Anti magic fields and pseudo magical class features - also magical creatures?

[Mastikator]

The anti magic field states that it blocks all spells and magical effects.

Spells and other magical Effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the Sphere and can't protrude into it
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Antimagic%20Field#content


So I'm thinking that if a class feature has the word "magical" in it, then the class feature does not function in an anti magic field. One example of this is the arcane archer's arcane shot, which explicitly states that they are magical arrows. They should therefore not work. I consider this reading uncontroversial.

However some class features are not so obvious. For example: horizon walker's planar warrior. It lets the ranger convert their attack damage to force and add additional damage.
It says "draw on the energy of the multiverse to augment your attacks" which is not explicitly magical... unless you count force damage as intrinsically magical, which dndbeyond certainly does. "Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form" (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#DamageTypes).
Meaning that all force damage should by RAW automatically not do anything inside an anti magic field.

Another one is the radiant damage of a zealot barbarian, it says "divine fury", is that suppressed or allowed in a field, is "divine fury" magical (divine magic is still magic)?

What about divine smite, it costs a spell slot but doesn't explicitly say it's magical, is it magical?

Where do you draw the line?

-

This conundrum was sparked by an IRL disucssion I had with a friend, see he was in this game where the DM had created an iron golem that also emitted a large anti magic field. His argument was that only class features that let you deal damage types the golem is not immune to would work in killing it, he used horizon walker as an example. But I'm thinking that a) either the golem is just basically invincible but also b) the anti magic field should suppress the magic that animates the golem in the first place. The golem is created by a magic item (which are suppressed by anti magic fields) and are definitely magical constructs.

[JackPhoenix]

I'll have to pull out the SAC quote again, won't I? Here you go:


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

[Psyren]

To expand on JackPhoenix's helpful SAC quote, there are two types of "magic" in 5e. The preceding bit describes these in detail:


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.

Using the litmus JP provided, the Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior ability falls under the first type - background physics/physiological "magic." It is unaffected by AMF.

[RogueJK]

Using the litmus JP provided, the Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior ability falls under the first type - background physics/physiological "magic." It is unaffected by AMF.

Yep. Same with Paladin Improved Divine Smite or Zealot Barbarian Divine Fury.

Compare the wording of those abilities to something like the Cleric/Paladin Channel Divinity abilities, which are specifically called out in their description as being "magical effects", so therefore they wouldn't function within an AMF.

[JackPhoenix]

Yep. Same with Paladin Divine Smite or Zealot Barbarian Divine Fury.

Compare the wording of those abilities to something like the Cleric/Paladin Channel Divinity abilities, which are specifically called out in their description as being "magical effects", so therefore they wouldn't function within an AMF.

Divine Smite is fuelled by spell slots, so count as magical. Improved Divine Smite isn't, though.

[RogueJK]

Good catch.

[Chronos]

There are still some fuzzy areas, though. For instance, the description of ki explicitly calls it magical: Does that mean that everything a monk uses ki on is magical? Not being able to Flurry of Blows in an AMF would be rough.

[JLandan]

Force damage specifically calls out that it's magic.

The physical damages obviously are not unless derived from magic.

The elemental damages can go either way depending on the source.

Radiant, Necrotic and Psychic do not say. I do not see how these could be from a mundane source, so I would say they are magic too, same as Force.

I wouldn't use the word "magical" in a description alone as a guide. I would examine the entire description to be sure.

[Psyren]

Radiant, Necrotic and Psychic do not say. I do not see how these could be from a mundane source, so I would say they are magic too, same as Force.


So could you block a radiant, necrotic, or psychic dragon's breath with AMF? Sage Advice says no, both explicitly and using the litmus.

Force I agree is ambiguous. While it is called out as magical, technically the damage types also "have no rules of their own." You'd need to make a ruling there as the DM.

[JLandan]

So could you block a radiant, necrotic, or psychic dragon's breath with AMF? Sage Advice says no, both explicitly and using the litmus.

