I'm planning to hunt a planetar angel, and I was told the bastard has damage resistance to "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons". I have a magical weapon but here's the catch, all I have is this bow +1, with regular, hardy, nonmagical steel arrows. Does my magical bow overcome this angel's damage resistance?
An important clarification. I can't remember if the phb or the dmg say anywhere that a magic bow confers its magic onto a regular arrow. I want to say previous editions did. So while the way the game is suppose to work is a magic bow confers magic to any arrow fired from it, there should be a warning, that your DM may not allow that. So either ask in advance, or take it into consideration that the DM may not allow that.
Completely different if the PHB does say that arrows from magical bows count as magical.
An important clarification. I can't remember if the phb or the dmg say anywhere that a magic bow confers its magic onto a regular arrow. I want to say previous editions did. So while the way the game is suppose to work is a magic bow confers magic to any arrow fired from it, there should be a warning, that your DM may not allow that. So either ask in advance, or take it into consideration that the DM may not allow that.
Completely different if the PHB does say that arrows from magical bows count as magical.
Yeah, already asked.
I see where you're coming from, but really, it's a no-brainer. Having archers buying magic arrows just to be able to rightfully murder celestials in peace would be very punishing and costly for no reason. It could be argued that the weapon that hits the creature is the arrow and not the bow, but it's just not how the game works. The resistance against non-magical weapons itself is less logical than having magic bows attacks count as magic weapon attacks regardless of the type of arrow, anyway. "Oh, so now your weapon deals 1d8+1 instead of 1d8, that's extraordinary enough that I'll close my eyes and die now."
I can picture a DM at a loss about how to adjudicate this, but the right ruling is easy to explain. For once, it's a magic weapon, it does magic stuff, period. In particular, it does miraculously push magic through its arrows, even dealing extra damage no matter how shitty the arrow.
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
An important clarification. I can't remember if the phb or the dmg say anywhere that a magic bow confers its magic onto a regular arrow. I want to say previous editions did. So while the way the game is suppose to work is a magic bow confers magic to any arrow fired from it, there should be a warning, that your DM may not allow that. So either ask in advance, or take it into consideration that the DM may not allow that.
Completely different if the PHB does say that arrows from magical bows count as magical.
Yeah, already asked.
I see where you're coming from, but really, it's a no-brainer. Having archers buying magic arrows just to be able to rightfully murder celestials in peace would be very punishing and costly for no reason. It could be argued that the weapon that hits the creature is the arrow and not the bow, but it's just not how the game works. The resistance against non-magical weapons itself is less logical than having magic bows attacks count as magic weapon attacks regardless of the type of arrow, anyway. "Oh, so now your weapon deals 1d8+1 instead of 1d8, that's extraordinary enough that I'll close my eyes and die now."
I can picture a DM at a loss about how to adjudicate this, but the right ruling is easy to explain. For once, it's a magic weapon, it does magic stuff, period. In particular, it does miraculously push magic through its arrows, even dealing extra damage no matter how shitty the arrow.
Something appearing to be a no-brainer is how a player ends up trying to do something that they believe should completely work only to find out the DM Disagrees. Also it isn't really a no-brainer if the bow only gives a +1 to attack and no bonus to damage.
Also if it was a no brainer, the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place. Still better to know where the DM stands if there are questions than to proceed assuming the answers.
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
I feel like most of the DMs I have wouldn't really care about what Crawford said in sage advice, if they believed differently.
I know some people don't think highly of Crawford and his clarifications for some strange reason, and DMs have every ability to change a rule if they so choose, but if they don't? The default is Crawford as only Crawford can provide additional RAW.
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
I feel like most of the DMs I have wouldn't really care about what Crawford said in sage advice, if they believed differently.
I know some people don't think highly of Crawford and his clarifications for some strange reason, and DMs have every ability to change a rule if they so choose, but if they don't? The default is Crawford as only Crawford can provide additional RAW.
These people confuse me, unless they put 0 stock in the rulebooks. I mean, he's one of the two lead designers for D&D, is THE lead designer for the PHB, is one of the three leads for DMG, and was managing editor for the MM. He's literally the one guy that has touched all three books and therefor the one that makes the rules that govern the system we use.
Like, if he says that rules were intended to be X, then the rules were intended to be X. Granted, as a DM you can choose to ignore any and all rules, but if they ever make an argument that that's what it says in the rulebook, then they can't ever make the argument that Crawford's Sage Advice isn't law too.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Well, Chris Perkins and a few of the other writers also "touched" the three books, but he's the only one who was a major player in all three (idk what Mike Mearls does except that he's labeled a lead designer, wrote the preface of the PHB, and is on Twitter a lot).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
I feel like most of the DMs I have wouldn't really care about what Crawford said in sage advice, if they believed differently.
I know some people don't think highly of Crawford and his clarifications for some strange reason, and DMs have every ability to change a rule if they so choose, but if they don't? The default is Crawford as only Crawford can provide additional RAW.
