JC talks about antimagic in detail: AMfield, dispel magic, counterspell, etc.

[Dalebert]

I think this discussion was referenced in some recent conversations here but I'm not sure if we had a convenient link people could follow to hear it themselves. So here it is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=831&v=bP1k2VvUqOQ), posted to YouTube on 2017/10/10.

Thoughts?

[Unoriginal]

Things of note:

About anti-magic field: "We're not talking about the background magic of the universe"

About monk in anti-magic field: Aside from the ones that use spells, only the Monk abilities that have "magic" or "magical" in their descriptions are affected. Monks use/infuse themselves with the background magic of the universe.

Dispel magic only work on spells, including innate ones (nothing new here).

Druid's Wildshape is affected by AMF.

A Fireball's explosion would not penetrate a AMF if the AoE overlap (since the fire is magical).

A creature immune to damage from non-magical attacks can't be harmed by them in an AMF

[Spiritchaser]

Not super clear about a warlocks pact weapon but I THINK:

It would not vanish in an anti magic field

It would lose its capacity to harm immune monsters inside a field. Edit: or maybe not

[Unoriginal]

Not super clear about a warlocks pact weapon but I THINK:

It would not vanish in an anti magic field

It would lose its capacity to harm immune monsters inside a field.


Seems clear to me. The weapon is summoned by the Warlock via an instantaneous effect, no? It doesn't have a duration after which it vanishes, right?

[Easy_Lee]

Seems clear to me. The weapon is summoned by the Warlock via an instantaneous effect, no? It doesn't have a duration after which it vanishes, right?

I assume the ruling would be: conjured weapons disappear while in the field, but if the warlock's pact weapon was an actual weapon (not a conjured one) then it would just become nonmagical.

[Spiritchaser]

I assume the ruling would be: conjured weapons disappear while in the field, but if the warlock's pact weapon was an actual weapon (not a conjured one) then it would just become nonmagical.

Im not so sure. Even the conjured pact weapon doesn’t seem to run afoul of any of the test conditions set out in the video.

[Dalebert]

Not super clear about a warlocks pact weapon but I THINK:

It would not vanish in an anti magic field

This would depend on the description and whether it's described as "magical". EDIT: Nope, nevermind. #2 makes this irrelevant now that I think about it. The magic instantly summons the weapon which sticks around indefinitely.
1) It's not spell.
2) It's an instantaenous effect and then the weapon sticks around indefinitely, similar to a familiar which JC just said in the video would not be suppressed by the field.


It would lose its capacity to harm immune monsters inside a field.

Yes.

[UrielAwakened]

A creature immune to damage from non-magical attacks can be harmed by them in an AMF

The only item that is both surprising and also puzzling.

Why is that the way it works and how would you ever know that as a DM who did not watch this video.

That is not a natural conclusion to come to.

[Easy_Lee]

Im not so sure. Even the conjured pact weapon doesn’t seem to run afoul of any of the test conditions set out in the video.

Okay. If familiars don't disappear, an indefinitely conjured weapon should not, either.

[Armethious]

Things of note:

A creature immune to damage from non-magical attacks can be harmed by them in an AMF

You have this backwards, a creature immune to non-magical B/S/P attacks are HARDER in an Ant-Magic field as no magical attacks can exist in them.
Essentially you can not hurt it with physical damage. Listen to time code 28:20

[Spiritchaser]

Okay. If familiars don't disappear, an indefinitely conjured weapon should not, either.

It does seem to be a grey area, I wouldn’t fault anyone for ruling either way.

Even the “can it harm immune creatures” isn’t clear.

It is not “magical” so that property is presumably not dispelled... however it does strike “as if it were magical” for the purposes of immunities and resistances.

So... then one would presume that it could harm an immune monster in an anti magic field

Except... near the end of the discussion, a comment is made that a power which enabled a character to grow magical claws wouldn’t function inside a field...

Except again ( yes this keeps going) this isn’t “magical, it isn’t a spell...

Probably best to make a call at the beginning of a campaign, let everyone know and just stick with it.

I’m inclined to say let it work. Having one more thing (however rare, that gives a bladelock a reason to spork things is good

[Unoriginal]

The only item that is both surprising and also puzzling.

Why is that the way it works and how would you ever know that as a DM who did not watch this video.

That is not a natural conclusion to come to.


You have this backwards, a creature immune to non-magical B/S/P attacks are HARDER in an Ant-Magic field as no magical attacks can exist in them.
Essentially you can not hurt it with physical damage. Listen to time code 28:20

I made a typo, I meant to write "can't be harmed", not "can". Sorry about that.




It does seem to be a grey area, I wouldn’t fault anyone for ruling either way.

I don't see how it's a grey area. It's very clear, and I don't see why people would rule it otherwise.

The weapon is instantly summoned, with no duration limit as long as you have it close to you. So it won't disappear in an AMF.


It is not “magical” so that property is presumably not dispelled... however it does strike “as if it were magical” for the purposes of immunities and resistances.

So... then one would presume that it could harm an immune monster in an anti magic field

No, the propriety to hit as a magical weapon is blocked by the AMF. Since it works like a magical weapon.


This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming Resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.

Meaning that it behaves like a magical weapon in this situation, and magical weapons's capacity to harm those immune to non-magical damages is suppressed by AMFs.



Except again ( yes this keeps going) this isn’t “magical, it isn’t a spell...

It is magical for this purpose. Same way a Monk's hands eventually act like magic weapons.

[Mjolnirbear]

Sounds like he's using 3.x definitions.

An effect that had a duration of instantaneous used magic to bring something into effect. If the effect created, conjured, summoned of altered something else, the effect was permanent.

A familiar is summoned by magic with a duration of instant. It could not be summoned within an AMZ, but once summoned, could enter and leave the AMZ with no ill effect.

Conjure animals has a duration. It could neither be cast in an AMZ nor could they enter an AMZ if the had been cast outside it.

Things with a duration of permanent would be suppressed for the duration of the AMZ but would otherwise suffer no ill effects

[Unoriginal]

Sounds like he's using 3.x definitions.

No, he's using 5e's definitions.

