That's it. I quit. Words are meaningless and nothing means anything in 5E, if a non-rulebook can make the plain language "a creature or object summoned or created by magic" mean something other than what it says. Who the hell thought that was a helpful ruling? I quittttttt.
If it’s any consolation. I also agree with you about the familiar. Any way you slice it.
the pact of the chain.
its a spell you learn
you cast said spell
you have a familiar.
its magic. Made by a magic process. Of a magic spell you know.
That's it. I quit. Words are meaningless and nothing means anything in 5E, if a non-rulebook can make the plain language "a creature or object summoned or created by magic" mean something other than what it says. Who the hell thought that was a helpful ruling? I quittttttt.
If it’s any consolation. I also agree with you about the familiar. Any way you slice it.
the pact of the chain.
its a spell you learn
you cast said spell
you have a familiar.
its magic. Made by a magic process. Of a magic spell you know.
AMF. It winks out.
The Deity doesn’t create the familiar for the familiar to stay. That happens when you a raven queen warlock and the RAVEN QUEEN gives you a raven familiar herself.
normal pact of the chain. The deity gives you a SPELL. YOU then cast the spell for the familiar. Completely different.
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic.
That's why a familiar doesn't disappear in an antimagic field.
Except that Anti-magic field has specific wording to address this.
"Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned orcreated by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere."
Anti-magic field specifically calls out creatures that are CREATED by MAGIC in addition to ones that are summoned or otherwise magical. Is a familiar "Created by magic"? Yes it is. Therefore it winks out in an anti-magic field. It has nothing to do with whether the the creature is currently magical and we aren't talking about dispel magic which would not work on a familiar. In this case, anti-magic field has the additional SPECIFIC rule that creatures and objects CREATED by magic wink out.
So, no, all familiars will wink out in an anti-magic field.
So why doesn't the summoned weapon created by Pact of the Blade wink out? This is because the effect that brought it into existence is specifically NOT labeled as magical. The pact weapon is NOT created by the type of magic that can be cancelled in D&D. It is part of the inherent environmental magic like dragon's breath and other effects that are not cancelled by an anti-magic field.
I don’t disagree that that makes sense, but Sage Advice is unambiguous that it’s not how it works.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text). It’s annoying, but in this particular forum it’s important to acknowledge both what SA says and also that it can at times be idiotic.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Well, it's called Advice for a reason. Sage Advice exists to help DMs to adjudicate in situations of conflicting rules, but it's down to the DM to actually decide which interpretation of the rules makes sense within their specific version of the magical universe.
I would agree, by the way, with EightPack and others that spells and cantrips cast from the Book of Shadows would not work in an AMF and that the familiar from Pact o Chain temporarily disappears if caught within the AMF. Those are spells cast by a mortal even if, ultimately, the source of that power is being lent by an immortal.
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic.
That's why a familiar doesn't disappear in an antimagic field.
Except that Anti-magic field has specific wording to address this.
"Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned orcreated by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere."
Anti-magic field specifically calls out creatures that are CREATED by MAGIC in addition to ones that are summoned or otherwise magical. Is a familiar "Created by magic"? Yes it is. Therefore it winks out in an anti-magic field. It has nothing to do with whether the the creature is currently magical and we aren't talking about dispel magic which would not work on a familiar. In this case, anti-magic field has the additional SPECIFIC rule that creatures and objects CREATED by magic wink out.
So, no, all familiars will wink out in an anti-magic field.
That's based on the assumption that familiars are formed out of nothing. An equally valid assumption would be that the spell transports the celestial/fey/fiend from its home plane to the Material (or whatever plane the caster is on.)
With that understanding, of course the familiar sticks around in an AMF. Insisting otherwise would be akin to insisting that any other teleportation spell gets undone because the target walks into an AMF.
All of this is a fantastic example of the absolute necessity of Rule 0. Players will do absolutely gobsmack anything to wiggle out of an antimagic field. RAI is clear as a bell; this thread proves that RAW is a snarled mess for Antimagic Field.
