If the text box I put above wasn't the second thing from both dndbeyond and its the same in the original players hand book I would agree. But that defines Ki as a type of magic. And with the line below that shows even more that it normally flows through them to work there abilities.
Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes.
I would take the opposite view tbh, the fact that it is the general descriptive text that say it means I put little weight to it.
The text of the Ki feature doesn't call it magical, it uses "mystic" instead and I would rate that as a lot more important for deciding how the feature works (as it is the actual rules text of the class feature). If you decide Ki is a magical thing then you loose all the things that use Ki so no flurry, no step of the wind or patient defense and no stunning strike and so on (unarmored defense, deflect missile and martial arts though do not use Ki so they should be fine).
Cause im terrible at forums. I would then go back to my post with the full description then back at post #9 title of the section is called
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. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/monk#TheMagicofKi
Another part of the SAC entry on what is magical says:
"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"
The first is NOT considered magical in the D&D universe while the latter is.
The description of the monk use of Ki is:
"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."
This description of the monk harnessing of magic refers both to magic that suffuses the multiverse AND magic that flows through living bodies. In terms of description, this is much closer to the "magic that is a part of the D&D multiverse's physics" or specifically "the physiology of many D&D creatures" (i.e. mostly living bodies) than it is to the description of "concentrated magical energy".
As such, I can easily see a DM ruling that the "Magic of Ki" refers to the first type of magic that suffuses the multiverse rather than the concentrated form which would be suppressed by an AMF.
The SAC defines multiple meanings and interpretations for the word "magic" in the context of D&D when determining if a dragon's breath weapon is magical or whether dragon's flying is magical or a dragon itself is magical. The description of Ki in the PHB seems to more closely align with this definition of magic rather than the latter kind.
Ultimate decision is up to the DM but I can see it go either way (personally, I'd lean towards use of Ki not being considered magical in terms of an AMF).
Another part of the SAC entry on what is magical says:
"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"
The first is NOT considered magical in the D&D universe while the latter is.
The description of the monk use of Ki is:
"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."
This description of the monk harnessing of magic refers both to magic that suffuses the multiverse AND magic that flows through living bodies. In terms of description, this is much closer to the "magic that is a part of the D&D multiverse's physics" or specifically "the physiology of many D&D creatures" (i.e. mostly living bodies) than it is to the description of "concentrated magical energy".
As such, I can easily see a DM ruling that the "Magic of Ki" refers to the first type of magic that suffuses the multiverse rather than the concentrated form which would be suppressed by an AMF.
The SAC defines multiple meanings and interpretations for the word "magic" in the context of D&D when determining if a dragon's breath weapon is magical or whether dragon's flying is magical or a dragon itself is magical. The description of Ki in the PHB seems to more closely align with this definition of magic rather than the latter kind.
Ultimate decision is up to the DM but I can see it go either way (personally, I'd lean towards use of Ki not being considered magical in terms of an AMF).
I would be inclined towards that ruling other than the fact that Druid Wildshape has already been deemed suppressed...and I consider these the same type of magic.
Yep, it's all about trying to categorize what is actually happening to the Monk mechanically at Level 6.
At low levels the Monk punches creatures in the face and normally does damage. But one day he battles a creature whose face is so tough that when he punches this creature in the face he does no damage. Then, later on the Monk reaches Level 6 and has a rematch with this creature. Now all of a sudden when the Monk punches this particular creature in the face he does the expected damage just like he used to when fighting lesser creatures. So, what exactly changed with this Monk that caused this change? When he punches this creature in the face are his punches now being magically enhanced by some sort of magical effect that exists on or within the Monk on an ongoing basis? Or did the Monk simply improve his skill at punching faces? According to the name of the class feature, these punches become "Ki-Empowered" and therefore "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity". What does that actually mean mechanically? I don't think that it's perfectly spelled out in one direction or the other -- it's open to interpretation and the DM will have to make the call.
To me when Monk's Ki harness this power within themselves to create magical effects
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.
Its referring to concentrated magical energy that is channeled to create focused magical effects
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 am not going to say your reading is incorrect, but using the emphasis you place on RAW to demonstrate your point feels like we're saying that ki in and of itself is background magic, while the features that use ki (ki-empowered strike) are focused magical effects. I'm not sure that I'm even disagreeing with you here, but this feels like the distinction that jumps out to me.