The Anti Magic Field's spell description already cover all this stuff.

[Spiritchaser]

No, the propriety to hit as a magical weapon is blocked by the AMF. Since it works like a magical weapon.


Well, maybe. Some things like this are blocked and some are not




It is magical for this purpose. Same way a Monk's hands eventually act like magic weapons.

And here is one that very specifically is not. Monk powers that do not create spells are not suppressed by the AMF.

To the degree that a pact weapon is analogous to a monks hands, it would continue to harm a physically immune creature inside a field

[Unoriginal]

And here is one that very specifically is not. Monk powers that do not create spells are not suppressed by the AMF

UNLESS they are described as magic or magical by their description:



Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming Resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.

[Spiritchaser]

UNLESS they are described as magic or magical by their description:

But they are not magical. That would have been said another way.

I’d agree it’s a fine point, and I’d agree it’s irritatingly semantic, but is a non magic thing which counts as magical for a function going to be suppressed by the suppression of magic?

Again, I wouldn’t fault anyone for ruling this either way. I just don’t see it as at all clear.

[Spiritchaser]

:smallconfused: What part of "count as magical for {stuff}" is unclear?

The part where it does not say your unarmed strikes are magical

The language goes out of its way to say this differently, which could mean nothing or everything here.

[Ganymede]

The part where it does not say your unarmed strikes are magical

The language goes out of its way to say this differently, which could mean nothing or everything here.

"Counts as" means "is," but only for the defined circumstances.

When you are determining whether you can bypass a creature's resistance to nonmagical attacks, your fist "is" magical. It isn't in any other circumstance, but that's neither here nor there.


"Counts as," "as if it were," etc., meaning "is" is simply natural language.

[Spiritchaser]

"Counts as" means "is," but only for the defined circumstances.

When you are determining whether you can bypass a creature's resistance to nonmagical attacks, your fist "is" magical. It isn't in any other circumstance, but that's neither here nor there.


"Counts as," "as if it were," etc., meaning "is" is simply natural language.

The trick is that it counts as/is magical for the defined circumstance “can it harm this creature” not necessarily for “is it suppressed by an anti magic field”

This particularly in the context of the video, and comments on how monks are suffused with the background magic of the universe which is not suppressed by the AMF.

Once again, I would not fault anyone for ruling either way.

[Unoriginal]

But they are not magical. That would have been said another way.

I’d agree it’s a fine point, and I’d agree it’s irritatingly semantic, but is a non magic thing which counts as magical for a function going to be suppressed by the suppression of magic?

Again, I wouldn’t fault anyone for ruling this either way. I just don’t see it as at all clear.

If someone wore a talisman that made them "count as a paladin for the purpose of magical effects", which allowed them to use an Holy Avenger sword, would they be affected by a "no paladin can enter this zone" spell?


:smallconfused: What part of "count as magical for {stuff}" is unclear?


If they count as magical, and AMF suppresses that kind of magical, then they cannot count as magical in an AMF. If they did so they'd be breaking the rules of AMF.


"Counts as" means "is," but only for the defined circumstances.

When you are determining whether you can bypass a creature's resistance to nonmagical attacks, your fist "is" magical. It isn't in any other circumstance, but that's neither here nor there.


"Counts as," "as if it were," etc., meaning "is" is simply natural language.

This, too.

[Spiritchaser]

If someone wore a talisman that made them "count as a paladin for the purpose of magical effects", which allowed them to use an Holy Avenger sword, would they be affected by a "no paladin can enter this zone" spell?


At first glance I would rule that this is dissimilar

Another example would be:

the talisman permits you to count as a paladin for the purpose of wielding a holy avenger

The spell would state” no paladin may enter this zone”

Even this isn’t perfect, a better analogy would be somewhere between those two examples

[Ganymede]

The trick is that it counts as/is magical for the defined circumstance “can it harm this creature” not necessarily for “is it suppressed by an anti magic field”


Can a magical attack harm a creature immune to nonmagical attacks? Yes.

Can a magical attack harm a creature immune to nonmagical attacks in an antimagic field? No.

No matter how you parse it, we're looking it from the perspective of whether you can harm the target.


It sounds like you're interpreting "counts as magical" as some sort of middle-ground between magical and nonmagical where, in the defined circumstances, you only get some of the attributes of a magical attack but not all of them. I do not think that's correct at all; it is far more like a binary in that it is exactly magical in some situations and exactly nonmagical in others.

[Dalebert]

"Counts as magical" means they're not magical.

His attacks are able to accomplish something that magic can also do. Analogy: his slow fall is a remarkable ability but not magical. It accomplishes the same thing without magic that Feather Fall would accomplish with magic.

That said, I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling otherwise. I just disagree. Besides seeing it as the RAW, I also see it as far less broken. It's bad enough that some creatures can achieve near invulnerability with the help of an AMF. I'm inclined to allow more rather than fewer loopholes for that invulnerability.


It is not “magical” so that property is presumably not dispelled suppressed... however it does strike “as if it were magical” for the purposes of immunities and resistances.

FTFY

[Unoriginal]

At first glance I would rule that this is dissimilar

Another example would be:

the talisman permits you to count as a paladin for the purpose of wielding a holy avenger

The spell would state” no paladin may enter this zone”

Even this isn’t perfect, a better analogy would be somewhere between those two examples

Even if for some reason you think that it is dissimilar to the Warlock situation, you have not answered my question. Could you please answer it?

[Ganymede]

His attacks are able to accomplish something that magic can also do. Analogy: his slow fall is a remarkable ability but not magical. It accomplishes the same thing without magic that Feather Fall would accomplish with magic.

This analogy is flawed in that only one of the two abilities is described as "magic or magical," which Crawford describes as key in determining whether or not it works in an antimagic field.

[Dalebert]

It also means it works exactly as if it were magical for the thing it counts as magical for.

"As if it were magical" also means "not magical".

Does a thief become a wizard when he tricks a Staff of Fire into letting him attune to it?

[Unoriginal]

"As if it were magical" also means "not magical".

Does a thief become a wizard when he tricks a Staff of Fire into letting him attune to it?

