log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E "....as if you were concentrating on a spell"

That's not the relevant bit, though. I asked about in the rules. You gave me Sage Advice.

Which is literally the guys that designed and wrote the rules, telling you what the rules say.

If a rule, effect, item or ability expressly states the rule, ability, effect or item is magical (using the words magic or magical or magically) then the rule. effect or ability or item is magical. If it doesn't have those words (and its not a spell, doesnt replicate a spell, or isnt a magical item), its not magical for game rules purposes.

The writers are consistent in this when designing abilities. If your ability, effect or feature is designed to be magical, it will expressly state it in the description of the ability, effect or feature.

Look at abilities like:

Wild shape: Starting at 2nd Level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.​
Eldritch Invocations: In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed Eldritch Invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.​

None of those work in an AMF and they can both be detected with Detect Magic.

Compare to abilities like:

Hurl through Hell: Starting at 14th level, when you hit a creature with an Attack, you can use this feature to instantly transport the target through the lower planes. The creature disappears and hurtles through a Nightmare landscape.​
At the end of your next turn, the target returns to the space it previously occupied, or the nearest unoccupied space. If the target is not a fiend, it takes 10d10 psychic damage as it reels from its horrific experience.​

Hurl through Hell is NOT 'magical'. It cannot be detected or dispelled as such, and works fine in an Anti Magic Field (barring the prohibition on extradimensional travel in an AMF which blocks it for other reasons).

Ditto features like:

Dragon Wings: At 14th level, you gain the ability to sprout a pair of Dragon Wings from your back, gaining a flying speed equal to your current speed. You can create these wings as a Bonus Action on Your Turn. They last until you dismiss them as a Bonus Action on Your Turn.​
You can’t manifest your wings while wearing armor unless the armor is made to accommodate them, and clothing not made to accommodate your wings might be destroyed when you manifest them.​

Doesn't say its magical, so its not magical. A Dragon Sorcerer can instantly sprout full blown Dragon Wings in the middle of an AMF and simply fly away.

The difference is whether you should state it as Teh Trvth! or as what seems to you to be a really good way to work with it, given the ambiguity in the rules.

The rules are not ambiguous. Only things that are expressly described as magical, are magical.

Ghosts, Dragons, Gremlins, Golems and Demons are magical/ enchanted/ clearly supernatural creatures, but are not magical creatures for the purpose of the rules.

What you've laid out is a reasonably consistent way for a GM to call it, which is great. But I see nothing compelling about it that suggests that a GM would be unreasonable to decide differently, and nothing about calling it differently that breaks the system.
I'm simply stating the Rules as Written (and as intended to be read and used by the guys that wrote them).

Its super important if you want to write homebrew stuff (abilities, archetypes, class features, feats etc). If the ability is magical, you need to state it in the actual ability description.

As an example from my own homebrew Battlemaster manoeuvres (converts of three ToB manouvers for 5E):

Sudden Leap: As a bonus action, you expend a superiority dice and leap up to 20’. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If you make a melee weapon attack immediately after this movement, it has advantage, and you may add the superiority dice to the attacks damage if it hits. You cannot use this maneuver if your speed is 0 or you are otherwise unable to move.​
Holocaust Cloak: You cloak yourself in magical flame as a bonus action, expending a superiority die. Until the start of your next turn, any creature that strikes you with a melee attack takes fire damage equal to a roll of your superiority die. A creature can only take this fire damage once per turn.​
Crusaders Strike: When you hit a hostile creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend a superiority die and magically heal an allied creature. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you within 30'. That creature regains hit points equal to the superiority die roll.​
One of those manouvers can be used in an AMF and detects as magical. The other two, cant.

Can you tell which two dont work (and are magical), and why?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Summoned objects disappear in an antimagic field

Creatures and Objects: A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.

The Pact weapon is not summoned or created by 'magic'.

It would say it in the Pact Weapon class feature if it was.

