Is Hunter's Mark damage magical?

[Gungor]

Suppose a ranger is fighting a creature (like a golem) that is immune to nonmagical BPS damage, the ranger does not has a magical weapon, and the ranger has placed hunter's mark on the creature.

If the ranger hits with their mundane weapon, they get to do an additional 1d6 damage of the same weapon type. Would this extra damage get ignored? Or would it count as actual damage to the target?

It could be the case that:


The magic makes it easier for the ranger to hit the target squarely, but the damage is just extra weapon damage of a mundane variety. So no, it doesn't damage the target.
The extra damage is considered magical weapon damage, since its source is magic. So it does damage the target.
The extra damage is not weapon damage, so it will bypass that specific immunity and damage the target.



Which of these is it? Or, if there is no RAW answer, which of these would use if you were DM?

[Asmotherion]

Well, since the damage's source comes from the spell, I belive Raw indicates it's magical.

[Civis Mundi]

This answer seems to be supported: Crawford says yes, the damage from hunter's mark is magical (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70350/is-hunters-mark-damage-magical-for-the-purpose-of-overcoming-damage-resistance#:~:text=The%20Hunter's%20Mark%20damage% 20is,with%20a%20weapon%20attack...). The authority of the source is up for debate, but here it is, for what it's worth.

[Neorealist]

Sure, hunter's mark is just as magical as fireball, or vicious mockery.

What might puzzle you later is; what type of damage does it do? I've generally gone with whatever damage type the ranger is wielding at the time.

[KOLE]

Sure, hunter's mark is just as magical as fireball, or vicious mockery.

What might puzzle you later is; what type of damage does it do? I've generally gone with whatever damage type the ranger is wielding at the time.

...Huh, I totally thought tat was explicitly stated in the spell. Never noticed that before.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, it is magical damage, reason for this is because its from a spell.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, hunter's mark is just as magical as fireball, or vicious mockery.

What might puzzle you later is; what type of damage does it do? I've generally gone with whatever damage type the ranger is wielding at the time.

And if the Ranger is wielding a Net...?

:)

[Amnestic]

And if the Ranger is wielding a Net...?

:)

DnD Beyond has its damage listed as bludgeoning (specifically 0 damage) https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/net, though the PHB copy I've got doesn't have that. Unsure if it's been errata'd since.

You could argue that hunter's mark wouldn't trigger on a net (and there's a tweet for that - https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/15/net-attack/) since it says it deals 1d6 *extra* damage, but personally I'd still let it happen as a DM.

[Gungor]

Thanks all, especially for the JC reference. I'm all for interpreting things in a way that make players' things work so I was inclined to consider the damage magical anyway.

FWIW, it isn't so cut-and-dried to me that "of course it's magical, it comes from a spell." For something like fireball the damage is directly caused by the spell and so it is magical. On the other extreme, consider enlarge. The spell states that the additional weapon damage is a result of its being larger and so I wouldn't consider that damage to be "magical" - it is a by-product of the spell (in a sense) rather than a direct effect of the spell.

Hunter's mark is kind of in the middle, to me, since it doesn't explicitly say that the additional damage is directly caused by the magic. I'm happy to say that it is especially since every other response supports that interpretation.

So, what about catapult...?

[GentlemanVoodoo]

If you are referring to the catapult spell that specifically states it is 3d8 bludgeoning damage +1d8 extra if up casting. If you are referring for the purposes of resistances or by passing magical damages, that will depend on your interpretation as the DM. By raw, it is bludgeoning so resistance to that damage type do kick in.

[stoutstien]

If you are referring to the catapult spell that specifically states it is 3d8 bludgeoning damage +1d8 extra if up casting. If you are referring for the purposes of resistances or by passing magical damages, that will depend on your interpretation as the DM. By raw, it is bludgeoning so resistance to that damage type do kick in.

It is magical bludgeon damage (sort of). the only things that I can
Recall off the top of my had that that are resistant to it are treant/awakened tree and Barbarian rage.