All of this is a fantastic example of the absolute necessity of Rule 0. Players will do absolutely gobsmack anything to wiggle out of an antimagic field. RAI is clear as a bell; this thread proves that RAW is a snarled mess for Antimagic Field.
Oof.
I think both RAW and RAI are mostly pretty clear for this interaction. The problem is they clearly disagree with eachother.
If/when there is a 5.5e, they need to rewrite the rules more clearly using a proper rule language so that they properly say what they mean.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text).
You only perceive Sage Advice as incorrect because you're taking the bit about Creatures And Objects out of context. Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text).
You only perceive Sage Advice as incorrect because you're taking the bit about Creatures And Objects out of context. Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
I'm not taking it out of context at all. The idea that "there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast" is simply not supported by the text of the spell. The spell text says "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence," not "summoned or created by non-instantaneous magic." You're arguing not from the source text but from the conclusion arrived at by Jeremy Crawford on a whim.
This Sage Advice is not "this is ambiguous, here's which way we meant it." It's "we flat-out neglected to include vital information, but we don't want to make it an erratum for some reason, so we'll pretend this is just a clarification."
That said, I've no interest in derailing this thread into yet another complaint about Sage Advice, haha.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text).
You only perceive Sage Advice as incorrect because you're taking the bit about Creatures And Objects out of context. Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiarbefore the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text).
You only perceive Sage Advice as incorrect because you're taking the bit about Creatures And Objects out of context. Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiarbefore the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
To go further. Regarding Inquistive Coder and the bolder point...
Okay. I create a wall of stone as far above the AMF as possible....
it’s already created, now it’s free falling to the ground inside a AMF.
does it disappear? Or in your bolder text scenario, does it then crash like I just invented the meteor spell?
Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiarbefore the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
To go further. Regarding Inquistive Coder and the bolder point...
Okay. I create a wall of stone as far above the AMF as possible....
it’s already created, now it’s free falling to the ground inside a AMF.
does it disappear? Or in your bolder text scenario, does it then crash like I just invented the meteor spell?
I dont understand the point of this example. The wall would disappear where it overlaps the AMF regardless of which ruling you use. Wall of stone is not instantaneous... It also has to be firmly attacted to and supported by existing stone, so it wouldn't even fall.
Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiarbefore the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
To go further. Regarding Inquistive Coder and the bolder point...
Okay. I create a wall of stone as far above the AMF as possible....
it’s already created, now it’s free falling to the ground inside a AMF.
does it disappear? Or in your bolder text scenario, does it then crash like I just invented the meteor spell?
I dont understand the point of this example. The wall would disappear where it overlaps the AMF regardless of which ruling you use. Wall of stone is not instantaneous... It also has to be firmly attacted to and supported by existing stone, so it wouldn't even fall.
The point of the example is, let’s just keep making more and more ridiculous scenarios to ignore the very explained scenario.
sage advice is for if it’s not clear cut spelled out.
the Familiar example is very clear cut spelled out.
the pact of the blade example, not clear cut laid out, that’s where sage advice comes in.
sage advice doesn’t trump the rule. It works with the rule when the rule is not clear on that specific scenario.
I'm not taking it out of context at all. The idea that "there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast" is simply not supported by the text of the spell.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiarbefore the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
The spell opens up with two whole paragraphs saying it creates a bubble where magic temporarily stops working. After that there's a list of 7 sub-sections which are all clearly independent of each other (you can shuffle them around and nothing would change) and all happen to deal with specific kinds of magic. These subsections clearly refer back to the opening paragraphs; they explicitly mention the sphere.
So after reading this:
Spells and other magical effects...are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it...While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.
and establishing that the section on Creatures and Objects is meant to be understood in that context, I don't see how you could possibly argue there's an interaction between Find Familiar and Antimagic Field when the rules on instantaneous spells explicitly tell you there's no magic after the spell's gone off.
Could the spell have been written to be a bit more foolproof? Sure. But word count matters and I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say it's not that hard to connect the dots here. After those intro paragraphs beat you over the head with the spell's purpose, the idea of it having an effect on something non-magical should give you pause. So should the notion of a player winking out just because they were the target of a Gate at some point. And you should really ask yourself why constructs like the Animated Armor, Flying Sword and Rug of Smothering would even need an Antimagic Susceptibility trait if they were meant to just wink out.
