How do you incorporate Dead Magic Zones?

[AIResearch]

DMG 109 indicates that Dead Magic Zones are regularly occuring weird locale zones. Do you incorporate Dead Magic Zones? If so, how?

[OldTrees1]

Dead Magic Zones are like lakes, hills, or clearings.

I usually forget to include Dead Magic Zones since magical wildlife and magic users would avoid those zones. However if the party goes off into the unexplored wilderness, it is possible for them to encounter a Dead Magic Zone or a Wild Magic Zone just like they might encounter a lake.

[MrStabby]

How do I incorporate dead magic zones? Carefully.

Anything with a major and asymmetric effect on the game should be handled with care. You don't want to just screw with some characters without a good reason.

On the other hand, a dead magic zone can a good way to help other characters to shine - especially at higher levels.

From a world building perspective, dead magic zones might be sought out by some NPCs to build castles on, or in the case.of smaller zones, specific parts of a castle like a treasure room or throne room or prison.

[PhantomSoul]

Dead magic, antimagic and wild magic zones can also be useful tools for hinting at repercussions, for highlighting how important/strong something was historically, or for otherwise "marking" areas. (E.g. there was some major event in a spot -- in one case in my world, a temporal paradox relating to the party -- that then becomes a central part of that location until there's a resolution, as though the Weave is responsible for keeping the universe stable and containing the repercussions. Alternatively, to show how wildly powerful someone was or as an overkill solution that definitely has later repercussions, maybe there's an antimagic field around a city created by a now-god with the help of gods at the time or some powerful artifact... and removing this antimagic field now that the threat is apparently gone is a double-edged sword.)

In short, I think they can be useful... but definitely shouldn't be overused!

[Pildion]

I've gota go with OldTrees on this one.

The problem with dead magic zones is it shuts a caster down fully. Even if a fighter/barb can't do great ranged attacks or have issues with ranged combat they can still DO something. Even if martials aren't great at the social scene they can still make the attempt. In a dead magic zone a player with a caster character is at best going to be board.

If its a known thing in your world the players will just avoid them, and if its random then I know at least I wouldn't be having any fun as a caster player.

[Chronos]

Even if they occur randomly, they should never be in just some random spot. They're always going to be in a prison, or a vault, or maybe a fortress, but something. The dead magic zone isn't there because of the prison; the prison is there because of the dead magic zone: Someone's going to find it eventually, and once they've found it, they'll find a way to make good use of it.

It's sort of like how, in our world, you'll only ever find the mouth of a major river at a large city. Rivers aren't attracted to cities, but someone's going to build a city there.

[OldTrees1]

Even if they occur randomly, they should never be in just some random spot. They're always going to be in a prison, or a vault, or maybe a fortress, but something. The dead magic zone isn't there because of the prison; the prison is there because of the dead magic zone: Someone's going to find it eventually, and once they've found it, they'll find a way to make good use of it.

It's sort of like how, in our world, you'll only ever find the mouth of a major river at a large city. Rivers aren't attracted to cities, but someone's going to build a city there.

You are right but you only described when the dead magic zone is seen as an asset. A prison in a dead magic zone would have pros and cons over a prison outside the dead magic zone.

When the dead magic zone is seen as a downside, it would be avoided. It still will not be "some random spot" because it would be "a spot that is avoided". Maybe it is a section of wilderness (because there might still be unclaimed wilderness in the world) that has a strange absence of magical fauna/flora. Mundane wildlife like tigers would be more aggressive in the absence of magical threats. Even in this case it is good to make it "something" even if the "something" is the feeling of stepping into another world.

In addition to the "additions because it is an asset" or "absences because it is a downside" there is also "the causes of the dead magic zone" as a possible something interesting. Be careful, if the players learn what caused this dead magic zone they might interact with the cause. They might undo it. They might expand it. They might move it. I like those possibilities but they are ones to prepare fore.

[Dienekes]

In my game/setting all anti-magic areas are designated as coming from a specific type of very recognizable stone. It makes an easy visual cue about what’s happening and when noticed from a distant works as foreshadowing.

I really only use them when the goal is to create a puzzle where the answer isn’t just solved with magic right away. In my experience this works great because what you’re actually doing is setting up two different puzzles. The actual puzzle that is “supposed” to be solved, and the new puzzle: how to get rid of the stone so that we can solve the first puzzle with magic.

Either way, it creates a scenario where the players have to work together and generally feel like they accomplished something other than just spending a spell slot.

