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:
Sure, but that doesn't matter to the SAC's explanation of how we determine what counts as magic and what doesn't. To figure that out, we have to look at the actual feature in question.
Not just that, the feature in question is Ki Empowered Strike, so we have to look at the source, which is Magic of Ki. It's where it all hinges, what type of magic we think it is that cause Ki Empowered Strikes to be.
Does Magic of Ki relates to the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures or the concentrated magical energy that is channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect. One thing i noted though was that Magic of Ki specifically refers to energy. But i can see both sides of the arguments and why one would rule one way or the other.
Not just that, the feature in question is Ki Empowered Strike, so we have to look at the source, which is Magic of Ki. It's where it all hinges, what type of magic we think it is that cause Ki Empowered Strikes to be.
Does Magic of Ki relates to the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures or the concentrated magical energy that is channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect. One thing i noted though was that Magic of Ki specifically refers to energy. But i can see both sides of the arguments and why one would rule one way or the other.
Magic of Ki is not a feature. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
Let's focus on a different part of that quote: for the sole purpose. Sole is a strong word in this context.
This says that they are not considered magical for any other purpose but determining whether the attacks overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. Determining whether they are affected by an AMF is a different purpose than the sole purpose listed here.
Not just that, the feature in question is Ki Empowered Strike, so we have to look at the source, which is Magic of Ki. It's where it all hinges, what type of magic we think it is that cause Ki Empowered Strikes to be.
Why?
Why do we have to look at Magic of Ki? Do we need to refer to other parts of a dragon's description to determine whether dragon breath is magical? Your logic is based on the assumption that the Magic of Ki and Ki-Empowered Strike are linked in some way that is not codified anywhere in the rules.
And even if Magic of Ki does apply a default magical tag to every monk feature, Ki Empowered Strike overwrites it. It insists that the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for one single purpose and no others. That's the definition of the word sole, and its placement was intentional because it didn't need to be there - it's not in the Moon Druid's Primal Strike which otherwise uses the same verbiage. Whether or not it would be affected by AMF is a separate purpose than the one stated, so it would not be magical by the definition of the feature.
I'd make this very simple as the DM: Antimagic field affects ALL magical things, except spells and effects created by a deity or an artifact.
So it's affected if it's any type of unnatural/supernatural mumbo jumbo or mystic power or cosmic hocus pocus or strange energy or any of the sort. If it's not mundane, then it's suppressed by antimagic field. And KI is not in any way described as mundane, so it's affected.
It affects everyone equally; friends and enemies - without prejudice or judgment.
If your setting considers dragon breath magical, then sorry dragon, no fire breaths within the Antimagic Field.
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'd say that this is where you go wrong. That "The Magic of Ki" section you keep coming back to is NOT a class feature for the Monk (or any kind of feature tbh), it is some sort of background lore. Every class has such a section before the class table and list of class features/subclasses and all such. Can't say that I've ever put any rules weight on those texts nor seen anyone else do it. The Paladin background info for example says "A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk." and if you where to strictly enforce that part then the Oathbreaker Paladin subclass just cannot exist.
I'd make this very simple as the DM: Antimagic field affects ALL magical things, except spells and effects created by a deity or an artifact.
That's largely the way it worked in 3.5e (it affected all Supernatural traits -- though immunity to normal weapons was a supernatural trait so being unable to hurt a monster because your weapon wasn't magical any more was a nonissue), but it's not how it's defined in 5e.
I don't think it's very complicated at all to draw the line.
Second Wind
You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm. On your turn, you can use a bonus action to regain hit points equal to 1d10 + your fighter level.
Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.
(Nothing in there points towards anything magical. HP is considered more than just the ability to take damage. Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. So for example the ability to regain HP is not necessarily magical. )
Action Surge
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment
Doesn't describe anything magical.
Divine Health
By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.
Clearly magical.
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons
No hocus pocus there.
Ki
Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki.
Clearly some sort of hocus pocus, so antimagic affects it.
And finally the part in question:
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.
It has the word "magical". That's enough to just say that it's magical and thus affected by Antimagic Field. -- The post I replied to was deleted.
