Let's say I am playing a Ranger and I am fighting a monster that is resistant to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage from nonmagical weapons. If I cast Hunter's Mark on that monster, is that extra d6 of damage magical? Or would the monster's resistance halve the Hunter's Mark damage?
I am of a different opinion. The Hunter's Mark does not do damage, it increases the damage of the weapon attack. So, whether the extra d6 is magical or not, it depends on the weapon attack. If you are doing it with a magical weapon, then the extra d6 is magical.
I am of a different opinion. The Hunter's Mark does not do damage, it increases the damage of the weapon attack. So, whether the extra d6 is magical or not, it depends on the weapon attack. If you are doing it with a magical weapon, then the extra d6 is magical.
That's a fair argument, I can see where you're coming from. I came to my view comparing it to Hex and Sneak Attack. Hex, being a spell, designates Necrotic damage, Sneak Attack doesn't designate any damage type but is not a spell. Looking at those differences I lean toward a non-designated damage type magical ability.
Hunter's Mark is a spell. It does not state in its description that it does a specific type of damage. Therefore, I would say it's magical damage.
There's no such thing as untyped damage in 5e and "magical" isn't a damage type; it describes the source of the damage.
If you hit a monster that resists b/p/s damage from nonmagical attacks using a nonmagical weapon, it'll resist the damage from the weapon but not the damage from Hunter's Mark.
If the monster is just flat-out resistant to bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage and you use the wrong weapon type, the damage from Hunter's Mark will be resisted too since it uses the same damage type as the weapon.
Right now, I feel like the "default" option (and what's being advocated by InquisitiveCoder) is an illogical mashup of a handful of other internally-consistent options, wherein some bonuses are treated as magical/mundane in their own right independent of the attack, while others are following the all or nothing model. Where would one find any rules that clarify that the magicalness of sneak attack (a class feature which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) depends on the sword, but Hunters Mark (a spell which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) doesn't!? Think that's an easy distinction to make? Well what about Hexblade's Curse, a class feature which applies a static bonus of necrotic damage on a hit? Magical you say? But it isn't a spell! And elemental damage (even from fantastical sources) is not necessarily magical, as demonstrated by a Dragon's breath attack not being magical! Mundane you say? But how do you justify that, what would a nonmagical curse even mean!?
This feels overly-finicky, but I think there's basically five options for flagging damage as magical/nonmagical. Feel free to chime in below and add more I'm not thinking of!
The "all or nothing" approach: Damage caused by an attack (all of it) is flagged magical/nonmagical at once, depending on whether the attack involves any magic.
using a magic sword? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a magic sword.
using a regular sword under the effect of a spell like Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a sword with magic on it.
The piecemeal approach: Each bonus, die, etc. is flagged magical/nonmagical individually, depending on the bonus source
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical... but your strength bonus isn't, nor is your sneak attack, nor your feat bonus, nor your rage. Things that are magic cause magical slashing, everything else causes mundane slashing.
Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, rage are all nomagical slashing. The 1d6 from Hunters Mark is magical slashing
The illogical (Default) approach: some bonuses (stats, feats, sneak attack, rage) follow the "all or nothing" model, while others (spells) follow the "piecemeal" model.
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are magical slashing.
Using a regular sword under Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are nonmagical slashing. Hunters Mark magical slashing.
Weird Option 1: The Dice/Bonus distinction based approach: Dice can be magical/nonmagical, status bonuses follow whether base weapon dice is magical/nonmagical. This sounds weird, until one realizes that 5e pretty much doesn't really have any spells that hand out static + modifiers, even things like Enlarge/Reduce hand out dice .
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical, as are any static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage that apply to that roll. Sneak attack is nonmagical, because it's its own dice pool, and comes from a nonmagical source.
Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice and static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage are nonmagical. Sneak attack is nonmagical. Hunters Mark is magical.
Weird Option 2: Damage Type Lumps: try to lump damage bonuses/dice by thematic element to identify if magical.... if you're doing slashing with your mundane sword and necrotic with your hexblade's curse, then your strength bonus and feat bonus are probably nonmagical slashing, your curse is magical necrotic, your sneak attack... could be either, but is probably nonmagical slashing as well?
