Are innate ranged/melee spell attacks considered to be magical?

[holywhippet]

Take the efreeti as an example. They have hurl flame as an ability which is a ranged spell attack. I don't believe it is an actual spell though despite the word being there and you can't counterspell it. Likewise a globe of invulnerability won't help since no spell level is listed. But what about antimagic fields? Would they block it since it is magical or is it considered inherit magic like a paladin's aura which AMF won't stop?

[Man_Over_Game]

Take the efreeti as an example. They have hurl flame as an ability which is a ranged spell attack. I don't believe it is an actual spell though despite the word being there and you can't counterspell it. Likewise a globe of invulnerability won't help since no spell level is listed. But what about antimagic fields? Would they block it since it is magical or is it considered inherit magic like a paladin's aura which AMF won't stop?

Good questions!

Rule of thumb: If it doesn't say it's not magical, and it doesn't come from a specific leveled spell, then it's not magical. Dragon's Breath is technically not magic, and because of this loophole, Green Dragon's Breath can put Elves to sleep (because Elves can only resist sleep through magical effects).

It being a Spell Attack is akin to saying it's a Non-Physical Attack, and there are several real-life sources of those that aren't magical. Lightning bolts, solar flares, shockwaves, those are all examples of "non-physical" forms of damage that aren't inherently magical.

Technically, almost all damage types (Fire, Cold, Necrotic, Poison) technically can be dealt without being magical. Except maybe Force, as it states it's magical in part of its description.

With your Efreeti example, if it doesn't state that the attack is magical, even if it's a Ranged Spell Attack (better translated to a Ranged Energy Attack, IMO), then Anti-Magic Field does not do anything to it.


--------

Another way of thinking about it is that a real lightning bolt and the spell Call Lightning have similar effects, but because Call Lightning comes from a spell, it uses magical lightning. A real lightning bolt will still do lightning damage, but since it's not magical, it's not affected by AMF.

At the same time, just because something says "Spell Attack" doesn't mean it's inherently magical either, since its antithesis (Weapon Attacks, AKA Physical Attacks) can be magical too.

[Ganymede]

Take the efreeti as an example. They have hurl flame as an ability which is a ranged spell attack.

"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."

The official Q&A has the above advice. Here, it is beyond clear that an efreeti's hurl flame, which is a ranged spell attack, is magical.

Apply the rules above to any other situation to determine if it is magical.



At the same time, just because something says "Spell Attack" doesn't mean it's inherently magical either, since its antithesis (Weapon Attacks, AKA Physical Attacks) can be magical too.

This is incorrect.

Sage Advice is crystal clear in that spell attacks are magical.

[Foxhound438]

"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."


note that this method would have both the Eldritch Knight's Arcane Charge teleport and the Shadow Monk's Shadow Step be non-magical, as well as a bunch of cleric channel divinity effects like Radiance of the Dawn, warlock patron features including Hurl Through Hell, and a few other things that seem like they'd have to be magical in order to make any sense. It's fine if all you care about is getting a simple yes-no answer without needing to argue opinions, but it still makes me wish we had from pathfinder the express deliniation, feature by feature, of what's magical, what's supernatural, and what's just extraordinary.

[JNAProductions]

note that this method would have both the Eldritch Knight's Arcane Charge teleport and the Shadow Monk's Shadow Step be non-magical, as well as a bunch of cleric channel divinity effects like Radiance of the Dawn, warlock patron features including Hurl Through Hell, and a few other things that seem like they'd have to be magical in order to make any sense. It's fine if all you care about is getting a simple yes-no answer without needing to argue opinions, but it still makes me wish we had from pathfinder the express deliniation, feature by feature, of what's magical, what's supernatural, and what's just extraordinary.

Non-exhaustive list.

But I agree-it'd be nice to have some stuff clearly labeled.

[Man_Over_Game]

"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."

The official Q&A has the above advice. Here, it is beyond clear that an efreeti's hurl flame, which is a ranged spell attack, is magical.

Apply the rules above to any other situation to determine if it is magical.



This is incorrect.

Sage Advice is crystal clear in that spell attacks are magical.

D*mn, I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Petrocorus]

"Determining whether.... is magical."

The official Q&A has the above advice. Here, it is beyond clear that an efreeti's hurl flame, which is a ranged spell attack, is magical.

Apply the rules above to any other situation to determine if it is magical.


This indeed means that dragons' breaths are not magical.

