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?
Where did I say “outside”?
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.
Really? does the Summon Beast say the spell has damage dice? no. does the spell say to use a creature stat block? yes. Does that stat block say that the creature does magical damage? no. Trying to play games about where the stat block is printed doesn’t change anything about what I said. The spells description does not say that the spell has damage dice, it says to use a stat block, which was a clear part of my statements: the stat block says it’s a magical attack if it is a magical attack; if it doesn’t say that, it’s not.
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.
You might think they’re wrong. I don’t, and I didn’t contradict them.
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?
Certainly an issue that ties into something like wealth-by-level guidelines, which would be nice. I will admit that one issue that has come up is when the weapon resistances were working as intended but that then led to the magic weapon golf bag conundrum: players felt they were somehow expected in to have a weapon for every scenario. Magical, Non Magical, Silver, Adamantine, Holy, Unholy … Epic even. The players saw what was supposed to be a solution to a problem (having weapon resistance / immunity mean something) AS the problem. But that reduction in effectiveness when you lacked the right tool was a wonderful explanation for Werewolves, one of the most obvious monsters that would require something special. As an aside, I’m starting to think The Witcher games solution was solid: one for monsters, one for men.
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.
Really? does the Summon Beast say the spell has damage dice? no. does the spell say to use a creature stat block? yes. Does that stat block say that the creature does magical damage? no. Trying to play games about where the stat block is printed doesn’t change anything about what I said. The spells description does not say that the spell has damage dice, it says to use a stat block, which was a clear part of my statements: the stat block says it’s a magical attack if it is a magical attack; if it doesn’t say that, it’s not.
I wasn't sure what you meant by damage dice (and I'm honestly still not). Sorry, that's probably just me completely misreading your super clear algorithm for determining magicness. Using a stat block was not a clear part of your statements; using something else's stats was. Unlike spells akin to find familiar, summon beast isn't using anything else's stats, but rather using its own. I wasn't trying to play games about where the stat block is printed, I was trying to interpret what you were saying.
But still, I don't see why the spell using a stat block makes it any different than something like, say Bigby's hand. What about a stat block is inherently nonmagical?
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)
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
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?
Certainly an issue that ties into something like wealth-by-level guidelines, which would be nice. I will admit that one issue that has come up is when the weapon resistances were working as intended but that then led to the magic weapon golf bag conundrum: players felt they were somehow expected in to have a weapon for every scenario. Magical, Non Magical, Silver, Adamantine, Holy, Unholy … Epic even. The players saw what was supposed to be a solution to a problem (having weapon resistance / immunity mean something) AS the problem. But that reduction in effectiveness when you lacked the right tool was a wonderful explanation for Werewolves, one of the most obvious monsters that would require something special. As an aside, I’m starting to think The Witcher games solution was solid: one for monsters, one for men.
I will note, if you look at MoM most of the monsters that still have resistance make sense to have it. I am fine with it existing, and we are seeing ways around it, but I like the more interesting ways around it like doing force damage, or radiant damage or something else. Magic weapons bypassing it are still fine, but the problem before was they were slapping that on a lot of things that didn't make sense.
Another great example is the Demogorgon that is outright immune to non-magical weapons, and it SHOULD be. The thing being unkillable by normal means is apart of the lore of the creature. But it is pretty much a non-factor by the time you face it. Whether it had that listed or not wouldn't actually mean anything because you aren't throwing that at a party that doesn't have magic weapons.
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.
Really? does the Summon Beast say the spell has damage dice? no. does the spell say to use a creature stat block? yes. Does that stat block say that the creature does magical damage? no. Trying to play games about where the stat block is printed doesn’t change anything about what I said. The spells description does not say that the spell has damage dice, it says to use a stat block, which was a clear part of my statements: the stat block says it’s a magical attack if it is a magical attack; if it doesn’t say that, it’s not.
I wasn't sure what you meant by damage dice (and I'm honestly still not).
When you read fireball, does it mention damage dice inside of a stat block? or in the spell description but independently of a stat block? (the latter)
When you read cloud of daggers, does it give a stat block for daggers, or reference using a stat block for daggers, or just tell you in the spell description what damage dice it delivers? (just damage, no stat block nor reference to a stat block)
Sorry, that's probably just me completely misreading your super clear algorithm for determining magicness. Using a stat block was not a clear part of your statements; using something else's stats was.
