Mixing
Is there a distinction between magical damage and nonmagical damage?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
At various times while using this site, I've seen assertions that damage cannot be magical or nonmagical, and that referring to "magical damage" or "nonmagical damage" is thus nonsense. For example, damage from the fireball spell and damage from a flask of alchemist's fire are both just "fire damage" not "magical fire damage" and "nonmagical fire damage".
However, I've also seen some people assuming the opposite, such as this question. Such an assumption might arise from the numerous other ways that "magical" versions of effects are treated differently from "nonmagical" versions, such as the pyrotechnics spell which only works on "nonmagical flame".
Does it make sense to talk about whether damage is magical or not?
dnd-5e magic damage-types
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
At various times while using this site, I've seen assertions that damage cannot be magical or nonmagical, and that referring to "magical damage" or "nonmagical damage" is thus nonsense. For example, damage from the fireball spell and damage from a flask of alchemist's fire are both just "fire damage" not "magical fire damage" and "nonmagical fire damage".
However, I've also seen some people assuming the opposite, such as this question. Such an assumption might arise from the numerous other ways that "magical" versions of effects are treated differently from "nonmagical" versions, such as the pyrotechnics spell which only works on "nonmagical flame".
Does it make sense to talk about whether damage is magical or not?
dnd-5e magic damage-types
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
At various times while using this site, I've seen assertions that damage cannot be magical or nonmagical, and that referring to "magical damage" or "nonmagical damage" is thus nonsense. For example, damage from the fireball spell and damage from a flask of alchemist's fire are both just "fire damage" not "magical fire damage" and "nonmagical fire damage".
However, I've also seen some people assuming the opposite, such as this question. Such an assumption might arise from the numerous other ways that "magical" versions of effects are treated differently from "nonmagical" versions, such as the pyrotechnics spell which only works on "nonmagical flame".
Does it make sense to talk about whether damage is magical or not?
dnd-5e magic damage-types
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
At various times while using this site, I've seen assertions that damage cannot be magical or nonmagical, and that referring to "magical damage" or "nonmagical damage" is thus nonsense. For example, damage from the fireball spell and damage from a flask of alchemist's fire are both just "fire damage" not "magical fire damage" and "nonmagical fire damage".
However, I've also seen some people assuming the opposite, such as this question. Such an assumption might arise from the numerous other ways that "magical" versions of effects are treated differently from "nonmagical" versions, such as the pyrotechnics spell which only works on "nonmagical flame".
Does it make sense to talk about whether damage is magical or not?
dnd-5e magic damage-types
dnd-5e magic damage-types
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
asked 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
2,181532
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
A distinction exists
In the rules on damage resistance, the following example is given:
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
First of all, this example gives evidence that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" is a valid type of damage resistance, and that the phrase "nonmagical damage" is itself a distinct category of damage (presumably defined as "damage that is not magical"). Additionally, because the example is being used to demonstrate that multiple applicable resistances do not stack, we can conclude that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" would grant resistance to damage caused by a nonmagical fire. If the resistance granted resistance to damage caused by a magical fire as well, then the example wouldn't need to specify that the fire in question was nonmagical, thus I assert that "damage caused by a nonmagical fire" can be called "nonmagical fire damage" and "damage caused by a magical fire" can be called "magical fire damage".
Is "magical" a damage type?
"Magical" is not a damage type. The rules on damage types are short, in fact they mostly say "Damage types have no rules of their own", but they include a list of all the damage types and "magical" is not one of them. Instead, "magical" is simply a modifier that can be applied to damage regardless of the damage's type. Again in the context of damage resistance, the Gargoyle has resistance to:
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Adamantine
"Adamantine" is not a damage type. "Nonmagical attacks" aren't a damage type. The extra words in the damage resistance description make the resistance more narrow without needing to be damage types. Thus, Bludgeoning damage caused by something other than an attack (such as falling damage) would not be resisted. Piercing damage from an adamantine weapon would not be resisted. Slashing damage from a magic weapon would not be resisted.
In the same way, although I haven't found any example of a monster with such resistance, a creature with resistance to "nonmagical fire damage" would resist fire damage if its source is not "magical" and it would not resist fire damage if its source is "magical".
If no monsters have the resistance, maybe the example is a mistake?