Force I agree is ambiguous. While it is called out as magical, technically the damage types also "have no rules of their own." You'd need to make a ruling there as the DM.

I really don't care about Sage Advice. Those litmus tests are accurate, but I would not say exclusive of other tests.

In the example of Divine Smite; yes, it is magic; but Improved Divine Strike is not. This cannot be. IDS just improves the DS, it doesn't render it non-magical, it still requires spell slots, and the description mentions "...your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them." Is divine power not magic?

Yes, I would rule ANY dragon breath is magic, so it would be blocked by AMF. Even though it doesn't fit the previously mentioned litmus tests. My general rule is that if it doesn't occur in nature, it's magic. Since no real creature has a breath weapon, breath weapon is magic.

This is just how I would rule it. I am aware that I am something of a hard ass in my DM ruling.

Another hard ass ruling on what is considered magic is Ki. I say Ki is magic, but I've had numerous people say otherwise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In the example of Divine Smite; yes, it is magic; but Improved Divine Strike is not. This cannot be. IDS just improves the DS, it doesn't render it non-magical, it still requires spell slots, and the description mentions "...your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them." Is divine power not magic?


No. IDS is on every hit whether you smite or not. It doesn't count against anything else (like spell slots or the cap on DS). They're unrelated.

And no, divine power isn't spell-magical--in fact, the direct acts of the gods are explicitly excluded from antimagic field's effects. The sun (in a D&D world) is an exercise of divine power. As is the grass growing and the winds blowing. It's all "background" stuff.

If you try to say that anything not found in Earth-nature is blocked, then the entire universe unravels. Because there's background magic in and through everything, out of which everything is made and dependent. D&D humans can't exist on earth. Nor can D&D elves. Do they shrivel up and die (or wink out of existence) in an AMF?

[RSP]

I’d say “Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form” is magical and therefore wouldn’t work in an AMF. It’s not the only issue with AMF, though. The wording is poor.

“Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.”

I’m pretty sure a Cleric 10+ using Divine Intervention will work as that’s the direct work of a deity. But all Cleric spells are ultimately sourced by their deity, so that’s less clear as to whether the spells come as a spell created by a deity.

I think it’s safe to say RAI, they don’t work, but the RAW is poorly explained.

[Jervis]

To expand on JackPhoenix's helpful SAC quote, there are two types of "magic" in 5e. The preceding bit describes these in detail:



Using the litmus JP provided, the Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior ability falls under the first type - background physics/physiological "magic." It is unaffected by AMF.

This is why we need SU and SP tags

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is why we need SU and SP tags

Or accept that there will be table and setting variation on this point. Like...well...just about everything else?

[Jervis]

Or accept that there will be table and setting variation on this point. Like...well...just about everything else?

Hmm… Nah, better to have rules that govern every minute detail of the game

[JLandan]

No. IDS is on every hit whether you smite or not. It doesn't count against anything else (like spell slots or the cap on DS). They're unrelated.

And no, divine power isn't spell-magical--in fact, the direct acts of the gods are explicitly excluded from antimagic field's effects. The sun (in a D&D world) is an exercise of divine power. As is the grass growing and the winds blowing. It's all "background" stuff.

If you try to say that anything not found in Earth-nature is blocked, then the entire universe unravels. Because there's background magic in and through everything, out of which everything is made and dependent. D&D humans can't exist on earth. Nor can D&D elves. Do they shrivel up and die (or wink out of existence) in an AMF?

Good point on IDS. I still wouldn't allow in AMF because in my world, radiant damage is magic.

I don't have different magic types in worlds I run. There's no background magic, there's just magic. Arcane, divine, whatever. Nature is nature and magic is magic.

The universe is not dependent on magic to exist. (Our real one isn't.) When you say D&D humans can't exist without magic, why not? (Real humans do.) Elves could exist, they just couldn't use magic. In my worlds, gods are magic but AMF specifically excludes deity suppression. So deities and afterlife effects still function in AMF.

