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

shadowoflameth · Aug 4, 2020

Agree with Crawford and the ruling there. The weapon damage from Hunters mark is increased by magic. That makes it magical damage.

Undrave · Aug 4, 2020

DEFCON 1 said:
Depend entirely on how airtight you need your D&D rules. Personally, I don't care how anyone else rules their game so I have no need for the rules to worded perfectly airtight and thus my rulings matching anyone else's.

And if you are a player who is jumping from table to table to table, you probably might want to start being accustomed to being much looser on how you need the rules of the game to be foir yourself. Because if you want one way and only one way for every rule to be run, you probably need to find and stick to a single Dungeon Master that cares that intently about the exact ruling of things as you do, so that there's never any disparity.

I know I know "rulings not rules" blah blah blah...

I'm sorry but that sounds like a cope out for a poorly worded spells. It's not like an illusion spell or Wish or Telekinesis or any of the elemental control cantrips or anything with rooms for interpretation and tons of situations it can apply to... Hunter's Mark is a super straight-forward bonus to damage, one of the simplest concept in the game. It shouldn't be 'open to interpretation'! It doesn't NEED to be vague to do its job. So yes, in this case, it SHOULD be airtight, or at the very least be worded in a way that is consistent with stuff like Hex or a Smite spell.

DEFCON 1 · Aug 4, 2020

To my mind, it is consistent to the Hex or the Smites spells. Hex grants an additional +1d6 necrotic damage. Searing Smite grants an additional +1d6 fire damage. Blinding Smite grants an additional +3d8 radiant damage. Hunter's Mark grants an additional +1d6 damage. Not fire damage, not necrotic damage, not radiant damage, not magical damage... just "additional damage". Thus there is nothing in the spell description that says that additional damage is different than whatever type of damage your original attack made.

It's the folks that are suggesting the Mark's +1d6 is a different type of damage (magical) that are confusing things. Now if there was something written in any of the books that explicitly said that any and all damage that comes out of the use of a magical spell is inherently "magical" damage (and thus cannot be resisted by those Resistant to non-magical BPS), then there wouldn't be any discrepancy. But it doesn't say that. So as a result, they're the ones muddying the issue. Thus if you just ignore them, everything in your game will be hunky-dory!

jmartkdr2 · Aug 4, 2020

While the debate has shown at least two perfectly logical ways to rules this, I'd let the whole thing count as magical just because I find it's best to default rule in favor of the players, and rangers could use the help.

Undrave · Aug 4, 2020

DEFCON 1 said:
To my mind, it is consistent to the Hex or the Smites spells. Hex grants an additional +1d6 necrotic damage. Searing Smite grants an additional +1d6 fire damage. Blinding Smite grants an additional +3d8 radiant damage. Hunter's Mark grants an additional +1d6 damage. Not fire damage, not necrotic damage, not radiant damage, not magical damage... just "additional damage". Thus there is nothing in the spell description that says that additional damage is different than whatever type of damage your original attack made.

It's the folks that are suggesting the Mark's +1d6 is a different type of damage (magical) that are confusing things. Now if there was something written in any of the books that explicitly said that any and all damage that comes out of the use of a magical spell is inherently "magical" damage (and thus cannot be resisted by those Resistant to non-magical BPS), then there wouldn't be any discrepancy. But it doesn't say that. So as a result, they're the ones muddying the issue. Thus if you just ignore them, everything in your game will be hunky-dory!

But that's the thing... it doesn't SPECIFY what the damage is. It doesn't say '1d6 damage of the same type as the weapon you are using' or something to that effect. It's typeless damage, which is not consistent with other instances of damage boosting spells.

Arial Black · Aug 5, 2020

Undrave said:
But that's the thing... it doesn't SPECIFY what the damage is. It doesn't say '1d6 damage of the same type as the weapon you are using' or something to that effect. It's typeless damage, which is not consistent with other instances of damage boosting spells.

It's NOT 'typeless' damage. It is bludgeoning, piercing, slashing or radiant damage, matching the damage type of the weapon.

There is no such thing as 'typeless' damage in 5e. Sneak Attack, critical hit damage, hunter's mark damage, NONE of those exist separately; they all just increase whatever damage type the actual attack does.

Also, in 5e, 'magic' is not a damage type.

You can use the fabricate spell to create a weapon (if you are proficient in the appropriate tools). That weapon is not magical, the damage it deals on a hit is not magical, and the fact that the weapon was magically created does not make the damage it does 'damage from a magical source'.

If you have been reincarnated by magic, you don't get to claim that every bit of damage you cause counts as 'damage from a magical source' on the grounds that you would not exist if it wasn't for the spell that reincarnated you.

If the world was created by the magic of the gods, that does not mean that every single bit of damage counts as 'damage from a magical source' either.

Undrave · Aug 5, 2020

Arial Black said:
There is no such thing as 'typeless' damage in 5e.

I know, which is why the spell not making any sort of precision means it's not consistent with the rest of the damage buff spells!

Charlaquin · Aug 5, 2020

Undrave said:
I know, which is why the spell not making any sort of precision means it's not consistent with the rest of the damage buff spells!

But it is consistent with other nonmagical sources of extra damage, like Sneak Attack. Damage from such abilities is generally considered nonmagical when the attack to which they are adding damage comes from a nonmagical weapon, and magi al when it comes from a magical weapon. It would be most consistent for the extra damage from Hunter’s Mark to likewise be magical when the weapon is magical, and nonmagical when the weapon is nonmagical.

auburn2 · Aug 5, 2020

DEFCON 1 said:
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?

It is a matter of principle.

The 4 characters in our party are LG cleric of Torm, LG wizard, LG fighter/ranger and CG rogue/warlock. The lich is currently traveling with us. The cleric thinks it is our duty to take her out. The wizard agrees. My character (the fighter-ranger) is feeling guilty but believes just running away in the middle of the night is a better option. The rogue really wants to flee but said he is grudgingly willing to go with the parties decision.

billd91 · Aug 5, 2020

auburn2 said:
It is a matter of principle.

The 4 characters in our party are LG cleric of Torm, LG wizard, LG fighter/ranger and CG rogue/warlock. The lich is currently traveling with us. The cleric thinks it is our duty to take her out. The wizard agrees. My character (the fighter-ranger) is feeling guilty but believes just running away in the middle of the night is a better option. The rogue really wants to flee but said he is grudgingly willing to go with the parties decision.

So she’s evil. Is she doing evil stuff right now? If not, what’s different between your party and a band of brigands attacking (or planning to attack) their unsuspecting fellow travelers? Do people attack others peacefully coexisting (for now) normally on principle?