Anti magic field and wildshape

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. Now the answer to the question didn’t mention anything about the Druids wildshape being magical so I am wondering if the question was copy pasted by the team when making the compendium. What do you think?

The weird thing about this is that the 5e version of Wild Shape explicitly used the word "magical" to describe what it did, meaning that it would count as a magical effect under the 5.5e definition. All mentions of that word were removed in the 5.5e version of Wild Shape, which argues that it was an intentional change and not just an accident of wording. But I would agree that the Sage Advice thing does seem to just be copied and pasted from the 5e Sage Advice.

Conceptually, it seems (to me) incredibly obvious that it should count as a magical effect., and I'd probably rule it that way in practice even if that's not strictly correct according to the rules as written.

Ya it seems like it was definitely intentional, and I can see where you are coming from with the ruling but I also think that it almost be like a dragons breathe attack or something like that! Thank you for your input!

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. Now the answer to the question didn’t mention anything about the Druids wildshape being magical so I am wondering if the question was copy pasted by the team when making the compendium. What do you think?

 I noticed the same thing while discussing what counts as a magical effect in the following thread (or here along with SmiteMakesRight_3_5's answers). Honestly, though, I admit it's debatable and every DM will probably have their own interpretation.

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Quote from Thezzaruz>>

Quote from TarodNet>>

EDIT: I don't know if the change between editions is intentional?

I'd have to guess that it is. They've streamlined the language to use defined concepts (except for "transformed" but I guess that's easy enough to understand) and followed how other effects that detect things work. It did change how a Changeling is affected but that seems OK to me (I too see it more as a biological change than a magical one). 

 Yeah, probably it is. I agree.

Quote from Thezzaruz >> 

The one change that is more interesting here IMO is that Wildshape lost its magical component so it too should no longer be found by Truesight or Detect Magic.

 I have to admit my interpretation is different here. The Druid class includes some references to magic when they transform into animals:

Druids belong to ancient orders that call on the forces of nature. Harnessing the magic of animals, plants, and the four elements, Druids heal, transform into animals, and wield elemental destruction.

Also, the next answer in the SAC, to me, says indirectly that Wild Shape is still a magical effect.

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).

That said, I also admit it's open to debate. 

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

Ya it seems like it was definitely intentional, and I can see where you are coming from with the ruling but I also think that it almost be like a dragons breathe attack or something like that! Thank you for your input!

Dragon breath is a racial characteristic. All (or close enough to all that outliers don't matter) red dragons breathe fire. Same thing for green dragons and poison, white dragons and cold, etc.

Wildshape is a class ability. While one elf may be able to Wildshape, the majority cannot.

Depending on your view of certain things, it is possible that not even the majority of druids can wildshape. It is a level 2 ability and, while the majority of druids that adventurers encounter are probably over level 1 it is a very common view that adventurers are exceptional people, even at the low levels, their experiences are unusual, and the majority of the population are level 1 (or even level 0 commoners).

So wildshape is clearly not an innate ability. Does that automatically make it magical? Well, the possibility for fuzzy areas exist. It seems pretty obvious a monk's base unarmed attack, even with all the damage it can do at high levels, is just a skill they have mastered. On the other hand, their ability to make the damage Force instead of Bludgeoning seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as magical.

All that said, however, it doesn't really feel to me like there is much fuzziness in this case. It is pretty hard to believe altering body mass is a mere skill that someone can learn and the fact that you can burn spell slots for additional uses adds even more weight to the idea that it is a magical ability.

Quote from esampson >>

[...] So wildshape is clearly not an innate ability. Does that automatically make it magical? Well, the possibility for fuzzy areas exist. It seems pretty obvious a monk's base unarmed attack, even with all the damage it can do at high levels, is just a skill they have mastered. On the other hand, their ability to make the damage Force instead of Bludgeoning seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as magical. [...]

 I recall a discussion about whether Force damage should be considered magical or non magical in that same thread (e.g. here or here)

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. 

As always, if there is a conflict between rules text and Sage Advice text, the rules text wins.

As written, Wildshape is unrestricted / unaffected by the effect of the Antimagic Field spell.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. 

 

As always, if there is a conflict between rules text and Sage Advice text, the rules text wins.

As written, Wildshape is unrestricted / unaffected by the effect of the Antimagic Field spell.

 

It specifically says in the rules of this forum that sage advice is the same as rules text. I would say that Sage Advice would normally overrule the Player's Handbook in the same way that errata overrules it. Whatever came later is controlling.

But, in this specific case, I believe that the Sage Advice was copied from the 2014 version and is likely in error. The removal of "magic" from the description of wildshape appears to be deliberate.

Quote from Sperril >>

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. 

 

As always, if there is a conflict between rules text and Sage Advice text, the rules text wins.

As written, Wildshape is unrestricted / unaffected by the effect of the Antimagic Field spell.

 

It specifically says in the rules of this forum that sage advice is the same as rules text. I would say that Sage Advice would normally overrule the Player's Handbook in the same way that errata overrules it. Whatever came later is controlling.

But, in this specific case, I believe that the Sage Advice was copied from the 2014 version and is likely in error. The removal of "magic" from the description of wildshape appears to be deliberate.

That particular forum rule is wrong and should be changed.  

The rules text is what it is -- it's the actual rules of the game.  Sage Advice is an interpretation of those rules that is considered to be the "official ruling" for a certain rules question.  As with any interpretation, sometimes the Sage Advice interpretation is wrong or contains errors.  For example . . .

Quote from Sperril >>

But, in this specific case, I believe that the Sage Advice was copied from the 2014 version and is likely in error. 

Exactly.

Now, errata are a different story.  An erratum IS rules text.  It's an actual change to the rules.  Conflating errata with Sage Advice is not accurate for the purposes of rules discussions.

Here is how Sage Advice itself describes its own role in rules discussions:

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.

Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. It doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, this FAQ is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes.

We often approach rules questions from one to three different perspectives.

“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent.

Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to their players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.” We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players.

We recommend a mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

In a RAW discussion, it makes no sense at all to say that a publication that admits to interpreting rules from a RAW, RAI and RAF perspective should "overrule" the actual rules text of the game.

As always, if there is a conflict between rules text and Sage Advice text, the rules text wins.