Not by my reading (which this thread has ably demonstrated is different to yours).
The spell anti-magic field supresses things and effects that were created by magic. They key word is "supresses" - the field does not dispel anything. The effects and things are still there and will reappear when the field moves or ends.
Whether or not you believe a familiar is magical, it was created by magic. So the anti-magic field supresses it (as per paragraph 9). Same for a goodberry. After all, before you cast the spell, there are no berries in your hand. Regardless of whether or not it you think it is magical now, the berry was created by magic, so the anti-magic field supresses its effects.
Whether or not a creature of object is magical now is irrelevant to anti-magic field.
You should maybe read the rest of the conversation.
Unlike you. I actually read every post. Before I posted. And every post, in between my postings.
you know. So I don’t hash out the same things, or improperly use the word Dispel in multiple posts, etc.
so as I said, your argument, SAC’s argument, is about the instantaneous is unaffected by AMF. But, the example and reasons YOU gave, Are for GENERAL situations involving instantaneous spells. Because of this, I have to point out, specific rules beat general rules, and there in AMF is a specific rule, for the scenario that you are encompassing into your general instantaneous discussion.
so, contrary again. How does the specific rule of AMF not void the general rule there, and Not make familiars disappear within an AMF?
so as I said, your argument, SAC’s argument, is about the instantaneous is unaffected by AMF. But, the example and reasons YOU gave, Are for GENERAL situations involving instantaneous spells. Because of this, I have to point out, specific rules beat general rules, and there in AMF is a specific rule, for the scenario that you are encompassing into your general instantaneous discussion.
so, contrary again. How does the specific rule of AMF not void the general rule there, and Not make familiars disappear within an AMF?
Actually, the SAC ruling is that there is no specific AMF language that conflicts with the general instantaneous rules. AMF does not specifically say it suppresses the effects of spells and magic that have already ended.
Basically, the SAC argument is that familiars from find familiar and undead from animate dead are no longer "creatures summoned or created by magic." They are self sustaining normal creatures.
That is the SAC argument. "There is no specific that trumps general In this case."
so as I said, your argument, SAC’s argument, is about the instantaneous is unaffected by AMF. But, the example and reasons YOU gave, Are for GENERAL situations involving instantaneous spells. Because of this, I have to point out, specific rules beat general rules, and there in AMF is a specific rule, for the scenario that you are encompassing into your general instantaneous discussion.
so, contrary again. How does the specific rule of AMF not void the general rule there, and Not make familiars disappear within an AMF?
Actually, the SAC ruling is that there is no specific AMF language that conflicts with the general instantaneous rules. AMF does not specifically say it suppresses the effects of spells and magic that have already ended.
Basically, the SAC argument is that familiars from find familiar and undead from animate dead are no longer "creatures summoned or created by magic." They are self sustaining normal creatures.
That is the SAC argument. "There is no specific that trumps general In this case."
your post
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.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
SAC
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with an- timagic 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 (see PH, 203). 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 ad- verse effect. Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is in- stantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an anti- magic field! In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.
It specifically is mentioning anime dead, so a specific and a specific. Animate dead will work.
it does not mention goodberries, AMF doesn’t mention goodberries, they are both General, however sage advice specifically mentions the instantaneous thing. Goodberries are still in existence.
find familiar is generally referred by SAC, it is not specifically used as an example like animate dead. but SPECIFICALLY mentioned by AMF. Specific trumps general. Find familiar, the families wink out of existence in the AMF.
I can see your confusion since it specifically says animate dead will work. But notice AMF doesn’t specifically call out animate dead...
that’s why animate dead will work, but find familiar they wink out.
that said, this has deviated a long ways from the debate being pact of chain families vs normal find familiars.
and I stand by the only familiar that doesn’t wink out, per the rules, per sage advice not specifically addressing it like AMF, the only familiar that stays is if you are given a familiar that anxiety creates, such as your Raven if you are a Raven Queen Warlock.
re-reading through AMF... since why not re reading all of SAC.
I am wrong and admit it.
