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.
I had the emphasis correct the first time. You said that phasing out isn’t cutting out entirely: it is. When you are done with the process (all phases), it will be discontinued/expired/withdrawn/closed-down. It will be cut out entirely, contradicting what you said about it not meaning “cutting out entirely.”
And as I said, inconsistent discontinuation within a single book/phase, such as MoM’s inconsistency wrt to discontinuation of this mechanic, contradicts that they are “phasing it out”.
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).
I get that now, I just got confused because I'd never heard that part of the spell be referred to as a stat block before.
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 have genuinely no idea what you mean by this. Why would anything be put in that part of the spell? Shouldn't being in the description of the spell be enough?
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”.
When did I claim that the bestial spirit is inside the "spell's stat block"? I never did that. I said that it's inside the spell's description, which it is. Obviously you could put the bestial spirit in a different spot, but that would be changing the spell, so it seems irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that, even if you could take it out, the stat block is within the description of the spell.
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”.
Why the hell does it matter whether it's in a stat block or not though??? This is the question I've been asking.
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)
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.
(replying to this a second time, because, while it is not what I said, it is interesting)
So, I had not done a deep dive on the spell “damage/effect” field of the spell stat block, nor the spell tags…. but at first quick skim, it does actually seem like it could be a good indicator of “does the spell deal the damage, or is something else dealing the damage.”
For conjure and summoning spells (other than conjure barrage and conjure volley, which do not summon a creature), the effect and tag is: summoning, So something other than the spell is doing the damage, and that other source of the damage tells you whether or not the damage is magical.
For fireball, cloud of daggers, magic missile, and so on: the tags include “damage”, and the “efffect” lists a type of damage. That means the spell itself is doing the damage, and that means it’s magical.
(for polymorph: the tag and effect also do not say “damage” nor a damage type : so the spell is not doing the damage, so like a spell with the “summoning” tag, you have to look at the stat block of the creature you polymorphic into to find out if the damage is magical)
The problem with this method (instead of the method I’ve been saying in every other comment) is: The only way to see this information is in the D&DBeyond web search interface. It’s not in the D&dBeyond app, and I do t recall it being in the physical books (off the top of my head). I don’t know if it’s in the SRD, either. So it’s not really easily accessible to everyone.
We could argue all we want about this, but the fact is that non/magical stuff generates "barriers" too strong for the fact of getting or not a "magical", no matter if +1 to +3, weapon. And please don't make to return the old "need +X enchantment to be hit".
The magical itself should not be a so drastic change, as much something more subtle, but with D&D mechanics seems hard to implement. About bypassing resistances, more specific features should be applied, like "slayer" or "holy" (AKA undead slayer), and things like those. We also have the elemental weapons, which physical damage could be resisted, but not the elemental one, and allowing user to choose the type of damage used by its score modifier when applicable.
But I see no need that absolute barrier in the middle of resistance | bypass completely for the mere fact that is a magical weapon, even the simplest one.
We also have the confusing application to some things, i.e. Cloud of Daggers, is magical damage? Well they were created magically, but are considered +1 weapons?
Simply damage type and resistances, with some special feature to bypass. This also opens the gate to some interesting magical items options, like some elemental staff granting that Elemental Adept feat to bypass resistances, according to the slayer for weapons.
It's also a flawed method because you've also yet to justify it with rules. The Damage/Effect part is pretty much just regurgitating certain parts of how the spell was programmed, and doesn't appear anywhere outside of D&DBeyond.
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)
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).
I get that now, I just got confused because I'd never heard that part of the spell be referred to as a stat block before.
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 have genuinely no idea what you mean by this. Why would anything be put in that part of the spell? Shouldn't being in the description of the spell be enough?
I am differentiating between one stat block vs another,
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”.
When did I claim that the bestial spirit is inside the "spell's stat block"? I never did that. I said that it's inside the spell's description, which it is.
Obviously you could put the bestial spirit in a different spot, but that would be changing the spell
It would not change the spell. It would change where you find the summoned/conjured creature’s stat block.
so it seems irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that, even if you could take it out, the stat block is within the description of the spell.