I personally prefer "all or nothing" because it feels the most straightforward and "5e" to me of all options: if you've involved a spell, a magical enhancement, or a magical weapon in the attack, it's a magical attack, and all damage caused by the attack is "magic".
Right now, I feel like the "default" option (and what's being advocated by InquisitiveCoder) is an illogical mashup of a handful of other internally-consistent options, wherein some bonuses are treated as magical/mundane in their own right independent of the attack, while others are following the all or nothing model. Where would one find any rules that clarify that the magicalness of sneak attack (a class feature which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) depends on the sword, but Hunters Mark (a spell which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) doesn't!? Think that's an easy distinction to make? Well what about Hexblade's Curse, a class feature which applies a static bonus of necrotic damage on a hit? Magical you say? But it isn't a spell! And elemental damage (even from fantastical sources) is not necessarily magical, as demonstrated by a Dragon's breath attack not being magical! Mundane you say? But how do you justify that, what would a nonmagical curse even mean!?
This feels overly-finicky, but I think there's basically five options for flagging damage as magical/nonmagical. Feel free to chime in below and add more I'm not thinking of!
The "all or nothing" approach: Damage caused by an attack (all of it) is flagged magical/nonmagical at once, depending on whether the attack involves any magic.
using a magic sword? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a magic sword.
using a regular sword under the effect of a spell like Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a sword with magic on it.
The piecemeal approach: Each bonus, die, etc. is flagged magical/nonmagical individually, depending on the bonus source
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical... but your strength bonus isn't, nor is your sneak attack, nor your feat bonus, nor your rage. Things that are magic cause magical slashing, everything else causes mundane slashing.
Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, rage are all nomagical slashing. The 1d6 from Hunters Mark is magical slashing
The illogical (Default) approach: some bonuses (stats, feats, sneak attack, rage) follow the "all or nothing" model, while others (spells) follow the "piecemeal" model.
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are magical slashing.
Using a regular sword under Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are nonmagical slashing. Hunters Mark magical slashing.
Weird Option 1: The Dice/Bonus distinction based approach: Dice can be magical/nonmagical, status bonuses follow whether base weapon dice is magical/nonmagical. This sounds weird, until one realizes that 5e pretty much doesn't really have any spells that hand out static + modifiers, even things like Enlarge/Reduce hand out dice .
Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical, as are any static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage that apply to that roll. Sneak attack is nonmagical, because it's its own dice pool, and comes from a nonmagical source.
Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice and static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage are nonmagical. Sneak attack is nonmagical. Hunters Mark is magical.
Weird Option 2: Damage Type Lumps: try to lump damage bonuses/dice by thematic element to identify if magical.... if you're doing slashing with your mundane sword and necrotic with your hexblade's curse, then your strength bonus and feat bonus are probably nonmagical slashing, your curse is magical necrotic, your sneak attack... could be either, but is probably nonmagical slashing as well?
I personally prefer "all or nothing" because it feels the most straightforward and "5e" to me of all options: if you've involved a spell, a magical enhancement, or a magical weapon in the attack, it's a magical attack, and all damage caused by the attack is "magic".
Wow. That is complicated but 5e is generally pretty simple.
There are two aspects to damage - what type of damage is it and is the damage magical? That's it.
Is the damage magical or not?
1) Does the damage come from a weapon?
- IF the weapon magical then the damage is magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.
- IF the weapon non-magical then the damage is non-magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.
2) Does the damage come from a spell? Then the damage is magical.
----
What type is the damage?
1) Weapon damage depends on weapon type and is generally divided into slashing, bludgeoning and piercing.
2) If the damage comes from a spell then the spell tells you the damage type.
Examples
- hex is cast on a target and does necrotic damage every time you successfully hit the target
- hunters mark is cast on a target and does magical damage (since it is the spell that is doing the damage) of the same damage type as the "weapon" causing the initial hit
- divine smite does radiant damage
- eldritch blast does force damage
- firebolt does fire damage
All of these are magical since the source is a spell but as far as I know the only distinction in game is between magical and non-magical weapon damage of the slashing/piercing/bludgeoning types. (I'm not sure if 5e makes any distinction between magical and non-magical fire damage for example).
