The text in the AMF spell explicitly spells out that that summoned creatures wink out. It's right there in the PHB.
I know it's right there in the PHB. The problem is so are the first two paragraphs you're clearly ignoring. I'll say it as many times as it takes: you can't cherry-pick sentences from the rules.
That text is very clearly a reference back to the first couple of sentences in the spell.
A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane.
The sentences are right next to each other. This isn't that complicated. The spell establishes right off the bat that it turns off any kind of magic, and then goes off to list some examples, and then it goes into more detail on those examples and some others.
If your argument is that the world's dumbest AI might not be smart enough to put two and two together here, well yes, I'd agree. That's not who the rules are written for.
The text in the AMF spell explicitly spells out that that summoned creatures wink out. It's right there in the PHB.
I know it's right there in the PHB. The problem is so are the first two paragraphs you're clearly ignoring. I'll say it as many times as it takes: you can't cherry-pick sentences from the rules.
That text is very clearly a reference back to the first couple of sentences in the spell.
A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane.
The sentences are right next to each other. This isn't that complicated. The spell establishes right off the bat that it turns off any kind of magic, and then goes off to list some examples, and then it goes into more detail on those examples and some others.
If your argument is that the world's dumbest AI might not be smart enough to put two and two together here, well yes, I'd agree. That's not who the rules are written for.
I honestly can’t tell if you are agreeing with the person you quoted or not because it seems you are saying the same thing
it doesn’t matter if the familiar is magic at the time, it matters that it was created or summoned by magic. If that is true, it winks out. Familiars are created/summoned by a spell, so magic was involved, therefore they wink out. The first two paragraphs give the general description of the spell, the rest tells you how to apply it to certain situations. For creatures and objects, the deciding factor on the “winking out” is not that they are magical, but whether a magical process brought them into being
It is interesting to me that this discussion has gone on for greater than 5 pages of back and forth over a topic where there is an official ruling. Does that mean:
You don't recognize a document that proclaims itself "official rulings" as official?
You don't care about rulings, only rules?
You haven't read the official ruling?
You just don't like how the author of the document makes his rulings?
You find some fundamental problem in the official ruling so egregious that it can no longer be considered valid?
You find the example used in the official ruling (animate dead) is somehow so different than the one in question (find familiar) that the ruling doesn't apply?
You accept the ruling and example provided but think that a zombie created by magic is less magical than a fey, fiend, or celestial brought into your service by magic?
You have some other definition of what constitutes magical than what the text says (and expounded on by the official ruling)?
You believe that any creature not naturally occurring on a particular plane would blink out of existence in an antimagic field because some form of magic must have been used to bring it to that plane?
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.
I stand corrected, familiars would pop out lol. A goodberry would still not work though as the healing is a magical effect. Not that it would matter as if you are trying to heal with a goodberry in an anti magic field something has gone terribly wrong and you are going to be dead anyway.
I honestly can’t tell if you are agreeing with the person you quoted or not because it seems you are saying the same thing.
Saying "creatures summoned by magic disappear" is not the same as saying "Magic stops working in this area. Spells fail, summoned creatures disappear, magic weapons become mundane, etc." You can see the relationship between the second and third sentences of the spell, right? I'm not crazy? Those two sentences are right next to each other for a reason.
The rules are written in natural language, not programming code or legalese. I don't mean to pick on Jaysburn, but statements like...
Look, the RAW on this subject are clearly a mess. ... The RAI on this are not only blatantly clear, they've also been clarified by WoTC themselves.
...baffle me. I suspect some people think "rules as written" means "the most naive, hyper-literal, bad faith, rules lawyery interpretation of the text possible" as opposed to "the most straightforward, plain English reading of the text." If the intent is obvious just from the text, then the RAW isn't a mess; the message clearly got through to you.
That or people are coming at this from the "I know AMF is supposed to work that way but it's not clear enough to prevent rules lawyers from deliberately misconstruing it." Which is fair, I don't deny it's easy to take that part of the spell out of context if you wanted to. But there's no such thing as 100% foolproof rules. The rules lawyers will always find some slight perceived ambiguity to exploit; that's just how language is. Find players that are willing to act in good faith.
