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

[Paul Farquhar]

If Hunter's Mark had been intended to modify the weapon's damage it would have said so in the spell description.

Compare Shillelagh: "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8. The weapon also becomes magical".

Key words: THE WEAPON.

The real unclear case is a spell that hasn't been mentioned yet: Enlarge/Reduce. The spell fluff implies that the +1d4 is a property of the enlarged weapon (and hence as magical or non-magical as the original weapon), but it actually states that is modifies the attack. In which case, RAW the +1d4 is magical even if the enlarged weapon is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It literally is caused by an attack from a nonmagical weapon though. The spell does not cause damage, it increases the damage the attack (which is from a nonmagical weapon) causes.

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 text of the spell does not provide damage. The text of the spell instructs you to increase the damage caused by attacks to the creature. If said attack is made by a nonmagical weapon, creatures immune to damage from nonmagical weapons should be immune to that damage, as an attack with a nonmagical weapon is causing it. The spell merely increases the damage, it does not cause damage.

The official ruling makes sense. It follows logically from the text on the page.

The official ruling is one of multiple logically consistent ways to interpret the text. My ruling is another, also logically consistent interpretation. Which is why I say it’s not really a big deal. I understand the official ruling, I see how that conclusion can be arrived at from the text, I just don’t think it is the best technical interpretation. Feel free to disagree, and to be secure in the knowledge that your interpretation is consistent with the official one, but this:

IMO, your reading requires a substantial logical leap.

Is uncalled for. My interpretation is logically sound, and intuitive enough that this question has been brought up to Jeremy Crawford enough for him to answer it. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean it isn’t logically sound.

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.

Whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

If Hunter's Mark had been intended to modify the weapon's damage it would have said so in the spell description.

Compare Shillelagh: "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8. The weapon also becomes magical".

Key words: THE WEAPON.

The real unclear case is a spell that hasn't been mentioned yet: Enlarge/Reduce. The spell fluff implies that the +1d4 is a property of the enlarged weapon (and hence as magical or non-magical as the original weapon), but it actually states that is modifies the attack. In which case, RAW the +1d4 is magical even if the enlarged weapon is not.

I don’t think 5e’s language is internally consistent enough to support this argument. In fact, I would say that the wording Enlarge/Reduce is a pretty clear indication that the writers did not find it necessary to use the specific phrasing “the weapon” to indicate that an increase to the damage dealt by a weapon attack is caused by the weapon. See also, sneak attack, which doesn’t say “the weapon” deals the extra damage either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It literally is caused by an attack from a nonmagical weapon though. The spell does not cause damage, it increases the damage the attack (which is from a nonmagical weapon) causes.


The text of the spell does not provide damage. The text of the spell instructs you to increase the damage caused by attacks to the creature. If said attack is made by a nonmagical weapon, creatures immune to damage from nonmagical weapons should be immune to that damage, as an attack with a nonmagical weapon is causing it. The spell merely increases the damage, it does not cause damage.


The official ruling is one of multiple logically consistent ways to interpret the text. My ruling is another, also logically consistent interpretation. Which is why I say it’s not really a big deal. I understand the official ruling, I see how that conclusion can be arrived at from the text, I just don’t think it is the best technical interpretation. Feel free to disagree, and to be secure in the knowledge that your interpretation is consistent with the official one, but this:


Is uncalled for. My interpretation is logically sound, and intuitive enough that this question has been brought up to Jeremy Crawford enough for him to answer it. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean it isn’t logically sound.


Whatever.

I’m sorry that I offended you by criticizing your argument. I’ll drop it, if that’s where we are at.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m sorry that I offended you by criticizing your argument. I’ll drop it, if that’s where we are at.

I’m not offended by critique of the argument, but I’m annoyed that you just declared it to be logically unsound without demonstrating it to be so. It is probably best we drop it though, since for the past few posts we have basically just been “nu-uh”ing each other.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

See also, sneak attack, which doesn’t say “the weapon” deals the extra damage either.

Sneak attack also does not modify the damage done by the weapon.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sneak attack also does not modify the damage done by the weapon.

If that’s the case, why would Sneak Attack be able to damage creatures that are immune to nonmagical damage? Sneak Attack isn’t magical, so if it doesn’t increase the damage dealt by the weapon, then the damage it does shouldn’t be magical even if the weapon is. So, are liches just immune to Sneak Attack in your games?

 

[Flamestrike]

It literally is caused by an attack from a nonmagical weapon though.

No it isnt. The 1d6 damage of Hunters Mark is caused by the Spell. No spell, and no extra 1d6 damage.

The damage is delivered via a weapon attack, in the same way Hex's necrotic damage is, or Greenflame blades Fire damage is or Booming blades thunder damage is.

Just because the weapon attack delivers the damage from the spell, doesnt mean the weapon attack causes the damage. The cause of the damage is clearly from a spell effect.

 

[CapnZapp]

But they look good in shorts and t-shirts!

They sure do!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If that’s the case, why would Sneak Attack be able to damage creatures that are immune to nonmagical damage? Sneak Attack isn’t magical, so if it doesn’t increase the damage dealt by the weapon, then the damage it does shouldn’t be magical even if the weapon is. So, are liches just immune to Sneak Attack in your games?

I believe the Monster Manual has been errataed to change the wording from "non-magical weapons" to "non-magical attacks" specifically to address this issue. Sneak Attack is not a weapon, but it is an attack.