Does resistance to nonmagical weapons include nonweapon damage?

[Greywander]

I suppose a classic case would be fall damage, which is bludgeoning damage and nonmagical, but it's not a weapon.

Logically, if you have some kind of special resistance toward getting smacked over the head with a mace, I'd think that would apply to falling down the stairs as well. That said, magic is weird, so it's not inconceivable that such a resistance could only apply to being attacked, and not to accidents. I mean, it would be like having immunity to piercing damage except in your foot, so yeah, mythology and folklore have had stranger things.

[Garfunion]

I suppose a classic case would be fall damage, which is bludgeoning damage and nonmagical, but it's not a weapon.

Logically, if you have some kind of special resistance toward getting smacked over the head with a mace, I'd think that would apply to falling down the stairs as well. That said, magic is weird, so it's not inconceivable that such a resistance could only apply to being attacked, and not to accidents. I mean, it would be like having immunity to piercing damage except in your foot, so yeah, mythology and folklore have had stranger things.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a list of resistances that actually state damage from a weapon unless it was silver.
Normally it reads you have resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. So unless the bludgeoning damage is from a magical source they have resistance to it.

Perhaps I may be misunderstanding your question.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I suppose a classic case would be fall damage, which is bludgeoning damage and nonmagical, but it's not a weapon.

Logically, if you have some kind of special resistance toward getting smacked over the head with a mace, I'd think that would apply to falling down the stairs as well. That said, magic is weird, so it's not inconceivable that such a resistance could only apply to being attacked, and not to accidents. I mean, it would be like having immunity to piercing damage except in your foot, so yeah, mythology and folklore have had stranger things.

RAW; no its not weapon damage nor an attack

Some creatures or abilities don't make that distinction though. A raging Barbarian is flat out resistant to bludgeoning damage. So it'd work against falling.

RAI: Also no, they don't want to discourage creative thinking. If you can't harm the creature with your sword they don't want to discourage you dropping the roof on its head or knocking him off a cliff.


I don’t think I’ve ever seen a list of resistances that actually state damage from a weapon unless it was silver.
Normally it reads you have resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. So unless the bludgeoning damage is from a magical source they have resistance to it.

Perhaps I may be misunderstanding your question.
No normally it says.
"Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks" Or if its bypassed by silver it says weapon. In either event it almost always says "attacks" or "weapons" in which case it doesn't work against falling damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: the standard (words in parentheses are for silver/adamantine) wording for monster resistance is:


bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks (that aren't silvered|adamantine

Fall damage is not an attack. So they don't have resistance to it. Just like they wouldn't have resistance to (direct) BPS from spells, attack or not. However, if a creature uses an unarmed strike (which is not a weapon but can be used to make weapon attacks, a critical distinction), they would have resistance (unless Monk 6 or equivalent).

Barbarians, on the other hand, have resistance to "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage", without restriction and so resist fall damage while raging.

[KorvinStarmast]

The tweet I saw a while back from Jeremy Crawford on this is boils down to
If the werewolf falls off the 100 foot cliff, it takes 10d6 falling damage.
Falling damage isn't bludgeoning damage from a weapon, so the werewolf takes the damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The tweet I saw a while back from Jeremy Crawford on this is boils down to
If the werewolf falls off the 100 foot cliff, it takes 10d6 falling damage.
Falling damage isn't bludgeoning damage from a weapon, so the werewolf takes the damage.

To be pedantic (which is my native mode), it's not because it's not from a weapon, it's because it's not from an attack. But that's pedantry in this particular case. :smallbiggrin:

[Damon_Tor]

Let's everyone remember that in the world's first D&D campaign, the hero beat the weapon-immune monster by tearing its arm off with his bare hands. Not a weapon = bypasses weapon resistances, and has done so before written language was even a thing.

[NNescio]

To be pedantic (which is my native mode), it's not because it's not from a weapon, it's because it's not from an attack. But that's pedantry in this particular case. :smallbiggrin:

I think the misconception arose because earlier versions of the MM pre-errata state "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons" before WotC hastily fixed it in one of the earliest errata:


GLOBAL
Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

...presumably because it wouldn't have applied to unarmed and natural attacks the way it was originally written.

Judging by the way thread OP is phrased, I think OP was looking at the older version of the MM entries too.

(Note that some of the 'unofficial' online sources were never updated.)

[redwizard007]

Let's everyone remember that in the world's first D&D campaign, the hero beat the weapon-immune monster by tearing its arm off with his bare hands. Not a weapon = bypasses weapon resistances, and has done so before written language was even a thing.

Was Beowulf before Gilgamesh?

[iTreeby]

To be pedantic (which is my native mode), it's not because it's not from a weapon, it's because it's not from an attack. But that's pedantry in this particular case. :smallbiggrin:

Clearly they take the damage because the world is magic

[NNescio]

Clearly they take the damage because the world is magic

Barbarian: I hit the werewolf with the world.
DM: Wait, what?
Barbarian: Faerun is magic, right?
DM: Well, the world is called Toril. Faerûn is the conti—
Barbarian: So it counts as a magical weapon.
DM: But it doe—
Barbarian: I roll to suplex the werewolf!