Gnome cunning question

[holywhippet]

So all gnomes get advantage on charisma, intelligence and wisdom saves when saving throw is required because of a magical effect. Can anyone think of a case where you have to make such a saving throw and the effect isn't caused by magic?

[Ganymede]

Both a ghost's Horrifying Visage and Possession abilities require these saves but are not magic. Many other monsters have similar abilities.

[holywhippet]

How do you decide if the power is magical or not? I'd have thought the ghost powers would be considered supernatural and thus magical in nature.

[Ganymede]

This is what the official FAQ says on the subject...

Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature
is magical.

[holywhippet]

Thanks. So I suppose all a beholders rays are magical then because the description of them says they are magical rays.

[leogobsin]

Thanks. So I suppose all a beholders rays are magical then because the description of them says they are magical rays.

Also it's specifically called out that a Beholder's Antimagic Cone works against it's own eye rays, so it's reasonable to assume any other feature that interacts with magic would interact with them.

[Contrast]

Berserker barbarians intimidating presence is a wisdom save.

A lot of the time I think its going to be DM judgement what counts as magical though.

[Derpaligtr]

How do you decide if the power is magical or not? I'd have thought the ghost powers would be considered supernatural and thus magical in nature.

Personally, I see no reason to have a distinction between magic and not-magic.

Fire damage and magical fire damage should be the same thing. Bludgeoning damage and magical bludgeoning damage should be the same thing.

A spell-like ability, even if that's not a thing anymore, and a spell should be the same thing.

In a world where magic is real, there's no reason to differentiate netween "magic" and "not magic". It's like saying the heat from a gas stove is different from the heat of an electric stove... Nope, just two ways of going about the same thing.

[strangebloke]

Personally, I see no reason to have a distinction between magic and not-magic.

Fire damage and magical fire damage should be the same thing. Bludgeoning damage and magical bludgeoning damage should be the same thing.

A spell-like ability, even if that's not a thing anymore, and a spell should be the same thing.

In a world where magic is real, there's no reason to differentiate netween "magic" and "not magic". It's like saying the heat from a gas stove is different from the heat of an electric stove... Nope, just two ways of going about the same thing.

Well, explicitly in 5e spells and spell-like abilities are pretty much the same.

It's other stuff that falls into the gray area. Like hit dice healing (it isn't) or divine smite (it is) or rage (it isn't, but it can include magical effects) or draconic presence (it isn't magical).

[ad_hoc]

Personally, I see no reason to have a distinction between magic and not-magic.

Fire damage and magical fire damage should be the same thing. Bludgeoning damage and magical bludgeoning damage should be the same thing.

A spell-like ability, even if that's not a thing anymore, and a spell should be the same thing.

In a world where magic is real, there's no reason to differentiate netween "magic" and "not magic". It's like saying the heat from a gas stove is different from the heat of an electric stove... Nope, just two ways of going about the same thing.

You have it backwards. It is a magical world so things can be magic even though it doesn't seem to make sense.

This is very common in fantasy stories.

Magical fire is different than regular fire. It can damage or consume things that regular fire cannot.

I suppose the most common example is a magic weapon. The enchantment allows it to strike true to the essence of a creature.

[Derpaligtr]

Well, explicitly in 5e spells and spell-like abilities are pretty much the same.

It's other stuff that falls into the gray area. Like hit dice healing (it isn't) or divine smite (it is) or rage (it isn't, but it can include magical effects) or draconic presence (it isn't magical).

That's kinda the point.

If something is supernatural to us, it's magic, but if it wasn't then it wouldn't be magic.

In the D&D settings, magic/supernatural stuff, is natural and woven into their reality but we have rules for as if it isn't and it comes across as fiddly.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So all gnomes get advantage on charisma, intelligence and wisdom saves when saving throw is required because of a magical effect. Can anyone think of a case where you have to make such a saving throw and the effect isn't caused by magic?

Out of the Abyss has quite a few wisdom saves against madness that are nonmagical in origin.

[Unoriginal]

That's kinda the point.

If something is supernatural to us, it's magic, but if it wasn't then it wouldn't be magic.

In the D&D settings, magic/supernatural stuff, is natural and woven into their reality but we have rules for as if it isn't and it comes across as fiddly.

It's not fiddly. There is a difference between natural magic and things like spells, and the game makes the distinction.

[Derpaligtr]

It's not fiddly. There is a difference between natural magic and things like spells, and the game makes the distinction.


Trying to make a distinction when there doesn't need to be one is exactly what makes it fiddly.

[Unoriginal]

Trying to make a distinction when there doesn't need to be one is exactly what makes it fiddly.

Just because it's not to your personal tastes doesn't mean it's somthing that "doesn't need" to be or that the two things "should" be the same.

The distinction exists, and it has reasons to exist both from a setting and mechanical standpoint.

[strangebloke]

Trying to make a distinction when there doesn't need to be one is exactly what makes it fiddly.

I don't know I think "Magic-User" and "Non-Magic-User" is pretty much the most serious distinction in all of DND.

[Snails]

Trying to make a distinction when there doesn't need to be one is exactly what makes it fiddly.

Everything that is flavor-inspired and has mechanical consequences is "fiddly". It is always an arbitrary choice where to draw the line.

For example, there is no logical reason that dragon's should breath anything but fire. It is fiddliness that most people like -- it is what it is.

5e is quite a bit less fiddly than previous editions, overall. In particular, we got rid of the incredibly fiddly and downright sloppy mechanics around "Spell Resistance". Now we mostly have a dash of Resistance and Advantage splashed around -- which is also fiddly but easier to deal with, as a practical matter.