Its supernatural in nature for sure, but not 'magical' for the purposes of the game rules (it sticks around in an AMF).
 

The Pact weapon is not summoned or created by 'magic'.

It would say it in the Pact Weapon class feature if it was.

Its supernatural in nature for sure, but not 'magical' for the purposes of the game rules (it sticks around in an AMF).

I thought this too. Though, Charlaquin brought up a good point about interdimensional travel not working in an AMF. I believe that's the part which prevents the pact weapon from working.

I'm somewhat inclined to say that carrying the pact weapon into the field is still fine, as it would be cut off from interdimensional travel and unable to return to the extradimensional space. Though, if you are already in an AMF, it would seem the weapon cannot be retrieved.

I now have a few ideas concerning how two bags of holding might be weaponized in an AMF, but that's a different topic.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
The Pact weapon is not summoned or created by 'magic'.

It would say it in the Pact Weapon class feature if it was.

Its supernatural in nature for sure, but not 'magical' for the purposes of the game rules (it sticks around in an AMF).
The issue of converting a magical weapon into a warlock's pact weapon does rather complicate this. Since that's defined as being in an extra dimensional space, that particular version of a pact weapon would not be accessible in an antimagic field even if a DM were to agree to your interpretation. Moreover, if you had performed the ritual to convert that magic weapon, pact blade would be unusable at all for that warlock in the antimagic field because that bond is only broken by the warlock's death or a ritual breaking or replacing that bond.
If we're nitpicking terms, that is.
 

My 14th level Fiend Pact Warlock(Thirsting blade, Improved Pact weapon, Lifedrinker) can literally stand in the middle of an Anti Magic Field and:

1) Draw my Pact Weapon great sword. It loses its +1 and ceases being a Magical weapon (from Improved pact weapon) in the AMF.
2) Attack once with my Pact Greatsword. I cant use Thirsting blade because its an Invocation (and they're magical) but I do ignore my targets immunities and resistance to non magic weapons.
3) Use Dark ones own Luck to add +1d10 to an attack roll.
4) Deal no extra Necrotic damage via Lifedrinker (as an invocation, its unavailable to me in the AMF)
5) Plunder 18 Temp HP if I kill my foe from Dark Ones Blessing
6) All while resistant to my Foes attacks, thanks to Fiendish Resilience.

That's how it works, and how it was intended to work.

As noted below I cant summon my weapon or hurl my target through hell in an AMF as both rely on extradimensonal travel, which is prohibited in an AMF.
 


The issue of converting a magical weapon into a warlock's pact weapon does rather complicate this. Since that's defined as being in an extra dimensional space, that particular version of a pact weapon would not be accessible in an antimagic field even if a DM were to agree to your interpretation.

Agree. Extra-dimensional spaces (and travel) are inaccessible in an AMF, magical or otherwise.

Moreover, if you had performed the ritual to convert that magic weapon, pact blade would be unusable at all for that warlock in the antimagic field because that bond is only broken by the warlock's death or a ritual breaking or replacing that bond.
If we're nitpicking terms, that is.

Disagree. The ritual to convert the weapon is not magical. It doesnt say it is.

So (presuming you had the magical weapon in your hand) the weapon loses its magical properties in the AMF, but retains the bond (but cannot be shunted or summoned in the AMF, due to the extradimensional space prohibition).

Just because its magic is suppressed in the AMF, that doesn't render (say) a bound+2 Great sword no longer a magical weapon in that AMF. Its magic is suppressed, but its still a magical weapon.

Interestingly invocations are (all) shut down in an AMF (they're expressly described as 'magical').

No Thirsting blade (extra attack), Life drinker, Improved Pact weapon and so forth in an AMF for a Blade-lock. Eldritch Smite doesnt work either (although as thats powered by spell slots, it would work for that reason also).
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
It appears that my initial thought was wrong, and (I think) items inside of a bag of holding would not be accessible. The bag would function like a normal bag, but the magical opening to the extradimensional space couldn't be used.
That’s my interpretation as well. The bag doesn’t open into an extradimensional space inside an AMF, but it does still work as a normal bag.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Disagree. The ritual to convert the weapon is not magical. It doesnt say it is.