I have used the stones for fights before. Or a fight. But it was very much a puzzle fight.

Other than that I would be very wary of them. Anything where you’re telling your players they explicitly can’t do what their character sheet blatantly says they can will ruffle some feathers. And if you find yourself continuously making scenarios of anti-magic to negate specific abilities your players earned through leveling then you’re just punishing that player.

Or in short. It’s a tool, but one you should be very cautious about using. Try to use it to make gameplay more interesting rather than making some players sit out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't. Because they don't fit the world structure I've built. I might include calm magic zones, where spells have lesser effects. But not entirely dead zones. That would indicate that the world itself is horribly horribly broken in fundamental ways and that life in those zones isn't very possible.

[Leon]

I would likely have a description of how it feels different in that local so that people who may be dependent on magics can have a sense that maybe they don't wish to be in that location for very long or at all

[Angelalex242]

It's worth remembering a null magic zone shuts down all magic...and all supernatural abilities. Things like undead can't even enter a null magic zone.

Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues all operate properly, and usually, so do monks, as ki isn't magic.

Every other class loses a lot.

But yes, such a place would be a great place for a prison. You could put an alcatraz of sorts in such a place.

Also a good place for a particularly paranoid kingdom and/or city.

Such an antimagic zone might also be a great place to get magical items at 'a steal' since none of them work there.

Or it might have a large trove of magic items deemed too dangerous for use by other people.

[AIResearch]

It's worth remembering a null magic zone shuts down all magic...and all supernatural abilities. Things like undead can't even enter a null magic zone.

I don't think the part about supernatural abilities is correct. Dragon's breath and undead work just fine in an Antimagic Field or a Dead Magic Zone.

[Angelalex242]

Well...when I think of an antimagic field, such at the one in 3.5, supernatural abilities were indeed shut off in an antimagic zone.

If they changed it, I didn't notice.

[Chronos]

"Supernatural abilities" aren't a defined category any more. "Magical" sort of is, but the definition is vague.


Quoth OldTrees1:

When the dead magic zone is seen as a downside, it would be avoided. It still will not be "some random spot" because it would be "a spot that is avoided". Maybe it is a section of wilderness (because there might still be unclaimed wilderness in the world) that has a strange absence of magical fauna/flora. Mundane wildlife like tigers would be more aggressive in the absence of magical threats. Even in this case it is good to make it "something" even if the "something" is the feeling of stepping into another world.
I'm not sure how relevant that is. Sapient beings are capable of taming any particular patch of wilderness. There is still wilderness in the world, but only in places where nobody's had any incentive to tame it. But a naturally-occurring dead magic zone, like a river mouth, provides a strong incentive to tame it. And yeah, some prison-builders want magic, but those aren't the ones who will build there: As long as there's someone, somewhere, who wants to imprison mages, antimagic prisons are going to be built.

As for wildlife, even in a dead magic zone, the likes of tigers still aren't the top of the food chain. There are fantastical but nonmagical, or mostly nonmagical, monsters that are far more powerful than tigers. Dragons, in particular, lose very little from being in antimagic. I could very well see an antimagic zone being a dragon's lair. But that's still a sapient being taming that spot of wilderness.

[AIResearch]

As for wildlife, even in a dead magic zone, the likes of tigers still aren't the top of the food chain. There are fantastical but nonmagical, or mostly nonmagical, monsters that are far more powerful than tigers. Dragons, in particular, lose very little from being in antimagic. I could very well see an antimagic zone being a dragon's lair.

Good point! I think you could even argue that intelligent dragons would actively seek out dead magic zones as optimal sites for their lairs. "The monsters know what they are doing . . ."

[Angelalex242]

Evilrax the Red took the princess to his lair in the magic deadzone! Our wizards and clerics are more useless than the slum drunk! Can you save her, brave adventurers?

[JackPhoenix]

Evilrax the Red took the princess to his lair in the magic deadzone! Our wizards and clerics are more useless than the slum drunk! Can you save her, brave adventurers?

Sure, but as we face increased risk in such situation, I'll require some cooperation from you. If you'd just lend me about three hundreds peasants and crossbows....

[AIResearch]

If you were a dragon, wouldn't you seek out a Dead Magic Zone for a lair? I know I would.