AMF doesn’t specifically mention familiars.
it talks about “other magical effects”.
so I now sit here... in stark silence... laughing at how level 1 spells can trump a level 8 spell of one of its intended purpose.
I think Crawford was wrong to include AMF in his response to that question (which was specifically asked about Dispel Magic). His response is fine for Dispel Magic and Animate Dead; Dispel Magic specifically indicates that “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends”. That is the mechanical effect of the spell, and RAW specifically ties it to spells which means duration (you can’t end a spell that’s already ended) is important to understanding why you can’t Dispel a zombie.
But with AMF, both the mechanics of the spell and the plain wording don’t fixate on spells or spell mechanics, specifically the section on Creatures and Objects where the wording focuses on the creature and whether it was summoned or created, not on the spell or effect that did the creating/summoning. If they had focused on the spell/effect, we probably wouldn't have a 150 ish post argument. If the RAI was to focus AMFs effect to “active” spells and effects, they seriously messed up writing that section, but either way, the mechanics of AMF as written are too different to be adequately judged by equating them with Dispel Magic which is what Jeremy did in his ruling (which again, was focused on Dispel Magic and it’s mechanics, and only references AMF secondarily)
that said, I don’t think AMF would suppress a zombie created by Animate Dead anyway, because while you are “creating” a zombie, you’re not really making something from nothing or summoning it; the creature was already there, you’re just imbuing it with “a foul mimicry of life”
Not by my reading (which this thread has ably demonstrated is different to yours).
The spell anti-magic field supresses things and effects that were created by magic. They key word is "supresses" - the field does not dispel anything. The effects and things are still there and will reappear when the field moves or ends.
Whether or not you believe a familiar is magical, it was created by magic. So the anti-magic field supresses it (as per paragraph 9). Same for a goodberry. After all, before you cast the spell, there are no berries in your hand. Regardless of whether or not it you think it is magical now, the berry was created by magic, so the anti-magic field supresses its effects.
Whether or not a creature of object is magical now is irrelevant to anti-magic field.
Do I seriously need to reexplain the definition of dispel for a 3rd time? If it reappears then it was made to disappear. The word "dispel" means "make disappear." Enough with this broken record.
Unlike you. I actually read every post. Before I posted. And every post, in between my postings.
you know. So I don’t hash out the same things, or improperly use the word Dispel in multiple posts, etc.
Oof, that's ironic. Almost everything you've said in the last page is "hashing out the same things."
And please, show me one place where I misused the word dispel. It's not my fault that no one apparently knows what the word means.
All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.
According to the argument that "all magic winks out of existence inside an AMF" then you should certainly conclude that all existence winks out of AMF, including the caster, which breaks concentration, which ends the effect. This is the most straightforward (and also worst) reading of the spell, especially if you cherry pick your meaning of magical to not include the definition outlined by the description of the weave and clarified by the SAC official ruling. Later on, that same sidebar tells us that "magical" means interfacing with that weave (hence the rules for instantaneous duration spells). It also continues on to say:
Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell. And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways—or not at all.
A creature not described as magical or being held in its current place by magic does not interface with the weave in and of itself (though it may produce magical effects that do interface with the weave), so there is nothing to rearrange about it. This is the reasoning that the SAC official ruling uses, which is why it comes to the conclusion it does. The conclusion we have in SAC is perfectly valid based on what we know from the PHB about magic, the weave, and how anti magic field interacts with those things.
I have no inkling that the intent of the spell was that we now must keep a blockchain history of each creature that enters an AMF to determine whether it was ever summoned to decide whether or not it can exist inside of an AMF - which is certainly the implication of the other reading. If a creature is being held in place by the weave, sure it disappears. Otherwise NO.
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford for his (in my opinion) incorrect use of Antimagic Field in his explanation of Dispel Magic, then there IS precedent to use the similarity of Animate Dead to conclude that Find Familiar will not wink out in the Antimagic Field.
The Antimatic clause for Objects and Creatures, quoted as follows:
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.
