Thorn Whip & Negligent Devs?

[TheBrassDuke]

So this is an ongoing argument on Facebook, in the All Things DND group.

The question was asked:

“ Question: Would the cantrip "Thorn Whip" be considered as magical with it's piercing damage, or would it considered just plain old physical piercing damage?

Asking to see how well this cantrip stacks up as a main form of attack and if it would be a viable choice against enemies that have resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage from non-magical attacks.”

Now my problem with this is:

Thorn Whip[b]
Druid - Cantrip Level Spell
School: Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 30 ft
Components: Verbal and Somatic
Duration: Instantaneous
Attack/Save: Melee
Reference: PHB 282

You create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns that lashes out at your command toward a creature in range. Make a melee spell attack against the target. If the attack hits, the creature takes 1d6 piercing damage, and if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you.

[b]At higher level
This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6). (Red emphasis mine)

Okay, so what happens if your enemy is within range, but they’re safely behind the wall of an AMF..?


“Effects that cancel, dispel or nullify magic are concerned only with the second kind of magic. The first is just assumed to be part of the natural physical laws that allow a fantasy world to exist. But again, how to tell the difference? The document gives us a test:

Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If any one of these questions can be answer "yes", then the effect, ability or item is magical for the purposes of being affected by magic cancelling effects.”

But there’s a problem. Transmutation alters matter already present to create or enhance something that already exists, where Conjuration creates something from nothing. Evocation manipulates the raw magical energies, and so on. They all operate very differently, else why should they be eight different disciplines? 🤔

I spoke with my friend, who put it more eloquently in his reply:


”It does read that on your turn you are using magic to transmute space into a tangible, if unstable, nonmagical item which you are capable of using ONCE, IMMEDIATELY, at which point it dissipates. If you stood outside an antimagic field, cast it, and attacked a space inside the antimagic field, you successfully do damage because the magical side of things was conducted outside of the field whereas the mundane was done within.”

And then further after I also showed him this:


Instantaneous

Many Spells are Instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.

To which he replied,


“Well, that settles it- It says damage delivered by a spell. The damage isn't delivered by a spell, it's delivered by a whip summoned by a spell.”

It stands to reason the developers missed a few things while updating everything, and so I’d assume this topic would fall under “ask your particular DM”.

I just want to hear your thoughts, see what the Playground has to say.

[Segev]

It's a cantrip. It's damage is "magical" unless it explicitly says otherwise.

[JackPhoenix]

You're focusing too much on something that's completely irrelevant to what the spell does. Magic school means absolutely nothing unless you're a wizard or have one of the few features that interact with them.

This isn't 3e.

[TheBrassDuke]

You're focusing too much on something that's completely irrelevant to what the spell does. Magic school means absolutely nothing unless you're a wizard or have one of the few features that interact with them.

This isn't 3e.

Schools of Magic do mean something here. How can you say the fundamental principles of a spell don’t matter?

[TheBrassDuke]

It's a cantrip. It's damage is "magical" unless it explicitly says otherwise.

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.

[Segev]

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.

I'm not arguing about the logic you're using. I'm just pointing our you're operating from the wrong premise. 5e does not care how the magic causes the damage, only that a magical effect caused the damage. If the rules for the damage appear in a thing-that-is-magical, then unless the rules explicitly make an exception, the damage counts as "magical."

Honestly, given the way the spell creates the thorns ex nihilio, I would argue that it should be Conjuration, not Transmutation, but ultimately the school is something you can alter pretty easily without impacting the mechanics directly.

[JackPhoenix]

Schools of Magic do mean something here. How can you say the fundamental principles of a spell don’t matter?

All right. What does it mean, then? Feel free to quote any relevant existing text.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.

Honestly, this is a pretty far out interpretation. Spells deal magical damage unless they say otherwise. The whip is created by magic, the whip attacks using your spellcasting stat and the whip deals damage in a successful "spell" attack.

We get into especially strange territory under your assumption that "instantaneous" somehow means the magic has left a spell before it resolves. All instantaneous means is that the magic exists for a short enough duration that it can't be dispelled. A fireball doesn't become non-magical mid flight, just like the magically conjured* whip doesn't lose it's magic mid swing.

You're thinking too hard.
*I do agree with Segev that it probably should be conjuration or even evocation, it only makes sense for it to be transmutation if you use the specific spell component of an already thorned plant stem.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not arguing about the logic you're using. I'm just pointing our you're operating from the wrong premise. 5e does not care how the magic causes the damage, only that a magical effect caused the damage. If the rules for the damage appear in a thing-that-is-magical, then unless the rules explicitly make an exception, the damage counts as "magical."

Honestly, given the way the spell creates the thorns ex nihilio, I would argue that it should be Conjuration, not Transmutation, but ultimately the school is something you can alter pretty easily without impacting the mechanics directly.

I agree with everything Segev said (I usually do, thinking about it...).

