Item enchantment. In a game i am DMing there is an artificer that pretty much enchancents all the party wepons. so far it's farily harmless such as making a sword say F*&K every time it is swung. My question is, when it comes to monsters that are immune/ resistent to wepons of a non-magical nature, would these enchanted items apply, considering they are not magical to being with, and the enchanment doesnt specify "the item deals +3 fire damage". Alternittivly, would i be right in saying that the enchament would have to specify it's magical damage property?
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in 5e, only damage from magical sources, and damage from nonmagical sources. If the sword is “enchanted” it is technically a magical source. But for something like that.... I would say you’re in your rights to say that doesn’t count. I’m not saying you should, or that there aren’t reasons not to. Just that if you said no, I would understand.
Damage Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from magic weapons
Damage Immunities necrotic, poison, psychic, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons
I think that damming sword counts as a magic weapon. Tbh, if you did have few magic weapons in the setting, and that was their only "magic weapon", would seem like robbing them if taking that away. But if they have more traditional enhanced weapons, even if inferior (a +1 dagger), don't think anyone will blink to a "no." Case with artificer : "no."
The descriptions of the Artificer class states that everything they do is done by magical imbument. The swearing sword sounds just like the Magical Tinkering ability, the second ability listed. He took a little liberty by saying the sword swears when swung instead of when tapped. I would think all items he works on would be considered magic.
The descriptions of the Artificer class states that everything they do is done by magical imbument. The swearing sword sounds just like the Magical Tinkering ability, the second ability listed. He took a little liberty by saying the sword swears when swung instead of when tapped. I would think all items he works on would be considered magic.
It sounded like Magical Tinkering to me too:
Magical Tinkering
At 1st level, you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects. To use this ability, you must have tinker’s tools or other artisan’s tools in hand. You then touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action and give it one of the following magical properties of your choice:
The object sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.
Whenever tapped by a creature, the object emits a recorded message that can be heard up to 10 feet away. You utter the message when you bestow this property on the object, and the recording can be no more than 6 seconds long.
The object continuously emits your choice of an odor or a nonverbal sound (wind, waves, chirping, or the like). The chosen phenomenon is perceivable up to 10 feet away.
A static visual effect appears on one of the object’s surfaces. This effect can be a picture, up to 25 words of text, lines and shapes, or a mixture of these elements, as you like.
The chosen property lasts indefinitely. As an action, you can touch the object and end the property early.
You can bestow magic on multiple objects, touching one object each time you use this feature, though a single object can only bear one property at a time. The maximum number of objects you can affect with this feature at one time is equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of one object). If you try to exceed your maximum, the oldest property immediately ends, and then the new property applies.
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
Since most 1st-level Artificers could Magically Tinker with a max of 3 items because of the Int modifier limitation, they couldn’t do it to all of the weapons.
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
An object that's bearing a magical effect doesn't automatically become a source of magical damage. If that were the case you'd just slap Light or Magic Mouth on your weapon and never bother wasting slots on the Magic Weapon spell (which by the way explicitly says the weapon becomes magical.)
The definition of magical attack is "an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source." In other words the thing you're attacking with must be inherently magical, or putting it differently the source of the magic and the thing delivering the attack roll are intended to be one and the same.
That aside, a shortsword is probably a Small object, not Tiny.
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
An object that's bearing a magical effect doesn't automatically become a source of magical damage. If that were the case you'd just slap Light or Magic Mouth on your weapon and never bother wasting slots on the Magic Weapon spell (which by the way explicitly says the weapon becomes magical.)
The definition of magical attack is "an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source." In other words the thing you're attacking with must be inherently magical, or putting it differently the source of the magic and the thing delivering the attack roll are intended to be one and the same.
That aside, a shortsword is probably a Small object, not Tiny.
Magic Weapon also gives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, so I think it's still worth it. I dunno, I think I fall in the camp that says that if it's a weapon and it is magical by any means, it bypasses resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons. But yeah if you compare sizes and weight of things from https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#Objects a shortsword is probably Small, but I would definitely say a dagger is Tiny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Without house ruling, this only applies to TINY objects.
You then touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action
A dagger or ammunition is clearly 'tiny' .
Per the Monster Manual, Animated Daggers and Knifes are Tiny. Animated Swords and Shields are "small". Dagger's weigh 1 lb. Javelins weigh 2 lbs and are DEFINITELY not tiny. (Real life javelins are often 6 ft long. A 3 ft tall javelin is rare in real life, even back in Roman times)
I personally would rule that a weapon must weigh > 2 lbs to be considered Tiny.
