In my head, if a spelldeals damage then that damage is magical, even if the damage type is bludgeoning, piercing or slashing. Unless the spell summons a creature with its own stat block, in which case that creature deals damage as stated in the stat block and this damage isn't magical unless described as such.
That’s very much what I’ve been saying. and the first part is not just in your head, it’s in the rules.
”Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.”
(monster manual, monster rules in the beginning of the book)
When I said "in my head" I was really referring to my entire paragraph including the "Unless" part. i.e. If a spell summons a giant rat (using the stat block from the MM), then that rat deals non-magical piercing damage, because its a separate creature with its own stat block even though it was summoned by a spell. On the other hand, cloud of daggers deals slashing damage but still magical damage because it isn't a creature with its own stat block - its just all part of the spell description hence falls under the rules you mentioned.
In my head, if a spelldeals damage then that damage is magical, even if the damage type is bludgeoning, piercing or slashing. Unless the spell summons a creature with its own stat block, in which case that creature deals damage as stated in the stat block and this damage isn't magical unless described as such.
That’s very much what I’ve been saying. and the first part is not just in your head, it’s in the rules.
”Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.”
(monster manual, monster rules in the beginning of the book)
When I said "in my head" I was really referring to my entire paragraph including the "Unless" part. i.e. If a spell summons a giant rat (using the stat block from the MM), then that rat deals non-magical piercing damage, because its a separate creature with its own stat block even though it was summoned by a spell. On the other hand, cloud of daggers deals slashing damage but still magical damage because it isn't a creature with its own stat block - its just all part of the spell description hence falls under the rules you mentioned.
Yeah, I’m just saying that it really comes down to whether or not the summoned creature is a separate thing that does (or doesn’t) do it’s own magical attacks independently of the spell. And if the authors are saying that the summoned/conjured creatures don’t do magical damage, such as with the Tasha spells…. then that pretty clearly sets them apart from the MM rule I just quoted.
If their damage was being done by the spell itself, then the MM rule says that it would be magical. The Tasha clarifications someone else brought up earlier say it’s not magical damage, therefore the damage isn’t being done by the spell itself.
The easiest way to determine if a spell summons something and that something makes does damage (non-magical damage), and whether a spell itself is doing damage, is whether or not the "thing" that has been summoned can be destroyed / killed.
Summon Beast, Conjure Animals, Conjure Elemental, Infernal Call, etc... all conjure creatures with full statblock and can be killed.
Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Blades, Blade of Disaster, etc... all conjure magical effects that are flavoured as objects but have no stats associated with them, thus cannot be destroyed/killed
Animate Objects and Bigby's Hand both create objects/creatures with AC and hit points and other stats (though not written as formal statblocks) thus deal non-magical damage.
Bigby's hand explicitly summons (or creates, I guess) an object. It summons (creates) an object just as much as summon beast creates (summons) a creature. So, I ask again, why is only one "the spell itself" and the other a distinct entity that is caused, sustained, and described by the spell but not actually a part of the spell? You keep saying that with complete conviction but you've yet to give any reasoning or rules to back it up. That's all I'm asking for.
I have backed it up multiple times. And you even stated it in your comment.
Further, you’re trying to equivocate between “summon (create)” with “create (summon)”, when they’re not the same thing. A thing that is summoned is not created, and visa versa. The rules never conflate creating and summoning.
Well, the rules never say that they're the same thing, but considering the two terms have the exact same effect, I kinda assumed.
You’re also trying to equivocate between a creature and an object. The rules differentiate between creatures and objects, they’re two completely different sections of the rules. The two spells explicitly differentiate between what you have (a creature or an object). So you can’t just use them interchangeably.
Youre saying these things (create vs summon, and creature vs object) that are different from each other … and then asking how they’re not the same. Because the rules define them to be different from each other. The rules say an object and creature aren’t the same thing.
I know that objects and creatures aren't the same thing. I'm saying that the rules make no distinction between how objects and creatures are summoned/created (let's just say manifested) by spells.
Summon Beast is explicitly telling you that you summoned a creature. And then tells you what that creature itself can do via its stat block and the definitions therein. A caster can command a creature with varying types of effectiveness, but unless they’ve dominated it or possessed it, they aren’t acting through the creature.
Bigby’s Hand is telling you that you created an object (so explicitly not “summoned a creature”). And then it tells you what the caster can do with the object they created before it disappears. As an object, it doesn’t act on its own(because objects are explicitly defined by the rules to be inanimate - they don’t act of their own animus): the caster acts through the object.
