Questions about Investment of the Chain Master

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Just one thing regarding Deathly Teleport:

Teleportation

Teleportation is a special kind of magical transportation. If you teleport, you disappear and reappear elsewhere instantly, without moving through the intervening space. This transportation doesn’t expend movement unless a rule tells you otherwise, and teleportation never provokes Opportunity Attacks.

I stand corrected. I didn't think to cross reference the rules glossary.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Multiattack, Eldritch Burst, and Paralyzing Touch are not magical actions and function normally within an Antimagic Field. Everything under Spellcasting is magical and would be suppressed.

 
Eldritch Burst deals Force damage. Force damage is defined in the PHB as "Pure magical energy". Anything that deals Force damage is magical by definition.

Debatable but fair. Pure magical energy is an example, not a definition. It's the only example, but just an example, nonetheless. Let's err on the side of magical though.

Quote from Natrel >>

As for Paralyzing Touch... This is where I think the "you need to have the word Magical in it" goes too far. They invoke Cold damage from nowhere, and Paralyze without using any toxins. It's clearly not physical Cold, and it's clearly not a natural Paralysis. This should be considered magical by default. If not RAW, at the very least RAI.

It doesn't matter. None of these have any indicator that they are magical. There is no "magical by default". It's non-magical by default with RAW text to determine when things are magical. Paralyzing Touch is not.

Quote from Natrel >>

Another clear indication that both of these are magical is the fact that they have +12 on attack and +5 on damage. +5 is its Intelligence modifier, and +12 corresponds to that INT mod + its PB of 7. The Lich is using its spell casting ability for both of these attacks and their damage, not its Dexterity (which is only +3) or its Strength (which is 0). And I'll posit that any attack that uses your spell casting ability is magical.

Again, this doesn't matter. "And I'll posit that any attack that uses your spell casting ability is magical" is a house rule and not relevant. The fact that certain spells allow you to substitute your spellcasting ability for strength or dexterity does not make every use of your spellcasting ability magical. Those are independent. Correlation does not equal causality. Paralyzing Touch is not magical and Eldritch Burst could still be argued as nonmagical (but probably isn't).

Yes, it matters. RAI matters. In fact, it matters more than RAW.

Your spellcasting ability is magic by definition. Anything you do that uses it is magical. That's not a house rule, that's literally what your spellcasting ability is for. If you're a Wizard and one of your abilities uses your Intelligence mod to attack and deal damage, you're doing magic. It's more than just a few spells. You have many class features and magic items that emphasize this.

And suggesting that a damage type described as "pure magical energy" may not be magical is just bad faith at this point. This is exactly what I meant when I said that the "magical effect" rule gets abused by being applied in an absurdly pedantic way, to the point of bad faith. And it's probably going to remain like that until it gets an erratum, unfortunately.

@Natrel I also think Force damage should count as magical for rules interactions.

Force damage should not automatically count as magical, it is counter to what is written in the PHB which specifically states that damage types have no rules.

Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as Resistance, rely on the types.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/rules-glossary#DamageTypes

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/playing-the-game#DamageTypes

Having damage types not having rules but then having an exception for Force is something that would only make the rules more convoluted further down the line.

Well you'll have to tell me just how far down the line you'll have to go to see that happen, because right now and as far as I can foresee it's the other way around.
And if we're going to admit that Eldritch Blast is magic but Eldritch Burst (which does exactly the same thing with more damage) isn't because a specific word is missing, I call BS.
At this point, it's clearly not about getting the mechanics right, it's about intentionally undermining Antimagic Field. 

Quote from R3sistance >>

Force damage should not automatically count as magical, it is counter to what is written in the PHB which specifically states that damage types have no rules.

Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as Resistance, rely on the types.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/rules-glossary#DamageTypes

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/playing-the-game#DamageTypes

Having damage types not having rules but then having an exception for Force is something that would only make the rules more convoluted further down the line.

