No, the rest of my post did not depend on that. If 'Summoned' or 'Created' are verb participles, they can be removed from the sentence and the sentence will still make sense. Remove summoned and created from the sentence in the Antimagic Field description, and the sentence no longer makes sense.
As for Goodberry, verbage was a concern when writing rules and spell descriptions. As interpreted by you, "and are infused with magic for the duration" is superfluous and not necessary at all. The further description "The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell" is plenty adequate to infer the berries are special.
Given your interpretation, "are infused with magic for the duration" is pointless and any rule interpretation that assumes something written is there for no mechanical reason opens a pandora's box of wishy washy rules interpretation everywhere else.
No, the rest of my post did not depend on that. If 'Summoned' or 'Created' are verb participles, they can be removed from the sentence and the sentence will still make sense. Remove summoned and created from the sentence in the Antimagic Field description, and the sentence no longer makes sense.
As for Goodberry, verbage was a concern when writing rules and spell descriptions. As interpreted by you, "and are infused with magic for the duration" is superfluous and not necessary at all. The further description "The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell" is plenty adequate to infer the berries are special.
Given your interpretation, "are infused with magic for the duration" is pointless and any rule interpretation that assumes something written is there for no mechanical reason opens a pandora's box of wishy washy rules interpretation everywhere else.
It's not "my interpretation." Spells have a duration. Anything that lasts "for the duration" lasts for the duration. Not 24 hours past the duration.
After the duration, there is no more magic. That is the rules.
That is what his entire post was based on, but it's honestly a moot point. Whether it's participle or verb doesn't change any of the other arguments.
Hand waiving and deflections don't win an argument. It is not a moot point. If it is not a verb participle, then it is a verb. If it is a verb, then it's conjugation (?) matters. It was written past tense, therefore a creature summoned by magic temporarily winks out while in the antimagic field.
And to point out again, the Find Familiar spell has the tag "Summoned" as the effect.
Hand waiving and deflections don't win an argument. You don't say...
I concede to the language, you are correct that it is a past verb, but...
It absolutely is a moot point. Antimagic Field gets rid of magic. It does not get rid of non-magical creatures or objects, which both Familiars and Goodberries are.
And yes, Find Familiar has the summoned tag. When you instantaneously cast the spell, you are summoning. Afterwards, you are not, because there is no more magic.
Edit: Honestly, I am very much enjoying this debate, but the problem isn't how any of us are reading these things; it's that they directly contradict each other with no added explanation. The way that AMF is worded is terrible.
AMF doesn't get rid of non-magical things, except for if it's a very specific thing that had a very particular type of magic cast on it in the past? It makes no sense. If I teleported somewhere, then went into an AMF, would I be teleported back? If not, why would a Familiar be?
I really can't believe that you are telling me your so determined to win that you stick to the belief that magic can't exist in an object or a creature once an instantaneous spell has been cast.
So a wizard that casts a familiar all of a sudden has the ability to see through any creature's eyes, listen through that creature's ears, telepathically communicate within 100 feet regardless of line of sight? The ability to do that is not magical?
As for Goodberries, you're telling me that these things exist in Faerun and no one bothers to cultivate them for profit? Since they're not magical and all that...
You can cast a spell that can create a feast for 12 creatures. Said feast has no magical properties to them at all once cast. Then an hour after eating said feast, all of a sudden magical properties just happen to whoever ate them?
You're so blind sighted in your interpretation of the grammar that what you're saying doesn't make sense regarding how the mechanics of the spells actually work.
I really can't believe that you are telling me your so determined to win that you stick to the belief that magic can't exist in an object or a creature once an instantaneous spell has been cast.
1) So a wizard that casts a familiar all of a sudden has the ability to see through any creature's eyes, listen through that creature's ears, telepathically communicate within 100 feet regardless of line of sight? The ability to do that is not magical?
2) As for Goodberries, you're telling me that these things exist in Faerun and no one bothers to cultivate them for profit? Since they're not magical and all that...
3) You can cast a spell that can create a feast for 12 creatures. Said feast has no magical properties to them at all once cast. Then an hour after eating said feast, all of a sudden magical properties just happen to whoever ate them?
4) You're so blind sighted in your interpretation of the grammar that what you're saying doesn't make sense regarding how the mechanics of the spells actually work.
Sorry, numbered the quote for an easier response.
Again, I'm not "determined to win;" I'm determined to get to the truth of the matter. I'm not trying to be anyone's enemy, I'm trying to figure out what the ruling actually is, based on the written rules and not hearsay. I would love to "lose" if it meant reaching an actual consensus on the rules.
