Point was that the linked website was in fact not the sage advice website and wasn't a WotC website. It was just a copy of a tweet mearls had made.
I would easily say errata is RAW.
I've yet to play in a game where the DM's interpretation of the rules was not the final say. And every DM I've had doesn't follow Mearls or Crawford paying attention to what they post anywhere.
Very good chance they haven't a clue who those people are. So even if you mentioned that Crawford clarrified the rule, it's going to be a hard sell especially if it was a rule as intended and not what was actually written.
Your DM doesn't seem to be like that, but my experience with DMs differ enough that I think just because you read something from Crawford that said you could do something doesn't mean the dm will allow it.
Point was that the linked website was in fact not the sage advice website and wasn't a WotC website. It was just a copy of a tweet mearls had made.
I would easily say errata is RAW.
I've yet to play in a game where the DM's interpretation of the rules was not the final say. And every DM I've had doesn't follow Mearls or Crawford paying attention to what they post anywhere.
Very good chance they haven't a clue who those people are.
Again, if that was the case, no one would be here.
Not going into the discussion of following or not following Crawford and Mearls which is a fairly pointless discussion, I want to stick to the thread and try to explain my thinking about why non-magical arrows are magical if used with a magical bow:
Fisrt thing, not all the weapons with magical properties are considered magical weapon. Being a magical weapon means that a weapon can overcome the resistance to the damage of some monsters. For example Oathbow, have some magical properties but in the text there is no mention that it is a magical weapon. A Weapon +1, bonus aside, cleary say that it is a magical weapon.
Now, with this in mind, there is no point in saying that a bow can be magical, unless it is inteded that the arrow itself become magical. A bow does not hit the target (well you can use it as an improvised weapon but....), the arrow does, so to it makes sense to consider non-magical arrows magical when shooted by a magical bow. Obviuosly, once you shoot the arrow, hit or miss, then the arrow loses the magical properties, as Ammunition +1 does.
Of course, the DM is really the one who makes the final clarification. But there are innumerable cases where the DM doesn't know what they should do and wants an official clarification. That's where Crawford comes in best. If a DM doesn't know Crawford writes the rules, then sure, they probably wouldn't follow. Crawford's Twitter is somewhere he can make official rulings that aren't yet compiled into a column, as per the column's intro itself. Mearls is a different case since what he says aren't official rules, but he still correctly answered the question as stated in the rules. If Mearls doesn't reference the book then he's only giving his opinion, which can still be decent if nothing more official can be found.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if Sage Advice will have any DnDBeyond integration. Can't remember anything off the top of my head, but that would be a great place for rule clarifications.
My only real point is that if you find a rule isn't clear, while you can check sage advice, it's better to check with your Dm to make sure he is going to rule the same way or defer to sage advice especially for RAI vs RAW.
I mean going into battle against a werewolf to find out your bow is doing 0 damage when you thought it was magical would be a bad lesson to learn mid game.
Point was that the linked website was in fact not the sage advice website and wasn't a WotC website. It was just a copy of a tweet mearls had made.
I would easily say errata is RAW.
I've yet to play in a game where the DM's interpretation of the rules was not the final say. And every DM I've had doesn't follow Mearls or Crawford paying attention to what they post anywhere.
Very good chance they haven't a clue who those people are.
Again, if that was the case, no one would be here.
Honestly very few people do come here at least in comparison to how many people play the game. If the forums are any indication it's usually like the same 20 or so people posting.
Point was that the linked website was in fact not the sage advice website and wasn't a WotC website. It was just a copy of a tweet mearls had made.
I would easily say errata is RAW.
I've yet to play in a game where the DM's interpretation of the rules was not the final say. And every DM I've had doesn't follow Mearls or Crawford paying attention to what they post anywhere.
Very good chance they haven't a clue who those people are.
Again, if that was the case, no one would be here.
Honestly very few people do come here at least in comparison to how many people play the game. If the forums are any indication it's usually like the same 20 or so people posting.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about people who don't come here.
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?
I mean, if we're going to get into physics: What makes the magical sword do more damage? Is the edge magically sharper? Is the metal magically harder?
I don't think it matters how the weapon functions better because of the magic, just that the magic is there. So, if the weapon gives a magical bonus to attack and damage, then it overcomes those resistances.
Not to mention, magical ranged weapons have ALWAYS conferred the magical properties to their ammunition in literally every other edition, so I don't think they'd change that all of a sudden.
“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.
Fisrt thing, not all the weapons with magical properties are considered magical weapon.
I don't think that actually tracks, given that you example weapon is A) listed as one of many alphabetically organized items under the heading "Magic Items A-Z", and B) assigned the "weapon" category. I think all the other weapons in the magic item list happening to use the words "magic weapon" is a helpful redundancy, rather than an actual needed phrase in order for them to be considered a magical weapon rather than the non-intuitively different weapon with magical properties.
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say with 100% certainty that any weapons listed in the section of the DMG titled Magic Items are considered magical weapons. Also, just by that measurement, I'm also going to go ahead and say that any armor in that section is ALSO considered magical armor.
“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.
“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.