But no statement that the something else is “outside”. Summon Beast has a spell stat block (with no mention of damage, just things like spell school, duration, components, etc.), a spell description, and a creature stat block. It says to use the creature’s stat block: something else’s stat block (other than the spell’s stat block) is what does the damage.
Unlike spells akin to find familiar, summon beast isn't using anything else's stats, but rather using its own.
It says to use a creature’s stat block. The fact that the stat block is also right there doesn’t change that. Outside of the stat block, is any mention of damage dice made in the spell’s description? no. so the spell doesn’t say that the spell itself does damage. It says that it summons a creature… and the creature’s stat block says what type of damage the creature (not the spell) does.
I wasn't trying to play games about where the stat block is printed, I was trying to interpret what you were saying.
But still, I don't see why the spell using a stat block makes it any different than something like, say Bigby's hand. What about a stat block is inherently nonmagical?
Does Bigby’s hand say to use a stat block? no, Does Bigby’s hand have damage dice in the spell’s description? yes. Therefore the spell is what is doing the damage, not some other thing.
I don’t understand why you have trouble differentiating between “the spell’s own stat block (school, duration, components, etc.) right before the spell’s description”, “the spell’s description”, and “a stat block that isn’t the spell’s stat block (without regard to where this stat block was printed)”. What is so difficult about differentiating between those three things? Help me understand what you can’t differentiate in those 3 things.
Fir example, the PHB clearly states, in chapter 10, the second paragraph of “casting a spell”:
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
This clearly defines the first two things: The spell’s stat block (“begins with a block of information”), and the spell’s description. Any other stat block (whether printed with the spell or somewhere else) is not the spell’s stat block, because the spell’s stat block was before the spell’s description and includes the spell’s name, level, etc. Any other stat block is …
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there has to be something in the Damage/Effect section above the spell's description for the spell to actually be doing the damage. If there's nothing there, then the damage is being caused by something separate from the spell that the spell causes, and the damage is therefore not inherently magical. So the Damage/Effect section is the deciding factor here.
Since something like fireball has a thing in Damage/Effect, its damage is magical, but since summon beast has nothing in that section, its damage is nonmagical.
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)
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
If you have a Legendary +3 sword I’m betting you have no problem with the CR 1 Spector. Assuming you are a level 1 character who for some reason has this powerful weapon you still have +3 to attack and damage rolls and whatever other feature the sword provides that makes it legendary. If the DM wanted to give you a weapon to deal damage to the specter you just need a weapon that deals force damage to achieve that. I would assume weapons meant to overcome resistances to b/p/s would just do force or some other type of damage. Or just say they ignore resistance to b/p/s. Also while some people are saying force damage doesn’t fit coming from a weapon I will ask them about spiritual weapon, and steel wind strike. Force damage has meant raw magical damage for years now. Force damage isn’t just impact damage because that is bludgeoning damage.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there has to be something in the Damage/Effect section above the spell's description
Where did I say above the spell’s description? as opposed to damage dice in the description and not in something else’s stat block?
Fireball: damage dice in the description, and not in _anything_ else’s stat block.
Summon Beast: no damage dice in the spell’s description, only damage dice in something else’s stat block (the Beastial Spirit stat block, which is not the spell’s stat block).
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there has to be something in the Damage/Effect section above the spell's description
Where did I say above the spell’s description? as opposed to damage dice in the description and not in something else’s stat block?
Fireball: damage dice in the description, and not in _anything_ else’s stat block.
Summon Beast: no damage dice in the spell’s description, only damage dice in something else’s stat block (the Beastial Spirit stat block, which is not the spell’s stat block).
Okay sorry, I got confused because you kept saying "spell's stat block". But anyways. Why do you think that the bestial spirit stat block is not part of summon beast? I'd say that the stat block is a part of the description, and any description of the spell that lacks the stat block is lacking an integral part of the spell's description, which is not true for things like find familiar. In fact, we can see this dichotomy right here on Beyond. The description for summon beast has the stat block within it, and the stat block has no page of its own. Compare this to find familiar, where each of the animals are separate from the spell and have their own pages, and you can tell that they didn't just include the stat block in summon beast for convenience. The bestial spirit's Strength of 18 is as integral to the spell as Bigby's hand's Strength of 26. So where's the difference?
