So, a few races and class features grant effects such as advantage against magical aging or immunity (Warforged Race, The Undying Archetype, and possibly more)
What I am wondering is, what effects constitute “magical aging”, and what are all the ways to get some form of resistance or immunity to them?
The only things which comes to mind for actual magical aging effects are:
the requirement intense 9th level spell Time Ravage (Your enemy has to in a campaign that allows critical role content, and either a level 18 Bard [Magical Secrets] or a level 17 Wizard [with the Chronurgy Magic Archetype] just to qualify for choosing this spell)
Two entries in the wild magic surge table
And the Lair Actions of a Gynosphinx, a CR 11 creature known only to be found guarding the vaults of literal Gods, and whose CR should probably be higher.
The only things which come into mind for ways to gain resistance or immunity are:
The Warforged Race
And The Undying Warlock Archetype
These can’t be it. I must be missing some right? What am I missing?
At 15th level, your ki sustains you so that you suffer none of the frailty of old age, and you can’t be aged magically. You can still die of old age, however. In addition, you no longer need food or water.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
There's the ghost, which can age a person 1d4X10 years. I'd call that magical. Likely there's other creatures which have similar effects. Level 15 monks stop aging. Level 18 druids age very slowly.
Otherwise, it's a bit of a relic from past editions. For example, it used to be that if someone cast haste on you, you aged by a year. At least, I think it was a year. Other spells could also age you. Also in those days, age used to matter. You got modifiers to your ability scores as you aged, typically str, con and dex going down while int, wis and cha went up. but now that they've eliminated those, age is really more of a flavor thing anyway.
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.
This is a clear case of Sage Advice not bothering to actually consider their answers to see if they actually make sense. Which Sage Advice seems to do on a distressingly regular basis.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This is a clear case of Sage Advice not bothering to actually consider their answers to see if they actually make sense. Which Sage Advice seems to do on a distressingly regular basis.
I mean, within the context of how they use "magical", it's arguably consistent; a dragon's breath is clearly magical in the general sense of how it's possible, but in the mechanical sense it is not considered to be, and as such can be used in an Anti-Magic Field or similar circumstances and having Magic Resistance doesn't give you advantage on the save. A ghost is clearly a magical being, but the aging effect likewise falls into the first category rather than the second.
Plus, DM's are free to rule whichever way they prefer in any case. It's best to think of Sage Advice more as general guidelines/examples to consider vs hard rules/regulations.
When you have something that's clearly magical yet somehow doesn't count as magical, it's an indication that there's a lack of thought being put into the rules. Especially when it's a rule regarding immunity to an extremely rare form of attack and the single most common form of that attack is not actually covered by the immunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
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.
That is interesting because the ability also says that the effect can be reversed with a greater restoration spell. Greater restoration is powerful but limited in what it can reverse. The only option I see in the list that it can remove is a curse. Would that not suggest that the horrifying visage is a curse and therefore magical? Honest question.
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.
That is interesting because the ability also says that the effect can be reversed with a greater restoration spell. Greater restoration is powerful but limited in what it can reverse. The only option I see in the list that it can remove is a curse. Would that not suggest that the horrifying visage is a curse and therefore magical? Honest question.
Greater Restoration works on a lot of things, but that does not positively prove them to be a "magical effect" for the purposes of the mechanical definition of "magical", given that it also can cure conditions caused by more mundane sources like poisons and injuries. Specifically regarding horrifying visage, the idea that sufficient fright/trauma could prematurely age a person crops up fairly often in works going back a long time, sometimes with the connotation that it was more a kind of injury than something truly supernatural. I have no idea what exactly the actual medical basis for such a thing is, but it's not spelled out in as overtly magical terms as a Sphinx's lair action to age a creature by manipulating time.
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.
That is interesting because the ability also says that the effect can be reversed with a greater restoration spell. Greater restoration is powerful but limited in what it can reverse. The only option I see in the list that it can remove is a curse. Would that not suggest that the horrifying visage is a curse and therefore magical? Honest question.
Greater Restoration works on a lot of things, but that does not positively prove them to be a "magical effect" for the purposes of the mechanical definition of "magical", given that it also can cure conditions caused by more mundane sources like poisons and injuries. Specifically regarding horrifying visage, the idea that sufficient fright/trauma could prematurely age a person crops up fairly often in works going back a long time, sometimes with the connotation that it was more a kind of injury than something truly supernatural. I have no idea what exactly the actual medical basis for such a thing is, but it's not spelled out in as overtly magical terms as a Sphinx's lair action to age a creature by manipulating time.