The reason they’re not the same, and that Bigby’s Hand is creating a spell effect and not an independent self acting entity, where Summon Beast is summoning an independent self acting entity …. is because the rule terms say those things by referencing “create” instead of “summon” and “object” instead of “creature”.
The fact that you have more control over one seems irrelevant. If you could use a bonus action to change the color of the effects of one spell, but not those of another, that doesn't mean that the former is any more of a spell effect than the latter, even though you have more control over it. This same concept can be translated to more practical things, such as the "independent self acting entity" clause. For example, cloudkill moves every turn, regardless of what the caster wants it to do, just like summon beast might Dodge or move by itself. Does that mean that cloudkill is an independent self-acting entity?
Oh, and by the way, summon is actually not a term that is used in the description of summon beast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
In any case all of that requires interpretation, for something that could be crucial.
The only problem could be with creatures immune to non-magical physical damage triad, as some are thematically right, but having only a +1 weapon bypass totally that reducing the tier too much. A safe option if removing the "magical" from damage could be to change all that physical immunities to resistance, at cost of losing some flavor. I.e. while it could be right the Lich being immune to non-magical physical damage (they cannot be hurt with mundane damage), making it resistant could balance the CR for those with magical weapons and avoid to get stuck for those without magical weapons.
The tier change based on if wearing magical weapons is too large, i.e. low-mid level bosses like Gorthok the Thunder Boar, and I suspect is the same for higher ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I said "in my head" I was really referring to my entire paragraph including the "Unless" part. i.e. If a spell summons a giant rat (using the stat block from the MM), then that rat deals non-magical piercing damage, because its a separate creature with its own stat block even though it was summoned by a spell. On the other hand, cloud of daggers deals slashing damage but still magical damage because it isn't a creature with its own stat block - its just all part of the spell description hence falls under the rules you mentioned.
Yeah, I’m just saying that it really comes down to whether or not the summoned creature is a separate thing that does (or doesn’t) do it’s own magical attacks independently of the spell. And if the authors are saying that the summoned/conjured creatures don’t do magical damage, such as with the Tasha spells…. then that pretty clearly sets them apart from the MM rule I just quoted.
If their damage was being done by the spell itself, then the MM rule says that it would be magical. The Tasha clarifications someone else brought up earlier say it’s not magical damage, therefore the damage isn’t being done by the spell itself.
The easiest way to determine if a spell summons something and that something makes does damage (non-magical damage), and whether a spell itself is doing damage, is whether or not the "thing" that has been summoned can be destroyed / killed.
Summon Beast, Conjure Animals, Conjure Elemental, Infernal Call, etc... all conjure creatures with full statblock and can be killed.
Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Blades, Blade of Disaster, etc... all conjure magical effects that are flavoured as objects but have no stats associated with them, thus cannot be destroyed/killed
Animate Objects and Bigby's Hand both create objects/creatures with AC and hit points and other stats (though not written as formal statblocks) thus deal non-magical damage.
I don’t agree about Bigby’s Hand (because of Object vs Creature), but I can’t fault the reasoning.
Well, the rules never say that they're the same thing, but considering the two terms have the exact same effect, I kinda assumed.
I know that objects and creatures aren't the same thing. I'm saying that the rules make no distinction between how objects and creatures are summoned/created (let's just say manifested) by spells.
The fact that you have more control over one seems irrelevant. If you could use a bonus action to change the color of the effects of one spell, but not those of another, that doesn't mean that the former is any more of a spell effect than the latter, even though you have more control over it. This same concept can be translated to more practical things, such as the "independent self acting entity" clause. For example, cloudkill moves every turn, regardless of what the caster wants it to do, just like summon beast might Dodge or move by itself. Does that mean that cloudkill is an independent self-acting entity?
Oh, and by the way, summon is actually not a term that is used in the description of summon beast.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
In any case all of that requires interpretation, for something that could be crucial.
The only problem could be with creatures immune to non-magical physical damage triad, as some are thematically right, but having only a +1 weapon bypass totally that reducing the tier too much. A safe option if removing the "magical" from damage could be to change all that physical immunities to resistance, at cost of losing some flavor. I.e. while it could be right the Lich being immune to non-magical physical damage (they cannot be hurt with mundane damage), making it resistant could balance the CR for those with magical weapons and avoid to get stuck for those without magical weapons.
The tier change based on if wearing magical weapons is too large, i.e. low-mid level bosses like Gorthok the Thunder Boar, and I suspect is the same for higher ones.