D&D 5E On Attunement and the Activation of Magic

[Syntallah]

In the DMG the Mace of Disruption is referred to as a "magic weapon", and the recent Sage Advice says that a magic weapon can pierce resistance and immunity regardless of whether it has an enhancement bonus or not. [Side note: not sure I agree with that, but that's a topic for another time...]

Now, recently my group was fighting some wights, and they are resistant to (necrotic; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered). The fighter is a low level addition to the group (previous character died), and does not have a magic weapon. The paladin wields a sentient magical sword as his primary, but does have a Mace of Disruption as a back up that he is attuned to.

After the battle, I was asked whether or not the paladin could have given his Mace to the fighter to use [who would not be attuned], and would it affect the wights. Everybody agrees that the extra abilities of the Mace (i.e. extra 2d6 damage, Wis save, light, etc) would not be active, but would the Mace's inherent magic, the ability to pierce the wight's resistance, be effective?

Thoughts?

 

[KahlessNestor]

I would rule the inherent magic would still work to pierce the resistance.

 

[delericho]

I would say "yes, it bypasses the resistance". But I'm generous like that.

 

[Eis]

yeah that's a DM's call but I'd rule that it would function as a magic weapon for that purpose

 

[DEFCON 1]

As a DM, my ruling would agree with the party's supposition.

I would not require attunement to a magic weapon for it to be considered a magic weapon with regards to resistance. All the other abilities in the weapon? Yes, attunement would be necessary to unlock them. But as a magic weapon in it's own right? Nope, the Fighter could use it and get past resistance.

I should say that part of my ruling on this comes from my time playing AD&D when players in our games could wield magic weapons even before having Identified them, and the DMs would apply any magical bonuses or penalties that did not require "activation" secretively as they came up. I see attunement as the pretty much the same sort of thing.

 

[Syntallah]

As a DM, my ruling would agree with the party's supposition.

I would not require attunement to a magic weapon for it to be considered a magic weapon with regards to resistance. All the other abilities in the weapon? Yes, attunement would be necessary to unlock them. But as a magic weapon in it's own right? Nope, the Fighter could use it and get past resistance.

I should say that part of my ruling on this comes from my time playing AD&D when players in our games could wield magic weapons even before having Identified them, and the DMs would apply any magical bonuses or penalties that did not require "activation" secretively as they came up. I see attunement as the pretty much the same sort of thing.

LOL, yes that brings back old memories of telling the DM damage totals and adding the words "plus the plus of the weapon..."


My initial thought on the Mace was: yes, I would allow it to pierce the resistance of undead because the weapon is specifically made to hurt them. I would not be so inclined to let it hurt a golem though...

 

[Ath-kethin]

By the RAW, the mace would not count as magic for this purpose. In the DMG on page 136-138, under attunement, it specifically mentions that all magical properties of a weapon or armor are ineffective for an unattuned character if attunement is required for the item. The example they use is a magical shield, which would still provide the benefits of a normal shield to an unattuned character.

So the mace would still function as a mace, but would not be magical unless the character took the time to attune to it.

 

[Mercule]

By the RAW, the mace would not count as magic for this purpose. In the DMG on page 136-138, under attunement, it specifically mentions that all magical properties of a weapon or armor are ineffective for an unattuned character if attunement is required for the item. The example they use is a magical shield, which would still provide the benefits of a normal shield to an unattuned character.

So the mace would still function as a mace, but would not be magical unless the character took the time to attune to it.

I think that's up for interpretation. It doesn't become a non-magical mace, the character just can't use any of the magical abilities. Because it's still a magical weapon, it would bypass the resistance.

Note that I get where you're coming from, I just disagree. A magical weapon doesn't cease to be magical based on who holds it any more than a Staff of the Magi ceases to be such when held by a chump fighter. The resistance is overcome by the inherent nature of the weapon, not by the character using any of its "magical properties".

I agree with the group that the mace would have worked for the Fighter. I'll grant, though, that I may have made the wrong call in the heat of the action.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I agree with the group that the mace would have worked for the Fighter. I'll grant, though, that I may have made the wrong call in the heat of the action.

If you are the DM, there is no such thing as a wrong call.

And I agree that it makes no real sense for the "magic" to not work simply by the item being wielded/held, but so it goes.

 

[jrowland]

I would allow it to bypass resistance.

My reasoning:

If someone casts detect magic on the mace when found (and therefore not attuned to anyone), it would certainly detect as magic. It is magic. It is a weapon ( a mace). Therefore it bypasses resistance.

In fact, as silly as it might be, I would allow someone to use a magical non-weapon as an improvised weapon attack to bypass resistance (1d4 damage + str is not much better than [1d8+str]/2)

"let me get this straight: You want to roll up your cloak of the manta ray into a "rat's tail" and snap it at the wight as an improvised weapon?" *sigh* "Fine. It's an improvised weapon that passes its resistance. And for the record: I hate you."