Can be rewritten into two separate sentences:
A creature (or object) created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere, and
A creature (or object) summoned by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.
Jeremy Crawford made a very clear ruling that an Animate Dead creature does NOT wink out of existence in an Antimagic Field because the casting of Animate Dead is Instantaneous and there is no lingering magic to 'supress'.
Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell, that creates a creature by magic.
Find Familiar is an instantaneous spell that summons a creature by magic.
If the SAC ruling is provided as an example, then there's no way to wrangle out of the fact that Find Familiar can't be 'supressed' by Antimagic Field.
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford on that mistake. And I believe it is a mistake because Antimagic Field has a specific rule that should trump the general rule of Instantaneous spells. OR the specific clause for Objects and Creatures seriously needs to be rewritten in an errata to say...
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created and being sustained 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.
Not by my reading (which this thread has ably demonstrated is different to yours).
The spell anti-magic field supresses things and effects that were created by magic. They key word is "supresses" - the field does not dispel anything. The effects and things are still there and will reappear when the field moves or ends.
Whether or not you believe a familiar is magical, it was created by magic. So the anti-magic field supresses it (as per paragraph 9). Same for a goodberry. After all, before you cast the spell, there are no berries in your hand. Regardless of whether or not it you think it is magical now, the berry was created by magic, so the anti-magic field supresses its effects.
Whether or not a creature of object is magical now is irrelevant to anti-magic field.
Do I seriously need to reexplain the definition of dispel for a 3rd time? If it reappears then it was made to disappear. The word "dispel" means "make disappear." Enough with this broken record.
Unlike you. I actually read every post. Before I posted. And every post, in between my postings.
you know. So I don’t hash out the same things, or improperly use the word Dispel in multiple posts, etc.
Oof, that's ironic. Almost everything you've said in the last page is "hashing out the same things."
And please, show me one place where I misused the word dispel. It's not my fault that no one apparently knows what the word means.
: to drive away or cause to vanish by or as if by scattering : DISSIPATE
“make disappear” you said numerous times.
for trying to rules lawyer based off of dictionary definitions of words, it helps to use the correct definition. As in, the rules lawyer style Definiton As Written.
make disappear wouldn’t be accurate, as when things disappear there is no trace left. The definition of dispel clear says “by or as if by scattering” that would mean there would be trace remnants.
so, tell us all again how you’re smarter than everyone here?
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford for his (in my opinion) incorrect use of Antimagic Field in his explanation of Dispel Magic, then there IS precedent to use the similarity of Animate Dead to conclude that Find Familiar will not wink out in the Antimagic Field.
The Antimatic clause for Objects and Creatures, quoted as follows:
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.
Can be rewritten into two separate sentences:
A creature (or object) created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere, and
A creature (or object) summoned by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.
Jeremy Crawford made a very clear ruling that an Animate Dead creature does NOT wink out of existence in an Antimagic Field because the casting of Animate Dead is Instantaneous and there is no lingering magic to 'supress'.
Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell, that creates a creature by magic.
Find Familiar is an instantaneous spell that summons a creature by magic.
If the SAC ruling is provided as an example, then there's no way to wrangle out of the fact that Find Familiar can't be 'supressed' by Antimagic Field.
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford on that mistake. And I believe it is a mistake because Antimagic Field has a specific rule that should trump the general rule of Instantaneous spells. OR the specific clause for Objects and Creatures seriously needs to be rewritten in an errata to say...
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created and being sustained 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.
I agree. Jeremy Crawford needs to be recontacted again regarding AMF specifically.
i sent a question email to sage advice to ask, linking this thread (for better or worse) but have not gotten a response as of yet.
course, I originally messaged when I suggested it earlier. But it bears repeating, that Jeremy Crawford himself, is the only one who’ll be able to settle this due to too many poor wordings.
