log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

auburn2

Explorer
A lich has immunity to "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Non-magical Attacks". If use hex and attack with a non-magic weapon does the lich take the 1d6 hex damage?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Yes. Using Hex, Hunter's Mark, Booming Blade, etc. allows the damage from the spell to work, even if the weapon is non-magical.

NOTE: I've seen conflicting rules on this both ways, FWIW.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yes. Using Hex, Hunter's Mark, Booming Blade, etc. allows the damage from the spell to work, even if the weapon is non-magical.

NOTE: I've seen conflicting rules on this both ways, FWIW.
Almost replied before the edit.

It's definitely something you want to ask the DM about.
 

the Jester

Legend
Hex does necrotic damage, and it triggers on a hit. So even if the weapon doesn't do any damage, hex should still trigger (and the lich will have resistance to the damage). Hunter's mark is less clear; it causes the weapon to do extra damage, and the weapon is nonmagical. Definitely check with your DM.
 


A lich has immunity to "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Non-magical Attacks". If use hex and attack with a non-magic weapon does the lich take the 1d6 hex damage?
Hex deals necrotic damage. Which the lich is resistant to (but not immune like it is with B, S and P damage) so that works fine.

Hunters Mark adds weapon damage (S, B or P), but doesn't make the weapon a Magical Weapon so it doesn't work.
 

Hunters Mark adds weapon damage (S, B or P), but doesn't make the weapon a Magical Weapon so it doesn't work.
"Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"

It's the SPELL that does the extra damage, not the weapon. And spells are not "non-magical weapons".

Just like Hex, the damage from Hunter's Mark is separate and still applies, even if the weapon itself does nothing.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
"Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"

It's the SPELL that does the extra damage, not the weapon. And spells are not "non-magical weapons".

Just like Hex, the damage from Hunter's Mark is separate and still applies, even if the weapon itself does nothing.
I doesn’t say that though. “You deal an extra 1d6 damage” tells me it’s increasing the damage done by the weapon attack.
 

I doesn’t say that though. “You deal an extra 1d6 damage” tells me it’s increasing the damage done by the weapon attack.
It says "you" not "your weapon".

If it increased the weapon damage then it should benefit from Two Weapon Style (if used with an eligible weapon). I believe there is a sage advice saying that it does not.
 




billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Honestly, either interpretation is understandable. But treating hunter’s mark as separate, magical damage gives characters the tools they may need to overcome a monster’s resistances and immunities, though it does potentially complicate damage rolling and adjudication. And that’s not a bad thing.
 






Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Yeah, I allow it to make all the attack’s damage magical, but I can’t really see the reasoning to go the other way.
My reasoning is that the spell is increasing the damage from the attack, not dealing its own separate source of damage (which is why damage type isn’t specified). Narratively, the spell marks the target so you can more easily track it and hit it harder/more precisely with your attacks - the spell itself isn’t what’s doing the damage.

But, like I said, it’s not a big deal either way. I see the argument for the other interpretation, and it is the official ruling.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
My reasoning is that the spell is increasing the damage from the attack, not dealing its own separate source of damage (which is why damage type isn’t specified). Narratively, the spell marks the target so you can more easily track it and hit it harder/more precisely with your attacks - the spell itself isn’t what’s doing the damage.

But, like I said, it’s not a big deal either way. I see the argument for the other interpretation, and it is the official ruling.
I guess I can see that narratively, sure. Mechanically, spells damage is always magical, of course, but narratively that works, especially for a character flavoring their Hunters Mark as just supernatural eagle eyed perception.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top