Dragon breath is magic, but claws and bites are not. A balrog (yes, I use the Tolkien word) longsword still does +14 to hit (oddly enough, the sword itself has no enhancement) and 3d8+8, but has no lightning damage (odd again, not fire). A vampire would drop inert, unless it was empowered by a deity, then you would have a problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Good point on IDS. I still wouldn't allow in AMF because in my world, radiant damage is magic.

I don't have different magic types in worlds I run. There's no background magic, there's just magic. Arcane, divine, whatever. Nature is nature and magic is magic.

The universe is not dependent on magic to exist. (Our real one isn't.) When you say D&D humans can't exist without magic, why not? (Real humans do.) Elves could exist, they just couldn't use magic. In my worlds, gods are magic but AMF specifically excludes deity suppression. So deities and afterlife effects still function in AMF.

Dragon breath is magic, but claws and bites are not. A balrog (yes, I use the Tolkien word) longsword still does +14 to hit (oddly enough, the sword itself has no enhancement) and 3d8+8, but has no lightning damage (odd again, not fire). A vampire would drop inert, unless it was empowered by a deity, then you would have a problem.

Because D&D!humans aren't real world humans. Dragons literally cannot live without magic--they're just too darn big (square cube law).

<soapbox>D&D needs "magic" in and through everything as part of natural law. The world literally runs on pre-modern ideas about reality, not our modern ones. There are no periodic elements like we have--instead there are simply 4 + 2 forces. Dragons can breed (stably!) with all sorts of other species. Giants can exist and walk around. Etc. "Magic as exception" just doesn't explain anything about D&D worlds, and contradicts the definition of natural law (being that thing to which there are no exceptions).</soapbox>

[Composer99]

I'm inclined to say that the AMF effects, especially when taking the Sage Advice Compendium material into account, work well enough for 5e for the most part. The only thing the spell could really stand to have IMO is a clarification on what happens when a creature that is animated by magic (as opposed to summoned or created) enters the field.

If you wanted to add more precision, you could consider adding a "magic" tag/keyword to any effect you want to be affected by AMF (assuming spells and magic items always have that tag/keyword), in addition to any feature that includes the word "magical" in its effect.

5e doesn't really do tags/keywords outside of damage types and the ritual tag, though, so that seems like it might be a fair bit of work for not that much payoff.

[Amnestic]

Radiant, Necrotic and Psychic do not say. I do not see how these could be from a mundane source, so I would say they are magic too, same as Force.


Doesn't the sun deals radiant damage? Also sickening radiance, which is seemingly 'radiation' themed deals radiant damage, so a pile of uranium probably deals radiant damage.

Vampire bites deal non-magical necrotic damage.

[Mastikator]

I think the pragmatic answer I'll go with is to follow the SAC checklist and all grey area things are not affected by AMF. The AMF isn't strong enough to suppress all magic, rather most magic.

[Psyren]

I really don't care about Sage Advice.

That is certainly your right at your table (though not in Adventurers League.)


Hmm… Nah, better to have rules that govern every minute detail of the game

Ha :smalltongue:


I think the pragmatic answer I'll go with is to follow the SAC checklist and all grey area things are not affected by AMF. The AMF isn't strong enough to suppress all magic, rather most magic.

Another way to put it - it's capable of suppressing focused magic, not background magic.

I'm definitely on the fence about all force damage being switched off in one.

[JLandan]

Doesn't the sun deals radiant damage? Also sickening radiance, which is seemingly 'radiation' themed deals radiant damage, so a pile of uranium probably deals radiant damage.

Vampire bites deal non-magical necrotic damage.

I would not say the sun deals radiant damage. The entire world would take damage every round for half of every day. Some creatures may take radiant damage from the sun. That is due to a quality that the creature has, not a quality that the sun has.

I have never seen a description with "sickening radiant damage". What is that from?

