Crawford says monk stuff ain't magic

[Dalebert]

Yes. 5e chucked out al the rules, then chucked out the idea that players should have an idea about how competent their characters are.

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

[Deleted]

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

I found it's worse in AL. Total crapfest of what to expect and not expect.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like DMs call for checks way too often.

yeah.

This SA ruling leaves me scratching my head. Most of the SA rulings make sense to me, but this one is ... trying to have it both ways.

If the PHB had chosen to make ki separate from the weave, more like psionics, you could still identify a given power as a spell like effect and leave the rest as clearly a separate kind of power.

Oh well, yet another thing to work out at table. I can see the frustration with how ki works at AL tables if the rulings leave the AL DM's puzzled.

[Dalebert]

I'm not clear on what people are frustrated about. I'm frustrated as well that they didn't make these things clearer up front in the PHB. But it's pretty str8-fwd now. The checklist he gives spells it out pretty well.

[Psyren]

I got your back Uriel! I, for one, enjoyed the differentiation between (Ex)traordinary, (Sp)ell-Like, and (Su)pernatural abilities.

Don't forget (Na)tural, and all the wonderful arguments it caused.

But I agree with you, these tags served a purpose, and they did not overcomplicate the game. At the very least, they could just keep it at (Sp) and (Ex), dumping (Su) and letting all magical effects interact with each other.

I prefer [Magical] and [Nonmagical] myself. Saves a lot of frustration when two sorts of magic interact (looking at you, 3.5 warlock and PF SR/dispel vs supernatural/spellike).

Or this too. Maybe a line like - "a monk's ki is an inherent part of his being, and can be used to create both magical and extraordinary effects." From that you know the question "can I dispel this" when it comes to a monk ability could have different answers depending on the ability.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dale:
I think that your thread title is incorrect and misleading, both.
Some Monk Stuff is indeed magic. (Indeed, your reference to the checklist seems to show that you probably agree)
From Crawford

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Does its description say it’s magical?If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.

Four elements stuff usually comes off as spell like, or as a magical effect.

The Open Hand Monk's powers tend to be more like Dragon Breath. (Or so I read Crawford's intent).

[Tanarii]

Elemental Disciplines actually are all magical because of that.

If that's the case, anything spending Ki is magical. Because the Monk class says they are, right in its introduction.

I see your logic, it qualifies under the SA "does it say it's magical" checkbox.

So Jc is being inconsistent if he says any monk Ki abilities are non-magical (for purposes of dispel / AMF). The Monk class says they are all magical.

[Spore]

Why did you think non-spell Monk abilities were nullified in an antimagic field in the first place? I mean, what he's saying pretty much matches common sense.

Aka what makes sense to me.

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

[Tanarii]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

For sure. I should have used some blue text in that post.

[Deleted]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

The rules can make sense within the context of the game or reality, even if the rules call for supernatural stuff.

[Anonymouswizard]

Definitely sympathize with you folks. This is particularly a problem in AL. Normally you could make a character build that's based on a certain use of certain abilities and check with your DM to make sure it's okay. If he says "no", then you just chuck it and go a different direction. In AL, there are some rulings that will nerf a character into oblivion. There are so many people clamoring for a hard ruling from an admin on certain Facebook groups and the common expression used to answer such things is often "expect table variation". It's frustrating. The only real work-around is to have multiple options of characters to play at any particular game. I might show up planning to play my wild magic sorcerer only to get discouraged when I find out the DM is stingy with wild surges and just switch characters realizing my character is nerfed in his games.

Yeah, this is a major problem. Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant, but the 'rulings nerf characters into oblivion' is a major problem.

(I think the worst I saw was returning the druid's animal companion, full 3.5 style. It was alright as it was, but if that group plays again I've been considering an archer ranger, maybe even a beastmaster, and would not like the druid getting an improved subclass feature for free.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Magic is as magic does.

[Tanarii]

Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant

Good thing that's on PHB page 174.

[Finlam]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

[Dalebert]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

On the first part--not according to Crawford. On the second part, definitely and unambiguously no. It's not a spell.

[Deleted]

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

Do you go by what the book says or from what Crawford wants the book to say?