5e's ruling on whether or not something is magical is based on whether or not the source comes from a spell. The damage is listed in the spell, damage listed in spells has to be magical. The only reason it'd not be magical is if it was something not listed in the spell (for instance, a Zombie's statblock is separate from a spell, so a spell that summons zombies does not cause the zombie to deal magical damage).

Another example is Booming Blade. The extra damage it deals is magical, but the weapon damage you use for it obeys whatever the weapon says it does (because its not listed in the spell what damage the weapon does).

Even Catapult, launching a spear at someone, is enough to be considered magical damage, because the damage you deal is dictated by the Catapult spell, not by the object you're throwing (so throwing a javelin via Catapult does not deal piercing damage).

It's not that your logic is bad, it's just focusing on a lot more detail than 5e considers worthwhile.

[Bobthewizard]

The whip is only created at the instant of the attack and then immediately disappears. You don't even wield it. It just lashes out on its own on your command. The key is that it is a melee spell attack. The sage advice you listed above lists spell attack as one of the categories affected by magic cancelling effects.

This is different than using a weapon with booming blade, where you make an attack with a real weapon. Therefore that uses a melee attack ad not a melee spell attack.

So thorn whip is magical, bypasses resistances, and does not work in an AMF.

[Silly Name]

Honestly, given the way the spell creates the thorns ex nihilio, I would argue that it should be Conjuration, not Transmutation, but ultimately the school is something you can alter pretty easily without impacting the mechanics directly.

I agree with this. The language used ("You create...") fits a Conjuration spell much better. No idea why it's listed as a Transumation.

Anyways, the crux of the issue is that any damage inflicted through a spell is automatically magical unless explicitely stated otherwise. Ice Storm's damage is magical even if you're being crushed by "a hail of rock-hard ice" that has been created by the caster and not pure undiluted magic energy. This is not the same thing as summoning a creature, you're striking the enemy with a magical construct.


This isn't 3e.

Schools of magic were mostly irrelevant in 3e unless you were a wizard or had some item/ability that interacted specifically with a certain school of magic too. 3e spells bypassed DR/magic the same way 5e spells bypass immunity/resistance to nonmagical attacks.

[Man_Over_Game]

Schools of magic were mostly irrelevant in 3e.

It's interesting that the trend continues. Not sure what it did before, not sure why we still have it now.

[Boci]

It's not that your logic is bad, it's just focusing on a lot more detail than 5e considers worthwhile.

This is certainly true, but D&D is played groups an ultimately governed by a DM, not 5e as a system, and I could easily see a DM ruling that Catapulp's damage is subject to resistance of immunity to non-magical bludgeoning damage if the object throw wasn't magical.


It's interesting that the trend continues. Not sure what it did before, not sure why we still have it now.

Whilst it wouldn't come up often in game, the fact that in 3.5 instantaneous conjuration effect would work in an antimagic field as long as they weren't cast from within did feel impactful in worldbuilding. Similarly, conjurations typically weren't subject to Spell Resistance, 3.5's magic resistance, because they weren't magical, it was mundane matter that had been conjured there through magic.

[Silly Name]

It's interesting that the trend continues. Not sure what it did before, not sure why we still have it now.

Magic school exists mostly for wizards to specialise into, similarly to cleric's domains (and earlier, priests' spheres). People also like putting things into categories, and spells work well at being categorised depending on effect and/or source.

If we didn't have the whole wizard specialisation/cleric domains, we probably wouldn't have schools, or at least not eight. Maybe more stuff along the lines of shadow magic, wild magic, elemental magic, etc, stuff grouped by theme rather than effect.

[KorvinStarmast]

I just want to hear your thoughts, see what the Playground has to say.
1. Thorn whip is a magical attack. (Note that you roll a to hit roll on a d20 for this - *Make a melee spell attack against the target*)
2. A cantrip is a 0 level spell
3. Chapter 10 tells us that a spell (even a level 0 spell) creates a magical effect
4. AMF cancels / suppresses magical effects (though it does not suppress artifacts)
5. Thorn whip will not work inside an AMF.

Not that hard to figure out.
Bottom Line? This Facebook group failed their save against Overthinking. :smallbiggrin:
It can happen to any of us. :smallwink:

[solidork]

Plus, the pulling effect is clearly magical. You're not using your own strength to pull the target, the movement just happens if they're not too big.

[JackPhoenix]

Schools of magic were mostly irrelevant in 3e unless you were a wizard or had some item/ability that interacted specifically with a certain school of magic too. 3e spells bypassed DR/magic the same way 5e spells bypass immunity/resistance to nonmagical attacks.

Spells bypassed DR/magic by not doing slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage, which was what the DR/magic cared about. They did not help with material-based DR, or the +x based DR from 3e.

And schools mattered when things like conjuration ignored spell resistance, and the abilities that cared about spell schools were much more common than in 5e.