For convenience, not because it is saying “the spell does this damage.” The spell even says “This corporeal form uses the Bestial Spirit stat block” Identifying the Bestial Spirit’s stat block as a specific thing and not a general part of the spell’s description.
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”.
Why the hell does it matter whether it's in a stat block or not though??? This is the question I've been asking.
Because having it in a stat block tells you that the thing in the stat block directly does the damage, and the spell itself does not. Therefore, the stat block determines whether or not the damage is magical, not due to a spell being involved.
If the damage is not listed in a stat block (as with fireball, bigby’s hand, and cloud of daggers), then the spell is the thing that is directly doing the damage, and therefore the damage is magical.
For example, this is the spell description for Fireball (from the SRD) :
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd
There is no stat block referenced by this description, embedded in this description, etc.. And it has damage dice right there in the spell description (I bolded them for emphasis). Therefore, it is telling you that the spell itself, and not something else with a stat block, is doing the damage. Not some summoned creature, not some polymorph es creature, but the spell. Therefore, the damage is magical.
With Bigby’s Hand, you see the same thing: no stat block, but damage dice are indicated in the “clenched fist” part of the description. Therefore the spell itself is doing the damage, therefore the damage is magical.
Same with Cloud of Daggers: no stat block, but damage dice in the spell description. Therefore the spell itself is doing the damage, and the damage is magical.
It's also a flawed method because you've also yet to justify it with rules
I have, in fact, justified it with the rules, several times, The spell descriptions are rules.
The presence of a stat block referenced by the description, and no damage dice outside of any such stat block, means the spell isn’t the thing directly doing the damage. The thing in the stat block is the thing doing the damage. Therefore, the stat block tells you if the damage is magical.(if it doesn’t say it’s magical, it’s not).
If there are damage dice in the spell description (that are not inside of a stat block), then the spell is doing the damage, and that damage is magical ( because the spell is magical),
That is a rules justification for whether or not those two sources of damage are magical.
But how is Bigby's hand different from summon beast, aside from how they are formatted? Both summon new combatants with statistics unique to their respective spells. I'd like something a bit less arbitrary than the fact one could pass for a monster and the other couldn't. Where the damage that they deal is listed shouldn't change the fact that each of them are the ones dealing the damage. It doesn't matter if it's called Grasping Hand or Maul, both are doing their own damage, so what makes you decide what damage is being done by the spell itself except for whether or not there's a square in the description?
And, to complicate the matter further, how does animate objects fit in? It clearly doesn't have a stat block, so according to you that means its attacks are magical, but pretty much every person I know that thinks summon beast's damage is nonmagical also thinks animate objects's 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)
The formats and spell descriptions tell you what thing is doing the damage: the spell or something else,
Both summon new combatants with statistics unique to their respective spells.
What does Bigby’s Hand _summon_? what category/type of creature/monster did you summon with that spell? It’s not a combatant that you summoned, it’s a spell effect.
I'd like something a bit less arbitrary than the fact one could pass for a monster and the other couldn't.
Thats not even remotely arbitrary. It concisely tells you that one is a creature and the other isn’t. That tells you that in one case (summon beast) the creature is doing the damage, and not the spell.
Bigby’s hand does not tell you it’s a creature, nor give you a creature’s stat block, not that it is enhancing an object that then does damage. Therefore, by process of elimination, the thing doing the the damage is the spell itself and not some creature or object.
And, to complicate the matter further, how does animate objects fit in? It clearly doesn't have a stat block, so according to you that means its attacks are magical, but pretty much every person I know that thinks summon beast's damage is nonmagical also thinks animate objects's damage is nonmagical.
It specifically tells you that they are constructs (and therefore creatures), and that the constructs do the damage, I will admit that the table format is unlike other stat blocks, and I can see concluding that that puts it outside of the simple heuristic … but the language of the spell still makes it explicit: they are creatures (constructs specifically), not mere spell effects like Bigby’s Hand. Which means that the things they do are being done by a creature and not by the spell itself. The creature(s) and not the spell are doing the damage,
How is that different from Cloud of Daggers? Summon Beast specifically tells you to use the Bestial Spirit stat block. Animate Objects specifically tells you they’re constructs, and gives statistics for them (even if they’re not complete stat blocks). Cloud of Daggers doesn’t really do either of those things. There is no reference to the daggers being permanent objects, it doesn’t tell you any kind of information about these daggers (just stats about total damage inflicted per event), it doesn’t actually even tell you that you summoned them or animated them or created them. They’re no more substantive than Bigby’s Hand, or a Fireball, really,
The formats and spell descriptions tell you what thing is doing the damage: the spell or something else,
Both summon new combatants with statistics unique to their respective spells.