The reasoning behind this is actually two folds. The first is just for simplicity if you start going through the spells and isolating the ones that are using magic to propel non magical items and objects into something for damaged you start running into weird conflicts of game logic. Such as erupting earth. The second is actually RAW shooting itself in the foot.... Catapult is damage based on a save not an attack roll. Damage resistance and immunity is specifically for attacks other than The two corner cases I listed above. For B damage anyways.

[Darkprophet232]

My table runs it as extra weapon damage that is not magical.

For the reason why, and I'm not saying we're doing it right, we delved into interpretation of intent. Here's the important bits as we see them:

-It's a divination spell
-The damage effect is listed as Bludgeoning...
-The spell doesn't specify that the weapon becomes magical ala Magic Weapon, Holy Weapon, Shillelagh, or the item Oil of Sharpness
-Non-magic source immunity (such as from golems) specifies damage from nonmagical attacks, not nonmagical damage itself
-Magic damage isn't listed as a type of damage or honestly a concept within the PHB (Spell damage is, but doesn't apply to this spell due to the damage effect being mundane)

With this information, plus the fluff of the description, we reasoned that the Ranger just becomes really efficient with the weapon attack against the enemy marked as the quarry, just as how True Strike gives advantage and wouldn't make that attack magical.

I hope this at least helps rationalize taking a particular interpretation over another.

[Chronos]

I had thought that it was phrased as increasing the weapon's damage by 1d6. This would mean that the damage is coming from the weapon, and if the weapon is nonmagical, therefore so is the damage. But on double-checking, that's not how it's phrased. The phrasing is actually almost the same as Hex, aside from Hex specifying that the damage is necrotic (a definitely magical source) and Hunter's Mark not specifying any damage type at all.

So I think that the conclusion is that, if Hex's necrotic damage is magical, then so is Hunter's Mark's unspecified damage.

As an aside, there is at least one spell that does damage that specifies that some of the damage it does is nonmagical. So it's possible, but probably only when explicitly specified.

[stoutstien]

I had thought that it was phrased as increasing the weapon's damage by 1d6. This would mean that the damage is coming from the weapon, and if the weapon is nonmagical, therefore so is the damage. But on double-checking, that's not how it's phrased. The phrasing is actually almost the same as Hex, aside from Hex specifying that the damage is necrotic (a definitely magical source) and Hunter's Mark not specifying any damage type at all.

So I think that the conclusion is that, if Hex's necrotic damage is magical, then so is Hunter's Mark's unspecified damage.

As an aside, there is at least one spell that does damage that specifies that some of the damage it does is nonmagical. So it's possible, but probably only when explicitly specified.

Ugh, conjure volley/barrage being explicitly non-magical is so mind-boggling. It's not like rangers where in danger of being too powerful

[RSP]

I imagine the intent is that it’s adding 1d6 of the weapon’s damage type; so if the weapon is magical, the added damage is magical, and if it’s a non-magical Weapon, then the added damage is non-magical.

A similar question could come up with Animate Objects: does, say, an animated chair do magical damage? I’d assume not, but that’s just me.

Edit: to add to this, the Awaken spell is similar to a permanent form of animate objects when cast on a tree, and the damage done by an awakened tree is not magical.

This leads me to believe that damage that is caused by a spell is not automatically magical.

[stoutstien]

I imagine the intent is that it’s adding 1d6 of the weapon’s damage type; so if the weapon is magical, the added damage is magical, and if it’s a non-magical Weapon, then the added damage is non-magical.

A similar question could come up with Animate Objects: does, say, an animated chair do magical damage? I’d assume not, but that’s just me.

animate object is a lot like I animate dead and which gives a very specific stat block for the objects in question.

[RSP]

animate object is a lot like I animate dead and which gives a very specific stat block for the objects in question.

Right; and none of those spells, though using magic to allow the attacks, are granting magical damage.

Haste also grants a way to cause damage that isn’t magical. I don’t think the argument of “it’s from a spell, therefore it’s magical” is valid.

