Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
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)
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
You haven't read the DMG definition of Heroic fantasy. You are reading another definition of Heroic fantasy and interjecting it into the DMG rather than use the Rules as Written.
Not only have I read it, I referenced it to you.
Further, the definitions are not in conflict with each other. Nor is the DMG use of the term one that exists in a vacuum. It is a local explanation of the larger term, and does not contradict the larger term. Nor does it mention low magic. You’re trying to play word games to avoid admitting that you’re completely wrong.
Try again. RAW doesn't mean they work. RAW does not mean RAI.
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
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)
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
In the case of either spell, does the creature’s stats say that it does magical bludgeon/piercing/slashing damage? If not, there you go.
As far as why a system should be kept or replaced, it comes down to two things: Don’t fix what ain’t broke, and is the new option better? In this instance I’d argue the current system is not broken and that the new rule is worse, for the reasons I’ve already provided. No one argued that Polymorph did Magical Damage by the way. AgileMind had a post that was confusing to me which brought this up and somehow suggested that Polymorph was intended to balance itself out against fighters with magical weapons? I was extremely confused. Someone else somehow suggested that Polymorph was OP, though, so that helped cement the confusion
As far as why a system should be kept or replaced, it comes down to two things: Don’t fix what ain’t broke, and is the new option better? In this instance I’d argue the current system is not broken and that the new rule is worse, for the reasons I’ve already provided. No one argued that Polymorph did Magical Damage by the way. AgileMind had a post that was confusing to me which brought this up and somehow suggested that Polymorph was intended to balance itself out against fighters with magical weapons? I was extremely confused. Someone else somehow suggested that Polymorph was OP, though, so that helped cement the confusion
Originally, I liked the idea of the Monk’s empowered strikes shifting to “force damage”, but I fairly quickly was convinced otherwise (by someone I seem to have a lot of animated arguments with). I like the idea of adding the option of damage type to empowered strikes, but otherwise agree with you that:
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
Oh, sorry. The fact that the spell isn't causing the damage wasn't very clear to me.
Does casting light on a weapon make it magical? How about darkness? Take cloud of daggers; those daggers are just as summoned as the creatures from conjure animals are. So are they magical? Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
And, by the way, I don't care if you can answer each and every one of these questions. Because the point isn't that it's a completely broken rule, the point is that the rule is not as clearas you seem to think.
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)
You haven't read the DMG definition of Heroic fantasy. You are reading another definition of Heroic fantasy and interjecting it into the DMG rather than use the Rules as Written.
Not only have I read it, I referenced it to you.
Further, the definitions are not in conflict with each other. Nor is the DMG use of the term one that exists in a vacuum. It is a local explanation of the larger term, and does not contradict the larger term. Nor does it mention low magic. You’re trying to play word games to avoid admitting that you’re completely wrong.
Try again. RAW doesn't mean they work. RAW does not mean RAI.
Doesn’t change a thing about what I said.
No you didn't read it. Here let me help you again.
"The PHB describes this baseline: A multitude of humanoids coexist with humans in a fantastical world. Adventurers bring magical powers against monstrous threats they face. These characters come from ordinary backgrounds, but something compels them into adventuring life. The adventurers are the "heroes" of the campaign but might not be truly heroic instead pursuing this life for selfish reasons. Technology and society are based on medieval norms, but the culture isn't necessarily European. Campaigns often revolve around delving into dungeons in search of treasure or in an effort to destroy monsters or villains."
Nothing in here says that magic can't be rare. Remember I am saying LOW magic not NO Magic. So, again, RAW low magic is a thing. And RAW Low magic doesn't actually work because of the monster design. This is WHY they are getting away from saying "Resistance to non-magical physical damage". Because WotC has recognized this issue. This is why so many revised monsters in MoM have gone from having that line to NOT having it and having more health. This isn't just an opinion I have, it is what WotC is actively doing to allow for more variety in their settings and play groups.
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
Oh, sorry. The fact that the spell isn't causing the damage wasn't very clear to me.
Does either spell have damage dice? No. That is impeccably clear.
Does the spell have damage dice? yes. Does it say to use the stats of the daggers themselves? no. Just as clear as Conjure Animals, just the opposite answers.
Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
For any spell:
Does the spell have damage dice? if Yes: the spell is doing the damage and it is magical damage. If no: does the spell say it is making a weapon magical? if yes: that weapon (not the spell) is doing the damage, and it’s magical. If neither of those: the spell isn’t doing the damage, and the spell didn’t make the object into a magical weapon, so the spell isn’t part of the equation of “does that thing do magical damage?”
