JC talks about antimagic in detail: AMfield, dispel magic, counterspell, etc.

[Dalebert]

So this is another of those times when JC talks about something at length and arguments people had about it really get settled.

Haha! I'm watching another one right now and he's spending so much time answering the things that we all already know just from carefully reading the spells and features and discussing them here. The questions we continue to argue endlessly about? Nope! It's almost as if he wants to leave those ambiguous and let people rule differently.

Edit: But i do disagree that the Warlock Pact Weapon is an istantaneous effect. It is more akin to a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect. In fact, there are conditions for the effect to end, which would not be possible with an instantaneous effect - 1 minute duration while away from you. It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.

I had forgotten about those aspects of the feature. Now that you remind me, I agree with you. It should get suppressed.

I just want to remind folks, after arguing back and forth a bit, that I am not expressing a very strong opinion here. I acknowledge some ambiguity and that's why I started with this from page 1 before sharing why I interpret it the way I do, i.e. that it's not a magical effect. If I'm in a game and a DM rules it as magical, I will just accept his ruling and not argue.

This is the time and place for arguing!

That said, I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling otherwise. I just disagree. Besides seeing it as the RAW, I also see it as far less broken. It's bad enough that some creatures can achieve near invulnerability with the help of an AMF. I'm inclined to allow more rather than fewer loopholes for that invulnerability.

[Hyde]

I love it when you guys argue circles around the thing. Here's the reasoning. Hyde neither approves of nor condones any particular view, but here is the simplest version of the argument as I can concept of it.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
Therefore, X is counting as something that does not work, and therefore does not work.


And while I feel like we all have a good grasp on "but it's not magic", here's the other one for giggles.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
X is not magical, and therefore is not suppressed by AMF, though it is behaving like something that is suppressed.

Color for Isolation. Monks' fists and warlocks' pact weapons are treated as magical so that the respective features don't become irrelevant while the rest of the party gathers magical weapons. Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock. Are magic swords inherently so much better than punching things really good that they need to be brought into line in a very specific (yet plausible) circumstance? probably not, but there are some cool swords out there, so who knows.

You could come up with very logical arguments to support either ruling. Have fun~

[ThePolarBear]

I love it when you guys argue circles around the thing. Here's the reasoning. Hyde neither approves of nor condones any particular view, but here is the simplest version of the argument as I can concept of it.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
Therefore, X is counting as something that does not work, and therefore does not work.


And while I feel like we all have a good grasp on "but it's not magic", here's the other one for giggles.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
X is not magical, and therefore is not suppressed by AMF, though it is behaving like something that is suppressed.

Color for Isolation. Monks' fists and warlocks' pact weapons are treated as magical so that the respective features don't become irrelevant while the rest of the party gathers magical weapons. Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock. Are magic swords inherently so much better than punching things really good that they need to be brought into line in a very specific (yet plausible) circumstance? probably not, but there are some cool swords out there, so who knows.

You could come up with very logical arguments to support either ruling. Have fun~

Funny thing, the linked podcast answers the question "what if a creature has a feature that allows his fists/natural weapons to count as magical?", so the argument isn't really debatable on what "RAI" is. This will prehaps make the discussion move yet again on "wow that's stupid" territory, prehaps. Also, link.

[Hyde]

Funny thing, the linked podcast answers the question "what if a creature has a feature that allows his fists/natural weapons to count as magical?", so the argument isn't really debatable on what "RAI" is. This will prehaps make the discussion move yet again on "wow that's stupid" territory, prehaps. Also, link.

That the podcast answers that question is literally the entire topic of discussion.

[lunaticfringe]

Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock.

Eh Silver Weapons count as Magic for the purposes of overcoming resist/immunity to nonmagical at my table too so it's not a huge issue. Locks & Monks just don't have to pay for it. By the time AMF starts getting thrown around a Silvered Back up weapon is still a downgrade (it's a really nasty spell vs a lot of parties).

I'm not a fan of Magic Mart style games so it might be awhile before you acquire your Murder Sword, that's why I tweaked the Silvered rules.

[ThePolarBear]

That the podcast answers that question is literally the entire topic of discussion.