Your system appears to be grouping the dice you roll and ignoring the source of the dice in determining damage type and its nature as magical or not. For example, if you hit a creature that has hunter's mark on it with a longbow then you do d8+stat piercing damage from the weapon plus magical d6 piercing damage from the spell - some of the damage is caused by the spell and some by the weapon. If you are a 5 rogue/3 warlock with hex cast on your target and you hit it with a longbow sneak attack then you would do d8+stat+3d6 from the weapon and sneak attack which is all piercing damage plus d6 necrotic damage caused by the SPELL (not by the weapon). If the longbow in either of these examples is magical then the weapon portion of the attack does magical piercing damage.
David, I agree that a "simple" solution is what 5e generally accomplishes, and that's why I think the "all or nothing" approach is the best way to factor it, absent clear rule language otherwise.
Your example of "weapon damage depends on if weapon is magic, spell damage is always magic" seems simple... but again, what about the inbetween-ers? Class features like Hexblade's Curse, magical or not? Battlemaster Dice are probably "weapon damage"... but what about a War Cleric's level 8 Divine Strike? Other than trying to say "one makes sense to me one way, one makes sense the other," where is rules text that describes why those would be treated differently?
Since the title is "Hunters Mark Damage" one point nobody has raised is the two handed weapon fighting style where you get to reroll ones and twos ...
If you add HM to the mix and the damage from HM becomes an increase to the weapon damage then a greatsword with HM would be 3d6 slashing and reroll 1/2 on all 3 dice as they are weapon damage ... is that right?
Since the title is "Hunters Mark Damage" one point nobody has raised is the two handed weapon fighting style where you get to reroll ones and twos ...
If you add HM to the mix and the damage from HM becomes an increase to the weapon damage then a greatsword with HM would be 3d6 slashing and reroll 1/2 on all 3 dice as they are weapon damage ... is that right?
Nobody had raised that point because Two-Handed Fighting Style explicitly only works on the actual weapon's damage die. It never applies to anything else. Hunter's Mark does not change the actual weapon's damage die.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing."
As a simple suggestion, how about the following?
• If you've made a ranged spell attack or a melee spell attack then your damage is all magical.
• If you've made a ranged weapon attack or a melee weapon attack and you used a magical weapon or ammunition then your damage is all magical else your damage is all nonmagical.
• If you cast a spell and forced the target to make a saving throw then your damage is all magical.
• Otherwise your damage is all nonmagical.
There are exceptions, of course, like the Primal Strike feature of Druids.
As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing."
As a simple suggestion, how about the following?
• If you've made a ranged spell attack or a melee spell attack then your damage is all magical.
• If you've made a ranged weapon attack or a melee weapon attack and you used a magical weapon or ammunition then your damage is all magical else your damage is all nonmagical.
• If you cast a spell and forced the target to make a saving throw then your damage is all magical.
• Otherwise your damage is all nonmagical.
There are exceptions, of course, like the Primal Strike feature of Druids.
Interesting.
"As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing.""
In every single game I have ever played, if the DM indicated that the damage types actually matter, then that is exactly what each and every player at the table says when they hit in order to make it easier on the DM to figure out the effective damage and account for damage resistances without telling the players exactly what resistances are involved.
"8 points of slashing"
"12 points of magical piercing"
"7 points of force and 4 points of necrotic"
The DM needs to know the damage type of the damage caused which can be any of a large number of types including slashing/piercing/bludgeoning and magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning.
A character using hunter's mark with a mundane bow might say
"8 points of piercing and 4 points of magical piercing"
"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."
Additionally, one thing that often gets missed with this question is that Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. Meaning that according to it's school of magic, it's not actually projecting extra magical energy alongside the attack; instead, it's granting the player insight into how to better attack the target, so that the weapon they use does improved damage.
My takeaway:
* If you use a mundane weapon, for a mundane attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also non-magical damage of the same type as the weapon.
* If you use a magical weapon, with nothing else added to the attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also magical damage of the same type as the weapon.
* If you make an attack that does both non-magical damage (say, non-magical slashing damage from a mundane longsword) AND additional magical damage (say, extra necrotic damage due to the target having a Lv. 5 Bestow Curse cast on them,) then per Crawford's later post, you get to choose whether the extra Hunter's Mark damage is (non-magical) slashing or (magical) necrotic.
