Limits of Magic Resistance?

[Chaos Paladin]

If a creature has magic resistance (defined as "advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects"), what exactly is a "magical effect" for the purposes of this feature? I know Sage Advice says dragon breath doesn't count, which makes sense--but what about a demilich's Life Drain? I don't see that would work without magic of some kind, but it doesn't take a spell slot or have "magic" in the description, so I can see the argument against it.

Further, what about things like extraplanar effects? Would magic resistance give a creature advantage on saves against, for example, Abyssal Corruption, or Memory Loss from the Feywild?

Basically, is there a consistent way to determine what is a "magical effect" and what isn't? Or is this ultimately a "DM's call" situation?

[MrStabby]

If a creature has magic resistance (defined as "advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects"), what exactly is a "magical effect" for the purposes of this feature? I know Sage Advice says dragon breath doesn't count, which makes sense--but what about a demilich's Life Drain? I don't see that would work without magic of some kind, but it doesn't take a spell slot or have "magic" in the description, so I can see the argument against it.

Further, what about things like extraplanar effects? Would magic resistance give a creature advantage on saves against, for example, Abyssal Corruption, or Memory Loss from the Feywild?

Basically, is there a consistent way to determine what is a "magical effect" and what isn't? Or is this ultimately a "DM's call" situation?

Given the controversy, I think it's fair to say there is no universally accepted boundary and it is a DMs call. I think that within DM consistency is more important in this regard than between DM consistency.

Sage advice is probably the worst place to go for this as it is self contradictory; you should find what works right at your table.

My personal test is whether you could, at a stretch see an effect happening without magic or if magic is specified or described somewhere in the fluff or description. Generally I am pretty inclusive - this has the advantage of not singling out players to be ineffective in an encounter but spreads the pain more evenly.

[Millstone85]

To make an argument ad absurdum:

As the PHB p205 puts it, "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".

Thus, a human commoner, made out of the four elements plus positive energy, ought to have its existence suspended in an antimagic field. Similarly, a creature with magic resistance ought to save at advantage against each and all effects it might encounter in the multiverse.

It is no surprise then that the game would draw an arbitrary line between what does or doesn't count as magic for certain features.

Or at least, it should have, in the PHB and in a clearer way than the SAC's guidelines.

[Asisreo1]

If a creature has magic resistance (defined as "advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects"), what exactly is a "magical effect" for the purposes of this feature? I know Sage Advice says dragon breath doesn't count, which makes sense--but what about a demilich's Life Drain? I don't see that would work without magic of some kind, but it doesn't take a spell slot or have "magic" in the description, so I can see the argument against it.

Further, what about things like extraplanar effects? Would magic resistance give a creature advantage on saves against, for example, Abyssal Corruption, or Memory Loss from the Feywild?

Basically, is there a consistent way to determine what is a "magical effect" and what isn't? Or is this ultimately a "DM's call" situation?
The Sage Advice where you read Dragon's Breath is nonmagical is the firm and consistent way to determine whether something is magical.

So Demilich's Life Drain, Feywilds' Memory Loss, and other effects that do not consume spell slots, come from a magic item, come from a spell, or is not stated as magical in its description are nonmagical.

Why? Meh, up to you as the DM to figure out. Remember, though, there's nondispellable magical forces in D&D that is intrinsic in its universe. If there's no way something can be physically plausible, you can chalk it up to the background magic in the universe.

[Chaos Paladin]

Thanks so much everyone! All these answers make sense to me. I respect that since there's no real RAW for it in the books, it's always going to be a bit of a case-by-case and game-by-game situation.

[da newt]

From Sage Advice Compendium 2020:

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 nonmagical 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. 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.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic
item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears no-where in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know
that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.

[MaxWilson]

If a creature has magic resistance (defined as "advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects"), what exactly is a "magical effect" for the purposes of this feature? I know Sage Advice says dragon breath doesn't count, which makes sense--but what about a demilich's Life Drain? I don't see that would work without magic of some kind, but it doesn't take a spell slot or have "magic" in the description, so I can see the argument against it.

