D&D 5E Hunters mark and hex and immunity to non-magic damage

[Charlaquin]

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.

See billd91’s post for a counter-example.

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.

I don’t dispute that if Hunter’s Mark itself did damage, that damage would be magical. But Hunter’s Mark does not do damage, it has the effect of increasing the damage of weapon attacks against the target. It’s the weapon doing the damage, not the spell.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See billd91’s post for a counter-example.


I don’t dispute that if Hunter’s Mark itself did damage, that damage would be magical. But Hunter’s Mark does not do damage, it has the effect of increasing the damage of weapon attacks against the target. It’s the weapon doing the damage, not the spell.

The source of the damage is magical, regardless. If the spell granted an extra attack, I’d agree with you, but the spell is adding 1d6 damage to the attack’s damage. That means the damage comes from the spell.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Please don't send players against a Lich without magic weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

The source of the damage is magical, regardless. If the spell granted an extra attack, I’d agree with you, but the spell is adding 1d6 damage to the attack’s damage. That means the damage comes from the spell.

No, it means the damage comes from the attack. Literally, you just said the spell adds to the attack’s damage, it doesn’t actually do damage.

 

[Campbell]

For what it is worth before I saw this thread we had been treating Hunter's Mark damage like sneak attack damage - it takes on the same type as the weapon used.

 

[billd91]

As far as slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, I think you’re right. It should generally be the same damage type in that regard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it means the damage comes from the attack. Literally, you just said the spell adds to the attack’s damage, it doesn’t actually do damage.

It doesn’t matter, the damage comes from the spell. Whether it adds that damage to the attack or not is irrelevant, it’s still damage from a spell.

Regardless of whether it’s the main damage or the damage being added, if it’s there as a result of a magic item, spell, or effect, it’s magical damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

It doesn’t matter, the damage comes from the spell. Whether it adds that damage to the attack or not is irrelevant, it’s still damage from a spell.

No, it is not from the spell. It’s from the weapon. Again, the fact that sneak attack damage is magic if the weapon is magic, despite sneak attack not being magic, clearly indicates that when an effect causes an attack to do extra damage, the source of the damage remains the weapon.

Regardless of whether it’s the main damage or the damage being added, if it’s there as a result of a magic item, spell, or effect, it’s magical damage.

Hunter’s Mark does not add damage. Its effect is that attacks against the target do extra damage. Think of it like a force multiplier. Also, Bracers of Archery provide a counter-example to your claim that damage that is the result of a spell, magic item, or magic effect is magical damage. Just like Hunter’s Mark, Bracers of Archery have the effect of causing certain attacks to do extra damage.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hunter’s Mark does not add damage. Its effect is that attacks against the target do extra damage.

Yeah. And that extra damage is not damage caused by an 'attack from a non magical weapon'. That extra damage is damage caused by a spell.

So if you were to attack a Lich with a non magical weapon (say a Sword) while you had it targeted with Hunters Mark, it would take 1d6 Slashing damage each time you hit it with that sword (the damage from the spell) and it would take no damage at all from your sword attack (because the Lich is immune to damage from non magical weapons).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it is not from the spell. It’s from the weapon. Again, the fact that sneak attack damage is magic if the weapon is magic, despite sneak attack not being magic, clearly indicates that when an effect causes an attack to do extra damage, the source of the damage remains the weapon.


Hunter’s Mark does not add damage. Its effect is that attacks against the target do extra damage. Think of it like a force multiplier. Also, Bracers of Archery provide a counter-example to your claim that damage that is the result of a spell, magic item, or magic effect is magical damage. Just like Hunter’s Mark, Bracers of Archery have the effect of causing certain attacks to do extra damage.

That extra damage is a result of casting the spell. That means it comes from the spell. That’s it. The text of the spell provides the damage. The official ruling makes sense. It follows logically from the text on the page. IMO, your reading requires a substantial logical leap.

As for Bracers of Archery, barring an official ruling to the contrary, the +2 damage is magical. Obviously the rest of your damage isn’t, just like with Hunters Mark.