Feel free to dumb down the dragons in your campaigns and have them not be tactical here so you don't TPK your players. But should you want to throw a real challenge at a table full of highly experienced players who consider Tier 4 to be a cake walk . . . If they packed enough non-magical characters in their party they should do fine.

[dafrca]

I think of "Dead Magic Zone" as a spice. I do not mind mixing in a few but if over used it gets lame in my opinion. I played in one game where the GM had at least one per session/dungeon and it grew to become almost trite and cleché. So I really use them very seldom when I GM, but they can be fun. Same for Wild Magic Zones or other odd effects. :smallbiggrin:

[AIResearch]

I am looking at the stats for an Ancient Bronze Dragon. 18 Intelligence and 17 Wisdom. Dragons have been playing softeez on the all of ye. Prepare to enter stage 2. Dead Magic Zones are a dragons preferred lair.

This message brought to you by Xxiphu the linguist: fxhfshtdhdfhfdfhdfhdjfhfdhfdhgfjyfjyfjgcjg

[Jakinbandw]

I've gota go with OldTrees on this one.

The problem with dead magic zones is it shuts a caster down fully. Even if a fighter/barb can't do great ranged attacks or have issues with ranged combat they can still DO something. Even if martials aren't great at the social scene they can still make the attempt. In a dead magic zone a player with a caster character is at best going to be board.

If its a known thing in your world the players will just avoid them, and if its random then I know at least I wouldn't be having any fun as a caster player.

Honestly the real problem with dead magic zones is figuring out on a case by case basis which abilities are magical. Monks, Bards, and Barbarians all have abilities that are not clear if they are magical or not. As an eloquence bard player, I would have no problem in an dead magic zone if I could still take 10 on persuasion and deception checks, as well as hand out inspiration. But is inspiration magical? I don't know. What about emboldening bond from my 1 peace cleric level? What about all the odd things monks can do? Is raging magical?

The real issue here is that the rules aren't clear enough for me to know what would work and what wouldn't, and it's not something I would want to deal with as a GM, so I just don't touch such things.

[JackPhoenix]

Honestly the real problem with dead magic zones is figuring out on a case by case basis which abilities are magical. Monks, Bards, and Barbarians all have abilities that are not clear if they are magical or not. As an eloquence bard player, I would have no problem in an dead magic zone if I could still take 10 on persuasion and deception checks, as well as hand out inspiration. But is inspiration magical? I don't know. What about emboldening bond from my 1 peace cleric level? What about all the odd things monks can do? Is raging magical?

The real issue here is that the rules aren't clear enough for me to know what would work and what wouldn't, and it's not something I would want to deal with as a GM, so I just don't touch such things.

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.

In other words, Bardic Inspiration is not magical, Emboldening Bond is, with monks it depends on the ability in question, Rage isn't.

[Asmotherion]

In 5e I usually don't. Casters are not as powerful as they once were, and I feel bad telling them "now you're basically reduced to a crossbow wielding commoner because plot".

If I use them, I do it in side quests they can deny. Even then, I prefear to use the much more fun Wild Magic Zones.

What I once tried, and was quite fun was, instead of Dead Magic zones, I introduced Lay Lines. Each space on the Map has an amount of Lay Lines passing, indicated by a Bonus which is the highest level spell you can use. In a 0 Lay Line Zone (which is most of the Map), you can only use cantrips. Big Citties are usually built on High Bonus Zones.

[Tanarii]

I don't, unless I'm specifically running a campaign set in Forgotten Realms, or I'm running a WotC adventure arc or official play module (both also Typically FR) that includes one. I'm fully aware they're a originally a FR-specific thing. So it never would have occurred to me to include it in my campaign setting.

[Angelalex242]

Traditionally, monks work at full power in a dead magic zone, so a monastery, even a path of the 4 elements monastery, could be built in a dead magic zone without consequence to the martial artists within.

"My kung fu is strong! Your magic is weak! The time for training has come again!"

[JackPhoenix]

Traditionally, monks work at full power in a dead magic zone, so a monastery, even a path of the 4 elements monastery, could be built in a dead magic zone without consequence to the martial artists within.

"My kung fu is strong! Your magic is weak! The time for training has come again!"

"You learn magical disciplines that harness the power of the four elements." No, 4e monks don't work in AMF. Or at least their subclass features don't, basic monk is fine unless he wants to use Astral Projection from Empty Body.

[Angelalex242]

Poorly worded then. Should've been 'ki based disciplines.'

Ki is NOT magic!