No, but it means that as the Staff of Fire will treat him the same way as a wizard.

If you have a magic belt that "make you count as an elf", it means that a magic effect that affect elves will affect you.

[Dalebert]

This analogy is flawed in that only one of the two abilities is described as "magic or magical," which Crawford describes as key in determining whether or not it works in an antimagic field.

Exactly the opposite is stated. That's my point. "Counts as" something else means it's not that something else. By using the words "counts as" it's pointing out that it's not actually magical.

[Dalebert]

If you have a magic belt that "make you count as an elf", it means that a magic effect that affect elves will affect you.

I agree. If the belt simply said you count as an elf, "period". However, if the belt said "you count as an elf with respect to X" that means you don't count as an elf with respect to Y or anything else.

[Dalebert]

First of all, pretty sure UMD doesn't allow a thief to do that. He can only ignore "class, race, and level requirements". Spellcasting is none of those.

Yeah he can. Only specific classes can attune to a Staff of Fire. I think wizards, sorcs, warlocks, and druids. But the point remains. Pick a different item if you like.

[Ganymede]

Exactly the opposite is stated. That's my point. "Counts as" something else means it's not that something else. By using the words "counts as" it's pointing out that it's not actually magical.

You are conflating two things.

When something "counts as" something else in certain circumstances, for all intents and purposes it is that thing in those circumstances and isn't that thing outside of those circumstances. You're trying to argue here that, instead, "counts as" means something more like "is akin to," "is similar to," or "is evocative of." That's simply not what "counts as" means.

The fact that, generally speaking, a monk's fist is not magical has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that it counts as magical in the relevant circumstance. In those circumstances, these attacks are not "kinda like a magical attack but not really;" they ARE magical.

[Dalebert]

Think of it like Phantasmal Killer that makes a giant spider because the king is terrified of spiders. He hires a lot people to stand nearby and kill any spiders they see. The king sees the giant spider that can kill him just like a giant spider can despite not being an actual spider. It is a spider only with respect to him. Spiders are his particular vulnerability. To the spider-killers, there is no spider. At not point is there an actual spider; only a simulation of one that's effective for accomplishing the same thing.

The monk attacks are the Phantasmal Killer and the spider-killers are the AMF. The monk attacks simulate magical attacks without actual magic.

[Ganymede]

The monk attacks simulate magical attacks without actual magic.

This is a rationalization for your position. It is not an actual rule or argument.

[Unoriginal]

Do the Monk's Unarmed Attacks count as magical if used against a creature who is immune to magic attacks?

[Dalebert]

I've already made my argument and it's a sound one. Saying "counts as magical" is not the same as saying "is magical"; quite the contrary. It does not need to "count as" if it "is", so it's actually clarifying that it is not.

The king/spider case: (let's switch to Phantasmal Force for a better analogy)
Phantasmal force counts as a spider for the purpose of scaring creatures who are only afraid of spiders.

[Ganymede]

Saying "counts as magical" is not the same as saying "is magical"; quite the contrary. It does not need to "count as" if it "is", so it's not.

You are right that they are not the same, but that point of yours continues to be irrelevant. The instances when it does not count as magical are simply not germane to the conversation since we're all explicitly talking about the situations when it does count as magical.


I've already made my argument and it's a sound one.

Well I guess that's that. Move along people, nothing to see here.

[Nifft]

About monk in anti-magic field: Aside from the ones that use spells, only the Monk abilities that have "magic" or "magical" in their descriptions are affected.

JC's wording seems poor.


If there were a Monk ability described as:


Fist of the Forsaker - You hate magic so much, that when your fists strike a creature that has resistance or immunity to magical weapons, you deal full damage and an extra +1d8 damage. This is not magic, nor is it magical.


... which contains both words, that ability would be suppressed by an AMF.

[Unoriginal]

JC's wording seems poor.


If there were a Monk ability described as:


Fist of the Forsaker - You hate magic so much, that when your fists strike a creature that has resistance or immunity to magical weapons, you deal full damage and an extra +1d8 damage. This is not magic, nor is it magical.


... which contains both words, that ability would be suppressed by an AMF.

It's not poor wording, at best it's me who's paraphrasing what he said.

The description has to say it's magic or magical. Your ability does not do that.

[Spiritchaser]

You are right that they are not the same, but that point of yours continues to be irrelevant. The instances when it does not count as magical are simply not germane to the conversation since we're all explicitly talking about the situations when it does count as magical.


Oh possibly, but it is just as valid to say:

Out of field
It was not magic before but could count as magic to hurt a specific creature

In field
It is still not magic. It never was and suppressing magic does not impact it. Whatever it is has not changed. It therefore still counts as magic for the purposes of determining if it will harm a creature.


I think both reads are valid given what we have to work with.

Unless of course there is more.

[Battlebooze]

You have this backwards, a creature immune to non-magical B/S/P attacks are HARDER in an Ant-Magic field as no magical attacks can exist in them.
Essentially you can not hurt it with physical damage. Listen to time code 28:20


Haha, what a load of bull crap. I can't take him seriously now.

[Nifft]

It's not poor wording, at best it's me who's paraphrasing what he said.

The description has to say it's magic or magical. Your ability does not do that.

Okay, guess I'll have to wait for published errata or something before trying to work out the implications.

[Spiritchaser]

You're inserting a rule that is not there, I'm assuming based on your personal perception that it's not actually for realz magical, and thus cannot be countered by things that counter magical effects.
You're trying to read it as: "... counts as magical for {etc} except it cannot be cancelled by things that cancel magical effects".

You only think it's valid because you're mentally inserting something into the rule.

Both interpretations require that we insert a rule that is not there.

In one case we expand the text to include meaning that is not written

In one case we limit the text to its construction, and risk omitting meaning that is not written but may very well be intended.


As such, I don’t think this can be sated nearly as definitely as you are representing it.

Again, I am not stating that either option is clearly correct, I’m stating that I think it is unclear.

Now: would it make sense that warlocks and monks should have a let to a berry difficult door?

That’s worth thinking about

[Unoriginal]

Now: would it make sense that warlocks and monks should have a let to a berry difficult door?