Further, what about things like extraplanar effects? Would magic resistance give a creature advantage on saves against, for example, Abyssal Corruption, or Memory Loss from the Feywild?

Basically, is there a consistent way to determine what is a "magical effect" and what isn't? Or is this ultimately a "DM's call" situation?

It doesn't matter, because which monsters exist where with what abilities is already a DM's call. If the DM uses a monster which gets advantage on saves vs. dragon breath, does it matter whether the DM's notes say "advantage on all saves" instead of "Magic Resistance" ? Not really.

[Keravath]

It doesn't matter, because which monsters exist where with what abilities is already a DM's call. If the DM uses a monster which gets advantage on saves vs. dragon breath, does it matter whether the DM's notes say "advantage on all saves" instead of "Magic Resistance" ? Not really.

The context is far more likely to be player races with Magic Resistance (Yuan-ti, Satyr, Gnomes vs mental stats). Against which monster effects do these races get to roll saves with advantage? For DM creatures the DM can just say they have advantage. For player races, the DM needs a better and consistent definition which is where the Sage Advice Compendium definition is useful.

As an example, using the SAC definition, the petrifying gaze of a Basilisk IS magical while the petrifying gaze of a Medusa is NOT magical.

There are many possible "lore" explanations for the difference. Perhaps, different mechanisms are used by these creatures to induce a target to turn to stone. Perhaps the Medusa's effect is more primal/fundamental/intrinsic and does not count as overtly magical. In addition, the medusa ability is referred to as a curse and from mythology, the medusa's hair was turned to snakes by the goddess Athena so the divine nature of the medusa's curse could well be a justification for it being treated differently from a Basilisk's gaze.

Anyway, I find that the guidelines in the SAC work ok for me when deciding whether a PC has advantage on a save vs magic or not.(There are a lot of creature intrinsic abilities that are not magical so I have found Magic Resistance isn't that much of an issue for PCs).

[MaxWilson]

The context is far more likely to be player races with Magic Resistance (Yuan-ti, Satyr, Gnomes vs mental stats). Against which monster effects do these races get to roll saves with advantage? For DM creatures the DM can just say they have advantage. For player races, the DM needs a better and consistent definition which is where the Sage Advice Compendium definition is useful.

As an example, using the SAC definition, the petrifying gaze of a Basilisk IS magical while the petrifying gaze of a Medusa is NOT magical.


Excellent point.

Counterpoint: it's still DM fiat whether to use a MM Medusa or a Medusa' which is identical to a Medusa except that its gaze is explicitly magical; or a Basilisk with a "non-magical" petrifying gaze (somehow...).


Anyway, I find that the guidelines in the SAC work ok for me when deciding whether a PC has advantage on a save vs magic or not.(There are a lot of creature intrinsic abilities that are not magical so I have found Magic Resistance isn't that much of an issue for PCs).

Yeah, consistency is good. Following the SAC guidelines is as good a decision as any. Personally I'd just treat medusa gaze as magical though.

[Samayu]

"advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects"

I think I cashed in that ability twice during Curse of Strahd. Undead have any crazy and fearsome abilities, but I didn't realize how few of them were magical in nature.

[stoutstien]

IMO I dislike the idea of nonmagical and magical effects being somehow different. It causes a ton of headache without being meaningful at the same time. I'd rather just completely remove the distinction between the two and work from there.

[Ettina]

IMO I dislike the idea of nonmagical and magical effects being somehow different. It causes a ton of headache without being meaningful at the same time. I'd rather just completely remove the distinction between the two and work from there.

That solution requires a lot of houseruling. What does dispel magic do? What about anti-magic field? What about the many monsters with resistance/immunity to non-magical weapon damage - what swords can cut them?

Just seems more complicated than following the SAC definition of magical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO I dislike the idea of nonmagical and magical effects being somehow different. It causes a ton of headache without being meaningful at the same time. I'd rather just completely remove the distinction between the two and work from there.

I take the magical/non-magical distinction as such--

All these things are fantastic--they cannot exist in the real world as we know it but are the natural results of the (altered) physical law of the setting. They are products of the fantastical nature of a D&D world, no more fantastical (for that environment) than the rain or gravity.

