Thus we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell, it is not like find familiar or find steed where the spell ends the moment the creature is summoned but rather is an on-going spell like conjure animals or conjure minor elementals and the creature does not persist past the end of the spell like conjure elementals.
Summoned and Conjured creatures are not magical. This has been defined previously.
Defined where? I can not find where such a ruling has ever been made that a creature that is summoned by an on-going spell is not considered magical, I could for a creature summoned from an instantaneous spell like find familiar but that is clearly not the type of spell described in the fluff text, as it defines an on-going spell binding the creature then the spell must be on-going and the creature is still the result of a magical effect.
I'd say another test of if a creature is the result of a magical effect is, can it enter an antimagic field, a war horse from find steed can, a skeleton from animate undead can but a floating silver coin from animate objects can not. An invisible stalker can not enter an antimagic field, it would blink out of existence on entering one.
As far as 5e goes, the Sage Advice Compendium has the following definitions for considering something magical. The SAC is considered official clarifications but there is no requirement that a DM uses the clarifications.
In the end, it is up to the DM to decide whether a creature summoned by an on-going summoning spell would detect as magical or not.
The creature summoned is itself not magical unless the word magic is used in its description but summoning it involves the ongoing use of a spell slot which could fit the definition of magical below. I could see the decision go either way on whether the summoned creature itself would appear as magical to detect magic.
-----------------------------
SAC: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. "
How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. 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.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
Thus we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell, it is not like find familiar or find steed where the spell ends the moment the creature is summoned but rather is an on-going spell like conjure animals or conjure minor elementals and the creature does not persist past the end of the spell like conjure elementals.
Summoned and Conjured creatures are not magical. This has been defined previously.
Defined where? I can not find where such a ruling has ever been made that a creature that is summoned by an on-going spell is not considered magical, I could for a creature summoned from an instantaneous spell like find familiar but that is clearly not the type of spell described in the fluff text, as it defines an on-going spell binding the creature then the spell must be on-going and the creature is still the result of a magical effect.
I'd say another test of if a creature is the result of a magical effect is, can it enter an antimagic field, a war horse from find steed can, a skeleton from animate undead can but a floating silver coin from animate objects can not. An invisible stalker can not enter an antimagic field, it would blink out of existence on entering one.
As far as 5e goes, the Sage Advice Compendium has the following definitions for considering something magical. The SAC is considered official clarifications but there is no requirement that a DM uses the clarifications.
In the end, it is up to the DM to decide whether a creature summoned by an on-going summoning spell would detect as magical or not.
The creature summoned is itself not magical unless the word magic is used in its description but summoning it involves the ongoing use of a spell slot which could fit the definition of magical below. I could see the decision go either way on whether the summoned creature itself would appear as magical to detect magic.
-----------------------------
SAC: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. "
How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. 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.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
And in this context that's using a lot of words to say "DM's discretion", because that is aimed at hard features like Magic Resistance.
Thus we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell, it is not like find familiar or find steed where the spell ends the moment the creature is summoned but rather is an on-going spell like conjure animals or conjure minor elementals and the creature does not persist past the end of the spell like conjure elementals.
Summoned and Conjured creatures are not magical. This has been defined previously.
Defined where? I can not find where such a ruling has ever been made that a creature that is summoned by an on-going spell is not considered magical, I could for a creature summoned from an instantaneous spell like find familiar but that is clearly not the type of spell described in the fluff text, as it defines an on-going spell binding the creature then the spell must be on-going and the creature is still the result of a magical effect.
I'd say another test of if a creature is the result of a magical effect is, can it enter an antimagic field, a war horse from find steed can, a skeleton from animate undead can but a floating silver coin from animate objects can not. An invisible stalker can not enter an antimagic field, it would blink out of existence on entering one.
As far as 5e goes, the Sage Advice Compendium has the following definitions for considering something magical. The SAC is considered official clarifications but there is no requirement that a DM uses the clarifications.
In the end, it is up to the DM to decide whether a creature summoned by an on-going summoning spell would detect as magical or not.