Problem is this is not true for everyone. If this was true, then the discussion would be around why is it, not IF it is, answered and the possible ramifications on balance and whatever. Thus it still has the possibility of degenerating into "well that's dumb" territory.

While your post shows a neutral position, the fact that there is a discussion in place that tries to argue that something that has been stated that does not work does in fact work is troubling. "Things that count as" do not work, and this was answered.

If you meant "If the podcast"... then the answer is yes. It does.

[Hyde]

Problem is this is not true for everyone. If this was true, then the discussion would be around why is it, not IF it is, answered and the possible ramifications on balance and whatever. Thus it still has the possibility of degenerating into "well that's dumb" territory.

While your post shows a neutral position, the fact that there is a discussion in place that tries to argue that something that has been stated that does not work does in fact work is troubling. "Things that count as" do not work, and this was answered.

If you meant "If the podcast"... then the answer is yes. It does.

Are you attempting to explain to me how discussions work?

[Mjolnirbear]

In math, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Logic says that just because a = b, it does not necessarily follow that b = a.

If the devs had wanted monk fists to be magical, they would say monk fists are magical.

What they say is that they count as magical for the purpose of bypassing resistance when attacking creatures that are immune to non-magic weapons. Maybe they are nuclear. The emissions are so strong they wound anything. Or they harness universe juice, the energies of creation. Or they channel the divine spark every mortal carries.

We don't know what it is; we only know what it is not, which is magic. We know this because the devs went out of their way to avoid calling them magical, which would have been simple, smaller word count, and evidently have more clarity.

Does the monk enjoy the benefits of being attached to magic weapons? Do his hands resist all damage? No? So why should he suffer the penalties? Especially given his choices of awesome magical loot are extraordinarily limited.

[Hyde]

The idea that "counter as magical" means they are not magical at all does not follow.

They count as magical for X purpose. Therefore they are magical for X purpose. This follows from the statement itself. Saying that it means the opposite of what it says is nonsensical.

In all regards, they act exactly as if they were magical for X purpose. That means if something stops or modifies "magical for X", it also stops or modifies them. For any other purpose, the are not magical.

Given that Ki is explicitly magic, and creates magical effects, there's also no problem with the ability counting as magical in limited circumstances.

Because "counts as" is a phrase with specific denotation. The entire debate is semantic. Which is fine.

[ThePolarBear]

Are you attempting to explain to me how discussions work?

No, attempting to point out that some posters are not discussing what the topic is about.
And, since i had doubts on how to interpret your post, added a little bit in case the interpretation was another one.

In math, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Logic says that just because a = b, it does not necessarily follow that b = a.

Logic says that just because a -> b, it does not necessarily follows that b -> a.

However, if a=b, then for some logics a and b are biconditionals.

Because "counts as" is a phrase with specific denotation. The entire debate is semantic. Which is fine.

And it is also over the moment when the video in topic of the thread explicit that the statement "counts as" is biconditional with "is". At that point, discussing whether it is or it is not is pointless. One could argue whether it should or should not.
Or you can discuss that it actually does not happen. But neither is what is happening.

[gloryblaze]

The Ki-Empowered Strikes feature says a monk's unarmed strikes count as magical. That magic is suppressed in an antimagic field. #DnD

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

[Hyde]

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

[krugaan]

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

I'm not saying AMF affects the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse...

But it totally affects the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, mmkay?

Less filling, but tastes GR... less filling.

[Spiritchaser]

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

Yup, that tweet is pretty clear!

[Battlebooze]

What happens if a Raksasha monk attacks inside an anti-magic field? Are his claws magic? or not, can he ignore an anti-magic field? Is an Anti-magic field magic?

[Zalabim]

Edit: But i do disagree that the Warlock Pact Weapon is an istantaneous effect. It is more akin to a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect. In fact, there are conditions for the effect to end, which would not be possible with an instantaneous effect - 1 minute duration while away from you. It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.

Pact Boons in general and Pact of the Blade in particular are not called out as being magical. It is a created object, but it isn't "magically created" and the object itself isn't magical. I wonder if all acts of creation are necessarily magical, or it might be legal to create your pact weapon inside an antimagic field.

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

I think it really depends on what your definition of "divorced" is.