But yes, Pantagruel, you are right that some features are supernatural rather than magical and 5e does specify the difference in some cases. But still, Antimagic field is a very powerful effect/spell. It's also very specific and usually with a very limited area. It also affects everyone, players and bad guys included. So I don't think you can go very wrong by just ruling that any features that are described as any sort of mystical or magical etc. are affected. There are plenty of features and abilities that are not described as such.
I'd say that this is where you go wrong. That "The Magic of Ki" section you keep coming back to is NOT a class feature for the Monk (or any kind of feature tbh), it is some sort of background lore. Every class has such a section before the class table and list of class features/subclasses and all such. Can't say that I've ever put any rules weight on those texts nor seen anyone else do it. The Paladin background info for example says "A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk." and if you where to strictly enforce that part then the Oathbreaker Paladin subclass just cannot exist.
Oh yeah you're right i thought it was but it's part of class description. While i attach great importance to such lore in my game, from a Rules & Mechanic perspective it bears very little weight if any under this light i will give you that.
There was some talk of the word "sole" before. This word actually does not exist in the description, at least according to how it's currently listed in DNDBeyond. But even so, the whole premise of that argument misses the point. There is no debate about whether or not the unarmed strike itself is magical -- it's not. We are not making an attack with a magical weapon or anything of that nature. The Ki-Empowered strike is simply an attack that overcomes non-magical damage resistance.
The discussion has not been about whether or not the unarmed strike itself is magical -- it's about whether or not there is some sort of ongoing magical effect on the Monk which allows the Monk to be able to perform an unarmed strike in this special way. The strike is empowered by Ki (it is the name of the ability after all). So, what does that mean? What exactly is empowering this ability to overcome non-magical damage resistance? Has the Monk simply gotten better at unarmed strikes due to leveling up? Or has the Monk learned how to harness a magical energy to improve the performance of his body such that he can now deliver enhanced (but still non-magical) unarmed strikes that have this attribute (able to overcome non-magical damage resistance)?
For those of you who want to only look at the feature description as if it exists on its own island -- are you also against including the title of the feature, "Ki-Empowered Strike" as part of that description? For example, would you actually come to a different conclusion on the 10th level ability called "Purity of Body" than you would for the 6th level ability called "Ki-Empowered Strike" simply because the word "Ki" is used in the description body instead of in the title?
Purity of Body: "At 10th level, your mastery of the ki flowing through you makes you immune to disease and poison."
So, is a 10th level Monk immune to disease and poison while within an Antimagic Field or not?
For those of you who want to only look at the feature description as if it exists on its own island -- are you also against including the title of the feature, "Ki-Empowered Strike" as part of that description? For example, would you actually come to a different conclusion on the 10th level ability called "Purity of Body" than you would for the 6th level ability called "Ki-Empowered Strike" simply because the word "Ki" is used in the description body instead of in the title?
Purity of Body: "At 10th level, your mastery of the ki flowing through you makes you immune to disease and poison."
So, is a 10th level Monk immune to disease and poison while within an Antimagic Field or not?
No I would treat them the same. Ki is Ki no matter if it is in the name or description (even though the SAC does say to not take the names of spells or class features literally). But Ki is defined in the class feature called "Ki" and that does not say it is magical and thus any other abilities that uses Ki (or Ki-points) isn't magical either.
Just to be clear, I can see there being an argument for thinking that Ki-Empowered Strike should lose its ability to overcome resistance/immunity to non-magical damage just as a magic weapon does even if I don't agree with it. What I cannot understand though is the thinking that Ki in itself is magical and stops working in an AMF.
For those of you who want to only look at the feature description as if it exists on its own island -- are you also against including the title of the feature, "Ki-Empowered Strike" as part of that description? For example, would you actually come to a different conclusion on the 10th level ability called "Purity of Body" than you would for the 6th level ability called "Ki-Empowered Strike" simply because the word "Ki" is used in the description body instead of in the title?
Purity of Body: "At 10th level, your mastery of the ki flowing through you makes you immune to disease and poison."
So, is a 10th level Monk immune to disease and poison while within an Antimagic Field or not?
No I would treat them the same. Ki is Ki no matter if it is in the name or description (even though the SAC does say to not take the names of spells or class features literally). But Ki is defined in the class feature called "Ki" and that does not say it is magical and thus any other abilities that uses Ki (or Ki-points) isn't magical either.