[TheBrassDuke]

1. Thorn whip is a magical attack. (Note that you roll a to hit roll on a d20 for this - *Make a melee spell attack against the target*)
2. A cantrip is a 0 level spell
3. Chapter 10 tells us that a spell (even a level 0 spell) creates a magical effect
4. AMF cancels / suppresses magical effects (though it does not suppress artifacts)
5. Thorn whip will not work inside an AMF.

Not that hard to figure out.
Bottom Line? This Facebook group failed their save against Overthinking. :smallbiggrin:
It can happen to any of us. :smallwink:

Well some of it doesn’t make sense with my logic, to be perfectly honest. But again, I’m thinking harder than I should be, and 5e is a lot different.

[KorvinStarmast]

... and 5e is a lot different. *Devs were not negligent* (In This Case) is the core message that I am offering. They did leave a few stray bits lying around that I wish they had not.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is certainly true, but D&D is played groups an ultimately governed by a DM, not 5e as a system, and I could easily see a DM ruling that Catapulp's damage is subject to resistance of immunity to non-magical bludgeoning damage if the object throw wasn't magical.

I feel like that's a pretty poor decision. Player expectation is really important for games, having the player deal half or no damage because despite following the rules of the game isn't going to earn anyone any favors. Generally, it's better to make exceptions in the player's favor rather than the bad guys'.


Magic school exists mostly for wizards to specialise into, similarly to cleric's domains (and earlier, priests' spheres). People also like putting things into categories, and spells work well at being categorised depending on effect and/or source.

If we didn't have the whole wizard specialisation/cleric domains, we probably wouldn't have schools, or at least not eight. Maybe more stuff along the lines of shadow magic, wild magic, elemental magic, etc, stuff grouped by theme rather than effect.

I think I'd like that. Schools fit with the canon universe, but they don't fit with other worlds (which definitely seem like what people are more interested in), which is why they don't always make much sense to us. I'd expect that they'll transition away from schools and focus more on school-like themes (like illusions or elemancy).

[TheBrassDuke]

I think this is because my group and I operate with a clear definition of each School of Magic, what they do and do not do, and how they interact with the world, our PCs, etc. It never came up as a discussion, it’s just always been this way.

And so, when my one friend says:
”It does read that on your turn you are using magic to transmute space into a tangible, if unstable, nonmagical item which you are capable of using ONCE, IMMEDIATELY, at which point it dissipates. If you stood outside an antimagic field, cast it, and attacked a space inside the antimagic field, you successfully do damage because the magical side of things was conducted outside of the field whereas the mundane was done within.” …it sounds reasonable to me; they made this spell a Transmutation, not a Conjuration; they forgot to give it a Material component too.

According to you all I’m wrong here, 5e rules say I am too…and so, I I’m wrong because it is magical damage. We’ll probably play the way we have been though, seeing as it’s sound logic in my mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think this is because my group and I operate with a clear definition of each School of Magic, what they do and do not do, and how they interact with the world, our PCs, etc. It never came up as a discussion, it’s just always been this way.

And so, when my one friend says: …it sounds reasonable to me; they made this spell a Transmutation, not a Conjuration; they forgot to give it a Material component too.

According to you all I’m wrong here, 5e rules say I am too…so, I guess I’m wrong. We’ll probably play the way we have been though, seeing as it’s sound logic in my mind.

Not sure what your friend was referring to, but I'm not familiar with a spell that acts that way. Transmutation, in general, doesn't act that way. A spell that isn't magical and that doesn't do magical things is nothing more than the component you started with. Even something permanent like a level 9 True Polymorph, converting one object or creature into any other object or creature, will still end up being reversed completely if you cast Dispel Magic on the target.

[KorvinStarmast]

According to you all I’m wrong here, 5e rules say I am too…so, I guess I’m wrong. We’ll probably play the way we have been though, seeing as it’s sound logic in my mind. If that makes the play better at your table, and you all are on board with magic schools having that kind of (3e ish?) influence, Have Fun! :smallsmile::smallsmile:

I still use OD&D 2d6 for "initial reaction by monsters/NPCs rather than a d20.
It works.

[LordShade]

I agree with the idea that this should be a conjuration spell rather than a transmutation spell.

Separately, I come from 2e, and did occasionally make rulings on how a spell would interact with the environment based on the type of magic used in the spell. I.e., what happens to the hail from an ice storm spell after the damage is dealt? Since it's an evocation spell, I'd rule that the hail disappears after the damage is dealt and the players can't use it for anything, like melting it for drinking water. This would be a relevant question in a setting like Dark Sun.

5e handwaving a lot of this stuff bothers my grognard sensibilities. I can't wrap my head around how Summon Undead is a necromancy spell rather than a conjuration spell. If it brings something in from another plane, it's conjuration, period, fullstop. I understand why it's a necromancy spell, from a mechanical/balance perspective--it's so necromancers can apply their scaling bonuses to the summon. I just can't wrap my head around it being necromancy from a worldbuilding perspective.

Maybe I'll change it to a conjuration spell and let my player apply his buffs to "any spell that creates or summons undead."