What does Bigby’s Hand _summon_? what category/type of creature/monster did you summon with that spell? It’s not a combatant that you summoned, it’s a spell effect.
I'd like something a bit less arbitrary than the fact one could pass for a monster and the other couldn't.
Thats not even remotely arbitrary. It concisely tells you that one is a creature and the other isn’t. That tells you that in one case (summon beast) the creature is doing the damage, and not the spell.
Bigby’s hand does not tell you it’s a creature, nor give you a creature’s stat block, not that it is enhancing an object that then does damage. Therefore, by process of elimination, the thing doing the the damage is the spell itself and not some creature or object.
And, to complicate the matter further, how does animate objects fit in? It clearly doesn't have a stat block, so according to you that means its attacks are magical, but pretty much every person I know that thinks summon beast's damage is nonmagical also thinks animate objects's damage is nonmagical.
It specifically tells you that they are constructs (and therefore creatures), and that the constructs do the damage, I will admit that the table format is unlike other stat blocks, and I can see concluding that that puts it outside of the simple heuristic … but the language of the spell still makes it explicit: they are creatures (constructs specifically), not mere spell effects like Bigby’s Hand. Which means that the things they do are being done by a creature and not by the spell itself. The creature(s) and not the spell are doing the damage,
How is that different from Cloud of Daggers? Summon Beast specifically tells you to use the Bestial Spirit stat block. Animate Objects specifically tells you they’re constructs, and gives statistics for them (even if they’re not complete stat blocks). Cloud of Daggers doesn’t really do either of those things. There is no reference to the daggers being permanent objects, it doesn’t tell you any kind of information about these daggers (just stats about total damage inflicted per event), it doesn’t actually even tell you that you summoned them or animated them or created them. They’re no more substantive than Bigby’s Hand, or a Fireball, really,
Bigby's hand summons a Large object with AC 20, hit points equal to your hit point maximum, a Strength of 26, and a Dexterity of 10. Summon beast summons a Small beast with a varying AC, varying HP, a Strength of 18 and a Dexterity of 11. So, why is one just a spell effect and the other distinct from the spell that summoned it?
So far as I can tell, you're currently claiming that damage from an object from a spell is damage from a spell (and therefore magical), whereas damage from a creature from a spell is damage from a creature (and therefore not inherently magical). Is that right?
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)
Does the spell give some indication of an actual creature (a Monster Manual creature type), especially with reference to an actual creature stat block, with no indicated damage being done apart from that creature? Then that creature is doing the damage, and it’s stats determine if the damage is magical. If the creatures stats don’t say it deals magical damage, it doesn’t,
Does the spell specify that it enhances/changes a pre-existing permanent object that you could give to someone else or take from someone else? Then the damage is being done by the object, and the objects properties and enhancements determine whether or not that object deals magical damage, If none of that says it is, or becomes, magical, then it isn’t.
Does the spell description (independently of the above questions and the stats related to those questions) specify damage being done? Then the spell is doing that damage, and it is magical damage.
Why would creatures be handled differently than objects, though? Can you point to a rule that supports this claim?
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)
The formats and spell descriptions tell you what thing is doing the damage: the spell or something else,
Both summon new combatants with statistics unique to their respective spells.
What does Bigby’s Hand _summon_? what category/type of creature/monster did you summon with that spell? It’s not a combatant that you summoned, it’s a spell effect.
I'd like something a bit less arbitrary than the fact one could pass for a monster and the other couldn't.
Thats not even remotely arbitrary. It concisely tells you that one is a creature and the other isn’t. That tells you that in one case (summon beast) the creature is doing the damage, and not the spell.