Although no monsters (that I can find) have "magical damage", "nonmagical damage" or anything similar in their stats, there are multiple ways for players to gain resistance to nonmagical damage. From things listed in the Basic rules, the spell gaseous form grants "resistance to nonmagical damage", the spell stoneskin grants "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", and the magic item armor of invulnerability grants "resistance to nonmagical damage". I find it unlikely that all of these are mistakes.
Maybe it means something else?
The most authoritative source available for how to determine whether an effect is magical comes from the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" answered in the Sage Advice Compendium. There is a lot of information there, but the most relevant part is this sentence:
The breath weapon of a typical
dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t
help you but armor of invulnerability will.
Thus armor of invulnerability is used as the canonical example for "protecting you from damage caused by a nonmagical effect". I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
In conclusion
The phrase "nonmagical damage" is officially used in multiple places to mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is not magical", using the typical definition of "magical". To complement that, the phrase "magical damage" would sensibly mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is magical", though I haven't found that phrase used anywhere. Thus it is sensible to talk about "resistance to nonmagical damage", and "ways to cause nonmagical damage".
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
A distinction exists
In the rules on damage resistance, the following example is given:
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
First of all, this example gives evidence that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" is a valid type of damage resistance, and that the phrase "nonmagical damage" is itself a distinct category of damage (presumably defined as "damage that is not magical"). Additionally, because the example is being used to demonstrate that multiple applicable resistances do not stack, we can conclude that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" would grant resistance to damage caused by a nonmagical fire. If the resistance granted resistance to damage caused by a magical fire as well, then the example wouldn't need to specify that the fire in question was nonmagical, thus I assert that "damage caused by a nonmagical fire" can be called "nonmagical fire damage" and "damage caused by a magical fire" can be called "magical fire damage".
Is "magical" a damage type?
"Magical" is not a damage type. The rules on damage types are short, in fact they mostly say "Damage types have no rules of their own", but they include a list of all the damage types and "magical" is not one of them. Instead, "magical" is simply a modifier that can be applied to damage regardless of the damage's type. Again in the context of damage resistance, the Gargoyle has resistance to:
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Adamantine
"Adamantine" is not a damage type. "Nonmagical attacks" aren't a damage type. The extra words in the damage resistance description make the resistance more narrow without needing to be damage types. Thus, Bludgeoning damage caused by something other than an attack (such as falling damage) would not be resisted. Piercing damage from an adamantine weapon would not be resisted. Slashing damage from a magic weapon would not be resisted.
In the same way, although I haven't found any example of a monster with such resistance, a creature with resistance to "nonmagical fire damage" would resist fire damage if its source is not "magical" and it would not resist fire damage if its source is "magical".
If no monsters have the resistance, maybe the example is a mistake?
Although no monsters (that I can find) have "magical damage", "nonmagical damage" or anything similar in their stats, there are multiple ways for players to gain resistance to nonmagical damage. From things listed in the Basic rules, the spell gaseous form grants "resistance to nonmagical damage", the spell stoneskin grants "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", and the magic item armor of invulnerability grants "resistance to nonmagical damage". I find it unlikely that all of these are mistakes.
Maybe it means something else?
The most authoritative source available for how to determine whether an effect is magical comes from the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" answered in the Sage Advice Compendium. There is a lot of information there, but the most relevant part is this sentence:
The breath weapon of a typical
dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t
help you but armor of invulnerability will.
Thus armor of invulnerability is used as the canonical example for "protecting you from damage caused by a nonmagical effect". I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
In conclusion
The phrase "nonmagical damage" is officially used in multiple places to mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is not magical", using the typical definition of "magical". To complement that, the phrase "magical damage" would sensibly mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is magical", though I haven't found that phrase used anywhere. Thus it is sensible to talk about "resistance to nonmagical damage", and "ways to cause nonmagical damage".
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
A distinction exists
In the rules on damage resistance, the following example is given:
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
First of all, this example gives evidence that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" is a valid type of damage resistance, and that the phrase "nonmagical damage" is itself a distinct category of damage (presumably defined as "damage that is not magical"). Additionally, because the example is being used to demonstrate that multiple applicable resistances do not stack, we can conclude that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" would grant resistance to damage caused by a nonmagical fire. If the resistance granted resistance to damage caused by a magical fire as well, then the example wouldn't need to specify that the fire in question was nonmagical, thus I assert that "damage caused by a nonmagical fire" can be called "nonmagical fire damage" and "damage caused by a magical fire" can be called "magical fire damage".