[Tanarii]

Poorly worded then. Should've been 'ki based disciplines.'

Ki is NOT magic!
PHB says that Ki is magic.


THE MAGIC OF KI
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
PHB 76

[False God]

So, preface, I almost always run the spell points variant these days, but my approach can be converted to Vancian fairly easily.

These aren't anti-magic zones where magic doesn't work. These are zones with little or no ambient magic.
Any magic zone at less than 100% has a power level (1-99 for simplicity), this is the amount of ambient magical energy available, it also has a recharge number (1d7) for how long it takes to replenish this energy.
All spellcasters have a certain amount of innate power (their spell points, ki, etc...).
Once they burn through their own reserves, they have to draw on the ambient energy to replenish them. Most casters do this automatically and are often unaware of the limited amount of magic in the area. Typically they'll wake up the next morning to find that only a small portion of their magic has been replenished.
Magic items, like casters, store their magic inside until they recharge, which also draws from the area.
Appropriate skill checks, such as Nature, Arcana, Investigation, and Survival can help determine the power level and recharge rate of any low or dead magic area. It can be difficult to tell how many others are actively drawing upon the area's magic though.

---
Conversely there are also areas of high magic which boost all spells; and areas of attuned magic which boost the matching spells but act as low or dead magic zones for any other type of spell.

[Spiritchaser]

In nearly all cases I don’t incorporate dead magic zones except:

In one case around a couple very specific points that were there for flavour and never saw combat.

In one campaign which I probably won’t repeat and which started at high level I put small dead holes around clearly observable features all over the place. The players were multi-decade RPG veterans and were given a detailed handout before session 0, Everyone knew the score. The intent was to help balance high level martial/caster issues. It did seem to do that, and casters still found ways to be very powerful quite often, but it was a lot of extra work to wargame encounters ahead of time to make sure no one was out of options.

I’d call it an incomplete experiment from an effectiveness point of view, but it did concretely establish that I’m too lazy to do this often.

Especially when I spent hours sorting out dead zone geometry on a bunch of encounters that didn’t even end up happening.

[Unoriginal]

"You learn magical disciplines that harness the power of the four elements." No, 4e monks don't work in AMF. Or at least their subclass features don't, basic monk is fine unless he wants to use Astral Projection from Empty Body.

Only the Elemental Disciplines that let you cast spells won't work in an AMF. The one that let you cast Gaseous Form, for example.

You could use Fist of the Unbroken Air just fine, though.


PHB says that Ki is magic.


THE MAGIC OF KI
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element
of the magic that suffuses the multiverse-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
PHB 76

Ki is magic the same way that a dragon flying is magic: it's the background magic of the universe, not something affected by AMF.


I'm fully aware they're a originally a FR-specific thing. So it never would have occurred to me to include it in my campaign setting.

Are you sure? I remember reading that one of the characters from Gygax's original player groups ended up on a planet without magic for several levels.

[Rafaelfras]

Our campaign is set in FR so there are both wild magic and dead magic zones.
My last dungeon was inside a wild magic zone (and was quite fun as we don't have wild sorcerers) with 2 instances of dead magic.
1st was a room where plants grown in a dead magic zone where being cultivated, the 2nd one was in the Bbeg room. It was one of the black sapphires from where Bane died in the time of troubles.
During the battle the Bbeg used a machine, powered by the sapphire, that teared the weave, creating a true (ever growing) dead magic zone.
The party managed to destroy the machine in time and the sapphire fell into a abyss. Finally our wizard allies (3) used Wish to fix the weave (as stated in 3rd Ed FRCG, with one of then losing the ability to cast wish for ever). So our spellcasters recovered their power and we managed to win the fight. After that Mystra herself manifested replenishing everyone's spells so we could finish the dungeon.
It was fun, it was different but unless they go to a established one I don't think I will feature a dead magic zone anytime soon.

[Telok]

Only had them as a player a few times. Its always been "lol nope ur magik is fail!" suddenly, and then you just randomly throw out cantrips once in a while to learn when its over. No rolls to detect, no feelings of power loss, pretty random if monk abilities or demon powers or bardic dice work or not (probably whatever the DM wants that time).

Just a sudden shut off and then waiting untill you get to use your class features again.

[JackPhoenix]

Only the Elemental Disciplines that let you cast spells won't work in an AMF. The one that let you cast Gaseous Form, for example.

You could use Fist of the Unbroken Air just fine, though.