The necrotic damage from a vampire bite is not described as magical or non-magical, making it a DM call. Since I rule necrotic damage is magical, in my worlds it is magical. Your ruling may vary.

[Amnestic]

I would not say the sun deals radiant damage. The entire world would take damage every round for half of every day.

Or maybe they're just not close enough for the sun for it to deal damage?



I have never seen a description with "sickening radiant damage". What is that from?


Sickening Radiance
Source: Xanathar's Guide to Everything
4th-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes

Dim, greenish light spreads within a 30-foot-radius sphere centered on a point you choose within range. The light spreads around corners, and it lasts until the spell ends.

When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, that creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 4d10 radiant damage, and it suffers one level of exhaustion and emits a dim, greenish light in a 5-foot radius. This light makes it impossible for the creature to benefit from being invisible. The light and any levels of exhaustion caused by this spell go away when the spell ends.

Spell Lists. Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

[JLandan]

Or maybe they're just not close enough for the sun for it to deal damage?

Oh, it's a spell. All spells are magic. I would be surprised if anyone disagreed with that interpretation. It's description doesn't mention uranium.

If PCs encountered a radioactive substance in my game, I would make it Poison and/or Fire damage rather than Radiant, because of the effect on the body. Both Fire and Poison damages have magical and non-magical sources.

[Chronos]

I don't know if there are any examples in the books, but I could imagine a mundane disease that deals necrotic damage.

And I guess you could say that uranium causes poison damage, but if so, it'd be a really weird sort of poison, that can poison you without ever even touching it.

[JLandan]

I don't know if there are any examples in the books, but I could imagine a mundane disease that deals necrotic damage.

And I guess you could say that uranium causes poison damage, but if so, it'd be a really weird sort of poison, that can poison you without ever even touching it.

Not just poisoning at distance, but burning too, and without very much heat. It is called radiation poisoning, after all. That's why I would do Poison and Fire. I'd probably throw in the poisoned condition too. All much more mundane than Radiant energy from some holy object.

[Jervis]

I don't know if there are any examples in the books, but I could imagine a mundane disease that deals necrotic damage.

And I guess you could say that uranium causes poison damage, but if so, it'd be a really weird sort of poison, that can poison you without ever even touching it.

Radiation might be considered force damage since that’s usually damage to the structural integrity of something. Otherwise I think radiant fits best. It would probably cause the poison condition though. The amount of monsters immune to poison because they have venom probably should survive next to the elephants foot

[DevanAvalon]

I really don't care about Sage Advice. Those litmus tests are accurate, but I would not say exclusive of other tests.

In the example of Divine Smite; yes, it is magic; but Improved Divine Strike is not. This cannot be. IDS just improves the DS, it doesn't render it non-magical, it still requires spell slots, and the description mentions "...your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them." Is divine power not magic?

Yes, I would rule ANY dragon breath is magic, so it would be blocked by AMF. Even though it doesn't fit the previously mentioned litmus tests. My general rule is that if it doesn't occur in nature, it's magic. Since no real creature has a breath weapon, breath weapon is magic.

This is just how I would rule it. I am aware that I am something of a hard ass in my DM ruling.

Another hard ass ruling on what is considered magic is Ki. I say Ki is magic, but I've had numerous people say otherwise.

too bad, the official Sage Advice Compendium is literally part of the rules as written, being official rulings handed down by Wizards of the Coast. If it's in the SAC, it's RAW. and thus the litmus test is RAW.

[Chronos]

You might be thinking of the Sage Rulings Compendium. The SAC is advice.

[DevanAvalon]

You might be thinking of the Sage Rulings Compendium. The SAC is advice.

there is no Sage Rulings... the Sage Advice Compendium is *literally* from WotC.

https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/compendium-november-2020 Oh look. official rulings. from WotC. called Sage Advice Compendium.


"The Sage Advice Compendium is the official D&D rules FAQ, gathering some of the most frequent D&D rules questions and providing answers to them." - literally clarifying rules... including the litmus test as to what counts as magical for AMFs.

literally rules as written.