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)
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
Well, let’s start with, right from MoM:
Astral Dreadnaught, Cadaver Collector, Retriever, Steel Predator, the various abishai’s
If they are phasing out that language in general, and not just for some creatures, why are they still using it for those creatures?
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
If you have a Legendary +3 sword I’m betting you have no problem with the CR 1 Spector. Assuming you are a level 1 character who for some reason has this powerful weapon you still have +3 to attack and damage rolls and whatever other feature the sword provides that makes it legendary. If the DM wanted to give you a weapon to deal damage to the specter you just need a weapon that deals force damage to achieve that. I would assume weapons meant to overcome resistances to b/p/s would just do force or some other type of damage. Or just say they ignore resistance to b/p/s. Also while some people are saying force damage doesn’t fit coming from a weapon I will ask them about spiritual weapon, and steel wind strike. Force damage has meant raw magical damage for years now. Force damage isn’t just impact damage because that is bludgeoning damage.
I mean they will, because they do so already. Getting a +1 weapon is barely noticable in terms of increase in damage, players are only excited about it because it circumvents the nonmagical resistances. So now all the martial characters will just be dealing force damage beyond level 5, which IMO is less interesting than magical b/s/p and detracts from the immersion of hacking a monster's head off with your battleaxe or crushing the enemy's ribs with your maul or stabbing your rapier into the creature's guts, if all three of these weapons are all dealing the exact same kind of damage.
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
Well, let’s start with, right from MoM:
Astral Dreadnaught, Cadaver Collector, Retriever, Steel Predator, the various abishai’s
If they are phasing out that language in general, and not just for some creatures, why are they still using it for those creatures?
Phasing out does not mean cutting out entirely. Do you have a different dictionary than I do? And I have already stated that some creatures will likely keep it due to lore reasons, like vampires, were creatures, many FIENDS and some undead. Needing something special to damage certain creatures makes sense. The previous habit had them slapping that on a lot of creatures above a certain CR so once players got strong enough it was just assumed they would have magic weapons. That doesn't mean that things like doing radiant damage or the like aren't more interesting. Heck that is how the Sun Blade works.
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
If you have a Legendary +3 sword I’m betting you have no problem with the CR 1 Spector. Assuming you are a level 1 character who for some reason has this powerful weapon you still have +3 to attack and damage rolls and whatever other feature the sword provides that makes it legendary. If the DM wanted to give you a weapon to deal damage to the specter you just need a weapon that deals force damage to achieve that. I would assume weapons meant to overcome resistances to b/p/s would just do force or some other type of damage. Or just say they ignore resistance to b/p/s. Also while some people are saying force damage doesn’t fit coming from a weapon I will ask them about spiritual weapon, and steel wind strike. Force damage has meant raw magical damage for years now. Force damage isn’t just impact damage because that is bludgeoning damage.
I mean they will, because they do so already. Getting a +1 weapon is barely noticable in terms of increase in damage, players are only excited about it because it circumvents the nonmagical resistances. So now all the martial characters will just be dealing force damage beyond level 5, which IMO is less interesting than magical b/s/p and detracts from the immersion of hacking a monster's head off with your battleaxe or crushing the enemy's ribs with your maul or stabbing your rapier into the creature's guts, if all three of these weapons are all dealing the exact same kind of damage.
To be fair there isn't much of a distinction between those 3 any way. You don't see a whole lot of monsters with resistance to piercing and slashing attacks, but not to bludgeoning. There isn't really a difference between a Magic axe and a magic hammer when fighting these creatures beyond the aesthetic. This would be the case regardless of the damage type that was listed.
