I want to know if it's possible to damage a person who uses gaseous form with non-magic weapon.

From rules, which says it has resistance, it is possible and the damage is reduced to half.

On the other hand you cannot hurt something that is basically a cloud.

Or am I just misunderstanding what resistance in D&D means?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Sure you can hurt something that is a cloud, if you are working the simulationist angle. You can disperse it with a powerful gust of wind. If it's water vapor, you can freeze it ... etc. Some gases are flammable, so being hit with fire may flash ignite the gas ... \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 26 '17 at 18:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast: Yeah, IRL, something that's just a cloud should be trivial to hurt -- just wave a fan at it and watch it disperse. \$\endgroup\$ – Ilmari Karonen Mar 26 '17 at 20:14

Yes, gaseous form is susceptible to non-magic damage

SRD page 146 has this to say about gaseous form:

The target has resistance to nonmagical damage, and it has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws.

And page 97 of the SRD says, "[i]f a creature…has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it."

Therefore, any creature under the effect of gaseous form takes half damage from non-magical attacks.

On the other hand you cannot hurt something, that is basically cloud.

This is a dangerous line of thinking. D&D is a game, and thus has rules. The rules specifically say that a gaseous creature still takes some damage from non-magical attacks. The spell says you have resistance to non-magical damage. Therefore, you only have resistance and not immunity.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ "The name and description of the spell are just flavour text to the rules of the spell." There is some debate about this: rpg.stackexchange.com/q/78012 \$\endgroup\$ – J. Foster Mar 26 '17 at 14:53
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ A byproduct of all the 4e I played, I guess. But the point stands: the spell grants resistance, not immunity. \$\endgroup\$ – Christopher Mar 26 '17 at 14:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The word vulnerable might not be the best choice, given that it has a mechanical definition in 5e \$\endgroup\$ – inthemanual Mar 26 '17 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ This sounds like a case where Rule 0 is prominently in play. \$\endgroup\$ – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Mar 27 '17 at 2:07

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.