Magical, to me, means a coherent, externally-applied resonant effect on the "natural magic[1]" of the world. They're not natural within the D&D world, they're structured effects that require some form of pattern and often an energy input[2] and are applied via conscious effort on the part of the creator (even if intermediated by a magic item). They don't arise spontaneously out of the nature of the being.

Dispel magic, magic resistance, antimagic fields--these all act on those resonances. They all interfere with the resonance by imposing a counteracting field (whether you want to think of this as changing the resonant frequency or broadening it or adding noise is up to you). They don't do anything about the raw elemental energies being exhaled by a dragon or the natural (for that world) draining effect of undead, any more than they affect gravity or the rain falling from the (natural) clouds. But they do influence someone walking around casting spells or using magic items to do so.

[1] FR calls it the Weave, but we know that magic is in and through everything in a D&D setting.
[2] spell slots or charges

[stoutstien]

That solution requires a lot of houseruling. What does dispel magic do? What about anti-magic field? What about the many monsters with resistance/immunity to non-magical weapon damage - what swords can cut them?

Just seems more complicated than following the SAC definition of magical.

Well to start with the dispel magic doesn't actually dispel magic it only works on spells so it just needs a name change and anti magic zone could be worded similarly.

As far as resistance and immunity to weapon damage, it's really not that much of a change. Starting with that it is already silly that most of the time if you are targeting somebody with a save effect it bypasses the resistance to begin with so it's clunky and immersion breaking. if you stab something it doesn't hurt them but if you push them on the sword it works and all that. you would address all the individual player options that are designed to bypass this issue like monks, Moon druids, certain barbarian some classes, and arcane archers and just remove the unnecessary line that they are considered magical. It's completely redundant because those allow them to bypass resistance and immunity. You can turn around and add that same line to all magical weapons or not depending on what the goal is as far as the identity of magic weapons have in a game.
A combination of resistance and DR could preform the same role as immunity for the types of damage that you don't want to actually give them immunity to but want to give them a high threshold against. So the orbital werewolf missile is no longer a problem.

This will get rid of all the weird flow charts you have to go to to see if something takes, full, half or no damage based on arbitrary wording. If slashing isn't effective against a NPC then it doesn't matter if it's a sword, spell, or a non magical save based effect.

[Tanarii]

The problem with the SAC version of determining what's magical is that all Monk use of Ki, including their enhanced speed and unarmed strikes and basically all class features, whether or not they require Ki points, are magical. Per the PHB intro to the class.

So when your Monk goes into a AMF they're basically hosed.

[Gurgeh]

I mean... so is your Paladin, and all of your full casters, and potentially your ranger, if they rely heavily on their spells. Tactically speaking, it's not tremendously important for a Monk, since it's a ten-foot radius sphere tied to a full-caster who needs to concentrate to maintain it; moving out of it is trivial.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean... so is your Paladin, and all of your full casters, and potentially your ranger, if they rely heavily on their spells. Tactically speaking, it's not tremendously important for a Monk, since it's a ten-foot radius sphere tied to a full-caster who needs to concentrate to maintain it; moving out of it is trivial.

Plus it's an 8th level cleric/wizard spell...how frequently are you running into those, especially ones who don't have something else to concentrate on? And since it disables all of the caster's own spells, that caster is now super vulnerable and can't really do much.

[Millstone85]

What does dispel magic do?That one is easy once you realize that it was too broadly named. It should be called disrupt spell, or just dispel. Because it only affects that very specific form of magic.

Sure, that still leaves minutiae, like the case of an "instantaneous" spell versus a "permanent" one. You can't dispel an undead created with animate dead, because that instantaneous spell is already done and gone. There is no spell left to dispel. Whereas when true polymorph becomes permanent, it means the spell goes on and on, thus remaining dispellable.

Antimagic field, now, that's a doozy.

Edit: Actually, they have errata'd "permanent" with "until dispelled".

[stoutstien]

AMF could work just fine if you just explicitly list the things that works on instead of just saying magic. So spells, magical items and their effects they produce and anything that's directly fueled by a spell slot such as Divine smite or artilleristics cannons.