[Dalebert]

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

Based on the tweet, Crawford's intent is that they are suppressed. I don't think he expressed it very well in the RAW, much like the case below that Hyde pointed out. Disagreeing with JC does not equal houserule.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

Yeah, dude. Get your poop str8 in your head before writing it down! No wonder we are confused. I guess I shouldn't judge too much. They had to write down a LOT of stuph. It seems easy to judge in hindsight.

[Hyde]

I think it really depends on what your definition of "divorced" is.

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

[ThePolarBear]

Pact Boons in general and Pact of the Blade in particular are not called out as being magical. It is a created object, but it isn't "magically created" and the object itself isn't magical. I wonder if all acts of creation are necessarily magical, or it might be legal to create your pact weapon inside an antimagic field.

True, and i've been a bit too liberal with "magic" instead of "fantastical".

But.

First, the Warlock itself. "Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects[..]" "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock's being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells,[...]"

Then, are all the things bestowed on the Warlock "magic"?
Not conclusive, but still interesting.

Then we have the pact(s), that explicitly tells us that the effects are gifts from the patron.
We have Chain - a spell. Magical when used.
An item - a book. The item itself could be both magical or not but regardless it also is quite... restricted in use inside an AMF. So... quite indifferent, really. I think there might be problems if you wanted to copy a spell inside an antimagic field if you have the invocation? :D

Then... we have... a something. An action? A ritual? An ability? An item?

A creature can, due to Patron gift of... some kind, create weapons out of thin air that are magical for the purpose of dealing damage and attacking, that can be dispersed (not using dispelled here, just in case). It also learns a ritual to bind a particular magic weapon to serve in a way similar to the one you could create, with some exceptions.
Clearly, a bound magical weapon cannot be "summoned" or "sent away" while inside an AMF. Planar travel does not work, and the weapon is stored inside an extradimensional pocket. A magical weapon is a a magic item (duh) and thus affected by itself in other ways.

I think we can agree that it is not a mundane task of creation - something that could be done in our world too - and that is crearly a way to create something.
Conjuring out of thin air is 100% "fantastical" in nature, and i think we can agree on that too.

Is it, however, "magic of existance", or it is something more akin "the manipulation of magical energies by beings of great power" or "a woven effect"? In contrast to "background magic soffusing a monk" i think it is pretty different.

Well, we know that at least part of it is "magical": the damage that is dealt is quite explicitly presented as "magical", and that is the exact check one has to follow to see if an attack is in fact magical in nature. But that kind of check is to determine if an ATTACK is magical in nature (with "is coming from a spell"), not anything else, really.

If we go straight for the test... then yes, just because the damage is "considered magical", then "magical" appears in the ability description, and the ability could (or should?) be treated as such in block.

Personally... i do see it as being magical, but wouldn't be that surprised if it wasn't intended to be.

[Asmotherion]

"The monk does not wink out of existance when the monk goes into an antimagic field"...

...That said, does the Sorcerer? :P I would be so tempted to make a Sorcerer go to a Random plane of existance when entering an antimagic field, as an AOE version of the Planeshift spell (save or suck at the end of each turn). Seems flavorful for someone who has a magical body and soul that's a "Font of Magic" :P

[krugaan]

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

Somewhere, in an Alabama basement, there is a country song being written about this.

And I want to hear it.

[Arial Black]

1.) If something 'counts' as magic, then it is not magic. If the thing actually is magic, then it's easier and unambiguous to just say so.

2.) If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic, and therefore stop working in an AMF, then surely a creatures ability to take half/no damage from non-magical weapons is itself a magical ability which doesn't work in an AMF.

3.) I recall a 3.5 essay on the interaction between summoning magic (and the things summoned) with AMF. Summoning-type spells had a subtype (like 'calling') and each interacted with AMF in a different way. For example, summoned creatures could not enter an AMF but called creatures could.

The justification was that, for summoning spells, the magic is what keeps the creature here and if the magic were to stop then the creature would no longer be kept here and would return from whence it came. Called creatures (like a paladin's mount) were different. They were instantaneous (so no magic kept them here therefore AMF did not affect them), but they also came with conditions that would result in them returning to their own plane. So, for called creatures, there is magic to bring them here and (perhaps) magic to send them back, but while they were here there was no magic involved in them staying.

