Anti-Magic in D&D

[ProfessorLord]

Time to make this clear for everyone in any future matches:

The Beholder's anti-magic cone (and any anti-magic field/spell in general) cannot negate supernatural abilities.

It's come up in a couple matches now, so I had to put a stop to this misconception.

First off, let me explain what the profile currently has stated:

• Antimagic Cone: Used by its central eye, It releases a cone of anti-magic which will suppress all magic and supernatural powers including its own and can keep the effect up as long as it wants.

This is only partly correct. It does suppress magical powers, but not in all forms. It cannot suppress the inherent magic of a dragon or its fire breath. It also does suppress the supernatural, but that is misleading and I will get to that soon.

This is the only sca that I know of that describes it disabling the supernatural. This is only ever described in a single edition, on this single scan. (AFAIK) Since then as well as currently , there is no mention of it being able to disable the supernatural.

Now I've heard the argument that D&D is a composite universe, so since it was able to disable everything supernatural in the past, it's able to disable everything supernatural now. I don't see anywhere that we're using composite profiles all along, but I will go on the assumption that this is true. It doesn't matter though.

Everything supernatural in D&D is inherently magical, within every edition. Here is a 3.5 D&D archive describing the supernatural as inherently magical , the same edition the previous scan had came from. Here is the current description of supernatural , also describing it as magical.

It is clear that everything in D&D that is supernatural is also magical. This is why it had been described as being able to suppress it at one point.

This does not mean everything supernatural in other verses are inherently magical.

Supernatural according to wikipedia only means: is something that cannot be explained by scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Are you really telling me that everything we describe as supernatural can be negated by anti-magic? Lightning was supernatural at one point in human history, is it also negated by anti-magic? Yawning and dreaming is supernatural, we have no idea why humans do it. You're really telling me it will be negated by anti-magic?

So since not everything supernatural in other verses is magical, the logical conclusion is that we cannot allow anti-magic to negate everything that has been described as "supernatural". It must be described as magical in some way in order for there to be any sort of argument.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Jeremy Crawford (the man who writes the rules for D&D) has given his input , and what he says is what we should use as future criteria:

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:

1. the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse's physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. 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?
• Does its description say it's magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Here is a meme to diffuse the potential future flame:

 

[Agnaa]

So it only suppresses magical items and spells? That seems reasonable to me.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Yes. There was a lot of wank behind it saying it suppresses everything supernatural and magical. What people failed to mention was that everything supernatural is already considered magical in D&D.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Just saw this.

Not gonna follow, because I quickly see this turning into a "nuh uh" war. But did you read your points? One, you used a wikia that isn't a full-on archive. Not gonna say its wrong, but that would be like linking to google docs or deviantArt as a source.

Secondly. This link YOU provided says the following, and is the most current version to my knowledge.

" However, some creatures have psionic abilities that are considered supernatural. Psionic feats are also supernatural abilities. These abilities do not function in areas where psionics is suppressed."

Psionic abilities aren't magical.

I'd got to Azzy if you want stuff aside from online sources (which are often wrong, because D&D has the idea of homebrew running rampant through its veins). He's got the books and provided the info to make it supernatural.

Cheers boyos.

 

[ProfessorLord]

"Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting."

- From this source

I also just proved how everything supernatural in D&D is inherently magical, so if psionics are supernatural, then they are also magical.

I will contact Azzy

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's one psionic class. The exception, not the norm, you might say. Psion is another class that, while it is absolutely terrible, has non-magical psionics.

Cheers.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Also, just to be sure, read the grey box in your source for the Mystic. That isn't an official part of the game. That's playtest material. Sort of like a non-canon template for D&D players to toy around with. Better than homebrew as a source, but not much.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Here's a thing I posted in another thread.

"Our D&D profiles seem to be composite. It's nearly impossible to do otherwise. If they are, antimagic works on everything it's ever worked on. If they're not, the verse needs even MORE revisions, and it needs a ludicrous amount, already."

Tiering itself is already complicated enough for anything that isn't one of few select beings. Abilities mostly have to be composite unless the profile is for a specific being or incarnation of a being who only had certain powers at certain times/in a certain edition.

Xanathar might be a good example (who is also a Beholder), except now he has appeared in multiple additions and is harder to judge.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So let's boil down the thread.

• The only opponent of the verse is revising it with no sources aside from online stuff

• I've personally heard the man say his experience with D&D is limited, it would be like me making a "Jotaro can't time stop" thread

• His sources say magic is magic (which is true!), but his supernatural sources are hazy at best (one flat out says it isn't canon, one contradicts his points, so on and so forth). So yes. Magic is magic. Dragons are magical, but a different kind.

• This is made because a JoJo character lost. I didn't think Spite Thread would ever be a valid description of a non-versus thread but hey, there you go.

Am I missing anything? And yes, the wiki uses a composite because otherwise we'd have way too much to go through and debate. Composite is the best option for D&D.

I disagree with this, for obvious reasons. I won't be checking in on the thread because uh... well I sense it getting ugly. Or closed. Either or.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I guess Mr. Bambu has successfully turned this thread into an attack against me.