Does the spell say to use something else’s stats? if Yes: does that other thing’s stats say it is a magical weapon or does magical damage? Because the spell isn’t doing that damage, the other thing and it’s stats are.
And, by the way, I don't care if you can answer each and every one of these questions. Because the point isn't that it's a completely broken rule, the point is that the rule is not as clearas you seem to think.
Really? because that simple flow of counter questions I gave are simple, straight forward, and clear. And in no way broken.
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
Oh, sorry. The fact that the spell isn't causing the damage wasn't very clear to me.
Does casting light on a weapon make it magical? How about darkness? Take cloud of daggers; those daggers are just as summoned as the creatures from conjure animals are. So are they magical? Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
And, by the way, I don't care if you can answer each and every one of these questions. Because the point isn't that it's a completely broken rule, the point is that the rule is not as clearas you seem to think.
If the point is countered it’s not impossible that you are making it complicated for your own reasons. Engaging in a discussion and ending it with “I win!” isn’t really showing anyone anything.
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animalsdon't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
Oh, sorry. The fact that the spell isn't causing the damage wasn't very clear to me.
Does either spell have damage dice? No. That is impeccably clear.
Does the spell have damage dice? yes. Does it say to use the stats of the daggers themselves? no. Just as clear as Conjure Animals, just the opposite answers.
Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
For any spell:
Does the spell have damage dice? if Yes: the spell is doing the damage and it is magical damage. If no: does the spell say it is making a weapon magical? if yes: that weapon (not the spell) is doing the damage, and it’s magical. If neither of those: the spell isn’t doing the damage, and the spell didn’t make the object into a magical weapon, so the spell isn’t part of the equation of “does that thing do magical damage?”
Does the spell say to use something else’s stats? if Yes: does that other thing’s stats say it is a magical weapon or does magical damage? Because the spell isn’t doing that damage, the other thing and it’s stats are.
And, by the way, I don't care if you can answer each and every one of these questions. Because the point isn't that it's a completely broken rule, the point is that the rule is not as clearas you seem to think.
Really? because that simple flow of counter questions I gave are simple, straight forward, and clear. And in no way broken.
The fact that the questions can be asked at all is proof that it isn't clear. Yes you can answer, but you do not play at every table. Not every table is going to be able to figure this out. Rules Ambiguity is another thing WotC is moving away from.
WOTC are more than capable of making mistakes, as history (recent and otherwise) has shown. Arguing that choosing to run a Low Magic Game is Hard within D&D should be self evident. And just increasing a monsters HP is extremely boring. The game is dead if it just comes down to baseline hp, attack bonus, and damage.
Does the spell have damage dice? yes. Does it say to use the stats of the daggers themselves? no. Just as clear as Conjure Animals, just the opposite answers.
So, whether or not something is magical depends on whether or not it references something outside of the spell. What brought you to that conclusion, if you don't mind me asking?
Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
For any spell:
Does the spell have damage dice? if Yes: the spell is doing the damage and it is magical damage. If no: does the spell say it is making a weapon magical? if yes: that weapon (not the spell) is doing the damage, and it’s magical. If neither of those: the spell isn’t doing the damage, and the spell didn’t make the object into a magical weapon, so the spell isn’t part of the equation of “does that thing do magical damage?”
Does the spell say to use something else’s stats? if Yes: does that other thing’s stats say it is a magical weapon or does magical damage? Because the spell isn’t doing that damage, the other thing and it’s stats are.
So, summon beastdoes do magical damage but conjure animalsdoesn't. I think. Because quite frankly, after reading your super duper clear set of rules, I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to ask what part of the rules got you to this simple program for deciding magicness.
Oh, and by the way, I've seen a bunch of people (who know the game well) claim that Tasha's summon spells don't do magical damage. But clearly, they're wrong.
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)
There is no ambiguity. There is manufactured confusion in the defense of some groups that supposedly can’t read (even though they somehow purchased a game composed of textbooks). This supposed ambiguity will exist eternally, for the same reason we have court systems that routinely argue the same point from 20 different perspectives
Now that summon beast has been mentioned I get it. My general contention would be that Meteor Swarms bludgeoning damage is magical as the damage results directly from the spell. Summon Beasts summons a spirit in corporeal form with attached stats, the stat block being the part that does damage. And so without a qualifier suggesting the spirits damage is magical, it isn’t.
This seems like a quick Sage Advice, assuming even that was required.
WOTC are more than capable of making mistakes, as history (recent and otherwise) has shown. Arguing that choosing to run a Low Magic Game is Hard within D&D should be self evident. And just increasing a monsters HP is extremely boring. The game is dead if it just comes down to baseline hp, attack bonus, and damage.