The fact that this argument has been going on for over 100 comments is exactly why we need official rulings to clarify when 2 rules (AMF and instantaneous) seemingly conflict.
Oh wait, there is, and it covers this specific interaction, and this ruling was mentioned over 90 comments ago. Why has the discussion gone on so long?
Can't we all just agree to disagree? Use the official ruling or a house ruling. Arguing about it here isn't going to change anything.
It is interesting to me that this discussion has gone on for greater than 5 pages of back and forth over a topic where there is an official ruling. Does that mean:
You don't recognize a document that proclaims itself "official rulings" as official?
You don't care about rulings, only rules?
You find some fundamental problem in the official ruling so egregious that it can no longer be considered valid?
You find the example used in the official ruling (animate dead) is somehow so different than the one in question (find familiar) that the ruling doesn't apply?
You accept the ruling and example provided but think that a zombie created by magic is less magical than a fey, fiend, or celestial brought into your service by magic?
You believe that any creature not naturally occurring on a particular plane would blink out of existence in an antimagic field because some form of magic must have been used to bring it to that plane?
I will clarify my position in response to WolfofBees's questions. Of course, other commenters could agree, disagree, or agree with part of it while disagreeing with other parts of it. That's fine.
I see Sage Advice as advice. It is a developer who is commenting on on how he (only men so far, for some reason) interprets particular rules. SA is not a change to the rules. Changes to the rules are errata or ought to be. I take SA under advisement, the way a judge would look at an article in a law journal about that law. The article in the law journal is, however, not the law.
Yes, I see Animate Dead as different from Conjure X spells, which I would also differentiate from the Gate spell. Animate Dead applies to corpses turned into a "permanent" creatures via a spell. Once the spell is complete, it has a physical presence in the world that cannot be dispelled by magic. Note that a skeleton or zombie reduced to 0 hp still has a physical presence left over. A PC can pick through the skeleton or ghoul corpse after the battle. You cannot do that with summoned creatures. They have no corpse after being reduced to 0 hp. They just disappear. Why is that? Let's look at the text of the Conjure Animal spell to answer this question.
Relevant text from Conjure Animals:
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in the unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Etc. (not relevant to discussion)
Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.
Please note that summoned beasts are not coded as "Beasts," but as "Fey". Why is that? Because they are not the actual beasts you would find on the Prime Material Plane. They are spirits drawn from the Feywild.
And while in Conjure Elemental, the creature summoned is still an elemental, the spell also states:
The elemental disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.
This suggests strongly that summoned Elementals work the same way as summoned animals. And the spell name also has the "Conjure" in there. Elementals summoned with the spell seem, then, to likewise not be true material creatures when summoned with this spell.
Gate is different from Conjure X spells because it says quite explicitly that it creates portals. We also find the word portal in certain other spells. Specifically, teleportation spells. Thus, a creature drawn from a portal via a Gate spell has a different status relative to the Prime Material Plane than one conjured via Summon Greater Demon or Conjure Minor Devil.
So, to summarize, you'd say that you disagree with "official rulings" as being official. As in "these are opinions, not case law."
I think you may have misunderstood one of my questions. When I ask about the fey, fiend, or celestial brought into your service by magic, I meant specifically the one from find familiar, which like animate dead has a duration of instantaneous and puts a "permanent" creature (in this case, a fey, fiend, or celestial spirit in the shape of a beast or a few other options for pact of the chain) into existence.
Wolfofthebees, the SAC itself acknowledges that it does not contain official rules, and that the rulings it contains may be based on any mix of clarifying RAW, providing a glimpse into RAI, or just plain bludgeoning you with the author's perspective on RAF. The way that Song of Blues is viewing SA is by SA's own introduction the correct way to read SA.
Yes. I ALSO used the word rulings when I spoke of SAC, as it does, and I made a clear distinction between rules and rulings (note my question 2). A ruling would be an interpretation of how a rule applies, and an "official ruling" would be one of those with some authority behind it, to use lay speak.