That’s worth thinking about

What. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[Ganymede]

Oh possibly, but it is just as valid to say:

Out of field
It was not magic before but could count as magic to hurt a specific creature

In field
It is still not magic. It never was and suppressing magic does not impact it. Whatever it is has not changed. It therefore still counts as magic for the purposes of determining if it will harm a creature.


I think both reads are valid given what we have to work with.

Unless of course there is more.

Nope. Things that count as magic, including magic, do not work in an antimagic field.

[ThePolarBear]

I'm going to fan the flames...

"Monks harness this power [ki] within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities[...]"

[Unoriginal]

I'm going to fan the flames...

"Monks harness this power [ki] within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities[...]"

That's not flanning the flames. At all.

As Crawford said, the only abilities of the Monks that are magical for the purpose of things like AMF are the ones that are described as being magic/magical in their descriptions or the ones that use spells.

Yes, monks are capable of creating magical effects, among other things, and the abilities that do create magical effects are indicated.

So no, flames were not fanned, and fans were not flamed.

[Spiritchaser]

No. They don't. One merely requires that you treat it as something that counts as magical. The other requires a specific invisible exception to "except for things that cancel for realz magical things"

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the language.

I don’t think it is mandatory to conflate “counts as magical in this context” with “is magical.”

[Unoriginal]

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the language.

I don’t think it is mandatory to conflate “counts as magical in this context” with “is magical.”

If it counts magical in this context, and AMF suppress magic in all contexts (except artifacts and gods), then AMF suppress it in this context too.

[Spiritchaser]

What. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Iphone autocorrected and hastily replied. If you don’t mind I’ll leave the original because it looks really absurd, but I intended to talk about a key to a very difficult door.

[Spiritchaser]

If it counts magical in this context, and AMF suppress magic in all contexts (except artifacts and gods), then AMF suppress it in this context too.

Again, I don’t agree that this is clear.

You need to presume something in either case.

We may simply have to disagree. You and several others see it one way. A few more see it a different way.

I think both could make sense given what is written.

[Unoriginal]

Fair enough, let's agree to disagree.

No reason to tear each others appart, it's the jobs of the NPCs to do that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

So this is another of those times when JC talks about something at length and arguments people had about it really get settled.

[krugaan]

So this is another of those times when JC talks about something at length and arguments people had about it really get settled.

Hah, I see what you did there.

[Unoriginal]

So this is another of those times when JC talks about something at length and arguments people had about it really get settled.

Actually, yes.

Several arguments got settled. The only one that remains is about if something described as "count as magical" is suppressed by AMF.

[lunaticfringe]

Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage

Which I interpret as they do not count as magical for all other purposes, including being suppressed by an Anti-Magic field. But rule however you like, that is your prerogative.

[ThePolarBear]

That's not flanning the flames. At all.

As Crawford said, the only abilities of the Monks that are magical for the purpose of things like AMF are the ones that are described as being magic/magical in their descriptions or the ones that use spells.

Yes, monks are capable of creating magical effects, among other things, and the abilities that do create magical effects are indicated.

So no, flames were not fanned, and fans were not flamed.

I'm not disagreeing. It's just that that particular ability creates a magical effect, just like casting astral projection does, but increased speed doesn't. The magical effect, in particular, would be the damage.

Edit: But i do disagree that the Warlock Pact Weapon is an istantaneous effect. It is more akin to a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect. In fact, there are conditions for the effect to end, which would not be possible with an instantaneous effect - 1 minute duration while away from you. It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.

[Spiritchaser]

It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.

The section of the video which talks about the background magic of the universe may well cover that off. Also worth noting would be the section on summon steed. Summon steed summons a “magical”* version of a normal creature, and neither the creature nor it’s magical upgrades are suppressed inside a field

* there may be a better word for this in the context of this discussion, but background-magical sounds awkward.

[ThePolarBear]

The section of the video which talks about the background magic of the universe may well cover that off. Also worth noting would be the section on summon steed. Summon steed summons a “magical”* version of a normal creature, and neither the creature nor it’s magical upgrades are suppressed inside a field

* there may be a better word for this in the context of this discussion, but background-magical sounds awkward.

Find Steed, exactly like Find Familiar, summons a spirit that takes the form of a steed. The spirit is not a, let's say, horse, and has powers that are theirs to wield. All the "spell" does is bringing the spirit to you, mold it, bind it. The spell is then gone. Think of taking two rings of a chain and bending the two so that there's a link. The act of bending - the spell - is what connects the two, but it is not there anymore after the spell is cast.

The spirit itself is quite magical, but it is also arguably "born that way", like dragons are - background "magic": the fantastic element that fantastic creatures have just based on the fact that are fantastic.

The pact weapon, however, has some limitations that make me think for it to be more than just a "fire and forget" thing: you have to keep contact and you have to keep it close, otherwise the ...err... let's call it "magic" just ceases until called upon again. It is not an istantaneous effect - the weapon would continue to be there regardless of your consciousness, distance...

The creation itself is pretty magical, the weapon falls again into "at least a part is magical", it has conditions where whatever keeps it there just doesn't work anymore, it's not really "background" by itself since it requires a bit more than "just be able to do it naturally" - it requires a specific pact with a specific entity that grants you powers.

In the chain example, you have that "something" that keeps pushing the rings together, otherwise the two rings would get separated again because that would be the natural state without the "external force".

[Spiritchaser]

Maybe the best question would be: given where the literature is right now, what would the most efficient and effective method be for WotC to clearly state the impact of an AMF on various powers/things

A giant alphabetical list updated every year? That doesn’t sound like much fun, but it might be more fun than the status quo.

[Dalebert]

So this is another of those times when JC talks about something at length and arguments people had about it really get settled.

Haha! I'm watching another one right now and he's spending so much time answering the things that we all already know just from carefully reading the spells and features and discussing them here. The questions we continue to argue endlessly about? Nope! It's almost as if he wants to leave those ambiguous and let people rule differently.


Edit: But i do disagree that the Warlock Pact Weapon is an istantaneous effect. It is more akin to a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect. In fact, there are conditions for the effect to end, which would not be possible with an instantaneous effect - 1 minute duration while away from you. It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.