Thank you. Doesn't this fly in the face of the adage 'spells can only do what they say they can do' though? Poisons and injuries are not explicitly stated in the description of the spell. The 'debilitating effect' is qualified by very specific options.
As for the medical basis, there is none. You can be frightened into passing out or having a heart attack (implying frailty or old age) and stress can cause biological responses in the body that stop producing melanocytes, leading to hair to turn gray as it grows (turning hair grey in a moment is a myth). But beyond that, there is no medical basis for someone spontaneously aging rapidly, which becomes permanent after 24 hours.
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.
That is interesting because the ability also says that the effect can be reversed with a greater restoration spell. Greater restoration is powerful but limited in what it can reverse. The only option I see in the list that it can remove is a curse. Would that not suggest that the horrifying visage is a curse and therefore magical? Honest question.
Greater Restoration works on a lot of things, but that does not positively prove them to be a "magical effect" for the purposes of the mechanical definition of "magical", given that it also can cure conditions caused by more mundane sources like poisons and injuries. Specifically regarding horrifying visage, the idea that sufficient fright/trauma could prematurely age a person crops up fairly often in works going back a long time, sometimes with the connotation that it was more a kind of injury than something truly supernatural. I have no idea what exactly the actual medical basis for such a thing is, but it's not spelled out in as overtly magical terms as a Sphinx's lair action to age a creature by manipulating time.
Thank you. Doesn't this fly in the face of the adage 'spells can only do what they say they can do' though? Poisons and injuries are not explicitly stated in the description of the spell. The 'debilitating effect' is qualified by very specific options.
I was referring to monster abilities that do things like reduce max HP or ability scores in ways that definitely aren't magical, like when a vampire drinks your blood.
I was referring to monster abilities that do things like reduce max HP or ability scores in ways that definitely aren't magical, like when a vampire drinks your blood.
Ah, I misunderstood.
Anyway, I would prefer to see it as you say, as it favors the Greater Restoration spell, which is pretty safe to call a 'player spell'. I try to DM in a way that always favors them where it concerns interpretation of the rules. My questions really are just to address my own dissonance on the topic.
If you can tell me under what circumstances a person can be physically aged 3-30 years without magic, then yes, it isn’t magic.
I mean you could say the same thing about a big lizard breathing lightning. I believe the same SA article explains why dragon breath is not considered magical. It's not a question of is it magic or not, it's a question of distinguishing between natural magic that is so ingrained in the world that it is basically a law of nature, versus magic that is more directed or supernatural.
That being said, the whole thing is dumb anyway because there are no rules around age. There's no hard rule that says your human wizard dies if it is aged to 140 years old. There's no rules that cover what happens to your stats - or your size or your magic capabilities - if you are aged down to 3 years old. Age is not a valid, relevant statistic for any part of the game. The attack might as well change your hair color or shrink your vocal cords or do any other completely inconsequential thing.
This whole argument could have been avoided had WotC just left in the Supernatural and Extraordinary descriptors for special abilities they used in 3rd Edition instead of just throwing their hands up and saying "well, use your own judgement" while claiming that a lizard with a particle accelerator in its mouth was non-magical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, a few races and class features grant effects such as advantage against magical aging or immunity (Warforged Race, The Undying Archetype, and possibly more)
What I am wondering is, what effects constitute “magical aging”, and what are all the ways to get some form of resistance or immunity to them?
The only things which comes to mind for actual magical aging effects are:
the requirement intense 9th level spell Time Ravage (Your enemy has to in a campaign that allows critical role content, and either a level 18 Bard [Magical Secrets] or a level 17 Wizard [with the Chronurgy Magic Archetype] just to qualify for choosing this spell)
Two entries in the wild magic surge table
And the Lair Actions of a Gynosphinx, a CR 11 creature known only to be found guarding the vaults of literal Gods, and whose CR should probably be higher.
The only things which come into mind for ways to gain resistance or immunity are:
The Warforged Race
And The Undying Warlock Archetype
These can’t be it. I must be missing some right? What am I missing?
15th level Monk
Timeless Body
At 15th level, your ki sustains you so that you suffer none of the frailty of old age, and you can’t be aged magically. You can still die of old age, however. In addition, you no longer need food or water.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
There's the ghost, which can age a person 1d4X10 years. I'd call that magical. Likely there's other creatures which have similar effects. Level 15 monks stop aging. Level 18 druids age very slowly.