Damage type is piercing, slashing, fire, thunder, etc. Magical is not a type, it is a source. So the damage source from Hunter's Mark is the spell, which is then added to the damage dealt by the weapon attack. The really interesting thing about that statements is that if you have a weapon such as a Flametongue that deals slashing and fire damage, you could have Hunter's Mark deal extra fire damage.
Damage type is piercing, slashing, fire, thunder, etc. Magical is not a type, it is a source. So the damage source from Hunter's Mark is the spell
(emphasis added)
That's not explicitly called out by the spell. As a counter-example, look at Enlarge/Reduce, specifically the Enlarge portion of the spell:
"The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage."
The extra 1d4 damage isn't so much directly from the spell, it's just from the fact that the weapons are bigger. That's all. It takes quite the cumbersome logic to argue that an enlarged ally's weapon attacks should all suddenly become magical.
Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. That strongly suggests the source of the extra damage isn't from magical energies, but from insight into a better attack.
"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."
As Golaryn already pointed out, whether something is magical has nothing to do with its damage type. A torch and Fire Bolt both deal fire damage but one's not magical and the other is. Likewise, a run-of-the-mill longsword and a +1 longsword both deal slashing damage.
Additionally, one thing that often gets missed with this question is that Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. Meaning that according to it's school of magic, it's not actually projecting extra magical energy alongside the attack; instead, it's granting the player insight into how to better attack the target, so that the weapon they use does improved damage.
Schools of magic have no mechanical rules. As a counterexample, Mind Spike is a divination spell that directly, indisputably deals damage to its target.
Unlike Enlarge/Reduce, which specifically calls out the weapon being larger, Hunter's Mark gives no explanation for how or why the extra damage is being dealt, so "the spell deals damage directly" is just as good an explanation as "the spell grants you insight into the enemy's defenses." But I'll also point out that that's exactly what True Strike does and that doesn't result in extra damage, and Hunter's Mark uses practically the same wording as Hex. The only difference is Hex deals necrotic damage.
So I'm not gonna say your interpretation is wrong, but at the very least it's not the only way to interpret the spell and nothing you've mentioned is undeniable proof that the damage isn't coming from the spell.
"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."
As Golaryn already pointed out, whether something is magical has nothing to do with its damage type. A torch and Fire Bolt both deal fire damage but one's not magical and the other is. Likewise, a run-of-the-mill longsword and a +1 longsword both deal slashing damage.
Hmmm. That's actually a good point. Meaning Crawford's two posts wouldn't be mutually exclusive; the damage could be magical AND of the same type as the triggering attack.
Yup. Personally I prefer Crawford's interpretation because it's both more generous to the player and I think it's less likely to surprise them. Whether it's because of the strong parallels to Hex, the fact that all spells are magic or because they found Jeremy's tweet, I think a random player is likely to expect the damage to be magical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's say I am playing a Ranger and I am fighting a monster that is resistant to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage from nonmagical weapons. If I cast Hunter's Mark on that monster, is that extra d6 of damage magical? Or would the monster's resistance halve the Hunter's Mark damage?
Hunter's Mark is a spell. It does not state in its description that it does a specific type of damage. Therefore, I would say it's magical damage.
I am of a different opinion. The Hunter's Mark does not do damage, it increases the damage of the weapon attack. So, whether the extra d6 is magical or not, it depends on the weapon attack. If you are doing it with a magical weapon, then the extra d6 is magical.
That's a fair argument, I can see where you're coming from. I came to my view comparing it to Hex and Sneak Attack. Hex, being a spell, designates Necrotic damage, Sneak Attack doesn't designate any damage type but is not a spell. Looking at those differences I lean toward a non-designated damage type magical ability.
I'd say it's open to interpretation. Here's some relevant information for you though (which seem to partially contradict each other).
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/is-the-damage-type-of-hunters-mark-the-same-as-the-damage-type-of-the-weapon/
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
There's no such thing as untyped damage in 5e and "magical" isn't a damage type; it describes the source of the damage.
If you hit a monster that resists b/p/s damage from nonmagical attacks using a nonmagical weapon, it'll resist the damage from the weapon but not the damage from Hunter's Mark.
