I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
If damage is not caused by a spell (i.e. an explicitly magical effect) or specifically called out as magical, it is not magical. This includes elemental and planar damage types, which can absolutely deal 'non-magical' damage per the rules; we simply have never seen an instance in the game where magical and nonmagical damage of nonphysical damage types is differentiated. This means the Swarmkeeper's piercing damage is technically not magical. A given DM can certainly rule otherwise and most of them likely would, but it's also conceivable that the ranger's manifested spirit swarm deals purely physical damage with their physical bodies.
Not magical. The swarm is described as "A swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle." Nothing in that statement claims they are magical.
Even a magical weapon would not turn the swarm damage magical, as the swarm damage is not part of the weapon's attack. The wording makes it clear that source of the damage is the swarm, not the weapon. I think a DM wouldn't be unreasonable to rule otherwise, though.
I'll be (house)ruling it to count as magical - it's intangible spirits affecting the material world, that seems pretty magical to me - but rules as written it's not. Spirit Guardians explicitly do magical (radiant or necrotic) damage, I think it's fair these spirits get the same (piercing's less good than radiant/necrotic too). But again: houserule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not magical. The swarm is described as "A swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle." Nothing in that statement claims they are magical.
Even a magical weapon would not turn the swarm damage magical, as the swarm damage is not part of the weapon's attack. The wording makes it clear that source of the damage is the swarm, not the weapon. I think a DM wouldn't be unreasonable to rule otherwise, though.
except nearly every word in that statement states a clear form of magic.That said it is also flavor text and one I completely ignore myself (in one of my worlds most swarm keepers are of the handful of insectoid player races in the world,and control regular insects through their pheremones"
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
Not magical. The swarm is described as "A swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle." Nothing in that statement claims they are magical.
Even a magical weapon would not turn the swarm damage magical, as the swarm damage is not part of the weapon's attack. The wording makes it clear that source of the damage is the swarm, not the weapon. I think a DM wouldn't be unreasonable to rule otherwise, though.
except nearly every word in that statement states a clear form of magic.That said it is also flavor text and one I completely ignore myself (in one of my worlds most swarm keepers are of the handful of insectoid player races in the world,and control regular insects through their pheremones"
'Magical' is a mechanical term. Just because something sounds fantastical or supernatural doesn't make it magical. To determine if something is magical, you have to be able to say yes to one of the following questions:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
For Gathered swarm, the answer to all of the questions is no, so the effect is not magical.
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
The 1d6 damage will be halved against a target with stoneskin on it, such as an archmage.
Uhhh... Boatloads of enemies have resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage. It is not as though it's "werewolves and that's pretty much it".
Werewolves don't have it, and almost no enemies have it. I know of exactly two off the top of my head: anything with the stoneskin spell, and I'm told in some printings (but not in mine), Demogorgon has it. But almost nothing has it.
What's much more common is what werewolves have, which is resistance or immunity to P/S/B damage from nonmagical attacks. Swamkeeper swarm damage does not come from an attack, so it will ignore this resistance/immunity. It'll cut right through a werewolf or a pit fiend.
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
The 1d6 damage will be halved against a target with stoneskin on it, such as an archmage.
Uhhh... Boatloads of enemies have resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage. It is not as though it's "werewolves and that's pretty much it".
Werewolves don't have it, and almost no enemies have it. I know of exactly two off the top of my head: anything with the stoneskin spell, and I'm told in some printings (but not in mine), Demogorgon has it. But almost nothing has it.
What's much more common is what werewolves have, which is resistance or immunity to P/S/B damage from nonmagical attacks. Swamkeeper swarm damage does not come from an attack, so it will ignore this resistance/immunity. It'll cut right through a werewolf or a pit fiend.
So say you're fighing a vampire which resists non-magical b/p/s or a lich which is immune to non-magical b/p/s damage. Why does the damage not coming from an attack act differently towards the creatures I've mentioned then if it came from an attack? b/p/s damage is b/p/s damage whether it came from an attack or not.
A search reveals that there are 47 monsters with resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage and 9 with immunity to nonmagical damage in the Monster Manual alone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
The 1d6 damage will be halved against a target with stoneskin on it, such as an archmage.
Uhhh... Boatloads of enemies have resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage. It is not as though it's "werewolves and that's pretty much it".
Werewolves don't have it, and almost no enemies have it. I know of exactly two off the top of my head: anything with the stoneskin spell, and I'm told in some printings (but not in mine), Demogorgon has it. But almost nothing has it.
What's much more common is what werewolves have, which is resistance or immunity to P/S/B damage from nonmagical attacks. Swamkeeper swarm damage does not come from an attack, so it will ignore this resistance/immunity. It'll cut right through a werewolf or a pit fiend.
So say you're fighing a vampire which resists non-magical b/p/s or a lich which is immune to non-magical b/p/s damage. Why does the damage not coming from an attack act differently towards the creatures I've mentioned then if it came from an attack? b/p/s damage is b/p/s damage whether it came from an attack or not.