[Benny89]

Added damage is magical, base damage from weapon is not. Thats it.

[Demonslayer666]

I would lean towards no, that it only makes the attack more effective, like a sneak attack, because it does not list a damage type. That says to me that it should go off the weapon. The mark does not affect the weapon, only the target.

[Man_Over_Game]

This does bring up a few other concerns.

Is Sneak Attack magical/nonmagical based on the source as well?

What about Warding Bond's damage transfer?

What about a Paladin's damage-redirection aura?




I think the simplest answer is that anything that refers from a damage source uses exactly that source's damage. I understand there is a rule against it, but even some elements of those rules don't really make sense (like how a Green Dragon's Breath can put Elves to sleep because it's technically nonmagical).

[KorvinStarmast]

I imagine the intent is that it’s adding 1d6 of the weapon’s damage type; so if the weapon is magical, the added damage is magical, and if it’s a non-magical Weapon, then the added damage is non-magical. That's how we have played it at our tables, interesting to see differing views on that.
Added damage is magical, base damage from weapon is not. Thats it. Unless one is a horizon walker who can turn damage into Force ... :smallbiggrin:

I'll ask the folks at our tables what they think of this.

[Snails]

Reasonable people may disagree, but I would say the intention is it simply increases the weapon damage, in a manner akin to Sneak Attack.

In the case of a Paladin's Divine Smite or Tempest Cleric's Divine Strike, we are given a clear damage type, and we track that separately and in parallel to the weapon damage. Here it seems like the type of the of damage is "more of the weapon".

Consider...

If this Hunter's Mark damage is really a spell causing damage, does it bypass the Barbarian's damage resistance during a Rage?
What is its type? Same as weapon type? A new (hypothetical) type of "magical"? Suppose the Ranger is using a spear against a creature that is specifically immune to all Piercing damage, does the Hunter's Mark still do its damage?

[Man_Over_Game]

That's how we have played it at our tables, interesting to see differing views on that. Unless one is a horizon walker who can turn damage into Force ... :smallbiggrin:

Gets even weirder when you realize that the Force damage from Horizon Walker isn't listed as Magical, yet the Force damage type description mentions it is Magical.

Can you have Non-magical Force damage? And if you could, would the Horizon Walker use it?

[JNAProductions]

Reasonable people may disagree, but I would say the intention is it simply increases the weapon damage, in a manner akin to Sneak Attack.

In the case of a Paladin's Divine Smite or Tempest Cleric's Divine Strike, we are given a clear damage type, and we track that separately and in parallel to the weapon damage. Here it seems like the type of the of damage is "more of the weapon".

Consider...

If this Hunter's Mark damage is really a spell causing damage, does it bypass the Barbarian's damage resistance during a Rage?
What is its type? Same as weapon type? A new (hypothetical) type of "magical"? Suppose the Ranger is using a spear against a creature that is specifically immune to all Piercing damage, does the Hunter's Mark still do its damage?

Barbarians resist all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Not just non-magical.

And I coulda sworn Hunter's Mark said it was the same type of damage as the weapon-that's how I always played it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can you have Non-magical Force damage? No, you can't, because of this:

Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon. Force damage is by definition magical.
(Emphasis mine)

[Maelynn]

Since I haven't seen it listed (only some tweets, which not everybody considers RAW*), here's (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/) the official Sage Advice on whether or not the damage from Hunter's Mark is magical.

Personally I'm a bit on the fence about it, because to me Hunter's Mark works more like Sneak Attack in that it creates a situation that allows a weapon to be more effective/hurt harder, but that's not really relevant to the question.


* I also know that not everybody considers JC's rulings to be RAW, but let's not go there... :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

This does bring up a few other concerns.

Is Sneak Attack magical/nonmagical based on the source as well?

What about Warding Bond's damage transfer?

What about a Paladin's damage-redirection aura?