The creature summoned is itself not magical unless the word magic is used in its description but summoning it involves the ongoing use of a spell slot which could fit the definition of magical below. I could see the decision go either way on whether the summoned creature itself would appear as magical to detect magic.
-----------------------------
SAC: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. "
How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. 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.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
Is a White Dragons Ice Breath the same as the spell Cone Of Cold?
Defined where? I can not find where such a ruling has ever been made that a creature that is summoned by an on-going spell is not considered magical, I could for a creature summoned from an instantaneous spell like find familiar but that is clearly not the type of spell described in the fluff text, as it defines an on-going spell binding the creature then the spell must be on-going and the creature is still the result of a magical effect.
I'd say another test of if a creature is the result of a magical effect is, can it enter an antimagic field, a war horse from find steed can, a skeleton from animate undead can but a floating silver coin from animate objects can not. An invisible stalker can not enter an antimagic field, it would blink out of existence on entering one.
As far as 5e goes, the Sage Advice Compendium has the following definitions for considering something magical. The SAC is considered official clarifications but there is no requirement that a DM uses the clarifications.
In the end, it is up to the DM to decide whether a creature summoned by an on-going summoning spell would detect as magical or not.
The creature summoned is itself not magical unless the word magic is used in its description but summoning it involves the ongoing use of a spell slot which could fit the definition of magical below. I could see the decision go either way on whether the summoned creature itself would appear as magical to detect magic.
-----------------------------
SAC: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. "
How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. 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.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
That's a long comment to not answer the question at all, it's definitely not a solid ruling that a creature resulting from an on-going spell is not magical and would in fact almost certainly veer the other way as the effect of an on-going spell that is powered by a spell slot, invisible stalker doesn't have a specific spell assigned to it in it's description so makes it a bit more questionable. However as it is still described that it is the result of a spell and an on-going spell on that binds the creature, I would say it passes the previous caveat of "is it a spell?" yes, it is the magical effect of a spell as described in the creature's description but it is not the result of a levelled spell as applicable to the dispel magic spell. Ultimately it will be down to DMs to rule on, but I'd say the compenium definitely would lean more towards a yes than no due to the creatures description of a spell.
Do the attacks of the invisible stalker count as magical? That would still be a no however, even if the creature is magical, it's attacks are not, just like skeletons or zombies from danse macabre would not automatically be considered to be making magical attacks, they use the attacks and features from the stat block which aren't described as magical. And that is really what the compendium is really trying to answer, is the attack/feature/action magical for an antimagic field or similar features, we already know that invisible stalker would disappear in an antimagic field since it is the result of an on-going spell and is not a permanent summon like find familiar or find steed.
Thus we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell, it is not like find familiar or find steed where the spell ends the moment the creature is summoned but rather is an on-going spell like conjure animals or conjure minor elementals and the creature does not persist past the end of the spell like conjure elementals.
Summoned and Conjured creatures are not magical. This has been defined previously.
I mean, you can absolutely remove one with Dispel Magic or AMF if they were summoned by a spell; it would seem to follow that the spell would register to Detect Magic as well. But, again, ultimately that spell is very soft and open-ended, so there’s little to no hard RAW on how it interacts with any specific example of a fantastic creature, object, or effect.
You can only Dispel Magic on things that are currently affected by a spell.
"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
If cast on a summoned creature it does nothing. If cast on a spellcaster currently concentrating on a summon spell then it can end the summon spell.
However, spells like Animate Dead or Find Familiar are instantaneous. There is no on-going magic effect. In one case, undead creatures are created and in the other a spirit in the form of an animal that follows your instructions is created. Neither of these are affected by dispel magic nor would they be noticed by Detect Magic since there is nothing "magical" in the D&D sense about undead, or a fey/celestial/fiend spirit, or dragons or elementals for that matter.
A DM could rule an invisible stalker as an exception. Even though created by magic, an invisible stalker would not be magical if it could exist indefinitely but the description of the invisible stalker says "When it is defeated or the magic that binds it expires, an invisible stalker vanishes in a gust of wind." This description could indicate that an invisible stalker is a type of air elemental that is bound by a specific type of magic that can end. This would tend to indicate an ongoing magical effect (not instantaneous) that could be detected (though not disspelled since it isn't a spell).