[Dalebert]

Dale:
I think that your thread title is incorrect and misleading, both.

That's a bit harsh. What he's saying is that the default is no, it's not magical despite the lore about ki; hence the title of the thread. That's not saying there aren't exceptions. The general rule is they are not.

That said, the checklist he provides does seem to affect certain things like the 2nd level spells shadow monks can cast at 3rd level and much of the elemental monk. The elemental monk is basically a very poorly-designed spellcaster after all (IMHO).

[KorvinStarmast]

That's a bit harsh. What he's saying is that the default is no, it's not magical despite the lore about ki; hence the title of the thread. That's not saying there aren't exceptions. The general rule is they are not.

That said, the checklist he provides does seem to affect certain things like the 2nd level spells shadow monks can cast at 3rd level and much of the elemental monk. The elemental monk is basically a very poorly-designed spellcaster after all (IMHO).

A fair reply, and I see your point more clearly now. Thanks.(Maybe I should edit that post and tone it down a bit?)

[j_spencer93]

Oddly...his rulings is how i have always done it. Maybe its a carry over from 3.5 but i just assumed they weren't magical unless casting a spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Oddly...his rulings is how i have always done it. Maybe its a carry over from 3.5 but i just assumed they weren't magical unless casting a spell.

I'd say most of JC's rullings are just what's already written in the books or common sense, but common sense isn't as common as it should be, and few of the rulings are weird.

[Eric Diaz]

+1 to "this is just common sense".

Of course everything is magical in D&D. Giants couldn't really walk if they weren't, dragons couldn't fly etc. But SPELLS are a different thing.

Antimagic Field says "Within the Sphere, Spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even Magic Items become mundane."

I don't see much of a problem here... of course it also says "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the Sphere and can't protrude into it.", but since EVERYTHING is more or less magic in D&D, those "other magical effects" must be summoned creatures and Magic Items.

I am having a hard time thinking of a situation where the result wouldn't be obvious.

So the TLDR is: ki is only magic if used to cast spells.

EDIT: OTOH, it seems to me that spells are ALWAYS spells. No matter if they are cast by a gith or innately used by any given race (or, in my games, if your spells are created by your kobold iron man armor), they won't work within an Antimagic Field and can be Counterspelled. Which means, oddly enough, that the latest UA about giths and eladrin indicated that the gith's misty step can be counterspelled, but the eladrin's misty step ability cannot!

[Pex]

Good thing that's on PHB page 174.

No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.

[Zalabim]

Or this too. Maybe a line like - "a monk's ki is an inherent part of his being, and can be used to create both magical and extraordinary effects." From that you know the question "can I dispel this" when it comes to a monk ability could have different answers depending on the ability.

How about a line like "Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities." Ki can be used to create magical effects, which are suppressed in an antimagic field, and also as a separate concept, Ki can be used to exceed the bodies' physical capabilities in a way that is worth mentioning outside of magical effects.

If that's the case, anything spending Ki is magical. Because the Monk class says they are, right in its introduction.

I see your logic, it qualifies under the SA "does it say it's magical" checkbox.

So Jc is being inconsistent if he says any monk Ki abilities are non-magical (for purposes of dispel / AMF). The Monk class says they are all magical.

The magic of Ki says Ki is magic in the same way that dragons are magic. They use Ki for things that are magical effects as well as things that are physical effects. Elemental Disciplines is the description for a specific ability the monk can gain and that description says these abilities are magical.

So is the shadow-monk's shadow step magical? Can it be counter spelled? I'm still not clear on this.

It's not magical. It's not a spell, so it can't be counterspelled. You still can't use it in an antimagic field because there's no teleporting in an antimagic field.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It isn't arcane magic, but ki is described as magic in the description of the monk.

Yep.

The first time this came up in our game (a monk in a party fighting a beholder) we looked at the book, noticed that ki was described as being magic, and then agreed as a group that monk abilities that require the expeniture of ki points count as magic and are therefore vulnerable to anti-magic; but monk abilities that don't require the expenditure of ki points aren't magic and therefore aren't vulnerable.