A familiar is magical and is summoned (or created, it's not clear) by magic. Gate doesn't summon anything. No one is saying there's no connection between the opening however many paragraphs and what follows. What I'm saying is that there's no connection between the opening paragraphs and whether or not a spell is instantaneous, which is undeniably true.
What I didn't know until five minutes ago when I looked it up after your post posited the existence of "the rules on instantaneous spells" is that the book does say that spells with instantaneous duration "can't be dispelled," and in that context I'll be slightly less unkind to Crawford and suggest that it was more than simple whim that guided him in the Sage Advice in question. That said, even this is not enough to reasonably establish that an antimagic field wouldn't temporarily wink out a familiar, because Antimagic Field doesn't say it dispels anything. It's far more powerful and does far more than Dispel Magic. You can't dispel an enchanted weapon, but it loses its enchantment while within an antimagic field.
And regarding "Antimagic Susceptability" on certain creatures: no one here is arguing the intent of any rule. Sage Advice makes the intent very clear. Those creatures have an explicit vulnerability because they aren't meant to just wink out. No one has suggested otherwise. But the Sage Advice response is based on an idea that doesn't exist in the published book. Every argument you have made is begging the question by assuming Sage Advice in its premise.
What I'm saying is that there's no connection between the opening paragraphs and whether or not a spell is instantaneous
There obviously is.
AMF:
Spells and other magical effects...are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it....While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.
PH chapter 10:
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
An instantaneous spell has effectively 0 duration. It can't possibly be suppressed because it already ended. It can't possibly protrude into the sphere because it's not there any more. It's no different from any other spell that does have a duration and ends before AMF comes into play.
Nothing in AMF allows it to roll back the effects of spells that already ended. You don't lose hit points just because you wandered into an AMF after someone cast Cure Wounds on you. A familiar doesn't become un-summoned for the exact same reason.
Every argument you have made is begging the question by assuming Sage Advice in its premise.
No part of my argument assumes the premise. I broke down the spell's structure and quoted the relevant rules. The rest was just showing that not only is Sage Advice correct, you wouldn't want to run the spell any other way anyways.
A familiar is explicitly called a "spirit" in the spell text. If you don't think spirits are magical, our belief systems are so fundamentally different that there's really no hope of our understanding each other.
See the last paragraph.
I've read the entire thing. I'll cop to misspeaking: it does summon the gate itself. But it summons no creature.
An instantaneous spell has effectively 0 duration. It can't possibly be suppressed because it already ended. It can't possibly protrude into the sphere because it's not there any more. It's no different from any other spell that does have a duration and ends before AMF comes into play.
You can quote the same passages that have been quoted and re-quoted through the entire thread and it won't make language appear that isn't there. An antimagic field doesn't just suppress spells. It also suppresses magical effects, some of which aren't related to any spell in the PHB (magical items), and some of which may be lingering effects from instantaneous-duration spells (an explicitly magical familiar summoned or created by magic). Again, obviously that's not the intent. But the actual spell doesn't make the distinction.
No part of my argument assumes the premise. I broke down the spell's structure and quoted the relevant rules. The rest was just showing that not only is Sage Advice correct, you wouldn't want to run the spell any other way anyways.
You quoted the relevant rules and just declared that there's a connection that doesn't exist, because Sage Advice says that the connection is there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If it’s any consolation. I also agree with you about the familiar. Any way you slice it.
the pact of the chain.
its a spell you learn
you cast said spell
you have a familiar.
its magic. Made by a magic process. Of a magic spell you know.
AMF. It winks out.
Blank
The Deity doesn’t create the familiar for the familiar to stay. That happens when you a raven queen warlock and the RAVEN QUEEN gives you a raven familiar herself.
normal pact of the chain. The deity gives you a SPELL. YOU then cast the spell for the familiar. Completely different.
Blank
Except that Anti-magic field has specific wording to address this.
"Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere."