Nope. Everything in Disciple of Elements is explicitly magical. The disciplines that duplicate spells merely fits two points of the "Is feature x magical?" list instead of just one. For that matter, everything from Sun Soul is magic, as are Shadow Arts from Way of Shadow.

[Chronos]

And given that ki is described as magical, even the likes of Flurry of Blows or Step of the Wind is magical.

[Tanarii]

Ki is magic the same way that a dragon flying is magic: it's the background magic of the universe, not something affected by AMF.It doesn't read like the same kind to me. It's active manipulation of magic within the body.

Regardless, we're discussing Dead Magic Zones, not AMF. The background Magic of the universe, the weave, doesn't exist in them. Dragons and magical creatures can't live in a Dead Magic Zone either. They would die.


Are you sure? I remember reading that one of the characters from Gygax's original player groups ended up on a planet without magic for several levels.Yes. Dead Magic Zones were the result of the Time of Troubles and disruptions of the Weave where it doesn't exist.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It doesn't read like the same kind to me. It's active manipulation of magic within the body.

Regardless, we're discussing Dead Magic Zones, not AMF. The background Magic of the universe, the weave, doesn't exist in them. Dragons and magical creatures can't live in a Dead Magic Zone either. They would die.

Yes. Dead Magic Zones were the result of the Time of Troubles and disruptions of the Weave where it doesn't exist.

This is one reason why DMZs are so off-key for me. The background magic of the world is everywhere--everything depends on it. The rocks, trees, everything. That's like saying "this is a no-strong-force zone" in the real world.

Although you could argue that the weave is not the background magic--it's merely the interface between mortals who want to cast spells and the background magic (which is everywhere). So you can still access the background magic, just not via spells or things that mimic (broadly) spells.

Dragons don't need Mystra's approval to exist; they existed even when the weave was completely inaccessible and gone (ie 4e era).

[AIResearch]

The background magic of the world is everywhere--everything depends on it. The rocks, trees, everything. That's like saying "this is a no-strong-force zone" in the real world.

That's not true at all. Nature persists just fine in a Dead Magic Zone. Martial classes exist just fine in a Dead Magic Zone.

Batman/Fighter beats Superman/Wizard by luring Superman/Wizard into Kryptonite/Dead Magic Zone.

[Unoriginal]

And given that ki is described as magical, even the likes of Flurry of Blows or Step of the Wind is magical.

As much as a dragon's breath or flight.


It doesn't read like the same kind to me. It's active manipulation of magic within the body.

So is a Dragon's Breath.



The background Magic of the universe, the weave

The Weave is not the background magic of the universe. The Weave is explicitly just a tiny bit of the magic that can be interacted with via spells.

A Monk or a Dragon do not interact with the Weave unless they're explicitly casting a spell.



Dragons and magical creatures can't live in a Dead Magic Zone either. They would die.


Ah, I misremembered, then.

I feel this is a case of "some writers thought it was cool without thinking things through", not gonna lie.

[Tanarii]

Ah, I misremembered, then.

I feel this is a case of "some writers thought it was cool without thinking things through", not gonna lie.
Actually, you were right. I looked it up, 5e Dead Magic zones are explicitly "similar to an antimagic field" (DMG 109). That's the extent of the rules for them in 5e, the appear as a single line item in a Weird Locales label. So we're literally just discussing the rules for 5e AMF, but I assume in a fixed locale and variable size.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not true at all. Nature persists just fine in a Dead Magic Zone. Martial classes exist just fine in a Dead Magic Zone.

Batman/Fighter beats Superman/Wizard by luring Superman/Wizard into Kryptonite/Dead Magic Zone.

That assumes the nature of DMZs as mentioned in the second part. That is, magic (ie the background part) isn't gone, but the weave and other spell effects are suppressed/incapacitated.

But if they really were devoid of all magic, they'd have to be devoid of all other things. Why? The PHB (and sage advice) is very clear that magic is part of everything. It's a fundamental force of nature, just like gravity or the strong force is here on earth. So without magic entirely, nothing could exist in any sensible fashion. That's why I don't see that as a sane option and the "AMF, but fixed in place and permanent" meaning makes more sense.

[Unoriginal]

For those who think/argue that the Monk's abilities are magical just because of the "Magic of Ki" paragraph:


True dragons are winged reptiles of ancient lineage and fearsome power. They are known and feared for their predatory cunning and greed, with the oldest dragons accounted as some of the most powerful creatures in the world. Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities.