I am not going to say your reading is incorrect, but using the emphasis you place on RAW to demonstrate your point feels like we're saying that ki in and of itself is background magic, while the features that use ki (ki-empowered strike) are focused magical effects. I'm not sure that I'm even disagreeing with you here, but this feels like the distinction that jumps out to me.
There is also the middle ground where some ki powered effects would be considered concentrated magic (eg Shadow monk or Four elements monk spell effects) vs "background" magic - monk attacks are considered magical for the purposes of damage resistance once they hit 6th level. It doesn't actually say that monk attacks are magical at 6th level.
"Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."
I could see some features being prevented and others allowed in an AMF.
Also, in comparison to druid wild shaping - this specific feature is described explicitly as magical in the text for wild shape. On the other hand, ki is only described as magical in the general introductory descriptive content at the beginning of the section on monks titled "The Magic of Ki". Other than the monk features that cast spells, I'm not sure any of the ki features are explicitly described as magical. The text on the Ki feature itself refers to it as Mystic Energy and not Magic.
Out of curiosity, is there a reason why you assign descriptive text a lower authenticity from a rules perspective?
That's fairly easy, the descriptive parts are in many places not written with anywhere near the same care as the texts of the actual class features, spells or monster descriptions. They use quite a lot of artistic freedom there, just as they do in the naming of spells and class features. So yea, if something in a descriptive text doesn't match what the actual feature or spell or monster say then I have no problem with letting the actual rules texts take precedence.
About the specific case here, "magic" is a word that come up in a lot of places and led to one of the longest SAC entries we have and @David42 makes the case better than I managed. I'm not sure there is much to add apart from just noting that they had every chance in the text of the feature to say that it is magical (as they did with wildshape) but instead choose to call it "mystical energy" and mystical is not a word that comes up a lot in the books and AFAIK it has no specific rules meaning.
There was a similar thread on this topic last year. The best arguments for each side each had some merit. These were:
Ki is magical:
The first sentence in the Monk section about Ki says "Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki."
The SAC clarifies how to tell if something is magical:
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• 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?
Thus Ki is magical for RAW purposes.
Ki is not magical:
Per Jeremy Crawford: "Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes."
In the same twitter thread Dan Dillon (another WotC D&D dev) adds, "For clarity's sake, the confusion comes from the lore section on Ki from pg 76: "The Magic of Ki."" Further, JCraw adds "That is an example of the background magic I talked about in Sage Advice. Look for "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?"" From the referenced question, his response is "The breath weapon of a typical dragon is not magical."
So per the designers of the game, no, ki is not magic.
I would personally still rule that ki is magical but don't feel too strongly about it. I still also feel that it's ambiguous enough that a DM could rule it either way without violating the RAW.
KI-EMPOWERED STRIKES Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
The feature is an exclusion that holds the only instance where the the strike would be considered magical. The strike wouldn’t pop up when making use of detect magic, anti magic field, or any other circumstances where magic might actually matter.
Just for bypassing resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks.
KI-EMPOWERED STRIKES Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
The feature is an exclusion that holds the only instance where the the strike would be considered magical. The strike wouldn’t pop up when making use of detect magic, anti magic field, or any other circumstances where magic might actually matter.
I think we have adequately demonstrated that ki-empowered strike would be completely shut down by an antimagic field.
Punching a goblin - KES would not function inside or outside the field, because it is never triggered by this target.
Punching a werewolf - KES would not function inside the field, because it would be suppressed by the field. The werewolf is immune to the non-magical punch.
In both cases, KES does not occur within an antimagic field.
KI-EMPOWERED STRIKES Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
The feature is an exclusion that holds the only instance where the the strike would be considered magical. The strike wouldn’t pop up when making use of detect magic, anti magic field, or any other circumstances where magic might actually matter.
I think we have adequately demonstrated that ki-empowered strike would be completely shut down by an antimagic field.
Punching a goblin - KES would not function inside or outside the field, because it is never triggered by this target.
Punching a werewolf - KES would not function inside the field, because it would be suppressed by the field. The werewolf is immune to the non-magical punch.
In both cases, KES does not occur within an antimagic field.
I think that looking at the post from up2ng makes it clear that there is confusion built into the rules themselves and that whether or not ki powered abilities that do not specifically refer to magic ARE concentrated magic and considered magical or background magic and considered non-magical is completely at DM discretion and either can be interpreted as RAW (even considering the clarification in the SAC). Note also that the description in the "Magic of Ki" section is a close parallel to the "background magic" description in the SAC and not the concentrated magic description so interpreting Ki "magic" as background magic and not subject to AMF is certainly within RAW (but I would say a DM reaching a different conclusion is also correct).