I don't exactly have the books so I got as many sources from online as possible. I still have yet to see an argument against the supernatural being inherently magical, so as far as I am concerned that point is still valid.

There isn't a lot of counterarguments being made, so it doesn't matter if you think me sourcing it from an archive and another wiki is shady. I haven't seen a dispute about it yet. I don't see how me having limited experience automatically shuts me out from making a revision about another verse.

I didn't make this because a JoJo character lost, I made this because the same argument as come up in every single Beholder fight so far, so I thought I'd address the truth now.

 

[ProfessorLord]

@Aza I agree with the profiles being composite verse, I don't think you could build an individual profile for every single character because of lack of significant differences.

According to Mr. Bambu you have the source material. Can you dispute/check if the supernatural are inherently magical?

If you cannot and nobody else can source or make an argument against, the only option would be to approve this revision I believe.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

So let's boil down the thread.

Sorry dude, but assuming that A. it's the only reason it was mad or B. It makes it less true is a massive fallacy

 

[ProfessorLord]

It's also a massively inaccurate attempt to derail this thread. Please keep it focused away from me and onto the revision at hand.

 

[Antvasima]

I was asked to comment here, but I am very tired and distracted, and do not know a lot about D&D. Azathoth is much better suited to handling this than I am.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

According to Mr. Bambu you have the source material. Can you dispute/check if the supernatural are inherently magical?

It would depend on the edition. 3(.5?) makes a distinction between magical and supernatural, but to my knowledge no other editions do.

IIRC, some editions even consider breath weapons as things "nope'd" by antimagic, but I would have to check the specifics.

Meanwhile, 5th edition's rules on it are probably some of the most nebulous, and are more based on if something is listed as magical or not.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I checked a 3.5 archive under "supernatural" and they describe it as magical

If you don't mind can I see where in 3.5 they reference the supernatural?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Do you mean in the rules? Because that's the only place the distinction is made, to my knowledge. If there's a lore distinction, I can't remember it and probably am not the best person to ask.

"Supernatural" abilities were a weird inbetween where something like an antimagic field nullifies them, but they were unaffected by spell resistances, counterspells, and trying to dispel magic. I am pretty sure this is a difference only specified in actual rules and not in lore, but it's been ages since I've gone through 3.5 lore. Antimagic was, to my knowledge, the only "get rid of magic stuff" effect that had influence over "supernatural" abilities, which may be simply due to the fact it's treated as a form of suppression and not a flat dispel effect.

 

[ProfessorLord]

So who do I ask for a lore distinction? And can I see the page on supernatural, if that's a thing? Like the short description describing what it is?

This archive has "supernatural ability" and immediately describes it as magical. It's about 3.5 gameplay. Can you find anything on this topic?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

I'm not sure who would be an expert on 3.5 lore, actually.

Like the actual page for Supernatural abilities in 3.5? I can check. I'd need to both find and dig through a book or two, though.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I found this D&D player handbook:

extraordinary ability (Ex): A nonmagical special ability (as opposed to a spell-like or supernatural ability).

Emphasis on the "opposted to" part, suggesting that supernatural is associated with "magical"...

This would again justify my point, that everything supernatural is inherently magical in D&D, but not other verses.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Found this in same said handbook:

supernatural ability (Su): A magical power that produces a particular effect, as opposed to a natural, extraordinary, or spell-like ability. Using a supernatural ability generally does not provoke an attack or opportunity. Supernatural abilities are not subject to dispelling, disruption or spell resistance. However, they do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated, such as inside an antimagic field.

As you can see, first sentence refers to the supernatural as magical.

 

[ProfessorLord]

So if the only mention of Beholder negating the supernatural is in 3.5E...

And within the same edition, they refer to the supernatural as magical... (more than once)

That must mean that the Beholder is limited to suppressing the magical, and not the supernatural in every verse.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

I think you are thinking of "magic" in too narrow of a sense, in this case. D&D defines it not just as spellcasting, but as an integral force in the multiverse.

This passage is probably helpful in understanding things, better. It also comes from one of 3.5's "Supernatural" descriptions.

"A dragon's fiery breath, a medusa's petrifying gaze, a spectre's energy drain, and a cleric's use of positive or negative energy to turn or rebuke undead are supernatural abilities These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic, and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field)."

Examples here include a dragon breathing fire, a medusa turning someone to stone, and a spectre draining someone's life. All of these things are described under 3.5's banner as "Supernatural". None of these abilities are actively doing anything in relation to casting or activating magical effects (hence why they are unaffected by "Dispel Magic"), but are still treated as being in some lesser way "magical", because they are tied to magic, which is a driving force of creation.

In 3.5, if something isn't 100% natural, there are chances it possesses some "magical" qualities. If it doesn't, it's treated as "extraordinary".

In almost every other edition, "extraordinary" is ignored as a classification and things that 3.5 would consider "extraordinary" (some types of time manipulation) are once again classified as "magical".

