non-magical attacks, not attacks from non-magical weapons. The MM defines a magical attack as an attack delivered by (among other things) magic items, not magic weapons specifically.
Yeah, but that’s supposed to be for magic items that cast spells which require attack rolls and deal the appropriate damage types.
Besides, what you wrote isn’t entirely true. The Demilich is Resistant to damage from magic weapons.
That's another example of Crawford not actually answering the question. It doesn't matter that a shield isn't a magic weapon. Aside from the demilich (good callout Sposta, thank you), all that matters is whether or not the attack was delivered by a magic item, which a magical shield definitely is.
As for Sposta's contention that what that means is "magic items that cast spells which require attack rolls," I don't think that's true, because if it is, then attacks with magic weapons don't count as magical attacks.
I'm not sure what the "that" you're talking about RAW not supporting is, because, whatever the intent, this is one of the rare examples of RAW being extremely unambiguous. We actually have a definition for what a magical attack is, a rarity in 5e. Is the thing you're using as an improvised weapon a magic item? If it is, then the attack you deliver with it is definitionally a magic attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I have tavern brawler and use a goblin in plus 1 chainmail or a wand of the war mage plus 1 as a improvised weapon is that not magical damage?
How about battlerager and wearing plus 1 spike armor for that 1d4 bonus action damage?
If not what gives melee weapons their magical abilities to be considered magical damage and not other items to be used as improvised magical weapons?
If you bash someone over the head with a wand of the war mage, yes, that is damage from a magical source. You don't add the enhancement bonus though, because the +1 is only added to spell attack rolls, per the item's description.
It's up to DMs to determine what constitute damage bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks or magical one for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunity.
When asked, the Dev's answer wasn't clear https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-a-magic-shield-1-is-used-like-a-improvised-weapon-will-add-the-1-to-the-attack-and-damage-rolls/
In any doubt, a Dm can always use the criteria established in Sage Advice; In there, an improvised attack with a magic item count as a magical attack,
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.
I'm not sure if it is damage from a magical source in this case. It comes down to whether the wand as an improvised weapon has any weapon properties at all, since it was not a weapon to begin with.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
What do you mean by "magical damage"? Are you trying to injure a werewolf or an archmage (which is protected by stoneskin)?
These are the rules for determining if something is magical. The stoneskin question is the same as armor of invulnerability, so the damage will count as magical, as you used a magic item to deal it - this is explicitly covered in the linked ruling. If you're trying to hurt a werewolf, it's immaterial if the damage is magical, you need to know if the attack is magical. That's a lot harder to define, but for your particular corner case I think you're covered: a wand of the war mage is exactly as magical as a scimitar of warning, and it's widely agreed upon an attack with the latter is a magical attack.
It's not even agreed upon in this thread :)
While everything you said is true about determining whether an item is magical, and I do not question that the wand of the war mage is magical, when you use an item as an improvised weapon, all properties are stripped from it, and the damage it does is determined by the improvised weapon rules. This interpretation of the improvised weapon rules as they are written is backed up as RAI as well here and here.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The source of the damage is a magic item. I'm not aware of any rules that require a source have magical weapon properties to be magical.
Me either. It depends on how cut and dry you read the improvised weapon rules. Those rules say what an improvised weapon is, but does that mean it is ONLY those things?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Battlerager spiked armor is a weird case because it's magical armor that was also specifically crafted to be a weapon as well. It's not addressed any better than the other examples discussed, but I think it has a stronger case for being ruled as causing magical damage that may or may not get the +1.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
A DM looking to rule against it could always say that a damage (roll) is magical when contained in the magic item description and nonmagical when found elsewhere, such as improvised weapon rules or improvised damage in the DMG. This could be explained as the magic item not designed to be used to deal damage this way.
It would be, if anyone were suggesting that. But no one is, so I think we're in the clear.
If the wand is magical, then it literally is. You didn't just smack them with "something." You smacked them with a magic item. The source of the damage is literally magical. That's not arguable.
I know you posted this four days ago, so feel free to ignore this, but I genuinely do not understand what point you're trying to make even a little bit, so if you want to elaborate, I'd appreciate it.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in this edition. There’s “damage from magical attacks/weapons” and everything else. Since an improvised weapon is not actually a weapon, it can’t be a “magic weapon.” Therefore it cannot deal “damage from a magic weapon.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'll try :)
When an object is used as an improvised weapon, it does not carry over the properties like heavy, finesse, ammunition, or two-handed for that object. The question I was struggling with is whether an object's status as magical or non-magical would be considered a property of the object that gets stripped away when the improvised weapon rules redefine the damage done by an improvised weapon that bears no resemblance to another weapon. If we apply that ruling very strictly, we could say that a magic longbow is only magical when used as a longbow and not when used as an improvised weapon. So no +1 and no bypassing non-magical resistance. But I don't know if the rules really establish this. As I said above, the improvised weapon rules tell us what an improvised weapon is (an object that inflicts 1d4 damage of a type the DM deems appropriate), but does that mean that ALL other aspects of that object should be stripped away for the purpose of making the improvised attack? Or are there some innate properties of an object that are retained?
You said you were not aware of any rules that require a source to have magical weapon properties to be considered magical when used as a weapon. I am also not aware of such a rule, but the question remains for where to draw the line.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This actually isn't entirely true. Resistance is always against non-magical attacks, not attacks from non-magical weapons. The MM defines a magical attack as an attack delivered by (among other things) magic items, not magic weapons specifically.
Magic items are magic items. That's not a property, that's what it is. A longbow is a longbow, even if you're using it in an improvised fashion to make a melee attack with it.
I'm also not aware of any rule that says any properties are lost when using a weapon in an improvised fashion. We're given a new damage die and a range (if we're throwing a weapon), but I can't find anything that says, for example, a scimitar isn't finesse when you throw it or a longbow isn't two-handed when you bash someone with it.
Even if such properties were stripped, again, whether or not an item is a magic item isn't a property, it's an identity.
Keep in mind that all instances (as far as I know) of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing magical weapons were errata'ed to be resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing magical attacks.
An attack made with an item that has any magical properties is an attack with something magical. There is no requirement (as far as I know) for the item to have magical weapon properties. So hitting someone over the head with a magic toaster would do magical bludgeoning damage :)
In the end, this is well into an area of DM judgement. How they want to run it in their game is up to them.
They are not many examples, but demon lords have immunity to poison; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that is nonmagical.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, but that’s supposed to be for magic items that cast spells which require attack rolls and deal the appropriate damage types.
Besides, what you wrote isn’t entirely true. The Demilich is Resistant to damage from magic weapons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I just don't think RAW supports that. I'm sure RAI doesn't support it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's another example of Crawford not actually answering the question. It doesn't matter that a shield isn't a magic weapon. Aside from the demilich (good callout Sposta, thank you), all that matters is whether or not the attack was delivered by a magic item, which a magical shield definitely is.
As for Sposta's contention that what that means is "magic items that cast spells which require attack rolls," I don't think that's true, because if it is, then attacks with magic weapons don't count as magical attacks.
I'm not sure what the "that" you're talking about RAW not supporting is, because, whatever the intent, this is one of the rare examples of RAW being extremely unambiguous. We actually have a definition for what a magical attack is, a rarity in 5e. Is the thing you're using as an improvised weapon a magic item? If it is, then the attack you deliver with it is definitionally a magic attack.