 

Damage has no rules and calling anything that creates Force damage magical are not mutually opposing.   Stating anything that causes force damage is not saying anything about about rules on damage type.  Calling anything magical is a rule concerning the source , not the damage type.

Quote from Natrel >>

Well you'll have to tell me just how far down the line you'll have to go to see that happen, because right now and as far as I can foresee it's the other way around.
And if we're going to admit that Eldritch Blast is magic but Eldritch Burst (which does exactly the same thing with more damage) isn't because a specific word is missing, I call BS.

You can call Yahtzee for all the difference it makes. That's RAW. The only example of Force Damage given in the PHB is magical, but it's not a definition. I am willing to say that it could be magical in this case, but that's not a definite RAW or RAI decision and may vary by table. Your DMs that claimed that attacks that were "obviously" magical because they didn't contain the words "magic" or "magical" were correct and you were, and still are, wrong.

Quote from Natrel >>

At this point, it's clearly not about getting the mechanics right, it's about intentionally undermining Antimagic Field.

Antimagic Field isn't an "I win" button against magical creatures. Magically animated constructs, like golems punch your face just fine. There is no "but their very existence is magical so their attacks should fail". Nope. Doesn't work that way, by design, by RAW and RAI. Similar to liches, Iron Golems are magical creatures and the only thing an Antimagic Field might shut down is their Magic Resistance, but anything that would trigger it is also shut down by the field so it doesn't matter.

So what does this have with Pact of the Chain? Let's at least keep the creatures and abilities discussed on topic. 

• A Gazer loses access to its Eye Rays in such a field, but nothing else; it can fly just fine.
• A Tressym is unaffected by the field; it can still detect invisibility, for example, just fine.
• An Art Elemental Mascot, a Fractal Mascot (its Quantum Strike is an excellent example of a non-magical candidate for Force damage), an Inkling Mascot, a Pest Mascot, and a Spirit Statue Mascot are unaffected by the field; these require the Strixhaven Mascot feat and it is not clear if you can use them with Pact of the Chain. 
• Similar to an Iron Golem, an Imp may lose Magic Resistance in a Magic Field, but it doesn't matter. It also loses Invisibility, but retains everything else.
• A Pseudodragon may lose Magic Resistance, but nothing else.
• A Quasit may lose Magic Resistance. It loses Invisibility, but nothing else.
• A Skeleton loses nothing.
• A Slaad Tadpole may lose magic resistance, but nothing else.
• A Sphynx of Wonder may lose magic resistance, but nothing else.
• A Sprite loses Invisibility and nothing else.

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Force damage should not automatically count as magical, it is counter to what is written in the PHB which specifically states that damage types have no rules.

Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as Resistance, rely on the types.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/rules-glossary#DamageTypes

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/playing-the-game#DamageTypes

Having damage types not having rules but then having an exception for Force is something that would only make the rules more convoluted further down the line.

 

 

Damage has no rules and calling anything that creates Force damage magical are not mutually opposing.   Stating anything that causes force damage is not saying anything about about rules on damage type.  Calling anything magical is a rule concerning the source , not the damage type.

 Damage types have no rules, and a rule that would apply to Force damage are quite literally mutually opposing. Anyway, there is literally no rule for force damage nor anything to even suggest that such a rule is even intended, if anything, the fact it's explicitly stated that damage types do not have rules, would implicitly state that no such rule is RAI.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from Natrel >>

Well you'll have to tell me just how far down the line you'll have to go to see that happen, because right now and as far as I can foresee it's the other way around.
And if we're going to admit that Eldritch Blast is magic but Eldritch Burst (which does exactly the same thing with more damage) isn't because a specific word is missing, I call BS.

You can call Yahtzee for all the difference it makes. That's RAW. The only example of Force Damage given in the PHB is magical, but it's not a definition. I am willing to say that it could be magical in this case, but that's not a definite RAW or RAI decision and may vary by table. Your DMs that claimed that attacks that were "obviously" magical because they didn't contain the words "magic" or "magical" were correct and you were, and still are, wrong.