[RSP]

there is no Sage Rulings... the Sage Advice Compendium is *literally* from WotC.

https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/compendium-november-2020 Oh look. official rulings. from WotC. called Sage Advice Compendium.


"The Sage Advice Compendium is the official D&D rules FAQ, gathering some of the most frequent D&D rules questions and providing answers to them." - literally clarifying rules... including the litmus test as to what counts as magical for AMFs.

literally rules as written.

No. I think you’re misusing the term RAW. RAW refers to what the actual written rule states: the actual wording of the ability as it’s laid out in the source.

[JLandan]

there is no Sage Rulings... the Sage Advice Compendium is *literally* from WotC.

https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/compendium-november-2020 Oh look. official rulings. from WotC. called Sage Advice Compendium.


"The Sage Advice Compendium is the official D&D rules FAQ, gathering some of the most frequent D&D rules questions and providing answers to them." - literally clarifying rules... including the litmus test as to what counts as magical for AMFs.

literally rules as written.

SAC, sixth sentence:

The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.

[Amnestic]

SAC, sixth sentence:

The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.

...yes, but SAC aren't public statements made by the D&D team, and it becomes quite clear when you don't excise the previous paragraph. Lets just include the entire section, helpfully titled "official rulings".



Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.

SAC are official rulings. The second paragraph is additional context to denote that tweets from Crawford or the like are not official rulings but may preview what will become official rulings.

[Psyren]

SAC, sixth sentence:

The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.

That line is referring to stuff like tweets, not Sage Advice itself. SAC is official, and your DM gets to choose whether to use it or not.

Look, if you want to dredge up outmoded "FAQ isn't RAW!" thinking from 3.5 into your games go for it. But you're not going to stop anyone from citing SAC at you, nor expecting you to abide by it in sanctioned play.

[JLandan]

That line is referring to stuff like tweets, not Sage Advice itself. SAC is official, and your DM gets to choose whether to use it or not.

Look, if you want to dredge up outmoded "FAQ isn't RAW!" thinking from 3.5 into your games go for it. But you're not going to stop anyone from citing SAC at you, nor expecting you to abide by it in sanctioned play.

So, does SAC have this background magic and magic magic feature in the rules? Or is it setting specific? I don't recall it from the DMG.

Like I said, I run my game with my setting and have no interest in AL. I would think many, if not most, would be the same. Could be wrong though.

[Psyren]

So, does SAC have this background magic and magic magic feature in the rules? Or is it setting specific? I don't recall it from the DMG.

That's because it's in the PHB (pg. 205 sidebar.) The "background magic" is called raw magic and the "magic magic" is called an interface (or Weave in FR.) It even describes where spells, dispels, and AMF fit into that framework, just like SAC does.


Like I said, I run my game with my setting and have no interest in AL. I would think many, if not most, would be the same. Could be wrong though.

I woiuld think many, if not most, consider SAC to be official rulings. Again, you're free to choose not to, but you're not going to silence anyone from pointing to it when it answers a rules question.

[JLandan]

That's because it's in the PHB (pg. 205 sidebar.) The "background magic" is called raw magic and the "magic magic" is called an interface (or Weave in FR.) It even describes where spells, dispels, and AMF fit into that framework, just like SAC does.



I woiuld think many, if not most, consider SAC to be official rulings. Again, you're free to choose not to, but you're not going to silence anyone from pointing to it when it answers a rules question.

I never tried to silence anyone about anything, and I really don't appreciate that accusation. I just point out my own views and reasons for said views. And I have never said anyone was wrong, only that my interpretation was different, and provided reasoning for said difference. When someone cites something I do not know, I ask the source. Not in accusation of them being wrong, but because I want to know the facts. Sometimes it turns out I am wrong. And that needs to corrected. Sometimes it's just difference of opinion, and I post my reasons, and read the other opinions' reasons and then see if my views need adjusting. I never expect others to bend to my views if theirs are different, but I will point out that difference when there is one.

