Animate Objects vs. Aura of Warding & HAM

[Guy Lombard-O]

If an Ancients Paladin with the Aura of Warding and Heavy Armor Master were to get attacked by an Animate Objects swarm, what's the proper outcome of the damage?

I get that the Objects count as non-magical (per Jeremy Crawford tweet, anyway: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/26/is-the-damage-from-animate-objects-objects-now-magical/), and that the -3 damage reduction from HAM comes off the top before any Aura effects. But despite being "non-magical" damage, can the Objects still be considered "damage from spells" for damage resistance purposes? Does the Aura of Warding have any effect?

"Aura of Warding: Beginning at 7th level, ancient magic lies so heavily upon you that it forms an eldritch ward. You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.

Somebody who's more thinky than me sort it out, 'kay? :smallsmile:

[Talsin]

I personally would rule that it is not damage from spells, and thus not affected by Aura of Warding. I can see how this could cause confusion though.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I personally would rule that it is not damage from spells, and thus not affected by Aura of Warding. I can see how this could cause confusion though.

Yeah, I think that'd be a fair ruling. It certainly shouldn't do anything for summoned creatures. But Animate Objects is a bit different. I'm really not sure how it should go.

Not that it's definitive, but it's a concentration spell and the spell keeps the Objects mobile (and damaging). So it's just as clear as mud to me.

Does anyone have anything cite-able, either mandatory or persuasively authoritative (even another Crawford tweet) that actually answers the question definitively?

[JackPhoenix]

The damage is caused by melee weapon attacks from creatures. Sure, the creatures may be created and maintained by a spell, but they aren't using any damaging spells when they attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

Logic would state that:

If all damage from spells is magical (as per the definition of what constitutes "Magic" from the Sage Compendium)
And Animate Objects deals damage that isn't magical
Then Animate Objects doesn't deal damage from spells.


There is no "exception" mentioned (Animate Objects does not explicitly say that it doesn't deal magical damage), so it's assumed that Animate Objects is obeying general rules. Generally, nonmagical damage comes from nonspell sources (and I can't think of any exceptions to this, although they might exist or be possible).

[Contrast]

Generally, nonmagical damage comes from nonspell sources (and I can't think of any exceptions to this, although they might exist or be possible).

Hunter's Mark leaps to mind.

Other spells are usually edged out if not by the non-magical bit then by the fact that HAM specifically reduces damage from 'bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons' (emphasis mine).


Edit -

If all damage from spells is magical (as per the definition of what constitutes "Magic" from the Sage Compendium)

There's a definition of what constitutes magic in the Sage Advice Compendium? Where?

[LudicSavant]

There's a definition of what constitutes magic in the Sage Advice Compendium? Where?

Page 9, 17, and 18.

[Keravath]

Hunter's Mark leaps to mind.

Other spells are usually edged out if not by the non-magical bit then by the fact that HAM specifically reduces damage from 'bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons' (emphasis mine).


Edit -


There's a definition of what constitutes magic in the Sage Advice Compendium? Where?

The damage from Hunter's Mark is magical. The type matches the type dealt by the weapon but since the damage comes from the spell it is considered magical damage. At least that is my understanding.

[claypigeons]

Animate Objects gives motive force to objects. They hit/slice/whatever due to physics, and the damage is non magical.

It's similar to animated undead hitting/biting/clawing. Magic made it happen, but skeleton fists aren't spells.

[darknite]

Are objects used by Animate Objects considered magical when considering a creature's resistance or immunity to non-magical weapon attacks? I think the answer to that is NO. If that's the case, I wouldn't allow damage from animated objects to be subjected to the Paladin of the Ancient's aura ability. HAM would still work, though. You can't have an attack be magical for one purpose (aura) but not magical for another (HAM).