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

[DND_Reborn]

Hex works, as does Hunter's Mark, according to SA. This should clear it up:

But, as always, make sure your DM and table agrees with the ruling and wants to play that way.

 

[Flamestrike]

That does make sense now I think about it.

The extra 1d6 damage is coming from a spell, not from a magical or non magical weapon.

I stand corrected. The d6 damage ifrom HM isn't affected by the liches immunity.

 

[billd91]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

If that were the case, it would make all the damage of the attack magical.

 

[Charlaquin]

If that were the case, it would make all the damage of the attack magical.

I don’t agree, but it’s not a big deal either way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t agree, but it’s not a big deal either way.

Fair enough. The official ruling is that the damage from the spell, because it is from a spell, is magical regardless of the weapon damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough. The official ruling is that the damage from the spell, because it is from a spell, is magical regardless of the weapon damage.

Yeah, which makes plenty of sense, even if it isn’t how I would rule it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, which makes plenty of sense, even if it isn’t how I would rule it.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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]

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.