Yeah, I read your post. I also read your tone. Those of us that are taking the "antimagic field winks out familiars" position are doing so because we believe that is the plain RAW of the spell, not because we aren't aware that SAC has ruled otherwise.
So, to summarize, you'd say that you disagree with "official rulings" as being official. As in "these are opinions, not case law."
I think you may have misunderstood one of my questions. When I ask about the fey, fiend, or celestial brought into your service by magic, I meant specifically the one from find familiar, which like animate dead has a duration of instantaneous and puts a "permanent" creature (in this case, a fey, fiend, or celestial spirit in the shape of a beast or a few other options for pact of the chain) into existence.
I agree with your reason on the conjure spells.
Yes, I treat fey, fiends, and celestials brought forth by Find Familiar to be mostly identical to those brought forth using Summon X spells. I believe I stated my reasoning for this in posts #48 and #102 of this thread. That applies to a Wizard's familiar as much as it applies to a Warlock's since the Pact Boon language refers directly to the language of the Find Familiar spell rather than using it's own self-contained description.
Yes, I did read the SA posted in this thread. Since it does not directly address this exact issue, since the rule text in the PHB's AMF spell seems much more clear and explicit, and since I am of the view that Summoning spells only bring temporary spirits projections into the Prime Material Plane (unlike Teleportation and Gate), I would choose to place SA to the side in this situation and focus on RAW as I and others interpret it.
Jeremy Crawford has already directly addressed this:
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field?
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. The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes. For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an antimagic field !
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magictemporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.
Unfortunately, Jeremy Crawford did not specify with regards to the interaction between an Antimagic Field and a Familiar summoned with the Find Familiar spell in the ruling above. So the matter is not resolved.
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magictemporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.
Unfortunately, Jeremy Crawford did not specify with regards to the interaction between an Antimagic Field and a Familiar summoned with the Find Familiar spell in the ruling above. So the matter is not resolved.
Yes, it is resolved. Find Familiar is an instantaneous duration. There is no magic sustaining the familiar after the spell has been successfully cast. The familiar is not affected by AMF.
Conjure Woodland Beings is non-instantaneous. There is magic sustaining the creatures. They are affected by AMF.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
So a zombie/skeleton - which is a creature - that was created by the instantaneousspell Animate Dead (the spell literally says "this spell creates an undead servant" and, for all you Tag loving people, has the Creation tag) wouldn't disappear or be dispelled in an AMF.
However, a Familiar, which is a creature that was summoned by the instantaneous spell Find Familiar, would?
Solid logic. Jeremy Crawford didn't specify how Find Familiar works, because he didn't have to. Why? Because he defined how all instantaneous spells work, and then gave an example.
Dispel Magic has no specific clauses, so it would not work against a Familiar because Find Familiar is an instantaneous spell and follows the general rule as outlined by Jeremy Crawford in the SA linked above.
However, Antimagic Field DOES have a specific clause, of which the grammar clearly states creatures summoned by magic (past tense) wink out temporarily while inside the field.
Until Jeremy Crawford releases a SA that clearly contradicts the specific RAW clause of Antimagic Field vs. Find Familiar, the issue is not resolved and entirely up to DM interpretation.
I know it's right there in the PHB. The problem is so are the first two paragraphs you're clearly ignoring. I'll say it as many times as it takes: you can't cherry-pick sentences from the rules.
That text is very clearly a reference back to the first couple of sentences in the spell.
The sentences are right next to each other. This isn't that complicated. The spell establishes right off the bat that it turns off any kind of magic, and then goes off to list some examples, and then it goes into more detail on those examples and some others.