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
If you have a Legendary +3 sword I’m betting you have no problem with the CR 1 Spector. Assuming you are a level 1 character who for some reason has this powerful weapon you still have +3 to attack and damage rolls and whatever other feature the sword provides that makes it legendary. If the DM wanted to give you a weapon to deal damage to the specter you just need a weapon that deals force damage to achieve that. I would assume weapons meant to overcome resistances to b/p/s would just do force or some other type of damage. Or just say they ignore resistance to b/p/s. Also while some people are saying force damage doesn’t fit coming from a weapon I will ask them about spiritual weapon, and steel wind strike. Force damage has meant raw magical damage for years now. Force damage isn’t just impact damage because that is bludgeoning damage.
I mean they will, because they do so already. Getting a +1 weapon is barely noticable in terms of increase in damage, players are only excited about it because it circumvents the nonmagical resistances. So now all the martial characters will just be dealing force damage beyond level 5, which IMO is less interesting than magical b/s/p and detracts from the immersion of hacking a monster's head off with your battleaxe or crushing the enemy's ribs with your maul or stabbing your rapier into the creature's guts, if all three of these weapons are all dealing the exact same kind of damage.
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
Well, let’s start with, right from MoM:
Astral Dreadnaught, Cadaver Collector, Retriever, Steel Predator, the various abishai’s
If they are phasing out that language in general, and not just for some creatures, why are they still using it for those creatures?
Phasing out does not mean cutting out entirely.
Yes, it does:
“an act or instance of phasing out; planned discontinuation or expiration“
“withdraw something from use in gradual stages”
“a closingdown by phases”
Specified in phases, but not partial in the long run. Phased out means getting rid of it entirely. Phased out in this context would be picking which legacy creatures to update with each new book, but being consistent about not using the old thing throughout the book. Putting out a new book with mixed use wouldn’t be a consistent planned discontinuation,, and/or wouldn’t indicate a complete discontinuation. Either of those things means it’s not “being phased out.”
MoM would indicate they’re aren’t phasing it out, either by not intending a full discontinuation, or by not having planned phases.
Do you have a different dictionary than I do?
I don’t know. I’m using dictionary.com, OED, and Miriam Webster. What are you using?
And I have already stated that some creatures will likely keep it due to lore reasons, like vampires, were creatures, many FIENDS and some undead.
Right, so, first you say they’re getting rid of it as some big point about the mechanic being deficient so they’re getting rid of it, then you’re contradicting that statement by saying they aren’t really getting rid of it _everywhere_. If it’s a broken or deficient mechanic, why aren’t they getting rid of it everywhere? Because it’s not a broken mechanic, they just think some creatures need a different mechanic. If it’s broken, it’s broken everywhere. That’s why they’re keeping it for some and not for others: it’s not a broken/deficient mechanic, it just didn’t fit certain creatures,
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
Well, let’s start with, right from MoM:
Astral Dreadnaught, Cadaver Collector, Retriever, Steel Predator, the various abishai’s
If they are phasing out that language in general, and not just for some creatures, why are they still using it for those creatures?
Phasing out does not mean cutting out entirely.
Yes, it does:
“an act or instance of phasing out; planned discontinuation or expiration“
“withdraw something from use in gradual stages”
“a closingdown by phases”
Fixed the empahsis with bolding for you so you can read the definitions and understand them it isn't all at once not removing it from everyone at the same time it is little by little. Thank you have a nice day.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there has to be something in the Damage/Effect section above the spell's description
Where did I say above the spell’s description? as opposed to damage dice in the description and not in something else’s stat block?
Fireball: damage dice in the description, and not in _anything_ else’s stat block.
Summon Beast: no damage dice in the spell’s description, only damage dice in something else’s stat block (the Beastial Spirit stat block, which is not the spell’s stat block).
Okay sorry, I got confused because you kept saying "spell's stat block".
In clear contrast between:
“the spell’s stat block” (the thing before the spell’s description, and contains the spell’s name, spell’s school, components, duration, etc.)
vs
“something else’s stat block” (any stat block that isn’t the spell’s stat block, without regard to where it is printed).
But anyways. Why do you think that the bestial spirit stat block is not part of summon beast?
I indicated that it is not “the spell’s stat block”, meaning that it is not the thing before/above the spell’s description. That’s what I mean by “something else’s stat block”: not the stat block of the spell itself, that is located before/above the spell’s description (and contains the spell’s name, spell’s school, components, duration, etc.).
