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

[Charlaquin]

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?

Well, there’s of course additional context on this matter in the other thread, but if we set that aside and assume the characters know with certainty the she’s a lich... I’m not sure she needs to be actively engaged in evil for attacking her to be justified? I mean, the specifics of how one becomes a lich are a little vague, but they are explicitly pretty heinous, and a lich’s unlife is sustained by the consumption of mortal souls...

 

[Undrave]

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.

Honestly, Hunter's Mark should just be a class feature, like the 4e version, then the non-magical damage would make sense... but making it a spell that doesn't inflict magical damage feels like a needless nerf... The Ranger clearly wouldn't break anything if the damage WAS magical.

Also, if it's gonna boost your own ability... shouldn't the target be 'self' instead? It makes sense for Hex to target the creature since it imposes a debuff on them as well... but Hunter's Mark makes you better at attacking and tracking a specific creature of your choice so shouldn't it be a sort of self-buff that THEN lets you mark a creature as quarry?

I guess it'd be wordier that way, but I personally feel like its mechanic would align better with its flavor that way...

Also it has a verbal component, which I find funny for some reason... I can't help but imagine the Ranger just shouting 'I DECLARE THEE MY QUARRY!" loudly in the middle of a fight like a huge goober and it's really funny to me...

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, Hunter's Mark should just be a class feature, like the 4e version,

I feel that way about a lot of things that are spells in 5e, especially Ranger spells.

 

[auburn2]

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?

I think the cleric's position is she is not just evil, she is an abomination that needs to be destroyed because it is the "right thing to do" ... of course even if we are really lucky and beat her we can't destroy her because she probably has a phalactery somewhere .... but that is semantics.

The cleric is lawful good (bordering on lawful stupid) so yeah, peacefully coexisting with undead is not a principle she agrees with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the cleric's position is she is not just evil, she is an abomination that needs to be destroyed because it is the "right thing to do" ... of course even if we are really lucky and beat her we can't destroy her because she probably has a phalactery somewhere .... but that is semantics.

The cleric is lawful good (bordering on lawful stupid) so yeah, peacefully coexisting with undead is not a principle she agrees with.

Killing people because you are certain "it is the right thing to do" is a pretty dark path.

That aside, the phylactery is more than just semantics - it makes it literally impossible to kill her unless you can track it down first. Ergo, attacking her is pointless - does your cleric's god approve of suicide?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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.

I used to rule that the extra damage was nonmagical, but about a year ago the argument above changed my mind.

If you hit a marked foe with a greatsword, your damage roll is 2d6+STR (slashing, nonmagical weapon) +1d6 (slashing, magical). Get different coloured dice - you will need them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Killing people because you are certain "it is the right thing to do" is a pretty dark path.

How about killing someone because you are certain they will go on to kill many more people otherwise? That is certainly true if a lich, since their continued existence requires regular consumption of mortal souls.

 

[CapnZapp]

Killing people because you know you're right has been a staple of D&D since its beginnings.

Luckily abilities like Detect Alignment isn't as ubiquitous nowadays.