Certain spells without concentration (after a certain time) like True Polymorph contain explicit language indicating that the effect persists until disspelled.
After reading the latest posts, it seems we have two main opinions here:
An Invisible Stalker is an Elemental but it also has an on-going spell on it (pointed out by @R3sistance: When it is defeated or the magic that binds it expires, an invisible stalker vanishes in a gust of wind), summoned in a similar way to the Conjured Elemental spell. If so, that creature could be detected with the Detect Magic spell and, why not, dispelled using Dispel Magic.
An Invisible Stalker is not a magical Elemental, so you could't detect it with Detect Magic. This was the intention of my post here, where its invisibility cannot be detected with Detect Magic because it's an inherent feature of the creature.
In my opinion, the second option is more feasible and here are my reasons:
According to the Sage Advice Compendium, a dragon is magical (as mentioned in the SAC: their description even says they’re magical) but as a part of the physiology of many D&D creatures, such as Elementals. It could be a little bit strange to be able to cast Detect Magic to detect Elementals or only the Invisible Stalker but not with Dragons, Fey or Undead. The spell Detect Evil and Good is another story.
In my understanding, Detect Magic is mainly for detecting spells, spell-like effects and enchantments. The Invisible Stalker description doesn't specify the spell on that creature.
Sometimes, I like to compare the spells with AD&D and D&D 3e to decide on certain rules:
Detect Magic in AD&D had this nice statement: "Note that this spell does not reveal the presence of good or evil, or reveal alignment. Otherplanar creatures are not necessarily magical."
Detect Magic in D&D 3e: "Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves"
An Invisible Stalker is not a magical Elemental, so you could't detect it with Detect Magic. This was the intention of my post here, where its invisibility cannot be detected with Detect Magic because it's an inherent feature of the creature.
In my opinion, the second option is more feasible and here are my reasons:
According to the Sage Advice Compendium, a dragon is magical (as mentioned in the SAC: their description even says they’re magical) but as a part of the physiology of many D&D creatures, such as Elementals. It could be a little bit strange to be able to cast Detect Magic to detect Elementals or only the Invisible Stalker but not with Dragons, Fey or Undead. The spell Detect Evil and Good is another story.
In my understanding, Detect Magic is mainly for detecting spells, spell-like effects and enchantments. The Invisible Stalker description doesn't specify the spell on that creature.
Let me just address these points. as I responded initially, the issue is not over the invisibility of the invisible stalker, it is the invisible stalker itself, invisibility does not stop a magical effect being "detected", it does however block the secondary effect of detect magic which requires the creature to be seen. Clearly the invisibility of an invisible stalker is not described as magical in itself, unlike say a Quasit where it's invisibility is described as magical but this is irrelevant to if the presence of the invisible stalker can still be "detected" as the question relates to the underlying creature itself. The question also has nothing to do with the invisible stalker being an elemental, I certainly have never made that argument.
The dragon is magical but innately so, a dragon is not the result of a spell, so it's different situation, the compendium does not address conjured, summoned or created creatures directly, however it does mention other questions which the invisible stalker does tick boxes for to be considered magical.
While the spell is not known, the invisible stalker is still described as being created from and controlled/bound by magic, detect magic says it detects magic, not spells. This is further compounded by the latter section that says, "you learn the school, if any". There are no spells which have no schools, so clearly the intention of detect magic goes past spells or spell like effects to begin with.
Overall it still goes back to the DM to decide but the description is quite clear on invisible stalker, it is under the effects of magic and was conjured with a spell, that if the magic ends the invisible stalker disappears into a gust of wind.
An Invisible Stalker is not a magical Elemental, so you could't detect it with Detect Magic. This was the intention of my post here, where its invisibility cannot be detected with Detect Magic because it's an inherent feature of the creature.
In my opinion, the second option is more feasible and here are my reasons:
According to the Sage Advice Compendium, a dragon is magical (as mentioned in the SAC: their description even says they’re magical) but as a part of the physiology of many D&D creatures, such as Elementals. It could be a little bit strange to be able to cast Detect Magic to detect Elementals or only the Invisible Stalker but not with Dragons, Fey or Undead. The spell Detect Evil and Good is another story.