For 5E blade pact warlocks, creating the pact weapon is a magical process so cannot be performed in an AMF. When the pact weapon disappears, magic makes it disappear. But while it is here then there is no magic keeping it here, it can exist in an AMF and, while it is not in and of itself a magic item, it counts as a magic weapon for the single purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and since determining if an object is magical for the purpose of interacting with AMF is a different purpose then it is not a magical item for AMF and therefore AMF does not hinder it in any way, including its (non-magical) ability to count as magical to overcome resistance/immunity.

[gloryblaze]

1.) If something 'counts' as magic, then it is not magic. If the thing actually is magic, then it's easier and unambiguous to just say so.

Yes, this is true. It's also not particularly relevant. We're not saying that a monk's hands and feet disappear when they enter an AMF, but that they do not overcome resistance to nonmafical damage within an AMF (because they can only do so by counting as magical).

2.) If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic, and therefore stop working in an AMF, then surely a creatures ability to take half/no damage from non-magical weapons is itself a magical ability which doesn't work in an AMF.

This does not follow at all. JC states that the only things prevented in an AMF are spells, and abilities described explicitly as either "magic" or "magical". Nowhere in any monster's star block does it say that their resistance/immunity to binmafical damage is a magical ability.

3.) I recall a 3.5 essay on the interaction between summoning magic (and the things summoned) with AMF. Summoning-type spells had a subtype (like 'calling') and each interacted with AMF in a different way. For example, summoned creatures could not enter an AMF but called creatures could.

The justification was that, for summoning spells, the magic is what keeps the creature here and if the magic were to stop then the creature would no longer be kept here and would return from whence it came. Called creatures (like a paladin's mount) were different. They were instantaneous (so no magic kept them here therefore AMF did not affect them), but they also came with conditions that would result in them returning to their own plane. So, for called creatures, there is magic to bring them here and (perhaps) magic to send them back, but while they were here there was no magic involved in them staying.

This is entirely irrelevant. 3.5 was a different game. Don't bring in old assumptions.

For 5E blade pact warlocks, creating the pact weapon is a magical process so cannot be performed in an AMF. When the pact weapon disappears, magic makes it disappear. But while it is here then there is no magic keeping it here, it can exist in an AMF and, while it is not in and of itself a magic item, it counts as a magic weapon for the single purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and since determining if an object is magical for the purpose of interacting with AMF is a different purpose then it is not a magical item for AMF and therefore AMF does not hinder it in any way, including its (non-magical) ability to count as magical to overcome resistance/immunity.

A pact weapon is not an instantaneous magical effect. A paladin's steed is an example of an instantaneous magical effect - you call it with Find Steed, then it doesn't go away unless you dismiss it or it dies. The steed could enter an AMF.

A pact weapon, on the other hand, disappears if it is 5 feet away from you for a minute or more. It is not a permanent object created instantaneously that only disappears if you make it disappear. It is an active magical effect that only exists while you're giving it "juice" - and if the "juice" is cut off (by an AMF), it goes away. I could see an argument that it remains in existence for 1 minute inside an AMF (as if it were 5 feet away from you), but not that it never disappears

[LeonBH]

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

Lol.

Background married poorly when she thought marrying someone with the last name of "Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse" was a good idea.

[Arial Black]

Yes, this is true. It's also not particularly relevant. We're not saying that a monk's hands and feet disappear when they enter an AMF, but that they do not overcome resistance to nonmafical damage within an AMF (because they can only do so by counting as magical).

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.

This does not follow at all. JC states that the only things prevented in an AMF are spells, and abilities described explicitly as either "magic" or "magical". Nowhere in any monster's star block does it say that their resistance/immunity to binmafical damage is a magical ability.

And the pact weapon is similarly not magical.

If the 'logic' is that even though something is not magical it can be nerfed by AMF on the grounds that 'magical weapon/resistance to non-magical weapons' is a magical interaction, then its just as true for the resistance/immunity as it is for the non-magical pact weapon.

It's either both, or neither.

A pact weapon is not an instantaneous magical effect. A paladin's steed is an example of an instantaneous magical effect - you call it with Find Steed, then it doesn't go away unless you dismiss it or it dies. The steed could enter an AMF.