I'd say that the stat block is a part of the description, and any description of the spell that lacks the stat block is lacking an integral part of the spell's description, which is not true for things like find familiar. In fact, we can see this dichotomy right here on Beyond. The description for summon beast has the stat block within it, and the stat block has no page of its own. Compare this to find familiar, where each of the animals are separate from the spell and have their own pages, and you can tell that they didn't just include the stat block in summon beast for convenience.
Is the stat block for the bestial spirit inside the spell’s stat block? no. It is a stat block that is not the spell’s stat block. Therefore it is “something else’s stat block.”
Could you put “bestial spirit” into the monster section of a book, remove it from the same page as the spell, and still have the spell work (just like find familiar, conjure animals, conjure celestial, etc)? Yes, Therefore it is no more integral to the “spell description” for “Summon Beast” than the stat block for a Badger is integral to the spell description for “conjure animals”.
The bestial spirit's Strength of 18 is as integral to the spell as Bigby's hand's Strength of 26. So where's the difference?
Is Bigby’s Hand’s strength inside of a stat block? no.
Is Bestial Spirit’s strength inside of a stat block? yes.
(those two lines, right before this one, are the difference you asked for)
Is Bestial Spirit’s strength inside the spell’s stat block? no, so it is “something else’s stat block”.
And the Bestial Spirit’s strength is no more integral to “summon beast” than a badger’s strength is to “conjure animals”.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where did I say “outside”?
Really? does the Summon Beast say the spell has damage dice? no. does the spell say to use a creature stat block? yes. Does that stat block say that the creature does magical damage? no. Trying to play games about where the stat block is printed doesn’t change anything about what I said. The spells description does not say that the spell has damage dice, it says to use a stat block, which was a clear part of my statements: the stat block says it’s a magical attack if it is a magical attack; if it doesn’t say that, it’s not.
You might think they’re wrong. I don’t, and I didn’t contradict them.
Certainly an issue that ties into something like wealth-by-level guidelines, which would be nice. I will admit that one issue that has come up is when the weapon resistances were working as intended but that then led to the magic weapon golf bag conundrum: players felt they were somehow expected in to have a weapon for every scenario. Magical, Non Magical, Silver, Adamantine, Holy, Unholy … Epic even. The players saw what was supposed to be a solution to a problem (having weapon resistance / immunity mean something) AS the problem. But that reduction in effectiveness when you lacked the right tool was a wonderful explanation for Werewolves, one of the most obvious monsters that would require something special. As an aside, I’m starting to think The Witcher games solution was solid: one for monsters, one for men.
I wasn't sure what you meant by damage dice (and I'm honestly still not). Sorry, that's probably just me completely misreading your super clear algorithm for determining magicness. Using a stat block was not a clear part of your statements; using something else's stats was. Unlike spells akin to find familiar, summon beast isn't using anything else's stats, but rather using its own. I wasn't trying to play games about where the stat block is printed, I was trying to interpret what you were saying.
But still, I don't see why the spell using a stat block makes it any different than something like, say Bigby's hand. What about a stat block is inherently nonmagical?
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)
Alhoon, Volo's guide to monsters. Lost damage immunity to slashing piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons. Annis Hag, lost resistance gained 15 more health Volo's guide original location. Boneclaw Mordenkainen's tome of foes. Nupperibo tome of foes. Just to name a few.
I will note, if you look at MoM most of the monsters that still have resistance make sense to have it. I am fine with it existing, and we are seeing ways around it, but I like the more interesting ways around it like doing force damage, or radiant damage or something else. Magic weapons bypassing it are still fine, but the problem before was they were slapping that on a lot of things that didn't make sense.
Another great example is the Demogorgon that is outright immune to non-magical weapons, and it SHOULD be. The thing being unkillable by normal means is apart of the lore of the creature. But it is pretty much a non-factor by the time you face it. Whether it had that listed or not wouldn't actually mean anything because you aren't throwing that at a party that doesn't have magic weapons.
