how to determine if damage is magical or non-magical

[da newt]

Where can I find the rules for determining if BPS damage counts as magical for the purposes of resistance/immunity to non-magical damage?

For example if a spell causes BPS damage but the spell doesn't specifically say the damage is magical, does that mean it's mundane? (animate objects, hunter's mark, conjure volley, cordon of arrows, ensnaring strike, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Where can I find the rules for determining if BPS damage counts as magical for the purposes of resistance/immunity to non-magical damage?

For example if a spell causes BPS damage but the spell doesn't specifically say the damage is magical, does that mean it's mundane? (animate objects, hunter's mark, conjure volley, cordon of arrows, ensnaring strike, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc).

First, resistance/immunity is to damage from attacks made by non-magical weapons specifically. So spells? Bypass it entirely.

Second, the basic rules are the same as deciding whether something is magical in general:

- does it cost a spell slot?
- does it come from a magic item?
- does it say it's a spell?
- does it explicitly say its magical?

If any of those are true, then it's magical.

[da newt]

"First, resistance/immunity is to damage from attacks made by non-magical weapons specifically. So spells? Bypass it entirely."

My monster manual uses the terms BPS "from nonmagical attacks" (for example just about all the devils and demons). What does your MM say?

[Dork_Forge]

Generally speaking it falls into three categories:

- Something will say if it's magical
- Damage done directly by spells is magical because spells are
- Damage done by a weapon enchanted in anyway (such as not rusting, moon touched blade etc.) counts as magical

On things like Animate Objects, that isn't magical damage because the spell isn't doing it. The spell is animating the objects. The objects are creatures (constructs) in their own right, that do not have anything making their attacks magical. The same would apply to something like Tiny Servant.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"First, resistance/immunity is to damage from attacks made by non-magical weapons specifically. So spells? Bypass it entirely."

My monster manual uses the terms BPS "from nonmagical attacks" (for example just about all the devils and demons). What does your MM say?

I could have sworn they errata'd that...but now that I look at it you're right.

But the rest still applies. Has to be either not an attack (ie falling damage bypasses it) or has to be from something that uses spell slots, is a spell, refers to itself as a spell, calls itself magic, or is from a magic item.

[da newt]

OK so let's go with the sage advice stuff:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• 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 your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

So I cast a spell (using a spell slot) to conjure animals - I summon fay spirits that take the form of beasts and attack, but the fay spirits do the attacking / damage so it's NOT magical, right? The spell doesn't attack directly, the spell makes a thing - the thing does the damage. The same would be true of any spell that creates or summons a thing that does BPS damage like Evards or Hail of Thorns or Animate Objects or Meteor Storm, right?

But Hunter's Mark doesn't create a thing that does the damage - the spell makes you do extra damage when you hit something w/ a weapon attack, so that damage DOES count as magical (but the rest of the weapon attack damage is unaffected by the spell), right? But the spell doesn't attack directly, either - you attack normally, the spell just adds a little weapon damage, so ...

When determining IF it "is a spell" or "is fueled by spell slots" do you mean the spell casting includes the attack roll or is it a much wider requirement like I cast polymorph on myself so all my giant ape attacks are magical damage because I'm only an ape because I cast a spell? If I cast Haste on myself, is my extra attack granted by the spell now magical damage?

But then IF my find familiar cat doesn't do magical damage, but I cast summon beast that spirit/beast does use my spell casting modifier for it's attack so does that summon have magical attacks or mundane ones?

[Unoriginal]

OK so let's go with the sage advice stuff:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• 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 your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

So I cast a spell (using a spell slot) to conjure animals - I summon fay spirits that take the form of beasts and attack, but the fay spirits do the attacking / damage so it's NOT magical, right? The spell doesn't attack directly, the spell makes a thing - the thing does the damage. The same would be true of any spell that creates or summons a thing that does BPS damage like Evards or Hail of Thorns or Animate Objects or Meteor Storm, right?

But Hunter's Mark doesn't create a thing that does the damage - the spell makes you do extra damage when you hit something w/ a weapon attack, so that damage DOES count as magical (but the rest of the weapon attack damage is unaffected by the spell), right? But the spell doesn't attack directly, either - you attack normally, the spell just adds a little weapon damage, so ...

When determining IF it "is a spell" or "is fueled by spell slots" do you mean the spell casting includes the attack roll or is it a much wider requirement like I cast polymorph on myself so all my giant ape attacks are magical damage because I'm only an ape because I cast a spell? If I cast Haste on myself, is my extra attack granted by the spell now magical damage?

But then IF my find familiar cat doesn't do magical damage, but I cast summon beast that spirit/beast does use my spell casting modifier for it's attack so does that summon have magical attacks or mundane ones?


What matters is the attack's description, for summoned beings, not if they use your casting stat or not. Same thing if the creature is transformed.

For abilities that give rider damage, only the rider danage is concerned (unlesd stated otherwise). Which is why if a Paladin smites acreature immune to B/P/S from non-magic weapons with a nonmagic weapon, only the Smite part does damage.

