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 - CreatureCreated by instantaneous spell - Doesn't disappear/dispel in AMF.
Familiar - CreatureSummoned by instantaneous spell - Does disappear/dispel in AFM.
Hmm, well that does seem like an ironclad argument. I suppose I would have to agree now.
Edit: But this is in serious need of an Errata. There's NO WAY a DM that is not privy to that specific SA article could come to that same conclusion. The SA literally contradicts what is written in the Antimagic Spell's specific clauses.
Oh I totally agree. The wording is messy and definitely should be fixed, at least for the sake of clarification.
I do appreciate what you're saying about Specific > General, I just don't think that a spells Description is more "specific" than a spells Duration.
Sure, the instructions of how Duration works is under the "general" Spellcasting rules, but a Spell's Duration is just as much a part of it as its Description is. Saying otherwise would be like... hmm, what's a good example.
Let's take the fan favorite spell Burning Hands. Its description specifically says you need to place both your empty hands together, fingers splayed out. Does this trump the general Spellcasting Components rules that say you can cast this spell with just one free hand? No, it doesn't, because the components rules are just as much a part of casting that spell as the description of the spell is. They contradict each other, so you go with the RAI, which is that Somatic spells can be cast with one empty hand. So, why should another spells description trump the Spellcasting Duration rules, if that one's doesn't trump the Spellcasting Component rules?
Basically, AMF isn't the only spell with a description that contradicts the Spellcasting rules, but you follow them regardless.
When there's a contradiction in RAW where there isn't a clear-cut case of "Specific beats General," you go with RAI, and in this case the intent is that effects caused by Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled in any way as there is no magic to dispel.
The intent of an instantaneous spell is that it "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."
The intent of AMF is that it dispels magic. 1+1 = 2.
Burning Hands doesn't need clarification because while the description specifically says it requires two hands, it also specifically has the components "V,S" and the Components rules say that S spells can be cast with one free hand.
This is the closest I can find (with a quick search) to any mention from Jeremy Crawford about Burning Hands, in which he says he allows it to be cast with one hand. The topic has been argued to death all over the internet if you want to search, though.
Descriptions of how the spell is actually cast are just legacy fluff. They have no impact on spellcasting mechanics.
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.
If the interpretation of a spell is being argued 'all over the internet', then there is something wrong with the wording of that spell.
I get the impression that you wantonly ignore the 'specific trumps general' rule that is clearly written in the Basic Rules, because you think you know what RAI is in every case.
Speaking of RAI, I read the link. That was not a ruling. Jeremy Crawford specifically says that when he DM's, he 'allows' Burning Hands to be cast with one hand.
You don't 'allow' something that you are supposed to be able to do anyway.
I didn't say it was a ruling, just the only time I could find him mentioning it. And yes, there is an issue with the wording of the spell, but splay all the pages of the 5e books on a board and throw a dart at them, you're going to hit a wording issue.
I don't ignore the specific trumps general rule, but I get the impression that you don't actually understand the point of it. There are many cases of specific rules actually trumping general rules throughout the books, but they are very rarely ambiguous wordings. They're things like the Periapt of Wound Closure, which specifically trumps the general Death Saves rule.
This is not one; this is two rules contradicting - not trumping - one another, even though the intent is very clear. That's why my very first comment in this thread was "how is this even an argument?" Spells that can't be dispelled can't be dispelled, that's the very clear intent.
Just the fact that this is a 7 page thread with several people arguing both sides, PROVES that the wording and RAI is unclear.
YOU think it is clear because you base your argument on a Sage Advice ruling. Without that ruling, any given DM can rule either way because as you admitted, the wording implies a specific interpretation.
Just the fact that this is a 7 page thread with several people arguing both sides, PROVES that the wording and RAI is unclear.
YOU think it is clear because you base your argument on a Sage Advice ruling. Without that ruling, any given DM can rule either way because as you admitted, the wording implies a specific interpretation.
I absolutely don't. I had never read the Sage Advice ruling before I joined in on this debate; it just so happened to agree with me ;). Confession, I didn't read the first ~two pages of this thread before I joined in; I know, major faux pas. I didn't actually read the SA on this topic until right before my post #95.