If the monster is just flat-out resistant to bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage and you use the wrong weapon type, the damage from Hunter's Mark will be resisted too since it uses the same damage type as the weapon.
Right now, I feel like the "default" option (and what's being advocated by InquisitiveCoder) is an illogical mashup of a handful of other internally-consistent options, wherein some bonuses are treated as magical/mundane in their own right independent of the attack, while others are following the all or nothing model. Where would one find any rules that clarify that the magicalness of sneak attack (a class feature which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) depends on the sword, but Hunters Mark (a spell which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) doesn't!? Think that's an easy distinction to make? Well what about Hexblade's Curse, a class feature which applies a static bonus of necrotic damage on a hit? Magical you say? But it isn't a spell! And elemental damage (even from fantastical sources) is not necessarily magical, as demonstrated by a Dragon's breath attack not being magical! Mundane you say? But how do you justify that, what would a nonmagical curse even mean!?
This feels overly-finicky, but I think there's basically five options for flagging damage as magical/nonmagical. Feel free to chime in below and add more I'm not thinking of!
I personally prefer "all or nothing" because it feels the most straightforward and "5e" to me of all options: if you've involved a spell, a magical enhancement, or a magical weapon in the attack, it's a magical attack, and all damage caused by the attack is "magic".
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wow. That is complicated but 5e is generally pretty simple.
There are two aspects to damage - what type of damage is it and is the damage magical? That's it.
Is the damage magical or not?
1) Does the damage come from a weapon?
- IF the weapon magical then the damage is magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.
- IF the weapon non-magical then the damage is non-magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.
2) Does the damage come from a spell? Then the damage is magical.
----
What type is the damage?
1) Weapon damage depends on weapon type and is generally divided into slashing, bludgeoning and piercing.
2) If the damage comes from a spell then the spell tells you the damage type.
Examples
- hex is cast on a target and does necrotic damage every time you successfully hit the target
- hunters mark is cast on a target and does magical damage (since it is the spell that is doing the damage) of the same damage type as the "weapon" causing the initial hit
- divine smite does radiant damage
- eldritch blast does force damage
- firebolt does fire damage
All of these are magical since the source is a spell but as far as I know the only distinction in game is between magical and non-magical weapon damage of the slashing/piercing/bludgeoning types. (I'm not sure if 5e makes any distinction between magical and non-magical fire damage for example).
Your system appears to be grouping the dice you roll and ignoring the source of the dice in determining damage type and its nature as magical or not. For example, if you hit a creature that has hunter's mark on it with a longbow then you do d8+stat piercing damage from the weapon plus magical d6 piercing damage from the spell - some of the damage is caused by the spell and some by the weapon. If you are a 5 rogue/3 warlock with hex cast on your target and you hit it with a longbow sneak attack then you would do d8+stat+3d6 from the weapon and sneak attack which is all piercing damage plus d6 necrotic damage caused by the SPELL (not by the weapon). If the longbow in either of these examples is magical then the weapon portion of the attack does magical piercing damage.
David, I agree that a "simple" solution is what 5e generally accomplishes, and that's why I think the "all or nothing" approach is the best way to factor it, absent clear rule language otherwise.
Your example of "weapon damage depends on if weapon is magic, spell damage is always magic" seems simple... but again, what about the inbetween-ers? Class features like Hexblade's Curse, magical or not? Battlemaster Dice are probably "weapon damage"... but what about a War Cleric's level 8 Divine Strike? Other than trying to say "one makes sense to me one way, one makes sense the other," where is rules text that describes why those would be treated differently?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Since the title is "Hunters Mark Damage" one point nobody has raised is the two handed weapon fighting style where you get to reroll ones and twos ...
If you add HM to the mix and the damage from HM becomes an increase to the weapon damage then a greatsword with HM would be 3d6 slashing and reroll 1/2 on all 3 dice as they are weapon damage ... is that right?
Life's hard - get a helmet!
Nobody had raised that point because Two-Handed Fighting Style explicitly only works on the actual weapon's damage die. It never applies to anything else. Hunter's Mark does not change the actual weapon's damage die.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing."
As a simple suggestion, how about the following?
• If you've made a ranged spell attack or a melee spell attack then your damage is all magical.