[Kane0]

One that came up recently for my table was fist of unbroken air. Our DM ruled it to be sufficiently magical to affect the target in question.

[KorvinStarmast]

Where can I find the rules for determining if BPS damage counts as magical for the purposes of resistance/immunity to non-magical damage? It's the attack that's magical, or not. If you think of it that way, most of the confusion disappears.
Is the attack with a magic item?
is the attack with a magic ability?

All damage has a type, it's in the PHB, apply the type.

[stoutstien]

It's a pile of garbage regardless if the checklist they tossed out.

Best bet is go with your gut with a slight lean in the party's favor but when you decide just at a (M) tag or however you want to notorized it.

[da newt]

I cast thorn whip - I summon a thorny whip that I use to make a melee spell attack, so the resulting damage IS magical or mundane?

I cast booming blade - the somatic/material parts of this spell's casting include a melee attack with a weapon, so the resulting BPS damage IS magical or mundane?

I cast Spike Growth - and 20' radius area sprouts spikes and thorns for 10 minutes. Is their piercing 2d4/5' damage magical or mundane?

I cast Evard's Black Tentacles - and summon a 20' square area of squirming ebony tentacles for 1 minute. Is their 3d6 bludgeoning damage magical or mundane?

I cast conjure animals - the fey spirits I summon hit things. magical or mundane damage?

I cast Animate Objects - the animated things hit stuff. magical or mundane damage?

[sithlordnergal]

So I cast a spell (using a spell slot) to conjure animals - I summon fay spirits that take the form of beasts and attack, but the fay spirits do the attacking / damage so it's NOT magical, right? The spell doesn't attack directly, the spell makes a thing - the thing does the damage. The same would be true of any spell that creates or summons a thing that does BPS damage like Evards or Hail of Thorns or Animate Objects or Meteor Storm, right?

But Hunter's Mark doesn't create a thing that does the damage - the spell makes you do extra damage when you hit something w/ a weapon attack, so that damage DOES count as magical (but the rest of the weapon attack damage is unaffected by the spell), right? But the spell doesn't attack directly, either - you attack normally, the spell just adds a little weapon damage, so ...

When determining IF it "is a spell" or "is fueled by spell slots" do you mean the spell casting includes the attack roll or is it a much wider requirement like I cast polymorph on myself so all my giant ape attacks are magical damage because I'm only an ape because I cast a spell? If I cast Haste on myself, is my extra attack granted by the spell now magical damage?

But then IF my find familiar cat doesn't do magical damage, but I cast summon beast that spirit/beast does use my spell casting modifier for it's attack so does that summon have magical attacks or mundane ones?

So, lets go down your checklist for the spells you mentioned:

First up, Conjure Animals, Animate Objects, and really anything that uses a separate statblock after being summoned/raised/created:

• Is it a magic item? No, a creature with a statblock is not a magic item
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? No, a creature with a statblock is not a spell
• Is it a spell attack? No, a creature with a statblock is not a spell attack
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? No, a creature with a statblock is not fueled by spell slots, even if they were summoned by one
• Does its description say it’s magical? Depends, does it say so in the statblock? If not, then no.
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

An important thing to keep in mind is that if you're using a statblock, then it doesn't matter how the creature was created. Their statblock and the spell used to create them are separate things, and need to be looked at separately when determining if their attacks are magical or not. This means that the Bludgeoning damage from, say, Bigby's Hand? Non-magical since it has its own, separate statblock and the statblock doesn't say it deals magical damage

Next up, lets do an attack granted by Haste:

• Is it a magic item? No, its not
• Is it a spell? No, the Attack Action is not a spell
• Is it a spell attack? No, the Attack Action is not a spell attack. And if it was, we'd have a lot more problems than just figuring out if its magical
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? Nope, making a third attack is not fueled by spell slots
• Does its description say it’s magical? Nothing about the Attack Action says its magical in its description

While the extra action is granted by a magical effect, the action itself is not magical. You're mixing the two when they are separate.


Finally, lets look at Meteor Swarm, Spike Growth, Evard's, ect.:

• Is it a magic item? No
• Is it a spell? Yes, it is
• Is it a spell attack? It depends on the spell in question.
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? Yes, it is
• Does its description say it’s magical? It depends on the spell in question

None of the spells above use separate statblocks, so you're not really creating anything when you cast them. Sure, you're summoning a meteor, but the meteor itself does not have the stats of a regular meteor. Same with Spike Growth, Evard's, Cloud of Daggers, ect. They all deal magical damage because they're created by a spell and lack a separate statblock of their own.


TL;DR: If it uses a separate statblock, then it doesn't matter if you used a spell or not to create it. You only apply the checklist to the statblock without consideration of how it came into being. If it has no statblock, then you can apply the checklist to whatever created it. And for things like Booming Blade, you look at the two entities separately. You never intertwine them. So the thunder damage is technically magical even though that never matters, but the attack you make is not. Unless you have a magical weapon.

[Chronos]

That Sage Advice is even more worthless than usual. "Dragons' description says they're magical. If something's description says that it's magical, then it's magical. Therefore, dragons aren't magical".

