D&D 5E Battlerager Barbarian Question

[Ancalagon]

I mean, you can. 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).

The amount of damage a whip can inflict *far exceeds* what a purse can do. I'm not sure what kind of bunny flogger you are thinking of (or is the purse filled with bricks?), but a proper whip wielded by someone who knows that they are doing can inflict serious wounds. When used as corporal punishment (in the legal sense) in the past, it was well recognized that past a certain number of strikes, the sentence became equivalent to a death sentence.

We are drifting off topic here, but what I am trying to say is that some things are so ineffective as weapons that they just don't work. This isn't Dwarf Fortress where you can kill someone with a sock...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We are drifting off topic here, but what I am trying to say is that some things are so ineffective as weapons that they just don't work. This isn't Dwarf Fortress where you can kill someone with a sock...

A whip is a weapon that is so ridiculously ineffective that it can't kill someone unless you go completely overboard, but that's true of anything. Killing someone with a whip is about as plausible as killing someone with a book. It's just not going to happen. If a magic whip can hurt an iron golem, then any magical non-weapon should be able to hurt an iron golem.

 

[spectacle]

That argument doesn't convinve me. A whip may be an ineffective weapon, but a magical whip has still been enchanted as a weapon, and that's what lets it hurt an iron golem, not simply being magical.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That argument doesn't convinve me. A whip may be an ineffective weapon, but a magical whip has still been enchanted as a weapon, and that's what lets it hurt an iron golem, not simply being magical.

This is an old thread, but I'm pretty sure that ground has been covered. In every previous edition, "enchanted as a weapon" meant that it had a +1 or greater bonus to attack and damage, but that doesn't hold true in 5E. If it was possible to "enchant as a weapon" in 5E, and that was different from "enchanting as a bag" or "enchanting as armor", then we would strongly expect to see a lot of weapons that are "enchanted as a weapon" with no other effect. The world doesn't look like that, though, so it's highly unlikely that such is the case.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I am somewhat amused by the use of "the term weapon is subjective because that's just a label" to support an argument based on a rather rules-lawyer approach to defining such labels in the first place.

See, here's the thing. Bag of holding: the magic is on the inside. The magic enchants the space contained in the bag. So if you want to try and damage a golem with the space inside a bag, sure. I'll let you try. Spoiler alert: you'll rhyme with 'try'.

Potions: the liquid is magical, not the bottle. Bottle is nonmagical and the contents need to be injested.

Headband of wisdom: the magic works by interacting with your mind. If you want to hit a golem with a magical mental interaction then go ahead. You won't get far at my table.

Boots of speed: similarly, their magic works by altering your ability to move through space, once you are wearing them. The magic works only when worn. So again, sayeth the golem, come at me bro with your Gift of Slippers, see how much I hurt.

Bracers of defence: their magic works by helping to block or deflect or cause to miss blows from an opponent. This magic works when worn. Throw them at your enemy: they'll swerve off course. Hit the golem with them while they're still being worn? It's defensive magic - it won't activate offensively.

Ultimately any magic item is infused with magical power in order for it to perform its function. A magical potion performs its function and its magic manifests when it is drunk. A bag of holding's magic permits you to magically store things.

These objects' magic is inherent to their purpose.

As magic items are crafted or created, the one who crafts them in the process of creation is doing so with intent - concentrating that magical power to ensure this object (whether weapon, luggage, clothing, whatever) will be able to do/better able to do X job when worn, imbibed, commanded, or wielded.

It is taken by an act of will from the weave of magic, contained, mastered, controlled, given purpose in its creation - rather than being a bit of wild magic which has floated free from the weave (which is the magical equivalent of throwing your clothes off and running round the mountainside going "wheeee!").

A +1 sword, aside from being purely a mechanical in-game label, is a sword whose purpose (being a weapon) is magically amplified - better able to hit/deal damage.

A Frostbrand is a weapon whose function has been amplified by being able to deal a different sort of damage. But its function is still to damage.

An attack with a magical weapon is a magical attack; an attack with a non-weapon magical item is an improvised attack. An improvised attack is not a magical attack.

 

[Burticusb]

Okay, just to chime in a little bit, so, according to the Battlerager ability, you get to "make a melee weapon attack with your armor spikes..."

Key words... melee weapon

This indicates that this armor's spikes are being used as a weapon, not an improvised weapon.

I'm sorry, but unlike in 3e or 3.5e there is not one precedence in 5e that separate pieces of the armor(i.e. armor spikes or shield spikes) need to be enchanted to qualify the set to be considered magical for weapon attacks with it.

In my eyes, by RAW and RAI this would indicate that the armor if crafted to be "weapon-ized" and is magical would automatically qualify it as a whole to be a magical weapon, for simplicity if anything else.

Which in that respect is also keeping true to the nature of 5e

 

[Burticusb]

Also, this begs to compare then... if the attached spikes of the armor are not considered magical for purpose of attack, then neither is the back end of any polearm used in conjunction with the polearm master feat. The feat specifically allows you to use the back end of the polearm to make an attack with your bonus action.

Very similar in the way the Battlerager ability is used, now if you were to argue that the armor was not made to function as a weapon, thus it does not receive the magical properties when used to attack, then I would argue that the back end of the polearm was not made that way either. Especially considering that it denotes it as a bludgeoning attack. However, I'd argue that the developers never meant for that to be viewed that way.

Thus the back end of the polearm is an extension of the same weapon and therefore defined as a magical weapon if in fact the main part of the weapon is magical. Just as the the spikes are an extension of the armor which are defined as a weapon would also be considered magical.

Here's another thing to consider, the Battleragers main draw is the use of this armor, if you strip away its functionality as part of the class because it can't be used as a magical weapon attack you significantly reduce the draw to this class archtype.

Mechanically speaking the archtype is already less powerful then say a Bear Totem Barb, the damage output would be severely lacking compared to that of a Berserker barb, which is should be less... but I don't think that much less.

This is very simple, the armor is magical, the spikes being part of the armor is magical... equal to the bonus it should be.

Yes this is 2for1 deal, but there is already a penalty associated with that bonus, there are zero named pieces of armor...

Heck it hurts me to just think that my party might stumble upon a suit of amazing Dwarven plate, and alas I will have to pass on it, because Battleragers don't wear heavy armor...

*Glares at R.A. Salvatore for giving him unrealistic dreams...

#Pwent4President

 

[Lejaun]

As a battlerager myself, I would hope that the +1 bonus is added to both the armor aspect of the suit as well as the weapon aspect. A battlerager and his fighting style revolves around his armor, and its certainly not the most overpowering class out there. Adding (1) to your dice roll or damage isn't going to break the game.

 

[Burticusb]

Lejaun, I couldn't agree more... it's really that simple. I'd really like people to stop trying to make this game as complicated as 3.5e/Pathfinder.

If you want that type of play, with nit-picky rules lawyering, then go and play 3.5e/Pathfinder.

This edition is all about simplicity, and I love it for that.

+1 Spiked Armor is both +1 to AC and +1 to hit and damage per RAW and RAI.

/End Debate

 

[Burticusb]

Now, to muddle things up a bit... Adamantine Spiked Armor, it's under the magical table... therefore it is magical armor. So the spiked armor would therefore be considered magical.

No plus of course, but it would bypass resistance that requires magical weapons to pierce it.

Am I correct in this theory? I feel like I should be... but I'm open to listen to thoughts.