I had forgotten about those aspects of the feature. Now that you remind me, I agree with you. It should get suppressed.

I just want to remind folks, after arguing back and forth a bit, that I am not expressing a very strong opinion here. I acknowledge some ambiguity and that's why I started with this from page 1 before sharing why I interpret it the way I do, i.e. that it's not a magical effect. If I'm in a game and a DM rules it as magical, I will just accept his ruling and not argue.

This is the time and place for arguing! :smallcool::smallbiggrin:


That said, I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling otherwise. I just disagree. Besides seeing it as the RAW, I also see it as far less broken. It's bad enough that some creatures can achieve near invulnerability with the help of an AMF. I'm inclined to allow more rather than fewer loopholes for that invulnerability.

[Hyde]

I love it when you guys argue circles around the thing. Here's the reasoning. Hyde neither approves of nor condones any particular view, but here is the simplest version of the argument as I can concept of it.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
Therefore, X is counting as something that does not work, and therefore does not work.


And while I feel like we all have a good grasp on "but it's not magic", here's the other one for giggles.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
X is not magical, and therefore is not suppressed by AMF, though it is behaving like something that is suppressed.

Color for Isolation. Monks' fists and warlocks' pact weapons are treated as magical so that the respective features don't become irrelevant while the rest of the party gathers magical weapons. Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock. Are magic swords inherently so much better than punching things really good that they need to be brought into line in a very specific (yet plausible) circumstance? probably not, but there are some cool swords out there, so who knows.

You could come up with very logical arguments to support either ruling. Have fun~

[ThePolarBear]

I love it when you guys argue circles around the thing. Here's the reasoning. Hyde neither approves of nor condones any particular view, but here is the simplest version of the argument as I can concept of it.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
Therefore, X is counting as something that does not work, and therefore does not work.


And while I feel like we all have a good grasp on "but it's not magic", here's the other one for giggles.

X "counts as magical" for purposes of Y. = X is not magical.
In an Anti-Magic Field, "magical" does not work.
X is not magical, and therefore is not suppressed by AMF, though it is behaving like something that is suppressed.

Color for Isolation. Monks' fists and warlocks' pact weapons are treated as magical so that the respective features don't become irrelevant while the rest of the party gathers magical weapons. Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock. Are magic swords inherently so much better than punching things really good that they need to be brought into line in a very specific (yet plausible) circumstance? probably not, but there are some cool swords out there, so who knows.

You could come up with very logical arguments to support either ruling. Have fun~

Funny thing, the linked podcast answers the question "what if a creature has a feature that allows his fists/natural weapons to count as magical?", so the argument isn't really debatable on what "RAI" is. This will prehaps make the discussion move yet again on "wow that's stupid" territory, prehaps. Also, link. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/907784172990636032)

[Hyde]

Funny thing, the linked podcast answers the question "what if a creature has a feature that allows his fists/natural weapons to count as magical?", so the argument isn't really debatable on what "RAI" is. This will prehaps make the discussion move yet again on "wow that's stupid" territory, prehaps. Also, link. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/907784172990636032)

That the podcast answers that question is literally the entire topic of discussion.

[lunaticfringe]

Ruling that those features still function while the fighter with ten magic swords is left in the cold is explicitly buffing monk and warlock.

Eh Silver Weapons count as Magic for the purposes of overcoming resist/immunity to nonmagical at my table too so it's not a huge issue. Locks & Monks just don't have to pay for it. By the time AMF starts getting thrown around a Silvered Back up weapon is still a downgrade (it's a really nasty spell vs a lot of parties).

I'm not a fan of Magic Mart style games so it might be awhile before you acquire your Murder Sword, that's why I tweaked the Silvered rules.

[ThePolarBear]

That the podcast answers that question is literally the entire topic of discussion.

Problem is this is not true for everyone. If this was true, then the discussion would be around why is it, not IF it is, answered and the possible ramifications on balance and whatever. Thus it still has the possibility of degenerating into "well that's dumb" territory.

While your post shows a neutral position, the fact that there is a discussion in place that tries to argue that something that has been stated that does not work does in fact work is troubling. "Things that count as" do not work, and this was answered.

If you meant "If the podcast"... then the answer is yes. It does.

[Hyde]

Problem is this is not true for everyone. If this was true, then the discussion would be around why is it, not IF it is, answered and the possible ramifications on balance and whatever. Thus it still has the possibility of degenerating into "well that's dumb" territory.

While your post shows a neutral position, the fact that there is a discussion in place that tries to argue that something that has been stated that does not work does in fact work is troubling. "Things that count as" do not work, and this was answered.

If you meant "If the podcast"... then the answer is yes. It does.

Are you attempting to explain to me how discussions work?

[Mjolnirbear]

In math, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Logic says that just because a = b, it does not necessarily follow that b = a.

If the devs had wanted monk fists to be magical, they would say monk fists are magical.

What they say is that they count as magical for the purpose of bypassing resistance when attacking creatures that are immune to non-magic weapons. Maybe they are nuclear. The emissions are so strong they wound anything. Or they harness universe juice, the energies of creation. Or they channel the divine spark every mortal carries.

We don't know what it is; we only know what it is not, which is magic. We know this because the devs went out of their way to avoid calling them magical, which would have been simple, smaller word count, and evidently have more clarity.

Does the monk enjoy the benefits of being attached to magic weapons? Do his hands resist all damage? No? So why should he suffer the penalties? Especially given his choices of awesome magical loot are extraordinarily limited.

[Hyde]

The idea that "counter as magical" means they are not magical at all does not follow.

They count as magical for X purpose. Therefore they are magical for X purpose. This follows from the statement itself. Saying that it means the opposite of what it says is nonsensical.

In all regards, they act exactly as if they were magical for X purpose. That means if something stops or modifies "magical for X", it also stops or modifies them. For any other purpose, the are not magical.

Given that Ki is explicitly magic, and creates magical effects, there's also no problem with the ability counting as magical in limited circumstances.

Because "counts as" is a phrase with specific denotation. The entire debate is semantic. Which is fine.