We're happy with our ruling and won't be changing it just because Jeremy Crawford says differently.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Fighter's Second Wind isn't magic, even though it provides healing. That may be another lens through which to see this.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, this is a major problem. Most of my problems would be solved in they just put an 'easy/challenging/hard/legendary' table in the PhB so I had an idea of what skill bonuses meant, but the 'rulings nerf characters into oblivion' is a major problem.

No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.

Allow me to requote what I was replying to so you can see that my response was exactly on point and completely accurate given the exact complaint being made. And that your disagreement, while totally in line with your personal complaints about the system, does not stop my answer from being totally correct given the specifics of Anonymouswizard's complaint. The page I referenced in the PHB is where "they put a [very easy/easy/medium/hard/very hard/nearly impossible] table in the PHB" to allow people to have an idea of what the bonuses mean. It just doesn't tell you what qualifies as those difficulties, but he didn't say anything about that.

Also Nyah-Nyah-Nyah and raspberry tongue.

The magic of Ki says Ki is magic in the same way that dragons are magic. They use Ki for things that are magical effects as well as things that are physical effects. Elemental Disciplines is the description for a specific ability the monk can gain and that description says these abilities are magical.

Sorry, is this argument a variation on : it's just fluff text unless it's under a feature?

Or is it: one specifically says its background/inner/inherent and the other doesn't specify?

Trying to be clear on what you're saying here.

[Eric Diaz]

No, that says what the numbers are. It does not define what constitutes being assigned a particular number leading to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day.

Pex, I don't remember if you participated in the most recent discussion about that, but if you didn't, let me give you my 2c: while I agree that some guidelines would be nice, they would STILL lead to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day - unless you go the 4e route and calculate the DC based on your level.

For example: let us say the DMG explicitly says an iron lock is DC 10 and a mithral lock is a DC 20 to pick.

You'd think you have an idea of what your PC's abilities are... but your GM can STILL create a dungeon full of iron locks OR mithral locks with no prior warning. So, until you enter the dungeon, you have no idea of how effective your lock-picking will be.

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

[Pex]

Also Nyah-Nyah-Nyah and raspberry tongue.

I'm telling Mom!

Pex, I don't remember if you participated in the most recent discussion about that, but if you didn't, let me give you my 2c: while I agree that some guidelines would be nice, they would STILL lead to inconsistency of application based on who is DM that day - unless you go the 4e route and calculate the DC based on your level.

For example: let us say the DMG explicitly says an iron lock is DC 10 and a mithral lock is a DC 20 to pick.

You'd think you have an idea of what your PC's abilities are... but your GM can STILL create a dungeon full of iron locks OR mithral locks with no prior warning. So, until you enter the dungeon, you have no idea of how effective your lock-picking will be.

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

I wouldn't know what's in any dungeon before I enter it more than just locks. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that when I actually do come across an iron or mithral lock I know my character's ability to open it without the key.

However, let's not derail the thread any further.

[Tanarii]

Or course, if you're running a published adventure, or if your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

Spoiler: derailing thread further

Show

Can't have the DM communicate the DC for the specific task in front of you. It'd be mother-may-I.

Now, DMs not communicating DCs , on a regular basis, not even as a general range (ie Easy, Medium etc)? Yeah, that's a problem. Complaints that you can't judge how difficult a specific situation in front of the PC will be, when the PC should be able to have a rough idea, and the player isn't being given any way to judge it ... totally fair.

Complaints that you have no idea if a DM isn't going to bother with Int checks at all making the ability score useless vs use them in an even and consistent manner making Int useful. Both somewhat fair, and welcome to D&D.

Personally I'm happier with an edition that empowers the DM to make appropriate rulings based on what's going on in the game-world, as instead of imposing tyrannical players, via "RAW or you're a Bad DM" & hard-coded rules with no freedom to adapt to the in-world situation. After all, no two in-game situations can possibly ever be identical.

[Eric Diaz]

What is relevant is that when I actually do come across an iron or mithral lock I know my character's ability to open it without the key.

Now, DMs not communicating DCs , on a regular basis, not even as a general range (ie Easy, Medium etc)? Yeah, that's a problem.

Completely agree. If your PC is currently examining the lock, I'd say the DC should be explicit.

However, let's not derail the thread any further.

Agreed!