Agreed. Which is why it is SO much more interesting to make it just "resistant to piercing damge" or "resistant to bludgeoning damage" or what have you. As is it is simply an on off switch past a certain level. Either you have a magical weapon or you dont. If you don't well guess you will suck for this encounter, and if you do, guess this encounter is just going to be too easy. Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning is neither interesting nor does it actually help balance or anything because the broken spells are still broken. Simply put, there are better ways to do this than the current method it has.
You haven't read the DMG definition of Heroic fantasy. You are reading another definition of Heroic fantasy and interjecting it into the DMG rather than use the Rules as Written.
Not only have I read it, I referenced it to you.
Further, the definitions are not in conflict with each other. Nor is the DMG use of the term one that exists in a vacuum. It is a local explanation of the larger term, and does not contradict the larger term. Nor does it mention low magic. You’re trying to play word games to avoid admitting that you’re completely wrong.
Try again. RAW doesn't mean they work. RAW does not mean RAI.
Doesn’t change a thing about what I said.
No you didn't read it.
Yep, I did. Right before I first brought it into the conversation by referencing it to you.
Here let me help you again.
"The PHB describes this baseline:
If you’re going to be condescending (“let me help you again”), at least get your details right. It’s from the DMG not the PHB.
A multitude of humanoids coexist with humans in a fantastical world. Adventurers bring magical powers against monstrous threats they face. These characters come from ordinary backgrounds, but something compels them into adventuring life. The adventurers are the "heroes" of the campaign but might not be truly heroic instead pursuing this life for selfish reasons. Technology and society are based on medieval norms, but the culture isn't necessarily European. Campaigns often revolve around delving into dungeons in search of treasure or in an effort to destroy monsters or villains."
Nothing in here says that magic can't be rare.
It also, as I said, does not contradict the general definition of the genre. It is an explanation of the standard version of the genre, not a differentiation from the standard definition of the genre. As I said, the DMG definition doesn’t exist in a vacuum apart from the general definition.
Remember I am saying LOW magic not NO Magic. So, again, RAW low magic is a thing.
Yes. Right before what you quoted, RAW defines Low Magic. As a different set of starting equipment. I never said otherwise.
And where did I say that you said “NO Magic”? Even when I brought up “Low Fantasy”, it says generally rare (with an option for non-existent). No one has been putting “NO Magic” into your mouth before you said it just now. Nothing is changed by you trying to bring that quibble into the conversation.
And RAW Low magic doesn't actually work
Because RAW’s baseline assumptions aren’t low magic/Low Fantasy. Which, as I’ve been saying, means you have to make changes in order to do something that isn’t in line with the baseline assumption.
And even when you tried to bring into it the “The World is a Mundane place” section: that isn’t in the “Core Assumptions” section, it’s in the section after that. Once again, the core / baseline assumption does not include low magic / low fantasy.
This is WHY they are getting away from saying "Resistance to non-magical physical damage". Because WotC has recognized this issue. This is why so many revised monsters in MoM have gone from having that line to NOT having it and having more health. This isn't just an opinion I have, it is what WotC is actively doing to allow for more variety in their settings and play groups.
Really? Which ones _exactly_? Because when I look up things in Monsters of the Multiverse… I still see plenty with:
Damage Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from non-magical attacks.
Including creatures that obsoleted older versions, like the Astral Dreadnaught.
The Damage Resistance wasn’t changed at all.
So, if all of these creatures have been changed: which ones in which books?
If the the only two options that come up when a monster has nonmagical resistance/immunity are...
You ignore it because you have magical weapons
The DM ignores it because you have no magical weapons
…then what's even the point of it being there?
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)
Now that summon beast has been mentioned I get it. My general contention would be that Meteor Swarms bludgeoning damage is magical as the damage results directly from the spell. Summon Beasts summons a spirit in corporeal form with attached stats, the stat block being the part that does damage. And so without a qualifier suggesting the spirits damage is magical, it isn’t.
This seems like a quick Sage Advice, assuming even that was required.
It simply comes down to what is flavour text and what is mechanical, Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, Summon Beast, Polymorph are mechanically defined creatures thus do non-magical damage. Cloud of Daggers the daggers are flavour text and the damage doesn't even match that for a dagger, so deals magical damage. Bigby's hand does force damage for clenched fist so a non-issue, it's grasping bludgeoning would be probably be non-magical but I've never ever seen it happen in play and honestly it should be changed to force damage to match clenched fist.
Changing everything to force damage instead of magical b/s/p clarifies these edge-case spells, but means either every magic weapon is going to have to be redefined to deal force damage, or martials are going to end up crippled by resistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, the rule is awkward because it's not always clear what is magical and what isn't.