So (presuming you had the magical weapon in your hand) the weapon loses its magical properties in the AMF, but retains the bond (but cannot be shunted or summoned in the AMF, due to the extradimensional space prohibition).

Just because its magic is suppressed in the AMF, that doesn't render (say) a bound+2 Great sword no longer a magical weapon in that AMF. Its magic is suppressed, but its still a magical weapon.

Interestingly invocations are (all) shut down in an AMF (they're expressly described as 'magical').

No Thirsting blade (extra attack), Life drinker, Improved Pact weapon and so forth in an AMF for a Blade-lock. Eldritch Smite doesnt work either (although as thats powered by spell slots, it would work for that reason also).
You're not getting my meaning. If the warlock can't summon the magic weapon he converted into his pact weapon, he can't create an alternative one when that extra dimensional connection is suppressed. He's now bonded to that magic weapon and it would appear whenever he generates the pact blade... and now in the antimagic field, he can't get to it. He'd have to unbond it in 1 of 3 ways - death, breaking the bond, or replacing it and the latter two take an hour to do.
Presumably, you're saying that if he brought out his pact blade before the field went up or before he entered it, he'd still be able to use it. That may be, but if he's already in the field, pact blade for a warlock who converted a magic weapon is completely unavailable.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I guess I'm thinking of the summoned object being a physical thing that existed elsewhere and has been brought to the hand of the warlock rather than something created specifically by magic. If it was something they had to concentrate on then I might say it winks out of existence but I wouldn't say it does in the case of a pact magic weapon. In this instance, I consider it something like the bonded weapon of the eldritch knight, it's just that the armoury the warlock is drawing upon might be on another plane of existence.
I believe the warlock’s pact weapon does exist in an extradimensional space, and the warlock summons it. That’s certainly how it works if they do the ritual to make a magic weapon their pact weapon, so I would assume it works consistently when they create their own pact weapon.
 

You're not getting my meaning. If the warlock can't summon the magic weapon he converted into his pact weapon, he can't create an alternative one when that extra dimensional connection is suppressed.
I agree. He loses access to the weapon and the class feature (effectively) as long as he remains in the AMF and it is stuck in the extradimensional space.

He leaves the AMF, and can then summon the weapon and re-enter the AMF though.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
The Pact weapon is not summoned or created by 'magic'.
That’s just silly. If it’s not created or summoned by magic, what’s it created or summoned by?
It would say it in the Pact Weapon class feature if it was.
I think you’re reading too much into prose text. It’s not a spell (and so isn’t affected by dispel magic) but it’s clearly a magical effect.
Its supernatural in nature for sure, but not 'magical' for the purposes of the game rules (it sticks around in an AMF).
I think you’re taking Crawford’s words way too literally here.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I think you’re taking Crawford’s words way too literally here.
Honestly, Crawford does kind of ask for it with that particular sage advice. Back in the days before 3e, we'd have probably just considered everything like this magic - spells, innate magical abilities, dragon's breath, etc. Then 3e made distinctions between supernatural, spell-like abilities, and extraordinary abilities. Now those distinctions are, as official definitions, gone yet we've been conditioned to expect that they still exist - and Crawford seems to approach the rules that way too, at least with Sage Advice.
 

That’s just silly. If it’s not created or summoned by magic, what’s it created or summoned by?
The same supernatural stuff that allows dragons to exist, fly and breath lighting bolts, or allows Ghosts to exist and walk through walls, or allows Golems to wander around talking to people - none of which is magical.

Supernatural yes. Bot not magical for game rule purposes.

I think you’re reading too much into prose text. It’s not a spell (and so isn’t affected by dispel magic) but it’s clearly a magical effect.

No it is not a magical effect. The effect would say it if it was.