I originally thought - and continue to think - that it's clear because the rules for Instantaneous spells say that they cannot be dispelled, and that the effects created by them are not magical. Antimagic Field dispels magic. I simply did the math to conclude what the - in my eyes - very clear intention of the rules is.
The issue is that Antimagic Fielddoesn't dispel magic. The word "dispel" appears nowhere in the spell's description, except to say that the field itself is immune to Dispel Magic. If it weren't fundamentally different, it wouldn't affect magic items, and summoned creatures (the ones we can all agree the spell text itself says it works on) wouldn't reappear when the field ends.
That it interacts with spells the same way that Dispel Magic does is obvious from the Sage Advice. But it's not in the book.
I know. I can read. I'm using the word dispel to mean what it actually, by its very definition, means; "make disappear." I am not referencing the Dispel Magic spell. I'm just using a word.
AMF makes ongoing spells & spell effects disappear, it makes magical effects present on magic items disappear, it makes presently summoned* creatures disappear, etc. Itdispels them.
The issue is that Antimagic Fielddoesn't dispel magic. The word "dispel" appears nowhere in the spell's description, except to say that the field itself is immune to Dispel Magic. If it weren't fundamentally different, it wouldn't affect magic items, and summoned creatures (the ones we can all agree the spell text itself says it works on) wouldn't reappear when the field ends.
That it interacts with spells the same way that Dispel Magic does is obvious from the Sage Advice. But it's not in the book.
I would argue that AMF does not work the same as Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic explicitly and permanently ends ongoing spell effects. AMF suppresses all Magic, often temporarily, as described for each type of magical effect. For creatures and objects, the plain text says they temporarily wink out if they were summoned or created by magic. To me, this is both different from Dispel Magic, and not tied to whether the spell that did the creating/summoning is still active, as there is no reference to spells, or to the summoning/creating being ongoing/currently happening.
Just the fact that this is a 7 page thread with several people arguing both sides, PROVES that the wording and RAI is unclear.
YOU think it is clear because you base your argument on a Sage Advice ruling. Without that ruling, any given DM can rule either way because as you admitted, the wording implies a specific interpretation.
I absolutely don't. I had never read the Sage Advice ruling before I joined in on this debate; it just so happened to agree with me ;). Confession, I didn't read the first ~two pages of this thread before I joined in; I know, major faux pas. I didn't actually read the SA on this topic until right before my post #95.
I originally thought - and continue to think - that it's clear because the rules for Instantaneous spells say that they cannot be dispelled, and that the effects created by them are not magical. Antimagic Field dispels magic. I simply did the math to conclude what the - in my eyes - very clear intention of the rules is.
Antimagic field does not Dispel Magic, it is a completely different effect. It does suppress magic, temporarily, in a way very different from the mechanics of Dispel Magic
Antimagic field does not Dispel Magic, it is a completely different effect. It does suppress magic, temporarily, in a way very different from the mechanics of Dispel Magic
Yes, it does. See the post I just made.
Things reappear when the AMF fades because they were made to disappear.
I know. I can read. I'm using the word dispel to mean what it actually, by its very definition, means; "make disappear." I am not referencing the Dispel Magic spell. I'm just using a word.
AMF makes ongoing spells & spell effects disappear, it makes magical effects present on magic items disappear, it makes presently summoned* creatures disappear, etc. Itdispels them.
*Don't even start.
You might be “just using a word,” but the game isn’t. This is rules language. Antimagic Field itself draws a line between “spells and magical effects like Dispel Magic” and Antimagic Field itself. Your argument here feels really self-serving in context of which forum this is. Spells do what they say they do, and they don’t do what they don’t say they do. Antimagic Field doesn’t say it dispels anything (in a mechanics sense), so it doesn’t.
Sorry in advanced for getting all sarcastic here, but come on. I can't use a word because it's used somewhere in the rules? So if I mention a bonfire, I'm automatically talking about the Create Bonfire spell? If it makes you feel better, go reread anything I posted where I say the word "dispel" and replace that in your mind with "make disappear."
Antimagic Field dispels magic makes magic disappear. Effects caused by Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled made to disappear. Does this help?
This is one of those situations where it seems to create an exceptions to a rule, but it doesn't specifically create an exception. I can't think of a way they could have worded this effect without specifically calling out the rule they don't want to violate (which few if any other effects do). Either they need to errata it to say "non-instantaneous" (which no other spell has to), or they need an official ruling to clarify (oh hey, look at that).