Bigby’s hand does not tell you it’s a creature, nor give you a creature’s stat block, not that it is enhancing an object that then does damage. Therefore, by process of elimination, the thing doing the the damage is the spell itself and not some creature or object.
And, to complicate the matter further, how does animate objects fit in? It clearly doesn't have a stat block, so according to you that means its attacks are magical, but pretty much every person I know that thinks summon beast's damage is nonmagical also thinks animate objects's damage is nonmagical.
It specifically tells you that they are constructs (and therefore creatures), and that the constructs do the damage, I will admit that the table format is unlike other stat blocks, and I can see concluding that that puts it outside of the simple heuristic … but the language of the spell still makes it explicit: they are creatures (constructs specifically), not mere spell effects like Bigby’s Hand. Which means that the things they do are being done by a creature and not by the spell itself. The creature(s) and not the spell are doing the damage,
How is that different from Cloud of Daggers? Summon Beast specifically tells you to use the Bestial Spirit stat block. Animate Objects specifically tells you they’re constructs, and gives statistics for them (even if they’re not complete stat blocks). Cloud of Daggers doesn’t really do either of those things. There is no reference to the daggers being permanent objects, it doesn’t tell you any kind of information about these daggers (just stats about total damage inflicted per event), it doesn’t actually even tell you that you summoned them or animated them or created them. They’re no more substantive than Bigby’s Hand, or a Fireball, really,
Bigby's hand summons a Large object
First, it does not summon the object, it creates it, The spell explicitly says that.
Second, it’s an object and not a creature (it doesn’t have a creature type).
So you didn’t summon a creature, you created a temporary object, that is not a creature.
So, why is one just a spell effect and the other distinct from the spell that summoned it?
Because one of them explicitly indicates it’s a creature, and the other doesn’t.
So far as I can tell, you're currently claiming that damage from an object from a spell is damage from a spell (and therefore magical), whereas damage from a creature from a spell is damage from a creature (and therefore not inherently magical). Is that right?
I wouldn’t say that that’s precise (as I noted in a recent comment, permanent object, like for “magic weapon”, also matters… but ephemeral objects like “bigby’s hand” or “cloud of daggers”, that you can’t give to someone else to use, are the spell itself.
Why would creatures be handled differently than objects, though? Can you point to a rule that supports this claim?
Spells that enhance objects, like “magic weapon”, are saying that the weapon itself will be doing the damage. The spell isn’t delivering the damage itself…. just like with a bestial spirit: the spirit is doing the damage, and therefore not the spell. Same thing, slightly different cases. And the reason it is different from the creature paragraph is: the spell didn’t create nor summon the object, unlike Summon Beast.
Bigby's hand explicitly summons (or creates, I guess) an object. It summons (creates) an object just as much as summon beast creates (summons) a creature. So, I ask again, why is only one "the spell itself" and the other a distinct entity that is caused, sustained, and described by the spell but not actually a part of the spell? You keep saying that with complete conviction but you've yet to give any reasoning or rules to back it up. That's all I'm asking for.
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)
Instead summon or not summon, is not about a magical or non-magical damage, and type? Cloud of Daggers could be summoned, created or whatever you want, but it says "slashing damage", instead "magical slashing damage". Why we should suppose anything?
So yes, spells typically (unless I missed something) would inflict normal physical damage. In the case of the Bigby's Hand the same can inflict bludgeoning or force damage types, so choose wisely. Notice that the Shadow Blade inflict psychic damage, instead some kind of the original weapon dagame and let the interpretation to the table if is magical or not.
Bigby's hand explicitly summons (or creates, I guess) an object. It summons (creates) an object just as much as summon beast creates (summons) a creature. So, I ask again, why is only one "the spell itself" and the other a distinct entity that is caused, sustained, and described by the spell but not actually a part of the spell? You keep saying that with complete conviction but you've yet to give any reasoning or rules to back it up. That's all I'm asking for.
I have backed it up multiple times. And you even stated it in your comment.
Further, you’re trying to equivocate between “summon (create)” with “create (summon)”, when they’re not the same thing. A thing that is summoned is not created, and visa versa. The rules never conflate creating and summoning.