1: Words can have multiple definitions. 2: "cause to vanish" means... what? "Make disappear," perhaps? Seriously, give your head a shake. 3: The Merriam-Webster definition you used there relates the word to "dissipate." It links directly to it next to the definition. Do you know how "dissipate" is defined in that dictionary? Like so: "disappear or cause to disappear"
Google "dispel" Very first thing that pops up:
dis·pel
/dəˈspel/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: dispel; 3rd person present: dispels; past tense: dispelled; past participle: dispelled; gerund or present participle: dispelling
make (a doubt, feeling, or belief) disappear.
Furthermore:
make disappear wouldn’t be accurate, as when things disappear there is no trace left
As opposed to when things "vanish" and there is a trace left.
The definition of dispel clear says “by or as if by scattering” that would mean there would be trace remnants.
All I can say to that is... what? No. No it doesn't.
I do enjoy that you clearly googled "dispel," immediately saw that its definition is "make disappear," and then went hunting for a definition that didn't directly say that. A for effort.
When clicked... dispel is in bold and sounded out.. indicating it is the main word.
the dissipate there at the end, means “this is a synonym”
the definition quite literally spells out the exact method the things vanish. By or as if by scattering.
I made no effort for any of your nonsense. And refuse to go further off topic about this. Miriam Webster is super easy to use for anyone literate.
if you prefer a google definiton of a word over the dictionary definition, that further illustrates the point of rules lawyering the definition until it’s convenient for you.
i am certain Jeremy Crawford can address this specifically and you would try to argue with him. It seems you just want to troll and argue with people.
This discussion has devolved to some of the most pedantic shit I've ever seen. Would a mod please lock this thread?
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 you don't want to be a part of the conversation, just stop participating. You can even unsubscribe from this thread, if you would not longer prefer to receive notifications (I know I have!). People are having a discussion about a rules question, and that discussion is ongoing, and should not be locked merely because you've had your chance to say your piece and don't care to hear any further input.
@EightPackKila if you seriously think "cause to vanish" and "make disappear" aren't 100% synonymous, I don't know what to tell you.
Google and dictionary.com both say "make disappear." Merriam-Webster says "cause to vanish." They mean the same thing. If you don't think so, well, you're wrong.
This discussion has devolved to some of the most pedantic shit I've ever seen. Would a mod please lock this thread?
Users have the ability to debate rules and verbage contained, no matter how 'pedantic' you may find it. As long as things remain civil and they keep personal attacks out of this, the discussion may continue.
EDIT: AGAIN, Keep posts in relation to the thread. If you have comments regarding the thread's existence or what needs to be done with it, take it to PMs.
You should maybe read the rest of the conversation.
Not by my reading (which this thread has ably demonstrated is different to yours).
The spell anti-magic field supresses things and effects that were created by magic. They key word is "supresses" - the field does not dispel anything. The effects and things are still there and will reappear when the field moves or ends.
Whether or not you believe a familiar is magical, it was created by magic. So the anti-magic field supresses it (as per paragraph 9). Same for a goodberry. After all, before you cast the spell, there are no berries in your hand. Regardless of whether or not it you think it is magical now, the berry was created by magic, so the anti-magic field supresses its effects.
Whether or not a creature of object is magical now is irrelevant to anti-magic field.
Unlike you. I actually read every post. Before I posted. And every post, in between my postings.
you know. So I don’t hash out the same things, or improperly use the word Dispel in multiple posts, etc.
so as I said, your argument, SAC’s argument, is about the instantaneous is unaffected by AMF. But, the example and reasons YOU gave, Are for GENERAL situations involving instantaneous spells. Because of this, I have to point out, specific rules beat general rules, and there in AMF is a specific rule, for the scenario that you are encompassing into your general instantaneous discussion.
so, contrary again. How does the specific rule of AMF not void the general rule there, and Not make familiars disappear within an AMF?
Blank
Actually, the SAC ruling is that there is no specific AMF language that conflicts with the general instantaneous rules. AMF does not specifically say it suppresses the effects of spells and magic that have already ended.
Basically, the SAC argument is that familiars from find familiar and undead from animate dead are no longer "creatures summoned or created by magic." They are self sustaining normal creatures.
