D&D 5E Hunters mark and hex and immunity to non-magic damage
LordEntrails
Hero
But they look good in shorts and t-shirts!I want to know whose bright idea it was to go chasing after a lich without a butt-load of magical weapons at their disposal? Was this before or after trying to take on the ancient white dragon wearing nothing but shorts and a tee shirt?
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Well that’s the thing, I don’t dispute that a spell’s damage is always magical, only that the spell Hunter’s Mark does damage. But, again, we have the official ruling, and it’s really not a big deal.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Fair enough.
Edit: It's really hard to not reply to an argument I disagree with...
ignore the spoiler if you don't want to continue discussing it.
Ugh, okay, if a spell or other magical effect adds damage to an attack, that extra damage is coming from the spell or magical effect. I'm just saying. It is literally coming from the spell. I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way, when the damage literally is a result of the spell, directly.
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Easy - because it's actually indirect and the device that is necessary to deliver the damage is not magical. It's not like there haven't been plenty of examples throughout D&D's history where magic has enabled someone to do more damage without making the weapon or attack explicitly magical. To use something from the current edition, bracers of archery allows a wearer to add 2 points of damage with their attacks - does it make those attacks magical? I wouldn't think so.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It’s cool, I feel the same way
But the effect of the spell is to increase the damage done by the attack. Compare to like Sneak Attack, which also has the effect of causing an attack to deal extra damage. Sneak Attack itself doesn’t do damage, it increases the damage done by the attack, which is why it is also doubled on a critical hit. Or to use an analogy that’s a bit more removed from D&D, when you cast a spell on Magic the Gathering that increases a creature’s power, the creature, not the spell, is the source of damage.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It’s cool, I feel the same way
But the effect of the spell is to increase the damage done by the attack. Compare to like Sneak Attack, which also has the effect of causing an attack to deal extra damage. Sneak Attack itself doesn’t do damage, it increases the damage done by the attack, which is why it is also doubled on a critical hit. Or to use an analogy that’s a bit more removed from D&D, when you cast a spell on Magic the Gathering that increases a creature’s power, the creature, not the spell, is the source of damage.
a relief, to be sure.
But the damage is coming from the spell. If Sneak Attack was a magical effect, it would deal magical damage as well. For instance, magic weapons don't specify that they make the damage they deal magical, but if you sneak attack with a magic dagger, all of the damage is magical. Same with a Sneak Attack using Shadowblade.
Which is why I said that it would make more sense for HM to make all the damage magical, than for it to not make any of the damage magical, but the most sense is the official ruling.
Which is why I said that it would make more sense for HM to make all the damage magical, than for it to not make any of the damage magical, but the most sense is the official ruling.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
a relief, to be sure.
But the damage is coming from the spell. If Sneak Attack was a magical effect, it would deal magical damage as well. For instance, magic weapons don't specify that they make the damage they deal magical, but if you sneak attack with a magic dagger, all of the damage is magical. Same with a Sneak Attack using Shadowblade.
This argument supports my position. Sneak Attack is not a magical effect. Sneak Attack damage applied to an attack with a magic weapon is magic damage. Ergo, the source of the damage must be the weapon, since otherwise it would not be magical.
I don’t see how this conclusion follows logically from your argument.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The first part doesn’t follow. It’s a leap. Sneak Attack and Hunters Mark both add damage to the attack, but SA doesn’t do anything else. If SA were a spell, it would make the weapon damage also magical.
Hunter’s Mark is a spell. It’s damage cannot avoid being magical, and the d6 comes from the spell. The spell would have to specify that it doesn’t deal magica damage for it to not do so, because the general rule is that damage from magical effects is magical. The damage from Hunters Mark is unavoidably from the spell.
Similar Threads