This discussion should be over. Everything there is to say has been said. The RAW is unclear (regardless of which ruling you naturally came to), but the official ruling is not.
And we all know DMs can rule however they want, but AL and d&d events will use the SAC ruling.
Readdressing my (incorrect) grammar argument from earlier, they really just need to change "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere" to "Magically summoned or created creatures and objects temporarily wink out of existence in the sphere."
Readdressing my (incorrect) grammar argument from earlier, they really just need to change "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere" to "Magically summoned or created creatures and objects temporarily wink out of existence in the sphere."
Make those verbs into participles.
Here’s a rewrite to get it to RAI (per SAC). “Creatures or objects temporarily wink out of existence in the field if they are created or summoned by active spell or magical effects...”. That clearly ties the winking out to an active effect in plain language.
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.
All instantaneous...
so a GENERAL rule for instantaneous....
defeated by SPECIFIC rule of AMF.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm, well that does seem like an ironclad argument. I suppose I would have to agree now.
Edit: But this is in serious need of an Errata. There's NO WAY a DM that is not privy to that specific SA article could come to that same conclusion. The SA literally contradicts what is written in the Antimagic Spell's specific clauses.
Oh I totally agree. The wording is messy and definitely should be fixed, at least for the sake of clarification.
I do appreciate what you're saying about Specific > General, I just don't think that a spells Description is more "specific" than a spells Duration.
Sure, the instructions of how Duration works is under the "general" Spellcasting rules, but a Spell's Duration is just as much a part of it as its Description is. Saying otherwise would be like... hmm, what's a good example.
Let's take the fan favorite spell Burning Hands. Its description specifically says you need to place both your empty hands together, fingers splayed out. Does this trump the general Spellcasting Components rules that say you can cast this spell with just one free hand? No, it doesn't, because the components rules are just as much a part of casting that spell as the description of the spell is. They contradict each other, so you go with the RAI, which is that Somatic spells can be cast with one empty hand. So, why should another spells description trump the Spellcasting Duration rules, if that one's doesn't trump the Spellcasting Component rules?
Basically, AMF isn't the only spell with a description that contradicts the Spellcasting rules, but you follow them regardless.
When there's a contradiction in RAW where there isn't a clear-cut case of "Specific beats General," you go with RAI, and in this case the intent is that effects caused by Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled in any way as there is no magic to dispel.
It's impossible to know what the RAI is when the rules clearly contradict.
And before I start arguing once again, is there a SA or Errata that says Burning Hands can be cast with only one free hand?
It is entirely possible though.
The intent of an instantaneous spell is that it "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."
The intent of AMF is that it dispels magic. 1+1 = 2.
Burning Hands doesn't need clarification because while the description specifically says it requires two hands, it also specifically has the components "V,S" and the Components rules say that S spells can be cast with one free hand.
This is the closest I can find (with a quick search) to any mention from Jeremy Crawford about Burning Hands, in which he says he allows it to be cast with one hand. The topic has been argued to death all over the internet if you want to search, though.
Descriptions of how the spell is actually cast are just legacy fluff. They have no impact on spellcasting mechanics.
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.
If the interpretation of a spell is being argued 'all over the internet', then there is something wrong with the wording of that spell.
I get the impression that you wantonly ignore the 'specific trumps general' rule that is clearly written in the Basic Rules, because you think you know what RAI is in every case.
Speaking of RAI, I read the link. That was not a ruling. Jeremy Crawford specifically says that when he DM's, he 'allows' Burning Hands to be cast with one hand.
You don't 'allow' something that you are supposed to be able to do anyway.
I didn't say it was a ruling, just the only time I could find him mentioning it. And yes, there is an issue with the wording of the spell, but splay all the pages of the 5e books on a board and throw a dart at them, you're going to hit a wording issue.
I don't ignore the specific trumps general rule, but I get the impression that you don't actually understand the point of it. There are many cases of specific rules actually trumping general rules throughout the books, but they are very rarely ambiguous wordings. They're things like the Periapt of Wound Closure, which specifically trumps the general Death Saves rule.
This is not one; this is two rules contradicting - not trumping - one another, even though the intent is very clear. That's why my very first comment in this thread was "how is this even an argument?" Spells that can't be dispelled can't be dispelled, that's the very clear intent.
