Maybe this is stupid but I’m having trouble understanding this specific damage scenario. At our last game we had three different attacks on a werewolf and I wasn’t sure which ones hurt them (don’t worry, I played it off like I understood at the table 😂).
Paladin: Non magic weapon attack + smite. Does the smite do damage but the weapon doesn’t?
Rogue: Magical weapon + sneak attack. Does the sneak attack do damage?
Ranger: Non magic weapon + hunter’s Mark. Does the Spell’s bonus damage hit but the normal damage doesn’t?
The only one I know for certain is the Rogue and Sneak Attack. It does the same damage as the weapon so it would be magical.
The Paladin I believe would be Divine Smite only because it says "in addition to" the weapon damage - so it doesn't convert the weapon damage. Some abilities like the Horizon Walker Ranger's Planar Warrior feature do convert the weapon damage (in that case Force) and does so explicitly. Since Divine Smite doesn't say so explicitly - I have to think it doesn't.
The Ranger and Hunter's Mark is a little weird - because Hunter's Mark is a spell and should therefore automatically be magical damage - but it does say "an extra 1d6 damage" which assumes it does the exact same type as the weapon. I would guess that the Hunter's Mark damage would deal damage but the weapon wouldn't - purely because Hunter's Mark is a spell.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The damage definitely originates from the spell. The weapon is the intermediate step. The weapon attack is the means by which you deliver extra damage, but the original source of that extra damage, where that extra damage begins, is the spell.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The damage definitely originates from the spell. The weapon is the intermediate step. The weapon attack is the means by which you deliver extra damage, but the original source of that extra damage, where that extra damage begins, is the spell.
Right, I just mean it is odd because I don't think any other spell or even ability is ruled like this. Sneak attack was just mentioned which uses the same wording, but has the opposite ruling (magic or not determined by weapon).
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The damage definitely originates from the spell. The weapon is the intermediate step. The weapon attack is the means by which you deliver extra damage, but the original source of that extra damage, where that extra damage begins, is the spell.
It's a divination, it helps you get more damage because it's more precise, exactly like sneak attack. As extra damage to the weapon, it's exactly the same type and source as the weapons and therefore b/s/p and non magical.
I'm not saying I would apply this in my campaign, but everywhere I look it seems that the analysis shows that it is ambiguous and a DM's call.
You're making some big assumptions about why it gives you extra damage, but also it doesn't matter. You get extra damage because of a spell. That damage is from a magical source (the spell). End of story.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The damage definitely originates from the spell. The weapon is the intermediate step. The weapon attack is the means by which you deliver extra damage, but the original source of that extra damage, where that extra damage begins, is the spell.
Right, I just mean it is odd because I don't think any other spell or even ability is ruled like this. Sneak attack was just mentioned which uses the same wording, but has the opposite ruling (magic or not determined by weapon).
I don’t think that’s the opposite ruling at all. Sneak attack isn’t a spell, so it’s completely different. A magic weapon can make otherwise non-magical damage magical, which feels like it makes intuitive sense. But a mundane weapon can’t take away magic from a spell, which also feels like it makes intuitive sense.
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
You have not read the tweet chain to the end. One does say that it is magical. The other one starts by saying that it's the same damage type as the weapon (which everyone knew because, like sneak attack it is extra damage), but the last tweet in the chain says: "If a spell or other feature ignores damage resistance, its description says so." As the description of Hunter's Mark does not do so, it does not ignore damage resistance so its not magical.
ALso: 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.
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
And the school of the spell is irrelevant. Divination spells can clearly directly deal damage. Mind Spike comes to mind as an obvious example.
Ranger: Non magic weapon + hunter’s Mark. Does the Spell’s bonus damage hit but the normal damage doesn’t?
As above, the weapon does no damage. As for the mark, that one is undecided, Jeremy Crawford has given two tweets at one year interval with exactly opposed answers, see here. So really it's up to your DM's interpretation.
To summarise, on the one hand, the wording is exactly the same as sneak attack so it should not be considered magical damage, but this is not very nice to the player and it's a spell, so it could be considered magical damage. Up to your DM...
Yup.
It is up to DM to decide about the hunter's mark.