I think the simplest answer is that anything that refers from a damage source uses exactly that source's damage. I understand there is a rule against it, but even some elements of those rules don't really make sense (like how a Green Dragon's Breath can put Elves to sleep because it's technically nonmagical).

Definitely the easiest way to go about it. Personally I just let it ride as a player decision. I have more pressing concerns with a lot of other spells that H mark isn't worth the hassle.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have more pressing concerns with a lot of other spells that H mark isn't worth the hassle. *golf clap* I found myself nodding my head as I read this post. :smallcool:

[FabulousFizban]

is all the damage from an attack on a marked target magical? Or just the extra damage from hunter's mark?

[RSP]

Can you have Non-magical Force damage? And if you could, would the Horizon Walker use it?

In theory, yes, you could have either non-magical or magical of every damage type; however, I believe the devs only anticipate using magic/non magic in relation to weapon damage.

Nothing states Fireball, for instance, does magical or nonmagical Fire damage, it’s just “Fire”. In theory, you could have a creature that resists “non-magical fire”, but until the devs (or your DM) creates such a thing, it doesn’t matter.

[RSP]

I also know that not everybody considers JC's rulings to be RAW, but let's not go there... :smallbiggrin:

I don’t think anyone considers JC’s tweets to be RAW. They aren’t even considered official rulings anymore.

[Snails]

Nothing states Fireball, for instance, does magical or nonmagical Fire damage, it’s just “Fire”. In theory, you could have a creature that resists “non-magical fire”, but until the devs (or your DM) creates such a thing, it doesn’t matter.

Right. We do not have that in 5e. IMO, 5e was wise in how it simplified damage types and resistances.

Once upon a time, the was fire damage from things like flasks of oil, and there was also damage caused by a spell using fire that could be ignored via Spell Resistance, the "magical fire" making the usual kind of fire "non-magical fire" by implication. And then there were some 3e conjurations that bypassed SR, presumably because they brought dangerous non-magical fire via sources that were magical.

Once SR is thrown in the trashcan (YES!!!), there is no need for these fiddly distinctions.

[Snails]

Barbarians resist all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Not just non-magical.

And I coulda sworn Hunter's Mark said it was the same type of damage as the weapon-that's how I always played it.

Agreed on the first part. But once we posit it is "magical", are we so sure it is still one of b/p/s? The point of this line of reasoning is the source of the damage is the spell, not the wielded weapon.

I think we agree. I am just trying to shine a light on why I would make a particular RAI (IMO).

[sithlordnergal]

Agreed on the first part. But once we posit it is "magical", are we so sure it is still one of b/p/s? The point of this line of reasoning is the source of the damage is the spell, not the wielded weapon.

I think we agree. I am just trying to shine a light on why I would make a particular RAI (IMO).

Yes, it is. We know this for a few reasons:

- First, the spell states that the damage is the same damage type as the weapon being used. Meaning if you do piercing, the spell does piercing, but if you use a Sun Blade, which deals Radiant damage, Hunter's Mark deals Radiant damage. Therefore, if your weapon deals B/P/S damage then the spell deals B/P/S damage.


-Second, to determine if the Barbarian resists magical B/P/S damage, we can look at creatures in the Monster Manual. For example, a Black Pudding is immune to Slashing damage, a Swarm of Insects resists Slashing damage, Lycanthropes are immune to non-magical, non-silver slashing damage, and Fire Elemental resist non-magical Slashing damage.

Now lets say we cast the spell Cloud of Daggers on each of these creatures. We know the damage from this spell is magical because first, the damage is coming from a spell, and second the spell does not state that the damage is not magical. The fact that the spell doesn't specifically call out that the damage is non-magical is particularly important here, because Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Volley, and Conjure Barrage specifically state you must use non-magical ammunition, and the spells do the same damage type as the ammunition used for the component. If something is called out in a spell description, that means it is an exception to the rule, meaning that if you aren't told the damage is non-magical in a spell description then it must be magical.