Just to be clear, I can see there being an argument for thinking that Ki-Empowered Strike should lose its ability to overcome resistance/immunity to non-magical damage just as a magic weapon does even if I don't agree with it. What I cannot understand though is the thinking that Ki in itself is magical and stops working in an AMF.
Well, there's a few Ki abilities to cast spells; those ought to be shut down regardless of the verdict on Ki in general.
What I cannot understand though is the thinking that Ki in itself is magical and stops working in an AMF.
Oh, that's easy. The reason why some of us think this is because in the section of the book that introduces the entire concept of Ki to the game there is a heading called "The Magic of Ki" and paragraphs which describe Ki as magical. This section describes what Ki is, how it works, and what impact it has upon the Monk class. Not only that, but the wording which describes this is nearly identical to the description of magic that is suppressed by an Antimagic Field:
"This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse" vs "the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse".
Although I agree that the description of things should be examined first to determine what they do and how they work, the rules throughout the core rulebooks often do not exist only in isolation. It is very often the case that the reader has to flip back and forth between several sections or Chapters to get the full and proper interpretation of a rule. Any time that a game term is used in one place but defined and explained in another we would have to become familiar with both places to get the full picture. For example, if a spell described a creature being inflicted with the Poisoned Condition or the Frightened Condition, we would not put on our rules lawyer hats and say something like "but the spell description doesn't actually say that the creature has disadvantage on attack rolls!" No, but it does say that the creature is inflicted with a specific condition that is defined and explained in Appendix A. The reader must then flip to Appendix A and apply the definitions and explanations of the game terms seen there to the spell description which refers to that game term. In another example, in Chapter 9 there is an explanation of the Hide action which states: "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding." We do not just throw up our hands and say that the rules for hiding are not defined here. No, we must now flip back to Chapter 7 where the rules for hiding are defined and apply what we find there to the Hide action.
Admittedly, the section that introduces and explains Ki is a bit less clear than the above examples. It reads as a bit flavor text-y and for some reason it is shoehorned into the introductory paragraphs for the Monk class. In terms of text structure and editing, this is a pretty bad place for the authors to have put it and it's part of what is causing this debate. They could have made Ki its own Chapter like how Spellcasting has its own Chapter, but the Ki Chapter would be really short. I'm not really sure where else in the book would be more appropriate to put it, but it ended up in the introductory paragraphs for the Monk class for better or worse. But I don't think that means that it should just be ignored like it doesn't exist.
This is just one of those things that should have been organized and spelled out in a better way.
Well, there's a few Ki abilities to cast spells; those ought to be shut down regardless of the verdict on Ki in general.
Yeah Monk features such as Empty Body should evidently be prevented from casting spell inside an Antimagic Field contrary to feature such as Shadow Steps teleporting away since no spell is involved, nor does it specifically say it's magical.
So after reconsideration, lore on Magic of Ki aside, except for title Ki-Empowered Strike is in no way related to Ki feature, which is not specifically said to be magical but mystic energy. So it should work fine.
Well, there's a few Ki abilities to cast spells; those ought to be shut down regardless of the verdict on Ki in general.
Yeah Monk features such as Empty Body should evidently be prevented from casting spell inside an Antimagic Field contrary to feature such as Shadow Steps teleporting away since no spell is involved, nor does it specifically say it's magical.
So after reconsideration, lore on Magic of Ki aside, except for title Ki-Empowered Strike is in no way related to Ki feature, which is not specifically said to be magical but mystic energy. So it should work fine.
What on earth is Shadow Step if not magic as intended in the concept of antimagic field? You disappear and appear in a different place. I would never allow such an obviously magical effect to work inside antimagic field.
Sounds extremely RAW to even consider that Shadow Step is not a magical effect.
Do other game-mechanically specified magic-like, effects that are not magic, even exist? Like "Mystic". I don't recall coming across any rules regarding "mystic" abilities.
Isn't magical the general word that describes all things of magical nature? I think it's a real stretch to say that mystic and magical are different things. Feels like mystic is a subcategory of magical if anything. All sorts of things are flavored differently. Clerics use "divine power" for example.
Can there be an Antimystic Field spell? Do creatures have Mystic Resistance?
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.
Let's focus on a different part of that quote: for the sole purpose. Sole is a strong word in this context.
That word does indeed appear in David42's post that you quoted.
Well, there's a few Ki abilities to cast spells; those ought to be shut down regardless of the verdict on Ki in general.