• If you've made a ranged weapon attack or a melee weapon attack and you used a magical weapon or ammunition then your damage is all magical else your damage is all nonmagical.
• If you cast a spell and forced the target to make a saving throw then your damage is all magical.
• Otherwise your damage is all nonmagical.
There are exceptions, of course, like the Primal Strike feature of Druids.
Interesting.
"As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing.""
In every single game I have ever played, if the DM indicated that the damage types actually matter, then that is exactly what each and every player at the table says when they hit in order to make it easier on the DM to figure out the effective damage and account for damage resistances without telling the players exactly what resistances are involved.
"8 points of slashing"
"12 points of magical piercing"
"7 points of force and 4 points of necrotic"
The DM needs to know the damage type of the damage caused which can be any of a large number of types including slashing/piercing/bludgeoning and magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning.
A character using hunter's mark with a mundane bow might say
"8 points of piercing and 4 points of magical piercing"
Hunter’s Mark is magical damage of the same damage type as the weapon according to Jeremy Crawford:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/663025214926655489
So the example given above is spot on:
“A character using hunter's mark with a mundane bow might say
"8 points of piercing and 4 points of magical piercing"”
Well, that's ONE of the Twitter posts that comments on the topic.
The other, also from Jeremy Crawford, and posted a year later, gives a somewhat different response:
Additionally, one thing that often gets missed with this question is that Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. Meaning that according to it's school of magic, it's not actually projecting extra magical energy alongside the attack; instead, it's granting the player insight into how to better attack the target, so that the weapon they use does improved damage.
My takeaway:
* If you use a mundane weapon, for a mundane attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also non-magical damage of the same type as the weapon.
* If you use a magical weapon, with nothing else added to the attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also magical damage of the same type as the weapon.
* If you make an attack that does both non-magical damage (say, non-magical slashing damage from a mundane longsword) AND additional magical damage (say, extra necrotic damage due to the target having a Lv. 5 Bestow Curse cast on them,) then per Crawford's later post, you get to choose whether the extra Hunter's Mark damage is (non-magical) slashing or (magical) necrotic.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Damage type is piercing, slashing, fire, thunder, etc. Magical is not a type, it is a source. So the damage source from Hunter's Mark is the spell, which is then added to the damage dealt by the weapon attack. The really interesting thing about that statements is that if you have a weapon such as a Flametongue that deals slashing and fire damage, you could have Hunter's Mark deal extra fire damage.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
(emphasis added)
That's not explicitly called out by the spell. As a counter-example, look at Enlarge/Reduce, specifically the Enlarge portion of the spell:
The extra 1d4 damage isn't so much directly from the spell, it's just from the fact that the weapons are bigger. That's all. It takes quite the cumbersome logic to argue that an enlarged ally's weapon attacks should all suddenly become magical.
Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. That strongly suggests the source of the extra damage isn't from magical energies, but from insight into a better attack.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
As Golaryn already pointed out, whether something is magical has nothing to do with its damage type. A torch and Fire Bolt both deal fire damage but one's not magical and the other is. Likewise, a run-of-the-mill longsword and a +1 longsword both deal slashing damage.
Schools of magic have no mechanical rules. As a counterexample, Mind Spike is a divination spell that directly, indisputably deals damage to its target.
Unlike Enlarge/Reduce, which specifically calls out the weapon being larger, Hunter's Mark gives no explanation for how or why the extra damage is being dealt, so "the spell deals damage directly" is just as good an explanation as "the spell grants you insight into the enemy's defenses." But I'll also point out that that's exactly what True Strike does and that doesn't result in extra damage, and Hunter's Mark uses practically the same wording as Hex. The only difference is Hex deals necrotic damage.
So I'm not gonna say your interpretation is wrong, but at the very least it's not the only way to interpret the spell and nothing you've mentioned is undeniable proof that the damage isn't coming from the spell.
Hmmm. That's actually a good point. Meaning Crawford's two posts wouldn't be mutually exclusive; the damage could be magical AND of the same type as the triggering attack.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Yup. Personally I prefer Crawford's interpretation because it's both more generous to the player and I think it's less likely to surprise them. Whether it's because of the strong parallels to Hex, the fact that all spells are magic or because they found Jeremy's tweet, I think a random player is likely to expect the damage to be magical.