Anti-magic field specifically calls out creatures that are CREATED by MAGIC in addition to ones that are summoned or otherwise magical. Is a familiar "Created by magic"? Yes it is. Therefore it winks out in an anti-magic field. It has nothing to do with whether the the creature is currently magical and we aren't talking about dispel magic which would not work on a familiar. In this case, anti-magic field has the additional SPECIFIC rule that creatures and objects CREATED by magic wink out.
So, no, all familiars will wink out in an anti-magic field.
So why doesn't the summoned weapon created by Pact of the Blade wink out? This is because the effect that brought it into existence is specifically NOT labeled as magical. The pact weapon is NOT created by the type of magic that can be cancelled in D&D. It is part of the inherent environmental magic like dragon's breath and other effects that are not cancelled by an anti-magic field.
I don’t disagree that that makes sense, but Sage Advice is unambiguous that it’s not how it works.
This is yet another example of Sage Advice not just clarifying but actually changing how something works (Sage Advice uses language like “sustained by magic,” language not present in the actual spell text). It’s annoying, but in this particular forum it’s important to acknowledge both what SA says and also that it can at times be idiotic.
It's idiotic most of the time.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Well, it's called Advice for a reason. Sage Advice exists to help DMs to adjudicate in situations of conflicting rules, but it's down to the DM to actually decide which interpretation of the rules makes sense within their specific version of the magical universe.
I would agree, by the way, with EightPack and others that spells and cantrips cast from the Book of Shadows would not work in an AMF and that the familiar from Pact o Chain temporarily disappears if caught within the AMF. Those are spells cast by a mortal even if, ultimately, the source of that power is being lent by an immortal.
That's based on the assumption that familiars are formed out of nothing. An equally valid assumption would be that the spell transports the celestial/fey/fiend from its home plane to the Material (or whatever plane the caster is on.)
With that understanding, of course the familiar sticks around in an AMF. Insisting otherwise would be akin to insisting that any other teleportation spell gets undone because the target walks into an AMF.
All of this is a fantastic example of the absolute necessity of Rule 0. Players will do absolutely gobsmack anything to wiggle out of an antimagic field. RAI is clear as a bell; this thread proves that RAW is a snarled mess for Antimagic Field.
Oof.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I think both RAW and RAI are mostly pretty clear for this interaction. The problem is they clearly disagree with eachother.
If/when there is a 5.5e, they need to rewrite the rules more clearly using a proper rule language so that they properly say what they mean.
You only perceive Sage Advice as incorrect because you're taking the bit about Creatures And Objects out of context. Antimagic Field establishes the fact that it suppresses spells and magic up front; everything that follows just elaborates how it interacts with particular types of magic. As an instantaneous spell, there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast; the magic is already gone.
I'm not taking it out of context at all. The idea that "there's nothing to suppress after Find Familiar has been cast" is simply not supported by the text of the spell. The spell text says "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence," not "summoned or created by non-instantaneous magic." You're arguing not from the source text but from the conclusion arrived at by Jeremy Crawford on a whim.
This Sage Advice is not "this is ambiguous, here's which way we meant it." It's "we flat-out neglected to include vital information, but we don't want to make it an erratum for some reason, so we'll pretend this is just a clarification."
That said, I've no interest in derailing this thread into yet another complaint about Sage Advice, haha.
That's a pretty specific interpretation of that spell's language, curious what general rule of thumb you'd be following to assume that the bulk of a spell's text can be viewed as "elaboration". If you're saying that Antimagic Field said that it doesn't interfere with Find Familiar before the SAC ruling... no matter how I squint at it that just don't make sense.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
To go further. Regarding Inquistive Coder and the bolder point...
Okay. I create a wall of stone as far above the AMF as possible....
it’s already created, now it’s free falling to the ground inside a AMF.
does it disappear? Or in your bolder text scenario, does it then crash like I just invented the meteor spell?
Blank
I dont understand the point of this example. The wall would disappear where it overlaps the AMF regardless of which ruling you use. Wall of stone is not instantaneous... It also has to be firmly attacted to and supported by existing stone, so it wouldn't even fall.