From the MM (emphasis by me).

As the SAC says, an ability is defined as magical if the ability itself indicates it is (via the various ways the SAC lists).

The Monk's abilities are only magical if they say so, and IIRC for the non-subclass Monk the only ability that does indicate it's magical is the "treat unarmed attacks as magical" one.


Actually, you were right. I looked it up, 5e Dead Magic zones are explicitly "similar to an antimagic field" (DMG 109). That's the extent of the rules for them in 5e, the appear as a single line item in a Weird Locales label. So we're literally just discussing the rules for 5e AMF, but I assume in a fixed locale and variable size.

Thanks for checking. I have to say that it makes more sense to me that "anything magical dies/blinks out" at least, given how 5e treats the Background Magic.

[Tanarii]

If 5e Dead Magic is AMF, it has to follow the SAC rules for determining if something is magical.

So relevant bullet point is "Does its description say it’s magical?"

1) "Magic of Ki" says Monks create magical effects. There's some argument to be made that the energy being used is drawn from background Magic due to the "suffuses living being" source, but it's still explicit that they're creating a magical effect.

2) Four elements Disciplines are explicitly called out as magical. In this case, there's no reference that might be argued that they're actually 'natural' background Magic.

By the SAC rules, both general expenditures of Ki and the specific expenditure for Elemental disciplines should not be possible in a Dead Magic Zone. Although I wouldn't object to a DM ruling otherwise on the former. (Actually I probably wouldn't object to either, since it could only benefit my party :smallwink: )

[Unoriginal]

If 5e Dead Magic is AMF, it has to follow the SAC rules for determining if something is magical.

So relevant bullet point is "Does its description say it’s magical?"

1) "Magic of Ki" says Monks create magical effects. There's some argument to be made that the energy being used is drawn from background Magic due to the "suffuses living being" source, but it's still explicit that they're creating a magical effect.

2) Four elements Disciplines are explicitly called out as magical. In this case, there's no reference that might be argued that they're actually 'natural' background Magic.

By the SAC rules, both general expenditures of Ki and the specific expenditure for Elemental disciplines should not be possible in a Dead Magic Zone. Although I wouldn't object to a DM ruling otherwise on the former. (Actually I probably wouldn't object to either, since it could only benefit my party :smallwink: )

The SAC bulletpoint says "does its description says it's magical?", "it" referring to the ability itself.

"Magic Of Ki" is not part of the ability's description. Therefore, the Monk's non-subclass-granted abilities are not magical, except for Ki-Empowered Strike.

I don't think "Disciple of the Elements" fits the "part of the ability's description" requirement, but it could be arguable. Would you say that the "Combat Superiority" entry for the Battle Master is part of the manoeuvres' description?

[Naanomi]

I played in a homebrew setting where Dead Magic Zones were central parts of the setting... The borders of countries were often defined by a Dead Magic border; it was a high magic setting (in some places) but still had unexplored continents and forgotten people because teleportation and divination couldn't reliably pierce such borders... Exploring the Dead Magic spaces was akin to space exploration: venturing into the unknown only with massive preparation and little expectation of survival

[Rafaelfras]

I played in a homebrew setting where Dead Magic Zones were central parts of the setting... The borders of countries were often defined by a Dead Magic border; it was a high magic setting (in some places) but still had unexplored continents and forgotten people because teleportation and divination couldn't reliably pierce such borders... Exploring the Dead Magic spaces was akin to space exploration: venturing into the unknown only with massive preparation and little expectation of survival

And not much fun for the wizards in the party haha

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think "Disciple of the Elements" fits the "part of the ability's description" requirement, but it could be arguable. Would you say that the "Combat Superiority" entry for the Battle Master is part of the manoeuvres' description?

Not "part of the maneuvres' description", but it does contain rules that commonly apply to all maneuvers. You got it the other way: Combat Superiority isn't part of maneuvers, maneuvers are part of Combat Superiority. Just like it would be redundant to explain how superiority dice work in every maneuver's description, it would be equally redundant to note "This is a magical ability" in every single elemental discipline.

[Unoriginal]

Not "part of the maneuvres' description", but it does contain rules that commonly apply to all maneuvers. You got it the other way: Combat Superiority isn't part of maneuvers, maneuvers are part of Combat Superiority. Just like it would be redundant to explain how superiority dice work in every maneuver's description, it would be equally redundant to note "This is a magical ability" in every single elemental discipline.