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)
How so? The game is very clear about when a weapon is “magical” or not. And what types of non-magical damage get resisted.
Did it come from a spell? magical. Did it come from a weapon described in the magic items section? magical. Did a spell say that it made a weapon “magical”? magical. Anything else? it says it’s magical for the purpose of overcoming X. It’s crystal clear in meaning. It’s wordy (awkward) in wording, not in meaning.
If it’s bludgeoning/piercing/slashing from a non-magical weapon, it’s resisted by those creatures.
How is that not clear?
Not only have I read it, I referenced it to you.
Further, the definitions are not in conflict with each other. Nor is the DMG use of the term one that exists in a vacuum. It is a local explanation of the larger term, and does not contradict the larger term. Nor does it mention low magic. You’re trying to play word games to avoid admitting that you’re completely wrong.
Doesn’t change a thing about what I said.
It's not clear because somebody in this very thread has claimed that spells like polymorph and conjure animals don't do magical damage. But according to you, they do. So obviously it's not as clear as you seem to think.
I'd also like to point out that there have been barely any arguments as to why the current system should be kept.
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)
I never said that a polymorphed creature does magical damage. The spell isn’t causing that damage, the creature is.
In the case of either spell, does the creature’s stats say that it does magical bludgeon/piercing/slashing damage? If not, there you go.
As far as why a system should be kept or replaced, it comes down to two things: Don’t fix what ain’t broke, and is the new option better? In this instance I’d argue the current system is not broken and that the new rule is worse, for the reasons I’ve already provided. No one argued that Polymorph did Magical Damage by the way. AgileMind had a post that was confusing to me which brought this up and somehow suggested that Polymorph was intended to balance itself out against fighters with magical weapons? I was extremely confused. Someone else somehow suggested that Polymorph was OP, though, so that helped cement the confusion
Originally, I liked the idea of the Monk’s empowered strikes shifting to “force damage”, but I fairly quickly was convinced otherwise (by someone I seem to have a lot of animated arguments with). I like the idea of adding the option of damage type to empowered strikes, but otherwise agree with you that:
The 5e version isn’t broken. Don’t fix it.
Oh, sorry. The fact that the spell isn't causing the damage wasn't very clear to me.
Does casting light on a weapon make it magical? How about darkness? Take cloud of daggers; those daggers are just as summoned as the creatures from conjure animals are. So are they magical? Or are they just completely mundane daggers that just so happened to be summoned by a spell? Would you rule Bigby's hand and summon beast differently? Keep in mind that both are things created by spells, with their rules and how they work explicitly explained within the spell. So, does one do magical damage and one nonmagical?
And, by the way, I don't care if you can answer each and every one of these questions. Because the point isn't that it's a completely broken rule, the point is that the rule is not as clear as you seem to think.
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)
No you didn't read it. Here let me help you again.
"The PHB describes this baseline: A multitude of humanoids coexist with humans in a fantastical world. Adventurers bring magical powers against monstrous threats they face. These characters come from ordinary backgrounds, but something compels them into adventuring life. The adventurers are the "heroes" of the campaign but might not be truly heroic instead pursuing this life for selfish reasons. Technology and society are based on medieval norms, but the culture isn't necessarily European. Campaigns often revolve around delving into dungeons in search of treasure or in an effort to destroy monsters or villains."
Nothing in here says that magic can't be rare. Remember I am saying LOW magic not NO Magic. So, again, RAW low magic is a thing. And RAW Low magic doesn't actually work because of the monster design. This is WHY they are getting away from saying "Resistance to non-magical physical damage". Because WotC has recognized this issue. This is why so many revised monsters in MoM have gone from having that line to NOT having it and having more health. This isn't just an opinion I have, it is what WotC is actively doing to allow for more variety in their settings and play groups.
Does either spell have damage dice? No. That is impeccably clear.
Does it say that it makes it magical, the way shillelagh does? or magical weapon does?
Same as Light: does the spell say it makes the object magical? does the spell have damage dice?
Does the spell have damage dice? yes. Does it say to use the stats of the daggers themselves? no. Just as clear as Conjure Animals, just the opposite answers.
For any spell:
Does the spell have damage dice? if Yes: the spell is doing the damage and it is magical damage. If no: does the spell say it is making a weapon magical? if yes: that weapon (not the spell) is doing the damage, and it’s magical. If neither of those: the spell isn’t doing the damage, and the spell didn’t make the object into a magical weapon, so the spell isn’t part of the equation of “does that thing do magical damage?”