That is the SAC argument. "There is no specific that trumps general In this case."
your post
SAC
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with an- timagic 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 (see PH, 203). 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 ad- verse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is in- stantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an anti- magic field!
In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.
the direct passage from SAC
https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf
the link to it if anyone’s curious.
It specifically is mentioning anime dead, so a specific and a specific. Animate dead will work.
it does not mention goodberries, AMF doesn’t mention goodberries, they are both General, however sage advice specifically mentions the instantaneous thing. Goodberries are still in existence.
find familiar is generally referred by SAC, it is not specifically used as an example like animate dead. but SPECIFICALLY mentioned by AMF. Specific trumps general. Find familiar, the families wink out of existence in the AMF.
I can see your confusion since it specifically says animate dead will work. But notice AMF doesn’t specifically call out animate dead...
that’s why animate dead will work, but find familiar they wink out.
that said, this has deviated a long ways from the debate being pact of chain families vs normal find familiars.
and I stand by the only familiar that doesn’t wink out, per the rules, per sage advice not specifically addressing it like AMF, the only familiar that stays is if you are given a familiar that anxiety creates, such as your Raven if you are a Raven Queen Warlock.
Edit* Not bothering to fix autocorrect
Blank
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/antimagic-field
re-reading through AMF... since why not re reading all of SAC.
I am wrong and admit it.
AMF doesn’t specifically mention familiars.
it talks about “other magical effects”.
so I now sit here... in stark silence... laughing at how level 1 spells can trump a level 8 spell of one of its intended purpose.
Blank
I think Crawford was wrong to include AMF in his response to that question (which was specifically asked about Dispel Magic). His response is fine for Dispel Magic and Animate Dead; Dispel Magic specifically indicates that “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends”. That is the mechanical effect of the spell, and RAW specifically ties it to spells which means duration (you can’t end a spell that’s already ended) is important to understanding why you can’t Dispel a zombie.
But with AMF, both the mechanics of the spell and the plain wording don’t fixate on spells or spell mechanics, specifically the section on Creatures and Objects where the wording focuses on the creature and whether it was summoned or created, not on the spell or effect that did the creating/summoning. If they had focused on the spell/effect, we probably wouldn't have a 150 ish post argument. If the RAI was to focus AMFs effect to “active” spells and effects, they seriously messed up writing that section, but either way, the mechanics of AMF as written are too different to be adequately judged by equating them with Dispel Magic which is what Jeremy did in his ruling (which again, was focused on Dispel Magic and it’s mechanics, and only references AMF secondarily)
that said, I don’t think AMF would suppress a zombie created by Animate Dead anyway, because while you are “creating” a zombie, you’re not really making something from nothing or summoning it; the creature was already there, you’re just imbuing it with “a foul mimicry of life”
Do I seriously need to reexplain the definition of dispel for a 3rd time? If it reappears then it was made to disappear. The word "dispel" means "make disappear." Enough with this broken record.
Oof, that's ironic. Almost everything you've said in the last page is "hashing out the same things."
And please, show me one place where I misused the word dispel. It's not my fault that no one apparently knows what the word means.
Glad you finally agree in the end, anyway.
No. A corpse is certainly not a zombie.
I think that the logical extension of the argument against the official ruling is dangerous. Consider these sentences from the PHB:
antimagic field:
and from the sidebar describing the Weave:
According to the argument that "all magic winks out of existence inside an AMF" then you should certainly conclude that all existence winks out of AMF, including the caster, which breaks concentration, which ends the effect. This is the most straightforward (and also worst) reading of the spell, especially if you cherry pick your meaning of magical to not include the definition outlined by the description of the weave and clarified by the SAC official ruling. Later on, that same sidebar tells us that "magical" means interfacing with that weave (hence the rules for instantaneous duration spells). It also continues on to say:
A creature not described as magical or being held in its current place by magic does not interface with the weave in and of itself (though it may produce magical effects that do interface with the weave), so there is nothing to rearrange about it. This is the reasoning that the SAC official ruling uses, which is why it comes to the conclusion it does. The conclusion we have in SAC is perfectly valid based on what we know from the PHB about magic, the weave, and how anti magic field interacts with those things.