I've, until now, always respected your posts. But this accusation of trying to silence people really grates at me. Perhaps my posts read differently then my intention. If so I apologize.

[Psyren]

You're not going to impede anyone from pointing to them then, if you consider "silence" to be pejorative. SAC are official rulings, end of.

Hopefully the PHB citation helped as well.

[kazaryu]

If you try to say that anything not found in Earth-nature is blocked, then the entire universe unravels. Because there's background magic in and through everything, out of which everything is made and dependent. D&D humans can't exist on earth. Nor can D&D elves. Do they shrivel up and die (or wink out of existence) in an AMF?

in official settings, this is certainly true. but you're trying to argue against someone personal ruling (which is part of what was asked for by OP). they're not stating that any of their rulings are RaW, only that that is how they rule it.

[JLandan]

Okay, gracias for the steer. So having reviewed the sidebar on PH 205, I have two conclusions.

The first is that yes, the sidebar describes the Raw/Weave cosmology of magic and while it tries to be setting neutral, it mentions The Weave a lot, which is setting specific. But this magic cosmology is not mentioned in any spell, race, class, monster or item description that I recall. I'll be keeping my own magic cosmology for my settings (natural/supernatural).

The second is that it still doesn't counter my argument that most magic effects are stopped by AMF. While the sidebar speaks of how AMF works, it doesn't preclude anything, not even the Raw magic. Which should be precluded if you subscribe to this cosmology. The spell description itself only precludes deities and artifacts, not Raw magic. Nowhere does it specify which features are Raw and which are Weave, though it ought to. None of the damage types say which, and no items say which. I'll have to review all the spells to be sure.

Dragon breath weapon attacks (which, by some peoples' rulings, isn't breathing, a weapon or an attack) for example. Some people have put forward that dragon breath is not magic, and is not stopped by AMF. They are backed up by SAC. The two kinds of magic is how they explain the contradiction between the description of dragons (it is magical) and their ruling (it is not magical).

Their own ruling contradicts itself, however. In their test of what is magic, the question "Does its description say it’s magical?" is one of the requirements. They go on with the example of a white dragon's cold breath. The word "magical" does not appear in the description of cold breath, so they conclude that it is not magic.

But... the word "magical" appears in the first paragraph last sentence of the description of dragons.

"Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."

This description specifically mentions breath weapons.

So, at my table, since I don't subscribe to raw/weave cosmology, and SAC contradicts itself, dragons are magic. Your mileage may vary.

[Psyren]

I'd say the sidebar mentions a weave a lot, with The Weave (note the capitals) being the most prominent example of such an interface due to the popularity of its setting.

And dragon's breath is definitely magic, it just happens to be type B rather than type A.

[Xetheral]

Quick note that the rulings in the Sage Advice Compenidum are not binding in Adventurers League. Errata is.

https://m.facebook.com/adventurersleague/posts/the-sage-advice-compendium-has-been-updated-as-of-today-october-1-2020-while-sag/604715676862942/

[JLandan]

Quick note that the rulings in the Sage Advice Compenidum are not binding in Adventurers League. Errata is.

https://m.facebook.com/adventurersleague/posts/the-sage-advice-compendium-has-been-updated-as-of-today-october-1-2020-while-sag/604715676862942/

I'm somewhat surprised at this. I've been told and convinced that SAC are "official" rulings, though I do not subscribe to anyone's rulings but my own. But if SAC is not binding in AL, it doesn't speak too well toward SAC being "official".

[Psyren]

The official line is that it's up to that DM:


WHAT ABOUT SAGE ADVICE?

Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM. As always, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.

Still, I'd wager that most random DMs you meet in a shop will opt to go along with Sage Advice when it applies, than not. I'd have no problem having it on my phone or printed out if it answers a given question, in any case.

(Source) (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/DDAL_FAQv6-1.pdf)