Does the spell say to use something else’s stats? if Yes: does that other thing’s stats say it is a magical weapon or does magical damage? Because the spell isn’t doing that damage, the other thing and it’s stats are.
Really? because that simple flow of counter questions I gave are simple, straight forward, and clear. And in no way broken.
If the point is countered it’s not impossible that you are making it complicated for your own reasons. Engaging in a discussion and ending it with “I win!” isn’t really showing anyone anything.
The fact that the questions can be asked at all is proof that it isn't clear. Yes you can answer, but you do not play at every table. Not every table is going to be able to figure this out. Rules Ambiguity is another thing WotC is moving away from.
WOTC are more than capable of making mistakes, as history (recent and otherwise) has shown. Arguing that choosing to run a Low Magic Game is Hard within D&D should be self evident. And just increasing a monsters HP is extremely boring. The game is dead if it just comes down to baseline hp, attack bonus, and damage.
So, whether or not something is magical depends on whether or not it references something outside of the spell. What brought you to that conclusion, if you don't mind me asking?
So, summon beast does do magical damage but conjure animals doesn't. I think. Because quite frankly, after reading your super duper clear set of rules, I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to ask what part of the rules got you to this simple program for deciding magicness.
Oh, and by the way, I've seen a bunch of people (who know the game well) claim that Tasha's summon spells don't do magical damage. But clearly, they're wrong.
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)
There is no ambiguity. There is manufactured confusion in the defense of some groups that supposedly can’t read (even though they somehow purchased a game composed of textbooks). This supposed ambiguity will exist eternally, for the same reason we have court systems that routinely argue the same point from 20 different perspectives
Now that summon beast has been mentioned I get it. My general contention would be that Meteor Swarms bludgeoning damage is magical as the damage results directly from the spell. Summon Beasts summons a spirit in corporeal form with attached stats, the stat block being the part that does damage. And so without a qualifier suggesting the spirits damage is magical, it isn’t.
This seems like a quick Sage Advice, assuming even that was required.
Agreed. Which is why it is SO much more interesting to make it just "resistant to piercing damge" or "resistant to bludgeoning damage" or what have you. As is it is simply an on off switch past a certain level. Either you have a magical weapon or you dont. If you don't well guess you will suck for this encounter, and if you do, guess this encounter is just going to be too easy. Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning is neither interesting nor does it actually help balance or anything because the broken spells are still broken. Simply put, there are better ways to do this than the current method it has.
Yep, I did. Right before I first brought it into the conversation by referencing it to you.
If you’re going to be condescending (“let me help you again”), at least get your details right. It’s from the DMG not the PHB.
It also, as I said, does not contradict the general definition of the genre. It is an explanation of the standard version of the genre, not a differentiation from the standard definition of the genre. As I said, the DMG definition doesn’t exist in a vacuum apart from the general definition.
Yes. Right before what you quoted, RAW defines Low Magic. As a different set of starting equipment. I never said otherwise.
And where did I say that you said “NO Magic”? Even when I brought up “Low Fantasy”, it says generally rare (with an option for non-existent). No one has been putting “NO Magic” into your mouth before you said it just now. Nothing is changed by you trying to bring that quibble into the conversation.
Because RAW’s baseline assumptions aren’t low magic/Low Fantasy. Which, as I’ve been saying, means you have to make changes in order to do something that isn’t in line with the baseline assumption.
And even when you tried to bring into it the “The World is a Mundane place” section: that isn’t in the “Core Assumptions” section, it’s in the section after that. Once again, the core / baseline assumption does not include low magic / low fantasy.
Really? Which ones _exactly_? Because when I look up things in Monsters of the Multiverse… I still see plenty with:
Damage Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from non-magical attacks.
Including creatures that obsoleted older versions, like the Astral Dreadnaught.
The Damage Resistance wasn’t changed at all.
So, if all of these creatures have been changed: which ones in which books?
If the the only two options that come up when a monster has nonmagical resistance/immunity are...
…then what's even the point of it being there?
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)
It simply comes down to what is flavour text and what is mechanical, Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, Summon Beast, Polymorph are mechanically defined creatures thus do non-magical damage. Cloud of Daggers the daggers are flavour text and the damage doesn't even match that for a dagger, so deals magical damage. Bigby's hand does force damage for clenched fist so a non-issue, it's grasping bludgeoning would be probably be non-magical but I've never ever seen it happen in play and honestly it should be changed to force damage to match clenched fist.
Changing everything to force damage instead of magical b/s/p clarifies these edge-case spells, but means either every magic weapon is going to have to be redefined to deal force damage, or martials are going to end up crippled by resistance.