In my understanding, Detect Magic is mainly for detecting spells, spell-like effects and enchantments. The Invisible Stalker description doesn't specify the spell on that creature.
Let me just address these points. as I responded initially, the issue is not over the invisibility of the invisible stalker, it is the invisible stalker itself, invisibility does not stop a magical effect being "detected", it does however block the secondary effect of detect magic which requires the creature to be seen. Clearly the invisibility of an invisible stalker is not described as magical in itself, unlike say a Quasit where it's invisibility is described as magical but this is irrelevant to if the presence of the invisible stalker can still be "detected" as the question relates to the underlying creature itself. The question also has nothing to do with the invisible stalker being an elemental, I certainly have never made that argument.
The dragon is magical but innately so, a dragon is not the result of a spell, so it's different situation, the compendium does not address conjured, summoned or created creatures directly, however it does mention other questions which the invisible stalker does tick boxes for to be considered magical.
While the spell is not known, the invisible stalker is still described as being created from and controlled/bound by magic, detect magic says it detects magic, not spells. This is further compounded by the latter section that says, "you learn the school, if any". There are no spells which have no schools, so clearly the intention of detect magic goes past spells or spell like effects to begin with.
Overall it still goes back to the DM to decide but the description is quite clear on invisible stalker, it is under the effects of magic and was conjured with a spell, that if the magic ends the invisible stalker disappears into a gust of wind.
Forgive me if I seem a bit stubborn.
You've made a very good point in both your current and previous answers regarding the Invisible Stalker being considered magical. I'm okay with that idea, trust me.
Who knows, maybe we could share a campaign, and in that campaign, both agree that you are correct.
Is a White Dragons Ice Breath the same as the spell Cone Of Cold?
The effect is similar, but the source is not.
If you don’t mind, could you elaborate?
( Oh, and do it WITHOUT quoting JC or SAC, as those are the opinions of another person.)
I am saying the effect is similar, as they are both cone areas of effect, causing a saving throw against cold damage. That's where the similarity ends, though, because one is specifically a spell (and spells are magic) and the other one is a defined action associated with a monster stat block that makes no reference to it being magic in nature.
EDIT: I also would prefer not to get too drawn on this specific comparison because it isn't relevant to the OP. But certainly I don't mind explaining myself :)
Dispel magic cannot destroy an Invisible Stalker. For one.
It can only dispel Spells and their effects. An Invisible Stalker is NOT a spell effect. If you target a summon spell's effect, say one of the half dozen animals of a conjure spell, you could dispel all the summons. Because they're a spell effect.
An Invisible Stalker isn't. It is just a creature.
Now, Detect Magic might detect the presence of an Invisible Stalker. Theoretically. But to do so it would require that you cast Detect Magic and No Other Magic was within 30ft of you, but the Invisible Stalker is.
I have a hard time seeing that ever actually happening.
No other magic within 30ft of you whatsoever. You cast it. And also a not-yet-attacking Invisible Stalker is somehow within attacking range? Doubt.
Why would it require no other magic? Because the first part of Detect Magic is simply a Yes/No is magic present. If you're wearing your elven cloak then the answer to that question is always Yes. Magic is always within 30ft. So the presence of a 2nd source would go completely unnoticed.
You'd need nothing else magical for a Yes answer to be strange. Yes something is magic. "Oh okay I concentrate to see the aura where is it?" ... and the DM is like: "Nothing has an aura in range, but you still sense its presence."
Ohhhh spooky soundtrack clicks on.
But aside from that really specific scenario that makes no sense... it ain't helping. Because to see auras on a creature you have to see the creature. Which, you know, you can't with an invisible stalker. They named it well.
Eh, there’s room for interpretation on different “feels” if the DM wants; maybe make an Arcana check to parse them out. But you still wouldn’t be able to get an aura or determine location with that, you’d just know that there’s something more than the magic items in the area. Honestly, it’s kinda bad form to play the bait and switch of “You sense something” “What is it?” “Your cloak” like that imo.