I'm not going to copy the Instantaneous spell rules for the 6th time, but yes, I do believe that magic can't exist in an object or creature that was summoned by an instantaneous spell (unless it says it does) because that is what the rules say.
1) The spell is done, the magic is gone. That link and the abilities that come with it are not magical in the same way that a spell or magical effect is; it's an ability/effect of the link that is no more magical than a Rogue's Sneak Attack, a Dragon's breath, or a Mind Flayer's telepathy. Does it seem magical? Sure does, but so does a Dragon's breath. If I read about those abilities in a "vacuum," would I believe them to be magical? Sure would. But per the rules, they aren't.
2) No, I'm not. I'm telling you that mundane, non-magical berries exist in Faerun, a druid summons them to their hands, and then - in an instant of magic - imbues them with special properties that are not themselves magical. That is what the rules say, that is what it is. Again, would I assume this was the case if I didn't know the rules pertaining to instantaneous spells? Nope, I definitely wouldn't. But that's how it is.
3) Yessir, that's what the spell says, that's what the rules say, that's what happens.
4) Blind? No. I'm trying to interpret the rules as they are written. Whereas you are making up new definitions for how Spell Duration and Instantaneous Spells work that directly contradict the written rules.
Hand waiving and deflections don't win an argument. You don't say...
I concede to the language, you are correct that it is a past verb, but...
It absolutely is a moot point. Antimagic Field gets rid of magic. It does not get rid of non-magical creatures or objects, which both Familiars and Goodberries are.
And yes, Find Familiar has the summoned tag. When you instantaneously cast the spell, you are summoning. Afterwards, you are not, because there is no more magic.
Edit: Honestly, I am very much enjoying this debate, but the problem isn't how any of us are reading these things; it's that they directly contradict each other with no added explanation. The way that AMF is worded is terrible.
AMF doesn't get rid of non-magical things, except for if it's a very specific thing that had a very particular type of magic cast on it in the past? It makes no sense. If I teleported somewhere, then went into an AMF, would I be teleported back? If not, why would a Familiar be?
Because the familiar didn’t exist until it was summoned. And AMF very much “temporarily winks” out non magical creatures and objects, if those Creatures or objects were created by magic
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.
It just says creatures and objects, and does not contain language requiring they be inherently magical
Nope. Again, completely faulty logic. Familiars are not created by the spell. The spell is Find Familiar, not Create Familiar, and it doesn't have the Creation tag like anything that is created by magic would, such as Create Homunculus or Create or Destroy Water. You point out to me exactly where it says the Familiar is created. All I can see is "you gain the service of a familiar," which definitely doesn't translate to "create."
However, even Create Homunculus wouldn't be nullified in an AMF because it is instantaneous.
The use of summoned is certainly sketchy and should be changed, but it clearly means spells such as Conjure Animals that actively keep creatures summoned with ongoing magic.
I am not a fan of Sage Advice, but even it is quite clear about this: 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.
In all of these spells there is no magic to affect. How on earth is an Antimagic field affecting non-magical things? Answer: it can't.
I do want to say, I don't think anyone here is trying to personally attack anyone. We're all fired up about an interesting rule question, and folks have made some good points on both sides.
Jay has a pretty good argument that "magic" is a little more a narrow concept in D&D 5E than things that are generally fantastical (or at least, SA tries to narrow the concept, nothing in the core books suggests that's the case). If a creature is described as being able to breathe fire, that isn't necessarily "magic" fire, even if though its supernatural. So from a perspective that accepts that SA entry has a rule (which again, it isn't, just an official piece of advice), then if something asks you to check for "magic" then it needs to be (1) a "magic item" (the rules tell you when something is a "magic item"), (2) a spell, (3) something that lets you create the effects of a spell that is named in the description of that something (not just something that approximates a similar effect to a spell), (4) a "spell attack", (5) something fueled by spell slots, (6) or something where its description "says it's magical" (though, one COULD argue that still leaves wiggle room as to whether the word "magical" needs to appear or whether it just needs to describe something magical? that wouldn't be very useful.). That's it.
So since Jay is embracing SA as rules text, I totally get why he's getting stuck on "well where does it say it's a magical berry?"
But Jay is also trying to go further than SA as well, by saying that in addition to those 6 cases, we can also say something is not magical if it was created by a spell with an instantaneous duration. That does not appear in the SA list, and also is not a necessary conclusion of the Duration rules.