In addition, the Ki-empowered strike feature says several things but it does NOT say the ability is magical. It says that the strikes are considered magical for the sole purpose of determining whether the attacks overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. In any other circumstance where a magic weapon is required and the situation does not involve resistance to non-magic damage, then a monk's attacks are not considered magical.
If there was a door with a lock requiring a magical weapon - a monk could not open it by touching it because their hands are NOT magical. Even if they struck the door with a ki empowered strike, their hands are still not considered magical - however, they would be treated as if they were magical (not that they are) when resistance to non-magical damage is involved.
There was a similar thread on this topic last year. The best arguments for each side each had some merit. These were:
Ki is magical:
The first sentence in the Monk section about Ki says "Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki."
The SAC clarifies how to tell if something is magical:
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• 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?
Thus Ki is magical for RAW purposes.
Ki is not magical:
Per Jeremy Crawford: "Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes."
In the same twitter thread Dan Dillon (another WotC D&D dev) adds, "For clarity's sake, the confusion comes from the lore section on Ki from pg 76: "The Magic of Ki."" Further, JCraw adds "That is an example of the background magic I talked about in Sage Advice. Look for "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?"" From the referenced question, his response is "The breath weapon of a typical dragon is not magical."
So per the designers of the game, no, ki is not magic.
I would personally still rule that ki is magical but don't feel too strongly about it. I still also feel that it's ambiguous enough that a DM could rule it either way without violating the RAW.
I'm surprised of the Dev's take on this all while referring back to SAC that define what magic is. To me wether it's lore or not, Magic of Ki clearly identify it as magical for game purposes since the description say so. Judging from this though i'm pretty sure JC would allow Ki-Empowered Strike to function in an anti-magic field.
the Ki-empowered strike feature says several things but it does NOT say the ability is magical. It says that the strikes are considered magical for the sole purpose of determining whether the attacks overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage.
"Considered magical" means the rules treat them as though they are magical within the scope of their function. If overcoming non-magical resistance/immunity takes place in an area in which magic cannot function, then this feature, which we treat as though it is magical for that purpose, does not function. The rules could have said, "Your strikes overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical attacks," but they do not. Therefore, we should consider the ki-empowered strikes to be magical within the scope of their function.
In fairness, I'm not sure that you're actually disagreeing with me in your post.
EDIT: The actual text says they count as magical, not that they are considered magical. That may make no difference, but we may as well discuss the text as written.
I'm surprised of the Dev's take on this all while referring back to SAC that define what magic is. To me wether it's lore or not, Magic of Ki clearly identify it as magical for game purposes since the description say so. Judging from this though i'm pretty sure JC would allow Ki-Empowered Strike to function in an anti-magic field.
Magic of Ki is not Ki-Empowered Strikes. The SAC mentions that the description of dragons says they're magical, but since the description of the breath weapon itself does not, the breath weapon isn't magical. If we take the SAC's standard as our own, then Ki-Empowers Strikes is not magical, regardless of what text outside its description says about ki in general. Taking the view that the Magic of Ki description makes anything involving ki magical isn't unreasonable, but it directly contradicts the SAC.
I discussed this with some people, and they gave me a new perspective on the issue. I have been hung up on "counts as magical," but even if ki-empowered strikes were genuinely magical, it is not clear that we can count them as a targeted effect for the purposes of antimagic field.
EDIT: You know what, I'm doubling down on this. RAI says it's suppressed, and that tweet also tells us what "counts as" means in terms of how we should interpret RAW on the matter. So unless we get something in RAW that tells us how else to interpret the phrase "counts as magical" I'm going with this as the correct answer.
A Monk's unarmed strike is not magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes and would not be sensed by Detect Magic for exemple, instead only counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities.
But in order to do so, Monks must harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks to hinder, and when within the spell, an area of Antimagic Field is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse...Spells and other magical effects, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.
So it all depend if one think Magic of Ki is or isn't creating magical effects allowing Ki-Empowered Strikes to count as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities, and If a monk is able to use the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to do so or not because it is temporarily divorced within the area.
Bottom question is do monk need the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to use the Magic of Ki or not?