These people confuse me, unless they put 0 stock in the rulebooks. I mean, he's one of the two lead designers for D&D, is THE lead designer for the PHB, is one of the three leads for DMG, and was managing editor for the MM. He's literally the one guy that has touched all three books and therefor the one that makes the rules that govern the system we use.
Like, if he says that rules were intended to be X, then the rules were intended to be X. Granted, as a DM you can choose to ignore any and all rules, but if they ever make an argument that that's what it says in the rulebook, then they can't ever make the argument that Crawford's Sage Advice isn't law too.
And in part you answered your own question. If you have to say this is how the rules were intended to be, you are in effect saying that wasn't how the rule was written, but that is how it was suppose to be. So the question is whether to go with Crawford or how the Rule is written. So if we assume that no where in the books does it state Magic Bows confer their magic to arrows, then Crawford's claim that the intention is that they do is irrelevant, because while that might be the intention, it actually isn't a rule. Hence if you strictly play by RAW, then Crawford is wrong because that isn't what is written in the books. Intent is fine and all, but it isn't what is actually written in the rules and therefore if you only follow the rules, then it doesn't matter.
Also as a clarification, the website linked to is not the DnD Sage Advice column, and is in fact Mike Mearls answering the question via twitter.
Haven't looked into it, but I have read Meals is sometimes wrong.
As far as I understand it, Mearls is Crawford's boss. Anyway my only point is that if you have a question, it is generally better to ask your DM how they would rule it as they might disagree with Crawford/Mearls. Especially when they state rules as intended and not as written.
I'll bite and present the alternate side of the debate, as a generic example:
Say I have a magical slingshot that deals +1 damage. This magical slingshot launches ordinary rocks at abnormal speeds, hence the magical property. The enemy gets pelted by this ordinary, non-magical rock, taking increased damage due to the increased momentum. If this enemy has resistances against all non-magical, would this not include the rock? The actual contact of rock to enemy is non-magical in nature; the speed could have been achieved naturally by other means than this magical slingshot.
I'll bite and present the alternate side of the debate, as a generic example:
Say I have a magical slingshot that deals +1 damage. This magical slingshot launches ordinary rocks at abnormal speeds, hence the magical property. The enemy gets pelted by this ordinary, non-magical rock, taking increased damage due to the increased momentum. If this enemy has resistances against all non-magical, would this not include the rock? The actual contact of rock to enemy is non-magical in nature; the speed could have been achieved naturally by other means than this magical slingshot.
Thoughts?
Thought I would check this real quick. The DMG does in fact state that if a magic weapon has the ammunition property then ammunition fired from it is treated as magical to overcome resistances, and immunities. So the magical weapon would, as it fires the rock fast, pass on its magical nature to the rock and thus it would overcome any resistances.
So apparently there is no need for a debate as there is a sentence in the DMG to solve it.
And in part you answered your own question. If you have to say this is how the rules were intended to be, you are in effect saying that wasn't how the rule was written, but that is how it was suppose to be. So the question is whether to go with Crawford or how the Rule is written. So if we assume that no where in the books does it state Magic Bows confer their magic to arrows, then Crawford's claim that the intention is that they do is irrelevant, because while that might be the intention, it actually isn't a rule. Hence if you strictly play by RAW, then Crawford is wrong because that isn't what is written in the books. Intent is fine and all, but it isn't what is actually written in the rules and therefore if you only follow the rules, then it doesn't matter.
The rules in the book don't say that magical bows confer their magic to their ammunition. However, the book also doesn't say magical bows don't confer their magic to their ammunition. Its fully ambiguous, unlike another phrasing where it would be based on interpretation. But here's the real sauce. If Crawford was the one who wrote the rulebook (or was otherwise in charge of the rules being there) in the first place, why can he not continue to add or clarify rules? Is Errata RAW or RAI? Does someone who plays strictly by RAW have to accept typos? And on the subject of interpretation, who's interpretation of the rules is correct? Is it a player's? the DM's? Crawford's? Can the DM ever be wrong? Who knows what they even mean? If the rules in the book are unclear and the DM makes an interpretation, are they no longer playing by RAW because its not specifically in the book?
Also as a clarification, the website linked to is not the DnD Sage Advice column, and is in fact Mike Mearls answering the question via twitter.
You are... entirely correct. However, the Sage Advice column is comprised of rulings made by Crawford on Twitter (specifically, the Sage Advice column is for clarifications that are too long for Twitter's format). Just because its Twitter doesn't mean it's any less valid than Sage Advice since they're, well, the same thing. I forgot to add, Mearl's job isn't for rules clarification, though he does include his own opinion plenty. He can provide a good springboard, but even he defers to Crawford on officially official things.
I'll bite and present the alternate side of the debate, as a generic example:
Say I have a magical slingshot that deals +1 damage. This magical slingshot launches ordinary rocks at abnormal speeds, hence the magical property. The enemy gets pelted by this ordinary, non-magical rock, taking increased damage due to the increased momentum. If this enemy has resistances against all non-magical, would this not include the rock? The actual contact of rock to enemy is non-magical in nature; the speed could have been achieved naturally by other means than this magical slingshot.
