14
\$\begingroup\$

Resistance in a creatures stat block is written as follows:

bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from non magical weapons

Does a weapon count as magical, even if I am not attuned to it? I know I can't use the weapons magic abilities, but in my mind it would still be a magical weapon. Is there something in the rules concerning this?

|improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is there a particular weapon you have in mind? Because that may help us focus. Beserker axe and hammer of thunderbolts have severable provisions (by my argument), for instance, but most other magical & attunement-required weapons don't. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60♦ Jul 12 '16 at 20:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ well, the weapon in question is actually home-brewed, which is why I was asking a more general question. I could provide the rules for this item, but as this situation was not accounted for, the rules would not really cover it in one form or the other. \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 20:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ edited the question to make clearer what my actual intention/question is \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 20:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ related, but not duplicate: Does this constitute a magical weapon for the purpose of overcoming resistance? \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60♦ Jul 12 '16 at 20:40
16
\$\begingroup\$

I think 'yes' in three cases, 'no' in all others.

Berserker axe and hammer of thunderbolts (DMG), another from Hoard of the Dragon Queen:

For concreteness, let's look at the Berserker Axe, the first attunement-requiring weapon in the DMG. Its description reads, in part:

You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. In addition, while you are attuned to this weapon, your hit point maximum increases by 1 for each level you have attained. (DMG p.155, emphasis mine.)

Grammatically, it would seem that only the HP-benefit requires attunement, and that the +1 bonuses apply the moment you swing it. Then, by dint of having a magical +1 to attack and damage, I'd say the attack is magical and cuts through the shadow's resistance. (groan)

Hammer of thunderbolts also has this "severable" construction to its features, as does (HotDQ spoiler)

the greatsword Hazirawn, held by Wyrmspeaker Rezmir (HotDQ episode 8)

These two are definitely a close call, though. Perhaps even a toss-up.

In all other cases...

Most attunement-required weapons don't have this sort of provision, and it would seem that all of their magical utility requires attunement. See, for example, holy avenger, flame tongue, staff of _____, sun blade, sword of _____, &c.

Further, "Attunement" on pp. 136, 138 of the DMG includes the following:

Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits.

Certainly it looks like all of the other weapons, then, wouldn't give you their magical benefit without attunement. Moreover, the berserker axe does, in fact, require attunement, so this would seem to argue that you don't get any magical benefits from the axe. So perhaps even the berserker axe and hammer of thunderbolts need attunement to cut through resistance.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Still, does it count as a magic weapon or not? That is what is important in case of resistances. I will update my question to make clear that this is what is my actual concern. \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 20:15
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Patta The point being made in the answer is that it depends on the exact wording on the particular weapon. If the weapon doesn't specifically state which 'parts' of its magical qualities are subject to attunement, then all of them are, meaning the weapon functions like its non-magical equivalent when dealing damage with it. \$\endgroup\$ – Cronax Jul 13 '16 at 5:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Patta As with all things though, your DM has final say in the matter so at best you could ask them "How do you want to interpret this bit? My personal interpretation is X." \$\endgroup\$ – Cronax Jul 13 '16 at 5:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Crawford has unambiguously confirmed that the answer is "yes" for all magic weapons. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast♦ Nov 13 '18 at 0:43
12
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, they're still magical even if you're not attuned; you just don't get any of the other benefits.

Crawford has unambiguously confirmed here and here that the answer is "yes" for all magic weapons:

does a magic weapon still bypass resistance or immunity to nonmagical attacks if it requires attunement and the wielder isn't attuned?

You can strike someone with a magic weapon even if you're not attuned to it, and the weapon still counts as magical. Your attunement doesn't determine its magicalness.

But by not attuning, it behaves as a magic version of the standard weapon? i.e. if part of its attunement was an increase to attack and damage, that wouldn’t be part of the attack?

If you're not attuned to a magic item that requires attunement, you benefit from none of its properties. But it is still an object (a sword, a suit of armor, a book, etc.) and functions as such. And it is magical.
See the DMG for more on attunement.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, they are magical regardless of attunement.

I think that most of the answers quoting the DMG page 138 are missing the point the poster is making.

Without becoming attuned to a magic weapon a creature gains no magical benefits so it behaves like a +0 magical weapon to the user. Please note "to the user".

The case of the Hammer of Thunderbolts is clear cut. The DMG clearly states it functions as +1 (and does more when attuned).

From another point of view if you hit a creature with a magic weapon that you are attuned to, the target is not attuned to the weapon so why does the magic weapon bypass its resistances? This is because being magical is a property of the weapon not a magical benefit to the user (or curse to the target). This is best illustrated by magic weapons which do not grant the user any benefits to hit and damage. A Dancing Sword is one of many examples. I don't think anyone would argue that this sword does non-magical attacks.

Additionally, note that most 'simple' magic weapons up to +3 do not require attunement. From a game balance POV this interpretation makes sense.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer fits with Crawford's tweets. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Dec 15 '18 at 16:08
2
\$\begingroup\$

As per the 5e rules, No.

I would say no because of this line in the DMG page 138.

Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its non magical benefits, unless its description states otherwise. For example, a magic shield that requires attunement provides the benefits of a normal shield to a creature not attuned to it, but none of its magical properties.

Sorry.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ yes, but is the magic damage a "magical benefit", or something inherent to the weapon? Because the effects not triggering is no reason for the weapon to just stop beeing a magic weapon? \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 19:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, a bit of formatting would make the answer a lot better, as I for example can't see what you quoted from the rules and what you wrote yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 19:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ it is a very grey area but so far only "berserker axe" seems to have the line "whilst attunded" but that just seems to pass the curse over. so without becoming "attuned" you cant activate the magic for damage. unless you mean "berserker axe" \$\endgroup\$ – wild sorcerer orc Jul 12 '16 at 19:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon" this tells me that it is a magic weapon, no matter what, and beeing attuned grants me the additional benefits. That's what I am talking about. \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 12 '16 at 19:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ which item are you refering to. as it seems only cursed weapons have this line \$\endgroup\$ – wild sorcerer orc Jul 12 '16 at 19:56
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think the DMG is quite clear actually.

Pretend that items that don't require attunement don't have an activation switch and items that require attunement require an activation switch.

If it doesn't require attunement, no matter what you do, it's magical.

If it does require attunement, then you are only able to harness, unlock, find, how to bring out that magical nature by spending your time to attune to it...

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ You say that it's clear, but the rest of your answer does not go into detail about that... Could you add some reference to where in the dmg this is made clear? \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Mar 13 '17 at 18:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Page 138. Where it talks about magic items that require attunement. \$\endgroup\$ – John Mar 14 '17 at 18:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Because now I believe you probably haven't read or don't own a DMG... Otherwise this would have been put to bed a long time ago.... Page 138 of the DMG says "Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, unless its description states otherwise. For example, a magic shield that requires attunement provides the benefits of a normal shield to a creature not attuned to it, but none of its magical properties." \$\endgroup\$ – John Mar 14 '17 at 18:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just realized this was already quoted above. \$\endgroup\$ – John Mar 14 '17 at 18:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ It acts like it has no magic properties if you haven't attuned to it. \$\endgroup\$ – John Mar 14 '17 at 18:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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