[Chaos Paladin]

The problem with the SAC version of determining what's magical is that all Monk use of Ki, including their enhanced speed and unarmed strikes and basically all class features, whether or not they require Ki points, are magical. Per the PHB intro to the class.

So when your Monk goes into a AMF they're basically hosed.

This might be one of those "specific vs general" situations, since Sage Advice claims that Stunning Strike isn't magical. Ki is flavored as "magical energy" in the general monk description, but nothing in the specific description of Stunning Strike, or the description of ki at 2nd level, describes it as magical.

This seems like "dragon logic" all over again to me--dragons are described as magical beings, but their breath weapons, specifically, are not magical effects.

But again, this is part of my confusion! I could totally see Stunning Strike (and other uses of ki--don't even get me started on Four Elements) being counted as magical, and as a player, I'd accept if a DM house-ruled them as such.

[Chaos Paladin]

The context is far more likely to be player races with Magic Resistance (Yuan-ti, Satyr, Gnomes vs mental stats). Against which monster effects do these races get to roll saves with advantage? For DM creatures the DM can just say they have advantage. For player races, the DM needs a better and consistent definition which is where the Sage Advice Compendium definition is useful.

This is indeed my main reason for asking the question! I want my monk to upgrade his Mantle of Spell Resistance to a Mantle of Magic Resistance (kind of like a Spellguard Shield but, y'know, a cloak). Of course, ultimately whatever the DM says goes, but it would be nice to have an idea in advance what effects that would actually help my character avoid.

For this campagin in particular, it's probably going to be Sage Advice as guidelines but not gospel. We're playing in a homebrew world where the reason magic exists at all is a bit different than what's described in the DMG. But if I ever run into a magic-resistant PC when DMing my own games in a different world, it would be nice to have a foundation/justification for things that do and don't count as "magical." Everyone's answers have been super insightful!

[Tanarii]

I mean... so is your Paladin, and all of your full casters, and potentially your ranger, if they rely heavily on their spells. Tactically speaking, it's not tremendously important for a Monk, since it's a ten-foot radius sphere tied to a full-caster who needs to concentrate to maintain it; moving out of it is trivial.Paladins can still attack with (non-magical) weapons for full effect, retain their (non-magical) AC

My first thought was they have multiple class features that don't explicitly say they are "magical", like Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Aura, and Improved Divine Smite. But I took a closer look at the class intro and you're right, it does call them out as magical:
Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the sick and injured, to smite the wicked and the undead, and to protect the innocent and those who join them in the fight forjustice.


This might be one of those "specific vs general" situations, since Sage Advice claims that Stunning Strike isn't magical. Ki is flavored as "magical energy" in the general monk description, but nothing in the specific description of Stunning Strike, or the description of ki at 2nd level, describes it as magical.

This seems like "dragon logic" all over again to me--dragons are described as magical beings, but their breath weapons, specifically, are not magical effects.
Agreed. The full monk intro clearly labeling Ki as magical and explicitly including several Monk class features (unarmed strikes and movement) as well as generic reference to other abilities ("more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes"). But it also uses something similar to the 'dragons exist' logic for Ki as a whole: "This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies."

I just run it as Monk abilities that are spells are definitely magical, and most others are magical the same way that Halflings and Gnomes having a 8-20 Str are magical.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well to start with the dispel magic doesn't actually dispel magic it only works on spells so it just needs a name change and anti magic zone could be worded similarly.

This is Jeremy Crawford's interpretation of the text. Charitably, one could categorize his position as a clarification of the intent behind Dispel Magic's clause of:

"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."

The category of "magical effect" is broader, than the category of "spell effect".

Jeremey Crawford is essentially stating the spell verbiage should be changed to:

"Choose one creature, object, or spell effect within range".

Which, of course, constitutes a change to RAW, aka the actual text, itself.

In my view, it is not a bad habit for DMs to assign "levels" to things, especially actions...("actions" meant in the general sense of the word)
......that while clearly magical in nature, are not the result of a spell. A native ability to teleport that some creatures have, is a decent example, that can come up, unexpectedly, in play.