Fair enough. In that case, elemental disciplines would not work in AMF...

This discussion makes me really think how crazy it is Four Elements Monk did not get any new Elemental Disciplines since the game's launch.

[Naanomi]

And not much fun for the wizards in the party haha
Well the point was we never went there, it was the 'border' in a setting with teleport and overland flight... it was how the secret valley stayed hidden until we adventured there even though we could have otherwise taken to space to get an accurate planet map... we played that game for several years and I think we only braved the 'dark' twice

[Tanarii]

The SAC bulletpoint says "does its description says it's magical?", "it" referring to the ability itself.

"Magic Of Ki" is not part of the ability's description. Therefore, the Monk's non-subclass-granted abilities are not magical, except for Ki-Empowered Strike.
Thats fair enough. To me it's pretty clear when the Ki class feature refers to the "mystic energy of Ki" it's talking about the same Ki as the Magic of Ki section, which makes it explicit it's magical. But since it's not actually called Magical in the Ki class feature directly ...


I played in a homebrew setting where Dead Magic Zones were central parts of the setting... The borders of countries were often defined by a Dead Magic border; it was a high magic setting (in some places) but still had unexplored continents and forgotten people because teleportation and divination couldn't reliably pierce such borders... Exploring the Dead Magic spaces was akin to space exploration: venturing into the unknown only with massive preparation and little expectation of survivalSeems like a neat solution to some of the more common complaints regarding very high level spells and world building. :smallamused:

[Angelalex242]

Eh. Personally I believe monks working at full power in dead magic zone is not only good for balance, it's good flavor too. It also means ki isn't magic, it's your own life force.

[JackPhoenix]

Fair enough. In that case, elemental disciplines would not work in AMF...

This discussion makes me really think how crazy it is Four Elements Monk did not get any new Elemental Disciplines since the game's launch.

I think it's because unlike battle master, which is one of the most popular subclasses in the game, 4e monk is on the exact opposite end, together with berserker barbarian (and behind even beastmaster, because that one's at least a popular concept, if lacking in execution).

[dafrca]

Eh. Personally I believe monks working at full power in dead magic zone is not only good for balance, it's good flavor too. It also means ki isn't magic, it's your own life force.

As Monks do not exist on my table I would not have had to think about this, but given the theorycrafting exercise this thread is, I would have to go with Monks would lose some of their powers but not all in a Magic Dead Zone. But lucky for me, I do not need to worry about it. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

I think it's because unlike battle master, which is one of the most popular subclasses in the game, 4e monk is on the exact opposite end, together with berserker barbarian (and behind even beastmaster, because that one's at least a popular concept, if lacking in execution).

I mean if something is not popular because of its issues, handling its issues would be a boon for its popularity as well.

Plus it's not like checking the books, writing down which elemental spells got added since the PHB, and making new elemental disciplines on it would be more work or book space than several things in the Tasha's. Writing non-spells disciplines would take slightly more work.

[Rafaelfras]

As Monks do not exist on my table I would not have had to think about this, but given the theorycrafting exercise this thread is, I would have to go with Monks would lose some of their powers but not all in a Magic Dead Zone. But lucky for me, I do not need to worry about it. :smallbiggrin:

I agree, that's what I applied in my table for our elemental monk, no elemental discipline, everything else just fine.


Well the point was we never went there, it was the 'border' in a setting with teleport and overland flight... it was how the secret valley stayed hidden until we adventured there even though we could have otherwise taken to space to get an accurate planet map... we played that game for several years and I think we only braved the 'dark' twice


Neat, it sounds very interesting

[Chronos]

It's discussions like this that make me really miss 3e's explicit labels of (Ex), (Su), and (Sp). Sure, there were still exploitable loopholes, but you had to really look for them, nothing as basic as "Are monks magical?".

[AIResearch]

Keep in mind that Psionics works in a Dead Magic Zone. Psi Warriors would be very much at home.

[dafrca]

Keep in mind that Psionics works in a Dead Magic Zone. Psi Warriors would be very much at home.

On some tables, others count it as impacted by a dead zone.

I have seen some who treat psionic as a form of magic. :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

Keep in mind that Psionics works in a Dead Magic Zone. Psi Warriors would be very much at home.

This would seem to be a very setting specific answer. I think that this would vary considerably table by table.

[AIResearch]

On some tables, others count it as impacted by a dead zone.