DnDbeyond uses the "Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it" method.
This is the conversation between my DM and me as an example,
After I made a roll with Roll20 system,
DM: "What type does your hunter's mark do?"
Me: after read through the spell description "I don't know. It doesn't say"
DM: "Ok, I will just use your weapon damage type then."
Later I made a roll with the DnDbeyond system,
DM: "Why does two numbers show up with different damage type? Did you play around with the costume setting this time?"
Me: "No, not this time."
Me: (after a minute) "it rolls two numbers because one is for my longbow and the other is for the Unarmed Strike." "I will use the roll20 for the hunter's mark for now on".
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
You know, after reading this I am now more convinced that Hunter's mark does not bypass non-magic resistances. The spell makes the weapon attack do extra damage. Is the weapon attack magical? No. Does the spell make the attack magic? No. So is the damage dealt by a "nonmagical attack"? Yes. Then it resists it.
Furthermore, I am happy to apply this conclusion to hex and sneak attack as well.
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
You know, after reading this I am now more convinced that Hunter's mark does not bypass non-magic resistances. The spell makes the weapon attack do extra damage. Is the weapon attack magical? No. Does the spell make the attack magic? No. So is the damage dealt by a "nonmagical attack"? Yes. Then it resists it.
Furthermore, I am happy to apply this conclusion to hex and sneak attack as well.
So, one thing I've been wrong on is the exact wording of the resistance. It's not damage from non-magical sources, it's damage from non-magical attacks. That is actually relevant, and I'm inclined to say that the base weapon damage of the ranger's attack also bypasses the resistance.
You say "Does the spell make the attack magic? No." This the point I definitely disagree on. If an attack is dealing extra damage because of a spell, then it's definitely magic.
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
You know, after reading this I am now more convinced that Hunter's mark does not bypass non-magic resistances. The spell makes the weapon attack do extra damage. Is the weapon attack magical? No. Does the spell make the attack magic? No. So is the damage dealt by a "nonmagical attack"? Yes. Then it resists it.
Furthermore, I am happy to apply this conclusion to hex and sneak attack as well.
So, one thing I've been wrong on is the exact wording of the resistance. It's not damage from non-magical sources, it's damage from non-magical attacks. That is actually relevant, and I'm inclined to say that the base weapon damage of the ranger's attack also bypasses the resistance.
You say "Does the spell make the attack magic? No." This the point I definitely disagree on. If an attack is dealing extra damage because of a spell, then it's definitely magic.
But spells that make the weapon damage magical specifically say so. magic weapon, elemental weapon, holy weapon. And I don't think Hunter's mark is intended to be a better version of a level 3 spell...
Hunter's Mark wouldn't make the weapon itself overcome non-magical resistance - just the extra damage the spell provides. At least - that's what I'm reading into it.
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
You know, after reading this I am now more convinced that Hunter's mark does not bypass non-magic resistances. The spell makes the weapon attack do extra damage. Is the weapon attack magical? No. Does the spell make the attack magic? No. So is the damage dealt by a "nonmagical attack"? Yes. Then it resists it.
Furthermore, I am happy to apply this conclusion to hex and sneak attack as well.
It doesn't apply to hex. Hex specifically does an extra d6 necrotic damage so that is the damage resistance/immunity that comes into play not bludgeoning, piercing or slashing.
Sneak attack is clear that the damage is added on to the weapon and it comes from a magical source depending on whether or not the weapon is magical.
In the case of hunter's mark, it also does an extra d6 of damage. The type of the damage is not specified in the spell so the usual assumption is that the damage type is the same as the weapon - thus bludgeoning, piercing or slashing (usually) as appropriate. The only question is whether the damage comes from a magical source. My interpretation is that since the damage is only present as the result of a spell, the source of the damage is magical. Unlike sneak attack, where the extra d6 of damage is NOT due to a magical source but due to a non-magical class ability. Obviously, other folks disagree ... but if the spell wasn't cast, there would be no extra damage, so the extra damage is due to the spell.
The idea that the type of the spell (divination) makes any difference is a red herring, since as pointed out, there are other divination spells that do damage. Hunters mark also gives you advantage on perception and survival checks related to finding the creature so there is clearly an ongoing magical effect involved.
