D&D (2024) Magical effects in the MM

[UngeheuerLich]

Many effects that were spell effects or called magical don't say so anymore.

RAW per glossary that means, they are not magical.

A basilisk used to turn someone magically into stone. Arcane bolts used to be melee or ranged spell attacks.

While the basilisk gaze is called supernatural in the flavour text, the arcane bolt should clearly be a magic effect.

For the basilisk this also has the implication that freedom of movement won't work anymore as it onl yprevents magical effects from paralyzing.

How would you handle it?

 

[ezo]

How would you handle it?

Anything that favors the creatures over the PCs is how I would rule it.

So, basalisk gaze not magical? Cool, no dispel magic or freedom of movement or whatever.

Arcane Burst cannot be stopped by antimagic or counterspelled. Sounds good to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just use my own common sense if/when a question comes up. If/when someone wants to Dispel Magic on something or Counterspell something, or an Anti-Magic Field shows up... I'll make Rulings on various items/features/abilities as the players or the NPCs attempt to use them at the time. But in my games these sorts of things happen so infrequently that it's never a real concern nor something any of us will worry about. Even if the justification is just commons sense or Rule of Cool.

 

[Mort]

Many effects that were spell effects or called magical don't say so anymore.

RAW per glossary that means, they are not magical.

A basilisk used to turn someone magically into stone. Arcane bolts used to be melee or ranged spell attacks.

While the basilisk gaze is called supernatural in the flavour text, the arcane bolt should clearly be a magic effect.

For the basilisk this also has the implication that freedom of movement won't work anymore as it onl yprevents magical effects from paralyzing.

How would you handle it?

Looking at the 2 (Legacy and 2024) stat blocks side by side -

the Legacy one says "On a failed save, the creature magically begins to turn to stone and is restrained."

The 2024 one says "First Failure: The target has the Restrained condition and repeats the save at the end of its next turn if it is still Restrained, ending the effect on itself on a success." No mention of magic.

So by RAW - sure looks like it's not meant to be magical anymore.

For my group, I'd keep it as magical - mostly for my own consistency.

 

[Voadam]

That seems weird, I can't think of a narrative reason either effect would not be magical. I have no problem saying they are not spells narratively or mechanically, but non-magical seems off.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh. I actually failed my logic check, reading it again.

It is only an implication, not an equivalency.

With

A = spell
B = magic item
C = rule that lables an effect magical

D = is magical effect

The rule just states
A v B v C => D

That does not imply

not(A v B v C) => not D

So it is a DM decision lacking any defined rule...

... which does not alter the fact that one should not have to refer to formal logics to resolve that problem.