Firstly: I think the writing and organization of the 2024 editions has been remarkably better than the 2014 edition.
That said, I have a couple gripes. I am puzzled by their use of terminology, in particular the term "magical." There were lots of questions about this in 2014, and the SageAdvice gave a relatively good set of criteria for what counts as magical. Thankfully in 2024 they give a specific definition. From the glossary
"An effect is magical if it is created by a spell, a magic item, or a phenomenon that a rule labels as magical."
On the face of it, this is a perfectly good definition. But there are many examples in the books that do not meet that definition but seem magical. I am not talking about the 'real world impossible' things like having 100 hit points, or fire breathing dragons. Those can only exist in a fantasy world, but we can imagine a sort of physics or justification for them that doesn't require active magic (the 2014 sage advice gives some examples).
Starting with some Character Driven ones:
Level 6: Branches of the Tree
Whenever a creature you can see starts its turn within 30 feet of you while your Rage is active, you can take a Reaction to summon spectral branches of the World Tree around it. The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus) or be teleported to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of yourself or in the nearest unoccupied space you can see. After the target teleports, you can reduce its Speed to 0 until the end of the current turn.
This is not a spell or a magic item and is not listed as magical. So what is it? Was it an oversight of the editors not to label it magical? Are the writers intending there to be some kind of other sort of ability that is not technically magical, but somehow magic-like?
I am running a campaign where anti-magic is a major issue (the BBEG are trying to eliminate magic). So we've needed to address what character abilities are magical and which are not.
Bardic Inspiration: I think this doesn't need to be magical. It is easy to imagine a person being inspired by words or demonstrations to do better.
Cutting Words: The 2014 version worked very much like 'reverse bardic inspiration' and could easily be not magic. But the 2024 version took away the need for the target to perceive the cutting words, so a hidden bard could use cutting words on a creature in a silence spell who would be affected without knowing why. That seems magical to me.
Wildshape: This one was tougher. Based on the 2014 sage advice, I'd be inclined to say shapechange is not necessarily magical. Lycanthropy was a 'disease', and the creatures' clothes don't change, I can imagine that to be physical feature (like dragon breath), I'd apply that to mimics and doppelgangers too.. But some shapechanging, like that of Imps and Quasits, does seem magical. But not listed as magical in the 2024 edition. Since wildshape allows you to merge your items into your new form, it seems more magical than biological.
Monk's stunning strike, focus attacks, etc.. I am willing to consider these non-magical, since they seem to resemble some kind of knowledge of pressure points or something.
Warlock's Pact Weapons, Eldritch Knights Weapon Bond. The teleporting feature seems pretty magical to me.
I guess I wish the 2024 edition made more use of the Magical Tag than it currently does. I remember the 3rd edition days of other effect tags like "extraordinary' and 'supernatural'. They might have been excessive. But it does seem to better capture the varieties. I've run D&D for decades, so I am not afraid to make my own rulings on the matter, but I like to try to understand the logic underlying the rules as written.
Firstly: I think the writing and organization of the 2024 editions has been remarkably better than the 2014 edition.
That said, I have a couple gripes. I am puzzled by their use of terminology, in particular the term "magical." There were lots of questions about this in 2014, and the SageAdvice gave a relatively good set of criteria for what counts as magical. Thankfully in 2024 they give a specific definition. From the glossary
On the face of it, this is a perfectly good definition. But there are many examples in the books that do not meet that definition but seem magical. I am not talking about the 'real world impossible' things like having 100 hit points, or fire breathing dragons. Those can only exist in a fantasy world, but we can imagine a sort of physics or justification for them that doesn't require active magic (the 2014 sage advice gives some examples).
Starting with some Character Driven ones:
This is not a spell or a magic item and is not listed as magical. So what is it? Was it an oversight of the editors not to label it magical? Are the writers intending there to be some kind of other sort of ability that is not technically magical, but somehow magic-like?
I am running a campaign where anti-magic is a major issue (the BBEG are trying to eliminate magic). So we've needed to address what character abilities are magical and which are not.
I guess I wish the 2024 edition made more use of the Magical Tag than it currently does. I remember the 3rd edition days of other effect tags like "extraordinary' and 'supernatural'. They might have been excessive. But it does seem to better capture the varieties. I've run D&D for decades, so I am not afraid to make my own rulings on the matter, but I like to try to understand the logic underlying the rules as written.