Eh, there’s room for interpretation on different “feels” if the DM wants; maybe make an Arcana check to parse them out. But you still wouldn’t be able to get an aura or determine location with that, you’d just know that there’s something more than the magic items in the area. Honestly, it’s kinda bad form to play the bait and switch of “You sense something” “What is it?” “Your cloak” like that imo.
DMs are free to homebrew such a system if they want. Sure.
But, as for the rules, detect magic just detects the presence or doesn't detect the presence of magic.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
Eh, there’s room for interpretation on different “feels” if the DM wants; maybe make an Arcana check to parse them out. But you still wouldn’t be able to get an aura or determine location with that, you’d just know that there’s something more than the magic items in the area. Honestly, it’s kinda bad form to play the bait and switch of “You sense something” “What is it?” “Your cloak” like that imo.
DMs are free to homebrew such a system if they want. Sure.
But, as for the rules, detect magic just detects the presence or doesn't detect the presence of magic.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
That's a yes or no. Boolean.
It’s open-ended; you could choose to interpret it as a single positive or negative response, or each instance within the area might have its own presence. This is an extremely soft spell, so you can’t really declare this kind of absolute one way or the other.
Eh, there’s room for interpretation on different “feels” if the DM wants; maybe make an Arcana check to parse them out. But you still wouldn’t be able to get an aura or determine location with that, you’d just know that there’s something more than the magic items in the area. Honestly, it’s kinda bad form to play the bait and switch of “You sense something” “What is it?” “Your cloak” like that imo.
DMs are free to homebrew such a system if they want. Sure.
But, as for the rules, detect magic just detects the presence or doesn't detect the presence of magic.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
That's a yes or no. Boolean.
It’s open-ended; you could choose to interpret it as a single positive or negative response, or each instance within the area might have its own presence. This is an extremely soft spell, so you can’t really declare this kind of absolute one way or the other.
You can, if you read the spell description. It is a yes or no on "the presence of magic".
It doesn't say anything at all about unique flavors. Multiples precenseseses. Or anything of the sort.
If I had a dollar for every time I read a post where someone dismisses someone else's argument as being not-RAW with a variation of the phrase "DMs are free to homebrew/houserule whatever they want," I would be a rich man. I'm confident everyone in this forum understands that the DM is free to do what they wish within their games. I wish we would dispense with that line because it often comes across as condescending.
If I had a dollar for every time I read a post where someone dismisses someone else's argument as being not-RAW with a variation of the phrase "DMs are free to homebrew/houserule whatever they want," I would be a rich man. I'm confident everyone in this forum understands that the DM is free to do what they wish within their games. I wish we would dispense with that line because it often comes across as condescending.
I suspect it would happen less if people didn't mistakenly post their homebrew when discussing the actual rules. People forget, get em mixed up, or are misinformed all the time. It happens. You let them know what they said isn't the RAW, that it is fine to homebrew, but that we're not discussing homebrew, and then move back to discussion.
Dispel magic cannot destroy an Invisible Stalker. For one.
It can only dispel Spells and their effects. An Invisible Stalker is NOT a spell effect. If you target a summon spell's effect, say one of the half dozen animals of a conjure spell, you could dispel all the summons. Because they're a spell effect.
An Invisible Stalker isn't. It is just a creature.
...
Well, you know, all this debate started with this reply from @Wysperra and this sentence from @R3sistance: "we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell".
In my interpretation (according to RAW?):
It's not magical, so Detect Magic is useless
It doesn't have a spell affecting it, so Dispel Magic is useless
According to Sage Advice Compendium official ruling, Detect Magic wouldn't let you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you because an Invisible Stalker feature Invisibility is not described as magical per se even though the creature itself is magical.
Sage Advice Compendium: In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item? NO
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? NO
Is it a spell attack? NO
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? NO
Does its description say it’s magical? NO
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Dispel magic cannot destroy an Invisible Stalker. For one.
It can only dispel Spells and their effects. An Invisible Stalker is NOT a spell effect. If you target a summon spell's effect, say one of the half dozen animals of a conjure spell, you could dispel all the summons. Because they're a spell effect.
An Invisible Stalker isn't. It is just a creature.
...
Well, you know, all this debate started with this reply from @Wysperra and this sentence from @R3sistance: "we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell".