Because that's how WOTC wrote their rules. Are you asking me why WOTC wrote their rules that way, so e.g. a werewolf takes full damage from a fall, since it's not an attack? I am not a rules dev and am not qualified to answer that. If you're asking me for examples of nonmagical nonattack p/s/b damage, fall damage and any trap resisted with a save are two particularly common ones. If you're asking me how the rule is worded to be attack specific, just compare the monster's wording to stoneskin, which doesn't care about attacks specifically.
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
The 1d6 damage will be halved against a target with stoneskin on it, such as an archmage.
Uhhh... Boatloads of enemies have resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage. It is not as though it's "werewolves and that's pretty much it".
Werewolves don't have it, and almost no enemies have it. I know of exactly two off the top of my head: anything with the stoneskin spell, and I'm told in some printings (but not in mine), Demogorgon has it. But almost nothing has it.
What's much more common is what werewolves have, which is resistance or immunity to P/S/B damage from nonmagical attacks. Swamkeeper swarm damage does not come from an attack, so it will ignore this resistance/immunity. It'll cut right through a werewolf or a pit fiend.
So say you're fighing a vampire which resists non-magical b/p/s or a lich which is immune to non-magical b/p/s damage. Why does the damage not coming from an attack act differently towards the creatures I've mentioned then if it came from an attack? b/p/s damage is b/p/s damage whether it came from an attack or not.
Because that's how WOTC wrote their rules. Are you asking me why WOTC wrote their rules that way, so e.g. a werewolf takes full damage from a fall, since it's not an attack? I am not a rules dev and am not qualified to answer that. If you're asking me for examples of nonmagical nonattack p/s/b damage, fall damage and any trap resisted with a save are two particularly common ones. If you're asking me how the rule is worded to be attack specific, just compare the monster's wording to stoneskin, which doesn't care about attacks specifically.
I guess I'm wondering where you're getting that rule from. What rule are you citing that states that a werewolf wouldn't just outright ignore the damage? Which rule states that creature with resistance and immunity still take damage if it's not from an attack?
I guess I'm wondering where you're getting that rule from. What rule are you citing that states that a werewolf wouldn't just outright ignore the damage? Which rule states that creature with resistance and immunity still take damage if it's not from an attack?
He's citing the actual statblock of the monsters. A werewolf resists pierce/bludgeon/slash damage from nonmagical attacks. That's attacks, and only attacks. Now read Stoneskin, which gives one resistance to pierce/bludgeon/slash in general - that is, even things that aren't attacks.
I guess I'm wondering where you're getting that rule from. What rule are you citing that states that a werewolf wouldn't just outright ignore the damage? Which rule states that creature with resistance and immunity still take damage if it's not from an attack?
He's citing the actual statblock of the monsters. A werewolf resists pierce/bludgeon/slash damage from nonmagical attacks. That's attacks, and only attacks. Now read Stoneskin, which gives one resistance to pierce/bludgeon/slash in general - that is, even things that aren't attacks.
It is kind of silly to think that you can hit a creature with a rock and they take no damage, but if they trip and fall on the same rock then they do. However, this is how they chose to write the rule.
Yeah, immunity to physical damage doesn't make a lot of narrative sense in any case. Two werewolves, for all their claws and teeth and nastiness, have zero ways to harm one another.
Ij my campaign that I'm running, the party is about to go up against wererats. The main warrior has a normal longsword, which won't do them any dgood. Makes no sense that hacking off a limb or pummelling them does nothing. I think it should either be really high resistance (say, only.take 25% damage or something), or a rule that you can't actually kill them. Zero damage isn't something that makes sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Immunity to damage from nonmagical weapons means that you can't hack off a limb. The blade is incapable of cutting or piercing the monster's skin. Or the wound closes as soon as the blade is withdrawn. Take your pick, it's a narrative option. Either way, it's like the police officers in a Terminator movie who keep shooting the unstoppable killer robot from the future with their handguns to absolutely no effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Once on each of your turns, you can cause the swarm to assist you in one of the following ways, immediately after you hit a creature with an attack:
The attack’s target takes 1d6 piercing damage from the swarm."
The swarm is a magical swarm, it does not make an attack roll. If you hit a piercing resistant MOB with a non magical weapon that is piercing, you're personal damage is halved. The swarm does not do an attack roll, it simply reacts to your successful hit roll and does 1d6 damage. Clarification from WOTC might be good, but IMO the Gathered Swarm is not affected by resistances, because it is not doing an actual attack, just damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've had a read through on Swarmkeeper Ranger, and something that clicked in my mind was that the damage from Gathered Swarm is 1d6 piercing. It has no mention of "magical" in the subclass.
In your opinion, is it inherently magical or not? Are there extra clauses involved? Does it become magical due to the description of the subclass?