When you read fireball, does it mention damage dice inside of a stat block? or in the spell description but independently of a stat block? (the latter)
When you read cloud of daggers, does it give a stat block for daggers, or reference using a stat block for daggers, or just tell you in the spell description what damage dice it delivers? (just damage, no stat block nor reference to a stat block)
But no statement that the something else is “outside”. Summon Beast has a spell stat block (with no mention of damage, just things like spell school, duration, components, etc.), a spell description, and a creature stat block. It says to use the creature’s stat block: something else’s stat block (other than the spell’s stat block) is what does the damage.
It says to use a creature’s stat block. The fact that the stat block is also right there doesn’t change that. Outside of the stat block, is any mention of damage dice made in the spell’s description? no. so the spell doesn’t say that the spell itself does damage. It says that it summons a creature… and the creature’s stat block says what type of damage the creature (not the spell) does.
Does Bigby’s hand say to use a stat block? no, Does Bigby’s hand have damage dice in the spell’s description? yes. Therefore the spell is what is doing the damage, not some other thing.
I don’t understand why you have trouble differentiating between “the spell’s own stat block (school, duration, components, etc.) right before the spell’s description”, “the spell’s description”, and “a stat block that isn’t the spell’s stat block (without regard to where this stat block was printed)”. What is so difficult about differentiating between those three things? Help me understand what you can’t differentiate in those 3 things.
Fir example, the PHB clearly states, in chapter 10, the second paragraph of “casting a spell”:
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
This clearly defines the first two things: The spell’s stat block (“begins with a block of information”), and the spell’s description. Any other stat block (whether printed with the spell or somewhere else) is not the spell’s stat block, because the spell’s stat block was before the spell’s description and includes the spell’s name, level, etc. Any other stat block is …
wait for it …
something else’s stat block.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there has to be something in the Damage/Effect section above the spell's description for the spell to actually be doing the damage. If there's nothing there, then the damage is being caused by something separate from the spell that the spell causes, and the damage is therefore not inherently magical. So the Damage/Effect section is the deciding factor here.
Since something like fireball has a thing in Damage/Effect, its damage is magical, but since summon beast has nothing in that section, its damage is nonmagical.
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)
Meanwhile, books newer than Volo and Tome of Foes continue to use the resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If they’re phasing it out, why do they keep using it?
Do you mean books newer than MoM? Because those were all monsters from volo's and tome that they CHANGED in MoM phasing it out. Some monsters make sense to have it from a lore perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't slowly phasing it out when there is literal proof of monsters that USED to have it losing it.
If you have a Legendary +3 sword I’m betting you have no problem with the CR 1 Spector. Assuming you are a level 1 character who for some reason has this powerful weapon you still have +3 to attack and damage rolls and whatever other feature the sword provides that makes it legendary. If the DM wanted to give you a weapon to deal damage to the specter you just need a weapon that deals force damage to achieve that. I would assume weapons meant to overcome resistances to b/p/s would just do force or some other type of damage. Or just say they ignore resistance to b/p/s. Also while some people are saying force damage doesn’t fit coming from a weapon I will ask them about spiritual weapon, and steel wind strike. Force damage has meant raw magical damage for years now. Force damage isn’t just impact damage because that is bludgeoning damage.
Where did I say above the spell’s description? as opposed to damage dice in the description and not in something else’s stat block?
Fireball: damage dice in the description, and not in _anything_ else’s stat block.
Summon Beast: no damage dice in the spell’s description, only damage dice in something else’s stat block (the Beastial Spirit stat block, which is not the spell’s stat block).
Okay sorry, I got confused because you kept saying "spell's stat block". But anyways. Why do you think that the bestial spirit stat block is not part of summon beast? I'd say that the stat block is a part of the description, and any description of the spell that lacks the stat block is lacking an integral part of the spell's description, which is not true for things like find familiar. In fact, we can see this dichotomy right here on Beyond. The description for summon beast has the stat block within it, and the stat block has no page of its own. Compare this to find familiar, where each of the animals are separate from the spell and have their own pages, and you can tell that they didn't just include the stat block in summon beast for convenience. The bestial spirit's Strength of 18 is as integral to the spell as Bigby's hand's Strength of 26. So where's the difference?
