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

[DEFCON 1]

I'm with @Charlaquin on this one, myself. To me, all Hunter's Mark is doing is making it easier for you to make better hits on the creature (the same way critical hits and Sneak Attacks are better hits.) That's pretty much what the spell description tells you what you are doing-- you are Marking the target and thus merely enhancing your divination sight to make it easier for you to make a more powerful hit. The spell itself isn't causing any direct damage, it's allowing you to make better attacks. So that by itself does not require me to make any "great leaps" in logic or intuition to suggest the extra damage is not any different than the base damage (just like crits and SAs are not different). You merely can now see the target better and thus your standard attack has a better chance of doing more damage.

Now that being said... I also have no problem accepting the other side of the argument that the intention is that the Mark damage is magical since it comes from a spell. That also is a completely understandable reading of a possible generic rule of D&D-- anything involving a spell makes everything that's a part of it automatically magical, including damage that results from an effect that increases your ability to perform. Even if the spell itself is not the direct cause of said damage.

But without this assumed generic rule of D&D that says anything related to a spell effectively places the "magic" tag on every effect or result that comes out of it... the former interpretation to me makes just about as much logical sense as the latter does. But of course I don't care either way, because when the time comes to rule it in my games... I'm never going to waste time arguing with my players about it. Yeah, take the 1d6 magical Hunter's Mark damage. That's fine.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But without this assumed generic rule of D&D that says anything related to a spell effectively places the "magic" tag on every effect or result that comes out of it...

It's stronger than just assumed:

Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities. 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).

-MM page 8, including errata.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And if Hunter's Mark were a magical attack, that point might mean something. But it's not, attacks involve attack rolls, of which Hunter's Mark does not. It's a divination spell. It helps you make your own attack better, but is not in itself an attack.

But again... we fully understand the other side of things and aren't going to argue that your point doesn't have merit or isn't also logical its its interpretation. I just don't think the naturalisitic language used in the game is able to make one side of this discussion airtight. Both sides can use the language presented to explain how their point can logically exist.

Which is fine, of course! That's the whole point of using naturalistic language in the first place... so that DMs can all make their own rulings at their own table that makes the most sense for them and their players.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm with @Charlaquin on this one, myself. To me, all Hunter's Mark is doing is making it easier for you to make better hits on the creature (the same way critical hits and Sneak Attacks are better hits.) That's pretty much what the spell description tells you what you are doing-- you are Marking the target and thus merely enhancing your divination sight to make it easier for you to make a more powerful hit. The spell itself isn't causing any direct damage, it's allowing you to make better attacks. So that by itself does not require me to make any "great leaps" in logic or intuition to suggest the extra damage is not any different than the base damage (just like crits and SAs are not different). You merely can now see the target better and thus your standard attack has a better chance of doing more damage.

Now that being said... I also have no problem accepting the other side of the argument that the intention is that the Mark damage is magical since it comes from a spell. That also is a completely understandable reading of a possible generic rule of D&D-- anything involving a spell makes everything that's a part of it automatically magical, including damage that results from an effect that increases your ability to perform. Even if the spell itself is not the direct cause of said damage.

But without this assumed generic rule of D&D that says anything related to a spell effectively places the "magic" tag on every effect or result that comes out of it... the former interpretation to me makes just about as much logical sense as the latter does. But of course I don't care either way, because when the time comes to rule it in my games... I'm never going to waste time arguing with my players about it. Yeah, take the 1d6 magical Hunter's Mark damage. That's fine.

Well said.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities. 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).

So, since the damage is delivered by the weapon attack and not the spell, the logical interpretation of this excerpt would be that it is not magical.

 

[Undrave]

So... are we in agreement that Hunter's Mark is just poorly worded or what?

 

[Eric V]

Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities. 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).

So, since the damage is delivered by the weapon attack and not the spell, the logical interpretation of this excerpt would be that it is not magical.

Yeah, Hunter's Mark is definitely not an "attack delivered by a spell." Before the official ruling, just based on language and the different descriptions of Hex and Hunter's Mark, it would never have occurred to me that the damage from Hunter's Mark is a separate source of damage. They probably should have given it a damage type if that was the intention.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, Hunter's Mark is definitely not an "attack delivered by a spell." Before the official ruling, just based on language and the different descriptions of Hex and Hunter's Mark, it would never have occurred to me that the damage from Hunter's Mark is a separate source of damage. They probably should have given it a damage type if that was the intention.

Indeed. It's one reason I can see the logic behind either interpretation and wouldn't ding a DM for ruling one way or the other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So... are we in agreement that Hunter's Mark is just poorly worded or what?

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 for 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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So... are we in agreement that Hunter's Mark is just poorly worded or what?

Not at all, but I’m just as willing to not dive into that debate.