If damage is not caused by a spell (i.e. an explicitly magical effect) or specifically called out as magical, it is not magical. This includes elemental and planar damage types, which can absolutely deal 'non-magical' damage per the rules; we simply have never seen an instance in the game where magical and nonmagical damage of nonphysical damage types is differentiated. This means the Swarmkeeper's piercing damage is technically not magical. A given DM can certainly rule otherwise and most of them likely would, but it's also conceivable that the ranger's manifested spirit swarm deals purely physical damage with their physical bodies.
Please do not contact or message me.
Not magical. The swarm is described as "A swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle." Nothing in that statement claims they are magical.
Even a magical weapon would not turn the swarm damage magical, as the swarm damage is not part of the weapon's attack. The wording makes it clear that source of the damage is the swarm, not the weapon. I think a DM wouldn't be unreasonable to rule otherwise, though.
I'll be (house)ruling it to count as magical - it's intangible spirits affecting the material world, that seems pretty magical to me - but rules as written it's not. Spirit Guardians explicitly do magical (radiant or necrotic) damage, I think it's fair these spirits get the same (piercing's less good than radiant/necrotic too). But again: houserule.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
except nearly every word in that statement states a clear form of magic.That said it is also flavor text and one I completely ignore myself (in one of my worlds most swarm keepers are of the handful of insectoid player races in the world,and control regular insects through their pheremones"
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
I'd say yes in my games because of it coming from 'intangible nature spirits' rather than ordinary bugs etc.
There's no question it's not magical, but almost nothing in the game cares about that fact. Some things do, so here is an example of each:
'Magical' is a mechanical term. Just because something sounds fantastical or supernatural doesn't make it magical. To determine if something is magical, you have to be able to say yes to one of the following questions:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
For Gathered swarm, the answer to all of the questions is no, so the effect is not magical.
Uhhh... Boatloads of enemies have resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage. It is not as though it's "werewolves and that's pretty much it".
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Werewolves don't have it, and almost no enemies have it. I know of exactly two off the top of my head: anything with the stoneskin spell, and I'm told in some printings (but not in mine), Demogorgon has it. But almost nothing has it.
What's much more common is what werewolves have, which is resistance or immunity to P/S/B damage from nonmagical attacks. Swamkeeper swarm damage does not come from an attack, so it will ignore this resistance/immunity. It'll cut right through a werewolf or a pit fiend.
So say you're fighing a vampire which resists non-magical b/p/s or a lich which is immune to non-magical b/p/s damage. Why does the damage not coming from an attack act differently towards the creatures I've mentioned then if it came from an attack? b/p/s damage is b/p/s damage whether it came from an attack or not.
Drink water. Take a nap. Pray about it.
A search reveals that there are 47 monsters with resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage and 9 with immunity to nonmagical damage in the Monster Manual alone.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Because that's how WOTC wrote their rules. Are you asking me why WOTC wrote their rules that way, so e.g. a werewolf takes full damage from a fall, since it's not an attack? I am not a rules dev and am not qualified to answer that. If you're asking me for examples of nonmagical nonattack p/s/b damage, fall damage and any trap resisted with a save are two particularly common ones. If you're asking me how the rule is worded to be attack specific, just compare the monster's wording to stoneskin, which doesn't care about attacks specifically.
I guess I'm wondering where you're getting that rule from. What rule are you citing that states that a werewolf wouldn't just outright ignore the damage? Which rule states that creature with resistance and immunity still take damage if it's not from an attack?
Drink water. Take a nap. Pray about it.
He's citing the actual statblock of the monsters. A werewolf resists pierce/bludgeon/slash damage from nonmagical attacks. That's attacks, and only attacks. Now read Stoneskin, which gives one resistance to pierce/bludgeon/slash in general - that is, even things that aren't attacks.
It is kind of silly to think that you can hit a creature with a rock and they take no damage, but if they trip and fall on the same rock then they do. However, this is how they chose to write the rule.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, immunity to physical damage doesn't make a lot of narrative sense in any case. Two werewolves, for all their claws and teeth and nastiness, have zero ways to harm one another.
Ij my campaign that I'm running, the party is about to go up against wererats. The main warrior has a normal longsword, which won't do them any dgood. Makes no sense that hacking off a limb or pummelling them does nothing. I think it should either be really high resistance (say, only.take 25% damage or something), or a rule that you can't actually kill them. Zero damage isn't something that makes sense.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Immunity to damage from nonmagical weapons means that you can't hack off a limb. The blade is incapable of cutting or piercing the monster's skin. Or the wound closes as soon as the blade is withdrawn. Take your pick, it's a narrative option. Either way, it's like the police officers in a Terminator movie who keep shooting the unstoppable killer robot from the future with their handguns to absolutely no effect.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Once on each of your turns, you can cause the swarm to assist you in one of the following ways, immediately after you hit a creature with an attack:
The swarm is a magical swarm, it does not make an attack roll. If you hit a piercing resistant MOB with a non magical weapon that is piercing, you're personal damage is halved. The swarm does not do an attack roll, it simply reacts to your successful hit roll and does 1d6 damage. Clarification from WOTC might be good, but IMO the Gathered Swarm is not affected by resistances, because it is not doing an actual attack, just damage.