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
Antimagic Field:This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane. Until the spell ends, the sphere moves with you, centered on you.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. A slot expended to cast a suppressed spell is consumed. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.
A Monk's unarmed strike is not magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes and would not be sensed by Detect Magic for exemple, instead only counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities.
But in order to do so, Monks must harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks to hinder, and when within the spell, an area of Antimagic Field is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse...Spells and other magical effects, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.
So it all depend if one think Magic of Ki is or isn't creating magical effects allowing Ki-Empowered Strikes to count as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities, and If a monk is able to use the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to do so or not because it is temporarily divorced within the area.
Bottom question is do monk need the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to use the Magic of Ki or not?
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
Antimagic Field:This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane. Until the spell ends, the sphere moves with you, centered on you.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. A slot expended to cast a suppressed spell is consumed. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.
On a similar basis, if an AMF is "divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse" ... the background magic using the description in the SAC, then presumably a Dragon, which is a magical creature, can't exist there? If a dragon could exist there, can it fly and does it's breath weapon work? The description of AMF sounds like it blocks all magic and not just the concentrated magic referred to in the SAC.
Anyway, I think there is enough ambiguity in RAW that a DM could rule either way. In addition, the SAC entry which tries to distinguish different kinds of magic like "magical dragons", based on the SAC entry and the use of magic in the description then dragons are just as magical as the monks use of ki since both use the word magic. Essentially, whatever ruling a DM decides for a dragon could equally be applied to a monk since both use the word magic in their description.
Dragons:
"Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."
Monks:
"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."
The description of a Dragon's innate magic fueling its abilities and a monk harnessing the innate power within themselves to create magical effects (like a dragon does with its breath weapon), are remarkably similar.
Both use the word magical in very similar contexts.
Anyway, the issue comes down to the rules being written in such a way that "magic" is a term used for a wide range of effects, some of which could be considered "magic" by the game rules and some of which are not. The way the description of Ki is written is very similar to the abilities of a Dragon which are explicitly ruled (RAI from SAC) as NOT being magical. On the other hand, the same SAC entry says that if the word magic is used in the description (which it certainly is in the case of a Dragon) then the effect can be considered magical.
P.S.
To add to this, the SAC explicitly refers to FEATURES.
"Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:"
It then uses the example of a Dragon's breath, not Dragon's in general or where the breath weapon comes from but the in game description of the specific feature:
"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."
There is no mention of magic in the breath weapon FEATURE ... so it isn't magical based on the SAC entry.
Compare this to the monk entries:
"
Ki
Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of ki points. Your monk level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Ki Points column of the Monk table.
You can spend these points to fuel various ki features. You start knowing three such features: Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind. You learn more ki features as you gain levels in this class.
When you spend a ki point, it is unavailable until you finish a short or long rest, at the end of which you draw all of your expended ki back into yourself. You must spend at least 30 minutes of the rest meditating to regain your ki points.
Some of your ki features require your target to make a saving throw to resist the feature’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:
Ki save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier
Flurry of Blows Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
Patient Defense You can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action as a bonus action on your turn.
Step of the Wind You can spend 1 ki point to take the Disengage or Dash action as a bonus action on your turn, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn."
There is NO mention of magic in the class feature called KI.
"
Stunning Strike
Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."
There is NO mention of magic in the stunning strike feature.
"
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."
This says that the attacks "count as magical" for the SOLE purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity. This doesn't say the effect IS magical, it says that it counts as magical for one specific purpose.
The only mention of magic in terms of monk abilities is in the descriptive "Magic of Ki" section, which much like describing dragon's as magical, is describing the source of a monk's power as the innate magical power of their bodies.
-----------------
Compare the monk features to other game features that are explicitly magical:
"Wild Shape
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest."
Wild Shape is explicitly magical.
"Channel Divinity
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects."
A cleric channels divine energy (not magic) but they produce explicitly magical effects with channel divinity so channel divinity is also magical.
"Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage."
Expending a spell slot makes this explicitly magical.
"Divine Health
By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease."
Use of the word magic makes this feature magical.
--------
Also compare to other NON-magical features. These are all wonderfully "magical" features for the respective classes but are not considered "magic" in terms of game rules because the FEATURES do not mention magic.
Divine Sense
The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces.
Lay on Hands
Your blessed touch can heal wounds. You have a pool of healing power that replenishes when you take a long rest. With that pool, you can restore a total number of hit points equal to your paladin level × 5.
