Destroy Artifact: Lava + Anti Magic Field?

[Easy_Lee]

By the RAW, magical items become nonmagical when in an anti-magic field. And, as everyone knows, lava will destroy just about anything that isn't magical.

Does that mean that any magical artifact could be destroyed by this combination?

[Anxe]

Doesn't antimagic field have a specific exemption for artifacts?

[the_brazenburn]

I would assume that the magic in the artifact is so ancient and so ingrained in the object itself that the anti-magic field would just fail.

This could be an interesting RAW vs RAI debate.

[Naanomi]

Doesn't antimagic field have a specific exemption for artifacts?
“except those created by an artifact or a deity”

[Wilko]

Cool idea but the spell says;


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.

so as Anxe said - there is an exception for artifacts.

However just to play tieflings advocate that could raise the debate of if cleric spells would be unaffected as they are a manifestation of godly power...

[Naanomi]

However just to play tieflings advocate that could raise the debate of if cleric spells would be unaffected as they are a manifestation of godly power...
I’ve ruled that effects from a Cleric’s ‘divine intervention’ ability bypass anti-magic fields... but not general spellcasting (which is granted to Clerics by Gods but isn’t direct divine power itself)

[Easy_Lee]

Good point on the artifact exemption. Now I just wonder what the difference is between an artifact and a not-artifact.

[Avonar]

Good point on the artifact exemption. Now I just wonder what the difference is between an artifact and a not-artifact.

The DMG is quite vague on their description, though I think this is the most poignant part:

"In fact, artifacts only appear when you want them to, for they are as much plot devices as magical items."

[Easy_Lee]

The DMG is quite vague on their description, though I think this is the most poignant part:

"In fact, artifacts only appear when you want them to, for they are as much plot devices as magical items."

Well, that's on-the-nose. I suppose this would act as a decent test if players were ever in doubt about an item. Mage hand or telekinesis should serve for retrieving the item afterwards.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

If its an artifact doesn't it have specific requirements to destroy it. Is aspect removed in an anti-magic field? I wouldn't think so.

[Foxhound438]

However just to play tieflings advocate that could raise the debate of if cleric spells would be unaffected as they are a manifestation of godly power...

"a god created everyone's ancestors, and therefore any thing anyone does is ultimately created by a deity, so AMF does literal nothing"... by that logic, anyways.

[Unoriginal]

Divine Sorcerers aren't immune to AMF either. Nor are Empyreans.

[Naanomi]

"a god created everyone's ancestors, and therefore any thing anyone does is ultimately created by a deity, so AMF does literal nothing"... by that logic, anyways.
AMF would still work on Aboleth and a handful of other things...

[Monavic]

Well, that's on-the-nose. I suppose this would act as a decent test if players were ever in doubt about an item. Mage hand or telekinesis should serve for retrieving the item afterwards.
In older editions some artifacts would teleport away(sometimes to a different plane) if you tried to destroy them completely. So this test may backfire.

[Potato_Priest]

In older editions some artifacts would teleport away(sometimes to a different plane) if you tried to destroy them completely. So this test may backfire.

Aye, but if it's a plot device then it will show up again because it has to. Them's the rules.

That said, just asking the DM would be much easier, since trying to roleplay a good story (i'm assuming that that's what we're hypothetically trying to do because of the plot device) is darned hard when people don't collaborate towards it OOC.

[Laserlight]

Well, that's on-the-nose. I suppose this would act as a decent test if players were ever in doubt about an item. Mage hand or telekinesis should serve for retrieving the item afterwards.

I can't help but see this as:

"The dwarf says he thinks its name is The Something that Weeps under Wintermoon but the runes are very old.
The wizard is still recovering from when he cast Detect Magic near it and got blinded.
When the bard cast Identify, the DM gave her two typed pages of notes and she's still muttering.
Hey, let's chuck it in lava and see if it's really an artifact! "

I am confident that some of my players, past and present, would do that.

[Arkhios]

Cool idea but the spell says;



so as Anxe said - there is an exception for artifacts.

However just to play tieflings advocate that could raise the debate of if cleric spells would be unaffected as they are a manifestation of godly power...

A devil's advocate might also argue that the exception only affects the effects and spells created by the artifact, not the artifact itself!