You’re also trying to equivocate between a creature and an object. The rules differentiate between creatures and objects, they’re two completely different sections of the rules. The two spells explicitly differentiate between what you have (a creature or an object). So you can’t just use them interchangeably.
Youre saying these things (create vs summon, and creature vs object) that are different from each other … and then asking how they’re not the same. Because the rules define them to be different from each other. The rules say an object and creature aren’t the same thing.
Summon Beast is explicitly telling you that you summoned a creature. And then tells you what that creature itself can do via its stat block and the definitions therein. A caster can command a creature with varying types of effectiveness, but unless they’ve dominated it or possessed it, they aren’t acting through the creature.
Bigby’s Hand is telling you that you created an object (so explicitly not “summoned a creature”). And then it tells you what the caster can do with the object they created before it disappears. As an object, it doesn’t act on its own(because objects are explicitly defined by the rules to be inanimate - they don’t act of their own animus): the caster acts through the object.
The reason they’re not the same, and that Bigby’s Hand is creating a spell effect and not an independent self acting entity, where Summon Beast is summoning an independent self acting entity …. is because the rule terms say those things by referencing “create” instead of “summon” and “object” instead of “creature”.
Instead summon or not summon, is not about a magical or non-magical damage, and type?
Summon vs create, and object vs creature, is about who is doing the damage. The summoned creature, or the caster? If it’s the caster, then how is it delivering the damage? via the spell.
if it’s the summoned creature, then the summoned creature isn’t using a spell (unless that’s an action it’s stat block explicitly states). It definitely isn’t using the summoning spell to do the damage, because it didn’t cast the summoning spell. It’s doing the damage via one of its actions, which state whether or not that action does magical damage,
Cloud of Daggers could be summoned, created or whatever you want, but it says "slashing damage", instead "magical slashing damage". Why we should suppose anything?
Because it is directly done by the spell, and not by some independently existing thing (like a creature or permanent object).
So yes, spells typically (unless I missed something) would inflict normal physical damage. In the case of the Bigby's Hand the same can inflict bludgeoning or force damage types, so choose wisely.
Do the official rule clarifications say that it’s normal and non-magical damage? Or do the rules explicitly say “a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell”? Which is the reason why it matters whether the damage came from the spell itself, or a separate creature that is not the spell itself.
In my head, if a spelldeals damage then that damage is magical, even if the damage type is bludgeoning, piercing or slashing. Unless the spell summons a creature with its own stat block, in which case that creature deals damage as stated in the stat block and this damage isn't magical unless described as such.
But...that's really my interpretation based on what seems logical (to me). I think just getting rid of the distinction between magical and non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage would simplify everything and get rid of all these ambiguities. Not to mention allowing a creature's CR to more accurately reflect its difficulty (because its hit points wouldn't be entirely dependant on whether or not PCs have magical weapons or consist mainly of spellcasters etc).
In my head, if a spelldeals damage then that damage is magical, even if the damage type is bludgeoning, piercing or slashing. Unless the spell summons a creature with its own stat block, in which case that creature deals damage as stated in the stat block and this damage isn't magical unless described as such.
That’s very much what I’ve been saying. and the first part is not just in your head, it’s in the rules.
”Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.”
(monster manual, monster rules in the beginning of the book)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had the emphasis correct the first time. You said that phasing out isn’t cutting out entirely: it is. When you are done with the process (all phases), it will be discontinued/expired/withdrawn/closed-down. It will be cut out entirely, contradicting what you said about it not meaning “cutting out entirely.”
And as I said, inconsistent discontinuation within a single book/phase, such as MoM’s inconsistency wrt to discontinuation of this mechanic, contradicts that they are “phasing it out”.
I get that now, I just got confused because I'd never heard that part of the spell be referred to as a stat block before.
I have genuinely no idea what you mean by this. Why would anything be put in that part of the spell? Shouldn't being in the description of the spell be enough?
When did I claim that the bestial spirit is inside the "spell's stat block"? I never did that. I said that it's inside the spell's description, which it is. Obviously you could put the bestial spirit in a different spot, but that would be changing the spell, so it seems irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that, even if you could take it out, the stat block is within the description of the spell.
Why the hell does it matter whether it's in a stat block or not though??? This is the question I've been asking.