The point of the example is, let’s just keep making more and more ridiculous scenarios to ignore the very explained scenario.
sage advice is for if it’s not clear cut spelled out.
the Familiar example is very clear cut spelled out.
the pact of the blade example, not clear cut laid out, that’s where sage advice comes in.
sage advice doesn’t trump the rule. It works with the rule when the rule is not clear on that specific scenario.
Blank
The spell opens up with two whole paragraphs saying it creates a bubble where magic temporarily stops working. After that there's a list of 7 sub-sections which are all clearly independent of each other (you can shuffle them around and nothing would change) and all happen to deal with specific kinds of magic. These subsections clearly refer back to the opening paragraphs; they explicitly mention the sphere.
So after reading this:
and establishing that the section on Creatures and Objects is meant to be understood in that context, I don't see how you could possibly argue there's an interaction between Find Familiar and Antimagic Field when the rules on instantaneous spells explicitly tell you there's no magic after the spell's gone off.
Could the spell have been written to be a bit more foolproof? Sure. But word count matters and I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say it's not that hard to connect the dots here. After those intro paragraphs beat you over the head with the spell's purpose, the idea of it having an effect on something non-magical should give you pause. So should the notion of a player winking out just because they were the target of a Gate at some point. And you should really ask yourself why constructs like the Animated Armor, Flying Sword and Rug of Smothering would even need an Antimagic Susceptibility trait if they were meant to just wink out.
A familiar is magical and is summoned (or created, it's not clear) by magic. Gate doesn't summon anything. No one is saying there's no connection between the opening however many paragraphs and what follows. What I'm saying is that there's no connection between the opening paragraphs and whether or not a spell is instantaneous, which is undeniably true.
What I didn't know until five minutes ago when I looked it up after your post posited the existence of "the rules on instantaneous spells" is that the book does say that spells with instantaneous duration "can't be dispelled," and in that context I'll be slightly less unkind to Crawford and suggest that it was more than simple whim that guided him in the Sage Advice in question. That said, even this is not enough to reasonably establish that an antimagic field wouldn't temporarily wink out a familiar, because Antimagic Field doesn't say it dispels anything. It's far more powerful and does far more than Dispel Magic. You can't dispel an enchanted weapon, but it loses its enchantment while within an antimagic field.
And regarding "Antimagic Susceptability" on certain creatures: no one here is arguing the intent of any rule. Sage Advice makes the intent very clear. Those creatures have an explicit vulnerability because they aren't meant to just wink out. No one has suggested otherwise. But the Sage Advice response is based on an idea that doesn't exist in the published book. Every argument you have made is begging the question by assuming Sage Advice in its premise.
It's not.
See the last paragraph.
There obviously is.
AMF:
PH chapter 10:
An instantaneous spell has effectively 0 duration. It can't possibly be suppressed because it already ended. It can't possibly protrude into the sphere because it's not there any more. It's no different from any other spell that does have a duration and ends before AMF comes into play.
Nothing in AMF allows it to roll back the effects of spells that already ended. You don't lose hit points just because you wandered into an AMF after someone cast Cure Wounds on you. A familiar doesn't become un-summoned for the exact same reason.
No part of my argument assumes the premise. I broke down the spell's structure and quoted the relevant rules. The rest was just showing that not only is Sage Advice correct, you wouldn't want to run the spell any other way anyways.
Goodberry.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A familiar is explicitly called a "spirit" in the spell text. If you don't think spirits are magical, our belief systems are so fundamentally different that there's really no hope of our understanding each other.
I've read the entire thing. I'll cop to misspeaking: it does summon the gate itself. But it summons no creature.
You can quote the same passages that have been quoted and re-quoted through the entire thread and it won't make language appear that isn't there. An antimagic field doesn't just suppress spells. It also suppresses magical effects, some of which aren't related to any spell in the PHB (magical items), and some of which may be lingering effects from instantaneous-duration spells (an explicitly magical familiar summoned or created by magic). Again, obviously that's not the intent. But the actual spell doesn't make the distinction.
You quoted the relevant rules and just declared that there's a connection that doesn't exist, because Sage Advice says that the connection is there.