In my interpretation (according to RAW?):
It's not magical, so Detect Magic is useless
It doesn't have a spell affecting it, so Dispel Magic is useless
The Dispel Magic part is definitely RAW, but at the end of the day Detect Magic is not defined in much detail, so all that can actually be definitively determined from RAW as opposed to personal position is that there would be no aura since an invisible creature is perforce unseen; what exactly “sensing the presence of magic” means in terms of multiple sources in the area is undefined by the description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As far as 5e goes, the Sage Advice Compendium has the following definitions for considering something magical. The SAC is considered official clarifications but there is no requirement that a DM uses the clarifications.
In the end, it is up to the DM to decide whether a creature summoned by an on-going summoning spell would detect as magical or not.
The creature summoned is itself not magical unless the word magic is used in its description but summoning it involves the ongoing use of a spell slot which could fit the definition of magical below. I could see the decision go either way on whether the summoned creature itself would appear as magical to detect magic.
-----------------------------
SAC: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. "
How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
For an extensive discussion of this topic, see the question “Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?” in the “Monsters” section below.
Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
And in this context that's using a lot of words to say "DM's discretion", because that is aimed at hard features like Magic Resistance.
Is a White Dragons Ice Breath the same as the spell Cone Of Cold?
Byte my shiny metal ass
That's a long comment to not answer the question at all, it's definitely not a solid ruling that a creature resulting from an on-going spell is not magical and would in fact almost certainly veer the other way as the effect of an on-going spell that is powered by a spell slot, invisible stalker doesn't have a specific spell assigned to it in it's description so makes it a bit more questionable. However as it is still described that it is the result of a spell and an on-going spell on that binds the creature, I would say it passes the previous caveat of "is it a spell?" yes, it is the magical effect of a spell as described in the creature's description but it is not the result of a levelled spell as applicable to the dispel magic spell. Ultimately it will be down to DMs to rule on, but I'd say the compenium definitely would lean more towards a yes than no due to the creatures description of a spell.
Do the attacks of the invisible stalker count as magical? That would still be a no however, even if the creature is magical, it's attacks are not, just like skeletons or zombies from danse macabre would not automatically be considered to be making magical attacks, they use the attacks and features from the stat block which aren't described as magical. And that is really what the compendium is really trying to answer, is the attack/feature/action magical for an antimagic field or similar features, we already know that invisible stalker would disappear in an antimagic field since it is the result of an on-going spell and is not a permanent summon like find familiar or find steed.
After reading the latest posts, it seems we have two main opinions here:
In my opinion, the second option is more feasible and here are my reasons:
The effect is similar, but the source is not.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Let me just address these points. as I responded initially, the issue is not over the invisibility of the invisible stalker, it is the invisible stalker itself, invisibility does not stop a magical effect being "detected", it does however block the secondary effect of detect magic which requires the creature to be seen. Clearly the invisibility of an invisible stalker is not described as magical in itself, unlike say a Quasit where it's invisibility is described as magical but this is irrelevant to if the presence of the invisible stalker can still be "detected" as the question relates to the underlying creature itself. The question also has nothing to do with the invisible stalker being an elemental, I certainly have never made that argument.
The dragon is magical but innately so, a dragon is not the result of a spell, so it's different situation, the compendium does not address conjured, summoned or created creatures directly, however it does mention other questions which the invisible stalker does tick boxes for to be considered magical.
While the spell is not known, the invisible stalker is still described as being created from and controlled/bound by magic, detect magic says it detects magic, not spells. This is further compounded by the latter section that says, "you learn the school, if any". There are no spells which have no schools, so clearly the intention of detect magic goes past spells or spell like effects to begin with.
Overall it still goes back to the DM to decide but the description is quite clear on invisible stalker, it is under the effects of magic and was conjured with a spell, that if the magic ends the invisible stalker disappears into a gust of wind.
Forgive me if I seem a bit stubborn.
You've made a very good point in both your current and previous answers regarding the Invisible Stalker being considered magical. I'm okay with that idea, trust me.
Who knows, maybe we could share a campaign, and in that campaign, both agree that you are correct.
