Can Antimagic Field supress a permanent True Polymorph?

[Sunseeker]

It all comes down to how you interpret "permanent effect" as a permanent effect ie: the outcome being permanent. Or a permanent effect ie: the magic generating the effect becomes permanent.

Really doesn't matter to me which way you do things. The former can lead to power-gaming shenanigans. The latter can lead to metagaming (both on the DM side and the player side). So just pick your poison. I typically run things the first way (the result is permanent) because it's a somewhat more worthy outcome for a 9th level spell. Being able to be undone by a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) with a DC of 19.

 

[Stalker0]

It all comes down to how you interpret "permanent effect" as a permanent effect ie: the outcome being permanent. Or a permanent effect ie: the magic generating the effect becomes permanent.

Number one is actually covered by the instantaneous duration, which is why I think it adds credence that true polymorph is affected by AMF

 

[Coroc]

Well, no matter the wording there has to be some way of true polymorph made permanent or we never can recreate the "princess has to kiss the frog" - fairytale in 5E or similar scenarios which need some means of a perma polymorph.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, no matter the wording there has to be some way of true polymorph made permanent or we never can recreate the "princess has to kiss the frog" - fairytale in 5E or similar scenarios which need some means of a perma polymorph.

If higher-level spellcasters are common enough that they would be a major issue, and you had to do it via PC rules, I'd regard it as a variant on the Imprisonment spell. Or maybe a combination of Polymorph and Bestow Curse: While cursed, attempts to dispel the polymorph effect suffer a penalty perhaps.

But in general, that sort of scenario, in a D&D setting (as opposed to fairytales where spellcasters are rare and dangerous to deal with) is a plot that the PCs have to foil, and has been created by an NPC who wasn't restricted to PC magic.

 

[Sunseeker]

Number one is actually covered by the instantaneous duration, which is why I think it adds credence that true polymorph is affected by AMF

Number one shouldn't be affected by an AMF, because the result is permanent and the magic generating the effect is no longer present. Number 2 is the version that would be affected by an AMF because the magic is still running.

 

[jaelis]

It all comes down to how you interpret "permanent effect" as a permanent effect ie: the outcome being permanent. Or a permanent effect ie: the magic generating the effect becomes permanent.

Just to reiterate, the revised version never says that the effect becomes permanent, it says that it lasts until dispelled.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Just to note, the 6th printing of the Player's Handbook uses the lasts until it is dispelled version of True Polymorph. Why the change isn't noted in any errata I've been able to find is beyond me, though.

 

[Sunseeker]

Just to reiterate, the revised version never says that the effect becomes permanent, it says that it lasts until dispelled.

Yes I'm aware of that. I'm not sure why they couldn't have written that to begin with.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Even from Crawfords mouth?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

When it is a lazy meaningless one word answer I would absolutely ignore it.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes I'm aware of that. I'm not sure why they couldn't have written that to begin with.

Probably because Permanent was the game term for "Lasts until dispelled" in 3.5, and they seem to have kept the same Instantaneous vs Permanent distinction in 5e, but forgot to actually state what a duration of Permanent meant in the 5e rules.

Thus they thought the effect of polymorph and similar spells was already covered until they realised that that part had actually been omitted in the magic rules.