[TheBrassDuke]

Even something permanent like a level 9 True Polymorph, converting one object or creature into any other object or creature, will still end up being reversed completely if you cast Dispel Magic on the target.

Because the duration for that is Permanent.


Separately, I come from 2e, and did occasionally make rulings on how a spell would interact with the environment based on the type of magic used in the spell. I.e., what happens to the hail from an ice storm spell after the damage is dealt? Since it's an evocation spell, I'd rule that the hail disappears after the damage is dealt and the players can't use it for anything, like melting it for drinking water. This would be a relevant question in a setting like Dark Sun.

See, I’d make the ice disappear too; it’s Evocation, the manipulation of raw magical forces. Conjuration? You’re bringing something into existence from nothing. You can Create Water.


5e handwaving a lot of this stuff bothers my grognard sensibilities. I can't wrap my head around how Summon Undead is a necromancy spell rather than a conjuration spell. If it brings something in from another plane, it's conjuration, period, fullstop. I understand why it's a necromancy spell, from a mechanical/balance perspective--it's so necromancers can apply their scaling bonuses to the summon. I just can't wrap my head around it being necromancy from a worldbuilding perspective.

Maybe I'll change it to a conjuration spell and let my player apply his buffs to "any spell that creates or summons undead."

We treat it [Summon Undead] as Conjuration with a house rule, but we never thought something like Thorn Whip and similar Instantaneous Transmutations that work similarly would need a house rule…

[Boci]

I feel like that's a pretty poor decision. Player expectation is really important for games, having the player deal half or no damage because despite following the rules of the game isn't going to earn anyone any favors. Generally, it's better to make exceptions in the player's favor rather than the bad guys'.

You're assuming every player would be dissappointed by that, which isn't true. I've played with and been players who will argue in favour of interpretations that make sense to them even if its not a beneficial outcome for them.

[Segev]

It could be made thematically Transmutation by giving it a Material component of a whip or thorny vine that is magically transmuted to make the attack. In return for requiring you to have this, you could have it target a creature from anywhere the material component happens to be "rooted," and let the caster affect the material component from anywhere within 30 feet. Most of the time, the spell would operate as it currently does, because the caster would be holding the material component, but if he planted it somewhere, or is in a region with plenty of vines scattered around, it gets a little more flexible.

[Man_Over_Game]

You're assuming every player would be dissappointed by that, which isn't true. I've played with and been players who will argue in favour of interpretations that make sense to them even if its not a beneficial outcome for them.

Sorry, the important thing I was meaning to say (and never actually said it) is that it's important to meet the player's expectations. As long as the player knows what to expect, there isn't anything wrong. You don't want a situation where a Wizard, someone who understands how the schools of magic work, to be surprised that the Catapult spell he prepared ended up useless because of a misunderstanding of the world's physics.

[TheBrassDuke]

It could be made thematically Transmutation by giving it a Material component of a whip or thorny vine that is magically transmuted to make the attack. In return for requiring you to have this, you could have it target a creature from anywhere the material component happens to be "rooted," and let the caster affect the material component from anywhere within 30 feet. Most of the time, the spell would operate as it currently does, because the caster would be holding the material component, but if he planted it somewhere, or is in a region with plenty of vines scattered around, it gets a little more flexible.

Segev, you’ve always been one of my top three favorite posters on here. Also, thank you for being the first to comment and not tear into me like the Facebook people. :) Also, I really like this idea.

[Man_Over_Game]

Segev, you’ve always been one of my top three favorite posters on here. Also, thank you for being the first to comment and not tear into me like the Facebook people. :) Also, I really like this idea.

Agreed. I'd definitely be down to play something that used mechanics like this, just not sure if DnD is the right one for it. Players seem to have shown distaste for wanting more rules regarding components.

Strangely enough, a mechanic like that reminds me a bit of how 4e would operate if they took the worldbuilding a bit more seriously. It's definitely something I'd like to see more of.

[Jerrykhor]

The whip in Thorn Whip is pure fluff like the skeletal hand in Chill Touch. Unlike say, the vine in Grasping Vine or the hand of Bigby's. Thorn Whip is magical because the whip IS the spell, you have a better case arguing that Catapult deals non-magical bludgeoning since the object is not generated by the spell.

The developers are not wrong here, you just don't know how to read.

[Greywander]

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.
I think this is a crunch vs. fluff issue. Actions in 5e are atomic, so a spell with an instantaneous duration has a duration that lasts for the entire action. There was a similar discussion regarding thrown weapons and the Dueling fighting style, with the argument that since you throw the weapon, you are no longer wielding it, and thus can't benefit from Dueling. But the action is atomic, and you must be wielding the weapon to attack with it. From a mechanical perspective, using an action takes no time, the entire action is resolved instantly. Of course, fluff-wise this isn't actually what happens, but we have to focus on the mechanical aspect in order to understand how the rules work.