The reason antimagic effects something like a dragon's breath weapon in this case while trying to use Dispel Magic doesn't is because the antimagic field is supposedly suppressing the innately magical qualities of all things within it.

Because magic is a heavily explained multiversal force and not something that's just "lol this exists" (which a lot of verses peg it as), this means we have to make decisions when using D&D stuff in vs threads, as we do for all franchises. With standard verse equalization, something like antimagic would effect everything it effects in the setting normally. If we say "antimagic won't suppress magical/supernatural fire because the fire isn't made with the exact same kind of magic/supernatural effects that exist in D&D", then we throw verse equalization out the window (which is something that would have to be done universally).

 

[ProfessorLord]

I am aware of D&D, yes. If you read, I even mention the two types of magic in my first two posts.

But verse equilization doesn't mean every single thing that is described as supernatural means it is now magical just because everything supernatural in D&D is magical.

Thus the only thing anti-magic cone would negate in this composite D&D verse is magic, and sometimes the magical. Not the supernatural and not the extraordinary, because other verses aren't dependant on the same multiversal magical force as you put it.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I think the only way verse equilization applies to in this argument is treating all magic relatively the same. Not all magic functions by the same multiversal laws or forces, but if they function similarly enough then we just equalize them.

The supernatural in D&D being magical does not mean everything described as supernatural in other verses is now magical. Like I said, yawning and dreaming are supernatural. Does this mean the Beholder suppreses yawning and dreaming?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Thus the only thing anti-magic cone would negate in this composite D&D verse is magic, and sometimes the magical. Not the supernatural and not the extraordinary, because other verses aren't dependant on the same multiversal magical force as you put it.

If we're being really pedantic about the difference between "magic" and "supernatural", that is something that exists specifically in D&D, not so much outside of specific verses.

"supernatural

adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

synonyms: magic"

"magic

adjective

1. used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers.

synonyms: supernatural"

Extraordinary abilities are also a D&D classification.

And, again, these differences cease to exist in 5e.


I will also point out that "only negates magic" would only even be true in-universe. If something functions almost identically to something else that is "magic" in D&D, there isn't really reason to assume said thing would be unaffected, just because its universe does not specifically call it "magic".

Inversely, if something is called "magic" in another verse but functions the absolute opposite of magic as described in D&D (or other fantasy verses), there wouldn't really be reason to assume it's affected just because someone called it "magic".

Or we could say it affects nothing outside of D&D, which gets rid of verse equalization. Though if we do this for one verse, we do it for all of them.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I agree with simply describing it not being enough, there needs to be enough similarities to warrant said verse equilization.

This brings me to another argument: is using the definition of supernatural enough to be so?

As I had said before, yawning and dreaming are supernatural. Some would say stands from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure are supernatural. But all that means is they are above or beyond scientific understanding. It's not anything more than that.

By that logic, everything that is above or beyond scientific understanding is negated by anti-magic, even if it is not related to magic in any way. Lightning was supernatural at one point.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I thought the Jojo thing was about if the Behoulder can effect psionic powers, and if it can does that apply to Stands.

 

[ProfessorLord]

That was one argument in a previous thread, yes, but stands aren't a mental power. There's a distinct difference made with both Whitesnake (whom can remove the discs of memory/brain AND a stand) and in the very first episode of SDC and 116th chapter of JoJo in general. They describe stands as a powerful image created by life force (almost like ki in Dragonball)

Which brings me to another question, can anti-magic even negate things like ki in D&D? Does ki even exist in D&D?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

This brings me to another argument: is using the definition of supernatural enough to be so?

As in "if people just don't understand it"? Of course not. Though in D&D, there are people who understand magic quite well.

The idea is that it should negate things that function similar enough to abilities existing within D&D that it also negates, unless there is a specified reason that it shouldn't.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Ki? Yeah it exists. It's what Monks use for their stuff and the energy Psions use to cast powers (as unlike Clerics and Wizards the Psion manipulates internal energies rather than external).

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Which brings me to another question, can anti-magic even negate things like ki in D&D? Does ki even exist in D&D?

Yes. There is an entire class that focuses on ki. Ki is considered magical and affected by antimagic, but not dispel magic iirc (similar to breath weapons).

 

[ProfessorLord]

So... can the Beholder negate something like ki?

If Goku was using a kamehameha wave, could the Beholder really negate him?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

So basically, a Beholder negates anything by looking at it, so long as it isn't physical ability?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Theoretically it could cancel ki blasts (ignoring a possible NLF), but I forget how it would handle ki amped physicals.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

So basically, a Beholder negates anything by looking at it, so long as it isn't physical ability?

It's not so much "negation" as it is "suppression". Some things can overpower said suppression. For instance, deities can just go "lol no" and ignore the field.

It also totally depends on if said thing has something similar in D&D that antimagic affects.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Power Absorbtion is a thing, right? As in the removal of powers

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

So... can the Beholder negate something like ki?
If Goku was using a kamehameha wave, could the Beholder really negate him?

Depends on which Goku. Most versions are likely just too strong for the suppression of ki to matter.