7
\$\begingroup\$

Jeremy Crawford responded to a question here on Twitter about whether spells that deal physical damage types are considered magical:

Do spells that deal physical damage count as magical for the purposes of resistances? E.g. Cloud of Daggers vs Deva.

Regardless of damage type, the direct damage of a spell is magical.

In light of this, would the arrows from the Swift Quiver spell bypass resistance to nonmagical damage types (for instance, werewolf-style resistance)?

\$\endgroup\$
25
\$\begingroup\$

No, they don't.

Swift Quiver specifically states:

You transmute your quiver so it produces an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition.

So the arrows aren't magical to begin with. And whilst Jeremy Crawford may say:

Regardless of damage type, the direct damage of a spell is magical.

Swift Quiver is a spell that doesn't deal any direct damage.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ How does this differ from a spell such as catapult then? In both cases you're using magic to use a non-magical item in order to deal damage, and catapult simply sends something flying in a direction. How did you determine that arrows aren't a direct source of damage? \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Jan 31 at 12:53
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli the difference, as far as I can tell, is that catapult directly does damage because it lists the damage in the description "what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage." Whereas swift quiver has nothing in it that says it does damage, only that it produces normal arrows. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jan 31 at 14:23
8
\$\begingroup\$

There is no such thing as resistance/immunity to non-magical weapons anymore

The MM errata changed this:

Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

This includes your example of a werewolf which says:

Damage Immunities: Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered.

So, going forward in this answer, I will ascertain how swift quiver applies to this new wording.

Swift quiver alone doesn't bypass resistance to nonmagical attacks

The reason is simple: swift quiver does not deliver a magical attack.

The same MM errata explainings what magical attacks actually are:

Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). (MM, p. 8 post errata)

Swift quiver says:

You transmute your quiver so it produces an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition.

This explicitly says that the ammo is nonmagical and thus won't count as a magical source for the attack.

You might point to this as a counterpoint:

On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver.

However, this is an attack granted by a magical source (a spell), but it is not actually delivered by the spell — it is delivered by your bow. If the bow is nonmagical then it won't count as a magical attack.

Crawford's ruling doesn't apply here

Regardless of damage type, the direct damage of a spell is magical.

Swift quiver does two things: give you infinite nonmagical ammo, and gives you a bonus action you can make extra attacks with. Neither effect does direct damage (nowhere in the spell does it say it does XdY damage) so there is no contradiction in rulings here.

However, arrows would bypass resistance if fired from a magical weapon

Ammunition fired from a magical weapon is considered magical:

If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to non-magical attacks and damage. (DMG 140)

Thus, if you fire any arrows from swift quiver with a magical weapon, those arrows are considered magical and the attack is considered to be delivered by a magical source. Thus, with a magic weapon, the swift quiver would allow you to bypass resistances/immunities to non-magical attacks.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Not unless fired from a magical weapon.

DMG 140 states:

If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to non-magical attacks and damage.

The wording in Swift Quiver is to ensure that a player with magical +3 (or Walloping, etc.) arrows, bolts, or bullets doesn't think they are getting more of these rare ammunition pieces when using Swift Quiver.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ This doesn't appear to answer the question, which is whether they bypass all on their own, like when fired from a non-magical bow. This doesn't address that case, only addresses a case where something unrelated to the question is inserted into the situation. If you add a magic bow, the answer is obviously yes, but that doesn't tell us anything about the nature of arrows from the swift quiver, it just tells us that the bow is magic. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 31 at 2:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Your revised heading is clearer, but the body of the answer doesn't really support it or explain why the arrows from swift quiver don't bypass resistance/immunity to nonmagical attacks. If anything, the body of your post simply seems to comment on the part of the spell description quoted in the other answer, and speculate as to the designer's intent for including that wording. It also doesn't address the source of OP's confusion. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 31 at 7:30
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli the quote in no way backs up the "not unless" part. Where did the quote say anything about how ammunition from the spell works in a nonmagical weapon? \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jan 31 at 13:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You reference Swift Quiver's wording, but don't actually provide it to support your thesis. You're 100% right in your assessment on needing to be fired from a magical weapon, but your support for that is really missing. If you can close the loop with citation support for why it would and wouldn't work that would solve it for me. Also, saying that it's written that way to "ensure" getting too close to Designer Intent for me. We don't know the why - we really only know the how. Take a look at this answer as an example of what i'm talking about. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jan 31 at 15:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli The header is backed up only partially, not fully. The “…unless …” part is supported by the source given. What’s not supported is the important part: the “No …” part. Nowhere in the answer does it support or explain, or even mention, why the answer is “No” instead of anything else. @ Mark, the answer could be improved by showing where the “no” comes from. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 31 at 15:53

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.