5e operates, just fine, (and dandy), when a readied Dispel Magic impedes a Devil's ability to Teleport 40' as the Devil's mode of movement. It becomes second nature, for a DM, to assign a "spell level" value to the magical effect:

Misty Step is a second level spell, Dimension Door is a fourth level spell....the Devil's teleportation is, either a strong 2nd spell level magical effect or a weak 3rd spell level magical effect

[stoutstien]

This is Jeremy Crawford's interpretation of the text. Charitably, one could categorize his position as a clarification of the intent behind Dispel Magic's clause of:

"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."

The category of "magical effect" is broader, than the category of "spell effect".

Jeremey Crawford is essentially stating the spell verbiage should be changed to:

"Choose one creature, object, or spell effect within range".

Which, of course, constitutes a change to RAW, aka the actual text, itself.

In my view, it is not a bad habit for DMs to assign "levels" to things, especially actions, ("actions" meant in the general sense of the word),
that while clearly magical in nature, are not the result of a spell. A native ability to teleport that some creatures have, is a decent example, that can come up in play.

5e operates, just fine, (and dandy), when a readied Dispel Magic impedes a Devil's ability to Teleport 40' as the Devil's mode of movement. It becomes second nature, for a DM, to assign a "spell level" value to the magical effect:

Misty Step is a second level spell, Dimension Door is a fourth level spell....the Devil's teleportation is, either a strong 2nd spell level magical effect or a weak 3rd spell level magical effect

Then you come full circle and you still have to decide what is considered magical or not. Not to mention you're opening up a floodgate of paradoxes with trying to allow a ready action with no perceivable trigger.

[Arvin Natsuko]

What about the fear effect caused by the Dreadful Scream hability of the Shadowspawn summoned by the spell? Do you guys think Magic Resistance take effect in this case?

"Dreadful Scream (1/Day). The spirit screams. Each creature within 30 feet of it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC or be frightened of the spirit for 1 minute. The frightened creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success."

The description does not describes the effect as magic, but the origin of the Shadowspawn is a spell. In my opinion, the effect is not magical, like the attack of a conjured wolf os not magic.

What you guys think?

[Millstone85]

This is Jeremy Crawford's interpretation of the text. Charitably, one could categorize his position as a clarification of the intent behind Dispel Magic's clause of:

"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."

The category of "magical effect" is broader, than the category of "spell effect".So what? Dispel magic will not make that creature, object or effect disappear, unless another spell is involved.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Then you come full circle and you still have to decide what is considered magical or not.

Again...that isn't difficult...and frankly, something a DM needs to consider, and answer on their own...as the question will arise in play.

e.g...... "What happens when a Rakshasa enters into the effect of a Grease spell?"

[Thunderous Mojo]

So what? Dispel magic will not make that creature, object or effect disappear, unless another spell is involved.

I'm not sure, what this statement is intended to convey...would you explain it?

Is the statement meant to be 'read' in the context of Summoned creatures?

[stoutstien]

Again...that isn't difficult...and frankly, something a DM needs to consider, and answer on their own...as the question will arise in play.

e.g...... "What happens when a Rakshasa enters into the effect of a Grease spell?"

And about the time the 100th example a dm has make a ruling on concerning something as core to the game as the definite state of being magical or not and what that means it's pretty apparent that it's just a weak point in the design.

[Millstone85]

I'm not sure, what this statement is intended to convey...would you explain it?You were contesting that dispel magic only works on spells, were you not?

And your argument was that dispel magic can target any "magical effect", not just spell effects.

To which I say, yeah, in that sense, it also works on any "creature" or "object", which don't even have to be magical.

But dispel magic does not end its target. It ends spells on the target, which in some cases may result in the target itself disappearing.


Is the statement meant to be 'read' in the context of Summoned creatures?Not specifically, no, but that can help illustrate the point.

If I am under the effects of crown of madness and you cast dispel magic on me, I am the target but the thing dispel magic really works against is crown of madness.

When a summoned creature is the target, the thing dispel magic really works against is the summoning spell... which then results in the summoned creature disappearing.

Now, back to your non-spell magical effect. You can cast dispel magic on it, but there is no spell for dispel magic to end, or at least none the magical effect needs.