Anyway, the bottom line is that it is always a DM call, but my interpretation based on the definition in the sage advice compendium that effects caused by spells are considered magical, I consider the extra damage due to hunter's mark to be the same damage type as the weapon but from a magical source.
In the case of hunter's mark, it also does an extra d6 of damage. The type of the damage is not specified in the spell so the usual assumption is that the damage type is the same as the weapon - thus bludgeoning, piercing or slashing (usually) as appropriate. The only question is whether the damage comes from a magical source. My interpretation is that since the damage is only present as the result of a spell, the source of the damage is magical. Unlike sneak attack, where the extra d6 of damage is NOT due to a magical source but due to a non-magical class ability. Obviously, other folks disagree ... but if the spell wasn't cast, there would be no extra damage, so the extra damage is due to the spell.
Following this logic, if a PC has a haste spell active the extra action haste provides is only present as the result of a spell, so an attack with that extra action would be magical and bypass immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks.
In the case of hunter's mark, it also does an extra d6 of damage. The type of the damage is not specified in the spell so the usual assumption is that the damage type is the same as the weapon - thus bludgeoning, piercing or slashing (usually) as appropriate. The only question is whether the damage comes from a magical source. My interpretation is that since the damage is only present as the result of a spell, the source of the damage is magical. Unlike sneak attack, where the extra d6 of damage is NOT due to a magical source but due to a non-magical class ability. Obviously, other folks disagree ... but if the spell wasn't cast, there would be no extra damage, so the extra damage is due to the spell.
Following this logic, if a PC has a haste spell active the extra action haste provides is only present as the result of a spell, so an attack with that extra action would be magical and bypass immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks.
That's not the same logic at all. What part of Haste says anything does extra damage?
If a spell effect describes damage, of any kind, that damage is magical. It’s right in the SAC, plain as day, and I’m not sure why there’s debate about that. Hunters Mark deals 1d6 magical damage, on top of weapon damage (magical or non)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe this is stupid but I’m having trouble understanding this specific damage scenario.
At our last game we had three different attacks on a werewolf and I wasn’t sure which ones hurt them (don’t worry, I played it off like I understood at the table 😂).
Paladin: Non magic weapon attack + smite. Does the smite do damage but the weapon doesn’t?
Rogue: Magical weapon + sneak attack. Does the sneak attack do damage?
Ranger: Non magic weapon + hunter’s Mark. Does the Spell’s bonus damage hit but the normal damage doesn’t?
Paladin: correct. Smite does damage, weapon doesn’t.
Rogue: Yes, the sneak attack damage is from a magical source (the magic weapon), so it gets through.
Ranger: just as paladin, weapon deals no damage but Hunter’s Mark does.
Thank you! That how I played it off but I couldn’t find the rules to clarify this for my pedantic mind.
The only one I know for certain is the Rogue and Sneak Attack. It does the same damage as the weapon so it would be magical.
The Paladin I believe would be Divine Smite only because it says "in addition to" the weapon damage - so it doesn't convert the weapon damage. Some abilities like the Horizon Walker Ranger's Planar Warrior feature do convert the weapon damage (in that case Force) and does so explicitly. Since Divine Smite doesn't say so explicitly - I have to think it doesn't.
The Ranger and Hunter's Mark is a little weird - because Hunter's Mark is a spell and should therefore automatically be magical damage - but it does say "an extra 1d6 damage" which assumes it does the exact same type as the weapon. I would guess that the Hunter's Mark damage would deal damage but the weapon wouldn't - purely because Hunter's Mark is a spell.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The tweets in question are not contradictory. One says that Hunter's Mark is considered a magical source of damage, and the other states what type of damage (e.g. bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) the spell deals. To say Hunter's Mark does the same damage as a nonmagical longbow is to say that it does piercing damage, not that it does nonmagical damage; 5e has no "magical" or "nonmagical" damage, just damage from magical or nonmagical sources.
I agree that the tweets don't contradict.
I do think Hunter's mark is a bit of an odd ruling because the damage does not originate directly from the spell.
The damage definitely originates from the spell. The weapon is the intermediate step. The weapon attack is the means by which you deliver extra damage, but the original source of that extra damage, where that extra damage begins, is the spell.
