Bladesong is an ability but Antimagic Field will suppress it.
From the spell: "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it."
From the Bladesong feature: "You can invoke an elven magiccalled the Bladesong"
So Bladesong is a magical effect. This can be further clarified by Sage Advice. One of the questions asked was if a dragon's breath weapon was magical and the Sage Advice answers explains how to determine if something is considered a magical effect for the purposes of things like Antimagic FIeld.
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.
The description of Bladesong says it is magical. So Bladesong is a magical effect. Antimagic Field suppresses magical effects so it will suppress Bladesong.
Worth noting that it "suppresses" effects and does not "end" them. If the field goes away before the Bladesong duration ends, then Bladesong will return to full effect for the remainder of its duration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Cybermind is correct. Antimagic stops all sorts of things besides spells. I was still trying to figure out what an 'antimatic' field was, but knew bladesong was not a spell.
The typo "animatic field" gives me the idea of a persistent field that constantly casts Animate Objects on everything in it. 🤔
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
An Antimagic is incredibly powerful, much more so than dispel magic that only works for spells. There is however some room for DM interpretation around the edges.
Take for example the monk.
Ki is described as magical energy, so is clearly surpressed in an antimagic field. Is this just things that use ki points? Having an AC while unarmored of 10+Dex+Wis or having reflexes fast enough to catch an arrow or fall from great heights without taking damage could easily be classed as "magical effects that exceed their bodies' physical capabilities". However taken ti its conclusion "some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents" is clearly referring to stunning strike, therefore an antimagic zone will also hinder the flow of ki so any creature entering an anti magic zone is stunned. This is clearly not RAI so it is up to the DM to decide what an antimagic field should affect.
"Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
An Antimagic is incredibly powerful, much more so than dispel magic that only works for spells. There is however some room for DM interpretation around the edges.
Take for example the monk.
Ki is described as magical energy, so is clearly surpressed in an antimagic field. Is this just things that use ki points? Having an AC while unarmored of 10+Dex+Wis or having reflexes fast enough to catch an arrow or fall from great heights without taking damage could easily be classed as "magical effects that exceed their bodies' physical capabilities". However taken ti its conclusion "some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents" is clearly referring to stunning strike, therefore an antimagic zone will also hinder the flow of ki so any creature entering an anti magic zone is stunned. This is clearly not RAI so it is up to the DM to decide what an antimagic field should affect.
"Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
If it helps, in lore, both Ki and Psionics are forms of magic that originate from the self instead of the Weave. Which would mean an Antimagic Field would touch neither, as it creates a bubble that pushes the Weave away.
Bladesong is an ability but Antimagic Field will suppress it.
From the spell: "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it."
From the Bladesong feature: "You can invoke an elven magiccalled the Bladesong"
So Bladesong is a magical effect. This can be further clarified by Sage Advice. One of the questions asked was if a dragon's breath weapon was magical and the Sage Advice answers explains how to determine if something is considered a magical effect for the purposes of things like Antimagic FIeld.
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.
The description of Bladesong says it is magical. So Bladesong is a magical effect. Antimagic Field suppresses magical effects so it will suppress Bladesong.
Worth noting that it "suppresses" effects and does not "end" them. If the field goes away before the Bladesong duration ends, then Bladesong will return to full effect for the remainder of its duration.
I think it is also important to cite the first half of that question about "What is magic?" when discussing this in a broader context.
"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:"
The question about what is magic makes it pretty clear that there are elements of the game that are described as "magical" which are not considered magical from a game mechanics perspective. Dragons are described as magical but they aren't magical.
The question goes on to say: "Does its description say it’s magical?"
.. but the question has already cited at least one example where something is described as magical (dragons) that aren't.
In my opinion, some of the other cases of something that uses the word "magic" but might not be considered mechanically magical would include ki. Most of the applications of ki are not described as magical. It is only ki itself in a descriptive paragraph where the word magic is used. In my opinion, this puts ki or "life force" or "personal energy" or whatever else you want to call it in the category of background magic rather than the "concentrated magical energy" referred to in the second bullet. In addition, the text also indicates that all other creatures have ki since the monk can reach out and affect the ki of other creatures. In my opinion, this very firmly moves ki itself into the realm of background magic. Any other features that include the word magic need to be assessed by the DM on a case by case basis ... however, most of those do referred to the type of manipulated ephemeral magic that is affected by game mechanics.
------
To the OP, Bladesong is explicitly described as magical and thus would not function in the area of an Antimagic field.
Seems like it would have been easier just to errata out the line from the monster manual that calls dragons magical, rather than creating a standard to determine whether something is magical and them promptly explaining why something that meets that standard is in fact not magical.
Seems like it would have been easier just to errata out the line from the monster manual that calls dragons magical, rather than creating a standard to determine whether something is magical and them promptly explaining why something that meets that standard is in fact not magical.
Yes and no. The main problem here is that the designers/writers like to wax poetically in the descriptive parts of the books without any care whatsoever if the words that they use have any actual rules meaning. And thus dragons are described as "magical creatures" in the general descriptions of dragons but none of the actual features/abilities on any of their stat blocks are.
I'm going to snip the answer I started on here as I simply CBA to spend the hour or so to write it up. Safe to say that I think the designers are idiots for their lack of care with words and especially for not clearly making a distinction between descriptive language and rules mechanical language.
Anyway, to get back to the point. IMO any argument that a dragons breathweapon cannot exist in an AMF because the dragon is magical is null and void unless it is also an argument that the dragon itself cannot exist in an AMF. But that's a consistency that I don't think I've ever seen anyone keep to.
If a human with magical abilities can walk into a enery blocking barrier, and only lose their magical abilities and skills, would the same go for a magical creature?