But the problem is, Antimagic Field does not say that it only winks out magical berries or magical creatures. It says that it winks out created or summoned objects and craetures. You are trying to condense the entire spell down into a single "it suppresses active magic" rule, and that isn't what the text of the spell says. Some things that Antimagic Field does, each of which is independent:
Spells cant be cast
"Summoned" creatures and spells vanish temporarily
Magic Items become mundane while within the area
Ongoing spells are suppressed
Ongoing magical effects are suppressed
Spells and magical effects cast outside of the field that affect a target within the area of the field have no effect
Spells and magical effects cast outside of the field that affect an area within the area of the field have no effect on that portion of area which overlaps
All teleportation and planar travel effects fail within the field, whether departing or arriving
Portals to other locations or planes temporarily close while within the field
Two antimagic fields overlapping don't nullify each other, they each effect the overlapped area
Out of that list, can you spot which one relies on the concept of whether something qualifies as "magic"? Hint, it's the magic items become mundane, and magical effets being suppressed/having no effect. The "summoned" stuff is completely separate.
I'd say that a goodberry would still exist, it just wouldn't heal as it's magical effect would be nullified same as a magic healing potion. Same with a familiar, it would still be there but you couldn't magically dismiss it or see through its eyes or communicate telepathically as those are magical effects.
I'd say that a goodberry would still exist, it just wouldn't heal as it's magical effect would be nullified same as a magic healing potion. Same with a familiar, it would still be there but you couldn't magically dismiss it or see through its eyes or communicate telepathically as those are magical effects.
There. Is. No. Magic. *bangs head on wall*
Goodberry does not say that the berries become magical items like Healing Potions are. It does not say the berries become magical in any way shape or form. It says they are imbued with magic "for the duration," which is instantaneous.
I am definitely not embracing SA as rules text, I'm just saying that it clearly agrees with what the intent actually is.
The wording of Antimagic Field - much like the wording of Fireball - is wrong. It's a damn shame, and hopefully in the future they will fix it.
The Intent is clear, and is justified by SA (really the only thing SA is ever actually good for); the Written is (once again) a mess.
Wait... this whole time we've been arguing... your whole argument is based on RAI now RAW? I thought we were discussing RAW what the spell does, before any RAI clarification from SA? "The wording of Antimagic Field is wrong" is not an argument about what the RAW effect of Antimagic Field is. Cripes what a waste of time.
I am arguing RAW, but RAW is clearly an indecipherable mess when it comes to this topic. RAI is clear, and RAW both agrees with it and doesn't simultaneously. Plllbt.
AMF does specific things, but the spells we are discussing also do specific things, and they contradict. So... *shrug*
We can argue for days, but until they actually fix the contradiction there is no definitive conclusion. So yes, at this point I'm arguing what you should do.
Addition: Look, the RAW on this subject are clearly a mess. Both arguments have merit, because the RAW on this are unclear and contradictory. When that happens in DnD, you go with the RAI; this has always been the case. The RAI on this are not only blatantly clear, they've also been clarified by WoTC themselves.
A spell's effects only last for their duration. This is RAW. There is no lingering magic after a spell ends unless the spell explicitly says so.
I challenge you to cite any text that shows a familiar is magical or that a spell's magic can persist past its duration. Your argument is based on rules that don't exist.
The text in the AMF spell explicitly spells out that that summoned creatures wink out. It's right there in the PHB. IF specific over-rules general, and the rule book tells you that this is a tweak in a certain situation, how is the position that familiars (being summoned creatures) and other summoned creatures disappearing when within AMF not RAW?
And before anybody says that familiars are not summoned creatures consider that the text in the PHB says that the caster can make the creature disappear just like that. And then re-summon the creature somewhere else, no physical movement by the creature needed. That is a summoned creature any way you look at it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
General: DND spellcasting rules
Specific: the language in Goodberry that says they are suffused with magic for 24 hours
Specific: the AMF rule on creatures and objects
"Creature"
Emboldened part: No, it doesn't. At all. Again, please stop inferring things that are not actually written.
The AMF rules aren't overruling anything. They don't overrule how instantaneous spells work.
You’re ignoring the rest of Kerrecs post...
No, the rest of my post did not depend on that. If 'Summoned' or 'Created' are verb participles, they can be removed from the sentence and the sentence will still make sense. Remove summoned and created from the sentence in the Antimagic Field description, and the sentence no longer makes sense.
As for Goodberry, verbage was a concern when writing rules and spell descriptions. As interpreted by you, "and are infused with magic for the duration" is superfluous and not necessary at all. The further description "The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell" is plenty adequate to infer the berries are special.
