Hunter's Mark Damage - Rules & Game Mechanics - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums (2024)

Quote from filcat >>

I am of a different opinion. The Hunter's Mark does not do damage, it increases the damage of the weapon attack. So, whether the extra d6 is magical or not, it depends on the weapon attack. If you are doing it with a magical weapon, then the extra d6 is magical.

That's a fair argument, I can see where you're coming from. I came to my view comparing it to Hex and Sneak Attack. Hex, being a spell, designates Necrotic damage, Sneak Attack doesn't designate any damage type but is not a spell. Looking at those differences I lean toward a non-designated damage type magical ability.

I'd say it's open to interpretation. Here's some relevant information for you though (which seem to partially contradict each other).

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/

The damage dealt by the hunter's mark spell is magical.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/is-the-damage-type-of-hunters-mark-the-same-as-the-damage-type-of-the-weapon/

Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one.

Quote from DMThac0 >>

Hunter's Mark is a spell. It does not state in its description that it does a specific type of damage. Therefore, I would say it's magical damage.

There's no such thing as untyped damage in 5e and "magical" isn't a damage type; it describes the source of the damage.

If you hit a monster that resists b/p/s damage from nonmagical attacks using a nonmagical weapon, it'll resist the damage from the weapon but not the damage from Hunter's Mark.

If the monster is just flat-out resistant to bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage and you use the wrong weapon type, the damage from Hunter's Mark will be resisted too since it uses the same damage type as the weapon.

Right now, I feel like the "default" option (and what's being advocated by InquisitiveCoder) is an illogical mashup of a handful of other internally-consistent options, wherein some bonuses are treated as magical/mundane in their own right independent of the attack, while others are following the all or nothing model. Where would one find any rules that clarify thatthe magicalness of sneak attack (a class feature which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) depends on the sword, butHunters Mark (a spellwhich applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) doesn't!? Think that's an easy distinction to make? Well what about Hexblade'sCurse, a class feature which applies a static bonus of necrotic damageon a hit? Magical you say? But it isn't a spell! And elemental damage (even from fantastical sources) is not necessarily magical, as demonstrated by a Dragon's breath attack not being magical! Mundane you say? But how do you justify that,what would a nonmagical curse even mean!?

This feels overly-finicky, but I think there's basicallyfive options for flagging damage as magical/nonmagical. Feel free to chime in below and add more I'm not thinking of!

1. The "all or nothing" approach: Damage caused by an attack (all of it) is flagged magical/nonmagical at once, depending on whether theattack involves any magic.
1. using a magic sword? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a magic sword.
2. using a regular sword under the effect of a spell like Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a sword with magic on it.
2. The piecemeal approach: Each bonus, die, etc. is flagged magical/nonmagical individually, depending on the bonus source
1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical... but your strength bonus isn't, nor is your sneak attack, nor your feat bonus, nor your rage. Things that are magic cause magical slashing, everything else causes mundane slashing.
2. Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, rage are all nomagical slashing. The 1d6 from Hunters Mark is magical slashing
3. The illogical (Default) approach: some bonuses (stats, feats, sneak attack, rage) follow the "all or nothing" model, while others (spells) follow the "piecemeal" model.
1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are magical slashing.
2. Using a regular sword under Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are nonmagical slashing. Hunters Mark magical slashing.
4. Weird Option 1: The Dice/Bonus distinction based approach: Dice can bemagical/nonmagical, status bonuses follow whether base weapon dice is magical/nonmagical. This sounds weird, until one realizes that 5e pretty muchdoesn't really have any spells that hand out static + modifiers, even things like Enlarge/Reduce hand out dice .
   1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical, as are any static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage that apply to that roll. Sneak attack is nonmagical, because it's its own dice pool, and comes from a nonmagical source.
   2. Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice and static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage are nonmagical. Sneak attack is nonmagical. Hunters Mark is magical.
5. Weird Option 2: Damage Type Lumps: try to lump damage bonuses/dice by thematic element to identify if magical.... if you're doing slashing with your mundane sword and necrotic with your hexblade's curse, then your strength bonus and feat bonus are probably nonmagical slashing, your curse is magical necrotic, your sneak attack... could be either, but is probably nonmagical slashing as well?