You're contradicting yourself. You can't admit that it could be magical in this case and then just claim that the DMs I was referring to were right without even knowing what we were talking about. As a matter of fact, Eldritch Blast vs Eldritch Burst was one of these instances.

There is no contradiction. I am saying it is a reasonable interpretation to think that is magical. I could see agreeing to it at my own table. However, the DM's ruling that it was not is 100% RAW correct. There is nothing that says that the attack is magical.

Eldritch Blast is a spell and is always magical. The name doesn't matter. It can be Totally Nonmagical Blast and it would still be magical. The fact that Eldritch Burst shares a word with a spell is not relevant.

If you prefer me to say it differently: You are wrong according to RAW. The DM's ruling was 100% valid.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Character77006 >> 

Damage has no rules and calling anything that creates Force damage magical are not mutually opposing.   Stating anything that causes force damage is not saying anything about about rules on damage type.  Calling anything magical is a rule concerning the source , not the damage type.

 Damage types have no rules, and a rule that would apply to Force damage are quite literally mutually opposing. Anyway, there is literally no rule for force damage nor anything to even suggest that such a rule is even intended, if anything, the fact it's explicitly stated that damage types do not have rules, would implicitly state that no such rule is RAI.

Okay, I'll have to agree with you here. However, that does not prevent damage type from being a potential indication of magic, and inferring rules based on empirical evidence.

Certainly, in the case of Force damage, you can make an RAI argument that the source is magical. RAW, it's not enough though. It doesn't pass the test.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from Natrel >>

Well you'll have to tell me just how far down the line you'll have to go to see that happen, because right now and as far as I can foresee it's the other way around.
And if we're going to admit that Eldritch Blast is magic but Eldritch Burst (which does exactly the same thing with more damage) isn't because a specific word is missing, I call BS.

You can call Yahtzee for all the difference it makes. That's RAW. The only example of Force Damage given in the PHB is magical, but it's not a definition. I am willing to say that it could be magical in this case, but that's not a definite RAW or RAI decision and may vary by table. Your DMs that claimed that attacks that were "obviously" magical because they didn't contain the words "magic" or "magical" were correct and you were, and still are, wrong.

You're contradicting yourself. You can't admit that it could be magical in this case and then just claim that the DMs I was referring to were right without even knowing what we were talking about. As a matter of fact, Eldritch Blast vs Eldritch Burst was one of these instances. [REDACTED]

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Character77006 >> 

 

Damage has no rules and calling anything that creates Force damage magical are not mutually opposing.   Stating anything that causes force damage is not saying anything about about rules on damage type.  Calling anything magical is a rule concerning the source , not the damage type.

 Damage types have no rules, and a rule that would apply to Force damage are quite literally mutually opposing. Anyway, there is literally no rule for force damage nor anything to even suggest that such a rule is even intended, if anything, the fact it's explicitly stated that damage types do not have rules, would implicitly state that no such rule is RAI.

 
Okay, I'll have to agree with you here. However, that does not prevent damage type from being a potential indication of magic, and inferring rules based on empirical evidence.
For example, can you point out ANY instance of Force damage, from ANY creature, feature, or ability in ANY official content, that is in fact not blatantly magical?
You could cite the powder barrels from BG3, which deal Force damage when they explode, but that's not official content...

 Monk level 6 - Empowered Strikes, nothing indicates Empowered Strikes is in anyway Magical but it allows you to switch the damage type to force.

Figther subclass level 3 - If you want to get into the complicated topic of if psionics are magic, then there is a question of Psionic Strike from Psi Warrior. Psionics are ill-defined in 5E and nothing inherently indicates that they are magical at all, so other than the level 18 ability, nothing from Psi Warrior is actually blocked by an antimagic field. Lore wise, Psionics are generally considered something entirely seperate from magic and magical effects.