I have no inkling that the intent of the spell was that we now must keep a blockchain history of each creature that enters an AMF to determine whether it was ever summoned to decide whether or not it can exist inside of an AMF - which is certainly the implication of the other reading. If a creature is being held in place by the weave, sure it disappears. Otherwise NO.
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford for his (in my opinion) incorrect use of Antimagic Field in his explanation of Dispel Magic, then there IS precedent to use the similarity of Animate Dead to conclude that Find Familiar will not wink out in the Antimagic Field.
The Antimatic clause for Objects and Creatures, quoted as follows:
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.
Can be rewritten into two separate sentences:
Jeremy Crawford made a very clear ruling that an Animate Dead creature does NOT wink out of existence in an Antimagic Field because the casting of Animate Dead is Instantaneous and there is no lingering magic to 'supress'.
If the SAC ruling is provided as an example, then there's no way to wrangle out of the fact that Find Familiar can't be 'supressed' by Antimagic Field.
Until someone calls out Jeremy Crawford on that mistake. And I believe it is a mistake because Antimagic Field has a specific rule that should trump the general rule of Instantaneous spells. OR the specific clause for Objects and Creatures seriously needs to be rewritten in an errata to say...
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created and being sustained 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispel
transitive verb
Blank
I agree. Jeremy Crawford needs to be recontacted again regarding AMF specifically.
i sent a question email to sage advice to ask, linking this thread (for better or worse) but have not gotten a response as of yet.
course, I originally messaged when I suggested it earlier. But it bears repeating, that Jeremy Crawford himself, is the only one who’ll be able to settle this due to too many poor wordings.
Blank
Good lord, EightPackKilla. Okay, 3 things.
1: Words can have multiple definitions.
2: "cause to vanish" means... what? "Make disappear," perhaps? Seriously, give your head a shake.
3: The Merriam-Webster definition you used there relates the word to "dissipate." It links directly to it next to the definition. Do you know how "dissipate" is defined in that dictionary? Like so: "disappear or cause to disappear"
Google "dispel"
Very first thing that pops up:
Furthermore:
As opposed to when things "vanish" and there is a trace left.
All I can say to that is... what? No. No it doesn't.
I do enjoy that you clearly googled "dispel," immediately saw that its definition is "make disappear," and then went hunting for a definition that didn't directly say that. A for effort.
.....
think link. Clearly even says Dispel in it...
When clicked... dispel is in bold and sounded out.. indicating it is the main word.
the dissipate there at the end, means “this is a synonym”
the definition quite literally spells out the exact method the things vanish. By or as if by scattering.
I made no effort for any of your nonsense. And refuse to go further off topic about this. Miriam Webster is super easy to use for anyone literate.
if you prefer a google definiton of a word over the dictionary definition, that further illustrates the point of rules lawyering the definition until it’s convenient for you.
i am certain Jeremy Crawford can address this specifically and you would try to argue with him. It seems you just want to troll and argue with people.
Blank
This discussion has devolved to some of the most pedantic shit I've ever seen. Would a mod please lock this thread?
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 you don't want to be a part of the conversation, just stop participating. You can even unsubscribe from this thread, if you would not longer prefer to receive notifications (I know I have!). People are having a discussion about a rules question, and that discussion is ongoing, and should not be locked merely because you've had your chance to say your piece and don't care to hear any further input.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
@EightPackKila if you seriously think "cause to vanish" and "make disappear" aren't 100% synonymous, I don't know what to tell you.
Google and dictionary.com both say "make disappear." Merriam-Webster says "cause to vanish." They mean the same thing. If you don't think so, well, you're wrong.
Users have the ability to debate rules and verbage contained, no matter how 'pedantic' you may find it. As long as things remain civil and they keep personal attacks out of this, the discussion may continue.
EDIT: AGAIN, Keep posts in relation to the thread. If you have comments regarding the thread's existence or what needs to be done with it, take it to PMs.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns