I think the entire first paragraph does a pretty good job explaining the logic of it. "If the [spell's duration is instantaneous], there is nothing to dispel or suspend. [...] the effects aren’t sustained by magic. [...] The resulting [creature] now exists without the magic’s help."
Again I wasn't looking for discussion, I was pointing out an example of a bad sage advice answer.
However, the first paragraph is only correct for dispel magic (which explicitly requires a spell). Antimagic field does not require the presence of a spell to operate on a magically created or summoned creature (or most of its conditions), there is no such requirement within its rules. It very specifically does not apply only to spells, and uses language such as "or other magical effects".
"A creature or object summoned or created by magic" does not stop being one just because the spell (or other magical effect) that summoned or created it was finished. It does not say "a creature or object summoned by an active spell". Yet they've invented this new condition as part of their answer. It's an answer that not only does not, but cannot, support its conclusion for both questions it's trying to answer.
In the case of animate dead there is a possible exception, in that a zombie is arguably not "a creature or object summoned or created by magic" at all, as it's actually an existing (albeit dead) creature given a new stat-block and restored to (un)life, in a weird way it's basically a healing spell. But this doesn't work for other types of summon which appear from nowhere.
Basically, since the monster exists independently of the magic that created/summoned it, it doesn't count as a "created/summoned creature".
Feel free to point to where it says that anywhere in the rules, because the antimagic field certainly doesn't say that. And actually the sage advice answer doesn't either; if their intention was to backdoor errata the spell then they've done a terrible job of that too.
And if you treat the sage advice ruling as RAW, then what they've done is nerf an 8th-level spell by making it possible to trivially ignore it using spells as low as 1st-level that clearly should not be capable of bypassing an antimagic field cast using the 2nd most powerful spell slot any caster can get.
At best, it is an incorrect answer, or a bad ruling, and at worst it's a ham-fisted attempt to answer two separate questions simultaneously, one of which only required a minor clarification, and the other needed a much better answer than what we got. Either way it should not have been published.
This is why it's a perfect example of a bad answer; because it's a big part of the reason why I don't use sage advice answers most of the time. They're fine when they're backing up what's already written (saying it in a slightly different way to clarify or whatever), but the moment they start saying anything that can't be read from the rules in the first place, they become useless. If Sage Advice has to say something new, then it needs to be errata instead, given proper playtesting (maybe UA for the feedback) and released properly.
The SA material I don't find useful is when they're like, "if you read what we wrote, like REALLY read it, you'll see that it plainly says THIS."
The SA material I DO find useful is when they're like, "I'm pretty sure when we wrote this, the idea was to have it work like THIS." Even better if they explain why.
Too often it feels like Sage Advice is trying to protect the egos of the design team. Or it did, back when I still bothered to check it.
He is unhidden, since, even though he aborted his attack, he declared it. He broke cover to (potentially) attack. Even if he didn't actually attack, he had to have done that much to have triggered initiative. Otherwise hidden people just keep getting do-overs until they win initiative. And remember, if someone surprised has a higher initiative than the attacker, it does not mean that fact is automatically known to the attacker. There are no 'ready' signs over the heads of non-surprised NPC's.
Entire rounds are just 6 seconds, after all, not 6 seconds times the number of individuals acting within that turn. If there are 100 people it does not mean each person gets one action every 10 minutes. They are all acting within the same 6 seconds, with just split seconds between their actions.
This isn't the thread to discuss why folks want clarifications :) ... since the rules they want clarifications on generate so much discussion.
However, this ... "He is unhidden, since, even though he aborted his attack, he declared it." is a house rule. There is nothing in the rules that says you lose hidden status for saying you plan to make an attack. Hidden is lost only when the attack roll is made. Initiative is a tool the DM uses to more easily resolve the interactions of several opponents over the period of a combat round. Rolling initiative does NOT imply that anyone has done anything yet.
"COMBAT STEP-BY-STEP
RAW, actions are only decided at step 4.
"Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet."
There is nothing in the rules that says if a player states an intention for their turn then they have to take that action when their turn arrives.
The only problem with the explanation is that it relies on plain language/logic rather than a written rule. But plain language/logic is what they wrote the rules based on. It comes down to a problem with 5e's design philosophy rather than the SAC answer.
I don't really agree, well, at least in principle. I think that you can use plain language to make things clear enough that everyone but pedants will get the gist. Written well enough, only people who are looking to misunderstand will; and I actually think that 5e ends up on this side more often than not. Obviousness is only a bad test because there are people who will do anything to read rules in the most self-beneficial, non-obvious, and egregious way and then say "but it's RAW."
Edit: That is all to say it is easy to write understandable natural language, but harder to write bulletproof natural language. But I think most of the time, you don't actually need bulletproof language unless people are looking to poke holes.
Another weird thing I just thought of. The Heavy property for weapons state: "Small Creatures have disadvantage on Attack rolls with heavy Weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively."
Whats odd about this (and could use a slight errata to address) is that it means that a Tiny creature RAW does not have any disadvantage from using a heavy weapon. For example, if you play a Fairy and cast Reduce on yourself, you actually get better at using a Greataxe as you shrink.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Another weird thing I just thought of. The Heavy property for weapons state: "Small Creatures have disadvantage on Attack rolls with heavy Weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively."
Whats odd about this (and could use a slight errata to address) is that it means that a Tiny creature RAW does not have any disadvantage from using a heavy weapon. For example, if you play a Fairy and cast Reduce on yourself, you actually get better at using a Greataxe as you shrink.
You're right, but the DMG has this to say: "You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."
You know, in the chapter for customizing monsters. Right where you'd definitely look first! /s
Another weird thing I just thought of. The Heavy property for weapons state: "Small Creatures have disadvantage on Attack rolls with heavy Weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively."
Whats odd about this (and could use a slight errata to address) is that it means that a Tiny creature RAW does not have any disadvantage from using a heavy weapon. For example, if you play a Fairy and cast Reduce on yourself, you actually get better at using a Greataxe as you shrink.
You're right, but the DMG has this to say: "You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."
You know, in the chapter for customizing monsters. Right where you'd definitely look first! /s
I was actually just looking at the Sage Advice and it looks like they actually have already addressed this: In the first sentence, “Small creatures” has changed to “Creatures that are Small or Tiny”. In the second sentence, “… a Small creature to use effectively” has changed to “… a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Again I wasn't looking for discussion, I was pointing out an example of a bad sage advice answer.
Don't agree that it is. It's clear, directly spells out what the developer intent is, and makes sense in the context of the abilities. It's a bad example of a bad example.
If I were to try to point out a 'bad' ruling, it'd probably be the weapon attack vs attack with a weapon thing, because it creates obtuse RAW for no real mechanical purpose.
As for requests... there are a handful of questions about how primeval companions are supposed to work I'd like to see clarified together because sometimes people get pretty heated over it.
Again I wasn't looking for discussion, I was pointing out an example of a bad sage advice answer.
Don't agree that it is. It's clear, directly spells out what the developer intent is, and makes sense in the context of the abilities. It's a bad example of a bad example.
Except that it's not, for the many, many reasons I gave that you conveniently ignored while discussing something I explicitly said I didn't want to discuss?
The weapon attack vs. attack with a weapon thing is not a better example because it's actually extremely simple once you get your head around it, and makes sense from the rules as they were originally provided; it's just confusing terminology (and why keyword based rules are often better). This differs massively to the example I gave which directly contradicts without explanation one of the rules that it's supposed to be clarifying. Feel free to read the rest of my post if you'd like to know why, then feel free to read the sentence you quoted and not reply about it.
Except that it's not, for the many, many reasons I gave that you conveniently ignored while discussing something I explicitly said I didn't want to discuss?
I mean... you say that, but this is your third post on a topic you don't want to talk about. Mixed messaging here. If you don't want to discuss something, you don't have to, but it's not strange or surprising when you offer an opinion on the forums that someone with a different viewpoint might respond. Relax.
It's not a matter of "ignoring" either, I just don't really find those to be big problems or particularly hard to parse out, in the same way you don't find the inherent (imo) jank in the weapon attack language problematic for the health of the game like I do.
More on topic: I'd really like to see them go into detail on what their goals with the booming blade (etc) changes are. There are a lot of questions about valid weapons and the implications of the targeting change that don't feel like they're easy to understand from simply reading them (as evidenced by the many discussions on the topic). In a way it feels like the change created more problems than it actually addressed.
This is probably beyond the scope of SA, but I'd like to see a designer talk about how magic gear is intended to interact with characters that can't really use magic weapons... I mean, the obvious answer is "they don't", because that's clear rules, but it feels like a bit of a design hole when magic weapons are often prevalent in adventures but certain characters have to choose between upgrading their weapon and using their class features. Though I guess that's one place where designer twitter accounts might be better than something like this, since it isn't really an explicit rules question.
More on topic: I'd really like to see them go into detail on what their goals with the booming blade (etc) changes are. There are a lot of questions about valid weapons and the implications of the targeting change that don't feel like they're easy to understand from simply reading them (as evidenced by the many discussions on the topic). In a way it feels like the change created more problems than it actually addressed.
I believe that there are two main reasons they changed booming blade (there could be others).
The two main changes are a range of self and the requirement for a melee weapon with a cost of at least 1sp.
1) Making the spell target self (5' radius) prevents it from being twinned. Without this, the cantrip effectively gives sorcerers the extra attack feature against creatures within 5' - each with a weapon attack and each with the rider damage if they move. A bladesinger wizard/sorcerer might even manage three by twinning booming blade and making an extra attack as part of their attack action. Add on spirit shroud for extra bonus damage.
2) The second reason was also RAW but clearly not intended. It is related to component pouches.
Component pouch: "A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
If a component does not have a specific cost listed in the spell then it can be stored in your component pouch. This turns a component pouch into a mini bag of holding for any weapons you might use for booming blade. In addition, component pouches usually include all the items for use in spells without a specific cost listed - so some folks could claim they get their weapons for free since they have to be in their component pouch to cast booming blade.
Personally, I wouldn't allow either of those - but new DMs or those with argumentative players might have more trouble with folks who say "That is what the rules say!".
Is Psionics considered magical? (and thus the use of all psionic abilities would be magical effects)
No, it's not magic. And those skills are not considered as such... because it doesn't say anywhere that they are.
Although it would be nice if they made it clear what is considered a spell and what is not. Not for me, but for those who like to munchkin anything that isn't written. For example, I once ran into a player who wanted to counterspell a monster's ability. And also to a Rune Knight rune. We had a lot of silly discussions in that game.
Is Psionics considered magical? (and thus the use of all psionic abilities would be magical effects)
No, it's not magic. And those skills are not considered as such... because it doesn't say anywhere that they are.
Well, the basic rules does say psionics are spells. So if you consider spells to be magic, it seems like it’s easy to say psionics are magic.
Psionics
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
Wether they can be counterspelled, when there’s no components, so no way to tell the creature is casting is a whole different can of worms.
And this definition pre-dates any PC psionic abilities. So if a psi knight powers are considered psionic “spells” or not seems like it could use some clarification.
Is Psionics considered magical? (and thus the use of all psionic abilities would be magical effects)
No, it's not magic. And those skills are not considered as such... because it doesn't say anywhere that they are.
Well, the basic rules does say psionics are spells. So if you consider spells to be magic, it seems like it’s easy to say psionics are magic.
Psionics
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
Wether they can be counterspelled, when there’s no components, so no way to tell the creature is casting is a whole different can of worms.
And this definition pre-dates any PC psionic abilities. So if a psi knight powers are considered psionic “spells” or not seems like it could use some clarification.
No, that is saying that the monster can cast spells with psionics, not that all psionics are spells. It is like how some apples are red, but not all red fruits are apples. And honestly, I think they only created that tag in case they added psionics as a larger mechanic later.
Whether or not something is a spell is pretty straight forward. All spells are written in the same format and have clearly defined qualities (school, components, spell level etc). If it doesn't have a spell level, it isn't a spell.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled that magic missile uses the same damage roll for all the darts, but I would like to see a ruling as to whether that is true in the Sage Advice Compendium itself so that it would be official. The infamous magic missile build can easily one-shot the occasional god.
Again I wasn't looking for discussion, I was pointing out an example of a bad sage advice answer.
However, the first paragraph is only correct for dispel magic (which explicitly requires a spell). Antimagic field does not require the presence of a spell to operate on a magically created or summoned creature (or most of its conditions), there is no such requirement within its rules. It very specifically does not apply only to spells, and uses language such as "or other magical effects".
"A creature or object summoned or created by magic" does not stop being one just because the spell (or other magical effect) that summoned or created it was finished. It does not say "a creature or object summoned by an active spell". Yet they've invented this new condition as part of their answer. It's an answer that not only does not, but cannot, support its conclusion for both questions it's trying to answer.
In the case of animate dead there is a possible exception, in that a zombie is arguably not "a creature or object summoned or created by magic" at all, as it's actually an existing (albeit dead) creature given a new stat-block and restored to (un)life, in a weird way it's basically a healing spell. But this doesn't work for other types of summon which appear from nowhere.
Feel free to point to where it says that anywhere in the rules, because the antimagic field certainly doesn't say that. And actually the sage advice answer doesn't either; if their intention was to backdoor errata the spell then they've done a terrible job of that too.
And if you treat the sage advice ruling as RAW, then what they've done is nerf an 8th-level spell by making it possible to trivially ignore it using spells as low as 1st-level that clearly should not be capable of bypassing an antimagic field cast using the 2nd most powerful spell slot any caster can get.
At best, it is an incorrect answer, or a bad ruling, and at worst it's a ham-fisted attempt to answer two separate questions simultaneously, one of which only required a minor clarification, and the other needed a much better answer than what we got. Either way it should not have been published.
This is why it's a perfect example of a bad answer; because it's a big part of the reason why I don't use sage advice answers most of the time. They're fine when they're backing up what's already written (saying it in a slightly different way to clarify or whatever), but the moment they start saying anything that can't be read from the rules in the first place, they become useless. If Sage Advice has to say something new, then it needs to be errata instead, given proper playtesting (maybe UA for the feedback) and released properly.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
The SA material I don't find useful is when they're like, "if you read what we wrote, like REALLY read it, you'll see that it plainly says THIS."
The SA material I DO find useful is when they're like, "I'm pretty sure when we wrote this, the idea was to have it work like THIS." Even better if they explain why.
Too often it feels like Sage Advice is trying to protect the egos of the design team. Or it did, back when I still bothered to check it.
This isn't the thread to discuss why folks want clarifications :) ... since the rules they want clarifications on generate so much discussion.
However, this ... "He is unhidden, since, even though he aborted his attack, he declared it." is a house rule. There is nothing in the rules that says you lose hidden status for saying you plan to make an attack. Hidden is lost only when the attack roll is made. Initiative is a tool the DM uses to more easily resolve the interactions of several opponents over the period of a combat round. Rolling initiative does NOT imply that anyone has done anything yet.
"COMBAT STEP-BY-STEP
RAW, actions are only decided at step 4.
"Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet."
There is nothing in the rules that says if a player states an intention for their turn then they have to take that action when their turn arrives.
One simple addition to the SA:
Is Psionics considered magical? (and thus the use of all psionic abilities would be magical effects)
I don't really agree, well, at least in principle. I think that you can use plain language to make things clear enough that everyone but pedants will get the gist. Written well enough, only people who are looking to misunderstand will; and I actually think that 5e ends up on this side more often than not. Obviousness is only a bad test because there are people who will do anything to read rules in the most self-beneficial, non-obvious, and egregious way and then say "but it's RAW."
Edit: That is all to say it is easy to write understandable natural language, but harder to write bulletproof natural language. But I think most of the time, you don't actually need bulletproof language unless people are looking to poke holes.
Another weird thing I just thought of. The Heavy property for weapons state: "Small Creatures have disadvantage on Attack rolls with heavy Weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively."
Whats odd about this (and could use a slight errata to address) is that it means that a Tiny creature RAW does not have any disadvantage from using a heavy weapon. For example, if you play a Fairy and cast Reduce on yourself, you actually get better at using a Greataxe as you shrink.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
You're right, but the DMG has this to say: "You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."
You know, in the chapter for customizing monsters. Right where you'd definitely look first! /s
I was actually just looking at the Sage Advice and it looks like they actually have already addressed this: In the first sentence, “Small creatures” has changed to “Creatures that are Small or Tiny”. In the second sentence, “… a Small creature to use effectively” has changed to “… a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.”
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Don't agree that it is. It's clear, directly spells out what the developer intent is, and makes sense in the context of the abilities. It's a bad example of a bad example.
If I were to try to point out a 'bad' ruling, it'd probably be the weapon attack vs attack with a weapon thing, because it creates obtuse RAW for no real mechanical purpose.