Yeah, I knew the bonus itself was irrelevant from the description of the Javelin of Lightning. After its power is used (it can be thrown as lightning once per day), it is still considered a magic weapon, the fact that the electric damage is no longer active doesn't change that.
In general, any sort of magical effect makes an attack magical. The rules don't really spell out what is a magical attack. An arrow fired from a magical bow does have a magical effect, even if it's just +1 to hit or extra damage against goats.
My character in our Thursday game uses an Oathbow..DM stated several times that all attacks made with it do magical damage even if the arrow is a normal one. Which comes in handy when you run into something that can only be hurt by magic.
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.
Because the way Crawford responds... He often doesn't respond in a way that is worded like someone who has actually written rules. I know that's strange to say, but there are several cases where he could have responded to a tweet very succinctly and directly, but seemed to deliberately keep it vague.
As a note the rules do specifically state in the DMG that ammunition fired from magical weapons count as magical.
Point was that the linked website was in fact not the sage advice website and wasn't a WotC website. It was just a copy of a tweet mearls had made.
I would easily say errata is RAW.
I've yet to play in a game where the DM's interpretation of the rules was not the final say. And every DM I've had doesn't follow Mearls or Crawford paying attention to what they post anywhere.
Very good chance they haven't a clue who those people are. So even if you mentioned that Crawford clarrified the rule, it's going to be a hard sell especially if it was a rule as intended and not what was actually written.
Your DM doesn't seem to be like that, but my experience with DMs differ enough that I think just because you read something from Crawford that said you could do something doesn't mean the dm will allow it.
Not going into the discussion of following or not following Crawford and Mearls which is a fairly pointless discussion, I want to stick to the thread and try to explain my thinking about why non-magical arrows are magical if used with a magical bow:
Fisrt thing, not all the weapons with magical properties are considered magical weapon. Being a magical weapon means that a weapon can overcome the resistance to the damage of some monsters. For example Oathbow, have some magical properties but in the text there is no mention that it is a magical weapon. A Weapon +1, bonus aside, cleary say that it is a magical weapon.
Now, with this in mind, there is no point in saying that a bow can be magical, unless it is inteded that the arrow itself become magical. A bow does not hit the target (well you can use it as an improvised weapon but....), the arrow does, so to it makes sense to consider non-magical arrows magical when shooted by a magical bow. Obviuosly, once you shoot the arrow, hit or miss, then the arrow loses the magical properties, as Ammunition +1 does.
Of course, the DM is really the one who makes the final clarification. But there are innumerable cases where the DM doesn't know what they should do and wants an official clarification. That's where Crawford comes in best. If a DM doesn't know Crawford writes the rules, then sure, they probably wouldn't follow. Crawford's Twitter is somewhere he can make official rulings that aren't yet compiled into a column, as per the column's intro itself. Mearls is a different case since what he says aren't official rules, but he still correctly answered the question as stated in the rules. If Mearls doesn't reference the book then he's only giving his opinion, which can still be decent if nothing more official can be found.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if Sage Advice will have any DnDBeyond integration. Can't remember anything off the top of my head, but that would be a great place for rule clarifications.
My only real point is that if you find a rule isn't clear, while you can check sage advice, it's better to check with your Dm to make sure he is going to rule the same way or defer to sage advice especially for RAI vs RAW.
I mean going into battle against a werewolf to find out your bow is doing 0 damage when you thought it was magical would be a bad lesson to learn mid game.
Here the sage advice from Jeremy Crawford, for those interested:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/12/09/magic-ranged-weapon/
Just to add - this has been put into the Errata for the DMG and the wording has been changed in DMG that are the 3rd printing or higher.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I don't think it matters how the weapon functions better because of the magic, just that the magic is there. So, if the weapon gives a magical bonus to attack and damage, then it overcomes those resistances.
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.
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say with 100% certainty that any weapons listed in the section of the DMG titled Magic Items are considered magical weapons. Also, just by that measurement, I'm also going to go ahead and say that any armor in that section is ALSO considered magical armor.
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.
Thank you, Sorce.
Question officially answered (and for those who argue against listening to Crawford: tell them he's the one who writes the OFFICIAL errata)
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.
If I remember the 5thed DMG and Sage Advice correctly:
All magic weapons give the ability to over come magical resistance, but not all of them give +1 Hit & +1 Damage.
Example:
I have been really happy with this change, where in 3.5 you had to have +1 weapon before you get any other special properties.
Yeah, I knew the bonus itself was irrelevant from the description of the Javelin of Lightning. After its power is used (it can be thrown as lightning once per day), it is still considered a magic weapon, the fact that the electric damage is no longer active doesn't change that.
In general, any sort of magical effect makes an attack magical. The rules don't really spell out what is a magical attack. An arrow fired from a magical bow does have a magical effect, even if it's just +1 to hit or extra damage against goats.
My character in our Thursday game uses an Oathbow..DM stated several times that all attacks made with it do magical damage even if the arrow is a normal one. Which comes in handy when you run into something that can only be hurt by magic.
Also, I think someone pointed this out, but a magical weapon doesn't even need a +1 to make your attacks magical.
So Flame Tongue damage is magical even if it isn't "lit, brah."