[ThePolarBear]

Are you attempting to explain to me how discussions work?

No, attempting to point out that some posters are not discussing what the topic is about.
And, since i had doubts on how to interpret your post, added a little bit in case the interpretation was another one.


In math, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Logic says that just because a = b, it does not necessarily follow that b = a.

Logic says that just because a -> b, it does not necessarily follows that b -> a.

However, if a=b, then for some logics a and b are biconditionals.


Because "counts as" is a phrase with specific denotation. The entire debate is semantic. Which is fine.

And it is also over the moment when the video in topic of the thread explicit that the statement "counts as" is biconditional with "is". At that point, discussing whether it is or it is not is pointless. One could argue whether it should or should not.
Or you can discuss that it actually does not happen. But neither is what is happening.

[gloryblaze]

The Ki-Empowered Strikes feature says a monk's unarmed strikes count as magical. That magic is suppressed in an antimagic field. #DnD

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

[Hyde]

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

[krugaan]

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

I'm not saying AMF affects the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse...

But it totally affects the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse, mmkay?

Less filling, but tastes GR... less filling.

[Spiritchaser]

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

Yup, that tweet is pretty clear!

[Battlebooze]

What happens if a Raksasha monk attacks inside an anti-magic field? Are his claws magic? or not, can he ignore an anti-magic field? Is an Anti-magic field magic?

:smallbiggrin:

[Zalabim]

Edit: But i do disagree that the Warlock Pact Weapon is an istantaneous effect. It is more akin to a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect. In fact, there are conditions for the effect to end, which would not be possible with an instantaneous effect - 1 minute duration while away from you. It is also clear from the text that the bond is a constant effect until "broken", thus not really being "istantaneous" in nature. The magic is constantly there.
Pact Boons in general and Pact of the Blade in particular are not called out as being magical. It is a created object, but it isn't "magically created" and the object itself isn't magical. I wonder if all acts of creation are necessarily magical, or it might be legal to create your pact weapon inside an antimagic field.

I think my favorite part of this video is around the 15:45 mark.

"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.
I think it really depends on what your definition of "divorced" is.

[Dalebert]

Based on the tweet linked to by ThePolarBear, there's no question that things that "count as magical" ARE INDEED suppressed in an AMF. If you want to houserule otherwise, go ahead

Based on the tweet, Crawford's intent is that they are suppressed. I don't think he expressed it very well in the RAW, much like the case below that Hyde pointed out. Disagreeing with JC does not equal houserule.


"We're not talking about the background magic of the multiverse, we're talking about this sort of shaped, this woven magic that is susceptible to things like Antimagic field". That is a thing that is said. Do you know what line exists in the antimagic field spell description?

"This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse."

Just. Fantastic.

Yeah, dude. Get your poop str8 in your head before writing it down! No wonder we are confused. I guess I shouldn't judge too much. They had to write down a LOT of stuph. It seems easy to judge in hindsight.

[Hyde]

I think it really depends on what your definition of "divorced" is.

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

[ThePolarBear]

Pact Boons in general and Pact of the Blade in particular are not called out as being magical. It is a created object, but it isn't "magically created" and the object itself isn't magical. I wonder if all acts of creation are necessarily magical, or it might be legal to create your pact weapon inside an antimagic field.

True, and i've been a bit too liberal with "magic" instead of "fantastical".

But.

First, the Warlock itself. "Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects[..]" "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock's being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells,[...]"

Then, are all the things bestowed on the Warlock "magic"?
Not conclusive, but still interesting.

Then we have the pact(s), that explicitly tells us that the effects are gifts from the patron.
We have Chain - a spell. Magical when used.
An item - a book. The item itself could be both magical or not but regardless it also is quite... restricted in use inside an AMF. So... quite indifferent, really. I think there might be problems if you wanted to copy a spell inside an antimagic field if you have the invocation? :D

Then... we have... a something. An action? A ritual? An ability? An item?

A creature can, due to Patron gift of... some kind, create weapons out of thin air that are magical for the purpose of dealing damage and attacking, that can be dispersed (not using dispelled here, just in case). It also learns a ritual to bind a particular magic weapon to serve in a way similar to the one you could create, with some exceptions.
Clearly, a bound magical weapon cannot be "summoned" or "sent away" while inside an AMF. Planar travel does not work, and the weapon is stored inside an extradimensional pocket. A magical weapon is a a magic item (duh) and thus affected by itself in other ways.

I think we can agree that it is not a mundane task of creation - something that could be done in our world too - and that is crearly a way to create something.
Conjuring out of thin air is 100% "fantastical" in nature, and i think we can agree on that too.

Is it, however, "magic of existance", or it is something more akin "the manipulation of magical energies by beings of great power" or "a woven effect"? In contrast to "background magic soffusing a monk" i think it is pretty different.

Well, we know that at least part of it is "magical": the damage that is dealt is quite explicitly presented as "magical", and that is the exact check one has to follow to see if an attack is in fact magical in nature. But that kind of check is to determine if an ATTACK is magical in nature (with "is coming from a spell"), not anything else, really.

If we go straight for the test... then yes, just because the damage is "considered magical", then "magical" appears in the ability description, and the ability could (or should?) be treated as such in block.

Personally... i do see it as being magical, but wouldn't be that surprised if it wasn't intended to be.

[Asmotherion]

"The monk does not wink out of existance when the monk goes into an antimagic field"...

...That said, does the Sorcerer? :P I would be so tempted to make a Sorcerer go to a Random plane of existance when entering an antimagic field, as an AOE version of the Planeshift spell (save or suck at the end of each turn). Seems flavorful for someone who has a magical body and soul that's a "Font of Magic" :P

[krugaan]

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

Somewhere, in an Alabama basement, there is a country song being written about this.

And I want to hear it.

[Arial Black]

1.) If something 'counts' as magic, then it is not magic. If the thing actually is magic, then it's easier and unambiguous to just say so.

2.) If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic, and therefore stop working in an AMF, then surely a creatures ability to take half/no damage from non-magical weapons is itself a magical ability which doesn't work in an AMF.

3.) I recall a 3.5 essay on the interaction between summoning magic (and the things summoned) with AMF. Summoning-type spells had a subtype (like 'calling') and each interacted with AMF in a different way. For example, summoned creatures could not enter an AMF but called creatures could.

The justification was that, for summoning spells, the magic is what keeps the creature here and if the magic were to stop then the creature would no longer be kept here and would return from whence it came. Called creatures (like a paladin's mount) were different. They were instantaneous (so no magic kept them here therefore AMF did not affect them), but they also came with conditions that would result in them returning to their own plane. So, for called creatures, there is magic to bring them here and (perhaps) magic to send them back, but while they were here there was no magic involved in them staying.

For 5E blade pact warlocks, creating the pact weapon is a magical process so cannot be performed in an AMF. When the pact weapon disappears, magic makes it disappear. But while it is here then there is no magic keeping it here, it can exist in an AMF and, while it is not in and of itself a magic item, it counts as a magic weapon for the single purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and since determining if an object is magical for the purpose of interacting with AMF is a different purpose then it is not a magical item for AMF and therefore AMF does not hinder it in any way, including its (non-magical) ability to count as magical to overcome resistance/immunity.

[gloryblaze]

1.) If something 'counts' as magic, then it is not magic. If the thing actually is magic, then it's easier and unambiguous to just say so.


Yes, this is true. It's also not particularly relevant. We're not saying that a monk's hands and feet disappear when they enter an AMF, but that they do not overcome resistance to nonmafical damage within an AMF (because they can only do so by counting as magical).



2.) If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic, and therefore stop working in an AMF, then surely a creatures ability to take half/no damage from non-magical weapons is itself a magical ability which doesn't work in an AMF.

This does not follow at all. JC states that the only things prevented in an AMF are spells, and abilities described explicitly as either "magic" or "magical". Nowhere in any monster's star block does it say that their resistance/immunity to binmafical damage is a magical ability.



3.) I recall a 3.5 essay on the interaction between summoning magic (and the things summoned) with AMF. Summoning-type spells had a subtype (like 'calling') and each interacted with AMF in a different way. For example, summoned creatures could not enter an AMF but called creatures could.

The justification was that, for summoning spells, the magic is what keeps the creature here and if the magic were to stop then the creature would no longer be kept here and would return from whence it came. Called creatures (like a paladin's mount) were different. They were instantaneous (so no magic kept them here therefore AMF did not affect them), but they also came with conditions that would result in them returning to their own plane. So, for called creatures, there is magic to bring them here and (perhaps) magic to send them back, but while they were here there was no magic involved in them staying.


This is entirely irrelevant. 3.5 was a different game. Don't bring in old assumptions.



For 5E blade pact warlocks, creating the pact weapon is a magical process so cannot be performed in an AMF. When the pact weapon disappears, magic makes it disappear. But while it is here then there is no magic keeping it here, it can exist in an AMF and, while it is not in and of itself a magic item, it counts as a magic weapon for the single purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and since determining if an object is magical for the purpose of interacting with AMF is a different purpose then it is not a magical item for AMF and therefore AMF does not hinder it in any way, including its (non-magical) ability to count as magical to overcome resistance/immunity.

A pact weapon is not an instantaneous magical effect. A paladin's steed is an example of an instantaneous magical effect - you call it with Find Steed, then it doesn't go away unless you dismiss it or it dies. The steed could enter an AMF.

A pact weapon, on the other hand, disappears if it is 5 feet away from you for a minute or more. It is not a permanent object created instantaneously that only disappears if you make it disappear. It is an active magical effect that only exists while you're giving it "juice" - and if the "juice" is cut off (by an AMF), it goes away. I could see an argument that it remains in existence for 1 minute inside an AMF (as if it were 5 feet away from you), but not that it never disappears

[LeonBH]

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

Lol.

Background married poorly when she thought marrying someone with the last name of "Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse" was a good idea.

[Arial Black]

Yes, this is true. It's also not particularly relevant. We're not saying that a monk's hands and feet disappear when they enter an AMF, but that they do not overcome resistance to nonmafical damage within an AMF (because they can only do so by counting as magical).

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.


This does not follow at all. JC states that the only things prevented in an AMF are spells, and abilities described explicitly as either "magic" or "magical". Nowhere in any monster's star block does it say that their resistance/immunity to binmafical damage is a magical ability.

And the pact weapon is similarly not magical.

If the 'logic' is that even though something is not magical it can be nerfed by AMF on the grounds that 'magical weapon/resistance to non-magical weapons' is a magical interaction, then its just as true for the resistance/immunity as it is for the non-magical pact weapon.

It's either both, or neither.


A pact weapon is not an instantaneous magical effect. A paladin's steed is an example of an instantaneous magical effect - you call it with Find Steed, then it doesn't go away unless you dismiss it or it dies. The steed could enter an AMF.

A pact weapon, on the other hand, disappears if it is 5 feet away from you for a minute or more. It is not a permanent object created instantaneously that only disappears if you make it disappear. It is an active magical effect that only exists while you're giving it "juice" - and if the "juice" is cut off (by an AMF), it goes away. I could see an argument that it remains in existence for 1 minute inside an AMF (as if it were 5 feet away from you), but not that it never disappears

The list of things that makes the steed disappear and the list that makes the pact weapon disappear overlaps. The extra bit about 'being 5 feet away for 1 minute' is just another condition like the others in the list. It doesn't require constant magical energy to keep it there any more than the steed does.

[ThePolarBear]

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.


If we rule (like JC apparently intends) that things that count as magic are magic

It is only contradictory because you do not accept the premise. With the premise standing, your logic is flawed and your point is moot.
Again, we can discuss it being stupid, rationalize why it shouldn't be so etc.
Trying to prove that it isn't so by providing a different premise is equal to not proving anything.

[krugaan]

It is only contradictory because you do not accept the premise. With the premise standing, your logic is flawed and your point is moot.
Again, we can discuss it being stupid, rationalize why it shouldn't be so etc.
Trying to prove that it isn't so by providing a different premise is equal to not proving anything.

I believe the confusion is arising from the language, because why say "counts as magical" when they could have just said "magical"?