[Millstone85]

note that this method would have both the Eldritch Knight's Arcane Charge teleport and the Shadow Monk's Shadow Step be non-magical, as well as a bunch of cleric channel divinity effects like Radiance of the Dawn, warlock patron features including Hurl Through Hell, and a few other things that seem like they'd have to be magical in order to make any sense.
This indeed means that dragons' breaths are not magical.Here is the magobabble from that same UA entry:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.

Though it still doesn't explain why certain class features are magical but not game-magical.

[Man_Over_Game]

Here is the magobabble from that same UA entry:

Though it still doesn't explain why certain class features are magical but not game-magical.

"Magic" is an inherent energy type in the DnD universe, like heat or momentum. Stuff has or it doesn't.

Being Supernatural doesn't inherently mean it's magical (Barbarian Rage subclass features, for instance), but that they come from an alternate form of energy. For Barbarians, this is a supernatural manifestation of their Rage, and that gives them inherent power, but it doesn't interact with Magic energy.

Or for an alternate way of looking at it, you could repair a broken sword using heat and friction, or you can repair it using Magic with Mending.

[Millstone85]

"Magic" is an inherent energy type in the DnD universe, like heat or momentum. Stuff has or it doesn't.

Being Supernatural doesn't inherently mean it's magical (Barbarian Rage subclass features, for instance), but that they come from an alternate form of energy.That is explicitly not the lore they went for in this edition, at least according to SA.

Even when they finally release psionics, I highly doubt they will go for the "distinct energy" interpretation.

[vexedart]

Magic is the weave, dragons are magical and depend on the weave. Why are they noted as being magical and suffer no effects under an anti magic field with no explanation? Munchkinism has come full circle my friends.

[Ganymede]

Magic is the weave, dragons are magical and depend on the weave. Why are they noted as being magical and suffer no effects under an anti magic field with no explanation? Munchkinism has come full circle my friends.

It IS explained why this is the case.

Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical? If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or non-magical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect
me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
•
the background magic that is part of the D&D
multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many
D&D creatures
•
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a
magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused
magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no
more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon
exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second
type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When
a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to
that second type.

[Millstone85]

Magic is the weaveActually, it isn't.
All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.
Mortals can't directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface.
A true antimagic field would be akin to a sphere of annihilation, or worse.

Yes, that's a bit too much magobabble for my taste too.

[Man_Over_Game]

Actually, it isn't.
A true antimagic field would be akin to a sphere of annihilation, or worse.

Yes, that's a bit too much magobabble for my taste too.

An anti-magic field probably just disrupts the weave that casters/creatures need to shape magic so it diffuses into raw magic, rather than just straight up destroying it. Just because we associate it with antimagic doesn't necessarily mean that's how it works scientifically.

Similarly, sunburns have nothing to do from the heat of the sun, but it's natural to think that it does.

[Millstone85]

An anti-magic field probably just disrupts the weave that casters/creatures need to shape magic so it diffuses into raw magic, rather than just straight up destroying it.I swear, this is a very interesting sidebar.
Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell. And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways---or not at all.

I would interpret that "flows around" business as the Weave stretching itself away from the area, leaving a gap among its threads. It springs back in place when the spell ends.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I always run with the idea that spell-like magic (the kind that gets disrupted by an AMF) is a coherent excitation of the local ambient magic. AMF, counterspell, dispel magic, all these cause the excitation to either be impossible (damping such things entirely) or break the coherence of the magic.

Things like a dragon's breath or flight don't coherently excite anything--they actually create the basic forces needed to produce the effect directly. Some may involve channeling ambient magic into oneself (rage, evasion, draconic flight), others just push a cone of raw energy out and let it do it's thing. You can't jam radio noise.

[Zalabim]

note that this method would have both the Eldritch Knight's Arcane Charge teleport and the Shadow Monk's Shadow Step be non-magical, as well as a bunch of cleric channel divinity effects like Radiance of the Dawn, warlock patron features including Hurl Through Hell, and a few other things that seem like they'd have to be magical in order to make any sense. It's fine if all you care about is getting a simple yes-no answer without needing to argue opinions, but it still makes me wish we had from pathfinder the express deliniation, feature by feature, of what's magical, what's supernatural, and what's just extraordinary.
All forms of teleportation are blocked by anti-magic field anyway. It's just faster to either only say what is, or only say what isn't, magical. Between "spells" and "magic" it's now pretty clear when something falls into one of those categories.

"Magic" is an inherent energy type in the DnD universe, like heat or momentum. Stuff has or it doesn't.