Telepathic Speech
1st-level Aberrant Mind feature
You can form a telepathic connection between your mind and the mind of another. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You and the chosen creature can speak telepathically with each other while the two of you are within a number of miles of each other equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 mile). To understand each other, you each must speak mentally in a language the other knows.
------------------------------
TL;DR: Based on the general inconsistency in the use of the term "magic" in the rules and the fact that the SAC explicitly refers to FEATURES having to fulfill a set of conditions to be considered magical (and the monk features do not fulfill these conditions). It would be reasonable for a DM to conclude that most monk abilities are not considered magical from the perspective of the rules.
On a similar basis, if an AMF is "divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse" ... the background magic using the description in the SAC, then presumably a Dragon, which is a magical creature, can't exist there?
It's not said to use this magical energy that suffuses the multiverse specifically to create magical effects where monk do with Magic of Ki though.
I find it quite revelating that Magic of Ki uses the exact same verbiage when using magical energy that suffuses the multiverse that Antimagic Field is speficially making area where its divorced. The feature let Monk use this energy to create magical effect, wether they're considered magical or not is not the point, the question is more if they can do so when within an area that is divorced from it. Can they use magical energy that suffuses the multiverse where it is divorced? Some seem to think so and others not.
I just think that the argument made in Plaguescarred's last post is really strong. The wordings used in the "Magic of Ki" and in the "Antimagic Field" are so similar that they really must be talking about the same "type" of magic:
"This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse" vs "the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse".
It seems pretty clear from this that the Antimagic Field does indeed suppress the Magic of Ki one way or the other. One possibility is that the developers made an error in describing the Magic of Ki as belonging to the "type" of magic that developers previously described as "background magic" (although this is never a distinction that is made anywhere in the rules as far as I know), and instead the Magic of Ki is really "actual magic". Based on how often the developer comments get things wrong on a variety of rules questions, I believe that this is the most likely. A second possibility is that the Antimagic Field actually suppresses BOTH "actual magic" AND "background magic" which would therefore have a great impact on creatures such as Dragons and their abilities. This feels less likely to me somehow.
If we assume from this that the developer comment was incorrect and that the Magic of Ki should be considered to be "actual magic" then it would function in a similar manner to "The Weave of Magic" as described in Chapter 10. So, just as a spellcaster interacts with the Weave when casting a spell in order to produce a "magical effect", we should consider that the Monk interacts with the Magic of Ki when using a Ki Feature (or any other Class Feature that is passively enhanced by Ki) in order to produce a "magical effect".
That's my current interpretation of the situation, but again, I agree that this whole thing is easily open to interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cause im terrible at forums. I would then go back to my post with the full description then back at post #9 title of the section is called
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.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/monk#TheMagicofKi
Just to add some additional food for thought.
Another part of the SAC entry on what is magical says:
"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 first is NOT considered magical in the D&D universe while the latter is.
The description of the monk use of Ki is:
"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."
This description of the monk harnessing of magic refers both to magic that suffuses the multiverse AND magic that flows through living bodies. In terms of description, this is much closer to the "magic that is a part of the D&D multiverse's physics" or specifically "the physiology of many D&D creatures" (i.e. mostly living bodies) than it is to the description of "concentrated magical energy".
As such, I can easily see a DM ruling that the "Magic of Ki" refers to the first type of magic that suffuses the multiverse rather than the concentrated form which would be suppressed by an AMF.
The SAC defines multiple meanings and interpretations for the word "magic" in the context of D&D when determining if a dragon's breath weapon is magical or whether dragon's flying is magical or a dragon itself is magical. The description of Ki in the PHB seems to more closely align with this definition of magic rather than the latter kind.
Ultimate decision is up to the DM but I can see it go either way (personally, I'd lean towards use of Ki not being considered magical in terms of an AMF).
I would be inclined towards that ruling other than the fact that Druid Wildshape has already been deemed suppressed...and I consider these the same type of magic.
Yep, it's all about trying to categorize what is actually happening to the Monk mechanically at Level 6.