Yeah Monk features such as Empty Body should evidently be prevented from casting spell inside an Antimagic Field contrary to feature such as Shadow Steps teleporting away since no spell is involved, nor does it specifically say it's magical.
So after reconsideration, lore on Magic of Ki aside, except for title Ki-Empowered Strike is in no way related to Ki feature, which is not specifically said to be magical but mystic energy. So it should work fine.
What on earth is Shadow Step if not magic as intended in the concept of antimagic field? You disappear and appear in a different place. I would never allow such an obviously magical effect to work inside antimagic field.
Sounds extremely RAW to even consider that Shadow Step is not a magical effect.
Do other game-mechanically specified magic-like, effects that are not magic, even exist? Like "Mystic". I don't recall coming across any rules regarding "mystic" abilities.
Isn't magical the general word that describes all things of magical nature? I think it's a real stretch to say that mystic and magical are different things. All sorts of things are flavored differently. Clerics use "divine power" for example.
Can there be an Antimystic Field spell? Do creatures have Mystic Resistance?
Okay, the thing to realize is that at the end of the day per RAW AMF actually does not affect most instances of magic in D&D. A dragon still has its aura of fear and breath weapon, a golem will remain animate, a lycanthrope will remain transformed, a beholder will continue to hover, etc. These are all things that expressly happen because of magic, but they are not suppressed by the field. The field primarily suppresses magic items, the casting and/or effects of spells, effects that consume spell slots, and magic attack rolls. Barring the specific instances of “use Ki to cast X spell”, Ki features meet none of those conditions and are pretty much never described as magical in the actual feature- just the fluff of the class description, so it’s reasonable to place Ki in the same category as all those other examples.
OP here. Surprised but gratified to see so many replies to this and some on both sides. At least I wasn’t debating something clearly defined in the rules, lol
my original ruling in game was the monk’s blows did half damage. Going forward I’ll rule that they do full damage. Both sides make valid points I’m changing my mind for 1 RAW reason, after reading the ability and thinki;g about it, I lean towards the interpretation that “considered magical” isn’t magical. But it’s close,
the other 2 reasons are less about rules and more about fun. 1) I think monks are underpowered. Letting them shine in this rare example makes them more fun 2) AMF is incredibly powerful debufff. In this example, PCs were created at 17th level with generous budget for Magic items. The fight was very tough. 2 of the 4 PCs went down. Allowing a monk to do full damage gives the part a small but much needed edge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, but that doesn't matter to the SAC's explanation of how we determine what counts as magic and what doesn't. To figure that out, we have to look at the actual feature in question.
Not just that, the feature in question is Ki Empowered Strike, so we have to look at the source, which is Magic of Ki. It's where it all hinges, what type of magic we think it is that cause Ki Empowered Strikes to be.
Does Magic of Ki relates to the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures or the concentrated magical energy that is channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect. One thing i noted though was that Magic of Ki specifically refers to energy. But i can see both sides of the arguments and why one would rule one way or the other.
Magic of Ki is not a feature. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Let's focus on a different part of that quote: for the sole purpose. Sole is a strong word in this context.
This says that they are not considered magical for any other purpose but determining whether the attacks overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. Determining whether they are affected by an AMF is a different purpose than the sole purpose listed here.
Why?
Why do we have to look at Magic of Ki? Do we need to refer to other parts of a dragon's description to determine whether dragon breath is magical? Your logic is based on the assumption that the Magic of Ki and Ki-Empowered Strike are linked in some way that is not codified anywhere in the rules.
And even if Magic of Ki does apply a default magical tag to every monk feature, Ki Empowered Strike overwrites it. It insists that the unarmed strikes are only considered magical for one single purpose and no others. That's the definition of the word sole, and its placement was intentional because it didn't need to be there - it's not in the Moon Druid's Primal Strike which otherwise uses the same verbiage. Whether or not it would be affected by AMF is a separate purpose than the one stated, so it would not be magical by the definition of the feature.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'd make this very simple as the DM: Antimagic field affects ALL magical things, except spells and effects created by a deity or an artifact.
So it's affected if it's any type of unnatural/supernatural mumbo jumbo or mystic power or cosmic hocus pocus or strange energy or any of the sort. If it's not mundane, then it's suppressed by antimagic field. And KI is not in any way described as mundane, so it's affected.