All this to say that an instantaneous duration includes making the attack with the whip. It is not an indication that the spell creates the whip and then ends, and then you attack with the whip. The spell's duration lasts for the entire action in which it is used. The only time an instantaneous spell is creating an effect that persists beyond the spell's duration is when that effect lasts longer than the action used to cast the spell (as with Animate Dead). Also consider: why doesn't the thorn whip exist indefinitely, allowing you to attack with it on subsequent turns without casting the spell again? The fact that the whip disappears/reverts is an indication that it's still being affected by the spell.


Honestly, given the way the spell creates the thorns ex nihilio, I would argue that it should be Conjuration, not Transmutation, but ultimately the school is something you can alter pretty easily without impacting the mechanics directly.

It could be made thematically Transmutation by giving it a Material component of a whip or thorny vine that is magically transmuted to make the attack.
Um. I don't know how to tell you this, but the spell does have a material component. Specifically, "the stem of a plant with thorns". So it makes perfect sense as a Transmutation spell. Using a spell focus makes this a bit stranger, but most druidic foci are plant-based, so it still kind of works. Nature clerics, though...

To the OP, yes it's magic damage, and yes, it's blocked by an AMF. It's Transmutation because it alters the thorny stem used as the material component, and it's instantaneous because the duration only lasts for that single attack, which mechanically takes no time at all.

Amusingly, Thorn Whip uses a melee spell attack, but has a range of 30 feet, and this range is doubled with Spell Sniper. I have yet to find a useful application for this trivia. Maybe someday we'll get a paladin subclass that can smite on melee spell attacks or something.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Um. I don't know how to tell you this, but the spell does have a material component. Specifically, "the stem of a plant with thorns". So it makes perfect sense as a Transmutation spell. Using a spell focus makes this a bit stranger, but most druidic foci are plant-based, so it still kind of works. Nature clerics, though...

The ability to substitute with a focus is the problem (there's an expectation that you have the proper component in a pouch) but you're right, druids don't have to change much.

Specifically, it's a much more noticeable problem now that it's an artificer spell. I honestly think they chose transmutation entirely because of the example component, but forgot that since it has no cost and isn't consumed there's actually no guarantee you have anything that reasonably resembles a vine whip.

[Greywander]

The ability to substitute with a focus is the problem (there's an expectation that you have the proper component in a pouch) but you're right, druids don't have to change much.

Specifically, it's a much more noticeable problem now that it's an artificer spell. I honestly think they chose transmutation entirely because of the example component, but forgot that since it has no cost and isn't consumed there's actually no guarantee you have anything that reasonably resembles a vine whip.
Good point about artificer, I forgot that they got it as well. In any case, you're always using something, whether it's the thorny stem, a staff, or tool. It's not a huge stretch to assume that whatever you're using is being transformed temporarily into a whip. For the artificer specifically, I would almost expect them to have a specific tool in their kit for casting this exact spell.

I've written up a homebrew version of the artificer that replaces spellcasting with an expanded spell-storing item system. So under my system, you would essentially be putting Thorn Whip into a specific item. It could be any item, but you'd probably choose something that thematically fit. I think the same logic could be applied to the vanilla artificer. It's not so much that you're casting a spell that transforms an object into a whip, but more that you've built a collapsible whip that you keep on your tool belt.

[Segev]

Segev, you’ve always been one of my top three favorite posters on here. Also, thank you for being the first to comment and not tear into me like the Facebook people. :) Also, I really like this idea.Aw, thanks! :smallredface:


Um. I don't know how to tell you this, but the spell does have a material component. Specifically, "the stem of a plant with thorns". So it makes perfect sense as a Transmutation spell. Using a spell focus makes this a bit stranger, but most druidic foci are plant-based, so it still kind of works. Nature clerics, though...Ah, my mistake. Then it makes reasonable sense as a Transmutation spell as-is.


Amusingly, Thorn Whip uses a melee spell attack, but has a range of 30 feet, and this range is doubled with Spell Sniper. I have yet to find a useful application for this trivia. Maybe someday we'll get a paladin subclass that can smite on melee spell attacks or something.I'd need to carefully re-read the various rules, but grapple and shove are specified as things you can do in lieu of a melee attack, I think, so maybe you can use a thorn whip to grapple or shove instead of doing damage? Though it already does a reverse-shove, and I'll be entirely unsurprised if the very shaky logic I'm using is utterly destroyed by actual RAW text that I am remembering imperfectly.


The ability to substitute with a focus is the problem (there's an expectation that you have the proper component in a pouch) but you're right, druids don't have to change much.

Specifically, it's a much more noticeable problem now that it's an artificer spell. I honestly think they chose transmutation entirely because of the example component, but forgot that since it has no cost and isn't consumed there's actually no guarantee you have anything that reasonably resembles a vine whip.Maybe artificers' foci have some sort of "insta-grow" formula they pour on the ground, or the like.

[TheBrassDuke]

The developers are not wrong here, you just don't know how to read.