At low levels the Monk punches creatures in the face and normally does damage. But one day he battles a creature whose face is so tough that when he punches this creature in the face he does no damage. Then, later on the Monk reaches Level 6 and has a rematch with this creature. Now all of a sudden when the Monk punches this particular creature in the face he does the expected damage just like he used to when fighting lesser creatures. So, what exactly changed with this Monk that caused this change? When he punches this creature in the face are his punches now being magically enhanced by some sort of magical effect that exists on or within the Monk on an ongoing basis? Or did the Monk simply improve his skill at punching faces? According to the name of the class feature, these punches become "Ki-Empowered" and therefore "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity". What does that actually mean mechanically? I don't think that it's perfectly spelled out in one direction or the other -- it's open to interpretation and the DM will have to make the call.
To me when Monk's Ki harness this power within themselves to create magical effects
Its referring to concentrated magical energy that is channeled to create focused magical effects
I am not going to say your reading is incorrect, but using the emphasis you place on RAW to demonstrate your point feels like we're saying that ki in and of itself is background magic, while the features that use ki (ki-empowered strike) are focused magical effects. I'm not sure that I'm even disagreeing with you here, but this feels like the distinction that jumps out to me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is also the middle ground where some ki powered effects would be considered concentrated magic (eg Shadow monk or Four elements monk spell effects) vs "background" magic - monk attacks are considered magical for the purposes of damage resistance once they hit 6th level. It doesn't actually say that monk attacks are magical at 6th level.
"Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."
I could see some features being prevented and others allowed in an AMF.
Also, in comparison to druid wild shaping - this specific feature is described explicitly as magical in the text for wild shape. On the other hand, ki is only described as magical in the general introductory descriptive content at the beginning of the section on monks titled "The Magic of Ki". Other than the monk features that cast spells, I'm not sure any of the ki features are explicitly described as magical. The text on the Ki feature itself refers to it as Mystic Energy and not Magic.
That's fairly easy, the descriptive parts are in many places not written with anywhere near the same care as the texts of the actual class features, spells or monster descriptions. They use quite a lot of artistic freedom there, just as they do in the naming of spells and class features. So yea, if something in a descriptive text doesn't match what the actual feature or spell or monster say then I have no problem with letting the actual rules texts take precedence.
About the specific case here, "magic" is a word that come up in a lot of places and led to one of the longest SAC entries we have and @David42 makes the case better than I managed. I'm not sure there is much to add apart from just noting that they had every chance in the text of the feature to say that it is magical (as they did with wildshape) but instead choose to call it "mystical energy" and mystical is not a word that comes up a lot in the books and AFAIK it has no specific rules meaning.
There was a similar thread on this topic last year. The best arguments for each side each had some merit. These were:
Ki is magical:
The first sentence in the Monk section about Ki says "Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki."
The SAC clarifies how to tell if something is magical:
Thus Ki is magical for RAW purposes.
Ki is not magical:
Per Jeremy Crawford: "Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes."
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/702205711011328000?lang=en
In the same twitter thread Dan Dillon (another WotC D&D dev) adds, "For clarity's sake, the confusion comes from the lore section on Ki from pg 76: "The Magic of Ki."" Further, JCraw adds "That is an example of the background magic I talked about in Sage Advice. Look for "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?"" From the referenced question, his response is "The breath weapon of a typical dragon is not magical."
So per the designers of the game, no, ki is not magic.
I would personally still rule that ki is magical but don't feel too strongly about it. I still also feel that it's ambiguous enough that a DM could rule it either way without violating the RAW.
KI-EMPOWERED STRIKES
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
The feature is an exclusion that holds the only instance where the the strike would be considered magical. The strike wouldn’t pop up when making use of detect magic, anti magic field, or any other circumstances where magic might actually matter.
Just for bypassing resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks.
also the name of the feature doesn’t matter.
I think we have adequately demonstrated that ki-empowered strike would be completely shut down by an antimagic field.
In both cases, KES does not occur within an antimagic field.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that looking at the post from up2ng makes it clear that there is confusion built into the rules themselves and that whether or not ki powered abilities that do not specifically refer to magic ARE concentrated magic and considered magical or background magic and considered non-magical is completely at DM discretion and either can be interpreted as RAW (even considering the clarification in the SAC). Note also that the description in the "Magic of Ki" section is a close parallel to the "background magic" description in the SAC and not the concentrated magic description so interpreting Ki "magic" as background magic and not subject to AMF is certainly within RAW (but I would say a DM reaching a different conclusion is also correct).