A pact weapon, on the other hand, disappears if it is 5 feet away from you for a minute or more. It is not a permanent object created instantaneously that only disappears if you make it disappear. It is an active magical effect that only exists while you're giving it "juice" - and if the "juice" is cut off (by an AMF), it goes away. I could see an argument that it remains in existence for 1 minute inside an AMF (as if it were 5 feet away from you), but not that it never disappears

The list of things that makes the steed disappear and the list that makes the pact weapon disappear overlaps. The extra bit about 'being 5 feet away for 1 minute' is just another condition like the others in the list. It doesn't require constant magical energy to keep it there any more than the steed does.

[ThePolarBear]

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.

If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic

It is only contradictory because you do not accept the premise. With the premise standing, your logic is flawed and your point is moot.
Again, we can discuss it being stupid, rationalize why it shouldn't be so etc.
Trying to prove that it isn't so by providing a different premise is equal to not proving anything.

[krugaan]

It is only contradictory because you do not accept the premise. With the premise standing, your logic is flawed and your point is moot.
Again, we can discuss it being stupid, rationalize why it shouldn't be so etc.
Trying to prove that it isn't so by providing a different premise is equal to not proving anything.

I believe the confusion is arising from the language, because why say "counts as magical" when they could have just said "magical"?

It implies there is a difference.

Unless the editors REALLY wanted to make the point that magical items "count as magical items" everywhere it counts.

Of course, this doesn't rule out bad editing, but I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb.

[ThePolarBear]

I believe the confusion is arising from the language, because why say "counts as magical" when they could have just said "magical"?

It implies there is a difference.

Unless the editors REALLY wanted to make the point that magical items "count as magical items" everywhere it counts.

Which it would have been simpler, and i agree.
But it still does not necessarily imply a difference and at the very least does not imply that all that is considered magical is in fact not magical, given that it is intuitive that what is magical is ALSO considered magical.
It could also have had the opposite effect: "since it is magical, does it count as magical for - insert something for which being magical does not necessarily apply-"

I also believe that there's no confusion: i quoted the part where it becomes apparent he is aware of JC intention.

[krugaan]

Which it would have been simpler, and i agree.
But it still does not necessarily imply a difference and at the very least does not imply that all that is considered magical is in fact not magical, given that it is intuitive that what is magical is ALSO considered magical.
It could also have had the opposite effect: "since it is magical, does it count as magical for - insert something for which being magical does not necessarily apply-"

I also believe that there's no confusion: i quoted the part where it becomes apparent he is aware of JC intention.

Ah, I'll admit I didn't reread the whole thread. Just wanted to point out that when you have a condition with a qualifier, there's the strong implication that when the qualifier is not valid, the condition isn't, either.

They should have just said "deals normal damage to creatures immune to non magical damage." I mean, if that was their intent.

... I should really reread the thread.

[gloryblaze]

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.

As per clarification from JC (If I'm not mistaken, WotC say that his twitter rules clarifications count as RAW while Mearls is only RAI), if something "counts as magical" for the purpose of overcoming DR, and you attack with it in an AMF, it does not count as magical because the AMF suppresses that property.

If the 'logic' is that even though something is not magical it can be nerfed by AMF on the grounds that 'magical weapon/resistance to non-magical weapons' is a magical interaction, then its just as true for the resistance/immunity as it is for the non-magical pact weapon.

It's either both, or neither.

Emphasis mine - this is where you're mistaken. It's not on the grounds that the interaction between magic weapons and DR is a magical interaction. The DR is a natural feature of the monster, it is not magical. It just so happens that magical weapons overcome that DR. Guess what doesn't work in an AMF? Magic weapons (including those that "count as magical").

The list of things that makes the steed disappear and the list that makes the pact weapon disappear overlaps. The extra bit about 'being 5 feet away for 1 minute' is just another condition like the others in the list. It doesn't require constant magical energy to keep it there any more than the steed does.

The 5 feet thing is a bigger deal than you realize. Once a Steed is summoned, you can't get rid of it unless you destroy it or the original summoner uses magic to dismiss it. With a pact weapon, you can just grab it and play keep away for a minute. If it was a permanent effect (the sort of thing that is unaffected by AMF), why would it go away contrary to the owners intent? "Permanent" implies permanency.