It affects everyone equally; friends and enemies - without prejudice or judgment.
If your setting considers dragon breath magical, then sorry dragon, no fire breaths within the Antimagic Field.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I'd say that this is where you go wrong. That "The Magic of Ki" section you keep coming back to is NOT a class feature for the Monk (or any kind of feature tbh), it is some sort of background lore. Every class has such a section before the class table and list of class features/subclasses and all such. Can't say that I've ever put any rules weight on those texts nor seen anyone else do it. The Paladin background info for example says "A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk." and if you where to strictly enforce that part then the Oathbreaker Paladin subclass just cannot exist.
That's largely the way it worked in 3.5e (it affected all Supernatural traits -- though immunity to normal weapons was a supernatural trait so being unable to hurt a monster because your weapon wasn't magical any more was a nonissue), but it's not how it's defined in 5e.
I don't think it's very complicated at all to draw the line.
(Nothing in there points towards anything magical. HP is considered more than just the ability to take damage. Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. So for example the ability to regain HP is not necessarily magical. )
Doesn't describe anything magical.
Clearly magical.
No hocus pocus there.
Clearly some sort of hocus pocus, so antimagic affects it.
And finally the part in question:
It has the word "magical". That's enough to just say that it's magical and thus affected by Antimagic Field.
--
The post I replied to was deleted.
But yes, Pantagruel, you are right that some features are supernatural rather than magical and 5e does specify the difference in some cases. But still, Antimagic field is a very powerful effect/spell. It's also very specific and usually with a very limited area. It also affects everyone, players and bad guys included. So I don't think you can go very wrong by just ruling that any features that are described as any sort of mystical or magical etc. are affected. There are plenty of features and abilities that are not described as such.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Oh yeah you're right i thought it was but it's part of class description. While i attach great importance to such lore in my game, from a Rules & Mechanic perspective it bears very little weight if any under this light i will give you that.
There was some talk of the word "sole" before. This word actually does not exist in the description, at least according to how it's currently listed in DNDBeyond. But even so, the whole premise of that argument misses the point. There is no debate about whether or not the unarmed strike itself is magical -- it's not. We are not making an attack with a magical weapon or anything of that nature. The Ki-Empowered strike is simply an attack that overcomes non-magical damage resistance.
The discussion has not been about whether or not the unarmed strike itself is magical -- it's about whether or not there is some sort of ongoing magical effect on the Monk which allows the Monk to be able to perform an unarmed strike in this special way. The strike is empowered by Ki (it is the name of the ability after all). So, what does that mean? What exactly is empowering this ability to overcome non-magical damage resistance? Has the Monk simply gotten better at unarmed strikes due to leveling up? Or has the Monk learned how to harness a magical energy to improve the performance of his body such that he can now deliver enhanced (but still non-magical) unarmed strikes that have this attribute (able to overcome non-magical damage resistance)?
For those of you who want to only look at the feature description as if it exists on its own island -- are you also against including the title of the feature, "Ki-Empowered Strike" as part of that description? For example, would you actually come to a different conclusion on the 10th level ability called "Purity of Body" than you would for the 6th level ability called "Ki-Empowered Strike" simply because the word "Ki" is used in the description body instead of in the title?
Purity of Body: "At 10th level, your mastery of the ki flowing through you makes you immune to disease and poison."
So, is a 10th level Monk immune to disease and poison while within an Antimagic Field or not?
No I would treat them the same. Ki is Ki no matter if it is in the name or description (even though the SAC does say to not take the names of spells or class features literally). But Ki is defined in the class feature called "Ki" and that does not say it is magical and thus any other abilities that uses Ki (or Ki-points) isn't magical either.
Just to be clear, I can see there being an argument for thinking that Ki-Empowered Strike should lose its ability to overcome resistance/immunity to non-magical damage just as a magic weapon does even if I don't agree with it. What I cannot understand though is the thinking that Ki in itself is magical and stops working in an AMF.
Well, there's a few Ki abilities to cast spells; those ought to be shut down regardless of the verdict on Ki in general.
Oh, that's easy. The reason why some of us think this is because in the section of the book that introduces the entire concept of Ki to the game there is a heading called "The Magic of Ki" and paragraphs which describe Ki as magical. This section describes what Ki is, how it works, and what impact it has upon the Monk class. Not only that, but the wording which describes this is nearly identical to the description of magic that is suppressed by an Antimagic Field:
"This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse" vs "the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse".