I personally prefer "all or nothing" because it feels the most straightforward and "5e" to me of all options: if you've involved a spell, a magical enhancement, or a magical weapon in the attack, it's a magical attack, and all damage caused by the attack is "magic".

Quote from Chicken_Champ >>

Right now, I feel like the "default" option (and what's being advocated by InquisitiveCoder) is an illogical mashup of a handful of other internally-consistent options, wherein some bonuses are treated as magical/mundane in their own right independent of the attack, while others are following the all or nothing model. Where would one find any rules that clarify thatthe magicalness of sneak attack (a class feature which applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) depends on the sword, butHunters Mark (a spellwhich applies bonus dice on a hit, of the same type as the attack) doesn't!? Think that's an easy distinction to make? Well what about Hexblade'sCurse, a class feature which applies a static bonus of necrotic damageon a hit? Magical you say? But it isn't a spell! And elemental damage (even from fantastical sources) is not necessarily magical, as demonstrated by a Dragon's breath attack not being magical! Mundane you say? But how do you justify that,what would a nonmagical curse even mean!?

This feels overly-finicky, but I think there's basicallyfive options for flagging damage as magical/nonmagical. Feel free to chime in below and add more I'm not thinking of!

1. The "all or nothing" approach: Damage caused by an attack (all of it) is flagged magical/nonmagical at once, depending on whether theattack involves any magic.
1. using a magic sword? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a magic sword.
2. using a regular sword under the effect of a spell like Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, stat bonuses, feat bonuses, spell effects, sneak attack, rage damage, etc. all become magical, because it's damage caused by being hit by a sword with magic on it.
2. The piecemeal approach: Each bonus, die, etc. is flagged magical/nonmagical individually, depending on the bonus source
1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical... but your strength bonus isn't, nor is your sneak attack, nor your feat bonus, nor your rage. Things that are magic cause magical slashing, everything else causes mundane slashing.
2. Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, rage are all nomagical slashing. The 1d6 from Hunters Mark is magical slashing
3. The illogical (Default) approach: some bonuses (stats, feats, sneak attack, rage) follow the "all or nothing" model, while others (spells) follow the "piecemeal" model.
1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are magical slashing.
2. Using a regular sword under Hunters Mark? Weapon dice, strength bonus, feat bonus, sneak attack, and rage are nonmagical slashing. Hunters Mark magical slashing.
4. Weird Option 1: The Dice/Bonus distinction based approach: Dice can bemagical/nonmagical, status bonuses follow whether base weapon dice is magical/nonmagical. This sounds weird, until one realizes that 5e pretty muchdoesn't really have any spells that hand out static + modifiers, even things like Enlarge/Reduce hand out dice .
   1. Using a magic sword? Weapon dice is magical, as are any static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage that apply to that roll. Sneak attack is nonmagical, because it's its own dice pool, and comes from a nonmagical source.
   2. Using a regular sword under the effect of Hunters Mark? Weapon dice and static bonuses from attributes, feats, rage are nonmagical. Sneak attack is nonmagical. Hunters Mark is magical.
5. Weird Option 2: Damage Type Lumps: try to lump damage bonuses/dice by thematic element to identify if magical.... if you're doing slashing with your mundane sword and necrotic with your hexblade's curse, then your strength bonus and feat bonus are probably nonmagical slashing, your curse is magical necrotic, your sneak attack... could be either, but is probably nonmagical slashing as well?

I personally prefer "all or nothing" because it feels the most straightforward and "5e" to me of all options: if you've involved a spell, a magical enhancement, or a magical weapon in the attack, it's a magical attack, and all damage caused by the attack is "magic".

Wow. That is complicated but 5e is generally pretty simple.

There are two aspects to damage - what type of damage is it and is the damage magical? That's it.

Is the damage magical or not?

1) Does the damage come from a weapon?

- IF the weapon magical then the damage is magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.