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)
(replying to this a second time, because, while it is not what I said, it is interesting)
So, I had not done a deep dive on the spell “damage/effect” field of the spell stat block, nor the spell tags…. but at first quick skim, it does actually seem like it could be a good indicator of “does the spell deal the damage, or is something else dealing the damage.”
For conjure and summoning spells (other than conjure barrage and conjure volley, which do not summon a creature), the effect and tag is: summoning, So something other than the spell is doing the damage, and that other source of the damage tells you whether or not the damage is magical.
For fireball, cloud of daggers, magic missile, and so on: the tags include “damage”, and the “efffect” lists a type of damage. That means the spell itself is doing the damage, and that means it’s magical.
(for polymorph: the tag and effect also do not say “damage” nor a damage type : so the spell is not doing the damage, so like a spell with the “summoning” tag, you have to look at the stat block of the creature you polymorphic into to find out if the damage is magical)
The problem with this method (instead of the method I’ve been saying in every other comment) is: The only way to see this information is in the D&DBeyond web search interface. It’s not in the D&dBeyond app, and I do t recall it being in the physical books (off the top of my head). I don’t know if it’s in the SRD, either. So it’s not really easily accessible to everyone.
We could argue all we want about this, but the fact is that non/magical stuff generates "barriers" too strong for the fact of getting or not a "magical", no matter if +1 to +3, weapon. And please don't make to return the old "need +X enchantment to be hit".
The magical itself should not be a so drastic change, as much something more subtle, but with D&D mechanics seems hard to implement. About bypassing resistances, more specific features should be applied, like "slayer" or "holy" (AKA undead slayer), and things like those. We also have the elemental weapons, which physical damage could be resisted, but not the elemental one, and allowing user to choose the type of damage used by its score modifier when applicable.
But I see no need that absolute barrier in the middle of resistance | bypass completely for the mere fact that is a magical weapon, even the simplest one.
We also have the confusing application to some things, i.e. Cloud of Daggers, is magical damage? Well they were created magically, but are considered +1 weapons?
Simply damage type and resistances, with some special feature to bypass. This also opens the gate to some interesting magical items options, like some elemental staff granting that Elemental Adept feat to bypass resistances, according to the slayer for weapons.
It's also a flawed method because you've also yet to justify it with rules. The Damage/Effect part is pretty much just regurgitating certain parts of how the spell was programmed, and doesn't appear anywhere outside of D&DBeyond.
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 am differentiating between one stat block vs another,
It would not change the spell. It would change where you find the summoned/conjured creature’s stat block.
For convenience, not because it is saying “the spell does this damage.” The spell even says “This corporeal form uses the Bestial Spirit stat block” Identifying the Bestial Spirit’s stat block as a specific thing and not a general part of the spell’s description.
Because having it in a stat block tells you that the thing in the stat block directly does the damage, and the spell itself does not. Therefore, the stat block determines whether or not the damage is magical, not due to a spell being involved.
If the damage is not listed in a stat block (as with fireball, bigby’s hand, and cloud of daggers), then the spell is the thing that is directly doing the damage, and therefore the damage is magical.
For example, this is the spell description for Fireball (from the SRD) :
There is no stat block referenced by this description, embedded in this description, etc.. And it has damage dice right there in the spell description (I bolded them for emphasis). Therefore, it is telling you that the spell itself, and not something else with a stat block, is doing the damage. Not some summoned creature, not some polymorph es creature, but the spell. Therefore, the damage is magical.
With Bigby’s Hand, you see the same thing: no stat block, but damage dice are indicated in the “clenched fist” part of the description. Therefore the spell itself is doing the damage, therefore the damage is magical.
Same with Cloud of Daggers: no stat block, but damage dice in the spell description. Therefore the spell itself is doing the damage, and the damage is magical.
I have, in fact, justified it with the rules, several times, The spell descriptions are rules.
The presence of a stat block referenced by the description, and no damage dice outside of any such stat block, means the spell isn’t the thing directly doing the damage. The thing in the stat block is the thing doing the damage. Therefore, the stat block tells you if the damage is magical.(if it doesn’t say it’s magical, it’s not).
