(5e) Are there any magic items that allow a user to bypass fire resistance with a magical weapon?

A bit of a specific request I know, but for an upcoming battle my DM is throwing at us, I’ll be using a magical weapon that deals fire damage and we know the creature has fire resistance. So I was wondering if there were any options to ignore the opponent’s fire resistance. I know of the Elemental Bane spell already, but if there were any other spells that had this effect as well that would be helpful to know as well.

Does Enervation bypass Evasion only when Enervation is upcast?

Enervation, a 5th level spell from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything, has the following text:

The target makes a Dexterity saving throw. On a successful save, the target takes 2d8 necrotic damage, and the spell ends. On a failed save, the target takes 4d8 necrotic damage, and until the spell ends, you can use your action on each of your turns to deal 4d8 necrotic damage to the target.


When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 5th.

First, it seems clear that all damage is increased by 1d8. For instance, Witch Bolt only increases the initial damage by 1d12, and with Ice Knife, the cold damage is boosted, but not the piercing damage.

Now, suppose I cast Enervation at 9th level and the target succeeds its DEX save. As written, the target takes 6d8 damage. Very unusual. Normally, I’d roll ALL THE DICE (8d8 in this case), and then halve the result for a successful save.

But speaking of halving the results, consider the Evasion feature for the Monk and Rogue classes:

When you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

So: when does Evasion work against Enervation? Obviously not at 6th level or higher, but will Evasion activate when Enervation is cast at 5th level? Is 2d8 considered half of 4d8?

Does a golem’s magic immunity bypass its opponent’s defensive spells?

What happens if, for instance, a Golem tries to grapple a foe that had freedom of movement cast on it?

Immunity to Magic (Ex) Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted.

An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.

Freedom of movement allows spell resistance, therefore the Golem is immune to it. However, the spell isn’t on the golem, even though it is affecting the Golem. Is there a clear rule/precedent for which way this would go?

My gut instinct is to say "yes, the Golem ignores your defensive spells". They may not be being cast on the Golem, but they are still "magical effects", and thus covered by the blanket statement at the start of the Golems entry. Also, I dislike that freedom of movement completely shuts down grappling as a viable strategy for both PCs and enemies at higher levels; SR and magic immunity bypassing it seems like an elegant solution.

Can archers bypass partial cover by arcing their shot?

There are two basic ways an archer fires at a target. In close quarters engagements, archers (and anyone using a projectile weapon) would likely use "direct fire", ie. fire at an angle nearly parallel to the ground. At longer distances and especially when targets are hiding behind terrain and walls, archers instead use "indirect fire", ie. firing at angle greater than 45 degrees, in order to lob arrows over and behind cover.

Imagine an archer firing at a range of 100 feet on a creature using 5-foot tall wall for cover.

The rules for cover on a grid state the following:

Choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.

Using these rules, it’s easy to see how the wall could provide half or three-quarters cover against direct fire. The trajectory of the arrow will always intersect with the wall, and if enough lines from the archer intersect with the wall, then partial cover is granted. This is consistent with a physical understanding of the scenario, because the arrows will follow a nearly straight line from the archer to their target.

But what if the archer chooses to fire indirectly at their target? In the physical world a wall would provide no cover against an attack that falls from above. Drawing lines from the archer, however, results in the same result as direct fire, granting partial cover in a way which is inconsistent with reality.

Are there any rules that would allow the archer to use indirect fire to bypass partial cover?

Does the Artificer’s Spell-Storing Item effectively bypass the bonus action spellcasting rule?

The rule on Bonus Action Casting Time states:

A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

This would ordinarily prevent you from casting a levelled spell and a bonus action spell on the same turn; however, the Artificer’s Spell-Storing Item states:

[…] While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier. […]

Furthermore, the following question’s highest-scoring answer states:

  • Do class or subclass features that relate to spellcasting apply when producing a spell's effect from an Artificer's Spell-Storing Item?

[…] The user never casts the spell either. They merely use a (special, unnamed) action to produce the spell’s effects. They don’t cast it and don’t get to modify it with their features which care about them casting a spell. […]

And the Sage Advice Compendium even states (page 3):

Q. Which action is used to activate a Spell-Storing Item?

A. Activating a Spell-Storing Item uses the Use an Object action.

Does this mean that a caster could use a Spell-Storing Item, creating the effects of any 1st or 2nd level Artificer spell with a casting time of 1 action, and then use their bonus action to cast any (bonus action) spell?

Does the DMG’s “Disarm” bypass AC?

In the DMG at pg. 271 the disarm described appears to bypass the defenders AC: it is a contest of attack roll vs. skill. There is no mention of AC being a factor.

So could a L1 human fighter tavern brawler with a shield and no other weapon attack a defender (using the shield as an improvised weapon), declare they are attempting a disarm before damage is rolled, if successful disarm the defender, then grapple as a bonus action and finally move the defender from their just-dropped weapon by 15ft?

Does an artificer’s Spell-Storing Item bypass the need for costly/consumed material components?

Suppose I am an 11th-level Artificer with a +5 intelligence modifier, and I use my Spell-storing Item feature to store Continual Flame, whose material component is "ruby dust worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes". However, it’s not clear whether producing the spell from the item requires this or any components at all:

While holding the object [in which the spell is stored], a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier.

The usage of the item appears consistent with the usual rules for casting spells from items: activating the item to cast the spell is an action, but that action is distinct from the "Cast a Spell" action and doesn’t require components. However, if this is the case, it seems that I can use Spell-Storing Item to produce 10 Continual Flame torches (or Arcane Locks) per day without spending any money at all. Does this work as described, or is there some reason that the spell-storing item would require the costly component in order to cast the spell?