In addition, the Ki-empowered strike feature says several things but it does NOT say the ability is magical. It says that the strikes are considered magical for the sole purpose of determining whether the attacks overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. In any other circumstance where a magic weapon is required and the situation does not involve resistance to non-magic damage, then a monk's attacks are not considered magical.
If there was a door with a lock requiring a magical weapon - a monk could not open it by touching it because their hands are NOT magical. Even if they struck the door with a ki empowered strike, their hands are still not considered magical - however, they would be treated as if they were magical (not that they are) when resistance to non-magical damage is involved.
I'm surprised of the Dev's take on this all while referring back to SAC that define what magic is. To me wether it's lore or not, Magic of Ki clearly identify it as magical for game purposes since the description say so. Judging from this though i'm pretty sure JC would allow Ki-Empowered Strike to function in an anti-magic field.
"Considered magical" means the rules treat them as though they are magical within the scope of their function. If overcoming non-magical resistance/immunity takes place in an area in which magic cannot function, then this feature, which we treat as though it is magical for that purpose, does not function. The rules could have said, "Your strikes overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical attacks," but they do not. Therefore, we should consider the ki-empowered strikes to be magical within the scope of their function.
In fairness, I'm not sure that you're actually disagreeing with me in your post.
EDIT: The actual text says they count as magical, not that they are considered magical. That may make no difference, but we may as well discuss the text as written.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Magic of Ki is not Ki-Empowered Strikes. The SAC mentions that the description of dragons says they're magical, but since the description of the breath weapon itself does not, the breath weapon isn't magical. If we take the SAC's standard as our own, then Ki-Empowers Strikes is not magical, regardless of what text outside its description says about ki in general. Taking the view that the Magic of Ki description makes anything involving ki magical isn't unreasonable, but it directly contradicts the SAC.
I discussed this with some people, and they gave me a new perspective on the issue. I have been hung up on "counts as magical," but even if ki-empowered strikes were genuinely magical, it is not clear that we can count them as a targeted effect for the purposes of antimagic field.
EDIT: You know what, I'm doubling down on this. RAI says it's suppressed, and that tweet also tells us what "counts as" means in terms of how we should interpret RAW on the matter. So unless we get something in RAW that tells us how else to interpret the phrase "counts as magical" I'm going with this as the correct answer.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A Monk's unarmed strike is not magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes and would not be sensed by Detect Magic for exemple, instead only counting as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities.
But in order to do so, Monks must harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks to hinder, and when within the spell, an area of Antimagic Field is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse...Spells and other magical effects, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.
So it all depend if one think Magic of Ki is or isn't creating magical effects allowing Ki-Empowered Strikes to count as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance and immunities, and If a monk is able to use the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to do so or not because it is temporarily divorced within the area.
Bottom question is do monk need the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse to use the Magic of Ki or not?
On a similar basis, if an AMF is "divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse" ... the background magic using the description in the SAC, then presumably a Dragon, which is a magical creature, can't exist there? If a dragon could exist there, can it fly and does it's breath weapon work? The description of AMF sounds like it blocks all magic and not just the concentrated magic referred to in the SAC.
Anyway, I think there is enough ambiguity in RAW that a DM could rule either way. In addition, the SAC entry which tries to distinguish different kinds of magic like "magical dragons", based on the SAC entry and the use of magic in the description then dragons are just as magical as the monks use of ki since both use the word magic. Essentially, whatever ruling a DM decides for a dragon could equally be applied to a monk since both use the word magic in their description.
Dragons:
"Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."
Monks:
"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."
The description of a Dragon's innate magic fueling its abilities and a monk harnessing the innate power within themselves to create magical effects (like a dragon does with its breath weapon), are remarkably similar.
Both use the word magical in very similar contexts.
Anyway, the issue comes down to the rules being written in such a way that "magic" is a term used for a wide range of effects, some of which could be considered "magic" by the game rules and some of which are not. The way the description of Ki is written is very similar to the abilities of a Dragon which are explicitly ruled (RAI from SAC) as NOT being magical. On the other hand, the same SAC entry says that if the word magic is used in the description (which it certainly is in the case of a Dragon) then the effect can be considered magical.
P.S.
To add to this, the SAC explicitly refers to FEATURES.
"Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:"
It then uses the example of a Dragon's breath, not Dragon's in general or where the breath weapon comes from but the in game description of the specific feature:
"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."
There is no mention of magic in the breath weapon FEATURE ... so it isn't magical based on the SAC entry.
