So was wondering since I know magic resistance gives advantage against magical saving throws... but does that count for physical saving throws against magic? I can't find a clarification on google or sage advice...
If I use tashas hideous laughter you will obviously get advantage, but if I cast fireball does magic resistance allow you to just magically move faster? If so my main criticism is that it should just half magical damage instead of outright saying "my anorexic ass becomes the picture of health if I am forced to make a str save against your spell because you hit me with magic even though i don't cast magic!".
Also thank you to whoever can clarify this or send me to some sage advice i am missing on this!
If a creature is subjected to an effect, the source of which being magical, then regardless of the saving throw required they would have advantage.
For some headcannon justification, a fireball spell does fire damage but it's really magical fire, not "real" fire. Your ability to shrug off magical essence, even if that essence is taking form of fire, is compensating for your perhaps regularly bad dexterity saves. Unwanted magical effects are repelled from you like two similar magnet ends being pushed towards each other.
As for changing it to giving resistance to magical damage, that can be both a nerf and a buff. A nerf in the sense that if they succeed on their save for half damage, then a damaging spell can be trivial against them as they now take 1/4 damage, while it would be a buff to controlling spells that don't do damage as it would just now be a straight roll, no advantage.
The interaction between magic and damage can be very strange. It has been stated that the breath weapon of a Dragon is not magical. This means that the Tiny Hut spell cannot protect you from Dragons breathing on it. Falling damage is odd, because it's purely physical, and yet resistance to Bludgeoning damage doesn't help you avoid the damage. Werewolves are immune to Bludgeoning damage, Piercing, and Slashing damage, but if they fall on them from over 10 feet of height, they do no extra damage, but near as I can figure, Silver spikes would work. That bypasses their Immunity.
Most of the weirdness is for game balance reasons, not just "jank" rules. Be glad that you get what you have. If a Dragon breathes on you, I believe you still get advantage on your save.
So was wondering since I know magic resistance gives advantage against magical saving throws... but does that count for physical saving throws against magic?
The trait does whatever it says. The normal creature magic resistance trait just gives advantage on saves vs spells, with no other restrictions, so yes, it works for STR saves against Entangle or dex saves against Fireball or con saves against Shatter.
In previous editions MR just gave a chance to completely negate spells, so the 5e version is a definite nerf.
If I use tashas hideous laughter you will obviously get advantage, but if I cast fireball does magic resistance allow you to just magically move faster? If so my main criticism is that it should just half magical damage instead of outright saying "my anorexic ass becomes the picture of health if I am forced to make a str save against your spell because you hit me with magic even though i don't cast magic!".
It helps to think of it as the magic being pushed away from you rather than you dodging better. There's not really a difference between "physical" saves and "mental" saves, there are only different kinds of attacks and different ways you can mitigate them. Dodging is only one way to explain damage mitigated or avoided by a DEX save.
Even though you may not cast magic, if you have magic resistance then you definitely have some kind of supernatural quality that is repelling hostile magic. It's acting on the magic, not on you.
previous edition MR would be more like "If you are affected by a spell, you may automatically attempt to counterspell it, but only for its effects on you".
Yeah not mad and appreciate the clarification, i figured it was this... but it’s also weird and i know sometimes wizard butchers their intent from time to time so wanted to be certain my group was doing things right.
Falling damage is odd, because it's purely physical, and yet resistance to Bludgeoning damage doesn't help you avoid the damage.
Where do you get that idea? Falling damage is bludgeoning, and generally not magical or silvered, so a werewolf will mostly be immune. In general traits mean what they say they mean, and the werewolf's damage immunity doesn't say anything that would exclude falling.
A monster is immune to damage from nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. Does it still take damage from falling?
Yes, that monster is still going to feel the hurt of a fall, because a fall is not a weapon.
"The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical'"
I got those both from the Sage Advice Compendium, for whatever that's worth.
It's not worth much if you ignore the important bits. In this case, as Pantagruel pointed out, it's "weapons". Most resistances doesn't specify "weapons". So if a creature is resistant to bludgeoning damage then it will resist damage from falling.
The interaction between magic and damage can be very strange. It has been stated that the breath weapon of a Dragon is not magical. This means that the Tiny Hut spell cannot protect you from Dragons breathing on it. Falling damage is odd, because it's purely physical, and yet resistance to Bludgeoning damage doesn't help you avoid the damage. Werewolves are immune to Bludgeoning damage, Piercing, and Slashing damage, but if they fall on them from over 10 feet of height, they do no extra damage, but near as I can figure, Silver spikes would work. That bypasses their Immunity.