So, back to the creatures I chose above. If we use Cloud of Daggers, which deals magical Slashing damage, then the following will happen:

- It will do full damage to the Fire Elemental and Lycanthrope, as the damage is magical and their immunities/resistances call out the fact that magical damage bypasses it.

- The Swarm of Insects will take half damage from the spell, because they do not have anything in their list that says Magical Slashing can get past their resistances.

- The Black Pudding will be fully immune to the damage, again because there's nothing in their stat block that says Magical Slashing gets through their immunity.


So, bringing this back around to the Barbarian, Rage states that you Resist B/P/S. It does not say "You resist non-magical B/P/S damage", it just says "You resist B/P/S damage". Therefore, Barbarians resist magical B/P/S damage as well as normal B/P/S damage. And since Hunter's Mark uses the same damage type as your weapon, as long as your weapon deals B/P/S damage, then the Barbarian will resist it despite the Hunter's Mark damage being magical.

Another good thing to check this against is the Armor of Invulnerability, which states "You have Resistance to nonmagical damage while you wear this armor." Since it calls out that you only resist nonmagical damage, then it means Hunter's Mark bypasses it. Unless you want to say that wearing this armor lets you resist, and become immune to, every single damaging spell in the game, from Fireball to Disintegrate, since none of them state that they inherently do magical damage.


And finally, for the purposes of Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, and similar spells that summon things, the reason none of them do magical damage is because you are given a stat-block for the creatures you summon/create. Unless that stat-block specifically calls out that their damage is magical, then all the damage they do is non-magical. Otherwise the Iron Golem, which is a magical Construct created by a magical tome and is clearly magical in nature, would not need to have "Magic Weapons: The golem's weapon attacks are magical." in its stat block.

Again, its a matter that the Golem's weapons are being specifically called out as being magical, meaning it is an exception to the rules, which means that, unless a creature's stat-block specifically says otherwise, all attacks those creatures make are non-magical. Also, there wouldn't be a need for the Shepard Druid to have a level 6 ability that makes all the attacks of the creatures they summon do magical damage.

[Neorealist]

- First, the spell states that the damage is the same damage type as the weapon being used. Meaning if you do piercing, the spell does piercing, but if you use a Sun Blade, which deals Radiant damage, Hunter's Mark deals Radiant damage. Therefore, if your weapon deals B/P/S damage then the spell deals B/P/S damage.


Going to address this one. No it does not. It's a logical inference, to be sure (and a ruling I've personally made and agree with); but nowhere in the spell itself does it indicate what you'd stated.

[sithlordnergal]

Going to address this one. No it does not. It's a logical inference, to be sure (and a ruling I've personally made and agree with); but nowhere in the spell itself does it indicate what you'd stated.

Oh my, you're correct, it doesn't have a damage type at all! I don't know how I missed that. Which means my above analysis is incorrect, since it all hinges on the basis that Hunter's Mark deals the same damage type as the weapon. Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, ect. all specifically state that they deal the same damage type, and since Hunter's Mark does not then that means it doesn't do the same damage type.

And since the damage type isn't listed, then that means it does some sort undefined magical damage, because its still coming from a spell. Meaning, if I follow my own logic from above, Hunter's Mark actually would bypass a Barbarian's Resistance, it would also bypass a Bear Totem Barbarian's resistance, because it does not actually have a stated damage type. The Barbarian and Bear Totem Barbarian specifically only resist certain damage types. Since there is no damage type listed in the spell, it would technically bypass all of those resistances because it is technically not one of those damage types. Meaning it also bypasses all other damage type immunities and resistances, simply because it lacks that damage type.

Interesting, very interesting.

[JNAProductions]

Bear. While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.

Bear Totem would get around that.

And since literally nothing else (to my knowledge) in the game does untyped damage, I think it should just do the same type as the weapon attack. Not RAW, but seems pretty reasonable.

[Neorealist]

That is one way to go with it; and honestly having an additional +1d6 untyped (and therefore effectively unresistable) damage isn't likely going to unbalance a character at all, especially not rangers specifically.