5E class features, abilities and so forth are only magical if they expressly say they are.

Hurl through Hell for example (literally hurling someone to Hell and back) is not 'magical' either, nor is a 14th level Dragon Sorcerer suddenly growing wings and flying away.

Supernatural yes. But not magical for game rule purposes.

I think you’re taking Crawford’s words way too literally here.

No, the Devs deliberately either include (or omit) the words 'magical, magically or magic' when describing game features. If one of those words is in the feature description (or it uses spell slots, is a spell or mirrors spellcasting) its magical. If the words 'magical, magically or magic' is not included in the feature, its not intended to be 'magical; for rules purposes (supernatural perhaps, but not magical).

You cant summon the weapon for other reasons in an AMF (probation on extradimensional travel). But it isnt magically summoned; the summoning is part of the supernatural background physcis of the game world, and not magical for rules purposes.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Honestly, Crawford does kind of ask for it with that particular sage advice. Back in the days before 3e, we'd have probably just considered everything like this magic - spells, innate magical abilities, dragon's breath, etc. Then 3e made distinctions between supernatural, spell-like abilities, and extraordinary abilities. Now those distinctions are, as official definitions, gone yet we've been conditioned to expect that they still exist - and Crawford seems to approach the rules that way too, at least with Sage Advice.
I mean, I get it. A dragon’s breath is a natural phenomenon in the worlds of D&D, even though it would be impossible in real life. Because the worlds of D&D are fantastical places where things that would be impossible in real life are perfectly natural parts of the way these worlds work. The problem is, the guideline he gives for differentiating between what’s impossible-in-real-life-but-natural-in-D&D and what’s magical is “if the prose says its magical.” And that means, even if an effect was intended to be magical, if a writer forgot to include the word “magic” in its description somewhere, this heuristic would lead to an erroneous conclusion about whether or not it was magical, as I believe is the case here.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
The same supernatural stuff that allows dragons to exist, fly and breath lighting bolts, or allows Ghosts to exist and walk through walls, or allows Golems to wander around talking to people - none of which is magical.
None of that is magical because it’s part of the natural physics of the D&D cosmos. Creating physical objects from nothing or summoning them from other planes of existence, extradimensional spaces, or great physical distances, are not (which is why those things are explicitly prevented by the antimagic field spell.)

Supernatural yes. Bot not magical for game rule purposes.



No it is not a magical effect. The effect would say it if it was.

5E class features, abilities and so forth are only magical if they expressly say they are.

Hurl through Hell for example (literally hurling someone to Hell and back) is not 'magical' either, nor is a 14th level Dragon Sorcerer suddenly growing wings and flying away.

Supernatural yes. But not magical for game rule purposes.
Again, that’s a silly interpretation. A Dragon sorcerer growing wings is a natural (albeit impossible in real life) phenomenon. Teleporting something (or someone) to Baator is not, hence AMF stopping it.
No, the Devs deliberately either include (or omit) the words 'magical, magically or magic' when describing game features. If one of those words is in the feature description (or it uses spell slots, is a spell or mirrors spellcasting) its magical. If the words 'magical, magically or magic' is not included in the feature, its not intended to be 'magical; for rules purposes (supernatural perhaps, but not magical).
If you honestly believe that the writers both have such a rule in their style guides, and never forget to apply it, then you and I are never going to be able to agree about this matter.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
So, after further investigation, I’ve revised my opinion. I still think creating or summoning your pact weapon is a magical effect, but it doesn’t actually matter, because it works in an antimagic field either way. From the text of Antimagic Field:

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.


The Pact Boon feature explicitly states that it is a gift from your patron, and therefore can reasonably be said to be a magical effect created by a deity, making it an exception to the effect of Antimagic Field.

This interpretation would mean chainlocks can summon their Familiars in an Antimagic Field, and the new Talisman pact boon functions in an Antimagic Field. An interesting question this reading raises is if the three cantrips contained in a Tomelock’s book of shadows are also considered “granted by their patron,” and if so, could they be cast in an Antimagic Field?
 