If there are damage dice in the spell description (that are not inside of a stat block), then the spell is doing the damage, and that damage is magical ( because the spell is magical),
That is a rules justification for whether or not those two sources of damage are magical.
But how is Bigby's hand different from summon beast, aside from how they are formatted? Both summon new combatants with statistics unique to their respective spells. I'd like something a bit less arbitrary than the fact one could pass for a monster and the other couldn't. Where the damage that they deal is listed shouldn't change the fact that each of them are the ones dealing the damage. It doesn't matter if it's called Grasping Hand or Maul, both are doing their own damage, so what makes you decide what damage is being done by the spell itself except for whether or not there's a square in the description?
And, to complicate the matter further, how does animate objects fit in? It clearly doesn't have a stat block, so according to you that means its attacks are magical, but pretty much every person I know that thinks summon beast's damage is nonmagical also thinks animate objects's 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)
The formats and spell descriptions tell you what thing is doing the damage: the spell or something else,
What does Bigby’s Hand _summon_? what category/type of creature/monster did you summon with that spell? It’s not a combatant that you summoned, it’s a spell effect.
Thats not even remotely arbitrary. It concisely tells you that one is a creature and the other isn’t. That tells you that in one case (summon beast) the creature is doing the damage, and not the spell.
Bigby’s hand does not tell you it’s a creature, nor give you a creature’s stat block, not that it is enhancing an object that then does damage. Therefore, by process of elimination, the thing doing the the damage is the spell itself and not some creature or object.
It specifically tells you that they are constructs (and therefore creatures), and that the constructs do the damage, I will admit that the table format is unlike other stat blocks, and I can see concluding that that puts it outside of the simple heuristic … but the language of the spell still makes it explicit: they are creatures (constructs specifically), not mere spell effects like Bigby’s Hand. Which means that the things they do are being done by a creature and not by the spell itself. The creature(s) and not the spell are doing the damage,
How is that different from Cloud of Daggers? Summon Beast specifically tells you to use the Bestial Spirit stat block. Animate Objects specifically tells you they’re constructs, and gives statistics for them (even if they’re not complete stat blocks). Cloud of Daggers doesn’t really do either of those things. There is no reference to the daggers being permanent objects, it doesn’t tell you any kind of information about these daggers (just stats about total damage inflicted per event), it doesn’t actually even tell you that you summoned them or animated them or created them. They’re no more substantive than Bigby’s Hand, or a Fireball, really,
Bigby's hand summons a Large object with AC 20, hit points equal to your hit point maximum, a Strength of 26, and a Dexterity of 10. Summon beast summons a Small beast with a varying AC, varying HP, a Strength of 18 and a Dexterity of 11. So, why is one just a spell effect and the other distinct from the spell that summoned it?
So far as I can tell, you're currently claiming that damage from an object from a spell is damage from a spell (and therefore magical), whereas damage from a creature from a spell is damage from a creature (and therefore not inherently magical). Is that right?
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)
So, let me restate it more concisely:
Does the spell give some indication of an actual creature (a Monster Manual creature type), especially with reference to an actual creature stat block, with no indicated damage being done apart from that creature? Then that creature is doing the damage, and it’s stats determine if the damage is magical. If the creatures stats don’t say it deals magical damage, it doesn’t,
Does the spell specify that it enhances/changes a pre-existing permanent object that you could give to someone else or take from someone else? Then the damage is being done by the object, and the objects properties and enhancements determine whether or not that object deals magical damage, If none of that says it is, or becomes, magical, then it isn’t.
Does the spell description (independently of the above questions and the stats related to those questions) specify damage being done? Then the spell is doing that damage, and it is magical damage.
Why would creatures be handled differently than objects, though? Can you point to a rule that supports this claim?
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)
First, it does not summon the object, it creates it, The spell explicitly says that.
Second, it’s an object and not a creature (it doesn’t have a creature type).
So you didn’t summon a creature, you created a temporary object, that is not a creature.
Because one of them explicitly indicates it’s a creature, and the other doesn’t.
I wouldn’t say that that’s precise (as I noted in a recent comment, permanent object, like for “magic weapon”, also matters… but ephemeral objects like “bigby’s hand” or “cloud of daggers”, that you can’t give to someone else to use, are the spell itself.
