Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8054787" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.</blockquote>