Thoughts?
So of course, the question is whether or not the Sling makes the stones magical. If it does not, then there's nothing special about the stones and non-magical resistance applies. If it does, then it doesn't really matter how the Sling affects the stones other than that they're now considered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances. Real world physics aren't mechanically represented by the game, so they'd be abstracted and otherwise wouldn't really matter. Mixing real and game physics is what gets you the 3.5 gem: Peasant Railgun. While fun, there's no support for it being "official".
I'll bite and present the alternate side of the debate, as a generic example:
Say I have a magical slingshot that deals +1 damage. This magical slingshot launches ordinary rocks at abnormal speeds, hence the magical property. The enemy gets pelted by this ordinary, non-magical rock, taking increased damage due to the increased momentum. If this enemy has resistances against all non-magical, would this not include the rock? The actual contact of rock to enemy is non-magical in nature; the speed could have been achieved naturally by other means than this magical slingshot.
Thoughts?
The possibility you suggested was, in fact, the whole point of this thread, and it has been ruled by DMG, PHB or the powers that be that such projectiles do work as magical. Really I was just checking, since that's what makes sense gamewise.
In my opinion what doesn't make all that much sense is the "resistance against non-magical weapons" itself, but that's another topic (really, don't discuss it here, I don't care).
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
I feel like most of the DMs I have wouldn't really care about what Crawford said in sage advice, if they believed differently.
If that was the case, I wouldn't be here. In any case, I told you, I already asked the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm planning to hunt a planetar angel, and I was told the bastard has damage resistance to "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons". I have a magical weapon but here's the catch, all I have is this bow +1, with regular, hardy, nonmagical steel arrows. Does my magical bow overcome this angel's damage resistance?
Yes:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/30/normal-arrows-and-magic-bow/
Thank you sir! :-)
Now I know I'll nail that lowly angel. Wish me luck!
Good luck! ;-)
At least take it out to dinner first.
An important clarification. I can't remember if the phb or the dmg say anywhere that a magic bow confers its magic onto a regular arrow. I want to say previous editions did. So while the way the game is suppose to work is a magic bow confers magic to any arrow fired from it, there should be a warning, that your DM may not allow that. So either ask in advance, or take it into consideration that the DM may not allow that.
Completely different if the PHB does say that arrows from magical bows count as magical.
I know 3.5 mentioned magical ranged weapons confer their magic onto ammunition. Can't remember if 4e repeated but I'd be willing it did.
However, as filcat so nicely linked, once you have Crawford on board you don't really need additional justification. Only if your DM wants to do something different so work it out with them.
I know some people don't think highly of Crawford and his clarifications for some strange reason, and DMs have every ability to change a rule if they so choose, but if they don't?
The default is Crawford as only Crawford can provide additional RAW.
Like, if he says that rules were intended to be X, then the rules were intended to be X. Granted, as a DM you can choose to ignore any and all rules, but if they ever make an argument that that's what it says in the rulebook, then they can't ever make the argument that Crawford's Sage Advice isn't law too.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Well, Chris Perkins and a few of the other writers also "touched" the three books, but he's the only one who was a major player in all three (idk what Mike Mearls does except that he's labeled a lead designer, wrote the preface of the PHB, and is on Twitter a lot).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also as a clarification, the website linked to is not the DnD Sage Advice column, and is in fact Mike Mearls answering the question via twitter.
Haven't looked into it, but I have read Meals is sometimes wrong.
As far as I understand it, Mearls is Crawford's boss. Anyway my only point is that if you have a question, it is generally better to ask your DM how they would rule it as they might disagree with Crawford/Mearls. Especially when they state rules as intended and not as written.
I'll bite and present the alternate side of the debate, as a generic example:
Say I have a magical slingshot that deals +1 damage. This magical slingshot launches ordinary rocks at abnormal speeds, hence the magical property. The enemy gets pelted by this ordinary, non-magical rock, taking increased damage due to the increased momentum. If this enemy has resistances against all non-magical, would this not include the rock? The actual contact of rock to enemy is non-magical in nature; the speed could have been achieved naturally by other means than this magical slingshot.
Thoughts?
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
But here's the real sauce. If Crawford was the one who wrote the rulebook (or was otherwise in charge of the rules being there) in the first place, why can he not continue to add or clarify rules? Is Errata RAW or RAI? Does someone who plays strictly by RAW have to accept typos? And on the subject of interpretation, who's interpretation of the rules is correct? Is it a player's? the DM's? Crawford's? Can the DM ever be wrong? Who knows what they even mean? If the rules in the book are unclear and the DM makes an interpretation, are they no longer playing by RAW because its not specifically in the book?
However, the Sage Advice column is comprised of rulings made by Crawford on Twitter (specifically, the Sage Advice column is for clarifications that are too long for Twitter's format). Just because its Twitter doesn't mean it's any less valid than Sage Advice since they're, well, the same thing.
I forgot to add, Mearl's job isn't for rules clarification, though he does include his own opinion plenty. He can provide a good springboard, but even he defers to Crawford on officially official things.