Without house ruling, this only applies to TINY objects.
You then touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action
A dagger or ammunition is clearly 'tiny' .
Per the Monster Manual, Animated Daggers and Knifes are Tiny. Animated Swords and Shields are "small". Dagger's weigh 1 lb. Javelins weigh 2 lbs and are DEFINITELY not tiny. (Real life javelins are often 6 ft long. A 3 ft tall javelin is rare in real life, even back in Roman times)
I personally would rule that a weapon must weigh > 2 lbs to be considered Tiny.
Magic Weapon also gives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, so I think it's still worth it.
If it didn't eat up your concentration too, maybe. Personally I think that's a bit too high a cost for just +1/+1 when a cleric can Bless three people for a 1st level slot, a Druid or Bard can likewise light up enemies with Faerie Fire, and other 2nd level spells like Web, Levitate, Flaming Sphere or Enlarge/Reduce will probably make a bigger impact overall.
Something to consider when making a ruling on this:
Infuse Item explicitly states that it takes a nonmagical object and makes it into a magic item:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item.
Magical Tinkering also requires a nonmagical object but it does not state that said object becomes a magic item.
Based on this I think RAI is that Magical Tinkering on a weapon doesn't make that weapon magical for the purpose of doing damage, but Infuse Item does.
An object that's bearing a magical effect doesn't automatically become a source of magical damage. If that were the case you'd just slap Light or Magic Mouth on your weapon and never bother wasting slots on the Magic Weapon spell (which by the way explicitly says the weapon becomes magical.)
The definition of magical attack is "an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source." In other words the thing you're attacking with must be inherently magical, or putting it differently the source of the magic and the thing delivering the attack roll are intended to be one and the same.
That aside, a shortsword is probably a Small object, not Tiny.
For me that's settled. If Magic Weapon explicitly says the weapon becomes magical, I think it rules out other spell effect making the weapon a 'magical weapon'. Some other effects, like the Artificer Infusion, the Shillelagh spell or the Warlock Pact of the Blade also explicitly specify this, so a simple light effect wouldn't make the cut.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it RAW, but it's pretty near. It's clearly RAI.
Otherwise I think you guys are right about a dagger being tiny and usable with Magical Tinkering but I still think it's a bit farfetched to suggest it could count as magical for the purpose of DR.
I said what I meant, >2 lbs, not >= 2lbs. Javelins are not Tiny, and they weigh 2 lbs. So it would have to weigh less than 2 lbs to count as Tiny, per my interpretation of the rules.
I said what I meant, >2 lbs, not >= 2lbs. Javelins are not Tiny, and they weigh 2 lbs. So it would have to weigh less than 2 lbs to count as Tiny, per my interpretation of the rules.
Okay, just wanted to clarify. I mean, a dagger is about a foot long. A Light Hammer and a Sickle are non-finesse equivalents of a Dagger for all intents and purposes, and while weighing more than a dagger, they are otherwise statistically the same other than damage type (and maybe price) except you can’t throw a sickle. That’s why I asked. If you would allow a dagger, why not those?
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
It's a really old strategy for many game systems actually. You give characters minor magic items of "colors", "indestructible", etc. This way, the characters can still fight interesting enemies without increasing their damage output with a more powerful magic item. A good example to debate with would be something like a Weapon of Warning. The weapon is clearly magical but, since the purpose of the magic is not damage, is it automatically disqualified for dealing magic damage?
If you plan on giving the characters the means to fight enemies with resistances, it's really a moot point on whether or not the artificer Magical Tinkering counts per Raw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Got a quirey, if someone is willing to help out.
Item enchantment. In a game i am DMing there is an artificer that pretty much enchancents all the party wepons. so far it's farily harmless such as making a sword say F*&K every time it is swung. My question is, when it comes to monsters that are immune/ resistent to wepons of a non-magical nature, would these enchanted items apply, considering they are not magical to being with, and the enchanment doesnt specify "the item deals +3 fire damage". Alternittivly, would i be right in saying that the enchament would have to specify it's magical damage property?
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in 5e, only damage from magical sources, and damage from nonmagical sources. If the sword is “enchanted” it is technically a magical source. But for something like that.... I would say you’re in your rights to say that doesn’t count. I’m not saying you should, or that there aren’t reasons not to. Just that if you said no, I would understand.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
thanks for the info.