(well, also Telekinetic Movement (Level 3: Psionic Power). It requires a Magic action)

Quote from R3sistance >>

Figther subclass level 3 - If you want to get into the complicated topic of if psionics are magic, then there is a question of Psionic Strike from Psi Warrior. Psionics are ill-defined in 5E and nothing inherently indicates that they are magical at all, so other than the level 18 ability, nothing from Psi Warrior is actually blocked by an antimagic field. Lore wise, Psionics are generally considered something entirely seperate from magic and magical effects.

The last official stance I recall (3.5e) was that they were interchangeable by default. I don't know if there has been anything more recent.

If they're useful, here are more threads discussing whether some game features are magical:

- Does Spellfire Sorcery's Class Features work inside Antimagic Fields?
- Are Armorer Special Weapons magical weapons?
- Would true sight work on a changeling
- Soul Knives: Psionics or Magic?
- Pact of the Blade (and Shadow Blade/Flame Blade) vs. Antimagic Field in 2024 rules

Quote from Tarod_ >>

(well, also Telekinetic Movement (Level 3: Psionic Power). It requires a Magic action)

good point, but don't want to derail conversation too far on fighter/Psi Warrior.

I just wanted to point out two places where force damage is inflicted and there is nothing to indicate that the sources are at all magical, nor should be considered as such.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Figther subclass level 3 - If you want to get into the complicated topic of if psionics are magic, then there is a question of Psionic Strike from Psi Warrior. Psionics are ill-defined in 5E and nothing inherently indicates that they are magical at all, so other than the level 18 ability, nothing from Psi Warrior is actually blocked by an antimagic field. Lore wise, Psionics are generally considered something entirely seperate from magic and magical effects.

The last official stance I recall (3.5e) was that they were interchangeable by default. I don't know if there has been anything more recent.

 Mmm, I'd need to double check, but I think 5E has left Psionics in a weird position since it's barely a thing anymore but iirc psionics do not interact with the weave, the shadow weave and aren't divine magic, at least as far as the lore goes. As far as 5E mechanics go, many of the features of psi warrior aren't indicated to be magical at all. Only Telekinesis (spell) and Telekinetic Movement would count due to one being a spell and the other requiring a magic action, that's it for Psi Warrior.

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Natrel >>

 
Okay, I'll have to agree with you here. However, that does not prevent damage type from being a potential indication of magic, and inferring rules based on empirical evidence.
For example, can you point out ANY instance of Force damage, from ANY creature, feature, or ability in ANY official content, that is in fact not blatantly magical?
You could cite the powder barrels from BG3, which deal Force damage when they explode, but that's not official content...

 Monk level 6 - Empowered Strikes, nothing indicates Empowered Strikes is in anyway Magical but it allows you to switch the damage type to force.

Figther subclass level 3 - If you want to get into the complicated topic of if psionics are magic, then there is a question of Psionic Strike from Psi Warrior. Psionics are ill-defined in 5E and nothing inherently indicates that they are magical at all, so other than the level 18 ability, nothing from Psi Warrior is actually blocked by an antimagic field. Lore wise, Psionics are generally considered something entirely seperate from magic and magical effects.

 
Empowered Strikes is like Hunter's Mark. In 2014, it was "your attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances". Every single mention of this concept of "magical  bludgeoning/piercing/slashing" was removed in 2024 and replaced with Force for simplification. So if anything, this supports my point of view, not contradicts it :)

As for Psionics... you know what? I agree with you. You're right. Psionics are indeed an exception. But when something uses Psionics, it's always explicitly mentioned, so I don't think one could argue that an ability that deals Force damage is non-magical because "it could be Psionics"...

Quote from Natrel >>

Empowered Strikes is like Hunter's Mark. In 2014, it was "your attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances". Every single mention of this concept of "magical  bludgeoning/piercing/slashing" was removed in 2024 and replaced with Force for simplification. So if anything, this supports my point of view, not contradicts it :)

"Count as" something usually means it's not that thing so I disagree.

Quote from R3sistance >>

Mmm, I'd need to double check, but I think 5E has left Psionics in a weird position since it's barely a thing anymore but iirc psionics do not interact with the weave, the shadow weave and aren't divine magic, at least as far as the lore goes. As far as 5E mechanics go, many of the features of psi warrior aren't indicated to be magical at all.