It implies there is a difference.

Unless the editors REALLY wanted to make the point that magical items "count as magical items" everywhere it counts.

Of course, this doesn't rule out bad editing, but I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb.

[ThePolarBear]

I believe the confusion is arising from the language, because why say "counts as magical" when they could have just said "magical"?

It implies there is a difference.

Unless the editors REALLY wanted to make the point that magical items "count as magical items" everywhere it counts.

Which it would have been simpler, and i agree.
But it still does not necessarily imply a difference and at the very least does not imply that all that is considered magical is in fact not magical, given that it is intuitive that what is magical is ALSO considered magical.
It could also have had the opposite effect: "since it is magical, does it count as magical for - insert something for which being magical does not necessarily apply-"

I also believe that there's no confusion: i quoted the part where it becomes apparent he is aware of JC intention.

[krugaan]

Which it would have been simpler, and i agree.
But it still does not necessarily imply a difference and at the very least does not imply that all that is considered magical is in fact not magical, given that it is intuitive that what is magical is ALSO considered magical.
It could also have had the opposite effect: "since it is magical, does it count as magical for - insert something for which being magical does not necessarily apply-"

I also believe that there's no confusion: i quoted the part where it becomes apparent he is aware of JC intention.

Ah, I'll admit I didn't reread the whole thread. Just wanted to point out that when you have a condition with a qualifier, there's the strong implication that when the qualifier is not valid, the condition isn't, either.

They should have just said "deals normal damage to creatures immune to non magical damage." I mean, if that was their intent.

... I should really reread the thread.

[gloryblaze]

This is contradictory. They only count as magical to see if they overcome resistance/immunity, not to see if AMF messes with them. They are not magical, therefore AMF does nothing.

As per clarification from JC (If I'm not mistaken, WotC say that his twitter rules clarifications count as RAW while Mearls is only RAI), if something "counts as magical" for the purpose of overcoming DR, and you attack with it in an AMF, it does not count as magical because the AMF suppresses that property.



If the 'logic' is that even though something is not magical it can be nerfed by AMF on the grounds that 'magical weapon/resistance to non-magical weapons' is a magical interaction, then its just as true for the resistance/immunity as it is for the non-magical pact weapon.

It's either both, or neither.

Emphasis mine - this is where you're mistaken. It's not on the grounds that the interaction between magic weapons and DR is a magical interaction. The DR is a natural feature of the monster, it is not magical. It just so happens that magical weapons overcome that DR. Guess what doesn't work in an AMF? Magic weapons (including those that "count as magical").



The list of things that makes the steed disappear and the list that makes the pact weapon disappear overlaps. The extra bit about 'being 5 feet away for 1 minute' is just another condition like the others in the list. It doesn't require constant magical energy to keep it there any more than the steed does.

The 5 feet thing is a bigger deal than you realize. Once a Steed is summoned, you can't get rid of it unless you destroy it or the original summoner uses magic to dismiss it. With a pact weapon, you can just grab it and play keep away for a minute. If it was a permanent effect (the sort of thing that is unaffected by AMF), why would it go away contrary to the owners intent? "Permanent" implies permanency.

[Zalabim]

I still don't see any firm ground to say that the creation of the pact weapon is an act of Magic. It doesn't matter whether the weapon is permanent or temporary if we don't know whether it's a Magical creation or not.

[LeonBH]

I still don't see any firm ground to say that the creation of the pact weapon is an act of Magic. It doesn't matter whether the weapon is permanent or temporary if we don't know whether it's a Magical creation or not.

If it's not magical, then it's mundane. Someone in real life would be able to do it.

[ThePolarBear]

If it's not magical, then it's mundane. Someone in real life would be able to do it.

That's not really the only possibility. It could also be "fantastical", like the breath of a dragon, but that would mean it would need to be "background magic" or "magic of existance", which i personally do not see as correct.
It is, however, not called as "you magically create" and the magical part refers to damage, so it wouldn't surprise me if the RAI from JC should he make a call on this issue was "not magical".

[LeonBH]

Per Sage Advice, it's:

1. Not a magic item (ie, not listed in the DMG)
2. It is not a spell, and does not recreate a spell in its description
3. It is not a spell attack
4. It does not consume a spell slot
5. It does not say it is magical in it's description

Therefore, it doesn't seem to be the type suppressed by AMF.

[Renbot]

Clearly it means they were married once but the Background Magic that Suffuses the Multiverse kept the kids.

Okay, but do the kids exist inside an anti-magic field? Because if not I know what scroll my divorced friends are getting for Christmas.

[Arial Black]

As per clarification from JC (If I'm not mistaken, WotC say that his twitter rules clarifications count as RAW while Mearls is only RAI), if something "counts as magical" for the purpose of overcoming DR, and you attack with it in an AMF, it does not count as magical because the AMF suppresses that property.

AMF suppresses magical properties. Non-magical objects, by definition, have no magic to suppress! Therefore, AMF cannot suppress the non-magical properties of a non-magical object.


Emphasis mine - this is where you're mistaken. It's not on the grounds that the interaction between magic weapons and DR is a magical interaction. The DR is a natural feature of the monster, it is not magical. It just so happens that magical weapons overcome that DR. Guess what doesn't work in an AMF? Magic weapons (including those that "count as magical").

Non-magical objects are not affected by AMF. Pact weapons count as magical for overcoming resistance/immunity, but they are not actually magical.


The 5 feet thing is a bigger deal than you realize. Once a Steed is summoned, you can't get rid of it unless you destroy it or the original summoner uses magic to dismiss it. With a pact weapon, you can just grab it and play keep away for a minute. If it was a permanent effect (the sort of thing that is unaffected by AMF), why would it go away contrary to the owners intent? "Permanent" implies permanency.

Permanently healed creatures can get damaged again. Does this make the healing non-permanent? Does this mean that those creatures lose those healed hit points in an AMF?

The pact weapon gets created, instantaneously. Later, it may or may not be dismissed. Although the 'dismissal' part may be a magical affect, the 'not getting dismissed' part (its existence as a weapon) is not a continuous magical affect.