- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #41
So the Beholder can't suppress ki right?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Anti-Magic in D&D
- Thread starter ProfessorLord
- Start date
- 19,800
- 16,216
Yeah. Well I wouldn't say negate, more like suppress. If you put a magic sword in the field it'll lose its enchantment, but once removed from the aura it becomes magically enhanced again.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #43
What does suppress mean in D&D? Just literally to "weaken" and if so, to what degree?
- 15,614
- 7,053
It can, since it can suppress a monk's use of ki. I'd need to look into if the monk has any specific counters, though.ProfessorLord said:
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #45
I googled it and Jeremy Crawford is coming in saying neither the ki feature nor the stunning strike is described as magical for gameplay purposes.
So which is it?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/quest...pose-of-an-antimagic-field-or-is-it-only-fluf
So which is it?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/quest...pose-of-an-antimagic-field-or-is-it-only-fluf
- 19,800
- 16,216
Weaken to its standard state. But if its standard state is superhuman it wouldn't impact much.ProfessorLord said:
- 15,614
- 7,053
"It is "background magic" similar to the breath weapon of a dragon."ProfessorLord said:
So it should be lorewise, but it isn't for purposes of gameplay balance. The same way a dragon is magical but its claw attacks aren't when checking for gameplay effects this would influence.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #48
Background magic doesn't mean lorewise.
- 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
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #49
Background magic means the inherent magic that you cannot dispense. It is the difference between being magical, (like a dragon) and using magic.
Since the monk is using ki he is engaging in a magical martial art, but said martial art is not using magic (most of the time), it just is magical.
If anti-magic cannot dispense the magical than it cannot dispense away with ki. Maybe certain ki moves if they constitute magic, but not ki in general.
Since the monk is using ki he is engaging in a magical martial art, but said martial art is not using magic (most of the time), it just is magical.
If anti-magic cannot dispense the magical than it cannot dispense away with ki. Maybe certain ki moves if they constitute magic, but not ki in general.
- 15,614
- 7,053
That is lorewise, at this point. It's something that is confirmed to be magic in the lore but isn't treated as such in the game for the purposes of balance.
Remember how he called a dragon's breath weapon the same thing? Then there's the 3.5 quote I posted above.
"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)."
The reason this stuff isn't treated as magical in gameplay (but is in lore) is to balance the game.
Ki is magic. It is specifically described as magic. But, within gameplay of 5e, it is not treated as magic. The exact same applies to the dragon.
Remember how he called a dragon's breath weapon the same thing? Then there's the 3.5 quote I posted above.
"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)."
The reason this stuff isn't treated as magical in gameplay (but is in lore) is to balance the game.
Ki is magic. It is specifically described as magic. But, within gameplay of 5e, it is not treated as magic. The exact same applies to the dragon.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #51
The dragon is inherently magical, that is background magic.
It's breath is a magic attack, that is the second type of magic.
I don't see any distinction for lore anywhere. Background magic is described more as a fundemental force of the universe, not a lore element according to that statement.
It's breath is a magic attack, that is the second type of magic.
I don't see any distinction for lore anywhere. Background magic is described more as a fundemental force of the universe, not a lore element according to that statement.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #52
Notice how in both points he is describing it in terms of lore elements, and not gameplay.
- 19,800
- 16,216
Checked, in 3e the cone would suppress the following monk abilities: Ki strike, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, and Empty Body.
Presumably 5e is the same, but I'll check
Presumably 5e is the same, but I'll check
- 15,614
- 7,053
Being a fundamental force of the universe is a lore element.
Again, both of these things have been explicitly stated to be magical or have magical elements. Jeremy's statement is "Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes."
That is the key phrase.
Again, both of these things have been explicitly stated to be magical or have magical elements. Jeremy's statement is "Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes."
That is the key phrase.
- 15,614
- 7,053
In 5e, it also nullifies Ki-empowered unarmed strikes.Qawsedf234 said:
This is because the phrase "count as magical" is present.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #56
Going by that logic, can anti-magic wink out a dragon?
- 15,614
- 7,053
No. Just suppress the dragon's magical qualities. Magic beings don't cease to exist in antimagic fields unless the magic is specifically what's animating them. Or if they've been summoned.
- 19,800
- 16,216
Nah, since the Dragon being huge would be a (Ex) thing rather than (Su). Although it would temporarily wink out a ghost iirc.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #59
What is a dragon's magical qualities, exactly? Just it's magical attacks?
- 15,614
- 7,053
Dragons are inherently magical. They essentially even secrete magic through their bodies that can warp their environments.
- 4,256
- 658
- Thread starter
- #61
So would it make a dragon an 9-B animal like a whale?
- 19,800
- 16,216
Dragons exists naturally. Something like a Ghost is unnatural. So a Dragon would remain while a Ghost would be suppressed until the Behoulder's cone left the area it was in.
- 15,614
- 7,053
Presumably just stop them from using anything magic related and weaken them to some degree. They're still ridiculously strong even without magic.ProfessorLord said:
- 19,800
- 16,216
Here's a page with various Dragon stats: www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm
While the cone would suppress their breath and most racial powers, their physicals are not hampered
While the cone would suppress their breath and most racial powers, their physicals are not hampered
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,731
- 19,632
Okay. I'll admit, Professor came up with good sources (his original attempts were not good to the point of them even saying "hey these aren't official" lol).