Given your interpretation, "are infused with magic for the duration" is pointless and any rule interpretation that assumes something written is there for no mechanical reason opens a pandora's box of wishy washy rules interpretation everywhere else.
That is what his entire post was based on, but it's honestly a moot point. Whether it's participle or verb doesn't change any of the other arguments.
It's not "my interpretation." Spells have a duration. Anything that lasts "for the duration" lasts for the duration. Not 24 hours past the duration.
After the duration, there is no more magic. That is the rules.
Hand waiving and deflections don't win an argument. It is not a moot point. If it is not a verb participle, then it is a verb. If it is a verb, then it's conjugation (?) matters. It was written past tense, therefore a creature summoned by magic temporarily winks out while in the antimagic field.
And to point out again, the Find Familiar spell has the tag "Summoned" as the effect.
Hand waiving and deflections don't win an argument. You don't say...
I concede to the language, you are correct that it is a past verb, but...
It absolutely is a moot point. Antimagic Field gets rid of magic. It does not get rid of non-magical creatures or objects, which both Familiars and Goodberries are.
And yes, Find Familiar has the summoned tag. When you instantaneously cast the spell, you are summoning. Afterwards, you are not, because there is no more magic.
Edit: Honestly, I am very much enjoying this debate, but the problem isn't how any of us are reading these things; it's that they directly contradict each other with no added explanation. The way that AMF is worded is terrible.
AMF doesn't get rid of non-magical things, except for if it's a very specific thing that had a very particular type of magic cast on it in the past? It makes no sense. If I teleported somewhere, then went into an AMF, would I be teleported back? If not, why would a Familiar be?
I really can't believe that you are telling me your so determined to win that you stick to the belief that magic can't exist in an object or a creature once an instantaneous spell has been cast.
So a wizard that casts a familiar all of a sudden has the ability to see through any creature's eyes, listen through that creature's ears, telepathically communicate within 100 feet regardless of line of sight? The ability to do that is not magical?
As for Goodberries, you're telling me that these things exist in Faerun and no one bothers to cultivate them for profit? Since they're not magical and all that...
You can cast a spell that can create a feast for 12 creatures. Said feast has no magical properties to them at all once cast. Then an hour after eating said feast, all of a sudden magical properties just happen to whoever ate them?
You're so blind sighted in your interpretation of the grammar that what you're saying doesn't make sense regarding how the mechanics of the spells actually work.
Sorry, numbered the quote for an easier response.
Again, I'm not "determined to win;" I'm determined to get to the truth of the matter. I'm not trying to be anyone's enemy, I'm trying to figure out what the ruling actually is, based on the written rules and not hearsay. I would love to "lose" if it meant reaching an actual consensus on the rules.
I'm not going to copy the Instantaneous spell rules for the 6th time, but yes, I do believe that magic can't exist in an object or creature that was summoned by an instantaneous spell (unless it says it does) because that is what the rules say.
1) The spell is done, the magic is gone. That link and the abilities that come with it are not magical in the same way that a spell or magical effect is; it's an ability/effect of the link that is no more magical than a Rogue's Sneak Attack, a Dragon's breath, or a Mind Flayer's telepathy. Does it seem magical? Sure does, but so does a Dragon's breath. If I read about those abilities in a "vacuum," would I believe them to be magical? Sure would. But per the rules, they aren't.
2) No, I'm not. I'm telling you that mundane, non-magical berries exist in Faerun, a druid summons them to their hands, and then - in an instant of magic - imbues them with special properties that are not themselves magical. That is what the rules say, that is what it is. Again, would I assume this was the case if I didn't know the rules pertaining to instantaneous spells? Nope, I definitely wouldn't. But that's how it is.
3) Yessir, that's what the spell says, that's what the rules say, that's what happens.
4) Blind? No. I'm trying to interpret the rules as they are written. Whereas you are making up new definitions for how Spell Duration and Instantaneous Spells work that directly contradict the written rules.
Because the familiar didn’t exist until it was summoned. And AMF very much “temporarily winks” out non magical creatures and objects, if those Creatures or objects were created by magic
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.
It just says creatures and objects, and does not contain language requiring they be inherently magical
Nope. Again, completely faulty logic. Familiars are not created by the spell. The spell is Find Familiar, not Create Familiar, and it doesn't have the Creation tag like anything that is created by magic would, such as Create Homunculus or Create or Destroy Water. You point out to me exactly where it says the Familiar is created. All I can see is "you gain the service of a familiar," which definitely doesn't translate to "create."