If your argument is that the world's dumbest AI might not be smart enough to put two and two together here, well yes, I'd agree. That's not who the rules are written for.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I honestly can’t tell if you are agreeing with the person you quoted or not because it seems you are saying the same thing
it doesn’t matter if the familiar is magic at the time, it matters that it was created or summoned by magic. If that is true, it winks out. Familiars are created/summoned by a spell, so magic was involved, therefore they wink out. The first two paragraphs give the general description of the spell, the rest tells you how to apply it to certain situations. For creatures and objects, the deciding factor on the “winking out” is not that they are magical, but whether a magical process brought them into being
It is interesting to me that this discussion has gone on for greater than 5 pages of back and forth over a topic where there is an official ruling. Does that mean:
I stand corrected, familiars would pop out lol. A goodberry would still not work though as the healing is a magical effect. Not that it would matter as if you are trying to heal with a goodberry in an anti magic field something has gone terribly wrong and you are going to be dead anyway.
Saying "creatures summoned by magic disappear" is not the same as saying "Magic stops working in this area. Spells fail, summoned creatures disappear, magic weapons become mundane, etc." You can see the relationship between the second and third sentences of the spell, right? I'm not crazy? Those two sentences are right next to each other for a reason.
The rules are written in natural language, not programming code or legalese. I don't mean to pick on Jaysburn, but statements like...
...baffle me. I suspect some people think "rules as written" means "the most naive, hyper-literal, bad faith, rules lawyery interpretation of the text possible" as opposed to "the most straightforward, plain English reading of the text." If the intent is obvious just from the text, then the RAW isn't a mess; the message clearly got through to you.
That or people are coming at this from the "I know AMF is supposed to work that way but it's not clear enough to prevent rules lawyers from deliberately misconstruing it." Which is fair, I don't deny it's easy to take that part of the spell out of context if you wanted to. But there's no such thing as 100% foolproof rules. The rules lawyers will always find some slight perceived ambiguity to exploit; that's just how language is. Find players that are willing to act in good faith.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The fact that this argument has been going on for over 100 comments is exactly why we need official rulings to clarify when 2 rules (AMF and instantaneous) seemingly conflict.
Oh wait, there is, and it covers this specific interaction, and this ruling was mentioned over 90 comments ago. Why has the discussion gone on so long?
Can't we all just agree to disagree? Use the official ruling or a house ruling. Arguing about it here isn't going to change anything.
I will clarify my position in response to WolfofBees's questions. Of course, other commenters could agree, disagree, or agree with part of it while disagreeing with other parts of it. That's fine.
I see Sage Advice as advice. It is a developer who is commenting on on how he (only men so far, for some reason) interprets particular rules. SA is not a change to the rules. Changes to the rules are errata or ought to be. I take SA under advisement, the way a judge would look at an article in a law journal about that law. The article in the law journal is, however, not the law.
Yes, I see Animate Dead as different from Conjure X spells, which I would also differentiate from the Gate spell. Animate Dead applies to corpses turned into a "permanent" creatures via a spell. Once the spell is complete, it has a physical presence in the world that cannot be dispelled by magic. Note that a skeleton or zombie reduced to 0 hp still has a physical presence left over. A PC can pick through the skeleton or ghoul corpse after the battle. You cannot do that with summoned creatures. They have no corpse after being reduced to 0 hp. They just disappear. Why is that? Let's look at the text of the Conjure Animal spell to answer this question.
Relevant text from Conjure Animals:
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in the unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Etc. (not relevant to discussion)
Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.
Please note that summoned beasts are not coded as "Beasts," but as "Fey". Why is that? Because they are not the actual beasts you would find on the Prime Material Plane. They are spirits drawn from the Feywild.
And while in Conjure Elemental, the creature summoned is still an elemental, the spell also states:
The elemental disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.
This suggests strongly that summoned Elementals work the same way as summoned animals. And the spell name also has the "Conjure" in there. Elementals summoned with the spell seem, then, to likewise not be true material creatures when summoned with this spell.
Gate is different from Conjure X spells because it says quite explicitly that it creates portals. We also find the word portal in certain other spells. Specifically, teleportation spells. Thus, a creature drawn from a portal via a Gate spell has a different status relative to the Prime Material Plane than one conjured via Summon Greater Demon or Conjure Minor Devil.
So, to summarize, you'd say that you disagree with "official rulings" as being official. As in "these are opinions, not case law."