Compare this to the monk entries:
"
Ki
Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of ki points. Your monk level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Ki Points column of the Monk table.
You can spend these points to fuel various ki features. You start knowing three such features: Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind. You learn more ki features as you gain levels in this class.
When you spend a ki point, it is unavailable until you finish a short or long rest, at the end of which you draw all of your expended ki back into yourself. You must spend at least 30 minutes of the rest meditating to regain your ki points.
Some of your ki features require your target to make a saving throw to resist the feature’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:
Ki save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier
Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
Patient Defense
You can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action as a bonus action on your turn.
Step of the Wind
You can spend 1 ki point to take the Disengage or Dash action as a bonus action on your turn, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn."
There is NO mention of magic in the class feature called KI.
"
Stunning Strike
Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."
There is NO mention of magic in the stunning strike feature.
"
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."
This says that the attacks "count as magical" for the SOLE purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity. This doesn't say the effect IS magical, it says that it counts as magical for one specific purpose.
The only mention of magic in terms of monk abilities is in the descriptive "Magic of Ki" section, which much like describing dragon's as magical, is describing the source of a monk's power as the innate magical power of their bodies.
-----------------
Compare the monk features to other game features that are explicitly magical:
"Wild Shape
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest."
Wild Shape is explicitly magical.
"Channel Divinity
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects."
A cleric channels divine energy (not magic) but they produce explicitly magical effects with channel divinity so channel divinity is also magical.
"Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage."
Expending a spell slot makes this explicitly magical.
"Divine Health
By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease."
Use of the word magic makes this feature magical.
--------
Also compare to other NON-magical features. These are all wonderfully "magical" features for the respective classes but are not considered "magic" in terms of game rules because the FEATURES do not mention magic.
Divine Sense
The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces.
Lay on Hands
Your blessed touch can heal wounds. You have a pool of healing power that replenishes when you take a long rest. With that pool, you can restore a total number of hit points equal to your paladin level × 5.
Telepathic Speech
1st-level Aberrant Mind feature
You can form a telepathic connection between your mind and the mind of another. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You and the chosen creature can speak telepathically with each other while the two of you are within a number of miles of each other equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 mile). To understand each other, you each must speak mentally in a language the other knows.
------------------------------
TL;DR: Based on the general inconsistency in the use of the term "magic" in the rules and the fact that the SAC explicitly refers to FEATURES having to fulfill a set of conditions to be considered magical (and the monk features do not fulfill these conditions). It would be reasonable for a DM to conclude that most monk abilities are not considered magical from the perspective of the rules.
It's not said to use this magical energy that suffuses the multiverse specifically to create magical effects where monk do with Magic of Ki though.
I find it quite revelating that Magic of Ki uses the exact same verbiage when using magical energy that suffuses the multiverse that Antimagic Field is speficially making area where its divorced. The feature let Monk use this energy to create magical effect, wether they're considered magical or not is not the point, the question is more if they can do so when within an area that is divorced from it. Can they use magical energy that suffuses the multiverse where it is divorced? Some seem to think so and others not.
I just think that the argument made in Plaguescarred's last post is really strong. The wordings used in the "Magic of Ki" and in the "Antimagic Field" are so similar that they really must be talking about the same "type" of magic:
"This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse" vs "the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse".
It seems pretty clear from this that the Antimagic Field does indeed suppress the Magic of Ki one way or the other. One possibility is that the developers made an error in describing the Magic of Ki as belonging to the "type" of magic that developers previously described as "background magic" (although this is never a distinction that is made anywhere in the rules as far as I know), and instead the Magic of Ki is really "actual magic". Based on how often the developer comments get things wrong on a variety of rules questions, I believe that this is the most likely. A second possibility is that the Antimagic Field actually suppresses BOTH "actual magic" AND "background magic" which would therefore have a great impact on creatures such as Dragons and their abilities. This feels less likely to me somehow.
If we assume from this that the developer comment was incorrect and that the Magic of Ki should be considered to be "actual magic" then it would function in a similar manner to "The Weave of Magic" as described in Chapter 10. So, just as a spellcaster interacts with the Weave when casting a spell in order to produce a "magical effect", we should consider that the Monk interacts with the Magic of Ki when using a Ki Feature (or any other Class Feature that is passively enhanced by Ki) in order to produce a "magical effect".
That's my current interpretation of the situation, but again, I agree that this whole thing is easily open to interpretation.