Just the fact that this is a 7 page thread with several people arguing both sides, PROVES that the wording and RAI is unclear.
YOU think it is clear because you base your argument on a Sage Advice ruling. Without that ruling, any given DM can rule either way because as you admitted, the wording implies a specific interpretation.
I absolutely don't. I had never read the Sage Advice ruling before I joined in on this debate; it just so happened to agree with me ;). Confession, I didn't read the first ~two pages of this thread before I joined in; I know, major faux pas. I didn't actually read the SA on this topic until right before my post #95.
I originally thought - and continue to think - that it's clear because the rules for Instantaneous spells say that they cannot be dispelled, and that the effects created by them are not magical. Antimagic Field dispels magic. I simply did the math to conclude what the - in my eyes - very clear intention of the rules is.
The issue is that Antimagic Field doesn't dispel magic. The word "dispel" appears nowhere in the spell's description, except to say that the field itself is immune to Dispel Magic. If it weren't fundamentally different, it wouldn't affect magic items, and summoned creatures (the ones we can all agree the spell text itself says it works on) wouldn't reappear when the field ends.
That it interacts with spells the same way that Dispel Magic does is obvious from the Sage Advice. But it's not in the book.
Ugh. Every time I say the word dispel I get "umm actually, this isn't Dispel Magic, it's Antimagic Field."
I know. I can read. I'm using the word dispel to mean what it actually, by its very definition, means; "make disappear." I am not referencing the Dispel Magic spell. I'm just using a word.
AMF makes ongoing spells & spell effects disappear, it makes magical effects present on magic items disappear, it makes presently summoned* creatures disappear, etc. It dispels them.
*Don't even start.
I would argue that AMF does not work the same as Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic explicitly and permanently ends ongoing spell effects. AMF suppresses all Magic, often temporarily, as described for each type of magical effect. For creatures and objects, the plain text says they temporarily wink out if they were summoned or created by magic. To me, this is both different from Dispel Magic, and not tied to whether the spell that did the creating/summoning is still active, as there is no reference to spells, or to the summoning/creating being ongoing/currently happening.
Antimagic field does not Dispel Magic, it is a completely different effect. It does suppress magic, temporarily, in a way very different from the mechanics of Dispel Magic
Yes, it does. See the post I just made.
Things reappear when the AMF fades because they were made to disappear.
Definition of the word dispel: "Make disappear."
You might be “just using a word,” but the game isn’t. This is rules language. Antimagic Field itself draws a line between “spells and magical effects like Dispel Magic” and Antimagic Field itself. Your argument here feels really self-serving in context of which forum this is. Spells do what they say they do, and they don’t do what they don’t say they do. Antimagic Field doesn’t say it dispels anything (in a mechanics sense), so it doesn’t.
Sorry in advanced for getting all sarcastic here, but come on. I can't use a word because it's used somewhere in the rules? So if I mention a bonfire, I'm automatically talking about the Create Bonfire spell? If it makes you feel better, go reread anything I posted where I say the word "dispel" and replace that in your mind with "make disappear."
Antimagic Field
dispels magicmakes magic disappear. Effects caused by Instantaneous spells cannot bedispelledmade to disappear. Does this help?This is one of those situations where it seems to create an exceptions to a rule, but it doesn't specifically create an exception. I can't think of a way they could have worded this effect without specifically calling out the rule they don't want to violate (which few if any other effects do). Either they need to errata it to say "non-instantaneous" (which no other spell has to), or they need an official ruling to clarify (oh hey, look at that).
This discussion should be over. Everything there is to say has been said. The RAW is unclear (regardless of which ruling you naturally came to), but the official ruling is not.
And we all know DMs can rule however they want, but AL and d&d events will use the SAC ruling.
Readdressing my (incorrect) grammar argument from earlier, they really just need to change "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere" to "Magically summoned or created creatures and objects temporarily wink out of existence in the sphere."
Make those verbs into participles.
Here’s a rewrite to get it to RAI (per SAC). “Creatures or objects temporarily wink out of existence in the field if they are created or summoned by active spell or magical effects...”. That clearly ties the winking out to an active effect in plain language.
All instantaneous...
so a GENERAL rule for instantaneous....
defeated by SPECIFIC rule of AMF.
Blank