None of that is magical because it’s part of the natural physics of the D&D cosmos. Creating physical objects from nothing or summoning them from other planes of existence, extradimensional spaces, or great physical distances, are not (which is why those things are explicitly prevented by the antimagic field spell.)

I have no problem with extradimensional summoning being prohibited in an AMF. Thats what the spell does.

But the extradimensional summoning of a Pact Weapon is not magical. It would say it if it were.

Supernatural for sure. But not magical.

Again, that’s a silly interpretation. A Dragon sorcerer growing wings is a natural (albeit impossible in real life) phenomenon. Teleporting something (or someone) to Baator is not, hence AMF stopping it.

No, Hurl through Hell (Fiend lock 14) is not blocked by an AMF on account of being magical because its not magical.

It's blocked by an AMF because its extradimensional travel, and the AMF blocks that as well as magic.

Its perfectly possible to travel to other planes not using magic. Ghosts for example do it all the time:
Etherealness: The ghost enters the Ethereal Plane from The Material Plane, or vice versa. It is visible on The Material Plane while it is in the Border Ethereal, and vice versa, yet it can't affect or be affected by anything on the other plane.
The Ghost in travelling from the Material plane to the Ethereal plane (and back) does not register as magical to a Detect Magic spell. An effect that blocks magic would not block the Ghost from travelling to a different plane of existence using this ability because the ability is (expressly, by omission of the words 'magic, magically or magical') not magical.

Such travel would however be blocked by an AMF because that ALSO blocks even non magical dimensional travel or extradimensional spaces (like a Pact weapon being summoned, or a Ghost entering the ethereal plane from the material or vice versa).


If you honestly believe that the writers both have such a rule in their style guides, and never forget to apply it, then you and I are never going to be able to agree about this matter.
It is clearly in their style guides because its how rules language is expressed in 5E, as they clearly explain in Sage Advice.

I cant speak to whether they simply forgot to include it (and its thus a typo) in the Ghosts planar travel, or the Warlocks pact weapon class feature.

See also language like 'target you can see' which (among other things) has an interplay with invisibility, or the distinction between an 'attack with a melee weapon' and a 'melee weapon attack' (which are different things and have different rules implications, or even just what is an 'attack' and what isnt when that word is used.

The rule is unless the ability, item or effect expressly uses the words 'magical, magically, or magic' or uses spell slots to function, or mirrors a spell or spellcasting, it is not magical.

Supernatural, bizarre and extraordinary, but not magical for game rule purposes.
 
Last edited:

So, after further investigation, I’ve revised my opinion. I still think creating or summoning your pact weapon is a magical effect, but it doesn’t actually matter, because it works in an antimagic field either way. From the text of Antimagic Field:

Summoning a Pact weapon is not magical. It doesn't say it is in its description, and by that omission (by RAW) it is not magical.

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.


The Pact Boon feature explicitly states that it is a gift from your patron, and therefore can reasonably be said to be a magical effect created by a deity, making it an exception to the effect of Antimagic Field.
By that reasoning all Warlock (and Cleric) class features are granted by a Deity (or other equivalent power), including Pact magic and Spellcasting.

Clerics and Warlocks rejoice!

This interpretation would mean chainlocks can summon their Familiars in an Antimagic Field, and the new Talisman pact boon functions in an Antimagic Field. An interesting question this reading raises is if the three cantrips contained in a Tomelock’s book of shadows are also considered “granted by their patron,” and if so, could they be cast in an Antimagic Field?
Your interpretation is wrong.

Familiars cant be summoned in an AMF because nothing can be (magical or otherwise).

Even a Deity cant permit a Ghost to materialise from the Ethereal plane to the Material plane in an AMF because the Ghost isn't using a 'Spell or other Magical effect' to appear in one, so the effect cant be overridden by the God.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top