Hi, me again, I am mastering Descent into the Avernus and a battle master just disarmed Arkhan and barely managed to escape with his axe on a battle machine....

Now he is asking me if he can use it even if he is not an evil paladin/cleric and Idk how to rule it: if he uses it without attunement is it still a +3 axe but without the crit effects or is it just an axe?

Thx in advance

 Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, unless its description states otherwise. For example, a magic shield that requires attunement provides the benefits of a normal shield to a creature not attuned to it, but none of its magical properties.

From the attunement rules. It isn't a +3 axe without attunement, it is an axe. Though I don't have access to the fane-eater, to see its properties or whether it requires attunement.

Quote from XxLordLeonardxX >>

Hi, me again, I am mastering Descent into the Avernus and a battle master just disarmed Arkhan and barely managed to escape with his axe on a battle machine....

Now he is asking me if he can use it even if he is not an evil paladin/cleric and Idk how to rule it: if he uses it without attunement is it still a +3 axe but without the crit effects or is it just an axe?

Thx in advance

How does he know he needs to be an evil cleric or paladin to attune to it?

 fane-eater requires attunement by an evil cleric or paladin, otherwise you gain only its nonmagical benefits.

However, although you don't get the benefits without attunement, I think it still counts as a magical weapon for the purpose of overcoming resistance or immunity even if not attuned.

I think so too as the weapon attack remain magical nontheless.

It's also the opinion of the Dev https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1062073359276564480?s=20&t=KhrWSE6eSmli3RkPcDe2mg

@armando_doval does a magic weapon still bypass resistance or immunity to nonmagical attacks if it requires attunement and the wielder isn't attuned?

@JeremyECrawford You can strike someone with a magic weapon even if you're not attuned to it, and the weapon still counts as magical. Your attunement doesn't determine its magicalness. 

That is a weird answer though, because it's "magicalness" would seem to be one of its magical benefits that the rules expressly rule out.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

That is a weird answer though, because it's "magicalness" would seem to be one of its magical benefits that the rules expressly rule out.

 Not really. It is magic regardless of if the magic applies to the attack.

There are plenty of magic weapons that don't give a magical bonus to hit or damage. Why would this be different?

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

That is a weird answer though, because it's "magicalness" would seem to be one of its magical benefits that the rules expressly rule out.

 Not really. It is magic regardless of if the magic applies to the attack.

There are plenty of magic weapons that don't give a magical bonus to hit or damage. Why would this be different?

 Because it being magical is expressly magical, and therefore not nonmagical?

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

That is a weird answer though, because it's "magicalness" would seem to be one of its magical benefits that the rules expressly rule out.

 Not really. It is magic regardless of if the magic applies to the attack.

There are plenty of magic weapons that don't give a magical bonus to hit or damage. Why would this be different?

 Because it being magical is expressly magical, and therefore not nonmagical?

 You lost me.

Not attuning to an item means you only gain its non-magical benefits, yet that tweet that Plaguescarred posted says that it is intended that it still counts as magical for damage resistances. Wouldn't "counting as magical" be a magical benefit and not a nonmagical one?

Edit: I guess I just don't understand why a benefit (the weapon counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities) that is clearly due to its magical nature would be considered a non-magical benefit.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Not attuning to an item means you only gain its non-magical benefits, yet that tweet that Plaguescarred posted says that it is intended that it still counts as magical for damage resistances. Wouldn't "counting as magical" be a magical benefit and not a nonmagical one?

Is being magical one of an item's "magical benefits". Paradoxically perhaps :), I would say no but I completely agree a DM could rule it any way they like.

Items are magical or they aren't. You can cast detect magic on an item to which you are not attuned and it will detect as magical. As a result, being magical can't be one of the magical benefits of a magic item or else it would not detect as magical. If it detects as magical - the item IS magical, no matter what magical benefits it may or may not have - so if you hit something with the magic item, you are hitting it with something magical whether the item is a stick, a club, a ring, a pair of pants or a sword.

"Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its non magical benefits, unless its description states otherwise"

As a result, I'd rule that being intrinsically magical is not one of the magical benefits of a magic item - or else it would only appear to be magical once it was attuned.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Not attuning to an item means you only gain its non-magical benefits, yet that tweet that Plaguescarred posted says that it is intended that it still counts as magical for damage resistances. Wouldn't "counting as magical" be a magical benefit and not a nonmagical one?

Edit: I guess I just don't understand why a benefit (the weapon counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities) that is clearly due to its magical nature would be considered a non-magical benefit.

It's not really a benefit of the weapon per se; that is to say, there's nothing about the weapon that inherently overcomes arbitrary damage resistances. It's a property of the damage resistance that allows magical weapons to bypass it.

All of which is to say, what really owns the property that allows the weapon to overcome the resistance? It's the resistance, not the weapon.

tl;dr, there certainly is a benefit to the wielder, and that benefit is related to the magical nature of the weapon, but the ultimate source of that benefit is an exception to the resistance, not the weapon.

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Not attuning to an item means you only gain its non-magical benefits, yet that tweet that Plaguescarred posted says that it is intended that it still counts as magical for damage resistances. Wouldn't "counting as magical" be a magical benefit and not a nonmagical one?

Edit: I guess I just don't understand why a benefit (the weapon counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities) that is clearly due to its magical nature would be considered a non-magical benefit.

 

It's not really a benefit of the weapon per se; that is to say, there's nothing about the weapon that inherently overcomes arbitrary damage resistances. It's a property of the damage resistance that allows magical weapons to bypass it.

All of which is to say, what really owns the property that allows the weapon to overcome the resistance? It's the resistance, not the weapon.

tl;dr, there certainly is a benefit to the wielder, and that benefit is related to the magical nature of the weapon, but the ultimate source of that benefit is an exception to the resistance, not the weapon.

 Yeah, this.

I would have said it myself (well, in fewer words because I'm lazy) if I hadn't been driving to work.

Ok, I understand. Resistances don't care about you or the attacks, they care about the weapon itself. The paradox still exists, it is just a paradox in the game, not a weird answer in a tweet.

Edit: "(a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source)"

There has also been recent discussion about using any magic item as an improvised weapon in order to bypass resistance to non-magical damage.

Personally I would let anyone that uses it to be seduced into evil.   Perhaps let them make an attack against any good creature at +1 with the axe.  If they kill it, it goes up to +2, etc. till they are eventually offered a chance to get full powers if they take a single level of a Cleric to an evil god or a Paladin of appropriate oath.

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Not attuning to an item means you only gain its non-magical benefits, yet that tweet that Plaguescarred posted says that it is intended that it still counts as magical for damage resistances. Wouldn't "counting as magical" be a magical benefit and not a nonmagical one?

Edit: I guess I just don't understand why a benefit (the weapon counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities) that is clearly due to its magical nature would be considered a non-magical benefit.

 

It's not really a benefit of the weapon per se; that is to say, there's nothing about the weapon that inherently overcomes arbitrary damage resistances. It's a property of the damage resistance that allows magical weapons to bypass it.

All of which is to say, what really owns the property that allows the weapon to overcome the resistance? It's the resistance, not the weapon.

tl;dr, there certainly is a benefit to the wielder, and that benefit is related to the magical nature of the weapon, but the ultimate source of that benefit is an exception to the resistance, not the weapon.

This is the explanation i was going for. It's not something you gain, but something it loose from magical attacks.

The slashing damage dealt by an unattuned fane-eater aren't from nonmagical attacks according to its damage resistance.

Got it, thx everyone!