D&D General How does magic work in D&D (In-Universe/Lorewise)?

[M_Natas]

Well, you get the issue that when everything is magical, then nothing is magical. The spell isn't terribly useful if it simply lights up the entire planet because it is suffused with magical energy, right?

"Detect Magic" is really more like, "Detect magic that the PCs might, in theory, be able to impact or manipulate." Like, you can't Dispel a dragon into not being able to breathe fire on you, so that doesn't show up as "magic".

Yeah, even a little more would have been nice. Like most creatures including dragons, elementals and spirits don't count as magical.
Constructs that are animated by magic count as magical creatures that can interact with spells like detect magic or dispel magic (Animated armor). Constructs that come alive by being possessed (Scarecrow) by a spirit don't count as magical and can't be dispelled or detected.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yeah it seems to.me that most of the in-game "lore" regarding magic is specifically set up to discourage critical thinking.

"It's all magic maaaann...you just gotta feel the Weaaaaavvee brooo. "

Personally, I'm not too stressed about classifying the magic and the nonmagic stuff (though I'd agree there are ambiguities there).

The bit I would like better explanations for is the mechanics of spellcasting, e.g.

--what's so special about the way that spellcasters deliver spell components that prevents non-casters from being able to do it?

--how is it that the only action that has no chance of user error is "casting a spell"?

--what makes one spell more difficult to cast than another (such that it cannot even be attempted at all until it can be executed with 100% effectivness), and how does that manifest in the fiction?

Stuff like this would (IMO) help casters feel more physically tethered to the worlds they dwell in rather than just having a growing list of game mechanics they can take advantage of with near zero fictional justification.

 

[Reynard]

That's a good question. What I would like is an example. Like a more detailed guide on how magic works in the forgotten realms that explains the mechanical game rules. And from that it would be easier for me, to adjust it for my table needs.

There is probably not a 5E source for that, but I bet if you go to DMsGuild you will find tons of books that might help you out from earlier editions, and that kind of lore should be pretty edition proof. I think. There was a spellplague or something.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something::something The Weave blah::blah

Yeah it seems to.me that most of the in-game "lore" regarding magic is specifically set up to discourage critical thinking.

I suppose critical thinking may have become unpopular. Certainly discussions of the relative merits of editions has toxified the on-line community in the past, harming the IP. So if WotC wants to avoid encouraging it's fans to think, it's understandable.

--what's so special about the way that spellcasters deliver spell components that prevents non-casters from being able to do it?

Class. Casters are simply superior to non-casters.

how is it that the only action that has no chance of user error is "casting a spell"?

There used to be restrictions on casting, but they were unpopular with casters, so they're gone.

--what makes one spell more difficult to cast than another (such that it cannot even be attempted at all until it can be executed with 100% effectivness), and how does that manifest in the fiction?

Level. Higher is better than lower.

Stuff like this would (IMO) help casters feel more physically tethered to the worlds they dwell in rather than just having a growing list of game mechanics they can take advantage of with near zero fictional justification.

Seriously, tho, and I think it's already been said. Past editions did offer in-world explanations. In 4e each source had a different rationalization (heroic effort, memorization, divine providence, etc) for why some of their abilities couldn't just be used every round; in 3.x spells were either prepared (most of the spell cast in advance, then triggered when needed, thus each spell chosen in advance and gone once used) or spontaneous (cast improvisationally by sheer talent and innate power... said innate power being used up in some weird way that corresponded to slots? ); in the TSR era, spells were memorized (litterally the magic of the spell was impressed on your brain, like if you were trephenated, there'd be glowing runes in there) and when cast, that memory was lost, while the power of the spell came from another dimension of pure energy, which you exchanged for the material components of the spell (and/or the breath you exhaled) to maintain some sort of cosmological balance. (I am not making that last bit up, I swear.)

 

[Voadam]

5e Dispel magic is pretty clear it only affects spells. It does not dispel magical creatures like elementals or constructs, although it can dispel a spell summoning a creature. It will not even dispel a non-spell magical effect. This is important for say Monsters of the Multiverse creatures which have a bunch of magical effects that replace prior 5e version spells for the creatures.

DISPEL MAGIC
3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

 

[Voadam]

5e Dispel magic is pretty clear it only affects spells. It does not dispel magical creatures like elementals or constructs, although it can dispel a spell summoning a creature. It will not even dispel a non-spell magical effect. This is important for say Monsters of the Multiverse creatures which have a bunch of magical effects that replace prior 5e version spells for the creatures.

DISPEL MAGIC
3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.

Same for Counterspell. It is for spells only, not monster/NPC non-spell magical powers.

COUNTERSPELL
3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The one sourcebook I know of -- other than the 2E College of Wizardry -- is the kid-facing Practical Guide to Wizardry, which goes into specific verbal components and other elements of theory of magic.

The WotC card game Rock, Paper, Wizard also includes the somatic gestures for many spells as well.

So yeah, you have to go hunting for any kind of information on "magic, how does it work?"

It's extremely weird that WotC hasn't at least pulled the lore from those two products (and maybe College of Wizardry) into a single 5E mainstream product. Strixhaven would have been an ideal book to put that in.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah it seems to.me that most of the in-game "lore" regarding magic is specifically set up to discourage critical thinking.

Well, no magic system will stand up to critical thinking, so that's probably a good thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, no magic system will stand up to critical thinking, so that's probably a good thing.

Eh, Mage: The A________ and Ars Magica have a logic to their magic -- the games are built around it -- and if anything, their magic seems more magical than D&D, even if players and characters can actually discuss how it works.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, even a little more would have been nice. Like most creatures including dragons, elementals and spirits don't count as magical.

That's okay, insofar as there's nothing you can do about it if they were. Calling a dragon "magical" doesn't give you any information you can use.