Demilich:
Damage Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from magic weapons
Damage Immunities necrotic, poison, psychic, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons
I think that damming sword counts as a magic weapon. Tbh, if you did have few magic weapons in the setting, and that was their only "magic weapon", would seem like robbing them if taking that away. But if they have more traditional enhanced weapons, even if inferior (a +1 dagger), don't think anyone will blink to a "no." Case with artificer : "no."
The descriptions of the Artificer class states that everything they do is done by magical imbument. The swearing sword sounds just like the Magical Tinkering ability, the second ability listed. He took a little liberty by saying the sword swears when swung instead of when tapped. I would think all items he works on would be considered magic.
It sounded like Magical Tinkering to me too:
Seems “Magic” to me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So by that logic, using Magical Tinkering, a 1st level artificer could mess with his party member weapons so everyone can bypass damage resistance to nonmagical weapons? This is a bit rich.
Since most 1st-level Artificers could Magically Tinker with a max of 3 items because of the Int modifier limitation, they couldn’t do it to all of the weapons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
An object that's bearing a magical effect doesn't automatically become a source of magical damage. If that were the case you'd just slap Light or Magic Mouth on your weapon and never bother wasting slots on the Magic Weapon spell (which by the way explicitly says the weapon becomes magical.)
The definition of magical attack is "an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source." In other words the thing you're attacking with must be inherently magical, or putting it differently the source of the magic and the thing delivering the attack roll are intended to be one and the same.
That aside, a shortsword is probably a Small object, not Tiny.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Magic Weapon also gives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, so I think it's still worth it. I dunno, I think I fall in the camp that says that if it's a weapon and it is magical by any means, it bypasses resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons. But yeah if you compare sizes and weight of things from https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#Objects a shortsword is probably Small, but I would definitely say a dagger is Tiny.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Without house ruling, this only applies to TINY objects.
A dagger or ammunition is clearly 'tiny' .
Per the Monster Manual, Animated Daggers and Knifes are Tiny. Animated Swords and Shields are "small". Dagger's weigh 1 lb. Javelins weigh 2 lbs and are DEFINITELY not tiny. (Real life javelins are often 6 ft long. A 3 ft tall javelin is rare in real life, even back in Roman times)
I personally would rule that a weapon must weigh > 2 lbs to be considered Tiny.
>2lbs, or >2lbs?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If it didn't eat up your concentration too, maybe. Personally I think that's a bit too high a cost for just +1/+1 when a cleric can Bless three people for a 1st level slot, a Druid or Bard can likewise light up enemies with Faerie Fire, and other 2nd level spells like Web, Levitate, Flaming Sphere or Enlarge/Reduce will probably make a bigger impact overall.
Yup, this is what I was basing that statement on.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Something to consider when making a ruling on this:
Infuse Item explicitly states that it takes a nonmagical object and makes it into a magic item:
Magical Tinkering also requires a nonmagical object but it does not state that said object becomes a magic item.
Based on this I think RAI is that Magical Tinkering on a weapon doesn't make that weapon magical for the purpose of doing damage, but Infuse Item does.
For me that's settled. If Magic Weapon explicitly says the weapon becomes magical, I think it rules out other spell effect making the weapon a 'magical weapon'. Some other effects, like the Artificer Infusion, the Shillelagh spell or the Warlock Pact of the Blade also explicitly specify this, so a simple light effect wouldn't make the cut.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it RAW, but it's pretty near. It's clearly RAI.
Otherwise I think you guys are right about a dagger being tiny and usable with Magical Tinkering but I still think it's a bit farfetched to suggest it could count as magical for the purpose of DR.
I said what I meant, >2 lbs, not >= 2lbs. Javelins are not Tiny, and they weigh 2 lbs. So it would have to weigh less than 2 lbs to count as Tiny, per my interpretation of the rules.
Okay, just wanted to clarify. I mean, a dagger is about a foot long. A Light Hammer and a Sickle are non-finesse equivalents of a Dagger for all intents and purposes, and while weighing more than a dagger, they are otherwise statistically the same other than damage type (and maybe price) except you can’t throw a sickle. That’s why I asked. If you would allow a dagger, why not those?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because they're bigger and not Tiny?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It's a really old strategy for many game systems actually. You give characters minor magic items of "colors", "indestructible", etc. This way, the characters can still fight interesting enemies without increasing their damage output with a more powerful magic item. A good example to debate with would be something like a Weapon of Warning. The weapon is clearly magical but, since the purpose of the magic is not damage, is it automatically disqualified for dealing magic damage?
If you plan on giving the characters the means to fight enemies with resistances, it's really a moot point on whether or not the artificer Magical Tinkering counts per Raw.