I think you may have misunderstood one of my questions. When I ask about the fey, fiend, or celestial brought into your service by magic, I meant specifically the one from find familiar, which like animate dead has a duration of instantaneous and puts a "permanent" creature (in this case, a fey, fiend, or celestial spirit in the shape of a beast or a few other options for pact of the chain) into existence.
I agree with your reason on the conjure spells.
Wolfofthebees, the SAC itself acknowledges that it does not contain official rules, and that the rulings it contains may be based on any mix of clarifying RAW, providing a glimpse into RAI, or just plain bludgeoning you with the author's perspective on RAF. The way that Song of Blues is viewing SA is by SA's own introduction the correct way to read SA.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes. I ALSO used the word rulings when I spoke of SAC, as it does, and I made a clear distinction between rules and rulings (note my question 2). A ruling would be an interpretation of how a rule applies, and an "official ruling" would be one of those with some authority behind it, to use lay speak.
Yeah, I read your post. I also read your tone. Those of us that are taking the "antimagic field winks out familiars" position are doing so because we believe that is the plain RAW of the spell, not because we aren't aware that SAC has ruled otherwise.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Good. Then my questions have been answered for you.
Yes, I treat fey, fiends, and celestials brought forth by Find Familiar to be mostly identical to those brought forth using Summon X spells. I believe I stated my reasoning for this in posts #48 and #102 of this thread. That applies to a Wizard's familiar as much as it applies to a Warlock's since the Pact Boon language refers directly to the language of the Find Familiar spell rather than using it's own self-contained description.
Yes, I did read the SA posted in this thread. Since it does not directly address this exact issue, since the rule text in the PHB's AMF spell seems much more clear and explicit, and since I am of the view that Summoning spells only bring temporary spirits projections into the Prime Material Plane (unlike Teleportation and Gate), I would choose to place SA to the side in this situation and focus on RAW as I and others interpret it.
1. How is this debate still going on?
2. At this point, can someone just LINK this to Jeremy Crawford and have him directly address it? That would be most efficient.
Blank
Jeremy Crawford has already directly addressed this:
Find Familiar is instantaneous. That's it, that's all. It cannot be dispelled, by Dispel Magic or by an Antimagic Field. End of story.
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Antimagic Field has a very specific clause:
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.
Unfortunately, Jeremy Crawford did not specify with regards to the interaction between an Antimagic Field and a Familiar summoned with the Find Familiar spell in the ruling above. So the matter is not resolved.
Yes, it is resolved. Find Familiar is an instantaneous duration. There is no magic sustaining the familiar after the spell has been successfully cast. The familiar is not affected by AMF.
Conjure Woodland Beings is non-instantaneous. There is magic sustaining the creatures. They are affected by AMF.
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.
So a zombie/skeleton - which is a creature - that was created by the instantaneous spell Animate Dead (the spell literally says "this spell creates an undead servant" and, for all you Tag loving people, has the Creation tag) wouldn't disappear or be dispelled in an AMF.
However, a Familiar, which is a creature that was summoned by the instantaneous spell Find Familiar, would?
Solid logic. Jeremy Crawford didn't specify how Find Familiar works, because he didn't have to. Why? Because he defined how all instantaneous spells work, and then gave an example.
Sorry, but I don't agree.
Dispel Magic has no specific clauses, so it would not work against a Familiar because Find Familiar is an instantaneous spell and follows the general rule as outlined by Jeremy Crawford in the SA linked above.
However, Antimagic Field DOES have a specific clause, of which the grammar clearly states creatures summoned by magic (past tense) wink out temporarily while inside the field.
Until Jeremy Crawford releases a SA that clearly contradicts the specific RAW clause of Antimagic Field vs. Find Familiar, the issue is not resolved and entirely up to DM interpretation.
Let me just get this straight.
Based on the wording "a creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere," you think that:
Zombie/Skeleton - Creature Created by instantaneous spell - Doesn't disappear/dispel in AMF.
Familiar - Creature Summoned by instantaneous spell - Does disappear/dispel in AFM.