- IF the weapon non-magical then the damage is non-magical (including static bonuses like str/dex) and sneak attack or any other damage done by the weapon during an attack.

2) Does the damage come from a spell? Then the damage is magical.

----

What type is the damage?

1) Weapon damage depends on weapon type and is generally divided into slashing, bludgeoning and piercing.

2) If the damage comes from a spell then the spell tells you the damage type.

Examples

- hex is cast on a target and does necrotic damage every time you successfully hit the target

- hunters mark is cast on a target and does magical damage (since it is the spell that is doing the damage) of the same damage type as the "weapon" causing the initial hit

- divine smite does radiant damage

- eldritch blast does force damage

- firebolt does fire damage

All of these are magical since the source is a spell but as far as I know the only distinction in game is between magical and non-magical weapon damage of the slashing/piercing/bludgeoning types. (I'm not sure if 5e makes any distinction between magical and non-magical fire damage for example).

Your system appears to be grouping the dice you roll and ignoring the source of the dice in determining damage type and its nature as magical or not. For example, if you hit a creature that has hunter's mark on it with a longbow then you do d8+stat piercing damage from the weapon plus magical d6 piercing damage from the spell - some of the damage is caused by the spell and some by the weapon. If you are a 5 rogue/3 warlock with hex cast on your target and you hit it with a longbow sneak attack then you would do d8+stat+3d6 from the weapon and sneak attack which is all piercing damage plus d6 necrotic damage caused by the SPELL (not by the weapon). If the longbow in either of these examples is magical then the weapon portion of the attack does magical piercing damage.

Quote from Estaln >>

Since the title is "Hunters Mark Damage" one point nobody has raised isthe two handed weapon fighting style where you get to reroll ones and twos ...

If you add HM to the mix and the damage from HM becomes an increase to the weapon damage then a greatsword with HM would be 3d6 slashing and reroll 1/2 on all 3 dice as they are weapon damage ... is that right?

See Also

Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory

Nobody had raised that point becauseTwo-Handed Fighting Style explicitly only works on the actual weapon's damage die. It never applies to anythingelse. Hunter's Mark does not change the actual weapon's damage die.

As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing."

As a simple suggestion, how about the following?

• If you've made a ranged spell attack or amelee spell attack then your damage is all magical.

• If you've made aranged weapon attackor amelee weapon attackand you used a magical weapon or ammunition then your damage is all magical else your damage is all nonmagical.

• If you cast a spell and forced the target to make a saving throw then your damage is all magical.

• Otherwise your damage is all nonmagical.

There are exceptions, of course, like the Primal Strike feature of Druids.

Quote from Greenstone_Walker >>

As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing."

As a simple suggestion, how about the following?

• If you've made a ranged spell attack or amelee spell attack then your damage is all magical.

• If you've made aranged weapon attackor amelee weapon attackand you used a magical weapon or ammunition then your damage is all magical else your damage is all nonmagical.

• If you cast a spell and forced the target to make a saving throw then your damage is all magical.

• Otherwise your damage is all nonmagical.

There are exceptions, of course, like the Primal Strike feature of Druids.

Interesting.

"As a GM, I don't really want to hear from a player anything like, "That's 5 points of nonmagical slashing plus 7 points of magical slashing.""

In every single game I have ever played, if the DM indicated that the damage types actually matter, then that is exactly what each and every player at the table says when they hit in order to make it easier on the DM to figure out the effective damage and account for damage resistances without telling the players exactly what resistances are involved.

"8 points of slashing"

"12 points of magical piercing"

"7 points of force and 4 points of necrotic"

The DM needs to know the damage type of the damage caused which can be any of a large number of types including slashing/piercing/bludgeoning and magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning.

A character using hunter's mark with a mundane bow might say

"8 points of piercing and 4 points of magical piercing"

Hunter’s Mark is magical damage of the same damage type as the weapon according to Jeremy Crawford:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/663025214926655489

So the example given above is spot on:

“A character using hunter's mark with a mundane bow might say

"8 points of piercing and 4 points of magical piercing"”

Quote from jb57542 >>

Hunter’s Mark is magical damage of the same damage type as the weapon according to Jeremy Crawford:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/663025214926655489

Well, that's ONE of the Twitter posts that comments on the topic.