Otherwise, it's a bit of a relic from past editions. For example, it used to be that if someone cast haste on you, you aged by a year. At least, I think it was a year. Other spells could also age you. Also in those days, age used to matter. You got modifiers to your ability scores as you aged, typically str, con and dex going down while int, wis and cha went up. but now that they've eliminated those, age is really more of a flavor thing anyway.
According to Sage Advice Compendium a Ghost's Horrifying Visage is not magical
This is a clear case of Sage Advice not bothering to actually consider their answers to see if they actually make sense. Which Sage Advice seems to do on a distressingly regular basis.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean, within the context of how they use "magical", it's arguably consistent; a dragon's breath is clearly magical in the general sense of how it's possible, but in the mechanical sense it is not considered to be, and as such can be used in an Anti-Magic Field or similar circumstances and having Magic Resistance doesn't give you advantage on the save. A ghost is clearly a magical being, but the aging effect likewise falls into the first category rather than the second.
Plus, DM's are free to rule whichever way they prefer in any case. It's best to think of Sage Advice more as general guidelines/examples to consider vs hard rules/regulations.
When you have something that's clearly magical yet somehow doesn't count as magical, it's an indication that there's a lack of thought being put into the rules. Especially when it's a rule regarding immunity to an extremely rare form of attack and the single most common form of that attack is not actually covered by the immunity.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
yeah, sometimes this game gets to a point where the RAW is simply wrong.
If you can tell me under what circumstances a person can be physically aged 3-30 years without magic, then yes, it isn’t magic.
That is interesting because the ability also says that the effect can be reversed with a greater restoration spell. Greater restoration is powerful but limited in what it can reverse. The only option I see in the list that it can remove is a curse. Would that not suggest that the horrifying visage is a curse and therefore magical? Honest question.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Greater Restoration works on a lot of things, but that does not positively prove them to be a "magical effect" for the purposes of the mechanical definition of "magical", given that it also can cure conditions caused by more mundane sources like poisons and injuries. Specifically regarding horrifying visage, the idea that sufficient fright/trauma could prematurely age a person crops up fairly often in works going back a long time, sometimes with the connotation that it was more a kind of injury than something truly supernatural. I have no idea what exactly the actual medical basis for such a thing is, but it's not spelled out in as overtly magical terms as a Sphinx's lair action to age a creature by manipulating time.
Thank you. Doesn't this fly in the face of the adage 'spells can only do what they say they can do' though? Poisons and injuries are not explicitly stated in the description of the spell. The 'debilitating effect' is qualified by very specific options.
As for the medical basis, there is none. You can be frightened into passing out or having a heart attack (implying frailty or old age) and stress can cause biological responses in the body that stop producing melanocytes, leading to hair to turn gray as it grows (turning hair grey in a moment is a myth). But beyond that, there is no medical basis for someone spontaneously aging rapidly, which becomes permanent after 24 hours.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I was referring to monster abilities that do things like reduce max HP or ability scores in ways that definitely aren't magical, like when a vampire drinks your blood.
Ah, I misunderstood.
Anyway, I would prefer to see it as you say, as it favors the Greater Restoration spell, which is pretty safe to call a 'player spell'. I try to DM in a way that always favors them where it concerns interpretation of the rules. My questions really are just to address my own dissonance on the topic.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I mean you could say the same thing about a big lizard breathing lightning. I believe the same SA article explains why dragon breath is not considered magical. It's not a question of is it magic or not, it's a question of distinguishing between natural magic that is so ingrained in the world that it is basically a law of nature, versus magic that is more directed or supernatural.
That being said, the whole thing is dumb anyway because there are no rules around age. There's no hard rule that says your human wizard dies if it is aged to 140 years old. There's no rules that cover what happens to your stats - or your size or your magic capabilities - if you are aged down to 3 years old. Age is not a valid, relevant statistic for any part of the game. The attack might as well change your hair color or shrink your vocal cords or do any other completely inconsequential thing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This whole argument could have been avoided had WotC just left in the Supernatural and Extraordinary descriptors for special abilities they used in 3rd Edition instead of just throwing their hands up and saying "well, use your own judgement" while claiming that a lizard with a particle accelerator in its mouth was non-magical.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.