Although I agree that the description of things should be examined first to determine what they do and how they work, the rules throughout the core rulebooks often do not exist only in isolation. It is very often the case that the reader has to flip back and forth between several sections or Chapters to get the full and proper interpretation of a rule. Any time that a game term is used in one place but defined and explained in another we would have to become familiar with both places to get the full picture. For example, if a spell described a creature being inflicted with the Poisoned Condition or the Frightened Condition, we would not put on our rules lawyer hats and say something like "but the spell description doesn't actually say that the creature has disadvantage on attack rolls!" No, but it does say that the creature is inflicted with a specific condition that is defined and explained in Appendix A. The reader must then flip to Appendix A and apply the definitions and explanations of the game terms seen there to the spell description which refers to that game term. In another example, in Chapter 9 there is an explanation of the Hide action which states: "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding." We do not just throw up our hands and say that the rules for hiding are not defined here. No, we must now flip back to Chapter 7 where the rules for hiding are defined and apply what we find there to the Hide action.
Admittedly, the section that introduces and explains Ki is a bit less clear than the above examples. It reads as a bit flavor text-y and for some reason it is shoehorned into the introductory paragraphs for the Monk class. In terms of text structure and editing, this is a pretty bad place for the authors to have put it and it's part of what is causing this debate. They could have made Ki its own Chapter like how Spellcasting has its own Chapter, but the Ki Chapter would be really short. I'm not really sure where else in the book would be more appropriate to put it, but it ended up in the introductory paragraphs for the Monk class for better or worse. But I don't think that means that it should just be ignored like it doesn't exist.
This is just one of those things that should have been organized and spelled out in a better way.
Yeah Monk features such as Empty Body should evidently be prevented from casting spell inside an Antimagic Field contrary to feature such as Shadow Steps teleporting away since no spell is involved, nor does it specifically say it's magical.
So after reconsideration, lore on Magic of Ki aside, except for title Ki-Empowered Strike is in no way related to Ki feature, which is not specifically said to be magical but mystic energy. So it should work fine.
What on earth is Shadow Step if not magic as intended in the concept of antimagic field? You disappear and appear in a different place. I would never allow such an obviously magical effect to work inside antimagic field.
Sounds extremely RAW to even consider that Shadow Step is not a magical effect.
Do other game-mechanically specified magic-like, effects that are not magic, even exist? Like "Mystic". I don't recall coming across any rules regarding "mystic" abilities.
Isn't magical the general word that describes all things of magical nature? I think it's a real stretch to say that mystic and magical are different things. Feels like mystic is a subcategory of magical if anything. All sorts of things are flavored differently. Clerics use "divine power" for example.
Can there be an Antimystic Field spell? Do creatures have Mystic Resistance?
Finland GMT/UTC +2
That word does indeed appear in David42's post that you quoted.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Okay, the thing to realize is that at the end of the day per RAW AMF actually does not affect most instances of magic in D&D. A dragon still has its aura of fear and breath weapon, a golem will remain animate, a lycanthrope will remain transformed, a beholder will continue to hover, etc. These are all things that expressly happen because of magic, but they are not suppressed by the field. The field primarily suppresses magic items, the casting and/or effects of spells, effects that consume spell slots, and magic attack rolls. Barring the specific instances of “use Ki to cast X spell”, Ki features meet none of those conditions and are pretty much never described as magical in the actual feature- just the fluff of the class description, so it’s reasonable to place Ki in the same category as all those other examples.
OP here. Surprised but gratified to see so many replies to this and some on both sides. At least I wasn’t debating something clearly defined in the rules, lol
my original ruling in game was the monk’s blows did half damage. Going forward I’ll rule that they do full damage. Both sides make valid points I’m changing my mind for 1 RAW reason, after reading the ability and thinki;g about it, I lean towards the interpretation that “considered magical” isn’t magical. But it’s close,
the other 2 reasons are less about rules and more about fun. 1) I think monks are underpowered. Letting them shine in this rare example makes them more fun 2) AMF is incredibly powerful debufff. In this example, PCs were created at 17th level with generous budget for Magic items. The fight was very tough. 2 of the 4 PCs went down. Allowing a monk to do full damage gives the part a small but much needed edge.