The other, also from Jeremy Crawford, and posted a year later, gives a somewhat different response:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/is-the-damage-type-of-hunters-mark-the-same-as-the-damage-type-of-the-weapon/

"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."

Additionally, one thing that often gets missed with this question is that Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. Meaning that according to it's school of magic, it's not actually projecting extra magical energy alongside the attack; instead, it's granting the player insight into how to better attack the target, so that the weapon they use does improved damage.

My takeaway:

* If you use a mundane weapon, for a mundane attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also non-magical damage of the same type as the weapon.

* If you use a magical weapon, with nothing else added to the attack, the extra Hunter's Mark damage is also magical damage of the same type as the weapon.

* If you make an attack that does both non-magical damage (say, non-magical slashing damage from a mundane longsword) AND additional magical damage (say, extra necrotic damage due to the target having a Lv. 5 Bestow Curse cast on them,) then per Crawford's later post, you get to choose whether the extra Hunter's Mark damage is (non-magical) slashing or (magical) necrotic.

Quote from Golaryn >>

Damage type is piercing, slashing, fire, thunder, etc. Magical is not a type, it is a source. So the damage source from Hunter's Mark is the spell

(emphasis added)

That's not explicitly called out by the spell. As a counter-example, look at Enlarge/Reduce, specifically the Enlarge portion of the spell:

"The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage."

The extra 1d4 damage isn't so much directly from the spell, it's just from the fact that the weapons are bigger. That's all. It takes quite the cumbersome logic to argue that an enlarged ally's weapon attacks should all suddenly become magical.

Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. That strongly suggests the source of the extra damage isn't from magical energies, but from insight into a better attack.

Quote from RodTheBard>>

The other, also from Jeremy Crawford, and posted a year later, gives a somewhat different response:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/is-the-damage-type-of-hunters-mark-the-same-as-the-damage-type-of-the-weapon/

"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."

As Golaryn already pointed out, whether something is magical has nothing to do with its damage type. A torch and Fire Bolt both deal fire damage but one's not magical and the other is. Likewise,arun-of-the-mill longsword and a +1 longsword both deal slashing damage.

Additionally, one thing that often gets missed with this question is that Hunter's Mark is a Divination spell, not Evocation. Meaning that according to it's school of magic, it's not actually projecting extra magical energy alongside the attack; instead, it's granting the player insight into how to better attack the target, so that the weapon they use does improved damage.

Schools of magic have no mechanical rules. As a counterexample, Mind Spike is a divination spell that directly, indisputably deals damage to its target.

Unlike Enlarge/Reduce, which specifically calls out the weapon being larger, Hunter's Mark gives no explanation for how or why the extra damage is being dealt, so "the spell deals damage directly" is just as good an explanation as "the spell grants you insight into the enemy's defenses." But I'll also point out thatthat's exactly what True Strike does andthat doesn't result in extra damage, and Hunter's Mark uses practically the same wording as Hex. The only difference is Hex deals necrotic damage.

So I'm not gonna say your interpretation is wrong, but at the very least it's not the onlyway to interpret the spell and nothing you've mentioned is undeniable proof that the damage isn't coming from the spell.

Quote from InquisitiveCoder>>

Quote from RodTheBard>>

The other, also from Jeremy Crawford, and posted a year later, gives a somewhat different response:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/is-the-damage-type-of-hunters-mark-the-same-as-the-damage-type-of-the-weapon/

"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."

As Golaryn already pointed out, whether something is magical has nothing to do with its damage type. A torch and Fire Bolt both deal fire damage but one's not magical and the other is. Likewise,arun-of-the-mill longsword and a +1 longsword both deal slashing damage.

Hmmm. That's actually a good point. Meaning Crawford's two posts wouldn't be mutually exclusive; the damage could be magical AND of the same type as the triggering attack.