I have seen some who treat psionic as a form of magic. :smallbiggrin:


This would seem to be a very setting specific answer. I think that this would vary considerably table by table.

DMs and campaigns can house rule otherwise, but according to the rules psionics is not magic.

[MrStabby]

DMs and campaigns can house rule otherwise, but according to the rules psionics is not magic.

Sorry - just had another look in my players handbook but can't find the page. What page number is that on?

[AIResearch]

Sorry - just had another look in my players handbook but can't find the page. What page number is that on?

There is no rule that says everything is magical unless specified otherwise. Rather, something is magical only if it is specified to be magical. Nowhere in the rules is psionics specified to be magical.

The Sage Advice Compendium even ruled on this.


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.

[MrStabby]

There is no rule that says everything is magical unless specified otherwise. Rather, something is magical only if it is specified to be magical. Nowhere in the rules is psionics specified to be magical.

The Sage Advice Compendium even ruled on this.

I find it helpful to distinguish between the Rulebook, including its errata (just in case they didn't mean something to be interpreted in a given way, and Twitter.

Sage Advice is not a rule book. It is, as the name suggests, advice. Sometimes a window into what was being thought of at the time rules were written, but not actually rules themselves. When it comes to rulings it is worth about as much as the paper it is written on.

It is down to the DM to decide if any given supernatural effect is magic in a particular setting - and indeed it may change (and possibly will change) from setting to setting even with the same DM.

[AIResearch]

I find it helpful to distinguish between the Rulebook, including its errata (just in case they didn't mean something to be interpreted in a given way, and Twitter.

Sage Advice is not a rule book. It is, as the name suggests, advice. Sometimes a window into what was being thought of at the time rules were written, but not actually rules themselves. When it comes to rulings it is worth about as much as the paper it is written on.

It is down to the DM to decide if any given supernatural effect is magic in a particular setting - and indeed it may change (and possibly will change) from setting to setting even with the same DM.

I was not referencing Twitter in any capacity. The Sage Advice Compendium is an official publication that contains the Official Rulings for 5e. You can download it from the wizards of the coast website.

[MrStabby]

I was not referencing Twitter in any capacity. The Sage Advice Compendium is an official publication that contains the Official Rulings for 5e. You can download it from the wizards of the coast website.

Ah, well if you are refering to the actual errata for the rules, I stand corrected.

[JackPhoenix]

Ah, well if you are refering to the actual errata for the rules, I stand corrected.

SAC is not errata. Errata is a list of changes to the text that will be present in future printings of the books. SAC is an official collection of rulings and clarifications on the meaning or intent behind the printed rules that doesn't change what's actually written in the books. Some, but not all, were originally posted on twitter, then made "more official" through SAC.

[AIResearch]

SAC is not errata. Errata is a list of changes to the text that will be present in future printings of the books. SAC is an official collection of rulings and clarifications on the meaning or intent behind the printed rules that doesn't change what's actually written in the books. Some, but not all, were originally posted on twitter, then made "more official" through SAC.

The SAC is the only source for Official RAI. Any old Jeremy Crawford Tweets that aren't in the actual SAC are no longer considered officially supported in any capacity. There were a lot of old tweets that were problematic and had to be edited out.

[Unoriginal]

The SAC is basically an official FAQ.

[Chronos]

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:
...
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
...
* Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
So by the exact argument that SAC uses to say that dragons aren't "really" magical, yes, they are "really" magical.

This is why nobody likes Crawford's rulings.

[JackPhoenix]

So by the exact argument that SAC uses to say that dragons aren't "really" magical, yes, they are "really" magical.

This is why nobody likes Crawford's rulings.

Yeah. Reading and understanding of a written text is too hard for some people, especially if they don't bother to read it all to understand the context.

[Unoriginal]

So by the exact argument that SAC uses to say that dragons aren't "really" magical, yes, they are "really" magical.

This is why nobody likes Crawford's rulings.

...whoa, seriously?


Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions
about the feature:
...
• Does its description say it’s magical?

Dragons are *not* game features. They're creatures, who have game features. It's the description of the game feature that matters, nothing else.

As said just above what you quoted:


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.


Yeah. Reading and understanding of a written text is too hard for some people, especially if they don't bother to read it all to understand the context.

The irony of this statement...

[Chronos]

Creatures aren't class features, or monster features. But are they "game features"? What's a game feature? The best answer I can come up with is it's "something in the game". And creatures definitely are that.