Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8221533" data-attributes="member: 6921763">All great points.&nbsp; Thank you!Now, about the bolded part - I'd say we have some RAW evidence that there is a distinction between magical fire and nonmagical fire and, therefore, implicitly there is magical fire damage and nonmagical fire damage (note, I'm not defending using Stoneskin with Awakened Spellbook, I'm just curious about exploring this assertion):DMG p61:&nbsp; &quot;Wind quickly extinguishes nonmagical open flames such as torches and campfires.&quot;DMG p219:&nbsp; &quot;While attuned to the artifact, nonmagical flames are extinguished within 30 feet of you.&quot;PHB p197:&nbsp; &quot;For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.&quot;MM p8:&nbsp; &quot;Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source).&quot;EGW p151:&nbsp; &quot;Nonmagical fire can't burn here.&quot;I believe there are more such examples in some adventures, but I think the point is sufficiently made.Of course, the point is a bit moot (for now) as no current WotC-published monster has resistance or immunity to general nonmagical damage or to specific nonmagical damage that is not piercing, slashing, bludgeoning.&nbsp; Then again, that doesn't prevent a DM from homebrewing a monster that is resistant or immune to nonmagical fire damage, for example.Then then again, this doesn't have much to do with the OP other than being loosely related to spells that a wizard may or may not be able to cast - so sorry about that!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8221533, member: 6921763"] All great points. Thank you! Now, about the bolded part - I'd say we have some RAW evidence that there [I]is [/I]a distinction between magical fire and nonmagical fire and, therefore, implicitly there [I]is [/I]magical fire damage and nonmagical fire damage (note, I'm not defending using [I]Stoneskin [/I]with Awakened Spellbook, I'm just curious about exploring this assertion): DMG p61: "Wind quickly extinguishes nonmagical open flames such as torches and campfires." DMG p219: "While attuned to the artifact, nonmagical flames are extinguished within 30 feet of you." PHB p197: "For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters." MM p8: "Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source)." EGW p151: "Nonmagical fire can't burn here." I believe there are more such examples in some adventures, but I think the point is sufficiently made. Of course, the point is a bit moot (for now) as no current WotC-published monster has resistance or immunity to general [I]nonmagical damage [/I]or to specific [I]nonmagical damage [/I]that is not piercing, slashing, bludgeoning. Then again, that doesn't prevent a DM from homebrewing a monster that is resistant or immune to nonmagical fire damage, for example. Then [I]then[/I] again, this doesn't have much to do with the OP other than being loosely related to spells that a wizard may or may not be able to cast - so sorry about that! [/QUOTE]

Verification