Being Supernatural doesn't inherently mean it's magical (Barbarian Rage subclass features, for instance), but that they come from an alternate form of energy. For Barbarians, this is a supernatural manifestation of their Rage, and that gives them inherent power, but it doesn't interact with Magic energy.
Some barbarian subclass features are magical anyway. Some of them are just supernatural, and some of them seem mundane. I think it's a close to even split right now.

[Unoriginal]

Magic is the weave, dragons are magical and depend on the weave.

No, they're not.

And magic isn't the Weave. The Weave is just the part of magic you can interact with spells.

[Tanarii]

I swear, this is a very interesting sidebar.

I would interpret that "flows around" business as the Weave stretching itself away from the area, leaving a gap among its threads. It springs back in place when the spell ends.Good one.


It answers pretty clearly on a magic theory scale why anti-magic would work to stop XtGE's Dragon's Breath from working, but not a Dragon's Breath Weapon. The former utilizes the weave, or interface with magic, to work, and there's no interface in the area of a Antimagic Field. The latter just uses the underlying / permeating magic without any special interface to manipulate it.

Similarly it explains why it stops some Monk Ki abilities (those that are spells) and not others. The ones that are spells use Ki to tap magical effects through the weave. The ones that aren't just use Ki, which is an expression of the permeating magic within their body, directly.

Thanks for posting so much from the sidebar, it helped this click for me far more that the last "Monk vs AMF thread did.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Good one.


It answers pretty clearly on a magic theory scale why anti-magic would work to stop XtGE's Dragon's Breath from working, but not a Dragon's Breath Weapon. The former utilizes the weave, or interface with magic, to work, and there's no interface in the area of a Antimagic Field. The latter just uses the underlying / permeating magic without any special interface to manipulate it.

Similarly it explains why it stops some Monk Ki abilities (those that are spells) and not others. The ones that are spells use Ki to tap magical effects through the weave. The ones that aren't just use Ki, which is an expression of the permeating magic within their body, directly.

Thanks for posting so much from the sidebar, it helped this click for me far more that the last "Monk vs AMF thread did.

I agree. This is the best "default D&D world" explanation of the difference between spells and spell-like magic and "natural" supernatural abilities that I've seen yet.

[Millstone85]

Thanks for posting so much from the sidebar, it helped this click for me far more that the last "Monk vs AMF thread did.
I agree. This is the best "default D&D world" explanation of the difference between spells and spell-like magic and "natural" supernatural abilities that I've seen yet.Cool!

This one is not in the sidebar, but I also like the view that every creature has an aura, as unique to it as its flesh and mind, that allows it to connect to the Weave, but can also function on its own like a miniature weave. Some beings intuitively use their aura one way or the other, while others have to train to even realize it is there. One problem with this view, however, is that it leads me to conflate ki and psionics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cool!

This one is not in the sidebar, but I also like the view that every creature has an aura, as unique to it as its flesh and mind, that allows it to connect to the Weave, but can also function on its own like a miniature weave. Some beings intuitively use their aura one way or the other, while others have to train to even realize it is there. One problem with this view, however, is that it leads me to conflate ki and psionics.

I have no problem with saying ki and psionics are sides of the same coin--innate abilities that involve manipulating one's own personal "spirit" or "aura" to produce effects. Ki turns inward, psionics turns outward. I may be influenced by 4e's combining of the two, however.

I personally do something similar to your view--living beings have 3 parts, collectively called the soul.
Body: the physical part. Interacts with physical things.
Spark: the "self", the part that makes the decisions and learns and grows.
Aura/Nimbus: the non-physical interface between spark and body, as well as between spark and non-physical/magical things.

Memories are stored in the spark but mirrored in the nimbus and body to some degree. This means that things like speak with dead don't manipulate the spark (which is gone) but instead retrieve the information from that body and any remaining aura. Simulacrum creates an artificial body and aura that mimics that of a person, but has no spark (and thus cannot learn).

Spell-casters learn to channel energy from their souls through their aura, using their aura (and the other components) to cause a resonance. The weave (or equivalent) amplifies this resonance and imposes it on the ambient magic, creating a spell. Thus anti-magic effects block the resonance amplification process.

"Martials" (including fighters and rogues) don't resonate with the ambient field using their auras--instead they pump the energy into their bodies. This lets them do "super-(Earth)-natural" things but not be affected by anti-magic.

Ki/psionics bypass the weave's amplification. Monks channel their energy through their own aura, controlling their body and affecting the auras of those around them directly (bypassing the weave unless using a spell-mimic ability). Psionics do something similar, just at a distance. This manifests differently, but uses the same mechanism. If you want to preserve psionic-spell transparency, you can say that psionics is another way of manipulating the weave and getting that amplification effect without the traditional spell patterns.