You certainly don’t need to be a d*** about it, firstly, and I did read it. There’s confusion in it if you’re reading with a certain understanding of how things worked in the past (and didn’t understand certain stuff didn’t translate to 5e), so sod off if you’re only here to Neckbeard and “ackshually” at me.


Ah, my mistake. Then it makes reasonable sense as a Transmutation spell as-is.

It’s not your mistake, he was incorrect.



Um. I don't know how to tell you this, but the spell does have a material component. Specifically, "the stem of a plant with thorns". So it makes perfect sense as a Transmutation spell. Using a spell focus makes this a bit stranger, but most druidic foci are plant-based, so it still kind of works. Nature clerics, though...

No, it actually doesnt. Where are you getting your “specifics”?


Thorn Whip
Druid - Cantrip Level Spell
School: Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 30 ft
Components: Verbal and Somatic
Duration: Instantaneous
Attack/Save: Melee
Reference: PHB 282

You create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns that lashes out at your command toward a creature in range. Make a melee spell attack against the target. If the attack hits, the creature takes 1d6 piercing damage, and if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you.

At higher level

This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

[gloryblaze]

You certainly don’t need to be a d*** about it, firstly, and I did read it. There’s confusion in it if you’re reading with a certain understanding of how things worked in the past (and didn’t understand certain stuff didn’t translate to 5e), so sod off if you’re only here to Neckbeard and “ackshually” at me.



It’s not your mistake, he was incorrect.



No, it actually doesnt. Where are you getting your “specifics”?

It definitely does, at least in my copy of the PHB and according to the Roll20 compendium. It's paid content so I don't think I can post a screenshot, but Thorn Whip absolutely has a Material component of "The stem of a plant with thorns" in 5e.

[Zuras]

Amusingly, Thorn Whip uses a melee spell attack, but has a range of 30 feet, and this range is doubled with Spell Sniper. I have yet to find a useful application for this trivia. Maybe someday we'll get a paladin subclass that can smite on melee spell attacks or something.

Death clerics can use their Touch of Death Channel Divinity to smite (5+2*level) on all melee attacks, including spells. Helpful for killing wizards and other high threat, low hp opponents on the first turn of combat, as you can burn 2 CDs using Thorn Whip and Spiritual Weapon to add 34+ damage to your single turn nova attack at 6th level (1d8+3+17, 2d6+17). Also provides enough boost to make Vampiric Touch somewhat viable).

Also, more practically for most users, you get advantage against prone opponents within 5’ just like swords do.

[TheBrassDuke]

It definitely does, at least in my copy of the PHB and according to the Roll20 compendium. It's paid content so I don't think I can post a screenshot, but Thorn Whip absolutely has a Material component of "The stem of a plant with thorns" in 5e.

The spell has been missing from the Compendium since June or July, and is not there.

But I did check Beyond, and I do see the update there and so I apologize.

[gloryblaze]

The spell has been missing from the Compendium since June or July, and is not there.

But I did check Beyond, and I do see the update there and so I apologize.

It's not missing, it's just not free—only spells in the SRD are free, other spells require you to buy the PHB.

[Greywander]

No, it actually doesnt. Where are you getting your “specifics”?
The PHB. Online resources are great, but on rare occasions they're also wrong. I think something like this has happened to me before, too. If someone makes a claim that doesn't line up with an online resources, it may be worth double checking the actual books. Sometimes the claim is just wrong, but it's easier to refute such a claim if you can cite the actual rules.

Where it gets really strange is when there's an obscure rule in the books somewhere you wouldn't expect to find it. So someone makes a claim, you check the book and don't see it, and so they come back with a page number for a completely different section, and maybe even a different book.

[quindraco]

No, it actually doesnt. Where are you getting your “specifics”?

Spell-manifested objects deal magical damage and that's true regardless of required components or spell school, but here's the rules block for Thorn Whip.


THORN WHIP
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (the stem of a plant with thorns)
Duration: Instantaneous
You create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns that
lashes out at your command toward a creature in range.
Make a melee spell attack against the target. If the
attack hits, the creature takes 1d6 piercing damage, and
if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature
up to 10 feet closer to you.
This spell's damage increases by 1d6 when you reach
5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

That's verbatim, I literally just copied and pasted it from page 282 of the PHB.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.

This is where the whole question of this post breaks down for me, vines of any sort lack the necessary balance of heft and strength to be used as whips and certainly are never independently animate enough to pull a creature 10 feet on their own.

So go back to the spell description, you make a spell attack, not a melee attack as part of the spell, so this is magic damage.

The timing of the spell is instant, but it’s effects are encompassed in that instance, meaning you cast, target, the vine is created and reaches out to Pierce and drag. That takes longer than the Planck time scaling I think Instant is seen as here, but it does not have a duration of 1 round or till end of your turn, the only larger units than instant the game is concerned with below rounds/minutes etc. and which can both be interpreted as “6 seconds.”