For 3.5, I can say for certain they were interchangeable by default. IIRC, this explicitly flipped the default from 3e.

According to the Forgotten Realms Wiki, psionics didn't interact with the Weave or Shadow Weave, but "after the Year of Wild Magic, 1372 DR, the results of psionic powers were magical in nature and psionics and conventional magic were fully transparent to one another, interacting just as magic did with itself, though not all spellcasters were aware if this was possible." There is no mention of it reverting.

I mostly skipped 4e, so I am not familiar with any psionic mechanics, if any, that it had.

If 5e had a similar psionic = magic statement as 3.5e, it would be more clear-cut.

Quote from R3sistance >>

Only Telekinesis (spell) and Telekinetic Movement would count due to one being a spell and the other requiring a magic action, that's it for Psi Warrior.

Telekinetic Movement might technically not be a magical effect as it doesn't technically meet the definition despite being shut down by an Anti-magic Field because it requires a Magic action. The same is true for a Soul Knife's Psychic Whispers and Psychic Veil. I would think RAI, they are magical though except that Psychic Veil, while using a Magic action, basically duplicates the effect of Invisibility without casting a spell. I suspect it and the others are not intended to be magical effects.

However, the Psychic classes' class features not being magical effects is not surprising. Many spellcasting classes' class features other than spellcasting itself are not magical. Lay on Hands is not magical. Wildshape is not a magical effect. Arcane Recovery is not a magical effect. Font of Magic is ... well, does the name count? The mechanics don't match the magical effect definition. It doesn't really establish any default interaction regarding Psionics and Magic.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Natrel >>

 
Okay, I'll have to agree with you here. However, that does not prevent damage type from being a potential indication of magic, and inferring rules based on empirical evidence.
For example, can you point out ANY instance of Force damage, from ANY creature, feature, or ability in ANY official content, that is in fact not blatantly magical?
You could cite the powder barrels from BG3, which deal Force damage when they explode, but that's not official content...

 Monk level 6 - Empowered Strikes, nothing indicates Empowered Strikes is in anyway Magical but it allows you to switch the damage type to force.

Figther subclass level 3 - If you want to get into the complicated topic of if psionics are magic, then there is a question of Psionic Strike from Psi Warrior. Psionics are ill-defined in 5E and nothing inherently indicates that they are magical at all, so other than the level 18 ability, nothing from Psi Warrior is actually blocked by an antimagic field. Lore wise, Psionics are generally considered something entirely seperate from magic and magical effects.

 
Empowered Strikes is like Hunter's Mark. In 2014, it was "your attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances". Every single mention of this concept of "magical  bludgeoning/piercing/slashing" was removed in 2024 and replaced with Force for simplification. So if anything, this supports my point of view, not contradicts it :)

As for Psionics... you know what? I agree with you. You're right. Psionics are indeed an exception. But when something uses Psionics, it's always explicitly mentioned, so I don't think one could argue that an ability that deals Force damage is non-magical because "it could be Psionics"...

Surely you mean Ki-empowered Strikes? Hunter's Mark in 2014 was a spell just like it is in 2024. Ki-empowered strikes only stated that the attack counts as magical for the purposes of resistances and immunity, not that it is actually magical or should else wise be considered magical. Empowered Strikes removed the only reference to being magical and there is nothing to indicate that it at all should be considered magical. This is just one of those 2014 quirks WotC cornered itself into by having resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage be a thing and making it way to common a resistance.

Psionic Strike deals force damage and it expends a Psionic Energy die to use, so I don't think it's a "could be Psionics", it pretty clearly is just Psionics.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

 [...] Wildshape is not a magical effect [...]

 We had a conversation in one of the threads I linked regarding this SAC answer:

Can you use Dispel Magic to dispel a magical effect like a Druid’s Wild Shape?

Dispel Magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a magical effect that isn’t created by a spell unless the text says otherwise (though the DM can always make exceptions).