D&D 5E Battlerager Barbarian Question

[Giant2005]

The previous terminology was changed because it didn't convey the proper intent.

The previous terminology was changed because they took Unarmed Strikes off the weapon table. They needed to change a whole bunch of things to ensure that Unarmed Strikes still worked as intended without being weapons.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

If you want to be reasonable, then you need to point out some quality - any quality - which is possessed by all magic weapons but not by magic armor or a Bag of Holding.

If magic weapons behave differently when they hit an iron golem than other weapons do, then there must be some inherent property which signifies them as different. And in 5E, for the first time, that property isn't that they are more accurate or deal more damage.

Er...do you really not see it? Hmmm. Ok, here is the 'quality' that is possessed by all magic weapons, but not by any magic armor or a Bag of Holding. The magic weapon is a weapon. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

"But wait!" You say, "What about Improvised Weapons?". What counts as an improvised weapon is entirely up to the DM to decide...so if you want an old ladies hand bag, or a burlap sack, so be it. Fill them both with 15lb of rock? Sure, even I'd rule that as an improvised weapon. But casting "light" on that bag isn't going to suddenly make it a "magical weapon" any more than casting "fly" on a horse suddenly makes it a pegasus. Again, you are free to rule however you want, but, IMHO, you are so far out to left field here that I don't think any of us are going to convince you that doing so is..."not RAW/RAI".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Er...do you really not see it? Hmmm. Ok, here is the 'quality' that is possessed by all magic weapons, but not by any magic armor or a Bag of Holding. The magic weapon is a weapon. I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

That's just a label, and labels are subjective. What you call something cannot possibly have any effect on its ability to damage a werewolf or a golem. The only things that can possibly matter are inherent properties of the item, which can be objectively verified.

But casting "light" on that bag isn't going to suddenly make it a "magical weapon" any more than casting "fly" on a horse suddenly makes it a pegasus.

Casting a spell on something is not the same as enchanting it to the point where it is inherently magical. The only thing that all magical weapons have in common is that they are enchanted to the point that they are inherently magical, and that's a property which they also share with magical armor and the Bag of Holding.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

That's just a label, and labels are subjective. What you call something cannot possibly have any effect on its ability to damage a werewolf or a golem. The only things that can possibly matter are inherent properties of the item, which can be objectively verified.

Casting a spell on something is not the same as enchanting it to the point where it is inherently magical. The only thing that all magical weapons have in common is that they are enchanted to the point that they are inherently magical, and that's a property which they also share with magical armor and the Bag of Holding.

A magic weapon isn't "inherently magical"; it was a weapon that had a very specific series of spells put into/onto it. A bag of holding is the same thing...a bag that has had a series of spells put into/onto it. That said, I get what you are trying to say; that a "magic sword" is not the same as a "sword with Light cast on it". That I fully agree with, and that sword would not be considered a "magic weapon".

What I think we are disagreeing with is the...shall we say, "permanently-infused magic" on a magic item (whatever it is). You seem to contend that any "permanent" magic items could be used as magical improvised weapons. What I and some others are saying is that, no, that is not the intent of the rules for a monster being "resistant to non-magical weapons" any more than a horse with the fly spell on it is considered a pegasus. They are two separate things that have similarities due to magic.

At this point, I don't think we are going to agree much about this. That, IMHO, is a good thing. It keeps different DM's campaigns from being too similar. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A magic weapon isn't "inherently magical"; it was a weapon that had a very specific series of spells put into/onto it. A bag of holding is the same thing...a bag that has had a series of spells put into/onto it.

If you're saying that one of the many spells that went into enchanting a magic sword was a spell that caused it to be recognized as a magical weapon, and that spell wouldn't have been put on the bag because the enchanter never intended the bag to be used as a weapon, then that does make some sense. If I was playing in a game, and the DM put forth that argument, I would buy it.

That should also imply that there are some weapons in the world which only have that enchantment. If the spell to make something count as a magical weapon is not the same as the spell which makes it burst into flames or deal more damage, then it should be possible to enchant a weapon that doesn't have any other effects.

 

[Bayonet]

I'd allow it.

I like seeing players come up with novel solutions to problems, as long as they aren't too ridiculous. It's really just a minor boost to a niche ability, but could make for a huge increase of fun and roleplay.

Now, wait until the Battlerager gets those spikes silver plated, and heads out to tackle werewolves.

 

[Plaguescarred]

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

Indeed if we go with the rule definition of what a magical attack is, then yeah a banshee's resistance to bludgeoning,piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks for exemple should be overcome by a magical bag or armor. IDK if its RAI though.

DMBR pg 03 Vulnerabilities, Resistances,and Immunities: Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, orimmunity to certain types of damage. Particularcreatures are even resistant or immune to damagefrom nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attackdelivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magicalsource). In addition, some creatures are immune tocertain conditions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would totally allow any attack with a magic item to overcome resistance.
If you break an ivory atatue and use the shards in a sling, I would allow you to deal magic damage.
A spiked armor could be argued to not only protect better but the spikes also being sharper. I really see no reason to deny a battlerager a bonus to hit, just because there is no spiked armor of wxtra piercing anywhere in the books. I mean the spiked armors are in a splat book... how can you expect the basic rules to cover them.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

That's a false equivalence. That's like saying "if I can kill a lion with a sword, surely I can defeat it with this tin jar lid!"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's a false equivalence. That's like saying "if I can kill a lion with a sword, surely I can defeat it with this tin jar lid!"

I mean, you can. It would be a death by a thousand cuts, but there's nothing stopping you. It's not a magical lion which is immune to non-magical damage.

Although you are woefully exaggerating if you are comparing a non-magical whip to any sort of sword. In the real world, whips and purses are roughly equivalent in their lethality, in that they are not lethal unless you spend a tremendous amount of effort in doing so (and the same could be said of a pencil, or a jar lid).