Spells that enhance objects, like “magic weapon”, are saying that the weapon itself will be doing the damage. The spell isn’t delivering the damage itself…. just like with a bestial spirit: the spirit is doing the damage, and therefore not the spell. Same thing, slightly different cases. And the reason it is different from the creature paragraph is: the spell didn’t create nor summon the object, unlike Summon Beast.
Bigby's hand explicitly summons (or creates, I guess) an object. It summons (creates) an object just as much as summon beast creates (summons) a creature. So, I ask again, why is only one "the spell itself" and the other a distinct entity that is caused, sustained, and described by the spell but not actually a part of the spell? You keep saying that with complete conviction but you've yet to give any reasoning or rules to back it up. That's all I'm asking for.
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)
Instead summon or not summon, is not about a magical or non-magical damage, and type? Cloud of Daggers could be summoned, created or whatever you want, but it says "slashing damage", instead "magical slashing damage". Why we should suppose anything?
So yes, spells typically (unless I missed something) would inflict normal physical damage. In the case of the Bigby's Hand the same can inflict bludgeoning or force damage types, so choose wisely. Notice that the Shadow Blade inflict psychic damage, instead some kind of the original weapon dagame and let the interpretation to the table if is magical or not.
I have backed it up multiple times. And you even stated it in your comment.
Further, you’re trying to equivocate between “summon (create)” with “create (summon)”, when they’re not the same thing. A thing that is summoned is not created, and visa versa. The rules never conflate creating and summoning.
You’re also trying to equivocate between a creature and an object. The rules differentiate between creatures and objects, they’re two completely different sections of the rules. The two spells explicitly differentiate between what you have (a creature or an object). So you can’t just use them interchangeably.
Youre saying these things (create vs summon, and creature vs object) that are different from each other … and then asking how they’re not the same. Because the rules define them to be different from each other. The rules say an object and creature aren’t the same thing.
Summon Beast is explicitly telling you that you summoned a creature. And then tells you what that creature itself can do via its stat block and the definitions therein. A caster can command a creature with varying types of effectiveness, but unless they’ve dominated it or possessed it, they aren’t acting through the creature.
Bigby’s Hand is telling you that you created an object (so explicitly not “summoned a creature”). And then it tells you what the caster can do with the object they created before it disappears. As an object, it doesn’t act on its own(because objects are explicitly defined by the rules to be inanimate - they don’t act of their own animus): the caster acts through the object.
The reason they’re not the same, and that Bigby’s Hand is creating a spell effect and not an independent self acting entity, where Summon Beast is summoning an independent self acting entity …. is because the rule terms say those things by referencing “create” instead of “summon” and “object” instead of “creature”.
Summon vs create, and object vs creature, is about who is doing the damage. The summoned creature, or the caster? If it’s the caster, then how is it delivering the damage? via the spell.
if it’s the summoned creature, then the summoned creature isn’t using a spell (unless that’s an action it’s stat block explicitly states). It definitely isn’t using the summoning spell to do the damage, because it didn’t cast the summoning spell. It’s doing the damage via one of its actions, which state whether or not that action does magical damage,
Because it is directly done by the spell, and not by some independently existing thing (like a creature or permanent object).
Do the official rule clarifications say that it’s normal and non-magical damage? Or do the rules explicitly say “a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell”? Which is the reason why it matters whether the damage came from the spell itself, or a separate creature that is not the spell itself.
In my head, if a spell deals damage then that damage is magical, even if the damage type is bludgeoning, piercing or slashing. Unless the spell summons a creature with its own stat block, in which case that creature deals damage as stated in the stat block and this damage isn't magical unless described as such.
But...that's really my interpretation based on what seems logical (to me). I think just getting rid of the distinction between magical and non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage would simplify everything and get rid of all these ambiguities. Not to mention allowing a creature's CR to more accurately reflect its difficulty (because its hit points wouldn't be entirely dependant on whether or not PCs have magical weapons or consist mainly of spellcasters etc).
That’s very much what I’ve been saying. and the first part is not just in your head, it’s in the rules.
”Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from non-magical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.”
(monster manual, monster rules in the beginning of the book)