In summation: it’s magic bc you make a spell attack, it’s affected by magic canceling effects but also bypasses resistances.

[greenstone]

I'm happy with thorn whip being transmutation because it is a telekinetic effect, and telekinesis is transmutation.

Affecting a target inside an antimagic field with thorn whip doesn't work, just the same as affecting that target with telekinesis doesn't work.

[TheBrassDuke]

Spell-manifested objects deal magical damage and that's true regardless of required components or spell school, but here's the rules block for Thorn Whip.

…That's verbatim, I literally just copied and pasted it from page 282 of the PHB.

Already been established, thanks. Idk why you’re commenting hours after I’ve already admitted my mistake?

Also, Mods, I think we can lock it now or something. Answer’s been delivered now, repeatedly hammered by some, and I’m satisfied.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The PHB. Online resources are great, but on rare occasions they're also wrong. I think something like this has happened to me before, too. If someone makes a claim that doesn't line up with an online resources, it may be worth double checking the actual books. Sometimes the claim is just wrong, but it's easier to refute such a claim if you can cite the actual rules.

Where it gets really strange is when there's an obscure rule in the books somewhere you wouldn't expect to find it. So someone makes a claim, you check the book and don't see it, and so they come back with a page number for a completely different section, and maybe even a different book.
Even for officially licensed sources like Roll20 and DND Beyond have mistakes on them... Even printed books might not be accurate depending on how long ago you've purchased them with errata in play.

[CMCC]

How is this thread 2 pages already?

[TheBrassDuke]

How is this thread 2 pages already?

Cuz more people want to kick the mule and repeat what others have said better two posts up 🙄

[JackPhoenix]

Not sure what your friend was referring to, but I'm not familiar with a spell that acts that way. Transmutation, in general, doesn't act that way. A spell that isn't magical and that doesn't do magical things is nothing more than the component you started with. Even something permanent like a level 9 True Polymorph, converting one object or creature into any other object or creature, will still end up being reversed completely if you cast Dispel Magic on the target.

The wall from Wall of Stone is explicitly nonmagical, despite the spell having a duration. Good luck figuring out how THAT work with AMF and dispel, especially as it says it can't be dispelled if the duration becomes permanent, but you shouldn't be able to dispel something non-magical anyway.

And according to JC's SA tweet, rakshasas can walk through the wall thanks to their magic immunity.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, given the way the spell creates the thorns ex nihilio, I would argue that it should be Conjuration, not Transmutation, but ultimately the school is something you can alter pretty easily without impacting the mechanics directly.
It doesn't. The M component is the stem of a plant with thorns.

[Nagog]

I just don’t see how it could be if the magic in the spell itself is gone as soon as the whip is created, and the damage is not a direct result of the spell, but the whip it transmuted from something. The magic ceases to be at this point.

I get it, but really, it makes no sense to me.

You transmute the air/space into a whip that exists only for a moment. It's existence, however temporary, is sustained by the magic of that spell, after the spell ends, the whip vanishes. The anti-magic field ends the magic that is sustaining the whip's existence.
The spell doesn't create the whip for you to attack with it and then create a new instance of magic to destroy it.

[Aimeryan]

I agree with everything Segev said (I usually do, thinking about it...).

5e's ruling on whether or not something is magical is based on whether or not the source comes from a spell. The damage is listed in the spell, damage listed in spells has to be magical. The only reason it'd not be magical is if it was something not listed in the spell (for instance, a Zombie's statblock is separate from a spell, so a spell that summons zombies does not cause the zombie to deal magical damage).

Pretty much this. If the spell instead specified it created a 'thorn whip' and told you to see the statistics for a thorn whip in the weapon section it would be different. As is, the damage listed in the spell only exists as a function of the spell, hence it is magical because it is not falling back to anything mundane. Similarly, because no actual 'thorn whip' is created, it does not exist in an antimagic field.

Note, I don't actually agree this is how it should be done; damage type should be super clear (coloured, prefixed with magical or not, ect.). However, this is 5e, home of the DM ruling.

Similarly, magic schools just don't function how you would expect in 5e - they are basically there to decide who gets access to them and what modifiers apply (Empowered Evocation, etc.). Yeah, a transmutation spell should change something existing into something else, and if instantaneous, it would stay like that. If this was being done properly then Thorn Whip would create thorn whips with statistics that once dropped anyone could then pick it up and use. However, this is 5e.

[Mitchellnotes]

I think the question about thorn whip is answered, but one of the things about this discussion that is interesting to me still is that this really is never a question for other damage. For the most part, nothing ever cares if fire, thunder, lightning, acid, cold, psychic, necrotic, etc etc is magical or nonmagical.

Except pyrotechnics. Pyrotechnics is the only thing I can think of that explicitly calls out need something magical or non-magical (specifically a "non-magical" fire) and then spells that are fire based (flaming sphere and create bonfire) being named explicitly magical so that they don't interact. I'm not sure why so much effort was put into making pyrotechnics harder to use, but here we are.

