D&D 5E Battlerager Barbarian Question

[Jason Gonding]

If a Battlerager obtains a set of +1 Spiked Armor, does that count as a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming resistance when used to attack as a bonus action? Does it count as a +1 weapon for the purposes of attacks & damage as well?

 

[Giant2005]

+1 Armor only provides an AC boost. It doesn't make your unarmed strikes magical nor give them a damage or attack bonus.
It wouldn't be a terrible house-rule though, but I think a better house-rule would be extending an Insignia of Claws to benefit attacks made with Spiked Armor (I think I'd consider those attacks Unarmed Strikes anyway).

 

[Valmarius]

I'd grant attacks made with the armour the ability to overcome damage resistance, but I wouldn't give it +1 to attack and damage rolls.
As has been stated, the +1 is just for your AC.

 

[spectacle]

If I was the DM I'd probably let any magical spiked armor that turns up to also give + to attack and damage. I figure if someone is taking the trouble to enchant a set of spiked armor they will also want it to be better at spiking people.

Alternatively I'd just treat it as a magic weapon in the shape of armor, giving + to offense but not defense.

 

[Remathilis]

By RAW, no. But it's such a niche item for a specific archetype that I'd be alright with making a "special" type that is considered magical and has a +1 to hit, damage, and AC. It's not going to break the game to do it, as long as it's the exception to the rule.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Magic is magic. If you bash someone with your Bag of Holding, then that's magic and it can hurt a stone golem.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Magic is magic. If you bash someone with your Bag of Holding, then that's magic and it can hurt a stone golem.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that if you take a burlap sack and start smacking a stone statue with it, the statue is going to be just fine whilst your burlap sack is going to get shredded after a while.

I see where you are going, though, and I disagree. Magic is magic, yes, but it's also specific to what it is doing; if you drink a magic potion of flying, you are not magical...so you can't go up and start punching that stone golem in the face with your fist and expect to hurt it. (same with using a spell or other magic item).

Of course, as you said, "Your DM is free to rule otherwise", but drop the "otherwise" and replace with "how he/she wishes", because your premise is simply not supported by the rules nor the spirit of the game as far as I can tell.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm pretty sure that if you take a burlap sack and start smacking a stone statue with it, the statue is going to be just fine whilst your burlap sack is going to get shredded after a while.

It's an improvised weapon. It does improvised weapon damage.

If a non-magical whip can kill someone, then it should surely be possible for an old lady to beat you down with her purse.

I see where you are going, though, and I disagree. Magic is magic, yes, but it's also specific to what it is doing;

The problem comes with weapons that don't have a bonus to attack or damage. In every previous edition, the reason why something required a +1 sword to hit was because the +1 represented how it was magically sharper and more damaging than a non-magical weapon. Your weapon must be +X more powerful than a regular weapon in order to hurt this enemy.

In 5E, that's no longer the case. You can have a sword that isn't sharper or more damaging than a regular non-magical sword (like a Flametongue or a Frostbrand), and it will still hurt an iron golem that is otherwise entirely immune to non-magical sources of physical damage. It doesn't matter that its specific enchantment is unrelated to its sharpness or damage capacity; it's just that it has magic on it at all that somehow allows it to hurt an iron golem.

Not that drinking a potion would make you inherently magical, the same way that enchanting a suit of armor would make the armor magical. (Although I could imagine a DM ruling otherwise.)

 

[spectacle]

Magic is magic. If you bash someone with your Bag of Holding, then that's magic and it can hurt a stone golem.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise.

There are several magical staffs that specify that they can be wielded as a magical quarterstaff, while the description of the "staff" category says that unless noted otherwise a staff can be wielded as a quarterstaff. The omission of the word "magical" in the category description seems to be deliberate, as the staffs that get to be magical quarterstaffs are the ones with abilities related to melee combat rather than just spellcasting.

So to me it seems that the intention is that magical items do not work as magical weapons unless it explicitly says that they do.

 

[CapnZapp]

Magic is magic. If you bash someone with your Bag of Holding, then that's magic and it can hurt a stone golem.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise.

You can certainly make this ruling.

What you can't do, however, is give off the false impression it's by RAW.

A magic item used as an improvised weapon doesn't make for a magical attack, unless your DM says it does.

Not the other way around.