If you don’t mind, could you elaborate?
( Oh, and do it WITHOUT quoting JC or SAC, as those are the opinions of another person.)
Byte my shiny metal ass
I am saying the effect is similar, as they are both cone areas of effect, causing a saving throw against cold damage. That's where the similarity ends, though, because one is specifically a spell (and spells are magic) and the other one is a defined action associated with a monster stat block that makes no reference to it being magic in nature.
EDIT: I also would prefer not to get too drawn on this specific comparison because it isn't relevant to the OP. But certainly I don't mind explaining myself :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Dispel magic cannot destroy an Invisible Stalker. For one.
It can only dispel Spells and their effects. An Invisible Stalker is NOT a spell effect. If you target a summon spell's effect, say one of the half dozen animals of a conjure spell, you could dispel all the summons. Because they're a spell effect.
An Invisible Stalker isn't. It is just a creature.
..........................................................................................
Now, Detect Magic might detect the presence of an Invisible Stalker. Theoretically. But to do so it would require that you cast Detect Magic and No Other Magic was within 30ft of you, but the Invisible Stalker is.
I have a hard time seeing that ever actually happening.
No other magic within 30ft of you whatsoever. You cast it. And also a not-yet-attacking Invisible Stalker is somehow within attacking range? Doubt.
Why would it require no other magic? Because the first part of Detect Magic is simply a Yes/No is magic present. If you're wearing your elven cloak then the answer to that question is always Yes. Magic is always within 30ft. So the presence of a 2nd source would go completely unnoticed.
You'd need nothing else magical for a Yes answer to be strange. Yes something is magic. "Oh okay I concentrate to see the aura where is it?" ... and the DM is like: "Nothing has an aura in range, but you still sense its presence."
Ohhhh spooky soundtrack clicks on.
But aside from that really specific scenario that makes no sense... it ain't helping. Because to see auras on a creature you have to see the creature. Which, you know, you can't with an invisible stalker. They named it well.
I got quotes!
Eh, there’s room for interpretation on different “feels” if the DM wants; maybe make an Arcana check to parse them out. But you still wouldn’t be able to get an aura or determine location with that, you’d just know that there’s something more than the magic items in the area. Honestly, it’s kinda bad form to play the bait and switch of “You sense something” “What is it?” “Your cloak” like that imo.
DMs are free to homebrew such a system if they want. Sure.
But, as for the rules, detect magic just detects the presence or doesn't detect the presence of magic.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
That's a yes or no. Boolean.
I got quotes!
It’s open-ended; you could choose to interpret it as a single positive or negative response, or each instance within the area might have its own presence. This is an extremely soft spell, so you can’t really declare this kind of absolute one way or the other.
You can, if you read the spell description. It is a yes or no on "the presence of magic".
It doesn't say anything at all about unique flavors. Multiples precenseseses. Or anything of the sort.
I got quotes!
If I had a dollar for every time I read a post where someone dismisses someone else's argument as being not-RAW with a variation of the phrase "DMs are free to homebrew/houserule whatever they want," I would be a rich man. I'm confident everyone in this forum understands that the DM is free to do what they wish within their games. I wish we would dispense with that line because it often comes across as condescending.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I suspect it would happen less if people didn't mistakenly post their homebrew when discussing the actual rules. People forget, get em mixed up, or are misinformed all the time. It happens. You let them know what they said isn't the RAW, that it is fine to homebrew, but that we're not discussing homebrew, and then move back to discussion.
I got quotes!
Well, you know, all this debate started with this reply from @Wysperra and this sentence from @R3sistance: "we can infer an invisible stalker is always under the active effects of an on-going spell".
In my interpretation (according to RAW?):
According to Sage Advice Compendium official ruling, Detect Magic wouldn't let you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you because an Invisible Stalker feature Invisibility is not described as magical per se even though the creature itself is magical.
The Dispel Magic part is definitely RAW, but at the end of the day Detect Magic is not defined in much detail, so all that can actually be definitively determined from RAW as opposed to personal position is that there would be no aura since an invisible creature is perforce unseen; what exactly “sensing the presence of magic” means in terms of multiple sources in the area is undefined by the description.