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

[the Jester]

There are actually a couple of items that give a lesser property whether you're attuned or not, but only gain additional properties if you are attuned to that. Given that, I'd rule that a weapon that requires attunement for all its properties doesn't count as magic if you aren't attuned. (I'm pretty sure there is at least one magic weapon like that in the DMG, but don't recall off hand which one it is.)

 

[CapnZapp]

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...]

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?

Yes, the weapon is magical and so it pierces magic resistance.

I like the way even "plus zero" is clearly magical. That you don't have to slap a plus bonus on a magic weapon is a bonus that keeps bounded accuracy.

If there were a hypothetical weapon* which clearly says it doesn't become magical until you attune to it, then, no - that wepon would neither be magical nor silvered, but it would presumably do bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage. And so the magic resistance would be effective.

*) I don't know, a "hidden" "disguisable" weapon perhaps. Say a weapon that looks like a coat hanger or a walking stick when not activated (or in this case, attuned). Since we're not talking about a +3 vorpal coat hanger here, the magic resistance would be effective against it.

 

[crazy_monkey]

Otherwise, the fighter is effectively out of the fight - can't damage the enemies, would really only be able to participate as a target or perhaps some minor support if they're clever? Yes, I'd allow them to use the mace to bypass resistance.

I'd be inclined to allow it anyway, but the last thing I want as a GM is to have a player sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Mercule]

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

I agree, in theory. In practice, you may end up making a bunch of "right calls" to an empty table.

Probably a better way to phrase my sentiment is that in the heat of the moment, I could totally see me making a call I'd later regret and/or reverse.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I lean towards not allowing the magic to function at all without attunement. The wights have resistance, not immunity, so the fighter is just hindered, not outright useless in the fight (and even then, there are plenty of things a smart PC could do).

To allow a PC to bypass the resistance so easily goes against the design of the monster. It's part of the reason why wights and other creatures with resistances are as tough as they are (and provide the XP that they do).

 

[KahlessNestor]

I lean towards not allowing the magic to function at all without attunement. The wights have resistance, not immunity, so the fighter is just hindered, not outright useless in the fight (and even then, there are plenty of things a smart PC could do).

To allow a PC to bypass the resistance so easily goes against the design of the monster. It's part of the reason why wights and other creatures with resistances are as tough as they are (and provide the XP that they do).

Easily bypass? I don't see how it's easy. They have to have the magic weapon. And then two characters have to coordinate to get it to the fighter. That's two of your front line PCs taken out of combat for at least a round. I would hardly say it's easy.

 

[delericho]

By the RAW, the mace would not count as magic for this purpose.

Huh. I didn't believe this when you first posted it, especially as the Basic rules don't have the example of the shield. However, I checked the DMG and you are indeed correct.

(Though I'd still rule otherwise. )

Otherwise, the fighter is effectively out of the fight - can't damage the enemies, would really only be able to participate as a target or perhaps some minor support if they're clever? Yes, I'd allow them to use the mace to bypass resistance.

It's only resistance, not immunity, so the fighter is not out of the fight. Sure, it sucks doing half damage, but that's still better than nothing.

Besides, if the party want the fighter to be fully effective, they have a solution easily available to them: have the fighter attune to the mace. If they choose not to do that, then they're also choosing not to let him be fully effective.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Huh. I didn't believe this when you first posted it, especially as the Basic rules don't have the example of the shield. However, I checked the DMG and you are indeed correct.

(Though I'd still rule otherwise. )

Having thought about it, I would rule otherwise as well, on the following basis: If the weapon was a Defender sword, which has a +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls but requires attunement, I would apply the bonus to attack and damage even before the character knew what the sword was or attuned to it. That might not be RAW in this edition, but that's how it's always worked in my games (whether or not that was actually the rule in ANY edition).

Attunement might be be necessary to use the magical properties of a weapon, but a magical weapon is still a magical weapon, whether you know about/can use its fancy bits or not.

 

[Kalshane]

Put me clearly in the "It's always a magical weapon, whether attuned or not" camp. As others have said, you don't get all the bells and whistles, but a magic sword or mace or whatever, still counts as a magical weapon.

I even stretched the rules further in my own game once. Facing off against a horde of animated armor in a wizard's stronghold, the barbarian decided to use his turn to grapple the one suit that was wielding an obviously magical blade (as it was doing ice damage to them) and tear the weapon free, and then attack with the newly-stolen weapon on his next turn. It would have ruined the coolness of the moment, IMO, if his effort just netted him a blade that counted as magical until he took the time to attune it rather than a frost weapon.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I read over the rules section again on magic items and attunement to see what I may have missed. I came to the conclusion, like others here, that magic is magic. Being magic is a passive thing and not an ability or property of the item. Saying an un-attuned Mace of Disruption would not bypass resistance to non-magical damage would be like saying the magic item's increased resilience to being damaged does not apply either until it is attuned to.