Is "magical" a damage type?
"Magical" is not a damage type. The rules on damage types are short, in fact they mostly say "Damage types have no rules of their own", but they include a list of all the damage types and "magical" is not one of them. Instead, "magical" is simply a modifier that can be applied to damage regardless of the damage's type. Again in the context of damage resistance, the Gargoyle has resistance to:
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Adamantine
"Adamantine" is not a damage type. "Nonmagical attacks" aren't a damage type. The extra words in the damage resistance description make the resistance more narrow without needing to be damage types. Thus, Bludgeoning damage caused by something other than an attack (such as falling damage) would not be resisted. Piercing damage from an adamantine weapon would not be resisted. Slashing damage from a magic weapon would not be resisted.
In the same way, although I haven't found any example of a monster with such resistance, a creature with resistance to "nonmagical fire damage" would resist fire damage if its source is not "magical" and it would not resist fire damage if its source is "magical".
If no monsters have the resistance, maybe the example is a mistake?
Although no monsters (that I can find) have "magical damage", "nonmagical damage" or anything similar in their stats, there are multiple ways for players to gain resistance to nonmagical damage. From things listed in the Basic rules, the spell gaseous form grants "resistance to nonmagical damage", the spell stoneskin grants "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", and the magic item armor of invulnerability grants "resistance to nonmagical damage". I find it unlikely that all of these are mistakes.
Maybe it means something else?
The most authoritative source available for how to determine whether an effect is magical comes from the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" answered in the Sage Advice Compendium. There is a lot of information there, but the most relevant part is this sentence:
The breath weapon of a typical
dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t
help you but armor of invulnerability will.
Thus armor of invulnerability is used as the canonical example for "protecting you from damage caused by a nonmagical effect". I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
In conclusion
The phrase "nonmagical damage" is officially used in multiple places to mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is not magical", using the typical definition of "magical". To complement that, the phrase "magical damage" would sensibly mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is magical", though I haven't found that phrase used anywhere. Thus it is sensible to talk about "resistance to nonmagical damage", and "ways to cause nonmagical damage".
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
A distinction exists
In the rules on damage resistance, the following example is given:
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
First of all, this example gives evidence that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" is a valid type of damage resistance, and that the phrase "nonmagical damage" is itself a distinct category of damage (presumably defined as "damage that is not magical"). Additionally, because the example is being used to demonstrate that multiple applicable resistances do not stack, we can conclude that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" would grant resistance to damage caused by a nonmagical fire. If the resistance granted resistance to damage caused by a magical fire as well, then the example wouldn't need to specify that the fire in question was nonmagical, thus I assert that "damage caused by a nonmagical fire" can be called "nonmagical fire damage" and "damage caused by a magical fire" can be called "magical fire damage".
Is "magical" a damage type?
"Magical" is not a damage type. The rules on damage types are short, in fact they mostly say "Damage types have no rules of their own", but they include a list of all the damage types and "magical" is not one of them. Instead, "magical" is simply a modifier that can be applied to damage regardless of the damage's type. Again in the context of damage resistance, the Gargoyle has resistance to:
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Adamantine
"Adamantine" is not a damage type. "Nonmagical attacks" aren't a damage type. The extra words in the damage resistance description make the resistance more narrow without needing to be damage types. Thus, Bludgeoning damage caused by something other than an attack (such as falling damage) would not be resisted. Piercing damage from an adamantine weapon would not be resisted. Slashing damage from a magic weapon would not be resisted.
In the same way, although I haven't found any example of a monster with such resistance, a creature with resistance to "nonmagical fire damage" would resist fire damage if its source is not "magical" and it would not resist fire damage if its source is "magical".
If no monsters have the resistance, maybe the example is a mistake?
Although no monsters (that I can find) have "magical damage", "nonmagical damage" or anything similar in their stats, there are multiple ways for players to gain resistance to nonmagical damage. From things listed in the Basic rules, the spell gaseous form grants "resistance to nonmagical damage", the spell stoneskin grants "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", and the magic item armor of invulnerability grants "resistance to nonmagical damage". I find it unlikely that all of these are mistakes.
Maybe it means something else?
The most authoritative source available for how to determine whether an effect is magical comes from the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" answered in the Sage Advice Compendium. There is a lot of information there, but the most relevant part is this sentence:
The breath weapon of a typical
dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t
help you but armor of invulnerability will.