Professor, D&D is largely a game mechanic-based game. By that I mean pretty much anything you pull up is going to be game mechanics to define beings, plot points, etc etc. Very little will be true lore (the gods luckily have a fair amount of lore, and supplementary stories are also good points).
Since you seem intent on contributing to the D&D stuff, that should be known. Now then. Certain attacks, despite not being magical, are treated as magic from a mechanical point of view in order to surpass stuff like damage resistance, which many beings possess against mundane damage (I believe beings like Vampires fall into this category). So even if a weapon is not magical, it is treated as such for balancing. The Monk is a prime example of this. At higher levels, a monk's physical attacks are treated as magical for balancing purposes despite not being magical. It later is also treated as being made of adamantium, which it is not (obviously).
I will apologize for pretty blatantly laughing at your original argument. But you really should open with your good sources rather than those you provided. Just as a heads up, boyo. Now then, Qawsed and Azzy are almost certainly more knowledgeable on the verse than I, but I will follow this and entertain the idea that hey, who knows, you might be right.
That said (and this is to Azzy and Qawsed), we should also work on getting the High 7-C/Low 7-B calcs done for Beholderso I can actually put him and Elminster and stuff into fights again, instead of having them live in limbo
Professor, D&D is largely a game mechanic-based game. By that I mean pretty much anything you pull up is going to be game mechanics to define beings, plot points, etc etc. Very little will be true lore (the gods luckily have a fair amount of lore, and supplementary stories are also good points).
Since you seem intent on contributing to the D&D stuff, that should be known. Now then. Certain attacks, despite not being magical, are treated as magic from a mechanical point of view in order to surpass stuff like damage resistance, which many beings possess against mundane damage (I believe beings like Vampires fall into this category). So even if a weapon is not magical, it is treated as such for balancing. The Monk is a prime example of this. At higher levels, a monk's physical attacks are treated as magical for balancing purposes despite not being magical. It later is also treated as being made of adamantium, which it is not (obviously).
I will apologize for pretty blatantly laughing at your original argument. But you really should open with your good sources rather than those you provided. Just as a heads up, boyo. Now then, Qawsed and Azzy are almost certainly more knowledgeable on the verse than I, but I will follow this and entertain the idea that hey, who knows, you might be right.
That said (and this is to Azzy and Qawsed), we should also work on getting the High 7-C/Low 7-B calcs done for Beholder
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,731
- 19,632
Yobo, I'm dropping those points but I'd like to point out the fact that, at the time, the only source for this CRT was one on psionics being magical, which itself stated it wasn't canon. Based on that material alone (which was all that was presented), yeah, of course it wasn't true lol. And yes, I'm still 100% certain this is in response to Professor's avatar losing a thread. But that wasn't the reasoning for this not being true, it just made it doubly ridiculous. As I said above, I'm willing to consider something that might have some amount of basis, which this didn't at the time.Yobobojojo said:
Still, cheers.
- 19,800
- 16,216
A big issue ultimately does stem that the D&D multiverse is chalked with magic. Making things difficult to exam in cross universe stuff. 2e was probably the "best" in this sorta stuff, since it made very clear distinctions between Psionics/Magic/and other stuff. 3e and on sorta mixes everything together, which causes issues.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,731
- 19,632
Right. D&D certainly has the potential to become pretty messy, along the lines of SCP, Marvel, and DC, purely because of the overload of content, with some content being more prominent than others. Actually talked about that with Dargoo while trying to figure out some form of understanding.
Composite is definitely the best way to go.
Composite is definitely the best way to go.
- 15,614
- 7,053
I should also probably clarify that while lore can sometimes blend with rules, there are other times far more clear of a separation present.
For instance, Power Word Kill's lore power does not rely on the target having 100 HP or less, because "100 HP" isn't a concept in the lore. It's a game mechanic attached to the spell so that your party's level 17 bard can't end the final encounter of the campaign the second it starts by telling the BBEG to "go commit die" while playing Despacito on his guitar. Its lore effect is "you use extremely potent death manipulation to kill a guy and that's the end of it" while its game effect is "you can kill a big strong guy notably easier, but still have to work for it", which is there so that the spell isn't completely broken in half.
For instance, Power Word Kill's lore power does not rely on the target having 100 HP or less, because "100 HP" isn't a concept in the lore. It's a game mechanic attached to the spell so that your party's level 17 bard can't end the final encounter of the campaign the second it starts by telling the BBEG to "go commit die" while playing Despacito on his guitar. Its lore effect is "you use extremely potent death manipulation to kill a guy and that's the end of it" while its game effect is "you can kill a big strong guy notably easier, but still have to work for it", which is there so that the spell isn't completely broken in half.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,731
- 19,632
| your party's level 17 bard can't end the final encounter of the campaign the second it starts by telling the BBEG to "go commit die" while playing Despacito on his guitar. | ||
~ Azzy |
- 15,614
- 7,053
Mr. Bambu said:
