Currently have a rune knight (fighter subclass) who has an ability that he can activate a rune and with it gain resistance to all damage. The text reads as follows:
"You can invoke the rune as a bonus action, gaining resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage for 1 minute. Once you invoke this rune, you can’t do so again until you finish a short or long rest."
Now I was ruling that magic weapons can bypass this effect. Normally magic weapons tend to say
"This weapon is considered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities to non-magical damage"
He states that the text does not say "non-magical " and therefore all damage concerning bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage is considered. Naturally this gave me pause and so I hand the question of to you.
I believe the bear totem has something similar. What are your thoughts on this?
Your player is correct. Monsters whose resistance to B/P/S damage is overcome by magical weapons state that they have “resistance to non-magical bludgeoning etc”. If it doesn’t state “non-magical”, then that resistance is against magical B/P/S damage too. NB it’s not resistance against ALL damage: they will still take full force, fire, necrotic etc damage, unless they have an additional feature which specifically gives them resistance to those.
Just to give more examples, this also happens with some elements in the game, not only creatures/monsters. For example, webs (DMG, p. 105):
Each 10-foot cube of giant webs has AC 10, 15 hit points, vulnerability to fire, and immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and psychic damage.
Or razorvine (DMG, p. 110):
Razorvine is a plant that grows in wild tangles and hedges. It also clings to the sides of buildings and other surfaces as ivy does. A 10-foot-high, 10-foot-wide, 5-foot-thick wall or hedge of razorvine has AC 11, 25 hit points, and immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and psychic damage.
Why are you afraid? It makes it sound as if you are thinking the game is You vs the Players, as DM you are the arbitor of rules and controller of the NPCs. I once heard that the DM should want the PCs to succeed but control hostile NPCs in a way to try and make them fail.
A rune knight is not an overpowered subclass, characters like this and the barbarian are designed to take a lot of damage acting as "meat shields" for the more fragile members of the party. Have a variety of combats, intelligent enemies will be going for the wizard or healer even if that means drawing op attacks or making ranged attacks at disadvantage, having a monster swallow a PC always leads to a tense moment in the party. It depends on the campaign but resistance to magical weapon damage will only impact a relatively small proportion of combats and those that do there will probably be other options for at least some of the enemies, whether tthe party are facing a group of humanoids with a mix af martials and casters or a creature like a Glabrezu that has both weapon attacks and spells or a Bone devil that also has a poison attack.
Hello there.
Have a small issue I wish to bring forward.
Currently have a rune knight (fighter subclass) who has an ability that he can activate a rune and with it gain resistance to all damage. The text reads as follows:
"You can invoke the rune as a bonus action, gaining resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage for 1 minute. Once you invoke this rune, you can’t do so again until you finish a short or long rest."
Now I was ruling that magic weapons can bypass this effect. Normally magic weapons tend to say
"This weapon is considered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances and immunities to non-magical damage"
He states that the text does not say "non-magical " and therefore all damage concerning bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage is considered. Naturally this gave me pause and so I hand the question of to you.
I believe the bear totem has something similar. What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you.
Your player is correct. Monsters whose resistance to B/P/S damage is overcome by magical weapons state that they have “resistance to non-magical bludgeoning etc”. If it doesn’t state “non-magical”, then that resistance is against magical B/P/S damage too.
NB it’s not resistance against ALL damage: they will still take full force, fire, necrotic etc damage, unless they have an additional feature which specifically gives them resistance to those.
I was afraid you'd say that lol
Sorry! 😊
Just to give more examples, this also happens with some elements in the game, not only creatures/monsters. For example, webs (DMG, p. 105):
Or razorvine (DMG, p. 110):
Until you get incapacitated. (A weakness the fighter rune doesn't have, incidentally.)
Why are you afraid? It makes it sound as if you are thinking the game is You vs the Players, as DM you are the arbitor of rules and controller of the NPCs. I once heard that the DM should want the PCs to succeed but control hostile NPCs in a way to try and make them fail.
A rune knight is not an overpowered subclass, characters like this and the barbarian are designed to take a lot of damage acting as "meat shields" for the more fragile members of the party. Have a variety of combats, intelligent enemies will be going for the wizard or healer even if that means drawing op attacks or making ranged attacks at disadvantage, having a monster swallow a PC always leads to a tense moment in the party. It depends on the campaign but resistance to magical weapon damage will only impact a relatively small proportion of combats and those that do there will probably be other options for at least some of the enemies, whether tthe party are facing a group of humanoids with a mix af martials and casters or a creature like a Glabrezu that has both weapon attacks and spells or a Bone devil that also has a poison attack.
At no point did I ever say "I'm afraid" and I know its not "You vs the Players". How have you come to this conclusion.....
Actually you did, here :)
3rd post of this thread :)
Not.....that kind of afraid.... notice the "lol"......
Yeah Yeah I noticed ;)
I just couldn't help it, you said that you had at no point ever said, "I'm afraid.."
No worries, it was just me nitpicking your words :D
Notice the smilies ;D