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, let’s start with, right from MoM:
Astral Dreadnaught, Cadaver Collector, Retriever, Steel Predator, the various abishai’s
If they are phasing out that language in general, and not just for some creatures, why are they still using it for those creatures?
I mean they will, because they do so already. Getting a +1 weapon is barely noticable in terms of increase in damage, players are only excited about it because it circumvents the nonmagical resistances. So now all the martial characters will just be dealing force damage beyond level 5, which IMO is less interesting than magical b/s/p and detracts from the immersion of hacking a monster's head off with your battleaxe or crushing the enemy's ribs with your maul or stabbing your rapier into the creature's guts, if all three of these weapons are all dealing the exact same kind of damage.
Phasing out does not mean cutting out entirely. Do you have a different dictionary than I do? And I have already stated that some creatures will likely keep it due to lore reasons, like vampires, were creatures, many FIENDS and some undead. Needing something special to damage certain creatures makes sense. The previous habit had them slapping that on a lot of creatures above a certain CR so once players got strong enough it was just assumed they would have magic weapons. That doesn't mean that things like doing radiant damage or the like aren't more interesting. Heck that is how the Sun Blade works.
To be fair there isn't much of a distinction between those 3 any way. You don't see a whole lot of monsters with resistance to piercing and slashing attacks, but not to bludgeoning. There isn't really a difference between a Magic axe and a magic hammer when fighting these creatures beyond the aesthetic. This would be the case regardless of the damage type that was listed.
So does steel wind strike not cut?
Yes, it does:
“an act or instance of phasing out; planned discontinuation or expiration“
“withdraw something from use in gradual stages”
“a closing down by phases”
Specified in phases, but not partial in the long run. Phased out means getting rid of it entirely. Phased out in this context would be picking which legacy creatures to update with each new book, but being consistent about not using the old thing throughout the book. Putting out a new book with mixed use wouldn’t be a consistent planned discontinuation,, and/or wouldn’t indicate a complete discontinuation. Either of those things means it’s not “being phased out.”
MoM would indicate they’re aren’t phasing it out, either by not intending a full discontinuation, or by not having planned phases.
I don’t know. I’m using dictionary.com, OED, and Miriam Webster. What are you using?
Right, so, first you say they’re getting rid of it as some big point about the mechanic being deficient so they’re getting rid of it, then you’re contradicting that statement by saying they aren’t really getting rid of it _everywhere_. If it’s a broken or deficient mechanic, why aren’t they getting rid of it everywhere? Because it’s not a broken mechanic, they just think some creatures need a different mechanic. If it’s broken, it’s broken everywhere. That’s why they’re keeping it for some and not for others: it’s not a broken/deficient mechanic, it just didn’t fit certain creatures,
Fixed the empahsis with bolding for you so you can read the definitions and understand them it isn't all at once not removing it from everyone at the same time it is little by little. Thank you have a nice day.
In clear contrast between:
“the spell’s stat block” (the thing before the spell’s description, and contains the spell’s name, spell’s school, components, duration, etc.)
vs
“something else’s stat block” (any stat block that isn’t the spell’s stat block, without regard to where it is printed).
I indicated that it is not “the spell’s stat block”, meaning that it is not the thing before/above the spell’s description. That’s what I mean by “something else’s stat block”: not the stat block of the spell itself, that is located before/above the spell’s description (and contains the spell’s name, spell’s school, components, duration, etc.).
Is the stat block for the bestial spirit inside the spell’s stat block? no. It is a stat block that is not the spell’s stat block. Therefore it is “something else’s stat block.”
Could you put “bestial spirit” into the monster section of a book, remove it from the same page as the spell, and still have the spell work (just like find familiar, conjure animals, conjure celestial, etc)? Yes, Therefore it is no more integral to the “spell description” for “Summon Beast” than the stat block for a Badger is integral to the spell description for “conjure animals”.
Is Bigby’s Hand’s strength inside of a stat block? no.
Is Bestial Spirit’s strength inside of a stat block? yes.
(those two lines, right before this one, are the difference you asked for)
Is Bestial Spirit’s strength inside the spell’s stat block? no, so it is “something else’s stat block”.
And the Bestial Spirit’s strength is no more integral to “summon beast” than a badger’s strength is to “conjure animals”.