I see a dragon it a antimagic field and think, big lizard with bad bite, but no bark.
If a human with magical abilities can walk into a enery blocking barrier, and only lose their magical abilities and skills, would the same go for a magical creature?
I see a dragon it a antimagic field and think, big lizard with bad bite, but no bark.
The human has magical abilities, so those abilities don't work inside an AMF. The dragon is a magical creature, so the only way you keep the logic is if you say that then there is no creature inside an AMF.
But it is a moot point. As has been said repeatedly, the only part of a dragons statblock that is affected by an AMF is if they have any spellcasting.
So with anti magic field all magical items and spells become mundane in the field.
The question is if you would rule bladesong as a spell or an ability.
I could see both side of the arguments. Just looking to see what other people think.
I personally think that bladesong should still work.
Things that do not use spell slots are not spells. Therefore bladesong is an ability.
Bladesong is an ability but Antimagic Field will suppress it.
From the spell: "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it."
From the Bladesong feature: "You can invoke an elven magic called the Bladesong"
So Bladesong is a magical effect. This can be further clarified by Sage Advice. One of the questions asked was if a dragon's breath weapon was magical and the Sage Advice answers explains how to determine if something is considered a magical effect for the purposes of things like Antimagic FIeld.
Link: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224
The description of Bladesong says it is magical. So Bladesong is a magical effect. Antimagic Field suppresses magical effects so it will suppress Bladesong.
Worth noting that it "suppresses" effects and does not "end" them. If the field goes away before the Bladesong duration ends, then Bladesong will return to full effect for the remainder of its duration.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Cybermind is correct. Antimagic stops all sorts of things besides spells. I was still trying to figure out what an 'antimatic' field was, but knew bladesong was not a spell.
The typo "animatic field" gives me the idea of a persistent field that constantly casts Animate Objects on everything in it. 🤔
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
An Antimagic is incredibly powerful, much more so than dispel magic that only works for spells. There is however some room for DM interpretation around the edges.
Take for example the monk.
Ki is described as magical energy, so is clearly surpressed in an antimagic field. Is this just things that use ki points? Having an AC while unarmored of 10+Dex+Wis or having reflexes fast enough to catch an arrow or fall from great heights without taking damage could easily be classed as "magical effects that exceed their bodies' physical capabilities". However taken ti its conclusion "some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents" is clearly referring to stunning strike, therefore an antimagic zone will also hinder the flow of ki so any creature entering an anti magic zone is stunned. This is clearly not RAI so it is up to the DM to decide what an antimagic field should affect.
If it helps, in lore, both Ki and Psionics are forms of magic that originate from the self instead of the Weave. Which would mean an Antimagic Field would touch neither, as it creates a bubble that pushes the Weave away.
I think it is also important to cite the first half of that question about "What is magic?" when discussing this in a broader context.
"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:"
The question about what is magic makes it pretty clear that there are elements of the game that are described as "magical" which are not considered magical from a game mechanics perspective. Dragons are described as magical but they aren't magical.
The question goes on to say: "Does its description say it’s magical?"
.. but the question has already cited at least one example where something is described as magical (dragons) that aren't.
In my opinion, some of the other cases of something that uses the word "magic" but might not be considered mechanically magical would include ki. Most of the applications of ki are not described as magical. It is only ki itself in a descriptive paragraph where the word magic is used. In my opinion, this puts ki or "life force" or "personal energy" or whatever else you want to call it in the category of background magic rather than the "concentrated magical energy" referred to in the second bullet. In addition, the text also indicates that all other creatures have ki since the monk can reach out and affect the ki of other creatures. In my opinion, this very firmly moves ki itself into the realm of background magic. Any other features that include the word magic need to be assessed by the DM on a case by case basis ... however, most of those do referred to the type of manipulated ephemeral magic that is affected by game mechanics.
------
To the OP, Bladesong is explicitly described as magical and thus would not function in the area of an Antimagic field.
Seems like it would have been easier just to errata out the line from the monster manual that calls dragons magical, rather than creating a standard to determine whether something is magical and them promptly explaining why something that meets that standard is in fact not magical.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes and no. The main problem here is that the designers/writers like to wax poetically in the descriptive parts of the books without any care whatsoever if the words that they use have any actual rules meaning. And thus dragons are described as "magical creatures" in the general descriptions of dragons but none of the actual features/abilities on any of their stat blocks are.
I'm going to snip the answer I started on here as I simply CBA to spend the hour or so to write it up. Safe to say that I think the designers are idiots for their lack of care with words and especially for not clearly making a distinction between descriptive language and rules mechanical language.
Anyway, to get back to the point. IMO any argument that a dragons breathweapon cannot exist in an AMF because the dragon is magical is null and void unless it is also an argument that the dragon itself cannot exist in an AMF. But that's a consistency that I don't think I've ever seen anyone keep to.
Dragons are magical and so are their abilities. If they weren’t why would they even put magical in the description?
I often wonder why some people think differently?
Can't help feeling that I could have used one of those Picard memes here...
If a human with magical abilities can walk into a enery blocking barrier, and only lose their magical abilities and skills, would the same go for a magical creature?
I see a dragon it a antimagic field and think, big lizard with bad bite, but no bark.
As the SAC points out, there's 2 different ways magical is used in the game.
In general descriptions, they're referring typically to the magic that exists as a natural force in the world.
In ability and spell descriptions, it's a direct magical source.
Unless a spell or ability is listed as magical in that description, it's not affected by antimagic field.
The human has magical abilities, so those abilities don't work inside an AMF.
The dragon is a magical creature, so the only way you keep the logic is if you say that then there is no creature inside an AMF.
But it is a moot point. As has been said repeatedly, the only part of a dragons statblock that is affected by an AMF is if they have any spellcasting.