This then begs the question, if I use a spell to light something on fire, and the spell goes away, does that then leave a non-magical fire I could use? Or is fire caused by magic inherently magical? Like a magical CSI arson investigator "yep, looks like the primary accelerant here was a fireball. You can tell by the magical burn patterns having that specific smiley face shape. we should be on the lookout for a magic user with bad aim and a poor sense of humor"

[Jerrykhor]

I think the question about thorn whip is answered, but one of the things about this discussion that is interesting to me still is that this really is never a question for other damage. For the most part, nothing ever cares if fire, thunder, lightning, acid, cold, psychic, necrotic, etc etc is magical or nonmagical.

Except pyrotechnics. Pyrotechnics is the only thing I can think of that explicitly calls out need something magical or non-magical (specifically a "non-magical" fire) and then spells that are fire based (flaming sphere and create bonfire) being named explicitly magical so that they don't interact. I'm not sure why so much effort was put into making pyrotechnics harder to use, but here we are.

This then begs the question, if I use a spell to light something on fire, and the spell goes away, does that then leave a non-magical fire I could use? Or is fire caused by magic inherently magical? Like a magical CSI arson investigator "yep, looks like the primary accelerant here was a fireball. You can tell by the magical burn patterns having that specific smiley face shape. we should be on the lookout for a magic user with bad aim and a poor sense of humor"

Control Flames cantrip also requires non-magical fire, though i think its because they don't want you to spread your Continual Flame. Not like the combo would be broken or anything. Pyrotechnics being a level 2 spell but still subject to that restriction make it kind of bad, but the weird part is Shape Water or Mold Earth doesn't call out non-magical water or non-magical earth.

Also, no fire spell has ever state their fire to be explicitly magical, the way Darkness is. But then again, they have never been consistent on that part. Hunger of Hadar has been clarified on SA as not the same as magical darkness, though it does pass the Duck Test for one. Damn you JC...

[Mitchellnotes]

Control Flames cantrip also requires non-magical fire, though i think its because they don't want you to spread your Continual Flame. Not like the combo would be broken or anything. Pyrotechnics being a level 2 spell but still subject to that restriction make it kind of bad, but the weird part is Shape Water or Mold Earth doesn't call out non-magical water or non-magical earth.

Also, no fire spell has ever state their fire to be explicitly magical, the way Darkness is. But then again, they have never been consistent on that part. Hunger of Hadar has been clarified on SA as not the same as magical darkness, though it does pass the Duck Test for one. Damn you JC...

Hunger of hadar is a mess. Depending upon who you talk to it could be 1) darkness, but regular darkness that darkvision can see through, 2) magical darkness like the spell (though it is at least clear that this is not the intent), 3) super darkness like shadows of moil that is called out as darkness but functions more like fog cloud. This is even more confusing because the one thing the spell does do is call out that those in the effect are blinded, which doesn't make sense with interpretation 1) if the creature has darkvision.

How this plays out can be significant in terms of how those outside the AoE can impact those inside of it. With interpretation 1), you could hit at range with advantage, with 2), you could do that if you could see through magical darkness, with 3) everything would be heavily obscured. Note that unlike shadows of moil or other spells (like fog cloud), Hunger of Hadar Doesn't specifically identify that creatures in the AoE are heavily obscured. No errata has helped clear this up either.

[Segev]

Hunger of hadar is a mess. Depending upon who you talk to it could be 1) darkness, but regular darkness that darkvision can see through, 2) magical darkness like the spell (though it is at least clear that this is not the intent), 3) super darkness like shadows of moil that is called out as darkness but functions more like fog cloud. This is even more confusing because the one thing the spell does do is call out that those in the effect are blinded, which doesn't make sense with interpretation 1) if the creature has darkvision.

How this plays out can be significant in terms of how those outside the AoE can impact those inside of it. With interpretation 1), you could hit at range with advantage, with 2), you could do that if you could see through magical darkness, with 3) everything would be heavily obscured. Note that unlike shadows of moil or other spells (like fog cloud), Hunger of Hadar Doesn't specifically identify that creatures in the AoE are heavily obscured. No errata has helped clear this up either.

Not going to argue the point extensively, but I fall on the side that reads hunger of hadar saying it is a "sphere of blackness" to mean that it isn't "darkness." It's an intangible, opaque, black ball.

That said, a really cool mental image I just developed for interpretation (1) would leave things inside it as visible from outside lighting (making it a very nasty debuff in terms of letting others target them) as a consequence of enabling said visual: The sphere of blackness from the void of space opens up like a hole into the depths of outer space, a black spherical portal through which distant, lonely stars can be seen. The tentacles are visible in the starlight, white and milky, reaching out from just out of the field of view to lash at those trapped within. Those trapped within are unable to see anything but the black void, the stars, and the tentacles, blinding them to everything else in effect. They can see into the infinity of space surrounding them, and cannot even see the edge to which they hope to escape.