[sithlordnergal]

Bear Totem would get around that.

And since literally nothing else (to my knowledge) in the game does untyped damage, I think it should just do the same type as the weapon attack. Not RAW, but seems pretty reasonable.

Looks like I'm gonna need to reread my PHB, I missed that as well. Just goes to show what happens if you make an analysis while tired. Bear Totem would resist the damage then, since it does say "Resistance to all damage except psychic." That said, Hunter's Mark would bypass anything that doesn't have that kind of resistance since it is untyped.

[JNAProductions]

Looks like I'm gonna need to reread my PHB, I missed that as well. Just goes to show what happens if you make an analysis while tired. Bear Totem would resist the damage then, since it does say "Resistance to all damage except psychic." That said, Hunter's Mark would bypass anything that doesn't have that kind of resistance since it is untyped.

Which feels pretty silly to me. I do agree it won't break anything, it's just 1d6 damage (and if you have a magical weapon, nothing resists that type outside Barbarians anyway) but it feels far more like "RAW oddity" than anything intentional.

[sithlordnergal]

Which feels pretty silly to me. I do agree it won't break anything, it's just 1d6 damage (and if you have a magical weapon, nothing resists that type outside Barbarians anyway) but it feels far more like "RAW oddity" than anything intentional.

I fully agree, I feel like its some kind of typo. Every other spell specifies a damage type except Hunter's Mark. Hunter's Mark just doesn't have a damage type, which means it doesn't follow any of the rules regarding resistances. It just ignores all resistances and immunities, because I cannot think of a single creature that has a resistance to Hunter's Mark. But WoC hasn't fixed it with an errata, sooo I guess that means it technically isn't supposed to have a damage type, and bypasses all damage immunities and resistances.

[Snails]

I fully agree, I feel like its some kind of typo. Every other spell specifies a damage type except Hunter's Mark. Hunter's Mark just doesn't have a damage type, which means it doesn't follow any of the rules regarding resistances. It just ignores all resistances and immunities, because I cannot think of a single creature that has a resistance to Hunter's Mark. But WoC hasn't fixed it with an errata, sooo I guess that means it technically isn't supposed to have a damage type, and bypasses all damage immunities and resistances.

Seems like a typo. Like a lot of people I inferred that it must have the same type of damage as the weapon the first few times I read it. I would bet a lot of money that was what the designers intended, because creating a new & unique unnamed type just does not fit the style of the 5e rules at all. Untyped/unnamed has the whiff of the kind of 3e-isms they put great effort into not having in these rules.

But I have to admit, that by the letter of the RAW, it makes sense to argue Hunter's Mark bypasses every kind of resistance known (until we find something that actually says "Resistance to all sources of damage").

[Chronos]

I think that the intent was for it to work by improving the weapon's damage, and so it would inherit both damage type and magical/nonmagical status from the weapon. But if that was their intent, then they made a real hash of their attempt to implement it.

[Snails]

I think that the intent was for it to work by improving the weapon's damage, and so it would inherit both damage type and magical/nonmagical status from the weapon. But if that was their intent, then they made a real hash of their attempt to implement it.

Re-reading the Combat chapter, under Damage Types (p.196), I found this little sentence:

The damage types follow, with examples to help a DM assign a damage type to a new effect.

I think it is fair to conclude that by RAI the DM should assign every damage source a Damage Type on that list, if it so happens that the type is not explicit already. This a SOP. So we can argue over whether a spell in the PHB is "new" or not, but it does not matter. If there is confusion over damage source's Damage Type, the DM should look on this list and pick one.

Since "magical", "spell", "untyped" are not on that list, the obvious answer is the type of the weapon itself.

And, as you point out, magical/nonmagical is a status that exists orthogonally to Damage Type. I suppose it is possible to make fine RAW arguments here about the Hunter's Mark damage being "magical" while the same Damage Type as the weapon, but if we are defaulting to the weapon for its "physical" aspect it is highly incongruous to not simply default to the weapon for the entire question.