Right, I just mean it is odd because I don't think any other spell or even ability is ruled like this. Sneak attack was just mentioned which uses the same wording, but has the opposite ruling (magic or not determined by weapon).
You're making some big assumptions about why it gives you extra damage, but also it doesn't matter. You get extra damage because of a spell. That damage is from a magical source (the spell). End of story.
I don’t think that’s the opposite ruling at all. Sneak attack isn’t a spell, so it’s completely different. A magic weapon can make otherwise non-magical damage magical, which feels like it makes intuitive sense. But a mundane weapon can’t take away magic from a spell, which also feels like it makes intuitive sense.
You're right in that I hadn't read to the end of the chain. I have now. You're also right in that piercing damage from Hunter's Mark doesn't bypass resistance to "piercing damage." However, the fact that Hunter's Mark is a spell is sufficient evidence that the source of the damage is magical, which specifically gets past resistance to "piercing damage from nonmagical weapons." Of course it does: even if this spell was somehow not magical, it still wouldn't be a nonmagical weapon.
And the school of the spell is irrelevant. Divination spells can clearly directly deal damage. Mind Spike comes to mind as an obvious example.
Yup.
It is up to DM to decide about the hunter's mark.
DnDbeyond uses the "Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it" method.
This is the conversation between my DM and me as an example,
You know, after reading this I am now more convinced that Hunter's mark does not bypass non-magic resistances. The spell makes the weapon attack do extra damage. Is the weapon attack magical? No. Does the spell make the attack magic? No. So is the damage dealt by a "nonmagical attack"? Yes. Then it resists it.
Furthermore, I am happy to apply this conclusion to hex and sneak attack as well.
So, one thing I've been wrong on is the exact wording of the resistance. It's not damage from non-magical sources, it's damage from non-magical attacks. That is actually relevant, and I'm inclined to say that the base weapon damage of the ranger's attack also bypasses the resistance.
You say "Does the spell make the attack magic? No." This the point I definitely disagree on. If an attack is dealing extra damage because of a spell, then it's definitely magic.
But spells that make the weapon damage magical specifically say so. magic weapon, elemental weapon, holy weapon. And I don't think Hunter's mark is intended to be a better version of a level 3 spell...
Hunter's Mark wouldn't make the weapon itself overcome non-magical resistance - just the extra damage the spell provides. At least - that's what I'm reading into it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It doesn't apply to hex. Hex specifically does an extra d6 necrotic damage so that is the damage resistance/immunity that comes into play not bludgeoning, piercing or slashing.
Sneak attack is clear that the damage is added on to the weapon and it comes from a magical source depending on whether or not the weapon is magical.
In the case of hunter's mark, it also does an extra d6 of damage. The type of the damage is not specified in the spell so the usual assumption is that the damage type is the same as the weapon - thus bludgeoning, piercing or slashing (usually) as appropriate. The only question is whether the damage comes from a magical source. My interpretation is that since the damage is only present as the result of a spell, the source of the damage is magical. Unlike sneak attack, where the extra d6 of damage is NOT due to a magical source but due to a non-magical class ability. Obviously, other folks disagree ... but if the spell wasn't cast, there would be no extra damage, so the extra damage is due to the spell.
The idea that the type of the spell (divination) makes any difference is a red herring, since as pointed out, there are other divination spells that do damage. Hunters mark also gives you advantage on perception and survival checks related to finding the creature so there is clearly an ongoing magical effect involved.
Anyway, the bottom line is that it is always a DM call, but my interpretation based on the definition in the sage advice compendium that effects caused by spells are considered magical, I consider the extra damage due to hunter's mark to be the same damage type as the weapon but from a magical source.
Following this logic, if a PC has a haste spell active the extra action haste provides is only present as the result of a spell, so an attack with that extra action would be magical and bypass immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks.
That's not the same logic at all. What part of Haste says anything does extra damage?
If a spell effect describes damage, of any kind, that damage is magical. It’s right in the SAC, plain as day, and I’m not sure why there’s debate about that. Hunters Mark deals 1d6 magical damage, on top of weapon damage (magical or non)