Yet another example of the 5e designers' delusion that removing clarification makes things more clear. If you're going to have things that depend on whether something's magical (which they do, and which they knew right from the start that they were going to), then explicitly state whether things are magical, with tags like (Su) for Supernatural, or (Ex) for Extraordinary. Explicitly stating rules like that doesn't lead to rules lawyering, like they claim: It's what prevents rules lawyering. With the vague descriptions they gave, players are forced to rules-lawyer to get any answers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That Sage Advice is even more worthless than usual. "Dragons' description says they're magical. If something's description says that it's magical, then it's magical. Therefore, dragons aren't magical".

Yet another example of the 5e designers' delusion that removing clarification makes things more clear. If you're going to have things that depend on whether something's magical (which they do, and which they knew right from the start that they were going to), then explicitly state whether things are magical, with tags like (Su) for Supernatural, or (Ex) for Extraordinary. Explicitly stating rules like that doesn't lead to rules lawyering, like they claim: It's what prevents rules lawyering. With the vague descriptions they gave, players are forced to rules-lawyer to get any answers.

Except I've seen dozens of threads arguing about this exact sort of thing in the 3e forums. Which has those tags. Nothing stops rules lawyering, because rules lawyering (of the bad sort) is explicitly bad faith.

[da newt]

So if the spell summons/creates something with it's own stat block, then the damage is magical only if the stat block specifically says so, but if the spell summons/creates something without a stat block, then the damage is magical. I can wrap my head around that and use it to rule consistently.

[Greywander]

I cast thorn whip - I summon a thorny whip that I use to make a melee spell attack, so the resulting damage IS magical or mundane?
Magical. The "summon a thorny whip" is descriptive fluff. Mechanically, the spell itself is the attack, and the whip can't be used outside the scope of the spell (e.g. to make regular weapon attacks). Even if you interpret the spell as conjuring a whip, it disappears after the spell ends, implying its continued existence was sustained by magic.


I cast booming blade - the somatic/material parts of this spell's casting include a melee attack with a weapon, so the resulting BPS damage IS magical or mundane?
Booming Blade is a bit of an oddball. My understanding is that the spell is the enhancement applied on top of the attack, but not the attack itself. As such, the weapon damage would still be mundane, unless you were using a magical weapon.


I cast Spike Growth - and 20' radius area sprouts spikes and thorns for 10 minutes. Is their piercing 2d4/5' damage magical or mundane?

I cast Evard's Black Tentacles - and summon a 20' square area of squirming ebony tentacles for 1 minute. Is their 3d6 bludgeoning damage magical or mundane?
Magical. As a general rule (IMO at least), effects that disappear when the spell's duration ends are magical, whereas permanent effects that persist after the spell expires are mundane. In particular, spells with an instantaneous duration that transform or conjure a thing only use magic to cause the transformation or summoning, and the magic is gone once completed.


I cast conjure animals - the fey spirits I summon hit things. magical or mundane damage?

I cast Animate Objects - the animated things hit stuff. magical or mundane damage?
Mundane. Creatures are not objects (unless they're dead), so even a magical creature still has mundane attacks unless they have an ability that says otherwise.

[Chronos]

Booming Blade is a bit of an oddball. My understanding is that the spell is the enhancement applied on top of the attack, but not the attack itself.
That'd be the case for something like the paladin's smite spells. But that's not the way Booming Blade works. Making the attack is part of casting the spell, not its own action (you could, for instance, quicken Booming Blade and make an attack, even if you didn't have a regular action available).

I'll also note that there are spells that explicitly deal nonmagical damage. For instance, in Get Off my LawnWrath of Nature, the damage from trees is magical as normal for a spell, but the damage from boulders is nonmagical.

[Dork_Forge]

That'd be the case for something like the paladin's smite spells. But that's not the way Booming Blade works. Making the attack is part of casting the spell, not its own action (you could, for instance, quicken Booming Blade and make an attack, even if you didn't have a regular action available).

I'll also note that there are spells that explicitly deal nonmagical damage. For instance, in Get Off my LawnWrath of Nature, the damage from trees is magical as normal for a spell, but the damage from boulders is nonmagical.

It's not really clear here, are you saying that you think Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade are magical on their weapon damage?

[Greywander]

That'd be the case for something like the paladin's smite spells. But that's not the way Booming Blade works. Making the attack is part of casting the spell, not its own action (you could, for instance, quicken Booming Blade and make an attack, even if you didn't have a regular action available).
That's why I said it's an oddball. I feel like the intention is pretty clear that it's a normal weapon attack with the spell on top; it would be strange if the spell itself was somehow causing the attack, though strictly mechanically that is exactly what's happening. I just don't know why they chose to implement it this way.

If it were me, I'd look into implementing a new type of spell that you can cast immediately after hitting with an attack, which could require spending a bonus action or reaction, or might be actionless but limited to once per turn, or might only be limited by how many times you can attack. Smite spells, as well as BB and GFB, would then use this new type of spell. Alternatively, BB/GFB could work like Shillelagh, being cast as a bonus action to buff your weapon for one minute.