Thus armor of invulnerability is used as the canonical example for "protecting you from damage caused by a nonmagical effect". I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
In conclusion
The phrase "nonmagical damage" is officially used in multiple places to mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is not magical", using the typical definition of "magical". To complement that, the phrase "magical damage" would sensibly mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is magical", though I haven't found that phrase used anywhere. Thus it is sensible to talk about "resistance to nonmagical damage", and "ways to cause nonmagical damage".
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
A distinction exists
In the rules on damage resistance, the following example is given:
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
First of all, this example gives evidence that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" is a valid type of damage resistance, and that the phrase "nonmagical damage" is itself a distinct category of damage (presumably defined as "damage that is not magical"). Additionally, because the example is being used to demonstrate that multiple applicable resistances do not stack, we can conclude that "resistance to all nonmagical damage" would grant resistance to damage caused by a nonmagical fire. If the resistance granted resistance to damage caused by a magical fire as well, then the example wouldn't need to specify that the fire in question was nonmagical, thus I assert that "damage caused by a nonmagical fire" can be called "nonmagical fire damage" and "damage caused by a magical fire" can be called "magical fire damage".
Is "magical" a damage type?
"Magical" is not a damage type. The rules on damage types are short, in fact they mostly say "Damage types have no rules of their own", but they include a list of all the damage types and "magical" is not one of them. Instead, "magical" is simply a modifier that can be applied to damage regardless of the damage's type. Again in the context of damage resistance, the Gargoyle has resistance to:
Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Adamantine
"Adamantine" is not a damage type. "Nonmagical attacks" aren't a damage type. The extra words in the damage resistance description make the resistance more narrow without needing to be damage types. Thus, Bludgeoning damage caused by something other than an attack (such as falling damage) would not be resisted. Piercing damage from an adamantine weapon would not be resisted. Slashing damage from a magic weapon would not be resisted.
In the same way, although I haven't found any example of a monster with such resistance, a creature with resistance to "nonmagical fire damage" would resist fire damage if its source is not "magical" and it would not resist fire damage if its source is "magical".
If no monsters have the resistance, maybe the example is a mistake?
Although no monsters (that I can find) have "magical damage", "nonmagical damage" or anything similar in their stats, there are multiple ways for players to gain resistance to nonmagical damage. From things listed in the Basic rules, the spell gaseous form grants "resistance to nonmagical damage", the spell stoneskin grants "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", and the magic item armor of invulnerability grants "resistance to nonmagical damage". I find it unlikely that all of these are mistakes.
Maybe it means something else?
The most authoritative source available for how to determine whether an effect is magical comes from the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" answered in the Sage Advice Compendium. There is a lot of information there, but the most relevant part is this sentence:
The breath weapon of a typical
dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t
help you but armor of invulnerability will.
Thus armor of invulnerability is used as the canonical example for "protecting you from damage caused by a nonmagical effect". I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
In conclusion
The phrase "nonmagical damage" is officially used in multiple places to mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is not magical", using the typical definition of "magical". To complement that, the phrase "magical damage" would sensibly mean "damage caused by an effect/feature/item that is magical", though I haven't found that phrase used anywhere. Thus it is sensible to talk about "resistance to nonmagical damage", and "ways to cause nonmagical damage".
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
answered 56 mins ago
Kamil Drakari
2,181532
2,181532
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
Might be of use to note those of us with earlier printings of the books and don't necessarily use dndbeyond the MM Errata to the resistance/immunity/vulnerability change of verbiage.
– Slagmoth
47 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
You are not quite "on point" with the Adamantine bit, since it is related to Non magical Attacks, not Non Magical Damage (your topic), which is the whole crux of the disagreement that spawned this question: the distinction between attack and damage. I'd suggest you remove that example and use a different one to illustrate your point; the matter of non magical attacks that are adamantine is what hurts the gargoyle, as well as magical attacks.
– KorvinStarmast
29 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
@KorvinStarmast unfortunately, I don't have a better example for that section other than the ones that refer to nonmagical damage itself. I was intending to demonstrate that it's not unusual for a damage resistance to include clarifying words that are not damage types, thus it's sensible for "nonmagical" to be used in a similar way. If you would like I could add a section explaining why I think it's possible to have resistance to damage not just resistance to attacks.
– Kamil Drakari
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134341%2fis-there-a-distinction-between-magical-damage-and-nonmagical-damage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password