Most of the weirdness is for game balance reasons, not just "jank" rules. Be glad that you get what you have. If a Dragon breathes on you, I believe you still get advantage on your save.
You don't benefit from magic resistence when subjected to a dragon's breath weapon. Unless the ability says that it occurs magically, then magic resistence doesn't come into affect at all. Check out something like a sea hag. Their Death Glare is not magical beacuse it doesn't say so, while their other ability Illusory Appearance is as it states that it a "magical" illusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So was wondering since I know magic resistance gives advantage against magical saving throws... but does that count for physical saving throws against magic? I can't find a clarification on google or sage advice...
If I use tashas hideous laughter you will obviously get advantage, but if I cast fireball does magic resistance allow you to just magically move faster? If so my main criticism is that it should just half magical damage instead of outright saying "my anorexic ass becomes the picture of health if I am forced to make a str save against your spell because you hit me with magic even though i don't cast magic!".
Also thank you to whoever can clarify this or send me to some sage advice i am missing on this!
If a creature is subjected to an effect, the source of which being magical, then regardless of the saving throw required they would have advantage.
For some headcannon justification, a fireball spell does fire damage but it's really magical fire, not "real" fire. Your ability to shrug off magical essence, even if that essence is taking form of fire, is compensating for your perhaps regularly bad dexterity saves. Unwanted magical effects are repelled from you like two similar magnet ends being pushed towards each other.
As for changing it to giving resistance to magical damage, that can be both a nerf and a buff. A nerf in the sense that if they succeed on their save for half damage, then a damaging spell can be trivial against them as they now take 1/4 damage, while it would be a buff to controlling spells that don't do damage as it would just now be a straight roll, no advantage.
Thanks for that clarification, still seems kinda like a jank rule not well thought out before making it but I am just glad i understand it fully now
The interaction between magic and damage can be very strange. It has been stated that the breath weapon of a Dragon is not magical. This means that the Tiny Hut spell cannot protect you from Dragons breathing on it. Falling damage is odd, because it's purely physical, and yet resistance to Bludgeoning damage doesn't help you avoid the damage. Werewolves are immune to Bludgeoning damage, Piercing, and Slashing damage, but if they fall on them from over 10 feet of height, they do no extra damage, but near as I can figure, Silver spikes would work. That bypasses their Immunity.
Most of the weirdness is for game balance reasons, not just "jank" rules. Be glad that you get what you have. If a Dragon breathes on you, I believe you still get advantage on your save.
<Insert clever signature here>
The trait does whatever it says. The normal creature magic resistance trait just gives advantage on saves vs spells, with no other restrictions, so yes, it works for STR saves against Entangle or dex saves against Fireball or con saves against Shatter.
In previous editions MR just gave a chance to completely negate spells, so the 5e version is a definite nerf.
It helps to think of it as the magic being pushed away from you rather than you dodging better. There's not really a difference between "physical" saves and "mental" saves, there are only different kinds of attacks and different ways you can mitigate them. Dodging is only one way to explain damage mitigated or avoided by a DEX save.
Even though you may not cast magic, if you have magic resistance then you definitely have some kind of supernatural quality that is repelling hostile magic. It's acting on the magic, not on you.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
previous edition MR would be more like "If you are affected by a spell, you may automatically attempt to counterspell it, but only for its effects on you".
Yeah not mad and appreciate the clarification, i figured it was this... but it’s also weird and i know sometimes wizard butchers their intent from time to time so wanted to be certain my group was doing things right.
What makes you think that?
Where do you get that idea? Falling damage is bludgeoning, and generally not magical or silvered, so a werewolf will mostly be immune. In general traits mean what they say they mean, and the werewolf's damage immunity doesn't say anything that would exclude falling.
A monster is immune to damage from nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. Does it still take damage from falling?
Yes, that monster is still going to feel the hurt of a fall, because a fall is not a weapon.
"The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical'"
I got those both from the Sage Advice Compendium, for whatever that's worth.
<Insert clever signature here>
If the immunity specifies 'weapons' then yes, they'll take falling damage. Most immunities don't.
It's not worth much if you ignore the important bits. In this case, as Pantagruel pointed out, it's "weapons". Most resistances doesn't specify "weapons". So if a creature is resistant to bludgeoning damage then it will resist damage from falling.
You don't benefit from magic resistence when subjected to a dragon's breath weapon. Unless the ability says that it occurs magically, then magic resistence doesn't come into affect at all. Check out something like a sea hag. Their Death Glare is not magical beacuse it doesn't say so, while their other ability Illusory Appearance is as it states that it a "magical" illusion.