I know magical creatures don't typically trigger detect magic, but what about creatures that are essentially enchanted objects, like animated armor or golems? Could a wizard using detect magic tell the difference between a stone golem and a regular statue?
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
It's that "in a magic item" line that had me doubting if this ruling applied. What is a golem, if not a very complicated magical item? If it has to do with sentience, does that mean sentient weapons don't trigger detect magic either?
Disagree. Detect Magic doesn’t just detect spells and spell-like effects. “Creatures that bear magic” can be as broad and unspecific as your DM wants, but I for one would say that a golem or animated statue certainly fits that bill, while a dragon would not.
[Edit]Creatures that are magical according to their description like stone golem
Not sure about golems, probably not. There isn't any indication that they retain magic after creation. Most golems don't mention being magical in their description, but a few do.
I think I actually agree with your original stance now, Lyxen. The SAC you're quoting is for spell-like effects, not creatures. Earlier in that same question, it points out that dragons have the word "magical" in their description, but their breath weapons are non-magical effects.
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
I believe from now on I'll be considering golems to not trigger detect magic. I'll have to let my players know they can't rely on that anymore. (I imagine some of them won't be very happy, but oh well)
I feel like I must point out that (A) the quoted SAC is not even internally consistent with itself, since "does its description say its magical?" would qualify a dragon as magical, and (B) it was answering the question of whether a dragon's Breath Attack works in an Antimagic Field, not whether the dragon would be detectible by Detect Magic. Selective quoting is presenting a misleading conclusion.
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 nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
We're not talking about "does a Golem turn into a statue in an Antimagic Field?" The answer to that question, depending on how you want to approach the definitions of things like "magical effect" or "created by magic", need not be tied to whether that Golem would light up with a Detect Magic. Detect Magic can absolutely be about picking up the sort of "background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse's physics and physiology," and in practice, often is used specifically for that in published adventures and normal play.
Lyxen, your point is exactly what I'm saying: that SAC is about determining whether an ability is a magical spell or effect, not about whether a creature "bears magic." Detect Magic should be able to detect the "background magic" of things, even those that a DM might otherwise rule would continue to function in an Antimagic Field or resist a Dispel Magic.
I'm not going to dive into adventures to find every example of a plot device that has a magic aura, I think you understand well enough what I'm trying to say without me digging up specific examples.
Lyxen, your point is exactly what I'm saying: that SAC is about determining whether an ability is a magical spell or effect, not about whether a creature "bears magic." Detect Magic should be able to detect the "background magic" of things, even those that a DM might otherwise rule would continue to function in an Antimagic Field or resist a Dispel Magic.
I'm not going to dive into adventures to find every example of a plot device that has a magic aura, I think you understand well enough what I'm trying to say without me digging up specific examples.
The problem with detecting the "background magic" of things is that there is no definition of magic given outside of the SAC "magic" that suffuses game effects. So, then it is up to the DM to determine what in a D&D setting is magical. Is it anything that would be considered "supernatural" in our world? is the line somewhere else? In general, I think causing all the "background magic" to trigger would functionally make detect magic useless, unless you homebrewed another definition other that what is provided, as if almost everything is magical, pinpointing specific sources of magic would be extremely difficult or impossible.
If I were to take a stab at the question, you could look at it two ways. One would be to say that no creature, other than those summoned by magic, is considered magical. Another would be to say that creatures affected by antimagic would be magical. This would include those summoned, but also those who would be affected due to their statblock, such as animated armor.
Golems are created by a magical process/item, the manual of golems, but the magic would not seem to be maintaining them (no indication in their statblock that they are affected by antimagic or sustained by magic), so one could assume that the magic that brought them into existence has ceased (much like zombies created by animate dead).
Do you cause Detect Magic to cause creatures with the Spellcasting ability to glow with the aura of every school they can cast? No? Then you're exercising a modicum of judgment to figure out how the spell works, without referencing the explicit rule text of the spell, which very clearly directs otherwise. That's good. That's normal. That's reasonable. It being "up to the DM to determine what in a D&D setting is magical" is literally the DMs job, and I don't see that as a problem to ask them to do that without telling them how they must do that.
I don't need the SAC to tell me what "magic" means in D&D, and furthermore, SAC has no authority to tell me what "magic" means in D&D, because it isn't part of the core rules. "What's magic?" and "How sensitive is Detect Magic to background magics?" are unspecified questions in 5E, which the RAW leaves to a reasonable DM to answer for themselves. If they want to look to SAC for guidance in making their own ruling, great, but they should be aware that taking an SAC answer about one thing (how do you tell if an effect is magical?) and extending it to something else (how do I tell if a creature bears magic?) often leads to unintended consequences, because SAC doesn't use tight language or think these things through with the level of detail and analysis commonly employed on this forum. RAW, Detect Magic just detects "the presence of magic" and "creatures and objects in the area that bear magic", and you need to use your own imagination and mastery of the English language to apply that and test its bounds.
