1
\$\begingroup\$

My friend has an enchanted silvered warhammer that grants it +1d6 fire damage. We'll be fighting a fiend soon with resistance to fire and bludgeoning damage from nonmagical and non silvered weapons.

Will my friend's warhammer do half bludgeoning damage and full fire damage to the fiend?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ How are the damage resistances written in the creature's stat block? Is it written as "Fire and Bludgeoning from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered" or written as "Fire; Bludgeoning from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered" ? \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Sep 22 '19 at 1:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Shouldn't that be the other way around? If the opponent has fire resistance then that damage will be halved. Fire damage resistance never refers to weapon properties in the books since any weapon that applies it is already magical. \$\endgroup\$ – Allan Mills Sep 22 '19 at 5:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MikeQ the first one, Fire and Bludgeoning. \$\endgroup\$ – Braun Sep 22 '19 at 6:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It would be helpful to state what fiend it is, and where (what book or otherwise) it is from. Subtleties of rules text can get lost in retelling, and working with the actual rules makes thing clearer (and more likely to be correct). \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Sep 22 '19 at 9:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ You'll likely get better answers (and the question reopened so that more answers can be submitted) if you tell us the exact fiend you're speaking of, as Someone_Evil suggested... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 24 '19 at 8:02
3
\$\begingroup\$

Based on the information you have given it sounds like the fiend should take full damage from your friend’s warhammer, as it is enchanted, therefore making it magical. So if it were my table I would rule both the hammer and fire are magical and so ignore the resistance given in your description.

If you are able to tell us the name of the creature we would likely be able to give you a more concrete answer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This doesn't seem correct in light of this other question \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Sep 22 '19 at 3:55
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ifusaso none of the top answers to that other question seem to disagree. What am I missing? \$\endgroup\$ – mattdm Sep 22 '19 at 4:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm the fact that most fiends have resistance to fire, not fire from nonmagical sources I would assume. However we cannot presume that until OP answers the question in comments. \$\endgroup\$ – Revolver_Ocelot Sep 22 '19 at 6:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually the highest answer is "Let's also clear up the misconception exposed by the wording of the question. There is no such thing as "magical damage". The list of damage types includes "radiant", "necrotic", "bludgeoning","fire", and so on. The +1 Mace does Bludgeoning damage... as a magical attack." \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Sep 23 '19 at 5:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ None of that disagrees with my answer. At no point have I made mention of a "magical damage" type. \$\endgroup\$ – RangerBryndil Sep 23 '19 at 10:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.