However, even Create Homunculus wouldn't be nullified in an AMF because it is instantaneous.
The use of summoned is certainly sketchy and should be changed, but it clearly means spells such as Conjure Animals that actively keep creatures summoned with ongoing magic.
I am not a fan of Sage Advice, but even it is quite clear about this: 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.
In all of these spells there is no magic to affect. How on earth is an Antimagic field affecting non-magical things? Answer: it can't.
I do want to say, I don't think anyone here is trying to personally attack anyone. We're all fired up about an interesting rule question, and folks have made some good points on both sides.
Jay has a pretty good argument that "magic" is a little more a narrow concept in D&D 5E than things that are generally fantastical (or at least, SA tries to narrow the concept, nothing in the core books suggests that's the case). If a creature is described as being able to breathe fire, that isn't necessarily "magic" fire, even if though its supernatural. So from a perspective that accepts that SA entry has a rule (which again, it isn't, just an official piece of advice), then if something asks you to check for "magic" then it needs to be (1) a "magic item" (the rules tell you when something is a "magic item"), (2) a spell, (3) something that lets you create the effects of a spell that is named in the description of that something (not just something that approximates a similar effect to a spell), (4) a "spell attack", (5) something fueled by spell slots, (6) or something where its description "says it's magical" (though, one COULD argue that still leaves wiggle room as to whether the word "magical" needs to appear or whether it just needs to describe something magical? that wouldn't be very useful.). That's it.
So since Jay is embracing SA as rules text, I totally get why he's getting stuck on "well where does it say it's a magical berry?"
But Jay is also trying to go further than SA as well, by saying that in addition to those 6 cases, we can also say something is not magical if it was created by a spell with an instantaneous duration. That does not appear in the SA list, and also is not a necessary conclusion of the Duration rules.
But the problem is, Antimagic Field does not say that it only winks out magical berries or magical creatures. It says that it winks out created or summoned objects and craetures. You are trying to condense the entire spell down into a single "it suppresses active magic" rule, and that isn't what the text of the spell says. Some things that Antimagic Field does, each of which is independent:
Out of that list, can you spot which one relies on the concept of whether something qualifies as "magic"? Hint, it's the magic items become mundane, and magical effets being suppressed/having no effect. The "summoned" stuff is completely separate.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'd say that a goodberry would still exist, it just wouldn't heal as it's magical effect would be nullified same as a magic healing potion. Same with a familiar, it would still be there but you couldn't magically dismiss it or see through its eyes or communicate telepathically as those are magical effects.
I am definitely not embracing SA as rules text, I'm just saying that it clearly agrees with what the intent actually is.
The wording of Antimagic Field - much like the wording of Fireball - is wrong. It's a damn shame, and hopefully in the future they will fix it.
The Intent is clear, and is justified by SA (really the only thing SA is ever actually good for); the Written is (once again) a mess.
There. Is. No. Magic.
*bangs head on wall*
Goodberry does not say that the berries become magical items like Healing Potions are. It does not say the berries become magical in any way shape or form. It says they are imbued with magic "for the duration," which is instantaneous.
Wait... this whole time we've been arguing... your whole argument is based on RAI now RAW? I thought we were discussing RAW what the spell does, before any RAI clarification from SA? "The wording of Antimagic Field is wrong" is not an argument about what the RAW effect of Antimagic Field is. Cripes what a waste of time.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am arguing RAW, but RAW is clearly an indecipherable mess when it comes to this topic. RAI is clear, and RAW both agrees with it and doesn't simultaneously. Plllbt.
AMF does specific things, but the spells we are discussing also do specific things, and they contradict. So... *shrug*
We can argue for days, but until they actually fix the contradiction there is no definitive conclusion. So yes, at this point I'm arguing what you should do.
Addition: Look, the RAW on this subject are clearly a mess. Both arguments have merit, because the RAW on this are unclear and contradictory. When that happens in DnD, you go with the RAI; this has always been the case. The RAI on this are not only blatantly clear, they've also been clarified by WoTC themselves.
The text in the AMF spell explicitly spells out that that summoned creatures wink out. It's right there in the PHB. IF specific over-rules general, and the rule book tells you that this is a tweak in a certain situation, how is the position that familiars (being summoned creatures) and other summoned creatures disappearing when within AMF not RAW?
And before anybody says that familiars are not summoned creatures consider that the text in the PHB says that the caster can make the creature disappear just like that. And then re-summon the creature somewhere else, no physical movement by the creature needed. That is a summoned creature any way you look at it.