I know magical creatures don't typically trigger detect magic, but what about creatures that are essentially enchanted objects, like animated armor or golems? Could a wizard using detect magic tell the difference between a stone golem and a regular statue?
It's that "in a magic item" line that had me doubting if this ruling applied. What is a golem, if not a very complicated magical item? If it has to do with sentience, does that mean sentient weapons don't trigger detect magic either?
Disagree. Detect Magic doesn’t just detect spells and spell-like effects. “Creatures that bear magic” can be as broad and unspecific as your DM wants, but I for one would say that a golem or animated statue certainly fits that bill, while a dragon would not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It is ultimately up to DM to decide what counts, but here are a few creatures I think would ping detect magic:
Not sure about golems, probably not. There isn't any indication that they retain magic after creation.Most golems don't mention being magical in their description, but a few do.I think I actually agree with your original stance now, Lyxen. The SAC you're quoting is for spell-like effects, not creatures. Earlier in that same question, it points out that dragons have the word "magical" in their description, but their breath weapons are non-magical effects.
I believe from now on I'll be considering golems to not trigger detect magic. I'll have to let my players know they can't rely on that anymore. (I imagine some of them won't be very happy, but oh well)
I feel like I must point out that (A) the quoted SAC is not even internally consistent with itself, since "does its description say its magical?" would qualify a dragon as magical, and (B) it was answering the question of whether a dragon's Breath Attack works in an Antimagic Field, not whether the dragon would be detectible by Detect Magic. Selective quoting is presenting a misleading conclusion.
We're not talking about "does a Golem turn into a statue in an Antimagic Field?" The answer to that question, depending on how you want to approach the definitions of things like "magical effect" or "created by magic", need not be tied to whether that Golem would light up with a Detect Magic. Detect Magic can absolutely be about picking up the sort of "background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse's physics and physiology," and in practice, often is used specifically for that in published adventures and normal play.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Lyxen, your point is exactly what I'm saying: that SAC is about determining whether an ability is a magical spell or effect, not about whether a creature "bears magic." Detect Magic should be able to detect the "background magic" of things, even those that a DM might otherwise rule would continue to function in an Antimagic Field or resist a Dispel Magic.
I'm not going to dive into adventures to find every example of a plot device that has a magic aura, I think you understand well enough what I'm trying to say without me digging up specific examples.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The problem with detecting the "background magic" of things is that there is no definition of magic given outside of the SAC "magic" that suffuses game effects. So, then it is up to the DM to determine what in a D&D setting is magical. Is it anything that would be considered "supernatural" in our world? is the line somewhere else? In general, I think causing all the "background magic" to trigger would functionally make detect magic useless, unless you homebrewed another definition other that what is provided, as if almost everything is magical, pinpointing specific sources of magic would be extremely difficult or impossible.
If I were to take a stab at the question, you could look at it two ways. One would be to say that no creature, other than those summoned by magic, is considered magical. Another would be to say that creatures affected by antimagic would be magical. This would include those summoned, but also those who would be affected due to their statblock, such as animated armor.
Golems are created by a magical process/item, the manual of golems, but the magic would not seem to be maintaining them (no indication in their statblock that they are affected by antimagic or sustained by magic), so one could assume that the magic that brought them into existence has ceased (much like zombies created by animate dead).
Do you cause Detect Magic to cause creatures with the Spellcasting ability to glow with the aura of every school they can cast? No? Then you're exercising a modicum of judgment to figure out how the spell works, without referencing the explicit rule text of the spell, which very clearly directs otherwise. That's good. That's normal. That's reasonable. It being "up to the DM to determine what in a D&D setting is magical" is literally the DMs job, and I don't see that as a problem to ask them to do that without telling them how they must do that.
I don't need the SAC to tell me what "magic" means in D&D, and furthermore, SAC has no authority to tell me what "magic" means in D&D, because it isn't part of the core rules. "What's magic?" and "How sensitive is Detect Magic to background magics?" are unspecified questions in 5E, which the RAW leaves to a reasonable DM to answer for themselves. If they want to look to SAC for guidance in making their own ruling, great, but they should be aware that taking an SAC answer about one thing (how do you tell if an effect is magical?) and extending it to something else (how do I tell if a creature bears magic?) often leads to unintended consequences, because SAC doesn't use tight language or think these things through with the level of detail and analysis commonly employed on this forum. RAW, Detect Magic just detects "the presence of magic" and "creatures and objects in the area that bear magic", and you need to use your own imagination and mastery of the English language to apply that and test its bounds.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.