As for requests... there are a handful of questions about how primeval companions are supposed to work I'd like to see clarified together because sometimes people get pretty heated over it.
Except that it's not, for the many, many reasons I gave that you conveniently ignored while discussing something I explicitly said I didn't want to discuss?
The weapon attack vs. attack with a weapon thing is not a better example because it's actually extremely simple once you get your head around it, and makes sense from the rules as they were originally provided; it's just confusing terminology (and why keyword based rules are often better). This differs massively to the example I gave which directly contradicts without explanation one of the rules that it's supposed to be clarifying. Feel free to read the rest of my post if you'd like to know why, then feel free to read the sentence you quoted and not reply about it.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I mean... you say that, but this is your third post on a topic you don't want to talk about. Mixed messaging here. If you don't want to discuss something, you don't have to, but it's not strange or surprising when you offer an opinion on the forums that someone with a different viewpoint might respond. Relax.
It's not a matter of "ignoring" either, I just don't really find those to be big problems or particularly hard to parse out, in the same way you don't find the inherent (imo) jank in the weapon attack language problematic for the health of the game like I do.
More on topic: I'd really like to see them go into detail on what their goals with the booming blade (etc) changes are. There are a lot of questions about valid weapons and the implications of the targeting change that don't feel like they're easy to understand from simply reading them (as evidenced by the many discussions on the topic). In a way it feels like the change created more problems than it actually addressed.
This is probably beyond the scope of SA, but I'd like to see a designer talk about how magic gear is intended to interact with characters that can't really use magic weapons... I mean, the obvious answer is "they don't", because that's clear rules, but it feels like a bit of a design hole when magic weapons are often prevalent in adventures but certain characters have to choose between upgrading their weapon and using their class features. Though I guess that's one place where designer twitter accounts might be better than something like this, since it isn't really an explicit rules question.
I believe that there are two main reasons they changed booming blade (there could be others).
The two main changes are a range of self and the requirement for a melee weapon with a cost of at least 1sp.
1) Making the spell target self (5' radius) prevents it from being twinned. Without this, the cantrip effectively gives sorcerers the extra attack feature against creatures within 5' - each with a weapon attack and each with the rider damage if they move. A bladesinger wizard/sorcerer might even manage three by twinning booming blade and making an extra attack as part of their attack action. Add on spirit shroud for extra bonus damage.
2) The second reason was also RAW but clearly not intended. It is related to component pouches.
Component pouch: "A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
If a component does not have a specific cost listed in the spell then it can be stored in your component pouch. This turns a component pouch into a mini bag of holding for any weapons you might use for booming blade. In addition, component pouches usually include all the items for use in spells without a specific cost listed - so some folks could claim they get their weapons for free since they have to be in their component pouch to cast booming blade.
Personally, I wouldn't allow either of those - but new DMs or those with argumentative players might have more trouble with folks who say "That is what the rules say!".
No, it's not magic. And those skills are not considered as such... because it doesn't say anywhere that they are.
Although it would be nice if they made it clear what is considered a spell and what is not. Not for me, but for those who like to munchkin anything that isn't written. For example, I once ran into a player who wanted to counterspell a monster's ability. And also to a Rune Knight rune. We had a lot of silly discussions in that game.
Well, the basic rules does say psionics are spells. So if you consider spells to be magic, it seems like it’s easy to say psionics are magic.
Psionics
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
Wether they can be counterspelled, when there’s no components, so no way to tell the creature is casting is a whole different can of worms.
And this definition pre-dates any PC psionic abilities. So if a psi knight powers are considered psionic “spells” or not seems like it could use some clarification.
No, that is saying that the monster can cast spells with psionics, not that all psionics are spells. It is like how some apples are red, but not all red fruits are apples. And honestly, I think they only created that tag in case they added psionics as a larger mechanic later.
Whether or not something is a spell is pretty straight forward. All spells are written in the same format and have clearly defined qualities (school, components, spell level etc). If it doesn't have a spell level, it isn't a spell.
Jeremy Crawford has ruled that magic missile uses the same damage roll for all the darts, but I would like to see a ruling as to whether that is true in the Sage Advice Compendium itself so that it would be official. The infamous magic missile build can easily one-shot the occasional god.